Newsbud Exclusive- Agents of Terror on Government Payroll- Part II: Ali Mohamed.

A Notorious Terrorist, a Major in Egypt’s Army Intelligence, a CIA Operative, a Member of the Elite Green Berets & an FBI Informant

Let’s say a script writer approaches a Hollywood production company with a proposal for a realistic spy-action thriller that features a dark action hero who is a Major in the Egyptian Army's Military Intelligence Unit, who is selected by an Elite Special Forces Unit in the United States Army, simultaneously gets recruited by the CIA as an operative, teaches courses at the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School, and is on the FBI Payroll. Then he triple crosses the Elite U.S. military Forces, the CIA and the FBI, uses his U.S. military information to train al-Qaeda and other radical Muslim militants, becomes Bin Laden’s bodyguard (all this while he is still on the payroll of the U.S. military, the CIA and the FBI), blows up U.S. embassies around the world (while still on the triple payroll) - is the most dangerous man in the world according to the U.S. Justice Department. Then he gets caught, is tried and indicted in a secret U.S. court behind closed doors, yet manages to evade sentencing, skips jail, and continues his terror operations around the globe.

What do you think the production company’s response would be? An unrealistic, far-fetched delirium, probably imagined and written while under some sort of psychedelic drug?

What if I were to tell you that everything in the script above, and some more, is a well-documented, government-confirmed, real life case?

Meet Ali Abdul Saoud Mohamed. One of the highest-ranking Al Qaeda terrorists. A man known to and marketed by the U.S. government and Mainstream media as a notorious Triple Agent Terrorist. A man described by U.S. Justice Department Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, as the most dangerous man in the world I’ve ever met.

Are you dizzy yet? Let’s breakdown Ali Mohamed’s background in a more orderly fashion:

Mohamed was a Major in the Egyptian Army's Military Intelligence Unit.

He enlisted in the U.S. Army and was selected by U.S. Army Special Forces, who sent him to Special Warfare School and encouraged him to pursue a doctorate in Islamic Studies and teach courses on the Middle East.

He was highly educated and spoke fluent English, French, and Hebrew in addition to his native Arabic.

In 1984 the CIA recruited him to be a junior intelligence officer.

The FBI publicly used him as an informant for years.

While in the United States, working for at least three government agencies, including the U.S. Army, he helped train a number of Jihadis, including El Sayyid Nosair and Mahmud Abouhalima, who assisted Ramzi Yousef in his 1993 attack on the World Trade Center.

During the 1980s, while in these three U.S. government entities, he was involved in the training of Anti-Soviet forces, which included members of the mujahideen, Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and terrorist members responsible for the bombings of two U.S. embassies.

In 1992 he made at least 58 trips to Afghanistan to participate in the training of terrorist cells, while under the surveillance of the CIA, and the FBI.

In 1998 he was charged with the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. In 2000, he pleaded guilty to five counts of conspiracy to kill nationals of the United States and to destroy U.S. property.

Although indicted, secretly, behind closed court doors, Ali Mohamed was never sentenced.

Just as in the case of Awlaki, all court sessions and documents, all reports and all investigations pertaining to Ali Mohamed are highly classified and not available to even those with TS clearance. Unlike Awlaki, who was fried and turned into ashes by a U.S. drone, Mohamed was allegedly jailed in a high-security prison, and has not been interviewed or seen by any outsiders. Because he is nowhere near any U.S. jail! He has been continuing his work and travel for CIA-NATO Operation Gladio B.

Okay, now let’s begin laying out the facts with links, documents and witnesses… [READ MORE]

*If you are a Newsbud Community Member, you must log in to view full content.

**If you are not yet a Newsbud Community Member, just click on "SUBSCRIBE" to view subscription enrollment options.

Freedom for the Speech We Hate: The Legal Ins & Outs of the Right to Protest

“If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought — not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.” — Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

There was a time in this country, back when the British were running things, that if you spoke your mind and it ticked off the wrong people, you’d soon find yourself in jail for offending the king.

Reacting to this injustice, when it was time to write the Constitution, America’s founders argued for a Bill of Rights, of which the First Amendment protects the right to free speech. James Madison, the father of the Constitution, was very clear about the fact that he wrote the First Amendment to protect the minority against the majority.

What Madison meant by minority is “offensive speech.”

Unfortunately, we don’t honor that principle as much as we should today. In fact, we seem to be witnessing a politically correct philosophy at play, one shared by both the extreme left and the extreme right, which aims to stifle all expression that doesn’t fit within their parameters of what they consider to be “acceptable” speech.

There are all kinds of labels put on such speech—it’s been called politically incorrect speech, hate speech, offensive speech, and so on—but really, the message being conveyed is that you don’t have a right to express yourself if certain people or groups don’t like or agree with what you are saying.

Hence, we have seen the caging of free speech in recent years, through the use of so-called “free speech zones” on college campuses and at political events, the requirement of speech permits in parks and community gatherings, and the policing of online forums.

Clearly, this elitist, monolithic mindset is at odds with everything America is supposed to stand for.

Indeed, we should be encouraging people to debate issues and air their views. Instead, by muzzling free speech, we are contributing to a growing underclass of Americans—many of whom have been labeled racists, rednecks and religious bigots—who are being told that they can’t take part in American public life unless they “fit in.”

Remember, the First Amendment acts as a steam valve. It allows people to speak their minds, air their grievances and contribute to a larger dialogue that hopefully results in a more just world. When there is no steam valve to release the pressure, frustration builds, anger grows and people become more volatile and desperate to force a conversation.

The attempt to stifle certain forms of speech is where we go wrong.

In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that it is “a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment...that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable.” For example, it is not a question of whether the Confederate flag represents racism but whether banning it leads to even greater problems, namely, the loss of freedom in general.

Along with the constitutional right to peacefully (and that means non-violently) assemble, the right to free speech allows us to challenge the government through protests and demonstrations and to attempt to change the world around us—for the better or the worse—through protests and counterprotests.

As always, knowledge is key.

The following Constitutional Q&A, available in more detail at The Rutherford Institute (www.rutherford.org), is a good starting point.

Q:        WHAT LAWS GIVE ME THE RIGHT TO PROTEST?

A:         The First Amendment prohibits the government from “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Protesting is anexercise of these constitutional rights because it involves speaking out, by individual people or those assembled in groups, about matters of public interest and concern.

Q:        WHERE CAN I ENGAGE IN PROTEST ACTIVITY?

A:         The right to protest generally extends to places that are owned and controlled by the government, although not all government-owned property is available for exercising speech and assembly rights. However, beyond public or government property, a person cannot claim a First Amendment right to protest and demonstrate on property that is privately owned by someone else. This also applies to private property that is generally open to the public, such as a shopping mall or shopping center, although these areas sometimes allow demonstrations and other free speech activity with permission from the owner. You are also entitled to engage in protest activities on land you own.  The Supreme Court has ruled that the government may not forbid homeowners from posting signs on their property speaking out on a political or social issue.

Q:        WHAT ARE MY RIGHTS TO PROTEST IN A TRADITIONAL PUBLIC FORUM?

A:         Places historically associated with the free exercise of expressive activities, such as streets, sidewalks and parks, are traditional public forums and the government’s power to limit speech and assembly in those places is very limited. The government may not impose an absolute ban on expression and assembly in traditional public forums except in circumstances where it is essential to serve a compelling government interest.  However, expression and assembly in traditional public forums may be limited by reasonable time, place and manner regulations. Examples of reasonable regulations include restrictions on the volume of sound produced by the activity or a prohibition on impeding vehicle and pedestrian traffic.  To be a valid time, place and manner regulation, the restriction must not have the effect of restricting speech based on its content and it must not be broader than needed to serve the interest of the government.

Q:        CAN I PICKET AND/OR DISTRIBUTE LEAFLETS AND OTHER TYPES OF LITERATURE ON PUBLIC SIDEWALKS?

A:         Yes, a sidewalk is considered a traditional public forum where you can engage in expressive activities, such a passing out literature or speaking out on a matter of public concern. In exercising that right, you must not block pedestrians or the entrances to buildings. You may not physically or maliciously detain someone in order to give them a leaflet, but you may approach them and offer it to them.

Q:        CAN MY FREE SPEECH BE RESTRICTED BECAUSE OF WHAT I SAY, EVEN IF IT IS CONTROVERSIAL?

A:         No, the First Amendment protects speech even if most people would find it offensive, hurtful or hateful. Speech generally cannot be banned based upon its content or viewpoint because it is not up to the government to determine what can and cannot be said. A bedrock principle of the First Amendment is that the government may not prohibit expression of an idea because society finds it offensive or disagreeable. Also, protest speech also cannot be banned because of a fear that others may react violently to the speech.  Demonstrators cannot be punished or forbidden from speaking because they might offend a hostile mob. The Supreme Court has held that a “heckler’s veto” has no place in First Amendment law.

Q:        HOW DO THESE RIGHTS APPLY TO PUBLIC PLACES I TYPICALLY VISIT?

A:         Your rights to speak out and protest in particular public places will depend on the use and purpose of the place involved.  For example, the lobbies and offices of public buildings that are used by the government are generally not open for expressive activities because the purpose of these buildings is to carry out public business. Protesting would interfere with that purpose.  Ironically, the meetings of a governmental body, such as a city council or town board, are not considered public forums open for protest activities because the purpose of the meeting is generally to address public business that is on the agenda.  However, some government councils and boards set aside a time at the meeting when the public can voice their complaints.

The grounds of public colleges and universities are generally considered available for assembly and protest by students and other members of the institution’s community.  However, those who are not students, faculty or staff of the institution may be denied access to the campus for speech and protest activities under rules issued by the school.

Public elementary and secondary school grounds also are not considered places where persons can engage in assembly and protest.  However, students at these schools do not lose their right to free speech when they enter the school. The First Amendment protects the right of students to engage in expressive acts of protest, such as wearing armbands to demonstrate opposition to a war, that are not disruptive to the school environment.

Q:        DO I NEED A PERMIT IN ORDER TO CONDUCT A PROTEST?

A:         As a general rule, no. A person is not required to obtain the consent or permission of the government before engaging in activities that are protected by the First Amendment.  One of the main reasons for that constitutional provision was to forbid any requirement that citizens obtain a license in order to speak out.  The government cannot require that individuals or small groups obtain a permit in order to speak or protest in a public forum.

However, if persons or organizations want to hold larger rallies and demonstrations, they may be required by local laws to obtain a permit.  The Supreme Court has recognized that the government, in order to regulate competing uses of public forums, may impose a permit requirement on those wishing to hold a parade or rally.  Government officials cannot simply prohibit a public assembly according to their discretion, but the government can impose restrictions on the time, place, and manner of peaceful assembly, provided that constitutional safeguards are met. Such time, place and manner restrictions can take the form of requirements to obtain a permit for an assembly.

Whether an assembly or demonstration requires a permit depends on the laws of the locality.  A permit certainly is required for any parade because it would involve the use of the streets and interfere with vehicle traffic. A permit to hold an event in other public places typically is required if the gathering involves more than 50 persons or the use of amplification.

Q:        DO COUNTER-DEMONSTRATORS HAVE FREE SPEECH RIGHTS?

A:         Yes, they do. Just because counter-demonstrators oppose you and the viewpoint of your demonstration does not mean they have any less right to speak out and demonstrate. However, the same rules apply to counter-demonstrators as apply to the original assembly. The group cannot be violent and must assemble and protest in an appropriate place and manner.

Q:        WHAT CAN'T I DO IN EXERCISING MY RIGHTS TO PROTEST?

A:         The Supreme Court of the United States has held that the First Amendment protects the right to conduct a peaceful public assembly. The First Amendment does not provide the right to conduct a gathering at which there is a clear and present danger of riot, disorder, interference with traffic on public streets or other immediate threat to public safety. Laws that prohibit people from assembling and using force or violence to accomplish unlawful purposes are permissible under the First Amendment.

Q:       AM I ALLOWED TO CARRY A WEAPON OR FIREARM AT A DEMONSTRATION OR PROTEST?

A:         Your right to have a weapon with you when you protest largely depends on what is allowed by state law and is unlikely to be protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee to freedom of speech. Not all conduct can be considered “speech” protected by the First Amendment even if the person engaging in the conduct intends to express an idea. Most courts have held that the act of openly carrying a weapon or firearm is not expression protected by the First Amendment.

The right to possess a firearm is protected by the Second Amendment, and all states allow carrying a concealed weapon in public, although most require a permit to do so. Some states allow persons to openly carry firearms in public. However, it is not yet settled whether the Second Amendment guarantees the right to possess a firearm in public. Thus, the right to carry a firearm at a demonstration or protest is a matter that depends on what is allowed under state law. Carrying other weapons, such as stun guns, which are not firearms also is subject to restrictions imposed by  state law. Possession of weapons also may be prohibited in certain places where demonstrations might take place, such as a national park.

Even if possession of weapons is allowed, their presence at demonstrations and rallies can be intimidating and provocative and does not help in achieving a civil and peaceful discourse on issues of public interest and concern. Demonstrations often relate to issues raising strong feelings among competing groups, and the presence of counter-demonstrators makes conflict likely.  In these situations, where the purpose of the gathering is to engage in speech activities, firearms and other weapons are threatening, result in the suppression of speech and are contrary to the purpose of the First Amendment to allow all voices to be heard on matters of public importance.

Q:        WHAT CAN’T THE POLICE DO IN RESPONDING TO PROTESTERS?

A:         In recent history, challenges to the right to protest have come in many forms. In some cases, police have cracked down on demonstrations by declaring them “unlawful assemblies” or through mass arrests, illegal use of force or curfews. Elsewhere, expression is limited by corralling protesters into so-called “free-speech zones.” New surveillance technologies are increasingly turned on innocent people, collecting information on their activities by virtue of their association with or proximity to a given protest. Even without active obstruction of the right to protest, police-inspired intimidation and fear can chill expressive activity and result in self-censorship. All of these things violate the First Amendment and are things the police cannot do to censor free speech. Unless the assembly is violent or violence is clearly imminent, the police have limited authority under the law to shut down protesters.

Clearly, as evidenced by the recent tensions in Charlottesville, Va., we’re at a crossroads concerning the constitutional right to free speech.

As Benjamin Franklin warned, “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.”

It must be emphasized that it was for the sake of preserving individuality and independence that James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, fought for a First Amendment that protected the “minority” against the majority, ensuring that even in the face of overwhelming pressure, a minority of one—even one who espouses distasteful viewpoints—would still have the right to speak freely, pray freely, assemble freely, challenge the government freely, and broadcast his views in the press freely.

This freedom for those in the unpopular minority constitutes the ultimate tolerance in a free society. Conversely, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American Peoplewhen we fail to abide by Madison’s dictates about greater tolerance for all viewpoints, no matter how distasteful, the end result is always the same: an indoctrinated, infantilized citizenry that marches in lockstep with the governmental regime.

Some of this past century’s greatest dystopian literature shows what happens when the populace is transformed into mindless automatons. For instance, in George Orwell’s 1984, Big Brother does away with all undesirable and unnecessary words and meanings, even going so far as to routinely rewrite history and punish “thoughtcrimes.”

Where we stand now is at the juncture of OldSpeak (where words have meanings, and ideas can be dangerous) and Newspeak (where only that which is “safe” and “accepted” by the majority is permitted). The power elite has made their intentions clear: they will pursue and prosecute any and all words, thoughts and expressions that challenge their authority.

This is the final link in the police state chain.

If ever there were a time for us to stand up for the right to speak freely, even if it’s freedom for speech we hate, the time is now.

# # # #

 

John W. Whitehead is an attorney and author who has written, debated and practiced widely in the area of constitutional law and human rights. He is the president and spokesperson of the Rutherford Institute. Mr. Whitehead is the author of numerous books on a variety of legal and social issues, including Battlefield America: The War on the American People.  He has a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Arkansas and a Juris Doctorate degree from the University of Arkansas School of Law, and served as an officer in the United States Army from 1969 to 1971.

Breaking: Journalist Interrogated & Sacked for Exposing CIA-NATO Arming of Terrorists

An investigative journalist has been interrogated by government national security forces and fired from her job for documenting and exposing covert CIA-NATO operations directly arming ISIS and Al Qaeda terrorists- a covert operation involving NATO, CIA, U.S.-based Mega Arms Trafficker(s), a shady U.S. organization ran by well-known Deep State Players, and much more.

Watch this Newsbud exclusive breaking story and investigative report, including our exclusive interview with investigative journalist Dilyana Gaytandzhieva, a candid commentary by Sibel Edmonds, leaked documented evidence, and glaring direct connections to some of the biggest names and entities connected to the Deep State, and CIA-NATO Operation Gladio B.

Correction: At 2:05 Spiro stated Trud Newspaper was based in Belgium, Trud Newspaper is based in Bulgaria

*Follow us here at Newsbud Twitter

**Subscribe here at BFP-Newsbud YouTube Channel

Watch Episode Preview

Watch Members Only Full Episode Here

***Subscribing Members must be logged in to see the full video





Featured Video MP3 Audio Clip

***Subscribing Members must be logged in to listen to the audio


Show Notes

350 Diplomatic Flights Carry Weapons for Terrorists!

Anonymous Bulgaria Leaks Massive 10GB Of Data: “Silk Way Airlines Helps Terrorists”

The U.S. and Europe Must Investigate Azerbaijani Shipments of Weapons to Terrorists

Connecting the Dots: Afghan Heroin NATO-Azerbaijan Hub

Newsbud Exclusive- NATO-CIA-Pentagon: Junction of the Real Druglords & Warlords

Sibel Edmonds: Azerbaijan- Operation Gladio B

"The Lone Gladio" reveals Washington's strategy for winning the New Great Game

Azerbaijan Keeps Mum about Bust on Georgia Heroin Highway

US-Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce

‘Worth killing over’: How a plane mogul dodged US scrutiny

Spies and shadowy allies lurk in secret, thanks to firm’s bag of tricks

Iranian-born KC aviation figure with colorful past appears in Panama Papers

Farhad Azima: Panama Papers Expose

Meet The Iranian-Born, Major Clinton Donor Caught Up In The Panama Papers Scandal

Project for the New American Century (PNAC)

Israel Signs $1.6 Billion Arms Deal with Azerbaijan

Israel, Azerbaijan united by arms trade and respect, Netanyahu says on visit

Journalist Interrogated, Fired for Story Linking CIA And Syria Weapons Flights

The Balkanization of Syria & Iraq: The Roadmap to US-Israeli Hegemony in the Middle East

Charlottesville and the FBI’s Connection to White Supremacists

The so-called alt-right and the New Right are trying to draw a line between themselves and the white supremacist movement as the establishment media continues to conflate the two. On this episode of The Geopolitical Report, we take a look at the possibility the recent political violence in Charlottesville and elsewhere around the nation is being masterminded by the state in Hegelian Dialectic fashion to undermine and discredit both opponents and supporters of President Trump. Since the 1960s, under the FBI's Operation COINTELPRO, both white supremacist groups and groups on the Left have been infiltrated and controlled by government agents, informers, and provocateurs. The increasing violence since the election of Donald Trump fits the pattern. Congress is now denouncing the violence and this will ultimately result in repressive legislation that will stifle political opposition. It’s another step in the emerging police state and the imposition of authoritarian rule.

*Follow us here at Newsbud Twitter

**Subscribe here at BFP-Newsbud YouTube Channel

Watch Episode Preview

Watch Members Only Full Episode Here

***Subscribing Members must be logged in to see the full video





Featured Video MP3 Audio Clip

***Subscribing Members must be logged in to listen to the audio


Show Notes

Lawmakers slam Trump's latest defense of Charlottesville response

After Backing Alt-Right in Charlottesville, A.C.L.U. Wrestles With Its Role

Deep State: How a Conspiracy Theory Went From Political Fringe to Mainstream

A.C.L.U. Says F.B.I. Funded ‘Army’ To Terrorize Young War Dissidents

CIA, FBI Plots to Kill Enemy Agents Reported

DHS says FBI “possibly funded” Terrorist Group

Fbi Funds Right Wing Violence

Undercover FBI agent is head of KKK group in South Carolina Confederate flag protest

To Katch a Klansman: FBI Informant Behind Recent KKK Fliers in Raleigh

COINTELPRO: The Untold American Story

Prefabricated Fascists: The FBI's Assembly-Line Provocateurs

Neo-nazo Rally Was Organized By Fbi Informant

Understanding State Responses to Left- versus Right-Wing Threats” The FBI’s Repression of the New Left and the Ku Klux Klan

FBI operative Hal Turner says government urged him to make violent statements

Pike Committee Reports

Hidden Loopholes Allow FBI Agents to Infiltrate Political and Religious Groups

The Return of COINTELPRO?

FBI Documents Reveal Secret Nationwide Occupy Monitoring

Newsbud Exclusive- Distracted by Charlottesville as America is Destroyed by an Economic Takedown_

Once again, the establishment media has taken us down a diversionary path. The tragedy of Charlottesville, where two factions of the political spectrum clashed with deadly consequence, has dominated the headlines. President Donald Trump has been trounced for his response while former president Barack Obama is hailed and a tweet he sent out—a regurgitation of a quote by Nelson Mandala—has become the most-liked tweet in Twitter history.

An endless series of stories—from the hyped threat of North Korea to the opioid crisis and ongoing culture war—dominate the news cycle while the nation slowly yet steadily disintegrates. “The one guaranteed source of doom is our broken financial system,” writes Charles Hugh Smith. “Anyone who thinks our toxic financial system is stable is delusional.”

Smith rightly points out the crises hyped by the establishment media “are not causes of discord: they are symptoms of the inevitable consequences of a toxic financial system that has broken our economy, our system of governance and our society.” [READ MORE]

*If you are a Newsbud Community Member, you must log in to view full content.

**If you are not yet a Newsbud Community Member, just click on "SUBSCRIBE" to view subscription enrollment options.

Newsbud Exclusive- The ‘Humanitarian’ Destruction of Libya – Part 2: Gaddafi and NATO, a History of Deception

This article is part of a three-part series called “The ‘humanitarian’ destruction of Libya” that analyses the 2011 war in Libya and the motives behind it. The first article contrasts the invented war crime allegations against the Libyan government to the very real underreported war crimes by the insurgents; the second exposes a history of deceptive terrorist attacks on European soil wrongly attributed to Gaddafi and the role of NATO in the war; and the third discusses Gaddafi’s plan at creating a pan-African currency as one of the central motives lurking behind the mainstream explanation of the intervention as a just one that sought to “protect civilians” from a ruthless dictator.

Muammar Gaddafi was born in a Bedouin tent near Sirte around 1942 to a poor family. Living through the last years of Italian colonial rule and Libya’s somewhat reluctant monarchy following its independence at the behest of the Great Powers in 1952, Gaddafi grew up in a time that the country’s political unity was still subversive to regional competition between Cyrenaica, Tripolitania and Fezzan. Being a rural Bedouin himself, he abhorred regionalism and developed an ideology embroiled with nationalism and anti-imperialism. Amid a bloodless coup on 1 September 1969 that overthrew King Idris, the 27-year-old Gaddafi and his fellow Free Officers rose to power.[1] Unlike many Western-backed Middle Eastern rulers that have large amounts of natural resources at their disposal, the Revolutionary Command Council was willing to put the huge oil revenues, which skyrocketed after OPEC’s 1973 boycott, to the country’s internal development. As a result, Libya grew from one of the poorest nations in the world during the 1950s to the country with the highest living standard in Africa.[2] National expenditures on literacy, health care and education expanded rapidly under Gaddafi, while the government raised minimum wages and provided interest-free loans and subsidies for farming and the construction of houses.[3] By 2009, all in stark contrast to many African nations that are stuck in the Western orbit, life expectancy at birth had risen to 72.3 years, youth literacy to 99.9% and infant mortality had dropped to 14 per 1000 births.[4] A most indicative example of the employment of oil income to national development was the Great Man-made River (GMR) project, an impressive irrigation system that solved the problem of water supply through the construction of a huge network of pipelines that transports water from the country’s southern desert ground reserves to the coastal cities, where most Libyans live. According to a BBC 2006 article, “it is impossible not to be impressed with the scale of the project,” and “Libyans like to call it ‘the eighth wonder of the world’.”[5] Indicative of NATO’s war crimes in Libya, the “humanitarian” interventionists deliberately bombed critical GMR water installations, thereby disrupting the nation’s water infrastructure and leaving millions of Libyans without potable water to this day. According to investigative journalist Nafeez Ahmed, this amounts to a potential genocidal strategy.[6]

More relevant to the story, however, is the fact that Gaddafi was willing to commit his country’s resources to the international cause of pan-Arabism. The new Libyan leader had an unlimited admiration for Egypt’s President Gamal Abdel Nasser, and he spoke about combining their strength to deter the imperial powers: “Tell President Nasser we made this revolution for him. He can take everything of ours and add it to the rest of the Arab world’s resources to be used for the battle [against Israel, and for Arab unity].”[7] Regarding the fact that Egypt and Syria had already foregone a short-lived political union from 1958 to 1961, this potential should not be underestimated. His hero died within a year after the coup, however, and Egypt’s next president, Anwar Sadat, was less concerned with Arab unity. Consequently, Gaddafi became the self-appointed guardian of Nasser’s legacy, nurturing the notion of pan-Arabism as one of the cornerstones of the Libyan revolution.[8] This made him an obvious target of the oligarchs seeking Western hegemony over the Third World, and therefore, he had to be demonised.

Enraging Europe: Yvonne Fletcher and the La Belle discotheque bombing

Despite the nationalisation of some American and British oil interests in 1973, the Libyan government showed no inclination towards an open confrontation with the West in the first years after the coup.[9] Gradually, however, as Gaddafi openly voiced his support for Palestinian resistance against Zionism, the Irish Republican Army’s struggle against British rule and the African National Congress’ battle against apartheid, the US started accusing Libya of supporting terrorism. It was only after Libya was accused of being directly involved in a series of terrorist attacks in Europe in the 1980s, though, that the US successfully managed to isolate the Libyan government from the international community.

While the Carter administration put the Libyan government on its list of state sponsors of terrorism, it was under Reagan that the situation escalated towards confrontation. In August 1981, the US’s Sixth Fleet shot down two Libyan jet fighters over the Gulf of Sirte, a territory regarded by Libya as its territorial waters but which Washington viewed as an international waterway. Although Reagan’s anti-Gaddafi rhetoric intensified, all Libyan crude oil exports to the US were embargoed, and American citizens were prohibited from traveling to Libya; the US remained unsuccessful in aggravating its NATO allies in Europe to jump on the bandwagon. That changed when Yvonne Fletcher, a London policewoman, was killed during a small anti-Gaddafi protest in St James Square on 17 April 1984. Although nobody was ever convicted, the British government and mass media outlets were quick to ascribe the murder to personnel at the Libyan embassy, located on the first floor at 5 St James. Ironically, it was a British two-part documentary aired on Channel 4 in 1996, which cites key witnesses, pathologists, gun specialists, audio experts, ex-intelligence officers and plot insiders, that eventually destroyed the official narrative.[10] The documentary revealed that an anti-Gaddafi terrorist organisation named al-Burkan, which was planning a coup against the Libyan leader, had infiltrated the embassy and that there were indeed 11 shots fired from there, but that the 12th bullet that killed Fletcher came from somewhere else on the square and was fired with a different kind of gun. Because the bullet entree angle was 60 degrees from the horizontal - not 15 degrees, what it should have been if the bullet originated from the embassy - the shot must have come from a far higher building. Drawing on two years of extensive research, the documentary makers unravel “a sinister plot” involving al-Burkan and German gun traffickers but also the CIA and other Western intelligence agencies, all of whom conspired to discredit Gaddafi and pave the way for regime change in Libya. Indeed, a month after the incident, al-Burkan and others tried to overthrow the Gaddafi government, but the coup attempt was beaten back by the Libyan army.

In early 1986, Reagan warned that the US would take additional steps to confront the Libyan government if needed. Not long after that, on 4 April, a bomb explosion at La Belle discotheque in West Berlin frequented by American servicemen killed three people and injured 200. Two weeks later, the US bombed Tripoli and Benghazi claiming that it had irrefutable evidence that Libya was responsible for the discotheque bombing, leaving at least 15 Libyan citizens dead. The main target was the Libyan leader’s headquarters. Gaddafi made it out alive, but his 15-month-old adopted daughter was killed in the attack on his residence, and two of his young sons were injured. The man charged with having masterminded the discotheque bombing was Yasser Chraidi, a driver at the Libyan embassy in East Berlin at the time. 10 years after the bombing, Chraidi - who in the meantime had moved to Lebanon - was extradited to German authorities, but a Berlin judge found the evidence presented by the prosecution so weak that he threatened to release Chraidi within three weeks unless more proof was presented. Exactly on the last day of these three weeks, Musbah Eter, one of the perpetrators that provided the operating instructions for the bomb used in the attack, confessed after having made a deal with the German prosecutors: in exchange for immunity, he incriminated Chraidi. A 1998 documentary aired on German television channel ZDF, however, discovered that although Eter indeed worked for the Libyan embassy in East Berlin in 1986, he paid regular visits to the US embassy and was most likely a CIA agent. Furthermore, ZDF asserted that members of a professional group of terrorists led by a certain Mahmoud Abu Jaber were involved in the attack, too, but had barely been bothered by the prosecution and had lived safely in other countries since the discotheque bombing. ZDF interviewed Abu Jaber’s right-hand man Muhammed Amairi and his lawyer in Norway as part of the preparation for the documentary. Amairi stopped the interview when he was asked what secret service he had been working for, but his lawyer continued the conversation. “Was Amairi a Mossad agent?”, ZDF asked. “He was a Mossad man,” the lawyer answered.[11]

Mission Accomplished: Lockerbie & Sanctions

Despite the alleged involvement of the Libyan government in state sponsored terrorist attacks on European soil, Washington’s European allies remained reluctant to imposing economic sanctions. On 21 December 1988, however, Pan Am flight 103 flying from Frankfurt to New York via London exploded over the Scottish town of Lockerbie shortly after it took off at London Heathrow. In late 1991, The US and UK formally accused two Libyan security officials of masterminding the attack in which all 259 passengers, most of them American and British, were killed. What followed was a series of UN Security Council resolutions demanding the extradition of the suspects. When Libya rejected these demands as a violation of its national sovereignty, the Security Council and the US congress both imposed severe sanctions on Libya. After many countries worldwide started to oppose the sanctions and the Organisation of African Unity in 1998 announced that its members would no longer enforce the UN sanctions unless America and Britain agreed to hold the trial of the Lockerbie suspects in a neutral country, the US, UK and Libya came to the agreement to hold a trial in The Hague in the Netherlands. The verdict acquitted one of the two suspects but found the other, Abdel Basset Ali Muhammad al-Megrahi, guilty.[12]

It turns out that one of the key prosecution witnesses at al-Megrahi’s trial, a Maltese shopkeeper who identified al-Megrahi as buying clothes from him that were found in the suitcase which allegedly carried the bomb, was paid $2 million by the US Department of Justice.[13] The shopkeeper also failed several times to identify al-Megrahi, only “recognising” him after having seen his photo in a magazine and being shown the same photo in court.[14] In addition, a chief Scottish investigator declared in 2005 that the main piece of evidence, the bomb timer, had been planted at the crime scene by a CIA agent.[15] In 2007, the expert who had analysed the bomb timer for the court admitted that he had lied at the trial, had manufactured the timer himself and had given it to a Lockerbie investigator. Moreover, the fragment he identified was never tested for residue of explosives, although it was the only evidence of possible Libyan involvement.[16] Finally, a London Heathrow airport security guard revealed that Pan Am’s luggage area had been broken into 17 hours before the flight, which suggests that the bomb was planted at Heathrow, not by al-Megrahi in Malta from where it would have had to bypass the security systems of two additional airports and in total would have travelled on three different planes before exploding.[17]

There are several theories about who exactly was responsible for the terrible crime. Some put forward circumstantial evidence that the bombing was a retaliatory attack by Iran and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command in reaction to the shooting down of an equally large Iranian plane over the Persian Gulf by a US warship a couple months earlier;[18] others suspect CIA and/or Mossad involvement.[19] But many are certain of one thing: al-Megrahi was innocent, and Libya was not responsible. This includes Hans Köchler, an Austrian professor who was appointed by the UN as international observer at the trial in The Hague, who called the trial “a spectacular miscarriage of justice.”[20]

Reconciliation and Betrayal

From the 1990s onwards, reconciliation gradually gained the upperhand over animosity. Libya suffered badly under the Washington-led isolation and was therefore willing to make concessions. After the Libyan government in 1999 agreed to hand over the two Lockerbie suspects and concurred with paying compensation to the relatives of Yvonne Fletcher and the victims or UTA flight 722 - a French airliner downed in a similar manner as Pan Am flight 103 in 1989 of which Libya was also (in all likelihood falsely)[21] accused - the US acquiesced to the suspension of the UN sanctions. In exchange for Libya paying compensation to the Lockerbie victims as well - but not accepting responsibility - and agreeing to give up its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program, the UN sanctions were officially lifted in 2003, and the US promised to suspend its own sanctions, most of which were lifted in 2004. Finally, during a 2006 trip to the country, Congressman Tom Lantos met with Gaddafi and announced that Libya had been removed from the US list of sponsors of terrorism.

Mutual distrust lingered on, however. Although the isolation was over in official terms, bilateral relations remained cumbersome. Clear from a statement he made in 1999, Gaddafi remained hostile to the dominant American worldview:

“America unfortunately treats us as if the world was the way it used to be [before the fall of the Soviet Union]. Some analysts call this a new colonialism. But colonialism is colonialism, and it is always unjust. It is how we were treated by the Italians, Algeria by the French, India by the British. This is imperialism, and we seem to be entering a new imperialist era. The cause of our conflict with America is not that we attacked them. We have never attacked an American target. America started the aggression against us right here in the Gulf of Sirte. When we defended ourselves, they attacked us in these very tents. We were bombed by missiles in our own territorial waters. In 1986 our own children were killed. No one can bring my daughter back to me. Then Lockerbie came along. Now we would like this chain of events to be over. But America does not want to turn the page. We shall, however, show courage and be patient, and America will be the loser.”[22] (emphasis added)

Gaddafi’s reservations about reconciliation - he often appeared to show regret for some of the compromises he made for which Libya received very little in return, especially giving up his WMD program as a deterrent to Western aggression - were likely not unfounded. In a 2007 interview, retired four-star US General Wesley Clark revealed that several Middle Eastern countries, including Libya, were already on the Pentagon’s imperialist drawing board in the immediate wake of 9/11:

“I [General Clark] came back to see him [a general of the Joint Chiefs of Staff], and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said: ‘Are we still going to war with Iraq?’ And he said: ‘Oh it is worse than that.’ He reached over on his desk and picked up a piece of paper. He said: ‘I just got this down from upstairs [meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office] today. This is a memo that describes how we are going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.’”[23]

Flash forward to 2011. With the adoption of UN Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973 in March, NATO embarked on a seven months-long military adventure under the guise of “protecting civilians,” leaving behind a trail of destruction with Sirte bombed back to the stone ages. After Operation Unified Protector had officially come to an end on 31 October 2011, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen concluded that “we have carried out this operation very carefully, without confirmed civilian casualties,”[24] and NATO spokesperson Oana Lungescu claimed that “no target was approved or attacked if we had any evidence or reason to believe that civilians were at risk.”[25] UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, too, rejected claims that NATO had exceeded its mandate, asserting that “Security Council resolution 1973, I believe, was strictly enforced within the limit, within the mandate.”[26] That this is categorically false is substantiated even by the most pro-interventionist institutions that investigated NATO’s military campaign in retrospect. Human Rights Watch,[27] Amnesty International[28] and the New York Times[29] have all amply documented NATO airstrikes in which, if not deliberately at least knowing full well the likelihood of “collateral damage,” numerous civilians were killed. A report published by Middle Eastern human rights groups after a fact-finding mission to Libya even implicated NATO in war crimes, referring to “a NATO attack on 15 September which resulted in the death of 57-59 individuals, of whom approximately 47 were civilians.” The report described how two jeeps carrying combatants were destroyed by NATO air fire in Sirte, after which a large crowd of civilians flocked to the scene in an attempt to rescue survivors and retrieve the dead. Five minutes later, a third missile targeted the exclusively civilian crowd, killing 47 of them.[30] NATO’s operational media update for 15 September noted the destruction of the two armed vehicles but made no mention of the large swathes of civilians it had just slaughtered.[31]

Gaddafi’s Death: “We came, we saw, he died.”

The above-mentioned 15 September attack does not only illustrate the ruthlessness of NATO’s military campaign, it also signals its importance as a necessary accessory to the advances of the rebel fighters, especially in the final battle of the war in Sirte. Whereas the insurgents were allowed to freely move tanks into place to surround and enter the last Gaddafi stronghold, any attempt by government forces to move as much as a jeep was met with NATO air fire. So when a convoy of 75 vehicles leaving the scene of the battle was intercepted and attacked by a US predator drone and French jets on the morning of 20 October, NATO did not elaborate on how the convoy was posing a threat to the local population. Although “an intelligence breakthrough” allowed NATO forces to pinpoint Gaddafi’s location a week prior to the attack according to the Telegraph,[32] the military alliance supposedly did not know the Libyan leader was in one of the convoy trucks fleeing Sirte.

The Telegraph had previously already reported that SAS commandos (British special forces) “dressed in Arab civilian clothing and wearing the same weapons as the rebels [...] were spearheading the hunt for Col Muammar Gaddafi.”[33] As NATO had repeatedly bombed Gaddafi compounds during the war (and as we have seen above, before the war, too), and as the US government internally discussed covert action to assassinate Gaddafi as early as 1969 according to the memoirs of Henry Kissinger,[34] this means that Western involvement in Gaddafi’s brutal murder in the streets of Sirte is at least plausible. Indeed, according to Mahmoud Jibril, then interim prime minister of the rebel-led National Transition Council, “it was a foreign agent who mixed with the revolutionary brigades to kill Gaddafi.”[35] Either way, the Western war hawks probably did not mourn the death of the Libyan leader, judging from then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s first reaction to the death of Gaddafi. Followed by an arrogant laugh, she concluded: “We came, we saw, he died.”[36]

# # # #

Bas Spliet, Newsbud  Analyst,  is a bachelor’s student History and Arabic at the University of Ghent, Belgium. He is interested in geopolitics, focusing most of his time in getting a better understanding of wars in the Middle East. His analyses can be found atwww.scrutinisedminds.com. He can be reached at bas.spliet@gmail.com.

Notes

[1] Maximilian Forte, Slouching towards Sirte: NATO’s war on Libya and Africa (Montreal: Baraka Books, 2012), 35-41.

[2] “The standard of living in Libya - compilation of data, studies, articles and videos,” Global Civilians for Peace in Libya, 09.11.2011, http://globalciviliansforpeace.wordpress.com/2011/11/09/the-standard-of-living-in-libya/.

[3] Dirk Vandewalle, A history of modern Libya, 2nd ed. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 87-95.

[4] “The standard of living in Libya.”

[5] John Watkins, “Libya’s thirst for ‘fossil water’,” BBC, 18.03.2016, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4814988.stm.

[6] Nafeez Ahmed, “War crime: NATO deliberately destroyed Libya’s water infrastructure,” Truth Out, 30.05.2015, http://truth-out.org/news/item/30999-war-crime-nato-deliberately-destroyed-libya-s-water-infrastructure.

[7] Mohammed Heikal, The road to Ramadan (New York: Quadrangle / New York Times Company, 1975), 70.

[8] Vandewalle, A history of modern Libya, 79.

[9] Vandewalle, A history of modern Libya, 128-30.

[10] Murder in St James’s, produced and directed by Richard Belfield (Channel 4: Dispatches, 1996), available in full at http://sott.net/article/236576-Murder-in-St-James-Square-The-Death-of-Yvonne-Fletcher.

[11] “German TV exposed CIA, Mossad links to 1986 Berlin disco bombing,” Word Socialist Web Site, 27.08.1998, http://wsws.org/en/articles/1998/08/bomb-a27.html.

[12] Vandewalle, A history of modern Libya, 167-9.

[13] Gordon Rayner, “Lockerbie bombing: are these the men who really brought down Pan Am 103?”, Telegraph, 10.03.2014, http://telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10688179/Lockerbie-bombing-are-these-the-men-who-really-brought-down-Pan-Am-103.html.

[14] Robert McFadden, “Megrahi, convicted in 1988 Lockerbie bombing, dies at 60,” New York Times, 20.05.2012, http://nytimes.com/2012/05/21/world/africa/abdel-basset-ali-al-megrahi-lockerbie-bomber-dies-at-60.html.

[15] “Police chief - Lockerbie evidence was faked,” Scotsman, 28.08.2005, http://scotsman.com/news/police-chief-lockerbie-evidence-was-faked-1-1403341.

[16] McFadden, “Megrahi.”

[17] McFadden, “Megrahi.”

[18] Rayner, “Lockerbie bombing;” Alexander Zaitchik, “The truth about the Lockerbie bombing - and the censored film that dared to reveal it,” Alternet, 15.12.2014, http://alternet.org/world/truth-about-lockerbie-bombing-and-censored-film-dared-reveal-it; John Ashton and Ian Ferguson, “Flight from the truth,” Guardian, 27.06.2001, http://theguardian.com/uk/2001/jun/27/lockerbie.features11.

[19] “What if they are innocent?”, Guardian, 27.04.1999, http://theguardian.com/uk/1999/apr/17/lockerbie; Maidhc Ó’Cathail, “Deception over Lockerbie,” Global Research, 27.12.2009, http://globalresearch.ca/deception-over-lockerbie/15362; Cem Ertür, “Propaganda alert: the Lockerbie bombing. Who was behind it? Libya, Iran … or the CIA?”, Global Research, 12.10.2014, http://globalresearch.ca/deception-over-lockerbie/15362.

[20] “UN Observer: Lockerbie trial a US/UK CIA fake “a spectacular miscarriage of justice,” William Bowles, 14.10.2005, http://williambowles.info/spysrus/lockerbie.html.

[21] Pierre Péan, “Les preuves trafiquées du terrorisme Libyen,” Monde Diplomatique, March 2001, http://monde-diplomatique.fr/2001/03/PEAN/6174. Translated to English: Pierre Péan, “Tainted evidence of Libyan terrorism,” UNA Bombers, http://unabombers.com/TheTaintedEvidence.htm.

[22] Quoted in Forte, Slouching towards Sirte, 79.

[23] Amy Goodman, interview with Wesley Clark, Daily Show, Democracy Now, 02.03.2007, available online: “Gen. Wesley Clark weighs presidential bid: ‘I think about it every day’,” Democracy Now, 02.03.2007, http://democracynow.org/2007/3/2/gen_wesley_clark_weighs_presidential_bid.

[24] Rachel Shabi, “NATO accused of war crimes in Libya,” Independent, 19.1.2012, http://independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/nato-accused-of-war-crimes-in-libya-6291566.html.

[25] Human Rights Watch, Unacknowledged deaths: civilian casualties in NATO’s air campaign in Libya, 13.05.2012, http://hrw.org/report/2012/05/13/unacknowledged-deaths/civilian-casualties-natos-air-campaign-libya.

[26] Shabi, “NATO accused of war crimes in Libya.”

[27] Human Rights Watch, Unacknowledged deaths.

[28] Amnesty International, Libya: the forgotten victims of NATO airstrikes, March 2012, http://amnestyusa.org/sites/default/files/mde190032012en.pdf.

[29] C.J. Chivers and Eric Smith, “In strikes on Libya by NATO, an unspoken civilian toll,” New York Times, 17.12.2011, http://nytimes.com/2011/12/18/world/africa/scores-of-unintended-casualties-in-nato-war-in-libya.html?pagewanted=all.

[30] Palestinian Center for Human Rights, Arab Organization for Human Rights and International Legal Assistance Consortium, Report of the Independent Civil Society Fact-Finding Mission to Libya, 44-6, January 2012, http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/2012/FFM_Libya-Report.pdf.

[31] NATO, NATO and Libya: operational media update for 15 September, http://nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/pdf_2011_09/20110916_110916-oup-update.pdf.

[32] Thomas Harding, “Col Gaddafi killed: convoy bombed by drone flown by pilot in Las Vegas,” Telegraph, 20.10.2011, http://telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8839964/Col-Gaddafi-killed-convoy-bombed-by-drone-flown-by-pilot-in-Las-Vegas.html.

[33] Thomas Harding, Gordon Rayner and Damien McElroy, “Libya: SAS leads hunt for Gaddafi,” Telegraph, 24.08.2011, http://telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8721291/Libya-SAS-leads-hunt-for-Gaddafi.html.

[34] Bill van Auken, “The murderer calls for an investigation into the crime,” SWAPO, 24.10.2011, http://swapoparty.org/the_us_and_gaddafi.html.

[35] Peter Allen, “Gaddafi was killed by French secret serviceman on orders of Nicolas Sarkozy, sources claim,” Daily Mail, 30.09.2012, http://dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2210759/Gaddafi-killed-French-secret-serviceman-orders-Nicolas-Sarkozy-sources-claim.html.

[36] “Hillary Clinton on Gaddafi: We came, we saw, he died,” Youtube channel of FederalJacktube6, 20.10.2011, consulted on 14.02.2017, http://youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y.

After Operations Gladio A & B Exposures, NATO Launches Operation Gladio C!

In this twenty-seventh edition of the Russian Newspapers Monitor, Professor Filip Kovacevic discusses the articles from four Russian newspapers: Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Izvestia, and Pravda. He discusses the U.S-NATO ad for the Russian language speakers to participate in NATO exercises in Germany, the U.S.-German public row over military spending increases, the potential motives for the terrorist attack in St. Petersburg, the Russia-Belarus special forces and intelligence coordination against NATO Gladio C covert operations, and the Russian Communist party critique of both the Western-funded Russian opposition AND the Russian government.

*Follow us here at Newsbud Twitter

**Subscribe here at BFP-Newsbud YouTube Channel

Show Notes

Rossiyskaya Gazeta – March 31, 2017

Nezavisimaya Gazeta – April 3, 2017

Izvestia – April 4, 2017

Nezavisimaya Gazeta – April 5, 2017

Pravda – April 4, 2017

Sibel Edmonds: The Future of Newsbud & Important Updates

Beginning this month Newsbud will be offering exclusive content only available at newsbud.com. The content will be available only to the Newsbud Community Members(Subscribers). Your subscription will provide you with full community access to exclusive content, Including videos and articles from Newsbud’s team of experts and analysts. As members you will also receive monthly newsletters from Newsbud Founder Sibel Edmonds.

*Follow us here at Newsbud Twitter

**Subscribe here at BFP-Newsbud YouTube Channel

Show Notes

Become a Newsbud Community Member

Support Independent Media

Phase One Kickstarter

Phase Two Kickstarter

German Government Responsible For Berlin Terror Attack- Parliamentary Meeting Reveals

Newsbud examines new information on the timeline and the suspect of the Berlin Christmas Market Attack. The attack raises questions about the security failures in preventing the terror attack despite knowing full well that the suspect was a ticking time bomb. Join Spiro Skouras and Christoph Germann to discuss Newsbud’s exclusive article ‘The Anis Amri Timeline: How German Authorities Allowed a Well-Known Terrorist Suspect to Strike Berlin’

*Follow us here at Newsbud Twitter

**Subscribe here at BFP-Newsbud YouTube Channel

Show Notes

The Anis Amri Timeline: How German Authorities Allowed a Well-Known Terrorist Suspect to Strike Berlin’

Berlin truck attack victims to sue for compensation, German minister admits mistakes

Probable Cause with Sibel Edmonds- “The War on Terror Sham: Mindboggling Comparison of Scales & Proportions!

This will be a brief presentation on the sham called The War on Terror and the involved costs- in terms of scales in methods, dollars and lives. The price tag for the US War on Terror sham is placed at over $4 Trillion. We’ll be looking at mindboggling facts presented via comparison of scales and proportions when it comes to US Military-Intelligence vs. The Supposed Borderless Terrorists in the Middle East. A massive never-ending war against a fantastical network of technologically and militaristically dwarfed terrorists. Don’t you see who wins in this synthetically created perpetual war?

* Please do ‘Your’ share: Pledge and help us activate others to make Newsbud- A 100% People-Funded Media with Integrity a reality.

Listen to the full audio version here (BFP Subscribers Only):

Show Notes

The $5 Trillion War on Terror

Exactly How Big Is This So-Called Al Qaeda?

For Afghan troops, donkeys are the new helicopters

The IED: The $30-Bombs That Cost The U.S. Billions

1,600 US bombs dropped in Syria and Iraq during March cost $8.5m a day

About M1 Abrams Tanks

Cost of Camels

Cost of Donkeys

Do the Math: Global War on Terror Has Killed 4 Million Muslims or More

Timeline: Terror Attacks Linked to Islamists Since 9/11

NSA recording 'nearly all' phone calls in Afghanistan

Five Reasons Why Drones Are Here to Stay

Probable Cause with Sibel Edmonds- “Kill First, Ask Later … Wait! Never mind! Don’t Ask or Answer Whatsoever!”

In this episode I provide a brief presentation on our dangerous and Kafkaesque world where our nation claims a 100% right to kill with no reason or explanation needed, a 100% right to kidnap and torture, and a 100% right to blacklist and surveil without having to show any justification. We are going to talk about a US code of operation that confidently says “Kill First, Ask Later … Wait! Actually never mind! Don’t Ask or Answer Whatsoever!” We’ll discuss our murders by drones, our secret no fly lists, secret surveillance target lists, and much more. You may consider yourself immunized from these factual absurdities, but I can assure you: You Are Wrong!

* Please do ‘Your’ share: Pledge and help us activate others to make Newsbud- A 100% People-Funded Media with Integrity a reality.

Listen to the full audio version here (BFP Subscribers Only):

Show Notes

Almost 2,500 Now Killed by Covert US Drone Strikes Since Obama Inauguration

Nearly 90 Percent of People Killed in Recent Drone Strikes Were Not the Target

Naming the dead: Only 10 of scores killed by US drones in Pakistan last year have been identified

Terror Suspects Are Frequent Targets of U.S. Drones

U.S. ‘Reasonably Certain’ Drone Strike Killed ‘Jihadi John’

‘Am I on the ‘No Fly’ List?’—and Other FAQs to the FBI

Why the no-fly list was declared unconstitutional

DisInfoWars with Tom Secker: Was Watergate a False Flag?

Watergate is the quintessential conspiracy, one that went all the way to the White House and took down a presidency. But it is a story that is almost always provided without context, and with no mention of certain key facts. J Edgar Hoover died only a couple of months before the Watergate break-in, so the FBI was in the midst of a succession crisis when they were hit with the most controversial investigation in their history. Did this lead their deputy director Mark Felt, passed over by Nixon for promotion, to leak the story to Bob Woodward under the guise of Deep Throat?

Alternatively, was Watergate the result of a CIA conspiracy? The White House 'Plumbers' were being overseen by a CIA liaison who knew what they were doing. He retired from the CIA once Nixon was removed, and died in an apparent suicide a few years later. As a consequence of Watergate the CIA-friendly Neo-Cons took over the White House, and the CIA became the undisputed premier US spy agency. Did they set up the Nixon White House to take the fall so they could remove the Nixon administration? Was Watergate a soft power coup d'etat?

Sources

George Friedman - The Death of Deep Throat and the Crisis of Journalism

FBI Files on Mark Felt / Deep Throat

John Arthur Paisley

Listen to the Preview Clip Here

Listen to the full episode here (BFP Subscribers Only):

You can subscribe below to listen to this podcast, as well as all others on our site.

SUBSCRIBE

De-Manufacturing Consent with Guillermo Jimenez- ISIS in Texas?

Guillermo Jimenez Presents Tom Secker

On this edition of De-Manufacturing Consent Tom Secker joins Guillermo to discuss the shooting in Garland, Texas that occurred in early May, when two men — Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi — allegedly acting under orders from the Islamic State (ISIS) attacked the Mohammed Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest at the Curtis Culwell Center. The contest to award $10,000 to the "best drawing of the prophet Mohammed" was held by Pamela Geller's American Freedom Defense Initiative, under the auspices of "free speech," and hosted speakers such as Dutch politician and anti-Islam activist Geert Wilders.

We discuss the rather flimsy claims of ISIS responsibility for the shooting; the questionable circumstances of the shooting itself and the heightened security presence at the event (including SWAT, FBI, and ATF); the FBI's foreknowledge and its surveillance of Simpson since at least 20007; and the potential for this to have been a "Gladio-style" false flag event. We also discuss the obvious comparisons to the Charlie Hebdo shooting, why Charlie Hebdo cartoonists have attempted to distance themselves from Geller's contest, and why some — even in the alternative media — have fallen into the binary-opposition trap and wrongly defend Geller's Islamophobia on free-speech grounds.

Listen to the Preview Clip Here


Listen to the full episode here (BFP Subscribers Only):

SUBSCRIBE

De-Manufacturing Consent- Sony Hack & the Rise of Digital False Flags

Guillermo Jimenez Presents Tom Secker

On this edition of De-Manufacturing Consent Guillermo is joined by Tom Secker, host of ClandesTime and author of the book Secrets, Spies, and 7/7. We discuss the various theories circulating around the Sony hack, who may have ultimately been responsible, and why North Korea is the least likely of culprits. We also explain what the US government has to gain from pinning the attack on the North Koreans, despite their flimsy evidence. As US intelligence agencies and both current and former lawmakers in Washington look to legitimize their "cyber war on terror" and the millions spent on cyber warfare "defense," the reaction to the Sony hack has evidenced the expansive potential for digital false flags.

We also touch on the film The Interview, and how the State Department's involvement in a movie depicting the assassination of a sitting head of state is completely in keeping with the CIA's propaganda efforts in Hollywood.

Lastly, we explore issues of privacy, in both the digital and physical realms, and how this latest event fits into the lingering "Snowden effect" in normalizing surveillance and redefining privacy norms.

Listen to the Preview Clip Here


Listen to the full episode here (BFP Subscribers Only):

SUBSCRIBE

New UN Report on Syria

unnewsOn January 2, the UN News Center headlined "Data suggests death toll could be more than 60,000, says UN human rights office."

The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) commissioned the analysis. It covers the March 15, 2011 - November 30, 2012 period.

It's impossible to compile precise figures. Analysis depends on methodology and sources used. Bias corrupts findings.

UN Human Rights Council High Commissioner Navi Pillay long ago fell from grace. Like Ban Ki-moon, Kofi Annan, and Lakhdar Brahimi, she's a reliable imperial partner.

Her previous reports on Syria expressed one-sided anti-Assad sentiment. She part of the conspiracy to replace him with a pro-Western puppet. [Read more...]