Jump to content
The Education Forum

israelnationalnews UPDATE FSA atrocities

Steven Gaal

Recommended Posts

7 countries in 5 years

Adam Curry and John C Dvorak discuss the United States' clear intentions to start a war with Syria. General Wesley Clark explains the Path to Persia that another general told him about on September 20, 2001 and again just after the bombing began in Afghanistan. The US for some reason wants to add the Persian States to its Empire.


War Plan, Seven Countries In Five Years


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 43
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Questions about the veracity of Clark's claims aside, he was partisan politician making points for his party his point was that this was supposedly a plan backed by the necons who are no longer in office. Six years later and AFAIK no documents have turned and no other people have come forward backing this claim. He also said OBL had 50,000 followers in AQ, do you believe that to be true?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clark comments credible.

http://www.salon.com/2007/10/12/wesley_clark/ (in context with below,see date)

Monday, 6 May, 2002, 22:40 GMT 23:40 UK

US expands 'axis of evil'



Over a billion people hate USA and its foreign policy ,IMHO. Just my reading of WWW info.

BUT I suspect only 50,000 would die for this 'hatred'

AS TO OBL followers ??? If you mean OBL sympathizers Im sure its in the millions. A good plurality in Pakistan 'hate' USA policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atrocities in Syria show the rebels' true colours, and have given Assad a boost in the propaganda war

By Michael Burleigh



Which Path to Persia?: Redux

Part II: Syria, Libya, and beyond, Globalists prepare for second phase.

by Tony Cartalucci

For Part I please see "Brookings' "Which Path to Persia?""

Bangkok, Thailand May 18, 2011 - While the "easier" nations of Tunisia and Egypt were picked apart by

foreign-funded color revolutions, the global corporate-financier oligarchs knew well in advance nations like Libya, Syria, and Iran would be fundamentally different. Nations including Belarus, Pakistan, Myanmar, and Thailand, come next, posing similar hurdles, and of course Russia and China remain at the end of the road and will require the most vigorous of all campaigns to effect regime change and assimilate them into the Wall Street/London corporate-financier dominated "international community."

For all intents and purposes this is the final battle between nation-states and this abhorrent, illegitimate "international community." The battle is building up to what many geopolitical analysts call World War III, but with an insidious twist. It is a battle where festering imperial networks operating under the guise of "civil society" and "NGOs" are turning populations against their governments and serving as impetus to usher in stooge replacements. National institutions will be supplanted by this global "civil society" network, which in turn will interface with contrived international institutions like the parasitic IMF, the World Bank, and the increasingly farcical United Nations.

The revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt were meant to serve as the moral and rhetorical backdrop for successive and increasingly more violent and costly campaigns against Libya, Syria, and Iran. In Libya's case, nearly 30 years of on-and-off armed insurrection, fully backed by the US, UK, and America's Arabic foreign legion of Al Qaeda have defined the campaign against Qaddafi. When the call was made on February 17, for a "Day of Rage" by Libyan leaders exiled in London, war was already a foregone, fully provisioned conclusion. So too are operations against Syria and Iran. These are admitted facts articulated clearly within the global elite's own think-tanks and parroted verbatim by the feckless puppets that constitute the governments of the West.

Laying to rest any doubt regarding the global elite's designs toward the remaining sovereign nation-states of the world, is the Brookings Institution's "Which Path to Persia?" report. Previously covered, the report has more meaning now than ever, defining verbatim the approach, the tactics and the outcomes expected in this next, decidedly more violent phase of geopolitical reordering worldwide. We can see the stratagems and methodology defined within this report have played out not only in Iran, but in Libya and Syria as well, with preparations and posturing being made in regards to targets further along China's "String of Pearls" and along Russia's vast borders.

As we reexamine this treacherous plot, funded by some of the largest corporations and banking interests on earth, we can see the playbook the global elite have been clearly using, starting in Iran, and creeping its way toward Moscow and Beijing. Understanding this report, disseminating it to both the people beneath the governments criminally pursuing it and those desperately defending against it, may balk what is perhaps the greatest attempted geopolitical reordering in human history.

Which Path to Persia?

Virtually a handbook for overthrowing nations, the 156 page report focuses on effecting regime change within Iran. However, it is quite clear it draws on a body of knowledge derived from the Anglo-American empire's long history of fomenting unrest, division, insurgencies, coups, and regime change around the world. It is irrefutable proof that the global elite, not our legislators, are the arbiters of Western foreign policy.

It is also irrefutable proof that indeed the global elite are capable and willing to foment popular street protests, use murderous terrorism against sovereign nation-states, buy off treasonous legions within a foreign military to effect coups, and use violence of their own creation as a pretext to intervene with full military force.


Sanctions, page 39 (page 52 of PDF): "For those who favor regime change or a military attack on Iran (either by the United States or Israel), there is a strong argument to be made for trying this option first. inciting regime change in Iran would be greatly assisted by convincing the Iranian people that their government is so ideologically blinkered that it refuses to do what is best for the people and instead clings to a policy that could only bring ruin on the country. The ideal scenario in this case would be that the United States and the international community present a package of positive inducements so enticing that the Iranian citizenry would support the deal, only to have the regime reject it.

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."

Regime change and perhaps even military operations against Iran are talked about as a foregone conclusion, with Brookings using the pretext of sanctions as merely a means of incremental escalation to tip-toe the world into backing regime change, including war with the nation if need be. This is exactly what has been done in regards to Libya, with disingenuous humanitarian concerns translated into a no-fly zone, which incrementally transitioned into attacks on Qaddafi's ground forces, targeted assassinations against Qaddafi himself, and now talk of destroying civilian infrastructure and a full-out ground invasion.

A repeat scenario is playing out in Syria where foreign-fueled violence is being used as a means to engage in broader intervention. While Western governments feigns inaction and hesitation in the face of a bloodbath they themselves instigated, in reality they are creating the same sense of "bringing it upon themselves" for Syria as Brookings talks about in regards to Iran.


Justifying Invasion, page 65 (page 78 of the PDF): "If the United States were to decide that to garner greater international support, galvanize U.S. domestic support, and/or provide a legal justification for an invasion, it would be best to wait for an Iranian provocation, then the time frame for an invasion might stretch out indefinitely. With only one real exception, since the 1978 revolution, the Islamic Republic has never willingly provoked an American military response, although it certainly has taken actions that could have done so if Washington had been looking for a fight.

Thus it is not impossible that Tehran might take some action that would justify an American invasion and it is certainly the case that if Washington sought such a provocation, it could take actions that might make it more likely that Tehran would do so (although being too obvious about this could nullify the provocation). However, since it would be up to Iran to make the provocative move, which Iran has been wary of doing most times in the past, the United States would never know for sure when it would get the requisite Iranian provocation. In fact, it might never come at all."

This is nothing less than US policy makers openly talking about purposefully provoking a nation in order to justify a full-scale invasion that would otherwise be untenable. If such treachery at the cost of thousands of American lives and perhaps millions of Iranian lives is openly talked about within the halls of these corporate-funded think-tanks, what do they talk about that isn't on record? For those who reject out-of-hand the notion that 9/11 was an inside job, on grounds that Western policy makers are not capable of such a horrific calculus, the evidence is here, starring back from pages of this Brookings Institution report for all to see and to come to grips with.

In Libya, provocations for NATO bombardment were a rash of entirely unverified reports coming from the rebels themselves and verified lies about aircraft strafing unarmed protesters. With the targeted assassination of Qaddafi resulting in the death of his son and three of his grandchildren, NATO appears to have taken "actions that might make it more likely" for Qaddafi to be provoked into justifying some sort of wider NATO ground invasion. If the litany of lies that set the groundwork for the current NATO campaign is any indication, even if Qaddafi does nothing, a provocation will be manufactured for him. With the operations against Syria still in their opening phases, we can be sure as military options are brought to the table, so will appropriate provocations, induced or manufactured.

United Front Against Iran

An Iranian Sponsored 9/11 and a change of leadership throughout the Middle East, page 66 (page 79 of the PDF): "Most European, Asian, and Middle Eastern publics are dead set against any American military action against Iran derived from the current differences between Iran and the international community—let alone Iran and the United States. Other than a Tehran-sponsored 9/11, it is hard to imagine what would change their minds. For many democracies and some fragile autocracies to which Washington would be looking for support, this public antipathy is likely to prove decisive. For instance, Saudi Arabia is positively apoplectic about the Iranians’ nuclear program, as well as about their mischief making in Lebanon, Iraq, and the Palestinian territories. Yet, so far, Riyadh has made clear that it will not support military operations of any kind against Iran. Certainly that could change, but it is hard to imagine what it would take.

Given that this situation has not been enough to push the GCC to support military operations against Iran, what would? Certainly Iran testing a nuclear device might, but at that point, it almost certainly would be too late: if the United States is going to invade Iran, it will want to do so before Iran has developed actual nuclear weapons, not after. It is hard to know what else Iran could do that would change GCC attitudes about the use of force unless new leaders took power in the Gulf who were far more determined to stop Iran than the current leadership is."

Quite obviously, "new leaders" are taking power throughout the Gulf now via the US-created "Arab Spring," with Saudi Arabia being tacitly threatened with destabilization in Bahrain and Yemen, while Iran's axis of influence through Syria and into Lebanon is being destabilized. Egypt and Northern Africa are being thrown into precarious political chaos as well, with globalist puppets poised to take over and eagerly pursue any dictate coming from Washington. This confirms the worst fears of geopolitical analysts like Dr. Webster Tarpley who predicted as far back as mid-February 2011 that the US-created "Arab Spring" was an attempt at reordering the Middle East against Iran and eventually against China and Russia.

Manufacturing Provocations

Goading Provocations for an Air Strike, page 84-85 (page 97-98 of the PDF): "...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.)

This suggests that this option might benefit from being held in abeyance until such time as the Iranians made an appropriately provocative move, as they do from time to time. In that case, it would be less a determined policy to employ airstrikes and instead more of an opportunistic hope that Iran would provide the United States with the kind of provocation that would justify airstrikes. However, that would mean that the use of airstrikes could not be the primary U.S. policy toward Iran (even if it were Washington’s fervent preference), but merely an ancillary contingency to another option that would be the primary policy unless and until Iran provided the necessary pretext."

Here we see again, the plotting of a deceitful gambit to goad a sovereign nation into war, a nation Brookings notes time and time again has no interest in armed conflict with the United States. Also notice the first mention of "covert regime change efforts" used as a means to apply sufficient pressure to exact a particular reaction used for further political escalation and subsequent military intervention.

Such a gambit has been recently used in Libya and now in Syria where foreign-support created violence, to which regimes were forced to react to - the subsequent violence then serving as an impetus for expanded US intervention. Brookings notes that such goading must be done in such a way so as to not raise suspicions of the "game" throughout the world. Hopefully, as people read this written and signed confession of criminal conspiracy, they will never fall for this "game" again.

Foreign-Funded Color Revolution

Finding and Building up Dupes for a Color Revolution, page 105 (page 118 of the PDF): "The United States could play multiple roles in facilitating a revolution. By funding and helping organize domestic rivals of the regime, the United States could create an alternative leadership to seize power. As Raymond Tanter of the Iran Policy Committee argues, students and other groups “need covert backing for their demonstrations. They need fax machines. They need internet access, funds to duplicate materials, and funds to keep vigilantes from beating them up.”

Beyond this, U.S.-backed media outlets could highlight regime short comings and make otherwise obscure critics more prominent. The United States already supports Persian-language satellite television (Voice of America Persian) and radio (Radio Farda) that bring unfiltered news to Iranians (in recent years, these have taken the lion’s share of overt U.S. funding for promoting democracy in Iran). U.S. economic pressure (and perhaps military pressure as well) can discredit the regime, making the population hungry for a rival leadership."

Here Brookings makes outright calls to create the conditions within Iran, or any target nation for that matter, that are more likely to create unrest. They then call for funding and organizing that unrest and using domestic, and quite obviously foreign media to manipulate public perception and perpetuate US-backed propaganda. We see this in nearly every country targeted for destabilization, generally funded by organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), so-called "independent media" organizations and human rights NGOs that "make otherwise obscure critics more prominent."

The NED-funded Project on Middle East Democracy is one such propaganda outlet operating throughout the Middle East, propagating the official US narrative in regards to unrest fomented from Egypt to Syria. Voice of America is openly mentioned by Brookings within this report, while examples in Eastern Europe include Radio Free Europe, a subsidary with VOA under the Broadcasting Board of Governors upon which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sits as a member. Also note worthy is Southeast Asia's NED-funded Prachatai of Thailand.

Together this nefarious global network feeds the mainstream, corporate-owned media their talking points which are then repeated verbatim or cited outright as reputable sources. It should be remembered though, that within the 156 pages of the "Which Path to Persia?" report it is explicitly and often stated that these gambits are to protect and expand US interests throughout the region while diminishing Iran's ability to challenge said interests in any shape, form, or manner - not promote democracy, protect freedom, or even protect America from a genuine security threat.

Using Military Force to Assist Popular Revolutions, page 109-110 (page 122-123 of the PDF): "Consequently, if the United States ever succeeds in sparking a revolt against the clerical regime, Washington may have to consider whether to provide it with some form of military support to prevent Tehran from crushing it." "This requirement means that a popular revolution in Iran does not seem to fit the model of the “velvet revolutions” that occurred elsewhere. The point is that the Iranian regime may not be willing to go gently into that good night; instead, and unlike so many Eastern European regimes, it may choose to fight to the death. In those circumstances, if there is not external military assistance to the revolutionaries, they might not just fail but be massacred.

Consequently, if the United States is to pursue this policy, Washington must take this possibility into consideration. It adds some very important requirements to the list: either the policy must include ways to weaken the Iranian military or weaken the willingness of the regime’s leaders to call on the military, or else the United States must be ready to intervene to defeat it."

Quite clearly, after previously conspiring to implement foreign-funded unrest, the predictable crackdown by Iranian security forces to restore order "requires" some form of deterrent or military support to be employed to prevent the movement from being crushed. We see that this exact scenario has played out verbatim in Libya, where "protesters" were in fact armed rebels from the very beginning, the recipients of decades of US and UK support, and shortly after their rebellion began, NATO forces were brought in via a clumsy series of staged pretenses to prevent the armed uprising from being crushed by Qaddafi's forces.

A lead-up to the exact same scenario is playing out in Syria, where US and UK puppet politicians are menacing the Syrian government with threats of military intervention under the "Libyan Precedence." We see in reality, this "precedence" had been clearly articulated in this 2009 report, and is based on a familiar "problem, reaction, solution" methodology used by imperialists throughout human history.

In both Libya, Syria, and Yemen, and in other immovable targeted nations like Thailand, armed militants are brought in by opposition groups to augment street protests. Often these armed elements are brought in without the knowledge of the protesters themselves, and in some cases, especially in Syria and Yemen, it appears armed groups of "mystery gunmen" are clashing with both security forces and protesters in order to escalate violence and unrest further. Should the escalating violence fail to tip the balance in the protesters' favor, the violence itself will become the pretext for the next level of more overt US intervention.

US Sponsored Terrorism and Armed Insurrection

Arming, Funding, and Using Terrorist Organizations, page 113 (page 126 of the PDF): "The United States could work with groups like the Iraq-based National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) and its military wing, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), helping the thousands of its members who, under Saddam Husayn’s regime, were armed and had conducted guerrilla and terrorist operations against the clerical regime. Although the NCRI is supposedly disarmed today, that could quickly be changed."

"Potential Ethnic Proxies," page 117-118 (page 130-131 of the PDF): "Perhaps the most prominent (and certainly the most controversial) opposition group that has attracted attention as a potential U.S. proxy is the NCRI (National Council of Resistance of Iran), the political movement established by the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq). Critics believe the group to be undemocratic and unpopular, and indeed anti-American.

In contrast, the group’s champions contend that the movement’s long-standing opposition to the Iranian regime and record of successful attacks on and intelligence-gathering operations against the regime make it worthy of U.S. support. They also argue that the group is no longer anti-American and question the merit of earlier accusations. Raymond Tanter, one of the group’s supporters in the United States, contends that the MEK and the NCRI are allies for regime change in Tehran and also act as a useful proxy for gathering intelligence. The MEK’s greatest intelligence coup was the provision of intelligence in 2002 that led to the discovery of a secret site in Iran for enriching uranium.

Despite its defenders’ claims, the MEK remains on the U.S. government list of foreign terrorist organizations. In the 1970s, the group killed three U.S. officers and three civilian contractors in Iran. During the 1979-1980 hostage crisis, the group praised the decision to take America hostages and Elaine Sciolino reported that while group leaders publicly condemned the 9/11 attacks, within the group celebrations were widespread.

Undeniably, the group has conducted terrorist attacks—often excused by the MEK’s advocates because they are directed against the Iranian government. For example, in 1981, the group bombed the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party, which was then the clerical leadership’s main political organization, killing an estimated 70 senior officials. More recently, the group has claimed credit for over a dozen mortar attacks, assassinations, and other assaults on Iranian civilian and military targets between 1998 and 2001. At the very least, to work more closely with the group (at least in an overt manner), Washington would need to remove it from the list of foreign terrorist organizations."

Certainly if the United States went through with arming and funding MEK (and they apparently did), they themselves would become "state sponsors of terrorism" - even as they fight amidst a decade long war against supposedly just that. MEK is unequivocally a terrorist organization that murders and maims civilians indiscriminately along with their political opponents. MEK is even on-record having targeted and murdered Americans. Yet for some reason, they are considered a potential proxy, and considerations for their removal from the apparently meaningless "foreign terrorist organizations" list, is based solely on their utility toward advancing US foreign policy.

With this we are given full insight into the unfathomable depths of depravity from which the global elite operate from. It turns out that the degenerates behind "Which Path to Persia?" including Kenneth Pollack, Daniel Byman, Martin Indyk, Susanne Maloney, Michael O'Hanlon, and Bruce Riedel, most of whom are regular contributors to the US's largest newspapers, would see their plans brought to life. According to Seymour Hersh's New Yorker article "Preparing the Battlefield," MEK had already been receiving weapons and funding as of 2008 for the purposes described within the Brookings report that would come out a year later.

It would seem even as "Which Path to Persia?" was being compiled many of the options on the table had already gone operational. Baluchi rebels residing in eastern Iran and western Pakistan were also mentioned in both the Brookings report and Hersh's article. US support for this group is quite ambitious. In addition to using them in terrorist operations against Tehran, they are also being built up and directed toward destabilizing and Balkanizing Pakistan.

Fomenting a Military Coup

Staging a Coup, page 123-124 (page 136-137 of the PDF): "Mounting a coup is hard work, especially in a state as paranoid about foreign influence and meddling as Iran is. The United States would first have to make contact with members of Iran’s military (and likely its security services as well). This by itself is very difficult. Because of Iranian hypersensitivity to Americans, the United States would likely have to rely on “cutouts”—third party nationals working on behalf of the United States—which invariably introduces considerable complexity. Then the United States would have to use those contacts to try to identify Iranian military personnel who were both willing and able to stage a coup, which would be more difficult still; it would be hard enough for Americans to make contact with Iranian military officers, let alone make contact with those specific individuals willing to risk their lives and their families in a coup attempt.

Of course, it is possible that if Washington makes very clear that it is trying to support a coup in Iran, the coup plotters will reach out to the United States. But this is very rare: history shows that coup plotters willing to expose themselves to another national government are usually discovered and killed; furthermore, most of those coming to the United States to ask for help overthrowing this or that government tend to be poseurs or even counterintelligence agents of the targeted government."

If readers are wondering whether or not there is a historical precedence of the United States "mounting a coup," the Brookings report itself provides Operation Ajax as notable example:

"Although many coups are homegrown, one obvious historic model of a foreign-assisted coup in Iran is Operation Ajax, the 1953 coup d’état that overthrew the government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq and reinstated the rule of Shah Reza Pahlavi. To carry out the coup, the CIA and British intelligence supported General Fazlollah Zahedi, providing him and his followers with money and propaganda, as well as helping organize their activities."

The uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt were apparently assisted by members of the military, with similar defections being sought out in Libya and Syria to help along the collapse of the embattled regimes. Nations of Western interest might want to take time to reevaluate military officers who have had historically close ties to the United States or who have reason or possible motivations for turning on their nation during a spate of foreign-engineered upheaval.

It should be noted that the Brookings report suggests that all of these options - popular revolution, insurgency, and coup - be used concurrently in the hopes that at least one may succeed. It also suggests that "helpful synergies" might be created among them to further mire the targeted regime. (page 150, page 163 of the PDF.)


It is inconceivable that one could read the pages of "Which Path to Persia?" and not understand the current "international community" as anything less than absolutely illegitimate. They contrive a myriad of laws with which to restrain and eliminate their competition with while they remain entirely uninhibited themselves in their own overt criminality. We also understand that the United States is not engaged in diplomatic relations with the world's nations as envisioned by America's Founding Fathers, but rather engaged in extorting and coercing the world to conform to it's "interests."

This report represents a full array of options not only for use in Iran, but throughout the world. In hindsight of the US-funded "Arab Spring" it is quite obvious that the methodology laid out in the report has been drawn on to destabilize and depose regimes as well as instigate wars of aggression. Upon studying this report, its implications for Iran and the surrounding region, we can understand better conflicts yet to unfold beyond North Africa and the Gulf. It is essential that reports like this are made public, their methodology exposed, and the true architects behind Western foreign policy revealed. As the report itself states numerous times, the vast majority of their gambits require secrecy, "plausible deniability," and that their dark deeds be done "without the rest of the world recognizing this game."

The world must realize who the true brokers of power are, and that by understanding their agenda, we can wholly reject it and pursue instead one of our own, locally, self-sufficiently, independently, and in true freedom.

For the latest news on Iran, please see the "Iran Archives."

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony Cartalucci does it better than I.

Wesley Clark would backtrack in his 2007 talk in California and recall a conversation he had in 1991 with then Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz regarding Desert Storm. Clark was told that America's intervention in Iraq proved that the US could use its military force and the Soviets wouldn't stop them. Wolfowitz said the US had 5-10 years to clean up the old Soviet "client regimes" before the next super power rose up and challenged western hegemony. Clark claimed that this, along with the aftermath of 9/11 constituted a policy coup where Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and the other members of the of Project for a New American Century had hijacked US foreign policy to destabilize and turn the nations of the Middle East upside down - much the way they are now. The "Neo-Conservative" element of this current round of destabilization goes deeper than the promotion of war, as the "Neo-Cons" have uncharacteristically dedicated themselves to "human rights" and "democracy" side-by-side with the likes of George Soros and Zbigniew Brzezinski.

General Wesley Clark tells of how Middle East destabilization

was planned as far back as 1991, with the destruction of Iraq,

Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, and Iran on the

drawing board following the invasion of Afghanistan.

Bush campaigned on an anti-war, anti-nation building platform. Obama then pledged to roll back the agenda Bush swindled the nation into, only to then continue it in earnest. All along we have been treated to the theatrics of the corporate-owned media, with pundits on the left and right reacting in shock and surprise as these engineered events unfolded according to plan.

Despite Wolfowitz' agenda being meted out nearly 20 years ago, the ham-fisted nature of both the operation itself in Libya and the propaganda surrounding it suggests a rushed sense of desperation on the globalists' behalf. Wesley Clark suggested that the operation to destabilize the Middle East and Northern Africa would take 5 years, starting in 2001. Wolfowitz believed that in 1991 the operation would have taken 5-10 years. The failed FBI attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 was most likely the staged impetus to trigger the first blitzkrieg. Not only did the attacks fail to cause the catastrophic effects needed to justify such an operation, the Egyptian informant assisting the FBI had recorded his conversations with agents indicating that they were indeed building a bomb for extremists and providing them with real explosives as well.

1993 would have fit in perfectly to tip off Wolfowitz' plan. Upon failing, he and his PNAC cadre would attempt to destroy the World Trade Center buildings again, this time

. The catastrophic loss of life, the confusion, and the rage that was left in its wake gave the PNAC what they called a "new Pearl Harbor" they claimed they needed in their September 2000 report titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses."

These men, who in fact helped create Al Qaeda in the mountains of Afghanistan to face the Soviets in the 80s would call on their legion of foreign mercenaries to wreck havoc across the planet, heralding globalist intervention along the way. Certainly this had nothing to do with defending America or spreading "democracy" but rather bolstering the hegemony of the corporate-financier oligarchy that both the PNAC cadre and the bankers who thoroughly saturate Obama's administration constitute.

What appears to have happened is a costly delay in 1993 and a post-9/11 campaign that has dragged on 5 years longer than expected. With the same clumsy hands fumbling in Libya also trying to stab simultaneously at both Moscow and Beijing with their agenda laid on the table openly for all to see, failure on the globalists' behalf now may incur a wrathful response from a planet about to truly awaken.

It should be expected that that any excuse to complete regime change in Libya will be made, including creating the conditions necessary to put troops on the ground - be it because of a failing rebellion, a false flag attack carried out in Qaddafi's name, or even feigned fears the globalists' own Al Qaeda might "seize" Libya should they not intervene. Similarly, with the US openly admitting to funding subversive activities across the Arab world, in Iran, and even as far as China, the globalists have painted themselves into an irredeemable, inescapable corner of confrontation.

Look past the feckless puppets occupying our public offices and toward the corporations and financial empires that are our true "misleaders." Boycott these corporations and systematically replace them by getting self-sufficient as an individual, as a household, and as a community. Independence is freedom, freedom is independence and the dominion of this dark empire can be broken by understanding that they need us, we do not need them.

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony Cartalucci does it better than I.

In other words you are unable to articulate this yourself and can't do any better than pasting the blather of kook who spouts all sorts of mis-(if not dis-)-info e.g.

- "the Egyptian informant assisting the FBI [in 1993] had recorded his conversations with agents indicating that they were indeed building a bomb for extremists [to blow up the WTC] and providing them with real explosives as well"

- "the PNAC [called for a] "new Pearl Harbor" they claimed they needed in their September 2000 report titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses.""

- "These men [PNAC, the CIA??]... helped create Al Qaeda in the mountains of Afghanistan"

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Audio of FBI Agents' Confessions: FBI Bombed World Trade Center in 1993


James Redford:

It was the FBI that bombed the World Trade Center in 1993. None of this would be known today if it were not for the FBI's undercover agent Emad Ali Salem taping his conversations with his FBI handlers (unbeknownst to them). Salem thought that the FBI might try to pin it on him so he took measures to protect himself. Indeed, without the FBI the '93 WTC bombing would never have happened, as it was agent Salem who built the bomb for the would-be Muslim "terrorists." Salem wanted to use fake ingredients for the "bomb" but the FBI ordered him to make a real one. When the making of the bomb was complete Salem told the FBI that they could now arrest the would-be terrorists, but the FBI refused to stop the bombing. After agent Salem went public with his tapes in a news conference the FBI found it necessary to pay him over a million dollars to shut him up.

For more on the above, see the below New York Times articles:

"Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast," Ralph Blumenthal, New York Times, October 28, 1993, Section A, pg. 1, Column 4;

"Tapes in Bombing Plot Show Informer and F.B.I. at Odds," Ralph Blumenthal, New York Times, October 27, 1993, Section A, pg. 1, Column 4:



Also see the below article:

"Who Bombed The World Trade Center? FBI Bomb Builders Exposed," Paul DeRienzo, Frank Morales and Chris Flash, The Shadow, October 1994/January 1995 Issue:


From the above article one can find the below two audio clips from one of Emad A. Salem's recorded telephone conversations with one of his FBI handlers, FBI Special Agent John Anticev:



(Backup copy.)

The above clip is an excerpt from the below longer clip:



(Backup copy.)

The above clips are from a broadcast on WBAI Radio in the city of New York which aired this taped conversation between Emad A. Salem and FBI Special Agent John Anticev.

In this audio recording of Emad A. Salem in conversation with one of his FBI handlers, Special Agent John Anticev (recorded unbeknownst to him), Salem admits a number of times to building, with the supervision of the FBI and the District Attorney of New York, the bomb that exploded in the North Tower (Tower One) of the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993. FBI Special Agent John Anticev doesn't disagree with Salem's account of the event, and indeed Anticev admits in the recording that Salem has only ever told him and the FBI the truth.

The below transcript is from 2:57 to 4:31 min:sec from the longer clip (SalemWBAI.mp3):


FBI Special Agent John Anticev: But, uh, basically nothing has changed. I'm just telling you for my own sake that nothing, that this isn't a salary, that it's--you know. But you got paid regularly for good information. I mean the expenses were a little bit out of the ordinary and it was really questioned. Don't tell Nancy I told you this. [Nancy Floyd is another FBI Special Agent who worked with Emad A. Salem in his informant capacity.]

FBI undercover agent Emad A. Salem: Well, I have to tell her of course.

Anticev: Well then, if you have to, you have to.

Salem: Yeah, I mean because the lady was being honest and I was being honest and everything was submitted with a receipt and now it's questionable.

Anticev: It's not questionable, it's like a little out of the ordinary.

Salem: Okay. Alright. I don't think it was. If that's what you think guys, fine, but I don't think that because we was start already building the bomb which is went off in the World Trade Center. It was built by supervising supervision from the Bureau and the D.A. and we was all informed about it and we know that the bomb start to be built. By who? By your confidential informant. What a wonderful, great case! (WOW !!!) (WOW !!)

Anticev: Well.

Salem: And then he put his head in the sand and said "Oh, no, no, that's not true, he is son of a bitch." [Deep breath.] Okay. It's built with a different way in another place and that's it.

Anticev: No, don't make any rash decisions. I'm just trying to be as honest with you as I can.

Salem: Of course, I appreciate that.

Anticev: And as far as the payments go, and everything like that, they're there. I guarantee you that they are there.


Salem says in the above that he and the FBI built the bomb, i.e., "we." Indeed, he says it three different times here in three different ways: first he says "we [i.e., at the very least Salem] was start already building the bomb," then he says "It was built by supervising supervision from the Bureau and the D.A.," and lastly he asks "By who?" (i.e., "By whom was the bomb built?") to which he answers "By your confidential informant" (i.e., by Salem).

Salem was a former Egyptian army officer and the explosives expert within Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman's circle of followers. The fact that Salem was the explosives expert and bomb-builder within Sheik Rahman's circle is further reinforced by the fact that Salem tried to get the FBI to allow him to secretly substitute harmless powder for the explosives, but the FBI wouldn't allow it (see the two New York Times articles I previously cited above for that). Let me repeat: Salem himself wanted to substitute harmless ingredients for the bomb. What this demonstrates is that (1) Salem was regarded within Sheik Rahman's circle as the bomb-making expert (such that Salem would be allowed by them to be in charge of building the bomb), and that (2) Salem wasn't all that concerned about anyone else within Sheik Rahman's circle knowing the difference between fake or real bomb-making ingredients.

Nor can point No. 2 be dismissed as Salem not being very cautious, because not only was Salem concerned enough about his dealings with the FBI to secretly record his phone conversations with them (lest the FBI attempted to deny the extent of their relationship with Salem and blame him for the bombing), but Salem also refused to wear a "wire" in case he should be discovered as an undercover agent. In other words, if Salem thought that there was anyone else within the circle that he infiltrated who would know the difference between fake or real bomb-making ingredients then he wouldn't have been at all keen--as he indeed was--on the idea of substituting fake bomb-making ingredients.

There is simply no getting around the fact that Salem was the one who built the bomb under orders and supervision of the FBI. Not only did Salem say three different times in three different ways that he and the FBI built the bomb, but then one has points Nos. 1 and 2 which demonstrate that Salem was in charge of bomb-building within Sheik Rahman's circle, and that no one else within this group besides Salem would have been able to recognize fake bomb-making ingredients.

The following exchange is from 8:00 to 8:34 min:sec on the longer clip (SalemWBAI.mp3):


FBI undercover agent Emad A. Salem: [Have] you ever verified information and you find me falsifying any information to the Bureau?

FBI Special Agent John Anticev: Falsify? No. No.

Salem: No. Alright. So, every single information I supplied, it's very excellent and correct.

I was talking to El Sayyid Nosair's [i'm not sure if this is the correct name that Salem says] wife yesterday, and she's going to visit him today, and I will be going to visit him next week, as per the arrangement. What am I supposed to do this trip? I don't have money to do this trip. And then to go over there and the guy will ask me to build a bomb again. ...


One reason for me bringing up the above exchange is that it once again, at the very least, demonstrates that Salem was in charge of bomb-building within Sheik Rahman's circle. And depending on how one interprets the phrasing, it could very well mean that Salem is here saying that he had previously built a bomb for this group and hence "the guy will ask me [i.e., Salem] to build a bomb again": i.e., Salem had already built a bomb for this group, and now they're asking him to build another one for them. But at the very least this exchange further demonstrates that this group thought that Salem was the one to go to when it comes to having a person build bombs.

Moreover, another point to me bringing up this exchange is that FBI Special Agent John Anticev here admits that Salem hasn't ever said anything false to him or the FBI. That is, Anticev here agrees that Salem's statements in the audio recording regarding how the February 26, 1993 World Trade Center bomb was built are correct.


bump due to recent FBI dirty tricks



Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But of course if there really was any evidence that Salem really had built the bomb under the supervision of the FBI and federal prosecutors the terrorists lawyers including the very able William Kunstler would have used that as a defense, but they don't seem to have done so.


And the victims would have had a basis for suing the federal gov't but only went after the PANYNJ


Link to comment
Share on other sites


FBI undercover agent Emad A. Salem: [Have] you ever verified information and you find me falsifying any information to the Bureau?

FBI Special Agent John Anticev: Falsify? No. No.

Salem: No. Alright. So, every single information I supplied, it's very excellent and correct.



Salem: Okay. Alright. I don't think it was. If that's what you think guys, fine, but I don't think that because we was start already building the bomb which is went off in the World Trade Center. It was built by supervising supervision from the Bureau and the D.A. and we was all informed about it and we know that the bomb start to be built. By who? By your confidential informant. What a wonderful, great case! (WOW !!!) (WOW !!)

Anticev: Well.

Salem: And then he put his head in the sand and said "Oh, no, no, that's not true, he is son of a bitch." [Deep breath.] Okay. It's built with a different way in another place and that's it.

Anticev: No, don't make any rash decisions. I'm just trying to be as honest with you as I can.



Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet despite having those tapes and transcripts Kunstler and the defendants other lawyers never said 'my client was set up an FBI informer built the bomb', and the victims didn't sue the FBI, DoJ or any other agency of the USG but rather the PANYNJ. Why? Because the rest of the evidence indicated that was not the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul DeRienzo's interview with William Kunstler about the role of Emad Salem in the World Trade Center bombing trial. Broadcast on WBAI Aug. 3, 1993

JOSE SANTIAGO… And in New York City, the conspiracy case against eleven men charged with plotting to bomb city landmarks was in court today. A suspect in the case, Siddig Ibrahim Siddig Ali declared his innocence before United States District Court Judge Michael Mukasey, and he said he intended to retain attorney William Kuntsler. Kunstler is also representing co-defendant Ibrahim El-Gabrowny. Judge Mukasey has warned he will put Government agents under oath to determine the sources of leaks in the case. Kunstler has argued that the leaks are making it difficult to find an unbiased jury.

Speaking at a forum last week, Kunstler laid out the strategy, which he plans to follow in the trial. The renowned defense attorney says he plans to attack the credibility of the Government’s star witness. More on the story from Paul DeRienzo.

PAUL DeRIENZO: Eleven people have been charged in the alleged plot to bomb the United Nations building, FBI Headquarters, and the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels. According to the FBI, the conspirators were captured on June 24th in the act of mixing bomb-making chemicals at a rented garage in Queens, New York. The alleged ring leader of the plot was Siddig Ali. But several days later, Ibrahim El-Gabrowny was indicted in the same scheme.

El-Gabrowny has been held at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Lower Manhattan since his arrest shortly after the World Trade Center bombing. He wasn’t charged in that attack but on lesser charges of obstruction of justice and possession of five forged Nicaraguan passports. The passports contain the names and photos of El Sayyid Nosair and his family.

Nosair is in Attica Prison doing time on gun charges related to the assassination of right-wing Jewish leader, Meir Kahane. The Government alleges that the passports were part of a plot to break Nosair out of jail, but attorney William Kunstler says that the Government’s case is a product of the FBI’s confidential informant, Emad Salem, a former Egyptian Army officer.

WILLIAM KUNSTLER: It was Salem who asked El-Gabrowny, some time ago, for pictures of the Nosair family. He said he wanted to use them for fund raising purposes. He took the pictures and attached them to phony Nicaraguan passports which had been outlawed by [Nicaraguan President] Mrs. Chamorro as soon as she replaced the Sandanista Government. So the passports were invalid to start with. He gave the passports back to El-Gabrowny, and he said to El-Gabrowny: "We can break this man out of Attica Correctional Facility and then get him off to Nicaragua with these passports.

El-Gabrowny told him that was a crazy scheme and that he would have none of it.

PAUL DeRIENZO: El-Gabrowny’s trial for possessing the forged passports is due to begin today. But last week, the Government convened a grand jury that combined the cases of the men charged in the conspiracy to bomb city landmarks with El-Gabrowny’s case. Kunstler says that the Government’s strategy was designed to eliminate the possibility of the informant, Emad Salem, from testifying in the relatively minor passport case because, says Kuntsler, Salem cannot afford too much public exposure as a witness. The source of Kunstler’s assertion is testimony in a civil trial several months ago after a car accident where Salem was the victim.

WILLIAM KUNSTLER: He [salem] told the jury, under oath, that he had been one of [Egyptian President Anwar] Sadat’s guards when Sadat was assassinated, and that he had five bullets in his body from that experience. You know, the Egyptian Government–and I believe this is the only truthful thing they’ve told yet–said that he had nothing to do with Sadat, that he was not his guard, at all. Secondly, he divulged that he had had amnesia since January of 1992, and that he had been going to a psychiatrist by the name of Dr. Stein to help him with this situation. Thirdly, he committed bigamy here in New York, for which he is NOT being prosecuted. He married a woman here while he had a wife living in Egypt who was still his wife. Fourthly, they got rid of his Federal tax lien. The Government had a tax lien on him, and they got rid of that. And they also got rid…. he was marked as a persistent scofflaw by the parking bureau here. Twenty- two tickets in a very short period of time. They got rid of those tickets. And on the sheet of paper, which quashes the tickets, it says: "On Federal Business".

He [salem] is the only real conspirator in this case.

PAUL DeRIENZO: Kunstler charges that the Government’s wiretaps back up his contention that the defendants were entrapped by Salem.

WILLIAM KUNSTLER: I’ve read a lot of the tapes by now–transcriptions of the tapes, which were just furnished to me today.(TWO DAYS BEFORE TRIAL BEGAN,Gaal) Before I came here, I read some of them, and they are things like… having him [salem] say:

"Well, I think we ought to bomb the George Washington Bridge. That’s a very good target. It would make the commuters raise hell with this Government of ours."

And so then Siddig Ali says:


[salem]: "And I think" so and so…

[Ali]: "Yeah?"

…. and so on. That’s the way it goes, virtually throughout these HUNDREDS of pages of transcriptions. There are a hundred and fifty hours of tapes. A lot of them are in Arabic. Some are in English. But this is the kind of man they’re going to put on the [witness] stand.

PAUL DeRIENZO: Kunstler adds that Salem was the recipient of between two hundred fifty thousand and one million dollars for his services as an informant–plus moneys paid to him by other sources linked to foreign governments, including money from an organization founded by assassinated Rabbi Meir Kahane.

WILLIAM KUNSTLER [attorney]: He [FBI informant Emad Salem] also received money from Kahane Chai, Rabbi Meir Kahane’s group. Probably from a lot of other people. [israel’s secret service,] the Mossad is not someone to exclude. Probably [received money] from the Egyptian Government. He was a lieutenant colonel in the Egyptian Army, which apparently he was.

PAUL DeRIENZO: Kunstler said that, despite the United States Government’s move to protect the informant, he’s going to enjoy attacking Salem’s credibility during the trial.

WILLIAM KUNSTLER: He’s just a dirty son-of-a-bitch. But he’s THEIR son-of-a-bitch, you see. He’s not ours. And they did NOT want to expose him in this minor trial. We’re going to have a good time with him if only we can get the jury to think–think that maybe [our] Government DOES lie once in a while. Maybe Government wants to use this.

PAUL DeRIENZO: For WBAI News I’m Paul DeRienzo in New York

contact Paul DeRienzo

######################### BLOG ########################

Gary says:

March 7, 2012 at 04:38

so, as Techfleece noted, numerous “cyber-terror” operations were actually carried out by THE FBI ITSELF. Where have we heard this before?

In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed. Six people died, 1000 injured, and none of it was actually spawned by the terrorism bombing suspects, but by the FBI ITSELF.

Does anyone recall the name of Emad Ali Salem? He was the FBI INFORMANT who masterminded the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, badgering, gifting, and recruiting Arabs associated with three NY Mosques — the mosques headed by one or more CIA assets used for their services of recruiting young warm-body Jihadists for CIA operations around the globe.

Salem recorded six months of conversations, attempts to PERSUADE young Arabs to participate in bombings, suggested targets, provided a safe house and instructions, credit cards, a truck, and additional paperwork found from another FBI/CIA asset named Ali Mohammed (now allegedly free under Witness Protection). Thing is, Emad Salem told the FBI to use FAKE EXPLOSIVES, but according to secretly-taped recordings discovered by the Defense, the Emad was overruled when the FBI Supervisor insisted on supplying LIVE EXPLOSIVES to the prospective bombers.

That was the event that everyone — EVERYONE, especially the Bush administration and Justice Dept and FBI — said was a precursor and a blueprint for September 11, 2001.



Something extraordinary happened in the course of these arrests. The FBI had instructed Salem to use a tape recorder to entrap people. They got more than they bargained for, when it became apparent that Salem had also been taping his conversations with his FBI handlers. These incriminating tapes were among those entered into state’s evidence for the WTC II trial; they were not allowed to be used for the WTC I trial. Stunning exchanges from these tapes hit the New York Times, such as Salem asking his FBI handler Nancy Floyd and her boss John Anticev why the FBI provided real explosives for the WTC bomb rather than the agreed-on substitute. Their answers acknowledged that fact. The NYT published these conversations as samples of the tapes’ embarrassing accounts showing how the FBI did business. When the WTC I defendants tried to use these tapes to appeal their convictions, Judge Duffy rejected it on the grounds that their lawyers should have known about them.

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now

  • Create New...