High-Level Officials Warn of Fake Terror


A variety of current and former high-level officials have recently warned that the Bush administration is attempting to instill a dictatorship in America, and will itself carry out a fake terrorist attack in order to obtain one.


FBI agents, Time Magazine, Keith Olbermann and The Washington Post and Rolling Stone have all stated that the administration has issued terror alerts based on scant intelligence in order to rally people around the flag when the administration was suffering in the polls. This implies — as an initial matter only — that the administration will play fast and loose with the facts in order to instill fear for political purposes

More to the point, a former prominent republican congressman stated that the U.S. is close to becoming a totalitarian society and that the Bush administration is using fear to try to ensure that this happens.

General Tommy Franks stated that if another terrorist attack occurs in the United States "the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government".

Current U.S. Congressman Ron Paul stated, the government "is determined to have martial law", and that the government is hoping to get the people "fearful enough that they will accept the man on the white horse"

And Daniel Ellsberg, the famous Pentagon Papers whistleblower, said "if there is another terror attack, "I believe the president will get what he wants", which will include a dictatorship.

Terror on U.S. Citizens by American Government?

But would the government actually kills its own people to instill sufficient fear so that it can get what it wants? Read what the following very smart people are saying, and then judge for yourself:

A retired 27-year CIA analyst who prepared and presented Presidential Daily Briefs and served as a high-level analyst for several presidents, stated that if there was another major attack in the U.S., it would lead to martial law. He went on to say:

"We have to be careful, if somebody does this kind of provocation, big violent explosions of some kind, we have to not take the word of the masters there in Washington that this was some terrorist event because it could well be a provocation allowing them, or seemingly to allow them to get what they want."

The former CIA analyst would not put it past the government to "play fast and loose" with terror alerts and warnings and even events themselves in order to rally people behind the flag

The former assistant secretary of treasury in the Reagan administration, called the "Father of Reaganomics", who is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service, and, said:

"Ask yourself: Would a government that has lied us into two wars and is working to lie us into an attack on Iran shrink from staging "terrorist" attacks in order to remove opposition to its agenda?" He goes on to say:

If the Bush administration wants to continue its wars in the Middle East and to entrench the "unitary executive" at home, it will have to conduct some false flag operations that will both frighten and anger the American people and make them accept Bush's declaration of "national emergency" and the return of the draft. Alternatively, the administration could simply allow any real terrorist plot to proceed without hindrance.

A series of staged or permitted attacks would be spun by the captive media as a vindication of the neoconsevatives' Islamophobic policy, the intention of which is to destroy all Middle Eastern governments that are not American puppet states. Success would give the US control over oil, but the main purpose is to eliminate any resistance to Israel's complete absorption of Palestine into Greater Israel.

Think about it. If another 9/11-type "security failure" were not in the works, why would Homeland Security czar Chertoff go to the trouble of convincing the Chicago Tribune that Americans have become complacent about terrorist threats and that he has "a gut feeling" that America will soon be hit hard?

A member of the British Parliament stated that "there is a very real danger" that the American government will stage a false flag terror attack in order to justify war against Iran and to gain complete control domestically

A former National Security Adviser told the Senate that a terrorist act might be carried out in the U.S. and falsely blamed on Iran to justify war against that nation.

President Carter recently impliedly acknowledged the risk of staged provocation in order to start a war against Iran.

The former UN Weapons Inspector, an American, who stated before the Iraq war started that there were no weapons of mass destruction is now saying that he would not rule out staged government terror by the U.S. government.

And an allegedly-leaked GOP memo touts a new terror attack as a way to reverse the party's decline.

No way, That's Nuts

Sounds nuts, right?

Sorry to have to tell you, but "false flag terror" -- that is, state-sponsored terrorism, blamed on the "bad guys" of choice -- is an age-old trick which has been used by governments around the world for thousands of years to consolidate power and create support from their people. See this article on the Reichstag fire, and this article on the perennial ploy of those grabbing power.

But even recent events provide a glimpse into the world of false flag terror:

On October 12, 2005, Australia's largest newspaper quoted the well-respected former Indonesian president as saying that the government had a role in the Bali bombings

And Americans dressed as Arabs have apparently been setting off car bombs in Iraq (apparently, when it was discovered that some of the cars used in Iraqi bombings recently came from the U.S., the cover story became American cars were involved in car bombings only because they had recently been stolen from the U.S. and then shipped to Iraq -- but does it make sense that Iraqi insurgents would steal cars in the U.S. and ship them all the way to Iraq?)

Similarly, Britain's false flag attacks in Iraq made the news. And the press has acknowledged that the death of the lead investigator into the Basra incident was mysterious.

And the former director of the National Security Agency said "By any measure the US has long used terrorism. In ‘78-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism - in every version they produced, the lawyers said the US would be in violation"(the audio is here)

History proves that the officials' warnings of a terror attack by our own government are well-founded.

It must be noted

that the current government is 'middle management' for the folks who really run this carnival. Changing the management (should we make it to this sham election) will not remove this risk. The goal is to create an authoritarian state (that's what all the laws and presidential directives have been for) and if some believe that any one of the current candidates would not be as good and willing a dictator as Bush (probably much more effective, unfortunately) they are simply naive. Indeed, were this sort of thing to occur on an Obama watch, some might even be fooled into believing the 'terrorist' attack was real and happily welcome Herr Obama in his new role. (substitute McCain and/or Hillary for 'Obama' as you will).

The 'Plan' will move forward regardless.....

"There are none so hoplessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." (Goethe)

Agreed, the middle managers come from both party elites

and a simple regime change will have no measurable effect on the ongoing destruction of our republic.

This goes much deeper than the national political facade and will not be fixed by one "election" or a quick impeachment or two.

Not everyone is open to this reality and many people within the movement have yet to come to this realization, this is even more true for the "9/11 truth friendly" folks who simply blame the neo-cons for everything and look no deeper.

Some of our brothers and sisters will have to experience serious economic pain before they will even look deep enough to begin to realize the actual depth of the problem and then become open to the needed paradigm shift.

We're getting there, y'all!

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

You truthers are right.

It makes no difference who is president. The NWO boys run the show and will stop at nothing to push their sick agenda. I think it's time we go after the world bankers and the corporate big shots. How does Rothschild and Rockefeller sound for a start?

It'd be nice....

....to reverse this trend?

You aptly summed up our dilemma, LeftWright.

Maddog, I'd like to see this system go by the wayside! It's sad to see in history, whenever, the oligarchs are in a pinch they start wars to loot and replenish coffers.

I've come to the point where I question whether capitalism and the stock market have ever performed as advertised? Or, has it just been a sophisticated con?

...don't believe them!

Any economic system which requires endless expansion

is not sustainable. Thus, the need for wars to destroy to allow for rebuilding and the "business cycle".

The present global financial system is nothing more than a very sophisticated Ponzi scam, with several players colluding to game the system to their advantage.

We need to shift the economic paradigm from hyper-consuming "competitive" corporate capitalism to a sustainable co-operative community-based capitalism.

As the workers in industrial countries continue to get pushed down they will awaken to the reality of the system, shut down the current system with strikes and force the needed paradigm shift, we can see the beginning of this with actions like the ILWU's action this past May Day.

Let's get busy, brothers and sisters, there's much work to do.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward,

dead link

The "lead investigator into the Basra incident" -link... "article not found".

Dead link

Yeah! I have just found that.

Daily Mail pulled that quick didn't they, as soon as they knew people were looking.

Must be something in it.

Basra incident - dead link

A link that's not dead - related article

You might also be interested in trying:


I know Raimondo's a jerk when it comes to 9/11, but his coverage of this incident from September 2005 was excellent.


A lot of these comments sound like they are from people who privately question 9/11, but publicly have decided to simply make a general statement to help ward off the worst possible scenario while the Bush/Cheny regime is still in power.

I really feel there are so many people waiting in the wings to publicly announce their support for 9/11 Truth. It's the most courageous and/or solidly convinced ones who are getting on first.

It occurred to me that

the Congress may well be controlled for the most part by select staffers who truly control the office. Thus each freshman senator or congressman is assigned a staffer who really directs what goes on, in much the same way that Cheney holds the real power while Bush is a sort of figure head. It's just one more way of insulating the electorate from the seat of government action.