Al Qaeda Paradox: Freedom Fighters Who Hate Us for our Freedom

Source: Land Destroyer Report
Tony Cartalucci

On September 20, 2001, just days after the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York City, the attack on the Pentagon in Washington D.C., and the loss of a hijacked jetliner over Pennsylvania - attacks squarely blamed on "Al Qaeda," US President George Bush would declare:

"Americans are asking "Why do they hate us?'' 

They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.

They want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. They want to drive Israel out of the Middle East. They want to drive Christians and Jews out of vast regions of Asia and Africa.

These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life. With every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends. They stand against us because we stand in their way.

We're not deceived by their pretenses to piety.

We have seen their kind before. They're the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way to where it ends in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies.

Americans are asking, "How will we fight and win this war?''"

It turns out America would fight the war by invading Afghanistan and waging a ten year war against the Taliban who had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Then similarly invade and occupy Iraq, opening the door to foreign "Al Qaeda" fighters to pour in and help wage a bloody civil war that effectively ended all meaningful resistance to US occupiers. And finally, overtly arm, train, fund, and even provide air support and political recognition for Al Qaeda affiliates, first in Libya, and now in Syria.

With Al Qaeda's recent call for support of "pro-democracy" "freedom fighters" in Syria, people are literally asking, "how can they hate us for our freedom and our democratically elected governments, but then support and even die for those allegedly fighting for these very ideals?" Clearly we've been lied to about something. 

Democide Mass-Murder and the New World Order

Source: Activist Post
Paul Adams, J.D.

A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic. -- Joseph Stalin

In earlier times it was easier to control a million people than physically to kill a million people. Today it is infinitely easier to kill a million people then to control a million people. --  Zbigniew Brzezinski

Many people believe that governments are too bureaucratic, incompetent and lazy to accomplish anything substantial.  However, history has demonstrated that powerful elites have used governments to do one thing extremely efficiently: Democide.

According to Professor R.J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii, Democide is the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder.  Democide does not include soldiers killed in battle.  During the 20th Century (1900s) alone, Rummel calculates that government power was used to murder approximately 262,000,000 people.

Soviet Union
Approximately 61,911,000 people, 54,769,000 of them citizens, were murdered by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from 1917 to 1987. Rummel writes:

Part of this mass killing was genocide, as in the wholesale murder of hundreds of thousands of Don Cossacks in 1919, the intentional starving of about 5,000,000 Ukrainian peasants to death in 1932-33,² or the deportation to mass death of 50,000 to 60,000 Estonians in 1949.³ Part was mass murder, as of the wholesale extermination of perhaps 6,500,000 "kulaks" (in effect, the better off peasants and those resisting collectivization) from 1930 to 1937, the execution of perhaps a million Party members in the Great Terror of 1937-38, and the massacre of all Trotskyites in the forced labor camps.

Most people are unaware that all that death resulting from the Bolshevik Revolution would not have been possible absent the support of wealthy financiers in London and New York. Lenin and Trotsky were on the closest of terms with these moneyed interests both before and after the Revolution.  Additionally, it was President Woodrow Wilson that provided Trotsky with a passport to return to Russia to "carry forward" the revolution. 

The Rockefeller World, Council on Foreign Relations and The Trilateral Commission

Source: Boiling Frogs Post

Andrew Gavin Marshall

‘The Ultimate Networking & Socializing institution among the American elite’

 

 

The following is a sneak peak from a chapter in Andrew Gavin Marshall’s upcoming book funded through The People’s Book Project.

It is quite apparent in the history of America from the late 19^th century and into the 20^th century, that the Rockefeller family has wielded massive influence in shaping the socio-political economic landscape of society. However, up until the first half of the 20^th century came to a close, there were several other large dominant families with whom the Rockefellers shared power and purpose, notably among them, the Morgans. As the century progressed, their interests aligned further still, and following World War II, the Rockefellers became the dominant group in America, and arguably, the world. Of course, there was the well-established business links between the major families emerging out of the American Industrial Revolution going into the 20^th century, followed with the establishment of the major foundations designed to engage in social engineering. It was with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) that the changing dynamics of the Morgan-Rockefeller clan became most apparent.

As discussed earlier in this book, the Council on Foreign Relations is the ultimate networking and socializing institution among the American elite. The influence of the CFR is unparalleled among other think tanks. One study revealed that between 1945 and 1972, roughly 45% of the top foreign policy officials who served in the United States government were also members of the Council, leading one prominent member to once state that membership in the Council is essentially a “rite of passage” for being a member of the foreign policy establishment. One Council member, Theodore White, explained that the Council’s “roster of members has for a generation, under Republican and Democratic administrations alike, been the chief recruiting ground for Cabinet-level officials in Washington.”[1]

The CIA, as previously examined, is also no stranger to this network, since more often than not in the first several decades of the existence of the Agency, its leaders were drawn from Council membership, such as Allen Dulles, John A. McCone, Richard Helms, William Colby, and George H.W. Bush. As some researchers have examined:

The influential but private Council, composed of several hundred of the country’s top political, military, business, and academic leaders has long been the CIA’s principal “constituency” in the American public. When the agency has needed prominent citizens to front for its proprietary (cover) companies or for other special assistance, it has often turned to Council members.[2]

Roughly 42% of the top foreign policy positions in the Truman administration were filled by Council members, with 40% in the Eisenhower administration, 51% of the Kennedy administration, and 57% of the Johnson administration, many of whom were holdovers from the Kennedy administration.[3] 

The Council has had and continues to have enormous influence in the mainstream media, through which it is able to propagate its ideology, advance its agendas, and conceal its influence. In 1972, three out of ten directors and five out of nine executives of the New York Times were Council members. In the same year, one out of four editorial executives and four of nine directors of the Washington Post were also Council members, including its President, Katharine Graham, as well as the Vice-President Osborn Elliott, who was also editor-in-chief of Newsweek. Of both Time Magazine and Newsweek, almost half of their directors in 1972 were also Council members.[4]

Afghanistan: Ten Years of War

From: Global Research.ca and The Corbett Report
 

TRANSCRIPT AND SOURCES:

October 7th marks the ten year anniversary of the commencement of NATO operations in Afghanistan. Although the impending illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 was enough to drive millions of people worldwide into the streets in protest, there has never been the same widespread resistance to the Afghan war.

This war has been deemed the “right war” and given a broad measure of support from across the political spectrum because it is still linked in the popular imagination with the events of 9/11. Even a cursory interrogation of these assumptions, however, shows that the absurd nature of this pretext for what has been all along an illegal invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation.