"The Enemies of Syria" Conference

Russia, China Confirm Boycott of NATO’s “Enemies of Syria” Conference in Tunisia; Goal is Bombing, Civil War, Failed State, Warlords on Libyan Model

Webster G. Tarpley, Ph.D.
February, 28, 2012

Dr. Tarpley: "So it seems to me that the international climate is changing and one other thing on a belated topic that I would point to is the Brazilian Foreign Minister, [Antonio] Patriota has called on Ban ki-Moon to say, look Ban ki-Moon, you have a responsibility to say that all of these options that we hear on the table, as for example in regard to Iran, some of those violate the charter and you Ban ki-Moon have got to say these are illegal."

Top US officials have called for the urgent provision of weapons, intelligence and funds to the Syrian opposition for use against President Bashar al-Assad.

Press TV has interviewed Dr. Webster Griffin Tarpley, an author and a historian, in New York who emphasizes that the violence and upheaval in Syria are not caused by indigenous rebellion and discusses reports that French and British forces are now training rebel Syrians. What follows is an approximate transcript of the interview.

Press TV: Looking at the history of US and Syria relations beset with attempted coups etc., how should we look at the current crisis within Syria and the US role in pursuing regime change there?

Tarpley: I think it’s important that this representative that you mentioned has made this point in front of this conference, the so-called Friends of Syria, but we should remember that the entire destabilization of Syria is nothing but a foreign interference. That’s really 90 percent of all there has ever been.

This is not an indigenous rebellion. There is no uprising. There is no widespread political opposition willing to go all the way to fighting and killing.

Rather, these are death squads; they are deployed by NATO; they’ve been armed by NATO. We have reports of British and French officers commanding units of the rebel Syrian… Free Syrian Army; we’ve got reports of foreign fighters like the infamous Belhadj from Libya commanding groups of Libyans that have been deployed in this fight. Continue reading Russia, China Confirm Boycott of NATO’s “Enemies of Syria” Conference in Tunisia; Goal is Bombing, Civil War, Failed State, Warlords on Libyan Model

CIA-NATO Front Group Drafts “Humanitarian Aid” for Syria

Kurt Nimmo
February 24, 2012

An effort to impose the sort of “humanitarian aid” on Syria that ultimately killed around 30,000 people in Libya is underway in Tunisia.

CNN reports that “world powers” – corrupt states belonging to the Arab League and ultimately members of the European Union – are “mapping out a plan to deliver humanitarian aid” in Syria under the banner of “Friends of Syria.”

On Thursday, Secretary of State Clinton gave her blessing to a move to arm the Syrian opposition. CNN attempted to soften the deadly impact of Clinton’s move to initiate a fresh round of terror and murder by stating that “the opposition will find willing sources to supply them with munitions to counter the Syrian government onslaught blamed for thousands of deaths.”

“There will be increasingly capable opposition forces,” Clinton hinted. “They will from somewhere, somehow, find the means to defend themselves as well as begin offensive measures.”

The latest “Arab Spring” effort to impose a new political order in Syria arrives after months of corporate media coverage portraying the al-Assad regime as murderous while ignoring reports of CIA and NATO snipers killing civilians.

An Arab League report issued earlier this month revealed that the Free Syria Army and other “armed opposition groups” are currently engaged in killing civilians and police and conducting terrorist attacks targeting innocent civilians.

In January, it was reported that MI6, the CIA, and British SAS are in Syria working with the Free Syrian Army and the Syrian National Council to overthrow the al-Assad regime. The Free Syrian Army is widely recognized as a creation of NATO. It is comprised largely of militants from the Muslim Brotherhood – itself an asset of British intelligence – and is funded, supported, and armed by the United States, Israel, and Turkey.

Former FBI interpreter and whistle blower Sibel Edmunds, former CIA officer Philip Giraldi, and a handful of others have reported on the U.S.-NATO-CIA campaign to undermine al-Assad and violently depose his regime, but this information had been routinely ignored by the establishment media.

An advance draft of the Friends of Syria plan calls for al-Assad to agree to an immediate cease-fire or face a “yet-to-be mentioned response” from the “world community.” It recognizes the Syrian National Council as a “credible representative of the Syrian people.”

As we noted last November, the Syrian National Council is supported by the Muslim Brotherhood, which supported the al-Qaeda rebels in Libya and is now working with the NATO installed government to turn that country into another impoverished Arab vassal state indebted to the IMF and the bankers.

In January, Haitham Maleh, a founding member of the executive committee of the Syrian National Council, called for murdering Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, his British wife and three children.

Editor's Note: In the interest of full disclosure: Land Destroyer articles are regularly featured on Infowars.com.

Hysteria Replaces "International Law" in Search for Empire

A New Anti-Imperialist Bloc of Nations Convened by Russia is Needed to Prevent a New Middle East War.

February 24, 2012

The US tries to break up existing countries and turn them into “rump states”, such as Libya that is descending into chaos, an analyst tells Press TV referring to the current situation in Syria.

After vetoing an anti-Syria resolution in the UN Security Council earlier this month, China and Russia said that the current crisis in the Arab country should be resolved through political channels.

Meanwhile, the United States, Israel and some Arab States as well as al-Qaeda are seeking to overthrow the Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad.

Syria has been experiencing unrest since mid-March and many people have lost their lives in the violence.

The West and the Syrian opposition accuse the government of killing protesters. But Damascus blames “outlaws, saboteurs and armed terrorist groups” for the unrest, insisting that it is being orchestrated from abroad.

Press TV has conducted an interview with Webster Griffin Tarpley, author and historian from Washington, to share his opinion on this issue. The following is a transcript of the interview:

Press TV: Webster Tarpley, what is the rush, why is it that there is such a push for Assad to go and not give a chance for reforms as he has promised which includes revision of the constitution and of course elections to be held after that?

Tarpley: Part of it is a hysteria here in Washington; there is kind of a prevalent psychosis that if you don’t ride the color revolutions and the people power cues and the destabilizations as far as you can and as fast as you can, then that process will come to an end and you won’t have accomplished your goal.

Then remember the idea here is [Polish American political scientist] Zbigniew Brzezinski’s theory of micro states and mini states; it’s to break up existing countries, to have war lords, to have secession, to have failed states, rump states- the kind of thing we see in Libya which seems to be descending into chaos; that may be the best example.

And Syria of course is a key part of a block that reaches from Hezbollah, to Syria, to Iraq, to Iran and over to Pakistan. That would all be sort of anti-imperialist territory if Syria could be taken out and that would break it up.

I would point to one very important thing. The beginning of this week we have Zawahiri the likely MI6 double agent who runs al-Qaeda, calling on all the fighters in Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and everywhere else to come into Syria and wage war against Assad.

And we had the US intelligence, James Clapper yesterday in the Congress acknowledging that al-Qaeda, these terrorists; these killers are an integral part of the Syrian opposition.

And nevertheless the US pushed through that resolution saying that the Syrian army and the Syrian police, the lawfully constituted forces of that government, they have to pull out of cities like Homs and they have to turn that over to these foreign fighters, renegades, deserters and al-Qaeda.

So basically they are saying Homs is better off under al-Qaeda than it is under Assad and that is just an obscene, a monstrosity. It shows you how degraded these imperialists have become as they attempt to pursue this process of destabilization.

Editor's Note: To understand more about modern global empire, please see, "Empire's Double-Edged Sword: Global Military + NGOs."

Syria: Seeking a Convenient Casus Belli

Alleged death of two Western journalists in Syria used to dance around UNSC veto.
commentary by Tony Cartalucci

February 22, 2012 - You are an embattled nation with the entire world watching. Your allies Russia and China just made a major decision at the UN Security Council in your favor with much of their reputation and future at stake. Western propagandists have been relentlessly making up news stories regarding your nation no matter what you do, for nearly a year, starting with "Gay Girl in Damascus" who Syrian activists insisted was still real even after doubts began to surface, and leading up to daily reports from "activists say" coming out of London, England.

Your choices: continue a campaign to restore order in Homs which is admittedly overrun by cross-border militants and foreign terrorists operating with NATO support and arms, fighting under the banner of the "Free Syrian Army." Or, spend your time instead purposefully killing women and children in front of British and French journalists before plotting over easily-intercepted radios their spectacular deaths in front of a watching world?

Image: Syria's rebels are armed. Were they running loose in New York City, a military operation mobilized to neutralize them would not be described as a "massacre" by the corporate media.

Quite clearly there is something wrong with this narrative being given to us by the West, who have established themselves by a comfortable margin as serial liars. Iraq lost a million sons and daughters to these lies. Libya likewise was portrayed as a nation "massacring civilians" when it is now clear these "civilians" were US State Department-listed terrorists of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group who are now conducting nationwide murder sprees.

Reading any report out of the corporate-media, we find Syria's campaign against admittedly armed rebels paradoxically referred to as a "massacre," and an almost palpable fervor to justify circumventing the latest UNSC resolution veto. As news comes out of the death of two foreign journalists in Homs, Remi Ochlik and Marie Colvin who sneaked into Syria and were operating there illegally to begin with, Western leaders are unanimously calling this the "breaking point." France's Nicolas Sarkozy even stated, "that's enough now, this regime must go and there is no reason that Syrians don't have the right to live their lives and choose their destiny freely."

One wonders where Sarkozy's moral fortitude was when in January, while covering a pro-Assad rally in Homs, French journalist Gilles Jacquier was killed in a rebel attack. Unbelievably, not only does this contradict the news we've been told all along of Assad persecuting a brutal campaign against peaceful protesters, but while the attack was condemned by France, it was the Syrian government who was blamed for not protecting their journalists from armed thugs. Where were the calls for the rebels to lay down their arms? Where was the cessation of political support for the "Free Syrian Army?" Where was the decision by NATO to discontinue their support for rebels who had now murdered a Western journalist?

Clearly, reason is not driving Western foreign policy, rather a search for a convenient "casus belli" to serve where their "responsibility to protect" doctrine has failed. We will not know what really happened in Syria this week regarding the two journalists allegedly killed there, so long as "activists say" is attached to each claim made about the events.

What we do know is that the West has long ago predetermined that regime change will occur in Syria, and that they will do anything necessary, at any cost to achieve it.

Iran-Thai Bomb Blast Update

Predictable, improbable, and factually-deficient conclusion made by US-run Thai administration.
by Tony Cartalucci

February 22, 2012 - It was previously reported in "String of Global Bombings Blamed on Iran" that Thailand's current government is run by Thaksin Shinawatra by proxy through his own sister, Yingluck Shinawatra. Thaksin was a former Carlyle Group adviser, and recipient of extensive US backing, including lobbying services from fellow Carlyle member James Baker and his firm Baker Botts, warmonger Robert Blackwill of Barbour Griffith & Rogers, and PNAC signatory Kenneth Adelman of Edelman. During Thaksin's term in office from 2001 until a coup ousted him in 2006, upon the eve of which he was literally reporting to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, he had committed Thai troops to the US invasion of Iraq and allowed the CIA to use Thailand for its abhorrent rendition program.

It was suggested that he would mobilize fully to back US-Israeli propaganda. Within 24 hours, Thailand's police concluded, predictably, that the Iranians were targeting Israeli diplomats in Bangkok.

This conclusion was drawn by the very top of Thailand's police, General Preawpand Damapong, US-proxy Thaksin Shinawatar's brother-in-law, appointed as police chief shortly after Thaksin's own sister took office last July, with much support from Wall Street & London. This conclusion has now been repeatedly reported on Thaksin's "Voice TV," "sponsored" by AIS, of which his Shinawatra Group holds a majority share in and sister Yingluck was a managing director of, as well as SC Asset, of which sister Yingluck Shinawatra was CEO before taking office as PM, handing the reins over to Thaksin's daughter.

"Voice TV" would refer to the Iranians as "Arabs," another clue that no serious thought or analysis was put into examining the recent incident in Bangkok and that it was merely an exercise in backing US directives - as Iranians are Indo-Europeans, not Arabs, speak an entirely different language (Farsi) and have a distinctively different history, culture, social disposition, as well as a series of noticeably different ethno-physiological characteristics.

Image: Taken from the bottom of "Voice TV," it boasts as sponsors from Thaksin Shinawatra's hereditary financial empire, AIS and SC Asset, both of which featured Thaksin's sister, Yingluck Shinawatra as managing director and CEO respectively, shortly before becoming prime minister of Thailand last July. Thaksin's sister ran for office within her brother's political party, "Peua Thai," with a motto that literally read, "Thaksin thinks, Peua Thai does." What has resulted is a proxy government serving US interests just as Thaksin did during his 2001-2006 term as PM. (click image to enlarge)

Global Consensus?

Despite US policy papers, including Brookings Institution's "Which Path to Persia," openly conspiring to provoke war with Iran and subsidize an army of listed terrorists to pressure Iran into reacting, as well as reports out of the Daily Mail confirming Israeli involvement with these very groups, in particular, US State Department listed terrorist organization, the People's Mujahedin of Iran, also known as Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK), and a clear answer to the question of "cui bono?," it appears as if a "global consensus" has been reached - that Iran has carried out these suspicious, provocative, and entirely pointless attacks that only serve to give the West the "casus belli" they have sought after for so long.

Photo: Dazed and confused. An Iranian suspect is paraded by Thai police around the crime scene in downtown Bangkok. It is highly unlikely he is the member of Iran's elite Quds forces, or Hezbollah who in 2006 stopped-dead an Israeli mechanized invasion into southern Lebanon, or a member of MEK, who has carried out a successful campaign of terror against Iran for decades. More probable is that he is a patsy, approached by Mossad and Farsi-speaking MEK operatives posing as Quds forces, who walked him through his ultimately doomed, provocative, pointless, and incriminating attack.

However, what appears to have taken place in Bangkok, and what appears to be the case unfolding in India and Georgia as well, was a false-flag operation carried out by Mossad and Farsi-speaking MEK agents posing as Iranian Quds operatives who approached potential patsies. These patsies were trained and provided with faulty equipment to carry out these attacks. After making their respective failed attempts, the patsies would incriminate themselves and Tehran by attempting to return to Iran, or confess upon capture and interrogation that they were working for who they believed to be Quds operatives.

Far from a theory, Foreign Policy magazine has recently reported that indeed Israel's Mossad regularly pose as American spies to recruit MEK agents who then carry out their campaign of terror with connections leading back to the US, not Israel. While the information in FP's report was most likely published in an attempt to bifurcate US-Israeli interests for plausible deniability ahead of a "unilateral" Israeli attack (as described in Brookings' "Which Path to Persia?"), it does illustrate that false flag operations are not only real, but common place within Western intelligence operations.

With examples of America's FBI leading patsies through terrorist operations from A-Z within the United States, the most recent case of this entrapment featuring a "suicide bomber" who attempted to detonate an FBI-provided inert explosives vest in the US Capitol, and with examples of such operations being switched "live" at the last moment, as was the case in 1993's World Trade Center attack, accidentally or otherwise, it is clear that both the US and Israel have well established programs and networks for carrying out these false-flag attacks domestically and abroad. In fact, it has become a routine matter.

The consensus the US and Israel enjoy is not the consensus of fellow sovereign nations objectively examining the evidence and concurring with their predetermined conclusions, but rather, as is clearly the case in Thailand regarding the nepotistic Shinawatra family, a series of indebted puppet regimes propped up in exchange for shameless support for Wall Street & London's global ambitions.

The exactitude and speed with which US-proxy Thaksin Shinawatra's political and propaganda machines lept into action within hours of the Bangkok incident can surely not be the result of a careful investigation weighing all evidence and possibilities before drawing conclusions in one afternoon. It not only indicates how desperately the West is attempting to destroy the sovereign nation-state of Iran, but how far they've already gone in destroying the sovereignty of nation's like Thailand. It is expected that the US will reciprocate for this act of loyalty in coming months as Thaksin and his political machine gear up to once again destroy entirely the remnants of nationalist elements within Thailand.

Egypt Leads Fight Against NGO Agitators

A real revolution may be about to follow.
by Tony Cartalucci

February 20, 2012 - Neo-Conservative Max Boot is a certified warmonger, an elitist policy wonk sitting on the Fortune 500-funded Council on Foreign Relations, has signed his name to letters that called for sidestepping both national and international law to militarily intervene further in Libya, as well as call for troops on the ground even after Tripoli fell last year. He is a man you would least expect to champion NGOs and their liberal-progressive agendas.

However NGOs are not "liberal-progressive." They are the system administrators of modern empire, an empire being forged by the wars and covert operations Boot is a chief proponent of. The absence of NGOs in any given nation, means a nation free from the influence of Wall Street & London's networks and meddling. That is why Boot feverishly penned, "Obama’s Egyptian Hostage Crisis," in an attempt to spur a more vigorous response to what would seem like a very minor event in the context of greater global conflicts. Egypt's arrest and trying of 19 Americans, all of whom are directly involved in Wall Street's network of National Endowment for Democracy (NED) funded NGOs, including the head of the International Republican Institute (IRI) office in Egypt, signifies a potential turning point not just in Egypt, but around the world.

Image: The Serbian Otpor fist... in Egypt? The same US organizations that trained & funded Serbians to overthrow their government in 2000, were behind the April 6 Movement and the Egyptian "Arab Spring." Sun Tzu in the Art of War said, "all warfare is deception." In fourth generation warfare, no deceit is greater than convincing people they are "liberating" themselves when in reality they are dividing and destroying their nation so that Wall Street & London's network of already in place NGOs can take over, while a suitable proxy is put in office as PM or president. In Egypt, these NGOs would already have a new constitution drafted and ready before the fall of Hosni Mubarak.

While Tunisia celebrates it's 1 year anniversary of Wall Street domination with a US NED-funded president in office, and Libya celebrates their February 17th uprising with militants carrying out nation-wide murder sprees, the Egyptians seems to have ground the foreign-funded destabilization effort to a halt and are finishing it off with a "revolution" of their own.

As Max Boot says:
"If any of these NGO workers wind up in prison, it will be a permanent blot not only on the Egyptian government but also on the Obama administration for letting it happen. Put simply, nations do not act like this if they fear American power. Clearly we are not inducing enough respect even in a country such as Egypt which is dependent on over $1.5 billion in annual U.S. aid.

President Obama must intervene personally if necessary to resolve this crisis and get the authorities in Cairo to let our people go. Anything less would make us a laughingstock and a certain target of more affronts."

Indeed, Egypt standing up to the US and its global network of meddlers would encourage other nations to follow suit. It would help expose the "Arab Spring" as the foreign-plot it really was and balk currently ongoing efforts by Wall Street & London to overthrow governments in Belarus, Myanmar, Malaysia, the old guard in Thailand, and even Russia and China. People in the streets may want change, but they do not want it at the expense of procuring a foreign dictator reinstating its old colonial role.

For those that doubt US-funded NGOs were meddling in Egypt...

In January of 2011, we were told that "spontaneous," "indigenous" uprising had begun sweeping North Africa and the Middle East, including Hosni Mubarak's Egypt, in what was hailed as the "Arab Spring." It would be almost four months before the corporate-media would admit that the US had been behind the uprisings and that they were anything but "spontaneous," or "indigenous." In an April 2011 article published by the New York Times titled, "U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings," it was stated (emphasis added):

"A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington."

The article would also add, regarding the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED):

"The Republican and Democratic institutes are loosely affiliated with the Republican and Democratic Parties. They were created by Congress and are financed through the National Endowment for Democracy, which was set up in 1983 to channel grants for promoting democracy in developing nations. The National Endowment receives about $100 million annually from Congress. Freedom House also gets the bulk of its money from the American government, mainly from the State Department. "

It is hardly a speculative theory then, that the uprisings were part of an immense geopolitical campaign conceived in the West and carried out through its proxies with the assistance of disingenuous organizations including NED, NDI, LaHood's IRI, and Freedom House and the stable of NGOs they maintain throughout the world. Preparations for the "Arab Spring" began not as unrest had already begun, but years before the first "fist" was raised, and within seminar rooms in D.C. and New York, US-funded training facilities in Serbia, and camps held in neighboring countries, not within the Arab World itself.

In 2008, Egyptian activists from the now infamous April 6 movement were in New York City for the inaugural Alliance of Youth Movements (AYM) summit, also known as Movements.org. There, they received training, networking opportunities, and support from AYM's various corporate and US governmental sponsors, including the US State Department itself. The AYM 2008 summit report (page 3 of .pdf) states that the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, James Glassman attended, as did Jared C0hen who sits on the policy planning staff of the Office of the Secretary of State. Six other State Department staff members and advisers would also attend the summit along with an immense list of corporate, media, and institutional representatives.

Shortly afterward, April 6 would travel to Serbia to train under US-funded CANVAS, formally the US-funded NGO "Otpor" who helped overthrow the government of Serbia in 2000. Otpor, the New York Times would report, was a "well-oiled movement backed by several million dollars from the United States." After its success it would change its name to CANVAS and begin training activists to be used in other US-backed regime change operations.

The April 6 Movement, after training with CANVAS, would return to Egypt in 2010, a full year before the "Arab Spring," along with UN IAEA Chief Mohammed ElBaradei. April 6 members would even be arrested while waiting for ElBaradei's arrival at Cairo's airport in mid-February. Already, ElBaradei, as early as 2010, announced his intentions of running for president in the 2011 elections. Together with April 6, Wael Ghonim of Google, and a coalition of other opposition parties, ElBaradei assembled his "National Front for Change" and began preparing for the coming "Arab Spring."

An April 2011 AFP report would confirm that the US government had trained armies of "activists" to return to their respective countries and enact political "change," when US State Department's Michael Posner stated that the "US government has budgeted $50 million in the last two years to develop new technologies to help activists protect themselves from arrest and prosecution by authoritarian governments." The report went on to explain that the US "organized training sessions for 5,000 activists in different parts of the world. A session held in the Middle East about six weeks ago gathered activists from Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon who returned to their countries with the aim of training their colleagues there." Posner would add, "They went back and there's a ripple effect."

Video: The Revolution Business. The revolutions are fake, the people behind them illegitimate.

That ripple effect of course, was the "Arab Spring" and the subsequent destabilization, violence, and even US armed and backed warfare that followed. While nations like Libya and Tunisia are now run by a BP, Shell, and Total-funded Petroleum Institute chairman and a US NED-funded "activist" respectively, Egypt has managed to ward off and expose the US proxy of choice, Mohammed ElBaradei, who's own movement was forced to denounce him as a Western agent.

By striking at the meddling, seditious NGOs, Egypt seeks to undermine the source of destabilization, the conduit through which US money and support is funneled through to "activists," and expose the true foreign-funded nature of the political division that has gripped the nation for now over a year.

Message to all who seek national sovereignty...

Join in solidarity with Egypt, and after a brief amnesty period, go to the offices of each and every US National Endowment for Democracy, Open Society, USAID-funded NGO and propaganda outlet, round up their staff, and put them on trial for sedition and treason. For too long have nations tolerated the incessant meddling of foreign powers in their internal affairs. For too long have they faced ridicule and accusations by warmongers like Max Boot who has endorsed conflicts that have destroyed millions of lives. It is only a matter of time before the US, if left to its own devices, reaches a critical mass in any given nation with its networks of NGOs, its system administrators, where they begin running the nation on Wall Street & London's behalf while the sovereign institutions of the targeted state whither and die.

Video: Fourth generation warfare explained. US-enabled "Leviathan" force destroys nations, another army of "system administrators" including civil society, NGOs, and "international institutions" of the West replace it. It is modern empire in motion.

This is 4th generation warfare, not British imperial gunboats anchored off the coast and occupying armies, but sloppy, unkempt civil society workers taking millions of dollars from Wall Street's George Soros through his Open Society Institute, and the US State Department's National Endowment for Democracy, and ceaselessly eroding the sovereignty of a nation, poisoning the will of people against one another, and laying the ground work for a suitable proxy of choice to enter into office and "mislead" the nation down the path to neo-colonialism. There is nothing progressive about it, and there is nothing wrong with defending against it.

Should Egypt jail these agents of sedition, and embolden other nations to follow suit, the model of 4th generation warfare that the US has spent so much time and money perfecting will collapse. Perhaps global empire may find another way to succeed, perhaps another nation will rise and take the Anglo-American's ignominious role as global tormenter, but for a brief time, nations may be able to enjoy a constructive, multi-polar world, and this real revolution of national sovereignty will have ironically started approximately one year on from the beginning of another, disingenuous, insidious "revolution."

Escobar: Al-Qaeda Agents Worm into Syrian Rebel Army

Old colonial powers look to bring Syria back under their sphere of influence.
RT - February 19, 2012

Video: RT - The EU states are calling for creating humanitarian corridors in Syria, which some fear could open the door to foreign intervention. But Asia Times correspondent Pepe Escobar says it's already underway.

Empire's Double Edged Sword: Global Military + NGOs

Tearing down sovereign nations & replacing them with global system administrators.
by Tony Cartalucci

Part 1: Imperialism is Alive and Well

February 18, 2012 - The British Empire didn't just have a fleet that projected its hegemonic will across the planet, it possessed financial networks to consolidate global economic power, and system administrators to ensure the endless efficient flow of resources from distant lands back to London and into the pockets of England's monied elite. It was a well oiled machine, refined by centuries of experience.

While every schoolchild learns about the British Empire, it seems a common modern-day political malady for adults to believe that reality is organized as their history books were in school - in neat well defined chapters. This leads to the common misconception that the age of imperialism is somehow a closed-chapter in human history. Unfortunately, this is far from the truth. Imperialism did not go extinct. It simply evolved.

Imperialism is alive & well

There are several pertinent examples illustrating how imperialism is still alive and well, and only cleverly disguised with updated nomenclatures. What we know today as "free trade" actually derives its origins from economic concessions the British frequently extorted from nations under its "gunboat diplomacy" strategy - that is, anchoring gunboats off the coast of a foreign capital, and threatening bombardment and military conquest if certain demands were not met.

Colonial Southeast Asia circa 1850's. Thailand/Siam
was never colonized but made many concessions.

In the mid-1800's, Thailand, then the Kingdom of Siam, was surrounded on all sides by colonized nations and in turn was made to concede to the British 1855 Bowring Treaty. See how many of these "gunboat policy" imposed concessions sound like today's "economic liberalization:"

1. Siam granted extraterritoriality to British subjects.
2. British could trade freely in all seaports and reside permanently in Bangkok.
3. British could buy and rent property in Bangkok.
4. British subjects could travel freely in the interior with passes provided by the consul.
5. Import and export duties were capped at 3%, except the duty-free opium and bullion.
6. British merchants were to be allowed to buy and sell directly with individual Siamese.

A more contemporary example would be the outright military conquest of Iraq and Paul Bremer's (CFR) economic reformation of the broken state. The Economist enumerates the neo-colonial "economic liberalization" of Iraq in a piece titled "Let's all go to the yard sale: If it all works out, Iraq will be a capitalist's dream:"

1. 100% ownership of Iraqi assets.
2. Full repatriation of profits.
3. Equal legal standing with local firms.
4. Foreign banks allowed to operate or buy into local banks.
5. Income and corporate taxes capped at 15%.
6. Universal tariffs slashed to 5%.

Nomenclatures aside, nothing has changed since 1855 as far as imperialist "wish-lists" go. The Economist argued, as would any 18-19th century imperialist, that Iraq needed foreign expertise to catch up, justifying the evisceration of their national sovereignty and the foreign stewardship (theft) of their resources. Unlike Siam, Iraq refused to concede to the "gunboats" of modern-day Wall Street & London, and often as the British did during the "glory days" of the empire, they made good on their threats.

Image: The Anglo-Zulu War. Causus belli - diamonds & imperial expansion.

And just as the British did when they found diamonds beneath Zululand during the late-1800's, spurring them to invent a causus belli to justify the destruction of the Zulu Kingdom, the schemers of modern-day global imperialism likewise invented a dubious pretext to invade Iraq before commencing its plundering.

Image: Anglo-Zulu War. Mission accomplished. The city of Ulandi burns and the British go about dividing Zululand into 14 chiefdoms led by compliant, obedient proxies. The British took great care to cultivate rivalries between the 14 chiefdoms to ensure they would never again unite and challenge British hegemonic ambitions throughout the region.

At the conclusion of the Anglo-Zulu War, the British despoiled Zululand, divided it into 14 separate cheifdoms, each led by a proxy obedient to the British Empire. The British ensured that these 14 cheifdoms harbored animosities toward one another and fostered petty infighting between them to ensure British interests would never again be challenged by a unified Zulu threat. Today we see what seems to be the "accidental" consequences of military interventions leadeing to vicious, protracted fighting and in some cases civil wars, in Iraq, now in Libya (which also had a direct proxy installed as PM), Pakistan where plans exist to literally carve up the nation Zululand-style, and Syria. These are not accidental but intentional. Divide and conquer is a classic military stratagem that has not escaped the interests and attention of Wall Street & London.

Video: Dwight D. Eisenhower exit speech on January 17, 1961, warning us of the military industrial complex.

: Iraq For Sale. Remember that military industrial complex President Dwight Eisenhower warned America about? The ultimate bottom line with the Iraq War was that it should never have been fought in the first place.

If people can study history and see today's events are simply the relabeled repeating of what empire has been doing for centuries, the public as a whole will be less likely to go along with what is in reality an exploitative, murderous crime spree of global proportions - merely sold to us as justified intervention. One need only look at how Iraq has been despoiled and the profits that have been garnered by Fortune 500 corporations, while soldiers and Iraqis alike pay the price with their minds, bodies, blood, futile destinies, and lives.

Part II: British Imperial Administration (proto-NGOs)

A book of invaluable use in understanding British imperial administration is "Colonial Georgia: A Study in British Imperial Policy in the Eighteenth Century." Published by the University of Georgia Press and written by Trevor Reese, it successfully endeavored to illustrate "practically every facet of British colonial policy" using Georgia as a case study.

The colony of Georgia, in what is now the southern United States, was founded by what is essentially a proto-NGO - and in this case an organization dedicated to "prison reform." What it really did, was assess suitable prisoners in London who could be sent to Georgia to fulfill the needs of the Crown. Beginning as the "Associates of Dr. Bray" and later becoming the "Trustees for the Establishment of the Colony of Georgia in America," or simply the Georgia Trustees, it encapsulates perfectly the use of noble-intentioned networkers to exploit human tragedy for the benefit of the elite.

Image: One face of the Georgia Trustee's seal. It featured the Latin motto, "Non Sibi Sed Aliis" which means, "Not for self, but for others." Truly a proto-NGO, a "system administrator." The significance of the mulberry leaf, the silkworm, and the cocoon? The silk that Britain's new colony of Georgia was going to export to London to enrich the empire. "For others" indeed.

While many may argue that prisoners in London were better off being shipped to Georgia, the underlying point is the dictation of one's destiny for the benefit of another, regardless of whether or not such exploitation results in a thriving new life in Georgia, or death defending British expansion in the New World. The same cost/benefit analysis could also be made for slavery, but done so in spite of its essential immorality.

Protestantism for England was also a precursor to modern day NGOs. Religious denominations were divided directly along political lines in 18th century Europe, and when shiploads of Protestants were sent to Georgia, so followed the political networks they represented. Again, noble-intentions were, and to this day are, in the forefront of many devoted to these political functionaries, and much good has been done in their names, but ultimately the purpose of each empire's church was to establish a bottom-up network of people who believed they were fulfilling noble, higher intentions, when in reality they were simply serving the elite of their respective empires. Unfortunately, despite the noble intentions and great works of many of these people, when the time came for the Crown to use these networks for less than noble causes, organizational indoctrination was used to marshal men to it. And just like modern NGOs today, Protestant organizations interfaced with and supported directly the primary regional administrators, in Georgia's case, the Georgia Trustees.

In Reese's book, he even notes on page 21, "in sanctioning the Georgia project the British Government was not motivated by any such charitable intentions as inspired the Trustees. The Ministry was not much interested in the plight of insolvent and unemployed debtors, but it was concerned about the defense of the empire." Similarly today, NGOs have truly dedicated people "inspired" as the "Trustees" were, but ultimately they are carrying water for their sponsors, who almost always end up being George Soros, the OCED, the US State Department's National Endowment for Democracy, and other purveyors of global corporate-fascist imperialism.

The British Empire's interests in Georgia were economic, while the rouse used to fill and administer the colony was altruistic. Another key characteristic to imperialism is keeping subjects dependent. Reese offers on page 27, "the danger of these [private or charter provinces] lay in the scope they provided for the construction of independent authorities, and this was contradictory to the whole principle of colonization."

This, within the contest of mercantilism - essentially the exportation of raw materials from the colonies, which would be refined in Europe, and then imported back into the colonies as manufactured goods - meant servile dependency, both politically and economically - despite the fact that even then, many features of "democracy" could be found throughout the colonies. Today's concept of "free-trade" agreements ensure that resources, manufacturing, refinement, and consumption are equally interdependent on a global scale despite the fact that technology now exists to make any state or province, let alone nation, fully independent economically.

Image: Despite the good intentions, the religious causes, and loyalty to the crown, the ultimate destination of all these good intentions wrought was the "Board of Trade" which managed the unending flow of wealth out of Britain's colonies and into London.

Like NGOs of today, the administrative networks that made up the British Empire were in many cases entirely dependent on grants from London, as local contributions were almost never adequate. Reese notes on page 39, "constant need of money made the Trustees permanently dependent on Parliament, without whose support their colony could not be maintained." The British Empire maintained a careful balancing act to ensure that its networks received enough resources to fulfill their purpose, but never enough to become independent. Financial policy conformed to imperial standards and while local policy was set by local administrators, it interlocked with the Board of Trade back in London - just as local NGOs now interlock with international organizations in accordance to rule and norms defined by international institutions.

Reese quotes Vincent Harlow in his epilogue, who said of Georgia's eventual independence from Great Britain, "men's minds indeed conceive new thoughts and plan new projects, but out of ancient thinking and under potent influence of long-established characteristics."

Part III: Re-imagining Imperialism for the 21st Century

We have already seen some examples of how imperialism is very much alive and well. We also saw how imperialism was implemented by the British, but how exactly is it being implemented today? And why are people willingly going along with it?

Video: Thomas Barnett describes the building of an army of "system administrators" (aka civil society) to expand into "peace spaces" while US global military conquers "battle spaces." Soros' Revenue Watch along with the National Endowment for Democracy have created just such an army of NGOs. And just as soldiers witlessly promote imperialism believing they are fighting for "freedom," these NGOs expand Wall Street and London's global hegemony, believing they are promoting "human rights."

The term "system administrators" was used by US military strategist Thomas Barnett before a cackling audience at a 2008 TED Talk titled, "The Pentagon's New Map for War & Peace." At about 18 minutes into his talk he begins explaining a concept of reforming the military into two separate forces, the "US enabled Leviathan force" and the "system administrators."

One takes down the existing networks of targeted nations through air campaigns, special operations, or invasions, and consists of military assets including armor, fighters and bombers. The other consists of system administrators who then build upon the ashes left by the "Leviathan force" or the chaos sown by a foreign-backed destabilization. The system administrators consist of everything from NGOs, international organizations, and contractors, to civil affairs officers (psychological warfare), and when necessary, soldiers and Marines.

Barnett warns that if anyone attempts to interfere with the construction of the West's "system administrator" networks, the "Marines are going to come over and kill you." This perhaps like British garrisons did to tamp down dissatisfaction amongst their colonies.

Image: The Boston Massacre. Resistors to the "system administrators" beware, try to stop them and "the Marines are going to come over and kill you."

The talk was given in 2008, and already we see solid steps being taking to expand and utilize just such a force. Barnett said of the special operations "trigger pullers" that he wanted the rules to be "as loose as possible." Just recently, the Corbett Report and Media Monarchy reported the expanded role proposed for "elite" military forces. Admiral William McRaven of Special Operations Command was said to be seeking "more autonomy to position his forces and their war-fighting equipment where intelligence and global events indicate they are most needed."

Video: Special Operations Command is looking for more "autonomy" in deploying where "intelligence and global events indicate they are most needed." This "loosening of rules" was part of building the double edged sword of neo-imperial conquest, the global army & system administrators.

Additionally, between 2008 and 2011 before the outbreak of the Arab Spring, the US State Department and its network of global facilitators embarked on a campaign to raise a literal army of NGOs and opposition groups to begin overthrowing governments and building the very global administration network Barnett presented at TED. It was just recently reported in, "Soros Big-Business Accountability Project Funded by Big-Business" that a similar army of NGOs is being mobilized to erect system administrators focused on managing the resources of targeted nations. Called Revenue Watch, and focused primarily on Africa and Southeast Asia it represents the "system administration" approach complimenting aggressive moves made by AFRICOM in Africa, and the declaration of America's "Pacific Century" in Asia.

It is quite clear that Barnett's proposal doesn't necessarily need the "US-enabled Leviathan force" to tear down targeted networks as seen in the US-funded Arab Spring. Fomenting unrest, up to and including armed insurrection falls short of overt military intervention and utilizes assets Barrent descibed in the Levithan force such as "trigger pulling" special operations, as well as civil affairs units, NGOs, and contractors from the system administration side.

In Libya for example, NGOs and civil affairs advisers began the unrest in February of 2011 while weapons were covertly moved in to arm fighters to overthrow the Qaddafi government. International organizations like the ICC were used to poison public opinion against the Libyan government using information supplied to them from NGOs, while NATO began preparing for a full scale air campaign. Once the bombing began, it was only a matter of incrementally increasing the torrent of special operations forces, arms, and other facilitators to fill in the void left by NATO's relentless air campaign. Thus the forces of Leviathan and the system administrators worked in tandem, one clearing a path through the old, the other building new networks to facilitate the installment of long-time US resident and Petroleum Institute chairman, Abdurrahim el-Keib, as PM.

In nations where military options like this are not an option and would be difficult if not impossible to ever justify, like Thailand for example, the full weight of Wall Street and London's support is thrown behind system administrators and suitable opposition movements that will make appropriate proxies if the targeted sovereign networks can be torn down.

In Thailand's case, that proxy is Thaksin Shinawatra, a former Carlyle Group adviser, and recipient of extensive US backing, including lobbying services from fellow Carlyle member James Baker and his firm Baker Botts, Bush's personal envoy to Iraq Robert Blackwill of Barbour Griffith & Rogers, and PNAC signatory Kenneth Adelman of Edelman. During Thaksin's term in office from 2001 until a coup ousted him in 2006, upon the eve of which he was literally reporting to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, he had committed Thai troops to the US invasion of Iraq and allowed the CIA to use Thailand for its abhorrent rendition program.

He now currently leads the forces of a "color revolution," the stand-ins for Barnett's occupation force, since such a Western force is untenable. This included his documented use of armed militants in 2010 during an attempted insurrection. They are billed the "red shirts" or United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) and have met with Soros' Open Society-funded Human Rights Watch, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and the U.S.–ASEAN Business Council in an April 2011 Washington D.C. visit.

LinkImage: It is clear that NGOs and opposition movements many believe are spontaneous, indigenous, and independent are in fact part of a larger network for the sole purpose of imposing and maintaining global system administration. This is not a web of elaborate, vague associations. In each case there is direct path of funding leading back to Western foundations and the think-tanks that devise policy for them, all funded and chaired by the Fortune 500 of Wall Street and London. (click image to enlarge)

There are also circles of academia being produced to support efforts to undermine and overthrow Thailand's sovereign indigenous networks, most notably "Nitirat" or the "Enlightened Jurists" whose audiences consist almost entirely of Thaksin's red shirts, and even included Thaksin's US registered lobbyist, Robert Amsterdam sitting in the front row.

Finally there are the NGOs like propaganda outfit Prachatai, which receives 1oo's of thousands of dollars a year from the US State Department via the National Endowment for Democracy, George Soros' Open Society, and USAID. NED also funds the Campaign Committee for Human Rights, the Cross Cultural Foundation (CrCF), and the Environmental Litigation and Advocacy for the Wants. In addition to sharing the same foreign sponsors, each cross-posts the other's work, each signs petitions on the others behalf and each perpetuate identical agendas. While their mission statements claim to promote "freedom," "democracy," and "human rights," one cannot help but wonder how they reconcile the backgrounds of their sponsors and the "international" organizations they interlock with, with the causes they allegedly promote, with the work they actually carry out.

Image: Clearly there are "strings attached" to NGO Prachatai's funding from the National Endowment for Democracy and Freedom House who regularly contributes posts, support, and award nominations to the Thai "independent journalists." It is also clear how these same interests are involved in the support of Thaksin Shinawatra, the imperial proxy of choice for Thailand. (click image to enlarge)

The National Endowment for Democracy and its subsidiary Freedom House features boards of directors much resembling a revolving door, with current and former members of Congress, the US State Department, corporate lobbying firms, and corporate board members of some of the largest corporations on earth including Exxon, Boeing, Ford, and Goldman Sachs constantly shifting in and out of government, big-business, and NGO positions. They are, just as the British were, "not motivated by any such charitable intentions," as inspire the well-intentioned people drawn into the cause of NGOs like Prachatai they fund.

Their hope is to eventually diminish the power and influence of Thailand's own indigenous networks, by gradually building up the capacity of Wall Street & London's system administrators. Just like in the example of Georgia, ignorance and good intentions are used to swell the ranks of these networks, and just like in Georgia, they are kept purposefully dependent on the constant and substantial support provided by Wall Street & London, as local contributions are almost never enough. And while many of these people may believe they are committed to a "higher cause," they are simply soldiers of another kind within an imperial system perfected over centuries of trial and error.

The activists on the ground may be of genuine good-intentions but surely there are some who realize the conflict between their stated mission and the insincere intentions of those funding them from abroad. Just like the army, this system of NGOs perpetuates itself on the ignorance of the general population - of those drawn in by their good intentions to contribute to what they believe is a noble cause, and those throughout society who see these networks spreading across the planet with no idea of what their true purpose is.

Trevor Reese leaves us with one more relevant observation concerning the state of imperialism in the 18th century that still very much applies today:

"In the Eighteenth century, colonial affairs were subsidiary issues in English political life; Sir John Seeley's dictum that the British people founded an empire in a fit of absence of mind is true in the sense that imperial expansion seldom commanded public attention. Although there were always a few critics in the country who expressed anti-imperialist sentiments and feared that the empire would ultimately escape from the control of the mother-country, they represented only a small minority. Generally, when people thought about the colonies, which was not often, they regard them with mild approval, and believe in the advantage of an empire even though they knew little about it."
In the same way, today many people remain in the dark about what Wall Street & London do overseas. While military interventions grab headlines and create a brief but confusing diversion for most, they are but mildly aware of the concept of NGOs, let alone how they work in tandem with the creeping war machine making its way from Tunisia to Thailand and everywhere in between.

While today's media is able to project images onto our perception of what an NGO is, with pictures of smiling Africans clutching bags of USAID rice, thriving wildlife, and sprouting, dew covered seedlings, in reality it is a centralized operation built to tear down the old world, and replace with a new one. One that does not answer to the people that inhabit it on anything but the most superficial of levels, but rather to the people that rule over it - the monied elite, as they always have, with the most vicious feeding their competitors ruthlessly into their maw and gladly expanding into the place left at the table.

Link Part IV: Empire's Weakness is Independence

Empires require subjects. Without subjects there is no empire. There is no fleet, there are no Marines, there are no imperial administrators. There are no laborers to gather and send resources back to be refined, no one to refine them in the factories and send them back, and surely no one to buy these manufactured goods when they arrive.

Empire requires subjects to be preferable ignorant, easily manipulated, indoctrinated in a manner that motivates them to carry out their necessary function within the empire reliably. They need subjects that believe in the empire and most importantly, they need subjects who are hopelessly dependent on it. It is no coincidence then that nations declared their "independence" from England in pursuit of their freedom.

Image: By boycotting the British system, the Founding Fathers were already free and independent men by the time they signed the Declaration of Independence. The coming war would be to defend that freedom.

Before the great battles of the American Revolution took place and the victory that followed, the Founding Fathers took it upon themselves to declare their independence not only by writ, but also by action. Our Founding Fathers ceased the import of British goods, they created their own monetary system, they assembled their own militias, and most importantly they formed their own government based upon their own values, not King George's self-interest.

This truly measurable independence turned out to be the key to their success, for independence is freedom, and freedom from tyranny is victory. The battle they fought was not one to free themselves, instead, it was fought to defend the freedom from the British system they had already achieved.

In "Naming Names: Your Real Government" a list of the most common, reoccuring corporate-financier interests and the think-tanks they use to create, promote, publish, and execute their policy was provide. The article concluded by stating:

"These organizations represent the collective interests of the largest corporations on earth. They not only retain armies of policy wonks and researchers to articulate their agenda and form a consensus internally, but also use their massive accumulation of unwarranted influence in media, industry, [across a global network of NGOs,] and finance to manufacture a self-serving consensus internationally.

To believe that this corporate-financier oligarchy would subject their agenda and fate to the whims of the voting masses is naive at best. They have painstakingly ensured that no matter who gets into office, in whatever country, the guns, the oil, the wealth and the power keep flowing perpetually into their own hands."

Video: Voting is not an option. Noam Chomsky in 1993 regarding NED: "It's about what you would expect from a bipartisan democracy campaign - it's an attempt to impose what is called democracy, meaning rule by the rich and the powerful, without interference by the mob but within the framework of formal electoral procedures."

This is confirmed in a talk given by Noam Chomsky in 1993, where he stated or the National Endowment for Democracy's work, "it's an attempt to impose what is called democracy, meaning rule by the rich and the powerful, without interference by the mob but within the framework of formal electoral procedures." Quite clearly it is, along with Open Society, and the vast network of system administrators being built up across the planet, working in witless tandem with NATO, building in the swath of destruction it leaves behind the homogeneous workings of a global corporate-financier-run empire.

If the world is indeed run by corporate-financier interests, and voting is not only futile but gives the population a false sense of security, what can we do instead to declare our independence from modern empire?

On a daily basis, across the planet, billions of people witlessly pay into this empire, buying their products, paying them their attention on diversions like TV, radio, and at the theater, and participating in systems, organizations, and causes that like the "Georgia Trustees" may have started out working for prison reform, ended up handing the empire another thriving colony to exploit. It is clear then that vast campaigning, elections, rallies, and protests are not necessary or even viable options in dismantling this system - rather our daily decisions to boycott their corporations, pull the plug on our TVs, switch off the radio, leave the theaters empty and refuse to recognize the legitimacy of corporate-backed institutions and organizations on both national and international levels.

Video: The Fab Lab. Turning consumers into producers with manufacturing technology, open source collaboration, and innovation. It also opens the doors for communities to work together and solve their own problems, rather than waiting for them to be solved by disingenuous elected representatives.

Instead, find local solutions, pursue self-sufficiency, self-reliance, and leverage technology to do for ourselves tomorrow what we depend on corporations to do for us today. We can start today, by simply "voting" local with our wallets, "voting" to read, watch, and listen to truly independent media instead of Hollywood - or better yet - creating our own content ourselves. The same could be said with the news. Stop humoring the professional liars on BBC who get caught in serial scams involving paid-for documentaries, biased reporting, and flat out lying to their audience. There is a thriving alternative media that already proves the merits of doing more, doing better, and doing it all ourselves.

As concluded in "The Real Revolution,"
"They need us, we don’t need them. That’s the big secret. We get our freedom back as soon as we take back our responsibilities for food, water, security, the monetary system, power, and manufacturing; that is independence. Independence is freedom, freedom is independence. We’ll never be free as long as we depend on the Fortune 500 for our survival.
Fixing these problems unfolding overseas starts with fixing the problems in our own backyards. Boycott the globalists, cut off their support, undermine their system, and they lose their ability to commit these atrocities. That will be a real revolution and it can start today. Not burning cities and masked rebels waving flags, but communities no longer dependent and fueling a corrupt system we all know must come to an end."

Washington DC: FBI Foils Own Terror Plot (Again)

FBI's nation-wide stable of patsies can be switched "live" at any moment.
by Tony Cartalucci

February 18. 2012 - The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has once again proven that the only thing Americans need fear, is their own government, with the latest "terror attack" foiled being one entirely of their own design.

USA Today reports that a suspect had been arrested by the FBI who was "en route to the U.S. Capitol allegedly to detonate a suicide bomb." While initial reports portrayed the incident as a narrowly averted terrorist attack, CBS would report that a "high ranking source told CBS News the man was "never a real threat."" The explosives the would-be bomber carried were provided to him by the FBI during what they described as a "lengthy and extensive operation." The only contact the suspect had with "Al Qaeda" was with FBI officials posing as associates of the elusive, omnipresent, bearded terror conglomerate. The FBI, much like their MI5 counterparts in England, have a propensity for recruiting likely candidates from mosques they covertly run.

This is but the latest in a string of national terror plots carried out from start to finish by the FBI, who has made a business of approaching likely candidates and grooming them to carry out terror attacks. In September 2011, another FBI terror operation targeting the Capitol was "foiled," involving a patsy who believed he was to take part in an assault that would involve multiple gunmen and even a drone bomber provided to him by the FBI.

And perhaps the most dubious of all, was the December 2010 Portland "Christmas Tree Bomber," who was also approached by the FBI, provided demolition training, including a demonstration with live explosives performed in a Lincoln County park, and a van within which the patsy believed his handlers had provided him a bomb. The van with the inert device was parked next to a crowded Christmas tree lighting ceremony where the patsy attempted to detonate it remotely before being arrested by FBI agents.

It would later turn out that Portland had heroically withdrew from the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force, (JTTF), with the operation then being carried out behind Portland Mayor Sam Adam's back only for its conclusion to humiliatingly catch the mayor off guard. The city of Portland would eventually rejoin the JTTF after the fallout from the FBI's own terror plot.

The FBI is carrying out what is essentially a campaign of entrapment fueling what alternative news outlet Media Monarchy appropriately calls "terronoia." And while it is true that these incidents are being used to foment a climate of fear to justify the ongoing "War on Terror," there is a more sinister implication readers must be aware of.

In 1993 the FBI was carrying out an identical "sting operation" in New York City. The target was the World Trade Center, the weapon of choice would be a bomb-laden van, that like the above mentioned attacks, was supposed to contain an inert device. Helping the FBI was an Egyptian informant, Emad Salem, who over the course of the investigation grew suspicious of the federal agents and began recording his phone conversations with them.

From these recordings released by the New York Times, it turns out that the FBI switched out the inert device for real explosives at the last moment resulting in an attack that killed 6 and injured over a thousand. Despite this evidence, the 1993 bombing is still to this day attributed to "terrorists" with the FBI's involvement muted if ever mentioned.

The implications are of course, with the FBI's current nationwide stable of patsies being trained, directed, and provided material support to carry out attacks the FBI then "foils," is at any given moment, any one of these operations can be switched "live" just as in 1993. The resulting carnage can then be used to manipulate public opinion just as it was in 1993, 2001, on 7/7 in London, and in Madrid, Spain in 2004.

The risk rises exponentially now with Israel being confirmed to be training, arming, and directing US State Department-listed terrorist organization, the People's Mujahedin of Iran, also known as Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK). The US has also played an extensive role in supporting MEK who is currently carrying out a campaign of terror inside of Iran.

This is part of a plot by the US indicated in its own policy papers, openly conspiring to provoke a war with Iran. This is best encapsulated in this often cited quote from US policy think-tank, Brookings Institution:
"...it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.) "

-Brookings Institution's 2009 "Which Path to Persia?" report, pages 84-85.
The same report would go on to say:

"In a similar vein, any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal."

-Brookings Institution's 2009 "Which Path to Persia?" report, page 52.
Clearly those in the West intent on striking Iran realize both the difficulty of obtaining a plausible justification, and the lack of support they have globally to carry out an attack even if they manage to find a suitable pretext. Brookings would continue throughout their report enumerating methods of provoking Iran, including conspiring to fund opposition groups to overthrow the Iranian government, crippling Iran's economy, and funding US State Department-listed terrorist organizations (MEK) to carry deadly attacks within Iran itself. Despite these overt acts of war, and even considering an option to unilaterally conduct limited airstrikes against Iranian targets, Brookings noted there was still the strong possibility Iran would not allow itself to be sufficiently provoked:

"It would not be inevitable that Iran would lash out violently in response to an American air campaign, but no American president should blithely assume that it would not."

The report continues:

"However, because many Iranian leaders would likely be looking to emerge from the fighting in as advantageous a strategic position as possible, and because they would likely calculate that playing the victim would be their best route to that goal, they might well refrain from such retaliatory missile attacks."

-Brookings Institution's 2009 "Which Path to Persia?" report, page 95.

With this in mind, and with the 1993 World Trade Center attack as a historical precedent, it is almost a certainty that the West and Mossad are carrying out the current global wave of bombings now being blamed on Iran. This includes two failed bombings in India and Georgia, and a more recent incident in Bangkok, Thailand.

Law enforcement officers across America may be witnessing the FBI conducting through their JTTF what they believe to be a "sting operation" that may end up being the next major terrorist attack on US soil - and the pretext for certain war with Iran.

The fears of Portland Mayor Sam Adams were well founded, and it took an act of terror to strong-arm him and the people of Portland into capitulating to the federal JTTF program. Local law enforcement, for the safety of themselves and the people they are charged to serve and protect, would be wise to keep an eye on the FBI - apparently the most likely source from which terror plots both "foiled" and "successful" are hatched.