23 years after it was first revealed to the public in the Italian Parliament, few are today aware of the history of Operation Gladio, the stay-behind operation that was seeded by intelligence agencies in Western Europe at the end of WWII and which was responsible for numerous terrorist attacks and outrages in the ensuing decades. Fewer still are aware of the details of this program, where it originated, who was behind it, and what it teaches us about the nature of such operations. Join us today on The Corbett Report as we talk with Tom Secker of InvestigatingTheTerror.com about this much-neglected piece of false flag history.
The Obama Administration is seeking approval to conduct morally impermissible, wholly non-therapeutic medical experiments that would expose healthy children to risks of serious harm.
Specifically, the Department of Health and Human Services is seeking to test the highly controversial, dangerous Anthrax vaccine, on children. Express Your Views to the Commissions Director, Hillary.Viers@bioethics.gov
For over a year, the Commission has been attempting to find a rationale for endorsing a proposed government policy that would violate fundamental medical ethics principles. Principles mandated under the Nuremberg Code after the atrocities committed under the Nazi regime came to light.
Under US Law, research involving greater than minimal risk and no prospect of direct benefit to individual [child] subjects, is prohibited in healthy children. (45 CFR 46, subpart D).
If not stopped, the US government would override ethical and legal prohibitions by testing “medical countermeasures” on unprotected children who are legally incapable of giving informed consent. The government would subject healthy but socioeconomically deprived American children to unjustifiable risks of harm–to be exploited as human guinea pigs.
The overarching question–Not specified by the Commission or the Administration–is, WHOSE CHILDREN ARE TO BE SELECTED for experiments that violate ethical and moral standards?
If history is a guide, underprivileged children’s best interest will be sacrificed to serve as a means to an end that will benefit powerful commercial and government entities.
More than a decade has passed since the US was attacked by terrorists, Sept. 11, 2001.
No biochemical weapon has ever been shown to pose a threat to Americans–neither military personnel nor civilians.
The only exception was the mailing of anthrax laced envelopes in October, 2001, by a US military scientist, from a US military laboratory-who is now dead.
There is no evidence whatsoever of an anthrax threat to American children.
Therefore, those who even consider exposing children to the documented harmful effects of the anthrax vaccine suffer from a “moral deficit disorder.”
Express Your Views to the Commissions Director, Hillary.Viers@bioethics.gov
Overarching all considerations is the question–
WHOSE CHILDREN WILL BE EXPOSED TO THE SERIOUS RISKS OF THE ANTHRAX VACCINE WITHOUT ANY POTENTIAL BENEFIT FOR THEM?
WHOSE CHILDREN WILL BE USED AS HUMAN GUINEA PIGS?Below are the warnings on the Anthrax Vaccine label. …
Adding insult to injury of course is that the anthrax mailings were obviously done by agents of the US national security state. Unless you believe islamic jihadists had infiltrated a US bioweapons lab.
The demonic level of cruelty to children in evidence here is beyond normal people’s imagination.
Genital integrity activists from across the country are demanding that lawmakers ban the practice of circumcising boys. Popularly known as “intactivists”, these children’s rights advocates submitted the Male Genital Mutilation (MGM) Bill proposal to more than 2,000 legislators this week in an effort to require gender neutrality in federal and state laws that regulate genital cutting. …
Male circumcision was one of the top issues for lawmakers around the world in 2012. It started in January when a Helsinki district court convicted a man of assault and battery for circumcising two Muslim boys. The following month, the Swedish Pediatric Society issued a statement calling circumcision an “assault” that should be banned. Then, in June, the Centre Party in Norway called on the Red-Green coalition government to grant boys legal protection from circumcision.
Two months later in August, the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute recommended that the state impose a general prohibition on circumcision while Denmark opened an investigation to determine if circumcision violates its health code. And in October, Finland’s largest opposition party promised to introduce a bill that would criminalize circumcision of boys.
But the biggest news came out of Germany over the summer, when a Cologne district court ruled that circumcision of male children is a crime. Although Germany’s parliament later overrode the decision by passing a new law, the German Pediatric Association called for that law to be rejected, stating that boys have “the same basic constitutional legal rights to physical integrity as girls”.
Circumcision was a hot topic in America, as well, when children’s rights groups slammed an American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement that sanctioned parental access to newborn circumcision. New York City also implemented disclosure and consent rules regarding the practice of ritual circumcision after two baby boys died from contracting herpes during the procedure. And with H.R. 2400 (the “Religious and Parental Rights Defense Act of 2011”) failing to get past the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the path is now clear for state governments to prohibit circumcision of male minors within their own borders.
Matthew Hess, president of MGMbill.org, said lawmakers can’t hide from the issue forever. “There are too many people speaking out against circumcision now,” said Hess. “What once was a trickle of condemnation has now become a tidal wave. Modern parents are armed with information on the harmful effects of foreskin amputation, and circumcised men are much more willing to speak out against what was done to them as infants. I think the days of legalized childhood circumcision in this country are numbered.”
In addition to submitting the MGM Bill proposal to every member of the 113th Congress, the group’s representatives submitted similar bills to every state lawmaker in California, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington.
The level of brainwashing and social control exerted in this society are nowhere more in evidence than in the fact that we even need to fight for the right to control what we take into our bodies.
As we have demonstrated over the past several weeks on the EyeOpener, health freedom is a subject of growing importance for citizens of the United States and freedom lovers around the world as would-be “authorities” like the American Food and Drug Administration attempt to assert ever more control over our daily lives. Presuming to tell us what medications we must or must not take, what we can or cannot say about our experiences with natural medicines, and even what type of milk we may or may not consume, the system is quickly devolving into outright tyranny.
As with so many other types of tyranny, as the people awaken to this abrogation of their natural rights, they are learning that the system depends almost entirely on their complicity, and that their ability to simply put their foot down and say “no” to the would-be tyrants is a significant step toward reclaiming ownership of themselves and their bodies.
In this episode of our EyeOpener Report James Corbett wraps up our series on Health Freedom, and discusses the awakening to governments’ abrogation of people’s natural rights, the tyrannical system’s dependency on the People’s complicity, the People’s right and ability to reject and say “no” to the would-be tyrants, and reclaiming ownership of themselves and their bodies. …
See video at site.
When SOPA and PIPA, the House and Senate bills to impose draconian regulations on the internet in the name of “protecting intellectual property rights” broke through into public awareness late last year, it caused an immediate, widespread, grassroots protest movement to rise up. With some of the biggest websites on the internet staging a one-day blackout to raise awareness of the legislation, millions were mobilized against it. So loud was the opposition to these bills that they were postponed on the legislative agenda and effectively killed off.
Now, many of the same issues are on the table yet again. This time the culprit is another impenetrable acronym, “TPP” or the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Negotiations on this multinational trade deal have been underway for years, but taking place completely behind closed doors, meaning the only understanding we have of what is contained in the deal comes from leaked copies of draft negotiation documents. This deal, like ACTA, seeks to create a standardized regulatory framework for dealing with Intellectual Property issues, as well as other trade related issues between a range of Pacific nations. And it has so far flown almost completely under the radar.
In this episode of our EyeOpener Report James Corbett presents and discusses the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the latest round of negotiations that are currently taking place behind closed doors in Leesburg-Virginia, the blanket secrecy covering the deal, the urgency for the public’s awareness, and the need for informed and organized resistance to counter this coming treaties highly worrisome provisions. …
See full video at site.
There are four categorically different views of what has been termed Al Qaeda and each has radically different implications for the global war on terror.
The first main view of Al Qaeda is the one advanced by the Bush administration in the aftermath of 9/11, whereby Al Qaeda is a global network of terror comprising cells in 50 or 60 countries. This view of Al Qaeda as a sort of Islamic equivalent of the Bond films SPECTRE was articulated by the 9/11 Commission. Largely authored by neo-conservative insider Philip Zelikow, the Commission said:
“With al Qaeda as its foundation, Bin Ladin sought to build a broader Islamic army that also included terrorist groups from Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Oman, Tunisia, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Morocco, Somalia, and Eritrea. Not all groups from these states agreed to join, but at least one from each did. With a multinational council intended to promote common goals, coordinate targeting, and authorize asset sharing for terrorist operations, this Islamic force represented a new level of collaboration among diverse terrorist groups.”
However, as soon as this interpretation been put forward it was subject to criticism and a less centralised view of Al Qaeda was advanced. This notion appeared in Rohan Gunaratnas bestselling book Inside Al Qaeda: Global Network of Terror. Though Gunaratna repeated the official propaganda about Al Qaeda, saying that it could call on as many as 120,000 fighters, he described the network as more horizontally than vertically structured. He wrote:
Al Qaeda is structured in such a way that it can operate without a centralised command. Its regional bureaus function as the nodal points of its horizontal network outside Afghanistan and liaise with associate groups and Al Qaeda cells. – Inside Al Qaeda (p13)
A slightly different version of this decentralised notion of Al Qaeda appeared in the widely lauded documentary series The Power of Nightmares. It featured interviews with journalist Jason Burke, who explained his thesis to filmmaker Adam Curtis:
“There is no Al Qaeda organisation. There is no international network with a leader, with cadres who will unquestioningly obey orders, with tentacles that stretch out to sleeper cells in America, in Africa, in Europe. That idea of a coherent, structured terrorist network with an organised capability simply does not exist.” … But Burke was not denouncing the war on terror as a whole:
‘There is no organisation with its terrorist operatives, cells, sleeper cells, so on and so forth. What there is is an idea, prevalent among young, angry Muslim males throughout the Islamic world.That idea is what poses a threat.’ The Power of Nightmares episode three (video)(transcript)
As such, in this interpretation we are not fighting an international network of terrorists, but an idea.
This interpretation of the enemy, of the threat, has been taken up by the Liberal Left against the neo-conservative interpretation of the Bush administration and Zelikow Commission. Burke is a senior journalist for The Guardian and The Power of Nightmares broadcast on the BBC, both considered broadly Liberal Left media organs.
This view has also become the de facto view of the Obama administration. As noted by the Huffington Post shortly after Obama took over the US presidency, he did not use the term war on terror:
‘Since taking office less than two weeks ago, President Barack Obama has talked broadly of the “enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism.” Another time it was an “ongoing struggle.” ‘ – Huffington Post
Some call it an extension of the domain of the struggle. Others call it mission creep. Instead of fighting a physical enemy, who can be disrupted, captured or most likely killed, we are fighting ideas. This is potentially a much broader fight, one that goes beyond any particular group, however closely or loosely knit. In expanding the battleground from just the physical wars across the Middle East to also include the abstract struggle of ideas, the Obama administration has publicly made a target of anyone and everyone who believes an idea considered to be dangerous. …
This shift in the official interpretation occurred sometime after the publication of Inside Al Qaeda and the broadcast of The Power of Nightmares. Within two hours of the 7/7 bombings in London, agents within the security services told BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner that the attacks bore the hallmark of Al Qaeda. Yet when the alleged bombers were identified, there was no evidence of them having anything to do with Bin Laden or any centralised command structure. A week after the bombings the head of the Metropolitan Police Sir Ian Blair explained the discrepancy:Al Qaeda is not an organization. Al Qaeda is a way of working, but this has the hallmark of that approach. – Sir Ian Blair, Fox News
This still leaves two distinct possibilities, and room for two further interpretations. The third interpretation is that Al Qaeda is a proxy force for Western military and intelligence agencies, employed in various theatres as a destabilisation force, a guerrilla network. However, the terrorist attacks that result from this unholy alliance are seen as blowback, the unintended consequences of ongoing covert operations. It is this thesis that is primarily pursued in Nafeez Ahmeds 2005 book The War on Truth and his 2006 book The London Bombings: An Independent Investigation.
In particular, Ahmed draws attention to this proxy force being used to foment the breakdown of the former Yugoslavia during the wars in the Balkans in the 1990 and early 2000s. The Bosnian army, and later the KLA, were largely controlled through criminal networks using mujahideen to fight against the Serbs. A similar strategy is being used today in Libya. There, Islamic militants being directed by Western special forces and backed up by a NATO bombing campaign have ousted Colonel Gaddafi. As such, if the terrorist attacks in Paris in 1995, or Istanbul in 2003, or London in 2005 are blowback then it is clear that the governments running these covert operations have little concern for the safety of their own citizens.
Yet there is one further, and darker possibility. The fourth view of Al Qaeda is that rather than terrorist attacks being unintentional consequences of a secret service operation, they are in fact intentional consequences of such an operation. In this view Al Qaeda becomes Al CIAda, a devil spawned and maintained by Western security services. For those who subscribe to this view, responsibility for terrorist attacks is not just a matter of huge criminal negligence and willful indifference to the sanctity of human life. Instead it is a matter of conspiracy and premeditated murder.
This view is not publicly held by many academics or experts, though it is popular in the alternative media. It is supported by the existence of numerous double agents, from Luai Sakra and Ali Mohamed to David Headley and Omar Saeed Sheikh. It is also supported by the historical precedents of covert operations such as that known as Gladio. According to Daniele Ganser’s research, secret armies across Europe provoked, enabled or carried out terrorist attacks throughout the Cold War, at the behest of agents within the security services. …
There are numerous parallels between the mastermind of the 2008 Mumbai massacre David Headley and the currently-on-trial face of the 2011 Norway attacks Anders Breivik. An examination of these parallels suggests there is more than meets the eye with Breivik. … In his worldview, Muslims are conspiring with European Marxists to create Eurabia, a single European-Arab state populated entirely, or almost entirely, by Muslim Arabs. He cites numerous examples of ‘Jihad’ and seeks out numerous opportunities in his manifesto to prove how widely read he is on the subject. And yet, at no point does he even mention the possibility, let alone the reality, of Western covert sponsorship of Islamic radicalism and militancy. The only references to the CIA in his manifesto are in passing, or to information in the CIA World Fact Book. The only mentions of the British security services are to MI5’s statistics on the threat from Islamic terrorism. Despite his obvious knowledge of the media, politics, psychology and psychological warfare and special operations, he appears to have a huge gap in his knowledge when it comes to black and covert operations and the other actions of intelligence and security services.
The styles of the attacks in Mumbai and Oslo/Utoya are also very similar. While Breivik was supposedly acting alone and Headley sent in a Lashkar-e-Taiba gang to actually carry out the attacks, the results were a prolonged bombing and shooting rampage. The method of violence, aimed at specific target groups but with the intent to simply kill as many people as possible, is quite rare in the history of terrorism. Typically, the violence is a means to a political end or aim, whereas this maximum-casualty terrorism is one of the hallmarks of security service involvement.
In essence, the philosophy behind this kind of terrorism is not about causing a particular political reaction, a shift to the Right or to the Left, for or against certain policies. Instead, the aim is simply to use violence to create fear, and use the fear to justifty greater security. Among the best examples were the Brabant massacres in Belgium in the 1980s. Masked gunmen, just like Breivik and the Mumbai shooters, would simply turn up and start shooting people almost at random. They sometimes stole money from the supermarkets and other locations for their massacres, but this was often found dumped.
Rumours abound about connections between the Nijvel Gang who perpetrated the massacres and various neo-Nazi organisations, and various intelligence services. What is known is that some of the weapons used in the massacres were stolen from a Belgian Gendarmerie arsenal. When the Belgian parliament asked its investigative committee to explore the possibility of a link to Gladio, or more broadly to the military and intelligence services, the committee found no such link.
However, this was not for lack of trying. The Belgian security services were told to co-operate, but clearly didn’t think that was appropriate so they opted instead for a massive cover-up. The names of those within the local Gladio units SDRA8 and STC/Mob were requested by the inquiry so they could look for possible connections to the Nijvel gang, the Westland New Post and the Front de la Jeunesse. The security services refused. The inquiry suggested that the names be revealed to a select panel of three judges, who would only share names with the inquiry if anyone were implicated in the Brabant killings. The security services refused. A further suggestion that just the dates of birth of the people in question could be given to the committee was also rejected. …
There is also the wider question of the shift in perceived threat from Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda-inspired Islamic terrorism to white right-wing extremist terrorism, particularly the threat from so-called ‘lone wolves’. The PST report makes reference to a 2011 threat assessment that preceded Breivik’s massacre that to some extent highlighted the radical Right lashing back against the Islamic immigration and emergence of Islamic hardline or radical groups.
However, it was US intelligence agencies who managed to pre-empt this now perceived shift in threat, over two years before the 22/7 attacks. An April 2009 Department of Homeland Security assessment titled ‘Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment’ is particularly apt. You can download a copy here. It notes:
Despite similarities to the climate of the 1990s, the threat posed by lone wolves and small terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years. In addition, the historical election of an African American president and the prospect of policy changes are proving to be a driving force for rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization.
It goes on to cite right wing lone wolf terrorists as the major threat to the US …
Thus providing the rationale for mobilizing state security forces against one of the most potent forces for localism (i.e. nationalism), which must be neutralized to make way for the global police state being organized by international finance. It will be interesting to see how they demonize the other major political brand of localism (i.e. leftist approaches such as community gardens and community currencies). Will we soon be besieged by the “green thumb brigades” ? Perhaps explosive pomegranates or strategically placed banana peels will be the next terrorist threat.
Alienating everyone from everyone else presents a difficult problem for the elite given that social connections form so readily in casual encounters between people. But they’ve already made significant inroads using TV, rage-rap and medical interventions like obstetrical abuse, circumcision and psych drugging.
Unlike the James Bond films or companion BBC shows such as Spooks, Spy is a reality TV show, using real members of the public and having them trained by real former spies – one MI6, one CIA, and one unspecified former ‘Intelligence Officer’. The members of the public are competing against one another in ‘Spy School’, where they are taught how to lie, cheat, manipulate and invade people’s privacy.
From denial of existence to glorification on mainstream TV in less than 25 years, the Intelligence Services now occupy a major position in the propaganda. Spies have for a long time been shown to be sexy, cool and highly enviable characters, but this show goes further, as what we see is to a large extent what actually happened when they made the show. Perhaps most importantly, and beyond the superficial propaganda of ‘look how great the spooks are’ is the continually reinforced message that the spying ‘game’ is nowhere for people to have moral objections. Over and over the ‘recruits’ are told that they need to leave their feelings and their conscience at the door and just do ‘whatever it takes’ to achieve the objectives set for them each week.
This is significant because spying has, at least in Britain, been popularly considered to be an unjust, immoral and ungentlemanly way of carrying on. The notion of men in disguise sneaking into people’s houses, eavesdropping on their conversations and general acting like state-sponsored criminal conspirators has, quite rightly, been seen as at best a necessary evil, if not a deliberate intrusion by the state on the privacy of ordinary and innocent citizens. As the policy has shifted from secrecy to open conspiracy and the apparatus of the spy state has begun to be laid bare for scrutiny, shows like Spy are crucial in convincing people that there is nothing morally wrong with what they are seeing. …