Welcome to The Truth News.Info

The United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) has just announced plans for an anti-terrorism exercise called Vigilant Shield 08

The United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) has just announced plans for an anti-terrorism exercise called Vigilant Shield 08 .

The exercise which is slated to run from October 15th to October 20th is described as a way to prepare, prevent and respond to any number of national crises. The exercise is simply a test case scenario for the implementation of martial law. Although the description of the exercise is disturbing, USNORTHCOM also announced that they are more prepared for a natural disaster and a terrorist attack after they used their response to Hurricane Katrina as a test laboratory.

During Hurricane Katrina, authorities violated the constitutional rights of citizens by stealing people?s firearms and even relocating people against their will. These announcements are incredibly disturbing on a number of levels as the nature of Vigilant Shield 08 and the admission that Hurricane Katrina was used as a test laboratory shows that the government is actively preparing the military and government institutions for martial law.


Click here


Iran warns of 'problems' if US attacks

By Agence France Presse (AFP)

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

TEHRAN: Iran on Tuesday issued a stark warning to the United States over the danger of launching a military attack, saying Washington could never foresee the size of its response against US troops in the region. "The US will face three problems if it attacks Iran. Firstly it does not know the volume of our response," said General Rahim Yahya Safavi, the new special military adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

"Also it cannot evaluate the vulnerability of its 200,000 troops in the region since we have accurately identified all of their camps," added Safavi.

He also warned of how Iran's reaction to a US attack could affect Israel - Tehran's regional arch-foe - and also crude oil supply from the world's fourth-largest producer.

"Secondly, it does not know what will happen to Israel and thirdly, the United States does not know what will happen to the oil flow," he was quoted by the ISNA news agency as saying.


Washington has never ruled out taking military action against Tehran, and its tone has sharpened again over the past week with President George W. Bush warning that Iran's atomic program could lead to a "nuclear holocaust." Iran has always insisted it would never launch any attack against a foreign country but has also warned of a crushing response to any aggression against its soil.

Tehran has an array of medium range missiles and claims that its longer-range Shahab-3 missile has a reach of 2,000 kilometers which would put Israel and US bases on the Arabian Peninsula within reach. - AFP


All UK 'must be on DNA database'


The whole population and every UK visitor should be added to the national DNA database, a senior judge has said.

The present database in England and Wales holds details of 4m people who are guilty or cleared of a crime.

Lord Justice Sedley said this was indefensible and biased against ethnic minorities, and it would be fairer to include everyone, guilty or innocent.

Ministers said DNA helped tackle crime, but there were no plans for a voluntary national or compulsory UK database.

A spokesman for Prime Minister Gordon Brown said to expand the database would create "huge logistical and bureaucratic issues" and civil liberty concerns.

'Largest in the world'

Shadow home secretary David Davis called for a Parliamentary debate and described the system for adding people to the database as arbitrary and erratic.

Nick Clegg, Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said there was "no earthly reason" why someone who has committed no crime should be on the database - "yet the government is shoving thousands of innocent people's DNA details on to the database every month".

The DNA database - which is 12 years old - grows by 30,000 samples a month taken from suspects or recovered from crime scenes.

There has already been criticism of the database - the largest in the world - because people who are found innocent usually cannot get their details removed.

In one case, Dyfed-Powys Police stored the DNA of Jeffrey Orchard, 72, from Pembrokeshire, after he was wrongly arrested for criminal damage - and refused to remove it.

But Home Office Minister Tony McNulty said the database had helped police solve as many as 20,000 crimes a year.

Since 2004, the data of everyone arrested for a recordable offence in England and Wales - all but the most minor offences - has remained on the system regardless of their age, the seriousness of their alleged offence, and whether or not they were prosecuted.

It includes some 24,000 samples from young people between 10 and 17 years old, who were arrested but never convicted.

In Scotland, DNA samples taken when people are arrested must be destroyed if the individual is not charged or convicted.

Lord Justice Sedley, who is one of England's most experienced appeal court judges, said: "We have a situation where if you happen to have been in the hands of the police then your DNA is on permanent record. If you haven't, it isn't.

"It means where there is ethnic profiling going on disproportionate numbers of ethnic minorities get onto the database.

"It also means that a great many people who are walking the streets and whose DNA would show them guilty of crimes, go free."

He said the only option was to expand the database to cover the whole population and all those who visited the UK, even for a weekend.

"Going forwards has very serious but manageable implications," he insisted. It means that everybody, guilty or innocent, should expect their DNA to be on file for the absolutely rigorously restricted purpose of crime detection and prevention."

Figures compiled from Home Office statistics and census data show almost 40% of black men have their DNA profile on the database. That compares with 13% of Asian men and 9% of white men.

Keith Jarrett, president of the Black Police Association, said the current system was "untenable" and backed the call for a universal database.

"You can't have a system where so many black youths who have done nothing wrong are perhaps going to the police station for elimination from a crime and find that their DNA is on the database," he said.

But Professor Stephen Bain, a member of the national DNA database strategy board, warned expansion would be expensive and make mistakes more likely.

"The DNA genie can't be put back in the bottle," he said.

"If the information about you is exposed due to illegal or perhaps even legalised use of the database, in a way that is not currently anticipated, then it's a very difficult situation."

'Ripe for abuse'

Mr McNulty said there were no plans to introduce DNA profiling for everyone in the UK, but "no-one ever says never".

He said Lord Justice Sedley's idea "has logic to it - but I think he's underestimating the practical issues, logistics, civil and ethical issues that surround it."

Mr McNulty denied the current database was unfair but accepted there was room for debate on the workings of the present system, including time limits on the storing of information.

He said any imbalance in the number of black and white youths whose DNA was stored reflected disproportionality in the Criminal Justice System rather than an inherent problem with the database.

But he added that he was glad a debate had begun and a review of how DNA samples were kept and used would be published next February.

Tony Lake, chief constable of Lincolnshire Police and chairman of the DNA board, said the DNA of people convicted or arrested for violent or sex offences should remain on the database for life, but that need not be the case for minor offences.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights organisation Liberty, said a database for every man, woman and child in the country was "a chilling proposal, ripe for indignity, error and abuse".


Criticism of U.S.-Gulf Arms Deal in Gulf Press

By: I. Rapoport

September 9, 2007


The U.S. recently announced a series of arms deals, worth $20 billion, with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. The deals are part of steps aimed at countering Iran's regional policy in the Middle East.

Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Secretary-General 'Abd Al-Rahman bin Hamed Al-Atiyya approved of the deals, saying: "The Gulf states have strong ties with the U.S., especially in the area of military cooperation... These deals are undoubtedly aimed at meeting the security requirements of the GCC states, which have every right to keep in step with advancing [military technology]. In my opinion, these deals by the GCC states do not constitute a threat to anyone, since [these states] are fully entitled [to make] such deals, just like any other [country] in the region."(1)

The Gulf press, however, published articles criticizing the arms deals and U.S. policy in the Middle East. Columnists wrote that the Gulf states should not be squandering their funds on unnecessary weapons, and that the deals are aimed at promoting the interests of the U.S. rather than their own. These columns had a tone of appeasement vis-à-vis Iran, stressing that the Gulf states, while taking steps to arm themselves, were nevertheless interested in friendship with Iran, not military conflict.

Saudi Arabia, while expressing unconditional support for the arms deals, warned the Gulf states not to trust Iran's intentions, on the grounds that, in light of Iran's imperialist aspirations, it was likely to use its weapons to attack the Gulf states.

The following are the excerpts from columns on this issue that appeared in the Saudi and Gulf press:

The Gulf States Are Not Powerless Proxies of the U.S.

The editor of the Kuwaiti daily Al-Rai, Jasem Boudi, wrote in an editorial that the arms deals serve no useful purpose, and criticized the U.S. for viewing the Gulf states as proxies to fight Iran on its behalf. He called for establishing an atmosphere of trust and stability in the region instead of building arsenals: "... In light of our painful experience with the New Middle East that the U.S. wants [to create], we must say that we have no wish to taste once again the [bitter] taste of war. We refuse to turn our lands into a launching pad for an attack on Iran, and we find it hard to believe that Iran will invade and occupy the Gulf states as part of its war with the 'Great Satan' [i.e. the U.S.]... These arms deals will be neither advantage nor deterrent. The alternative is, of course, [to create] an atmosphere of trust, security and stability [in the region]...

"The Gulf states are not cardboard [states] that lack sovereignty. They are not impotent and powerless lumps that [purchase] arms when America asks them to, and sit quietly when it asks them to. They do not lack the ability to understand policy and assess danger. They are certainly not [willing to serve as] the proxies, boxing gloves, or talons of other [countries]...

"Ultimately, our true interest is in security, stability, peaceful coexistence and neighborly relations with Iran... The war is an American plan; it is not the plan of [the countries in] the region. We hope that the people who came up with [this plan] understand that a military confrontation, should it occur, will be 'the mother of all earthquakes,' [felt] not only in the region but in other areas as well... Will America surprise us, for once, and listen to its allies, who advise it to be prudent in its handling of the region's issues? We hope it will, but we are not [particularly] hopeful."(2)

These Funds Should Be Used for Development, Not Armament

Kuwaiti MP Dr. 'Abd Al-Muhsin Yousef Jamal wrote in the Kuwaiti weekly Al-Tali'a: "The Gulf states must buy arms at full price, while Israel receives them as a gift from President Bush and [will continue to receive them] from his successors... Whenever oil prices go up, they immediately try to take [the money] out of [our] bank accounts, in any way that serves the [interests of] the American economy, even though we have no need to arm ourselves in this fashion. The most infuriating thing is that America [not only] sells us arms but also determines for us who our enemy should be!

"Since its liberation [from Iraqi occupation in 1991], Kuwait alone has paid over $10 billion to the U.S., and I do not know for whom this enormous arsenal is intended. Whom do we [intend to] fight? After all, Kuwait's international [policy] is based on good relations with other [countries]!

"...The U.S. has imposed strict conditions on arms [sold] to the Arabs. [These arms] must not be used against Israel, they must not be advanced, and they may only be kept in certain areas... I hope that the Gulf countries learn a lesson from this, and give first priority to the interests of their people and to their relations with their neighbors, before they begin enthusiastically purchasing arms that are of no use to them. These billions [should be used] to boost the economy, strengthen infrastructure, and promote the wellbeing of the [Gulf] peoples."(3)

The U.S. Should Treat the Gulf States Like Allies, Not Subordinates

Columnist Dr. Tareq Seif wrote in the UAE daily Al-Ittihad: "America's behavior in the Gulf raises an important question: Does its regional [policy] promote the joint interests of America and the countries in the region, or does it serve America's interests alone? In other words, is America treating the countries in the region as its friends and allies, or [is it treating them] as its subordinates, who must comply with its requests without objection or question, even to the detriment of their own vital interests?...

"The American administration did not consider the special character of the commercial, economic and financial relations between Iran and the Gulf states, nor did it consider the vital strategic interests of these countries when it adopted a policy of coercion towards Iran...

"In the long term, the American administration, headed by Bush, is creating mistrust and doubt in its relations with the countries of the region, and [raising doubts] as to the degree of [its commitment to] preserving the interests of its allies and friends. [America's policy also] highlights the inability of its intelligence apparatuses to assess the scope of the threat faced by the region...

"The American administration must reassess its relations with the Gulf states by placing its partnership with them on a more suitable footing... It must stop treating them as its subordinates who must comply with Washington's plans."(4)

The U.S. Seeks to Foment Crisis Between the Gulf States and Iran

Bahraini columnist Radhi Al-Sammak wrote in the Bahrain daily Akhbar Al-Khaleej that the U.S. had defined Iran as the enemy, and had imposed this position on the Gulf states while providing them with weapons that cannot deter the Iranian nuclear threat.

"Since the Gulf states [remained] completely silent, the U.S. allowed itself not only to announce the [arms] deal but to say, in the name of the GCC states, that the deal comes in response to Iran's growing military capabilities and to the so-called threat of its nuclear program aimed at manufacturing nuclear weapons...

But none of the GCC states [actually] made a clear statement regarding the nature of this deal and their part in it... and not one of these states justified the deal in terms of confronting the Iranian nuclear threat. [In fact], the GCC states all declare their friendship with Iran and their wish to develop their ties with it in various areas. Therefore, the statement made by America in the name of the GCC states smacks of a deliberate [attempt] to generate a crisis between these states and Iran – and the first to be harmed by this tension... is not the U.S. but the peoples of the Gulf... It is the intensive military presence of the U.S. in the Gulf which constitutes the real threat to the peoples and countries of the region...

"None of the [Gulf] states paused to consider the benefit of these costly deals... [considering that] the weapons [we purchased] cannot deter a nuclear [attack].

"Finally, there remains one embarrassing question regarding the deals: What is the [purpose] of all the American warships and aircraft carriers in the Gulf, if not to defend [the U.S.'s] allies? Which is the more effective deterrent... the massive [arsenal] of state-of-the art weapons deployed by the enormous American naval [force] in the Gulf, which has been rapidly growing throughout the last three decades – or the defensive weapons that [the U.S.] has charitably allowed the Gulf states to [purchase] at astronomical cost?..."(5)

The U.S. is Trying to Get Its Hands on the Gulf States' Capital

Columnist Hassan Al-'Attar wrote in Akhbar Al-Khalij: "The peace and quiet we desire... will not be achieved by building arsenals of weapons which have already proven to be useless, but by eliminating the factors that generated the atmosphere of insecurity and hostility [in the first place]... I believe that the reasons cited by [U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza] Rice were merely a cover for [the U.S.'s] real motivation [for the arms deal], which is to get back the large sums that the Gulf states received in the last four years due to the rise in oil prices. [This was done] by means of the American arms manufacturers, which are a central pillar of the American economy..."

"The American administration's current political steps in the Arab region are an attempt to involve the Gulf states, and some of the [other] Arab countries, in the conflict with Iran, even though these countries have declared, on a number of occasions, that they are against a military solution to the conflict, and that they object to America launching a military attack on Iran from their territories..."(6)

Saudi Arabia: The Gulf States Should Fear the Iranian Threat

In contrast to the criticism published in the Gulf states, Saudi Arabia expressed approval of the arms deal. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Sa'ud Al-Faisal stated that the deals were part of a comprehensive plan for the defense of the region, and stressed that his country is arming itself for defensive purposes only. "It is a well-known fact," he said, "that Saudi Arabia is a non-aggressive state, and it has a right to defend itself, especially in light of the dangers coming from every direction..."(7)

Saudi columnist Khaled Hamad Al-Suleiman wrote in the Saudi daily 'Okaz that the Gulf states needed to bolster their defense capabilities in order to establish a balance of deterrence in the region and to counter Iran's imperialist aspirations: "Iran is filling its arsenals with submarines, destroyers, missiles and [other] advanced weapons... and working day and night to manufacture a nuclear bomb – yet it has the nerve to criticize the Gulf states for [exercising] their right to strengthen their defense capabilities!!

"Iran... sticks its nose into everything that happens in the Arab world... and its fingerprints can be found wherever there is trouble in the Arab [world]. Yet it condemns the Gulf states for striving to improve their ability to defend themselves and their people in order to confront the dangers of this conflicted region, and [denies] their right to restore the regional balance [of power] which has been drastically upset...

"The Iranians should [try to] understand why the countries in the region have started to enhance their military capabilities, [instead of] objecting and trying to claim this right for themselves alone... It would be a mistake for the Gulf states to trust any Iranian assurances that its arsenals will not be used to subjugate the Gulf, or that its nuclear bomb will not threaten the Gulf – because Iran has had only one [goal] on its agenda since the [Islamic] Revolution – namely, to re-embrace imperialism."(8)


Intel starts building $2.5 bn chip plant in China

China National News

Sunday 9th September, 2007



Dalian, Sep 9 (Xinhua) US computer chip giant Intel Corp. has begun to build its first chipset plant in Asia, which involves $2.5 billion in the first stage of investment.

Intel chairman Craig Barrett Saturday attended the groundbreaking ceremony of the plant, which is located in the Dalian Economic and Technological Development Zone in northeast China.

Barrett said at the ceremony that Intel chose Dalian because it was a perfectly suitable location for the plant. 'Intel will use its advanced equipment and technology to build an environment-friendly computer chip factory in the city, and promote the semiconductor manufacturing industry in China,' he said.

Steel structures and other framework have been in place at the factory covering 160,000 square metres.

The project, which was announced in March this year, is Intel's first chipset factory in Asia and part of its network of eight such facilities worldwide. The plant will go into production in 2010.

The city government of Dalian estimates the plant can provide about 1,700 jobs.

The new factory, dubbed 'Fab 68', will use 90-nanometre technology, 'an advanced chip-making method that measures its work 90 billionths of a metre and is the most advanced technology that the US government has licensed for export,' Paul Otellini, Intel's president and chief executive officer, said at a press conference in Beijing in March.

Intel's investment is part of growing foreign investment in China's computer and other technological fields.


FBI, CIA Scriveners Edit Wikipedia Entries

Friday August 17th 2007, 8:40 am


According to Reuters, “CIA and FBI computers have edited entries in the online encyclopedia Wikipedia on topics including the Iraq war and the Guantanamo prison, according to a new tracing program.” No doubt, as well, the FBI and CIA have made other changes to “the world’s most important online encyclopaedia,” editorial changes not as grandiose as expanding former CIA chief William Colby’s entry, dumping a chart on Iraq casualties, or removing satellite images of the concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. You can bet they edited scads of lesser entries as well.

“The changes may violate Wikipedia’s conflict-of-interest guidelines, a spokeswoman for the site said Thursday,” although Wikipedia, of course, will do nothing about it, as they are not in the business of posting factual information, instead often serving as a platform for character assassination and slander, an area familiar to both the FBI and CIA, often tasked with neutralizing or at least harassing dissidents and those who believe the First Amendment means what it says.

“It violates Wikipedia’s neutrality guidelines for a person with close ties to an issue to contribute to an entry about it, said spokeswoman Sandy Ordonez of the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia’s parent organization,” Reuters continues, feeding us a line of Wikipedia public relations nonsense. “However, she said, ‘Wikipedia is self-correcting,’ meaning that misleading entries can be quickly revised by another editor. She said Wikimedia welcomed the WikiScanner.”

So neutral is Wikipedia, the site insists I am an antisemite and Holocaust denier—two quite serious allegations in this day and age of highly polarized political correctness and corporate dominated political consensus—although they provide absolutely no evidence of this beyond a blog entry defending the free speech right of David Irving, convicted of not adhering to the official historical orthodoxy. Wikipedia allowed slanderous edits on my entry for months before “self-correction” kicked in.

“According to clues accumulated by ordinary citizens around the world, it could be that the CIA and other intelligence agencies are riding the information wave and planting disinformation on Wikipedia,” Ludwig De Braeckeleer wrote for OhmyNews last month. “If so, tens of thousands of innocent and unwitting citizens around the world are translating and propagating their lies, providing these agencies with a universal news network.”

Of course, this is nothing new, as the CIA has controlled the corporate and much of the so-called “alternative” media for decades, beginning with Operation Mockingbird in the late 40s. “Personally, I have come to the conclusion that the media is not only influenced by the CIA,” writes Mary Louise, “the media is the CIA. Many Americans think of their supposedly free press as a watchdog on government, mainly because the press itself shamelessly promotes that myth. One of the first tenets for the control of a population is to control all sources of information the population receives and mostly because of the pervasive CIA and Operation Mockingbird, the mainstream American Press is a controlled multi-national corporate/government megaphone.”

It would appear Wikipedia is not simply “populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects,” as John Seigenthaler Sr., former assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy, would have it, but is indeed an intelligence front, yet another puzzle piece of a sprawling, comprehensive, long-term, and quite effective propaganda effort.


Staging Nukes for Iran?

by Larry Johnson

Global Research, September 8, 2007

Booman Tribune


Why the hubbub over a B-52 taking off from a B-52 base in Minot, North Dakota and subsequently landing at a B-52 base in Barksdale, Louisiana? That’s like getting excited if you see postal worker in uniform walking out of a post office. And how does someone watching a B-52 land identify the cruise missiles as nukes? It just does not make sense.

So I called a old friend and retired B-52 pilot and asked him. What he told me offers one compelling case of circumstantial evidence. My buddy, let’s call him Jack D. Ripper, reminded me that the only times you put weapons on a plane is when they are on alert or if you are tasked to move the weapons to a specific site.

Then he told me something I had not heard before.

Barksdale Air Force Base is being used as a jumping off point for Middle East operations. Gee, why would we want cruise missile nukes at Barksdale Air Force Base. Can’t imagine we would need to use them in Iraq. Why would we want to preposition nuclear weapons at a base conducting Middle East operations?

His final point was to observe that someone on the inside obviously leaked the info that the planes were carrying nukes. A B-52 landing at Barksdale is a non-event. A B-52 landing with nukes. That is something else.

Now maybe there is an innocent explanation for this? I can’t think of one. What is certain is that the pilots of this plane did not just make a last minute decision to strap on some nukes and take them for a joy ride. We need some tough questions and clear answers. What the hell is going on? Did someone at Barksdale try to indirectly warn the American people that the Bush Administration is staging nukes for Iran? I don’t know, but it is a question worth asking.


War and the "New World Order"

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Global Research, August 29, 2007


“We are now at the year 1908, which was the year that the Carnegie Foundation began operations. And, in that year, the trustees meeting, for the first time, raised a specific question, which they discussed throughout the balance of the year, in a very learned fashion. And the question is this: Is there any means known more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people? And they conclude that, no more effective means to that end is known to humanity, than war. So then, in 1909, they raise the second question, and discuss it, namely, how do we involve the United States in a war?”

-Norman Dobbs, U.S. Congressional Special Committee for the Investigate of Tax-Exempt Foundations (1982)

War is the ultimate means of attempting to change societies and reshape nations. It is through war that national economies and political structures can be forcibly restructured. War is, potentially, the ultimate economic shock therapy. The wars in the Middle East are stepping stones towards establishing a vision of global order that has been in the hearts and minds of the Anglo-American establishment for years. That vision is global ascendancy.

Towards the “New International Order” through the “Global War on Terror”

“There is a chance for the President of the United States [George W. Bush Jr.] to use this disaster [meaning the attacks of September 11, 2001] to carry out what his father…a phrase his father [George H. Bush Sr.] used I think only once, and it hasn’t been used since … and that is a new world order. Think about this. We already have the support of NATO in a remarkable historic departure.”

-Gary Hart, National Security in the 21st Century: Findings of the Hart-Rudman Commission (September 14, 2001)

On January 18, 2005 Henry Kissinger appeared on Charlie Rose, a television program on PBS, and talked about a “New International Order” being created by George W. Bush Jr. and his administration. [1] Henry Kissinger stated that within the next few years that humanity will see the emergence of the beginning of a “New International Order.” Kissinger also stated that the Bush Jr. Administration could bring about this state; “and it could well be this president, [meaning President Bush Jr.] that is so reviled by intellectuals, [who] will emerge as one of the seminal presidents ... of this period…of American modern history.” [2]

When asked what George W. Bush Jr. has to do to bring about this “New International Order” by his interviewer, Kissinger paused and gave a vague answer that avoided mentioning the criminality of war. “He has to do some certain things and he has to have some luck,” Kissinger answered followed by “Luck is the residue of design.” [3] It should be noted that if luck is a residue of design then it is no longer chance, but a calculation of intent.

Briefly, the role of the American public was talked about by Charlie Rose with Kissinger who paused to pick his words carefully. Kissinger told his interviewer, Rose, that the United States is a nation whose public has no clue about American foreign policy. [4] In regards to the American public, the war agenda cannot move forward if the U.S. maintains its multi-cultural characteristics. It was this multi-cultural characteristic that initially presented the U.S. a problem in declaring war on Germany in both World Wars until the sinking of the RMS Lusitania and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. [5]

Thus, an end to a liberal North American immigration regime that ensures a multi-cultural environment in North America is a prerequisite to expanded American war(s). Zbigniew Brzezinski has written that “as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues [amongst the American people], except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.” [6] The E.U. is also beginning to follow suit. This premise by Brzezinski, an individual from within the ruling establishment of America, can be used to explain the demonization of Muslims and several national and ethno-cultural groups such as Arabs, Turks, and Iranians.

It is also worth noting that Gary Hart, a former U.S. senator from Colorado, implied on September 14 of 2001 that the “Global War on Terror” sponsored by the Bush Jr. Administration was a pretext for establishing the so-called “New World Order.” [7] Gary Hart also implicated NATO’s role in shaping this “New World Order.” [8] The project is to be implemented by military might.

A Unipolar World: Pax Americana?

“However, what is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making.”

-Vladimir Putin at the Munich Conference on Security Policy in Germany (February 11, 2007)

During his interview, with Charlie Rose, Henry Kissinger had referred to what George H. Bush Sr. identified as the “New World Order.” This was a term frequently used by the former American president that became famous during the Gulf War. With the end of the Cold War and the defeat of Iraq in the Gulf War, Georgia H. Bush Sr. said that humanity in 1991 was witness to the emergence of a “New World Order” that would be led by America. [9] The Gulf War was merely the beginning of this “New World Order.” The seeds had been planted in the Middle East for future wars and Eurasian expansion.

The Trilateral Commission, an organization founded in 1973 and consisting of the wealthiest and most powerful elites from the U.S., the E.U., and Japan, originally created the term that George H. Bush Sr. drew on. Their word was “New International Economic Order.” The Trilateral Commission’s terminology lays bare the economic fabric of this program. Military might is merely the enforcer of foreign policy, and foreign policy is based on economic interests.

An agenda of perpetual warfare and violence has been fueling the march towards global domination through economic means. In essence this war agenda has been an unbroken process watched over by the different presidential administrations of the United States.

Stepping forth from behind the Curtains: NATO’s Role in the Eurasian Roadmap

“The policies of the U.S., since the end of the Cold War are complicated and vast. They involve an intent to dominate and the use of international organizations to advance U.S. economic and geopolitical interests. They also include the conversion of NATO into a surrogate military police force for globalization and U.S. world economic domination.”

-Ramsey Clark, 66th United States Attorney-General (October 6, 2000)

NATO has started replicating long-term American war tactics and strategy. NATO is creating a rapid response force, which involves a significant German role. The force is modeled on the U.S. Rapid Response Force, the forerunner of CENTCOM, and has a global reach. The transformation of the U.S. Rapid Deployment Force into CENTCOM was part of long-term Anglo-American war plans. The NATO force is projected to be able to deploy to any region in the world within five days and planned to be capable of self-sufficient, detached operations for approximately one month. The force will also have land, sea, and air components, including an aircraft carrier. [10]

It is apparent that control over Iraq was planned during the culmination of the Cold War by Anglo-American policy makers. The series of wars that have occurred since the Iraq-Iran War are debatably the products of a historical Anglo-American project in the Middle East— a project that was once a solely British project that predated the Cold War. The project to reshape and control the Middle East is part of the greater project to control Eurasia. Just as how this grand project was embraced by the U.S., as the inheritor of British strategy, the project has been embraced by the Franco-German entente and NATO. Zbigniew Brzezinski argued in 1997 that “Europe is America’s essential geopolitical bridgehead in Eurasia,” or an entry point towards dominating Eurasia. [11]

From the statements and goals of U.S. officials going back to the 1990s NATO was projected to expand across the Eurasian landmass and set to embrace Japan, South Korea, and Australia in what Zbigniew Brzezinski identifies as the “trans-Eurasian security system.” [12] The characteristics of prospective conflicts seem to be slated to become dominated by NATO as France and Germany expand their roles in the “long war.” NATO’s role in the Eastern Mediterranean, the Red Sea, the Indian Ocean, Lebanon, and Afghanistan, along with NATO’s thrust into the post-Soviet niche and inner Eurasia, are all precarious indications of this.

Making Europe the Partner of America in the “Long War:” Enter the Franco-German Entente

“The victory over Iraq [in the Gulf War] was not waged as ‘a war to end all wars.’ Even the ‘New World Order’ cannot guarantee an era of perpetual peace.”

-George H. Bush Sr., 41st President of the United States (March 6, 1991)

Brzezinski explained that although Japan was important to American geo-strategy, Europe as a geopolitical entity (via the E.U. and NATO) constitutes America’s bridgehead into Eurasia. [13] “Unlike America’s links with Japan, NATO entrenches American political influence and military power on the Eurasian mainland,” and that “the allied European nations [were] still highly dependent on U.S. protection, any expansion of Europe’s political scope is automatically an expansion of U.S. influence,” Brzezinski explained in regards to Europe and Japan. [14] Brzezinski was paying more than just lip service to America’s allies in continental Europe; he was stressing that they were crucial, albeit as subordinates, to American global interests.

The strength of NATO would rest on the vitality of the European Union, an Anglo-American and Franco-German device. To emphasis this Brzezinski wrote that “the United States’ ability to project influence and power in Eurasia relies on close transatlantic ties.” [15] Brzezinski also added that France and Germany, the Franco-German entente, would be America’s vital partners in NATO expansion and securing Eurasia, but a united Europe was an essential prerequisite. In regards to the Franco-German entente, Brzezinski wrote in 1998 that “In the western periphery of Eurasia, the key players will continue to be France and Germany, and America’s central goal should be to continue to expand the democratic European bridgehead.” [16] This was essentially the forecast of the “E.U. expansion” that has gone hand-in-hand with earlier NATO expansion since the end of the Cold War. According to Brzezinski it would be up to the Franco-German entente to led Europe: “America cannot create a more united Europe on its own — that is a task for the Europeans, especially the French and the Germans.” [17]

None of the Pentagon’s geo-strategic plans can go forward without the E.U. and NATO. For this to happen it is essential that a strategic consensus between the Anglo-American alliance and the Franco-German entente be forged. The Anglo-American alliance has pursued this track and deeper integration with the Franco-German side, while also taking an adversarial stance against the Franco-German entente. Iraq is a symbolic testimony to this rivalry while Lebanon and NATO expansion in the Eastern Mediterranean is a parallel testimony to the strategic cooperation between the Anglo-American alliance and the Franco-German entente. A contradictory and confusing message is sent from these tracks, but there is always more to the picture. However, it is clear that Franco-German and Anglo-American interests must be synchronized for America to expand its global control.

The Endgame: A “Single Market” under One World Administration?

“I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer...”

-Major-General Smedley D. Butler, U.S. Marine Corp Commander (War Is a Racket, 1935)

After the Second World War, it was believed that from the nucleolus of Britain and American that a “New World Order” would be formed. Britain and America even had a combined military staff and combined chiefs of military staff. Visions for a singular global polity have vividly been tied to the Anglo-American establishment. In 1966, Professor Carroll Quigley, a noted American economist, wrote in his book Hope and Tragedy: A History of the World in Our Time that economics and finance vis-à-vis banking conglomerates were the engine in this drive and the real forces controlling national policies. Carroll Quigley wrote in regards to the Anglo-American alliance that “I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies (notably to its belief that England was an Atlantic rather than a European Power and must be allied, or even federated, with the United States and must remain isolated from Europe), but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.” [18]

“For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia,” insists Zbigniew Brzezinski. He also contends, “Now a non-Eurasian power [i.e., the U.S.] is preeminent in Eurasia— and America’s global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained.” [19] The former U.S. national security advisor has also stated, in 1997, that in order to co-opt the Franco-German entente a “Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement, already advocated by a number of prominent Atlantic leaders, could also mitigate the risk of growing economic rivalry between a more united E.U. and the United States.” [20]

There is opposition in North America to what is believed to be the emergence of a projected “North American Union.” This North American entity would further amalgamate Canada, the United States, and Mexico, but the mechanisms for a grander global confederacy have already been drawn. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the creation of the E.U. were stepping stones towards this aspiration. Economics is the key that fuses these polities.

A summit between the E.U. and U.S. has shed light on plans for economic amalgamation. [21] The term used at the summit was “single market” by “renewing the Trans-Atlantic partnership.” [22] This is the same term used to describe the “common market” as it intensified Western European integration, which eventually gave birth to the European Union. At the summit President Bush Jr. met with Jose Manuel Barroso, the President of the European Commission, and Federal Chancellor Merkel. Frau Merkel, while officially there on behalf of the E.U., represented the interests of the Franco-German entente while President Bush Jr. represented Anglo-American interests. Jose Manuel Barroso as the President of the European Commission represented both Anglo-American and Franco-German interests because the E.U. is a joint Anglo-American and Franco-German body. America is a de facto E.U. power due to its alliance with Britain, one of the three major E.U. powers along with France and Germany.

An agreement was reached between the E.U. and U.S. to integrate the markets and regulations of America and Europe even further. This agreement was another layer to add to the strategic consensus that was reached at NATO’s Riga Summit. Both sides also stated that economics is the driving spirit in their relationship and that politics mattered very little. The liberal and conservative leaders of America and Europe are merely two sides of the same coin.

Decades after the end of the Cold War the globe is wrapped within a state of almost perpetual war dominated by the military might of America. The last lines in The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and the Geostrategic Imperatives reveal the ultimate objective of Anglo-American policy: “These efforts will have the added historical advantage of benefiting from the new web of global linkages that is growing exponentially outside the more traditional nation-state system. That web— woven by multinational corporations, NGOs (…) already creates an informal global system that is inherently congenial to more institutionalized and inclusive global cooperation [a reference to global government].” [23]

Brzezinski goes on to predict that “In the course of the next several decades, a functioning structure of global cooperation, based on geopolitical realities, could thus emerge and gradually assume the mantle of the world’s current ‘regent’ [a reference to the U.S.],” and “Geostrategic success in that cause would represent a fitting legacy of America’s role as the first, only, and last truly global superpower.” [24] All around the globe nation-states are being absorbed into larger and larger political and socio-economic entities. This is part of the story of globalization, but it has its dark side. This is the globalization of the few and not of the many.

The Fight for Civilization and the Gathering Storm

“When all is said and done the conflict in Afghanistan will be to the war on terrorism what the North African campaign was to World War II: an essential beginning on the path to victory. But compared to what looms over the horizon— a wide-ranging war in locales from Central Asia to the Middle East and, unfortunately, back again to the United States— Afghanistan will prove but an opening battle.”

-Robert Kagan and William Kristol, The Gathering Storm (The Weekly Standard, October 29, 2001)

One cannot help but remember what was elucidated in 2001 during the start of the “Global War on Terror” by two members of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), stating that Afghanistan was only part of a “wide-ranging war.” [25] Both Robert Kagan and William Kristol are deeply linked to U.S. foreign and military policy extending from writing presidential speeches to having a former spouse as the U.S. ambassador to NATO. It is not coincidental that a portion of their editorial from October of 2001 in The Weekly Standard has actually materialized. These men should be taken for their words when they say that Afghanistan is merely the “opening battle” compared to what is waiting in the horizon.

Referring back to Robert Kagan and William Kristol: “this war will not end in Afghanistan. It is going to spread and engulf a number of countries in conflicts of varying intensity. It could well require the use of American military power in multiple places simultaneously. It is going to resemble the clash of civilizations that everyone has hoped to avoid. And it is going to put enormous and perhaps unbearable strain on parts of an international coalition that basks in contented consensus.” [26] The “international coalition” being referred to is NATO and the international military network based around the U.S. and the “unbearable strain” is war, but of an unknown scale. On August 10, 2007 Lieutenant-General Douglas Lute, the “War Czar” overseeing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and any expanded theatre, publicly talked about restoring a mandatory military draft. [27] The march to war is not waning, but driving the world towards the abyss.

Afghanistan was the first volley in an advance phase of the global conflict that was in its preparatory stages decades ago during the Iraq-Iran War, the Gulf War, and the Kosovo War. Where this global conflict, this “long war” will lead us is unknown, but all humanity is in this together. The American people will sooner or later feel the pain of war as their freedom is effected. Autocracy is a prerequisite to grand empires. Brzezinski has pointed out that “America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad,” and “never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy.” [28] Deviancy is being normalized all over the globe because of this global project. Those that are behind such projects must be reduced to social leprids, as outcasts, denounced by all societies.

Resistance in the Middle East: The Power of the People

“The Iraqi Resistance is by definition democratic as it is the spontaneous expression of a people who took its destiny into its hands, and is by definition progressive as it defends the interests of the people.”

-Hana Al-Bayaty (March 18, 2007)

Anglo-American planners have underestimated the capacity of the power of ordinary people and the human spirit. In the Middle East it has been the resistance of ordinary people that has brought militant globalization to a standstill. Popular resistance movements have bogged down the military might of the remaining global superpower.

A nation is only as legitimate as the people(s) who live in it define it. America is not at war with individual nations, but with the people(s) of these nations. Nor are the American people at war with these nations, it is the American ruling establishment and elites that are at war with these people(s).

The forces of resistance are the forces of the will of the people, without the support of the people none of them could last or stand up to some of the most powerful war machines in human history.

The Iraqi Resistance and the other resistance movements of the Middle East are movements of the peoples and by nature egalitarian. Would anyone in the so-called West dare label the French, Czechoslovakian, Greek, Libyan, Chinese, Malaysian, and Soviet resistance movements against Germany, Italy, and Japan during the Second World War as terrorist movements? However, the occupying Axis governments labeled these movements as terrorists. Did not France and the other areas occupied by Germany and the Axis Powers not have governments that said the Axis Powers were welcomed forces bringing stability as do the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan? For example in France there was the Vichy Government. When Germany was defeated the leaders of the Vichy Government in France were executed as traitors.

The U.S. government misleadingly claims that it is bringing democracy to these lands, but since when was democracy forced from the top down to the bottom? Is this not the opposite of democracy; things being forced down from the top to the bottom? Democracy is an expression of the masses that manifests itself upwards and not from the opposite direction.

No force on earth can defeat the popular will of the people; this is why domestic populations are manipulated into supporting wars. It is only division that allows small groups to take temporary reign over the people(s). However, for every scheme and plan to create division and anarchy amongst the people(s) of the world there is a plan to unite them and strengthen them. This is one of the greatest fears of many in positions of power. This is the fear of any awakening of large societal groups and populations.

There is no greater ally to the movements of resistance in the Middle East and beyond than unadulterated public opinion in the rest of the world. The people(s) of Britain, Israel, and the U.S. are also victims of their own governments who manipulate their fears and create animosity between them and other nations. This in itself is a great crime. What differences exist between nations are only a means to test the best of them.

Fear and hate are the weapons of the real terrorists, the masters of deception, and those who belittle others for profit and personal gain. These are the terrorists who give orders in positions of political leadership in the White House and elsewhere at the expense of their own people and the rest of humanity. The world is now embarking into the abyss of perpetual war and a period in which the contemplation of the use of nuclear weapons is being made. A stand must be made by individuals of good conscience and will. It seems possible that it will be a matter of time before the citizens of Europe, North America, and other lands will be compelled or necessitated to join the peoples of occupied lands in resistance.

War must be averted on two fronts; in the shorter-term (as differentiated from “short-term”) or near future, war must be averted from emerging in the Middle East, and in the longer-term in Eurasia. Only the resistance of the people and public opinion can stop war from enveloping the globe. Public opinion must translate into public action if humanity it to be spared from a massive war—a war that could prove to become a nuclear armageddon.

Countdown to 1984?

“In brief, the U.S policy goal must be unapologetically twofold: to perpetuate America’s own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer still; and to create a geopolitical framework that can absorb the inevitable shocks and strains of social-political change...”

-Zbigniew Brzezinski (The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, 1997)

In a twist of Orwellian fate, the earth seems closer to appearing like a rendition of the world in George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. [29] However, the road ahead is not scripted. The future is only anticipated and planned, but never certain in a universe of infinite probabilities. Time will tell where the road ahead will guide us. Those that see themselves as masters of destiny have had their ideas proven wrong in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Somalia, and Lebanon. It may look as if opposition to a war agenda is like tiny raindrops beating against an unrelenting mountain, but mountains can be eventually eroded by those tiny raindrops. There exists a “sensitive dependence on initial conditions,” commonly called the “butterfly effect,” whereas the flaps of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil may set off a tornado in Texas. Individual actions can offset the march to war that is unfolding on this planet.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).


Problems with the bin Laden Video/Transcript

From Sean Osborne

Saturday, September 8, 2007


The time of the original announcement by As-Sahab was late evening Eastern Daylight Time on 6 September 2007. The first notification Northeast Intelligence Network (www.homelandsecurityus.com) recieved by our jihadi forum watcher was at 10:04 PM.

That Al-Qaeda forum is located on a server in Jordan, which apparently has a parent or feeder server located further east in Maylasia.

At 10 PM EDT it is 7 hours earlier in Jordan, or 5 AM the morning of 7th of September, and 10 AM the 7th of September in Maylaysia.

The video was released on 7 September here in the US. The .pdf transcript followed shortly thereafter. (Due to certain electronic media artifacts on the copies, the six .pdf pages were possibly distributed to the MSM via facsimilie vice email.) Page 1 of the entire .pdf has apparently been embargoed/withheld either by the MSM or the document Originator.

The English-language transliterated and transcribed text of bin Laden's speech is dated September 6 2007 with two very different date formats. This makes a typographical error for the correct date a very high improbability.

How it is that the CIA obtained this video in advance and was able to issue a transliterated transcript of the text of the bin Laden speech dated prior to the announcement of its existence by As-Sahab?

Based upon analysis of these recent events and associated hard copy evidence, am I noting some evidence here that the CIA possesses a HUMINT source or mole quite deep within the bowels of Al-Qaeda and its media arm of As-Sahab?

Or is this evidence of something entirely different?

In another curiosity...

The transcript of Bin Laden's words includes the following which I quote verbatim from the .pdf:

"In fact, burning living beings is forbidden in our religion, even if they be small like the ant, so what of man?!"

Is Bin Laden ignoring the burning of the WTC and Pentagon victims? Is he in fact announcing that his jihad is against Islam? And what of the sentence-ending question mark and exclamation point? Is that a verbatim transciption from the audio of the soft-spoken words of Bin Laden, or is it an arbitrary American/CIA addition?


Sean Osborne,

is the Associate Director, Military Affairs Northeast Intelligence Network. Sean can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com


Osama bin Doppleganger?

By Judi McLeod

Friday, September 7, 2007


Could this be two different people?

"The eyes and eyebrows have different slants. The beard appears to be either fuller or is growing from higher up on his cheeks in the "Newer" picture of the "Older" bin laden", says Canada Free Press reader Mark King, of Texas.

Richard Clarke, a former White House counterterrorism official and now an ABC news consultant said "If we go back to the tape three years, he had a very white beard. This looks like a phony beard that has been passed on."

The "phony beard" may be an important clue as to where bin Laden is hiding, according to Clarke. "One place where a beard would stand out would be southeast Asia, the Philippines, Indonesia," Clarke told ABC News.

"No one's thought he was there, but that is an environment where most men, Musim men don't have beards."

Is this the real bin Laden.

Or has he been dead since the bombing of Tora Bora?

Looks like the FBI has its work cut out.

Click Here To Comment