By Doug Wight

Why has our Peace Movement lacked the ability and will to stop two illegal, immoral, and atrocious wars? Perhaps it is an unwillingness to get out of our comfort zone and take some risks which might make an impact? Perhaps it is an unwillingness to be investigative journalists in order to learn, consider, and address our own U.S. history?

For those of you who are genuinely interested in learning and knowing your own U.S. history,--read Killing Hope by William Blum. Did you know that since 1945, our dear old Uncle Sam has invaded 50 sovereign countries,--overtly and covertly? Another important historical book is called The War On Truth by Nafeez Ahmed, the Executive Director of the Institute for Policy Research and Development in Brighton, England. Did you know the U.S. government has a past history of conducting 8 “false-flag” events starting with the Boston Massacre on March 5, 1770? Better fasten your seat belts folks!

[1] The Boston Massacre (original research by John C. Miller, a Stamford University historian)

“History books and firebrand Sam Adams tell us that The Boston Massacre was a ‘cold-blooded slaughter of defenseless colonists revealing England as irremediably murders and oppressive,’ but Miller’s research suggest another truth. Miller writes:

‘ One morning shortly before that day [March 5, 1770], the citizens of Boston awake to find the streets plastered with notices, signed by many of the British soldiers garrisoned in the town,--that the troops intended to attack the town people. This startling news threw the town into a ferment, for apparently few citizens doubted the genuineness of these papers. These notices were doubtless forgeries made by Sam Adams and his followers and posted during the night by the “Loyal Nine” (a secret group of revolutionary ringleaders) to produce an explosion that would sweep Boston clean of redcoats; for during the “Massacre” trials it is significant that the prosecution did not enter them as evidence of the soldiers’ guilt.

Public rage escalated in response to the posters, increasing the prospect of an impending clash. When a group of British guards chased away some small boys who had been pelting them with snowballs, the situation reached boiling point,--as the guards were soon confronted by a crowd of angry, armed thugs:

‘The square before the courthouse was soon filled with a swearing, turbulent mass of men, many of whom were armed with clubs, staves, and formidable pieces of jagged ice…these stout cudgel-boys had beaten up so many redcoats that the sentry hastily summoned the main guard led by Captain Preston of the 29th Regiment,--which came out eagerly for a fight.

The British troops restrained themselves with difficulty from giving Adam’s “Mohawks” a taste of powder and ball, but when one of them was knocked sprawling by a Patriot brickbat he recovered his gun and fired directly into the mob. Most of the soldiers opened fire,--at Captain Preston’s order, as many of the town’s witnesses later testified,--and after they had emptied their guns five civilians had been killed or mortally wounded.

It was common knowledge, however, that one of those killed had administered an army of 30 sailors armed with clubs in Cornhill (a district in Boston) on the night before March 5 and…it was chiefly his violent assault upon the British troops that had caused the bloodshed.

According to Miller: John Adams was convinced that the “Massacre” was an ‘explosion which had been intentionally wrought up by designing men, who knew what they were aiming at [inciting revolution] better than the instruments employed’…

Evidence was brought out at the trial which raised serious doubt in New England whether the Boston Massacre had not been precipitated by Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty in a desperate effort to turn the troops out of metropolis. Thirty-eight witnesses testified that there had been a civilian plot to attack the soldiers, and the defense put forward evidence proving the townspeople were the aggressors.

Thus, Miller showed how the Boston Massacre was produced by provocation and exploited to legitimize the build-up to war!’ ” [source: Ahmed, Nafeez, The War On Truth, Olive Branch Press, 2005, pp. 376-378]

[2] The Mexican-American War [1846]

“Similarly, the 1846 annexation of Mexico by the U.S. was only able to proceed after the manufacturing of a pretext [for war]. Despite intensive lobbying for a U.S. war with Mexico by Texans,--Northerners disagreed with the idea and actively opposed it. But carefully planned U.S. policies had provoked Mexico into aggressive action, thus tipping the balance in favor of a war. Thirteen-year CIA veteran John Stockwell recalls how:

‘…They offered two dollars-a-head to every soldier who would enlist. They didn’t get enough takers, so they offered 100 acres to anyone who would be a veteran of that war. They still didn’t get enough takers, so (General) Zachary Taylor was sent down to parade up and down the border,--the disputed border,--until the Mexicans fired on him…and the nation rose-up, and we fought the war.’

As noted by the Washington, D.C.-based White House Historical Association, President Polk had intended from the outset to go to war, hoping that a pretext would be provided by a Mexican attack,--but he was willing to wage war without a pretext:

‘Polk sent general Zachary Taylor and 3,500 men down to the Rio Grande River. On May 8, 1846, Polk met with his cabinet at the White House and told them if the Mexican army attacked the U.S. forces, he was going to send a message to Congress asking for a declaration of war. It was decided that war should be declared in 3 days even if there was no attack. When Polk went downstairs, members of Congress were waiting. They told the president the news that fighting had begun between Mexico and the United States. Polk closed the door of the White House and carefully wrote his war message. It was delivered to Congress on May 11 and two days later Congress declared was against Mexico. Eventually, the U.S. would seize Texas, New Mexico, and California [as well as parts of Arizona, Nevada, Kansas, and Oklahoma].’

Northern opposition leaders denounced the war as an immoral land grab against a weak neighbor. The critics claimed that President Polk had deliberately provoked Mexico into war by ordering American troops into disputed territory [to threaten and incite Mexico to war]. They also argued that the conflict was an expansionist plan [Manifest Destiny] by southern slave owners intent on acquiring more land for cotton cultivation and more slave states. [David Henry Thoreau wrote a historically significant essay entitled “Civil Disobedience” and stated that when your government violates the law by starting illegal wars or administrating other illegal activities,--citizens are morally bound by their conscience to oppose such vile governments,--even if government laws are broken to do so]. [source: Ibid., p.378]

[3] Remember The Maine [1898]

[President McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt who was Secretary of the Navy, and others had designs on expanding America’s global reach for power and empire. The U.S battleship Maine was intentionally sent to Havana Harbor so it could be exploded, blamed on Spain, and used as a pretext to declare war on Spain so Cuba, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Guam could be seized].

“The sinking of the Maine provides another example of [our government’s] pattern [of conducting false-flag incidents]. The Spanish-American War was sparked when the U.S. military stationed a navy vessel,--the Maine,--in Havana Harbor. The Maine exploded, resulting in the deaths of 266 crew members. The incident was blamed on Spain, generating a pretext for military action resulting in the expansion of the U.S. empire.

[“Yellow Journalism” by the American press, spurred on by Randolph Hersh and Joseph Pulitzer, incited an enraged American public who then sought revenge and supported Congress’s formal declaration of war on April 25, 1898].

“The Spanish-American War included an attack on the fleet at the Spanish naval base in the Philippines, ultimately leading to U.S. occupation of the islands [as intended]. Combs refers to the work of another historian, Philip S. Foner, who concluded that the entire purpose of the war was to expand the U.S. empire,--with the Maine being sent to Spanish waters as a deliberate provocation.” [source: Ibid., p. 379]

[4] The Sinking Of The Lusitania [1915]

[The vast majority of Americans were dead-set against entering WWI, but Great Britain under Prime Minister Churchill wanted the help of the U.S. and our military wanted to be involved. Obviously, another “false-flag” incident in which American citizens were killed would be needed to turn the tide of public opinion. It was well-known to German intelligence, because the U.S. leaked the intelligence to the Germans, that American arms and munitions were in the hold of the Lusitania,--a direct violation of the Neutrality Act].

“In the sinking of the Lusitania, which was instrumental in turning the tide toward U.S. entry into the First World War,--there is evidence of a degree of executive connivance [President Wilson] in the atrocity. On May 7, 1915, a German sub (U-boat) fired upon a British passenger ship, the Lusitania,--killing 1,198 civilians,--including 128 Americans. Radio journalist Ed Rippy notes that: ‘It was clear that the liner might be a target and that President Wilson nevertheless dissuaded Congress from officially warning U.S. citizens from traveling aboard British ships [all the warning notices in New York City were torn down]. Although the U.S. did not immediately enter the war, the sinking of the Lusitania definitely altered public opinion in favor of war].

‘The U.S. government’s decision to avoid protecting its own citizens was the final step in a process that had been largely inspired by the United Kingdom. Prime Minister Churchill had previously commissioned “ a study to determine the political impact if an ocean liner were sunk with Americans on board.” Only a week before the Lusitania sunk, Churchill wrote to the President of Trade that: “(It is) most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores, in the hope especially of embroiling the U.S. with Germany. Ralph Raico, professor of history at Buffalo State College, further observes that: “Many highly-placed persons in Britain and America believed that the German sinking of the Lusitania would bring the U.S. into the war.”

[British Admiralty was aware that German U-boat captains had been informed of the Lusitania sailing from New York to Britain, yet no destroyer escort was sent to accompany the liner to port nor was any warning to the Lusitania’s captain ever issued].

‘No effective steps were taken to protect the Lusitania,’ Beesly concludes, ‘therefore I am reluctantly driven to the conclusion that there was a conspiracy deliberately hatched to put the Lusitania at risk in the hope that even an abortive attempt on her would bring the U.S. into the war. Such a conspiracy could not have been put into effect without Winston Churchill’s express permission and approval.’

‘In this case, then, it was both the American and British governments’ cooperation to allow a catastrophe to occur, killing and injuring U.S. citizens,-with the specific goal of pulling the U.S. into the conflict.’[source: Ibid., p.381]

[5] Pearl Harbor (December 7, 1941)

[The American public has long been told that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a complete surprise. De-classified documents now reveal that government disinformation has fabricated one of the greatest myths in United States history. In truth, the FDR administration intentionally incited Japan to attack the U.S. at Pearl so we could enter WWII].

“ ‘There is no reasonable doubt that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 was deliberately provoked and allowed to happen in order to generate U.S. public support for entry into WW II,’ observes Rippy. The History Channel recently aired a BBC-produced documentary, Betrayal at Pearl harbor, which demonstrated,--using declassified top secret U.S. documents and other historical records,--that President Franklin Roosevelt and his chief military advisers anticipated a Japanese surprise attack on the U.S.’

‘Detailed documentation has been provided by Robert Stinnett in his authoritative study, Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor. Stinnett served in the U.S. Navy from 1942-46 where he earned 10 battle stars and a Presidential Unit Citation. Examining recently declassified U.S. documents, Stinnett concludes that far more than merely knowing of the Japanese plan to bomb Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt deliberately steered Japan into war with America. Stinnett’s work is based on 17 years of archival research along with interviews with U.S. Navy cryptographers,--gathering a total of over 200,000 documents and interviews.’

‘By the summer of 1940, although Roosevelt’s advisors had concluded that a German victory over England would threaten the U.S., Canada, and much of South America,--polls showed that ‘a majority of Americans did not want the country involved in Europe’s wars. Many sources indicate that Roosevelt wanted to transform public opinion in favor of entry into the Second World War. According to T. North Whitehead, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s advisor on U.S. affairs: ‘America is not in the bag. However, the President is engaged in carefully calculated steps to give us full assistance.’ Then commander in Chief of the U.S. Fleet, Admiral James O. Richardson, after an extensive discussion with FDR in the Oval Office, later quoted him as saying that “sooner or later the Japanese would commit an overt act against the U.S. and the nation would be willing to enter the war.”

‘Stinnett further summarizes his case as follows: ‘Lieutenant Commander Arthur McCollum, a U.S. Naval officer in the Office of Naval Intelligence, saw an opportunity to counter the U.S. anti-war movement by provoking Japan into a state of war with the U.S.,--and triggering the mutual assistant provisions of the Tripartite Pact. Memorialized in a secret memo dated October 7, 1940, McCollum’s proposal called for eight provocations aimed at Japan. President Roosevelt acted swiftly, and throughout 1941, implemented the remaining seven provocations. Lieutenant commander McCollum, one of the nation’s top experts on Japan, prepared his eight-step plan for provoking war with Japan in a memo for two of Roosevelt’s most trusted military advisors,--reading as follows:


Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of British bases in the Pacific, particularly Singapore;

Make an arrangement with Holland for the use of base facilities and acquisition of supplies in the Dutch east Indies [now Indonesia];

Give all possible aid to the Chinese government of Chiang Kai-shek;

Send a division of long-range heavy cruisers to the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore;

Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient;

Keep the main strength of the U.S. fleet, now in the Pacific, in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands [Pearl Harbor];

Insist the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic concessions, particularly oil;

Completely embargo all trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed by the British Empire [placing an embargo on a country’s oil is considered an act of war all by itself].

‘It is a matter of historical record, well-documented by Stinnet,--that almost every detail of these steps was subsequently carried out by the Roosevelt administration.’

The case has also been put well from another perspective by David S. Borgquist, a U.S. Naval Reserve public affairs officer and a media affairs officer for the community relations service headquarters at the Justice Department:

‘President Franklin D. Roosevelt requested the national office of the American Red Cross to send medical supplies secretly to Pearl Harbor in advance of the 7 December 1941 Japanese attack… Don C. Smith, who directed the War Service for the Red Cross before WW II and was deputy administrator of services to the armed forces from 1942-1946, when he became administrator, apparently knew about the timing of the Pearl Harbor attack in advance. Unfortunately, Smith died in 1990 at age 98. But when his daughter, Helen E. Hamman, saw news coverage of efforts by the families of Admiral Kimmel and Walter Short to restore the two Pearl harbor commanders posthumously to what the families contend to be their deserved ranks, she wrote a letter to President Bill Clinton on 5 September 1995. Recalling a conversation with her father, Hamman wrote:

“…Shortly before the attack in 1941, President Roosevelt called him (Smith) to the White House for a meeting concerning a Top Secret matter. At this meeting the President advised my father that his intelligence staff had informed him of a pending attack on Pearl Harbor, by the Japanese. He anticipated many casualties and much loss, so he instructed my father to send workers and supplies to a holding area at a P.O.E. [port of entry] on the West Coast where they would await further orders to ship out; no destination was revealed. He left no doubt in my father’s mind that none of the Naval and Military officials in Hawaii were to be informed and he was not to advise the Red Cross officers who were already stationed in the area. When he protested to the President, President Roosevelt told him that the American people would never agree to enter the war in Europe unless they were attacked within their own borders…”

‘He [Smith] was privy to Top Secret operations and worked directly with all of our outstanding leaders. He followed the orders of his President and spent many later years contemplating this action which he considered ethically and morally wrong.’

[It is also well-documented that U.S. Naval Intelligence had broken the Japanese Communications Code a full year before the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor, had advance knowledge of Japan’s impending attack on Pearl, and intentionally failed to notify our military there. In addition, every single one of our aircraft carriers was intentionally placed “out to sea”].

‘The White House followed the Japanese war plans through the intercepted and decoded diplomatic and military communications intelligence. At least 1,000 Japanese radio messages per day were intercepted by monitoring stations operated by the U.S. and her Allies, and the message contents were summarized for the White House. The intercept summaries from Station CAST on Corregidor Island were current,--contrary to the assertion of some who claim that the messages were not decoded and translated until years later,--and they were clear: Pearl Harbor would be attacked on December 7, 1941, by Japanese forces advancing through the Central and North Pacific Oceans.’ [source: Ibid., pp. 382-385]

[My Dad and Uncle Doug were traveling by car in Troy, N.Y., on December 7, 1941, when FDR made his famous speech on the radio about how “this day will long live in infamy”. Although staunch Republicans,--they were instantly infuriated and swore to sign-up to fight the Japanese the following day. Although the vast majority of the American public were opposed to entering WW II,--the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor,--much like the alleged attacks by alQaeda on September 11, 2001,--immediately angered most Americans who sought revenge. These attacks were then used as a pretext to justify waging war on Afghanistan and Iraq. Only days after the September 11 attacks, George Tenet, Director of the CIA, was ordered by the Bush administration to link Saddam Hussein to alQaeda and the 911 attacks].

The Caspian Red Sea Basin holds $5 trillion worth of oil and natural gas reserves, but it’s all landlocked. In order to transport this oil and natural gas out to the Indian Ocean to tankers, the U.S. needed a friendly government in Afghanistan. The U.S. backed president of Afghanistan is a man named Karcai, a former top oil executive with Unical Oil in California. The United States now has a new oil pipeline leading from the Caspian Red Sea Basin across Afghanistan out to the ocean and three new military bases at the beginning, middle, and end to protect it. Several weeks before the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration said it planned on attacking Afghanistan by October 15, 2001. At the end of the day on 9/11/01, President Bush wrote in his diary that the U.S. has just experienced another “Pearl Harbor”. According to the “Project For A New American Century”, a blunt, unabashed account for achieving total world dominance of outer space, earth space, and cyber space by the U.S., [see google]--none of this “project” would be possible without another cataclysmic event like “Pearl Harbor”.

Isn’t it quite possible that our government wanted the September 11, 2001, attacks to succeed so they could justify two new resource wars? At the very least, we all should be mighty damn suspicious of this nefarious government that lied to us over 935 times in the lead-up to the Iraq War and demand a new, impartial, independent investigation based on all the factual evidence that has been uncovered since 9/11/01,--as well as the 115 significant questions that have not been asked by our media, Congress, or any investigative body].

[6] Operation Northwoods (1962)

“Declassified secret documents reveal that top levels of the U.S. military proposed carrying out acts of terrorism within U.S. cities in the early 1960’s in order to drag the U.S. into a war against Cuba. These revelations have been extensively documented in a study by U.S. national security expert James Bamford, a former investigative reporter for ABC News In his book, Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency, Bamford records that the Joint Chiefs of Staff ‘proposed launching a secret and bloody war of terrorism against their own country in order to trick the American public into supporting an ill-conceived war they intended to launch against Cuba…[T] he Joint Chiefs of staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government.’

‘The terrorism plan, called “Operation Northwoods”, is laid out in documents signed by the five Joint Chiefs but never carried out. The overall Pentagon project [for invading Cuba and killing Castro] was known as Operation Mongoose and was the responsibility of Edward Lansdale, deputy director of the Pentagon’s Office of Special Operations,--and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Army General Lyman Lemnitzer.’

‘General Lyman L. Lemnitzer presented the Operation Northwoods plan to President Kennedy early in 1962. Bamford records that the president rejected the plan that March because he wanted no overt U.S. military action against Cuba. Lemnitzer then sought unsuccessfully to destroy all evidence of the plan [just like all the remaining structural steel from the World Trade Center attacks that was immediately scrapped-up and shipped to South Korea and China before forensic tests could be run to see what destroyed it. Destroying critical crime-scene evidence is a felony. Who ordered this to be done?] U.S. military planners under Lemnitzer’s leadership had aimed to launch a full-scale invasion of Cuba to overthrow Castro.’

[Our own top five generals and Pentagon were willing to murder Americans and blame it on Castro to justify an invasion of Cuba. Isn’t it simply amazing what vicious and nefarious measures world governments will undertake for to secure power and wealth? Operation Mongoose and Northwoods were deliberately designed and intended to terrorize Americans and place them in a state of fear,--to hate Castro and desire revenge against Cuba in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. After a “false-flag” terrorist event had been perpetrated on the American people by its own government, our press would then be ordered to beat an incessant war drum demanding an invasion of Cuba. Foreign nations would jump on the band wagon or have their objections be neutralized. Doesn’t this sound all too familiar people?

At the Nuremberg Trials at the end of WW II, Goebbels, the German Minister of Propaganda, testified that all a government has to do is convince its people that it’s about to be attacked by its enemies and then it can do anything it wants. Fear serves as great cover for nefarious government incidents. Governments have been fabricating these kinds of “false-flag” events as an inciter for war since the Roman Empire.]

‘Lemnitzer’s covering memorandum states that the Joint Chiefs of Staff “have considered” an attached memorandum constituting a ‘description of pretexts which would provide justification for military intervention in Cuba.’ The attached memorandum, entitled “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba,” asserts that a political decision for a U.S. military intervention ‘will from a period of heightened U.S.,--Cuban tensions which place the United States in the position of suffering justifiable grievances.’ World opinion and the United Nations ‘should be favorably affected by developing the image of the Cuban government as rash and irresponsible,--as an alarming and unpredictable threat to the peace of the Western world.’ ”

‘We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington, D.C.,’ said one document prepared by the Joint Chiefs of staff. ‘We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay [remember the Maine] and blame Cuba. Casualty lists in the U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of indignation [hatred and revenge]. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots [airports and subways], the arrests of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents also would be helpful…We could sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated).’

Other proposals included the idea of using fake Soviet Mig aircraft [U.S. jets altered to look like Soviet jets] to harass civil aircraft, to attack surface shipping, and to destroy U.S. military drone aircraft. “Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft” were recommended, along with the idea of shooting down a CIA plane designed to simulate a passenger flight and announce that Cuban forces shot it down.’

[All of this sounds ominously like the September 11 attacks,--using drones to simulate domestic American flights, steering them into major U.S. symbols of economic power, and then blaming these attacks on a convenient target,--Arab and Moslem extremists,--to justify two illegal, unnecessary invasions. According to John Stockwell, a 13 year CIA veteran, America must always have an enemy, and will invent one if necessary. Obviously, as our past U.S. history clarifies,--the Pentagon (military) and intelligence complex are perfectly comfortable with the idea of murdering its own citizens for some military, economic, or geopolitical gain. The willingness of the U.S. government to send hundreds of thousands of our young men to their death and destruction in Vietnam is proof positive of this sad but correct assertion.

Isn’t it also possible that the 911 attacks were used as a justification to attack and invade Afghanistan and Iraq,--for oil, natural gas, and to expand our military grip on the Middle East while establishing both a military and economic foothold in the Caspian Red Sea Basin? And since Saddam Hussein wanted to charge more for his oil and sell it in Euros instead of dollars,--isn’t it possible that the September 11 attacks were also used to justify the bombing and invasion of Iraq,--to kill/capture Saddam and take control of Iraq’s oil?]

‘The primary value of analyzing the plan hatched by the Joint Chiefs of Staff outlined in the Northwoods document is in providing direct proof of the U.S. military and intelligence infrastructure’s willingness to resort to the long-standing method of,--according to Professor John McMurtry at the University of Guelph and a fellow at the Royal Society of Canada: ‘Provoking or constructing shocking attacks on U.S. symbols of power to provide the pretext and public rage to launch wars of aggression against convenient and weaker enemies by which very major and many-leveled gains are achieved for the U.S. corporate-military complex.’ [source: Ibid., p.385]

[7] The Gulf of Tonkin (August 7, 1964)

“‘The U.S. bombing of North Vietnam officially began in response to North Vietnam aggression. The official story was that North Vietnam torpedo boats had launched an “unprovoked attack” against a U.S. destroyer on “routine patrol” in the Tonkin Gulf on August 2, 1964, and that North Vietnam PT boats followed up with a “deliberate attack” on a pair of U.S. ships two days later.’ [This concocted story was released to the American and world press as a deliberate pretext for war against North Vietnam. Since our FBI and CIA said they had no idea the 9/11/01, attacks were coming, yet had a complete dossier on the 19 accused hijackers ready in less than two hours for release to the American and world press,--isn’t it likely that that these “terrorist” attacks were being deliberately used as a pretext for two unpopular wars?]

As noted by historian Professor Mark P. Bradley at the University of Wisconsin, however,--the official story was a lie that generated a pretext for U.S. expansion of the war:

‘The Gulf of Tonkin, near the northern Vietnam coast, was the site of one of the key incidents that deepened American involvement in the war in Vietnam. In what is known as the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, the American government claimed that Vietnamese patrol boats fired on the U.S. destroyer Maddox,…on two separate occasions in early August 1964 in the waters of the Gulf of Tonkin. Although later serious questions were raised about the nature and even the existence of one of the attacks, President Lyndon Johnson seized the opportunity to secure a Congressional resolution authorizing him to take ‘all necessary measures to repel armed attacks against the forces of the United states and to prevent further aggression in Vietnam. This authorization, often called the ‘gulf of Tonkin resolution,’ essentially provided the Johnson administration with a blank check for further expansion of the war without having to seek additional Congressional approval.’

At a Washington, D.C., conference of American veterans, historians, and scholars sponsored by the Vietnam veterans Institute, former Johnson administrative official Daniel Ellsberg revealed that the administration had indeed lied to Congress about the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

‘Did McNamara lie to Congress in 1964? I can answer that question. Yes, he did lie, and I knew it at the time. I was working for John McNaughton. I was his special assistant. He was Assistant Secretary of Defense For International Security Affairs. He knew McNamara had lied. McNamara knew he had lied. He is still lying! [Former Secretary of State Dean] Rusk and McNamara testified to Congress…prior to their vote [on a declaration of war against North Vietnam]…Congress was being lied to…what was to be used as a formal declaration of war. I knew that [it was all a big lie]…I don’t look back on that situation with pride.’” [source: Ibid., pp. 387-389]

[A number of researchers and writers have indicated that the Vietnam War was not predicated on stopping the advance of Communism (The Domino Theory), but a deliberate attempt to forge both an economic and military foothold in the Far East. Once again it seems that Professor Clare is right when he says: “Every war is an economic resource war”.]

[8] Persian Gulf War I (1990)

[April Gillespie, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, was asked by her Iraqi counterpart if the U.S. would object if Iraq waged war against Kuwait for illegally slant drilling to steal Iraq’s oil,--which had been going on for over 10 years? Gillespie was ordered by President H.W. Bush to inform Iraq that America doesn’t interfere in border disputes and regional wars between neighboring antagonists. Thus, the Bush I administration gave tacit approval for Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait. Due to Bush’s long-standing, close relationship with Kuwait,--Persian Gulf I qualifies as a “false-flag” incident because Bush wanted this war to happen and deliberately helped to create it. President Gorbochoff of Russia had reached an agreed upon settlement between Iraq and Kuwait which would have prevented war on Iraq, but this was quickly dismissed by the Bush administration.

Besides protecting Bush family oil interests and U.S. oil interests, George H.W. Bush was also looking to rectify our demoralizing and shameful loss in Vietnam with an easy victory against Iraq. After the Persian Gulf War and his presidency were over, George Walker Herbert Bush and his cronies went to Kuwait seeking pay-back for rescuing their Kuwaiti “oil buddies”,--and did so by firming up a multi-million dollar oil deal. Thus, the true American history must show that President H.W. Bush wanted Saddam Hussein to attack Kuwait and intentionally helped to incite it with nefarious information]. [source: google]

Why Must The September 11th Attacks Be Thoroughly Questioned?

Truth is a fundamental principle of American freedom and democracy. Without truth there can be no clarity,--and without clarity no intelligent decision making can ever be made by “We the People”. In many ways, our America was founded on the principle of truth. Thomas Paine’s book, Common Sense, was based on truth,--which is why it had such national appeal. Therefore, “the truth”, must always be pursued because it is inherently essential to freedom and democracy everywhere throughout the world.

The facts and information provided by the U.S. government related to the 9/11 attacks simple don’t measure up with the facts and documentary evidence collected to date. During the first 9/11 commission hearing, 115 important questions were never asked and the co-chairmen Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton admitted these hearings were “doomed from the start”!

Our government told us two planes hit World trade center buildings 1 and 2, yet building number 7 fell down even though no plane hit it. How can that be possible? Our government told us that the jet fires from the plane-bombs burned so hot that the steel melted and the floors pan caked down on each other. History proves that no fire in civilization has ever brought down a steel-reinforced high rise. A high rise building in Spain burned for 18 hours and didn’t fall down. Also, physics 101 shows that all oxygen-fed fires can only burn to a maximum of 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit, yet steel doesn’t begin to melt or bend until 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit,--so our government’s story is pure horse spit. Over 400 U.S. professional architects and engineers say our government is violating the laws of physics which their bogus story

Our government and corporately owned media also told us that a huge domestic plane hit the Pentagon, yet the diameter of the hole measured only 18 feet. How can this be? Our government told us that 19 alleged Arab/Moslem hijackers were responsible for the September 11 attacks, yet professional pilots say it would have been impossible for these inexperienced men to have flown these huge planes down from 30,000 feet to 1,000 feet, executed a very difficult 220 degree banking maneuver, and then hit these building square in the middle. Once, again, the government’s story don’t measure up to the facts and what actually happened.

Our government told us Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania, yet parts of this plane were found scattered over 8 miles. How can this be unless it was shot down? A small number of investors placed “put options” on American and United Airlines just days prior to the 9/11 attacks and made a cool 15 billion dollars. How can this be unless they had “insider” information? And why won’t our government release this vital information? And why doesn’t our Congress and press demand that this key information be released? What are they all covering up people? Many other significant but unanswered questions can be found at Remember, only the truth can set you free!

Our Country’s Repeated Pattern Of Wars Reveals Terrorism As A Historical Geostrategy

“War is business by other means,” the German philosopher Bertold Brech said!

This review of United States history proves that many of the wars in which the U.S. has been involved were justified based on deliberately contrived provocations and/or fabri- cated attacks on U.S. symbols of power. This pattern of systematic war strategy through- out U.S. history clearly indicates that “false-flag” terrorism is intrinsic to the basic struc- ture of U.S. foreign policy decision-making institutions as a preferred geopolitical option.

“While many would consider the findings of this study to be contrary to the general course of U.S. policy, there is in fact long-standing historical precedence for this policy. Indeed, it is a matter of public record that the U.S. government and military intelligence apparatus has in the past deliberately provoked or permitted attacks on U.S. symbols of power in order to justify U.S. military action. Professor john McMurtry explains why this is true:

‘Shocking attacks on symbols of American power as a pretext for aggressive war is, in fact, an old and familiar pattern of the American corporate state [military-industrial-Congressional-complex]. Even the sacrifice of thousands of ordinary Americans [like the 1,800 who drowned on the battleship Arizona at Pearl Harbor] is not new, although so many people have never died so very fast [like the 2,752 on 9/11/01].’

‘The possibility that the Bush/Cheney administration had ample warning of the 9/11 attacks but deliberately refused to act [or somehow aided these attacks] in order to generate a pretext for the consolidation of the U.S. corporate-military complex should not be discounted, especially in light of this well-documented historical record [of previous false-flag incidents],--which illustrate that such a policy is nothing new [in U.S. history]. On the contrary, McMurtry rightly notes that it is systematic!’

‘In that context, it is perfectly reasonable to consider the possibility that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were the outcome of the same sort of geostrategic thinking [and action],--rooted in long-standing political, social, and economic forms,--that gave rise to previous U.S. operations along a similar framework.’” [source: Ibid., pp. 389-390; 375-376].

In Killing Hope, author William Blum documents 44 overt and covert invasions of sovereign countries by the U.S. between 1945 and 2000. Once again, Blum’s research support’s Professor McMurtry’s contention that the September 11, 2001, attacks were right in line with a long litany of U.S. attacks as an intentional geopolitical strategy to increase corporate and military wealth and power throughout the world. A correct reading of “The Project For The New American Century”, especially if “power-dominance to control” is substituted for “American leadership”,--certainly confirms our deliberate geopolitical strategy to a T. Both of our wars against Afghanistan and Iraq are resource wars [oil and natural gas] as well as attempts to dominate and control the Caspian red sea Basin and Middle East through military expansion. Since 2001, the U.S. has built over 25 new military bases in Iraq, Israel, and Afghanistan to with the over 1,800 we already have located in 140 countries manned by one million military personnel. If this isn’t a viable definition of an “Imperialist Empire”, I don’t know what is.

Clearly, as even our corporately owned media now admits, the people of America were lied to 935 times in the lead-up to the Iraq War. Why then would anyone with half a dinosaur’s brain believe that this very same government told us the truth regarding the 911 attacks? Such thinking is idiotic and defies common sense logic. Thomas Paine’s book Common Sense, which helped Americans to unite in their fight for independence, was based on common sense logic and truth. It’s high time our country returned to one of our bedrock principles from 1776,--knowing and valuing the truth.

“We the People” continue to be duped by these “false-flag” events because we don’t know our own history! And those who fail to learn from the mistakes of history are bound to repeat them. Therefore, if we fail to pursue the truth by demanding a new, honest, impartial, independent, fact-driven investigation to discover what truly happened on 9/11/01,--we are in store for many more government sponsored terrorist events as a justification for unnecessary resource wars.

If “We the People” truly value peace over war,--then we must value the pursuit of truth over apathy and those who say we don’t need to know,--for without truth there can never be any real freedom or peace for anyone on Earth.

Two more false flag operations with US involvement..

1) Operation Gladio/Strategy of Tension (use of murderous false flag terror attacks in Western Europe during the cold war to demonize leftists and communist politicians and political parties):

The Strategy of Tension

We are at War

against International Terrorism,

defending our Values

and our Civilization.

Western anti-terror legislation does not allow the state to be considered in any way culpable for terrorist activities. As far as our elected representatives are concerned, terrorism is a problem of loosely associated groups of reactionary fanatics “attacking our freedoms”. The assumption, never explicitly stated for then it would be revealed, and easily and permanently ridiculed, is that the state is innocent, immune to indulging in such barbaric practices. Written into the rule of law itself, this assumption posits the state as a paternal Fuhrer, a God figure whom we must all entrust our lives and liberties to.

Yet whichever way you look at it, international terrorism has its origins in the state itself. There are many ways of understanding this, but perhaps the most pertinent for our purposes is contemporary history. We don’t need to go very far back either. Only twenty odd years, to the era of the Cold War, when we were also getting Trigger-Happy trying to defend the “Free World” from the “Evil Empire” of International Communism, as Ronald Reagan put it so aptly.

The “strategy of tension” denotes a highly secretive series of interconnected covert operations conducted jointly by the CIA and MI6 largely in Western Europe during the this period. Well-documented by several respected historians, confirmed by official inquiries, and corroborated by former intelligence officials, the “strategy of tension” is one of those unsavoury moments in contemporary history that we don’t learn about in school, or even university.

My favourite book on the subject, and the most authoritative in my view, is Dr. Daniele Ganser’s NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe (2004). Published in the UK as part of the “Contemporary Security Studies” series of London-based academic press Routledge, Ganser’s study is the first major historical work to bring the “strategy of tension” into the mainstream of scholarship.

During the Cold War, indeed through to the late 1980s, the United States, United Kingdom, and Western European governments and secret services, participated in a sophisticated NATO-backed operation to engineer terrorist attacks inside Western Europe, to be blamed on the Soviet Union. The objective was to galvanize public opinion against leftwing policies and parties, and ultimately to mobilize popular support for purportedly anti-Soviet policies at home and abroad – most of which were really designed to legitimize brutal military interventions against nationalist independence movements in the “Third World”.


The existence of this secret operation exploded into public controversy when in August 1990 upon the admissions in parliament by Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti, the existence of ‘Gladio’ was exposed as a secret sub-section of Italian military-intelligence services, responsible for domestic bombings blamed on Italian Communists. Ganser documents in intricate detail how a subversive network created by elements of western intelligence services – particularly that of the US and UK - orchestrated devastating waves of terrorist attacks blamed on the Soviet Union, not only in Italy, but also in Spain, Germany, France, Turkey, Greece, i.e. throughout western Europe. Despite a number of European parliamentary inquiries; an European Union resolution on the Gladio phenomenon; NATO’s close-doors admissions to European ambassadors; confirmations of the international operation from senior CIA officials; and other damning documentary evidence; NATO, the CIA and MI6 have together consistently declined to release their secret files on the matter.

See also:
Sword Play

By Chris Floyd

02/18/05 "Moscow Times" - - 'You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force ... the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security."

This was the essence of Operation Gladio, a decades-long covert campaign of terrorism and deceit directed by the intelligence services of the West -- against their own populations. Hundreds of innocent people were killed or maimed in terrorist attacks -- on train stations, supermarkets, cafes and offices -- which were then blamed on "leftist subversives" or other political opponents. The purpose, as stated above in sworn testimony by Gladio agent Vincenzo Vinciguerra, was to demonize designated enemies and frighten the public into supporting ever-increasing powers for government leaders -- and their elitist cronies.

First revealed by Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti in 1991, Gladio (from the Latin for "sword") is still protected to this day by its founding patrons, the CIA and MI6. Yet parliamentary investigations in Italy, Switzerland and Belgium have shaken out a few fragments of the truth over the years. These have been gathered in a new book, "NATO's Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe," by Daniele Ganser, as Lila Rajiva reports on

Originally set up as a network of clandestine cells to be activated behind the lines in the event of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, Gladio quickly expanded into a tool for political repression and manipulation, directed by NATO and Washington. Using right-wing militias, underworld figures, government provocateurs and secret military units, Gladio not only carried out widespread terrorism, assassinations and electoral subversion in democratic states such as Italy, France and West Germany, but also bolstered fascist tyrannies in Spain and Portugal, abetted the military coup in Greece and aided Turkey's repression of the Kurds.

2) Operation Ajax (Overthrow of democratically elected Iranian PM Mohammed Mussadeq and his replacement with a dictatorship headed by the the Shah)

A 'great venture': overthrowing the government of Iran
by Mark Curtis

This is a slightly abridged version of part of chapter four of Mark Curtis's book The Ambiguities of Power: British Foreign Policy since 1945 (Zed Press, 1995).

In August 1953 a coup overthrew Iran's nationalist government of Mohammed Musaddiq and installed the Shah in power. The Shah subsequently used widespread repression and torture in a dictatorship that lasted until the 1979 Islamic revolution. The 1953 coup is conventionally regarded primarily as a CIA operation, yet the planning record reveals not only that Britain was the prime mover in the initial project to overthrow the government but also that British resources contributed significantly to the eventual success of the operation. Two first-hand accounts of the Anglo-American sponsorship of the coup - by the MI6 and CIA officers primarily responsible for it - are useful in reconstructing events. (1) Many of the secret planning documents that reveal the British role have been removed from public access and some of them remain closed until the next century - for reasons of 'national security'. Nevertheless, a fairly clear picture still emerges. Churchill later told the CIA officer responsible for the operation that he 'would have loved nothing better than to have served under your command in this great venture'. (2)


The coup decision is taken

The go-ahead for the coup was finally given by the US in late June - Britain by then already having presented a 'complete plan' to the CIA (54) - and Churchill's authorisation soon followed, the date being set for mid-August. (55) That month, the head of the CIA operation met with the Shah, the CIA director visited some members of the Shah's family in Switzerland, whilst a US army general arrived in Tehran to meet 'old friends', among them the Shah and General Zahidi. (56)

When the coup scenario finally began, huge demonstrations proceeded in the streets of Tehran, funded by CIA and MI6 money, $1 million dollars of which was in a safe in the US embassy (57) and £1.5 million which had been delivered by Britain to its agents in Iran, according to the MI6 officer responsible for delivering it. (58)

According to then CIA officer Richard Cottam, 'that mob that came into north Tehran and was decisive in the overthrow was a mercenary mob. It had no ideology. That mob was paid for by American dollars.' (59) One key aspect of the plot was to portray the demonstrating mobs as supporters of the Communist Party - Tudeh - in order to provide a suitable pretext for the coup and the assumption of control by the Shah. Cottam observes that agents working on behalf of the British 'saw the opportunity and sent the people we had under our control into the streets to act as if they were Tudeh. They were more than just provocateurs, they were shock troops, who acted as if they were Tudeh people throwing rocks at mosques and priests'. (60) 'The purpose', Brian Lapping explains, 'was to frighten the majority of Iranians into believing that a victory for Mussadeq would be a victory for the Tudeh, the Soviet Union and irreligion' (61) (my emphasis /stewball)

The head of the CIA operation also sent envoys to the commanders of some provincial armies, encouraging them to move on to Tehran. (62) In the fighting in the capital, 300 people were killed before Musaddiq's supporters were defeated by the Shah's forces. AUS general later testified that 'the guns they had in their hands, the trucks they rode in, the armoured cars that they drove through the streets, and the radio communications that permitted their control, were all furnished through the [US] military defence assistance program'. (63)

'All in all', US Iran analyst Barry Rubin comments, 'only five Americans with a half-dozen Iranian contacts had organised the entire uprising'. (64) The British input, however, had clearly been significant. One Iranian agent of the British - Shahpour Reporter, who subsequently served as adviser to the Shah - was later rewarded with a knighthood, before becoming a chief middleman for British arms sales to Iran, in particular for the manufacturers of Chieftain tanks and Rapier missiles. (65) Two years after the coup, the head of the MI6 end of the operation became Director of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, one of Britain's leading 'independent' academic research institutes. (66)