How Much does Israel Cost the Average American?

By Alcibiades Bilzerian

While so many Americans are subsisting on food stamps, losing their homes, and accumulating credit card debt they will never be able to pay off, the US is giving Israel $3 billion in direct foreign aid every year and, according to Congressman James Traficant, another $12-17 billion in indirect aid such as valuable military equipment deemed “scrapped,” loan guarantees, and preferential contracts. Israel is an affluent country with more than 10,000 millionaires and, according to the International Monetary Fund, was one of the few economies that weathered the 2008 financial storm nearly unscathed.

It’s hard to calculate the exact amount of foreign aid America gives Israel every year because the Israeli lobby in America secretly campaigns to give the tiny desert nation as much under-the-table aid as they can secure. In 1992, AIPAC President David Steiner was caught on tape bragging about his organization’s incredible power in America. Steiner first admitted to manipulating the US Secretary of State into giving Israel more foreign aid. Steiner said he, ”met with [Secretary of State] Jim Baker and I cut a deal with him. I got, besides the $3 billion, you know they’re looking for the Jewish votes, and I’ll tell him whatever he wants to hear … Besides the $10 billion in loan guarantees which was a fabulous thing, $3 billion in foreign, in military aid, and I got almost a billion dollars in other goodies that people don’t even know about.”

According to the General Accounting Office (GAO), Israel operates the largest spying operation on America of any of our allies, and they use some of their intelligence gathering to steal American business secrets, which costs the US jobs and money. The two largest and most powerful Israeli lobbies in America, AIPAC and the Anti-Defamation League, have both been caught red-handed spying for Israel (see the 2005 AIPAC Scandal and 1993 ADL Spying scandal). Shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the FBI rounded up more than a hundred Israeli spies who were caught infiltrating dozens of federal agencies. It was one of the largest spy rings in American history.

If the American government took the $15-$20 billion it gives Israel every year and put it into a savings account for the 4.5 million babies born p/yr, every American would receive $8,000-$10,500 upon turning 18 years old. In another option, the US government could give the money away in a lottery and make 15k-20k Americans millionaires every year. Either of these options would provide an incredible boost to the US economy. But the truth is that $15-$20 billion per year is probably just scratching the surface when we look at the cost of America’s relationship with Israel.

Dr. Thomas R. Stauffer, a world renowned economist who taught economics and Middle East studies at Harvard as well as serving twice in the Executive Office of the President on a task force for oil imports and controls, estimated that as of 2002 (in 2002 dollars) Israel has cost the US $3 trillion. His estimate took into account direct military aid, political support, oil price increases as a result of conflicts, and peripheral/hidden foreign aid. It should be noted that this figure would be a gross understatement today because much of the cost of supporting Israel has been accrued since 2002 in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and the Iran war mongering, which has led to a dramatic increase in oil costs. In addition, inflation has increased considerably since 2002 and would therefore make the figure significantly larger today.

In Stauffer’s estimation, US aid to Israel costs 275,000 American jobs per year due to unfair trade imbalances and sanctions on Israel’s enemies. In one example of under the table aid, Stauffer pointed out that the US actually gave Russia and Romania billions of dollars in undeclared aid to facilitate Jews moving to Israel. The US has also spent hundreds of billions in the region to secure friendly relationships with Israel. John McCain admitted in an interview that US aid to Egypt is really just a bribe so the Egyptians will maintain friendly relations with Israel. The US has also given Turkey and Greece billions for the same purpose. The cost of America’s relationship to Israel today adjusted for inflation and including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is likely to be in excess of $5 trillion, or $16k per American.

A summary of Stauffer’s breakdown can be found here. 
First, we have to identify what Israel brings to the relationship, which as former CIA Chief Michael Scheuer points out in the video below–amounts to absolutely nothing. Not only is Israel a terrible ally, attacking America in at least two separate false flag attacks (See the lavon affair and the USS Liberty) and actively spying on America, but it it isn’t really the “only democracy in the Middle East” as the Israelis like to claim. Many Arabs in Israel can’t vote or even live with their spouses. Israel is a racist apartheid state that separates Arabs and Jews in separate and totally unequal schools and facilities, as the following article Jewish Israelis are the worst Anti-Semites On The Planet details: http://thebilzerianreport.com/?p=537. As such, America’s support of Israel causes great damage to America’s relations with oil producing states in the region.

Most Americans view Israel as an ally on the front lines fighting terrorists so Americans don’t have to, but nothing could be further from the truth. The few Islamic terrorist attacks on America in the last 50 years were all a result of America’s support for the Israeli apartheid regime. After September 11, 2001, the media claimed the terrorists attacked because they: “hated our freedom.” The terrorists however stated on record that they attacked America because of its support for Israel. After all, if terrorists were going to attack a country because of its freedom they would have attacked the Netherlands or Switzerland.

The only people arrested on 9-11 were Israeli Mossad agents who were seen filming the attacks and then celebrating afterwards. The Dancing Israelis, as they were late known, were arrested in a van that had contained explosives and a box cutter, which was identical to the ones used in the terrorist attacks. They all failed lie detector tests about their role in the attacks. Before the US government classified all information on Israel’s involvement in 9-11, the FBI officially concluded that Israel had to have known of the attack before 9-11-2001 and didn’t warn the US. After the attacks, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, “We are benefitting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq.” He also said, “these events have swung American public opinion in our favor.”

America has spent countless treasure and lives invading Afghanistan and Iraq for Israel’s security. It’s amazing that this factual statement is still in debate today, but to clarify, Iraq had no capacity to threaten America’s security. Saddam didn’t have weapons of mass destruction or any connection to Al-Qaeda. Many Americans think their government invaded Iraq for oil, but that is completely false. America gets the vast majority of its oil from Mexico, Canada, Nigeria, and Venezuela rather than the Middle East. If America’s goal was truly to secure further energy resources it would have built a pipeline from Canada or invested in its plentiful natural gas reserves rather than spending a trillion dollars bombing and destroying Iraq’s oil production capacity and then taking no oil for its efforts.

The architects of the Iraq war, Pearl and Wolfowitz, were both closely tied to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which mercilessly campaigned for the war. The book The Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Policy puts the primary blame of the Iraq invasion on AIPAC’s merciless lobbying for war. In January 2003, AIPAC executive director Howard Kohr stated, “quietly lobbying Congress to approve the use of force in Iraq” was one of “AIPAC’s successes over the past year.” Jeffrey Goldberg reported during a profile piece of AIPAC’s policy director Steven J. Rosen that, “AIPAC lobbied Congress in favor of the Iraq war.”  The American media, which happens to have a disproportionate representation of zionist executives (see the video below or this article for proof), censored all those who disagreed with the war and labeled them unsupportive of the troops and traitors.

The Israeli lobby and the Israel-supporting mainstream media are now campaigning for a war in Iran. If Israel and the US strike Iran, gas prices will likely reach $6-7 a gallon, which will have a dramatic impact on the average American. In fact, just the warmongering alone by Israel and the zionist controlled American media has caused nearly a $1 price hike. This costs the average American an extra $123 per month or $1,476 per year. With the current gas prices near $4 a barrel, the average American will spend 9% of their total income on gas. If America or Israel attack Iran, most experts estimate that it will cost the average American an additional $2952-$4428 per year.

Even though Israel takes a great deal of money from US in direct aid and even charitable donations from Jews and Christians, according to Official Direct Assistance (ODA) Israel is one of the stingiest developed countries in the world. Israel is one of the richest countries on the planet, but gives nearly 10 times less than the world average and gives the 4th least of any developed nation per capita, only barely beating out much poorer countries like Poland, Hungary, and Turkey. So while Israel took in $3 billion from America in direct aid and $12-17 billion in the other aid measures mentioned above, they only gave $141 million in foreign aid to nations in need of assistance in 2010.

NOTE: This article first appeared on The Bilzerian Report on 18 April 2012.

Source

“Dancing Israelis” Arrested On 9/11 Later Sued The Govt, But Lost Their Case

By Martin Hill
LibertyFight.com

 

Martin Hill will be my guest on Truth Jihad Radio next Monday, November 12. Listen live 3 to 5 pm Central on AmericanFreedomRadio.com. -KB

 

Remember the Israelis who were arrested by New Jersey Police on 9/11/01 as the attacks occurred? They were arrested, interrogated, held for 71 days and eventually all sent back to Israel under suspicous circumstances. 

Many researchers have documented this as evidence of Israeli complicity in the attacks. But did you know that the Israelis later sued numerous government employees for civil rights violations? This is not widely known.

More Arrested Israelis…With Explosives? (Ed)

 

There is a lot of information which outlines the initial stories of the “Dancing Israelis”, including WhatReallyHappened and KillTown. The website 911Myths, while defending the establishment’s story, also has a lot of good information on the case. LibertyFight.com disagrees with 911Myths conclusions and analysis but credits them with providing links to some information that many other sites do not have.

This article will give an update on the “Dancing Israeli” situation, with new information which hasn’t been reported by anyone previously, to our knowledge. What has not been reported at all, either in the mainstream media or alternative media, is the conclusion of their civil case. The Israelis federal civil rights lawsuit was tossed out of court!

The viral youtube video “History they don’t Teach you In school” covers a brief history of Israeli false-flag terrorism operations. There is an amusing backstory about this. The video, made by ZionCrimeFactory, was the video that spawned a call to police by a Texas Rabbi in 2010. Rice University Jewish Studies Professor Shira Lander called the police after a Houston man e-mailed her a link to ZCF’s youtube video.

The Rabbi had advertised a public lecture series entitled “The History of Anti-Semitism” with a flier that asked “Why did some blame Jews for 9/11?” and the man simply responded to her question via e-mail correspondence. After that story broke, Dr. Kevin Barret invited Rabbi Lander, his academic colleague, to engage in some “interfaith dialogue” on his radio show regarding the matter, but she didn’t accept the offer for some reason.

Nevertheless, ZCF’s video features numerous mainstream news reports of Israelis being arrested by police that day, including footage of an interview with the New Jersey cop, Scott DeCarlo, who arrested the dancing Israelis at gunpoint. We will recap a bit here regarding the “Dancing Israelis”:

5 men in a van owned by URBAN MOVING SYSTEMS were spotted by New Jersey residents following the 9/11 attacks dancing, laughing, posing for pictures, smiling and exchanging high-fives. A woman named Maria called the police. New Jersey police officer Scott DeCarlo told of how he had to arrest them at gunpoint after they failed to comply with his orders. History Commons has an excellent detailed account of events involving DeCarlo that day with news links.

Ten years after the attacks, in September 2011, AmericanFreePress later conducted an exclusive interview with DeCarlo, now a Sergeant, who told AFP that this will be his first and last statement on the matter: 9-11 Cop Breaks Silence

The actual police and FBI reports were declassified and released in 2011, and can be read in their entirety through the following links. (911Myths notes that they originally retrieved the 6 documents from scribd.com.):

East Rutherford police documents View on Scribd
FBI Documents, section #1 View on Scribd
FBI Documents, section #2 View on Scribd
FBI Documents, section #3 View on Scribd
FBI Documents, section #4 View on Scribd
FBI Documents, section #5 View on Scribd

CBS reported “A truckload of explosives” and CNN reported “a ton of explosives” in a van stopped “near the George Washington Bridge”, with three men arrested and in custody. Later, CNN ran a press conference with Mayor Rudolph Guliani and Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik in which Kerik denied that any exposives were found. All three news videos can be seen at the very bottom of this page.

An Irish news agency also ran the story ‘Three arrested with van full of explosives’ (see video above that debunks retraction..Ed) but later ran an update, ‘Police confirm arrests but deny explosives find’. There is contention about whether the van with reported explosives was the same van with the five Israelis. However, as we will discuss berlow, note that the Jewish publication reporting on the civil lawsuit on 9/14/04 ran the headline Israelis detained on George Washington Bridge on 9/11 sue Department of Justice.

The Owner of Urban Moving Systems, an Israeli citizen named Dominick Suter, left the country immediately following the arrests, and abandoned his business entirely:
State Granted Access to Moving Company’s Storage Facility

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

December 13, 2001

“NEWARK- The State Division of Consumer Affairs (“Consumer Affairs”) is asking all citizens who have goods stored at Urban Moving Systems’ Weehawken warehouse to immediately contact Consumer Affairs, Attorney General John J. Farmer, Jr., and New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs Director Mark S. Herr announced today. The State on Wednesday obtained a court order giving inspectors from Consumer Affairs access to the facility allowing consumers access to retrieve their goods and belongings. The State, at the same time, filed a lawsuit in Hudson County Superior Court against Urban Moving Systems and its owner Dominick Suter alleging violations of both the State’s Consumer Fraud Act and regulations set forth in the Public Movers and Warehousing Licensing Act. According to the complaint, on or about September 14, 2001, Suter departed from the United States and left no one acting as an agent for Urban.”

On September 15, 2001, ‘The Record’ of Bergen County, NJ), reported FIVE HIJACK SUSPECTS HAD LINKS TO N.J.; ‘MATERIAL WITNESS IN CUSTODY IN N.Y.C.;

THE INVESTIGATION, which read, in part. “An employee of Urban Moving Systems, who would not give his name, said the majority of his co-workers are Israelis and were joking on the day of the attacks. “I was in tears,” the man said. “These guys were joking and that bothered me. These guys were like, ‘Now America knows what we go through.”

ABC’s TV News Program 20/20 did an episode on the matter June 21, 2002,: “Five Israeli men arrested soon after 9/11 might have been working for Israeli intelligence, but likely did not know beforehand about the attacks”.

They also ran a news story titled The White Van. ABC’s 20/20 interviewed a former CIA chief for the segment:

“Vince Cannistraro is a former chief of operations for counter-terrorism with the Central Intelligence Agency. Now he’s a consultant with ABC News. He says many in the US intelligence community believe that some of the men arrested in the white van were in the US working for Israeli intelligence. They speculate that Urban Moving was being used by Israel as an intelligence front.”

I suggest reading the entire transcript of the 20/20 segment because it is very interesting and gives a lot of details. The five Israelis were eventually released after lengthy interrogations: “Sources tell 20/20, after high-level negotiations between Israeli and US government officials, a settlement was worked out.” ABC interviewed two of the Israelis, brothers Paul and Sivan Kurzberg. Paul is quoted as telling 20/20 “(Through translator) I went to work over there because, I don’t know, the situation here is not the best.” Sivan Kurzberg said “(Through translator) They took away two months of my life. During that time I was supposed to be on a trip that I had planned when I started my military service.”

20/20 transcript excerpt:

MILLER: (VO) This is Kurzberg’s younger brother, Sivan, who was one of the three men on top of the van that morning. Although Paul and Sivan would not talk with us about the incident, Sivan and two of the other detainees did go on an Israeli talk show after their return. Oded Ellner denied they were laughing or happy that today.

Mr. ODED ELLNER: (Through translator, from Israeli talk show) Nothing of the kind, the fact of the matter is, we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event.”

The mens’ defense attorney Ram Horvitz, who was also interviewed by 20/20, denied all wrongdoing and denied the men were Mossad agents: “This story about the five boys being connected with Israeli intelligence is the most stupid and ridiculous story that I ever heard, and it is nonsense. I don’t know who invented this story.” Mark Regav, the spokesman for the Israeli embassy in Washington, also spoke with 20/20 and denied any Israeli intelligence connection to the five men, claiming “The story is simply false.”

Channel 4 in the UK later produced a documentary called “The 9/11 Conspiracies”. They interviewed Maria, the woman who initially called the police on the men, and also interviewed three of the Israelis. While the Israelis didn’t talk to 20/20 about the incident in June 2002, they did speak about it in the UK documentary. It is an excellent must-see segment and can be found towards the bottom of the page here.

In 2004, four of the Israelis, Paul Kurzberg, Silvan Kurzberg, Israelis Yaron Shmuel, and Omer Gavriel Marmari filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Attorney General John Ashcroft and wardens of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The four were represented by New York attorney Robert Joseph Tolchin and Israeli attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner. They claimed that their detention was illegal and that their civil rights were violated, suffering racial slurs, physical violence, religious discrimination, rough interrogations, deprivation of sleep, and many other offenses. The lawsuit also stated “As Israelis and as Jews, plaintiffs themselves are sworn enemies of al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden.”

Regarding the “dancing Israelis”, 911Myths.com notes “One curious footnote to this story appeared three years later, when four of the Israelis filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice. We’ve not yet discovered what happened to the case, and the lack of information suggests it never reached court. Still, bringing the case at all is hardly what you’d expect if these really were Mossad agents somehow connected to 9/11. Surely three years on they’d want to keep their heads down, not re-open the whole affair?”

There are three archived news reports on the lawsuit from September 2004. The first is an Kokhaviv Publications IMRA Newsletter titled “Israelis detained on George Washington Bridge on 9/11 sue Department of Justice” dated September 14, 2004. The 2nd is an archive of a Jerusalem Post article titled Four Israelis sue Ashcroft dated September 14, 2004. The 3rd is from the Jewish news weekly of Northern California, titled Four Israelis sue Ashcroft, FBI director over 9/11 treatment dated Friday, September 17, 2004.

The Public can access Federal Court records by registering with a system called PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) at pacer.gov. There is a fee for this service and a charge for each paid viewed. Sometimes, litigants or others may choose to post legal documents from civil cases for the public on other sources outside of the PACER system, on their own sites or websites such as leagle.com.

LibertyFight regularly reviews various legal filings and writes about interesting cases, such as the case involving the Oregon man who sued the police for falsely arresting him after he flipped them off (he won), the woman who was arrested for allegedly avoiding jury duty in Colorado, the lawyer from Los Angeles who beat her red light camera ticket, or the U.S. Department of Justice’s letter to the cops outlining the people’s right to film police.

In the case of the Israelis arrested on 9/11, some of the documents have been made public on leagle.com. The case is KURZBERG v. ASHCROFT 619 F.3d 176 (2010). The document is from the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. The Docket No. of the case is 07-0542-cv. It was argued on November 17, 2009 and decided on August 30, 2010.

To put it plainly, the case was dismissed not because of any of the issues involved or merits of the case, but because the plaintiffs failed to serve the defendants properly as per the rules of the Federal Court. Because the plaintiffs sued Attorney General John Ashcroft along with many others working for the government, as the appeals court put it, “the plaintiffs were required to serve process on both the individual defendants and -because the individual defendants were sued for acts or omissions occurring in connection with their performance of their duties – the United States.”

Ashcroft early in the proceedings actually waived his right to be personally served, but the plaintiffs had to officially serve the U.S as well. As the court explained, “by its plain text, requires service both upon the individual defendant and upon the United States officially; one will not suffice for the other.” They actually gave the plaintiffs numerous chances to accomplish this, which was literally as simple as going down to any post office and mailing a certified letter! As the court further explained in their ruling,

“In order to serve process on the United States, the plaintiffs were required to deliver a copy of the complaint to the United States attorney for the district in which the action was brought and also send a copy of the summons and complaint by registered or certified mail to the Attorney General. Here, the plaintiffs failed to comply with Rule 4(i) because they did not effect service on the United States. The plaintiffs failed to do so despite receiving repeated reminders from the defendants that left the plaintiffs with sufficient time to complete service.”
The court also noted:

“The time period for completion of service extended under Rule 4(m) elapsed without the plaintiffs serving process on the United States through service on the Attorney General by registered or certified mail. They did, however, attempt to serve the United States three days before the time period expired by sending a copy of the summons and complaint by first-class mail to the mailing address for the Attorney General at the Department of Justice; the attempt was insufficient because it did not make use of registered or certified mail.

After the time period granted by the court had expired, several of the defendants, including Ashcroft, moved in the district court to dismiss the action on grounds of improper service of process, including failure to serve the United States through service on the Attorney General by registered or certified mail. The district court (John Gleeson, Judge) dismissed the case with respect to all of the defendants, including those who had not raised an improper service defense by pleading or motion. See Kurzberg v. Ashcroft, No. 04 Civ. 3950, 2006 WL 2738991, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68680 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2006)…

…CONCLUSION

“Serving process on the United States through service by registered or certified mail on the Attorney General might seem, from a practical standpoint, to be nothing more than a formality inasmuch as the Attorney General, who is charged with determining whether the United States will provide representation to individual defendants, was himself an individual defendant in this lawsuit. That does not, however, excuse noncompliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court did not err in so holding. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.”

This seems like an unbelievable and absurd thing to happen when there are at least two professional lawyers handling the case for the plaintiffs. It might be understandable if a person was trying to wade through the courts and represent themself. Federal court rules can be very complicated and burdensome to the average person not versed in the legal system. Many times, cases are thrown out even when plaintiffs do have attorneys, such as in the case of when Jesse Ventura tried to sue the TSA or the ridiculous case of when Ron Paul tried to sue a youtube user (that case was rightly tossed out).

Many times, the court will dismiss a case based on what seems like a “technicality”, such as “standing”, “jurisdiction” “Venue”, failing to respond on time, etc. Fred Rodell, Law Professor at Yale University, wrote a classic essay in 1939 on the fraud and pig-latin type jibberish used by lawyers and judges. It’s titled WOE UNTO YOU, LAWYERS! and is an excellent, must-read treatise. (The phrase is from Luke 11:46:“But he said: Woe to you lawyers also, because you load men with burdens which they cannot bear and you yourselves touch not the packs with one of your fingers.”)

But for a team of international lawyers in a high profile case, to let the case be tossed out literally because they failed to serve the U.S. Attorney general properly? According to press reports at the time the case was first filed in 2004, the plaintiffs’ lawyer Nitsana Darshan-Leitner said:

“The infamous arrest of these young Israelis on 9/11 has been used by anti-Semites worldwide as ‘proof’ of Israel’s involvement in the World Trade Center attack. Our clients are seeking compensation for the harm they suffered in the MDC by prison officials. In addition, the law suit will serve as an important public forum to debunk the lie that Israel or the Mossad was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It will show that there was no Jewish conspiracy as the Arab world continues to claim and put an end to this racist blood libel.”

If it were so important to have a public hearing and “debunk the lie that Israel or the Mossad was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks”, why would the lawyers allow the lawsuit get tossed out for such an absurd and avoidable reason?! In 2004 when the suit was filed, many people across the U.S. and the world were researching and finding out the truth about 9/11. Could it be that the lawsuit was filed at a time to deflect attention away from Israeli complicity and paint them instead as the abused victims?

It was tossed out for not sending a certified letter. Do you know how simple it is to send a certified letter, with a return reciept? You can do it at any U.S. Post office for usually less than $5 bucks. Strange days indeed.

At the bottom of this page in the green section are some relevent excerpts from the Appeals Court’s 2010 ruling.

Martin Hill is a Catholic paleoconservative and civil rights advocate. His work has been featured on LewRockwell.com, WhatReallyHappened, Economic Policy Journal, Strike The Root, ZionCrimeFactory, FreedomsPhoenix, Rense, Infowars, PrisonPlanet, National Motorists Association, WorldNetDaily, The Orange County Register, KNBC4 Los Angeles, Los Angeles Catholic Lay Mission Newspaper, KFI 640, The Press Enterprise, Antiwar.com, IamtheWitness.com, BlackBoxVoting, and many others. Archives can be found at LibertyFight.com

 Source

Why I Dislike Israel

by Philip Giraldi, 

Even those pundits who seem to want to distance U.S. foreign policy from Tel Aviv’s demands and begin treating Israel like any other country sometimes feel compelled to make excuses and apologies before getting down to the nitty-gritty. The self-lacerating prologues generally describe how much the writer really has a lot of Jewish friends and how he or she thinks Israelis are great people and that Israel is a wonderful country before launching into what is usually a fairly mild critique.

Well, I don’t feel that way. I don’t like Israel very much. Whether or not I have Jewish friends does not define how I see Israel and is irrelevant to the argument. And as for the Israelis, when I was a CIA officer overseas, I certainly encountered many of them. Some were fine people and some were not so fine, just like the general run of people everywhere else in the world. But even the existence of good upstanding Israelis doesn’t alter the fact that the governments that they have elected are essentially part of a long-running criminal enterprise judging by the serial convictions of former presidents and prime ministers. Most recently, former President Moshe Katsav was convictedof rape, while almost every recent head of government, including the current one, has been investigatedfor corruption.

Further, the Israeli government is a rogue regime by most international standards, engaging as it does in torture, arbitrary imprisonment, and continued occupation of territories seized by its military. Worse still, it has successfully manipulated my country, the United States, and has done terrible damage both to our political system and to the American people, a crime that I just cannot forgive, condone, or explain away.

The most recent outrage is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s direct interference in U.S. domestic politics through his appearance in a television ad appearing in Florida that serves as an endorsement of Republican candidate Mitt Romney. The Netanyahu ad and his involvement in the election has been widely reported in the media and has even been condemnedby several leading Jewish congressmen, but it has elicited no response from either Obama or Romney. Both should be condemning in the strongest terms the completely unprecedented intervention by a foreign head of government in an American election. That they are saying nothing is a testament to the power that Israel and its friends in Congress and the media have over the U.S. political establishment. Romney might even privately approve of the ads, as he has basically promised to cede to Netanyahu the right to set the limits for U.S. policy in the Middle East.

And why is Benjamin Netanyahu in such a lather? It is because President Barack Obama will not concede to him a “red line” that would automatically trigger a U.S. attack on Iran. Consider for a moment the hubris of Netanyahu in demanding that Washington meet his conditions for going to war with Iran, a nation that for all its frequently described faults has not attacked anyone, has not threatened to attack anyone, and has not made the political decision to acquire a nuclear weapon in spite of what one reads in the U.S. press. At the U.N., Netanyahu’s chartshowing a cartoon bomb with a sputtering fuse reminiscent of something that might have been employed by an anarchist in the 1870s failed to pass any credibility test even for the inevitable cheerleaders in the U.S. media. If the U.S. is to go to war based on a Netanyahu cartoon then it deserves everything it gets when the venture turns sour, most likely Iraq Redux, only 10 times worse.

Even more outrageous, and a lot less reported in the media, were the commentsmade by Patrick Clawson, director of research for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), an organization founded by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). WINEP is widely viewed as a major component of the Israel Lobby in Washington and is closely tied to the Israeli government, with which it communicates on a regular basis. Clawson heads WINEP’s Iran Security Initiative. At a briefing on Sept. 24 he said, “I frankly think that crisis initiation is really tough, and it’s very hard for me to see how the United States … uh … president can get us to war with Iran.… The traditional way America gets to war is what would be best for U.S. interests.”

Note that Clawson states his conviction that initiating a crisis to get the U.S. involved in a war with Iran and thereby fooling the American people into thinking that it is the right thing to do is actually a “U.S. interest.” He cites Pearl Harbor, Fort Sumter, the Lusitania, and the Gulf of Tonkin as models for how to get engaged. Which inevitably leads to Clawson’s solution: “if the Iranians aren’t going to compromise it would be best if someone else started the war … Iranian submarines periodically go down. Some day one of them may not come up…. We are in the game of using covert means against the Iranians. We could get nastier at that.” Clawson is clearly approving of Israel’s staging an incident that would lead to war, possibly even a false-flag operation carried out by Israel that would implicate the United States directly, or he is urging the White House to do the job itself.

Clawson not surprisingly has never served in the U.S. military and has a Ph.D. in economics from the New School for Social Research, which would at first glance seem to disqualify him from figuring out how to set up a covert operation to sink a submarine and thereby start a war. He might be seen as moderately ridiculous, but like many of his neoconservative colleagues he is well wired into the system. He writes regularly for The Washington Post, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal; appears on television as an “expert”; and is a colleague at WINEP of the ubiquitous Dennis Ross, sometimes called “Israel’s lawyer,” who was until recently President Obama’s point man on the Middle East. Clawson is a useful idiot who would be registered as an agent of the Israeli government if the Justice Department were doing its job, but instead he is feted as a man who tells it like it is in terms of American interests. The distortion of the foreign-policy decision-making in this country is something that can be attributed to Clawson and his host of fellow travelers, all of whom promote Israel’s perceived interests at the expense of the United States. And they do it with their eyes wide open.

I will deliberately avoid belaboring another Israel Firster Pamela Geller and her New York subway posters callingPalestinians savages and Israelis civilized, as I am sure the point has been made about how any lie that can serve the cause of Israel will be aggressively defended as “free speech.” A poster excoriating Jews or blacks in similar terms as “savages” would not have seen the light of day in New York City, another indication of the power of the Lobby and its friends to control the debate about the Middle East and game the system.

And then there are the reasons to dislike Israel and what it represents that go way back. In 1952’s Lavon Affair, the Israelis were prepared to blow up a U.S. Information Center in Alexandria and blame it on the Egyptians. In 1967, the Israelis attacked and nearly sank the USS Liberty, killing 34 crewmen, and then used their power over President Lyndon Johnson to block an investigation into what had occurred. In 1987, Jonathan Pollard was convictedof spying for Israel with investigators determining that he had been the most damaging spy in the history of the United States. In the 1960s, Israelis stoleuranium from a lab in Pennsylvania to construct a secret nuclear arsenal. And the spying and theft of U.S. technology continues. Israel is the most active “friendly nation” when it comes to stealing U.S. secrets, and when its spies are caught, they are either sent home or, if they are Americans, receive a slap on the wrist.

And Israel gets away with killing American citizens — literally — in the cases of Rachel Corrie and Furkan Dogan of the Mavi Marmara. And let’s not forget Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians which has made the United States complicit in a crime against humanity. Tel Aviv has also played a key role in Washington’s going to war against Iraq, in promulgating a U.S.-led global war on terror against the Muslim world, and in crying wolf over Iran, all of which have served no U.S. interest. Through it all, Congress and the media are oblivious to what is taking place. Israel is a net recipient of over $123 billion in U.S. aid and continues to get $3 billion a year even though its per capita income is higherthan that of Spain or Italy. No one questions anything having to do with Israel while Congress rubber-stamps resolution after resolution virtually promising to go to war on Israel’s behalf.

I have to admit that I don’t like what my own government is doing these days, but I like Israel even less and it is past time to do something about it. No more money, no more political support, no more tolerance of spying, and no more having to listen to demands for red lines to go to war. No more favorable press when the demented Benjamin Netanyahu holds up a cartoon at the U.N. The United States government exists to serve the American people, no more, no less, and it is time that our elected representatives begin to remember that fact.

 Source

Bibi Cries, Obama Lies: What else is new?

by Jim Fetzer

—
“The inmates are running the asylum!”–variation on a quote attributed to Charlie Chaplin

The lunatic  Netanyahu showing off his intense stupidity at the UN

The situation is quite absurd:  Bibi Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, gives a new twist to the old term, “Cry, Bibi! Cry!”, which captures to a “t” his distress at not getting the war he wanted, as Mike Rivero has explained below.  
 
And as though to demonstrate that the President of the United States, Barack Obama, himself believes childish fantasies that no person above the age of 12 continues to accept, he has also appeared at the UN to assert that “Al Qaeda has been weakened and Osama bin Laden is no more” and by subtle implication reaffirm the “official account” of 9/11, according to which 19 Islamic terrorists had hijacked four commercial carriers, outfoxed the most sophisticated air defense system in the world, committing the atrocities of 9/11 under the control of a man in a cave in Afghanistan, who would die–for the second time–to promote the political agenda, not this time of Bush and Cheney, but of Barack Obama.


It would be reassuring if he would display an more candid appreciation of reality than the Israeli Prime Minister. Beginning with Obama, while his language is smoother and less obvious in its intent, the leaders of what are arguably the two most influential nations in the world are both performing in ways that not only embarrass themselves but the nations they represent.  Perhaps the most interesting aspect was his remarks about the death of Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Libya, where he could have mentioned Al Qaeda or the Green Party, had Obama believed they were involved, which suggests that he actually believes other agents were involved, especially since it occurred not at the Embassy but at a safe house, where the Ambassador’s location would only have been known to a small group in confidence, which means that it was a tiny “inside job”.  Gordon Duff has address some of these issues in his latest appearance on PressTV:

Mossad organized attack on US consulate in Benghazi: Analyst

Obama’s presentation at the UN

During his speech to the United Nations on Tuesday, 25 September 2012, Barack Obama made the obligatory denunciations of Iran’s nuclear energy program and begs the question by taking for granted that Iran is pursuing the development of nuclear weapons, when Iran has disavowed their pursuit and 16 US intelligence agencies have agreed, which suggests that Obama is not paying attention to his own best sources of information:

“Let me be clear: America wants to resolve this issue through diplomacy, and we believe that there is still time and space to do so. But that time is not unlimited. We respect the right of nations to access peaceful nuclear power, but one of the purposes of the United Nations is to see that we harness that power for peace. Make no mistake: a nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained.

“It would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy. It risks triggering a nuclear-arms race in the region, and the unraveling of the non-proliferation treaty. That is why a coalition of countries is holding the Iranian government accountable. And that is why the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”

He seems oblivious of the fact that Iran has disavowed the pursuit of nuclear weapons; that Iran has not attacked any other country for more than 300 years; that Iran has signed the NPT; that Iran has allowed inspectors into its facilities; and that Israel has 200-600 or more of these little beauties; that Israel has not signed the NPT; and that Israel will not allow inspectors into its facilities.  Moreover, while Obama, like Netanyahu, makes exaggerated claims about the consequences of Iran possessing nukes, such an eventuality would do far more to promote stability in the Middle East than for Israel alone to possess them.  He does not appear to have thought this through.

In a brilliant article by Saman Mohammadi, “Obama Defends False 9/11 Narrative And Absolves USrael of Guilt For Middle East Chaos In Bizarre UN Speech”, the author observes that Obama makes additional claims about the Middle East and 9/11 that are also seriously misleading and unjustifiable, including:

 * that the recent protests in the Middle East were provoked entirely by the YouTube trailer for the film, “Innocence of Muslims.” But, as he observes,

Obama failed to mention that, prior to the release of the trailer, multiple and illegal U.S. occupations of Muslim countries after the false flag September 11 events had already made Muslims angry at the United States government.  Rage against the godless and Evil Empire was brewing way before any talk of an anti-Islam film surfaced in the Middle East.  Obama clearly lives in an alternate universe. According to his worldview, Washington’s unconditional support for the terrorist state in Israel isn’t as big of a deal in the Muslim world as the airing of a 12 minute film trailer mocking Prophet Muhammad.

 * that he, Barack Obama, had ordered the death of Osama bin Laden, which took place during a daring raid in Pakistan that was a fabrication:

It shouldn’t be surprising to see Obama lie so profusely in a major international speech. After all, lying is the biggest cornerstone of his re-election strategy. His biggest lie is that he ordered the death of Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan. Only Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tells more lies on the U.N. stage. The truth is that Obama has killed more women and children with his drones than actual terrorists. The truth is that without deception Obama wouldn’t be President. The truth is that this naked emperor has nothing to stand on except lies.

* that the United States remains a bastion of freedom of speech, when the “freedom of speech” he most supports is for those who support him:

Obama’s “defense of free speech” does not include ideas and truths that contradict his statements.Obama believes in freedom of speech in Libya, Egypt, and Syria, but not in America, where it is constrained by the label “conspiracy theory.”  What is Obama’s answer to the family members of the victims of 9/11 when they call for free speech in the U.S. press regarding 9/11? Silence.

It is easy to support free speech in a foreign society, but it doesn’t count unless you also support free speech in yourown society. I’ll be more impressed with Obama if he defended the speech of 9/11 truth-tellers, supported the speech of the Occupy Wall Street movement, and apologized to the world for lying about killing Bin Laden. Until then, this hypocrite cannot be taken seriously.

 And I could not agree more that it is insulting to see the “leader of the free world” on the biggest stage in history wasting humanity’s time by talking nonsense and speaking falsehoods. Obama is betraying human conscience and disrespecting the international community’s intelligence. The world deserves to hear the truth about 9/11, not an American president lying and absolving the U.S. governmentand the Israeli government of guilt for the chaos, violence, and turmoil in the Middle East. And that is especially true when the claims he was making have been proven false and widely publish in venues such as Veterans Today and elsewhere in the world.  The evidence that impugns the “official account” of 9/11, for example, is massive and compelling, extending from no Boeing 757 having hit the Pentagon to the fabrication of all four “crash sites” to the use of mini or micro-nukes to demolish the Twin Towers and that these crimes were arranged by the neo-cons in complicity with the Mossad.

The second death of Osama bin Laden

Everyone knows that Barack Obama took out Osama bin Laden during that daring raid on his compound in Pakistan, right?  There was even that famous photograph of Obama, Biden and Hillary watching as it went down.  However, as Leon Panetta, Director of the CIA, explained there had been no coverage for the first 20-25 minutes, where these assaults only take five minutes or less. Osama bin Laden actually died of medical complications on or about December 15, 2001 and was buried in an unmarked grave. An article by Gordon Duff, subtitled, “Hunt for Bin Laden a National Shame”, had appeared already in December 2009, which began:

The embarassment of having Secretary of State Clinton talk about bin Laden in Pakistan was horrific. He has been dead since December 13, 2001 and now, finally, everyone, Obama, McChrystal, Cheney, everyone who isn’t nuts is finally saying what they have known for years. However … Since we spent 200 million dollars on “special ops” looking for someone we knew was dead, who is going to jail for that? Since Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney continually talked about a man they knew was dead, now known to be for reasons of POLITICAL nature, who is going to jail for that?

Why were tapes brought out, now known to be forged, as legitimate intelligence to sway the disputed 2004 election in the U.S.? . . . The bin Laden scam is one of the most shameful acts ever perpetrated against the American people. We don’t even know if he really was an enemy, certainly he was never the person that Bush and Cheney said. In fact, the Bush and bin Laden families were always close friends and had been for many years.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth published an editorial about it. David Ray Griffin wrote a book on it, Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive?  Nicholas Kollerstrom has an article about it, “Osama bin Laden: 1957-2001″, which means that there really is no doubt about it.  Obama was on the hot seat, not only over his phony birth certificate but also for keeping Guantanamo open and for having troops based in Pakistan at the time.  By claiming that the “tip” about Osama’s presence had come from Guantanamo and using troops stationed in Pakistan, he was able to sweep the birth certificate issue into the newsroom’s wastebasket but concurrently justify keeping the base open and troops in Pakistan.

It was a brilliant ploy and, if it was necessary for most of the SEALS who had allegedly participated in the raid to die in an unusual helicopter crash, that’s one of the prices of combat, alas. And now the great to-do about the book by the SEAL who claims to have been present when bin Laden was killed appears to be one more psyop embedded within another, but where he and others did not believe the man they killed looked like Osama.  Perhaps the effort to suppress the book is because it gets too close to the truth about another contrived event, where the principal pastime of our intel agencies turns out to be committing fabricated events and then covering them up!  Here’s Mike Rivero’s on Bibi’s latest stunt.

VIRTUAL 9/11: Will Israel Hack The US Banking System Computers and Falsely Blame It On Iran?

by Mike Rivero

Netanyahu didn’t get any traction at the UN today. Indeed his bomb chart has become an object of ridicule in the alternative media. By now he is throwing a huge tantrum. He wants his war and Netanyahu is a man used to always getting what he wants. There are only three things Netanyahu can do now to get the war with Iran going before the Israeli elections next month.

(1) The first is to simply go ahead and attack Iran, expecting that the United States will protect Israel from the counter-attack even if Israel struck the first blow.
 

(2) The second option is a false-flag attack somewhere in the world to be blamed on Iran, but that is a very chancy option given the video of WIMEA lobbyist Clawson actually selling the idea that a false flag to start the war with Iran is a great idea.

(3) The third and final option, and the one I am starting to think is the most likely, relates to the sudden flurry of media stories and statements by people like Joseph Lieberman about how Iranian hackers are attacking the US fin…. (Senator Lieberman has also been pressuring Obama to sign an executive order to take over the internet.) Of course, the common sense approach still applies. Why would Iran, which wishes to avoid a war, do something that provocative.

But we know that the US and Israel are behind the cyber-weapons like STUXNET, DUQU, FLAME, etc., taht these cyber-weapons were directed against Iran, and that one variantspecifically targeted banks in Lebanon and Iran. We also know that the US financial system is stretched to the breaking point, and we know that if the government of either Greece of Spain is driven from office by angry protests, credit default swaps sold by Wall Street against those debts come due, and there is no money to pay the claims. The Euro might even collapse, and that would trigger even more Credit Default Swaps.

So the final option, one that strikes me as very likely, is that Israel will take down the US financial computers, and blame it on Iran. This also gets Wall Street and Washington DC off the hook, because now the financial melt-down is an act of war, rather than the result of decades of Wall Street crime and corruption and the predations of Private Central Banks. US banks have already been hit with cyber attacks over the last two…, to set the stage. And this would also explain why the US corporate media has paid scant attention to the riots in Spain and Greece so that Americans still dependent on ABCNNBBCBS will remain oblivious to the fact that the Euro is falling apart.

This scenario also explains the testing of means to interfere with DNS to silence websites that may offer opposing interpretations of events (this too will be blamed on Iran).Such a cyber false-flag also gives the US Government the excuse to take total control of the internet so that those pesky truth-seeking bloggers don’t give the slaves uppity ideas that this is just another war-starting hoax like the attack on the USS Liberty or 9/11.

Michael Rivero launched www.whatreallyhappened.com in 1993 after the Vince Foster murder, which among the top ten ranked daily sites on the Internet.

Source

Academic Prostitution in The Field of Terrorism Studies

I ain’t no academic terrorism-expert prostitute. I give it away for free here at Veterans Today.

Truth is, I gave up about $2 million in projected lifetime earnings at the University of Wisconsin (and/or elsewhere in the US academy) by refusing to “service” the official story of 9/11. Meanwhile, gainfully-employed “terror experts” like Patrick Clawson say pretty much the same thing I’ve been saying: The traditional way to take the US to war is to murder a bunch of innocent Americans in a false-flag attack.  The difference is that Clawson is okay with that.

I wonder if he’d volunteer to be among the murdered? If not, I volunteer him.
Anyway, here is Elias Davidsson‘s new article on academic terror prostitution. May my former colleagues, the whores at the U. of Wisconsin and the other Bordellos of Higher Learning, read it and take a few pointers.

Disclaimer: While I agree with Elias that comparing non-9/11-truther academics to prostitutes is an insult to prostitutes, obviously Elias is less than serious when he calls prostitution an honorable occupation. When guys say that, I’ll believe them as long as that’s the kind of work they honestly want their kids and/or wives to go into.

-KB

Academic prostitution in the field of terrorism studies.

by Elias Davidsson
The expression “academic prostitution” appears abusive.  It either conveys an apparently arbitrary disrespect to certain academics by comparing them to prostitutes, or conversely appears to equate sexual prostitution, – an honorable, if hazardous, occupation – with intellectual prostitution, a definitely dishonorable one.

There is no dispute that even those who honestly earn their academic titles can produce shoddy scholarship, rely on dubious sources or draw spurious conclusions.  And even the best scholarship can be used or abused by the powerful for improper purposes.  Deficient scholarship or the abuse of good scholarship by third parties do not automatically transform the author into an academic prostitute.

What distinguishes the academic prostitute from the bad scholar are two main characteristics:  He/she must be somehow aware and reckless about the deficient quality of his/her products; and his/her motivation for producing the so-called expertise must be other than the quest for truth. The usual motivation for academic prostitutes is either the quest for fame or for financial gain, or both.  It is not always easy to distinguish the academic prostitute from one who genuinely believes in what he/she writes and unwittingly provides ammunition to powerful interests.  Academic prostitutes are often skillful in hiding their motives or garbing them in commendable clothes.  Yet, clues do exist.

While academic prostitutes are found in all fields of sciences, we submit that some fields virtually teem with such species, particularly those fields that directly serve the interests of powerful social agents: Political science, law, economics and communications. Since the decision was made by the governments of the most powerful states to elevate the myth of Islamic terrorism to the level of a serious threat to international peace and security, producing spin about terrorism has become a flourishing and rewarding industry.  As “Islamic terrorism” is essentially a racist myth, the maintenance of that myth in the minds of populations requires the constant production and dissemination of ideological junk. That’s where the terrorism experts come into the picture.  Their precise role is to produce this junk.

Among the primary clues that give away a terror expert as an academic prostitute are the following:

(a) Did the expert acknowledge or remain oblivious to state terrorism, as the most devastating form of terrorism, including that pursued under the by now innocuous name of war?

(b) Did the expert acknowledge or remain oblivious to the evidence that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were most probably planned and executed under the authority of the U.S. Government?

While ordinary citizens, who do not claim expertise in the field of terrorism, may be genuinely oblivious to the nature of state terrorism and to clues about probable U.S. Government responsibility for 9/11, such presumption of ignorance does not extend to terror “experts”.  It requires a fair amount of cynicism for a person even modestly acquainted with the field of terrorism, to ignore the devastating nature of state terrorism and disregard the mountain of evidence pointing to U.S. Government responsibility for 9/11.

Further clues that reveal “terror experts” as academic prostitutes can be found in their credentials. Those whose works are regularly published in mainstream newspapers or have been acting as consultants to the most powerful governments, may be presumed academic prostitutes, admittedl a rebuttable presumption.

Classifying a person as an academic prostitute is not a self-righteous act or a method to avoid dealing with an opponent’s arguments. It serves a specific public utility: It constitutes a warning to the consumer to remain particularly vigilant towards the alleged expert’s product. More generally, such classification seeks to provide a public warning to those tempted to cut corners in academic research in order to please those in power.

 Source

WINEP’s “Near East Policy”: Silence the truthers, stage another 9/11!

by Kevin Barrett

Clausewitz famously said that war is “politics by other means.” Today, mass-murdering Americans in false-flag attacks to start wars against Israel’s enemies is “Near East Policy by Other Means.” This treasonous “policy” is being openly and shamelessly advocated by the pro-Israel think tank WINEP, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Last night, I helped break the story that WINEP representative Patrick Clawson has openly called for the mass murder of Americans in a false-flag attack to launch a war on Iran. (Watch the video – it must be seen to be believed.)

Today, it has emerged that WINEP is also behind a recent Washington Post op-ed calling for 9/11 truthers, like Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi, to be silenced.

According to Clawson, false-flag attacks and other orchestrated war-trigger events in which hundreds or thousands of Americans are murdered are “the traditional way [that] America gets to war is what would be best for US interests.” He pointed out that when US presidents want to go to war, they “have to wait for” incidents like the staged murder of sailors on the USS Maine, the orchestrated slaughter of the passengers on the Lusitania, the Pearl Harbor attack set up by Roosevelt’s eight-point-plan, and the hoaxed Gulf of Tonkin incident. (He started to mention Israel’s murder of American sailors on the USS Liberty, but caught himself in time.)

What he didn’t say, but certainly implied, was that America’s “war on terror,” actually a war on Islam for Israel, “had to wait for” the false-flag attack of 9/11.

After listing all these false-flag events, he suggested that we need another mass slaughter of Americans to trigger war with Iran:

“And may I point out that Mr. Lincoln did not feel he could call out the federal army until Fort Sumter was attacked, which is why he ordered the commander at Fort Sumter to do exactly that thing which the South Carolinians had said would cause an attack. So, if in fact the Iranians aren’t going to compromise it would be best if somebody else started the war. One can combine other means of pressure with sanctions. I mentioned that explosion on August 17th. We could step up the pressure. I mean look people Iranian submarines periodically go down someday one of them may not come up. Who would know why? We can do a variety of things if we wish to increase the pressure. I’m not advocating that but I’m just suggesting that … this is not a either or proposition…. We are in the game of using covert means against the Iranians. We could get nastier at that.”

WINEP, like AIPAC, is a criminal organization – a viper’s nest of unregistered agents of a foreign power. Even if they weren’t advocating mass murder and high treason, and calling for the silencing of opposition to the 9/11 coup they and/or their fellow travelers helped orchestrate, they should all be arrested and sent to prison.

But when they cross the line and advocate the mass murder of Americans to trigger a war for Israel that could easily become World War Three…well, I’m not sure what method of execution could suffice.

They call it “Near East Policy.” I call it high treason and conspiracy to commit mass murder.

Source

James H. Fetzer: 9/11 IRAN REVIEW Interview

Interview with James H. Fetzer

By: Kourosh Ziabari

More than one decade after the 9/11 attacks which completely diverted the path of the U.S. foreign policy and led to the waging of two lethal, erosive wars on Afghanistan and Iraq and killing of thousands of innocent civilians, an influential, diligent group of researchers and authors have dared to question the authenticity and veracity of the claims made by the U.S. government that they were Islamist terrorists who crashed hijacked planes into the World Trade Center towers and Pentagon and killed some 3,000 people.
 
One of these high-ranking, renowned researchers is Dr. James H. Fetzer, a retired professor of philosophy at the University of Minnesota Duluth. He has written on the philosophy of science and on the theoretical foundations of computer science, artificial intelligence, and cognitive science.

According to Dr. Fetzer, George W. Bush and his administration officials were responsible for the atrocities which happened on September 11, 2001. He firmly believes that Israel’s Mossad was involved in the 9/11 attacks and that the U.S. government tries to withhold this truth from the public; however, he has written tens of articles for different magazines and news websites, providing evidence of the involvement of Israel’s intelligence service in the attacks.

Dr. Fetzer has edited several books, such as “Murder in Dealey Plaza: What we know now that we didn’t know then”, which are dedicated to the study of the assassination of former U.S. President John F. Kennedy. Among his seven authored scientific books are “Artificial Intelligence: Its Scope and Limits” and “The Evolution of Intelligence:  Are Humans the Only Animals with Minds?”

Dr. James H. Fetzer took part in an exclusive interview with Iran Review on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks and answered some questions about the uncertainties about the horrendous incident which took place 11 years ago in the heart of New York.

Q: Would you please talk about the difficulties and problems the 9/11 Truth movement has faced during the past decade? Does the U.S. government directly persecute or put pressure on independent researchers and authors who cast doubt on the official accounts given of the 9/11 events? What about the mainstream media? Have they made efforts to silence you and other researchers such as David Ray Griffin, Christopher Bollyn, Webster Tarpley, etc. who believe that 9/11 attacks was a false flag operation?

A: The most serious problems confronting the 9/11 Truth movement have arisen from conflicts internal to the movement coming from various factions, which have adopted negative and even hostile attitudes toward the others. One branch is the conservative, public-relations oriented branch, such as the 9/11 movement in the UK led by Ian Henshall, which doesn’t want to ruffle feathers by addressing the discoveries that make a difference, such as the use of mini-nukes to blow apart the Twin Towers, that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, that all four of the crash sites were fabricated or faked, albeit in different ways, and that the Mossad played a crucial role in 9/11. We have all heard about WTC-7 and other hum-drum aspects of 9/11, but it has not done what was originally hoped by arousing the public. More of the same is not going to do it, either.

Then we have the “thermite sniffers”, led by Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, who insist that this obscure incendiary could have blown apart the buildings, which, as T. Mark Hightower has shown, turned out to be physically impossible, and the “plane huggers,” such as Rob Balsamo, the head of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, who want to hang onto the myth that these big Boeings actually crashed on 9/11, when all the evidence contradicts them.  Ironically, Pilots has done some of the most important work on this subject, including establishing that Flight 93 was over Urbana, IL, after it had allegedly crashed in Shanksville; and that Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh, PA, long after it had allegedly entered the South Tower. With friends like these, 9/11 Truth doesn’t have to have disinformation ops working against us to be fragmented, even though there are plenty of them, too.

Q: Some authors and researchers have argued that there were explosive materials which caused the Twin Towers to collapse after the planes associated with Flight 11 and Flight 175 crashed into the North Tower and South Tower. Is there compelling evidence confirming this? Somewhere you argued that these flights were formally taken out of service until September 28, 2005 and non-existent planes cannot crash into a colossal building in the heart of Manhattan. Would you please expand more on these two points?

A: Bureau of Transportation Statistics records show that Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled to fly that day, while FAA Registration data show that the planes associated with Flights 93 and 175 were not de-registered or formally taken out of service until 28 September 2005, which raises the questions, How could planes that were not even in the air have crashed on 9/11? 

And how could planes that crashed on 9/11 have still been in the air four years later?  

Although it sounds like a stretch, the hits on both of the towers appear to have involved the projection images of planes–though in the case of the North Tower, it really does not look much like a plane at all–as I have explained in many places, including “Planes/No Planes and Video Fakery” and “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo.” Until you study the evidence,
“Were the 9/11 crash sites faked?” (13 June 2012):

Part 1
http://archive.org/details/scm-75926-drjamesfetzerinseattlejune1320

Part 2
http://archive.org/details/scm-75938-drjamesfetzerinseattlejune1320

it is very difficult to believe. I resisted the very idea for a year and a half until Morgan Reynolds convinced me that I had to study the evidence. Now that I have, I can’t believe we were taken for such a ride! If there were no “Big Boeing” plane crashes, after all, and these were phantom flights, then the passengers were imaginary.  And if the passengers were imaginary, then there were no Islamic hijackers aboard any of those planes. And if there were no Islamic hijackers aboard any of those planes, the whole “War on Terror” has been justified by an elaborate hoax.

Q: Do you have any information of the possible complicity of Israel’s Mossad in carrying out the 9/11 attacks? We’ve heard of the story of 5 dancing Israelis who had set up cameras directed at the Twin Towers before the planes crashed into the buildings, and were seen celebrating and congratulating each other after the towers collapsed. What’s your take on that?

A: The evidence of Israeli involvement and Mossad participation in 9/11 is abundant and compelling. Christopher Bollyn has a book about it, which goes overboard about nanothermite, but otherwise offers important evidence about this aspect of the case.  Articles by Alan Sabrosky whom I had invited to speak during The Vancouver Hearings but medical problems intervened, elaborate on many aspects of Israeli involvement. And the web site, “Israel did 9/11–all the proof in the world” does an exceptional job of brining together an enormous body of proof that even the transfer of the World Trade Center from the New York Port Authority into the hands of Larry Silverstein was part and parcel of the larger plan.  An exceptional study, “9/11 and Zion: What was Israel’s role?”, by Nicholas Kollerstrom, a historian of science from the UK and an expert on the London 7/7 subway bombings, which recently appeared in Veterans Today, is required reading on this issue.

Q: What’s your viewpoint regarding the possible involvement of Osama bin Laden in the 9/11 attacks? The FBI website had blacklisted him as the world’s most wanted terrorist, but did not attribute the 9/11 attacks to him due to a lack of sufficient evidence. We also know that in the 1970s and 1980s, CIA and other Western intelligence agencies along with the Saudi government armed, equipped and financed him to fight the Soviet forces in Afghanistan. So, is it rational to claim that bin Laden has revolted against his former allies and the ones who had once backed him unconditionally?

A: Osama bin Laden was “our man in Afghanistan.” When first asked about 9/11, he explained that he had nothing to do with it, that it was contrary to the tenets of the Koran to murder innocent women and children and that, while he had differences with the U.S., especially over stationing its forces in Saudi Arabia, the home of Mecca and Medina, the most holy sites in Islam, that there is a “government within the government” that brought 9/11 about and wanted to blame Muslims, even though they had nothing to do with it. And, indeed, as Elias Davidsson has documented, the U.S. has never been able to prove that any of the alleged hijackers were aboard any of those planes, while David Ray Griffin has noted that a half-dozen or more of those alleged to have been aboard them were found alive and well after 9/11. Interestingly, another expert who remarked that there is a “government within the government” of the U.S. was former President William Clinton.

Q: In one of your articles, you cited the accounts of William Rodriguez, the janitor of the North Tower and reports by a scientific lab at the Columbia University which attested that huge explosions took place at least 16 or 17 seconds before the planes crashed into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center. What does this fact indicate?

A: Willie’s reports have been confirmed by Craig Furlong and Gordon Ross, “Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an inside job,” where they compared very precise seismic data from a geological lab run by Columbia University with FAA and military radar data for the alleged impact times of the planes and found that they occurred 14 and 17 seconds prior to the alleged impacts. Since that would have been rather difficult for Islamic terrorists to have arranged, it provides powerful proof that 9/11 was indeed an “inside job.”  The graph that summarizes their study, which can be found on-line at Scholars for 9/11 and 911studies.org, also appears in “Seven Questions about 9/11,” which can be found at Veterans Today along with photographs substantiating that no Beoing 757 hit the Pentagon, substantiated in Vancouver, as I explain, “9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings I.”

Q: At the Vancouver Hearings, you submitted the names of George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld as the possible accomplices of the 9/11 atrocities. Would you please talk about the reasons you named them, along with Philip Zelikow, Richard B. Cheney and Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, as those who should be held accountable with regards to the 9/11 events?

A: The key players in relation to 9/11 were the neo-conservatives in the Department of Defense and the Israeli Mossad. Philip Zelikow, Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, for example, had as his area of academic specialization before entering government the creation and maintenance of public myths, M-Y-T-H-S, which is what he gave us in the 9/11 Commission Report.  As Elias Davidsson has shown, the government has never shown that the alleged hijackers were abroad any of those planes. As David Ray Griffin and A.K. Dewdney have shown, all of the alleged phone calls from those planes were faked. As Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret.), has observed, although there were millions of uniquely identifiable pieces from those four aircrafts, the government has yet to produce even one! Neither the FBI nor the NTSB even investigated those “crashes,” claiming that it wasn’t necessary because “we saw what happened on television”.  But it was all a fraud.

Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Cheney, George W. Bush and an obscure Minnesota Air National Guard pilot named Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, MNANG, all played roles in managing these atrocities or in covering them up, which I have detailed in “9/11 J’accuse: Zelikow, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, and O’Brien.”  The others’ roles are relatively obvious, but Lt. Col. O’Brien was piloting the C-130 that was circling the Pentagon, from which the debris that later showed up on the lawn appears to have been dropped. One especially conspicuous piece of fuselage has been tracked back to a crash in Cali, Columbia, in 1995. I discussed all of this with the BBC, but it misrepresented my position by switching photos that I was talking about with others taken later.  See “The BBC’s instrument of 9/11 misinformation.”

Q: Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, President Bush declared the commencement of his War on Terror. As the first move, he attacked and invaded Afghanistan, and two years later, he occupied Iraq. We can think that Iraq was occupied because its vast oil reserves should have been dominated by the U.S., but what was the reason for the occupation of Afghanistan? Was this country of some geopolitical or strategic importance to the United States?

A: Of course, the Taliban offered to surrender Osama bin Laden if we could prove that he had been involved, which we promised to do but of course ignored. The invasion of Afghanistan began on 7 October 2001, less than one month after 9/11. An article that appeared in The New York Times on 13 June 2010 discussed the vast mineral wealth of that nation, including gold, iron, copper and especially lithium, which is used in computers, triggers for nuclear weapons, but especially in electric car batteries and a reported new process to extract cheap energy from sea water. We appear to be there to do for Afghanistan what the first Secretary of the Treasury under Bush, Paul O’Neill, said the Bush administration was doing to the United States: looting!  When we are done looting, we will leave Afghanistan.

Q: U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said that the 9/11 attacks created “the kind of opportunities that World War II offered, to refashion the world.” So, do you believe that the U.S. government had been waiting for such an opportunity to find the pretext to go to war with Afghanistan and Iraq and declare Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the Axis of Evil? Can we think of the 9/11 attacks as a broader plan to dominate the Middle East and its vast oil reserves?

A: Our presence there appears to have more to do with the Israeli “master plan” to dominate and control the Middle East than any longing for more oil. Gen. Wesley Clark, the former Supreme Commander of NATO, has reported being informed immediately following 9/11 of a plan to destabilize and overthrow the governments of seven nations in five years, including Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, but working up to Syria and eventually Iran. This appears to be what is driving the US presence there, where the Israeli lobby, AIPAC, which ought to be registered as a “foreign agent,” dominates Congress and U.S. foreign policy. Some wags have suggested this country ought to be renamed “The United States of Israel,” which, I am sorry to say, is very close to the mark, especially with regard to foreign policy.

The ADL (Anti-Defamation League) has made it their practice to condemn anyone remotely critical of the actions of Israel as “anti-Semitic,” including a recent article in which Gordon Duff, Alan Sabrosky, Kevin Barrett and I were offered as examples of “anti-Semitic 9/11 conspiracy theorists.”  But I agree with Michael Moore who, when asked if he believes in conspiracy theories, replied, “Only those that are true!”  There is abundant and compelling evidence that 9/11 was brought to us by the US neo-conservatives and the Israeli Mossad. When asked who could have had the resources to pull off 9/11, intelligence experts have been unanimous that only two agencies could have done it:  the CIA and the Mossad. Astonishingly, California, where I was born, has just passed a law making any criticism of the actions of the government of Israel “anti-Semitic,” which is completely absurd, as I explained in, “Is 9/11 research ‘anti-Semitic’?”  It is symptomatic of the political power Israel exercises over the United States.

Q: You have just invited Susan Lindauer to speak at the Vancouver Hearings. We know that she has been a U.S. intelligence asset and helped with the facilitation of talks between the U.S. government and Saddam Hussein. What have been the most revealing and important parts of her testimonies regarding the 9/11 events?

A: What Susan reveals is inside information that 9/11 was an “inside job.” She served as the liaison between the CIA and Saddam Hussein, who was so eager to avoid war with the U.S. that he offered to purchase 1,000,000 cars per year for the next ten years. If that was not enough, he said, make it the next twenty [years]!  Imagine where the U.S. would be economically if we had only taken up his proposal? Instead, when Susan learned of plans to attack Iraq, she protested vigorously to President Bush. For taking that step, for speaking out about her concerns over the injustice of it all and the violations of international law that would be involved, she was harassed, intimidated, imprisoned and tortured. This is a stunning case that reveals the depths of depravity to which the U.S. has sunk.  I have just published her astonishing, horrific story, “9/11: Confessions of a former CIA Asset,” on Veterans Today.

Q: We are observing the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. As my final question, I would like to ask you to give us an overview of the whole story that happened on that day. What realities have remained obscured and hidden so far?

A: 9/11 was conceived as an elaborate psychological operation to instill fear into the American people in order to manipulate them into supporting the political agenda of the Bush/Cheney administration, which included the invasion of several nations in the Middle East and the creation of a new century of American domination of the world for the next 100 years.  The evidence supports the inference that 9/11 was a “national security event” which was authorized at the highest levels of the American government–the CIA, the NSA, the Pentagon and The White House. It facilitated a reversal of US foreign policy and extraordinary constraints on the Constitution of the United States, which have dramatically increased the centralization of political power in the executive branch and dominating the legislative and judicial branches of government.

The creation of the Department of Homeland Security has been especially ominous, where DHS has now requisitioned more than 1.5 billion rounds of .40 caliber hollow point ammo, which is not even permissible in the conduct of warfare under The Geneva Conventions. Combined with more than 300 FEMA camps around the country, which I have discussed in “From America to Amerika: The End Game” (with Dennis Cimino), even American should be alarmed at the parallels with the rise of The Third Reich in Germany before WWII. As a former Marine Corps officer, I am extremely apprehensive over the future of my country, which has been transformed from the most admired and respected nation in the world–along with our “gallant ally”‘ in the Middle East, Israel–to the most despised and reviled.  I never expected that the U.S. would turn to “the dark side” in my lifetime, but it already has.

Key Words: 9/11 Attacks, U.S. Foreign Policy, War on Afghanistan and Iraq, Islamist Terrorists, World Trade Center Towers and Pentagon, Israel’s Mossad, Fetzer

NOTE: This article is republished from IRAN REVIEW (13 September 2012) and may be found at this link.