AN OVERVIEW OF THE WAR ON TERRORISM
by Jim Marrs

"Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."
-- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
-- Philosopher George Santayana

"We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant
facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies and competitive values. For a
nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an
open marketis a nation that is afraid of its people."
--President John F. Kennedy


Americans are now beginning to pay the price for sleeping through
history classes, ignoring important information in the alternative media
and neglecting to participate in their own political process.

They find themselves in a new war --- the War on Terrorism. This
is a war they never asked for and never envisioned, anesthetized as we all
are by the flickering tube of distraction. It is a war predicated on the
premise that a sneak attack was made on the United States September 11,
2001.


Unlike previous wars, there is no Berlin or Tokyo to capture and
hence, no victory to be won, except for those who profit from war. The real
victims of this war will be the average American citizen, right along with
the starving Afghan.


This new war might well be compared to the failed War on Drugs
and the nearly forgotten War on Poverty. No clear victory has yet been
achieved over the misuse of drugs or the ravages of poverty within our own
nation. Our prisons are overflowing with drug offenders with no appreciable
lessening of either demand or supply and our basic civil rights have been
badly mauled.


Just like those failed campaigns, the War on Terrorism for the
foreseeable future will set us all on a costly course of restrictions on
individual freedom, ever more centralized authority and omnipresent fear.


And where are the voices of those who would argue the merits of
this new war? The airwaves and newspapers only ratchet the fear factor
upwards each day with little or no effort to hear the many thoughtful
Americans who are asking themselves, "Do I really need to give up my
freedoms in order to save them?"


So with flags flying on the antennae of our gas-guzzling vehicles
and love of country pulsing in our hearts, we march off to yet another war
for oil.

Wars For Oil


Yes, oil. Petroleum has been behind all recent wars, beginning in
the early 1940's, when a mostly rural and isolationist America was suddenly
thrown into a world war as a reaction to the Japanese attack on Pearl
Harbor. Americans mourned the loss of some 3,000 soldiers and civilians
in Hawaii and, in righteous indignation, allowed their country to be turned
into a giant military camp.


The federal government, which had consolidated so much power unto
itself under the Depression-busting policies of President Franklin
Roosevelt, grew even stronger and more centralized under the aegis of
"national security". It all seemed quite natural and necessary at the time.


But serious students of history now know that even that "good
war" was the result of machinations by a handful of wealthy and powerful
men. By closing off Japan's oil supplies in the summer of 1941, Roosevelt,
the
quintessential Wall Street insider, ensured an eventual attack on
the United States. It has now been well established that Roosevelt and a few
close advisers knew full well that Pearl Harbor would be attacked on
Dec. 7, 1941, but chose to allow it to happen to further their agenda for
launching American into war. (The details of this may be found in my book
Rule by Secrecy.)

The Vietnam War was prosecuted by men who were close to Roosevelt
and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) who had long voiced a desire
to gain control over Indochina's oil, magnesium and rubber assets. Again a
provocation was created. In August, 1964, President Lyndon
Johnson whipped Congress into a frenzy claiming that North Vietnamese
gunboats had
attacked the US Sixth Fleet in the Gulf of Tonkin off the coast of
Vietnam. "Our boys are floating in the water," he cried. Congress responded
by passing the
Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which bypassed the Constitution and gave
Johnson the power to wage war to stop attacks on Americans. It was the
beginning of
the real shooting Vietnam War.


And it was all a lie. No evidence has ever been brought forward
that such an attack took place. In fact, editors for US News & World Report
(July 23, 1984) called it "The 'Phantom Battle' That Led to War."


While America was waging war against North Vietnam, which we were
told was merely a puppet of communist Russia and China, Johnson was
encouraged by his CFR advisers to grant the Soviet Union loans at higher
levels than offered during World War II when they were our ally. US-backed
loans
provided Russia with the means to build facilities which turned out war
materials that were then sent to North Vietnam for use against American
troops. This
was a good example of the duplicity of our modern wars.


The Gulf War was all about oil, from the wells in Kuwait slant drilling into
Iraq's southern reserves to the destruction of the oil fields at
its finish. Here we found a new Hitler in Saddam Hussein, an enemy armed
and
financed by the CIA, an agency whose top officials have long been connected
to oil men CFR members and other globalists (See Rule by Secrecy).


Saddam Hussein, strapped for cash due to his eight-year war
against Iran on behalf of the US, decided to regain Kuwait as a means of
increasing his income. Kuwait had been carved out of southern Iraqi by
British troops. When asked her thoughts on this move, US Ambassador April
Glaspie
replied that the US government had "no opinion" on the matter and that the
matter of Kuwait was not associated with America. But when he moved his
troops into Kuwait, Bush mobilized a United Nations force against him,
backed by a $4 billion secret fund provided by his business associates in
Saudi
Arabia.


Yet, as those patriotic soldiers closed in on Saddam, the whole
war stopped and George H. W. Bush's old business partner is still in power.
It appears to have been yet another provocation. And as in Vietnam, even as
we prepared to fight against Saddam, the American taxpayers backed $500
million in loans that he used to purchase arms for use against our forces.


Caspian Sea Oil Coveted


Today the real issue is the rich oil reserves of the Caspian Sea
region, the prize sought by Hitler whose drive to that area was stopped only
by the tenacious Russian defense of the Volga River city of Stalingrad.


In the late 1970's, with the Soviet discovery of vast untapped
oil in Chechnya, the region was ripe for exploitation but control over
Afghanistan was needed to ensure the safety of a pipeline to bring the oil
to
world markets. But after almost 10 years of brutal, no-quarter fighting
against Afghans and Arab mercenaries backed by the United States,
including Osama bin Laden, the Soviets were forced to withdraw. The economic
stress of this Russo-Afghan War was enough to topple communism in the early
1990's.


Now the international bankers and oilmen have a foothold in cash-
strapped Russia and the estimated $40 billion in Caspian Sea oil is again
attracting serious attention. In 1997, six international companies and the
Government of Turkmenistan formed Central Asian Gas Pipeline, Ltd. (CentGas)
to build a 790-mile-long pipeline to Pakistan and perhaps on to the New
Delhi area of India.


Leading this consortium was Unocal Corporation, whose president,
John F. Imle, Jr., said the project would be "the foundation for a new
commerce corridor for the region - often referred to as the Silk Road for
the 21st Century."


But problems developed with the fundamentalist Muslim government
in Afghanistan, not the least of which was the Taliban government's
treatment of women which prompted feminist demonstrations against firms
seeking to do business there. Additionally, the Taliban regime was creating
chaotic conditions by pitting the various Islamic sects against each
other in order to maintain control. In the mid-1999, Unacol withdrew from
the
pipeline consortium, citing the hazardous political situation and the
project languished.


Notice that in President Bush's declaration of war on terrorism,
he never mentioned terrorists in Northern Ireland or the Palestinian
suicide bombers. Attention was only focused on Afghanistan, the one nation
necessary to complete the lucrative pipeline. It should also be noted that
Vice
President
Dick Cheney headed Halliburton, a giant oil industry service
company and is generally thought to be more powerful than the president.


Today it can be demonstrated that military action against
Afghanistan has been in the works long before the Sept. 11 attacks.


AFGHAN ACTION PLANNED LONG AGO


As reported by BBC's George Arney, former Pakistani Foreign
Secretary Niaz
Naik was alerted by American officials in mid-July that military
action against Afghanistan would be launched by mid-October. At a UN-
sponsored meeting concerning Afghanistan in Berlin, Naik was informed that
unless bin Laden was handed over, America would take military action to
either kill or capture both him and Taliban leader Mullah Omar as the
initial
step in installing a new government there.


It should be noted, however, that American intervention in
Afghanistan
began
years ago, at least six months prior to the Soviet invasion in
December, 1979.


In a 1998 interview with former National Security Adviser Zbigniew
Brzezinski in the French publication Le Nouvel Observateur, the
significant portions of which never made it to the United States, he
admitted
that American activities in Afghanistan actually began six months
prior to the Soviet action.


Brzezinski said the Jimmy Carter administration began secretly
funding opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul in July of 1979 with
the full knowledge such action might provoke a Soviet invasion. Soviet
leaders at the time argued the invasion was necessary to thwart American
aggression in Afghanistan. The former national security advisor, who helped
found the globalist Trilateral Commission, expressed no regret at this
provocation, stating, "That secret operation was an excellent idea.
It.brought
about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire." It
also produced the Taliban regime which we are fighting today, as well
as Osama bin Laden.


By 1984, with Vice President George H. W. Bush overseeing the
Afghan situation, bin Laden was in charge of the Maktab al-Khidamir
(MAK) which
funneled money, arms and manpower from the outside world into the
war against the Soviets. He soon helped form a polyglot formation of
Arabic troops from Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and Palestinian
refugee camps, hom the CIA found easier to deal with than the Muslim
fundamentalists in Afghanistan.


There should be considerable soul-searching about America's role
in arming and training an international group of Muslim extremists in
Afghanistan long after their comrades destroyed the Marine barracks in
Beruit and
hijacked numerous airliners.


Little noticed in the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks were reports
that China had signed a pact with the Afghans and was quietly inducted into
the controversial World Trade Organization, action which under normal
circumstances would have drawn widespread protest. Although such
a pact is unconfirmed at this time, Pakistani General Pervez Musharraf,
chairman of their joint chiefs and chief of the Pakistani Army Staff, this
years visited China at their request and discussed matters of mutual
interest.


Although, it is claimed that Pakistan is aiding the US in the
current War Against Terrorism, the State Department's coordinator for
counterterrorism, Michael Sheehan, told a Senate Foreign Relations
subcommittee that
Pakistan supports and trains terrorist groups in Afghanistan


This raises the specter of Chinese intervention should US forces
become bogged down in mountainous Afghanistan. This prospect is
particularly unsettling as back in 1555, the French prophet Nostradamus, who
has been proven correct in so many of his prophecies, predicted that
America and Russia would go to war against a coalition made up of Arab
nations and China. Until just recently, such a notion seemed absurd.


WOULD AMERICANS ATTACK AMERICANS?


The WTC/Pentagon attacks provided a convenient excuse to launch
the
pre-laid plans for military action against Afghanistan. But were they
simply
allowed to happen or were they contrived? The question becomes: Would any
American allow an attack on fellow Americans just to further his own
business or political agenda?


The answer, unfortunately, appears to be "Yes."


Incredibly, 40-year-old government documents thought to have been
destroyed long ago recently were made public show the US military in the
early 1960's proposed making terrorist attacks in the United States and
blaming them on Fidel Castro.


These documents are discussed in a recent book on the National
Security Agency (NSA) entitled Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret
National Security Agency by James Bamford.


These documents were produced beginning in late 1961 following the
ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba that spring. President John F.
Kennedy, angered by the inept actions of the CIA, had shifted responsibility
for Cuba from that agency to the Department of Defense. Here, military
strategists considered plans to create terrorist actions which would alarm
the American population and stampede them into supporting a military attack
on
Cuba.

Under consideration in "Operation Northwoods" were plans:

to create "a series of well-coordinated incidents" in or around
the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,

to include inciting riots, blowing up ammunition stores, aircraft and ships.

to "develop a Communist Cuba terror campaign in the Miami area,
in other Florida cities and even in Washington."

to ".sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or
simulated)..foster attempts on the lives of Cuban refugees in the
United States."

to explode bombs in carefully chosen locations along with the
release of "prepared documents" pointing to Cuban complicity.

to use fake Russian aircraft to harass civilian airliners.

to make "Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft"
even to simulating the shooting down of a civilian airliner.

Kennedy rejected Operation Northwoods and senior military
officers ordered the documents destroyed. But someone slipped up and the
papers
were discovered by the Assassination Records Review Board and recently
released by the National Archives.

More recently, according to The New York Times (October 28,
1993), an informant named Emad Salem early in 1993 was involved with Middle
Eastern terrorists connected to Osama bin Laden to develop a bomb for use
against New York's World Trade Center. Salem, a former Egyptian Army
officer, wanted to substitute a harmless powder for the explosive but his
plan to thwart the attack was blocked by an FBI official who apparently did
not want
to expose the inside informant. The attack was allowed to proceed.

The February 26 explosion in the WTC resulted in six deaths, more
than 1,000 casualties and damage in excess of half billion dollars.


We now see that creating crises to further political goals is a
methodology well understood and utilized in the 20th century. Is this the
game today?

Let's examine the Sept. 11 attack.

QUESTIONS OVER 9-11

Superficially, it all seemed straightforward enough. According to
the official story, about 19 suicidal Middle Eastern terrorists,
their hearts full of hatred for American freedom and democracy, hijacked
four
airliners, crashing two into the twin towers of New York City's World Trade
Center and a third into the Pentagon. The fourth reportedly crashed in
western Pennsylvania after passengers attempted to fight the terrorists.


But a series of disturbing questions have arisen. Among them:

Why was the US military preparing war plans against Afghanistan
months before the Sept. 11 attacks? Were they just looking for some
event to propel the normally disinterested American public into a war as in
the
past?

How could paper documents incriminating bin Laden be found intact
at the WTC but the plane's black recording boxes designed to withstand
crashes were damaged beyond use?


Even days and weeks after the WTC attack, why were news cameramen
prevented from photographing the ruins from certain angles, as complained
about by CBS Correspondent Lou Young, who asked, "What are they afraid we're
going to see?"

Why has the NYPD liaison to the FBI been sent packing as
a "security risk" as reported in the Oct. 16 New York Times? Whose security
is at
risk? The FBI? What is it that the bureau does not want NYPD to know?

How could an obviously sophisticated terrorist plan involving
perhaps as many as 100 persons and in the works for five years escape the
notice of our intelligence services, especially the FBI and CIA? And why,
instead of cashiering those responsible for this intelligence failure and
totally restructuring these agencies, are we doubling their budgets? Will
we now get twice as much failure as before?


Why did the South Tower collapse first when it was not as
extensively damaged as the North Tower which burned for almost an hour and a
half before collapsing?


Why did many witnesses claim to hear further explosions within the
buildings? And why did the destruction of the WTC towers appear
more like a controlled implosion than a tragic accident?


Why did FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledge that the list of
named hijackers might not contain their real names? Doesn't everyone
have to show a photo ID to claim a boarding pass? Where was the normal
security?

Why was there a discrepancy of 35 names between the published
passenger lists and the official death toll on all four of the ill-fated
flights? Internet Columnist Gary North reported, ".the published names in
no instance match the total listed for the number of people on board." Why
the
discrepancy?

As none of these listed passengers had an Arabic-sounding names,
how did the government know which were the hijackers?


Why did the seat numbers of the hijackers given by a cell phone
call from Flight Attendant Madeline Amy Sweeney to Boston air traffic
control not match the seats occupied by the men the FBI claimed were
responsible?

Since Saudi Arabia's foreign minister claimed five of the
proclaimed hijackers were not aboard the death planes and in fact are still
alive and a sixth man on that list was reported to be alive and well in
Tunisia, why are these names still on the FBI list?


Why were none of the named hijacker's names on any of the
passenger list?

If they all used aliases, how did the FBI identify them so quickly?


Why did one of the named hijackers take luggage on a suicide
flight, then leave it along with an incriminating note in his car at the
airport?

As for the overall investigation into the September attacks, by
late October U.S. authorities conceded that most of their promising leads
for
finding accomplices and some of their long-held suspicions about several
suspects have unraveled, according to The New York Times. Since more than
800 people have been arrested and more than 365,000 tips have been received
from the public, why has nothing substantial has been forthcoming in the
largest U.S. criminal investigation in history?


Why are none of the nearly 100 people still being sought by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation seen as a major suspect?
Why are we bombing Afghanistan when apparently none of the listed
hijackers were Afghans, but instead Arabs from various Middle Eastern
nations? Since Iraq was implicated in the 1993 WTC attack, why are we not
bombing that "rogue" nation?

Why does the heavy drinking and searching for hookers by some of
the hijackers in Boston, as reported by Reuters New Service, sound
more like mercenaries carousing before a mission than pious religious
fundamentalists about to meet their maker?


How did the terrorists obtain top-secret White House and Air
Force One codes and signals, the excuse for hustling President Bush all
across
the country on Sept. 11? Was this evidence of an inside job or was it, as
reported by Fox News, evidence that former FBI employee and double agent
Robert Hanssen delivered an updated version of the purloined computer
software
Promis to his Russian handlers who passed it along to bin Laden? Does this
software, which was stolen from a US company during the Reagan
Administration by Justice Department officials under Attorney General Ed
Meese, allow outsiders carte blanch entrée to our top security computers?
(Hanssen's last job before being arrested as a spy was to upgrade the FBI's
intelligencecomputer systems.)

If United Flight 93 crashed as the result of a struggle between
heroic passengers and the hijackers, why did witnesses tell of a second
plane which followed it down, falling burning debris, no deep crater and
crash wreckage spread over a six-mile area indicative of an aerial
explosion?

Why did news outlets describe the throat-cutting and mutilation of
passengers on Flight 93 with box cutters when Time magazine on
Sept. 24 reported that one of the passengers called home on a cell phone
to report, "We have been hijacked. They are being kind."?

As Internet pundit Gary North stated, "We need a theory of the
coordinated hijackings that rests on a plausible cause-and-effect sequence
that does not assume the complete failure of both check-in procedures and
the on-board seating procedures on four separate flights on two separate
airlines.I don't see how anyone can make an accurate judgment about who was
behind
the attacks until he has a plausible explanation of how hijackers got
onto the planes and were not removed."

But the federal government aided by a sycophantic mass media did
not allow such rational thinking to interfere with a rush to judgment that
Osama bin Laden was the culprit behind the attacks.

BIN LADEN AND HIS FRIENDS

As in the JFK assassination, authorities had a suspect even
before anyone knew for certain what had happened. He was the son of a
wealthy Middle Eastern oil family, Osama bin Laden, who during the
Russo-Afghan
War of the 1980s, received arms and financing from the US Government.
Despite the fact that bin Laden has denied any knowledge of the attack, he
was presumed guilty by both the government and the press. No other
interpretation of the attack was allowed in the corporate mass media.

Bin Laden is a made-to-order enemy, the man reportedly behind the
1993 WTC attack and a fugitive from United States justice for more than a
decade. It has been noted that the government apparently has spent more time
and money chasing Microsoft's Bill Gates than in capturing bin Laden.
This may be due to the business connections between our new
terrorist enemy and wealthy American companies.

According to several reports, including Jonathan Beaty and S. C.
Gwynne's book The Outlaw Bank: A Wild Ride into the Secret Heart of the
BCCI (New York: Random House, 1993) and American Free Press (October 15,
2001), the reincarnation of the Washington newspaper The Spotlight, Bush
family friend James R. Bath used money from Osama bin Laden's brother,
Salem, to open a partnership with George W. Bush in Arbusto Energy, a West
Texas
drilling company. Bush believed the word "arbusto" to mean Bush in Spanish,
although it generally refers to a "shrub".


According to The Houston Chronicle, Salem bin Laden named Bath his business
representative in Texas shortly after the senior Bush was named
CIA director by appointed President Gerald Ford in 1975.

It was the Bush family, particularly Jeb and Neil, who were
involved in the savings and loan debacle from 1989 to 1993 that cost
taxpayers
more than $500 billion.


Through a tangled web of Texas oilmen, wealthy Saudi sheiks and
unscrupulous bankers connected to BCCI, the younger Bush eventually gained
a
sizable interest in a new oil company called Harken Energy. Two months
before Saddam Hussein sent Iraqi troops into Kuwait, Bush sold two-thirds of
his Harken stock, netting himself nearly a one million dollar profit. The
stock dropped
> > when the Iraqi invasion began.


It should be noted that during the Persian Gulf War, it was
Binladen Brothers Construction (now the Binladen Group) that helped build
airfields for US aircraft. The bin Laden brothers were then described as "a
good friend of the US government". Later the bin Laden firm continued to be
hired to construct an
American air base in Saudi Arabia despite the fact that Osama had already
been
blamed for terrorist acts such as the truck bombing of the Khobar Towers at
theDhahran base which killed 19 Americans. A WorldNetDaily writer
commented, "So let's get this straight. Osama blows up our facilities, and
his family
gets the contract for rebuilding them. Do you get the feeling there is
more going on than meets the eye?"

Osama's older brother, Salem, was killed in the strange crash of
an ultralight aircraft in 1988. The single-passenger craft suddenly
and inexplicably veered into high-voltage electric power lines near
San Antonio, Texas. The BCCI bank was closed by federal investigators in
1991
after suffering some $10 billion in losses. BCCI was a Pakistani-run
institution with front companies in the Cayman Islands that used secret
accounts for global money-laundering and was used by U. S. intelligence to
funnel money to bin-Laden and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan fighting against
the Soviet-backed government.

Another close connection between bin Laden and the Bush family is
a $12-billion private international investment firm known as the
Carlyle Group. Although it has removed its web site since the Sept. 11
attacks, it is know that Carlyle directors include former Reagan Secretary
of
Defense Frank Carlucci, former Bush Secretary of State James Baker and
former Reagan aide and GOP operative Richard Darman. The New York Times
reported that former President Bush was allowed to buy into Carlyle's
investments which involve at least 164 companies around the world.

According to the Wall Street Journal (Sept. 28, 2001), "George H.
W. Bush, the father of President Bush, works for the bin Laden family
business in Saudi Arabia through the Carlyle Group, an international
consulting firm." It has been confirmed by the senior Bush's chief of staff
that
Bush sent a thank you note to the bin Laden family after a social visit in
early 2001.


With such connections and his son as a sitting President of the
United States, the senior Bush's Carlyle involvement was questioned by
Larry Klayman, chairman and general counsel of Judicial Watch, who
said, "Any foreign government or foreign investor trying to curry favor with
the current Bush Administration is sure to throw business to the
Carlyle Group. And with the former President Bush promoting the firm's
investments abroad, foreign nationals could understandably confuse the
Carlyle Group's
interests with the interests of the United States government."


After detailing some of the Carlyle/bin Laden investments in
several businesses, including aerospace industries, writer Michael C.
Ruppert commented, "In other words, Osama bin Laden's attacks on the WTC
and Pentagon, with the resulting massive increase in the US defense
budget, have just made his family a great big pile of money."


What makes these business dealings that entangle former and
current American
political leaders with Middle Easterners even more suspect was the
announcement that several US firms were being investigated for
short selling stocks just prior to the Sept. 11 attacks.

SELLING STOCKS SHORT INDICATES FOREKNOWLEDGE



Short selling of stocks involves the opportunity to gain large
profits by passing shares to a friendly third party, then buying them back
when the price falls. Historically, if this precedes a traumatic event, it
is an indication of foreknowledge. It is widely known that the CIA uses
the Promis software to routinely monitor stock trades as a possible warning
sign of a terrorist attack or suspicious economic behavior.

> A week after the Sept. 11 attacks, the London Times reported that
the CIA had asked regulators for the Financial Services Authority in
London to investigate the suspicious sales of millions of shares of stock
just prior to the terrorist acts. It was hoped the business paper trail
might lead to the terrorists. The Times said market regulators in Germany,
Japan and the US all had received information concerning the short selling
of
insurance, airlines and arms companies stock , all of which fell sharply in
the wake of the attacks.

City of London broker and analyst Richard Crossley noted that
someone sold shares in unusually large quantities beginning three weeks
before
the assault on the WTC and Pentagon. He said he took this as evidence
that someone had insider foreknowledge of the attacks.

"What is more awful than he should aim a stiletto blow at the
heart of Western financial markets?," he added. "But to profit from it.
Words fail me."


The US Government also admitted it was investigating short
selling, which evinced a foreknowledge of the tragedy. There was unusually
heavy
trading in airline and insurance stocks several days before Sept. 11 which
essentially bet on a drop in the worth of the stocks.

It was reported by the Interdisciplinary Center, a counter-
terrorism think tank involving former Israeli intelligence officers, that
insiders made nearly $16 million profit by short selling shares in American
and
United Airlines, the two airlines that suffered hijacking, and the
investment firm of Morgan Stanley, which occupied 22 floors of the WTC.


Apparently none of the suspicious transactions could be traced to
bin Laden because this news item quietly dropped from sight, leaving many
people wondering if it tracked back to American firms or intelligence
agencies.

According to web writer and former LA policeman Michael C.
Ruppert, these transactions were handled primarily by Deutsche Bank-A. B.
Brown,
a firm which until 1998 was chaired by A. B. "Buzzy" Krongard, who today
is executive director of the CIA.

Besides Krongard, other prominent Americans connected to both the
CIA and
Wall Street power include Clark Clifford (who was a key player in
gaining legitimacy for the BCCI), John Foster and Allen Dulles (Allen
oversaw the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion and sat on the Warren Commission),
Bill Casey,
David Doherty, George Herbert Walker Bush, John Deutch, Nora
Slatkin and Hank Greenburg.
As detailed in Rule by Secrecy, the CIA historically has been top
heavy with members of the Wall Street elite who desire to advance their
globalist agenda. It also operates a number of front companies which
themselves deal in stocks and bonds. I am absolutely convinced that the
Central
Intelligence Agency had complete and perfect foreknowledge of the attacks,
down to the date, time, place and location," Ruppert told OnLine Journal on
Oct. 12.


There were other indications of foreknowledge. San Francisco
Mayor Willie Brown stated on that on Sept. 10 he was warned by his
personal "airport security" not to fly the next day., according to radio
station
KSFO.


More ominous was a piece in the Sept. 28 edition of the
Washington Post stating that officials with the instant messaging firm of
Odigo in New York confirmed that two employees in Israel received text
messages
warning of an attack on the WTC two hours before the planes crashed into the
buildings. The firm's vice president of sales and marketing, Alex Diamandis
said it was possible that the warning was sent to other Odigo members, but
they had not received any reports of such.

Military forces had been on a heightened state of alert for
several days before the attack and several psychics claimed to have had a
premonition that something was afoot.


Even the Russians got in on the act. Dr. Tatyana Koragina, a
senior research fellow at the Institute of Macroeconomic Researches which is
a
part of the Russian Ministry of Economic Development, gained credibility due
to her July prediction that an unusual catastrophe would strike America in
late August ruining the economy.

In a Pravda interview, she stated, "The US has been chosen as the
object of financial attack because the financial center of the planet is
located there. The effect will be maximal. The strike waves of economic
crisis will spread over the planet."


Following the Sept. 11 attacks, Dr. Koragina was reinterviewed and
asserted the "powerful group" behind the attacks will make new
strikes. "When[Americans] understand after the upcoming, new strikes, that
their government can guarantee them nothing, they will panic - causing a
collapse of their financial system."

Asked who was really behind this odious plan, she replied it is
not the 19 terrorists identified by the FBI but rather a larger group
seeking to reshape the world. She said this group of extremely powerful
private persons hold total assets of about $300 trillion and intend to
legitimize their power under a new global government.

Some took Dr. Koragina's eerily correct predictions as evidence
that Russia itself may be behind some of the current events. It is a fact
that Russia has backed several state sponsors of terrorists, including Iraq,
Iran, Syria, Libya, North Korea and Cuba.


ISRAELI FOREKNOWLEDGE?

But let us not forget the indications that someone in Israel had
foreknowledge of the attacks. And there were questions concerning
the number of Israeli citizens killed in the attacks. The day after, the
Jerusalem Post claimed two Israelis died on the hijacked airplanes and that
4,000 were missing at the WTC. A week later, a Beirut television station
reported that 4,000 Israeli employees of the WTC were absent the day of the
attack. This information spread across the Internet but was quickly branded
a
hoax. On Sept. 19, the Washington Post reported about 113 Israelis were
missing at the WTC and the next day, President Bush noted more than 130
Israelis were victims. Finally, on Sept. 22, the New York Times stated
"There were, in fact, only three Israelis who had been confirmed as dead:
two on
the planes and another who had been visiting the towers on business and who
was identified and buried."


Of all the nations of the world, Israel probably profited the
most from the events of Sept. 11.


A permanent American military force in the Middle East is now
assured, offering an umbrella of protection to that small nation despite
the anger engendered in Arab states. After Ariel Sharon's provocative visit
to the Muslim mosque in Jerusalem resulted in widespread violence by
Palestinians, world opinion began to shift away from uncritical support of
Israel. It has been reported that the Bush Administration was beginning to
seriously consider support for a separate Palestinian state.

Israel's powerful and effective intelligence agency, the Mossad,
is not beyond suspicion, according to the US Army's School of Advanced
Military Studies. The Washington Times on Sept. 10, just 24 hours before
the attacks, ran an article quoting officers of the school as describing the
Mossad as "Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target US
forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act."


It is generally known that the Mossad has penetrated every Arab
and Muslim organization and would have had little problem in finding any
number of fanatics to carry out a suicide mission in the belief they were
serving Allah.

Indeed, recent news reports contended that not all of the
hijackers knew their mission would end in death.
REMOTE CONTROLLED AIRCRAFT A REALITY


Thanks to newly revealed technology, it is now possible to
theorize that none of the hijackers intended to die.

Global Hawk is the name of the latest version of a high-altitude,
long-endurance unmanned air vehicle (UAV), in other words, a
unmanned drone plane that can take off, conduct missions such as
photographing
battlefields and land by remote electronic control.


This Buck Rogers equipment made its first operational flight Oct.
7 when it was used for reconnaissance over Afghanistan in preparation for
US air and missile strikes against the Taliban regime.


But this remote-controlled plane, similar to a Boeing 737
commercial airliner, was successfully tested earlier this year, first at
Edwards Air Force Base and later at Edinburgh Air Force Base in southern
Australia.

Prior to leaving Australia, Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister for
Defense Dr. Brendan Nelson said, "Global Hawk will create
aviation history again during its return journey to become the first
unmanned aircraft to
fly non-stop from Australia to the United States west coast."

When news of Global Hawk was first released, there was
speculation that the UAV technology might be used to thwart airline
hijackings. Once a
hijacking took place, the Global Hawk technology would be triggered and the
captured plane flown to a landing at a safe location regardless of the
actions of the flight crew or the hijackers.

In fact, following the attacks, the New York Times on Sept. 28 in
an article on increasing air safety, mentioned "new technology, probably far
in the future, allowing air traffic controllers to land distressed
planes by remote control". This made it seem such technology is not yet
available,
yet earlier this year, a former chief of British Airways suggested
that such technology could be used to commandeer an aircraft from the
ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijacking.


Needless to say, there are those today who question if Global
Hawk's true first operational use might have been conducted on Sept. 11.
After all, as all experienced aviation and military persons well know, if a
technology such as Global Hawk is publicly revealed, it most probably has
been in secret use for several years.
But regardless of how the planes with the terrorists were
controlled, it is clear that their managers had information, if not help,
from
inside the government.

INSIDER KNOWLEDGE


Early on, the Bush White House issued a statement stating
that "credible
evidence" showed that the hijackers had access to the top secret
codes of
Air Force One, in which the President fled from Florida to
Louisiana and on to Nebraska. This statement made the President's zig-zag
journey
of 9-11 more like that of a careful and prudent commander than a fleeing
coward.

White House officials later said this information was untrue,
leaving the public with the question of what else has the Bush people told
us
that is untrue, or that the their first statements were true, raising the
possibility that there may have been inside help in obtaining the
codes.

It is certainly true that various agencies knew for some time that
suspected terrorists were operating in the United States.

As early as 1995, it was known within police and military circles
and reported in VFW and American Legion publications that some 5,000
former Iraqi prisoners of war had been allowed in this country by the
Clinton Administration beginning in 1993. Most had worked with the CIA at
one time or another and were allowed in this country to avoid death at the
hands of a vengeful Saddam Hussein.


Many of these men had been with the Iraqi Republican Guard which
blew up the Kuwaiti oil fields at the end of the Gulf War, so they obviously
were trained in explosives.

They were "resettled" in various US cities and where they formed
cells. These cities included New York City, Boston, Washington, D. C.,
Miami, New
Orleans, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Dallas-
Fort Worth, Houston, Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Kansas City and more.

These men participated in fundraising activities for the HAMAS and
Hezballah terrorist chains. They have been connected to Osama bin Laden
through a Cebu City connection in the Philippines, the location that
convicted
bomber Terry Nichols visited with his Philippine wife. At least 12 of these
former POWs are believed to have been involved in the Oklahoma City
bombing.


Although this may seem a strange and unreported connection, there
is a wealth of information linking Iraqi operatives to Timothy
McVeigh. In fact the Oct. 29 edition of U.S. News & World Report revealed
that "top Defense
officials" believe McVeigh was acting as an agent for Iraq, an
astounding development in light of the extent the government continued to
deny any conspiracy other that aid from Terry Nichols.

These same trained soldiers reportedly created a number of
clandestine
> > laboratories to produce biological warfare germs, including
anthrax, bubonic plague, various hemorrhagic fevers and other deadly
combinations.

FBI MOVES SLOWLY AND IN WRONG DIRECTION


In 1996, The FBI finally was moved to action concerning the
biological threat. Ohio microbiologist Larry Wayne Harris had tried to alert
the public to the danger of anthrax being smuggled into the United States by
Muslim extremists but was demonized by the mass media as a conspiracy
buff. In 1998, Harris, along with Nevada microbiologist William Leavitt,
was arrested by the FBI in Las Vegas for possessing anthrax cultures.


The mass media broadcast this news widely, repeating the
government's charge that the men were testing the deadly toxins in
preparation for an
attack on New York. These allegations were quietly dropped only a few days
later when it was found that the men possessed a harmless veterinary anti-
anthrax vaccine. They were attempting to find their own antidote to
anthrax, a dangerous disease the government continued to dismiss in the mid-
1990s. (US News & World Report, March 2, 1998 and March 9.)

It is interesting that at that same time, several people were
warning that an anthrax vaccine ordered for all US military personnel was
actually going to be used to spread the disease and provoke a United Nations
takeover once enough US soldiers were incapacitated. It was claimed that
this
plan would be set in motion by an emergency blamed on foreigners which would
hasten the use of the vaccine. Several military persons were brought before
a court martial for refusing to take the vaccine.

And what of Osama bin Laden? What did he have to say about all
this?

Don't look to the corporate mass media to inform you as they have
all agreed not to broadcast anything that might detract from the official
government story, even though it is acknowledged that Bush's media
denunciations of bin Laden have been more filled with adjectives like "evil"
and "evildoer" than specific evidence.

Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAR) noted that on Oct. 10,
network executives representing ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox and CNN were involved
in a conference call with National Security Adviser and Council on
Foreign Relations heavyweight Condoleeza Rice. The execs apparently
agreed to
limit how and what they broadcast regarding bin Laden or his Al Qaeda
group. Bush people even tried unsuccessfully to have al Jazeera, called
the "CNN of the Mideast," broadcasting from Qatar tone down its coverage of
bin
Laden. They were more successful with members of our Congress, when they
threatened to cut off intelligence reports if they spoke offhand to the
media.


The next day, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, already on the
record saying Americans "need to watch what they say," extended this
constraint by contacting major newspapers asking that they not print full
transcripts of bin Laden's interviews.

According to a FAR news release, "The point is not that bin Laden
or Al Qaeda deserve 'equal time' on US news broadcasts, but that it is
troubling for government to shape or influence news content. Withholding
information from the public is hardly patriotic. When the White House
insists
that it's dangerous to report a news event "in its entirety", alarm bells
should go off for journalists and the American public alike."


OSAMA BIN LADEN REPLIES


Here's what bin Laden did say in an interview on Sept. 28,
according to the Pakistani newspaper Ummat, "I have already said that I am
not
involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I
try
my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, not do
I
consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an
appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women,
children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course
of
battle. It is the United States, which is perpetrating every maltreatment on
women, children and common people."
In this interview, apparently suppressed in the United States,
bin Laden unsurprisingly blamed the attacks on Israel, claiming, "All that
is going on in Palestine for the last 11 months is sufficient to call the
wrath of God upon the United States and Israel..(and) what had earlier been
done to the innocent people of Iraq, Chechnya and Bosnia. (A full text of
this
interview may be found at
http://www.khilafah.com/1421/category.php?DocumentID=2392&TagID=2)

Bin Laden went on to state, ".we are not hostile to the United
States. We are against the [US Government] system which makes other nations
slaves to the United States or forces them to mortgage their political and
economic freedom."

One cannot, of course, take bin Laden at face value, but then the
same could be said for the US Government which has been caught in so many
lies and deceit in the past that it is surprising that anyone pays any
attention to official pronouncements.

OSAMA BIN LADEN REPLIES
What should be thoughtfully considered is the dismal record of
United States foreign policy since World War II. This policy, as confirmed
by
the New York Times years ago, has been in the hands of the Council on
Foreign
Relations elite since at least 1939. This elite and its associates includes
former
Presidents Bush and Bill Clinton, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and
Richard Nixon, virtually every CIA director as well as a considerable
number of familiar past and present government officials such as Dick
Cheney, Henry Kissinger, Wesley Clark, Strobe Talbott, Alexander Haig, Alan
Greenspan, Bruce Babbitt, James A. Baker III, Sandy Berger, Colin Powell,
Harold Brown, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Frank C. Carlucci, Richard Darman, John
Deutch, Lawrence Eagleburger, Robert McFarlane, Brent Snowcroft,
Condoleeza Rice and Casper Weinberger.


This policy has been one of neo-colonialism, that is the
subjugation and control of other nations through military dictators or
wealthy
families supported by, and often placed in power, by the US military or
intelligence services.


The results of this neo-colonial policy has been dismal at best
and catastrophic at worst. Never mind the historical aggression
displayed by
American foreign policy in the Mexican War of 1848 and the
Spanish-American War of 1898. Consider this policy since World War II.

In 1951, when Iran's Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh
nationalized the oil industry in that Mideast nation, he was deposed by a
coup
instigated by
the CIA and the Shah came to power, assuming complete control in 1963.
Thousands of Iranians, perhaps millions died during the repressive rule of
the Shah and his SAVAK secret police. The Shah was finally forced out in
1979 by the Ayatollah Khomeini, who became the US's latest foreign enemy
despite the fact that he had been on the CIA payroll while living in Paris.
The Shah was granted asylum in the United States.

In Guatemala in 1954, again the CIA toppled the popularly elected
> government of Jacobo Arbenz, which had nationalized United Fruit property.
Prominent American government officials such as former CIA Director Walter
Bedell Smith, then CIA Director Allen Dulles, Secretary of State for
> Inter-American Affairs John Moors Cabot and Secretary of State John Foster
Dulles were all closely connected to United Fruit. An estimated 120,000
Guatemalan
peasants died in the resulting military dictatorships.

Fidel Castro, with covert aid from the CIA, overthrew the military
dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista and instituted sweeping land,
industrial
and educational reforms as well as nationalizing American
businesses. Swifty labeled a communist, the CIA then organized anti-Castro
Cubans
resulting in numerous attacks on Cuba and the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion in
1961. The island nation has been the object of US economic sanctions since
that time.

More than 3,000 persons died in the wake of an invasion of the
Dominican Republic by US Marines in 1965. The troops ostensibly were sent
to prevent a communist takeover, although later it was admitted that there
had
been no proof of such a takeover.


Also in 1965, the US began the bombing of North Vietnam after
President Johnson proclaimed the civil war there an "aggression" by the
north. Two years later, American troop strength in Vietnam had grown to
380,000. US dead by the end of that Asian war totaled some 58,000 with
casualties to the Vietnamese, both north and south, running more into the
millions.

In 1973, the elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile was
overthrown by a military coup aided by the CIA. Allende was killed and some
30,000 persons died in subsequent violence and repression, including some
Americans.

In 1968, General Sukarno, the dictator of Indonesia, was
overthrown by the General Suharto, again with aid from the CIA. Suharto
proved even
more dictatorial and corrupt than his predecessor. A reported 800,000
people died during his regime.

Another 250,000 persons died in 1975 during the brutal invasion
of East Timor by the Suharto regime aided by the US Government and Henry
Kissinger.


In 1979, the powerful Somoza family, which had ruled Nicaragua
since 1937, was finally overthrown and Daniel Ortega was elected president.
CIA-backed Contra insurgents operating from Honduras fought a protracted war
to oust the Ortega government in which an estimated 30,000 people died.
The ensuing struggle came to include such shady dealing in arms and drugs
that it created a scandal in the United States called Iran-Contra, which
involved selling arms to Iran and using the profits to support the Contras.

US Marines landed in Lebanon in 1982 in an attempt to preventing
further bloodshed between occupying Israeli troops and the Palestine
Liberation Organization. Thousands died in the resulting civil war,
including several hundred Palestinians massacred in refugee camps by
Christian
forces. Despite the battleship shelling of Beirut, American forces were
withdrawn
in 1984 after a series of bloody attacks on them.


In 1983, US troops invaded the tiny Caribbean island nation of
Grenada after a leftist government was installed. The official explanation
was
to rescue a handful of American students who initially said they didn't need
rescuing.


For nearly 20 years, during the 1970s and 1980s, the US
Government gave aid and arms to the right wing government of the Republic of
El
Salvador for
use against it leftist enemies. By 1988, some 70,000 Salvadorans had
died.

More than one million persons died in the 15-year battle in
Angola between the Marxist government aided by Cuban troops and the National
Union for the Total Independence of Angola, supported by South Africa and
the US
Government.

When Muammur al-Qaddafi tried to socialize the oil-rich North
African nation of Libya beginning with his takeover in 1969, he drew the
wrath
of the US Government. In 1981, it was claimed that Qaddafi had sent hit
teams to the United States to assassinate President Reagan and in 1986,
following the withdrawal of U.S. oil companies from Libya, an air attack was
launched which missed Qaddafi but killed several people including his
infant daughter.

In 1987, an Iraqi missile attack on the US frigate Stark resulted
in 37 deaths. Shortly afterward, the Iraqi president apologized for the
incident.
In 1988, a US Navy ship shot down an Iranian airliner over the
Persian Gulf resulting in 290 deaths. The Reagan Administration simply
called
it a mistake.


Thousands of freedom seeking Chinese were killed in Beijing's
Tiananmen Square in 1989 after hardliners conferred with former President
Richard Nixon on how to deal with the dissidents. Nixon, of course, was
the only US president to resign under threat of criminal indictment.

About 8,000 Panamanians died over Christmas, 1989, when President
George H. W. Bush sent US troops to invade that Central American nation to
arrest his former business partner, Manuel Noriega. The excuse was that
Noriega was involved in the importation of drugs to the United States. U.S.
News & World
Report noted that in 1990, the amount of drugs moving through
Panama had
doubled.

Iraqi casualties, both military and civilian, totaled more than
300,000 during the short Persian Gulf War of 1991. It has been estimated
that more than one million Iraqis, including women and children, have died
as a result of the continued missile and air attacks over the past decade as
well as economic sanctions against that nation.
Also in 1991, the United States suspended assistance to Haiti
after the election of a liberal priest sparked military action. Eventually,
US troops were deployed.


The names of nations that have felt the brunt of US CIA and/or
military
activity as a result of foreign policy include Somalia,
Afghanistan, Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Brazil, Chad, Sudan and many others. As
Dr.
Martin Luther
King Jr. stated during the Vietnam War, "My government is the
world's leading purveyor of violence."
He did not say "my country" or "my people," it is the government,
or rather those who control it, that are responsible. Although we the
distracted and unaware citizens who claim to live in a democracy must take
our
fair share of the blame.

HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS


Is there precedence in history for what is happening to America
today? So much so that there is not enough space to present it all. Nero
burned Rome, blamed it on his enemies and took dictatorial power.
But consider what happened just last century. On February 27,
1933, the German Reichstag or Parliament was destroyed by fire. Hitler and
his Nazis blamed the destruction on communist terrorists. They even caught
one, a retarded Dutch youth named Marinus van der Lubbe who carried a
Communist Party card. After some time in custody, the youth confessed to
being the arsonist. However, later investigation found that one person
could not have started the mammoth blaze and that incendiaries had been
carried
into the
building through a tunnel which led to the offices of Hitler's
closest partner, Hermann Goering.

Less than a month later, on March 24, 1933, at Hitler's urging, a
panicky German Parliament voted 441 to 94 to pass an "Enabling Act" which
was the starting point for Hitler's dictatorship. As a result of this
act, Germans soon saw gun confiscation, national identity cards, racial
profiling, a
national security chief (Heinrich Himmler) and later, mass
murders and incarcerations in concentration camps.
One of the western leaders who supported Hitler and his policies
was Prescott Bush, grandfather of President George W. Bush. He must
have taken notice of Hitler's method for gaining unwarranted power.

Since the Reichstag fire, the Bush family and their associates in
the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and
Bilderbergers have often mimicked Hitler's tactics of creating a problem,
offering a
draconian solution and advancing their agenda through any resulting
compromise.


The real enemy is whoever is behind the Sept. 11 terror attack.
Osama bin Laden, so closely connected to the financial interests of the
Bush family and the CIA, may be the mastermind or he may be a convenient
scapegoat, yet another provocation to stampeded Americans into another war
for
oil.
We must thoughtfully consider where the real source of terror
lies --- with one bearded fanatic in an impoverished Middle Eastern country
or
with those who would profit while shredding the US Constitution in the name
of defending freedom.

END