Cossiga Spills More Beans On Our "Security Blanket"

Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga speaks a bit too freely sometimes -- to our great benefit. Recently he made some not-so-startling admissions, which were picked up by Chris Floyd ...

Read all about it here -- or comment below.



Why does the invaluable Mr. Floyd shy away from discussion of the most critical pivot in our descent?

he doesn't!

He doesn't shy away from it; he just doesn't concentrate on it to the degree I do. And as far as I understand his reasoning on this question, it's pretty sound.

9/11 is really complicated, there are thousands of people digging into it, it's extremely unlikely that he would be "the one" to "solve" the crime, and in the meantime it's entirely possible that he could spend his whole life trying. On the other hand, even if the official story of 9/11 were entirely true, the American government has done so much wicked evil stuff since then that they could all be impeached, or impaled, for that alone. And Chris prefers to dig into the other stuff -- stuff which, if not for Chris, everybody else might be missing.

He mentions 9/11 and PNAC and all the other BS behind it occasionally, just as he occasionally mentions that Bush was never legitimately elected, so it's not as if he's trying to hide anything ... he just gives it a bit less of a priority treatment than I do. And I think that's ok. When he does mention it, he makes it clear that he doesn't believe the official story, which puts him way ahead of most "dissident writers" (except, or course, those who specialize in 9/11).


Fair enough. The question was not meant as criticism, and the point is well taken. Thanks, Winter.

No, Mr. Floyd still asserts

No, Mr. Floyd still asserts that 19 hijackers brought down the towers, etc., led by Bin Laden. He has repeated this on numerous occasions. This is an extraordinary hole in his analyses and thinking. I disagree that he is simply not "concentrating" on it. He still believes the official fiction, or at least will give no indication he does. The recent post on Gladio notwithstanding, Mr. Floyd does not want to be characterized as "one of those conspiracy theorists." I found this column to be painfully disingenuous. He not only omits 9/11 but also the 1993 WTC bombing, the African embassy plots, the British bombings in 2004, the Madrid bombings, etc, etc. Discussing Gladio is safe, but each of the other events has been exposed in the mainstream press as well. Please do not apologize for Mr. Floyd.

This is an absurd

This is an absurd accusation. I have been reading Mr Floyd for years, I am certain that PF cannot support these ridiculous claims. Mr Floyd never has said he believed the official story. He never has said what PF alleges here. I would join WP in requiring PF to back up these ridiculous allegations with some proof.

is that right?

If you can prove that "Floyd still asserts that 19 hijackers brought down the towers, etc., led by Bin Laden", please do so.

I won't hold my breath, ok?

So, this alleged FM 30-31B

So, this alleged FM 30-31B was claimed to be a forgery done by the KGB. Was this ever proven or disproven? Floyd doesn't appear to even have mentioned the controversy surrounding it.

This is Controversy?

According to the link you provided


CIA testimony provided a single claim for calling the document a forgery: that it was marked "Top Secret" and that field manuals are never so highly classified. There may have been other claims which were deleted from the public record of the hearing to protect classified means and methods for detecting forgeries, but if so they do not appear to have been made public. Without such other information, the single CIA forgery claim appears weak.


This qualifies as "controversy"? Smells like BS to me!

Given the CIA's record of truthfulness, and the extreme thinness of their supporting evidence, I don't think I would mention it either -- especially in light of so much evidence that the gist of the document is true.

In other words, are we supposed to think Francesco Cossiga is also a fabrication of the KGB?

My question relates to the

My question relates to the FM and the FM only. Not Cossiga or anyone else. I only asked whether it was definitively proven one way or another to be a forgery because I know that's what anyone trying to refute the FM is going to argue about. But I still also think not even mentioning it is deception by omission.


As far as I know, the CIA has never even made a half-decent attempt to prove their claim that the document in question is a forgery.

As for what is deception and what is not, you're entirely welcome to your opinion. I happen to disagree, on the grounds that the CIA will deny everything it can, every time it has the chance. It would be more remarkable if they hadn't attempted to deny it. In my opinion, of course.

And who can say? Your opinion may be more valid than mine.

I sit corrected

You are right -- I was confusing Mr. Floyd's writing with Arthur Silber, who still clings to the "blowback" theory of 9/11. That said, I still find Mr. Floyd's cagey remarks about wanting a "full investigation" of 9/11 (which he acknowledges will never happen) disturbing, despite my admiration for his writing in many areas. I think you give him too much wiggle room. It is not simply a question of detailing the events of 9/11 (which many others have already done exhaustively) but of explicitly stating (1) that elements within the US government carried out this massive assault on US citizens and citizens of other countries, (2) the events of 9/11 became the basis for the "war on terror" and the ensuing nightmares, including the rabid persecution of muslims and arabs, and (3) they will do it again. Mr. Floyd hints at #3 at the end of the Cossiga piece, but his oblique references are annoying and unhelpful. Even his discussion of Gladio and the Cossiga stuff omits the long history of false flag terror on US soil, from COINTELPRO to Oklahoma City (and of course 9/11).

Mr. Floyd is trying to have it both ways, with a wink and a nod to 9/11 truth seekers but without being identified with that particular "conspiracy cult." At best, he is being evasive and, at worse, dishonest.

How surprising, that PF'

How surprising, that PF' now attacks Arthur Silber, and pretends at retraction/correction while raising new specious arguments about Chris Floyd.

I would hope that people who read Mr Silber and Mr Floyd are well aware that PF is lying.

I am not "attacking" anyone, nor lying

Calm down, folks. We are among the 200 or so readers of Chris Floyd, Arthur Silber, and Winter Patriot, and my comments were meant to be constructive, not "attacks." For crying out loud, I still read their stuff, send money to Arthur, and find both quite valuable. And please stop the childish name-calling. If you want to refute what I have said about Floyd, please do, but how is what I said "specious." And why are my comments not "surprising"? This is silly,

But on to Arthur Silber, another writer I admire, but who also has "9/11 problems." There is simply no doubt about Arthur Silber's views on 9/11. Here is a little sample. (I could not find other examples readily as it is difficult to search on his site, but will search for them if you insist.)

"The resistance of the ruling class and of most Americans to one aspect of the truth about 9/11 remains astonishing, and it demonstrates how puerile our national conversation is. Of course, the ruling class cannot admit that to state the obvious fact that actions have consequences is not to say that the U.S. "deserved" 9/11 -- for to acknowledge the millions murdered by the U.S. government and our policy of aggressive military intervention across the globe would subject our own actions to the kinds of judgments that only the United States is entitled to make, and only about the actions of others."
(from March 19, 2008, "Obama's Whitewash")

He is talking about 9/11 as "blowback" for the "millions murdered by the US government and our policy of aggressive military intervention..." Does this not clearly imply that non-US government actors actually carried out the events of 9/11/01? This is the "truth" Arthur is asserting (and has stated this in many ways in different essays), and I maintain he is simply wrong here, as I think you would also admit. Of course the US did not "deserve" 9/11; this is meaningless, and not for the reasons Arthur asserts. The perpetrators of this attack were elements of the US government . But Arthur clearly asserts otherwise, that the attackers were drawn from among the masses of people who the US military has brutalized, hence the false debate over whether the US "deserved" to be attacked. This is simply wrong, and based on a false view of the events of 9/11/01.

It would help people like Arthur Silber if a writer like Chris Floyd, who Arthur admires greatly, would clarify what he actually thinks did happen on 9/11/01 and who did it. Then we could maybe dispense with these annoying and nonsensical (and moralistic) tracts about "blowback" and the war on terror. This was my basic point. Frankly, I don't think I deserved the name-calling I have gotten here.

I hear you, PF.

I feel you.

Certainly there was not

Certainly there was not enough evidence to call you a liar, NF, and as such is uncalled for, I agree. But equally, you are making claims about Chris Floyd and Arthur Silber without showing enough evidence. The quote of Arthur's is not conclusive for your case as he was addressing another issue; that being America's foreign policy history and may have been making a point of the "even if" variety.
Arthur, Chris and Winter all get their ducks in a row before claiming ANYTHING. You should do the same.

A few mallard out of place

Mr. Silber was addressing Reverend Wright's claim that the 9/11/01 attacks were in response to the actions of American imperialism abroad. Mr. Silber agreed with this analysis and has stated so on several occasions. I really do not see that it is a controversial summary of his views in any way. This is the most recent post on "Once Upon A Time" to express this view, but hardly the only one. I will pose the question to him directly if you like, but do you really think that Mr. Silber made the above-cited comments after he had "all his ducks in a row"? I think he's misaligned several mallard here.

Similarly, what I have noted about Mr. Floyd is an uncontroversial summary of his writing on this point -- he has never stated directly that elements within the US government perpetrated the events of 9/11/01. He has called for an "independent investigation" but has stated no conclusions based on his own thinking on this. My point is to simply critique this approach which, coming from one of our best political analysts, is extremely unfortunate.

I am not attacking either writer, both of whom I admire for different reasons. But if we are to get anywhere near the truth, and develop some effective response to ongoing events, clarity is far more important to these goals than obscuring the undisputed political positions of our favorite writers.

I love the PF mandate of

I love the PF mandate of "calm down people, stop the name-calling" when it is PF trying to inflame antipathy and it is PF accusing Messrs Floyd and Silber of being something other than what they are. Whether PF chooses to undermine Floyd & Silber with overt name-calling or sly implication, the effect is the same.

You're really not a very good listener, are you?


I'll thank you to stop the

I'll thank you to stop the insults, tsiageya. I am entitled to hold my own opinion of PF and PF's motives. As you are. For all anyone knows, you and PF are the same person.

Is that you The Wendigo?!

Is that you The Wendigo?! laughing out loud

Haha, The Wendigo is back!!

Still as whiny and hypocritical as ever too!

style and substance

While PF's style has nothing to recommend it, he does make one or two good points of substance. I will say more about them soon.

Arthur Silber and 9/11

In my opinion, PF's portrayal of Arthur Silber's position on 9/11 is mostly accurate, although it may be a bit generous.

Arthur Silber doesn't assign any particular historical importance to 9/11. He accepts the official story, without any hint of curiosity as to whether or not it's true. Worse, in my opinion, he also pours scorn on those of us who question that story, and/or who seek the truth about the events of that day.

There is no search box on his site but you can search his archives using Google. Type "" and the terms you're looking for. I have spent hours and hours doing this myself, and I came up with ... nothing!

Arthur Silber has never broached any of the subjects that people interested in 9/11 tend to discuss: he has never mentioned Mohammed Atta, or Able Danger, or Vigilant Warrior, or Building 7, or even the PNAC. He has never used the phrase "inside job" in relation to 9/11, nor has he ever acknowledged any of the skepticism surrounding that event and the official story thereof. Search his site all you like; you will find nothing on any of this.

He has also neglected to mention -- ever -- any concerns about the "integrity" of our electoral system. In the world according to Arthur Silber, 19 Arab terrorists with boxcutters did all the damage on 9/11, and Bush is the president because he was legitimately elected -- twice.

As I see modern America, two of the three most important facets are bogus terror and bogus elections. (Bogus media is the third). I find it difficult to read -- or to take seriously -- anyone who denies even one of these facets, let alone two of them.

In my reading of Mr Silber's

In my reading of Mr Silber's essays he has given me reason to think that he believes 9/11 isn't as important as the human psychological dynamics and conquering the problem of self-imposed ignorance. So as far as I can discern, he simply thinks a different approach is required. He chooses to focus on problems that don't require taking a position on 9/11. As to vote fraud, I don't think he's been silent on that score.

I do not see his goals as any different from those pursued by Chris Floyd or by Winter Patriot, and they strike me as similar to the goals of the folks at Black Agenda Report and those of **some** of the people at Justin Raimondo's site.

But ultimately what I think isn't he telling factor. What matters is what Mr Silber has written publicly, and I would suggest that if PF has a problem with Arthur Silber's views, he should send Mr Silber an email and maybe Mr Silber will respond.

PF's suggestion basically is that if someone isn't challenging some doctrine of PF's choosing, and isn't challenging it in a manner that PF finds useful, then it's safe to assume that someone is hiding something, or otherwise isn't trustworthy. I find this suggestion very difficult to justify.

vote fraud? not exactly

As to vote fraud, I don't think he's been silent on that score.

Just to be clear about the terminology: I'm not talking about vote fraud, i.e. an effort by a voter to cast a fraudulent vote.

I am talking about election fraud, i.e. rigged elections. In the modern USA this is accomplished by a variety of means, including illegal mass disenfranchisement, and the use of unverifiable electronic voting machines running proprietary software.

Despite hours of searching, I have never found anything at Mr. Silber's site concerning election fraud. And I have reluctantly concluded that he is not aware of, or not concerned about, this issue -- or else he doesn't want to talk about it.

In my view this is most unfortunate, and I would love to be proven wrong about it. So if you can post a link to support your assertion, please do so.

WP, in my mind vote fraud =

WP, in my mind vote fraud = election fraud. They're both devices of fixing the appearance of an election so that it seems to suggest fairness was in play in every corner.

My read of Mr Silber is that he believes the political system is sold to us in fraudulent terms and people act upon that fraudulent presentation. To me this is as significant an aspect of vote fraud or election fraud as the stuff Brad Friedman does. It's just a different angle. I've never seen a Brad Friedman-style post at Arthur Silber's blog, but I can't say I've read everything he does.

I'd also say that the same things you said in defense of yourself and Chris Floyd -- amateur bloggers with limited time and therefore a narrower scope -- mean the same in defense of Mr Silber. I'm not sure I understand the point of demanding that he post some essays a la Brad Friedman. I'm a little surprised to see you ask that, because it looks like the device PF is using -- asking for things to suit you, rather than looking for what Mr Silber (or you, or Mr Floyd) is interested in and accepting that perspective as setting some practical limits on the blogging of the person in question.

Personally, I'd like to see my preferred bloggers address more environmental issues. That doesn't mean they're working for "the man" on enviro issues, though, and it doesn't diminish the quality of their work on other issues.


I'm not demanding anything. I'm saying that the last two presidential elections were clearly stolen, and that I prefer to read bloggers who understand this, rather than those who blame the voters for "returning" the "president" to office.

Mr. Silber can write about anything he wants, as far as I'm concerned. And so can everybody else.

I agree with your point

I agree with your point about the importance of vote-rigging and the chicanery involving elections. I don't know that it's fair to suggest someone doesn't understand that importance merely because you haven't seen him/her discuss it to your satisfaction. I haven't ever read anything from you on clear-cut logging and the destruction of native trout habitat. Does that mean I should assume you want to see our ecosystems destroyed? I don't think that's a fair assumption, but maybe others (such as PF) might think so.

I think it's disruptive to argue over such things as "he's not doing X" where the landscape of social organization includes hundreds of variables and not just an X. One of the reasons I enjoy reading your essays is that you see connections where others apparently do not. This is a skill that, seemingly, many do not possess. Not many writers are supersystem analysts, most are system or sub-system, or sub-sub-system analysts. But I would think a supersystem analyst such as yourself knows there are a lot of issues in play, and it would seem that most of the decent thinkers and writers I've come across (yourself included) do not try to address the whole scope. I think people do their best work when they stick to what interests them. And so I would say as to Arthur Silber, he is interested in the role of the individual citizen, what the citizen should be aware of. I wouldn't expect him to be an echo of you, nor would I want you to be a copy of him. So I agree with your closing comment.

I would just say that I believe there is merit to blaming voters because a significant part of the present sociopolitical problem is citizen/voter ignorance and naivete. I suggest that the type of self-education Mr Silber seeks to prompt -- well, as far as I can tell, it would likely lead to someone realizing the truth of the vote fraud/election fraud that you're talking about.

I mostly agree

This is a very good comment and I mostly agree with you.

I'm not arguing, although I understand that it may seem that way. I am writing with a lot of intensity here because we're talking about things that matter a great deal to me, but I don't intend to argue. Only discuss.

I appreciate your very kind words; I don't see myself in anything like the terms you use to describe me; but then again you are telling me what you think -- not trying to tell me what I already think -- and that's what this space is for.

I have not intended to be disruptive here; my intent in getting into the issues that PF raised was primarily to point out how absurd it was to confuse Chris Floyd with Arthur Silber.

But the discussion has gone a lot farther than that, and now I am learning things I didn't already know. I hope others are, as well.

I agree with you entirely that nobody can cover everything. I don't expect anyone to do so.

But on the other hand, as Dano said at the top of the thread, 9/11 was "the most critical pivot in our descent". Elsewhere I have described it as the hinge on which everything turned.

Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn have been blasted lately for saying they don't think it matters who did 9/11 -- and rightly so, in my view.

Arthur Silber, by choosing "to focus on problems that don't require taking a position on 9/11", has implicitly agreed with them.

I don't understand why the criticism that applies to Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn does not apply equally to Arthur Silber.

I think there are several

I think there are several reasons why **I think** criticisms against Zinn and Chomsky re 9/11 do not apply to Silber:

1) Zinn and Chomsky each are public intellectuals, with most of their income derived from making public pronouncements on divisive issues. Conversely, from all I can gather, Silber is a retired corporate lawyer in poor health who writes for his own cathartic purposes.

2) Zinn and Chomsky have discussed 9/11 in detail and dismissed criticisms of the official story. Silber has not done this.

3) Zinn and Chomsky have shown where the intersection of Israel (including MOSSAD and Shin Bet activity) and US Foreign policy are concerned, they intentionally soft-pedal the criticism. Silber has not done this.

4) Silber has acknowledged repeatedly that he often doesn't have the emotional strength to tackle certain issues. Perhaps 9/11 drives him to suicidal thought? And if so, would you still implore him to tackle it?

I understand how you view 9/11, WP. I have been reading your thoughts on the subject long enough to grasp a good picture of your perspective. I just wonder how suggesting that Silber is obligated to discuss 9/11 -- or face the alternative of being branded as are Zinn and Chomsky, two men who make their living tackling friction-filled issues of American politics.


I'm not imploring Arthur to discuss anything; I'm not suggesting (contrary to our flame-throwing guest) that anyone is being disingenuous or dishonest. I'm just saying that for me, personally, it's tough to read articles about American politics and/or international relations which don't question what I regard as the most obvious, flagrant and enabling lies.

I don't expect my comments to deflate anyone's opinion of anyone; I'm just asking questions about things I maybe don't understand, and I'm hoping somebody will give me good answers. And I'm doing it because Mr. Silber's position -- or lack thereof -- on this issue has been giving me a bad feeling for a long time, and I want somebody to change my mind about him. You've made a good start, and I thank you for that.

Thank you too.

I also have my quarrels with Arthur Silber, and since he doesn't have a comments section I've raised them in emails to him, some of which he has responded to and others of which he has not. Some of his responses were well-reasoned, some were simple statements to the effect that I was asking too much of him -- that he would continue to focus on and write about what interests him, regardless of how important I or others may find a given issue/subject.

I did notice that over on Chris Floyd's blog, "PF" said to me, "You know I'm right about Silber," as if there is some sort of strange secret handshake I can share with "PF." I'm not sure what it is that PF thinks I share with him on a secret-handshake level regarding Silber.

the least of our worries

We probably don't need to worry about any secret handshakes -- at least not for the moment! Wink

Another way to understand

Another way to understand why he doesn't talk about election fraud is that he doesn't think there should be elections to begin with. He is an anarchist after all. His "Tale that might be told" is pretty clear on that point.


I'm rather fond of that tale.

Chris Floyd and 9/11

As I see it, PF's analysis of Chris Floyd's position on 9/11 is much more problematic than his view of Arthur Silber's position.

PF says Chris Floyd "has never stated directly that elements within the US government perpetrated the events of 9/11/01". The reason for this, as I understand it, is that the statement is unproven. And it may never be proven.

Did Americans really perpetrate 9/11? Or was it Israelis? Or maybe (as Francesco Cossiga claims) some of each? Quite simply, we don't know. We don't know whose idea it was; we don't know who did the planning; we don't know a lot of things that we would dearly love to find out.

And that's why Chris would like to see a full and independent investigation -- even though he holds out no hope of ever seeing one. If you really think this position is somewhere between "evasive" and "dishonest", that's your opinion. But you won't find any support from me -- because this is my position, too.

As for the charge that Chris Floyd fails to mention X, or Y, or Z: one could easily say the same thing about me. But what do you expect? We're amateur bloggers. We don't get paid for any of this; we both have wives and kids and jobs and lives, and we throw as much of our "spare time" into blogging as we can, but we can't write encyclopedias every night.

Personally, I would love to write more about Afghanistan and Pakistan -- the way I used to do when I had more time. I would also love to start a series on Africa. But I don't have enough knowledge yet to do that, and I'm finding it tough to devote much time to researching it. So I haven't got anywhere with it. In the meantime, I wouldn't blame anyone who came to the conclusion that "WP doesn't care about Africa", even though it's not true.

Similarly, although I have never mentioned the 1993 WTC bombing, I have been working -- on and off -- on a post about it. But it's not ready to be published, and it's an incredibly difficult area to dig into. So it might take months before I am ready to write the final draft. And in the meantime it certainly does look as if I don't care about it -- but that's another case where the appearance is misleading.

If you read one of Chris Floyd's posts and you think he has omitted important details, or failed to draw connections that seem obvious to you, the most constructive thing you can do is leave a comment to that effect at his site.

That would certainly be much better than coming here and calling Chris dishonest because he doesn't always hit all the notes you want to hear.

Last post at last

I have enjoyed reading Winter Patriot since stumbling on it a few months back, but have found dialogue with you to be much less rewarding. You have now agreed that my characterization of Arthur Silber's positions on 9/11/01 were not the "lies" you initially called them and now you say I was too "generous" about them. With regard to Mr. Floyd, I have posted on his site and await his reply. I have also emailed Mr. Silber for his views.

Now I hope you can stop attacking me and maybe start taking my comments for what they were intended to be. I am not interested in tearing down Mr. Floyd or Mr. Silber, but to the extent that your readers also read their writing, and accept their essays as informative, I am interested in clarification and constructive criticism. I had thought that this site was dedicated to exposing the truth and would be receptive to open dialogue. I was apparently wrong. I greatly appreciate your work, and others toiling in these trenches (as I am also doing). It is therefore unfortunate that you are so thin-skinned as to abuse commenters on your blog with name-calling, distortions, and petty insults, only to recant later. I will know better than to comment again on this site.

I appreciate that you (like all of us) have many important things to do besides blog, and these are complicated times, but most of the "questions" around 9/11/01, the 1993 WTC bombing, Oklahoma City bombing and others can be answered through analysis of the mainstream press. You have to work at it. We live in times when the "terrorist mastermind" Khalid Sheik Muhammed (KSM) allegedly in Guantanamo "confessed" to every terror bombing of the last decade, despite the fact that the real KSM was killed in 2002 in Pakistan. We have been sold the lie that "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi" was leading something called "Al Queda in Mesopotamia" yet he too had been dead for years, prior to appearing in Iraq. The psyops go on and on, and the world gets muddier and more confusing, leaving us defenseless in the face of new manipulative "terror" bombings and the like.

One last thing. I encourage you and your readers to listen to Ralph Schoenmann and Mya Schoen's radio show "Taking Aim" ( for invaluable analyses of all these issues and more. They have download-able archives of dozens of past shows, which are extremely informative. Adios.


PF: apparently you need some help with reading comprehension.

I NEVER accused you of lying. That was somebody else. (I don't make anonymous comments on my blog.)

I DID ask you to support your comments about Chris Floyd, and it turned out that you couldn't, because you were actually talking about somebody else.

If you were half as respectful as you claim to be, your next move would have been to apologize for getting so much so wrong, and for being so condescending about it. But instead you chose to write:

It is therefore unfortunate that you are so thin-skinned as to abuse commenters on your blog with name-calling, distortions, and petty insults, only to recant later.

And this despite the facts that
[1] I have never abused you, or called you any names, or distorted any of your positions, or insulted you in any way, and
[2] I have never recanted anything!

For somebody who claims to be interested in the facts, you have shown precious little regard for them. It's tough to imagine that your input will be missed here.

Just how far?

Just how far into the bottomless pit do I have to go before I realize that evil rules this world? Truth is truth, I know, but

the truth is right at the top, like cream. I don't want to go into the bottomless pit. Been there, done that. It never ends well.

Whatever this means, I'm not exactly sure. Help.


I think the only way I can help you is to keep telling the truth as best I can, and I'll try to keep doing that.

It gets depressing at first, but after a while you may begin to feel better about it. At least that's how it has worked for me.

We're in the same trouble whether we know it or not; but knowing what's up makes it easier to process the propaganda, easier to shed the cognitive dissonance, easier to face whatever comes at us each day, and easier to help the people around us deal with it all, too.

It's still depressing; how could it not be? But somehow it doesn't feel as horrible if you don't have the feeling that everybody in the whole world is either crazy or lying.

Yes, I'm better now.

I get a tad overwrought at times.


McJ's picture

Mumbai: India's 911?

Last night I spent some time watching the CNN & BBC coverage of the Mumbai attacks. I couldn't help thinking that this was India's 911. I just wanted to note a few things I 'learned' watching that coverage.

1. CNN repeatedly prefaced their segments on Mumbai by stating that the 'terrorists' were attacking American and British foreigners (or other western foreigners). They kept bringing Al Qaeda into the coverage even when the Indian reporters were obviously reluctant to assign blame onto any group (because of course they didn't know who had done this). They kept showing pictures of some of the alleged 'terrorists' making the assumption they were Islamic Jihadists with ties to Pakistan. My daughter asked "How is it that they never have any idea these events are going to happen but they can have pictures of the guilty parties on the screen within hours of it taking place?"

2. The question "Who had the means, money and expertise to carry out such a sophisticated, coordinated attack?" was raised numerous times. It's a good question but they never made much of an attempt to answer it. I'm guessing they were thinking some group with ties to Al Qaeda and not say some government sponsored group.

3. Three top Indian officials who had been working in anti-terrorism were killed during the attacks.

4. One of the Indian reporters that was interviewed stated that security at the two hotels had been very tight up until about 2 weeks to 10 days before the attack and then inexplicably that changed to almost no security. The reporters all thought it was curious but not enough so to explore why.

5. Christian Amanpour noted that the timing of this attack was unfortunate because the Indian and Pakistan government (under the new president) were starting to cooperate in their efforts against the terrorists and that the presidents had just met and signed some kind of an agreement on it.
I thought this was interesting in light of WP's post on Operation Gladio and the 'strategy of tension' and Chris Floyd reporting that "Ironically, the [Pentagon Field Manual FM 30-31B] manual states that the most dangerous moment comes when leftist groups "renounce the use of force" and embrace the democratic process. It is then that "US army intelligence must have the means of launching special operations which will convince Host Country Governments and public opinion of the reality of the insurgent danger."

6. They reported that the 'man on the street' was furious with the government for letting this happen and demanding more security!!

I haven't watched any coverage today so of course this entire story could have changed! smiling smiling

"I set it down,
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain..." -- Shakespeare, Hamlet, I, v

I think you're right about this

and it's amazing how many questions they can raise and then ignore, isn't it?

McJ's picture

No Surpise - It's Pakistan's Fault

I discovered AntTV so I have been watching some BBC coverage tonight.

"'s Pakistan's fault, it's Pakistan's fault...links to Al Qaeda??...the Indian PM blasts Pakistan with some rhetoric and rattles his sabres...Pakistan denies any involvement and pledges to help find the terrorists...the terrorists were ruthless and remorseless, killing indiscriminately."

As far as I can tell from the international coverage, this wasn't really an attack on India (even tho it took place in India and it was mostly Indians who were killed or injured), it was an attack on Israeli and western interests.

This story stinks already and the whole 'evil crazed Islamic terrorists hate us for our freedoms' plot line is wearing a little thin. What do Islamic jihadists have to gain from an attack like this? Seems more ready made to pave the way for Obama to surge into Pakistan and clean up all those nasties.

I don't like being so cynical but watching this unfold is like watching a rerun of a really bad horror film.

One interesting tidbit the BBC reported is that there is a rumour there were UK nationals involved in the attack.

Some interesting analysis here:

"I set it down,
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain..." -- Shakespeare, Hamlet, I, v

Chris Floyd and PF

PF left the following comment for Chris Floyd:

What about strategy of tension on US soil?

While I continue to read your important and compelling essays, I find your refusal to speak directly about the events of 9/11/01 frustrating and, frankly, disingenuous. You have noted in other posts your support for "an independent investigation" but you have stopped short of calling those events a false flag operation out of the Gladio mold. Why? I realize you do not cling to the idiotic official fiction involving 19 "muslim hijackers" but you have not (to my knowledge) ever indicated who are the real culprits.

Further, the US has a long history of internecine violence created by intelligence agencies, including the extensively-documented COINTELPRO that featured targeted assassinations, creation of fake "radical organizations," and free-lancing provocateurs. Why no mention of these, or of the roles of shadowy government figures in the assassinations of MLK, JFK, RFK, and Malcolm X, not to mention the Oklahoma City bombing? All this has been documented, often in the mainstream press. If we are going to finally talk about these "conspiracies," let's talk about them. The failure to discuss any domestic examples of the strategy of tension in this essay is extremely disturbing.

and Chris replied:

Obviously, the reason I don't talk about every subject that you want me to talk about when you want me to talk about it and at the length and depth at which you want me to talk about it is because I am paid $36,759.46 each and every month by the Left Gatekeepers Association to befuddle the mind of the masses with my "disingenuous" commentary. The fact that, to my knowledge, I was only the third writer in a mainstream English-language print publication to draw attention to the fact that PNAC's call for a "new Pearl Harbor" in September 2000 was answered with the "new Pearl Harbor" of September 2001 was clearly just the opening salvo in my long obfuscatory campaign. This also applies to the plethora of articles I have written over the years about Operation Northwoods, the phony Gulf of Tonkin attacks, the CIA's mind-control experiments, the decades-long secret "Continuity of Government" plans, the assassinations of John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, the Pentagon program to create and/or direct terrorist groups and put them into action, and so on and so forth and so forth and so on.

It is true that I have called often for an independent investigation of 9/11 (even one without scary quote marks around it). That's because I personally, sitting here at home with my computer, cannot say with the degree of apostolic certainty that you seem to possess that I know "who are the real culprits." I may have many reasonable and credible suspicions, and I have often alluded to them. And as you so generously grant, I do not cling to the ever-shifting, hole-ridden official story of the events of that day. But yes, I would like to see considerable resources -- far beyond those that I possess -- applied to an honest and full investigation of the events to establish the full truth of the matter.

Again, I can only apologize for not addressing all the topics you mention to your satisfaction. I do think they are important and worthy of investigation and analysis, and if I had more time, I'm sure I'd give more time to them, and to many other issues as well. As it is, I do what I can when I am able to do it. The "failure to discuss any domestic examples of the strategy of tension" in the blog post was because I was writing a, er, blog post, not an exhaustive monograph on the subject. I saw the Guardian piece on the Italian interview, recalled the Gladio piece I wrote long ago, and put them together in a quick post that I hoped readers might find interesting and informative -- and worth pursuing on their own bent. If you are "extremely disturbed" by this unremarkable process, and find it somehow sinister, well then, what can I say? That would seem to be more of a problem for you than for me. But it is certainly not my intention to add to anyone's burdens and anxieties, so I'm sorry about that.

OK. I see.

My bad.

Sorry PF. I tried.

WP - When I referred to

WP - When I referred to "you," I was referring to the broader Winter Patriot group of responders and my comments were meant collectively. I apologize for implying that you called me a liar; that was someone else on this space. It was wrong of me to accuse you of making such a slur. Ok? I would suggest, however, that some commenters here are not so restrained.

And I said the previous post was my last, but I have something else to add. One reason why I included the site in my previous post was to indicate that there are other researchers and thinkers out there who understand the nature of events like 9/11/01, the 1993 WTC bombings, etc. and we should all benefit from their work on these matters to broaden our own understanding (and you link to some of them). Someone here has posted my dialogue with Chris Floyd here, which is instructive, I think. Mr. Floyd's response was that he did not have time or resources to investigate the litany of issues I presented, yet I was not asking him to do this. IT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE. There's on the 9/11 events. Sites like have done great work on the Oklahoma City bombing and many other events. William Pepper has done yeoman's work on the MLK assassination, and similarly Joan Mellen and Ralph Schoenmann (and Mark Lane) have uncovered enormous info around the JFK and RFK assassinations.

It would be good if insightful writers like Floyd and Arthur Silber and others were able to find the time and energy to read (or listen to) the work these (and other) folks have done and apply it to ongoing events for their readership. You demonstrated the value of this perspective in your recent post on the Pakistan hotel bombing, describing it as "Pakistan's 911." But this is the root of my frustration with Chris Floyd (and more so Arthur Silber). I am not looking for him to do all the research, but instead to produce writing that is clearly informed by an understanding of the way our ruling class rules, specifically its frequent use of domestic terror to manipulate American public opinion. When Floyd says says he has his "suspicions" about 9/11, this does not help to inform his readers about the nature of the American ruling class. Seven years later, he is still mulling over whether 9/11 was an inside job. And Arthur Silber still thinks 19 hijackers brought down the World Trade Center (as you have also pointed out).

This point is extremely important. Both Silber and Floyd have produced excellent work, but their blind spots are hurting us as we wait for the next domestic false flag event to start the 9/11 insanity all over again. We need to be prepared to refute official "evidence" as it is produced, and help the majority of people who rarely think about these things to see these events more clearly. We do not need political leadership from them, only clear and insightful perspectives on current events. Anyone can read the mainstream press, but many of us look to these and other writers for factual interpretation of those events. The mass media lies, and we need to be able to dissect it so that we can act. That, after all, is what this is all about -- giving people information to let them take real control over their own lives, and not handing over power to people who push the same lies and war under the guise of "hope" and "change."

Thank you for your patience.

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.