has it backwards. The rule of law is being attacked by the appointment of a
special prosecutor to find something on Trump in the absence of any evidence of
1940 US attorney general Robert Jackson warned federal prosecutors against
“picking the man and then putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on
him. It is in this realm—in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he
dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons
and then looks for an offense—that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting
power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real
crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group,
being attached to the wrong political views or being personally obnoxious to,
or in the way of, the prosecutor himself.”
Jackson has given a perfect description of what is happening to President Trump
at the hands of special prosecutor Robert Mueller. Trump
is vastly unpopular with the ruling establishment, with the Democrats, with the
military/security complex and their bought and paid for Senators, and with the
media for proving wrong all the smart people’s prediction that Hillary would
win the election in a landslide.
day one this cabel has been out to get Trump, and they have given the task of
framing up Trump to Mueller. An honest man would not have accepted the job of
chief witch-hunter, which is what Mueller’s job is.
breathless hype of a nonexistent “Russian collusion” has been the lead news
story for months despite the fact that no one, not the CIA, not the NSA, not
the FBI, not the Director of National Intelligence, can find a scrap of
evidence. In desperation, three of the seventeen US intelligence agencies
picked a small handful of employees thought to lack integrity and produced an
unverified report, absent of any evidence, that the hand-picked handful thought
that there might have been a collusion. On the basis of what evidence they do
nothing more substantial than this led to a special prosecutor shows how
totally corrupt justice in America is.
the baseless charge itself is an absurdity. There is no law against an incoming
administration conversing with other governments. Indeed, Trump, Flynn, and
whomever should be given medals for quickly moving to smooth Russian feathers
ruffled by the reckless Bush and Obama regimes. What good for anyone can come
from ceaselessly provoking a nuclear Russian bear?
new Russian sanctions bill passed by Congress is an act of reckless idiocy. It
was done without consulting Europe which will bear the cost of the bill and
might reject it, thus sending shock waves through the fragile American empire.
thoughless bill is a violation of the separation of powers. Foreign policy is
the executive branch’s arena. The feckless Obama put the sanctions on.
Obviously, if a president can put sanctions on, a president can take sanctions
should take his case to the American people, not via Twitter, but with a major
speech. Fox News and Alex Jones, either of which has a larger audience than CNN
and the New York Times, would broadcast Trump’s speech. Trump should make the
case that Congress is over-reaching its constitutional authority and also
preventing a reduction in dangerous tensions between nuclear powers. Trump
should ask the American people forthright if they want to be driven into war
with Russia by gratuitous provocation after provocation.
of the powers that Bush and Obama thoughtlessly gave the presidency, Trump can
declare a national emergency, cancel Congress, and arrest whomever he wishes.
Of course, the presstitute media would do everything possible to sway the
people and the US military against the state of emergency, but if there were a
real “Russian collusion,” Trump would have Putin initiate a major crisis that
would bring the people and the military to Trump’s side. That no such thing will
happen is total proof that there is no “Russian collusion.”
the Washington Post article says, “the story that never was is not happening.”
the great “superpower America,” the “exceptional, indispensable country,” has
wasted 7 months of a new presidency in a hoax when it could have been repairing
the relations with Russia and China that were seriously damaged by the criminal
Bush and Obama regimes. What are the utter fools that comprise the American
Establishment thinking? Why do the morons want high tensions with the two
powers that can remove the United States and its impotent European and British
vassals from the face of the earth in a few minutes? Who gains from this? What
is wrong with the American people that they cannot understand that they are
being driven to their destruction? Insouciant America is clearly not a
sufficiently strong term.
come back to the ridiculous Sally Q. Yates, clearly Sally is the embodiment of
the Insouciant American. She says she spent 27 years as a Justice (sic)
Department prosecutor. Yet, she is able to write this utter nonsense: “I know
from first hand experience how seriously the career prosecutors and agents take
their responsibility to make fair and impartial decisions based solely on the
facts and the law and nothing else”
was Sally Q. Yates when US attorney Rudy Giuliani used the presstitute media to
frame up Michael Milken and Leona Helmsley? Giuliani never had any valid
indictment against Milken but used the media and FBI harrassment of Milken’s
relatives to force Milken into a plea bargain and then had Milken double-crossed
by the bimbo judge, who was denied her reward to the Supreme Court because it
came to light that she illegally employed illegal aliens.
thanks to the corrupt American media, 99.9% of people who remember the Milken
case think that Milken was convicted of insider trading, a charge for which no
evidence was ever presented and which was totally absent from the coerced plea
bargain that the media helped Giuliani secure.
best I remember my investigation of the Helmsley case, Rudy dropped charges
against a corrupt accountant in exchange for false testimony against Helmsley.
As I remember, both Judge Robert Bork and Alan Dershowitz, attorneys in the
case, told me that the charge of tax evasion against Helmsley was preposterous.
The Helmsley hotels were fully depreciated and were surviving by guest rentals
alone. If the Helmsleys had wanted to reduce their income tax, all they needed
to do was to sell their existing depreciated holdings and purchase other hotels
in order to crank up the depreciation that reduces income tax.
Justice (sic) Department case you look at, it stinks to high heaven. It is
extremely difficult to find any justice in America.
Sally is certain that President Trump’s criticism of his weak AG means the end
of the rule of law in the US. As many on the left would say, the US has never
had a rule of law. It has a rule of power. How else do we explain the enormous
war crimes of the Clinton, Bush, and Obama regimes, and the war crimes to come
from the Trump or successor Pence regime, that never will be tried at
has joined the anti-Russia propaganda stampede with a five-part documentary
series that recycles the false and deceptive claims that have become Official
Washington’s dangerous new groupthink, reports Rick Sterling.
U.S.-government-supported Public Broadcasting System (PBS) recently ran a
five-part series dubbed “Inside Putin’s
Russia”. With a different theme each night, it purports to give a realistic
look at Russia today. The image conveyed is of a Russia that is undemocratic
with widespread state repression, violence and propaganda. Following are
significant distortions and falsehoods in the five-part documentary.
of the estimated 12 million Russians who took part in Immortal Regiment parades
across the country over three days in May 2016. (RT photo)
1: “How Putin Redefined what it means to be Russian”
this episode, the documentary:
that Russian identity is based on “projection of power.” In
reality, “projection of power” characterizes the U.S. much more than Russia.
For the past two centuries the United States has expanded across the continent
and globe. The last century is documented in the bookOverthrow:
American’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq. The U.S. currently
has nearly 800 foreign military bases in over 70 countries. In contrast, Russia
has military bases in only two countries beyond the former Soviet Union: Syria
crucial information about events in Ukraine.Russian
involvement in eastern Ukraine and Crimea are presented as examples of
“projection of power.” But basic facts are omitted from the documentary. There
is no mention of the violent February 2014 coup in Kiev nor the involvement of
neoconservatives such as Sen. John McCain and U.S. Assistant Secretary of State
Victoria Nuland in supporting and encouraging the overthrow of Ukraine’s elected
government. In a December 2013 speech,
Nuland outlined her intense involvement in Ukraine including U.S. insistence
that Ukraine choose a “European future” since the U.S. had “invested $5 billion
to assist.” Days before the coup in February 2014, Nuland was captured on
audio planning the
composition of the coup leadership.
Crimea’s historic connections with Russia and the Ukrainian violence.The
documentary says, “In 2014 in Crimea, Russia helped install
separatist leaders who rushed through a referendum that led to Crimea’s
annexation.” This gives the misleading impression the decision was Russian, not
the New York Times report on
March 16, 2014, acknowledged that, “The outcome, in a region that
shares a language and centuries of history with Russia, was a foregone
conclusion even before exit polls showed more than 93 percent of voters
symbols on helmets worn by members of Ukraine’s Azov battalion. (As filmed by a
Norwegian film crew and shown on German TV)
documentary fails to mention the fear of violence after Crimean travelers to
Kiev were beaten and
killed by Ukrainian hyper-nationalists. One of the first decisions of
the Kiev coup government was to declare that Russian would no longer be an official
language. A good overview including video interviews with Crimeans is in this
video, contrasting sharply with the implications of the PBS documentary.
Russian opposition to NATO expansion. The documentary suggests
Russians feel “humiliated” by NATO expanding to their borders. This distorts a
serious military concern into a subjective, emotional issue. In 2002, the U.S.
unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty and started construction of missile defense systems
which could be used in tandem with a nuclear first strike. In recent years,
NATO troops and missiles have been installed at Russia’s borders. Imagine the
response if Russian troops and missiles were placed at the U.S. border in
Canada and Mexico.
claims that coup violence in Odessa was “exaggerated.”
shot of the fatal fire in Odessa, Ukraine, on May 2, 2014. (From RT video)
documentary says that Russians who went to help defend civilians in eastern
Ukraine were convinced by Russian “propaganda” where “dozens of pro-Russian
separatists died in Odessa, Ukraine” but “Russian media exaggerated the
attack.” In reality, the Odessa attack killed at least 42 people and injured
100. This video shows
the sequence of events with the initial attack on peaceful protesters followed
by fire-bomb attacks in the building. Fire trucks were prevented from reaching
the building to put out the fire and rescue citizens inside.
2: “Inside Russia’s Propaganda Machine.”
this episode, the documentary:
Russians are aggressive and threatening.The
documentary highlights a Russian TV broadcaster who is translated to say,
“Russia is the only country in the world that is realistically capable of turning
the United States into radioactive ash.” And later, “If you can persuade a
person, you don’t need to kill him … if you aren’t able to persuade, then you
will have to kill.” We do not know the context or accuracy of these translated
statements. However on the basis of my own travels in Russia and the experience
of many other Americans, these statements are strange and uncharacteristic.
the popular and government level, Russians are typically at pains to call the
U.S. a “partner” and to wish for peace and better relations. With 27 million
killed in World War 2, most Russians are very conscious of the consequences of
war and deeply want peace. Russians vividly recall the Russia-U.S. alliance
during WW2 and seek a return to friendly collaboration. The film producers must
have heard this message and desire for peace expressed by many Russians many
times. But the documentary only presents this uncharacteristic aggressive
suggests that producers of a private TV network received angry public messages
because they were exposing corruption. In reality, the angry public
response was because the TV station ran a poll asking viewers if the Soviet
Union should have surrendered to Nazi Germany to save lives during the siege of
suggests that RT (Russia Today TV) typically features Holocaust deniers and
neo-Nazis.This is a grotesque distortion Anyone
who watches RT will know that American personalities such as Chris Hedges,
Larry King and Ed Schultz are regulars on RT. Interviewees on international
affairs generally come from the left side of the political spectrum – the
opposite of what is suggested.
repeats the conspiracy theory that Russia hacked the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton emails. The findings
have been disputed by the publisher of the emails, Julian
Assange of Wikileaks , as well as Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. A recent
forensic examination confirms that this was a leak not a hack (inside
job done by local data transfer NOT a hack over the internet) and points to “Guccifer 2.0”, the
presumptive “hacker,” being a hoax intentionally created to implicate Russia.
suggests that anti-Clinton social media messaging during 2016 was significantly
caused by Russian government trolls.Hillary Clinton was strongly opposed
by significant portions of both the left and right. There were probably
hundreds of thousands of Americans who shared anti-Clinton social media
that research showing a Google search engine bias in favor of Hillary Clinton
was “quickly debunked.” The documentary ignores the
original article describing
the potential effect of search-engine bias, which was published in the
prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The
author is Dr. Robert Epstein, former editor-in-chief of Psychology
Today magazine. Contradicting the claim that this research was
academic article estimates the effect of the Google bias and how the
bias went away AFTER the election. The response from Google and very
shallow Snopes ”fact
check” are effectively rebutted by the lead author here. In neo-McCarthyist
style, the documentary smears the findings and claims they were “laundered”
after being published by the Russian “Sputnik” media.
the “idea that President Kennedy was killed by the CIA” was “planted” by the
Soviet intelligence agency KGB. Many impressive American books
have been written supporting this contention, from New Orleans District
Attorney Jim Garrison’s book to David Talbot’s 2015 book Devil’s
Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA and Deep State. Claiming that this
accusation is based on KGB “disinformation” is another grotesque distortion. It
is not revealing disinformation; this is an example of disinformation.
3: “Why are so many from this Russian republic fighting for Isis?”
this episode, the documentary:
and almost justifies Russian Muslims traveling to join ISIS. The
documentary suggests that religious repression and discrimination is a cause of
ISIS recruitment and that “Dagestanis who fought for ISIS continue a
decades-old legacy here of radicalism and militancy.”
James Foley shortly before he was executed by an Islamic State operative.
the role of the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Pakistan in promoting Islamist
fundamentalism in Dagestan.As described by Robert Dreyfus in the
book Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist
Islam: “the Casey-ISI (CIA and Pakistan Secret Service) actions aided the
growth of a significant network of right-wing, Islamist extremists who, to this
day, plague the governments of the former Soviet republics … In particular, the
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, the Islamic Liberation Party, the powerful
Islamist groups in Chechnya and Dagestan.”
the role of the US and allies in facilitating ISIS.As
journalist Patrick Cockburn has written,“In
the 20 years between 1996 and 2016, the CIA and British security and
foreign policy agencies have consistently given priority to maintaining their
partnership with powerful Sunni states over the elimination of terrorist
organizations such as al-Qaeda and Isis.”
Nafeez Ahmed exposed the role of Turkey here,
“A former senior counter-terrorism official in Turkey has blown the whistle
on President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s deliberate sponsorship of the Islamic State
(ISIS) as a geopolitical tool to expand Turkey’s regional influence and
sideline his political opponents at home.”
of the U.S. military/intelligence suggested the establishment of ISIS to
“isolate the Syrian regime.” This was revealed in the classified
2012 report of the Defense Intelligence Agency that “THERE
IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST
PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT
THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN
short, ISIS recruitment from Muslim communities in Russia and worldwide has
been spurred by the policies and actions of the U.S. and allies such as Saudi
Arabia and Turkey. This is what Dreyfus calls The Devil’s Game, but
is ignored in the documentary.
4: “The Deadly Risk of Standing up to Putin”
this episode, the documentary:
that critics of Putin and the Russian government face “consequences” including
death.These accusations are widespread in the West but
largely based on the claims of different U.S.-supported “activists.” One of the
most famous cases, and the one on which U.S. congressional sanctions against
Russia are based, is that of Sergei Magnitsky. Magnitsky’s death was the
subject of a documentary, which has been effectively banned in the U.S. In the
course of researching what happened, the filmmaker learned that the truth was
very different than has been told in the West and promoted by hedge-fund
executive William Browder. Gilbert Doctorow outlines what happens in his review
of the film here:
Act: Behind the Scenes’ is an amazing film which takes
us through the thought processes, the evidence sorting of the well-known
independent film maker Andrei Nekrasov as he approached an assignment that was
at the outset meant to be one more public confirmation of the narrative Browder
has sold to the US Congress and to the American and European political elites.
That story was all about a 36 year old whistle-blower ‘attorney’ (actually a
bookkeeper) named Sergei Magnitsky who denounced on Browder’s behalf the theft
of Russian taxes to his boss’s companies amounting to $230 million and who was
rewarded for his efforts by arrest, torture and murder in detainment by the
officials who perpetrated the theft. This shocking tale drove legislation that
was a major landmark in the descent of US-Russian relations under President
Barack Obama to a level rivaling the worst days of the Cold War.
William Browder (right) with Magnitsky’s widow and son, along with European
the end of the film we understand that this story was concocted by William Browder
to cover up his own criminal theft of the money in question, that Magnitsky was
not a whistleblower, but on the contrary was likely an assistant and abettor to
the fraud and theft that Browder organized, that he was not murdered by corrupt
Russian police but died in prison from banal neglect of his medical condition.”
PBS documentary quotes an opposition leader, Vladimir Kara-Murza, saying “We
have no free and fair elections. We have censorship in the media. We have
political prisoners, more than 100 political prisoners now in Russia, today.”
Kara-Murza now lives in Washington “for his safety” but returns to Russia
periodically. He claims to have been poisoned several times.
of the Russian government are quick to accuse but the evidence is largely
hearsay and speculation. Public polls of citizens in Russia repeatedly indicate
that Putin and the government have widespread popularity, in contrast with the
accusations in this documentary that they rule by intimidation and violence.
5: “What Russians think about Trump and the
on the content, the final episode should be titled “What the U.S. establishment
and media thinks of Putin and Russia.” In this episode, the documentary:
accusations by CIA Director Mike Pompeo that Russian President Putin, “ is a
man for whom veracity doesn’t translate into English.” An
objective documentary would take CIA claims about “veracity” with a healthy
dose of skepticism. Just a few years ago, former Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper was confirmed to have lied
under oath to Congress. Former CIA chief of counterintelligence James
Angleton said in
his dying days, “Fundamentally, the founding fathers of U.S. intelligence were
liars. The better you lied and the more you betrayed, the more likely you got
promoted.” So it is curious to see the PBS documentary uncritically presenting
the new CIA director as a judge of veracity.
of State Colin Powell addressed the United Nations on Feb. 5. 2003, citing
satellite photos which supposedly proved that Iraq had WMD, but the evidence
that President Trump is out of line to question “the U.S. intelligence
community’s unanimous assessment that Russia hacked the 2016 election.”It
has been recently exposed that
the “unanimous assessment” was, in reality, by “hand-picked” analysts at three
agencies, under DNI Clapper’s oversight, not all 17 agencies and that the
National Security Agency did NOT have “high confidence” in a key finding. The
“assessment,” which the Jan. 6 report acknowledged was NOT an establishment of
fact, was based on the forensics of a private company, Crowdstrike, with a
checkered record in this field, and the dubious Christopher Steele dossier, a
collection of “opposition research” reports against Donald Trump, paid for
unidentified allies of Hillary Clinton and compiled by Steele, an ex-British
March 2017, Crowdstrike was found to
have made false claims in another investigation of an alleged Russian “hack.”
Yet, neither the CIA nor FBI examined the Democratic National Committee’s
computers. If the issue was as important as it supposedly has now become, the
FBI should have issued a subpoena to do its own examination. Why the DNC
rejected the FBI request, and why the FBI did not insist, raises serious
questions given the enormous publicity and accusations that have followed.
features two US politicians making loose accusations and effectively
criminalizing “contacts” with Russians.Sen. James
Lankford, R-Oklahoma, says President Trump is “pushing out some messages that
are consistent with the Kremlin policies … there’s no question that the
Russians were trying to hack into our elections.” Yet, former U.S. intelligence
officers with experience in these areas recently presented
evidence raising significant questions about this conventional wisdom.
the Democratic side, Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia indicates the Senate
investigation reached its conclusion before it began. He said, “The goal of
this investigation is not only to reconfirm Russian intervention and explain
that to the American public, but to also see if there were any contacts between
Trump and the Russians.”
the current environment, to have “contacts” with Russians has been
criminalized. Instead of questioning the validity or wisdom of this position,
the documentary presents it with seeming approval.
promotes false statements and reckless threats. Sen.
Lankford says “We believe strongly that what Russia continues to do
to be able to threaten Ukraine, threaten its neighbors, threaten NATO, to
continue to pry into not only our elections, but other elections, is
destabilizing, and it demands a response. They have yet to have a consequence
to what they did in the election time. And they should.”
assertions are presented as facts but are debatable or false. For example,
security services in Germany, France and
all found that – despite the international accusations – there was NO evidence
of Russian interference in their recent elections.
and promotes “punishment” of Russia.The belligerent approach of
Lankford and Warner is continued by PBS host Judy Woodruff and narrator Nick
Schifrin. The U.S. is portrayed as a vulnerable victim with a future that is
“foreboding”. Russia is portrayed as threatening and needing some punishment
soon: “The Russian government doesn’t feel like the United States
government really penalized them for what happened last year…. a lot of
officials here in Washington agree with that… Russia should have paid for what
they did last year.”
President Vladimir Putin answering questions from Russian citizens at his
annual Q&A event on April 14, 2016. (Russian government photo)
threatening talk is then followed by the following assessment from the
narrator: “There are analysts in Moscow who think the only thing we can hope is
that we avoid war.”
2002-2003, American mainstream media failed to question or challenge the
assertions of the CIA and politicians pushing for the invasion of Iraq. At that
time, the false pretense was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and
posed a threat to the U.S.
of the media and many of the same politicians are now claiming Russia is an
adversary that has “attacked us.” This claim is being widely made without
serious question or challenge. “Liberal” media seems to be in alliance with
hawkish neoconservatives on this issue. Virtually any accusation against Russia
and its leader can be made with impunity and without serious evidence.
PBS documentary “Inside Putin’s Russia” aims to expose Russian repression,
aggression and disinformation. As shown in the many examples above, the
five-part documentary is highly biased and inaccurate. While it shows some
features of Russia, it also demonstrates American propaganda in the current
Sterling is an investigative journalist based in northern California. He can be
contacted at email@example.com
believe that the cause of WW2 was UK prime minister Chamberlain’s appeasement
of Hitler’s recovery of German territory given to other countries via the
Versailles Treaty in contravention of US President Woodrow Wilson’s promise to
Germany that there would be no reparations and no loss of territory if Germany
agreed to an armistance ending WW1.
I do not agree. The
facts seem clear. The cause of WW2 was the gratuitous and unenforceable
guarantee to the Polish military government given by Chamberlain that if Poland
refused to hand German lands and populations back to Germany, Great Britain
would be there to support Poland. When Germany and the Soviet Union made the
deal to split Poland between them and attacked, Britain due to its stupid “guarantee”
declared war on Germany, but not on the Soviet Union. As France was aligned by
treaty with Britain, France, too, had to declare war. Because of the reign of
propaganda in the West, hardly anyone knows this, but WW2 was started by the
British and French declaration of war on Germany. Yet, it was the surviving
members of the German regime who were put on trial by the US, UK, France, and
the Soviet Union in Nuremberg for initiating aggressive war.
the general opinion is that Chamberlain encouraged Hitler to ever more
aggressive actions by the British failure to respond, why has no one pointed
out that the Russian government’s lack of response to Washington’s aggressive
actions toward Russia encourages Washington to become more aggressive. This
also is leading to war.
government, like Chamberlain’s, has not responded to provocations far more
dangerous than Chamberlain faced, because, like Chamberlain, the Russian
government prefers peace to war.
The question is
whether the Russian government is avoiding or encourging war by its
non-response to illegal sanctions and propagandistic accusations and
demonizations. Russia has even allowed Washington to put ABM bases on its
borders with Poland and Romania. This is like the US permitting Russia to put
missile bases in Cuba.
disadvantaged because, unlike the United States, Russia is an open society, not
a police state like the US where dissent is controlled and suppressed. The
Russian government is handicapped by its decision to permit foreign ownership
of some of its media. It is disadvantaged by its decision to accept hundreds of
American and European financed NGOs that organize protests and constantly level
false charges at the Russian government. The Russian government permits this
because it mistakenly believes Washington and its vassals will see Russia as a
tolerant democracy and welcome it into the Western Family of Nations.
Russia is also
disadvantaged by its educated upper class, professors and businessmen who are
Western oriented. The professors want to be invited to conferences at Harvard
University. The businessmen want to be integrated into the Western business
community. These people are known as “Atlanticist Integrationists.” They
believe Russia’s future depends on acceptance by the West and are willing to
sell out Russia in order to gain this acceptance. Even some of Russian youth
think everything is great in America where the streets are paved with gold, and
some of the Russian media take their cue from the Western presstitutes.
It is a difficult
situation for the Russian government. The Russians mistakenly believed that the
demise of the Soviet Union made us all friends. It seems only Gorbachev
understands that the Soviet collapse removed all constraint on Washington’s
hegemonic behavior. Few in Russia seem to understand that the enormous budget
and power of the US military/security complex, about which President
Eisenhower, warned in 1961, needs an enemy for its justification, and that the
Soviet collapse had removed the enemy. The very minute that Russia stood up for
its national interest, Washington filled the desperately needed category of
“The Enemy” with Putin’s Russia.
government and upper class have been extremely slow in realizing this. Indeed,
only a few are beginning to see the light.
Despite the writing
on the wall, Russia’s new UN envoy, Vasily Nabenzya declared on July 29 that
Russia has no alternative to “building bridges under any circumstances. We will
cooperate. Americans cannot go without us, and us without them. This is an
This is a statement
of Russian surrender.
foreign minister, Sergay Ryabkov also refuses to read the writing on the wall.
He thinks Washington and Moscow must “break the vicious circle of retaliation
and start anew.”
On July 30 Russian
President Putin finally responded to the Obama regime’s orchestrated expulsion
of Russian diplomats from Washington last Christmas and illegal seizure of
Russian government properties in the Washington area by evicting 750 “American
diplomats,” in reality agents working to undermine the Russian government.
Putin could just as well have arrested them. It only took 7 months for Russia
to respond to Washington’s hostile actions against Russian diplomats.
Russian government shows some awareness that it is permanently designated as
Washington’s Number One Enemy. Putin explained the belated expulsion of US
“diplomats” as follows: “We’ve been waiting for quite a long time that maybe
something would change for the better, we had hopes that the situation would
change. But it looks like, it’s not going to change in the near future… I
decided that it is time for us to show that we will not leave anything
After saying this,
Putin took it all back: “The main thing is, that we have a multi-faceted
cooperation in many fields. Of course, Moscow has a lot to say and there is a
number of spheres of cooperation that we could potentially cut and it would be
sensitive for the US side. But I think we shouldn’t do it. It would harm
development of international relations. I hope it won’t get to that point. As
of today, I’m against it.” https://www.rt.com/news/398019-putin-us-diplomats-sanctions/
A more realistic
response than President Putin’s comes from Dmitry Suslov, deputy director of
the Russian Council on Foreign and Defense Policy and program director of
Putin’s Valdai Discussion Club. Suslov understands that the new illegal
sanctions against Russia, in addition to their advantage for US energy
corporations, are an act of aggression toward Russia, the purpose of which is
to make impossible the improvement of bilateral relations between the US and
Russia. “Today,” Suslov said, “it is already clear that the US is our enemy,
and will remain our enemy for a long time. Russia needs to adjust its state
arms program, reflecting the inevitable military-political confrontation with
the US. There must be investments in stratgic deterrance, in maintaining the
system of guaranteed mutual destruction.”
“Perhaps, it is worthwhile to turn off cooperation with the United States on
those issues which are necessary first of all for the US itself. For example,
the US depends on Russia in the field of space cooperation. Perhaps there is a
need to make adjustments and give up part of the programs of cooperation. It is
worthwhile to think about increasing military cooperation between Russia on the
American continent — I mean primarily to build up cooperation with Venezuela,”
anyone who departed as far as Suslov has from the delusions that hinder Russian
decision-making would be fired. It will be interesting to see if Suslov has
introduced more reality than is acceptible into Russian awareness of the threat
that Russia faces from Washington.
Is Russia a country
so desperate to be part of the West that it is ruled by delusions and
illusions? If so, war is a certainty.
Featured image: Painting by Anthony Freda (Source:
Presidents, Prime Ministers, Congressmen, Generals,
Spooks, Soldiers and Police ADMIT to False Flag Terror
In the following instances, officials in the
government which carried out the attack (or seriously proposed an attack) admit to
it, either orally, in writing, or through photographs or videos:
(1) Japanese troops set off a small explosion on a
train track in 1931, and falsely blamed it on China in order to justify an
invasion of Manchuria. This is known as the “Mukden Incident” or the “Manchurian
Incident”. The Tokyo International Military Tribunal found:
“Several of the participators in the plan, including
Hashimoto [a high-ranking Japanese army officer], have on various
occasions admitted their part in the plot and
have stated that the object of the ‘Incident’ was to afford an excuse for the
occupation of Manchuria by the Kwantung Army ….”
(2) A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that – under orders
from the chief of the Gestapo – he and some other Nazi operatives faked several
attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to
justify the invasion of Poland. The staged attacks included:
radio station Sender Gleiwitz [details below]
strategic railway at POSunka Pass (Jabłonków
Incident), located on the border between Poland and Czechoslovakia
customs station at Hochlinden (today part of Rybnik-Stodoły)
service station in Pitschen (Byczyna)
communications station at Neubersteich (“Nieborowitzer Hammer” before 12
February 1936, now Kuznia Nieborowska)
railroad station in Alt-Eiche (Smolniki), Rosenberg in Westpreußen
A woman and
her companion in Katowice
The details of the Gleiwitz radio station
On the night of 31 August 1939, a small group of
German operatives dressed in Polish uniforms and led by Naujocks seized the
Gleiwitz station and broadcast a short anti-German message in Polish (sources
vary on the content of the message). The Germans’ goal was to make the attack
and the broadcast look like the work of anti-German Polish saboteurs.
To make the attack seem more convincing, the Germans
used human corpses to pass them off as Polish attackers. They murdered Franciszek
Honiok, a 43-year-old unmarried German Silesian Catholic farmer known for
sympathizing with the Poles. He had been arrested the previous day by the
Gestapo. He was dressed to look like a saboteur, then killed by lethal
injection, given gunshot wounds, and left dead at the scene so that he appeared
to have been killed while attacking the station. His corpse was subsequently
presented to the police and press as proof of the attack.
(3) The minutes of the high command of the Italian
government – subsequently approved by Mussolini himself – admitted that violence on the
Greek-Albanian border was carried out by Italians and falsely blamed on the
Greeks, as an excuse for Italy’s 1940 invasion of Greece.
(4) Nazi general Franz Halder also
testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goeringadmitted to setting fire to the German
parliament building in 1933, and then falsely blaming the communists for the
(5) Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchevadmitted in writing that the Soviet Union’s Red Army
shelled the Russian village of Mainila in 1939 – while blaming the attack on
Finland – as a basis for launching the “Winter War” against Finland. Russian
president Boris Yeltsinagreed that Russia had been the aggressor in the Winter
(6) The Russian Parliament, current Russian president Putin and
former Soviet leader Gorbachevall admit that Soviet leader Joseph
Stalin ordered his secret police to execute 22,000 Polish army
officers and civilians in 1940, and then falsely blamed it on the Nazis.
(7) The British government admits that – between 1946 and 1948 – it
bombed 5 ships carrying Jews who were Holocaust survivors attempting to flee to
safety in Palestine right after World War II, set up a fake group called
“Defenders of Arab Palestine”, and then had the psuedo-group falsely claim
responsibility for the bombings (and see this, this and this).
(8) Israel admits that in 1954, an Israeli terrorist
cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S.
diplomatic facilities, then left behind “evidence” implicating the Arabs as the
culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to
identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and
see this and this).
The U.S. Army does not believe this is an isolated
incident. For example, the U.S. Army’s School of Advanced Military
Studies said of Mossad (Israel’s intelligence
“Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S.
forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act.”
(9) The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as
Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its
democratically-elected prime minister.
(10) The Turkish Prime Minister admitted that the Turkish government
carried out the 1955 bombing on a Turkish consulate in Greece – also damaging the
nearby birthplace of the founder of modern Turkey – and blamed it on Greece,
for the purpose of inciting and justifying anti-Greek violence.
Starting in the 1950s Turkey’s deep state sponsored
killings, engineered riots, colluded with drug traffickers, staged “false flag”
attacks and organised massacres of trade unionists. Thousands died in the chaos
(11) The British Prime Minister admitted to his defense secretary that he and American
president Dwight Eisenhower approved a plan in 1957 to carry
out attacks in Syria and blame it on the Syrian government as a way to effect
(13) In 1960, American Senator George Smatherssuggested that the U.S. launch “a
false attack made on Guantanamo Bay which would give us the excuse of actually
fomenting a fight which would then give us the excuse to go in and [overthrow
A U.S. Navy HSS-1
Seabat helicopter hovers over Soviet submarine B-59, forced to the
surface by U.S. Naval forces in the Caribbean near Cuba (October 28–29, 1962)
(14) Official State Department documents show that, in
1961, the head of the Joint Chiefs and other high-level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican
Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. The plans were not
carried out, but they were all discussed as serious proposals.
(15) As admitted by the U.S. government, recently
declassified documents show that in 1962, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff
signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using
an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit
terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in
order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington
Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter
(16) In 1963, the U.S. Department of Defense wrote a
paper promoting attacks on nations within
the Organization of American States – such as Trinidad-Tobago or Jamaica – and
then falsely blaming them on Cuba.
(17) The U.S. Department of Defense also suggested covertly paying a person in
the Castro government to attack the United States:
“The only area remaining for consideration then would
be to bribe one of Castro’s subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on
(18) A U.S. Congressional committee admitted that – as part of its “Cointelpro” campaign –
the FBI had used many provocateurs in the 1950s through 1970s
to carry out violent acts and falsely blame them on political activists.
(19) A top Turkish general admitted that Turkish forces burned
down a mosque on Cyprus in the 1970s and blamed it on their enemy. He explained:
“In Special War, certain acts of sabotage are
staged and blamed on the enemy to increase public resistance. We did this
on Cyprus; we even burnt down a mosque.”
In response to the surprised correspondent’s
incredulous look the general said, “I am giving an example”.
(20) A declassified 1973 CIA document reveals a program to train foreign police and troops on
how to make booby traps, pretending that they were training them on how
to investigate terrorist acts:
The Agency maintains liaison in varying degrees with
foreign police/security organizations through its field stations ….
[CIA provides training sessions as follows:]
a. Providing trainees with basic knowledge in
the uses of commercial and military demolitions and incendiaries as
they may be applied in terrorism and industrial sabotage operations.
b. Introducing the trainees to commercially
available materials and home laboratory techniques, likely to he used in
the manufacture of explosives and incendiaries by terrorists or saboteurs.
c. Familiarizing the trainees with the concept
of target analysis and operational planning that a saboteur or
terrorist must employ.
d. Introducing the trainees to booby trapping devices
and techniques giving practical experience with both
manufactured and improvised devices through actual fabrication.
The program provides the trainees with ample
opportunity to develop basic familiarity and use proficiently through handling,
preparing and applying the various explosive charges, incendiary agents,
terrorist devices and sabotage techniques.
(21) The German government admitted (and see this) that, in 1978, the German secret
service detonated a bomb in the outer wall of a prison and planted “escape
tools” on a prisoner – a member of the Red Army Faction – which the secret
service wished to frame the bombing on.
(22) A Mossad agent admits that, in 1984, Mossad planted a
radio transmitter in Gaddaffi’s compound in Tripoli, Libya which broadcast fake
terrorist transmissions recorded by Mossad, in order to frame Gaddaffi as a
terrorist supporter. Ronald Reagan bombed Libya immediately
(23) The South African Truth and Reconciliation
Council found that, in 1989, the Civil Cooperation
Bureau (a covert branch of the South African Defense Force) approached an
explosives expert and asked him “to participate in an operation aimed at
discrediting the ANC [the African National Congress] by bombing the police
vehicle of the investigating officer into the murder incident”, thus framing
the ANC for the bombing.
(24) An Algerian diplomat and several officers in the
Algerian army admit that, in the 1990s, the Algerian
army frequently massacred Algerian civilians and then blamed Islamic militants
for the killings (and see this video; and Agence France-Presse, 9/27/2002, French
Court Dismisses Algerian Defamation Suit Against Author).
(25) In 1993, a bomb in Northern Ireland killed 9
civilians. Official documents from the Royal Ulster Constabulary (i.e. the
British government) show that the mastermind of the bombing was
a British agent, and that the bombing was designed to inflame sectarian
tensions. And see this and this.
(26) The United States Army’s 1994 publication Special
Forces Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special
Forces – updated in 2004 – recommends employing terrorists and
using false flag operations to destabilize leftist regimes in Latin America.
False flag terrorist attacks were carried out in Latin America and other
regions as part of the CIA’s “Dirty Wars“. And see this.
(27) Similarly, a CIA “psychological operations”
manual prepared by a CIA contractor for the Nicaraguan Contra rebels noted the value of assassinating someone
on your own side to create a “martyr” for the cause. The manual was authenticated by the U.S.
government. The manual received so much publicity from Associated Press,
Washington Post and other news coverage that – during the 1984 presidential
debate – President Reagan was confronted with the following
question on national television:
At this moment, we are confronted with the
extraordinary story of a CIA guerrilla manual for the anti-Sandinista contras
whom we are backing, which advocates not only assassinations of Sandinistas but
the hiring of criminals to assassinate the guerrillas we are supporting
in order to create martyrs.
(28) A Rwandan government inquiry admitted that the 1994 shootdown and
murder of the Rwandan president, who was from the Hutu tribe –
a murder blamed by the Hutus on the rival Tutsi tribe, and
which led to the massacre of more than 800,000 Tutsis by Hutus – was committed
by Hutu soldiers and falsely blamed on the Tutsi. [GR Editor:
This government report is contested. The alleged role of foreign powers in the
shoot down is not acknowledged]
(30) Senior Russian Senior military and intelligence
officers admit that the KGB blew up Russian
apartment buildings in 1999 and falsely blamed it on Chechens, in order to
justify an invasion of Chechnya (and see this report and this discussion).
(31) As reported by the New York Times, BBC and Associated Press, Macedonian officials admit that
in 2001, the government murdered 7 innocent immigrants in cold blood and
pretended that they were Al Qaeda soldiers attempting to assassinate Macedonian
police, in order to join the “war on terror”. They lured foreign migrants into
the country, executed them in a staged gun battle, and then claimed they were a
unit backed by Al Qaeda intent on attacking Western embassies”. Specifically,
Macedonian authorities had lured the immigrants into the country, and then –
after killing them – posed the victims with planted evidence – “bags of
uniforms and semiautomatic weapons at their side” – to show Western diplomats.
(32) At the July 2001 G8 Summit in Genoa, Italy,
black-clad thugs were videotaped getting out of police
cars, and were seen by an Italian MP carrying “iron bars
inside the police station”. Subsequently, senior police officials in Genoa
subsequently admitted that police planted two
Molotov cocktails and faked the stabbing of a police officer at the G8 Summit,
in order to justify a violent crackdown against
Even after the 9/11 Commission admitted that
there was no connection, Dick Cheneysaid that the evidence is “overwhelming”
that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein’s regime, that
Cheney “probably” had information unavailable to the Commission, and that the
media was not ‘doing their homework’ in reporting such ties. Top U.S.
government officials now admit that the Iraq war was really launched for oil … not
9/11 or weapons of mass destruction.
Despite previous “lone wolf” claims, many U.S.
government officials now say that 9/11 was state-sponsored terror; but Iraq was not the
state which backed the hijackers. (Many U.S. officials have allegedthat
9/11 was a false flag operation by rogue elements of the U.S. government; but such
a claim is beyond the scope of this discussion. The key point is that the U.S.
falsely blamed it on Iraq, when it knew Iraq had nothing to do
(35) According to the Washington Post, Indonesian police admit that the
Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002 and blamed the
murders on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a
(36) The well-respected former Indonesian president
also admits that the government probably had a
role in the Bali bombings.
(38) In 2003, the U.S. Secretary of Defense admitted that interrogators were authorized to use the
following method: “False Flag: Convincing the detainee that individuals from a
country other than the United States are interrogating him.” While not a
traditional false flag attack, this deception could lead to former
detainees – many of whom were tortured –
attacking the country falsely blamed for the interrogation and torture.
(39) Former Department of Justice lawyer John
Yoosuggested in 2005 that the US should
go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having “our intelligence agencies create
a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites,
recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launchfake
terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes,
helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt
others’ identities and to question the validity of communications.”
(40) Similarly, in 2005, Professor John
Arquilla of the Naval Postgraduate School – a renowned US defense
analyst credited with developing the concept of ‘netwar’ – called for western intelligence
services to create new “pseudo gang” terrorist groups, as a way of
undermining “real” terror networks. According to Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Seymour
Hersh, Arquilla’s ‘pseudo-gang’ strategy was, Hersh reported, already being implemented by
“Under Rumsfeld’s new approach, I was told, US
military operatives would be permitted to pose abroad as corrupt foreign
businessmen seeking to buy contraband items that could be used in
nuclear-weapons systems. In some cases, according to the Pentagon
advisers, local citizens could be recruited and asked to join up with
guerrillas or terrorists…
The new rules will enable the Special Forces community
to set up what it calls ‘action teams’ in the target countries overseas which
can be used to find and eliminate terrorist organizations. ‘Do you
remember the right-wing execution squads in El Salvador?’ the former high-level
intelligence official asked me, referring to the military-led gangs that
committed atrocities in the early nineteen-eighties. ‘We founded them and we
financed them,’ he said. ‘The objective now is to recruit locals in any area we
want. And we aren’t going to tell Congress about it.’ A former military
officer, who has knowledge of the Pentagon’s commando capabilities, said,
‘We’re going to be riding with the bad boys.’”
(41) United Press International reported in June 2005:
U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of
the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the
pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear
to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production
line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers
indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or
terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that
these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that
agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S.
authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the
illegitimacy of the resistance.
(42) In 2005, British soldiers dressed as
Arabs were caught by Iraqi police after a shootout against the police. The
soldiers apparently possessed explosives, and
were accused of attempting to set off bombs. While none of the
soldiers admitted that they were carrying out attacks, British soldiers and a
column of British tanks stormed the jail they were held in, broke
down a wall of the jail, and busted them out. The extreme measures used to
free the soldiers – rather than have them face questions and potentially stand
trial – could be considered an admission.
(43) Undercover Israeli soldiers admitted in 2005 to throwing stones at
other Israeli soldiers so they could blame it on Palestinians, as an excuse to
crack down on peaceful protests by the Palestinians.
(44) Quebec police admitted that, in 2007, thugs carrying rocks to a
peaceful protest were actually undercover Quebec police officers (and see this).
(45) A 2008 US Army special operations field
manual recommends that the U.S. military use
surrogate non-state groups such as “paramilitary forces, individuals,
businesses, foreign political organizations, resistant or insurgent
organizations, expatriates, transnational terrorism adversaries,
disillusioned transnational terrorism members, black marketers, and other
social or political ‘undesirables.’” The manual specifically acknowledged that
U.S. special operations can involve both counterterrorism and “Terrorism” (as
well as “transnational criminal activities, including narco-trafficking,
illicit arms-dealing, and illegal financial transactions.”)
He should do what I did when I was Minister of the
Interior … infiltrate the movement with agents provocateurs inclined to do
anything …. And after that, with the strength of the gained population consent,
… beat them for blood and beat for blood also those teachers that incite them.
Especially the teachers. Not the elderly, of course, but the girl teachers yes.
(47) An undercover officer admitted that he infiltrated
environmental, leftwing and anti-fascist groups in 22 countries. Germany’s
federal police chief admitted that – while the undercover
officer worked for the German police – he acted illegally during a G8 protest
in Germany in 2007 and committed arson by setting fire during a subsequent
demonstration in Berlin. The undercover officer spent many years living with violent “Black Bloc”
(48) Denver police admitted that uniformed officers
deployed in 2008 to an area where alleged “anarchists” had planned to wreak
havoc outside the Democratic National Convention ended up getting into a melee
with two undercover policemen. The uniformed officers didn’t know the
undercover officers were cops.
(49) At the G20 protests in London in 2009, a British
member of parliament saw plain clothes police officers attempting
to incite the crowd to violence.
(50) The oversight agency for the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police admitted that – at the G20 protests in
Toronto in 2010 – undercover police officers were arrested with a group of
protesters. Videos and photos (see this and this,
for example) show that violent protesters wore very similar boots and other
gear as the police, and carried police batons. The Globe and Mail reports that the undercover officers
planned the targets for violent attack, and the police failed to stop the
(51) Egyptian politicians admitted (and see this) that government employees looted priceless
museum artifacts 2011 to try to discredit the protesters.
(52) Austin police admit that 3 officers infiltrated the
Occupy protests in that city. Prosecutors admit that one of the undercover officers
purchased and constructed illegal “lock boxes” which ended up getting many
(53) In 2011, a Colombian colonel admitted that he and his soldiers had lured 57 innocent
civilians and killed them – after dressing many of them in uniforms – as part
of a scheme to claim that Columbia was eradicating left-wing terrorists.
And see this.
(54) Rioters who discredited the peaceful protests
against the swearing in of the Mexican president in 2012 admitted that they were paid 300 pesos
each to destroy everything in their path. According to Wikipedia, photos
also show the vandals waiting in groups behind police
lines prior to the violence.
(55) On November 20, 2014, Mexican agent provocateurs
were transported by army vehicles to participate in the 2014 Iguala mass
kidnapping protests, as was shown by videos and pictures distributed
via social networks.
(56) The highly-respected writer for the Telegraph
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard says that the head of Saudi intelligence – Prince
Bandar – recently admitted that the Saudi government
controls “Chechen” terrorists.
It’s gotten so ridiculous that a U.S. Senator has
introduced a “Stop Arming Terrorists Act”,
and U.S. Congresswoman – who introduced a similar bill in the House – says:
“For years, the U.S. government has been supporting
armed militant groups working directly with and often under the command of
terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda in their fight to overthrow the Syrian
(59) The Ukrainian security chief admits that the sniper attacks which started the
Ukrainian coup were carried out in order to frame others. Ukrainian
officials admit that the Ukrainian snipers fired on both sides, to
create maximum chaos.
(60) Speaking of snipers, in a secret recording,
Venezuelan generals admit that they will deploy snipers to
shoot protesters, but keep the marksmen well-hidden from demonstrator and the
reporters covering the events so others would be blamed for the deaths.
(61) Burmese government officials admitted that Burma (renamed Myanmar)
used false flag attacks against Muslim and Buddhist groups within the country
to stir up hatred between the two groups, to prevent democracy from spreading.
(62) Israeli police were again filmed in 2015 dressing up as Arabs and throwing stones,
then turning over Palestinian protesters to Israeli soldiers.
(63) Britain’s spy agency has admitted (and see this) that it carries out “digital false flag” attacks
on targets, framing people by writing offensive or unlawful
material … and blaming it on the target.
(64) The CIA has admitted that it uses viruses and malware from Russia
and other countries to carry out cyberattacks and blame other countries.
(65) U.S. soldiers have admitted that if they kill innocent Iraqis and
Afghanis, they then “drop” automatic weapons near their body so they can pretend they
(66) German prosecutors admit that a German soldier disguised
himself as a Syrian refugee and planned to shoot people so that the attack
would be blamed on asylum seekers.
(67) Police frame innocent people for crimes they
didn’t commit. The practice is so well-known that the New York Times noted in 1981:
In police jargon, a throwdown is a weapon planted on a
Perez, himself a former [Los Angeles Police
Department] cop, was caught stealing eight pounds of cocaine from police
evidence lockers. After pleading guilty in September, he bargained for a
lighter sentence by telling an appalling story of attempted murder and a “throwdown”–police
slang for a weapon planted by cops to make a shooting legally justifiable.
Perez said he and his partner, Officer Nino Durden, shot an unarmed 18th Street
Gang member named Javier Ovando, then planted a semiautomatic rifle on
the unconscious suspect and claimed that Ovando had tried to shoot themduring
As part of his plea bargain, Pérez implicated scores
of officers from the Rampart Division’s anti-gang unit, describing routinely beating
gang members, planting evidence on suspects, falsifying reports and
covering up unprovoked shootings.
(68) A former U.S. intelligence officer recently alleged:
Most terrorists are false flag terrorists or are
created by our own security services.
(69) The head and special agent in charge of the FBI’s
Los Angeles office said that most terror attacks are committed
by the CIA and FBI as false flags.
(70) The Director of Analytics at the interagency Global
Engagement Center housed at the U.S. Department of State, also an adjunct
professor at George Mason University, where he teaches the graduate course
National Security Challenges in the Department of Information Sciences and
Technology, a former branch chief in the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center, and an
intelligence advisor to the Secretary of Homeland Security (J.D. Maddox) notes:
Provocation is one of the most basic, but confounding,
aspects of warfare. Despite its sometimes obvious use, it has succeeded
consistently against audiences around the world, for millennia, to compel war.
A well-constructed provocation narrative mutes even the most vocal opposition.
The culmination of a strategic provocation operation
invariably reflects a narrative of victimhood: we are the victims of
the enemy’s unforgivable atrocities.
In the case of strategic provocation the deaths of an
aggressor’s own personnel are a core tactic of the provocation.
The persistent use of strategic provocation over
centuries – and its apparent importance to war planners – begs the question of
its likely use by the US and other states in the near term.
(71) Leaders throughout history have acknowledged the
“benefits” of of false flags to justify their political agenda:
“Terrorism is the best political weapon for
nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death”.
– Adolph Hitler
“Why of course the people don’t want war … But after
all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always
a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a
fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship … Voice or
no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That
is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to
danger. It works the same in any country.”
– Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.
“The easiest way to gain control of a population is
to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such
laws if their personal security is threatened”.
– Josef Stalin
Postscript 1: It is not just “modern” nations
which have launched false flag attacks. For example, a Native American from one
tribe (Pomunkey) murdered a white Englishwoman living in Virginia in 1697 and
then falsely blamed it on second tribe (Piscataway). But
he later admitted in court that he was not
really Piscataway, and that he had been paid by a provocateur from a third tribe
(Iroquois) to kill the woman as a way to start a war between the English
and the Piscataway, thus protecting the profitable Iroquois monopoly in trade
with the English.
Postscript 2: On multiple occasions, atrocities
or warmongering are falsely blamed on the enemy as a justification for war …
when no such event ever occurred. This is more like a “fake flag”
than a “false flag”, as no actual terrorism occurred.
NSA admits that it lied about what really happened in
the Gulf of Tonkin incident in
1964 … manipulating data to make it look like North Vietnamese boats fired
on a U.S. ship so as to create a false justification for the Vietnam war
prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind reported that the White House ordered the CIA to
forge and backdate a document falsely linking Iraq with Muslim terrorists
and 9/11 … and that the CIA complied with those instructions and in fact
created the forgery, which was then used to justify war against Iraq. And
see this and this
magazine points out that the claim
by President Bush that Iraq was attempting to buy “yellow
cake” Uranium from Niger:
had been checked out — and debunked — by U.S.
intelligence a year before the President repeated it.
“humanitarian” wars in Syria, Libya and Yugoslavia were all justified by
highly exaggerated reports that the leaders
of those countries were committing atrocities against their people.
And see this
Afterword: The corporate media will likely never report
on false flags … as it is ALWAYS pro-war.