Friday, May 9, 2008

Response to Eric Coleman's "High-Level Officials Warn of Fake Terror"

Eric Coleman:
High-Level Officials Warn of Fake Terror
11:26am Thursday, May 1

An article I found pointing out that our govenrment might use false flag terror attacks to obtain dictatorship in America. This claim is backed up by Ray McGovern, former CIA Analyst during the Regan and Bush (1) Administration, Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, Zbigniew Brzezinski former US National Security Advisor during the Reagan Admin, Former United Nations weapons inspector and Marine Scott Ritter and several other journalist and highly level officials. Note that the article isn't directly backed by any of the aforementioned people, but their individual statements corroborate its claims. But do not take their, or my word for it, it would be against everything I said in my notes if I asked you to blindly believe and listen to me, so do some research, but I am certain that even after a miniscule amount of research, you find a staggering amount of evidence that ours, (and most) governments terrorize its own citizens to advance there platform. I just want more to be aware and not fall for the old tricks, its time we all got smarter and more aware.

High-Level Officials Warn of Fake Terror

George Washington’s BlogApril 30, 2008

A variety of current and former high-level officials have recently warned that the Bush administration is attempting to instill a dictatorship in America, and will itself carry out a fake terrorist attack in order to obtain one.


FBI agents, Time Magazine, Keith Olbermann and The Washington Post and Rolling Stone have all stated that the administration has issued terror alerts based on scant intelligence in order to rally people around the flag when the administration was suffering in the polls. This implies — as an initial matter only — that the administration will play fast and loose with the facts in order to instill fear for political purposes

More to the point, a former prominent republican congressman stated that the U.S. is close to becoming a totalitarian society and that the Bush administration is using fear to try to ensure that this happens.

General Tommy Franks stated that if another terrorist attack occurs in the United States "the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government".

Current U.S. Congressman Ron Paul stated, the government "is determined to have martial law", and that the government is hoping to get the people "fearful enough that they will accept the man on the white horse"

And Daniel Ellsberg, the famous Pentagon Papers whistleblower, said "if there is another terror attack, "I believe the president will get what he wants", which will include a dictatorship.

Terror on U.S. Citizens by American Government?

But would the government actually kills its own people to instill sufficient fear so that it can get what it wants? Read what the following very smart people are saying, and then judge for yourself:

A retired 27-year CIA analyst who prepared and presented Presidential Daily Briefs and served as a high-level analyst for several presidents, stated that if there was another major attack in the U.S., it would lead to martial law. He went on to say:

"We have to be careful, if somebody does this kind of provocation, big violent explosions of some kind, we have to not take the word of the masters there in Washington that this was some terrorist event because it could well be a provocation allowing them, or seemingly to allow them to get what they want."

The former CIA analyst would not put it past the government to "play fast and loose" with terror alerts and warnings and even events themselves in order to rally people behind the flag

The former assistant secretary of treasury in the Reagan administration, called the "Father of Reaganomics", who is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service, and, said: "

Ask yourself: Would a government that has lied us into two wars and is working to lie us into an attack on Iran shrink from staging "terrorist" attacks in order to remove opposition to its agenda?" He goes on to say:

If the Bush administration wants to continue its wars in the Middle East and to entrench the "unitary executive" at home, it will have to conduct some false flag operations that will both frighten and anger the American people and make them accept Bush’s declaration of "national emergency" and the return of the draft. Alternatively, the administration could simply allow any real terrorist plot to proceed without hindrance.

A series of staged or permitted attacks would be spun by the captive media as a vindication of the neoconsevatives’ Islamophobic policy, the intention of which is to destroy all Middle Eastern governments that are not American puppet states. Success would give the US control over oil, but the main purpose is to eliminate any resistance to Israel’s complete absorption of Palestine into Greater Israel.

Think about it. If another 9/11-type "security failure" were not in the works, why would Homeland Security czar Chertoff go to the trouble of convincing the Chicago Tribune that Americans have become complacent about terrorist threats and that he has "a gut feeling" that America will soon be hit hard?

A member of the British Parliament stated that "there is a very real danger" that the American government will stage a false flag terror attack in order to justify war against Iran and to gain complete control domestically

A former National Security Adviser told the Senate that a terrorist act might be carried out in the U.S. and falsely blamed on Iran to justify war against that nation.

President Carter recently impliedly acknowledged the risk of staged provocation in order to start a war against Iran.

The former UN Weapons Inspector, an American, who stated before the Iraq war started that there were no weapons of mass destruction is now saying that he would not rule out staged government terror by the U.S. government.

And an allegedly-leaked GOP memo touts a new terror attack as a way to reverse the party’s decline.

No way, That’s Nuts

Sounds nuts, right?

Sorry to have to tell you, but "false flag terror" — that is, state-sponsored terrorism, blamed on the "bad guys" of choice — is an age-old trick which has been used by governments around the world for thousands of years to consolidate power and create support from their people. See this article on the Reichstag fire, and this article on the perennial ploy of those grabbing power.

But even recent events provide a glimpse into the world of false flag terror:

On October 12, 2005, Australia’s largest newspaper quoted the well-respected former Indonesian president as saying that the government had a role in the Bali bombings

And Americans dressed as Arabs have apparently been setting off car bombs in Iraq (apparently, when it was discovered that some of the cars used in Iraqi bombings recently came from the U.S., the cover story became American cars were involved in car bombings only because they had recently been stolen from the U.S. and then shipped to Iraq — but does it make sense that Iraqi insurgents would steal cars in the U.S. and ship them all the way to Iraq?)

Similarly, Britain’s false flag attacks in Iraq made the news. And the press has acknowledged that the death of the lead investigator into the Basra incident was mysterious.

And the former director of the National Security Agency said "By any measure the US has long used terrorism. In ‘78-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism - in every version they produced, the lawyers said the US would be in violation"(the audio is here)

History proves that the officials’ warnings of a terror attack by our own government are well-founded.

Shep Glennon's Response:
Watch Out for a False Attack & A Neocon Totalitarian Government

In my response to Eric Coleman, who brought up the issue of state-sponsered terrorism as well as the main topic of discussion here tonight: false flags. The government has made us totally vulnerable to them. They can raise the terrorist threat level to ensure a military regime takeover of the United States. The possibilities are real. Watch out.

AM is Aaron McGruder, outspoken cartoonist, the brains behind The Boondocks
SL is journalist Stephen Lemons

SL: A lot of folks would argue that no matter what our disagreements are internally, if we’re attacked from the outside, we have to come together and support the current administration even if we have problems with it. How do you respond to that argument?

AM: I don’t think that’s true. Look, they're telling us these people are bad because they hate us, and they hate our way of life. And they hate our way of life because they hate freedom, and they hate the fact we have freely elected officials. This is what the president said. Well, he wasn’t elected! We really have to think about that. Considering that people around the world, other people, people “over there,” “bad” people will always try to do bad things, that’s kind of outside of your control. The only thing you can be responsible for is what goes on here. The American people have no control over what the military does. We have no say in American foreign policy. None. The only thing we can exercise some will on is what happens here domestically. So I think the focus is wrong.I don’t think the American people should be worried at all about Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein or anybody, because our government is going to do what it wants to do to them regardless of what happens here. And what happened here is what allowed those attacks to take place. The intelligence community failed. Security failed. The military failed. Everybody failed at the same time. I can be really nice to them and say, “You guys really messed up and need to check yourself.” Or, I could not be nice and say, “You know, I don’t think it’s really probable that all the systems can fail at the same time, which means something far more insidious took place.” People are really afraid to get into that.

SL: Are you suggesting that some collusion on the part of our government in the September 11 attacks?

AM: I’m not suggesting that. I’m saying I’m not going there. I’m going to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they're idiots, and not that they had something far more nefarious in mind. However, history does teach us that the government has done things like that before, particularly with Pearl Harbor, where there’s an overwhelming amount of evidence that [FDR] was aware of it and lured the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor. He literally left it undefended. There’s some new evidence that has just come out about the CIA planning terrorist attacks on U.S. soil in the ‘60s and how they were going to set up Castro for it in order to get America behind a war in Cuba. That’s not even a conspiracy theory. The CIA drew up the plans, even though it never happened. So if I were to go that route, I wouldn’t be crazy. But I’m not going to go that route. I’m just going to say that the American people need to be concerned about what happens here. Forget what happens overseas. That’s out of your control. Be concerned with what happens here. Because honestly, if your game is tight here, we can’t be attacked. If our intelligence community and airports and military are doing what they're supposed to be do, then we should be relatively OK.

SL: This reminds me of the strip where Huey calls the FBI terrorist hotline, tells them he's got a tip on someone who helped the terrorists, and it's Ronald Reagan. Do you think there's been enough coverage of the support our leaders have given the mujahedin in the past?

AM: The media have reported on it. But it's not so much [that] they said it or not, it's the way they've said it. When the news wants to tell you something is important, they put dramatic theme music behind it. They scare you into watching the story. Like, anthrax -- very, very important. Pay attention, it's scary. When they report on the U.S. creation of these people, these terrorists, it's all very matter of fact. Like, oh yeah, we gave them a whole bunch of money, and now on to sports. So a lot of it is not necessarily an issue of it being covered up. In fact, it can't be covered up -- it's well known. But to me, it's not given the right emphasis. The question is to what extent is the government culpable for creating the people who have done this? And to what extent should they be held responsible for the actions of terrorists that they have supported in the past? That's what this is all about. I'm talking about Ronald Reagan, George Bush Sr., their whole crew, up until the crew that's in there today. After the embassy attacks in Africa, they were well aware of Osama bin Laden. They were well aware of his location in Afghanistan, his protection by the Taliban, and this Bush administration gave them $43 million this year! And nobody talks about it, and nobody holds them accountable, and that's wrong.

SL: To be fair, though, I believe even the Clinton administration supported the Taliban in the beginning because they were viewed as a stabilizing force.

AM: Well, to hell with Clinton, too. I'm not a Democrat. I don't give a damn about Clinton. Hold these people responsible! You know, Democratic and Republican administrations alike have supported individuals and regimes that have slaughtered millions across the globe. And they need to be held accountable for that.

SL: Your depiction of the news media in your strip makes it out to be almost a cheerleader for the government. Is that a fair assessment of your opinion?

AM: They've absolutely been playing cheerleader for the government, to the extent that even they've had to admit it. I watch news shows, and they're like, "Yeah, we're treating Bush differently now." I don't want the news to be patriotic. I don't want to see flags on the lapels of the anchors. I don't want any of that. I want the news delivered unbiased. I thought that was the whole point with journalism. They've thrown that out the window. And because they've all thrown it out the window at the same time, it's supposedly acceptable. No! It's ridiculous. I don't need to see that. This is war. It's serious. People are dying on both sides. How dare the media just give in when the government says don't air any of Osama bin Laden's video messages! What is this? He's going to rub his nose and something is going to blow up over here? Like terrorists don't have satellite television, and they can't watch foreign news and get the same messages. That's insane. It's totally and thoroughly irresponsible behavior by the entire institution of the media.

SL: Don't hold back, Aaron.

AM: I won't. I was talking to some television journalists about this who gave me some interesting insight. Right now, they're scared to be critical of the government. Everything is about access. Reporters are afraid that the administration will cut them off. Decades ago, the mark of a good reporter was how much dirt you could dig up. Like the Watergate scandal. They were actively trying to find out what was going on and report the truth to people. Now it's the exact opposite. Nobody wants to say anything that makes the government mad, and that's ridiculous. Also, after the attacks, now people think it's unpatriotic to say anything critical of the government. Come on, Bush is a moron. There is no doubt about it. And they really didn't have a problem going there before. But now, nobody wants to call him on it. People get excited because he can speak well. What world is this? When we're happy that the president can articulate well. That's something they only used to say about black men. "Oh, you speak so well." That's nuts. You don't say that about the president. We're supposed to have higher standards. The media are a big part of shaping the perception of the country, and right now, they're not asking the tough questions. They're not exploring, for example, the Bush administration's financial ties with Afghanistan. The fact that George Bush Sr. has financial investments in the area, and those investments become much more valuable when the Taliban government is removed. I'm not talking about getting into a whole bunch of conspiracies. Report what's actually happening, and challenge the government to explain itself. Why didn't they ask more questions? Like, how did this happen? How did four planes get hijacked in one day? And who got fired? That's the question I want to know the answer to, because a whole bunch of people should have gotten fired for what happened on Sept. 11. Report on the fact that G. W. Bush is sealing presidential papers. Indefinitely. His, his father's, Reagan's. It's totally unconstitutional. Why don't they talk about that?

SL: On the topic of George W's I.Q., I think that idea is pretty threatening to people right now, because like it or not, we're stuck with him.

AM: Yes, but living in denial doesn't help the situation. We have to confront the very scary fact that the president is a moron. He's really dumb. He's got some really smart people around him, and people weren't afraid to say that before. They said it in a nice way, but they said it. It was like, he's dumb, but he's got Cheney and he's got Powell, so we'll probably be OK. But now they act like he's done something great. You know, he's called [the terrorists] "evil." That's really some childish stuff. They're bad, we're good. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. That's so incredibly stupid. What do you think they do? They call us "evil." I just see so many parallels between both sides in this war, and it's really uncomfortable. You know, they kill civilians, we kill civilians. They say they're justified, we say the same thing. This is gang warfare on an international level. That's all it is. And when gang warfare happens in American cities, we say it's wrong. When somebody loads a gun, goes 20 blocks and kills the guy who killed his brother, it's not justifiable homicide or self-defense, it's murder and we put people in jail for it. Why is it acceptable that we do it now?

See the interview in its entirety at:
Also see the links Eric used to bring this to my attention:
Yes, let's take the opinions of a professional cartoonist as the gospel truth. Everyone run and hide!! Gimme a break...

wow. this is incredibly uninformed garbage, almost unprecedented in its idiocy. this article came to mind:

I'm sorry Shep, but I need something more concrete and credible than two website links and a rant by the creator of Boondocks.

Eric Coleman:
Well the second article had quite a few links to words and audio clips from high level officials, and editorial pieces looking into all that is speculated. In case you missed it, here are those links, and then some.

Time Magazine Article on threat warnings and news correlation,8599,1211369,00.html
British Soldiers carrying out false flag attacks in Iraq
Keith Olbermann threat warnings and fear mongering
Rolling Stone threat warnings and fear mongering
Washington Post threat warnings and fear mongering
Daniel Ellsberg former American military analyst
Ron Paul Republican United States Congressman from Lake Jackson, Texas, a physician, and a 2008 U.S. presidential candidate.
Former Republican Congressman and CIA official Bob Barr
US Gen. Tommy Franks
Ray McGovern former 27 year CIA Analyst
Zbigniew Brzezinski former US National Security Advisor during the Reagan Admin
Former United Nations weapons inspector and Marine Scott Ritter
Former National Security Agency Director Lt. General William Odom
Francesco Cossiga former President of the Italian Republic
Andreas von Bulow state-secretary in the German Federal Ministry of Defence (1976-1980) and Minister for Research and Technology (1980-1982)
Yukihisa Fujita Japanese politician of the Democratic Party of Japan
Fujita Pt. 2
George Galloway Scottish Politician
I hope that is enough creditablility, from home, abroad, official and journalistic. But forget all that, look at the facts and use your own brain to rationally come to a conclusion. Hell the rolling stone article broke it down on a date to date analysis for when alerts were issued and what else was going on with the news that day.

My post was the posing of a question, it wasn't meant to be scholarly. I guess what BT, PDH and CW wanted was a well-informed, fully-documented report. No where in there does it try to be anything more than opinion. Maybe BT, PDH and CW didn't fully READ THE ARTICLE? It was an interview, not the freakin' 9/11 Commission guys. It's a man trusting his intuition and making logical philosophical statements to back it up. Either our administration has made a terribe failure, and are idiots, or there is something more nefarious at stake.I suppose I should have just reposted your article, Eric, because it has a lot of sources that people can check out. People want opinions from status, and you gave them status.My brain tells me- Bush already revoked part of the Constitution- the right to a fair and speedy trial by jury- with his secret prisons. The PATRIOT Act is a prime example of using fear to trample civil liberties. What, may I ask, is so "patriotic" about this?

My question to BT, PDH, and CW is what is it about this man's judgment that is so faulty?
Questioning the almighty mighty Gov... i mean our government is unpatriotic, even if it is constructive criticism.
My constructive criticism to the government would be to stop reading The Prince, because it is better to be respected than feared, not the other way around. The good violence does is only temporary. The people will resent you forever once they find out. People are going to look back on this moment in history, and especially the period of 1945-1999 as a dark moment in history. The government and the CIA have been murderous, clandestine, arrogant, self-righteous hypocrites, and greedy; all due to foreign woes. This isn't what America was made to be. George Washington, in his farwell address, warned about getting mixed up in foreign interests. And now the shit we pull with neoliberal globalization, state-sponsered terrorism, unfounded and unjust wars, enthocentrism, the PATRIOT Act and lies, lies, lies have dragged our good name in the mud.
How can we earn our respect back? Responsibility; accountability. I wish we could end NAFTA, revise World Trade, keep soldiers in America and isolatate ourselves; but I think the change has to occur with an attitude adjustment of Americans as a whole. Responsibility; else can institutions of power be reformed, if not from the inside, in the minds and hearts of blind men and women?"How come the president wants to fix other countriesWhen he ain't fixed his own yet?" asked Tupac during the first Iraq war. How can you remove the speck from someone else's eye when your own eye is bespeckled? You ain't cleaned up your backyard but you're going around tryin to fix up other people's. “It’s been difficult for the government of Iraq to create a constitution. Why don’t we just give them ours? It’s been working for 200 years but it’s not like we’re not using it anymore.” Unknown
To BT-I'm glad you understand this post was an opinion. Listen- I wouldn't be surprised if the goverment were up to its old scare tactics, and I just wish other people knew the real reasons we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and all the lives we destroyed and continue to destroy- from COINTELPRO to Israel to being the cause of illegal immigration...if people had more knowledge of their government's wrongdoings and lies, I wouldn't be so afraid. I'm just trying to be prepared, and pose questions and evidence (see Eric's postings for that) and raise awareness so that others may understand the folly of blind patriotism.By the way, if this is your way of trying to convince me to "see the light" and convert me into conservatisim, then you'd have better luck brushing a wild tiger's teeth. If you only stopped by to mock my words and retreat back to, well then you did a damn fine job.
To CW-Can you also read Eric's 18 links he posted for you, since you did not even bother research the link to the George Washington Blog I posted at the bottom of the article, because there's your information. I wish you'd have been more specific, too, rather than vaguely trash something. And how did you and Brian know I was thinking of tagging you guys on this post haha that's weird...
To PDH-You and BT were negligent enough to write off a cartoonist...come on- Jesus was a carpenter and Gandhi worked a spinning wheel. I've never seen such righteousness and intution in anyone else, than these two men, but do I judge and stereotype them for not being credible and concrete? Find me a flaw in Aaron's thinking about 9/11 or the media or the way Bush treats his enemy. He's deductive, and also a part of the media, and wise. He wasn't trying to present a formal debate.If you want credible and concrete, read the 18 links Eric posted from Time, ex-C.I.A., the Washington Post and politicans domestic and abroad.And can you please also be more specific?What is it with you three? Are we going to have a debate or are you just going to fail to use your minds this time? It's a shame, all the time (I assume) you spent reading the article, and now you're gonna float away and not even write a decent response?

No comments: