Council on Foreign Relations: Beware an Al Qaeda false flag attack

An article in the recent Foreign Affairs, titled "Al Qaeda Strikes Back," posits a possible premise for war with Iran that only someone writing for Foreign Affairs could imagine: a false flag attack by AL QAEDA. The article is full of the usual nonsense about how powerful Al Qaeda is, but then there's this passage:

"The biggest danger is that al Qaeda will deliberately provoke a war with a "false-flag" operation, say, a terrorist attack carried out in a way that would make it appear as though it were Iran's doing. The United States should be extremely wary of such deception. In the event of an attack, accurately assigning blame will require very careful intelligence work. It may require months, or even years, of patient investigating to identify the plotters behind well-planned and well-executed operations, as it did for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, and the 1996 attacks on the U.S. barracks at the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton were wise to be patient in both those cases; Washington would be well advised to do the same in the event of a similar attack in the future. In the meantime, it should, of course, continue do its utmost to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and from fomenting violence and terrorism in the Middle East by using tough diplomacy and targeted sanctions. And it should not consider a military operation against Iran, as doing so would only strengthen al Qaeda's hand -- much as the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq have."

I'm not sure what to take from this. On the one hand, it recommends America not leap into action after the next terror attack because it could be a false flag attack. On the other hand, it contains this twisted logic that Al Qaeda, not the US government, would sponsor a false flag attack as a premise for an invasion of Iran.

Nice find.

Orwell spins.

Oh, my brain...

The mental contortions here are painful to behold.

The Council on Foreign Relations would commit the false-flag,

not Al-Qaeda.

Too fucking much!


Subsitute CIA for al Qaeda and it makes more sense..

"Boss, the sheeple are waking up, its time to install alittle more fear into them to keep them in line"

nah--Mossad and it makes even more sense

assuming the truth about 9/11 is about to come out, the CFR realizes Mossad may go for broke. Since they don't WANT a war with Iran, they'll need to be able to explain any false-flag implicating Iran away as al Qaeda being bad again. that way you don't actually have to do anything about it because al Qaeda is in the shadows. That's the mindfuck for ya! it basically supports the thesis that it WAS Mossad behind 9/11--otherwise why give Iran this out? It just doesn't make sense any other way.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Wow... apply that logic to 9/11

If this is true: "In the event of an attack, accurately assigning blame will require very careful intelligence work. It may require months, or even years, of patient investigating to identify the plotters behind well-planned and well-executed operations"

Then how did the government figure out who did 9/11 so quickly and ensure it wasn't a false flag attack?

You got it

Give that man a prize.

And of course this coincides with

multiple reports attaching everything t-e-r-r-o-r related to Al Qaeda via Iran.

The State Dept tells us Al Qaeda is back and bigger than ever!

Then of course the Saudis uncovered an Al Qaeda ring backed by Iran.

The Washington Times, naturally, says Al Qaeda is back and it's being supported by Iran and Syria.

I can't help but feel things are reaching a fever pitch here. If it's not a sign of an immanent attack, it is at least a sign that the globalists are dedicated to attacking Iran.

not the globalists per se

the neocons and israel. it's beyond obvious at this point. frame al Qaeda, frame Iran, frame the saudis, frame Patsystan. all we ever hear is about arab and or muslim nations and people doing one bad thing or another. where is israel in all this? standing on the sidelines? my foot. In fact, look up Bernard-Henri Levy, the sole source for the Patsystani wire transfer story, and you'll see he is a pompous french zionist neocon. he has been criticized for a malicious portrayal of Paksitan in his book on Daniel Pearl, he even went so far as to dramatize the contents of Pearl's thoughts before he died. WTF? This guy is a journalist? Well yeah, AND France's "special envoy" to Afghanistan. Let's see, he also is quoted as saying "God is dead. But my hair looks great." and that "the veil is an invitation to rape." The man is in other words as sick a neocon psychopath as any Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, or Feith. Or the folks from or

It's time to face the ugly truth. 9/11 was a Zionist/Neocon plot, as have been the 9/11 wars. And it will end, one way or another. It's up to you to decide how much longer to draw out this farce.

Just remember--Israel has nukes, and is the one nuclear power that has not signed the non-proliferation treaty. It has never even admitted to having them. You can worry about the NWO all you want. Quite frankly? If you ignore the threat that Israel poses you are betraying the United States and you are betraying all peace loving people in the world, including innocent Israelis who are even more brainwashed than innocent Americans.

That's it. That's the story, and everything else is disinfo bullshit. Agree, disagree, it's your choice, and they will be your consequences as much as anyone else's.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Neocons and Zionists

Hi RT,

I have no doubt both Zionists and Neocons are heavily involved in 9-11. The dancing Israelis, Mossad neighbors of the alleged hijackers and the subsequent propaganda alleging Arabs as the new "enemy" paint the Zionists in the picture. The Neocons are running the show in the GWB administration and have provided public documents that implicate them in the conspiracy. I think however of both parties as executioners, operators who planned and executed the deed.

I have doubts that the buck stops with them. I think of 9-11 as part of a continuing set of actions that stretch back to include at least the the Oklahoma City bombing. I think of that event as sort of a dry run, an experiment at executing mass deception using buildings destroyed by alleged terrorists from the outside while actually being felled by pre-planted explosives on the inside. At the time of this event, the Neocons had not quite reached their current strength and I think the non Neocons in Gov't would have blown the whistle if only the Neocons and Zionists were behind that plot.

In the Oklahoma City bombing, I do not see a clear interest for the Neocons or the Zionists to pursue this complex plot. I could be wrong however.

Given the case above, I think that a more powerful group was ultimately behind both 9-11 and Oklahoma City. This group is more influential than the Neocons which seem to be reliant on allies in the Republican Party. Whoever this group is, it is capable of controlling both Republicans and Democrats and clearly cooperates with the Zionists as well.

In any case, since you feel very strongly that Neocons and the Zionists are behind the whole 9-11 plot, please shed more light on what makes you think so. As I've said, I can be mistaken and would like a better picture of the whole conspiracy. Your informed opinion is highly appreciated.

hey there juan

The CFR is trying it's darndest to contain the damage being done by a bunch of Israeli/Neocon radicals who have hijacked their agenda.

A shadowy group of terrists, al Qaeda, fits in great with the CFR plan of having afictional enemy to use to manipulate people. The control of Iraq, fine. Iraq was not a real country it was a pastiche of three different peoples carved out to serve the interests of western imperialists even after receiving nominal independence. The CFR is cool with that, as it was with actions against the basket case that is afghanistan.

Iran is totally different. It's a real country with a real history. I have been told this by Iranians in America. They left Iran because of the revolution, but they are VERY attached to their homeland nonetheless. In fact I recently had a conversation about 9/11 with a very serious and obviously well to do Iranian who told me that when 9/11 happened his mother told him "wait and you'll see--this was not the work of muslims" He said he had been skeptical until learning about the issues from me. He seemed very concerned. He said"something along the lines of "Look, of course we hate the government in Iran now, that's why we're here. But we don't want to see another Iraq in OUR country."

The CFR understands this. They are realists. They may be arrogant but they are not insane. I personally know prominent CFR members--they are not satan worshipping jackasses. They are run of the mill elitists who believe in breaking a few eggs to make an omlette--NOT in stomping through the henhouse and choking all the chickens. The crazies, which is what the neocons were always known as, are known to be rabidly and irrationally pro-Israel, meaning that they will pursue absurdly destructive policies in the belief that these are necessary to help Israel. They are machiavellian and literally nothing is off the table for them. They scare the bejeesus out of the CFR folks. Why? Because they are gambling with the CFR's capital by doing crazy shit that they know the CFR can't bring itself to expose because of the damage it will do to Israel.

They now realize that the neocons and Israeli right wing are capable of anything, including sparking a disastrous regional war by implicating Iran in a false flag attack. So they HAVE to use their regular bogeyman, al Qaeda, to help prevent the fallout that such a reckless move would trigger.

As for OKC, Clinton was a weak president. He had affairs, obviously, and a shady past in Arkansas. He had come out of nowhere no doubt based on the support of those who knew they would have them under his thumb. If you see the reports from the day of OKC, you'll note that Clinton's response seemed genuine. Since we know the truth was ultimately hidden, it stands to reason that Clinton discovered, or was informed, that he had better help cover up the truth. The truth in that case, again, may have been so potentially damaging that the choice was--do the right thing by exposing it and face the conseuqences of having your shadiness revealed, or go with the cover story and save your hide. Don't make us make you another JFK (he took a hard line against Israel and its pursuit of nuclear weapons and paid the price for that, among other things)

The Clintons have always been sycophantic supoprters of Israel. Hillary takes gobs of money from Larry S. Israel does not control America, but they have done a fine job of infiltrating our government at the very highest levels. What do you think explains AIPAC and the groveling that so many do there?

When did A Clean Break come out? Right around the time of OKC. What was its premise? Shared values and more independence of action for Israel. AMerica suffers a domestic terror attack? Shared values. WIth 9/11 they upped the ante--maybe because arab muslims (Nation of Islam) were not blamed for the attack, but instead a safe right wing white guy was picked in order to partially thwart the ZIonists' plan in that case.

The definition of chutzpah according to Jews is killing your parents and pleading for clemency because you are an orphan. Doesn't it sound familiar?


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


root access

Thanks RT,

I am not yet completely convinced, but I get your train of thought.

I'll keep your angle in mind when I research the topic further.

It's much harder to decipher motives and intent. But this is a necessary exercise.

Thanks again.

Israel had/has a problem

basically it's failing. no one wants to live there, the Palestinian natives have a higher birth rate... extreme measures had to be taken by those who wanted to avoid giving up the whole "exclusively Jewish state" thing. as has become obvious, the creation of Israel on stolen land was a bad idea, does nothing to ensure the safety of Jews in the world--makes them more unsafe in fact by virtue of feeling compelled to defend the actions of a corrupt rogue state. desperate times, desperate measures. the Masada complex.

Not to long from now the Zionist experiment will be declared a failure and we will be able to move on. Since it won't make sense to kick anyone out who wants to stay and is willing to live in peace, perhaps we will see a rebirth of the region as a center of spirituality and global harmony. Anyone who hopes for peace in the world must realize that we not only need to clean up the act of the corporatist fascist elites but also of the neo-colonial fanaticism that the Zionist state represents. We will move forward, and we have true reconciliation within reach, but only if we are honest in our quest for the truth. There will be plenty of blame to go around, and as soon as we start moving in the right direction many of us will turn our attention to doing everything possible to make a peaceful and just solution work for everyone--Jews, Christians, Muslims, atheists, gays, blacks, whites, asians, latinos... EVERYONE. Except for liars and greedy amoral mofos...

Until then, a non-violent war for truth is the only appropriate approach. The old order must be exposed and discarded before we can begin to build a better world.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Bernard-Henri Lévy


1) BHL is not the sole source for the wire transfer story. In fact, he's not a primary source, at all. Here Chaim Kupferberg's old write-up (2002) on the transfer comes in handy as a resource;

2) Levy had trouble swallowing the official spin that Pearl was murdered simply because he was an American Jew journalist. "Killed by evil jihadis!" So he traveled to Pakistan to find out why he was killed.

What he believes, is that Pearl had stumbled over provable operational connections between ISI and "al Qaeda", better than what was circulating at the time.

That's when agent Sheikh stepped in, to stop Pearl dead in his tracks.

Skip the word "blowback" in the first paragraph at this link;

CIA > ISI > "al Qaeda"

Thank you.

We wouldn't want bad information like that to get around.

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

give me one name

Of any of the "sources", "authorities", "top officials", or anyone who actually has claimed all or any of the following:

1) a wire transfer of $100,000 was made
2) the pseudonym used to make said wire transfer was used by Omar Sheikh
3) The alleged pseudonymous wire transfer allegedly made by Omar Sheikh was made at the behest of Mahmoud Ahmad
4) the recipient of the alleged pseudonymous wire transfer allegedly made by Omar Sheikh allegedly at the behest of Mahmoud Ahmad was one Mohammed Atta.
5) that the money allegedly transferred pseudonymously alegedly by Omar Sheikh allegedly at the behest of Mahmoud Ahmad allegedly to one Mohammed Atta was used in some way to facilitate alleged hijackings on September 11, 2001.

We need a name of someone who any of these "reporters" had any of this information confirmed by. Just one name of someone who can verify the veracity of any of these claims.

Why be so picky? Because not only have "authorities" in any number of US agencies already lied extensively about any number of aspects of the events of 9/11, but there is a blindingly obvious motive for unnamed Indian "authorities" to implicate Pakistan in some way in the events of 9/11. It is also suspicious that some of the people who promote this story like BHL also seem to have blindingly obvious biases that would call into question their motives for promoting a flimsy story implicating Pakistan in 9/11.

This is a simple matter of credibility--of the sources of this information and of those who would claim to find the allegations convincing enough to merit the attention they get in some circles.

Mahmoud Ahmad could have been forced 9or could have chosen) to retire for any number of reasons. It is a logical fallacy to use the fact that he retired at the same time as certain allegations were made to support the veracity of those allegations in the absence of any real evidence. Anonymous sources cited by journalists are simply not evidence and to pretend that these allegations amount to anything more than rumors is frankly dishonest.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Dennis M. Lormel

"The Times says Ahmad lost his job only after India shared with the FBI evidence showing a link between the general and Sheikh's wiring of funds to Atta.

J-e-M's accounts were frozen not long after Dennis M. Lormel, director of FBI's financial crimes unit, confirmed the $100,000 transaction, if not the source.

"They wired over $100,000 into Mr. [Mohamed] Atta a year ago," he testified in October, not identifying who "they" were."

I'm done with this thread.

This "my way or the highway"

This "my way or the highway" mentality does nothing productive for us.

The truth is none of us know the truth, and to act like we have the answers is a blatant misrepresentation of what the 9/11 Truth Community stands for.

///////////////////// - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

What an effin' strawman

I suggest you look carefully and objectively at who is proposing a "my way or the highway" approach when it comes to examining Zionist involvement in 9/11 (a mirror might be useful.)

The truth is that there is tons of information out there yet to be considered (like why in the world Larry S would consort with the kind of people who make websites like and The question is why some Truthers discourage others from looking at and speaking about this information.

I've known...

DHS for a while now, and he has never forced a belief on someone. Never. The truth is your friend stated something false, and he was called on it. But feel free to defend him.

DHS certainly doesn't "discourage others from looking at and speaking about" information.

He does discourage people from coming up with narratives out of their ass to suit their needs.

So do I.

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up


I believe my post had to do not with "forcing beliefs" on people but with discouraging research and discussion on some topics.

Speaking of pulling narratives out of one's ass, a COHESIVE narrative pertaining to the wire transfer, as described by RT above, has yet to be clearly and definitively sourced. That is, not just sourced in terms of bits and pieces of information that are then made to hang together as a over-arching narrative. This may be a distinction that is hard to grasp for some people.

Have you checked out yet? What did you think?


You didn't read Chaim's piece. Plenty of sources to go around, and the narrative those sources produce is not rocket science. Mahmoud Ahmed ordered Omar Sheikh to wire transfer $100,000 to Mohammad Atta.

That isn't some fabricated narrative like the one sprouted by your friend.

Sure, I've looked at, and I think it's disgusting.

BTW... None of the original reports of the wire transfer even mention Levy or Kupferberg, which further shows your friend was wrong. Also, three of the four Indian articles that were not the Times Of India, DO NOT cite the Times Of India as their source.

So many smart people fell for this "obvious" Pakistan ploy. People like Michael Meacher, William Pepper, Carol Brouillet, and MANY others.

As reprehensor said, I'm done with this thread.

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

I strongly encourage

I strongly encourage independent research, but what I do not encourage is when folks will speak their minds about something as if it is 100% proven fact when it is nothing but assertive speculation.

You are entitled and encouraged to research possible "Zionist Involvement" just as much as those who look into Pakistan, or Controlled Demolition, or many other facets of research.

I don't claim to have ANY answer. None. All I can say is that the official narrative and the 9/11 Commission Report are a gross misrepresentation of what appears to have actually transpired before, during, and after the first plane crash.

///////////////////// - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info


Assertive speculation is the work of BHL and CK, which they do seem to present because they think it is fact.

Pointing out flaws in arguments that others seem to think are credible is called debate.

Speculation based on a preponderance of evidence can be helpful, and speculation based on dubious uncorroborated sources is usually a waste of time or worse.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Assertive speculation is

Assertive speculation is also saying 9/11 was done by Zionists, and that "of course Israel was involved", and "of course it was controlled demolition".

These are no different than those who fervently promote no plane at the Pentagon, or Shanksville, or even the WTC for that matter.

What "preponderance of evidence" would you provide to support your assertions that "of course Israel was involved"?

///////////////////// - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

difference between preponderance of evidence and...

that which is self-evident. It is self-evident to anyone with a basic understanding of physics that the towers and building 7 were demolished deliberately.

I think I laid out the preponderance of evidence for Zionist/Israeli involvement here:

certainly we could argue about the relative preponderance of evidence viz Israeli and Pakistani involvement, but to be frank I think it has been done and that most people would agree that objectively speaking Israel is a stronger suspect than Pakistan.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


i totally agree. now how

i totally agree. now how about you stop taking shots at people that want to look into Israel and/or physical evidence? lets not have a double standard here.

you got 1) and 4)

which doesn't say much of anything, and I'm assuming you're done because that's the one source for any of the numbers above. so I too am done with this thread. thanks.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


He showed you that your

He showed you that your statement, "the sole source for the Patsystani wire transfer story" was completely false and misleading. He did not question whether it was stated purposefully, or by mistake. He just showed that you are wrong.

///////////////////// - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

ah, but you're wrong

Lormel is not a source of the Patsystani wire transfer story. He simply confirmed (if he is telling the truth) that an unnamed "they" transferred $100,000 to Mohammed Atta. That is not a story of a Patsystani wire transfer, it is a story of a Mossadmed Atta wire transfer. It seems to me that the whole-cloth narrative of Patsystani complicity was woven by BHL. You shouldn't put words in Lormel's mouth, or accuse me of saying false or misleading things if you can't back it up. BHL is the one who said he confirmed all of this by traveling through Pakistan. He is as far as I can tell the only source for the narrative people are grasping for here, which is, if I may paraphrase: Mahmood Ahmed ordered Omar Sheikh to transfer $100,000 to Mohammed Atta. We could be more specific, since BHL is clearly of the mind that Atta was indeed the lead hijacker, but since most people who argue for the relevance of this narrative accept that there is no evidence of Atta hijacking anything I will not presume to go any farther than that one phrase. To be clear, you could rebut my argument by pointing out anyone other than BHL who claims to have confirmed the veracity of: Mahmood Ahmed ordered Omar Sheikh to transfer $100,000 to Mohammed Atta.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


my one admission of error on this topic...

OK, I was wrong. There are TWO people weaving the Patsystani storyline. One is french neoconservative Zionist Bernard Henri Levy, who describes Pakistanis as hissing snakes, and the other is Chaim Kupferberg, an Israeli whose thesis seems to be (and correct me if I'm wrong but anyone who has tried to read his articles knows how confusing they are) that Pakistani intelligence essentially recruited the hijackers on behalf of the CIA. It seems (again correct me if I'm wrong,) that CK actually believes that Atta and the rest of the hard-partying hijackers really did hijack planes on 9/11.

I think the question foremost in my mind as a result of this discussion is: did India help Israel and the American neocons pull off 9/11? Or are they just happy to help in the cover-up by framing Patsystan? It's VERY interesting that the folks at Harvard who led the anti-9/11 truth faction of Harvard's antiwar group included two Indian graduate students. I won't even talk about the Zionists who tried to convince me that Iraq really was a threat, and when that proved to be a hoax, that Iran was a threat. Don't forget, I've been at this for a while and can with some authority speak to the efforts at coverup and disinformation at Harvard, which is a very important bastion of elite consensus building.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force



An excellent article written by Chaim. So soon after the fact to, which means the information was fresh in his mind.

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

the involvment of israel in 911murders is not allowed on 911 blo

lavon affait liberty attacks israel no longer commits fale flag terror , .....l.i think

It's easy to hurl an accusation.

This last one by me is cited and referenced, noting right-wing Likud's involvement in the very framing of the notion of:
"International Terrorism"

More countries than just Israel commit False Flag terror:

Count the BBC in

This just in, "Now even the Taleban are using the internet." It's the most inane of comments in their newest fear mongering piece. It's intended as an update regarding the extent of al qaeda in Britain and the hundreds of thousands of people who travel to and from Pakistan on a regular basis. How could they possibly keep up with all those terrorists?

MI5 watch 2,000 terror suspects  

Look on the bright side, they're giving us a heads up...

Al Qaida is not the US government

Al Qaida is a network inside the US military and industrial complex which operates to satisfy the needs of D. Cheney and his neocon cabal: design pretexts for energy wars of aggression.

The text makes perfect sense in this light.

This warning of the CFR is the same as Z. Brzezinski's one in February.

The CFR is at war with Cheney

Is this not obvious now ?

I tend to agree

it's a warning. Not to proceed to fast with the revenge.
Not as with 911.

And somehow it fits to the Giraldi whistleblowing of ConPlan 8022

"Another [terrorist] attack could create both a justification and an opportunity that is lacking today to retaliate against some
known targets", according to current and former defense officials familiar with the plan. (quoted in the Washington Post, 23 April,
2006,emphasis added)


"Al Qaida is a network inside the US military and industrial complex which operates to satisfy the needs of D. Cheney and his neocon cabal:"

That's not accurate. Al Qaeda is a quasi-independent group, whose members receive aid and funding from many sources the world over. They are not a part of the US military.

Intelligence services infiltrate, aid and abet their activiites. But "plausible deniability" is paramount.

This leads us to some of the alleged 9/11 hijackers ties to US military installations. That's a debate, and the evidence is spotty.

Tarpley has put forth a theory with no basis in evidence that "Able Danger" was a control operation for pretend hijackers that went real on 9/11. I don't buy that.

Able Danger was a data mining operation that purchased information about people entering and leaving Mosques all over the world.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog

johndoraemi --at--

The intelligence community

The intelligence community refers to quasi-independent groups that they manage, fund, cosset, or infiltrate as either "positive assets" or "negative assets." Each is useful in differing situations, but there is greater plausible deniability when using a negative asset. That's why "blowback" theories have successfully covered a lot of ass.

CFR Speaking In Code

'Foreign Affairs' is simply the journal through which the elites communicate openly with each other in seemingly vague terms only other elites understand.

In this case,substitue the Neo-Cons for Al Qaeda.

This seems to be the Zbig wing of the CFR speaking here. Where as Zbig likes to manipulate others into carrying out America's dirty work (Afghanistan during 80's), the Neo-Cons seemingly don't mind sacrificing Americans to acheive their ends (9/11 and Iraq).

And there lies the difference between at least these two competing elitist camps.

Isn't it obvious? al Qaeda

Isn't it obvious? al Qaeda hates Iran for their freedoms.

ha that's funny. :)

No, the tack they will take is that al Qaeda is Sunni-ish and Iran is Shia. al Qaeda are arabs and Iran is Persian. al Qaeda does not really exist as defined by the MSM and the powers that be. It's just an excuse now, a scapegoat in the classic sense.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Al Qaeda Doesn't Exist Since

Al Qaeda Doesn't Exist
Since there is no actual organization called Al-Qaeda - the name was invented by the U.S. government in January 2001 to enable Bin Laden to be prosecuted in his absence - who has the motive for launching an attack that would justify the immediate employment of war plans that were finalized months ago?
There's no such thing as al Qaeda, or al Qaida, or however you want to spell it. It's a fraud perpetrated on the American people by our own (...more) government to scare us into submission. This is a clip from the excellent three-part BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares". You can watch the whole thing on Google Video or download it at

and by other governments...

In late 2002, the Palestinians arrested “al-Qaeda poseurs” and accused Israel of creating bogus “al-Qaeda” cells in Gaza. “The Palestinian Authority arrested a group of collaborators who confessed they were working for Israel, posing as al-Qaeda operatives in the Palestinian territories,” reported the Sydney Morning Herald.

“On December 7, the British news service, Reuters, the Israeli daily Ha’aretz, and Qatar-based Al-Jazeera TV network, all reported that the Palestinian Authority had accused the Mossad of creating a phony al Qaeda cell in the Gaza Strip,” write Michele Steinberg and Hussein Askary. “Ha’aretz reported, ‘the head of Palestinian Preventive Security’ in the Gaza Strip, Col. Rashid Abu Shbak, said on December 6, ‘that his forces had identified a number of Palestinian collaborators who had been ordered by Israeli security agencies to “work in the Gaza Strip under the name of al Qaeda.” He said the investigation was ongoing and evidence would be presented soon.’ Al-Jazeera TV added that the Palestinian authorities had arrested a group of Palestinian ‘collaborators with Israeli occupation’ in Gaza, involved in the operation.” Shbak told Islam Online that the PA “investigated the origin of … calls [placed by the poseurs], which used [cell phone] roaming, and messages, and found out they all came from Israel.”

Of course, none of these allegations were mentioned by the corporate media and the original Sydney Morning Herald article has since disappeared from the internet (it is however archived on the Propaganda Matrix website, see above link). In addition to attacking Israelis and the illegal Jewish settlement of Neve Dekalim in the Gush Katif bloc in the Gaza, the preposterous “Qaeda Organisation of the State of Palestine” has now decided to kill Mahmoud Abbas.

They noted the increased activity of groups in the Gaza Strip claiming to work on behalf on al-Qaeda, pointing to recent attacks in Gaza against secular music stores, Internet cafes and a pool hall in which groups that state they work for al-Qaeda have claimed responsibility.

In October, a video of a masked terrorist claiming to represent "al-Qaeda in Palestine" was posted on the Internet threatening attacks against "those who blaspheme Islam, including "secular" Fatah officials. Statements made in the video also took credit for the assassination two weeks prior of Jad Tayeh, director of foreign relations for Fatah's General Security Services.,7340,L-3386314,00.html


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


According to...

Former Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom, Robin Cook...

Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west.

Robin died not long after that article was released. I believe he was hiking in the mountains with his wife. He resigned his position in protest of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

It's Not The Crime That Kills You, But The Cover-Up

Imminant False Flag Event in Indiana?

Thanks for the info! The following is VERY relevant to the comments in Foreign Affairs:

Please bear with me and read this. This is my conspiracy theory comment regarding security and law enforcement in Indiana over the next several weeks.

If you're keeping up with your news, the Indy Star reported that a nuclear attack response drill will be taking place in Indiana, starting on April 30th and lasting about three weeks. Here's a comment from the article, followed by the link:

"The event will trigger the deployment of 1,000 Indiana National Guard troops, more than 2,000 active-duty military personnel, local and state police officers, and other officials."

That report came out a little over a week ago.

Five days ago, a report came out in The Sunday Times that states the following:

"AL-QAEDA leaders in Iraq are planning the first “large-scale” terrorist attacks on Britain and other western targets with the help of supporters in Iran, according to a leaked intelligence report.

Spy chiefs warn that one operative had said he was planning an attack on “a par with Hiroshima and Nagasaki” in an attempt to “shake the Roman throne”, a reference to the West. Another plot could be timed to coincide with Tony Blair stepping down as prime minister, an event described by Al-Qaeda planners as a “change in the head of the company”."

Note the part where it says "other Western targets". Here's the link:

Now, recall that the London subway bombing attacks on 7/7 took place at the same time that bomb response/rescue drill teams were assembling outside of each of the bombed stations. The response members were shocked that an actual event was taking place that was identical to their training exercise - even down to the specific stations chosen for the drill. Here’s a link to the story. It's an invaluable reference to actual events:

And then, recall that during the attacks on 9/11, NORAD, NEADS, and other officials were confused because the terrorist attacks coincided with a NORAD drill called Vigilant Guardian, which simulated an air attack in the US. This coincided with Vigilant Warrior, which was a live-fly hijacking exercise. The following quote is from the following link:

"The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States investigated the possibility that Vigilant Guardian preparations compromised the military's response to the terrorist attacks on September 11. They concluded that the exercise may have had, in fact, the effect of expediting the response to the attacks.

FAA and military officials reported trouble discerning the war game operations from the actual attacks. After being notified of the first hijacking, General Larry Arnold originally thought it was part of the exercise,[1] [2] as did NEADS Commander Col. Robert K. Marr Jr.[3] and his deputy Lt. Col. Peter J. Milanoski, who said "everybody" at NEADS first thought the attacks were part of Vigilant Guardian.[4] On page 17 of the 9/11 Commission Report when Boston center calls NEADS (Northeast Air Defense Sector), the response from NEADS was "is this real world or exercise?". According to the 9/11 Commission's staff statement No. 17,[1] "During the course of the morning, there were multiple erroneous reports of hijacked aircraft in the system."[2] For instance, page 26 of the Commission's final report documents FAA's report of a "phantom flight 11" at 9:21,[3] 35 minutes after the real flight 11 crashed into the WTC and even longer after the war games are alleged to have been aborted. However, General Ralph Eberhart told the 9/11 Commission “it took about 30 seconds” to make the adjustment to the real-world situation (note 116 to chapter 1)."

There is more detail at the preceding link.

So, now we have a nuclear response drill in Indiana, we have reports that a "Hiroshima" type event will take place very shortly in the West - Blair is expected to step down in a matter of weeks and the report says it will happen BEFORE Blair steps down, and we have precedent for drills that coincided with the largest terror attacks on US and British soil.

Add the following to this mix:

From American Conservative Magazine:

"The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons."

Here's the link:

Then there was the following recent testimony to Congress by Zbigniew Brzezinski. Link:

"A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan"

And last January's unreported comments to Congress by GOP Presidential candidate Ron Paul - who is running on a Constitution platform:

"The truth is that Iran, like Iraq, is a third-world nation without a significant military. Nothing in history hints that she is likely to invade a neighboring country, let alone America or Israel. I am concerned, however, that a contrived Gulf of Tonkin- type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran."

So, in summary, we're getting warnings from all directions on a pending attack. We have precedent for those attacks coinciding with planned drills that match the events, and we have precedent of government manufacturing a crisis to go to war (look up National security Archive "Gulf of Tonkin").

A lot of unnerving pieces seem to be falling into place, and it's worth keeping in mind over the next few weeks. I pray that my assessment is wrong, but I can't avoid considering that it's a possibility.

Additionally, the first part of the exercise began two days ago. That part is Indiana Gaurd and local officials only. Next week (May 7) is the portion where the US Military gets involved for the "10 Kiloton detonation in Indianapolis" simulation, which is being run by the Joint Chiefs and may include White House participation. This excercise includes Northern Command, Canadian participation, live-fly's, and a total of over 4,000 troops deployed. Northern Command has run several nuclear response drills since it's inception, but this is the first exercise that includes actual troop deployment and live-fly's. Other agencies involved include DHS, FEMA, Indiana DHS, State police, and local law enforcement.

Adding to my concerns is the fact that the Indiana General Assembly won't be in session next week. Also, Alberto Gonzalez made a "not so public" appearance here in Indianapolis yesterday. Local news didn't cover it. The local FBI field office (which is located downtown) announced a couple of months ago that they're relocating to the suburbs. And in the meantime, Iran has been reclassified as the largest supporter of terrorism, the media has been reporting that they refuse to "cooperate", and the rhetoric about Iranian IED's in Iraq has heated up in the last few months.

Didn't Blair also warn that

Didn't Blair also warn that the next attacks would likely be conducted by Western-looking (white) terrorists because they've become so crafty of late?

CFR warns of "false flag"

This just shows how desperate they're getting. Why in the world would AQ blame Iran and provoke a wider war? I thought we're supposed to believe AQ and bin Laden enjoy having the limelight for themselves.

Aparently we're having the debate set up for us in advance of the next attack. It will go something like this: "Wow, looks like Iran did it! (Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran!) Oops, maybe it was al-Qaeda after all! Oh well. Now we'd better 'finish the job' in Iran!"

Any sources on those stories out of Indianapolis? (About the FBI field office relocating, Atty Gen Gonzales's visit, etc.?)

Doesn't matter which one they blame

whether it's Iran or Al Qaeda, the bombs will fall on Iran.

If they blame Al Qaeda (like they do with everything these days), they'll say Iran "supported" the operation. They've already established this pretext in recent months.

The average American doesn't know the difference between Iran and Al Qaeda, so as long as the neocons can link their false flag terror to "dark people on the other side of the world" (like they did with 9/11) they'll have 30% of the public support them when they bomb Iran. It's the same 30% who continue to support Bush.

The Return Of The High-Fivers

I thought you might be interested in this:

Another 911 - Another Israeli Spy Ring

Filed under "Not Surprising to Anyone"

The Ayn Rand Institute director says we should do more than "talk" to Iran.

Iran Sponsors Terrorism, U.S. Seeks "Dialogue"
By Ayn Rand Institute: Dr. Yaron Brook (05/03/07)

Irvine, CA--As the State Department once again designates Iran as the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is planning to meet Iran's foreign minister to talk about the future of Iraq.

But according to Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, "Talking will not convince the Iranian theocrats to give up their support for terrorism and their feverish quest for nuclear weapons. Quite to the contrary, any such 'dialogue' will only demonstrate America's weakness and encourage the Iranians to sponsor even more terrorism, especially against Americans in Iraq.

"The religious zealots in Iran are committed to a global jihad and will not stop sponsoring terrorism or cease pursuing the weapons that they believe will bring them victory. The only way for the United States and its allies to ensure that Iran will not acquire--or use--nuclear bombs, is to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities and wipe out its hostile regime. This does not mean embarking on an Iraq-like crusade to bring democracy to Iran; it means eliminating the Iranian threat against America.

"The Iranian regime has repeatedly called for 'death to America.' We must take these threats seriously--or risk an attack much more devastating than 9/11."

Dr. Yaron Brook is executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute.

Copyright © 2007 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

thought pollution

Linking alkilla to false flag terror is more thought and language pollution spawned by the CFR
the thinking fascists billoreilly
its similar to the appropriation of fascist first used in modern american political discourse to discribe the bush clan and their corporate collegues
who are currently betraying america, it has morphed , no doubt in the hands of a zionist wit into islamofascist
as this absurdity trickels down to citizen morons false fllag terror will mean standard terror to them , so un thinking and foolish they are