The Scam That is Global Terrorism
Executive Summary
- Why Governments Want and Need Terrorism
- The Purpose of the FBI
- NSA
- A Global Misrepresentation of Terror
- Who Benefits from “Global Terrorism.”
- The Retreads
- Organized by Moscow or by “Al Qaeda?”
- Does “Al Qaeda” Actually Exist?
Why Governments Want and Need Terrorism
Governments and institutional power benefit from terrorism because it allows them to assert their will over the populations. The intelligence services and the FBI are delighted by terrorism. The NSA is pleased by terrorism as is Lockheed Martin and Halliburton. All of them saw their powers expand post 9-11, and their budgets increase. There is a growing body of evidence that 9-11 was either coordinated by the Bush Administration, so the greatest “terrorism” was a self-inflicted wound.
Terrorism becomes the ultimate negative argument. If a terrorist attack occurs such as 9-11 (which was not a terrorist attack but is accepted as one), then the drum is beat for reducing individual freedom. If an attack does not occur for some time, then this is given as evidence to continue to reduce individual freedoms because it has been so successful in stopping a second or third attack. The main point is to use the real or imaged threat of terrorism to continually ratchet down and transfer more power to both the state and private entities which work in security and intelligence. Terrorism is one way of getting there; another way is to have a long and continual war, such as the Pakistan-Indian conflict, or the US-Iraq-Afghanistan war.
Terrorism and wars allow governments to control information under the guise of national security and to put off criticism for mismanagement of the internal economy or cronyism, by appealing to security fears and patriotism.
The Purpose of the FBI
One institution that is important to understand with regards to terrorism is the FBI. Rather than protecting citizens, for most of its existence, the FBI has primarily been used as a security force that works against the interests of the population. Whether its illegally wiretapping Nixon’s enemies, creating false terrorism cases or having Martin Luther King assassinated, the FBI is there to keep a watchful eye on the citizenry.
The FBI also can be used to settle political scores as they did by using Patriot Act laws to track the accounts of Elliot Spitzer.
After 9-11 terrorism became a major area of emphasis for the FBI and they were instrumental in bringing hundreds of supposed terrorism cases against terrorist plotters in the US. However, the problem is that after the New York Law School’s Center for Law and Security had analyzed these cases, they found only three that were legitimate. The following interview is from PBS Frontline.
Frontline: And you’re saying these are not really substantial cases, by and large?
Karen Greenberg: There are some substantial cases. There’s a lot of evidence that we’re not allowed to see, but in terms of what we’ve been able to see, you could not make the determination that there have been a number of substantial cases. … When you use the number 441, if you want to deduce from that what are the successful cases, you could count them on two hands, and even then there would be people who would dispute those findings. …
Frontline: When we talk to the FBI about the Lodi case, they say: “Look, this guy said he went to a camp; he confessed; a jury believed him. That’s good enough for us.”
Karen Greenberg: OK, but when you have … the statistics that we’re compiling, and you’re seeing a pattern of what’s happening time after time, where cases are falling apart — … if we had a record of being able to trust what’s happening in the courts, we wouldn’t be doubting that. … The original idea about the Lodi case [was that] they were going to bust [a] cell in the grape vineyards of California, correct? But where’s the cell? This is actually a good example of what was the danger, and what actually happened? Where is the cell? Was there a cell? … There’s no terrorist cell that we found that we’ve identified with that case, when push came to shove. Training in a terrorist camp abroad is a crime, and for that, [Hamid Hayat] confessed, and he’s punished. But it’s not the larger entity that they described to us in the very beginning of that case. … The Lodi case is an example of the gap between how a case is originally presented to the public and to the media, and what actually transpires in the case and in the ultimate conviction or acquittal.
This is an excellent interview which I recommend reading here…
After 9-11, terrorism became one of the main ways that the governments in England and the US controlled their people. However, as the movie the Power of Nightmares by the BBC points out, almost all the discussion about “Al Qaeda,” and global terror, in general, was false.
NSA
The NSA certainly got what it wanted from the panic post 9-11. The NSA was able to push through its illegal initiative to place splitters with keyword searching capability onto every internet trunk line in the US and now monitors all internet traffic. The only way we know about this is because of a whistleblower who worked in the San Francisco ATT office. The only thing protecting internet privacy now is the sheer amount of data that the NSA has to shift through, and the fact that the NSA, with all of its Ph.D.’s, is still an incompetent institution which is more concerned with gathering data than actually doing anything with it.
The BBC at least has figured out the scam of global terrorism and produced a documentary on the topic.
A Global Misrepresentation of Terror
Here are the areas where the governments around the world have misrepresented terrorism.
- There is not one coordinated global network of terror. And no evidence has ever been presented to demonstrate this, and there is considerable evidence against it in the fact that most these groups have never met one another, and all have different goals. What exists is some terrorist groups, many of them with legitimate complaints which are fighting for some different objectives in different geographies
- Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11
- Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11 other than members of Osama Bin Laden’s entourage found it a convenient place to hide
- No evidence has ever been provided that Osama Bin Laden masterminded 9/11
- There is no evidence that “Al Qaeda” exists
- 9/11 was a highly suspicious event. Its hard to know what did happen. However, what is clear is that the official story could not have happened. Secondly, the attacks could not have occurred without the assistance of the Bush Administration because there were simply too many safeguards that were bypassed which lead to the events.
- While there is no evidence of a global terrorism network, there is clear evidence of US support for both Osama Bin Laden, the Mujahedeen and the Taliban. However, for some reason, that connection is not discussed. So when other countries do not have links to terrorism, such as Iraq, we make it up, however, when we support terrorism, those links seems to disappear.
Who Benefits from “Global Terrorism.”
Law enforcement, the military, and defense contractors all greatly benefit from terrorism. All of these saw their expenditures greatly rise after 9/11. However, furthermore, many other institutions also benefit. Who loses is individuals who have their rights eroded to battle “terrorism.”
Oil companies also benefit from perceived terrorism, and it provides a pretext to invade countries to secure oil rights. On average oil companies like to obtain roughly 75% of the profits from oil and they cannot do this without either a full invasion or a CIA-supported coup of some type. I refer to this as The How Much You Can Extract from Oil Producing Countries Game.
The Retreads
Global terrorism is not the first time that external threats have been used against individuals. In fact, the same people who exaggerated the menace of the Soviet Union (Richard Pearle, William Kristal, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz) were some of the same people behind the cheerleading against “global terrorism.” The neo-cons created the notorious Team B analysis lead by Richard Pipes that produced a report that is now known to be deliberately falsified by this team that reported up to Donald Rumsfeld at the time (1975). The analysis included false graphics like this one which showed a missile gap that never existed.
Organized by Moscow or by “Al Qaeda?”
The neocon’s strategy has changed over time. In the 70s and 80s, they alleged that Moscow coordinated all world terrorism. By the late 90s and 00s, they switched the central coordinator to be “Al Qaeda.” When this transition from Moscow to “Al Qaeda” occurred is never explained.
In the book, the Terror Network, a Neocon bible of sorts, the author proposes that all global terror at the time was coordinated by Moscow. It is highly recommended reading and can be purchased for just a few dollars on Amazon.com. It demonstrates the importance of reading documents produced through time because while the story can be changed, documents like this book and the notorious NSC-68 cannot.
The Misinterpretation of Terror
Governments have a clear incentive to control the definition of terror. The official definition of terror is not much different from what the US does to many countries. In the case of the middle east, what is presented as terror by the US State Department and US media is in fact retaliation on the part of an occupied state towards a dedicated campaign on the part of Israel to push the Palestinians off of their land. This is the part that is missed when the subject of the “occupied” territories is discussed. The occupied territories are Palestinian territories occupied by the US-supported Israeli military. This would be like calling French Resistance fighters terrorists who opposed the Nazi invasion of France during the second world war, which in fact is exactly what the Nazis did call them. Furthermore, every country does this. The British like to describe Irish resistance as terrorism, but don’t like to much talk about their abuse of Ireland. The abuse is considered not relevant.
This book describes how self-centered the anti-terrorist movement is. Written by the ex-hard line former Prime Minister of Israel, never mentioned in this books is the terror, which is much greater, that is visited upon the Palestinians by the brutal occupation of their land. The intent is to make the victimizer, which is the Jewish state, the victim. Under the neocon philosophy, the Palestinian “terror” is centrally coordinated by “Al Qaeda,” meanwhile the far greater Israeli terror against the Palestinians which is apparently supported by the US goes unnoticed.
It is not considered terror because terror is only when a smaller entity strikes against a larger entity. So when the US killed 3.5 million people in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia and defoliated their land, this was not terror, it was defending America.
Rumsfeld and the Neocons
These are the types of drawings that Rumsfeld had his people draw. There was never any evidence that these underground bunkers existed, but it played into people’s fears. In fact, when the Northern Alliance stormed the area where Bin Laden was supposed to have been hiding, all they found were small caves which stored ammunition, nothing like what the Americans had projected. Later, Rumsfeld had his artists draw the mobile chemical weapon labs that were used by Powell at the United Nations.
Another picture for which there turned out to only be the evidence of an ex-Iraqi who was milking the US and telling us what we wanted to hear.
Both of these pictures represent fake things that the administration never showed existed.
Rumsfeld has a long history of making up data to support conclusions. In addition to helping to overestimate the Soviet menace, “Al Qaeda,” WMDs, when he worked in private industry as the CEO for DB Searle, (now owned by the evil Monsanto) he was instrumental in using his political connections to get the toxic sweetener Aspartame (Nutrasweet and Equal) approved even though it is partially composed of wood alcohol and causes many health problems. Rummy now works as a senior fellow at the fake research institute, and favorite hand out for the corrupt and politically connected conservatives called the Hoover Institute.
While terrorism in Europe is often used to excuse fascist policies in the US, the facts are that terrorism is far less of a problem in the US than in Europe.
Frontline: From your perspective, do you think that Al Qaeda is here in the United States? Do you think that there are terrorists among us?
Karen Greenberg: There may be some dangerous terrorists among us. Compared to the rest of the world? No. Europe is a good example. Compared to Europe, we don’t have the volume of potential terrorists in terms of the populations that they seem to be coming from, and we don’t have the evidence of the kind of plots that Europe has on a monthly basis, and the kinds of convictions they’re able to get, because they do have people who are plotting constantly, across borders, internally. You can read these statistics two ways: Either we’re incompetent, which I don’t think we are, … or the terrorist menace as we’ve conceived it is not here. …
Does “Al Qaeda” Actually Exist?
There is increasing evidence that “Al Qaeda” does not exist and never existed. What is well known is that those that have been assigned to “Al Qaeda” by US and British intelligence networked during the war in Afghanistan vs. the Soviets. They were funded by the US and were abandoned after the Soviets were defeated. This is covered in the book and movie Charlie Wilson’s War. The fact that the US supported various groups that fought the Soviets and abandoned them and Afghanistan to an environment where the US and captured Soviet weapons were used in a long-standing battle between Afghan warlords (converted Muhajedeen) that eventually lead to the rise of the Taliban.
The origin of the imagining of “Al Qaeda” was first produced by the FBI. Here I will quote from the PBS special, the Power of Nightmares.
In January 2001 a trial began in a Manhattan courtroom for the 4 men accused of bombings in East Africa. The DOJ had also decided to put Bin Laden in with these 4 accused men. However, to do this under American law, the prosecution required evidence of a criminal organization, because as with the Mafia, that would allow them to prosecute the head of the organization even if he could not be linked directly with the crime. (This was due to the fact the the DOJ was using the RICO statute to prosecution the case. Prosecutors like RICO because it lowers their standard of evidence and provides them with enhanced powers vis-a-vis the the defense team). The evidence for that organization was provided by an ex-associate of Bin Laden’s called Jamal Al Fadl. (Jamal Al Fadl was not considered credible by European intelligence services, but was taken on as a key prosecution witness and given a huge amount of US taxpayers money.) The picture that Al Fadl drew of Bin Laden was that of an all powerful figure, head of large terrorist network that had an organized hierarchy of control. He also said that Bin Laden had given the network the name “Al Qaeda.” However, Bin Laden’s actual role appears to be more of fund raiser, and there is no evidence that Bin Laden or anyone else ever used the term “Al Qaeda” to describe the loose affiliation of militant Islamists he was associated with. However, he began using it after he realized it was what the Americans had given him. Many associated with the trial believed that Al Fadl lied to give the prosecution an image of a terrorist organization that they needed to prosecute Bin Laden. It was a way to make “Al Qaeda” the new Mafia or the new Communists and made them identifiable as a group and therefore made it easer to prosecute any person associated with “Al Qaeda” for any acts or statement made by statements by Bin Laded…..who talked a lot. – The Power of Nightmares
Thus RICO statute gave the prosecution had a definite incentive to create the myth of an organization that never existed.
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/nyregion/09qaeda.html?_r=1
This shows how the case was prosecuted by Patrick J Fitzgerald, who is apparently corrupt as he was one of the main people who helped created the myth of “Al Qaeda” without having any evidence beyond the testimony of one person. It brings up the question of whether these types of cases should be allowed in the first place as Patrick J Fitzgerald lack experience in intelligence gathering. It also brings up the topic of Al Fadl’s objectivity as he was paid over $1,000,000 for his testimony and over a dozen of his relatives were brought to the US from the Sudan. I am sure if we offered that deal to most people living in the Sudan we could get stories of any number of “Al Qaeda” groups with a close to 100% success ratio.
The FBI was very unhappy that tapes had been made of the interactions between the prosecution and Jamal Al-Fadl. This is demonstrated in an article on the topic from the New York Times.
The transcripts themselves emerged from a messy process: The videotapes they detail were made by mistake, from 2000 to 2002, by federal marshals who had set up the videophone hookup so prosecutors in New York could keep in close touch with Mr. Fadl. Prosecutors and the F.B.I. Had not authorized the taping, and when prosecutors learned of it in 2002, they were shocked, knowing they would have to share the tapes with defense lawyers who were appealing the embassy bombings verdict.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamal_al-Fadl
Using The Myth of “Al Qaeda.”
“Al Qaeda” persisted as a myth because it satisfied the needs of multiple parties. It satisfied the need of US prosecutors to get their conviction under RICO. Once established it filled the need to Bin Laden and other militant Islamists by making them relevant, and it satisfied the needs of the Bush Administration and supporters by creating an evil external threat and allowed them to pin the self-inflicted false flag operation of 9-11 on a group.
https://www.alqaedadoesntexist.com/
Conclusion
It is a hard pill to swallow that both 9-11 was self-inflicted and that “Al Qaeda” never existed, however, far more evidence sits on that side than sits on the official story that was originally proposed that most of us believed and many of Americans continue to believe.
References
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/enemywithin/interviews/greenberg.html
The New Yorker had an excellent article on the witness protection program for Al-Fadl, an excerpt of which is included below.
“A prime source of marital trouble, Anticev said, has been Fadl’s desire for other women. Not long ago, Anticev declined Fadl’s request to marry a second wife. Fadl argued that the American government had promised to support his entire family. He reminded Anticev that, under his agreement with the authorities, his family was defined as anyone he loved. He swore that he loved this new woman. Back in the eighties, in America, Fadl had briefly married a second wife, without telling her about Nadia; this time, Anticev said, “I told him I was responsible for the well-being of his wife and kids, and I didn’t see another wife as in their interest.”
Read more:
https://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/09/11/060911fa_fact?printable=true#ixzz0ijpLNkkJ
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/enemywithin/interviews/greenberg.html
https://onhumannature.wordpress.com/2008/01/20/martin-luther-king-hero-for-the-us-government/