CRUCIAL VIDEO: "7/7 Ripple Effect"

Here's an excellent account of the London bombings of July 7, 2005 -- a vitally important and often overlooked specimen of state-sponsored false-flag terror at its worst.

I remember it all so well ... I was in a high-pressure blogging situation at the time, pulling double duty and desperate for something to write about. As a story, for somebody like me, it was a gift from Heaven. Right from the very beginning it had all the signs of a black op, and I said so at the time.

The attacks were even more opportune for some others. They occurred at a time when the run of news stories -- and of events -- was against the other puppets of the ruling class, especially in the U.K., as the British had nearly been pushed out of Iraq, the rich countries had been pushed to at least talk about helping the poor ones at the G8 summit, and Tony Blair was wilting under pressure. It all seemed just too convenient, as I wrote at the tim.

Rudy Giuliani was there. Benyamin Netanyahu was there -- and Netanyahu was warned not to leave his hotel, just a few minutes before a bomb exploded in the nearest tube station.

Peter Power explained that his consulting firm was involved in a terrorism-preparedness drill working with the exact scenario that transpired -- four explosions: three on trains and one on a bus ... and in exactly the same locations, too!

Think about that for a moment -- how far beyond coincidental can you get? This was treason of the highest order, and at the very top of the government.

Ever since I started blogging I've been trying to place terror in the context of government, in a deeper and more meaningful way than the approach followed by some more mainstream reporters such as Rolling Stone and Keith Olbermann, who draw connections between bogus terror alerts and political crises, but don't talk about how actual governments in search of ever-increasing power have participated in actual terror attacks which have killed hundreds or thousands or even more actual innocent people.

The London bombings of 7/7/2005 provided as clear an example of such a government in action as we are ever likely to see -- with the Mayor of 9/11 and a former Israeli Defense Minister right in the middle of it.

This video, "7/7 Ripple Effect", goes way beyond my quick and relatively simple analysis, and most of it makes perfect sense to me. It gets two minor details wrong, as far as I know, but neither makes any difference to any of the main points.

There are a few small bits that I still don't understand, but nothing that shocks me very much. I've reported on bogus-terror entrapment scams so often that most of my regular readers will be able to see the parallels in this case ... and if they don't, they'll probably ask questions!

Thanks to J for Justice dot Co dot UK for putting this video together, and a tip of the frozen cap to Sea Dreamer.

Inside Account To Detail Zelikow's Conflict Of Interest In 9/11 Commission

The 9/11 Whitewash Commission was so fragrant that even the pseudo-alternative media are having a bash at it, but without showing any sign of understanding what they're doing. Thus Max Holland writes:

In a revelation bound to cast a pall over the 9/11 Commission ...

Wow! Is that possible?

Philip Shenon will report in a forthcoming book that the panel’s executive director, Philip Zelikow [photo], engaged in “surreptitious” communications with presidential adviser Karl Rove and other Bush administration officials during the commission’s 20-month investigation into the 9/11 attacks.

Holy flippin' surprise, Batman! No kiddin'? Aw jeez!

In what’s termed an “investigation of the investigation,” Shenon purports to tell the story of the commission from start to finish. The book’s critical revelations, however, revolve almost entirely around the figure of Philip Zelikow, a University of Virginia professor and director of the Miller Center of Public Affairs prior to his service as the commission’s executive director. Shenon delivers a blistering account of Zelikow’s role and leadership, and an implicit criticism of the commissioners for appointing Zelikow in the first place -- and then allowing him to stay on after his myriad conflicts-of-interest were revealed under oath.

I'm in shock!! How are you? Still breathing? Conflicts of interest? Seriously?? If you're still with us, here are some of the oh-so-shocking details which have recently come to Max's attention:

Kean and Hamilton appreciated that Zelikow was a friend and former colleague of then-national security adviser Condoleeza Rice, one of the principal officials whose conduct would be scrutinized. Zelikow had served with her on the National Security Council (NSC) during the presidency of Bush’s father, and they had written a book together about German reunification. The commission co-chairmen also knew of Zelikow’s October 2001 appointment to the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. According to Shenon, however, Zelikow failed to disclose several additional and egregious conflicts-of-interest, among them, the fact that he had been a member of Rice’s NSC transition team in 2000-01. In that capacity, Zelikow had been the “architect” responsible for demoting Richard Clarke and his counter-terrorism team within the NSC. As Shenon puts it, Zelikow “had laid the groundwork for much of went wrong at the White House in the weeks and months before September 11. Would he want people to know that?”

No, no, that's the wrong question, Max!

The proper question at this point is: Who would be better to lead the investigation?

From the White House point of view, Zelikow was perfect. And the sequence of events which led him to the position was Rovian.

Unindicted war criminal deluxe Henry Kissinger was the first man named to run the Whitewash. But questions were asked after Kissinger refused to divulge his list of clients; when one of the 9/11 widows asked him specifically whether he had any clients from Saudi Arabia named bin Laden, Kissinger suddenly decided to resign. And while the pro-truth, anti-conflict-of-interest crowd was congratulating one another, Zelikow slipped in the back door and steered the Whitewash safely home.

Karen Heitkotter, the commission’s executive secretary, was taken aback on June 23, 2003 when she answered the telephone for Zelikow at 4:40 PM and heard a voice intone, “This is Karl Rove. I’m looking for Philip.” Heitkotter knew that Zelikow had promised the commissioners he would cut off all contact with senior officials in the Bush administration. Nonetheless, she gave Zelikow’s cell phone number to Rove.

Well, that's one way to help them cut off all contact! Excellent work, Karen.

The next day there was another call from Rove at 11:35 AM. Subsequently, Zelikow would claim that these calls pertained to his “old job” at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center.

My heart is racing now, boys. Does Max Holland pin 'em?

The full extent of Zelikow’s involvement with the incumbent administration only became evident within the commission on October 8, 2003, almost halfway into the panel’s term. Determined to blunt the Jersey Girls’ call for his resignation or recusal, Zelikow proposed that he be questioned under oath about his activities. General counsel Daniel Marcus, who conducted the sworn interview, brought a copy of the résumé Zelikow had provided to Kean and Hamilton. None of the activities Zelikow now detailed -- his role on Rice’s transition team, his instrumental role in Clarke’s demotion, his authorship of a post-9/11 pre-emptive attack doctrine -- were mentioned in the résumé. Zelikow blandly asserted to Marcus that he did not see “any of this as a major conflict of interest.” Marcus’s conclusion was that Zelikow “should never have been hired” as executive director. But the only upshot from these shocking disclosures was that Zelikow was involuntarily recused from that part of the investigation which involved the presidential transition, and barred from participating in subsequent interviews of senior Bush administration officials.

Presumably when Max Holland says

his authorship of a post-9/11 pre-emptive attack doctrine

he's talking about "Catastrophic Terrorism: Elements of a National Policy", written in 1998 by Ashton B. Carter, John M. Deutch and Philip D. Zelikow for "Visions of Governance for the Twenty-First Century", ironically "a project of the John F. Kennedy School of Government", not so ironically at Harvard University.

Christopher Bollyn points out the mentality behind the report, as revealed in an article the three authors wrote for

Foreign Affairs, the bi-monthly publication of the Council on Foreign Relations, in which they laid out what changes would need to be made within the U.S. government in the wake of "catastrophic terrorism," which is also the title of the article.

The "Catastrophic Terrorism" article, written by Ashton B. Carter, John M. Deutch, and Philip D. Zelikow, appeared in the last issue of Foreign Affairs in 1998. It begins with the strange subtitle "Imagining the Transforming Event," as if what was actually desired by the authors was a transformation of the U.S. government and the way Americans live.

The authors of the article, like Netanyahu, do not even mention the political causes of terrorism. Understanding the causes of terrorism in an effort to prevent it does not even occur to them. No, these three architects are busy "imagining the transforming event" - and how to respond to it.

This article is clearly an architectural level document. It is meant to explain what should be done in the event of the catastrophic terror attack its authors are "imagining." For this reason, the authors deserve to be investigated to see what kind of relationship they might have to those who carried out the false flag terror attacks of 9/11.

Interesting, isn't it? The section of the "Catastrophic Terrorism" report called "Imagining the Transforming Event" begins with a few vital definitions, which can be seen in retrospect to have taken over:

We find terrorism when individuals or groups, rather than governments, seek to attain their objectives by means of the terror induced by violent attacks upon civilians. When governments openly attack others, we call it war, to be judged or dealt with according to the laws of war. When governments act in concert with private individuals or groups, the United States government may call it war, or state-sponsored terrorism, and retaliate against both the individuals and the governments.

There you go. Governments acting openly can't do "terrorism". Only groups and individuals can do that. But if they act in concert with a government, then the United States government may call it state-sponsored terrorism and retaliate against everybody! Nice stuff, Phil.

In the same section we read:

Long part of Hollywood’s and Tom Clancy’s repertory of nightmarish scenarios, catastrophic terrorism is a real possibility.

So let's see now ... is this confirmation of my thoughts on the day of the catastrophic attack?

Well, you couldn't ask for more, in my opinion.

Speaking of Tom Clancy, I heard part of an interview with him on the radio on the day of 9/11. The interviewer asked "Do you think this would have happened if Al Gore were President?"

Clancy replied, "God forbid if Al Gore were President."

But I digress. Not good during a digression. (At least I'm not regressing.)

Zelikow et. al. again:

An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America’s history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented for peacetime and undermine Americans’ fundamental sense of security within their own borders in a manner akin to the 1949 Soviet atomic bomb test, or perhaps even worse. Constitutional liberties would be challenged as the United States sought to protect itself from further attacks by pressing against allowable limits in surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and the use of deadly force. More violence would follow, either as other terrorists seek to imitate this great "success" or as the United States strikes out at those considered responsible. Like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a "before" and "after." The effort and resources we devote to averting or containing this threat now, in the "before" period, will seem woeful, even pathetic, when compared to what will happen "after." Our leaders will be judged negligent for not addressing catastrophic terrorism more urgently.

Christopher Bollyn quotes a passage (same link) from an article for Foreign Affairs, in which the same three authors wrote:

The bombings in East Africa killed hundreds. A successful attack with weapons of mass destruction could certainly take thousands, or tens of thousands, of lives. If the device that exploded in 1993 under the World Trade Center had been nuclear, or had effectively dispersed a deadly pathogen, the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it.

Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America's fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, this event would divide our past and future into a before and after.

The United States might respond with draconian measures, scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either further terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently.

As Bollyn points out:

With amazing prescience the authors were right about all eight things they said "might" happen as a result of an attack of "catastrophic terrorism" like Pearl Harbor.

The authors go on to recommend specifically what the U.S. government should do in the wake of such an event of "catastrophic terrorism," which they concluded is "an eminent threat."

Back to the paper, where Zelikow almost seems prescient about national policy in other ways as well:

The greatest danger may arise if the threat falls into one of the crevasses in our government’s field of overlapping jurisdictions, such as the divide between terrorism that is "foreign" or "domestic;" or terrorism that has "state" or "non-state" sponsors; or terrorism that is classified as a problem for "law enforcement" or one of "national security." The law enforcement/national security divide is especially significant, carved deeply into the topography of American government.

The divide between "law enforcement" and "national security" was carved deeply into the topography of American government for a very good reason, and only the utterly coincidental occurrence of a catastrophic attack with "state" or "non-state" sponsors (whatever that means) was required to remove that divide. Now we have "lawfare", a merger of the forces of law enforcement with the forces of warfare. America declares war on its own people. I'll have more on this in an upcoming essay -- or maybe a series of them.

Zelikow and friends are almost funny when they write:

The threat of catastrophic terrorism typifies the new sort of security problem the United States must confront in the post Cold War world. It is transnational, defying ready classification as foreign or domestic, either in origin, participants, or materials. As the World Trade Center incident demonstrated, one group can combine U.S. citizens with resident aliens and foreign nationals, operating in and out of American territory over long periods of time.

If the World Trade Center incident they refer to (the 1993 bombing) demonstrated anything, it's that we shouldn't trust our government's counter-terror units.

That bombing was an inside job, too. The FBI had "the terrorist cell" infiltrated from a very early stage. The FBI agent suggested bombing the WTC. The agent taught the "terrorists" how to build a bomb. How would they get the bomb to the WTC? The terrorists didn't know, so the agent suggested renting a van. The terrorists didn't know how to drive, so the agent gave one of them driving lessons. Then came the fatal day.

They put the bomb in the van and drove to the parking ramp under the WTC. The agent snuck around a corner and pulled out his cell phone. Calling the office, he said, "The bomb is in place. Come arrest them." But his supervisor told him, "Get out of there! The bomb has to go off!"

The agent was astonished. What? His boss told him, "We have to have an explosion to guarantee a conviction." So he ran. And the bomb exploded. And it was all the terrorists' fault.

But I digress. I'd give you a link to the 1993 info, except I heard it on the radio. I heard an interview with that agent on the radio. I'm sorry to say I forget his name. Didn't realize at the time how important it was going to be.

Man, that was some confused dude. He thought he'd been there to thwart them. At the last moment he found out his job had been to assist them! Hmmm.

What? Oh no, no parallels here, officer!

Most of the Zelikow paper is ostensibly about measures that could be taken in an attempt to prevent catastrophic terrorism; those measures are being taken even as you read this sentence.

As Zelikow wrote:

When this threat becomes clear the President must be in a position to activate extraordinary capabilities.

One way of looking at the history of false-flag attacks on the WTC is like this: the 1993 bombing didn't make the threat clear. The 2001 attacks did.

And now -- as if that were not enough -- more from Max Holland:

[When] Bob Kerrey replaced disgruntled ex-Senator Max Cleland on the panel, the former Nebraska senator became astounded once he understood Zelikow’s obvious conflicts-of-interest and his very limited recusal. Kerrey could not understand how Kean and Hamilton had ever agreed to put Zelikow in charge. “Look Tom,” Kerrey told Kean, “either he goes or I go.” But Kean persuaded Kerrey to drop his ultimatum.

And there's more: Zelikow asked his secretary not to keep a record of his incoming calls. Then he started using his cell phone for his calls to the White House. He violated the limited terms of his limited recusal.

You could read it all, and you probably should. But be prepared for some horse droppings near the end:

Shenon’s [...] account of the commission’s inner workings promises to achieve what none of the crackpot conspiracy theorists have managed to do so far: put the 9/11 Commission in disrepute.

Right. By revealing hidden details that the crackpot conspiracy theorists already know about, this hot-shot New York Times reporter will be able to do what? Will he finally reveal the hidden details that the crackpot conspiracy theorists already know about?? and put the 9/11 Commission in disrepute that way?

I'm starting to lose track of the number of places where I've seen the same pattern in post-democratic American journalism. The authors seem free to lay out any number of dots, each utterly incriminating, but they invariably leave some dots out, and they always connect the dots that they do have -- or frame them, as in this case -- with a bogus narrative.

Post-democratic American journalism at its finest, friends. Yuck.

Still ... what was Phil Zelikow doing anywhere near that Commission, let alone "serving" as executive director of it? What was he doing talking to Karl Rove? What was he doing talking to the White House? What was he doing interfering with the investigation into his role in the "transition"?

He was doing his job, that's what!

Bollyn again:

Philip David Zelikow is all over 9/11, its aftermath, and the subsequent wars in the Middle East. Three years after warning of "catastrophic terrorism," Zelikow became the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, the appointed government whitewash which utterly failed to address the key questions and evidence of the terror attacks of 9/11.

Zelikow, from Houston, served on President George W. Bush's transition team in 2001. After Bush took office, Zelikow was named to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, and served on the National Commission on Federal Election Reform, which produced the extremely flawed Help America Vote Act of 2002.

If you think all these disparate coincidences are connected somehow, you're a wacko conspiracy theorist. Welcome aboard!

It's About That Mutiny: Air Force Covers Its Tail With Transparent Feathers

The US Air Force has decommissioned five officers and barred 65 others from handling nuclear weapons after what has been called an investigation into what has been called a series of mistakes which led to a B-52 flying from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana on August 30 while carrying nuclear-armed cruise missiles, in violation of standard practices as well as international treaty.

Staff Sgt. Monique Randolph, Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs, spelled out the gist of the official story for Air Force Link:

Air Force releases B-52 munitions transfer investigation results

A senior Air Force official released results of the command-directed investigation stemming from a weapons transfer incident that occurred Aug. 30 when cruise missiles were loaded onto a B-52 Stratofortress at Minot Air Force Base, N.D., and transported to Barksdale AFB, La.
...

Following the incident, Gen. Ronald Keys, Air Combat Command commander, ordered an immediate investigation to be conducted by Maj. Gen. Douglas Raaberg, ACC director of Air and Space Operations. The investigation lasted six weeks.
...

"This was a serious error caused by a breakdown of procedural discipline by our Airmen," General Newton added. "We're accountable and we reassure the American people that the Air Force standards they expect are being met."

This is the same story we've been told ever since we learned of the event, ably echoed by William Arkin for the Washington Post:

Six of Our Nukes Went Missing -- But Don't Worry

Despite the huffing and puffing of the professional concerned, the danger to the good people of the United States from the B-52 crashing or a missile spontaneously exploding was probably infinitesimal. Still, the reality is that six nuclear warheads were removed from their bunkers in North Dakota, loaded onto a bomber, flown across the United States for three and a half hours, and then left on a parking apron for another 10 hours -- and no one noticed.

"The weapons were always in our custody," an Air Force spokesman assures. Of course they were in Air Force custody, at least as far as the paperwork goes. That doesn't mean a group of terrorists, aided by people on the base, couldn't have stolen the weapons from the North Dakota bunker.

There is no explanation for this incident other than gross incompetence on the part of the munitions and flight crews.

Unfortnately for William Arkin, other explanations are indeed possible -- indeed some other explanation is needed, as noted by tstorey in a comment at my blog:

With extensive research, you will find that the removal from storage (Minot AFB) and the transport of nuclear weapons to (Barksdale AFB) involves presidential involvement. For nuclear tipped missiles to be mounted into launch position on a combat platform (B-52) the D.O.D custody regulations require a signature from the White House.

Media reports said it was a series of unfortunate "mistakes."

Research reveals the impossibility of five different two to four star generals signing off on a mistaken shipment of 50 kiloton+ stealth cruise missiles.

The "event" is one issue that has been widely discussed. The ONLY important issue that came out of the fiasco is this, The Military Times is run by Gannett. I am old so I know some big shots in the newspaper business. It is a violation of a litany of national security regulations to release a story involving "treaty regulated" transport of nuclear weapons. It is NOT done. The first publication to carry the report was the Military Times, from there it spread to the wire services. THIS IS NEVER DONE. This was a private "family matter" that would be released years from now.

The flight officer at Minot AFB knew he had just released a flight with live nukes. The flight officer at Barksdale AFB knew he was in receipt of a flight live nukes. What happened next?

A two star general responsible for the AF region got a phone call. This "general" arranged for two "unnamed" officers to "report" the incident to Gannett and we are off to the races.

Keep in mind the next step. The Military Times cannot print ANYTHING without it being vetted by an officer. Either a full colonel or a brigadier. With a review of this post you will find that no fewer than four generals were involved in the order to get the missiles mounted on the B52 and no fewer than three in ANNOUNCING the event to the world.

This is mutiny. This is brass against brass. The senior officer who vetted the story for release knew he was "covered" by still higher ups [...] The Military Times, a division of Gannett media group, was ORDERED to release the story of the B-52 Nukes. Somebody from Washington DC with many stars gave that order. Somebody with so much juice that they knew they would survive.

The cabal is not popular with the US military. I will suggest that this is hope and that hope is good. The US military are what stand between us and martial law. Every officer signs his commission with the statement to uphold the US constitution. What if most of them do?

I haven't been able to find anything in the preceding comment that appears false.

On the contrary, it makes a lot of sense to me, and it points to deeper intrigue -- the very sort of intrigue Wayne Madsen described in his piece of September 24th, "Air Force refused to fly weapons to Middle East theater":

WMR has learned from U.S. and foreign intelligence sources that the B-52 transporting six stealth AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missiles, each armed with a W-80-1 nuclear warhead, on August 30, were destined for the Middle East via Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana.

However, elements of the Air Force, supported by U.S. intelligence agency personnel, successfully revealed the ultimate destination of the nuclear weapons and the mission was aborted due to internal opposition within the Air Force and U.S. Intelligence Community.

Yesterday, the Washington Post attempted to explain away the fact that America's nuclear command and control system broke down in an unprecedented manner by reporting that it was the result of "security failures at multiple levels." It is now apparent that the command and control breakdown, reported as a BENT SPEAR incident to the Secretary of Defense and White House, was not the result of a command and control chain-of-command "failures" but the result of a revolt and push back by various echelons within the Air Force and intelligence agencies against a planned U.S. attack on Iran using nuclear and conventional weapons.
...

The Washington Post story on BENT SPEAR may have actually been an effort in damage control by the Bush administration.
...

Just as this report was being prepared, Newsweek reported that Vice President Dick Cheney's recently-departed Middle East adviser, David Wurmser, told a small group of advisers some months ago that Cheney had considered asking Israel to launch a missile attack on the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz. Cheney reasoned that after an Iranian retaliatory strike, the United States would have ample reasons to launch its own massive attack on Iran. However, plans for Israel to attack Iran directly were altered to an Israeli attack on a supposed Syrian-Iranian-North Korean nuclear installation in northern Syria.

WMR has learned that a U.S. attack on Iran using nuclear and conventional weapons was scheduled to coincide with Israel's September 6 air attack on a reputed Syrian nuclear facility in Dayr az-Zwar, near the village of Tal Abyad, in northern Syria, near the Turkish border. Israel's attack, code named OPERATION ORCHARD, was to provide a reason for the U.S. to strike Iran. The neo-conservative propaganda onslaught was to cite the cooperation of the George Bush's three remaining "Axis of Evil" states -- Syria, Iran, and North Korea -- to justify a sustained Israeli attack on Syria and a massive U.S. military attack on Iran.

WMR has learned from military sources on both sides of the Atlantic that there was a definite connection between Israel's OPERATION ORCHARD and BENT SPEAR involving the B-52 that flew the six nuclear-armed cruise missiles from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale. There is also a connection between these two events as the Pentagon's highly-classified PROJECT CHECKMATE, a compartmented U.S. Air Force program that has been working on an attack plan for Iran since June 2007, around the same time that Cheney was working on the joint Israeli-U.S. attack scenario on Iran.
...

Command and control breakdowns involving U.S. nuclear weapons are unprecedented, except for that fact that the U.S. military is now waging an internal war against neo-cons who are embedded in the U.S. government and military chain of command who are intent on using nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive war with Iran.

CHECKMATE and OPERATION ORCHARD would have provided the cover for a pre-emptive U.S. and Israeli attack on Iran had it not been for BENT SPEAR involving the B-52. In on the plan to launch a pre-emptive attack on Iran involving nuclear weapons were, according to our sources, Cheney, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley; members of the CHECKMATE team at the Pentagon, who have close connections to Israeli intelligence and pro-Israeli think tanks in Washington, including the Hudson Institute; British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, a political adviser to Tony Blair prior to becoming a Member of Parliament; Israeli political leaders like Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu; and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, who did his part last week to ratchet up tensions with Iran by suggesting that war with Iran was a probability. Kouchner retracted his statement after the U.S. plans for Iran were delayed.

Although the Air Force tried to keep the B-52 nuclear incident from the media, anonymous Air Force personnel leaked the story to Military Times on September 5, the day before the Israelis attacked the alleged nuclear installation in Syria and the day planned for the simultaneous U.S. attack on Iran. The leaking of classified information on U.S. nuclear weapons disposition or movement to the media, is, itself, unprecedented.
...

The nuclear brinkmanship involving the United States and Israel and the breakdown in America's command and control systems have every major capital around the world wondering about the Bush administration's true intentions.

You can read the rest of Wayne Madsen's report here.

The Air Force forgot to mention the mysterious deaths of six airmen who were involved with the incident, as reported by the Iranian news service Press TV on September 22nd:

Mystery surrounds deaths of Minot airmen

Six members of the US Air Force who were involved in the Minot AFB incident, have died mysteriously, an anti-Bush activist group says.
...

The activist group Citizens for Legitimate Government said the six members of the US Air Force who were directly involved as loaders or as pilots, were killed within 7 days in 'accidents'.

The victims include Airman First Class Todd Blue, 20, who died while on leave in Virginia. A statement by the military confirmed his death but did not say how he died.

In another accident, a married couple from Barksdale Air Force Base were killed in the 5100 block of Shreveport-Blanchard Highway. The two were riding a 2007 Harley-Davidson motorcycle, with the husband driving and the wife the passenger, police said.

"They were traveling behind a northbound Pontiac Aztec driven by Erica Jerry, 35, of Shreveport," the county sheriff said. "Jerry initiated a left turn into a business parking lot at the same time the man driving the motorcycle attempted to pass her van on the left in a no passing zone. They collided."

Adam Barrs, a 20-year-old airman from Minot Air Force Base was killed in a crash on the outskirts of the city.

First Lt. Weston Kissel, 28, a Minot Air Force Base bomber pilot, was killed in a motorcycle crash in Tennessee, the military officials say.

Police found the body of a missing Air Force captain John Frueh near Badger Peak in northeast Skamania County, Washington.

The Activist group says the mysterious deaths of the air force members could indicate to a conspiracy to cover up the truth about the Minot Air Base incident.

I'm fairly sure some of my readers know a lot more about this incident than I do. If you're one of them, don't hesitate to add to the story via the comments link.

7/7 Press For Truth Begins

Survivors and families of the victims of the 7/7 London subway bombings "began legal action on Thursday to force the British government to hold an independent inquiry" according to a report from Reuters, which says:

The group argues official accounts of the suicide bombings on London's transport system carried out by four young British Islamists have been insufficient, inaccurate and misleading.
...

The 7/7 inquiry group, made up of bereaved relatives and those who escaped the bombings, says the refusal to hold a public inquiry breaches the European Convention on Human Rights and intends to seek a judicial review of that decision.

Lawyers for the group said the papers were being served at the High Court on Thursday.

As some of us remember, the bombings happened more than two years ago and there has never even been the pretense of an investigation.

The attacks were transparently bogus at the time, so I beg to disagree with Cliff Tibber on one point:

"Firstly we say that the decision of the former Home Secretary (interior minister) not to order an inquiry was irrational," Cliff Tibber, head of litigation at Oury Clark, told Reuters.

Deciding not to order an inquiry after a blatantly false-flag attack is anything but irrational. It's deliberate obstruction of justice. But Cliff Tibber is exactly right on this point:

"Secondly there is a positive duty under article 2 of the Human Rights Act in these circumstances to order an inquiry." The first hearing at the High Court is unlikely to take place until October.

The British government's so-called "justification" for refusing to investigate is as lame as you can possibly imagine:

The government has rejected demands for an independent review of the bombings, which opposition politicians have also called for. It says an inquiry would distract stretched security services when Britain is at serious risk of attack.

"As we have consistently maintained, experience has shown that a fuller public inquiry can take years and divert huge resources," a Home Office spokeswoman said earlier this month.

We can spend billions and kill thousands in a war on terror to avenge this crime and prevent further such events, but we don't have the time or the money to find out what actually happened? It's rubbish, of course, and it smells just like the 9/11 variety, doesn't it?

The alleged suicide bombers allegedy put their bombs in their packs and carried them aboard the trains and buses they rode, and which then blew up. But pictures of the damage seemed to show the undercarriages blasted up rather than down. Oops! Better get rid of those pictures!

The 7/7 inquiry group says there are vital unanswered questions that need to be addressed, particularly how much the authorities knew about two of the bombers, ringleader Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer, before the attacks.

They were photographed, recorded and followed by intelligence operatives several times in early 2004 in the company of plotters who have since been jailed for planning attacks using fertilizer-based bombs.

The government said in the aftermath of the July 7 strikes that all the bombers were "clean skins" who had not previously crossed the authorities' radar.

The group says that means an inquiry is needed to determine whether the government had failed in its duty to protect life.

Reuters casts these questions -- questions surrounding the two alleged bombers the government allegedly knew about -- as if they were the heart of the matter. But they're only the beginning of it.

"We would very much like answers to the questions we have raised. We don't understand why we haven't received them," Jacqui Putnam, who was on board the train blown up by Khan, told Reuters.

Maybe distance is important, or maybe background, or maybe both ... but I do understand why they haven't received any answers. It's because the known facts don't fit the official fiction.

Why were there drills going on in the exact same stations at the exact same times as the bombs went off? Because that's the way false-flag attacks are organized. The drills provide cover for anyone who needs it.

Why was Benyamin Netanyahu, then Israeli Finance Minister and former Prime Minister, warned to stay in his hotel that morning, and who from Scotland Yard told him not to board the train in the nearby station which was about to explode? Why were reports of this incident available on the morning of 7/7 but not later -- how did they all suddenly disappear?

If you want more questions, watch this video.

Ludicrous Diversion

Then watch this one:

Mind The Gap

And now, if you want some answers, look here (or here).

How the Government Staged the London Bombings in Ten Easy Steps

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet | July 13 2005

1) Hire a Crisis Management firm to set up an exercise that parallels the terrorist attack you are going to carry out. Have them run the exercise at the precise locations and at the very same time as the attack. If at any stage of the attack your Arabs get caught, tell the police it was part of an exercise.

2) Hire four Arabs and tell them they're taking part in an important exercise to help defend London from terrorist attacks. Strap them with rucksacks filled with deadly explosives. Tell the Arabs the rucksacks are dummy explosives and wouldn't harm a fly.

3) Tell four Arabs to meet up at London Underground and disperse, each getting on a different train. Make sure Arabs meet in a location where you can get a good mug shot of them all on CCTV which you can later endlessly repeat to drooling masses on television.

Paul nails it! You can read the rest (and click the links) here (or here).

Just in case you needed a reminder, this is it: 9/11 wasn't the only bogus terror attack.

Every large-scale attack underpinning the GWOT is full of fishy holes, just like this one.

And that's why refusing to hold an inquiry was the most rational thing the British authorities could have done.

Jerusalem Post Stokes The War On Muslims Even "Better" Than FOX "News"!

Derrick Shareef, the so-called terrorist who allegedly plotted to blow up hand grenades in garbage cans in a Rockford, Illinois shopping mall on the Friday before Christmas, was indicted Thursday (January 4th) in Chicago. From Michigan to Lousiana, from Oregon to North Carolina, from Florida to New York, from Pioneer Press (Minnesota) to Town Hall (DC) [taking donations to help defend Scooter Libby and restore his good name!] and even FOX News, [!] everybody is getting more or less the same story, except for a lucky few in Illinois, such as readers of the Chicago Sun-Times, who are getting even more, and another lucky few, such as viewers of the local television station, WREX-13 of Rockford, who are getting a bit less.

Internationally, news of Derrick Shareef's indictment has spread to Europe (International Herald Tribune and Guardian Unlimited), Asia (China Post) and the Middle East (Jerusalem Post).

Of all these reports, one and only one mentions Shareef's religion. Which report do you suppose that was? And why do you suppose they would do that?

Here's the short story from the AP that's getting published almost everywhere:

CHICAGO (AP) - A man accused of plotting to use hand grenades in an attack on holiday shoppers was indicted Thursday on charges of attempting to use weapons of mass destruction.

Derrick Shareef, 22, was arrested Dec. 6 by an FBI-led anti-terrorism task force following a sting operation in which an undercover informant secretly tape-recorded his plans.

Shareef was arrested when he met an undercover agent to trade a pair of stereo speakers for four hand grenades and a handgun to use at the CherryVale shopping mall in Rockford, about 90 miles northwest of Chicago, federal prosecutors said.

Shareef is being held in the government's Metropolitan Correctional Center pending a court hearing. No date has been set.

Defense attorney Michael B. Mann, who was appointed to represent Shareef at his initial court appearance in December, was unavailable for comment. A message left on his office voicemail was not immediately returned.

Prosecutors have said they were convinced Shareef had operated alone and there had been no imminent danger to the public.

It's clearly an edited version of a longer piece from the AP's Mike Robinson, which starts like this:

A Rockford man who dreamed of becoming a terrorist was indicted Thursday on charges of trying to use hand grenades to blow up garbage cans at a shopping mall.

and contains the following additional paragraphs:

It was unclear after the grand jury indictment was announced late Thursday whether Shareef had hired another attorney.

Shareef was arrested when he met an undercover agent in a parking lot to trade a pair of stereo speakers for four hand grenades and a handgun.

He was charged in the two-count indictment with attempting to use weapons of mass destruction at Rockford's 130-store CherryVale Shopping Center during the Christmas shopping rush.

Federal prosecutors said the weapons of mass destruction were the hand grenades which he planned to use to blow up garbage cans in the center.

The indictment also charged Shareef with attempting to maliciously damage and destroy property by means of arson and explosives.

The arson and explosives count carries a mandatory minimum on conviction of five years in prison and a maximum of 20 years. The weapons of mass destruction count carries a maximum of life. Both counts carry a maximum fine of $250,000.

And then there's the Jerusalem Post version of the same article:

Muslim convert indicted in terror plot on US mall

A Muslim convert was indicted on charges of trying to use hand grenades to blow up garbage cans at a shopping mall.

Derrick Shareef, 22, was arrested December 6 by an FBI-led anti-terrorism task force following a sting operation in which an undercover informant secretly tape-recorded his plans.

Federal prosecutors who announced the arrest said they were convinced Shareef had operated alone and there had been no danger to the public.

Shareef is being held in the government's Metropolitan Correctional Center pending a court hearing. No date has been set.

Is this a candidate for the short list of things that make me angry?

Oh, no, I am WAY TOO COLD for that!

And so is the Jerusalem Post, which features a new blog from Bibi Netanyahu:

Iran can still be stopped

If Olmert's government reacts limply to Iran's statements about its intentions to destroy Israel, why should we expect the world to act against them?

Baker and Hamilton described the current mood in their report: "The majority of the political establishment in Israel has grown tired of a continuous state of a nation at war."

What can we say about such words when even Olmert himself said similar things during an address he gave last year in the US: "We are tired of fighting. We are tired of being heroes. Tired of winning. Tired of beating our enemies."

When even Israel's leadership sends out a message of fatigue and weakness, why should we be surprised that the world agrees?

The main principle which we should follow is this: The key to promising the existence of Israel is developing strength.

And so on. And on and on. And on and on and on and on and on.

Some blogger! Bibi Netanyahu makes me look terse. I would never have thought that possible.

He also invokes all the code phrases for "more killing, more killing, more killing", which I don't.

So that's another easy way to tell us apart.

Here's a third major difference: I will gladly point you to convincing evidence that Derrick Shareef is a victim of deliberate and very slick entrapment, and that the "threat" of terrorism in the heartland of America is vastly overrated (and mostly provoked by FBI sting operations).

In other words, most of the so-called opposition is bogus and/or bound to be ineffective, because it's not just that the "War on Terror" is being fought the wrong way; it also appears that the "enemy" is largely exaggerated and/or fabricated. Welcome to 1984, twenty-three years later. And then some.

Bibi Netanyahu would never mention anything of the sort.

===

fifth in a series

Israel / Lebanon / Gaza : Good News and Bad News, Spun Hard, as Usual

First the good news: The BBC is reporting Israeli soldiers 'out of Lebanon'

Israel says it has withdrawn the last of its troops from Lebanon, fulfilling a key condition of the UN ceasefire that ended its war with Hezbollah.

The army said the last soldier left Lebanon early on Sunday.

Israel sent more than 10,000 troops into southern Lebanon during a month-long war triggered by Hezbollah's abduction of two soldiers in July.

As a point of accuracy, let's make that: "... a month-long war reportedly triggered by Hezbollah's supposed abduction of two soldiers...".

Why do I say this? Because, as a series of news reports from around the world clearly stated at the time, the two Israeli soldiers reportedly abducted from Israel by Hezbollah were actually captured in Lebanon while on a cross-border raid.

Did you know that already? I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't. Clearly you weren't supposed to know it.

Even UN resolution 1701 which supposedly ended this undeclared war enshrines the official Israeli fiction. [my emphasis, here and elsewhere]

The Security Council
...
Expressing its utmost concern at the continuing escalation of hostilities in Lebanon and in Israel since Hizbollah’s attack on Israel on 12 July 2006, which has already caused hundreds of deaths and injuries on both sides, extensive damage to civilian infrastructure and hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons,

Emphasizing the need for an end of violence, but at the same time emphasizing the need to address urgently the causes that have given rise to the current crisis, including by the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers,
...

I don't mean to knock the UN particularly ... the truth has been buried almost everywhere ... except at What Really Happened dot Com, where you can read contemporary news accounts from major news organizations, in several different languages, all of which say more or less the same as this excerpt from a report filed by Monsters and Critics:

In the afternoon, the scene changed in the streets of southern Lebanon, which was the target of 32 Israeli raids that mainly targeted areas near the area where the two soldiers were captured in Aita al Chaab, close to the border with Israel.

The town in which the invading Israelis were captured, "Aita al Chaab" is also spelled as "Ayta ash Shab". See the map below. You can on it to enlarge it.



Want another example? The Asia Times report ran this way:

It all started on July 12 when Israel troops were ambushed on Lebanon's side of the border with Israel...

You can find many other similar reports here.

Furthermore, Israel's attack on Lebanon, which was reported as an act of retaliation for the "abduction" of the Israeli soldiers, was planned well in advance of the supposed abduction.

Here's the plan: A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

This report is written with key passages of a possible speech marked TEXT, that highlight the clean break which the new government has an opportunity to make.

In other words, it's a propaganda document. The sections marked "TEXT" are for public consumption. They put the best possible face on the war of aggression detailed by the other passages in the document.

For example,

TEXT: Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them.
...
Israel’s new agenda can signal a clean break by abandoning a policy which assumed exhaustion and allowed strategic retreat by reestablishing the principle of preemption...

So that -- preemptive war -- was the plan all along. All they needed was a pretext. And the pretext was remarkably easy to fabricate.

Here's an article by Sidney Blumenthal explaining how the plan has been implemented: The neocons' next war

[S]enior national security professionals have begun circulating among themselves a 1996 neocon manifesto against the Middle East peace process. Titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," its half-dozen authors included neoconservatives highly influential with the Bush administration -- Richard Perle, first-term chairman of the Defense Policy Board; Douglas Feith, former undersecretary of defense; and David Wurmser, Cheney's chief Middle East aide.

"A Clean Break" was written at the request of incoming Likud Party Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and intended to provide "a new set of ideas" for jettisoning the policies of assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Instead of trading "land for peace," the neocons advocated tossing aside the Oslo agreements that established negotiations and demanding unconditional Palestinian acceptance of Likud's terms, "peace for peace." Rather than negotiations with Syria, they proposed "weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria." They also advanced a wild scenario to "redefine Iraq." Then King Hussein of Jordan would somehow become its ruler; and somehow this Sunni monarch would gain "control" of the Iraqi Shiites, and through them "wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria."

Netanyahu, at first, attempted to follow the "clean break" strategy, but under persistent pressure from the Clinton administration he felt compelled to enter into U.S.-led negotiations with the Palestinians. In the 1998 Wye River accords, concluded through the personal involvement of President Clinton and a dying King Hussein, the Palestinians agreed to acknowledge the legitimacy of Israel and Netanyahu agreed to withdraw from a portion of the occupied West Bank. Further negotiations, conducted by his successor Ehud Barak, that nearly settled the conflict ended in dramatic failure, but potentially set the stage for new ones.

At his first National Security Council meeting, President George W. Bush stunned his first secretary of state, Colin Powell, by rejecting any effort to revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. When Powell warned that "the consequences of that could be dire, especially for the Palestinians," Bush snapped, "Sometimes a show for force by one side can really clarify things." He was making a "clean break" not only with his immediate predecessor but also with the policies of his father.

And so on.

In any case, Israeli soldiers are reportedly finally out of Lebanon. Hooray.

This doesn't mean the danger to the Lebanese people is over. Far from it.

Clearing Lebanon's residue of war

It may not be quite what you expect - a team of Iraqi Kurds teaching explosives clearance techniques in the bombed-out villages of southern Lebanon - but here they are.

The men have been flown out by the British charity Mines Awareness Group (MAG), the only non-commercial munitions clearance body in Lebanon, a country still littered with unexploded devices more than a month after the recent war with Israel.

"Hundreds of thousands of civilian lives are at risk," said Nick Guest, MAG's Technical Operations Manager.
...
No-one knows just how much unexploded ordnance there is in southern Lebanon.

Estimates range from tens to hundreds of thousands of unexploded cluster bomblets and submunitions. The UN warns it may take two years to clear them.
...
Unexploded Israeli munitions now lie on the roadside, in the gardens and fields of the decimated villages here.

The devices tend to be small in size, so often remain undetected until it's too late.
...
Out of the 18 killed and more than 80 injured in explosions since the end of the war a quarter were children.

A young boy was killed a few days ago climbing a tree to grab an apple. While shaking the branches, he dislodged an unexploded bomblet. It detonated on his head.

We met Radwan Ghandour, a father of four, in Nabitiyeh's Ragheb Harab Hospital. He was covered in bandages and had lost an eye and the fingers of his left hand when he tried to get rid of a cluster bomblet from his garden.

"I just wanted to keep my children safe," he told us. "There are bombs all over our village still. It makes us hate the Israelis more and more each day."

So, as in all "former" war zones, the danger remains extreme. But at least the Israeli soldiers are gone. For now. Hooray!

And now for the bad news: the BBC is also reporting new aggression by Israel. This time, Israeli strikes target Gaza Strip

An Israeli air strike has killed a Palestinian militant and wounded at least three other people, medical officials in the Gaza Strip say.

It happened in the southern town of Rafah on the border with Egypt.

The Israeli army said the raid had targeted a vehicle used by militants it believed were planning attacks against Israel.

As usual, this report begs to be unspun. So let's make it as accurate as possible, shall we?

An Israeli air strike has killed an alleged Palestinian militant ... who was traveling in a vehicle that allegedly was used by alleged militants who were supposedly planning attacks against Israel.

In other words, an alleged thoughtcrime has been punished by murder.

I understand that there's a good chance this post will draw cries of "anti-Semitism". But that's not the case at all. If this post anti-anything, it's anti-bullshit.

If there is any inaccuracy in this post, it lies in the term "news" as applied to "thoughtcrime punished by murder".

That's not news. It happens all the time.