Launching the U.S. Terror War: the CIA, 9/11, Afghanistan, and Central Asia

By Prof. Peter Dale  Scott
Terror War was formally declared by George W. Bush on the evening of September 11, 2001, with his statement to the American nation that “we will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.”3   But the notion that Bush’s terror war was in pursuit of actual terrorists lost credibility in 2003, when it was applied to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, a country known to have been targeted by terrorists but not to have harbored them.4 It lost still more credibility with the 2005 publication in Britain of the so-called Downing Street memo, in which the head of the British intelligence service MI6 reported after a visit to Washington in 2002 that “Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”5 False stories followed in due course linking Iraq to WMD, anthrax, and Niger yellowcake (uranium).

Gang attacks homeowner, media solicits donations for fallen gang members, public laments gang member death

by George Sand

Some people out there, even our regular readers, get squeamish when we liken police to gang members. I’ll stand by that analogy, which I elaborated upon in another article –

Mostly, this comparison is based on the fact that police, like gangs claim ultimate dominion over a particular territory. They stake out these particular territories, and demand “protection money” for reasons mostly out of the control of local residents. If their demands are not met, they resort to violence.

They swear an oath of  loyalty to each other, and will cover up for each other’s gruesome crimes at the expense of good sense and morality. Officers have purposely failed to take reports, covered up evidence, and even turned a blind eye to sexual battery and torture by their fellow gang-members (see here). Those who do not abide by the code of loyalty are ostracized or otherwise punished (see examples here and here). They even have a gang color – blue.

(Read entire article here)

District Attorney Jim Garrison exposes truth about JFK assassination in 1967

New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison prosecuted the only legal case in the assassination of President John Kennedy. He lost, of course, because th CIA was protecting certain witnesses and permanently silencing others. Still, Garrison was able to secure enough historic information in the public record that we can now form reasonable conclusions about what happened. What is so amazing is that Garrison is telling us this in 1967!

It took other researchers thirty or more years to reach similar conclusions. At the time, most citizens were simply intellectually or emotionally incapable of comprehending even a fraction of the truth Garrison revealed, and as a population we remain far too passive and naïve.

Hitler recognized this convenient truth as “The Big Lie (Große Lüge). Yet only four years after JFK was conveniently disposed of by “The Secret Team” (see Col. Fletcher Prouty), Garrison had essentially solved the mystery of who did it and why. Paid detractors and their unpaid volunteers continue to insult Garrison’s memory with the constant trivial dickering over inconsequential details (see Gerald Posner), yet this is what now passes for political discourse in the United States.

The media fawns and toadies that catered to the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about as he was leaving office really outdid themselves in their trashing of Jim Garrison, resorting to all sorts of dirty tricks, illegal or otherwise. Considering that those few of us who have examined the evidence have little trouble understanding the forces who killed JFK, RFK, MLK along with the acronymically unknown, it appears that much of their hush money was primarily wasted on fools.

Jim Garrrison was one American male with balls of brass. He knew the truth about what happened in Dallas on November 22, 1963, and he tried to make people understand it even as his life was being threatened. He’s what I would call a hero if I engaged in that sport. He didn’t just stand up for what he believed in; any fool can do that right or wrong. Garrison verified the facts behind him, which made his pronouncements even more threatening, yet he shouted them to the nation anyway!

How many of us would do the same?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hqo2c_SxQag&feature=related

道德經 The Tao de Ching explains the United States

61

When a country obtains great power, it becomes like the sea: all streams run downward into it.

The more powerful it grows, the greater the need for humility. Humility means trusting the Tao, thus never needing to be defensive.

A great nation is like a great man: When he makes a mistake, he realizes it. Having realized it, he admits it. Having admitted it, he corrects it.

He considers those who point out his faults as his most benevolent teachers. He thinks of his enemy as the shadow that he himself casts.

If a nation is centered in the Tao, if it nourishes its own people and doesn’t meddle in the affairs of others, it will be a light to all nations in the world.