The “War On Terror” Has Changed, and Not One In 1,000 Americans Has Noticed... We're now fighting alongside Al Qaeda.

Posted on by WashingtonsBlog

What You Should Know about this “Unthinkable” Development…

In George Orwell’s novel 1984,  the country of Oceania has been in a war against Eurasia for years.

Oceania suddenly switches sides, naming Eastasia as its enemy and making its mortal enemy, Eurasia, its new ally.

The government uses propaganda to convince people that, “We’ve always been at war with Eastasia”.  The dumbed-down public doesn’t even notice that they’ve switches sides, and blindly rallies around Eurasia as its perennial friend and ally.

The same thing is happening in real life with Al Qaeda.

Western governments and mainstream media have admitted that Al Qaeda is fighting against the secular Syrian government, and that the West is supporting the Syrian opposition … which is helping Al Qaeda.

Similarly, the opposition which overthrew Libya’s Gadaffi was mainly Al Qaeda … and they now appear to be in control of Libya (and are instrumental in fighting in Syria.)

The U.S. also funds terrorist groups within Iran.

Of course, Al Qaeda was blamed for 9/11, and the entire decades-long “War on Terror” was premised on rooting out Al Qaeda and related groups.

So the fact that we now consider Al Qaeda fighters to be allies in any way, shape or form is positively Orwellian.

Remember, as Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser admitted on CNN, we organized and supported Bin Laden and the other originators of “Al Qaeda” in the 1970s to fight the Soviets.  (he also told the Senate in 2007 that the war on terror is “a mythical historical narrative”. )

As professor of strategy at the Naval War College and former National Security Agency intelligence analyst and counterintelligence officer John R. Schindler documents, the U.S. supported Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda terrorists in Bosnia.

But obviously we lost control and they turned against us … and then it took us years to hunt down and kill Bin Laden. Right?

Maybe, but:

  • A retired Colonel and Fox News military analyst said

    “We know, with a 70 percent level of certainty — which is huge in the world of intelligence — that in August of 2007, bin Laden was in a convoy headed south from Tora Bora. We had his butt, on camera, on satellite. We were listening to his conversations. We had the world’s best hunters/killers — Seal Team 6 — nearby. We had the world class Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) coordinating with the CIA and other agencies. We had unmanned drones overhead with missiles on their wings; we had the best Air Force on the planet, begging to drop one on the terrorist. We had him in our sights; we had done it ….Unbelievably, and in my opinion, criminally, we did not kill Usama bin Laden.”

  • A United States Congressman claims that the Bush administration intentionally let Bin Laden escape in order to justify the Iraq war

The shenanigans started even before 9/11:

  • Attacks on the Twin Towers with planes were foreseen for years, but the U.S. did nothing to stop them.
  • A high-level military intelligence officer says that his unit – tasked with tracking Bin Laden prior to 9/11 – was pulled off the task, and their warnings that the World Trade Center and Pentagon were being targeted were ignored
  • The CIA may have helped many of the 9/11 hijackers get their visas to the U.S.


We’ve always been at war with Eastasia …


I had heard this but......

It still hurts my head.

Though this is unsurprising,

Though this is unsurprising, it begs the question of how willing you are to actually trust anything that comes from the Ministry of Information (if we continue the Orwellian analogy). Who was Al-Qaeda before 9/11 and the War in Afghanistan? They were a disparate bunch headed by Osama Bin Laden and in ten short years had become the terrorist TNC that was responsible for training terrorist in any democratic, industrialised country that needed a terrorism scapegoat. Is there any value in pursuing something like this when the really important issue should be exposing the flaws in the US Government's explanation of the 9/11 attacks?


Here's an email I recently wrote to some former neighbors who are "conservative/libertarian thinkers" and are ultra-defensive against anything mentioning "9/11 truth". Though I hadn't read this post yet, I believe the value of this post is it's ability to communicate a valid analysis that breaks through false-political-paradigm walls. BTW, I hope you don't consider Edmonds or other whistleblowers to be part of the Ministry of Information. I may have read your comment wrong.



Hope you guys are well. I saw this interesting reality check from a fox affiliate.

When you add to this the same MO (use of/support of/integration with religious extremists and other bad actors/terrorists) with Libya and, as reported by Sibel Edmonds, EVERY significant terror action in the Caucasus and the Balkans since the mid 90's and at least through the end of 2001, you might start to think that the relationship with/use of mujaheddin types in the 80's never ended, even to this day, and even through the attack on our soil.

Here is an audio interview with Ms. Edmonds, FBI whistleblower who was validated by the Inspector General's Office and Congress, before she (and they) were gagged. She's since broken much of her gag order, and has done so under oath. She talks about this special relationship we continue to have with the terrorists and how the US taxpayers have built 300 madrassas and hired Turkish construction companies to do work all over the world (including US embassies) and funnel money to the terrorists.

Curious if you are getting the same kind of picture from your viewpoints. Syria seems particularly dangerous because I guess Russia has their own War On Terror."

What's happening today in the USA

is more ridiculous than 1984

The List

Will this effect Chertoff Group shareholder dividend yields?

George and Phyllis at the movies..........

Georgieeee!.....I thought the A-rabs were the bad guys???????

Shut up and eat your popcorn Phyllis, I am trying to follow the plot!

Many US-policies are

Many US-policies are imperialistic and inhuman, but it is not the case, that all countries, who criticize this imperialism, are better or democratic.

The expressed opinion, that ...
"the opposition which overthrew Libya’s Gadaffi was mainly Al Qaeda … and they now appear to be in control of Libya (and are instrumental in fighting in Syria.)"
... is based on the opposition against US-imperialism, it is a political statement: It is so obviously. Shortly ago, there were free elections in Libya, liberal parties won the elections, the country is not terrorized by Al Qaeda. It just freed itself from a dictatorship, which was a good friend to "anti-imperialistic"-people in the west.

As a democratic truth-movement, which is based on the freedom of expression, we should not deny that to people, who have to fight for just this right against a dictatorship. It seems, that for some "anti-imperialistic" people, it would be better, that people stay under the control of one dictatorship, as long as it stays "anti-imperialistic".

Blatant imperialism

The Libyan war - with up to 50 000 dead, many of them in NATO bombings and thousands of dark-skinned immigrants tortured and executed as "Gaddafi's mercenaries" as per Western-supported propaganda - was based on lies, as wars almost without exception are. The same is true of the situation in Syria. The following is from my message to Reiner Hermann, a foreign editor of Germany's respected daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, whose investigations revealed that the Houla massacre in Syria was actually carried out by the rebels and blamed on Syrian government, with the assistance of the hawkish Western MSM.

- - -
A major problem with the mainstream media vis-à-vis Syria is that the geopolitical interests of the USA and the West are completely ignored. For example, colonel Wesley Clark told at the Commonwealth Club in 2007 that the Pentagon had already decided to change regimes or destabilize Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Iran, Sudan and Syria years earlier. Such background factors tend to be completely bypassed while Western interests are simplistically portrayed as humanitarian only.

As regards Libya - according to United Nations statistics it was, even with its problems, a welfare state before the Western-backed revolution; the human rights situation has continued to dramatically deteriorate after many al-Qaida-linked radical rebels and warlords came to power. The NATO bombing campaign was based on the lie about Libya's air force attacking protesters (both Pentagon and Russia have since stated that there was no evidence of that), while the fact that armed insurgents at the very beginning attacked and overwhelmed several arms depots of the Libyan army went completely unreported.

Moreover, a well-known researcher in Finnish Defense Forces confirmed to me that Britain and France had "wargamed" the Libyan bombing campaign just before the real operation in their joint Southern Mistral 2011 exercise. It had exactly the same scenario as the real war that soon followed. He also confirmed the information that French intelligence had started to prepare for the regime change months in advance. As many as 50,000 people may have died in the contrived war and the atrocities that have followed, with entire cities like Sirte largely destroyed.

Here's a Global Research article on the Southern Mistral 2011 exercise:

In general, the Western media has made it all too easy to legitimate wars with false pretenses over many, many years now. [...]

- - -
I recently read an interview of a human rights activist who had supported the rebels. He now admits that the situation is much, much worse than in Gaddafi's time. The same sentiment was shared by all the children in a new document about the children of Sirte, a city that was largely destroyed in aerial bombings.

To me, the Libyan war was as great a shock as the revelation that we had been lied about 9/11. It showed that "they" are still capable of practically anything - this time with deceptive humanitarian rhetoric.

To clarify, I used to concentrate on 9/11...

... but since the start of the devastation, based on lies, of Libya and now Syria I have had to change priorities.

I am sorry if people are so concentrated on 9/11 that they fail to critically investigate these latest propaganda wars and what is really going on. Let me assure you that it's exactly the "same old", only in a new "humanitarian" clothing.

By the way, the Kony 2012 campaign belongs to the same category.

When history repeats itself

...and hardly anyone seems to notice....

As with so much of the Obama administration's record--though seldom acknowledged as such--it can be viewed as a replay of what occurred in the Clinton years. The 'humanitarian' rationale for the war over Kosovo in 1999 was a bunch of baloney, but Clinton and Blair fed that line to the press and the public--and it worked (not too hard when the press is already on board with imperial aims, while much of public opinion, paricularly the 'liberal' component, is notably susceptible to manipulation when its packaged in 'humanitarian' terms). So they expect it to work again, and so far, it has.

'I have had to change priorities.'

Prioritize as you think best, but 9/11 truth remains all too relevant to present-day events. Critiquing that event continues to be very compatible with, as you say, 'critically investigat[ing] these latest propaganda wars....'

No disagreement here

It's just important to be alert to *all* the propaganda and propaganda-legitimated wars and campaigns after 9/11, and surprisingly many people "in the know" about 9/11 fell, at least initially, for the war in Libya.

I also think that it is important to ongoingly oppose greed-motivated bloodshed. Only promoting 9/11 awareness does not "work" in the context of the Libyan war or the ongoing tragedy in Syria, as these are based on a different legitimation, which however has been painstakingly worked on for years before the visible eruption of the violence.*

One would think that having realized the deception of 9/11 would activate people's "bullshit sensors" so that they would more easily see through such lies. But of course, as I mentioned, the reasons for war and intervention are now presented in "soft" humanitarian rhetoric and, in the US context, under a Democratic president, which makes them more easily digestible.

* Here is a good starting point for those who are uninitiated about the "Arab spring":

Even the New York Times admits that preparation for the 2011 movement began in 2008 in New York City.

those skilled in the art

" New Saudi Intelligence Boss: Return of Prince “Bandar Bush”
Shortly after the bombing of the Syrian National Security Headquarters, a July 19 royal decree was enacted in Riyadh to replace Prince Muqrin (Mogren) bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud with Prince Bandar bin Sultan Al-Saud as the director-general of the external intelligence agency of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Al-Istikhbarat Al-Amah (General Intelligence).
Since 2005, Prince Bandar has been the secretary-general of the Saudi Arabian National Security Council, but his new appointment has made heads turn and is being used to infer that Saudi Arabia has a far more aggressive foreign policy. What the appointment reflects is that Saudi Arabia is fully in the service of the US in its intelligence wars against Syria and Iran and that Washington’s men in Riyadh have a firm grip over Saudi Arabia’s intelligence, security, and military apparatus. In the words of the Saudi pundit Jamal Khashoggi and the chief of the Bahrain-base Al-Arab network: “Bandar is quite aggressive, not at all like a typical cautious Saudi diplomat. If the aim is to bring Bashar down quick and fast, he will have a free hand to do what he thinks necessary.” [13]
Prince Bandar, the son of the deceased Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, has been one of the central figures in creating Al-Qaeda and manipulating militant groups as geo-political tools for Washington since the Cold War. He was the Saudi ambassador to the US from 1983 to 2005. He has been a key figure in the intelligence war in Lebanon against Hezbollah and its allies and involved in exporting Fatah Al-Islam to Lebanon in an attempt to help the Hariri family fight Hezbollah and the March 8 Alliance.
Because he was the Saudi ambassador to Washington, he became the key figure in Saudi-US relations and developed close ties to the Bush family, which earned him the name “Bandar Bush.” It has been reported that the relationship was so close that the US Secret Service was part of his security detail. Moreover, he has had a long history with Robert Gates, starting from when Gates was a member of the CIA and helping mobilize fighters in Afghanistan against the Soviets. [14]
In 2009, Bandar may have attempted to launch a silent coup in Saudi Arabia to impose his father, Crown Prince Sultan, as the new absolute monarch of Saudi Arabia. He was not seen for several years and may have been in some form of confinement. Things changed, however, in 2011 with the Arab Spring; Prince Bandar, Washington’s man, was seen in public again.
Bandar may also be a key figure in Saudi negotiations with Pakistan to purchase nuclear bombs. [15] United Press International writes:
“As Iran becomes more dangerous and the United States becomes more reluctant to engage in military missions overseas, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia may find that renewed military and nuclear cooperation is the best way to secure their interests,” observed Christopher Clary and Mara E. Karlin, former [Pentagon] policy advisers on South Asia and the Middle East. [16]
The picture that UPI depicts actually is misleading. If anyone is pushing the Saudis to acquire nuclear weapons, it is Washington. The US has also been heavily arming the Saudi regime and the GCC for the same reasons. One dimension of the US strategy is clear: Washington aims to create multiple and ongoing contained conflicts in the Middle East to bleed the region and keep it immobilized. Like the Israelis, the US wants perpetual civil war in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, and even Turkey. By being duped into burning its bridges with Syria, the Turkish government has laid the foundations for the destabilization of the Turkish republic.
Days after the appointment of Prince Bandar and the attack of the Syrian Crisis Unit an attack on General Intelligence’s Headquarters in Riyadh was reported by Yemen’s Al-Fajr Press and then widely quoted by the Iranian media. The blast is reported to have killed Banadar’s number two man, the deputy director-general of Saudi external intelligence, while he was entering the building. Rumours are also circulating that Bandar may have been hurt or killed. Saudi Arabia has remained silent over the issue.
The blast in Riyadh is no mere coincidence. It is a retaliatory response to the blast in the Syrian National Security Headquarters. The chances that the Syrians executed the operation while all their energies are being spent on fighting against the US-directed siege on their country are marginal, but still possible. This is speculation, but it is most likely that one of Syria’s friends and allies retaliated against the Saudis for their involvement to the attack on the Crisis Cell in Damascus. " [author Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya] " All through the day, numerous media have tried to ascertain whether or not Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al Saud has been the victim of a deadly attack on July 26, as announced by Voltaire Network citing a non official-source [1]. ]

My Comment posted on Huffington Post today re Kucinich article

There Are Two Sides to Every Story

My Comment posted on Huffington Post today re Dennis Kucinich Article - I'm concerned with the perception that has developed of the Syrian Revolution from both Western media, media in Russia and the news propaganda from Iran . The situation in Syria is totally distorted by all media that seems self serving by all governments closely involved with the Syrian situation. The fundamental reason for Syria's revolution are the same as were all Arab Spring Revolutions. "A call by the people of Syria for Democracy and freedom." These Syrian revolutionaries are ready to die for that right, regardless what you, Washington, China, Russia and Iran think. I have captured the voices of the revolutionaries on youtube , recorded during 20 rallies in 18 months from those in my community closely connected to their respective countries. All communities who rallied representing the revolutions have asked all governments in Canada and the West to please help with food, fuel, warm clothing and medical aid. They have asked for non violent, peaceful solutions by all governments to apply against the repressive, deadly Assad regime. They have said 18 months ago they DO NOT WANT MILITARY INTERVENTION - and they want you and the Western media to understand that this is true today as it was when the Syrian revolution began - So here in my latest youtube report called "Speakers Corner :Iran's PRESS TV, Western Media and the Citizen Media of Syria" - I hope this sheds a more of a better understanding for you and your readers.

FLAG: Truth Jihad's 9/11 truther Kevin Barrett is also featured by PRESS TV on this youtube - Barrett, is sometimes a special guest on Iran's PRESS TV

My Youtube channel -

Syria and Lessons Learned - by Rep. Dennis Kucinich U.S. Representative from Ohio's 10th District -

More good ones by Washington's Blog. Spread them...

Should We Arrest D.C. Politicians for Supporting Al Qaeda?

Why Is the U.S. Government Funding Islamic Terrorists Who Are Killing Christians?

Be the media. Be the change you want to see. Spread the news. Ask Questions. Demand Answers.

Thank God We Have a Place to go to get the Truth

Thank you so much for bringing the truth out. We all better wake up to the truth and act on it! This is our world, not "theirs"

Reality Check: Is Al-Qaeda An Enemy Or Not?

Reality Check: Is Al-Qaeda An Enemy Or Not?

Thanks George Washington.

Great article. GW keeps doing important stories. I've spread this one far and wide...

The arab spring

The reality is, that Libya is on the way to democracy. Around 60 % of the elective people have registered themselves to vote. During the first elections not so many really voted: "Around 1.7 million of 2.8 million registered voters participated in the elections.",_2012

The same hope in relation to Egypt and Tunisia, where we have democratic elected presidents. But unlike in Egypt and Tunisia, in Syria there is a reckless and bloody dictatorship, which besieges and shells whole cities with artillery, fighters and tanks! So the people have to fight like in Libya - unfortunately just by their own. I think the difference is, that in Syria there is not so much oil than in Libya and that the Russians do not want to loose his last friend in the region.

At the end the freedom will prevail like in the East of Europa. The Russians and anti-US-"imperialistic" people will finally cope with the reality on the ground. But the Arab people will not forget, who helped them and who not.

Activist: situation now "far worse" than under Gaddafi

From the Western perspective, the reason for the Libyan war had nothing to do with democracy or human rights, but with the fact that Libyan economy was totally debt-free; that Gaddafi wanted to unite Africa against Western influence; that he was contemplating further nationalization of the oil industry; and that he had been planning to introduce gold dinar as the currency for oil trade.

True, there were still some human rights abuses in 2010, but as the UN human rights report published at the beginning of 2011 showed, considerable progress had been made, and countries like Canada, Australia and Brazil expressed their appreciation for the improvements. Many more people die annually in prisons in Britain and the USA than did in Libyan prisons (besides, aren't people still executed in capitol punishments in parts of the USA?) All that progress was to be sacrificed only months later in the name of the "humanitarian war" based on lies that have since been admitted:

As I mentioned, up to 50,000 Libyans may have been killed during the Western-promoted war, and thousands of dark-skinned Libyans have been tortured and murdered, as Western propaganda provided a legitimation for racist attitudes among rebels and parts of the population. The entire city of Taworgha was ethnically cleansed. Obviously, the immigrant workers largely supported Gaddafi, as did the large majority of the Libyan population. As Otman and Karlberg noted in their 2007 treatise "The Libyan Economy", the Libyan worker was "one of the most protected in the world". And Libya's child mortality was the lowest and life expectancy highest in Africa, while the country was above world average in the UN Human Development Index - all according to UN statistics. But none of that mattered as an "inconvenient" leader had to be removed.

- - -
TRIPOLI, Jul 14 2012 (IPS) - “The human rights situation in Libya now is far worse than under the late dictator Muammar Gaddafi,” Nasser al-Hawary, researcher with the Libyan Observatory for Human Rights tells IPS.

Hawary showed IPS testimonies from families whose loved ones have been beaten to death in the custody of the many militias that continue to control vast swathes of Libya.

“At least 20 people have been beaten to death in militia custody since the revolution, and this is a conservative figure. The real figure is probably far higher,” says Hawary, pointing to photos of bloodied bodies accompanying the testimonies.

I only have one reservation about the activist's statement.

Let's let a Reuters article from 2009 do the talking:

"(Reuters) - Libya's people's congresses, the country's highest
authority, have voted to delay Muammar Gaddafi's plan to disband the
government and give oil money directly to the people, according to a
tally published on Tuesday.

'My dream during all these years was to give power and wealth directly
to the people,' the Libyan leader, who took power in 1969, told the
public as he put forward the plan.

But there was an unusual public airing of dissent from top government
officials, who said the plan would wreak havoc in the economy by
fanning inflation and spurring capital flight. [...] At votes held
across the country last month, only 64 of the 468 Basic People
Congresses (LBPCs), people's parliaments chosen from among the
ordinary populace but largely controlled by Gaddafi, voted for his
plan to hand out the money now."

Dictators do not need to try to have their plans approved by a
country's "highest authority" - and then accept their rejection by the same organ.

Here is a UN statement from 2010:

"When the UN began activities in Libya in 1950, Libya was one of the
poorest countries in the world. Today, it has one of the highest GDPs
per capita in Africa, and the focus of the UN’s activities has
changed. The UN now works closely with the Libyan government to help
consolidate recent economic growth, ensure the sustainability of
development advances and protect vulnerable populations."

Of course, protecting vulnerable populations, such as immigrant workers, did not matter at all when the "humanitarian [bombing] intervention" started.

'US uses al-Qaeda for military adventure'

'US uses al-Qaeda for military adventure'

Relevant to this thread

Nice Grab

The author asks why, why, why, why......yes why indeed.