Archive for September 11th, 2009

Purpose of the 9/11 Attacks

Purpose of the 9/11 Attacks

Bin Laden addresses Americans in tape:

Attacked Again? We Could Prevent Another Attack!

1996 Fatwa summary and full text

1998 Fatwa summary and full text


US support for Israel’s brutal oppression of the Palestinians PRIMARY MOTIVATION for tragic attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993 and on 9/11 as well (look up ‘Israel as a terrorist’s motivation’ in index of James Bamford’s ‘A Pretext for War’ book & check out the following youtube videos):
The Gorilla in the Room is US Support for Israel
What motivated the 9/11 hijackers? See testimony most didn’t:
“Sit Down!” The Power to Silence the Truth about 9/11 Part 2
Israel Attacks Gaza, Silence from Mainstream Media about Israeli Violations of International Law
Pres Carter call:
In memory of those who tragically perished on 9/11 because of America’s support of Israel’s brutal oppression of the Palestinian people:

9/11: Our Truth, and Theirs

9/11: Our Truth, and Theirs

The “official” 9/11 narrative doesn’t make sense  (by Justin Raimondo)

Five Israelis were seen filming as jet airliners ploughed into the twin towers on 9/11:

Israel Is Spying In And On The U.S.? Part 1


The Israeli Spy Ring


What Role Did the U.S.-Israeli Relationship Play in 9-11?

General (Ret) James David (who is mentioned on the cover of the third edition of Congressman Paul Findley’s ‘They Dare to Speak Out’ book about the power/influence of the pro-Israel lobby on the US political system and media) wrote the intro to the following article by Jeff Gates:

Friday, September 11, 2009 10:08 AM
From: General (Ret) James David
This is a great article and a must read. It’s important to read the entire article paying particular attention to the highlighted sections that I have made.

What Role Did the U.S.- Israeli Relationship Play in 9-11?

September 11, 2009 by Jeff Gates

 On the day of the 9-11 attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked what the attack would mean for US-Israeli relations. His quick reply was: “It’s very good….Well, it’s not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel).”Intelligence wars rely on mathematical models to anticipate the response of “the mark” to staged provocations. Reactions thereby become foreseeable—within an acceptable range of probabilities. When Israeli mathematician Robert J. Aumann received the 2005 Nobel Prize in economic science, he conceded that “the entire school of thought that we have developed here in Israel” has turned “Israel into the leading authority in this field.”

With a well-planned provocation, the anticipated response can even become a weapon in the arsenal of the agent provocateur. In response to 9-11, how difficult would it be to foresee that the U.S. would deploy its military to avenge that attack? With fixed intelligence, how difficult would it be to redirect that response to wage a long-planned war in Iraq — not for U.S. interests but to advance the agenda for Greater Israel?

The emotionally wrenching component of a provocation plays a key role in the field of game theory war planning where Israel is the authority. With the televised murder of 3,000 Americans, a shared mindset of shock, grief and outrage made it easier for U.S. policy-makers to believe that a known Evil Doer in Iraq was responsible, regardless of the facts.

The strategic displacement of facts with induced beliefs, in turn, requires a period of “preparing the mindset” so that “the mark” will put their faith in a pre-staged fiction. Those who induced the March 2003 invasion of Iraq began “laying mental threads” and creating agenda-advancing mental associations more than a decade earlier.

Notable among those threads was the 1993 publication in Foreign Affairs of an article by Harvard professor Samuel Huntington. By the time his analysis appeared in book-length form in 1996 as The Clash of Civilizations, more than 100 academies and think tanks were prepared to promote it, pre-staging a “clash consensus”–five years before 9-11.

Also published in 1996 under the guidance of Richard Perle was A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (i.e., Israel). A member since 1987 of the U.S. Defense Policy Advisory Board, this self-professed Zionist became its chairman in 2001. As a key adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Perle’s senior Pentagon post helped lay the required foundation for removing Saddam Hussein as part of a Greater Israel strategy, a key theme of A Clean Break – released five years before 9-11.

A mass murder, articles, books, think tanks and Pentagon insiders, however, are not enough to manage the variables in a “probabilistic” war-planning model. Supportive policy makers are also required to lend the appearance of legitimacy and credibility to an operation justified by intelligence fixed around a pre-determined agenda.

That role was eagerly filled by Senators John McCain, Joe Lieberman, a Jewish Zionist from Connecticut, and Jon Kyl, a Christian Zionist from Arizona, when they co-sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Echoing Tel Aviv’s agenda in A Clean Break, their bill laid another mental thread in the public mindset by calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein–three years before 9-11.

The legislation also appropriated $97 million, largely to promote that Zionist agenda. Distracted by mid-term Congressional elections and by impeachment proceedings commenced in reaction to a well-timed presidential affair involving White House intern Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton signed that agenda into law October 31, 1998 — five years before the U.S.-led invasion that removed Saddam Hussein.

After 9-11, John McCain and Joe Lieberman became inseparable travel companions and irrepressible advocates for the invasion of Iraq. Looking “presidential” aboard the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt in January 2002, McCain laid another key thread when he waved an admiral’s cap while proclaiming, alongside Lieberman, “On to Baghdad.”

By Way of Deception

The chutzpah with which this game theory strategy progressed in plain sight could be seen in the behavior of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, another Zionist insider. Four days after 9-11, in a principals’ meeting at Camp David, he proposed that the U.S. invade Iraq. At that time, the intelligence did not yet point to Iraqi involvement and Osama bin Laden was thought to be hiding in a remote region of Afghanistan.

Frustrated that President George H.W. Bush declined to remove Saddam Hussein during the 1991 Gulf War, Wolfowitz proposed a No-Fly Zone in northern Iraq. By 2001, the Israeli Mossad had agents at work for a decade in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul. Intelligence reports of Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda also came from Mosul — reports that later proved to be false. Mosul again emerged in November 2004 as a center of the insurgency that destabilized Iraq. That reaction precluded the speedy exit of coalition forces promised in Congressional testimony by senior war-planner Wolfowitz.

The common source of the fixed intelligence that induced America to war in Iraq has yet to be acknowledged even though intelligence experts agree that deception on such a scale required a decade to plan, staff, pre-stage, orchestrate and, to date, cover up. The two leaders of the 9-11 Commission report conceded they were stopped by Commission members from hearing testimony on the motivation for 9-11: the U.S.-Israeli relationship.

The fictions accepted as generally accepted truths included Iraqi WMD, Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, Iraqi meetings with Al Qaeda in Prague, Iraqi mobile biological weapons laboratories and Iraqi purchases of “yellowcake” uranium from Niger. Only the last fact was conceded as phony in the relevant time frame. All the rest were disclosed as false, flawed or fixed only after the war began. An attempt to cover-up the yellowcake account led to the federal prosecution of vice-presidential chief of staff Lewis Libby, another well-placed Zionist insider.

Did game theory-modeled pre-staging also include the Israeli provocation that led to the Second Intifada? An intifada is an uprising or, literally, a “shaking off” of an oppressor. The Second Intifada in Palestine dates from September 2000 when Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon led an armed march to Jerusalem’s Temple Mount – one year before 9-11.

After a year of calm—during which Palestinians believed in the prospects for peace—suicide bombings recommenced after this high-profile provocation. In response to the uprising, Sharon and Netanyahu observed that only when Americans “feel our pain” would they understand the plight of the victimized Israelis. Both Israeli leaders suggested that shared mindset (“feel our pain”) would require in the U.S. a weighted body count of 4,500 to 5,000 Americans lost to terrorism, the initial estimate of those who died in the twin towers of New York City’s World Trade Center—one year later.

The American Valkyrie?

When successful, game theory warfare strengthens the agent provocateur while leaving the mark discredited and depleted by the anticipated reaction to a well-timed provocation. By game theory standards, 9-11 was a strategic success because the U.S. was portrayed as irrational for its reaction — the invasion of Iraq – that triggered a deadly insurgency with devastating consequences both for Iraq and the U.S.

That insurgency, in turn, was an easily modeled reaction to the invasion of a nation that (a) played no role in the provocation, and (b) was known to be populated by three long-warring sects where an unstable peace was maintained by a former U.S. ally who was rebranded an Evil Doer. As the cost in blood and treasure expanded, the U.S. became overextended militarily, financially and diplomatically.

As “the mark” (the U.S.) emerged in the foreground, the agent provocateur faded into the background. But only after catalyzing dynamics that steadily drained the U.S. of credibility, resources and resolve. This “probabilistic” victory also ensured widespread cynicism, insecurity, distrust and disillusionment along with a declining capacity to defend its interests due to the duplicity of a game theory-savvy enemy within.

Meanwhile the American public fell under a regime of oversight, surveillance and intimidation marketed as “homeland” security. This domestic operation even features rhetorical hints of a WWII “fatherland” with clear signs of a force alien to the U.S. with its welcome embrace of open dissent. Is this operation meant to protect Americans or to shield those responsible for this insider operation from Americans?

By manipulating the shared mindset, skilled game theory war-planners can wage battles in plain sight and on multiple fronts with minimal resources. One proven strategy: Pose as an ally of a well-armed nation predisposed to deploy its military in response to a mass murder. In this case, the result destabilized Iraq, creating crises that could be exploited to strategic advantage by expanding the conflict to Iran, another key Israeli goal announced in A Clean Break—seven years before the invasion of Iraq.

Which nation benefitted from the deployment of coalition forces to the region? Today’s mathematically model-able outcome undermined U.S. national security by overextending its military, discrediting its leadership, degrading its financial condition and disabling its political will. In game theory terms, these results were “perfectly predictable”—within an acceptable range of probabilities.

In the asymmetry that typifies today’s unconventional warfare, those who are few in numbers must wage war by way of deception—non-transparently and with means that leverage their impact. Which nation—if not Israel—fits that description?

Treason in Plain Sight?

Game theory war-planners manipulate the shared mental environment by shaping perceptions and creating impressions that become consensus opinions. With the aid of well-timed crises, policy-makers fall in line with a predetermined agenda—not because they are Evil Doers or “imperialists” but because the shared mindset has been pre-conditioned to respond not to the facts but to manipulated emotions and consensus beliefs. Without the murder of 3,000 on 9-11, America’s credibility would not now be damaged and the U.S. economy would be in far better shape.

By steadily displacing facts with what “the mark” can be induced to believe, the few-within-the-few amplify the impact of their duplicity. By steady manipulation of the public’s mindset, game theory war-planners can defeat an opponent with vastly superior resources by inducing those decisions that ensure defeat.

Intelligence wars are waged in plain sight and under the cover of widely shared beliefs. By manipulating consensus opinion, such wars can be won from the inside out by inducing a people to freely choose the very forces that imperil their freedom. Thus in the Information Age the disproportionate power wielded by those with outsized influence in media, pop culture, think tanks, academia and politics—domains where Zionist influence is most rampant.

Induced beliefs act as a force-multiplier to wage intelligence wars from the shadows. At the operational core of such warfare are those masterful at anticipating the mark’s response to a provocation and incorporating that response into their arsenal. For those who wage war in this fashion, facts are only a barrier to overcome. For those nations dependent on facts, the rule of law and informed consent to protect their freedom, such insider treachery poses the greatest possible threat to national security.

America is far less safe than before 9-11. Tel Aviv clearly intends to continue its serial provocations, as evidenced by its ongoing expansion of the settlements. Israel has shown no sign of a willingness to negotiate in good faith or to take the steps required to make peace a possibility. To date, Barack Obama appears unwilling to name senior appointees who are not either Zionists are strongly pro-Israeli. The greatest threat to world peace is not terrorists. The greatest threat is the U.S.-Israeli relationship.

In the same way that a decade of pre-staging was required to plausibly induce the U.S. to invade Iraq, a similar strategy is now underway to persuade the U.S. to invade Iran or to support and condone an attack by Israel. The same duplicity is again at work, including the high profile branding of the requisite Evil Doer. From its very outset, the Zionist enterprise focused on hegemony in the Middle East. Its entangled alliance with the U.S. enabled this enterprise to deploy American might for that purpose.

Only one nation had the means, motive, opportunity and stable nation state intelligence required to take the U.S. to war in the Middle East while also making it appear that Islam is the problem. If Barack Obama continues to defer to Tel Aviv, he can rightly be blamed when the next attack occurs in the U.S. or the European Union featuring the usual orgy of evidence pointing to a predetermined target. Should another mass murder occur, that event will be traceable directly to the U.S.-Israeli relationship and the failure of U.S policy-makers to free America from this enemy within.

See also:

How Israel Controls US

How Israel Wages War in Plain Sight

Appeasing Israel – At What Cost?


Putin warns against Iran attack

Putin warns against Iran attack

Russian report: Netanyahu may be planning Iran attack

Russian report: Netanyahu may be planning Iran attack:
Israeli attack on Iran ‘catastrophe’, says Sarkozy:



Putin warns against Iran attack

“Israel has a powerful stranglehold on the American government,” controlling members of the House and Senate and involving the U.S. in wars in which it has little or no interest.

Jim Traficant was spot on with what he mentioned about AIPAC and Israel in the following youtube video (see the bold type print near the end of the Associated Press article included below as well) as such validates what former Republican Congressman Paul Findley conveyed in his ‘They Dare to Speak Out’ book and what professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt conveyed in their bestselling ‘The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy’ book as well!:
Former Congressman James (Jim) Traficant interview by Greta Van Susteren on the Fox (Neocon) News Channel:
Only thing I disagreed with  (see above youtubes) Traficant on is that Israel is no ‘ally’ after its treacherous attack on the USS Liberty!

Look Sean, I’m not suggesting Israel runs Congress – I’m TELLING YOU Israel runs Congress.”

Look what Admiral Thomas Moorer (former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) had to say during an interview!:
“I’ve never seen a President — I don’t care who he is — stand up to them. It just boggles the mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasn’t writing anything down. If the American people understood what a grip these people have got on our government, they would RISE UP IN ARMS. Our citizens certainly don’t have any idea what goes on.” – Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, US Navy & Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff during interview on 24 August 1983 

Admiral Thomas Moorer Rejects Israel’s Excuse

Admiral Moorer mentioned at following URL as well:
 “No American President can stand up to Israel.”
My Choice for President, Jim Traficant

The Anti-Semitism ‘trick’ (courageous American Jew Amy Goodman and former Israel government official talk about the ‘anti-Semitism’ trick on her ‘’ program via the following youtube):

Part I Congressman Jim Traficant and Dr. Hesham Tillawi

Part 2 Congressman Jim Traficant and Dr. Hesham Tillawi

“Look Sean, I’m not suggesting Israel runs Congress – I’m TELLING YOU Israel runs Congress.”

Death of American Democracy (see youtube video linked near top of following URL):


Traficant: I could have been hurt while in prison

(AP) – 4 hours ago

YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio — A former Ohio congressman who was freed after seven years in federal prison said he was put in jeopardy behind bars because of his views.

James Traficant spoke in an interview broadcast Thursday night on the Fox News show “On The Record With Greta Van Susteren.”

Traficant said life behind bars was “tough,” and that it wasn’t long before he was in “the hole.” He said he was “put in a position to be hurt” at the federal prison in Allenwood, Pa., because it had many illegal immigrants unhappy with his idea of patrolling the Mexican border with troops.

The nine-term Democrat from Youngstown was released from a medical prison in Rochester, Minn., last week after serving time for racketeering, bribery, obstruction of justice and tax evasion.

Traficant said his days at Allenwood were followed by time at the upstate New York Ray Brook prison, which he refers to as a “medium-high” security prison nicknamed “The Gladiator School.”

“There’s a lot of violence. … Most political figures go to some camps in country clubs. I didn’t,” he said.

The government considers the New York facility medium security; the Allenwood prison has low, medium and high security areas.

The Bureau of Prisons said Traficant was treated like any other inmate, and that prison assignments are based on several factors. There also are a number of reasons why an inmate might be placed in a special housing unit, the bureau said, and privacy polices prevent the release of information on inmates’ disciplinary records.

Traficant said he spent the bulk of his time in Rochester with a “lot of good guys.”

“I understood the dynamics of prison life,” he said. “And now what you have is, they want to keep the prisons open, keep the jobs going. They’re putting 20, 30 years on some of these young people, and it’s out of hand.”

Traficant said he hasn’t decided yet whether he will run again for Congress, and that he forfeited his future. He also said he doesn’t care about anyone did to him or does to him in the future.

“I’m going to say what I think is right, I’m going to do what I think is right,” he said. “And if it offends some people, then so be it. You see, because I’m still, I guess, the same jackass I was.”

At a weekend “welcome home” event for Traficant in suburban Youngstown. the Democrat said the government had to “cheat” to convict him, reiterating his trial defense that the government was out to get him.

In the interview aired Thursday, he said he holds some grudges.

“I want to go at them,” he said “They came to me and said if I said I was guilty, I might even get a pardon. And I told them to shove the pardon up their derriere sideways.”

In the interview, Traficant also denies that he is anti-Semitic and argues that “Israel has a powerful stranglehold on the American government,” controlling members of the House and Senate and involving the U.S. in wars in which it has little or no interest.

He says he predicted another economic depression and people just laughed at him.

“Stevie Wonder could see this coming,” he said. “Stevie Wonder could see America’s troubles now.”


Traficant speaks out against the powers that be on Fox News

Traficant was spot on about the US fighting wars which are in the interest of Israel (and are not in America’s interest) as Dr. Stephen Sniegoski conveys in his ‘The Transparent Cabal’ book as well:

Stephen Sniegoski’s lecture on his book, “The Transparent Cabal”

Traficant also conveyed that we get blowback from what we do/support in the Middle East:

US support for Israel’s brutal oppression of the Palestinians PRIMARY MOTIVATION for tragic attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993 and on 9/11 as well (look up ‘Israel as a terrorist’s motivation’ in index of James Bamford’s ‘A Pretext for War’ book & check out the following youtube videosl):
The Gorilla in the Room is US Support for Israel
What motivated the 9/11 hijackers? See testimony most didn’t:
“Sit Down!” The Power to Silence the Truth about 9/11 Part 2
Israel Attacks Gaza, Silence from Mainstream Media about Israeli Violations of International Law
Even General David Petraeus conveyed that US support for Israel against the Palestinians was/is a threat to US troops in theater:
General Petraeus Leaked Emails about Israel:
Retired CIA analyst Ray McGovern (who gave the daily intel brief to Bush, Sr. when he was VP under Reagan) mentioned what General Petraeus conveyed near the end of the following article:
Will Israel Kill Americans Again?:
Pres Carter call:
Zionist Washington Ensuring the End of America

AIPAC Pushes Hard for War With Iran (but doesn’t want the blame)