Special Report - Published by Veterans Today




Casualties are mounting in Afghanistan while the situation is rapidly deteriorating from hopeless to a word the English language has yet to create. Everone under heaven has told us that fighting in Afghanistan is insane. Nothing can be won with terrain beyond our technological grasp, porous borders and a civilian population with hundreds of thousands willing to give their lives to convince us to leave.

With no public support at home or anywhere in the world, no support in Afghanistan, a country whose Army has actually gone backwards with billions in supplies and training and Karzai's open theft of an election, mirroring that of his neighbor in Iran, no situation could be worse.

Our allies are tiring, preparing to cut and run. They have suffered and sacrified as we have and deserve thanks, not the derision we pile on them. Why do we forget when their children die alongside ours?

Why are we at war? Is this really the "good war," the one Bush forgot to fight because of the invasion of Iraq, an attack that, according to international law, was an illegal war of aggression deserving of Nuremburg type trials? If you feel, in your heart, that it has all been a setup from the beginning, you aren't alone and are not a "conspiracy theorist."

With 2 wars started by the 9/11 attacks, is this a rationale for what we are doing now or were they an excuse for military adventure in partnership with oil companies, Israel and greedy arms manufacturers?

If we bought intel on Iraq we knew was false, is everything false? We know 9/11 was not what we were told. With the Commission report in tatters and unanswered questions, not theories, but real questions on why our military and intelligence community seemed to have simply taken a day off on 9/11, we can't trust this as a reason to kill thousands more Americans.

9/11 just doesn't hold water anymore. The official story is now the "conspiracy theory." The truth has now entered an area beyond the imagination of any of us. Did the Bush administration get in bed with terrorists and enemies as was done during Carter and Reagan? Why have we forgotten that we are fighting against people we trained. Al Queda and the Taliban were US allies against Russia in Afghanistan, organized, supplied and trained by the CIA with billions spent. When did those relationships end?

What does the evidence of 9/11 really show? We have airline hijackings, real hijackings but failed to respond to them. We saw buildings hit, everyone saw it but the films of the Pentagon attack are classified, all except one that raises more questions than are answered. I have sat thru videos showing a BBC reporter pointing at a building behind her, claiming it had collapsed and it looked undamaged.

It mysteriously collapsed minutes later? Was she a prophet? Perhaps. It seems, according to architects and engineers, only a god could have dropped the building the way it fell, god or demolition charges. Do I believe this? With no other rational explanation, ignoring this is insane.

Thus, we stand at the edge, ready to send thousands of troops, tens of thousands more, thousands to die, in a war we can never win based on a terror attack clouded by a massive and continuing coverup such as could only be part of something depressingly sinister.

Is not wanting to find the truth because we fear learning something so sickening we will live in shock for decades a reason to sacrifice the lives of thousands of our young men and women for nothing? Are we cowards?

Since the end of World War 2, the United States has dreamed of control of the Middle East. That policy has had little to do with defending Israel, now a great military power on its own. For years, we jockeyed with the Russians, us with Iran, Turkey and Israel and them with Egypt and Syria as military allies.

There was always one reason. The world has a limited supply of oil. There was no Islamic extremism, not in a serious way, until we needed it in Afghanistan for our "cold war" against Russia, a war fought there, fought in Korea, a war fought in Vietnam, a "cold war" fought by Americans and in a series of assassination, otherthrown governments and rigged elections around the world.

Are we still involved in the same games the Dulles brothers, John Foster and Allen started after World War 2, world domination for American commercial interests, even if no American survives to enjoy it?

Is Washington filled with great minds and idealists? Did we go to war to promote democracy or destroy Islam to bring about a Christian world? Was our goal to bring about the "Armageddon and rapture" that so many Bushites droned on about when the audience was right?

Should we be judged by facts, what we have done and how it has worked out? If one were to look at a world financial market looted, drained dry while endless weath has piled up, is that an indicator? How did oil hit $140 a barrel with no real market to drive it? It won't hold half that price, even with speculation now.

What was different? Did a change of government cause that?

We spent tens of billions on armored vehicles to survive IEDs. We spent much of a decade working on technologies to find and disarm them and now none of those things exist, the vehicles, the technology, none of it works. Are we moving backwards too? With dozens of Pentagon reports, patting themselves on the back for protecting our troops, press notices, videos, was all of it lies? The death toll says so.

40 years ago, we could read a license plate from space and we can't find explosives 50 feet away?

If we are going to sacrifice a generation of our children in a war, a war we were originally told was to promote Christian democracy to people who would rather give their lives murdering us than live under it, are we making good decisions?

Do fat contracts and and huge profits and the millions poured into the pockets of our politicians cloud our judgement? Who does Washington listen to? Who is in charge now?

Is Afghanistan going to be a base for continued war against the United States, even if we pull our troops out? If so, wouldn't we have the right to erase them from the face of the Earth using capabilities we have long had, ones that exist for just such an occasion?

How insane is sending our children, trained, armed to the teeth, into a village of opium growing illiterates tasked with moving them forward 2000 years? No matter how much we spin this war or Iraq, it is still going to have a smell, a smell that started on 9/11.

# # #

Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran and regular contributor on political and social issues.

Forget We have an ally at veteranstoday

Thanks Gordon and Jonathan. Keep it coming!

building coalitions

Thank you Joe for your valuing and supporting truthers uniting with patriotic veterans, who have received the real brunt from the response of the false flag op.

I asked Gordon Duff to join our monthly teleconference wednesday, and he replied that he was interested. Hopefully, with veterans joining the call for a new investigation, those claiming to be of the peace (anti-war) movement will join NYC CAN and others to help expose the cover-up and deceit. The war on terror has become more of a continuing war for terror. This is good timing for such an article, and gives another ray for hope that current policies could and should be terminated.

News fit to transmit in post Cassini flyby era
<>~<>~ ~<>~<>
<> for life's survival in the 21st Century <>

After reading this in the aticle:

"If so, wouldn't we have the right to erase them from the face of the Earth using capabilities we have long had, ones that exist for just such an occasion?"

I take it back.


make sure you read my reply to this focus, under effective nonviolent communication

Never mind election theft in Iran

and Karzai's open theft of an election, mirroring that of his neighbor in Iran, no situation could be worse.

How about the two elections Bush's team stole right in the heartland of "democracy" itself, the USA.

Very good 9/11 article in the official Veteran's website!

My comments left on the site :

9/11 is a controlled demolition, a pretext for war. Per irrefutable scientific evidence, and per common sense.

Towers cannot explode, implode and pulverize with a speed of 10 floors per second, unless aided by explosives.

Nanothermite high explosive was found in the dust of vaporized towers.

We need independent polygraph investigation. - - science - - - -

to the previous commenter - yes, Bush was never lawfully elected. .. and look what happened. .. 9/11controlled demolition ... occupation wars ...$4.50 corrupted market gas prices ... financial collapse and massive state bailout of bankrupted banks

Realistic picture of likely outcome of end of occupation needed

Whilst I agree that the 9/11 pretext for the invasion of Afghanistan was a fraud, I am not, personally, as a matter of principle, absolutely opposed to one of claimed war aims of the US and its allies, that is, to support an avowedly civilising government trying to introduce reforms including making education available to most of the population and to bring their society into at least the 20th century against a fanatical and retrograde enemy that wants to impose a feudal theocracy on the country. This view is expressed, for example, in this recent editorial "Taking on the Taliban" of 23 Sep 09 in Rupert Murdoch's The Australian newspaper:

"... The alternative [to the Karzai government] is too appalling to contemplate. The Taliban is a movement of religious fanatics who believe they have divine sanction to slaughter all those who do not share their beliefs. But it is also a gangster organisation committed to making money. While critics correctly point to corruption in the Western-backed Karzai government, a second Taliban state would be infinitely worse. If allowed, the Taliban would turn Afghanistan into a narco-state, where it controlled opium exports but imposed a fundamental interpretation of the Koran. The model for clerical kleptocracy in Afghanistan is the bandit state of Somalia where pirate chiefs use religion as a cover for their crimes. ..."

So, I would be interested to to know how people here would counter these words.

I had in mind something similar to the chapters in Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" which demostrated that the occupation of Iraq was, in fact, an operation to facilitate the looting of Iraqi wealth, as well as the US Treasury, by corporations favoured by the PNAC cabal.

Does the evidence show that a similar anti-Marshall plan (as Klein put it) is being employed in Afganistan, or is there some truth in the claim that the occupation forces are also helping to perform some socially contructive role?

I am not arguing that the latter could therefore be used to justify the continuation of the war with its astronomical human and material cost, but I think it would help if we could paint a realistic picture of what is likely to result from the ending of the occupation, as well as its continuation.

Unless I can do this and factor that in to my argument, I will have difficulty in putting my case to some of my acquaintances.

BTW, the abovementioned editorial continues:

"And what would be a catastrophe for Afghanistan would be a disaster for the rest of the world. The last time the Taliban controlled Afghanistan, it harboured Osama bin Laden. It seems certain a second Taliban state would be a safe haven from which to launch terror attacks across the globe, including at Europe. Mr Obama and [Australian Prime Minister] Mr [Kevin] Rudd say they have always understood the dangers of Taliban rule. It is time they convinced the Europeans that they have no choice but to join the US, Australian and Britain in taking the terrorists seriously."

... which obviously takes very little effort to shoot down in flames.

Pentagon as World Cops?

Yours is a troubling comment about a foriegn country, with no fear of an attack upon itself, that is somehow justified to invade another country to meddle in its internal affairs.

Are you not playing the hand that the HI PERPS want you to play?

IE: Somebody has to be World Cops?

Well, I don't want the GREEDY BUILDING [the Pentagon with five sides] and its warring PROFITEERS to feel that they have such a role. If they are convinced that being World Cops IS their mission...well, how can one be possibly surprised that a false-flag attack such as 9/11 would eventually happen.

Dysfunctional governments in the middle east do NOT create the need or responsibility for the USofA to attack ANYBODY!

Its multinational "money, money, money"...and the protection of Israel that fueled the attacks on 9/11/2001.

Why do you think that the ruling class in the USofA figured out a way, including placing the future Cheif Justice of the Supreme Court to steal the election in 2000, to re-ramp-up and keep profittable the Military Industrial Complexes within the USofA, Great Brittain and Israel? Money, Money, Money...that's why!

Its all part of the plan to have the USofA as the premier Imperialist...and the world's Supreme Police Force to protect such Imperialist violations.

There is absolutely NO MONEY in PEACE...and trillions in profits in war.

Just ask the international bankers...aka...the money changers...who have been at this racket for hundreds of years.

I suggest that you give some oxygen to your thoughts so that they have a chance to evolve into broader worldwide issues and not to narrow in focusing upon small mountanous countries that provide heroin for the world...which is another point entirely...yet one in the same!

Troubling post...troubling thoughts...

love, peace and progress..

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

Seeking the truth is not the same as excusing the US occupation

It seems to me that you have not properly read my post.

Until Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" most of the the left, whilst they professed to oppose the occupation of Iraq, nevertheless, seemed to accept the argument that the occupying forces were trying to bring democracy to Iraq and that the Iraqis were to proud to accept democracy. So, according ot that argument, they engaged in all sorts of sectarian terrorist acts to ensure that democracy could not be 'imposed' on Iraq.

As far as I can tell, the majority of the left's critique only amounted to arguing that they should not have invaded in the first place.

But thanks to "The Shock Doctrine" and some other works, such as those to be found on Global Research, we know that the US and British occupiers did precisely the opposite of bring democracy. They imposed dicatorship and implented policies which economically ruined most Iraqis. On top of that they staged 'false flag' sectarian terrorist atrocities and blamed them on local Iraqis ans we have learnt from that incident in Basra in September 2005 where a pair of British SAS men who caught in what appeared to be an attempt to car-bomb a religious festival.

Most of the left failed to grasp all that at the time so their case against the occupation seemed lame to many. One consequence was that the Howard Government, which took Australia to war was re-elected in 2004. If the truth aboout Iraq had been revealed then I think it would have more likely been beaten.

In regard to Afghanistan, I think it is important to know the whole truth and deal with it, whether or not all the facts sit well with the case of the anti-war. movement.

If the Taliban happen to be selfless altruistic freedom fighters as most here would have regrded Nicaragua's Sandinistas in the 1970's, then great! Let's get that story out.

However it seems more likely that they will impose a quite unpleasant regime not much better than what existed in 2001, then let's acknowledge that.

If the truth lies somewhere in between, then let's acknowledge that.

I personally defended Vietnam's war to oust the Khmer Rouge from Cambodia which began 1979 (I think).

The US justification for the Afghan war, in part, could conceivably also apply to Vietnam's intervention in Cambodia and vice versa.

It's important to know what evidence supports that component of the US justification for the war and what does not. As far as I can tell that particular justification by the US has not been directely challenged.

Instead, I read stories of the Afghan Government attempting to set up schools etc. and the Taliban employing terrorism to prevent that.

Because that is not effectively challenged, as far as I can tell, it makes it easier for the Murdoch press to write about Afghanistan in the way I cited above.

And if it happens that the Murdoch Press is telling the truth in that one regard, I don;t see how it helps us in the longer term to either deny it, or gloss over it.

Shouldn't there be some kind of 'exam' for global police?

When you want to put out a fire, do you look for serial arsonist?

What would Iran be like today if the CIA (and the Brits) had left it alone back in '53 instead of engineering the overthrow of Mossadeq (who had just nationalized the country's oil)?

What would Iraq be like today if the CIA had left it alone back in '63 instead of engineering the overthrow of Abdel Karim Kassem (who was taking steps to nationalize the country's oil)?

What would Afghanistan be like today if the CIA had left the pro-Soviet socialist government alone back in '79 instead of fomenting a guerrilla war against it via the mujaheddin, in order to bait the Soviets into a costly invasion?

Remorselessly, the U.S. elites sow seeds of mayhem in other societies that will have repurcussions for generations to come--and it's never enough. They still have to intervene some more.

Not acknowledging uncomfortable facts no help in the long run

Of course, all you say is correct, rm.

In 1975, I held out hopes that the victories of the NLF in Vietnam, the Pathet Lao in Laos and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia would lead to all those societies beginning the process of developing into decent, humane and prosperous societies.

In the cases of Laos and Vietnam, the outcome was definitely a considerable improvement (although not nearly as much as would have been possible if it were not for the devastation and lack of resources).

However, in the case of Cambodia, the forces that overthrew the puppet Lon Nol regime turned out to be genocidal fanatics.

That is not to argue that the anti-war movement was wrong to oppose the US war. However, it seems to me that not anticipating how badly matters would turn out in Cambodia's case, at least, caused enormous problems for those who had opposed the war.

To me it is clear that continued US intervention, particularly Kissinger's carpet bombing of Cambodia, had effectively created the circumstances that caused the Khmer Rouge to become what it turned out to be and it seems likely to me that the situation would only been made even worse if the US intervention had continued. However given the appalliing death toll under the Khmer Rouge, numbering 1.7 million according to an estimate on Wikipedia, it would not be easy to convince others of that.

It seems that people, not wanting to believe the worst about those who had fought to free Cambodia from a pro-US puppet government, fell into the trap of either denying that the genocide was occurring, or else, making excuses for it (as even I did as a naive teen).

It's obvious that such a mindset made it much harder for people to speak up against crimes committed elsewhere, such as in East Timor and Chile. After all, how could one say that the murder of several thousand in Chile or even in excess of 100,000 in East Timor were crimes but the murder of over a million in Cambodia was not?

As it turned out, the US eventually effectively sided with the genocidal Khmer Rouge against Vietnam, anyway. So much of the moral culpability for the crimes of the Khmer Rouge could far more easily be shown to have lain where it actually did.

Nevertheless, this example illustrates that we need to antipicate that things may turn out fairly dreadfully in Afghanistan even if we are all agreed that the continuation of the occupation would make things even worse. We should not be seen as wishing gloss over this possibility, especially given what we know of how the Taliban ruled Afghanistan up until 2001.

Of course, I am open to persuasion that the Taliban of today may not be quite as bad as it was in 2001 and that their triumph or some internal compromise with the Taliban in the absence of occupying armies may lead to a relatively good outcome.

However, wherever the truth may lie, I don't think avoiding acknowledging it will help us in the longer term.

Drugs Pay for Black Ops..

I realize that there are few good, if any, outcomes-- when you are thinking about the majority of the people living in Afghanistan.. but keep in mind the money trail as to our real purpose and the result of our actions.. We made deal with war lords, and special forces were in on it.. and this funds black operations..

so.. if we had a legitimate u.s. government, perhaps we could negotiate for a withdrawal and get as much rights for the people of afghanistan in the process.. but with the addition of ending the drug trafficking operations.

But the continuation of the conflict in Afghanistan is much worse for everyone, except the war profiteers and its black ops drive for the new world disorder.

chris story of World Reports writes:

By Christopher Story
21 June 2009 issue of World Report




..The end-result of this catastrophically misguided intervention has been precisely to assist the US 'Black' Intelligence Power and its co-opted American Military Establishment to grab control over the heroin poppy crop, which was, as we and others have suspected, the entire purpose of the intervention all along.

In which case, our complaint that British soldiers are dying in Afghanistan to support a criminal enterprise and the nefarious intentions of two criminal governments is indeed well-founded: and the Editor is personally entitled to reiterate that his distinguished military father would be appalled at this gross perversion of British military power.

The other dimension that needs to be stressed here is that the Afghanistan venture is proxy for the uniformly catastrophic consequences that have arisen across the board due to the wholesale global 'collectivisation of external action' underlying the reprobate policy, espoused publicly by Mr Brown, of 'pro-active' intervention abroad, which is consistent with the assault on the nation state.

By definition, since every nation state nowadays is vulnerable to being attacked if powerful foreign powers take exception to any dimensions of its behaviour, the sovereign integrity of the nation state is greatly undermined: which is the whole point.

And of course, the intervention in Afghanistan has nothing whatsoever to do with British national interests, not least given that these have been collectivised within the context of the European Union Collective, which exists to usurp and replace its constituent nation
states in conformity with the logic of the World Revolution generally.

The net result is that British troops have been redirected away from serving Queen and Country to assist the 'Black' American imperial Intelligence Power so as to consolidate its evil control over the heroin trade, an operation 'necessary' to provide an open-ended pipeline for the financing of its continued status as the controlling 'State within the State', and (according to the head of UNODC in his interview with the Austrian journal 'Profil' in January), to provide interbank market liquidity.

# # #
21 June 2009 issue of World Report
# # #

Honesty and truth must be in the equation for peace to exist.. which is why instead of military operations in other areas, we need to look within the corrupt forces operating in our own countries.. first.. or everything gets tainted with the devil one makes deals with..


News fit to transmit in post Cassini flyby era
<>~<>~ ~<>~<>
<> for life's survival in the 21st Century <>

Skirting around inconvenient facts unhelpful in the long run

Jonathan Mark wrote, "I realize that there are few good, if any, outcomes-- when you are thinking about the majority of the people living in Afghanistan.."

Thanks, Jonathan.

I think confronting the facts head on, even if they are not always convenient for our own cause, rather than skirting around them, will better help us in the longer term to counter propaganda such as the example I gave from The Australian newspaper above.


"If so, wouldn't we have the right to erase them from the face of the Earth using capabilities we have long had, ones that exist for just such an occasion?"

This kind of mass murdering insanity should be opposed by any sane people, anywhere.

Answer: NO. No matter what racist bullshit you spin you have no right whatsoever to bomb people into oblivion, you fucking Nazi goon.

This is the discourse that passes around here nowadays? Calls for nuclear holocausts in Afghanistan? Fuck this troglodyte.


I skimmed the article and missed that.

Thanks for pointing it out.

effective nonviolent communication

very few people will agree 100% with other people, especially who have different experiences and perspectives. If full agreement is the requirement to build coalitions and gain allies, we would continue being a small group arguing amongst ourselves.

There are many statements in Gordon Duff's article I and much of the truth movement agree with. Such as these two paragraphs:

"What does the evidence of 9/11 really show? We have airline hijackings, real hijackings but failed to respond to them. We saw buildings hit, everyone saw it but the films of the Pentagon attack are classified, all except one that raises more questions than are answered. I have sat thru videos showing a BBC reporter pointing at a building behind her, claiming it had collapsed and it looked undamaged.

It mysteriously collapsed minutes later? Was she a prophet? Perhaps. It seems, according to architects and engineers, only a god could have dropped the building the way it fell, god or demolition charges. Do I believe this? With no other rational explanation, ignoring this is insane."

Instead of focusing in one area where we disagree, why not focus on what we agree upon and work together to get a new investigation? PC (political correctness) can become a dangerous, narrow, and ineffective element, rather than taking one step after another working towards the larger picture..

Let's say we build an alliance on what we agree upon with veterans, and together support a new investigation. The statement to justify a reference to nuking anyone would become obsolete. Since together we would be looking within on the actions, deceit of our own government. Once we witness together the layers of deception and manipulation by a corrupt group, we will see how that deterrent threat is no solution. So while I agree with the objection of Gordon Duff's statement in his article, by the time we uncover the truth about 9/11, a greater awareness will be with everyone, and such a statement I believe would become obsolete.

Being PC can end a relationship by finding out where we disagree before the truth unites us to a new and deeper understanding of what patriots are all about.. such as those at

Since after the two articles I have read and linked to Flyby News by Gordon Duff:

The 9/11 Commission Rejects Own Report As Based On Government Lies

my communications with Gordon Duff and fellow Veterans are leading us to joining a teleconference where we will talk about mutual interests, and how we can help one another be more effective. Building such coalitions with all sorts of group is tremendously vital for our cause. Otherwise the NWO has a massive advantage over the PC's.. no one always agrees.. we got to find out where we do.. and how to work together to overcome a common foe of war criminals and betrayers of the US Constitution, first and foremost.


News fit to transmit in post Cassini flyby era
<>~<>~ ~<>~<>
<> for life's survival in the 21st Century <>