Kettle Moraine, Ltd.
17750 W. Elliot Rd.
PMB
#119
Goodyear, AZ 85338
(623)
327-1778

April 23, 2004

Vol. 04, No.
113

An Overview of The War on Terrorism

By Jim Marrs

”We are not afraid to
entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign
ideas, alien philosophies and competitive values. For a
nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and
falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of
its people.” - President John F.
Kennedy

Americans are now beginning to pay the price for sleeping
through history classes, ignoring important information in the
alternative media and neglecting to participate in their own
political process. They find themselves in a new war--the War
on Terrorism. This is a war they never asked for and never
envisioned, anaesthetised as we all are by the flickering tube
of distraction. It is a war predicated on the premise that a
sneak attack was made on the United States on September 11,
2001.

Unlike previous wars, there is no Berlin or Tokyo to
capture and hence no victory to be won, except for those who
profit from war. The real victims of this war will be the
average American citizen, right along with the starving
Afghan.

This new war might well be compared to the failed War on
Drugs and the nearly forgotten War on Poverty. No clear
victory has yet been achieved over the misuse of drugs or the
ravages of poverty within our own nation. Our prisons are
overflowing with drug offenders, with no appreciable lessening
of either demand or supply of illegal drugs, and our basic
civil rights have been badly mauled. Just like those failed
campaigns, the War on Terrorism for the foreseeable future
will set us all on a costly course of restrictions on
individual freedom, ever more centralised authority and
omnipresent fear.

And where are the voices of those who would argue the
merits of this new war? The airwaves and newspapers only
ratchet the fear factor upwards each day, with little or no
effort to hear the many thoughtful Americans who are asking
themselves, "Do I really need to give up my freedoms in order
to save them?"

So with flags flying on the antennae of our gas-guzzling
vehicles and love of country pulsing in our hearts, we march
off to yet another war for oil.

WARS FOR OIL
Yes, oil. Petroleum has been behind
all recent wars, beginning in the early 1940s when a mostly
rural and isolationist America was suddenly thrown into World
War II as a reaction to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
Americans mourned the loss of some 3,000 soldiers and
civilians in Hawaii and, in righteous indignation, allowed
their country to be turned into a giant military camp.

The Federal government, which had consolidated so much
power unto itself under the Depression-busting policies of
President Franklin Roosevelt, grew even stronger and more
centralised under the aegis of "national security". It all
seemed quite natural and necessary at the time.

But serious students of history now know that even that
"good war" was the result of machinations by a handful of
wealthy and powerful men. By closing off Japan's oil supplies
in the summer of 1941, Roosevelt, the quintessential Wall
Street insider, ensured an eventual attack on the United
States. It has now been well established that Roosevelt and a
few close advisers knew full well that Pearl Harbor would be
attacked on December 7, 1941, but chose to allow it to happen
to further their agenda for launching America into war. (The
details of this may be found in my book, Rule by
Secrecy.)

The Vietnam War was prosecuted by men who were close to
Roosevelt and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and who
had long voiced a desire to gain control over Indochina's oil,
magnesium and rubber assets. Again a provocation was created.
In August 1964, President Lyndon Johnson whipped Congress into
a frenzy by claiming that North Vietnamese gunboats had
attacked the US Sixth Fleet in the Gulf of Tonkin off the
coast of Vietnam. "Our boys are floating in the water," he
cried.

Congress responded by passing the Gulf of Tonkin
Resolution, which bypassed the Constitution and gave Johnson
the power to wage war to stop attacks on Americans. It was the
beginning of the real-shooting Vietnam War.

And it was all a lie. No evidence has ever been brought
forward that such an attack took place. In fact, editors for
US News & World Report (July 23, 1984) called it
"The 'Phantom Battle' that Led to War".

While America was waging war against North Vietnam, which
we were told was merely a puppet of communist Russia and
China, Johnson was encouraged by his CFR advisers to grant the
Soviet Union loans at higher levels than offered during World
War II when they were our ally. US-backed loans provided
Russia with the means to build facilities which turned out war
materials that were then sent to North Vietnam for use against
American troops. This was a good example of the duplicity of
our modern wars.

The Gulf War was all about oil, from the wells in Kuwait
slant-drilling into Iraq's southern reserves to the
destruction of the oilfields at its finish. Here we found a
new Hitler in Saddam Hussein, an enemy armed and financed by
the CIA--an agency whose top officials have long been
connected to oilmen, CFR members and other globalists (see
Rule by Secrecy).

Saddam Hussein, strapped for cash due to his eight-year war
against Iran on behalf of the US, decided to regain Kuwait as
a means of increasing his income. Kuwait had been carved out
of southern Iraq by British troops. When asked her thoughts on
this move, US Ambassador April Glaspie replied that the US
Government had "no opinion" and that the matter of Kuwait was
not associated with America. But when he moved his troops into
Kuwait, President George H. W. Bush mobilised a United Nations
force against him, backed by a US$4 billion secret fund
provided by his business associates in Saudi Arabia.

Yet, as those patriotic soldiers closed in on Saddam, the
whole war stopped and George H. W. Bush's old business partner
is still in power. It appears to have been yet another
provocation. And as in Vietnam, even as we prepared to fight
against Saddam, the American taxpayers backed $500 million in
loans that Bush used to purchase arms for use against our
forces.

CASPIAN SEA OIL COVETED
Today the real issue is
the rich oil reserves of the Caspian Sea region--the prize
sought by Hitler, whose drive to that area was stopped only by
the tenacious Russian defence of the Volga River city of
Stalingrad.

In the late 1970s, with the Soviet discovery of vast
untapped oil in Chechnya, the region was ripe for exploitation
but control over Afghanistan was needed to ensure the safety
of a pipeline to bring the oil to world markets. But after
almost 10 years of brutal, no-quarter fighting against Afghans
and Arab mercenaries including Osama bin Laden, and backed by
the US, the Soviets were forced to withdraw. The economic
stress of this Russo-Afghan War was enough to topple communism
in the early 1990s.

Now the international bankers and oilmen have a foothold in
cash-strapped Russia, and the estimated $40 billion in Caspian
Sea oil is again attracting serious attention. In 1997, six
international companies and the Government of Turkmenistan
formed Central Asian Gas Pipeline Ltd (CentGas) to build a
790-mile-long pipeline to Pakistan and perhaps on to the New
Delhi area of India. Leading this consortium was Unocal
Corporation, whose president, John F. Imle, Jr, said the
project would be "the foundation for a new commerce corridor
for the region--often referred to as the Silk Road for the
21st century".

But problems developed with the fundamentalist Muslim
government in Afghanistan, not the least of which was the
Taliban government's treatment of women which prompted
feminist demonstrations against firms seeking to do business
there. Additionally, the Taliban regime was creating chaotic
conditions by pitting the various Islamic sects against each
other in order to maintain control. In mid-1999, Unocal
withdrew from the pipeline consortium, citing the hazardous
political situation, and the project languished.

Notice that in President George W. Bush's declaration of
War on Terrorism, he never mentioned terrorists in Northern
Ireland or Palestinian suicide bombers. Attention was focused
only on Afghanistan, the one nation necessary to complete the
lucrative pipeline.

It should also be noted that Vice President Dick Cheney
headed Halliburton, a giant oil industry service company with
vested interests in the region, and he is generally thought to
be more powerful than the President.

AFGHAN ACTION PLANNED LONG AGO
Today it can be
demonstrated that military action against Afghanistan was in
the works long before the September 11 attacks.

As reported by the BBC's George Arney, former Pakistan
Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik was alerted by American officials
in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would be
launched by mid-October.

At a UN-sponsored meeting concerning Afghanistan in Berlin,
Naik was informed that unless bin Laden were handed over,
America would take military action either to kill or capture
both him and Taliban leader Mullah Omar as the initial step in
installing a new government there.

In a 1998 interview published in the French publication
Le Nouvel Observateur (the significant portions of
which never made it to the United States), former National
Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted that American
activities in Afghanistan actually began six months prior to
the Soviet action of December 1979.

Brzezinski said the Jimmy Carter administration began
secretly funding opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul
in July 1979, with the full knowledge that such action might
provoke a Soviet invasion. Soviet leaders at the time argued
that the invasion was necessary to thwart American aggression
in Afghanistan. The former National Security Adviser, who
helped found the globalist Trilateral Commission, expressed no
regret at this provocation, stating: "That secret operation
was an excellent idea. It brought about the demoralization and
finally the breakup of the Soviet empire." It also produced
the Taliban regime which we are fighting today, as well as
Osama bin Laden.

By 1984, with Vice President George Bush overseeing the
Afghan situation, bin Laden was in charge of the Maktab
al-Khidamat (MAK), which funnelled money, arms and manpower
from the outside world into the war against the Soviets. He
soon helped form a polyglot formation of Muslim troops from
Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria and Palestinian refugee camps,
whom the CIA found easier to deal with than the Muslim
fundamentalists in Afghanistan.

There should be considerable soul-searching about America's
role in arming and training an international group of Muslim
extremists in Afghanistan, long after their comrades destroyed
the Marine barracks in Beirut and hijacked numerous airliners.
Little noticed in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks
were reports that China had signed a pact with the Afghans and
was quietly inducted into the controversial World Trade
Organization--action which under normal circumstances would
have drawn widespread protest. Although such a pact is
unconfirmed at this time, Pakistani General Pervez Musharraf,
chairman of their joint chiefs and chief of the Pakistani Army
Staff, this year visited China at their request and discussed
matters of mutual interest.

Although it is claimed that Pakistan is aiding the US in
the current War on Terrorism, the State Department's
coordinator for counterterrorism, Michael Sheehan, told a
Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee that Pakistan supports
and trains terrorist groups in Afghanistan.

This raises the spectre of Chinese intervention, should US
forces become bogged down in mountainous Afghanistan. This
prospect is particularly unsettling, as back in 1555 the
French prophet Nostradamus, who has been proven correct in so
many of his prophecies, published his prediction that America
and Russia would go to war against a coalition made up of Arab
nations and China (see C. III v. 60; also C. VI v. 21). Until
just recently, such a notion seemed absurd.

WOULD AMERICANS ATTACK AMERICANS?
The
WTC/Pentagon attacks provided a convenient excuse to launch
the pre-laid plans for military action against Afghanistan.
But were they simply allowed to happen, or were they
contrived? The question becomes: "Would any American allow an
attack on fellow Americans, just to further his own business
or political agenda?" The answer unfortunately appears to be
"Yes".

Incredibly, 40-year-old government documents, thought to
have been destroyed long ago but recently made public, show
the US military in the early 1960s proposed making terrorist
attacks in the United States and blaming them on Fidel Castro.
They are discussed in a recent book on the National Security
Agency (NSA), entitled Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the
Ultra-Secret National Security Agency, by James
Bamford.

These documents were produced beginning in late 1961,
following the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba that
spring. President John F. Kennedy, angered by the inept
actions of the CIA, had shifted responsibility for Cuba from
that agency to the Department of Defense. Here, military
strategists considered plans to create terrorist actions which
would alarm the American population and stampede them into
supporting a military attack on Cuba. Under consideration in
Operation Northwoods were plans:

to create "a series of well-coordinated incidents" in or
around the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to include
inciting riots and blowing up ammunition stores, aircraft
and ships;

to "develop a Communist Cuba terror campaign in the
Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in
Washington";

to "sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real
or simulated)...foster attempts on the lives of Cuban
refugees in the United States";

to explode bombs in carefully chosen locations and
coordinate with the release of "prepared documents" pointing
to Cuban complicity;

to use fake Russian aircraft to harass civilian
airliners;

to make "hijacking attempts against civil air and
surface craft", even to simulating the shooting down of a
civilian airliner.

Kennedy rejected Operation Northwoods and senior
military officers ordered the documents destroyed. But someone
slipped up and the papers were discovered by the Assassination
Records Review Board and recently released by the National
Archives.

On a more recent event, The New York Times (October
28, 1993) reported that an informant named Emad Salem was
involved early in 1993 with Middle Eastern terrorists
connected to Osama bin Laden, to develop a bomb for use
against New York's World Trade Center. Salem, a former
Egyptian Army officer, wanted to substitute a harmless powder
for the explosive, but his plan to thwart the attack was
blocked by an FBI official who apparently did not want to
expose the inside informant. The attack was allowed to
proceed. The February 26, 1993 explosion in the WTC resulted
in six deaths, more than 1,000 casualties, and damage in
excess of half a billion dollars.

We now see that creating crises to further political goals
was a methodology well understood and utilised in the 20th
century. Is this the game today? Let's examine the September
11 attacks.

QUESTIONS OVER THE SEPTEMBER 11
ATTACKS
Superficially, it all seemed straightforward
enough. According to the official story, about 19 suicidal
Middle Eastern terrorists, their hearts full of hatred for
American freedom and democracy, hijacked four airliners,
crashing two into the twin towers of New York City's World
Trade Center and a third into the Pentagon. The fourth
reportedly crashed in western Pennsylvania after passengers
attempted to fight the terrorists.

But many disturbing questions have arisen. Among them:

Why was the US military preparing war plans against
Afghanistan months before the September 11 attacks? Were
they just looking for some event to propel the normally
disinterested American public into a war, as in the
past?

How could paper documents incriminating bin Laden be
found intact at the WTC, but the planes' "black box" flight
recorders--designed to withstand crashes--were damaged
beyond use?

Even days and weeks after the WTC attack, why were news
cameramen prevented from photographing the ruins from
certain angles, as complained about by CBS correspondent Lou
Young, who asked, "What are they afraid we're going to
see?"

Why has the NYPD liaison to the FBI been sent packing as
a "security risk", as reported in the October 16 New York
Times? Whose security is at risk? The FBI's? What is it that
the Bureau does not want NYPD to know?

How could an obviously sophisticated terrorist plan,
involving perhaps as many as 100 persons and in the works
for five years, escape the notice of our intelligence
services, especially the FBI and CIA? And why, instead of
cashiering those responsible for this intelligence failure
and totally restructuring these agencies, are we doubling
their budgets?

Why did the WTC South Tower collapse first, when it was
not as extensively damaged as the North Tower which burned
for almost an hour and a half before collapsing?

Why did many witnesses claim to hear further explosions
within the buildings? And why did the destruction of the
towers appear more like a controlled implosion than a tragic
accident?

Why did FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledge that the
list of named hijackers might not contain their real names?
Doesn't everyone have to show a photo ID to claim a boarding
pass? Where was the normal security?

Why was there a discrepancy of 35 names between the
published passenger lists and the official death toll on all
four of the ill-fated flights? Internet columnist Gary North
reported that "the published names in no instance match the
total listed for the number of people on board". Why the
discrepancy?

As none of these listed passengers had an
Arabic-sounding name, how did the government know which ones
were the hijackers?

Why did the seat numbers of the hijackers, given in a
cellphone call from Flight Attendant Madeline Amy Sweeney to
Boston Air Traffic Control, not match the seats occupied by
the men the FBI claims were responsible?

Since Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister claimed five of
the proclaimed hijackers were not aboard the death planes
and in fact are still alive, and a sixth man on that list
was reported to be alive and well in Tunisia, why are these
names still on the FBI list?

Why were no names of the named hijackers on any of the
passenger lists? If they all used aliases, how did the FBI
identify them so quickly?

Why did one of the named hijackers take luggage on a
suicide flight, then leave it along with an incriminating
note in his car at the airport?

As for the overall investigation into the September
attacks, by late October US authorities conceded that most
of their promising leads for finding accomplices and some of
their long-held suspicions about several suspects have
unravelled, according to the New York Times. Since
more than 800 people have been arrested and more than
365,000 tips have been received from the public, why has
nothing substantial been forthcoming in the largest US
criminal investigation in history?

Why, of the nearly 100 people still being sought by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, is none seen as a major
suspect?

Why are we bombing Afghanistan, when apparently no
listed hijackers were Afghans but instead Arabs from various
Middle Eastern nations? Since Iraq was implicated in the
1993 WTC attack, why are we not bombing that "rogue"
nation?

Why does the heavy drinking and searching for hookers by
some of the hijackers in Boston, as reported by Reuters news
service, sound more like mercenaries carousing before a
mission than pious religious fundamentalists about to meet
their maker?

How did the terrorists obtain top-secret White House and
Air Force One codes and signals--the excuse for hustling
President Bush all across the country on September 11? Was
this evidence of an inside job, or was it, as reported by
Fox News, evidence that former FBI employee and double agent
Robert Hanssen had delivered an updated version of the
purloined Promis computer software to his Russian handlers
who passed it along to bin Laden? Does this software, which
was stolen from a US company during the Reagan
administration by Justice Department officials under
Attorney-General Ed Meese, allow outsiders carte blanche
entrée to our top-security computers? (Hanssen's last
job before being arrested as a spy was to upgrade the FBI's
intelligence computer systems.)

If United Airlines Flight 93 crashed as the result of a
struggle between heroic passengers and the hijackers, why
did witnesses tell of a second plane which followed it down,
falling burning debris, no deep crater and crash wreckage
spread over a six-mile area, indicative of an aerial
explosion?

Why did news outlets describe the throat-cutting and
mutilation of passengers on Flight 93 with box cutters, when
Time magazine on September 24 reported that one of
the passengers called home on a cellphone to report, "We
have been hijacked; they are being kind"?

As Internet pundit Gary North wrote: "We need a theory of
the coordinated hijackings that rests on a plausible
cause-and-effect sequence that does not assume the complete
failure of both check-in procedures and the on-board seating
procedures on four separate flights on two separate airlines.
I don't see how anyone can make an accurate judgment about who
was behind the attacks until he has a plausible explanation of
how hijackers got onto the planes and were not removed."

But the Federal government, aided by a sycophantic mass
media, did not allow such rational thinking to interfere with
a rush to judgement that Osama bin Laden was the culprit
behind the attacks.

OSAMA BIN LADEN AND HIS FRIENDS
As in the JFK
assassination, authorities had a suspect even before anyone
knew for certain what had happened. Osama bin Laden, born into
a wealthy Saudi oil/construction family, received arms and
financing from the US Government during the Russo-Afghan War
of the 1980s. Despite the fact that bin Laden has denied any
knowledge of the September 11 attacks, he is presumed guilty
by both the government and the press. No other interpretation
of the attacks has been allowed in the corporate mass
media.

Bin Laden is a made-to-order enemy, the man reportedly
behind the 1993 WTC attack and a fugitive from United States
justice for more than a decade. It has been noted that the
government apparently has spent more time and money chasing
Microsoft's Bill Gates than in capturing bin Laden. This may
be due to the business connections between our new terrorist
enemy and wealthy American companies.

According to several reports, including Jonathan Beaty and
S. C. Gwynne's book The Outlaw Bank: A Wild Ride into the
Secret Heart of the BCCI (Random House, NY, 1993) and
American Free Press (October 15, 2001) (the
reincarnation of the Washington newspaper The
Spotlight), Bush family friend James R. Bath used money
from Osama bin Laden's older brother, Salem, to open a
partnership with George W. Bush in Arbusto Energy, a West
Texas drilling company. Bush believed the Spanish word
arbusto to mean "bush", although it generally refers to
"shrub".

According to the Houston Chronicle, Salem bin Laden
named Bath his business representative in Texas shortly after
the senior Bush was named CIA Director by appointed President
Gerald Ford in 1975. It was the Bush family, particularly Jeb
and Neil, who were involved in the 1989-93 Savings and Loan
debacle that cost taxpayers more than US$500 billion.

Through a tangled web of Texas oilmen, wealthy Saudi sheiks
and unscrupulous bankers connected to BCCI, the younger George
Bush eventually gained a sizeable interest in a new oil
company called Harken Energy. Two months before Saddam Hussein
sent Iraqi troops into Kuwait, Bush sold two-thirds of his
Harken stock, netting himself nearly a one-million-dollar
profit. The stock dropped when the Iraqi invasion began.

The BCCI was closed by federal investigators in 1991 after
suffering some US$10 billion in losses. It was a Pakistani-run
institution with front companies in the Cayman Islands that
used secret accounts for global money-laundering and it was
used by US intelligence to funnel money to bin Laden and the
Mujahedin in Afghanistan who were fighting against the
Soviet-backed government.

Salem bin Laden, incidentally, was killed in the strange
crash of an ultralight aircraft in 1988. The single-passenger
craft suddenly and inexplicably veered into high-voltage
electric powerlines near San Antonio, Texas.

It should be noted that during the Persian Gulf War it was
Binladen Brothers Construction (now the Saudi Binladen Group)
that helped build airfields for US aircraft. The bin Laden
brothers were then described as "a good friend of the US
Government".

Later, the bin Laden firm continued to be hired to
construct an American air base in Saudi Arabia, despite the
fact that Osama had already been blamed for terrorist acts
such as the truck bombing of the Khobar Towers at the Dhahran
base, which killed 19 Americans. A WorldNetDaily writer
commented: "So let's get this straight. Osama blows up our
facilities and his family gets the contract for rebuilding
them. Do you get the feeling there is more going on than meets
the eye?"

Another close connection between bin Laden and the Bush
family is the $12-billion private international investment
firm known as The Carlyle Group. Although it has removed its
website since the September 11 attacks, it is known that
Carlyle directors include former Reagan Secretary of Defense
Frank Carlucci, former Bush Secretary of State James Baker,
and former Reagan aide and GOP operative Richard Darman. The
New York Times reported that former President Bush was allowed
to buy into Carlyle's investments, which involve at least 164
companies around the world.

According to the Wall Street Journal (September 28,
2001): "George H. W. Bush, the father of President Bush, works
for the bin Laden family business in Saudi Arabia through The
Carlyle Group, an international consulting firm." It has been
confirmed by the senior Bush's chief of staff that Bush sent a
thank-you note to the bin Laden family after a social visit in
early 2001.

With such connections and a son as a sitting President of
the United States, the senior Bush and his Carlyle involvement
were questioned by Larry Klayman, chairman and general counsel
of Judicial Watch, who said: "Any foreign government or
foreign investor trying to curry favor with the current Bush
administration is sure to throw business to The Carlyle Group.
And with the former President Bush promoting the firm's
investments abroad, foreign nationals could understandably
confuse The Carlyle Group's interests with the interests of
the United States Government."

After detailing some of the Carlyle/bin Laden investments
in several businesses including aerospace industries, web
writer and former LA policeman Michael C. Ruppert commented:
"In other words, Osama bin Laden's attacks on the WTC and
Pentagon, with the resulting massive increase in the US
defense budget, have just made his family a great big pile of
money."

What made these business dealings that entangle former and
current American political leaders with Middle Easterners even
more suspect was the announcement that several US firms were
being investigated for short-selling stocks just prior to the
September 11 attacks.

SHORT-SELLING INDICATES
FOREKNOWLEDGE
Short-selling of stocks involves the
opportunity to gain large profits by passing shares to a
friendly third party, then buying them back when the price
falls. Historically, if this precedes a traumatic event, it is
an indication of foreknowledge. It is widely known that the
CIA uses the Promis software to routinely monitor stock trades
as a possible warning sign of a terrorist attack or suspicious
economic behaviour.

A week after the September 11 attacks, the London
Times reported that the CIA had asked regulators for
the Financial Services Authority in London to investigate the
suspicious sales of millions of shares of stock just prior to
the terrorist acts. It was hoped the business paper trail
might lead to the terrorists. The Times said market regulators
in Germany, Japan and the US all had received information
concerning the short-selling of insurance, airlines and arms
companies stock, all of which fell sharply in the wake of the
attacks.

City of London broker and analyst Richard Crossley noted
that someone sold shares in unusually large quantities
beginning three weeks before the assault on the WTC and
Pentagon. He said he took this as evidence that someone had
insider foreknowledge of the attacks. "What is more awful than
he should aim a stiletto blow at the heart of Western
financial markets?" he added. "But to profit from it. Words
fail me."

The US Government also admitted it was investigating short-
selling which evinced a foreknowledge of the tragedy. There
was unusually heavy trading in airline and insurance stocks
several days before September 11, which essentially bet on a
drop in the worth of the stocks. It was reported by the
Interdisciplinary Center, a counterterrorism think-tank
involving former Israeli intelligence officers, that insiders
made nearly US$16 million profit by short-selling shares in
American and United Airlines, the two airlines that suffered
hijacking, and the investment firm of Morgan Stanley, which
occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center.

Apparently none of the suspicious transactions could be
traced to bin Laden because this news item quietly dropped
from sight, leaving many people wondering if they tracked back
to American firms or intelligence agencies.

According to Michael C. Ruppert, these transactions were
handled primarily by Deutsche Bank-A. B. Brown, a firm which
until 1998 was chaired by A. B. "Buzzy" Krongard, who today is
Executive Director of the CIA. Besides Krongard, other
prominent Americans who have been connected to both the CIA
and Wall Street power include Clark Clifford (who was a key
player in gaining legitimacy for the BCCI), John Foster Dulles
and Allen Dulles (Allen oversaw the failed Bay of Pigs
invasion and sat on the Warren Commission), Bill Casey, David
Doherty, George Herbert Walker Bush, John Deutch, Nora Slatkin
and Hank Greenburg.

As detailed in Rule by Secrecy, the CIA historically
has been top heavy with members of the Wall Street elite who
desire to advance their globalist agenda. It also operates a
number of front companies which themselves deal in stocks and
bonds.

"I am absolutely convinced that the Central Intelligence
Agency had complete and perfect foreknowledge of the attacks,
down to the date, time, place and location," Ruppert told
OnLine Journal on October 12.

There were other indications of foreknowledge. San
Francisco Mayor Willie Brown stated that on September 10 he
was warned by his personal "airport security" not to fly the
next day, according to radio station KSFO.

More ominous was a piece in the September 28 edition of the
Washington Post, stating that officials with the
instant messaging firm of Odigo in New York have confirmed
that two employees in Israel received text messages warning of
an attack on the WTC two hours before the planes crashed into
the buildings. The firm's Vice President of Sales and
Marketing, Alex Diamandis, said it was possible that the
warning was sent to other Odigo members, but they had not
received any reports of such.

Military forces had been on a heightened state of alert for
several days before the attack, and several psychics claimed
to have had a premonition that something was afoot.

Even the Russians got in on the act. Dr Tatyana Koragina, a
senior research fellow at the Institute of Macroeconomic
Researches, part of the Russian Ministry of Economic
Development, gained credibility due to her July prediction
that an unusual catastrophe would strike America in late
August, ruining the economy. In a Pravda interview, she
stated: "The US has been chosen as the object of financial
attack because the financial centre of the planet is located
there. The effect will be maximal. The strike waves of
economic crisis will spread over the planet."

Following the September 11 attacks, Dr Koragina was
interviewed again and asserted that the "powerful group"
behind the attacks will make new strikes. "When [Americans]
understand after the upcoming, new strikes that their
government can guarantee them nothing, they will panic,
causing a collapse of their financial system."

Asked who was really behind this odious plan, she replied
that it is not the 19 terrorists identified by the FBI but,
rather, a larger group seeking to reshape the world. She said
this group of extremely powerful private persons hold total
assets of about $300 trillion and intend to legitimise their
power under a new global government.

REMOTE-CONTROLLED AIRCRAFT A REALITY
Thanks to
newly revealed technology, it is now possible to theorise that
none of the hijackers intended to die. "Global Hawk" is the
name of the latest version of a high-altitude, long-endurance.
unmanned air vehicle (UAV); in other words, an unmanned drone
plane that can take off, conduct missions such as
photographing battlefields and land by remote electronic
control.

This Buck Rogers equipment made its first operational
flight on October 7 when it was used for reconnaissance over
Afghanistan in preparation for US air and missile strikes
against the Taliban regime. But this remote-controlled plane,
similar to a Boeing 737 commercial airliner, was successfully
tested earlier in 2001, first at Edwards Air Force Base and
later at Edinburgh Air Force Base in South Australia.

When news of Global Hawk was first released, there was
speculation that the UAV technology might be used to thwart
airline hijackings. Once a hijacking took place, the Global
Hawk technology would be triggered and the captured plane
flown to a landing at a safe location regardless of the
actions of the flight crew or the hijackers.

In fact, following the attacks the New York Times,
in a September 28 article on increasing air safety, mentioned
"new technology, probably far in the future, allowing air
traffic controllers to land distressed planes by remote
control". This made it seem that such technology is not yet
available, but earlier in 2001 a former chief of British
Airways suggested that such technology could be used to
commandeer an aircraft from the ground and control it remotely
in the event of a hijacking.

Needless to say, there are those today who question if
Global Hawk's first truly operational use might have been
conducted on September 11. After all, as all experienced
aviation and military persons well know, if a technology such
as Global Hawk is publicly revealed, it most probably has been
in secret use for several years. But regardless of how the
planes with the terrorists were controlled, it is clear that
their managers had information, if not help, from inside the
government.

BIN LADEN AND THE MEDIA
And what of Osama bin
Laden? What did he have to say about all this? Don't look to
the corporate mass media to inform you, as they have all
agreed not to broadcast anything that might detract from the
official government story, even though it is acknowledged that
Bush's media denunciations of bin Laden have been more filled
with descriptions like "evil" and "evil-doer" than specific
evidence.

Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAR) noted that, on
October 10, network executives representing ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox
and CNN were involved in a conference call with National
Security Adviser and Council on Foreign Relations heavyweight
Condoleezza Rice. The execs apparently agreed to limit how and
what they broadcast regarding bin Laden or his al-Qaeda group.
Bush people even tried unsuccessfully to have al-Jazeera,
called "the CNN of the Middle East", broadcasting from Qatar,
tone down its coverage of bin Laden. They were more successful
with members of Congress when they threatened to cut off
intelligence reports if members spoke offhand to the media.
The next day, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, already on
the record as saying Americans "need to watch what they say",
extended this constraint by contacting major newspapers and
asking that they not print full transcripts of bin Laden's
interviews.

According to a FAR news release: "The point is not that bin
Laden or al-Qaeda deserve 'equal time' on US news broadcasts,
but that it is troubling for government to shape or influence
news content. Withholding information from the public is
hardly patriotic. When the White House insists that it's
dangerous to report a news event 'in its entirety', alarm
bells should go off for journalists and the American public
alike."

Here's what bin Laden did say in an interview on September
28, according to the Pakistani newspaper Ummat: "I have
already said that I am not involved in the 11 September
attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to
avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor
do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and
other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids
causing harm to innocent women, children and other people.
Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of battle. It
is the United States which is perpetrating every maltreatment
on women, children and common people."

In this interview, apparently suppressed in the United
States, bin Laden unsurprisingly blamed the attacks on Israel,
claiming: "All that [has been] going on in Palestine for the
last 11 months is sufficient to call the wrath of God upon the
United States and Israel [and for] what had earlier been done
to the innocent people of Iraq, Chechnya and Bosnia."

Bin Laden went on to state: "We are not hostile to the
United States. We are against the [US Government] system which
makes other nations slaves to the United States or forces them
to mortgage their political and economic freedom."

One cannot, of course, take bin Laden at face value--but
then, the same could be said for the US Government, which has
been caught in so many lies and deceits in the past that it is
surprising that anyone pays any attention to official
pronouncements.

US FOREIGN POLICY
What should be thoughtfully
considered is the dismal record of United States foreign
policy since World War II. This policy, as confirmed by the
New York Times years ago, has been in the hands of the
Council on Foreign Relations elite since at least 1939. This
elite and its associates includes former Presidents George H.
W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and (the
late) Richard Nixon, virtually every CIA Director as well as a
considerable number of familiar past and present government
officials such as Dick Cheney, Henry Kissinger, Wesley Clark,
Strobe Talbott, Alexander Haig, Alan Greenspan, James A. Baker
III, Sandy Berger, Colin Powell, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Frank C.
Carlucci, John Deutch, Lawrence Eagleburger, Robert McFarlane
and Casper Weinberger.

This policy has been one of neo-colonialism; that is, the
subjugation and control of other nations through military
dictators or wealthy families supported by, and often placed
in power by, the US military or intelligence services. The
names of nations that have felt the brunt of US CIA and/or
military activity as a result of foreign policy include
Somalia, Afghanistan, Mexico, Guatemala, Panama, Colombia,
Indonesia, Dominican Republic, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Palestinian
Territories, Cuba, Vietnam, Korea, Nicaragua, Lebanon,
Grenada, Haiti, Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Brazil, Chad, Sudan
and many others.

As Dr Martin Luther King, Jr, stated during the Vietnam
War: "My government is the world's leading purveyor of
violence." He did not say "my country" or "my people". It is
the government - or, rather, those who control it - that is
responsible, although we, the distracted and unaware citizens
who claim to live in a democracy, must take our fair share of
the blame.

HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS
Is there precedence in
history for what is happening to America today? So much so,
there is not enough space to present it all. Nero burned Rome,
blamed it on his enemies and took dictatorial power. But
consider what happened just last century.

On February 27, 1933, the German Reichstag or Parliament
was destroyed by fire. Hitler and his Nazis blamed the
destruction on communist terrorists. They even caught one: a
retarded Dutch youth named Marinus van der Lubbe, who carried
a Communist Party card. After some time in custody, the youth
confessed to being the arsonist. However, later investigation
found that one person could not have started the mammoth blaze
and that incendiaries had been carried into the building
through a tunnel which led to the offices of Hitler's closest
partner, Hermann Goering.

Less than a month later, on March 24, 1933, a panicky
German Parliament voted 441 to 94 to pass an "Enabling Act" at
Hitler's urging, which was the starting point for his
dictatorship. As a result of this act, Germans soon saw gun
confiscation, national identity cards, racial profiling, a
national security chief (Heinrich Himmler) and, later, mass
murders and incarcerations in concentration camps.

One of the Western leaders who supported Hitler and his
policies was Prescott Bush, grandfather of President George W.
Bush. He must have taken notice of Hitler's method for gaining
unwarranted power.

Since the Reichstag fire, the Bush family and their
associates in the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral
Commission and the Bilderbergers have often mimicked Hitler's
tactics of creating a problem, offering a draconian solution
and advancing their agenda through any resulting
compromise.

The real enemy is whoever is behind the September 11 terror
attacks. Osama bin Laden, so closely connected to the
financial interests of the Bush family and the CIA, may be the
mastermind, or he may be a convenient scapegoat--yet another
provocation to stampede Americans into another war for
oil.

We must thoughtfully consider where the real source of
terror lies: with one bearded fanatic in an impoverished
Middle Eastern country, or with those who would profit while
shredding the US Constitution in the name of defending
freedom.

Sidebar: We invite you to read Major-General Smedley Butler on
Interventionism for the simple
explanation of what you have just read.

About the Author:

Jim Marrs, a native of Fort Worth, Texas, is a
distinguished author and investigative journalist whose
career began in 1968 as a reporter with the Fort Worth
Star-Telegram. After serving in the Vietnam War, he
became the newspaper's military and aerospace
writer.

Since 1976, Marrs has taught a course on the
assassination of President John F. Kennedy, at the
University of Texas at Arlington, and since 1980 has been a
freelance writer, author, PR consultant, publisher of a
weekly rural newspaper and a monthly tourism tabloid as well
as producer of a cable TV show and several videos. He is the
author of Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy
(1989) (a basis for Oliver Stone's JFK film), Psi
Spies (1995, 2001), UFOs: Alien Agenda and Rule by
Secrecy (2000. He is also a regular speaker at UFO
conferences and, beginning in 2000, began teaching a course
on UFOs at the University of Texas.

A member of
various professional societies, Jim Marrs has received
several awards for his writing and photography and is a
commentator sought after by US national and regional
television and radio talk shows.

We invite you to visit his website and
send the author an email with your comments to [email-masked]

© Jim Marrs 200

Related Links:

Source: Nexus Magazine

Reader Comments:

On 2004-04-23 03:33:56, Raimond
wrote:

Gotta
question fer yuh folks; With OVER a half-hour notice of
an off-course airliner heading toward Washington D.C.,
how come not a single news nerd in D.C. could line up
ten brain cells in a row and think about dragging a
camera onto a roof top to see if they could catch it on
film if it came near? No, not a single one. Amazing,
eh?

To read all comments, click
here
To add your comment to this article, click
here.

This site is best viewed using Internet Explorer
v5.0+