Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Suspicions abound that Wikileaks is part of U.S. cyber-warfare operations



Suspicions abound that Wikileaks is part of U.S. cyber-warfare operations....

WMR has learned from Asian intelligence sources that there is a strong belief in some Asian countries, particularly China and Thailand, that the website Wikileaks, which purports to publish classified and sensitive documents while guaranteeing anonymity to the providers, is linked to U.S. cyber-warfare and computer espionage operations, as well as to Mossad's own cyber-warfare activities.

Wikileaks claims to have decrypted video footage of a U.S. Predator air strike on civilians in Afghanistan and that covert U.S. State Department agents followed Wikileaks's editor from Iceland to Norway in a surveillance operation conducted jointly by the United States and Iceland. Iceland's financially-strapped government recently announced a policy of becoming a haven for websites that fear political oppression and censorship in their home countries. However, in the case of Wikileaks, countries like China and Thailand are suspicious of the websites' actual "ownership."

Wikileaks says it intends to show its video at an April 5 press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, DC but that its presenters may be detained or arrested before that time. WMR's sources believe the Wikileaks "militancy" in the face of supposed surveillance appears fake.

Our Asian intelligence sources report the following: "Wikileaks is running a disinformation campaign, crying persecution by U.S. intelligence- when it is U.S. intelligence itself. Its [Wikileaks'] activities in Iceland are totally suspect." Wikileaks claims it is the victim of a new COINTELPRO [Counter Intelligence Program] operation directed by the Pentagon and various U.S. intelligence agencies. WMR's sources believe that it is Wikileaks that is part and parcel of a cyber-COINTELPRO campaign, such as that proposed by President Obama's "information czar," Dr. Cass Sunstein.

In January 2007, John Young, who runs cryptome.org, a site that publishes a wealth of sensitive and classified information, left Wikileaks, claiming the operation was a CIA front. Young also published some 150 email messages sent by Wikileaks activists on cryptome. They include a disparaging comment about this editor by Wikileaks co-founder Dr. Julian Assange of Australia. Assange lists as one of his professions "hacker." His German co-founder of Wikileaks uses a pseudonym, "Daniel Schmitt."

Wikileaks claims it is "a multi-jurisdictional organization to protect internal dissidents, whistleblowers, journalists and bloggers who face legal or other threats related to publishing" [whose] primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we are of assistance to people of all nations who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations. We aim for maximum political impact. We have received over 1.2 million documents so far from dissident communities and anonymous sources."

In China, Wikileaks is suspected of having Mossad connections. It is pointed out that its first "leak" was from an Al Shabbab "insider" in Somalia. Al Shabbab is the Muslim insurgent group that the neocons have linked to "Al CIAda."

Asian intelligence sources also point out that Assange's "PhD" is from Moffett University, an on-line diploma mill and that while he is said to hail from Nairobi, Kenya, he actually is from Australia where his exploits have included computer hacking and software piracy.

WMR has confirmed Young's contention that Wikileaks is a CIA front operation. Wikileaks is intimately involved in a $20 million CIA operation that U.S.-based Chinese dissidents that hack into computers in China. Some of the Chinese hackers route special hacking program through Chinese computers that then target U.S. government and military computer systems. After this hacking is accomplished, the U.S. government announces through friendly media outlets that U.S. computers have been subjected to a Chinese cyber-attack. The "threat" increases an already-bloated cyber-defense and offense budget and plays into the fears of the American public and businesses that heavily rely on information technology.

It is also pointed out that on Wikileaks advisory board is Ben Laurie, a one-time programmer and Internet security expert for Google, which recently signed a cooperative agreement with the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) and has been charged by China with being part of a U.S. cyber-espionage campaign against China. Other Wikileaks advisory members are leading Chinese dissidents, including Wan Dan, who won the 1998 National Endowment for Democracy (NED) Democracy Award; Wang Youcai, founder of the Chinese Democracy Party; Xiao Qiang, the director of the China Internet Project at the University of California at Berkeley, member of the advisory board of the International Campaign for Tibet, and commentator on the George Soros-affiliated Radio Free Asia; and Tibetan exile and activist Tashi Namgyal Khamsitsang.

Our sources in Asia believe that Wikileaks ran afoul of their CIA paymasters after it was discovered that some of Wikileaks's "take" was being diverted to Mossad instead of to their benefactors at Langley. After a CIA cut-off in funding, "Daniel Schmitt" took over and moved the Wikileaks operation to Belgium and Sweden with hopes of making a more secure base in Iceland.

There are strong suspicions that Wikileaks is yet another Soros-funded "false flag" operation on the left side of the political spectrum. WMR has learned that after former Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN) decided to oppose Soros's choice of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's deputy Mark Malloch Brown as President of the World Bank, succedding the disgraced Paul Wolfowitz, Soros put the Wikileaks operation into high gear. "Daniel Schmitt" hacked into Coleman's supporters list, stealing credit card info, addresses, and publishing the "take" on Wikileaks. Democrat Al Franken, who was strongly backed by Soros, defeated Coleman in a legally-contested and very close election.

It is also believed by informed sources that Soros is behind the operation to move Wikileaks to Iceland. By becoming a power in Iceland, Soros can prevent Icelanders from paying back the British and Dutch investors in Icelandic online Ponzi scheme banking and continue his all-out war against British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who has, in turn, targeted Soros for betting against pound sterling.

Iceland is classic prey for Soros. The Icelandic krona has been decimated as a currency and has no where to go but up in value, especially if the British pound and the euro depreciate. Soros is currently talking down the euro, planning its fall and shorting it, just like he did versus the pound in London in the 1980s. After the UK's and Europe's currencies are devalued, Soros will buy every euro note in sight, thus making billions....

Soros and his Wikileaks friends have in Iceland a practically unregulated banking system desperate for an influx of capital -- money that will come from the exiled Russian tycoons in Israel, London and the United States. Israeli investors like Bank Leumi, and awash in siphoned-off Bernard Madoff cash, will do their bit for this smash-and-grab operation by Soros's Quantum-linked hedge funds.

With Wikileaks firmly ensconced in Iceland, the "brave" and much-heralded information leakers will run an international blackmail operation against Soros's foes and launch computer break-ins against Soros's business rivals and non-Quantum banks. Wikileaks will be used as the info-hitmen against President Obama's and Rahm Emanuel's enemies in the 2012 re-election campaign.

From Iceland, Soros will be well-positioned to gain control over the massive mineral resources under the melting ice sheet of Greenland. Under the ice are the only major rare-earth deposits outside of China and with such minerals at his disposal, Soros can control the world's electronics industries. This past week's volcanic activity in Iceland could, however, disrupt or destroy Soros's plans to establish and control a North American-European gateway in Iceland...

Wikileaks/DOD/CIA/DIA... is nothing but cointelpro

Wikileaks/DOD/CIA/DIA... is nothing but cointelpro to justify the upcoming Wars for Israel, it all started nearly a decade ago under a false flag attack....9/11, the US Deep State and Israel, here:
Plus, a good distraction from all those nasty stories coming out about how Wall Street banks have been literally, stealing people's homes and ALL 50 state Attorney Generals are now investigating....
Another timely distraction to let the thieves get away, catch their breath and make some more sinister plans....
As soon as he threw Iran into the mix it was a done deal....
It's genius if you think about it. The full twofer: not only can you push your own utter disinformation, but should another Daniel Ellsberg turn up, wikileaks will be his first port of call....LOL. Remember back in 2003 in the run up to Iraq and people were saying the US had learnt nothing from Vietnam? Bullshit! Clearly they didn't miss a trick....






By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor

Every time there is a terrorist attack, the nations blamed say that it was a “false flag” operation. This is what America did to cover up My Lai. We were lying. Germans claimed Poland invaded Germany in 1939. An educated guess is that 75% of terrorist attacks we hear of were staged, never happened or were done by “radical groups” that were first infiltrated, then controlled and eventually financed and supplied by intelligence agencies. Intelligence agencies are, in actuality, the biggest terrorist organizations in the world. The CIA has blown up more buses, airplanes and markets than any almost anyone else. The Mossad may be number one, followed by, well, everyone, the RAW, ISI, MI-6, IRA and dozens of others.

Either directly or through idiots, clones (operatives using false identity to look like “terrorists”) or through simply doing it themselves, these groups promote national policy by destabilizing nations, swinging elections or defaming religious, national or political groups by staging attacks and using the press to place the blame. The popular video game Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 even has a terrorist attack on a transportation center in Moscow built into it, a “false flag” attack. Today, the real thing happened.



With communism threatening to overrun Europe, NATO set up terrorist groups under Operation Gladio (short sword) to act as guerrilla armies in case Europe was overrun. As this became less and less likely, intelligence services began using the terrorist groups meant to fight Russia to manipulate politics in Europe through terrorist acts, such as bombings. We wouldn’t know the details if Cossiga, one of the planners of Operation Gladio, hadn’t spilled his guts about this and other “false flag” operations in Europe and elsewhere. This is what Cossiga told Robert Maroni, Italian Minister of the Interior about methods employed to control civil protests in Italy:

“Maroni should do what I did when I was Minister of the Interior.

“University students? … infiltrate them with agents provocateurs … and let the agents provocateurs devastate shops, set fire to cars and put cities to the sword for ten days.

“Then, having won the sympathy of the public … the police should pitilessly beat the shit out of protesters and send them all to hospital. “

One of the operational leaders of Operation Gladio, representing NATO with the CIA, was Vincezo Vinciguerra who stated under oath:

“You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security. This is the political logic that lies behind all the massacres and the bombings which remain unpunished, because the state cannot convict itself or declare itself responsible for what happened.”

When the Italian parliament investigated, a number of allegations arose. It seemed that one of the Gladio operations was a train bombing in Bologna in 1980 which killed 85 people. This was supported by both physical evidence and significant testimony. It was also discovered that “Palestinian terrorists” operating in Europe including Abu Nidal were working for the CIA and Mossad. Investigations by the Italian parliament reported the following about Stefano delle Ciaie.

A neo-fascist group tied to extremist Masonic lodges in Italy had formed a political action cell called “P2.” Though none of this was reported in the US, this group, tied directly to NATO intelligence services was linked to terrorist acts throughout Europe and even in South America. The report reads as follows:

“In December 1985 magistrates in Bologna issued 16 arrest warrants, including at least three to P-2 members, accusing members of the Italian intelligence service SISMI of first planning and then covering up the Bologna bombing. One of these 16 was P-2’s leader Licio Gelli, who had spent most of the post-war years in Argentina. A small group of anarchists, penetrated by delle Chiaie’s man Mario Merlino, were blamed at first for the Piazza Fontana bombing, even though Sismi knew within six days that delle Chiaie was responsible, and Merlino had planted the bomb.”


We now use terms like “Low Intensity Conflict” and “Surrogacy Warfare” to describe terrorism operated by governments against either foreign governments or, more often, their own people. Most “false flag” attacks are used to influence elections or to push through “Patriot Act” and “FISA” type legislation or to justify acts like the invasion of Iraq. Control of both the press and any potential investigation makes such operations a mainstream effort of national policy, so commonplace that those who work in intelligence or at the highest levels of law enforcement automatically write off major terrorism incidents as staged.

In Vietnam, Operation Phoenix was terrorism, meant to kill civilian “communists” including doctors, nurses, teachers and even religious leaders. We ran similar programs in Central America for years, killing thousands, nuns, reporters, union leaders and moderate politicians we were afraid would eventually join with communists. It was a horrible embarrassment to the CIA that the “communist dictatorship” in Nicaragua was voted out of office in an open election they sponsored. We had been running death squads throughout that country from our bases on Honduras for years.

Similar operations have been staged all over the world, from Chile to Korea to Indonesia, the Philippines,Lebanon and the United States. Half the bombings during the 60s and 70s were planned or influenced by “informants” or “agent provocateurs” as described by Cossiga. The massive infiltration of the militia movements of the 80s and 90s brings the Oklahoma City bombing into question....


If a train or bus blows up in London, it is best to look at who is visiting, what political party is going to gain or what scandal needs to be pushed off the front page. In India, the Mumbai attacks, blamed on Pakistan, did nothing for Pakistan. Who gained? Israel gained as did India, gained massively. When a school is blown up in Pakistan and blamed on the Taliban, Pakistan doesn’t believe the Taliban had anything to do with it. When Iran is attacked from Balochistan, it knows nobody in Balochistan planned the attack.

Yes, there are real terrorists, people without hope who are pushed to extremism through exploitation, often by religious fanatics or hucksters. For every Maddrassa in Pakistan, there is a church in the US, perhaps ten, advocating beliefs that can lead nowhere but to violence.


Radicals within the United States have always been a serious problem. A good analytical tool is the simple public poll. It reveals how gullible a population is and how easy they would be to fool. The primary groundwork for terrorism is control of the press and the molding of public opinion. With foreign governments with highly suspect intelligence agencies infiltrating the press, as they have in the United States, there is little doubt that providing cover for “false flag” terrorism is in the cards.


  • 67 percent of Republicans (and 40 percent of Americans overall) believe that Obama is a socialist
  • 45 percent of Republicans (25 percent overall) agree with the Birthers in their belief that Obama was “not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president”
  • 38 percent of Republicans (20 percent overall) say that Obama is “doing many of the things that Hitler did”
  • 57 percent of Republicans believe President Obama is a Muslim
  • 24 percent of Republicans believe President Obama may be the AntiChrist

And it gets worse:

The basic rule is simply this, if terrorists suffer as a result of an attack, bring down massive retaliation, if new laws are passed or a public is aroused, then we are probably dealing with a “false flag” attack, not a genuine terrorist act. If a terror attack, such as the phony “Crotch Bombing” in Detroit are staged and individuals tied directly to security agencies make millions in profits overnight, you can be absolutely certain, no questions asked.

Who benefits from today’s attack on Moscow...? MOSSAD and CIA....?

Monday, March 29, 2010

Iran rediscovers value of Persian roots

Iran rediscovers value of Persian roots
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi

Over the weekend, Iran hosted the presidents of Iraq, Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan to celebrate Nowruz, the ancient Persian new year marking the first day of spring that is celebrated by some 300 million people around the world who together form an important cultural bloc.

Both Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Mahmud Ahmadinejad used the occasion to emphasize the importance of Nowruz in fostering a global climate of peace and cooperation. In light of a recent United Nations General Assembly resolution marking March 21 as International Nowruz Day, Iran has now set its eyes on spreading the cause of celebrating Nowruz on an expansive basis.

"It is a cause of joy that through collective cooperation Nowruz
became global," Ahmadinejad stated, adding that "observing Nowruz will not only promote cultural values, but it will also help nations establish relations based on friendship, peace, justice and respect." Iran has issued a new postage stamp to commemorate the UN's Nowruz Day, this as part of a concerted effort to maximize the benefits garnered by Iran's pre-Islamic heritage.

By all indications, this represents a cultural evolution in contemporary post-revolutionary Iran dominated by the Islamist discourse. Over the past 31 years, in the complex interplay of Iran's dualistic, part Islamic, part pre-Islamic culture, the government has prioritized the Islamic and, yet, increasingly has discovered the trans-Iran potential of the pre-Islamic, particularly since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rediscovery of cultural roots connected to Persian culture and language in certain parts of Central Asia and the Caucasus, above all Tajikstan.

To some extent, the origin of this new "cultural offensive" by Iran should be traced to a former president, Mohammad Khatami, and his promotion of a "dialogue among civilizations", which inevitably implicated the Islamist political system in a discrete re-embrace of pre-Islamic civilization, although without ever losing the priority given to Islam.

In contrast, although Ahmadinejad, Khatami's successor, has not continued his civilizational discourse, signs are emerging that as a result of both the national unifying cause as well as external dividends, Iran is devoting greater energy to "Persianist" cultural values, including by promoting tourism of numerous ancient sites, holding international conferences and seminars to celebrate the poet Hakim Abu'l-Qasim Ferdowsi (935-1020) and promoting the Farsi language.

Given the foreign priority of maximizing the sources of pro-Iran solidarity through whatever venues available at a critical time when Western pressure on Iran over the nuclear crisis is intensifying, Tehran's decision to tap into cultural values makes sense - and is bound to add to its domestic popularity as well. The trick is to make sure the unwanted (restorationist) consequences of glorifying the past monarchical systems are avoided. Such side-effects seem less important today than the tangible benefits of promoting "cultural blocs" among nations on the basis of language and culture.

On a broader level, the growing importance attached to Nowruz by Tehran is in synergy with the globalist self-promotion of the Islamic Republic that, in the words of Ahmadinejad, has a stake in "global management". This is tantamount to opening a new front in the conscious pursuit of an alternative global cultural and political "public sphere" that would not be either Western-centric or based on Western political hegemony. Nowruz provides Iran with an important cultural tool to refine and upgrade a cultural toolkit that for the most part has had a rather one-dimensional focus on the global politics of Islam. Does this mean that a restructuring of the regime's cosmopolitan identity is underway?

According to a Tehran University political scientist, the regime's identity is "in a state of flux" and a "hybrid" that due to the recent, more energetic embrace and application of the purely Persianist cultural values ("within set limits of course") has become more dynamic. A more organic self-connectedness to pre-Islamic values on the part of the Islamic Republic may be forthcoming, depending on "several factors, one being Iran-Arab relations" that are today marked by some tensions, above all between Iran and Saudi Arabia, says the Tehran professor.

As a result, instead of the Organization of Islamic Conference, which is dominated by Saudi Arabia, Iran may find that other transnational organizations and movements, such as the Non-Aligned Movement, which is slated to be led by Iran two years from now, may be more receptive to its globalist cultural intentions.

An important vehicle for Iran's global promotion is the English-language PressTV, the CNN-like news network launched by Tehran, which provides in-depth coverage of international issues, particularly pertaining to the Occupied Territories and the Middle East. The newly-launched network is in many ways a work in progress that could serve the need of developing nations for non-Western sources of news and commentaries.

Equally important for its future is to avoid the impression of being a tool of government propaganda. This is a tall order, and PressTV has still to pass the litmus test of a true "international network".

Together, Tehran's more spirited promotion of its basket of dual cultural values and the network are elements of novelty in the evolutionary process of post-revolutionary Iran.

Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy (Westview Press) . For his Wikipedia entry, click here. His latest book, Reading In Iran Foreign Policy After September 11 (BookSurge Publishing , October 23, 2008) is now available.

Wednesday, March 24, 2010


16 MAR 2010



It is this singular inability to be objective about the Arab-Israeli conflict that has cost the United States its global standing. In the Arab and Muslim world and beyond, the US has been rightfully accused of double standards, primarily because of its blind support for Israel. You don’t need a pundit to point out the patent absence of credibility of US position on different global issues. Wherever an Israeli connection exists, the US position has been marked by consistent distortions. Take today’s US position on Iran – the make-believe “existential threat” to Israel. You would be led to believe that it is Iran that maintains an undisclosed arsenal of nuclear weapons or that it refuses to sign the NPT or allow IAEA inspections? Not so. A signatory to the NPT, Iran has, in fact, no nuclear weapon and allows regular IAEA inspections. It is only Israel that is guilty on all accounts. But the US insistence on sanctions only applies to Iran. Heaven help us if an American should seek a blanket application all around that could include Israel! As for the Middle East, the world is witness to the selective applications of UN security council resolutions as a basis for legitimizing military actions. One has to wonder which UN security council resolution has the US ever held Israel to account for! If UN security council resolution 242 were enforced, there would be no debate today on the so-called settlement issue: Israel would have been forced to withdraw to just 80% of Palestine that it managed to occupy prior to June 1967 – and the Palestinians, left with 20% of their ancestral lands in the West Bank and Gaza, could then have been, with deft diplomatic initiatives, persuaded to co-exist with their Zionist neighbors. But, then you have the fifth column in the US itself in the likes of Dennis Ross and Israel can bank on Tel Aviv defining US policies. It’s time for Americans to ask: Whose interests do the Dennis Ross’ serve?

Those of us living in LEBANON laugh out loud while watching the influence of the talmudics over the national interests of the US....“…under scrutiny for putting the interests of Israel before the U.S.” ??? Another laugh.... That, my friends, is called ‘business as usual’.Happy Easter! We celebrate the resurrection of Christ, rejected still by the self-worshiping talmudics.....


"The Impact of U.S. Export Controls on National Security, Science and Technological Leadership,"

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Irregular Warfare, Air Force Doctrine Document

A spy unsettles US-India ties

By M K Bhadrakumar


News that the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had reached a plea bargain with David Coleman Headley, who played a key role in the planning of the terrorist strike in Mumbai in November 2008 in which 166 people were killed, has caused an uproar in India.

The deal enables the US government to hold back from formally producing any evidence against Headley in a court of law that might have included details of his links with US intelligence or oblige any cross-examination of Headley by the prosecution.

Nor can the families of the 166 victims be represented by a lawyer to question Headley during his trial commencing in Chicago. Headley's links with the US intelligence will now remain classified

information and the Pakistani nationals involved in the Mumbai attacks will get away scot-free. Furthermore, the FBI will not allow Headley's extradition to India and will restrict access so that Indian agencies cannot interrogate him regarding his links with US and Pakistani intelligence.

In return for pleading guilty to the charges against him Headley will get lighter punishment than the death sentence that was probably most likely.

Headley's arrest in Chicago last October initially seemed a breakthrough in throwing light on the operations and activities of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), the Pakistan-based terrorist organization, in India. But instead the Obama administration's frantic efforts to cover up the details of the case have been taken to their logical conclusion.

The plea bargain raises explosive questions. The LeT began planning the attack on Mumbai sometime around September 2006. According to the plea bargain, Headley paid five visits to India on reconnaissance missions between 2006 and the November 2008 strike, each time returning to the US via Pakistan where he met "with various co-conspirators, including but not limited to members of LeT".

The plea bargain simply refers to the Pakistani handlers of Headley as A, B, C and D. But who are they? We will never know.
The LeT's close links with Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) are legion and it is inconceivable that such a massive operation - with huge international ramifications and the potential to trigger war with India - could have been undertaken without the knowledge of the ISI, headed by General Ashfaq Parvez Kiani, the present army chief, from October 2004 until October 2007.

The plea bargain says chillingly that after Headley's fifth visit to India, "Lashkar [LeT] Member A advised defendant [Headley] of a number of details concerning the planned attacks, including that a team of attackers was being trained in a variety of combat skills, the team would be traveling to Mumbai by sea and using the landing site recommended by the defendant, the team would be fighting to the death and would not attempt to escape following the attacks."

Yet, the operative part of the plea bargain not only rules out Headley's extradition to India but does not show that Headley gave any kind of formal commitment to the FBI to subject himself to interrogation by the Indians. He has merely agreed to give testimony in any foreign judicial proceeding that is held in US territory.

In essence, the Americans are saying that they will tell the Indians what Headley is saying and there is no need to interrogate him face-to-face. This is diametrically opposite to the US's approach to the Lockerbie trial after a bombed Pan Am flight crashed into the Scottish town of Lockerbie in 1988. Altogether 270 died. Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, a Libyan, was convicted of involvement in the bombing.

Again, the plea bargain confirms that Headley had a criminal record in the US from 1989 as a conspirator to import heroin and spent a total of six years in prison as a result of four convictions. He was later recruited as an agent by US drug-enforcement authorities, who after the 9/11 attacks in the US coordinated closely with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

How much did the CIA know?
The plea bargain details that while working as an American agent Headley attended at least five “training courses” conducted by the LeT in Pakistan, including sessions in the use of weapons and grenades, close-combat tactics and counter-surveillance techniques, from February 2002 until December 2003.

Training courses in April and in December 2003 were each of three months' duration and in such close proximity to the 9/11 attacks that it stretches credulity to believe the CIA didn't care to know what their agent was doing in the LeT training camps.

Today, the heart of the matter is how much did the CIA know in advance about the Mumbai terrorist strike and whether the Obama administration shared all "actionable intelligence" with Delhi?

A senior Indian editor wrote on Sunday, "Headley ... was convicted on drug charges and sent to jail in the US. We know also that he was subsequently released from jail and handed over to the Drug Enforcement Administration, which said that it wanted to send him to Pakistan as an undercover agent. All this is a matter of public record. What happened between the time the US sent Headley into Pakistan and his arrest at Chicago airport a few months ago? How did an American agent turn into a terrorist? The US will not say."

Yet, cooperation in the fight against terrorism lies within the first circle of US-India strategic cooperation. The Mumbai attacks led to unprecedented counter-terrorism cooperation between India and the US - "breaking down walls and bureaucratic obstacles between the two countries' intelligence and investigating agencies", as a prominent American security expert, Lisa Curtis, underscored in US congressional testimony on March 11 regarding the Mumbai attacks and Headley.

To quote Curtis, "Most troubling about the Headley case is what it has revealed about the proximity of the Pakistani military to the LeT."

Curtis put her finger spot on the US government's deliberate policy to view the LeT through the prism of India-Pakistan adversarial ties. This is despite all evidence of the LeT's significant role since 2006 as a facilitator of the Taliban's operations in Afghanistan by providing a constant stream of fighters - recruiting, training and infiltrating insurgents across the border from the Pakistani tribal areas.

The US policy is impeccably logical. It prioritizes the securing of Islamabad's cooperation on what directly affects American interests rather than squandering away Pakistani goodwill by Washington covering for the Indians.

This political chicanery lies at the core of the unfolding Headley drama. What emerges, even if one were to give the benefit of the doubt to the CIA, is that Headley was its agent but he possibly got involved with Pakistan-based terrorist organizations and became a double agent.

No doubt, the US administration is behaving very strangely. It has something extremely explosive to hide from the Indians and what better way to do that than by placing Headley in safe custody and not risk exposing him to Indian intelligence?

The speculation gaining respectability in Delhi is that Washington knew in advance about the Mumbai attack and deliberately chose not to pass on details to Delhi.

Indeed, Washington knew of Headley's repeated missions to India from 2006 but did not share the information with the Indians. Headley, in fact, visited Mumbai once even after the city was attacked.

Clearly, the Obama administration was apprehensive that Headley might spill the beans if the Indians got hold of him and the trail could then lead to his links with the CIA, the LeT and the Pakistani military. And where would that leave the US?

Obama is obviously in no position to "pressure" the Pakistani military leadership. The US's obsession is to somehow end the fighting in Afghanistan before the US presidential election campaign commences in 2012. The extent to which the US is beholden to the Pakistani military today is apparent from the about-turn lately by even a self-styled "agnostic" like the AfPak special representative, Richard Holbrooke, about the Pakistani military leadership's commitment to the fight against terrorism.

A foreign policy in shambles
All said, however, the Americans seem to count on their skill to manipulate the Indian elite. Robert Blake, the US assistant secretary of state for South Asia who used to be the deputy head of the US Embassy, visited Delhi last week on a damage-control exercise. He huddled with the Indian corporate sector, which is hugely influential with the political class.

However, will the strategy of leveraging the pro-US lobby in Delhi work this time to ease the strain in the US-India “partnership”? The Mumbai terror attack left deep scars in the Indian public psyche. For the first time in recent years, the Indian public has closed ranks with prevalent opinion in Pakistan that sees the US as a diabolic, self-centered power, which double-crosses its partners, friends and allies in single-minded pursuit of its interests.

This perception has consequences for the democratically elected government in Delhi. The big question is whether the ruling party in India can any longer afford to be seen sharing Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's robust enthusiasm for a US-centric foreign policy.

It has been a devastating blow to Manmohan's personal prestige that the FBI's plea bargain deal unfolded in the week he had earmarked for the tabling of legislation in parliament that would facilitate the entry of American companies into the Indian market for nuclear commerce.

Manmohan's visit to Washington to attend a nuclear summit hosted by Obama on April 12 was expected to give a fillip to US-India ties, but Headley haunts the ambience surrounding that visit.
The Headley case exposes the fallacies underlying India's foreign policy ever since Manmohan assumed office as prime minister in 2004 - that "strategic partnership" with the US could be central insofar as contacts with Pakistan were best conducted under the US watch and Delhi's interests as an emerging power lay in harmonizing with US regional policies.

A rethink on foreign policy has now become almost inevitable. Delhi recently rolled out the red carpet to Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. Delhi may now seriously engage Tehran, despite Manmohan's manifest indifference toward India-Iran ties. The prime minister will find it even harder now to "operationalize" the India-US nuclear deal of 2008, due to an inability to legislate a liability bill that the US nuclear industry seeks as a pre-requisite for doing business in India.

To what extent US expectations to corner a big share of India's arms bazaar are going to be realized us unclear, no matter the clout of US arms manufacturers with the Indian military community. All eyes in Delhi are trained on the US-Pakistan strategic dialogue in Washington on Wednesday in which Kiani is expected to pitch for a long-term strategic partnership between the two countries that duly recognizes Pakistan's pivotal role in US policies.

Most certainly Delhi can be expected now to work full throttle to resist the US-Pakistani game plan to engage the Taliban and to reintegrate them in Afghan power structures. The Headley saga underscores that the US-Pakistan axis in Afghanistan carries lethal potency for India's national security interests.

Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.

Sunday, March 21, 2010

‘War on Terror’, Excuse Me…

Phillip Knightley

20 March 2010,
It is nearly nine years since President Bush declared a global war on terror so it is fair to ask: how is it going? Well, the first point to make is that it is not called a war on terror anymore. It is the “global struggle against violent extremists”.

But whatever it is termed, the answer to how it is going is: very badly. Not only is there no end in sight—some military men talk of victory in 25 years—but Osama bin Laden, the man America vowed to get “dead or alive”, is as elusive as ever.

Britain and the United States claim that terrorism has grown into an international force that threatens all those who stand with the US. But wait a minute. This growth in terrorism has occurred during their colossal war against it, using all the military, political and intelligence powers at their disposal.

So as Saad al-Fagih, director of the Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia, pointed out, “the logical conclusion must be that the so-called war on terror in its present form, is yielding precisely the opposite results to those intended.”

Further, as Howard Zinn, professor emeritus of political science at Boston University, charges, “War is itself terrorism... that taking away people and subjecting them to torture is terrorism, that invading and bombing other countries does not give us more security but less.”

The main front in the war, now Afghanistan, remains a disaster. The British Army is taking casualties at a level not seen since the 1950s. The United Nations reported recently that Afghan civilian deaths doubled in 2009.

Two thirds of the British public believes that the war is unwinnable and all the troops should be brought home by Christmas. The hawks urge the Pentagon to put even more troops into the war, forgetting that General Westmoreland had a million soldiers in Vietnam but said he needed a million more in order to win.

At home there has been a shift in the public mood. Insiders are said to be telling President Obama he should follow the advice given to President Johnson in the middle of the Vietnam quagmire – “Declare victory and leave.”

And abroad the United States slides steadily downwards in the Anholt-GMI Nations Brand Index, the equivalent of a world popularity contest.

Some knowledgeable Americans recognize the danger. Robert Baer, a former top CIA officer, says: “Every time you kill a Muslim, whether it is an Israeli killing them or an American or a Brit, there is humiliation, anger, reaction and bombs go off somewhere.”

The unpalatable fact is that Britain and America are fighting an unwinnable war against an unidentifiable enemy. How can they fight terrorism when they cannot even agree what terrorism is?

That seems unlikely but either way what journalists should certainly be doing is reporting the views of terrorists so as to try to understand their motives. Would it not be more productive to try to understand what the terrorists want and what they would be prepared to accept to end their operations.

Instead acres of newsprint and hours of TV time have been devoted to condemning them as “evil”, a word which absolves us from thinking about the problem: if they are evil (born evil; grew up to be evil; taught to be evil? Which is it?), then it is useless to try to understand them.

But as David Clark, the former British Labor Party adviser points out, those who condemn terrorists as evil cannot answer the question: why is there more evil around today than there used to be? And they have nothing to contribute to the debate about what needs to happen next.

Thursday, March 18, 2010

American naifs bringing ruin to other lands

American naifs bringing ruin to other lands

By Paul Craig Roberts

According to news reports, the U.S. military is shipping “bunker-buster” bombs to the U.S. Air Force base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. The Herald Scotland reports that experts say the bombs are being assembled for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The newspaper quotes Dan Piesch, director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at the University of London: “They are gearing up totally for the destruction of Iran.”

The next step will be a staged “terrorist attack,” a “false flag” operation as per Operation Northwoods, for which Iran will be blamed. As Iran and its leadership have already been demonized, the “false flag” attack will suffice to obtain US and European public support for bombing Iran. The bombing will include more than the nuclear facilities and will continue until the Iranians agree to regime change and the installation of a puppet government. The corrupt American media will present the new puppet as “freedom and democracy.”

If the past is a guide, Americans will fall for the deception. In the February issue of the American Behavioral Scientist, a scholarly journal, Professor Lance DeHaven-Smith writes that state crimes against democracy (SCAD) involve government officials, often in combination with private interests, that engage in covert activities in order to implement an agenda. Examples include McCarthyism or the fabrication of evidence of communist infiltration, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution based on false claims of President Johnson and Pentagon chief McNamara that North Vietnam attacked a U.S. naval vessel, the burglary of the office of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist in order to discredit Ellsberg (the Pentagon Papers) as “disturbed,” and the falsified “intelligence” that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction in order to justify the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

There are many other examples. I have always regarded the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City as a SCAD. Allegedly, a disturbed Tim McVeigh used a fertilizer bomb in a truck parked outside the building. More likely, McVeigh was a patsy, whose fertilizer bomb was a cover for explosives planted inside the building.

A number of experts dismissed the possibility of McVeigh’s bomb producing such structural damage. For example, General Benton K. Partin, who was in charge of U.S. Air Force munitions design and testing, produced a thick report on the Murrah building bombing which concluded that the building blew up from the inside out. Gen. Partin concluded that “the pattern of damage would have been technically impossible without supplementary demolition charges at some of the reinforced concrete bases inside the building, a standard demolition technique. For a simplistic blast truck bomb, of the size and composition reported, to be able to reach out on the order of 60 feet and collapse a reinforced column base the size of column A7 is beyond credulity.”

Gen. Partin dismissed the official report as “a massive cover-up of immense proportions.”

Of course, the general’s unquestionable expertise had no bearing on the outcome. One reason is that his and other expert voices were drowned out by media pumping the official story. Another reason is that public beliefs in a democracy run counter to suspicion of government as a terrorist agent. Professor Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph says that “false flag” operations have the advantage over truth: “research shows that people are far less willing to examine information that disputes, rather than confirms, their beliefs.” Professor Steven Hoffman agrees: “Our data shows substantial support for a cognitive theory known as ‘motivated reasoning,’ which suggests that rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe. In fact, for the most part people completely ignore contrary information.” Even when hard evidence turns up, it can be discredited as a “conspiracy theory.”

All that is necessary for success of “false flag” or “black ops” events is for the government to have its story ready and to have a reliable and compliant media. Once an official story is in place, thought and investigation are precluded. Any formal inquiry that is convened serves to buttress the already provided explanation.

An explanation ready-at-hand is almost a give-away that an incident is a “black ops” event. Notice how quickly the U.S. government, allegedly so totally deceived by al Qaida, provided the explanation for 9/11. When President Kennedy was assassinated, the government produced the culprit immediately. The alleged culprit was conveniently shot inside a jail by a civilian before he could be questioned. But the official story was ready, and it held.

Professors Manwell and Hoffman’s research resonates with me. I remember reading in my graduate studies that the Czarist secret police set off bombs in order to create excuses to arrest their targets. My inclination was to dismiss the accounts as anti-Czarist propaganda by pro-communist historians. It was only later when Robert Conquest confirmed to me that this was indeed the practice of the Czarist secret police that the scales fell from my eyes.

Former CIA official Philip Giraldi in his article, “The Rogue Nation,” makes it clear that the U.S. government has a hegemonic agenda that it is pursuing without congressional or public awareness. The agenda unfolds piecemeal as a response to “terrorism,” and the big picture is not understood by the public or by most in Congress. Giraldi protests that the agenda is illegal under both U.S. and international law, but that the illegality of the agenda does not serve as a barrier. Only a naif could believe that such a government would not employ “false flag” operations that advance the agenda.

The U.S. population, it seems, is comprised of naifs whose lack of comprehension is bringing ruin to other lands.

Friday, March 12, 2010

Iran's spies show how it's done

Iran's spies show how it's done

By Mahan Abedin

The dramatic arrest of Abdulmalik Rigi, Iran's most wanted man, on February 23 continues to be shrouded in mystery. But with information and insights gleaned from security sources in Tehran, Asia Times Online can reveal some of the most intricate background details leading to this stunning arrest.

The imagery - and the concomitant political message - was compelling. The image of a young man being surrounded by balaclava-clad security officers by the side of a small commercial plane was designed to send the strongest possible message to Western intelligence services, their political masters and the Western public in general. If the West led by the mighty United States has failed in its nearly nine-year pursuit of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri, embattled
Iran managed to get its man with minimal political and economic cost.

Aside from frustrating American subversion efforts in Iran's southeast, the capture of the Jundallah leader sends an unmistakable message that in the intelligence wars of the Middle East, the Islamic Republic of Iran has once again seized the initiative. The repercussions of this will be felt across all spheres and at all levels, boosting Iran's diplomatic and political posture in the region, and thus making the country less vulnerable to American and Israeli bullying.

Rigi: Downfall of a terrorist
How a young man of 31 years with little formal education became the most serious and proximate security threat to the Islamic Republic is undoubtedly the most interesting dimension of ethnic politics in post-revolutionary Iran. The story of Rigi is still littered with unanswered questions. Security sources in Tehran contend that he has been cooperative in custody and surely enough there was no obvious hint of duress or coercion in his hastily-arranged "confession" that was aired on Iran's Press TV two days after his arrest. (See The demise of a 'good-for-nothing bandit', Asia Times Online, March 13.)

From an ideological point of view, the emergence of the Sunni militant Jundallah group is undoubtedly tied to the geopolitical and ideological concussions that have engulfed the region since the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, and the subsequent American-led military intervention in Afghanistan.

Iranian authorities believed their country to be immune from the kind of Sunni militant terrorism that had plagued neighboring countries, in particular Pakistan and Iraq. The idea that Shi'ite-majority Iran with its deep-rooted culture and civilization and strong sense of national identity and cohesion could fall victim to indigenous practitioners of this retrograde and savage form of terrorism hadn't even crossed the minds of many Iranian security officials. This is not so much a failure at the intelligence and security levels, but an indication of profound cultural arrogance and misplaced self-assuredness.

Jundallah is believed to have emerged in a coherent form in 2003, its organizational origins rooted in the twin security threats unique to the Sistan and Balochistan province, namely organized crime and a small but vocal secessionist movement. Balochi separatism, in different forms and guises, has been an irritant to the modern Iranian nation-state since the 19th century.

In recent decades what started out as a tribal revolt against the perceived intrusions of the central government developed distinctly ethnic and religious overtones, with self-declared champions of the Baloch people bemoaning the so-called Persian and Shi'ite character of the Iranian state.

On the surface, the victory of the Islamic revolution of 1979 and the country's transition from an absolute monarchy to a semi-democratic Islamic Republic was a body-blow to the small numbers of militant secessionists in Balochistan, as well as elsewhere, in particular Iran's Kurdish regions in the northwest, insofar as the Islamic Republic promoted more inclusive notions of nationality and citizenship.

But beneath the surface old grievances continued to fester - reinforced by years of central government neglect of local infrastructure - and accentuated by perceived sectarian policies. This is the backdrop to the emergence of Jundallah, which unlike previous generations of Baloch nationalists, openly embraced a religious and at times sectarian rhetoric, projecting itself as a Sunni Islamic movement at war with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Jundallah's strong religious and sectarian rhetoric, coupled with its tactics of suicide bombings and beheadings (painfully reminiscent of the atrocities perpetrated by Sunni jihadi groups in neighboring Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan), was a major shock to Iranian security officials, who by 2004 had begun to realize the extent of the problem, and quickly took remedial action.

The Islamic Republic prides itself on having efficient and adaptive security and intelligence services. Iranian officials often cite the successful experience of these agencies in countering a broad range of security and intelligence threats, including terrorism by left-wing and secessionist groups and intense espionage and subversion activities by Western intelligence services, over the past 30 years to underscore their skills and capabilities. It seems that the full gamut of these capabilities was deployed against Jundallah and its local allies in Iran and Pakistan to great effect, to the extent that the group is now for all intents and purposes decapitated and probably a spent force.

Using old tribal espionage networks established decades ago, the Ministry of Intelligence successfully penetrated Jundallah, recruiting many of its members, including top commanders. Although security sources in Tehran decline to comment on the matter, sources close to Jundallah-centered investigations in Tehran and Zahedan (capital of Sistan and Balochistan province) claim that the Ministry of Intelligence had recruited Rigi's younger brother, Abdulhamid.

Certainly, the behavior of Abdulhamid Rigi and the leniency afforded him by Iranian security and judicial authorities has raised many questions and lends credence to the suspicion that Abdulhamid was recruited as an agent, probably in late 2007.

Despite having been tried and sentenced to death for several murders, Abdulhamid has regularly given interviews to Iranian media since his ostensible "arrest" in 2008. In these interviews he has claimed to have met American diplomats and secret agents in Karachi and Islamabad in Pakistan, thus buttressing the unflinching belief of Iranian intelligence chiefs that Jundallah has had a US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) tail all along.

Skillfully using former senior leaders of terrorist and insurgent groups as a means of putting pressure on these groups and sabotaging their morale is a tried and tested trademark of the Iranian intelligence services. The same tactics have been used extensively and highly effectively against a number of other terrorist organizations, most notably the Mujahideen-e-Khalq Organization, which ranked as the country's number one security threat during the 1980s and much of the 1990s.

But there is something distinctly unusual about Abdulhamid Rigi's media appearances insofar as he seems more like an enthusiastic and skillful prop for his new masters rather than a captured and broken terrorist leader.

While security sources in Tehran decline to be drawn on Abdulhamid's precise relationship with the Ministry of Intelligence, they admit that his help was invaluable in tracking his brother's movements and unearthing his extensive ties to the CIA. According to these sources, Iranian intelligence had been monitoring Abdulmalik Rigi round the clock since August 2009, but moving against him was difficult due to strong American backing and the fear of exposing invaluable methods and agents.

But the major suicide bombing on October 18, 2009, which targeted a conference hall in the Pishin area of Sistan and Balochistan where senior Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) commanders were hosting a reconciliation meeting with local tribal elders, killing dozens of IRGC officers, including the deputy commander of the Guards' land forces, forced a decisive move against Rigi.

While the Ministry of Intelligence was not overly enthusiastic about ensnaring Rigi prematurely - for fear of compromising intelligence operations targeting Rigi's American masters in Pakistan and Afghanistan - the IRGC (which is now the dominant power in Sistan and Balochistan) brought sufficient pressure to bear, finally resulting in Rigi's capture in late February.

Security sources in Tehran are keen to highlight Abdulmalik Rigi's jet-set lifestyle, describing constant travel between Dubai in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Islamabad, Kabul and Central Asian capitals since early 2006. On the day of Rigi's arrest, Minister of Intelligence Heidar Moslehi appeared at a carefully arranged press conference giving details on Rigi's contacts and movements.

According to the intelligence minister, Rigi had even traveled to the British overseas territory of Gibraltar, from where he was allegedly moved to a European country, presumably to meet top Western intelligence chiefs. While independent verification of these claims is next to impossible, these carefully managed leaks are best understood as a means of inflicting sufficient public relations damage to Western intelligence without revealing anything solid by way of methods and knowledge.

In any event, security sources in Tehran tell Asia Times Online that they have "massive" amounts of information and documents in their possession that link Jundallah to the CIA and specialized branches of the United States military operating in Pakistan and Afghanistan. They also claim that the CIA had prior knowledge of the suicide bombing in Pishin in October (which was a massive blow against the IRGC) but there is an ongoing debate within security circles in Tehran as to whether the Americans had actively instigated the terrorist attack.

The outcome of this debate may well have serious repercussions, possibly prompting IRGC Qods force retaliation against American secret agents operating in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The IRGC Qods force is believed to have identified every noteworthy component of American intelligence activity in the region and the Qods force has the capability to strike a deadly blow against American intelligence assets in the region and beyond.

The precise details surrounding Abdulmalik Rigi's arrest are the subject of considerable debate. The Iranian government is content for confusion to prevail, especially since it feels it has succeeded in achieving two immediate post-arrest public relations objectives; to depict the operation as an all-Iranian affair (with no assistance rendered by any foreign intelligence service) and to paint Rigi as an American agent.

Notwithstanding the existence of several plausible theories surrounding Rigi's arrest, the bulk of the speculation has centered on Kyrgyzstan Airways flight QH454 en route to Bishkek from Dubai. According to most Iranian media reports, Iranian jets forced the plane to land before arresting Rigi with at least one accomplice. Kyrgyz authorities initially confirmed the arrests but then protested to Iran for forcing the plane to land and denied that any passengers were missing once the plane had landed at its destination.

Security sources in Tehran depict Abdulmalik Rigi as quiet and withdrawn. They describe a resourceful operative who despite lack of any formal education was able to develop a sophisticated relationship with the CIA and the US military, as well as the intelligence services of Pakistan, the UAE and "several" Central Asian states.

But they are also keen to downplay his physical daring and maintain that Rigi lacks physical courage and that his reluctance to place himself in "dangerous scenarios" had caused friction in Jundallah. This information ties in with accounts from journalist sources in Tehran who claim that Rigi's brother, Abdulhamid, fell out with him because of his increasing penchant for the "good" life and his reluctance to take part in operations.

Iran strikes back
By any standard, Abdulmalik Rigi's arrest is a major success for the Islamic Republic's intelligence services. This dramatic operation has boosted the morale of Islamic Republic loyalists throughout the Middle East and caused considerable dismay and embarrassment to Iran's Western enemies.

The arrest came in the wake of the assassinations of Iranian physicist Massoud Ali Mohammadi in Tehran in early January and legendary Hamas commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai later that month. While investigations into Mohammadi's assassination (by a remote-controlled bomb) are ongoing, Iranian authorities have already pointed an accusing finger at America and Israel, without providing much by way of evidence.

In the case of Mabhouh, although the Dubai police moved quickly to identify the assassins (who are widely believed to belong to the Israeli intelligence service Mossad), Iranian security chiefs believe the assassination could not have occurred without some complicity by UAE political and security chiefs.

The Iranians believe that at the very least high UAE officials had enabled the Mossad operation by creating a permissive operational environment for the Israeli spy service in Dubai. Although Mabhouh was not scheduled to meet Iranians in Dubai, he is believed to have had strong ties to the Iranian security establishment and this same establishment believes that the assassination was designed to send a strong signal to Iran and its allies.

Despite the amateurish way the assassination was carried out, it was nonetheless a morale boost for the Israelis and the Americans and was interpreted as such in Tehran. However, Rigi's arrest once again tipped the balance of confidence in favor of the Iranians, especially since, unlike Mabhouh's assassination, the operation was carried out with flawless precision and efficiency and moreover it was neither immoral nor did it violate any international laws.

Whether the Islamic Republic will be able to reap the full political and diplomatic dividends of this major intelligence success will depend on large measure to what extent Iranian policymakers can think imaginatively about all the conflict points between Iran and the United States, especially in regards to policy towards Pakistan and Afghanistan and the nuclear standoff. It will also depend on to what extent Iran can keep up the momentum of this success in the intelligence and security sphere with a view to continuing to deter Israeli military aggression, either against Lebanon or Syria, or far less likely against Iran itself.

The Real World: Tehran

Kill ‘em all, and let God sort ‘em out....

As the drums beat against the backdrop of a U.S. military buildup in the Persian Gulf, war with Iran seems more inevitable than it does likely. But does Iran pose a real threat to our national security or are they being used as a convenient scapegoat to divert the American people’s attention away from an impending financial collapse here at home?

War has always been used as a good exit strategy from the economic turmoil our banking masters create for us. Both world wars were initiated to face down fiscal meltdowns and it appears likely that they are using that same strategy to justify a third. But don’t expect to hear any mention of that once the shelling begins. It will be all about Ahmadinejad and the fictitious nuclear weapons program he has stashed away in his basement. That’s right! Same lie…different guy.

Truth is always the first casualty of war. Our kids come next. With fewer jobs to go around, social unrest becomes more certain especially among our nation’s youth. And what better way to quell the young and the restless from a potential uprising than to send them off to the front lines? Of course some will go reluctantly while others will consider it an honor to serve. Certainly there will be proud parents; they’ll slap a yellow “Support Our Troops” sticker on the back of their truck and break down in tears every time they hear “I’m proud to be an American” at the NASCAR track. But they will never acknowledge that their son is being used as cannon fodder for the banking cartels or worse yet– as Henry Kissinger describes them - “…dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns of foreign policy”.

Americans have been breeding soldiers since day one and as long as there is land to steal, property to seize and people to kill, there will always be a demand for more. But the United States government does not want to wait until your son’s 18th birthday to sell him on a military career- they want to get him young! And recruitment starts the minute you set the boy down in front of that television set. Since 9/11 the United States government and the American media have unilaterally orchestrated a massive campaign to win the hearts and minds of the young and prepare them for war! Graphically violent television programs and movies have made our children indifferent to death and destruction. Video games, particularly “first person shooter games”, actually teach kids to kill reliably and without hesitation after they condition their minds to make firing a weapon an “automatic response”.

Our nation has been in a constant state of war since 1991 and many young adults have no memory of a time when we have been at peace. Add that to all the virtual reality mayhem that’s been force-fed into their minds and it’s no wonder we see the level of aggression and recklessness from today’s youth. And you don’t have to even have kids of your own to witness a demonstration of this kind of behavior. Just check out popular youth-centric reality shows like “Jersey Shore” or “the Ruins” to get a glimpse into the lives of the modern young adult: blackout drinking, multiple sex partners, fits of rage and violence. And it’s not just the men engaged in these things. The girls can be just as scary.

Now compare them to the young adults who grew up before the war with Iraq, back when one of the first youth-centric reality shows made its debut:

In 1992, MTV launched “The Real World”, the longest running program in MTV history. Every episode starts off the same with a voice-over running simultaneously with a collage of scenes from that particular season’s show:

“This is the true story… of seven strangers… picked to live in a house…work together and have their lives taped… to find out what happens… when people stop being polite… and start getting real…The Real World.”

This was one of the first “reality” shows I remember seeing that dealt with average, ordinary young adults engaged in average, ordinary affairs that we can all relate to. It’s sort of a microcosm of contemporary American “pop culture”. Take a look at the characters from that first season. Sure they had their spats but, at least for the most part, they treated each other with a lot more respect than what we see today. These young people seemed more interested in art, careers and relationships than the drug-induced fistfights, date rapes and drunken tirades we see now. It’s a rather frightening example of just how morally bankrupt we’ve allowed our children to become in such a short period of time. But don’t worry! While your kids might not make functional members of society they just might find themselves right at home in the United States Armed Forces. There they can complete their life-long indoctrination and then be sent off to take out all their pent up rage on the young Iranian population…who are being subjected to their own brand of Western brain-washing.

Those who would believe that Iran is such a great threat to our American way of life and believe them to be at the forefront of a rising Islamic conspiracy to take over the world should take the time to examine the youth of that nation. After all, once their parents die off they will be the next in line to carry such a thing out. Wouldn’t it be interesting to follow the daily lives of seven Iranian youths…

…picked to live in a house…work together and have their lives taped… to find out what happens… when people stop being polite… and start getting real…

What do you think that might look like? Well, if slurs like “Sand Nigger”, “Camel Jockey” or “Rag head” dominate your vernacular then you may imagine these youths to be engaged in daily rituals of flag desecration, effigy burning and beheadings. Maybe you envision them to be part of a society of radical jihadists who quote passages from the Qur’an advocating the killing of the “infidels”. Perhaps you suspect their waking hours are spent polishing their hand grenades and brushing up on the latest ways to carry out suicide bombings on American troops. If this is your perception, then you are not living in the real world. Iran, and more particularly its largest city Tehran, has a youth culture much like our own. They lead secular lives that are often at odds with the ruling regime. They have parties, wear western clothes, dance to western music and even drink alcohol and use drugs. The regime itself acknowledges that young Iranians have distanced themselves from their Islamic faith much like the youth here have distanced themselves from their Christian faith. Like their western counterparts, the Iranian kids are not interested in politics and world domination. They’re kids! They want simple things: music and art, food and drink, affection and comfort.

But you may be wondering how something like this could happen in a place that is seen by many as an extremely repressive theocratic dictatorship? Well, the Iranian government has complained, for years, about the Westernization of their culture. Some may argue that that is a good thing. There certainly are beautiful aspects of Western Civilization but it’s not the virtues of liberty and freedom that are being propagated on the Iranian people. What they are being enticed to embrace are the secular aspects: sexual promiscuity, entertainment, indulgence and vanity.

On September 12, 2002, current, but then former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the U.S. House’s Government Reform Committee and, according to a UPI article of the time titled “Netanyahu: Subvert Iran with Television”:

“…called upon the United States to effect regime change in both Iraq and Iran, prescribing a military invasion to topple the government in Baghdad and the transmission of ribald television programming via satellite into Persia, where he said the influx of pop culture would prove “subversive” to the conservative Islamic regime.

Citing the hundreds of thousands of satellite television dishes in Iran, Benjamin Netanyahu told the House Government Reform Committee that the United States could incite a revolution against the conservative Iranian clergy through the use of such Fox Broadcasting staples as “Melrose Place” and “Beverly Hills 90210″ — both of which feature beautiful young people in varying states of undress, living, glamorous, materialistic lives and engaging in promiscuous sex”.

“This is pretty subversive stuff,” Netanyahu told the committee. “The kids of Iran would want the nice clothes they see on those shows. They would want the swimming pools and fancy lifestyles.”

And this suggestion did not fall on deaf ears. During the Bush Administration the US Congress voted $120 million for anti-regime media broadcasts into Iran, and about $75 million funding opposition parties. According to then Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice:

“The United States wishes to reach out to the Iranian people and support their desire to realize their own freedom and secure their own democratic and human rights”.

And how has this strategy worked out over the years? Well apparently it’s working. In 2006, CBS News did an expose about the recent epidemic of nose jobs that has become popular with the young men and women in Tehran and reported that some young Iranian women are more obsessed with their appearance than their counterparts in the west. And you thought that the only part of an Iranian woman you can see are her eyes!

“A Western nose is more beautiful”, says one young woman in Farsi.

The report goes on to say that Newsha Tavakolian, a photographer working on a book about the phenomenon, stated that the nose craze started with satellite TV from the West.

“Everyone saw how the Western women, they have very small nose and look almost like Barbie, and the Iranian women, they see them and they say, ‘Oh, I want to look like them’. They want to make their nose small”.

A more recent example of how Western influence has impacted the Iranian culture can be seen during the 2009 Iranian Presidential election when thousands of young adults took to the streets of Tehran to protest the re-election of President Ahmadinejad. To those who get their world news from the MSM, this appeared to be a grass-roots demonstration of a nationwide sentiment of dissatisfaction and distrust of the Regime and the voting process. But this was no organic uprising. Prior to the elections, tens of thousands of tweets began pouring into the popular Internet social site “Twitter”. They claimed that these “tweets” originated in Iran but were written in English by only a few recently registered users with the same photo profile. These “tweets” painted an exaggerated picture in support of the protests and stinks of the meddling of billionaire Rothschild stooge George Soros and his “Open Society Foundation”. Using this seemingly humanitarian NGO as a front, Soros and his group regularly outfit and fund opposition parties inside so-called repressive regimes that he wants to destabalize. These “color revolutions” have sprung up all over the Middle East and Europe and have been successful in fomenting dissent among the populations of Moldova, Greece, Georgia and the Ukraine among others. Soros operative Evgeny Morozov is on the board of the OSF’s “Information Program” that openly uses the internet to instigate democratic movements inside closed societies in order to destabilize governments. On his personal blog, Morozov admits that he regularly visits targeted nations with the intent of “studying opportunities that information technology and Internet networking present for overthrowing authoritarian regimes”.

But of all the assaults perpetrated against the Iranian people, none is more destructive then the rise in the nation’s drug problem. Since the deployment of U.S. troops into Afghanistan opium production has increased ten fold. Iran is the main supply route for product headed to Europe and tons of it ends up on the streets of Tehran on a daily basis. The Iranian government has accused the U.S. of supporting the drug trade as a way of maintaining a level of insecurity in order to justify their presence in the region. Besides that, the same Tribal leaders that helped the U.S. fight the Taliban are the ones who operate the biggest poppy fields. Allowing them to continue growing is part of their payment. We also know there to be a significant CIA presence in Afghanistan and there is no reason to doubt that they are engaged in flooding drugs into Iran just like they’ve been known to do over here for decades. And it’s not just Opium that is finding it’s way on the streets of Tehran. The very American drug Methamphetamine and the very Israeli drug MDMA (also known as Ecstacy) are also prevalent among the designer drugs finding its way into the hands of the Iranian youth. And, as you might suspect, this has contributed greatly to the moral collapse of that nation. With few jobs to turn to, kids are finding nothing better to do than get high; and along with that comes the associative problems of prostitution and violent crime.

So what can we conclude from all this? Certainly the West has contributed to the almost certain death of Iran without having to drop one bomb. Patience would eventually see the country collapse under the weight of its own internal struggles. And even if they continued to exist, can anyone take all this into account and still insist that the dreaded Islamic threat to take over the world is being orchestrated within the borders of Iran? An often bantered about concept I hear from Islamophobes is that the Muslim population is exploding at a rate that will eclipse all other races and result in the world being delivered into the bondage of “Sharia Law”. Well, if that’s true, it’s unlikely that such a thing will originate out of Iran, whose collapsing birth rate during the past 20 years is the fastest recorded in any country, ever.

But all of these facts won’t stop the West because as far as they’re concerned, Iran isn’t dying fast enough. And when the bombs start dropping, maybe the youth of Iran will end their fascination with the West and realize that all their gifts were merely “Trojan Horses”. And when those kids wake up to that reality, America really will have something to worry about.

Copyright 2009 echkelon-Boston-Globe. Powered by Blogger
Blogger Templates created by Deluxe Templates
Wordpress by Wpthemescreator