Search This Blog

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

how the psyched-out people become one of the moats

The Business of Terror

State terror – colonization abroad and political repression at home - is a key means of extracting profits and maintaining ownership of property.   Ask the American Indian. 

In its colonies, the US engages in state terrorism by removing all legal protections for rebels; detention, torture, and summary execution are the price for rebellion against US policy.

State terrorism overseas, imperialism, is never acknowledged by the media, because the media is a big business; indeed, two of the major networks are owned by defense contractors.

And state terrorism applied domestically to ensure "internal" security is never acknowledged - America says it has no political prisoners.  But the National Security State is well thought out, by professionals in language management, and political and psychological warfare, aimed at you.

"Personal violence is for the amateur in dominance," says two-time Nobel Prize winner Johan Galtung, but "structural violence is the tool of the professional. The amateur who wants to dominate uses guns; the professional uses social structure. The legal criminality of the social system and its institutions, of government…is tacit violence. Structural violence is a structure of exploitation and social injustice."

As Colby said: "The implication or latent threat is enough to insure people will comply."

The war on terror and its domestic version "homeland security" are the law of the land – America 's new legally criminal social structure based on administrative detention, enshrined in The Patriot Act and a number of executive orders, some secret.

This lack of due process comes on top of a justice system already skewed to protect the propertied elite and pack the prisons with the poor, through "structural violence," mainly the drug wars.

The Establishment's new anti-terror and anti-drug laws make the National Security State the most fearsome covert political and psywar machine the world has ever seen.  And the National Security State is growing: the "Top Secret America" series in the Washington Post put it at 750,000 cadres.

This secret state within a state extends into the homeland's critical infrastructure and beyond.  For example, the arms industry provides good jobs, making American imperial aggression seem a positive value. 

And this is how the psyched-out people become one of the moats.

In July, the Washington Post published the Top Secret America project -- a sweeping portrait of America's heavily privatized military-corporate-intelligence establishment. Lead reporter Dana Priest calls it the "vast and hidden apparatus of the war on terror."

Priest, who has won two Pulitzer Prizes, described the project as the most challenging investigation of her career. She teamed up with national security journalist William Arkin and a team of about 20 Post staffers to create an "alternative geography" of a hidden world that has exploded since the attacks of 9/11. At last count, the official U.S. intelligence budget stood at $75 billion -- more than two and a half times what it was on September 10, 2001.

The remarkable three-part series (I, II, III) and its intricate multimedia Web site attracted some initial praise, but just as quickly seemed to drop off the map. This article is an attempt to revisit some of the Priest and Arkin's most shocking discoveries.

Top Secret America is based on hundreds of interviews with government officials, contractors and independent experts; satellite imagery; government contracts; property records; promotional materials from contractors; photo reconnaissance of suspected intelligence facilities, and more.

To give a sense of the physical layout of Top Secret America, Priest and Arkin plotted government and corporate secret locations on a map.

The reporters also compiled their data in the searchable Top Secret America database (TSA). They found 1,931 intelligence contracting firms doing work classified as "top secret," for 1,271 government organizations at over 10,000 sites around the country. 533 of the contracting firms were founded after the 9/11 attacks.

About 110 contractors do about 90 percent of the top-secret work. The biggest of the big are household words: Booz Allen Hamilton, L-3 Communications, CSC, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, and SAIC.

The TSA database doesn't include firms that only do merely "secret" work because the reporters found too many to count.

Contractors make up nearly 30 percent of the workforce of America's intelligence agencies. At the Department of Homeland Security the ratio of contractors to staffers is 50-50. The Post estimates that of the 854,000 people with top-secret clearances, 265,000 are contractors

The U.S. has become utterly dependent on contractors for basic national security and intelligence functions. The National Reconnaissance Office literally couldn't launch satellites without contractors. Contractors do everything from recruiting spies to interrogating detainees to processing civil forfeitures in the war on drugs.

CIA director Leon Panetta admitted to the Post that dependence on contractors is a liability because the main duty of corporations "is to their shareholders, and that does present an inherent conflict." As Jeremy Scahill pointed out in the Nation, these reservations didn't stop Panetta from approving a new $100 million contract with the scandal-plagued private security contractor formerly known as Blackwater.

Over 300 recruiting firms known as "body shops" specialize in hooking the federal government up with private contractors. Industry insiders told the Post they could charge nearly $50,000 per placement. 

The higher the security clearance, the more money a contractor makes. Ironically many of these contractors are retired intelligence officers supplementing their federal pensions by moonlighting for the government. The Bush administration justified massive outsourcing by claiming that contractors were ultimately cheaper than federal employees. However, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates admitted to the Post that federal workers cost the government about 25 percent less than contractors.

The series briefly alludes to some high-profile misconduct by contractors including detainee torture at CIA black sites, Blackwater's civilian-shooting spree, MZM's bribes to a Republican member of the House Intelligence Committee for CIA contracts, and the "lewd-partying scandal" that engulfed ArmorGroup guards at the U.S. embassy compound in Kabul. The ArmorGroup guards were the national security geniuses who were busted with photographs they took of themselves taking vodka shots from their comrades' butt cracks.

Contractors have permeated every sphere of intelligence from aircraft and satellite operations to human intelligence to information technology. Contractors do things you'd assume would be the exclusive preserve of government agents. The TSA database lists 18 government organizations contracting with 37 private companies to conduct psychological operations; 16 government organizations using 50 companies for "special military operations" (e.g., SWAT teams and unconventional warfare); and 14 government organizations contracting with 50 companies for top-secret conventional military operations.

Top-secret projects aren't the exclusive preserve of familiar players like the CIA, the Pentagon, the NSA, and the FBI, either. You might be surprised to learn that the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of Labor, and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service also do some top-secret work.

Thirty-two government organizations employ 36 different companies for counter-drug operations. Many of the entries include links to the contractors' Web sites. "To you, it means not only more bang for your buck – but better bang," says the self-proclaimed "trim, nimble" J.R. Mannes Defense Services Corp. of its own performance. J.R. Mannes is listed as a counter-drug contractor in the TSA database, but its Web site reads more like that of an elite escort service. The "Let's Partner" tab of its Web site promises: "You'll be hard-pressed to find another resource whose principals and board members have deeper experience or more impressive credentials in the art." All this prowess results in "smoother and more successful outcomes on every level of assignment for you and your clients."

Perhaps the most alarming conclusion of the Top Secret America project is that nobody really knows if any of this is making us any safer. "[The system] has become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work," the authors conclude.

The sheer scope of intelligence activity has exploded beyond anyone's ability to keep track of the search, let alone interpret the vast amount of data that the enterprise churns out every day. One senior official confessed to the Post, "I'm not going to live long enough to be briefed on everything." Disturbingly, this guy is one of only a handful of so-called "Super Users" at the Department of Defense who are supposed to know all the department's activities.

The Post found that a large number of agencies were investigating the same questions. Defenders of the system say that a certain amount of redundancy is a feature, not a bug. "The architects of the U.S. intelligence system wanted different eyes to look at the same data from diverse perspectives because they wanted to avoid another surprise attack like Pearl Harbor," former deputy assistant secretary of defense Tom Mahnken wrote in response to the TSA project. His critique would be more convincing if the various agencies talked to each other. Generally speaking, they don't. The Post found that many agencies can't even communicate internally.

There's too much information coming in and not enough experienced people to interpret it and synthesize it. The NSA intercepts 1.7 billion e-mails, phone calls and other types of communications every day and divides some percentage of these between 70 different databases. The same problem repeats itself in every intelligence-gathering organization.

The Post reports that at least 263 intelligence organizations have been created or reorganized in response to 9/11. The Bush administration created the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to keep track of the massive undertaking in 2004. Unfortunately ODNI hasn't been very successful, in part because the agency has no legal or budgetary control over the agencies it supposedly supervising. The CIA has been known to thwart ODNI by simply classifying reports as too secret for ODNI to see.

It's not like Congress is minding the store, either. In 2004, the 9/11 Commission unanimously pronounced Congressional oversight of intelligence to be "dysfunctional." In 2010, a followup report by the co-chairs of the commission concluded that while some progress had been made, congressional oversight of intelligence and homeland security remained an "unworkable" system and a "jurisdictional melee."

What's remarkable about the Top Secret America project is not so much the conclusions -- it should come as no surprise that the U.S. spends billions of dollars on a bureaucratic under-supervised intelligence apparatus that enriches private contractors without necessarily making the country safer. What's remarkable is the thoroughness with which these claims are documented.

Arguably, in attempting to represent the state of such a complex system Top Secret America recreates the information overload in microcosm. The end product is so big and so dense that it's hard to take it all in. Initially, senior intelligence officials made some weak attempts to push back against Top Secret America, particularly against what they called the "myth" that contractors perform inherently governmental functions. They didn't take issue with the Post's claims about what contractors do, they quibbled about the definition of "inherently governmental."

In the end, the intelcrats let the conclusions of the series stand more or less unchallenged. Some may even be grateful. Priest and Arkin probably taught them a lot about their own business.

Lindsay Beyerstein is an investigative journalist in Brooklyn, NY. Her reporting has appeared in Newsweek, Salon, Slate, In These Times and other publications. She was the recipient of a 2009 Project Censored Award.

Arif Dogan is a dead man - CIA will kill him if he talks

'JİTEM founder' demands day in Turkish court

Font Size: Larger|Smaller
Monday, September 27, 2010
ISTANBUL - Hürriyet Daily News
Doğan claims to be the founder of JİTEM, whose existence is denied by the military.

Doğan claims to be the founder of JİTEM, whose existence is denied by the military.

A retired colonel who claims to have founded an alleged illegal intelligence and strike unit within the gendarmerie has demanded his day in court, hinting that he has explosive information about unsolved murders.

Speaking to dailies Habertürk and Taraf on Sunday and Monday, retired Col. Arif Doğan claimed to be the founder of JİTEM, which is believed to be the intelligence arm of the Gendarmerie. The military denies its existence. JİTEM is alleged to be a clandestine organization within the Gendarmerie that has been accused of being behind dozens of unsolved murders, especially in the 1990s. A case in Diyarbakır is investigating some of those unsolved crimes dating from 1993-95.

The comments made by the retired officer, a defendant in the ongoing Ergenekon case, contradicted each other at some points, with Doğan denying some of the remarks he made to Habertürk in the Taraf interview. In the interviews, Doğan also likened himself to a character from the controversial, but popular film "Kurtlar Vadisi: Gladyo" (Valley of Wolves: Gladio).

Speaking to Taraf, Doğan said his testimony in court would be as important as the testimony given by the character İskender Büyük in the film. "İskender tells the judges this in court: 'Respectable members of the court, you would not be able to stand it if I were to tell you some of the things I know. You would be in a very hard position. You would be targets,'" Doğan told the paper. "This is not a line from the 'Valley of Wolves' or 'Gladio'; it is Arif Doğan's. Do you understand?"

Doğan told Habertürk that he has diabetes and suffers from panic attacks and difficulty breathing, but that he intends to be heard in court before he dies. He told Taraf he would hold nothing back in his testimony.

"I am JİTEM. JİTEM is my eyes, my ears, my mouth, my everything," the retired colonel told Taraf. "I have fought in JİTEM for 21 years in mountains and valleys. There is one JİTEM and I am the person who founded it."

According to Doğan, JİTEM's sole purpose was to combat the outlawed Kurdistan Worker's Party, or PKK. He said members were paid by the kill.

"[JİTEM members] were paid 3,000 Turkish Liras per head. I was paid less than them," he said.

In the Habertürk interview, Doğan said JİTEM had 10,000 members consisting of Kurds he trusted. Speaking to Taraf, however, he said not all of these people were members of an armed militia while arguing that there are more than 1 million people in Turkey in the employment of several intelligence agencies.

Currently on trial without arrest due to health reasons in the Ergenekon case, Doğan claimed no involvement with that alleged shadowy group but was insistent that he was the person who founded JİTEM "on his own and under orders from no one" and then "froze it" in 1990. Mentioning a voice recording found on the Internet regarding the alleged assassination of Gen. Eşref Bitlis, Doğan said the voice is his but was put together from different conversations. "Bitlis was murdered in 1993. I quit JİTEM in 1990. JİTEM died that year, it was over. Did it resurrect itself in 1993?" he said.

Another Ergenekon suspect, retired Gen. Veli Küçük, is widely thought to be the illegal organization's founder, although he has not been charged as such in court.

Although he knew Küçük, they were not close, Doğan told Habertürk, describing the other man with obscenities. He denied the latter in the Taraf interview and said he respects the retired general.

Ergenekon is an alleged ultranationalist, shadowy gang known accused of planning to topple the government by staging a coup, initially by spreading chaos and mayhem.

JİTEM Colonel Arif Doğan wants to testify in court

Arif Doğan
Arif Doğan
A retired colonel who recently admitted to establishing JİTEM, a clandestine and illicit unit within the gendarmerie, has said he wishes to testify in court and reveal everything he knows.

Retired Col. Arif Doğan made the statements in an interview with the Taraf daily yesterday, following the release of an audio recording to a website in which Doğan seemingly admits to having ordered the murder of Gen. Eşref Bitlis – who died in a suspicious plane crash in 1993 – statements which Doğan claims were taken out of context.

"I told my nephew, who is a lawyer, to arrange it so that I can testify earlier. I am seeing that my life is getting shorter and shorter. Don't let this truth be buried with me. I will speak the truth in court. The media have created a different Arif Doğan," he tolda a reporter from the Taraf daily.

Doğan also quoted a character from the popular Turkish movie "Valley of the Wolves: Gladio" – a film about shady gangs within the state hierarchy, such as JİTEM, collectively known as the "deep state" – by saying, "If I talk, you all become targets."

The remark was interpreted as an open threat to other members of this illegal formation. Doğan came under the spotlight last week when an anonymous poster uploaded various voice recordings featuring his voice to a website, a fact Doğan acknowledged in an interview with the HaberTürk daily published on Tuesday, while claiming that the recording was a collation manufactured from a variety of disparate recordings. He also told the daily that he had been "begging" judges hearing the Ergenekon trial to let him testify.

Doğan doesn't believe he is going to live much longer, pointing to various ailments, including diabetes, heart disease and panic attack disorder from which he is suffering. In response to a question from the Taraf correspondent on whether he planned to keep some of the truth to himself, he said: "No, what would I keep to myself? I have nothing to hide. You will hear about that in the courtroom."

TL 3,000 per PKK militant killed

In the earlier interview with Habertürk, Doğan said he founded JİTEM alone, without asking any superiors and under no orders, but later froze the organization when he was relocated to another province in 1990. Doğan also discussed controversial remarks, particularly about those in the recording where he allegedly admits to have ordered the killing of Gen. Eşref Bitlis, who died in a suspicious plane crash in 1993. Doğan said the voice in the recordings was indeed his, but argued that the entire recording was a collage of different speeches. "Bitlis was killed in 1993. I left JİTEM in 1990. JİTEM stopped in that year, it finished. Did it come back again in 1993?"

Doğan's statement contradicts what most observers believe about JİTEM, whose existence has long been officially denied. JİTEM and its operatives are believed to be responsible for hundreds of unsolved murders and disappearances, particularly in the predominantly Kurdish southeastern and eastern provinces throughout the 1990s.

Doğan said JİTEM was mostly made up of Kurds whom he trusted. "They used to bring me very important and secret information. I was being provided mind-blowing intelligence. I always knew the attacks the PKK would stage beforehand. When JİTEM was active -- when we were continuing our fight against the PKK -- I had given the responsibility of the region to Kurdish clans all the way up to the Tigris River. Everybody had their own area of responsibility. I had 10,000 men. Their common enemy was the PKK." He said his men were rewarded for killing the terrorists. "They were paid TL 3,000 per head." He said JİTEM also staged over-the-border operations into the PKK's camps outside of Turkey.

Friday, September 24, 2010

15 people per hour ACTUALLY DO READ THINGS!!!

There are (only) 15 people per hour that do not trust the media
and want to read the actual words for themselves:

24 Sep 21:02:56 ahmadinejad speech transcript
24 Sep 20:56:37 text of ahmdinejad's un speech
24 Sep 20:55:56 ahmadinedschad speech un 2010 text
24 Sep 20:55:45 text of ahmadinejad's un speech
24 Sep 20:55:21 Ahmadinejad's UN speech transcript
24 Sep 20:52:01 text of ahmadinejad's un speech
24 Sep 20:48:12 text of Ahmadinejad's U.N. Speech
24 Sep 20:41:12 iranian president speech un transcript
24 Sep 20:39:57 ahmadinejad UN text
24 Sep 20:32:13 ahmadinejad uno fulltext
24 Sep 20:27:49 Ahmadinejad UN speech text
24 Sep 20:23:42 Ahmadinejad uno "full text"
24 Sep 20:13:00 text of Ahmadinejad's UN speech
24 Sep 20:09:38 ahmadinejad un full speech 2010
24 Sep 20:09:07 ahmadinejad un speech transcript
24 Sep 19:59:25 Ahmadinejad speech UN full text
24 Sep 19:52:25 Ahmadinejad speech in UN full text
24 Sep 19:50:27 text of ahmadinejad's; un speech
24 Sep 19:49:09 ahmadinejad speach text
24 Sep 19:43:54 ahmadinejad un speech 2010 text
24 Sep 19:43:11 Transcript of Ahmadinejad's U.N. Speech
24 Sep 19:37:48 ahmadinejad UN text
24 Sep 19:29:34 ahmadinejad un speech full text
24 Sep 19:26:00 iranian president un speech transcript
24 Sep 19:19:43 Ahmadinejad UN speech transcript
24 Sep 19:12:31 text Ahmadinejad's UN speech
24 Sep 19:01:47 ahmadinejad un text speech
24 Sep 18:59:24 un speech ahmadinejad text
24 Sep 18:55:43 ahmadinejad un speech 2010 text
24 Sep 18:55:20 Text of Recent Ahmadinejad's UN speech
24 Sep 18:55:08 Full text Ahmadinejad speech at UN 2010
24 Sep 18:47:28 text transcription of Ahmadinejad at UNN on 23th September 2010
24 Sep 18:47:22 ahmadinejad un speech transcript
24 Sep 18:38:36 un iran speech 2010 full text
24 Sep 18:37:12 text of Ahmadinejad address at UN
24 Sep 18:34:03 mahmoud ahmadinejad un speech transcript
24 Sep 18:32:35 text ahmadinejad un speech
24 Sep 18:27:05 Ahmadinejad Speech at UN Assembly | Sept. 23, 2010 text
24 Sep 18:18:40 Ahmadinejad to un full transcript
Iran is a country that should be respected by the western empire
Iran has not attacked another country in 2000 years,
unlike the USA and NATO

ONE DAY LATER - Ahmadinejad defends 9/11 remarks

Ahmadinejad defends 9/11 remarks

Iran president challenges UN to set up fact-finding mission to investigate whether attacks on the US were a conspiracy.

Last Modified: 24 Sep 2010 18:22 GMT

FULL TEXT - FULL TRANSCRIPT english translation of full speech

Western diplomats left the hall when Ahmadinejad on Thursday said many believe 9/11 was a conspiracy [Reuters]

Iran's president has defended remarks he made on 9/11 attacks during his speech at the UN General Assembly.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Friday that the background to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001 was "suspicious".

Speaking to journalists in New York, he challenged the UN to set up a fact-finding mission to investigate his theories.

A day earlier US and Western diplomats walked out of the UN summit as Ahmadinejad said many believed "some segments within the US government orchestrated the attack".

US response

The White House described the remarks as the latest in a long list of outrageous comments that would deepen Tehran's isolation from the international community.

Barack Obama, the US president, on Friday described the Iranian president's remarks as  "offensive and hateful".

"And particularly for him to make the statement here in Manhattan, just a little north of Ground Zero, where families lost their loved ones, people of all faiths, all ethnicities who see this as the seminal tragedy of this generation, for him to make a statement like that was inexcusable," he said in an interview with the BBC Persian news service.


Ahmadinejad told world leaders on Thursday that the "majority of the American people, as well as most nations and politicians around the world agree" that "some segments within the US government orchestrated" the September 11, 2001, attacks in order to "reverse the declining American economy" and to justify US military operations in the Middle East to "save the Zionist regime".

Standard view

The US government has determined that 19 hijackers, mostly born in Saudi Arabia and belonging to al-Qaeda, crashed two passenger jets into the World Trade Centre in New York City and one into the Pentagon, located outside Washington, DC, on September, 11, 2001.

A fourth plane crashed into a field in rural Pennsylvania after some of its passengers attempted to retake control of the aircraft. There were no survivors from any of the flights.

Some of the group's members, including Osama bin Laden, the head of al-Qaeda, had trained in Afghanistan prior to the attacks - training which precipitated the 2001 US-led invasion of the country.

Bin Laden initially denied, but later admitted in a taped statement aired on Al Jazeera in 2004, planning the attacks.

About 46 per cent of the world's people believe that al-Qaeda launched the 9/11 attacks, while 15 per cent think the US government was behind the assault, and seven per cent blame Israel, according to a
2008 world public opinion study carried out by the Program on International Policy (PIPA) Attitudes at the University of Maryland, which interviewed 16,063 people worldwide.

But Ahmadinejad views himself as a leader in the Arab and Muslim worlds. And, in these regions, surveys show significant sectors of the population believe that the US and Israel launched the 9/11 attacks to meet their own geopolitical goals.

In Jordan, 31 per cent of those polled by PIPA believe Israel was behind the attacks, while only 11 per cent blame it on al-Qaeda. Likewise, 43 per cent of Egyptians blame Israel, and 12 per cent
think the US was responsible, while only 16 per cent think al-Qaeda brought down the towers.

A 2006 poll from Scrippsnews says 36 per cent of Americans consider it "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that US government officials either allowed the attacks to be carried or launched the attacks

'Alternative' perspectives

The most popular website on so-called alternative views on the September 11, 2001, attacks seems to be The site acts as a clearing house for an array of various views and refuses to articulate an exact position on who it believes launched the attacks and why. Rather, it poses a series of questions, while offering readers the "Top 40 Reasons to Doubt the Official Story".

A "documentary" called Loose Change questioning the official 9/11 narrative, has been popular among activist groups and other more traditional doubters.

"That 19 hijackers are going to completely bypass security and crash four commercial airliners in a span of two hours, with no interruption from the military forces, in the most guarded airspace in the United
States and the world? That to me is a conspiracy theory," Korey Rowe, the film's director, told Time magazine.

Mainstream media in the West, and even the US government itself, have felt a need to respond to these theories. The US state department's Bureau of International Information Programs has a website devoted to debunking the "top September 11 conspiracy theories".

In a piece titled "Why the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Won't Go Away", Time argues that what many would call conspiracy theories are "not a fringe phenomenon".

'Planned demolition'

Some of the more unconventional claims include that the twin towers did not collapse from the impact of two Boeing 767s and the petrol stored in their tanks. Rather, the buildings collapsed in a planned, controlled demolition - perhaps through explosions in the basement.

Another popular theory is that a missile fired by elements from within the US government hit the Pentagon, rather than an aircraft. Some of the "alternative" or "conspiratorial" views come from people
who seem like serious scholars.

The Centre for Research on Globalisation, a site which frequently publishes articles critical of the "deliberate suppression" of answers on 9/11 and the "falsification of evidence" by the US government, has Dr Michel Chossudovsky, a professor at the University of Ottawa and author of the well-researched book The Globalisation of Poverty, as one of its leading members.

Posting on Twitter, a user called Martynnorris says: "Which is more childish, the rantings of Ahmadinejad or the faux shock and the offended face?"

Regardless of what polite opinion thinks inside the Washington, DC, beltway, Ahmadinejad is speaking to a significant global constituency. There is little evidence to suggest that they include "the majority of the American people, as well as most nations and politicians around the world", as the Iranian leader said in his UN speech. But the 9/11 "conspiracy theories" are not a fringe phenomenon either.

Since it is quite difficult to find the content of his formal address to the U.N. I found it and post it here. I rather doubt that any of you will read it, but I thought you should be given the chance:

I know it is much easier to look at the politicians leaving, and just laugh. But how about LISTENING and THINKING?

I though that was asking too much.

Tony Blair War criminal .. has a book.

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Ahmadinejad's UN Speech FULL TEXT transcript


As in past years, the U.S. delegation walked out during Ahmadinejad's speech.

Address by H.E. Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

President of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Before the
65th Session of the United Nations General Assembly
New York - 23 September 2010
622 Third Ave, New York, NY 10017

Mr. President,


Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am grateful to the Almighty God who granted me the opportunity to appear

before this world assembly once again. I wish to begin by commemorating those who

lost their lives in the horrible flood in Pakistan and express my heartfelt sympathy

with the families who lost their loved ones as well as with the people and the

government of Pakistan. I urge everyone to assist their fellow men and women as a

humane duty.

Let me thank H.E. Mr. Ali Abdussalam Treki, the President of the he sixty-

fourth session of the United Nations General Assembly, for all his efforts during his

tenure. I also would like to congratulate H.E. Mr. Joseph Deiss, the President of the

sixty-fifth session ofthe United Nations General Assembly and wish him all success.

In the past years, I spoke to you about some of the hopes and concerns,

including family crises, security, human dignity, world economy, climate change as

well as the aspiration forjustice and lasting peace.

After about one hundred years of domination, the system of Capitalism and the

existing world order has proved to be unable to provide appropriate solution to the

problems of societies, thus coming to an end. I shall try to examine the two main

causes ofthis failure and picture some features of the ideal future order.

A) Attitudes and Beliefs

As you are well aware, the divine prophets had the mission to call everyone to

monotheism, love and justice and show mankind the path to prosperity. They invite

men to contemplation and knowledge in order to better appreciate the truth and to

avoid atheism and egoism. The very nature of the message of all prophets is one and

the same. Every messenger endorsed the messenger before him and gave glad tidings

about the prophet to come, and presented a more complete version of the religion in

accordance with the capacity of the man at the time. This continued up to the last

messenger of God who presented the perfect and all inclusive religion.

In opposition to that, the egotist and the greedy stood up against this clear call,

revolting against the message.

Nimrod countered Hazrat Abraham, Pharaoh countered Hazrat Moses and the

greedy countered Hazrat Jesus Christ and Hazrat Mohammad (Peace be upon them

all). In the recent centuries, the human ethics and values have been rejected as a cause

for backwardness. They were even portrayed as opposing wisdom and science

because of the earlier infliction on man by the proclaimers of religion in the dark ages

ofthe West

Man's disconnection from Heaven detached him from his true self.

Man with his potentials for understanding the secrets of the universe, his instinct

for seeking truth, his aspirations for justice and perfection, his quest for beauty and

purity and his capacity to represent God on earth was reduced to a creature limited to

the materialistic world with a mission to maximize individualistic pleasures. Human

instinct, then, replaced true human nature.

Human beings and nations were considered rivals and the happiness of an

individual or a nation was defined in collision with, and elimination or suppression of

others. Constructive evolutionary cooperation was replaced with a destructive struggle

for survival.

The lust for capital and domination replaced monotheism which is the gate to love

and unity.

This widespread clash of the egoist with the divine values gave way to slavery and

colonialism. A large portion of the world came under the domination of a few western

States. Tens of millions of people were taken to slavery and tens of millions of

families were shattered as a result. All the resources, the rights and the cultures of the

colonized nations were plundered. Lands were occupied and the indigenous people

were humiliated and mass- murdered.

Yet, nations rose up, colonialism was alienated and the independence of the nations

was recognized. Thus, the hope for respect, prosperity and security was revived

amongst nations. In the beginning of the past century nice talks about freedom,

human rights and democracy created hopes for healing the deep wounds of the past.

Today, however, not only those dreams are not realized, but memories, even at times

worse than before, have been recorded.

As a result of the two World Wars, the occupation of Palestine, the Korean and the

Vietnam's Wars, the Iraqi war against Iran, the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq as

well as many wars in Africa, hundreds of millions of people were killed, wounded or


Terrorism, illicit drugs, poverty and the social gaps increased. The dictatorial and

coup d'etat governments in Latin America committed unprecedented crimes with the

support ofthe West.

Instead of disarmament, the proliferation and stockpiling of nuclear, biological and

chemical weapons expanded, putting the world under a bigger threat. As a result, the

very same old goals of colonialists and the slave masters were, this time round,

pursued with a new facade.

B) The Global Management and Ruling Structures

The League of Nations and, then, the United Nations were established with the

promise to bring about peace, security and the realization of human rights, which in

fact meant a global management.

One can analyze the current governance of the world by examining three events:

First, the event of the II September 2001 which has affected the whole world for

almost a decade.

All of a sudden, the news of the attack on the twin towers was broadcast using

numerous footages of the incident.

Almost all governments and known figures strongly condemned this incident.

But then a propaganda machine came into full force; it was implied that the whole

world was exposed to a huge danger, namely terrorism, and that the only way to save

the world would be to deploy forces into Afghanistan.

Eventually Afghanistan, and shortly thereafter Iraq were occupied.

Please take note:

It was said that some three thousand people were killed on the 11 th September for

which we are all very saddened. Yet, up until now, in Afghanistan and Iraq hundreds

of thousands of people have been killed, millions wounded and displaced and the

conflict is still going on and expanding.

In identifying those responsible for the attack, there were three viewpoints.

1- That a very powerful and complex terrorist group, able to successfully cross

all layers of the American intelligence and security, carried out the attack.

This is the main viewpoint advocated by American statesmen.

2- That some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to

reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order

also to save the Zionist regime.

The majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree

with this view.

3- It was carried out by a terrorist group but the American government supported

and took advantage of the situation. Apparently, this viewpoint has fewer proponents.

The main evidence linking the incident was a few passports found in the huge

volume of rubble and a video of an individual whose place of domicile was unknown

but it was announced that he had been involved in oil deals with some American

officials. It was also covered up and said that due to the explosion and fire no trace of

the suicide attackers was found.

There remain, however, a few questions to be answered:

1- Would it not have been sensible that first a thorough investigation should have

been conducted by independent groups to conclusively identify the elements involved

in the attack and then map out a rational plan to take measures against them?

2- Assuming the viewpoint of the American government, is it rational to launch a

classic war through widespread deployment of troops that led to the death of hundreds

of thousands ofpeople to counter a terrorist group?

3- Was it not possible to act the way Iran countered the Riggi terrorist group who

killed and wounded 400 innocent people in Iran. In the Iranian operation no innocent

person was hurt.

It is proposed that the United Nations set up an independent fact-finding group for

the event of the II September so that in the future expressing views about it is not


. I wish to announce here that next year the Islamic Republic of Iran will host a

conference to study terrorism and the means to confront it. I invite officials, scholars,

thinkers, researchers and research institutes of all countries to attend this conference.

Second, is the occupation of the Palestinian territories

The oppressed people of Palestine have lived under the rule of an occupying

regime for 60 years, been deprived of freedom, security and the right to self-

determination, while the occupiers are given recognition. On a daily basis, the houses

are being destroyed over the heads of innocent women and children. People are

deprived of water, food and medicine in their own homeland. The Zionists have

imposed five all-out wars on the neighboring countries and on the Palestinian people.

The Zionists committed the most horrible crimes against the defenseless people in

the wars against Lebanon and Gaza.

The Zionist regime attacked a humanitarian flotilla in a blatant defiance of all

international norms and kills the civilians.

This regime which enjoys the absolute support of some western countries regularly

threatens the countries in the region and continues publicly announced assassination

of Palestinian figures and others, while Palestinian defenders and those opposing this

regime are pressured, labeled as terrorists and anti Semites. All values, even the

freedom of expression, in Europe and in the United States are being sacrificed at the

altar of Zionism.

Solutions are doomed to fail because the right of the Palestinian people is not taken

into account.

Would we have witnessed such horrendous crimes if instead of recognizing the

occupation, the sovereign right ofthe Palestinian people had been recognized?

Our unambiguous proposition is the return ofthe Palestinian refugees to their home

land and the reference to the vote of the people of Palestine to exercise their

sovereignty and decide on the type of governance.

Third, is the nuclear energy

Nuclear energy is clean and cheap and a heavenly gift which is amongst the most

suitable alternatives to cut the pollutions emanating from fossil fuels.

The Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT) allows all member States to use nuclear

energy without limits and the International Atomic Energy Agency is mandated to

provide member States with technical and legal support.

The nuclear bomb is the worst inhumane weapon and which must totally be

eliminated. The NPT prohibits its development and stockpiling and calls for nuclear


Nonetheless, note what some of the permanent members of the Security Council

and nuclear bomb holders have done:

They have equated nuclear energy with the nuclear bomb, and have distanced this

energy from the reach of most of nations by establishing monopolies and pressuring

the IAEA. While at the same time, they have continued to maintain, expand and

upgrade their own nuclear arsenals.

This has entailed the following:

Not only the nuclear disarmament has not been realized but also nuclear bombs

have been proliferated in some regions, including by the occupying and intimidating

Zionist regime.

I would like here to propose that the year 20 II be proclaimed the year of nuclear

disarmament and "Nuclear Energy for all, Nuclear Weapons for None".

In all these cases the United Nations has been unable to take any effective course

of action. Unfortunately, in the decade proclaimed as the "International Decade for the

Culture of Peace" hundreds of thousands were killed and injured as a result of war,

aggression and occupation, and hostilities and antagonism increased.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Very recently the world witnessed the ugly and inhumane act of burning the Holy


The Holy Quran is the Divine Book and the eternal miracle ofthe Prophet oflslam.

It calls for worshipping the One God, justice, compassion toward people,

development and progress, reflection and thinking, defending the oppressed and

resisting against the oppressors; and it names with respect the previous Messengers of

God, like Noah, Abraham, Isaaq, Joseph, Moses and Jesus Christ (Peace be Upon

them all) and endorses them.. They burned Quran to bum all these truths and good

udgments. However, the truth could not be burned. Quran is eternal because God and

truth are everlasting. This act and any other act which widens the gap and distances

between nations is evil. We should wisely avoid playing into the hands of Satan. On

behalf of the Iranian nation I pay respect to all Divine Books and their followers. This

is the Quran and this is the Bible. I pay respect to both ofthem.

Esteemed Friends,

For years the inefficiency of the capitalism and the existing world management and

structures has been exposed and the majority of States and nations have been on a

quest for fundamental changes and for the prevalence ofjustice in global relations.

The cause of the United Nation's ineptitude is in its unjust structure. Major power

is monopolized in the Security Council due to the veto privilege, and the main pillar

ofthe Organization, namely the General Assembly, is marginalized.

In the past several decades, at least one of the permanent members of the Security

Council has always been a party to the disputes.

The veto advantage grants impunity to aggression and occupation; How could,

therefore, one expect competence while both the judge and the prosecutor are a party

to the dispute?

Had Iran enjoyed veto privilege, would the Security Council and the IAEA

Director General have taken the same position in the nuclear issue?

Dear Friends,

The United Nations is the key center for coordinating the common global

management. Its structure needs to be reformed in a manner that all independent

States and nations be able to participate in the global governance actively and


The veto privilege should be revoked and the General Assembly should be the

highest body and the Secretary-General should be the most independent official and

all his positions and activities should be taken with the approval of the General

Assembly and should be directed towards promoting justice and eliminating


The Secretary-General should not come under pressure from powers and/or the

country hosting the Organization for his stating the truth and administration ofjustice.

It is suggested that the General Assembly should, within one year and in the

framework of an extraordinary session, finalize the reformation of the Organization's


The Islamic Republic of Iran has clear suggestions in this regard and stands ready

to participate actively and constructively in the process.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I announce clearly that the occupation of other countries under the pretext of

freedom and democracy is an unforgivable crime.

The world needs the logic of compassion and justice and inclusive participation

instead oflogic offorce, domination, unilateralism, war and intimidation.

The world needs to be governed by virtuous people like the Divine Prophets.

The two vast geographical spheres, namely Africa and Latin America, have gone

through historic developments during the past decades. The new approaches in these

two continents, which are based on increasing level of integration and unity as well as

on localizing the growth and development models, have born considerable fruits to the

'peoples of those regions. The awareness and wisdom of the leaders of these two

continents has overcome the regional problems and crises without the domineering

interference of non-regional powers.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has expanded its relations with the Latin America

and Africa in all aspects in recent years.

And about the glorious Iran,

The Tehran Declaration was a hugely constructive step in confidence building

efforts which was made possible through the admirable good will by the governments

of Brazil and Turkey along with the sincere cooperation of the Iranian government.

Although the Declaration received inappropriate reaction by some and was

followed by an unlawful resolution, it is still valid.

We have observed the regulations of the IAEA more than our commitments, yet,

we have never submitted to illegally imposed pressures nor will we ever do so.

It has been said that they want to pressure Iran into a dialogue. Well, firstly, Iran

has always been ready for a dialogue based on respect andjustice. Secondly, methods

based on disrespecting nations have long become ineffective. Those who have used

intimidation and sanctions in response to the clear logic of the Iranian nation are in

real terms destroying the remaining credibility of the Security Council and the trust of

nations for this body, proving once and again how unjust is the function of the


When they threaten a great nation such as Iran which is known throughout history

for its scientists, poets, artists and philosophers and whose culture and civilization is

synonymous to purity, submission to God and seeking justice, how can they ever

expect that other nations grow confidence on them?

It goes without saying that domineering methods in managing the world has failed.

Not only has the era of slavery and colonialism and dominating the world passed, the

path to the reviving old Empires are blocked, too.

We have announced that we stand ready for a serious and free debate with the

American Statesmen to express our transparent views on issues of importance to the

world in this very venue.

It is proposed here that in order to have a constructive dialogue, an annual free

debate be organized within the General Assembly.

In conclusion,

Friends and Colleagues,

The Iranian nation and the majority of the world's nations and governments are

against the current discriminatory management of the world.

The inhumane nature of this management has put it at a dead-end and requires a

major overhaul.

Reforming the world's affairs and bringing about tranquility and prosperity

requires the participation of all, pure thoughts and the divine and humane


We are all ofthe idea that:

Justice is the basic element for peace, durable security and the spread of love

among peoples and nations. It is in thejustice that mankind seeks the realization ofhis

aspirations, rights and dignity, since he is wary of oppression, humiliation and ill


The true nature of mankind is manifested in the love for other fellow humans and

love for all the good in the world. Love is the best foundation for establishing relation

amongst people and amongst nations.

As Vahshi Bafqi, the great Iranian poet, says:

"From the fountain of youth, drink thousand sips

You'll still die if you don't have love's grip"

In making a world full of purity, safety and prosperity people are not rivals but


Those who see their happiness but in the sorrow of others and their welfare and

safety but in others' insecurity, those who see themselves superior to others, are out of

the path ofhumanity and are in evil's course.

Economy and materialistic means are only some tools to serve others, to create

friendship and strengthen human connections for spiritual perfection. They are not

tools for show-off or means of dominating others.

Men and women complements each other and family unit with pure, loving and

long-lasting relation of the spouses in its center is the guarantee for the continuity and

the bringing up generations, for true pleasures, for spreading love and for reforming of

the societies.

Woman is a reflection of God's beauty and is the source of love and caring. She is

the guardian ofpurity and exquisiteness of the society.

The tendency to toughen the souls and behaviors of women deprives them from

their very basic right of being a loving mother and a caring wife. It would result in a

more violent society with irreversible defects.

Freedom is a divine right that should serve peace and human perfection.

Pure thoughts and the will of the righteous are keys to the gates of a pure life full

ofhope, liveliness and beauty.

This is the promise of God that the earth will be inherited by the pure and the

righteous. And the people free from selfishness will take up the management of the

world. Then, there will be no trace of sorrow, discrimination, poverty, insecurity and

aggression. The time for true happiness and for the blossoming of the true nature of

humankind, the way God has intended, will arrive.

All those seeking for justice and all the free spirits have been waiting for this

moment and have promised such glorious time.

The complete human, the true servant of God and the true friend of the mankind

whose father was from the generation of the beloved Prophet of Islam and whose

mother was from the true believers of the Jesus Christ, shall wait along with Jesus the

son of Marry and the other righteous to appear on those brilliant times and assist the


In welcoming them we should join ranks and seek justice.

Praise to Love and worship, praise to justice and freedom, praise to the true

humanity, the complete human, the true companion of the humankind and peace be

upon you and all the righteous and the pure.

Thank you.

Veto power in Security Council must be scrapped, Iran's leader says

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran

23 September 2010 – Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad today pinned the United Nations' "ineptitude" on what he called its "unjust structure," urging that the veto power of the Security Council's five permanent members be abolished.

Decisions on substantive matters in the Council require the vote of nine of the body's 15 members, including the concurring votes of the permanent members: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States.

"Major power is monopolized in the Security Council due to the veto privilege, and the main pillar of the Organization, namely the General Assembly, is marginalized," Mr. Ahmadinejad said.

Speaking on the first day of the Assembly's annual high-level segment, he said that at least one of the five permanent members of the Council has been party to disputes in recent decades.

"The veto advantage grants impunity to aggression and occupation. How could, therefore, one expect competence while both the judge and the prosecutor are a party to the dispute?" the President asked.

The structure of the UN, he stressed, must be reformed so that all nations can take an active and constructive part in global governance.

The Assembly must be the highest body of the UN, approving all of the activities of the Secretary-General, who Mr. Ahmadinejad said must be the "most independent official."

"The Secretary-General should not come under pressure from powers and/or the country hosting the Organization for his stating the truth and administration of justice."

Instead, "all his positions and activities should be taken with the approval of the General Assembly and should be directed towards promoting justice and eliminating discrimination."

The President also spoke about the situation in the Middle East and the importance of nuclear energy during his address to the Assembly.

In addition, he said that questions remained over the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, and in particular over exactly who was responsible for the attacks.

He called for the UN to set up "an independent, fact-finding group for the event of 11 September so that in the future expressing views about it is not forbidden."

Mr. Ahmadinejad also said that Iran would host a conference next year to study both terrorism and the means to confront the problem.

Addressing the General Assembly, he said it was mostly U.S. government officials and statesmen who believed al Qaeda Islamist militants carried out the suicide hijacking attacks that brought down New York's World Trade Center and hit the Pentagon.
Another theory, he said, was "that some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy, and its grips on the Middle East, in order to save the Zionist regime." Ahmadinejad usually refers to Israel as the "Zionist regime."
"The majority of the American people as well as most nations and politicians around the world agree with this view," Ahmadinejad told the 192-nation assembly, calling on the United Nations to establish "an independent fact-finding group" to look into the events of September 11.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says the US took advantage of the 'suspicious' September 11 attacks to justify its occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq.

President Ahmadinejad said while some 3,000 were killed on the September 11 incident, "for which we are all very saddened," hundreds of thousands of people have been killed and millions wounded and displaced up to now, as the conflicts continue to rage and expand.

While raising several questions about the source and nature of the 9/11 attacks, the president asked even if we grant credence to the US government's view that "a complex terrorist group was able to cross all layers of US intelligence and security" to wage the attacks, "is it rational to launch a classic war through widespread deployment of troops that led to the death of hundreds of thousands of people to counter a terrorist group?"

The Iranian president also blasted the Israeli regime for its siege of Palestinian lands and their repeated aggressions against the people of Gaza and Lebanon with blessings from their Western backers.

"The oppressed people of Palestine have lived under the rule of an occupying regime for 60 years, been deprived of freedom, security and the right to self-determination, while the occupiers are given recognition," he said.

"On a daily basis," he added, "the houses are being destroyed over the heads of innocent women and children. People are deprived of water, food and medicine in their own homeland. The Zionists have imposed five all-out wars on the neighboring countries and on the Palestinian people."

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addresses the 65th General Assembly at the United Nations headquarters in New York, September 23, 2010.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says the US took advantage of the 'suspicious' September 11 attacks to justify its occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Addressing the UN General Assembly in New York on Thursday, President Ahmadinejad drew attention to the growing number of civilian and military deaths caused by the US-led “war on terror” in Afghanistan and Iraq.

“It was said that some three thousands people were killed on September 11 for which we are all very saddened. Yet, up until now, in Afghanistan and Iraq hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, millions wounded and displaced and the conflict is still going on and expanding,” the Iranian president said.

He went on to raise doubts about the credibility of the US government's account of the source and nature of the 9/11 attacks indicating that “a very powerful and complex terrorist group, able to successfully cross all layers of the American intelligence and security, carried out the attack.”

He said despite the cited claim many throughout the world believe that “some segments within the US government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order also to save the Zionist regime.”

The Iranian president said even in the case of the credibility of the US government's account, it was not a rational move “to launch a classic war through widespread deployment of troops that led to the death of hundreds of thousands of people to counter a terrorist group."

President Ahmadinejad moved on to the subject of the occupation of the Palestinian territories, blasting Israel for its siege and repeated aggressions against the people of Gaza and Lebanon carried out with the support of Tel Aviv's Western backers.

"The oppressed people of Palestine have lived under the rule of an occupying regime for 60 years, been deprived of freedom, security and the right to self-determination, while the occupiers are given recognition," he said.

"On a daily basis," he added, "the houses are being destroyed over the heads of innocent women and children. People are deprived of water, food and medicine in their own homeland. The Zionists have imposed five all-out wars on the neighboring countries and on the Palestinian people."

In his UN address, President Ahmadinejad also mentioned the Israeli attack against the Gaza-bound humanitarian flotilla which led to the death of civilian activists onboard, calling it "a blatant defiance of all international norms."

The Iranian president explained that while Tel Aviv "regularly threatens the countries in the region" and conducts "publicly announced assassination of Palestinian figures," it enjoys the "absolute support of some western countries."

He added that all such moves are carried out by Israel as "Palestinian defenders and those opposing this regime are pressured, labeled as terrorists and anti-Semites."

The Iranian president went on to reiterate that all solutions "are doomed to fail" if the rights of Palestinian people are not reserved, and called for the return of Palestinian refugees to their homeland and the establishment of a Palestinian government based on popular vote.

President Ahmadinejad referred to the recent burning of the holy Qur'an in the US as an "ugly and inhumane act" against the Divine Book of Islam's prophet that calls for "worshipping the one God, justice, compassion toward people, development and progress, reflection and thinking, defending the oppressed and resisting against the oppressors."

He then stressed that the Qur'an was burned "to burn all these truths and good judgments." However, he added, "the truth could not be burned."

On the Iranian nuclear issue, President Ahmadinejad reiterated Iran's readiness to resume talks based on the Tehran Nuclear Declaration, censuring the unjust imposition of anti-Iran sanctions by the UN Security Council.

Noting the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) allows member states to use nuclear energy without limits while prohibiting the development and stockpiling of nuclear weapons, the president underlined that some permanent members of the UN Security Council have nonetheless "equated nuclear energy with the nuclear bomb, and have distanced this energy from the reach of most nations by establishing monopolies and pressuring the IAEA."

Consequently, he said, "Not only the nuclear disarmament has not been realized, but also nuclear bombs have been proliferated in some regions, including by the occupying and intimidating Zionist regime."

Ahmadinejad went on to make the proposition that the year 2011 be proclaimed the year of nuclear disarmament and "Nuclear Energy for all, Nuclear Weapons for None."

On Iran's nuclear issue the Iranian president referred to the Tehran Declaration on a fuel swap deal as "a hugely constructive step in confidence building efforts" and said that it was facilitated through the good will of Turkish, Brazilian and Iranian governments.

He reiterated that although the declaration received "inappropriate reaction" by some governments and followed by an "unlawful resolution," it still remains valid.

"We have observed the regulations of the IAEA more than our commitments," he observed. "Yet, we have never submitted to illegally imposed pressures nor will we ever do so."

The president also slammed UN's "ineptitude" and "unjust structure," stressing that major power has been "monopolized" in the Security Council (UNSC) due to the veto privilege while the main pillar of the organization, the General Assembly, "is marginalized."

Noting that in the past decades at least one of the permanent members of the UNSC has been a party to conflicts, Ahmadinejad said, "The veto advantage grants impunity to aggression and occupation; how could, therefore, one expect competence while both the judge and the prosecutor are a party to the dispute?"

"Had Iran enjoyed veto privilege, would the Security Council and the IAEA Director General have taken the same position in the nuclear issue?"

The Iranian president then insisted that the veto privilege "be revoked" altogether and the General Assembly becomes the "highest body" in the United Nations.

At the beginning of his remarks, President Ahmadinejad expressed great sympathy with the people and government of flood-stricken Pakistan and urged the world to pldege adequate aid and support for the flood victims.


Sunday, September 19, 2010

JUDY WOOD BOOK - Where did the towers go?

Dr. Judy Wood, a professor at Clemson University with degrees in civil engineering, engineering mechanics, and materials engineering science, asked after the 9/11 catastrophe: How did two of the world's tallest buildings all but disappear, and faster than traditional physics can explain?

Over a half mile of vertical building height, containing nearly 150 football fields of floor space, was reduced to a near-level field of dust and debris, where rescue workers walked horizontally or rappelled into empty caverns to look for survivors. How was this possible given the standard laws of engineering and physics?

The 9/11 Commission Report bypassed this central issue, as did the report of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Contrary to its stated objective of determining "why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed," the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) made the stunning admission that it did not investigate how the towers fell.

Neither the standard view-that the Twin Towers collapsed from fire-nor the standard opposition view-that they were intentionally detonated by "thermite explosives"- explains the evidence, nor do they follow the laws of engineering and physics.

Dr. Wood left Clemson to research the 9/11 conundrum full time, and she has focused her research strictly on physical evidence and scientific principles. Where Did the Towers Go? provides an understandable, credible, and photo-enhanced summary of Dr. Wood's disturbing findings, which resulted in her lawsuit against the contractors of the NIST report.

wtc collapse it aint.  It is a veritable dustification

Revaluation Books (Exeter, DEV, United Kingdom)

240 pages. In Stock. Delivery: UK usually 4-5 days, Europe/USA/ROW 7-10 days
  • Paperback: 240 pages
  • Publisher: Feral House
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 1932595473
  • ISBN-13: 978-1932595475

Where did the towers go? : the evidence of directed energy technology on 9/11
Author:     Judy D Wood
Publisher:     Los Angeles, Calif. : Feral House ; London : Turnaround [distributor], 2009.
Edition/Format:     Book : English
where did 110 storeys go?  Got it now?


Do not waste your time, Sep 14 2009 By Jason M. Wood (Ontario, Canada)

Dr. Wood fails to explain how the perpetrators came up with the 5.7 x 10^13 watts of energy required to vapourize the steel in the World Trade Center. That's over 5 times the total energy output of the entire earth, and it assumes 100% efficiency. The actual requirement would likely be thousands of times the earth's total energy output.
So this is just a ridiculous claim, plain and simple, and we don't even need to look at Dr. Wood's other silly arguments.

WHAT JASON fails to realize is that there is other explanations.  Mrs Wood doesn't need to speculate, she just DESCRIBES what happened.
Dismissal is short and easy. Knowledge is long and hard.

Sunday, September 12, 2010

102 Minutes that changed America

A screenshot of the ZDF videotext page shows it was first broadcast on 6. September 2009  (Erstsendung: 06.09.09)

click on the image to enlarge it!


It screened (with german subtitles) on 13.September 2010 at 1:50 am on ZDF (German TV) in a



DVD cover art.

(download the movie in avi divx format via torrent)

102 Minutes That Changed America is a 102-minute American television special documentary film that was produced by the History channel and premiered commercial-free on September 11, 2008, marking the seventh anniversary of the 2001 attacks. The film depicts, in virtually real time, the New York-based events of the attacks primarily using raw video footage from mostly amateur citizen journalists. The documentary is accompanied by an 18-minute documentary short called I-Witness to 9/11, which features interviews with nine firsthand eyewitnesses who captured the footage on camera.

According to this film, most of the archival footage was in possession of the U.S. government but was released to History years after 9/11. The documentary film attracted 5.2 million viewers.
The program aired on Channel 4 in the UK, France 3 in France, History Channel in Brazil on 07 September 2009, and SBS6 in the Netherlands on 09 September 2009.

2009 Emmy Awards

In 2009, 102 Minutes won four (4) Primetime Emmy Awards for the following categories:

* Outstanding Nonfiction Special
* Outstanding Picture Editing for Nonfiction Programming
* Outstanding Sound Editing for Nonfiction Programming (Single or Multi-Camera)
* Outstanding Sound Mixing for Nonfiction Programming

Thursday, September 09, 2010

AL-CIA-DA - US created terror ... Oil Wars

Deadly trickery of past fuels today's skepticism
ISLAM VIEW: One in a series of occasional columns from the London's Islamic community.

By KEE DEWDNEY, Special to QMI Agency

Last Updated: September 4, 2010 12:00am

From the 1950s until the late 1980s, Europe was besieged by a seemingly endless string of terrorist bombings.

Among the better known events were the bombings in Milan and Rome on Dec. 12, 1969. Four bombs killed 16 innocent persons and injured 80. The bombings were blamed on a leftist magazine editor, Giangiacomo Feltrinelli, when bomb-making materials were "found" in his home.

In another notable attack in Bologna on Aug. 2, 1980, a massive explosion in the train station killed 85 people. Blame for the attacks usually fell on communist or leftist/activist groups, from Baader Meinhof to the Red Army Faction.

Over the entire period, hundreds of innocent civilians lost their lives and, not surprisingly, anti-leftist feelings ran high.

However, a dogged investigation by an alert Italian judge, Felice Casson, revealed links not to known activist groups, but to a network of secret "armies," one per country, that received the full co-operation of security agencies and high government officials.

The operation, code-named Gladio, was apparently the brainchild of James Angleton, head of the CIA in the postwar period. To give the operation plausible deniability, the groups were labelled "stay-at-home" forces, which would act as an underground in the event of an invasion of Europe by the Soviet Union.

As far as is currently known, none of the leftist groups blamed for the bombings were actually responsible (including that poor editor).

Gladio was uncovered in Italy and rumblings of the discovery spread through the European media. However, it was not until Aug. 3, 1990, when Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti made a full disclosure to the Italian parliament, that the issue became front page news.

The revelations set off a firestorm of protest in European capitals but only a handful of operatives were ever caught and charged in the ensuing sweep. Other known terrorists seemed to be protected by a judiciary that appeared strangely unwilling to prosecute. The remainder, a vast majority, were never caught.

Revelations of Gladio received little notice in North America. The reason? The U.S. launched Desert Storm in Kuwait one day before Andreotti's announcement. The subsequent news focus was all on the Middle East and lasted long enough for Gladio to die a quiet media death.

Attacks engineered by one group to blame another are called "false flag" operations or, more recently, "synthetic terrorism." As for the CIA, the basic strategy to keep a boogeyman constantly before the public was labelled the "strategy of tension." The purpose of the strategy was to keep the populace herded into a compliant corner of the behavioural pasture while the groups in question were dealt with.

Those who see a parallel between Gladio and the war on terror can hardly be blamed. The latest poll conducted on the key question of 9/11 revealed that 100 million Americans do not believe the official story. In Europe, thanks to Gladio, the level of skepticism is higher.

As for the war on terror, the mainstream media have yet to step out of their cheerleading role.

Kee Dewdney is a London resident.

Al-Qaeda and the Anglo-American Terror Network

Sep 08, 2010 - 03:14 AM

By: Andrew_G_Marshall



As the 9th anniversary of 9/11 nears, and the war on terror continues to be waged and grows in ferocity and geography, it seems all the more imperative to return to the events of that fateful September morning and re-examine the reasons for war and the nature of the stated culprit, Al-Qaeda.


The events of 9/11 pervade the American and indeed the world imagination as an historical myth. The events of that day and those leading up to it remain largely unknown and little understood by the general public, apart from the disturbing images repeated ad nauseam in the media. The facts and troubled truths of that day are lost in the folklore of the 9/11 myth: that the largest attack carried out on American ground was orchestrated by 19 Muslims armed with box cutters and urged on by religious fundamentalism, all under the direction of Osama bin Laden, the leader of a global terrorist network called al-Qaeda, based out of a cave in Afghanistan.


The myth sweeps aside the facts and complex nature of terror, al-Qaeda, the American empire and literally defies the laws of physics. As John F. Kennedy once said, "The greatest enemy of the truth is not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, pervasive, and unrealistic."


This three-part series on "The Imperial Anatomy of Al-Qaeda" examines the geopolitical historical origins and nature of what we today know as al-Qaeda, which is in fact an Anglo-American intelligence network of terrorist assets used to advance American and NATO imperial objectives in various regions around the world.


Part 1 examines the origins of the intelligence network known as the Safari Club, which financed and organized an international conglomerate of terrorists, the CIA's role in the global drug trade, the emergence of the Taliban and the origins of al-Qaeda.


The Safari Club


Following Nixon's resignation as President, Gerald Ford became the new US President in 1974. Henry Kissinger remained as Secretary of State and Ford brought into his administration two names that would come to play important roles in the future of the American Empire: Donald Rumsfeld as Ford's Chief of Staff, and Dick Cheney, as Deputy Assistant to the President. The Vice President was Nelson Rockefeller, David Rockefeller's brother. When Donald Rumsfeld was promoted to Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney was promoted to Chief of Staff. Ford had also appointed a man named George H.W. Bush as CIA Director.


In 1976, a coalition of intelligence agencies was formed, which was called the Safari Club. This marked the discreet and highly covert coordination among various intelligence agencies, which would last for decades. It formed at a time when the CIA was embroiled in domestic scrutiny over the Watergate scandal and a Congressional investigation into covert CIA activities, forcing the CIA to become more covert in its activities.


In 2002, the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Turki bin Faisal gave a speech in which he stated that in response to the CIA's need for more discretion, "a group of countries got together in the hope of fighting Communism and established what was called the Safari Club. The Safari Club included France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and Iran [under the Shah]."[1] However, "The Safari Club needed a network of banks to finance its intelligence operations. With the official blessing of George H.W. Bush as the head of the CIA," Saudi intelligence chief, Kamal Adham, "transformed a small Pakistani merchant bank, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), into a world-wide money-laundering machine, buying banks around the world to create the biggest clandestine money network in history."[2]


As CIA director, George H.W. Bush "cemented strong relations with the intelligence services of both Saudi Arabia and the shah of Iran. He worked closely with Kamal Adham, the head of Saudi intelligence, brother-in-law of King Faisal and an early BCCI insider." Adham had previously acted as a "channel between [Henry] Kissinger and [Egyptian President] Anwar Sadat" in 1972. In 1976, Iran, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia formed the Safari Club "to conduct through their own intelligence agencies operations that were now difficult for the CIA," which was largely organized by the head of French intelligence, Alexandre de Marenches.[3]


The "Arc of Crisis" and the Iranian Revolution


When Jimmy Carter became President in 1977, he appointed over two-dozen members of the Trilateral Commission to his administration, which was an international think tank formed by Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Rockefeller in 1973. Brzezinski had invited Carter to join the Trilateral Commission, and when Carter became President, Brzezinski became National Security Adviser; Cyrus Vance, also a member of the Commission, became Secretary of State; and Samuel Huntington, another Commission member, became Coordinator of National Security and Deputy to Brzezinski. Author and researcher Peter Dale Scott deserves much credit for his comprehensive analysis of the events leading up to and during the Iranian Revolution in his book, "The Road to 9/11",* which provides much of the information below.


Samuel Huntington and Zbigniew Brzezinski were to determine the US policy position in the Cold War, and the US-Soviet policy they created was termed, "Cooperation and Competition," in which Brzezinski would press for "Cooperation" when talking to the press, yet, privately push for "competition." So, while Secretary of State Cyrus Vance was pursuing détente with the Soviet Union, Brzezinski was pushing for American supremacy over the Soviet Union. Brzezinski and Vance would come to disagree on almost every issue.[4]


In 1978, Zbigniew Brzezinski gave a speech in which he stated, "An arc of crisis stretches along the shores of the Indian Ocean, with fragile social and political structures in a region of vital importance to us threatened with fragmentation. The resulting political chaos could well be filled by elements hostile to our values and sympathetic to our adversaries." The Arc of Crisis stretched from Indochina to southern Africa, although, more specifically, the particular area of focus was "the nations that stretch across the southern flank of the Soviet Union from the Indian subcontinent to Turkey, and southward through the Arabian Peninsula to the Horn of Africa." Further, the "center of gravity of this arc is Iran, the world's fourth largest oil producer and for more than two decades a citadel of U.S. military and economic strength in the Middle East. Now it appears that the 37-year reign of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi is almost over, ended by months of rising civil unrest and revolution."[5]


With rising discontent in the region, "There was this idea that the Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets. It was a Brzezinski concept."[6] A month prior to Brzezinski's speech, in November of 1978, "President Carter named the Bilderberg group's George Ball, another member of the Trilateral Commission, to head a special White House Iran task force under the National Security Council's Brzezinski." Further, "Ball recommended that Washington drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the fundamentalist Islamic opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini."[7] George Ball's visit to Iran was a secret mission.[8]


Throughout 1978, the Shah was under the impression that "the Carter administration was plotting to topple his regime." In 1978, the Queen and Shah's wife, told Manouchehr Ganji, a minister in the Shah's government, that, "I wanted to tell you that the Americans are maneuvering to bring down the Shah," and she continued saying that she believed "they even want to topple the regime."[9] The US Ambassador to Iran, William Sullivan, thought that the revolution would succeed, and told this to Ramsey Clark, former US Attorney General under the Johnson administration, as well as professor Richard Falk, when they were visiting Sullivan in Iran in 1978. Clark and Falk then went from Iran to Paris, to visit Khomeini, who was there in exile. James Bill, a Carter adviser, felt that, "a religious movement brought about with the United States' assistance would be a natural friend of the United States."[10]


Also interesting is the fact that the British BBC broadcast pro-Khomeini Persian-language programs daily in Iran, as a subtle form of propaganda, which "gave credibility to the perception of United States and British support of Khomeini."[11] The BBC refused to give the Shah a platform to respond, and "[r]epeated personal appeals from the Shah to the BBC yielded no result."[12]


In the May 1979 meeting of the Bilderberg Group, Bernard Lewis, a British historian of great influence (hence, the Bilderberg membership), presented a British-American strategy which, "endorsed the radical Muslim Brotherhood movement behind Khomeini, in order to promote balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. Lewis argued that the West should encourage autonomous groups such as the Kurds, Armenians, Lebanese Maronites, Ethiopian Copts, Azerbaijani Turks, and so forth. The chaos would spread in what he termed an 'Arc of Crisis,' which would spill over into the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union."[13] Further, it would prevent Soviet influence from entering the Middle East, as the Soviet Union was viewed as an empire of atheism and godlessness: essentially a secular and immoral empire, which would seek to impose secularism across Muslim countries. So supporting radical Islamic groups would mean that the Soviet Union would be less likely to have any influence or relations with Middle Eastern countries, making the US a more acceptable candidate for developing relations.


A 1979 article in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, described the Arc of Crisis, saying that, "The Middle East constitutes its central core. Its strategic position is unequalled: it is the last major region of the Free World directly adjacent to the Soviet Union, it holds in its subsoil about three-fourths of the proven and estimated world oil reserves, and it is the locus of one of the most intractable conflicts of the twentieth century: that of Zionism versus Arab nationalism." It went on to explain that post-war US policy in the region was focused on "containment" of the Soviet Union, as well as access to the regions oil.[14] The article continued, explaining that the most "obvious division" within the Middle East is, "that which separates the Northern Tier (Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan) from the Arab core," and that, "After World War II, Turkey and Iran were the two countries most immediately threatened by Soviet territorial expansionism and political subversion."[15] Ultimately, "the Northern Tier was assured of a serious and sustained American commitment to save it from sharing the fate of Eastern Europe."[16]


While Khomeini was in Paris prior to the Revolution, a representative of the French President organized a meeting between Khomeini and "current world powers," in which Khomeini made certain demands, such as, "the shah's removal from Iran and help in avoiding a coup d'état by the Iranian Army." The Western powers, however, "were worried about the Soviet Union's empowerment and penetration and a disruption in Iran's oil supply to the west. Khomeini gave the necessary guarantees. These meetings and contacts were taking place in January of 1979, just a few days before the Islamic Revolution in February 1979."[17] In February of 1979, Khomeini was flown out of Paris on an Air France flight, to return to Iran, "with the blessing of Jimmy Carter."[18] Ayatollah Khomeini named Mehdi Bazargan as prime minister of the Provisional Revolutionary Government on February 4, 1979. As Khomeini had demanded during his Paris meeting in January 1979, that western powers must help in avoiding a coup by the Iranian Army; in that same month, the Carter administration, under the direction of Brzezinski, had begun planning a military coup.[19]


Could this have been planned in the event that Khomeini was overthrown, the US would quickly reinstate order, perhaps even place Khomeini back in power? Interestingly, in January of 1979, "as the Shah was about to leave the country, the American Deputy Commander in NATO, General Huyser, arrived and over a period of a month conferred constantly with Iranian military leaders. His influence may have been substantial on the military's decision not to attempt a coup and eventually to yield to the Khomeini forces, especially if press reports are accurate that he or others threatened to withhold military supplies if a coup were attempted."[20] No coup was subsequently undertaken, and Khomeini came to power as the Ayatollah of the Islamic Republic of Iran.


As tensions increased among the population within Iran, the US sent "security advisers" to Iran to pressure the Shah's SAVAK (secret police) to implement "a policy of ever more brutal repression, in a manner calculated to maximize popular antipathy to the Shah." The Carter administration also began publicly criticizing the Shah's human rights abuses.[21] On September 6, 1978, the Shah banned demonstrations, and the following day, between 700 and 2000 demonstrators were gunned down, following "advice from Brzezinski to be firm."[22]


The US Ambassador to the UN, Andrew Young, a Trilateral Commission member, said that, "Khomeini will eventually be hailed as a saint," and the US Ambassador to Iran, William Sullivan, said, "Khomeini is a Gandhi-like figure," while Carter's adviser, James Bill, said that Khomeini was a man of "impeccable integrity and honesty."[23]


The Shah was also very sick in late 1978 and early 1979. So the Shah fled Iran in January of 1979 to the Bahamas, allowing for the revolution to take place. It is especially interesting to understand the relationship between David Rockefeller and the Shah of Iran. David Rockefeller's personal assistant, Joseph V. Reed, had been "assigned to handle the shah's finances and his personal needs;" Robert Armao, who worked for Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, was sent to "act as the shah's public relations agent and lobbyist;" and Benjamin H. Kean, "a longtime associate of Chase Manhattan Bank chairman David Rockefeller," and David Rockefeller's "personal physician," who was sent to Mexico when the shah was there, and advised that he "be treated at an American hospital."[24]


It is important to note that Rockefeller interests "had directed U.S. policy in Iran since the CIA coup of 1953."[25] Following the Shah's flight from Iran, there were increased pressures within the United States by a handful of powerful people to have the Shah admitted to the United States. These individuals were Zbigniew Brzezinski, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, John J. McCloy, former statesman and senior member of the Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, who was also a lawyer for Chase Manhattan, and of course, David Rockefeller.[26]


Chase Manhattan Bank had more interests in Iran than any other US bank. In fact, the Shah had "ordered that all his government's major operating accounts be held at Chase and that letters of credit for the purchase of oil be handled exclusively through Chase. The bank also became the agent and lead manager for many of the loans to Iran. In short, Iran became the crown jewel of Chase's international banking portfolio."[27]


The Iranian interim government, headed by Prime Minister Bazargan, collapsed in November of 1979, when Iranian hostages seized the US Embassy in Teheran. However, there is much more to this event than meets the eye. During the time of the interim government (February, 1979 to November, 1979), several actions were undertaken which threatened some very powerful interests who had helped the Ayatollah into power.


Chase Manhattan Bank faced a liquidity crisis as there had been billions in questionable loans to Iran funneled through Chase.[28] Several of Chase's loans were "possibly illegal under the Iranian constitution."[29] Further, in February of 1979, once the interim government was put in power, it began to take "steps to market its oil independently of the Western oil majors." Also, the interim government "wanted Chase Manhattan to return Iranian assets, which Rockefeller put at more than $1 billion in 1978, although some estimates ran much higher," which could have "created a liquidity crisis for the bank which already was coping with financial troubles."[30]


With the seizure of the American Embassy in Iran, President Carter took moves to freeze Iranian financial assets. As David Rockefeller wrote in his book, "Carter's 'freeze' of official Iranian assets protected our [Chase Manhattan's] position, but no one at Chase played a role in convincing the administration to institute it."[31]


In February of 1979, Iran had been taking "steps to market its oil independently of the Western oil majors. In 1979, as in 1953, a freeze of Iranian assets made this action more difficult."[32] This was significant for Chase Manhattan not simply because of the close interlocking of the board with those of oil companies, not to mention Rockefeller himself, who is patriarch of the family whose name is synonymous with oil, but also because Chase exclusively handled all the letters of credit for the purchase of Iranian oil.[33]


The Shah being accepted into the United States, under public pressure from Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Rockefeller, precipitated the hostage crisis, which occurred on November 4. Ten days later, Carter froze all Iranian assets in US banks, on the advice of his Treasury Secretary, William Miller. Miller just happened to have ties to Chase Manhattan Bank.[34]


Although Chase Manhattan directly benefited from the seizure of Iranian assets, the reasoning behind the seizure as well as the events leading up to it, such as a hidden role for the Anglo-Americans behind the Iranian Revolution, bringing the Shah to America, which precipitated the hostage crisis, cannot simply be relegated to personal benefit for Chase. There were larger designs behind this crisis. So the 1979 crises in Iran cannot simply be pawned off as a spur of the moment undertaking, but rather should be seen as quick actions taken upon a perceived opportunity. The opportunity was the rising discontent within Iran at the Shah; the quick actions were in covertly pushing the country into Revolution.


In 1979, "effectively restricting the access of Iran to the global oil market, the Iranian assets freeze became a major factor in the huge oil price increases of 1979 and 1981."[35] Added to this, in 1979, British Petroleum cancelled major oil contracts for oil supply, which along with cancellations taken by Royal Dutch Shell, drove the price of oil up higher.[36] With the first major oil price rises in 1973 (urged on by US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger), the Third World was forced to borrow heavily from US and European banks to finance development. With the second oil price shocks of 1979, the US Federal Reserve, with Paul Volcker as its new Chairman, (himself having served a career under David Rockefeller at Chase Manhattan), dramatically raised interest rates from 2% in the late 70s to 18% in the early 80s. Developing nations could not afford to pay such interest on their loans, and thus the 1980s debt crisis spread throughout the Third World, with the IMF and World Bank coming to the "rescue" with their Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs), which ensured western control over the developing world's economies.[37]


Covertly, the United States helped a radical Islamist government come to power in Iran, "the center of the Arc of Crisis," and then immediately stirred up conflict and war in the region. Five months before Iraq invaded Iran, in April of 1980, Zbigniew Brzezinski openly declared the willingness of the US to work closely with Iraq. Two months before the war, Brzezinski met with Saddam Hussein in Jordan, where he gave support for the destabilization of Iran.[38] While Saddam was in Jordan, he also met with three senior CIA agents, which was arranged by King Hussein of Jordan. He then went to meet with King Fahd in Saudi Arabia, informing him of his plans to invade Iran, and then met with the King of Kuwait to inform him of the same thing. He gained support from America, and financial and arms support from the Arab oil producing countries. Arms to Iraq were funneled through Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.[39] The war lasted until 1988 and resulted in over a million deaths.


This was the emergence of the "strategy of tension" in the "Arc of Crisis," in particular, the covert support (whether in arming, training, or financing) of radical Islamic elements to foment violence and conflict in a region. It was the old imperial tactic of 'divide and conquer': pit the people against each other so that they cannot join forces against the imperial power. This violence and radical Islamism would further provide the pretext for which the US and its imperial allies could then engage in war and occupation within the region, all the while securing its vast economic and strategic interests.


The "Arc of Crisis" in Afghanistan: The Safari Club in Action


In 1978, the progressive Taraki government in Afghanistan managed to incur the anger of the United States due to "its egalitarian and collectivist economic policies."[40] The Afghan government was widely portrayed in the West as "Communist" and thus, a threat to US national security. The government, did, however, undertake friendly policies and engagement with the Soviet Union, but was not a Communist government.


In 1978, as the new government came to power, almost immediately the US began covertly funding rebel groups through the CIA.[41] In 1979, Zbigniew Brzezinski worked closely with his aid from the CIA, Robert Gates (who is currently Secretary of Defense), in shifting President Carter's Islamic policy. As Brzezinski said in a 1998 interview with a French publication:


According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.[42]


Brzezinski elaborated, saying he "Knowingly increased the probability that [the Soviets] would invade," and he recalled writing to Carter on the day of the Soviet invasion that, "We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire." When asked about the repercussions for such support in fostering the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, Brzezinski responded, "What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?"[43]


As author Peter Dale Scott pointed out in, The Road to 9/11:*


For generations in both Afghanistan and the Soviet Muslim Republics the dominant form of Islam had been local and largely Sufi. The decision to work with the Saudi and Pakistani secret services meant that billions of CIA and Saudi dollars would ultimately be spent in programs that would help enhance the globalistic and Wahhabistic jihadism that are associated today with al Qaeda.[44]


Hafizullah Amin, a top official in Taraki's government, who many believed to be a CIA asset, orchestrated a coup in September of 1979, and "executed Taraki, halted the reforms, and murdered, jailed, or exiled thousands of Taraki supporters as he moved toward establishing a fundamentalist Islamic state. But within two months, he was overthrown by PDP remnants including elements within the military."[45] The Soviets also intervened in order to replace Amin, who was seen as "unpredictable and extremist" with "the more moderate Barbak Karmal."[46]


The Soviet invasion thus prompted the US national security establishment to undertake the largest covert operation in history. When Ronald Reagan replaced Jimmy Carter in 1981, the covert assistance to the Afghan Mujahideen not only continued on the path set by Brzezinski but it rapidly accelerated, as did the overall strategy in the "Arc of Crisis." When Reagan became President, his Vice President became George H.W. Bush, who, as CIA director during the Ford administration, had helped establish the Safari Club intelligence network and the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) in Pakistan. In the "campaign to aid the Afghan rebels ... BCCI clearly emerged as a U.S. intelligence asset," and CIA Director "Casey began to use the outside – the Saudis, the Pakistanis, BCCI – to run what they couldn't get through Congress. [BCCI president] Abedi had the money to help," and the CIA director had "met repeatedly" with the president of BCCI.[47]


Thus, in 1981, Director Casey of the CIA worked with Saudi Prince Turki bin Faisal who ran the Saudi intelligence agency GID, and the Pakistani ISI "to create a foreign legion of jihadi Muslims or so-called Arab Afghans." This idea had "originated in the elite Safari Club that had been created by French intelligence chief Alexandre de Marenches."[48]


In 1986, the CIA backed a plan by the Pakistani ISI "to recruit people from around the world to join the Afghan jihad." Subsequently:


More than 100,000 Islamic militants were trained in Pakistan between 1986 and 1992, in camps overseen by CIA and MI6, with the SAS [British Special Forces] training future al-Qaida and Taliban fighters in bomb-making and other black arts. Their leaders were trained at a CIA camp in Virginia. This was called Operation Cyclone and continued long after the Soviets had withdrawn in 1989.[49]


CIA funding for the operations "was funneled through General Zia and the ISI in Pakistan."[50] Interestingly, Robert Gates, who previously served as assistant to Brzezinski in the National Security Council, stayed on in the Reagan-Bush administration as executive assistant to CIA director Casey, and who is currently Secretary of Defense.


The Global Drug Trade and the CIA


As a central facet of the covert financing and training of the Afghan Mujahideen, the role of the drug trade became invaluable. The global drug trade has long been used by empires for fuelling and financing conflict with the aim of facilitating imperial domination.


In 1773, the British colonial governor in Bengal "established a colonial monopoly on the sale of opium." As Alfred W. McCoy explained in his masterful book, The Politics of Heroin:


As the East India Company expanded production, opium became India's main export. [. . . ] Over the next 130 years, Britain actively promoted the export of Indian opium to China, defying Chinese drug laws and fighting two wars to open China's opium market for its merchants. Using its military and mercantile power, Britain played a central role in making China a vast drug market and in accelerating opium cultivation throughout China. By 1900 China had 13.5 million addicts consuming 39,000 tons of opium.[51]


In Indochina in the 1940s and 50s, the French intelligence services "enabled the opium trade to survive government suppression efforts," and subsequently, "CIA activities in Burma helped transform the Shan states from a relatively minor poppy-cultivating area into the largest opium-growing region in the world."[52] The CIA did this by supporting the Kuomintang (KMT) army in Burma for an invasion of China, and facilitated its monopolization and expansion of the opium trade, allowing the KMT to remain in Burma until a coup in 1961, when they were driven into Laos and Thailand.[53] The CIA subsequently played a very large role in the facilitation of the drugs trade in Laos and Vietnam throughout the 1960s and into the 1970s.[54]


It was during the 1980s that "the CIA's covert war in Afghanistan transformed Central Asia from a self-contained opium zone into a major supplier of heroin for the world market," as:


Until the late 1970s, tribal farmers in the highlands of Afghanistan and Pakistan grew limited quantities of opium and sold it to merchant caravans bound west for Iran and east to India. In its decade of covert warfare against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the CIA's operations provided the political protection and logistics linkages that joined Afghanistan's poppy fields to heroin markets in Europe and America.[55]


In 1977, General Zia Ul Haq in Pakistan launched a military coup, "imposed a harsh martial-law regime," and executed former President Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (father to Benazir Bhutto). When Zia came to power, the Pakistani ISI was a "minor military intelligence unit," but, under the "advice and assistance of the CIA," General Zia transformed the ISI "into a powerful covert unit and made it the strong arm of his martial-law regime."[56]


The CIA and Saudi money flowed not only to weapons and training for the Mujahideen, but also into the drug trade. Pakistani President Zia-ul-Haq appointed General Fazle Haq as the military governor of Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), who would "consult with Brzezinski on developing an Afghan resistance program," and who became a CIA asset. When CIA Director Casey or Vice President George H.W. Bush reviewed the CIA Afghan operation, they went to see Haq; who by 1982, was considered by Interpol to be an international narcotics trafficker. Haq moved much of the narcotics money through the BCCI.[57]


In May of 1979, prior to the December invasion of the Soviet Union into Afghanistan, a CIA envoy met with Afghan resistance leaders in a meeting organized by the ISI. The ISI "offered the CIA envoy an alliance with its own Afghan client, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar," who led a small guerilla group. The CIA accepted, and over the following decade, half of the CIA's aid went to Hekmatyar's guerillas.[58] Hekmatyar became Afghanistan's leading mujahideen drug lord, and developed a "complex of six heroin labs in an ISI-controlled area of Baluchistan (Pakistan)."[59]


The US subsequently, through the 1980s, in conjunction with Saudi Arabia, gave Hekmatyar more than $1 billion in armaments. Immediately, heroin began flowing from Afghanistan to America. By 1980, drug-related deaths in New York City rose 77% since 1979.[60] By 1981, the drug lords in Pakistan and Afghanistan supplied 60% of America's heroin. Trucks going into Afghanistan with CIA arms from Pakistan would return with heroin "protected by ISI papers from police search."[61]


Haq, the CIA asset in Pakistan, "was also running the drug trade," of which the bank BCCI "was completely involved." In the 1980s, the CIA insisted that the ISI create "a special cell for the use of heroin for covert actions." Elaborating:


This cell promoted the cultivation of opium and the extraction of heroin in Pakistani territory as well as in the Afghan territory under Mujahideen control for being smuggled into Soviet controlled areas in order to make the Soviet troops heroin addicts.[62]


This plan apparently originated at the suggestion of French intelligence chief and founder of the Safari Club, Alexandre de Marenches, who recommended it to CIA Director Casey.[63]


In the 1980s, one program undertaken by the United States was to finance Mujahideen propaganda in textbooks for Afghan schools. The US gave the Mujahideen $43 million in "non-lethal" aid for the textbook project alone, which was given by USAID: "The U.S. Agency for International Development, [USAID] coordinated its work with the CIA, which ran the weapons program," and "The U.S. government told the AID to let the Afghan war chiefs decide the school curriculum and the content of the textbooks."[64]


The textbooks were "filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings," and "were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines." Even since the covert war of the 1980s, the textbooks "have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books." The books were developed through a USAID grant to the "University of Nebraska-Omaha and its Center for Afghanistan Studies," and when the books were smuggled into Afghanistan through regional military leaders, "Children were taught to count with illustrations showing tanks, missiles and land mines." USAID stopped this funding in 1994.[65]


The Rise of the Taliban


When the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989, the fighting continued between the Afghan government backed by the USSR and the Mujahideen backed by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, so too did its aid to the Afghan government, which itself was overthrown in 1992. However, fighting almost immediately broke out between rival factions vying for power, including Hekmatyar.


In the early 1990s, an obscure group of "Pashtun country folk" had become a powerful military and political force in Afghanistan, known as the Taliban.[66] The Taliban "surfaced as a small militia force operating near Kandahar city during the spring and summer of 1994, carrying out vigilante attacks against minor warlords." As growing discontent with the warlords grew, so too did the reputation of the Taliban.[67]


The Taliban acquired an alliance with the ISI in 1994, and throughout 1995, the relationship between the Taliban and the ISI accelerated and "became more and more of a direct military alliance." The Taliban ultimately became "an asset of the ISI" and "a client of the Pakistan army."[68] Further, "Between 1994 and 1996, the USA supported the Taliban politically through its allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, essentially because Washington viewed the Taliban as anti-Iranian, anti-Shia, and pro-Western."[69]


Selig Harrison, a scholar with the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars and "a leading US expert on South Asia," said at a conference in India that the CIA worked with Pakistan to create the Taliban. Harrison has "extensive contact" with the CIA, as "he had meetings with CIA leaders at the time when Islamic forces were being strengthened in Afghanistan," while he was a senior associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. As he further revealed in 2001, "The CIA still has close links with the ISI."[70] By 1996, the Taliban had control of Kandahar, but still fighting and instability continued in the country.


Osama and Al-Qaeda


Between 1980 and 1989, roughly $600 million was passed through Osama bin Laden's charity front organizations, specifically the Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK), also known as Al-Kifah. The money mostly originated with wealthy donors in Saudi Arabia and other areas in the Persian Gulf, and was funneled through his charity fronts to arm and fund the mujahideen in Afghanistan.[71]


In the 1980s, the British Special Forces (SAS) were training mujahideen in Afghanistan, as well as in secret camps in Scotland, and the SAS is largely taking orders from the CIA. The CIA also indirectly begins to arm Osama bin Laden.[72] Osama bin Laden's front charity, the MAK, "was nurtured" by the Pakistani ISI.[73]


Osama bin Laden was reported to have been personally recruited by the CIA in 1979 in Istanbul. He had the close support of Prince Turki bin Faisal, his friend and head of Saudi intelligence, and also developed ties with Hekmatyar in Afghanistan,[74] both of whom were pivotal figures in the CIA-Safari Club network. General Akhtar Abdul Rahman, the head of the Pakistani ISI from 1980 to 1987, would meet regularly with Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, and they formed a partnership in demanding a tax on the opium trade from warlords so that by 1985, bin Laden and the ISI were splitting the profits of over $100 million per year.[75] In 1985, Osama bin Laden's brother, Salem, stated that Osama was "the liaison between the US, the Saudi government, and the Afghan rebels."[76]


In 1988, Bin Laden discussed "the establishment of a new military group," which would come to be known as Al-Qaeda.[77] Osama bin Laden's charity front, the MAK, (eventually to form Al-Qaeda) founded the al-Kifah Center in Brooklyn, New York, to recruit Muslims for the jihad against the Soviets. The al-Kifah Center was founded in the late 1980s with the support of the U.S. government, which provided visas for known terrorists associated with the organization, including Ali Mohamed, the "blind sheik" Omar Abdel Rahman and possibly the lead 9/11 hijacker, Mohamed Atta.[78]


This coincided with the creation of Al-Qaeda, of which the al-Kifah Center was a recruiting front. Foot soldiers for Al-Qaeda were "admitted to the United States for training under a special visa program." The FBI had been surveilling the training of terrorists, however, "it terminated this surveillance in the fall of 1989." In 1990, the CIA granted Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman a visa to come run the al-Kifah Center, who was considered an "untouchable" as he was "being protected by no fewer than three agencies," including the State Department, the National Security Agency (NSA) and the CIA.[79]


Robin Cook, a former British MP and Minister of Foreign Affairs wrote that Al-Qaeda, "literally 'the database', was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians."[80] Thus, "Al-Qaeda" was born as an instrument of western intelligence agencies. This account of al-Qaeda was further corroborated by a former French military intelligence agent, who stated that, "In the mid-1980s, Al Qaida was a database," and that it remained as such into the 1990s. He contended that, "Al Qaida was neither a terrorist group nor Osama bin Laden's personal property," and further:


The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the 'devil' only in order to drive the 'TV watcher' to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US and the lobbyists for the US war on terrorism are only interested in making money.[81]


The creation of Al-Qaeda was thus facilitated by the CIA and allied intelligence networks, the purpose of which was to maintain this "database" of Mujahideen to be used as intelligence assets to achieve US foreign policy objectives, throughout both the Cold War, and into the post-Cold War era of the 'new world order'.


Part 2 of "The Imperial Anatomy of al-Qaeda" takes the reader through an examination of the new imperial strategy laid out by American geopolitical strategists at the end of the Cold War, designed for America to maintain control over the world's resources and prevent the rise of competitive powers. Covertly, the "database" (al-Qaeda) became central to this process, being used to advance imperial aims in various regions, such as in the dismantling of Yugoslavia. Part 2 further examines the exact nature of 'al-Qaeda', its origins, terms, training, arming, financing, and expansion. In particular, the roles of western intelligence agencies in the evolution and expansion of al-Qaeda is a central focus. Finally, an analysis of the preparations for the war in Afghanistan is undertaken to shed light on the geopolitical ambitions behind the conflict that has now been waging for nearly nine years.


* [Note on the research: For a comprehensive analysis of the history, origins and nature of al-Qaeda, see: Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire and the Future of America, which provided much of the research in the above article.]




[1]        Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, The War on Truth: 9/11, Disinformation, and the Anatomy of Terrorism. (Northampton: Olive Branch Press, 2005), page 331 

[2]        Pipelineistan: The rules of the game. Asia Times: January 26, 2002:

Seymour Hersh, The Price of Oil. The New Yorker: July 9, 2001

[3]        Tyler, Patrick E. U.S. Strategy Plan Calls for Insuring No Rivals Develop: A One Superpower World. The New York Times: March 8, 1992.

[4]        Ibid.

[5]        John Roberts, Roots of Allied Farce. The American Spectator: May 4, 1999:

[6]        Ibid. 

[7]        Michel Chossudovsky, Dismantling Former Yugoslavia, Recolonizing Bosnia-Herzegovina. Global Research: February 19, 2002:

[8]        David Binder, Yugoslavia Seen Breaking Up Soon. The New York Times: November 28, 1990 

[9]        Gary Wilson, New reports show secret U.S. role in Balkan war. Workers World News Service: 1996:
[10]      Ian Traynor, Croat general on trial for war crimes. The Guardian: March 12, 2008:

[11]      Adam LeBor, Croat general Ante Gotovina stands trial for war crimes. The Times Online: March 11, 2008:

[12]      Brendan O'Neill, 'You are only allowed to see Bosnia in black and white'. Spiked: January 23, 2004:

[13]      Richard J. Aldrich, America used Islamists to arm the Bosnian Muslims. The Guardian: April 22, 2002:

[14]      Tim Judah, German spies accused of arming Bosnian Muslims. The Telegraph: April 20, 1997:

[15]      Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America. University of California Press: 2007: pages 149-150

[16]      History Commons, Serbia and Montenegro: 1996-1999: Albanian Mafia and KLA Take Control of Balkan Heroin Trafficking Route. The Center for Cooperative Research:

[17]      History Commons, Serbia and Montenegro: 1997: KLA Surfaces to Resist Serbian Persecution of Albanians. The Center for Cooperative Research:

[18]      History Commons, Serbia and Montenegro: February 1998: State Department Removes KLA from Terrorism List. The Center for Cooperative Research:

[19]      Marcia Christoff Kurop, Al Qaeda's Balkan Links. The Wall Street Journal: November 1, 2001:

[20]      Global Research, German Intelligence and the CIA supported Al Qaeda sponsored Terrorists in Yugoslavia. Global Research: February 20, 2005:

[21]      Michel Chossudovsky, Kosovo: The US and the EU support a Political Process linked to Organized Crime. Global Research: February 12, 2008:

[22]      Andrew Gavin Marshall, Breaking Yugoslavia. Geopolitical Monitor: July 21, 2008:

[23]      Aleksandar Pavi, Correspondence between German Politicians Reveals the Hidden Agenda behind Kosovo's "Independence". Global Research: March 12, 2008:

[24]      Jacob Heilbrunn and Michael Lind, The Third American Empire. The New York Times: January 2, 1996:

[25]      George Monbiot, A discreet deal in the pipeline. The Guardian: February 15, 2001:

[26]      Ibid.

[27]      Robert Dreyfuss, Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam. Owl Books, 2005: page 332-333 

[28]      Bernard Lewis, Rethinking the Middle East. Foreign Affairs, Fall 1992: pages 116-117

[29]      Stephen Braun and Judy Pasternak, Long Before Sept. 11, Bin Laden Aircraft Flew Under the Radar. The Los Angeles Times: November 18, 2001:,0,7388562.story

[30]      Ibid.

[31]      Ibid. 

[32]      John Crewdson, German Intelligence Points to Two Saudi Companies As Having Al Qaeda Links. The Chicago Tribune: March 31, 2004

[33]      Billy Waugh and Tim Keown, Hunting the Jackal: A Special Forces and CIA Ground Soldier's Fifty-Year Career Hunting America's Enemies. (William Morrow, 2004), pages 173, 303, 308 

[34]      Martin Bright, MI6 'halted bid to arrest bin Laden'. The Guardian: November 10, 2002:

[35]      Ibid. 

[36]      Michel Chossudovsky, Who Is Osama bin Laden? Global Research: September 12, 2001:

[37]      Mark Ames, Dividing Russia. AlterNet: June 29, 2005:

[38]      Adrian Blomfield and Mike Smith, Gorbachev: US could start new Cold War. The Telegraph: May 6, 2008:

[39]      Marcus Warren, Back garden 'oil barons' spring up in Chechnya. The Telegraph: June 7, 2002:

Peter Dale Scott, Pipeline Politics - Oil Behind Plan for U.S. Troops in Georgia. New American Media: February 28, 2002:

Michel Chossudovsky, Who Is Osama bin Laden? Global Research: September 12, 2001:

Sharon LaFraniere, How Jihad Made Its Way to Chechnya. The Washington Post: April 26, 2003:

BBC, Obituary: Chechen rebel Khattab. BBC World News: April 26, 2002:

[40]      Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Our Terrorists. The New Internationalist: October 2009:

[41]      PNAC, Rebuilding America's Defenses. Project for the New American Century: September 2000, pages 6, 8, 9, 14, 51:

[42]      Ibid.

[43]      Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books, 1997: Page 40 

[44]      Ibid, page 124.

[45]      Ibid, page 148. 

[46]      BBC, Taleban in Texas for talks on gas pipeline. BBC World: December 4, 1997:

[47]      Thomson Financial, Amoco Argentina-Oil Assets acquires Bridas Corp-South American Oil from Bridas Corp. Thomson Financial Mergers and Acquisitions: November 17, 1997:

[48]      BBC, Afghan Pipeline Deal Close. BBC World: November 3, 1997:

[49]      BBC, Taleban says it's ready to sign Turkmen pipeline deal. BBC News: January 4, 1998:

[50]      Brian Becker, Where have all the cold warriors gone? U.S. oil giants drain Azerbaijan. Workers World: August 21, 1997:

[51]      Mary Pat Flaherty, David B. Ottaway and James V. Grimaldi, How Afghanistan Went Unlisted as Terrorist Sponsor. The Washington Post: November 5, 2001:

[52]      Steven Levine, Unocal Quits Afghanistan Pipeline Project. The New York Times: December 5, 1998:

[53]      History Commons, 1996-September 11, 2001: Enron Gives Taliban Millions in Bribes in Effort to Get Afghan Pipeline Built.

[54]      Halliburton, Halliburton Alliance Awarded Integrated Service Contract Offshore Caspian Sea In Turkmenistan. 1997 Press Releases: October 27, 1997:

[55]      Dale Allen Pfeiffer, The Forging of 'Pipelineistan'. From the Wilderness: 2002:

[56]      Ritt Goldstein, Oil wars Pentagon's policy since 1999. Sydney Morning Herald: May 20, 2003:

[57]      S. Frederick Starr, Afghanistan Land Mine. The Washington Post: December 19, 2000:

[58]      Rahul Bedi, India joins anti-Taliban coalition. Jane's Security News: March 15, 2001:

[59]      SMH, Defence redefined means securing cheap energy. Sydney Morning Herald: December 26, 2002:

[60]      David Leigh, Attack and counter-attack. The Guardian: September 26, 2001:,4273,4264545,00.html

[61]      George Arney, US 'planned attack on Taleban'. BBC News: September 18, 2001:

[62]      Jim Miklaszewski and Alex Johnson, U.S. sought attack on al-Qaida. MSNBC: May 16, 2002:

[63]      Michael Meacher, This War on Terrorism is Bogus. The Guardian: September 6, 2003:

[64]      George Monbiot, America's pipe dream. The Guardian: October 23, 2001:

[65]      Ted Rall, It's About Oil. The San Francisco Chronicle: November 2, 2001:

The End of the Cold War and Strategy for the New World Order

With the end of the Cold War a new strategy had to be determined to manage the global system. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, declarations of a "New World Order" sprang forward, focusing on the United States as the single world superpower. This presented a great many challenges as well as opportunities for the worlds most powerful hegemon.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, a number of new Central Asian and Eastern European nations were formed and became independent, and with that, their immense deposits of natural gas and energy became available for exploitation. Afghanistan itself was considered "a major strategic pivot," as it was "the primary gateway to Central Asia and the immense energy deposits therein."[1] Western oil companies such as ExxonMobil, Texaco, Unocal, BP Amoco, Shell, and Enron begin pouring billions of dollars into the countries of Central Asia in the early 1990s.[2]

In 1992, a Pentagon document titled "Defense Planning Guidance" was leaked to the press, in which it described a strategy for the United States in the "new world order," and it was drafted by George H.W. Bush's Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. It stated that, "America's political and military mission in the post-cold-war era will be to ensure that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge in Western Europe, Asia or the territories of the former Soviet Union," and that, "The classified document makes the case for a world dominated by one superpower whose position can be perpetuated by constructive behavior and sufficient military might to deter any nation or group of nations from challenging American primacy."[3]

Further, "the new draft sketches a world in which there is one dominant military power whose leaders 'must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'." Among the necessary challenges to American supremacy, the document "postulated regional wars against Iraq and North Korea," and identified China and Russia as its major threats. It further "suggests that the United States could also consider extending to Eastern and Central European nations security commitments similar to those extended to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Arab states along the Persian Gulf."[4]

Similarly, in 1992, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, one of the most influential think tanks in the United States, had established a commission to determine a new foreign policy for the United States in the wake of the Cold War. Participants included Madeleine Albright, Henry Cisneros, John Deutch, Richard Holbrooke, Alice Rivlin, David Gergen and Admiral William Crowe. In the summer of 1992, the final report, "Changing Our Ways: America and the New World," was published. The report urged "a new principle of international relations: the destruction or displacement of groups of people within states can justify international intervention." It suggested that the US "realign NATO and OSCE [Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe] to deal with new security problems in Europe," and "urged military intervention under humanitarian guises." This report subsequently "planted the policy seedlings for the Kosovo war" as it "provided both the rationale for U.S. interventionism and a policy recommendation about the best means--NATO--for waging that war."[5]

Another Carnegie publication in the same year, "Self-Determination in the New World Order," furthered imperialist goals for America, as it "set criteria for officials to use in deciding when to support separatist ethnic groups seeking independence, and advocated military force for that purpose." It recommended that "international military coalitions, preferably U.N.-led, could send armed force not as peacekeepers but peacemakers--to prevent conflict from breaking out and stay in place indefinitely." It further stated that, "the use of military force to create a new state would require conduct by the parent government so egregious that it has forfeited any right to govern the minority claiming self-determination."[6]

The United States and its NATO allies soon undertook a new strategy, seeking to maintain dominance over the world, expand their hegemony over regions previously under the influence of the Soviet Union (such as in Eastern Europe and Central Asia), and prevent the rise of a resurgent Russia or China. One of the key facets of this strategy was the notion of "humanitarian intervention."

Yugoslavia Dismantled by Design

In the 1990s, the United States and its NATO allies, in particular Germany and the UK, undertook a strategy of destabilization in Yugoslavia, seeking to dismantle and ultimately fracture the country. To do this, the imperial strategy of divide and conquer was employed, manipulating various ethnic tensions and arming and training various militias and terrorist organizations. Throughout this strategy, the "database", or Al-Qaeda was used to promote the agenda of the destabilization and dismantling of Yugoslavia.

In 1989, Yugoslavia had to seek financial aid from the World Bank and IMF, which implemented a Structural Adjustment Program (SAP), which resulted in the dismantling of the public state, exacerbating social issues and fueling secessionist tendencies, leading to Croatia and Slovenia seceding from the republic in 1991.[7] In 1990, the US intelligence community had released a report predicting that Yugoslavia would break apart and erupt in civil war, and it blamed Milosevic for the impending disaster.[8]

As far back as 1988, the leader of Croatia met with the German Chancellor Helmut Kohl to create "a joint policy to break up Yugoslavia," and bring Slovenia and Croatia into the "German economic zone." So, US Army officers were dispatched to Croatia, Bosnia, Albania, and Macedonia as "advisers" and brought in US Special Forces to help.[9]

Fighting broke out between Yugoslavia and Croatia when the latter declared independence in 1991. The fighting subsequently lasted until 1995, and merged in part with the Bosnian war. The US supported the operation and the CIA actively provided intelligence to Croat forces, leading to the displacement of between 150,000 and 200,000 Serbs, largely through means of murder, plundering, burning villages and ethnic cleansing.[10] The Croatian Army was trained by U.S. advisers and a general later put on trial at the Hague for war crimes was personally supported by the CIA.[11] So we see the double standard of ethnic cleansing and genocide: when the US does it or supports it, it's "humanitarian intervention," politically justified, or it is simply unacknowledged; when an enemy state does it, (or is accused of doing it), the "international community" demands action and any means is deemed necessary to "prevent genocide", including committing genocide.

The Clinton administration gave the "green light" to Iran to arm the Bosnian Muslims and "from 1992 to January 1996, there was an influx of Iranian weapons and advisers into Bosnia." Further, "Iran, and other Muslim states, helped to bring Mujahideen fighters into Bosnia to fight with the Muslims against the Serbs, 'holy warriors' from Afghanistan, Chechnya, Yemen and Algeria, some of whom had suspected links with Osama bin Laden's training camps in Afghanistan."[12]

During the war in Bosnia, there "was a vast secret conduit of weapons smuggling though Croatia. This was arranged by the clandestine agencies of the US, Turkey and Iran, together with a range of radical Islamist groups, including Afghan mojahedin and the pro-Iranian Hizbullah." Further, "the secret services of Ukraine, Greece and Israel were busy arming the Bosnian Serbs."[13] Germany's intelligence agency, the BND, also ran arms shipments to the Bosnian Muslims and Croatia to fight against the Serbs.[14] Thus, every side was being funded and armed by outside powers seeking to foment conflict and ultimately break up Yugoslavia to serve their own imperial objectives in the region.

In 1992, the al-Kifah Center in Brooklyn, the recruiting center for al-Qaeda, made Bosnia its chief target. By 1993, it opened a branch in Croatia. The recruitment operation for Bosnian Muslims "was a covert action project sponsored not only by Saudi Arabia but also in part by the US government."[15]

In 1996, the Albanian Mafia, in collaboration with the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), a militant guerilla organization, took control over the enormous Balkan heroin trafficking routes. The KLA was linked to former Afghan Mujaheddin fighters in Afghanistan, including Osama bin Laden.[16]

In 1997, the KLA began fighting against Serbian forces,[17] and in 1998, the US State Department removed the KLA from its list of terrorist organizations.[18] Before and after 1998, the KLA was receiving arms, training and support from the US and NATO, and Clinton's Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, was close with KLA leader Hashim Thaci.[19]

Both the CIA and German intelligence, the BND, supported the KLA terrorists in Yugoslavia prior to and after the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. The BND had KLA contacts since the early 1990s, the same period that the KLA was establishing its Al-Qaeda contacts.[20] KLA members were trained by Osama bin Laden at training camps in Afghanistan. Even the UN stated that much of the violence at the time came from KLA members, "especially those allied with Hashim Thaci."[21]

The March 1999 NATO bombing of Kosovo was justified on the pretense of putting an end to Serbian oppression of Kosovo Albanians, which was termed genocide. The Clinton Administration made claims that at least 100,000 Kosovo Albanians were missing and "may have been killed" by the Serbs. Bill Clinton personally compared events in Kosovo to the Holocaust. The US State Department had stated that up to 500,000 Albanians were feared dead. Eventually, the official estimate was reduced to 10,000, however, after exhaustive investigations, it was revealed that the death of less than 2,500 Albanians could be attributed to the Serbs. During the NATO bombing campaign, between 400 and 1,500 Serb civilians were killed, and NATO committed war crimes, including the bombing of a Serb TV station and a hospital.[22]

Ultimately the strategy of the destabilization of Yugoslavia served various imperial objectives. The war in Yugoslavia was waged in order to enlarge NATO, Serbia was to be excluded permanently from European development to justify a US military presence in the region, and expansion was ultimately designed to contain Russia.[23]

An op-ed in the New York Times in 1996 stated that, "instead of seeing Bosnia as the eastern frontier of NATO, we should view the Balkans as the western frontier of America's rapidly expanding sphere of influence in the Middle East." Further:

The fact that the United States is more enthusiastic than its European allies about a Bosnian Muslim state reflects, among other things, the new American role as the leader of an informal collection of Muslim nations from the Persian Gulf to the Balkans. The regions once ruled by the Ottoman Turks show signs of becoming the heart of a third American empire.

[ . . . ] Now, in the years after the cold war, the United States is again establishing suzerainty over the empire of a former foe. The disintegration of the Soviet Union has prompted the United States to expand its zone of military hegemony into Eastern Europe (through NATO) and into formerly neutral Yugoslavia. And -- most important of all -- the end of the cold war has permitted America to deepen its involvement the Middle East.[24]

Further, with the dismantling of the former Yugoslavia, a passageway for the transport of oil and natural gas from the Caspian region was to be facilitated through the construction of the Trans-Balkan pipeline, which will "run from the Black sea port of Burgas to the Adriatic at Vlore, passing through Bulgaria, Macedonia and Albania. It is likely to become the main route to the west for the oil and gas now being extracted in central Asia. It will carry 750,000 barrels a day: a throughput, at current prices, of some $600m a month." As the Guardian reported:

The project is necessary, according to a paper published by the US Trade and Development Agency last May, because the oil coming from the Caspian Sea "will quickly surpass the safe capacity of the Bosphorus as a shipping lane". The scheme, the agency notes, will "provide a consistent source of crude oil to American refineries", "provide American companies with a key role in developing the vital east-west corridor", "advance the privatisation aspirations of the US government in the region" and "facilitate rapid integration" of the Balkans "with western Europe".

In November 1998, Bill Richardson, then US energy secretary, spelt out his policy on the extraction and transport of Caspian oil. "This is about America's energy security," he explained. "It's also about preventing strategic inroads by those who don't share our values. We're trying to move these newly independent countries toward the west.

"We would like to see them reliant on western commercial and political interests rather than going another way. We've made a substantial political investment in the Caspian, and it's very important to us that both the pipeline map and the politics come out right."[25]

The pipeline project, supported since 1994, "featured prominently in Balkan war politics. On December 9 1998, the Albanian president attended a meeting about the scheme in Sofia, and linked it inextricably to Kosovo." The message given at the meeting was that, "if you [the United States] want Albanian consent for the Trans-Balkan pipeline, you had better wrest Kosovo out of the hands of the Serbs."[26]

And so, with the help of an international network of CIA-trained Islamic militants, American political and economic hegemony expanded into Central Asia and the Caspian region.

The Spread of Al-Qaeda

Al-Qaeda did not just spread to Bosnia and Albania/Kosovo, but rather a great many places around the world saw the spread of this vast "database" of Islamist fighters, and always aided by Western intelligence agencies or their regional conduits (such as the ISI and Saudi intelligence agencies). Following on the heels of the established American and NATO strategy following the Cold War, Islamic fundamentalism also came to play a part in this strategy.

Bernard Lewis was a former British intelligence officer and historian who is infamous for explaining Arab discontent towards the West as not being rooted in a reaction toward imperialism, but rather that it is rooted in Islam; in that Islam is incompatible with the West, and that they are destined to clash, using the term, "Clash of Civilizations." For decades, "Lewis played a critical role as professor, mentor, and guru to two generations of Orientalists, academics, U.S. and British intelligence specialists, think tank denizens, and assorted neoconservatives." In the 1980s, Lewis "was hobnobbing with top Department of Defense officials."[27] He was also one of the originators, along with Brzezinski, of the "Arc of Crisis" strategy employed in the late 1970s.

Lewis wrote a 1992 article in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, titled, "Rethinking the Middle East." In this article, Lewis raised the prospect of another policy towards the Middle East in the wake of the end of the Cold War and beginnings of the New World Order, "which could even be precipitated by fundamentalism, is what has of late become fashionable to call 'Lebanonization.' Most of the states of the Middle East - Egypt is an obvious exception - are of recent and artificial construction and are vulnerable to such a process. If the central power is sufficiently weakened, there is no real civil society to hold the polity together, no real sense of common national identity or overriding allegiance to the nation-state. The state then disintegrates - as happened in Lebanon - into a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes, regions and parties."[28]

Thus, the "database" of Al-Qaeda could be spread internationally so as to destabilize various regions, and thus provide the justification for intervention or even war. All that was needed was well-placed intelligence operatives to control key leadership positions within the terrorist organization. The great majority of both its higher-ups and nearly all al-Qaeda operatives would not have to be made aware of the organizations covert use as an arm of US geo-policy.

In the 1990s, Osama bin Laden "built a shadow air force to support his terrorist activities, using Afghanistan's national airline, a surplus U.S. Air Force jet and clandestine charters." Further, as the Los Angeles Times revealed:

With the Taliban's blessing, Bin Laden effectively had hijacked Ariana, the national civilian airline of Afghanistan. For four years, according to former U.S. aides and exiled Afghan officials, Ariana's passenger and charter flights ferried Islamic militants, arms, cash and opium through the United Arab Emirates and Pakistan. Members of Bin Laden's Al Qaeda terrorist network were provided false Ariana identification that gave them free run of airports in the Middle East.

[ . . . ] Taliban authorities also opened the country's airstrips to high-ranking Persian Gulf state officials who routinely flew in for lavish hunting parties. Sometimes joined by Bin Laden and Taliban leaders, the dignitaries, who included several high-ranking officials from Saudi Arabia and the Emirates--left behind money, vehicles and equipment with their hosts, according to U.S. and Afghan accounts.[29] 

Bin Laden's secret purchase of a US Air Force jet in 1992 "was used to ferry Al Qaeda commanders to East Africa, where they trained Somali tribesmen for attacks on U.S. peacekeeping forces," and Americans had "unwittingly" helped bin Laden "disguise the plane as a civilian jet." US security officials were well aware of Ariana airlines being used by al-Qaeda,[30]

Among the high-ranking Persian Gulf officials who flew to Afghanistan for "hunting trips" were Prince Turki al Faisal who ran Saudi intelligence until August 2001, "maintaining close ties with Bin Laden and the Taliban," as well as "Sheik Mohammed ibn Rashid al Maktum, the Dubai crown prince and Emirates defense minister." On occasions both Osama bin Laden and Omar, the head of the Taliban, mingled with the hunters. Upon their departure, "the wealthy visitors often left behind late-model jeeps, trucks and supplies," which was "one way the Taliban got their equipment."[31]

What the article does not mention, however, was that the ISI was the prime sponsor of the Taliban, with the complete backing and facilitation of the CIA. The connection to the Saudi intelligence chief further strengthens the thesis that the Safari Club, created in 1976 by the French intelligence chief, may have survived as a covert intelligence network encompassing western intelligence agencies working through regional agencies such as those of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

The German intelligence agency, the BND, revealed in 2004 that two Saudi companies that were linked with financing al-Qaeda throughout the 1990s were in fact front organizations for Saudi intelligence, with close connections to its chief, Prince Turki bin Faisal.[32]

Between 1989 and 2001, Billy Waugh, a CIA contractor, trained several al-Qaeda operatives around the world.[33] In 2002, it was revealed that, "British intelligence paid large sums of money to an al-Qaeda cell in Libya in a doomed attempt to assassinate Colonel Gadaffi in 1996 and thwarted early attempts to bring Osama bin Laden to justice." In 1998, Libya had issued an arrest warrant for Osama bin Laden, yet:

British and US intelligence agencies buried the fact that the arrest warrant had come from Libya and played down the threat. Five months after the warrant was issued, al-Qaeda killed more than 200 people in the truck bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.[34]

However, "the resistance of Western intelligence agencies to the Libyan concerns can be explained by MI6's involvement with the al-Qaeda coup plot." Anas al-Liby, a Libyan al-Qaeda leader, "was given political asylum in Britain and lived in Manchester until May of 2000 when he eluded a police raid on his house and fled abroad."[35]

Following the end of the Cold War, many mujahideen fighters were relocated to Russia's unstable region of Chechnya, where the two main rebel leaders who came to power had previously been trained and funded by the CIA in Afghanistan. The war in Chechnya was planned in a secret meeting in 1996 attended by Osama bin Laden and high-ranking officials of the Pakistani ISI, whose involvement in Chechnya went "far beyond supplying the Chechens with weapons and expertise: the ISI and its radical Islamic proxies are actually calling the shots in this war."[36] In other words, the CIA was directing the war through the ISI.

The US and U.K. have supported Chechen separatism as it, "weakens Russia, advances U.S. power in the vital Caspian Sea region, and cripples a potential future rival."[37] Mikhail Gorbachev, former President of Russia, claimed that the British had been arming the Chechen rebels.[38] Oil also features prominently in the Chechen conflict, as Chechnya is home to large reserves of oil, as well as pipeline corridor routes being competed over by Russian and Anglo-American oil conglomerates. Thus, the Anglo-Americans support the Chechen separatists, while the Russians send in the military.[39] US intelligence helped fund and transport al-Qaeda into Chechnya in the early 1990s, American intelligence remained involved until the end of the decade, seeing the "sponsorship of 'Islamist jihad in the Caucasus' as a way to 'deprive Russia of a viable pipeline route through spiraling violence and terrorism'."[40]

The Global Domination Strategy for a New Century

Following upon the strategic objectives set out in the early 1990s for the United States and NATO to expand their hegemony across the world, in preventing the rise of rivals (China and Russia), and expanding the access of western economic interests to the Caspian region, new designs were being drawn in the powerful think-tank community in the United States as well as being outlined by highly influential strategic thinkers. The renewed strategy, hardly a break from the previously determined aim of encirclement and containment of China and Russia, simply expanded the scope of this strategy. From one faction, the neo-conservatives, came the initial aim at expanding militarily into the Middle East, starting with Iraq, while the more established hard-line realist hawks such as Zbigniew Brzezinski outlined a far more comprehensive and long-term strategy of world domination by controlling the entirety of Eurasia (Europe and Asia), and subsequently, Africa.

The neo-Conservative hawks in the US foreign policy establishment formed the think tank, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) in the 1990s. In 2000, they published their report, Rebuilding America's Defenses, in which they outlined a strategy for the United States in the "new century." Following where the Defense Planning Guidance document left off (during the first Bush administration), the report stated that, "the United States must retain sufficient forces able to rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars," and that there is a "need to retain sufficient combat forces to fight and win, multiple, nearly simultaneous major theatre wars," as "the Pentagon needs to begin to calculate the force necessary to protect, independently, US interests in Europe, East Asia and the Gulf at all times."[41]

It recommended the "regime change" of Saddam Hussein in Iraq as the "immediate justification" for a US military presence in the Gulf; however, "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." In advocating for a massive increase in defense spending, and outlining military operations against Iraq, North Korea, and possibly Iran, the report stated that, "further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."[42]

Zbigniew Brzezinski outlined a long-term American imperial strategy to control Eurasia in his book, The Grand Chessboard. He stated bluntly that, "it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America," and then made clear the imperial nature of his strategy:

To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.[43]

He further explained that the Central Asian nations (or "Eurasian Balkans" as he refers to them):

are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold.[44]

Brzezinski emphasizes "that America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it."[45]

Preparing for War Against Afghanistan

In 1997, Taliban officials traveled to Texas to meet with Unocal Oil Company to discuss the possibility of a pipeline being built from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan and to Pakistan. Unocal had agreements with Turkmenistan to sell its gas and with Pakistan to buy it. The missing link was getting the gas to Pakistan through Afghanistan, which is where the Taliban came into the picture. Unocal's main competitor in the pipeline bid was with Bridas, an Argentine firm. However, at this time, Afghanistan was still embroiled in civil war, making the prospect of a pipeline being built an unstable venture.[46]

A month before the Taliban visited Texas, Bridas, Unocal's main competitor, merged its oil and gas assets with Amoco-Argentina Oil, a subsidiary of British Petroleum (BP), one of the world's top three oil companies.[47] Shortly before this merger was finalized, Bridas had announced that it was close to signing a 2 billion dollar deal with the Taliban, saying "the talks were in their final stages."[48]

After meeting with Unocal officials in Texas, the Taliban announced in January of 1998 that, "they're close to reaching a final agreement on the building of a gas pipeline across Afghanistan," however, they "didn't indicate which of two competing companies the Taliban favoured."[49]

It is significant to note some of the important figures that were involved with the oil companies in relation to Central Asian gas reserves and pipeline projects. In 1997, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the (self-proclaimed) mastermind for the Afghan-Soviet War, Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser, and cofounder with David Rockefeller of the Trilateral Commission, was an adviser to BP-Amoco, specifically dealing with the Caspian region.[50] Unocal, in an effort to try to secure their pipeline contract with the Taliban, hired former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Afghan-born Zalmay Khalilzad, former Reagan State Department Advisor on Afghanistan during the Afghan-Soviet War, was also brought on as a consultant for a group hired by Unocal. He would later become US envoy to Afghanistan after the US invasion in 2001.[51]

The pipeline project then ran into significant problems when, in December of 1998, Unocal announced that it quit its Afghan pipeline project.[52] Between 1996 and 2001, Enron bosses had given millions of dollars in bribes to Taliban officials to secure contracts for building pipelines. After Unocal withdrew from the deal, Enron continued to pressure the Taliban to continue with a pipeline. In 1996, neighboring Uzbekistan signed a deal with Enron to develop Uzbek natural gas fields.[53] In 1997, Halliburton, with Dick Cheney as its CEO, secured a contract in Turkmenistan for exploration and drilling in the Caspian Sea basin.[54] However, in December of 2001, Enron filed for bankruptcy.

Eventually, Unocal pulled out of the deal as a result of Afghanistan's Taliban government not being fully recognized internationally as the legitimate Afghan government, and therefore, the pipeline project could not receive funding from international financial institutions like the World Bank. Unocal also pulled out as a result of the continual conflict raging in Afghanistan between various groups.[55]

In 1999, the Pentagon issued a secret document confirmed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of Defense, which stated that, "Oil conflicts over production facilities and transport routes, particularly in the Persian Gulf and Caspian regions, are specifically envisaged" in the near future, stating that, "energy and resource issues will continue to shape international security." The document "vividly highlights how the highest levels of the US Defence community accepted the waging of an oil war as a legitimate military option."[56]

Before George W. Bush became President in January of 2001, there were plans at the highest levels of the United States government in beginning preparations for a war against Afghanistan, which included attempts to secure an alliance with the Russians in "calling for military action against Afghanistan."[57]

In March of 2001 it was reported that India has joined the US, Russia and Iran in an effort to militarily replace the Afghan Taliban government, with Tajikistan and Uzbekistan to be used as bases to launch incursions into Afghanistan against the Taliban.[58] In the Spring of 2001, the US military envisaged and war gamed the entire scenario of a US attack on Afghanistan, which subsequently became the operational plan for the war.[59]

In the summer of 2001, the Taliban were leaked information from top-secret meetings that the Bush regime was planning to launch a military operation against the Taliban in July to replace the government. A US military contingency plan existed on paper to attack Afghanistan from the north by the end of the summer of 2001, as in, prior to 9/11.[60]

A former Pakistani diplomat told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama bin Laden and the Taliban before the 9/11 attacks. Niaz Naik, former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, "was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October." The invasion subsequently took place on October 7, 2001. Naik was told of this information at a secretive UN-sponsored meeting which took place in Berlin in July 2001, with officials from the US, Russia, and many Central Asian countries. He also stated that the US would launch the operation from their bases in Tajikistan, "where American advisers were already in place."[61]

As revealed by MSNBC, "President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11," and that, "The plan dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaida, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan." It outlined "essentially the same" war plan as was put into action following the 9/11 attacks. The National Security document was also submitted to Condoleezza Rice prior to the attacks, and included plans to attack the Taliban and remove them from power in Afghanistan.[62] Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair stated that, "To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11."[63]

Following the start of the war on Afghanistan in October of 2001, the Guardian's George Monbiot wrote that the war "may also be a late colonial adventure," as "Afghanistan is as indispensable to the regional control and transport of oil in central Asia as Egypt was in the Middle East." It is worth quoting Monbiot at some length:

Afghanistan has some oil and gas of its own, but not enough to qualify as a major strategic concern. Its northern neighbours, by contrast, contain reserves which could be critical to future global supply. In 1998, Dick Cheney, now US vice-president but then chief executive of a major oil services company, remarked: "I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian." But the oil and gas there is worthless until it is moved. The only route which makes both political and economic sense is through Afghanistan.

Transporting all the Caspian basin's fossil fuel through Russia or Azerbaijan would greatly enhance Russia's political and economic control over the central Asian republics, which is precisely what the west has spent 10 years trying to prevent. Piping it through Iran would enrich a regime which the US has been seeking to isolate. Sending it the long way round through China, quite aside from the strategic considerations, would be prohibitively expensive. But pipelines through Afghanistan would allow the US both to pursue its aim of "diversifying energy supply" and to penetrate the world's most lucrative markets. Growth in European oil consumption is slow and competition is intense. In south Asia, by contrast, demand is booming and competitors are scarce. Pumping oil south and selling it in Pakistan and India, in other words, is far more profitable than pumping it west and selling it in Europe.

As the author Ahmed Rashid has documented, in 1995 the US oil company Unocal started negotiating to build oil and gas pipelines from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan and into Pakistani ports on the Arabian sea. The company's scheme required a single administration in Afghanistan, which would guarantee safe passage for its goods. Soon after the Taliban took Kabul in September 1996, the Telegraph reported that "oil industry insiders say the dream of securing a pipeline across Afghanistan is the main reason why Pakistan, a close political ally of America's, has been so supportive of the Taliban, and why America has quietly acquiesced in its conquest of Afghanistan". Unocal invited some of the leaders of the Taliban to Houston, where they were royally entertained. The company suggested paying these barbarians 15 cents for every thousand cubic feet of gas it pumped through the land they had conquered.

For the first year of Taliban rule, US policy towards the regime appears to have been determined principally by Unocal's interests. In 1997 a US diplomat told Rashid "the Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis did. There will be Aramco [the former US oil consortium in Saudi Arabia] pipelines, an emir, no parliament and lots of Sharia law. We can live with that."

[. . . ] In February 1998, John Maresca, [Unocal's] head of international relations, told representatives that the growth in demand for energy in Asia and sanctions against Iran determined that Afghanistan remained "the only other possible route" for Caspian oil. The company, once the Afghan government was recognised by foreign diplomats and banks, still hoped to build a 1,000-mile pipeline, which would carry a million barrels a day. Only in December 1998, four months after the embassy bombings in east Africa, did Unocal drop its plans.

But Afghanistan's strategic importance has not changed. In September, a few days before the attack on New York, the US energy information administration reported that "Afghanistan's significance from an energy standpoint stems from its geographical position as a potential transit route for oil and natural gas exports from central Asia to the Arabian sea. This potential includes the possible construction of oil and natural gas export pipelines through Afghanistan". Given that the US government is dominated by former oil industry executives, we would be foolish to suppose that such plans no longer figure in its strategic thinking. As the researcher Keith Fisher has pointed out, the possible economic outcomes of the war in Afghanistan mirror the possible economic outcomes of the war in the Balkans, where the development of "Corridor 8", an economic zone built around a pipeline carrying oil and gas from the Caspian to Europe, is a critical allied concern.

American foreign policy is governed by the doctrine of "full-spectrum dominance", which means that the US should control military, economic and political development worldwide. China has responded by seeking to expand its interests in central Asia. The defence white paper Beijing published last year argued that "China's fundamental interests lie in ... the establishment and maintenance of a new regional security order". In June, China and Russia pulled four central Asian republics into a "Shanghai cooperation organisation". Its purpose, according to Jiang Zemin, is to "foster world multi-polarisation", by which he means contesting US full-spectrum dominance.

If the US succeeds in overthrowing the Taliban and replacing them with a stable and grateful pro-western government and if the US then binds the economies of central Asia to that of its ally Pakistan, it will have crushed not only terrorism, but also the growing ambitions of both Russia and China. Afghanistan, as ever, is the key to the western domination of Asia.[64]

As revealed by the San Francisco Chronicle in November of 2001, "the United States and Pakistan decided to install a stable regime in place in Afghanistan around 1994 -- a regime that would end the country's civil war and thus ensure the safety of the Unocal pipeline project." And so:

the State Department and Pakistan's Inter- Services Intelligence agency agreed to funnel arms and funding to the Taliban in their war against the ethnically Tajik Northern Alliance. As recently as 1999, U.S. taxpayers paid the entire annual salary of every single Taliban government official, all in the hopes of returning to the days of dollar-a- gallon gas. Pakistan, naturally, would pick up revenues from a Karachi oil port facility.[65]

Clearly, the plans and purposes for war on Afghanistan had been well established. What was needed was the public justification. The people will not readily support a war to dominate strategic energy reserves and pipeline routes halfway around the world. Besides the fact that this would be an admission of empire, something that still a great many in the American public have failed to reconcile and accept, it would be a difficult task to ask Americans to die for Unocal. What the American people needed to rouse their appetite for war was to have their collective consciousness reshaped by fear; what was needed was terror.

Andrew Gavin Marshall is a Research Associate with the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).  He is co-editor, with Michel Chossudovsky, of the recent book, "The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century,"



[1]        Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America. University of California Press: 2007: page 62


[2]        Ibid, page 63.


[3]        Ibid, page 62.


[4]        Ibid, pages 66-67.


[5]        HP-Time, The Crescent of Crisis. Time Magazine: January 15, 1979:,9171,919995-1,00.html


[6]        Peter Dale Scott, op. cit., page 67.


[7]        F. William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New  World Order. London: Pluto Press, 2004: page 171


[8]        Manouchehr Ganji, Defying the Iranian Revolution: From a Minister to the Shah to a Leader of Resistance. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002: page 41


[9]        Ibid, page 39.


[10]      Ibid, page 41.


[11]      Ibid.


[12]      F. William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New  World Order. London: Pluto Press, 2004: page 172


[13]      Ibid, page 171.


[14]      George Lenczowski, The Arc of Crisis: It's Central Sector. Foreign Affairs: Summer, 1979: page 796


[15]      Ibid, page 797.


[16]      Ibid, page 798.


[17]      IPS, Q&A:  Iran's Islamic Revolution Had Western Blessing. Inter-Press Service: July 26, 2008:


[18]      Michael D. Evans, Father of the Iranian revolution. The Jerusalem Post: June 20, 2007:


[19]      Peter Dale Scott, op cit., page 89.


[20]      George Lenczowski, The Arc of Crisis: It's Central Sector. Foreign Affairs: Summer, 1979: page 810


[21]      F. William Engdahl, op cit., page 172.


[22]      Peter Dale Scott, op cit., page 81.


[23]      Michael D. Evans, Father of the Iranian revolution. The Jerusalem Post: June 20, 2007:


[24]      Peter Dale Scott, op cit., page 83.


[25]      Ibid, page 84.


[26]      Ibid, page 81.


[27]      Ibid, pages 85-86.


[28]      Ibid.


[29]      Ibid, page 87.


[30]      Ibid, pages 88-89.


[31]      Ibid.


[32]      Ibid, pages 87-88.


[33]      Ibid, page 85.


[34]      Ibid, page 86.


[35]      Ibid, page 88.


[36]      F. William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New  World Order. London: Pluto Press, 2004: page 173


[37]      Andrew Gavin Marshall, Controlling the Global Economy: Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission and the Federal Reserve. Global Research: August 3, 2009:


[38]      Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America. University of California Press: 2007: page 89


[39]      PBS, Secrets of His Life and Leadership: An Interview with Said K. Aburish. PBS Frontline:


[40]      Michael Parenti, Afghanistan, Another Untold Story. Global Research: December 4, 2008:


[41]      Oleg Kalugin, How We Invaded Afghanistan. Foreign Policy: December 11, 2009:


[42]      ''Le Nouvel Observateur' (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76:


[43]      Ibid.


[44]      Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America. University of California Press: 2007: page 73


[45]      Michael Parenti, Afghanistan, Another Untold Story. Global Research: December 4, 2008:


[46]      Peter Dale Scott, op cit., page 78.


[47]      Ibid, page 116.


[48]      Ibid, page 122.


[49]      Ibid, page 123.


[50]      Ibid,.


[51]      Alfred W. McCoy, The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade. (Lawrence Hill Books: Chicago, 2003), page 80


[52]      Ibid, page 162.


[53]      Ibid.


[54]      Ibid, pages 283-386.


[55]      Ibid, page 466.


[56]      Ibid, page 474.


[57]      Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America. University of California Press: 2007: page 73


[58]      Alfred W. McCoy, op cit., page 475.


[59]      Peter Dale Scott, op cit., page 74.


[60]      Ibid, pages 75-76.


[61]      Ibid, page 124.


[62]      Ibid, pages 75-76.


[63]      Ibid, page 124.


[64]      Carol Off, Back to school in Afghanistan. CBC: May 6, 2002:


[65]      Joe Stephens and David B. Ottaway, From U.S., the ABC's of Jihad. The Washington Post: March 23, 2002:


[66]      Steve Coll, Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, From the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001. Penguin Books, New York, 2004: Page 328


[67]      Steve Coll, Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, From the Soviet Invasion to September 11, 2001. (London: Penguin, 2005), page 285


[68]      Steve Coll, "Steve Coll" Interview with PBS Frontline. PBS Frontline: October 3, 2006:


[69]      Robert Dreyfuss, Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam. (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2005), page 326


[70]      ToI, "CIA worked in tandem with Pak to create Taliban". The Times of India: March 7, 2001:


[71]      Robert Dreyfuss, Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam. (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2005), pages 279-280


[72]      Simon Reeve, The New Jackals: Ramzi Yousef, Osama bin Laden, and the Future of Terrorism. (London: André Deutsch Ltd, 1999), page 168


[73]      Michael Moran, Bin Laden comes home to roost. MSNBC: August 24, 1998:


[74]      Veronique Maurus and Marc Rock, The Most Dreaded Man of the United States, Controlled a Long Time by the CIA. Le Monde Diplomatique: September 14, 2001:


[75]      Gerald Posner, Why America Slept: The Failure to Prevent 9/11. (New York: Random House, 2003), page 29


[76]      Steve Coll, The Bin Ladens. (New York: Penguin, 2008), pages 7-9


[77]      AP, Al Qaeda Financing Documents Turn Up in Bosnia Raid. Fox News: February 19, 2003:,2933,78937,00.html


[78]      Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America. University of California Press: 2007: pages 140-141


[79]      Ibid, page 141.


[80]      Robin Cook, The struggle against terrorism cannot be won by military means. The Guardian: July 8, 2005:


[81]      Pierre-Henri Bunel, Al Qaeda -- the Database. Global Research: November 20, 2005: