What should Wikileaks leak NEXT?

Assuming they had access to everything, what would be most vital to the public interest and cutting through the lies and crap from DC?

My top three:

1. every shred of paper from the Cheney Energy Task Force in early 2000. One of the few documents that was released in response to a FOIA request was a map of Iraq's oil fields divided up and a list of foreign suitors for those fields. What role did this play not only in our Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but seeking bases and political machinations in Central Asia, where we are trying to wrestle the Caspian pipeline business away from Russia. Did they do this solely for the benefit of oil and energy companies, or out of a misguided sense of seeking energy security? Were there dissenting voices in the military and foreign policy establishment that said this would make a LESS secure world since Russia and China might not like us having that degree of hegemony?
   
   
2. The Saudi pages Bush classified in a panic in the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 Report. It is already a matter of public record that we were attacked by terrorists given logistical help by an agent of our ally Saudi Arabia, who also funneled money to the terrorist and was in constant phone contact with their embassy and consulate before the attack. The piece that is missing is why they would do that and why the Bush administration didn't even skip a heartbeat before defending and embracing them.
   
   
3. Likewise, why did our government initially ignore the documented financial help and direction Pakistan gave to al Qaeda and the Taliban, including evacuating key leaders from Tora Bora? In the last couple of years, they seem to be noticing, though the most damning evidence was available immediately after 9/11. What was the reason for the selective outrage? or more importantly, why the long delay before the outrage? What other issues did we have with Pakistan then and now that would explain it?
   
   OK, I lied. A fourth I'd like to see:
   
   
4. Has the Pentagon done an assessment of the security threat Wall Street's shorting of other countries economies and/or how the gutting of our industrial base have created? Are they monitoring the threat and have they prepared contingency plans to neutralize it?

There's probably a whole lot that could be asked on the domestic front as well, but I'm curious to hear what other's want leaked.

100,000 troops to chase 100 al Qaeda members in Afghanistan and 300 in Pakistan?

The Washington Post reported that there are 100 members of al Qaeda left in Afghanistan and about 300 in Pakistan. With Obama's troop increase to about 100,000, that will be 1,000 troops per terrorist in Afghanistan or 250 per terrorist in all of the ''AfPak'' theater.

I don't think Obama is stupid enough to believe Fox News that these guys are supermen who could punch through the concrete walls or eat the steel bars of a supermax prison like licorice or take over an airplane while handcuffed so they have to be blindfolded, stripped naked and sodomized during flights to keep them under control.

Does someone want to tell me with a straight face that we are occupying Afghanistan to prevent or punish terrorism? The Taliban are a bunch of illiterate hillbillies that have no capability to harm our troops if we don't go to them, and the rump of al Qaeda would probably need at most special forces and some predator drones to clean up--or simply tell the Saudis to stop giving them money and it won't matter how many are left. They wouldn't be able to buy a bus ticket, let alone a plane ticket to get over here.

Wouldn't it be nice if Obama told us the truth?

Afghanistan sits on a historic trade route from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean and the rest of the world. A few hundred years ago, that route carried spices, cloth, and opium. Today in addition to the income from heroin, oil and natural gas pipelines could flow through those same passes from the Caspian Sea basin as even Colin Powell's former chief of staff confirms. If we can pacify and stabilize Afghanistan, American and European companies could profit from that flow. Would the petroleum that went to the end of that pipeline end up in Europe and America? Maybe some. Most would go the emerging markets of China and India.

Would the income from those pipelines make it to the pockets of average Americans?

Sure. Didn't you get your thank you check from ExxonMobil for their new contracts in Iraq?

If we fail in Afghanistan, the oil & gas will still make it to market through a competing Iranian pipeline project which will end in Pakistan just like the US planned one through Afghanistan. Pakistan's initial agreement on the Iran pipeline is probably why we suddenly noticed terrorists there after years of ignoring their presence and their governments support of them, including Pakistan helping top al Qaeda leaders out of Tora Bora in 2001.

When Obama makes his pitch for more troops in Afghanistan, he could come clean with the American about why we are there, but if he doesn't it will be further proof that he doesn't work for us, but instead works for at least defers to the same handful of business interests that got our economy and foreign policy into its current mess.

Biden's pathetically small nod to reality won't end the war

Many anti-war blogs and websites are praising Sen. Joe Biden for asking the ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, whether there was more al Qaeda in Iraq or Afghanistan, and therefore which location is it more important to eliminate them. Crocker was forced to acknowledge that 2+2=4, that al Qaeda is more concentrated on the Afghan Pakistan border.

Big fucking deal.

What a pathetic, pyrrhic victory.

Until he and other Democratic "leaders" in Congress hits big oil’s role in pushing for war & Iraq Oil Theft Law, he is just another worthless hack, pointing out an internal flaw in the Bush propaganda that any fifth grader with decent short term memory could have identified.

Biden is pushing for the division of Iraq on ethnic lines, something the vast majority of Iraqis don’t want, and when given a chance to attack the hydrocarbon law Bush is forcing on the Iraqis that gives 88% of their oil income to big oil companies, Biden either feigned ignorance or actually believed the talking points of the Bushies about the oil law that he mindlessly repeated, about the oil law dividing revenue between ethnic groups, which in reality is only a scant few lines in a document tens of pages long.

Iraqis are not fooled by this bullshit. Even the Bush-approved Iraqi parliament is afraid to pass the Hydrocarbon Law because they know they could never walk freely among Iraqis if they did. Big oil has gone to the extent of trying to BRIBE Iraqi PMs to pass the law and they still won't do it.

Despite the news blackout of how big oil lobbied for and plans to profit from the Iraq war, most Americans know the war is about oil. Our elected representatives insult our intelligence when they keep debating the war in terms of fighting terrorism and spreading democracy, neither of which are helped by killing a million Iraqis and thousands of our troops.

To their credit, the British parliament has had an open debate about the role big oil has played and is playing in the Iraq War.

It is a stain on our democracy that no such debate has occurred here, and that we are left applauding when a piece of moral filth like Joe Biden points out a mistake the equivalent of saying Santa Claus lives at the South Pole instead of the North.

By making token efforts at criticizing the war without pulling the pants down on the true motives, Democrats allow the war costing so many of our tax dollars and lives will continue.

Bandar Bush's terror threat to Britain & his terrorist resume

Saudi Prince Bandar Bush threatened Britain with more 7/7 style terrorists attacks if they didn't back off a corruption investigation, and Tony Blair took the threat seriously.


Let's see, the Joint Congressional Inquiry found Saudi intel financed and directed 9/11, they funded al Qaida to the tune of hundreds of millions a year, and way back during the Lebanon debacle, Casey asked Bandar to carbomb a sheik for us. Currently in Iraq, most of the foreign fighters coming in and doing the car and mosque-bombings that stir up sectarian violence are Saudi. And the Bush administration does nothing about it.

When will people connect the fucking dots?

If your friend is doing bad things, you keep your mouth shut and profit from the bad things, you either approve after the fact, they asked and got your blessing, or you asked him to do the bad things.

BAE: secret papers reveal threats from Saudi prince

Spectre of 'another 7/7' led Tony Blair to block bribes inquiry, high court told

* David Leigh and Rob Evans
* The Guardian,
* Friday February 15 2008

Saudi Arabia's rulers threatened to make it easier for terrorists to attack London unless corruption investigations into their arms deals were halted, according to court documents revealed yesterday.

Previously secret files describe how investigators were told they faced "another 7/7" and the loss of "British lives on British streets" if they pressed on with their inquiries and the Saudis carried out their threat to cut off intelligence.

Prince Bandar, the head of the Saudi national security council, and son of the crown prince, was alleged in court to be the man behind the threats to hold back information about suicide bombers and terrorists. He faces accusations that he himself took more than £1bn in secret payments from the arms company BAE.

He was accused in yesterday's high court hearings of flying to London in December 2006 and uttering threats which made the prime minister, Tony Blair, force an end to the Serious Fraud Office investigation into bribery allegations involving Bandar and his family.

FULL TEXT

Terror expert says Al-Qaida can't conquer Iraq

Please inform your righty friends:

EXCERPTS:

Expert: Al-Qaida can't conquer Iraq

Published: July 20, 2007 at 6:11 PM

"Al-Qaida also had a much larger force in Afghanistan -- an estimated 18,000 fighters. Even the U.S. government concedes that there are fewer than 2,000 al-Qaida fighters in Iraq, and the Iraq Study Group put the figure at only 1,300," Carpenter wrote. "It strains credulity to imagine 1,300 fighters -- and foreigners at that -- taking over and controlling a country of 26 million people."

A poll conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland last year found 94 percent of Sunni Muslims in Iraq, 98 percent of Shiites and 100 percent of Kurds had a somewhat or very unfavorable view of al-Qaida, Carpenter wrote.

"Even if U.S. troops left Iraq, the successor government would continue to be dominated by the Kurds and Shiites, since they make up more than 80 percent of Iraq's population," Carpenter said. "That doesn't suggest a reliable safe haven for al-Qaida."

He blamed al-Qaida's numerous violent attacks in Iraq, mainly on Shiite civilians, for the group's unpopularity in the country. -- Leander Schaerlaeckens, UPI Correspondent

FULL TEXT

Al Qaeda back on Bush buddy list for Iran War

After a brief stint on the outs, from the mid-90s to 9/11, Sunni jihadis aka Al Qaeda, has become useful again, just as they and the Afghan Taliban were when we wanted to chase the Soviets out of Afghanistan.

The story comes from Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Sy Hersh, who broke the My Lai story, and has been ahead of the curve and accurate on Bush's war plans for Iran.

THE REDIRECTION
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?
Issue of 2007-03-05
Posted 2007-02-25


EXCERPTS:

Saudi Al Qaeda history

Nasr compared the current situation to the period in which Al Qaeda first emerged. In the nineteen-eighties and the early nineties, the Saudi government offered to subsidize the covert American C.I.A. proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Hundreds of young Saudis were sent into the border areas of Pakistan, where they set up religious schools, training bases, and recruiting facilities. Then, as now, many of the operatives who were paid with Saudi money were Salafis. Among them, of course, were Osama bin Laden and his associates, who founded Al Qaeda, in 1988.

***
Saudia Al Qaeda future

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

One contradictory aspect of the new strategy is that, in Iraq, most of the insurgent violence directed at the American military has come from Sunni forces, and not from Shiites. But, from the Administration’s perspective, the most profound—and unintended—strategic consequence of the Iraq war is the empowerment of Iran. Its President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has made defiant pronouncements about the destruction of Israel and his country’s right to pursue its nuclear program, and last week its supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said on state television that “realities in the region show that the arrogant front, headed by the U.S. and its allies, will be the principal loser in the region.”

FULL TEXT:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070305fa...

He also mentions Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia as our liaison to these forces.

Bandar has admitted Saudi support for Al Qaeda and setting up a car bombing for us during our brief military presence in Lebanon in the 80s.
Saudi money to Al Qaeda:
(towards the end, he claims it is to make them go away)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/etc...
Hersh on Saudi money:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/011022fa...
help with a car bomb:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/in...

The Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 found that Saudi intelligence had direct links to at least two of the 9/11 hijackers. I have to wonder if these guys were ever on the outs with us, or simply serving as skins instead of shirts for one game before shifting back.
http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2007/02/probe-thi...

This is part of a growing list of undisputed things in the public record that show that our military action in the Middle East has nothing to do with a "War on Terror." Here's a couple of others:

1. Teaching democracy by ignoring public opinion. Every poll taken of Iraqis has shown that they want our troops to leave. This is rarely mentioned in our TV news though it was covered in USA Today and the Washington Post, and some of the polls were done by the Bush appointed Coalition Provisional Authority and the British Ministry of Defense.
   http://whatiraqiswant.blogspot.com
   
   The war in Iraq has also harmed not helped our reputation in the Arab & Muslim world, where they impolitely notice we support dictators when it suits us like the presidents of Pakistan, Egypt, and one of the least democratic and most oppressive countries on earth, Saudi Arabia.
   http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2006/06/world-opi...
   http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2005/10/pew-polls...
   
   Some might also notice our friendship with the dictator in Uzbekistan who boils his political opponents alive.
   
   Unlike Americans, Arabs have no idealistic illusions about spreading democracy or fighting terrorism as motives for our war in Iraq. They figure it is about oil. The Bushies are doing nothing to disabuse them of that idea.
   
   
2. Forcing unfair oil deals on Iraq that they wouldn't accept without a gun to their head. The oil deals and Hydrocarbon Law the oil companies and Bushies are forcing on the Iraqis give the bulk of the profits to our oil companies (who don't have a good track record of sharing with us, do they?). Other oil rich countries with easily accessible oil like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or Iran would never accept deals like this absent a military occupation.
   
   If we were concerned about reducing terrorism, wouldn't we want oil deals in Iraq that couldn't even be suspected of being exploitive?
   
   The chances of that may have been dashed as soon as Bush cancelled Saddam's oil contracts with Russia, France, and others, gave them to American corporations, then signed an executive order saying those companies couldn't be sued by anyone anywhere over pumping Iraq's oil.

Seymour Hersh al qaeda iran terrorism oil president george w bush osama bin laden iraq war occupation dick cheney iraq lies peak oil political opinion agent provocateur george w bush war on terror taliban afghanistan foreign policy new york times cointelpro northwoods worst president ever failure war criminal nazi smartass comments resistance big oil censored news islamofascism

Bush at State of the Union: the melting wicked witch

state of the union wizard of oz wicked witch of the west melting iraq war wmd terrorism oil president george w bush osama bin laden real reasons cartooneditorial cartoon republican GOP conservative corruption occupation halliburton political humor colonialism white mans burden professor smartass iraq democratlies peak oil propaganda corporationfascism democracy political opinion agent provocateur george w bush war on terror public opinion foreign policy al qaeda false flag cointelpro northwoods terrorist worst president ever failure war criminal idiot retard closet gay karl rove puppet fascist humor comedy funny abu ghraib torture nazi smartass comments resistance censored news rebel

3 things about killing Zarqawi

At all the other major turning points in the war in Iraq, when Bush declared combat operations over, the hand-over of sovereignty, the capture of Saddam, and the various elections, I at least wondered for a moment if it might not be a turn for the better.

With this hooha over the death of Zarqawi, I didn't even wonder. It won't make a difference.

Here's a couple of reasons why:

1. The military admits they inflated Zarqawi's role in the insurgency for propaganda purposes in both Iraq and the US.

From the Washington Post:

For the past two years, U.S. military leaders have been using Iraqi media and other outlets in Baghdad to publicize Zarqawi's role in the insurgency. The documents explicitly list the "U.S. Home Audience" as one of the targets of a broader propaganda campaign.

Some senior intelligence officers believe Zarqawi's role may have been overemphasized by the propaganda campaign, which has included leaflets, radio and television broadcasts, Internet postings and at least one leak to an American journalist. Although Zarqawi and other foreign insurgents in Iraq have conducted deadly bombing attacks, they remain "a very small part of the actual numbers," Col. Derek Harvey, who served as a military intelligence officer in Iraq and then was one of the top officers handling Iraq intelligence issues on the staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told an Army meeting at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., last summer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

2. Israeli and Saudi studies of foreign fighters show most aren't al Qaeda or pirmarily religiously motivated.

From the Boston Globe:

Other fighters, who are coming to Iraq from across the Middle East and North Africa, are older, in their late 20s or 30s, and have families, according to the two investigations. ''The vast majority of them had nothing to do with Al Qaeda before Sept. 11th and have nothing to do with Al Qaeda today," said Reuven Paz, author of the Israeli study. ''I am not sure the American public is really aware of the enormous influence of the war in Iraq, not just on Islamists but the entire Arab world."

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/20...

3. Top GOP strategist Grover Norquist said back in January this was part of their plan to win the November 2006.

...And then for the coup de grace, says Norquist, his baby face breaking into a wide grin: "We'll bring in al-Zarqawi and Osama Bin Ladin."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-bardach/ken-mehlman-th...

That Osama trick would only work if they did it a few days before the election--maybe even the day OF the election, so people stay home to watch the news instead of go out to vote.

***

UPDATE: The day after I wrote the entry above, Zogby released a poll saying catching Osama wouldn't help Bush at all:

Asked how much credit would be due President Bush if bin Laden were caught,

52% said they would give him no credit because he turned his attention instead to Iraq after the war in Afghanistan.

28% would give him all the credit, while

17% said he would deserve some of the credit.

The President’s job approval rating in fighting against terrorism would be at 42% if bin Laden were found, the poll shows, which is about where he is right now – with bin Laden still on the loose.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1123

I would not have guessed this. I would expect Bush and Republicans generally to get some kind of bump in the polls if Osama was caught or killed, and the only question would be how big a bump and how long lasting. My guess would be lower and shorter than most people think, but I base that on the capture or killing of other boogey men like Saddam, his sons, and earlier domestic horrors like Tim McVeigh or the Unabomber.

Once the boogeyman is neutered, he instantly shrinks from larger than life threat to curiosity at best. If we had captured Hitler alive and kept him in a cage so people could throw peanuts at him, it's doubtful the Nazis would still have the place in the public imagination as the ultimate villains in history.

[tagname]

zarqawi osama bin laden
iraq war terrorism oil psyops president george w bush osama bin laden psychological warfare exaggerated republican GOP conservative corruption occupation halliburton zogby poll colonialism white mans burden professor smartass afghanistan fascism political opinion agent provocateur war on terror public opinion public relations al qaeda false flag northwoods terrorist worst president ever failure war criminal idiot retard closet gay karl rove puppet fascist smartass comments resistance censored news rebel

Iraq Insurgents locals NOT al Qaeda said 2003 National Intelligence Estimate

If you just relied on the Bush administration and Fox, talk radio, and even mainstream network news, you would think we are fighting primarily foreign al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq.

But as early as 2003, top analysts from various intelligence agencies agreed the insurgency was local and based on real grievances, including the presence of our troops and told the Bushies.

The Bushies chose to lie to us instead.

The same kind of information was why Nixon didn't want the Pentagon Papers about the Vietnam War published. It wasn't that they revealed our intelligence methods or war plans, but that the presence of our troops was fueling the resistance.

It's possible that some portion of the 72% of our troops who want us to leave within the year have figured this out, that they are killing people who are doing the same thing they would be doing if America was occupied. These 18 to twenty-something year olds are going to carry that with them for a long time.



KEY EXCERPTS:

Intelligence agencies warned about growing local insurgency in late 2003
Posted on Tue, Feb. 28, 2006
By WARREN P. STROBEL and JONATHAN S. LANDAY
Knight Ridder Newspapers

***

Among the warnings, Knight Ridder has learned, was a major study, called a National Intelligence Estimate, completed in October 2003 that concluded that the insurgency was fueled by local conditions - not foreign terrorists- and drew strength from deep grievances, including the presence of U.S. troops.

***

Maples said that while Iraqi terrorists and foreign fighters conduct some of the most spectacular attacks, disaffected Iraqi Sunnis make up the insurgency's core. "So long as Sunni Arabs are denied access to resources and lack a meaningful presence in government, they will continue to resort to violence," he told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

That view contrasts with what the administration said as the insurgency began in the months following the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion and gained traction in the fall. Bush and his aides portrayed it as the work primarily of foreign terrorists crossing Iraq's borders, disenfranchised former officials of Saddam's deposed regime and criminals.

On Nov. 1, 2003, a day after the National Intelligence Estimate was distributed, Bush said in his weekly radio address: "Some of the killers behind these attacks are loyalists of the Saddam regime who seek to regain power and who resent Iraq's new freedoms. Others are foreigners who have traveled to Iraq to spread fear and chaos. ... The terrorists and the Baathists hope to weaken our will. Our will cannot be shaken."

FULL TEXT:

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/13984788.htm




2003 National Intelligence Estimate insurgents iraq war wmd terrorism oil president george w bush osama bin laden real reasons occupation colonialism white mans burden professor smartass lies corporationfascism democracy political opinion agent provocateur war on terror muslim public opinion opinion public relations foreign policy al qaeda false flag terrorist worst president ever failure war criminal smartass comments resistance censored news rebel

POLL: 72% of troops say leave Iraq in a year

Maybe we should support the troops the same way we should support Iraqi democracy--by actually listening to them.

• 72% think we should leave within a year.


• 29% of those say leave IMMEDIATELY.


• 23% support Bush's position of staying as long as necessary (until last drop of oil is pumped)


• Additionally, most troops said they are fighting disgruntled Sunnis not the mythical al Qaeda or jihadis, and only 26% think keeping foreign fighters out will end the war.

The public doesn't support the war. Our troops don't support the war. Iraqis themselves have said in poll after poll they want us to leave. The rest of the world didn't even want us to go in the first place.

How is ignoring the majority opinions of so many people teaching anyone democracy?

This is a good one to forward to newspapers.


KEY EXCERPTS:

http://rawstory.com/admin/dbscripts/printstory.php?stor...

Poll: 72 percent of troops want out of Iraq in a year

02/28/2006 @ 9:38 am
Filed by RAW STORY

The poll is the first of U.S. troops currently serving in Iraq, according to John Zogby, the pollster. Conducted by Zogby International and LeMoyne College, it asked 944 service members, "How long should U.S. troops stay in Iraq?"

Only 23 percent backed Bush's position that they should stay as long as necessary. In contrast, 72 percent said that U.S. troops should be pulled out within one year. Of those, 29 percent said they should withdraw "immediately..."

While the White House emphasizes the threat from non-Iraqi terrorists, only 26 percent of the U.S. troops say that the insurgency would end if those foreign fighters could be kept out. A plurality believes that the insurgency is made up overwhelmingly of discontented Iraqi Sunnis...

By a 2-1 ratio, the troops said that "to control the insurgency we need to double the level of ground troops and bombing missions." And since there is zero chance of that happening, a majority of troops seemed to be saying that they believe this war to be unwinnable.

The full Zogby poll is available here:
http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

support the troops zogby poll withdrawal exit leave military insurgent iraq war wmd terrorismoil president george w bush osama bin laden real reasons corruption occupation halliburtoncolonialism white mans burden professor smartass iraq lies peak oil propaganda fascism democracy political opinion war on terror public opinion opinion al qaeda false flagnorthwoods terrorist worst president ever failure war criminal idiot retard closet gay smartass comments resistance censored news rebel

Why was al Qaeda provocateur shielded by British intel?

There is something weird about al Qaeda. Osama used to work with us in Afghanistan, and al Qaeda worked with us as recently as the Balkan War. Now it turns out that a top al Qaeda figure in Britain was shielded from prosecution in other countries even though he met with and incited the shoe bomber and the Madrid bombers, supposedly because he was an informant.

The other possibility is he was an agent provocateur. We have used these extensively with domestic groups like neo-Nazis, the Klan, and most recently the militias during the Clinton years. Someone figured out that it saves time to have someone planted in an organization who not only watches but encourages groups to commit violence, so the feds can swoop in and catch them right before they act. The domestic version, COINTELPRO, was exposed by a Sen. Frank Church in the 70s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee

This also happens today with peace groups, and even liberal discussion boards. Out of the blue, someone will start talking about blowing stuff up or killing people (they are always immediately barred from the board).

It is not a big leap of the imagination to incite people so you can catch them to inciting them and just letting them act if it serves your purpose. An Israeli paper reported that Mossad agents were caught recruiting an Al Qaeda cell in Gaza, not trying to infiltrate an existing one, but actually start one.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2550513.stm

Our government has in fact commissioned terrorist acts in other countries. PBS' Frontline did a story on terrorism in the 80s and noted that after the Marine Corps barracks bombing, we contacted Saudi Prince Bandar to set up an "off the books" car bombing of a cleric outside his mosque. Money was funneled through Bandar's wife to the 9/11 hijackers.

Right now, Venezuela is trying to extradite a terrorist in the US who planted a bomb on a Cuban airliner that killed 73 civilians
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58297-2005Apr16.html

You can see the supporting primary documents here:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB153/

Is it such a big step to go from doing this overseas to doing it here? Think about the Bush response to the hurricane in New Orleans. They didn't just fumble the response, they actively blocked help from coming in from other countries and even domestically.

I know this will sound nutty to a lot of people, but you have to think who has benefited from al Qaeda's attacks, and when else OUR government has known about these guys' activities and done nothing, like before 9/11. The FBI had an informant living with some of the hijackers.

Sibel Edmonds, an FBI translator, was going to testify in a lawsuit by 9/11 families about similar information when John Ashcroft retroactively classified her information. A judge has allowed Edmonds to speak, and this is part of what she had to say:

Over four years ago, more than four months prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks, in April 2001, a long-term FBI informant/asset who had been providing the bureau with information since 1990, provided two FBI agents and a translator with specific information regarding a terrorist attack being planned by Osama Bin Laden. This asset/informant was previously a high- level intelligence officer in Iran in charge of intelligence from Afghanistan. Through his contacts in Afghanistan he received information that:

1) Osama Bin Laden was planning a major terrorist attack in the United States targeting 4-5 major cities,

2) the attack was going to involve airplanes,

3) some of the individuals in charge of carrying out this attack were already in place in the United States,

4) the attack was going to be carried out soon, in a few months.

The agents who received this information reported it to their superior, Special Agent in Charge of Counterterrorism, Thomas Frields, at the FBI Washington Field Office, by filing “302” forms, and the translator, Mr. Behrooz Sarshar, translated and documented this information. No action was taken by the Special Agent in Charge, Thomas Frields, and after 9/11 the agents and the translators were told to ‘keep quiet’ regarding this issue.

http://justacitizen.org/articles_documents/FBI%20&%20911.htm

Back in the 60s, the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommending staging a terrorist attack on the US and blaming Cuba. This isn't an urban legend--the documents have been declassified through a Freedom of Information Act request.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1

I don't know what we can do about this, but it's something to keep in mind when the next terrorist attack comes.

KEY EXCERPTS:

March 25, 2004

Al-Qaeda cleric exposed as an MI5 double agent

By Daniel McGrory and Richard Ford

Allies say warnings were ignored

ONE of al-Qaeda’s most dangerous figures has been revealed as a double agent working for MI5, raising criticism from European governments, which repeatedly called for his arrest.

Britain ignored warnings — which began before the September 11 attacks — from half a dozen friendly governments about Abu Qatada’s links with terrorist groups and refused to arrest him. Intelligence chiefs hid from European allies their intention to use the cleric as a key informer against Islamic militants in Britain.

Abu Qatada boasted to MI5 that he could prevent terrorist attacks and offered to expose dangerous extremists, while all along he was setting up a haven for his terror organisation in Britain.

Among the scores of young militants who came to visit him in London was the chief suspect in the Madrid train bombings. His followers also included people who wanted to be suicide bombers for al-Qaeda, such as Richard Reid, the shoe bomber.

His continued liberty for years after international demands for his arrest was an embarrassment for Britain. When David Blunkett introduced his controversial Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act, 2001, which allowed him to detain foreign suspects without trial, Abu Qatada claimed that the law “was enacted with him particularly in mind”.

He disappeared from his family home in West London just before the law came into force.

FULL TEXT:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-3-1050175,00.html

sibel edmonds agent provocateur george w bush, iraq war, war on terror, muslim, public opinion, opinion, public relations, foreign policy, lies al qaeda false flag cointelpro northwoods propaganda terrorist