Fake Terror

see the articles archived at www.oilempire.us/northcom.html#martiallaw for details about General Tommy Franks' comments that the US will become a military dictatorship after the next "terror attack"

(page from 2004, mostly)



March 4, 2005
A Fascist America How close are we?
by Justin Raimondo

If "everything changed" on the foreign policy front in the wake of 9/11, then the domestic consequences of 9/11 II are bound to have a similarly transformative effect. If our response to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was to launch a decades-long war to implant democracy throughout the Middle East and the rest of the world, what will we do when the battlefield shifts back to the continental U.S.? I shudder to think about it.
The legal, ideological, and political elements that go into the making of a genuinely fascist regime in America are already in place: all that is required is some catalytic event, one that needn't even be on the scale of 9/11, but still dramatic enough to give real impetus to the creation of a police state in this country.


Anonymous reply to terror attacks and protecting infrastructure
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 01:28:38 -0400
To: politech @ politechbot.com
Subject: FC: Anonymous reply to terror attacks and protecting infrastructure
From: Declan McCullagh

[Anyone who's ever explored the steam tunnels under a university can attest to this! --Declan]


This discussion prompts me to offer a thought I've had for some time. I belong to an Australian ad hoc group of 'urban infiltration' enthusiasts. We explore civil infrastructure of all kinds - whatever we can find and get into, regardless of its supposedly 'off limits' status. There are branches of our group in most major cities in Australia. Naturally, we keep records of what we find, to share with other people with like interests. We also communicate with similar groups overseas. It is quite a common passtime, both in the USA, and Europe, and doing a google for 'infiltration' 'draining', 'souterains', 'urban exploration', etc will turn up many web sites of such groups world wide.

Anyway, getting back to the point. Over the years, it becomes glaringly obvious to explorers such as ourselves, that almost all of the critical infrastructure of large cities is _totally_ vulnerable. Electricity, water, gas, communications, sewage, drainage, rail - all of them could be shut down over wide areas for days or weeks by simple acts of vandalism, at remote and unguarded locations. If several different services were taken out at once, in ways requiring significant effort to repair (not difficult to arrange), it might be very hard to organise the restoration of services within a timescale compatible with maintenance of social order within a large city.

We joke among ourselves that its lucky we just like looking and taking pictures, because if we wanted to it would be child's play to totally shut down virtually any city. There are just _too_many_ critical services exposed in too many places, almost all of them with little or zero security (and virtually impossible to provide security.)

In the present 'crisis', there have been some ostentatious (but not very effective) upgrades to security at prominent landmarks and key facilities. For instance, the Sydney Harbour Bridge now has a few security guards on foot patrol, and a few more video cameras. But even that national icon would still be vulnerable to a determined and creative attack. Elsewhere, at less visible but still critical locations, there have been precisely zero changes in security arrangements.

And yet, so far there do not seem to have been any serious incidents of infrastructure sabotage, in any of the 'coalition of the willing' countries. Or anywhere else not actually in the middle of a war, for that matter.

To those of us with some interest in politics, this is an interesting contradiction to official assertions of frequent impending terrorist attacks. If I were one of these hypothetical terrorists, with a grudge against western nations, I suspect the idea of causing great economic havoc would be just as attractive as committing acts of mass murder. Possibly more so, actually, since it would make a point without at the same time creating violent nationalistic hatred of whatever cause was motivating me.

So we have two observations:

1. It would be easy for anyone wishing to massively disrupt society, to successfully attack the crucial infrastructure (and escape free.)

2. Such attacks do not seem to occur. Instead we have (in the USA) one instance of spectactular, suicidal, localised destruction (WTC), and one instance of a generally disruptive (but politically targeted) biological attack. (The anthrax mailings.)

The only possible conclusion, is that there is simply no one seriously interested in committing major infrastructure attacks. And that implies there are actually no true (or even wannabe) 'terrorists' among us. And never have been.

Which in turn implies that all the actual and threatened attacks were not initiated by 'terrorists' (as advertised on TV), but by people with quite different motivations.

As for who they are, and their motivations, I notice the rest of the internet has a few things to say about that. Hovever, it is curious to note that our governments, while doing their best to scare the citizenry with tales of impending attacks, and making a great show of upgrading security around high visibility 'targets', tend to be doing virtually nothing of substance to protect the _real_ soft and vulnerable spots of our society - the critical service infrastructure of the cities.

Its as if our governments are certain these targets will not be attacked. Which is quite fortunate, since the effort required to harden all that infrastructure, including things like the fiber optic lines, and create a truly 'secure society', would be astronomical. I suggest that the ideal of a 'secure society' would be completely beyond the realm of the possible. Physically, it would require the laws of thermodynamics to be suspended. (More energy needed to run the security apparatus than the rest of society.) Economically, nothing could be profitable under the burden of massive security system cost overheads.

Politically, it would require the elimination of almost all freedoms. If there were any real terrorists, our entire western way of life would be untenable. The combination of technology and centralization makes us just too vulnerable to survive determined and creative attacks on our infrastructure.



A large list of previous "false flag" terrorist attacks staged by state run intelligence agencies to blame on their opponents.



Cut-outs, moles, patsies and provocateurs


Published on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 by CommonDreams.org
Revelations from an Insider
Whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg on the Bush Administration, Civil Disobedience and the Eternal Fires of Hell
by Mira Ptacin

I think our democracy is going to be tested to the breaking point by some very dark days ahead and before long. I do expect there to be another major terrorist event. Ports, the nuclear power plants and the chemical factories are extremely vulnerable to an attack. To a considerable event, the war against terrorism has been a hoax because the president has not only spent so much money on the war in Iraq, but because the war in Iraq virtually subverts the war on terror. You cannot reduce the appeal and the strength of Al Qaeda while we occupy Iraq. You can only strengthen it, and strengthening it is what we've been doing steadily for the last couple of years. This is the worst public policy decision making, most antidemocratic and most inclined to be authoritarian, I would say, since the Nixon administration, but Nixon was confronting a Democratic House and Senate and a relatively liberal population in media 40 years ago. John Mitchell and John Connolly and Nixon himself had quite authoritarian instincts, but they weren't allowed to act on them, and to the extent that they did act on them -- it brought them down.
Virtually all the things Nixon did against me that were illegal to keep me from exposing his secret policy are now legal under the Patriot Act. Going into my doctor's office to get information to blackmail me with, wiretaps without warrants, overhearing me--all legal now. The CIA supplied the burglars in my doctor's office with disguises and with cameras and they did a psychological profile on me. That was illegal then, legal now.
I would have said that one thing that Nixon did against me was not yet legal and that was to bring a squad of a dozen Cuban-American assets of the CIA up from Miami to beat me up or kill me on May 3rd, 1973 on the steps of the Capitol. Right now there's at least one Special Forces team under control of the White House operating in this country to take 'extra legal actions'. Now, that sounds to me like a White House-controlled death squad. And that is what the White House sent against me. It's not clear whether the intention was to kill me then, the words were to 'incapacitate Daniel Ellsberg totally'. When I asked their prosecutor, 'does that mean to kill me?'. He said, 'The words were 'to incapacitate you totally.' But he said, 'You have to understand these guys that were CIA assets never use the words 'kill'.'
I think that's the kind of thing we do have in our future, especially when there's another terrorist attack. In that case, I think we'll see enacted very quickly a new Patriot Act, which I'm sure has already been drafted which will make the first Patriot Act look like the Bill of Rights, and the Bill of Rights will be a historical memory.

"We wish you an Orange Christmas ..."

Bush's Christmas Terror Alert
by Michel Chossudovsky
www.globalresearch.ca 24 December 2003
The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO312D.html

note: "Global Research" promotes the idea that Peak Oil is not real and highlights some of the false claims about 9/11, but this article is excellent

This calculated decision of the military-intelligence apparatus was taken at a time when families and friends, with small children and the elderly meet and rejoice. 
Christmas, celebrated around the World by both Christians and Non-Christians, is the coming of peace between fellow human beings. It is the pursuit of peace and tolerance.
Bush's Christmas terror alert strikes with unreserved cynicism at the very heart of the "Spirit of Christmas".

This is the fifth time the Bush Administration has put the country on Orange Code terror alert since September 11, 2001.
Orange Code Alert was ordered on 7 February 2003, one day after Colin Powell's flopped  presentation on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction to the UN Security Council.
Powell's intelligence dossier had been politely dismissed. The rebuttal came from UN Inspector Hans Blix, who showed that the intelligence used as a pretext to wage war on Iraq had been blatantly fabricated.
Colin Powell addressed the Security council on the 6th. On the 7th, the Bush administration declared an ‘Orange Code’ Terror Alert. This "save face operation" contributed to appeasing an impending scandal, while also upholding the Pentagon's planned invasion of Iraq.
Media attention was immediately shifted from Colin Powell's blunders at the UN Security Council to an (alleged) impending terrorist attack on America.

The objective was to present Iraq as the aggressor.

The hidden agenda in the weeks leading up to the war was not only to link Baghdad to Al Qaeda, the intent was to create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation, which would muster unbending support for President Bush and weaken the anti-war protest movement. Following the announcement, tens of thousands of Americans rushed to purchase duct tape, plastic sheets and gas-masks.
It later transpired that the terrorist alert was fabricated by the CIA, in all likelihood in consultation with the upper echelons of the State Department (ABC News, 13 Feb. 2003, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CRG302A.html ).


Global Eye
Sword Play
By Chris Floyd
Published: February 18, 2005

'You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force ... the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security."
This was the essence of Operation Gladio, a decades-long covert campaign of terrorism and deceit directed by the intelligence services of the West -- against their own populations. Hundreds of innocent people were killed or maimed in terrorist attacks -- on train stations, supermarkets, cafes and offices -- which were then blamed on "leftist subversives" or other political opponents. The purpose, as stated above in sworn testimony by Gladio agent Vincenzo Vinciguerra, was to demonize designated enemies and frighten the public into supporting ever-increasing powers for government leaders -- and their elitist cronies.

First revealed by Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti in 1991, Gladio (from the Latin for "sword") is still protected to this day by its founding patrons, the CIA and MI6. Yet parliamentary investigations in Italy, Switzerland and Belgium have shaken out a few fragments of the truth over the years. These have been gathered in a new book, "NATO's Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe," by Daniele Ganser, as Lila Rajiva reports on CommonDreams.org.
Originally set up as a network of clandestine cells to be activated behind the lines in the event of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, Gladio quickly expanded into a tool for political repression and manipulation, directed by NATO and Washington. Using right-wing militias, underworld figures, government provocateurs and secret military units, Gladio not only carried out widespread terrorism, assassinations and electoral subversion in democratic states such as Italy, France and West Germany, but also bolstered fascist tyrannies in Spain and Portugal, abetted the military coup in Greece and aided Turkey's repression of the Kurds.
Among the "smoking guns" unearthed by Ganser is a Pentagon document, Field Manual FM 30-31B, which details the methodology for launching terrorist attacks in nations that "do not react with sufficient effectiveness" against "communist subversion." Ironically, the manual states that the most dangerous moment comes when leftist groups "renounce the use of force" and embrace the democratic process. It is then that "U.S. army intelligence must have the means of launching special operations which will convince Host Country Governments and public
opinion of the reality of the insurgent danger." Naturally, these peace-throttling "special operations must remain strictly secret," the document warns.
Indeed, it would not do for the families of the 85 people ripped apart by the Aug. 2, 1980 bombing of the Bologna train station to know that their loved ones had been murdered by "men inside Italian state institutions and ... men linked to the structures of United States intelligence," as the Italian Senate concluded after its investigation in 2000.
The Bologna atrocity is an example of what Gladio's masters called "the strategy of tension" -- fomenting fear to keep populations in thrall to "strong leaders" who will protect the nation from the ever-present terrorist threat. And as Rajiva notes, this strategy wasn't limited to Western Europe. It was applied, with gruesome effectiveness, in Central America by the Reagan and Bush administrations. During the 1980s, right-wing death squads, guerrilla armies and state security forces -- armed, trained and supplied by the United States -- murdered tens of thousands of people throughout the region, often acting with particular savagery at those times when peaceful solutions to the conflicts seemed about to take hold.
Last month, it was widely reported that the Pentagon is considering a similar program in Iraq. What was not reported, however -- except in the Iraqi press -- is that at least one pro-occupation death squad is already in operation. Just days after the Pentagon plans were revealed, a new militant group, "Saraya Iraqna," began offering big wads of American cash for insurgent scalps -- up to $50,000, the Iraqi paper Al Ittihad reports. "Our activity will not be selective," the group promised. In other words, anyone they consider an enemy of the state will be fair game.
Strangely enough, just as it appears that the Pentagon is establishing Gladio-style operations in Iraq, there has been a sudden rash of terrorist attacks on outrageously provocative civilian targets, such as hospitals and schools, the Guardian reports. Coming just after national elections in which the majority faction supported slates calling for a speedy end to the American occupation, the shift toward high-profile civilian slaughter has underscored the "urgent need" for U.S. forces to remain on the scene indefinitely, to provide security against the ever-present terrorist threat. Meanwhile, the Bushists continue constructing their long-sought permanent bases in Iraq: citadels to protect the oil that incoming Iraqi officials are promising to sell off to American corporations -- and launching pads for new forays in geopolitical domination.
Perhaps it's just a coincidence. But the U.S. elite's history of directing and fomenting terrorist attacks against friendly populations is so extensive -- indeed, so ingrained and accepted -- that it calls into question the origin of every terrorist act that roils the world. With each fresh atrocity, we're forced to ask: Was it the work of "genuine" terrorists or a "black op" by intelligence agencies -- or both?
While not infallible, the ancient Latin question is still the best guide to penetrating the bloody murk of modern terrorism: Cui bono? Who benefits? Whose powers and policies are enhanced by the attack? For it is indisputable that the "strategy of tension" means power and profit for those who claim to possess the key to "security." And from the halls of the Kremlin to the banks of the Potomac, this cynical strategy is the ruling ideology of our times.


The Pentagon's 'NATO Option'
CommonDreams.org, Feb. 10, 2005

NATO's Secret Armies Linked to Terrorism?
International Relations and Security Network, Dec. 15, 2004

Secret Warfare: Operation Gladio and NATO's Stay-Behind Armies
Parallel History Project, Nov. 29, 2004

Synopsis of Secret Warfare: Operation Gladio
International Relations and Security Network, Dec. 15, 2004

Gladio: The Secret U.S. War to Subvert Italian Democracy
Independent Media Center, Jan. 31, 2004

Unknown Militant Group Declares War on Extremists in Iraq
Al Ittihad via Focus News, Jan. 11, 2005

U.S. Arming Baathist Militia's to Combat Shiite Cleric Rule
Asia Times, Feb. 15, 2005

The Coming Wars
New Yorker, Jan. 17, 2005

Sectarian Massacres Shake Iraq
The Guardian, Feb. 12, 2005

Iraqi Election Catapults Critic of U.S. to Power
Los Angeles Times, Feb. 14, 2005

Iraq Winners Allied With Iran are the Opposite of U.S. Vision
Washington Post, Feb. 14, 2005

COINTELPRO: Alive and Kicking
San Francisco Bay Guardian, Jan. 25, 2001

US Role in Salvador's Brutal War
BBC, March 24, 2002

Guatemala: Memory of Silence
Report of the Commission for Historical Clarification,"

Reagan's Dark Global Legacy
Counterpunch, June 7, 2004

Dark Reagan Legacy in Central America
Reuters, June 7, 2004

Reagan Set Roots for al Qaeda
News24 South Africa, June 7, 2004

Reagan and Guatemala's Death Files
Consortiumnews.com, May 26, 1999

The US-Guatemala File: Training State Terrorists
Consortiumnews.com, May 26, 1999

The Ghost of Terror Past
Salon.com, Jan. 11, 2002

US Wants to Build Network of Friendly Militias to Fight Terrorism
AFP, August 15, 2004

Opening Statement of Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz
House Armed Services Committee, Aug. 10, 2004

Guatemala to Pay Paramilitaries
BBC, Aug. 10, 2004

Efrain Rios Montt Background
More or Less (Australia), June 18, 2004

Rios Montt: Authoritarian Fundamentalist
Proceso (Mexico), April 15, 2001

CIA Admits 'Tolerating' Contra Drug Trafficking
Consortiumnews.com, June 8, 2000

Wackenhut: Inside the Shadow CIA
Spy Magazine, Sept. 1992

The CIA's Gentlemanly Planner of Assassinations
Slate.com, Nov. 1, 2002

Declassified Files Confirm US Post-War Collaboration With Nazis
San Francisco Bay Guardian, May 7, 2001

Nixon Rigged 1971 Uruguay Elections
National Security Archive, June 20, 2002

JFK and the Diem Coup
National Security Archive, Nov. 5, 2003

CIA and Assassinations: The Guatemala 1954 Documents
National Security Archive, May 23, 1997

Guatemala: Memory of Silence
Report of the Commission for Historical Clarification,"

Death, Lies, and Bodywashing
Consortiumnews.com, May 27, 1996

The Secret CIA History of the Iran Coup, 1953
National Security Archive, Nov. 29, 2000

CIA Acknowledges Ties to Pinochet's Repression
National Security Archive, Sept. 19, 2000

U.S. Documents Show Embrace of Saddam Despite WMD, Aggression and Human Rights Abuses
National Security Archive, Feb. 23, 2003

Published on Thursday, October 30, 2003 by Reuters
U.S. Dissident Says Bush Needs Fear for Re-election
by Anthony Boadle
HAVANA - U.S. linguist and political dissident Noam Chomsky said on Wednesday that President Bush will have to "manufacture" another threat to American security to win reelection in 2004 after U.S failure in occupying Iraq.
Chomsky, attending a Latin American social sciences conference in Cuba, said that since the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States, the Bush administration had redefined U.S. national security policy to include the use of force abroad, with or without U.N. approval.
"It is a frightened country and it is easy to conjure up an imminent threat," Chomsky said at the launching of a Cuban edition of a book of interviews published by the Mexican newspaper La Jornada, when asked how Bush could get reelected.
"They have a card that they can play ... terrify the population with some invented threat, and that is not very hard to do," he said.


Alerts tied to memo flap: "The Bush administration issued a spate of terror alerts in recent days to mute criticism that its national security team sat on intelligence warnings in the weeks before the September 11 attacks" - Washington Times 05/22/02
Texas Tech Prof Arrested for Allegedly Lying About Missing Plague Samples: Fox News 01/16/03
Fake Infiltration: Sources Say Informant Made Up Story of Men Who Slipped Into U.S (ABC attempt to whitewash above story).: ABC News 01/07/03
Terror alerts manufactured? FBI agents say White House scripting 'hysterics' for political effect: World Net Daily 01/06/03

Bin Laden tape a fake, Swiss lab says: Toronto Star/Associated Press 11/29/02
Confusion over UK terror warning: BBC 11/08/02Politics drove decision to raise alert level: Capitol Hill Blue 02/12/03
Italy frees Pakistani terror suspects (arrested in a blaze of government back-slapping publicity as a 'dangerous Al-Qaeda cell' - turns out there's no evidence against them): BBC 02/12/03
Downing St dossier plagiarised: Channel 4 News 02/07/03
Revealed: truth behind US 'poison factory' claim (turns out to be a bakery): London Observer 02/10/03
UK war dossier a sham, say experts (Powell's UN presentation was partially based on a student graduate paper assembled by a junior aide office): London Guardian 02/07/03
MI6 'intelligence' lifted from lecturer's article: London Times 02/07/03
Britain accused on terror lab claim: Story of find in Afghan cave 'was made up' to justify sending marines (This fake 'terror lab' was said to be the origin of the Ricin poison held by an Al-Qaeda cell supposedly uncovered in London): London Observer 03/24/02

American Government Terrorizes America After 9/11 Attacks
by Stan Moore
(Saturday 27 December 2003)
"It does not take too long before the public will wary of the "sky is falling" routine. There might be another life-destroying disaster to keep the fear levels up, or to intensify them so as to remove more American freedoms." Apparently, all Al Qaeda has to do is to "chatter" via nameless radio communications and the Homeland Security Department will declare "Code Orange" or "Code Red" and the American people will be terrorized into fear of an imminent attack. Al Qaeda does not have to lift arms, expose personnel to danger, do any actual damage or violence -- just chatter away and Tom Ridge will do the real work of terrorizing the American people.
Some people think it is nothing short of amazing that the Homeland Security Department, plus various senators and high government figures can use vague discussion of "imminent threats" and disrupt American society with no hard evidence, no substantive documentation, no specific times or locations -- just "threats". And it seems to work -- especially now that the American public can see soldiers with machine guns "protecting" public areas, and other recognizable evidences that America is increasingly becoming a police state, and rumor has it that soon the spelling change will be official, from America to Amerika.
Yet, when the U.S. government had knowledge of conspirators, timing, and plans to destroy the World Trade Center, and had plenty of ability to forestall the attacks or even shoot down the hijackings in progress BEFORE the buildings were hit, the American government utterly failed to prevent the attacks. In fact, the evidence is incontrovertible that the American government (1) stood down its response forces on 9/11 during the critical time frame when the hijacked plans could have been intercepted (2) knowingly allowed the hijackers entry into and out of the country multiple times prior to 9/11 -- often over the objections of State Department officials who tried to prevent entry into the U.S. (3) stymied any significant public investigations subsequent to that day, and (4) stonewalled the minor investigations that were allowed.
So, what we have is an American government that failed to prevent terrorism when intelligence was adequate, and which now itself terrorizes the American people by "terror alerts" based on vague information. And this is the same government which detains people of all nationalities on the basis of "guilt by association" and not on proof of actual crimes committed. This is the government that has tossed a blanket over the American constitution and which has warred on freedom and democracy at home and abroad -- all in the name of a spurious "war on terror".
George Bush and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and Condi Rice and Colin Powell have terrorized far more Americans far more times than bin Laden ever did! Bin Laden can hardly get airtime in America any more -- but frightening the American people is a full-time job for many members and employees of the American government.
No one should be surprised if another terrorist attack is engineered so as to provide more visual evidence to frighten the American people. It does not take too long before the public will wary of the "sky is falling" routine. There will have to be another life-destroying disaster to keep the fear levels up, or to intensify them so as to remove more American freedoms.
It is the American government, not Al Qaeda which is able and desirous of removing American freedoms, so that the corporate elite which controls government and commerce can continue strangling the economy created by the American people.
Another big attack may occur, and it may not be without participation or permission of the American government. You can count on it.