The tragedy of historical investigations: The confirmation of diabolical hypotheses by ugly facts.
The only means of being able to protect yourself will be to understand the answer to the question, ‘What is the final end game for the most powerful families that are in fact running countries and markets?’—Jim Sinclair
Governments are far more dangerous than other elements within society.–Niccolo Machiavelli
Everyone agrees that the Gladio-Europe Conspiracy had been a Syndicate-sponsored terror campaign falsely attributed to left-wing terrorists. This, in turn, raises the possibility that contemporary terror is likewise Syndicate-sponsored, falsely attributed to radical Muslims and others. To further support this possibility, the present posting outlines 19 general characteristics of contemporary terror. For the sake of brevity, this outline focuses exclusively on the Syndicate’s most powerful handmaiden—the American government, the terror operations of this handmaiden in just one country—the USA, and it illustrates each characteristic with just one act of domestic terror—the April 2013 Boston Marathon Explosions. Taken together, these 19 characteristics (i) provide a theoretical framework of fake terror, (ii) facilitate identification of past and future incidents of fake terror, (iii) throw light on such incidents, (iv) afford near-conclusive proof for the ubiquity of government-sponsored terror in the USA, and, as a side benefit, (v) compellingly confirm the suspicion that the Boston explosions were orchestrated by the Syndicate (working primarily through its Washington DC outpost).
Other postings of “A Bird’s Eye View of Contrived Terror:”
II. Backdrop of Terror
III. The Gladio Conspiracy
V. History: Read it and Learn
VI. Give me Logic or Give me Terror
One month after the April 2013 Boston Marathon explosions, explosions which had been officially classified as acts of terror and which killed three people and injured dozens, Richard Cottrell, an expert on Gladio-Europe, wrote:
In the 1960′s through to the 1980′s NATO’s Gladio secret armies with their consorts in organized crime and among extreme right organizations carried out what became known as the ‘Strategy of Tension.’ . . . The strategy was intended to convince Europeans of the ‘enemy within’ – sleeping communist cells bent on overthrowing the established system.
Now Muslim fanatics are the order of the day. Each new atrocity, then a new round of chains prepared to bind Americans to the loss of civil liberties and freedoms granted by the Constitution.
You have been warned.
Writers such as Richard Cottrell, Gordon Duff, James Fetzer, Stephen Lendman, Kevin Barrett, Christof Lehmann, or Michael Rivero, insist that the so-called “war on terror” is in fact a continuation of Gladio. Here I should like to substantiate their claim by looking at the Gladio-USA Conspiracy as a whole.
Gladio continues nowadays in dozens of countries, but, given time’s chariot wings, the discussion below is centered for the most part on a key outpost in the bankers’ Machiavellian designs—the United States of America. The discussion will be restricted to domestic terror, even though such terror is only a fraction of a fraction of the terror that country visits on the entire world. Finally, each of the 19 salient characteristics of government-sponsored terror will be illustrated with just one recent example of an officially-designated act of terror—the April 2013 Boston Marathon Explosions.
That tragic incident took place on April 15, 2013, near the finish line of the Boston Marathon. The government avers that three people were killed and 264 injured. The government first traced the explosions to a Saudi national, but, reportedly, after impromptu separate face-to-face meetings of the Saudi ambassador to the USA with the American president and Secretary of state, and after the president’s wife visited this suspect in the hospital, the case against him had been dropped and he was summarily deported. The government then moved on to pin these two senseless explosions on two ethnically Chechen brothers, living in Boston. By April 18, the older brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was captured and killed. A day later his younger brother, Dzhorkhar Tsarnaev, was captured and injured, but, as of this writing, the government avers that he is recovering well from the severe physical injuries it inflicted on him.
Throughout this discussion, readers should keep in mind one elementary feature of the natural sciences. In genetics or astronomy, for instance, you often have two competing views of reality. Are proteins or DNA the hereditary material? Is the earth flat or round? To decide such issues, you reason, observe, and conduct experiments.
As you move along, you ask: Is this line of reasoning, or observation, or experiment, more consistent with the traditional view or with its challenger? At times you reach a point where you must discard the traditional view and embrace its competitor (psychologically, this process is an excruciating task; see here and here).
That is what you might wish to do as you peruse the arguments and evidence marshaled in this long posting. Beyond a certain point, self-respect and logic should drive you (if you are not already there) to two ugly conclusions: 1. Almost all 21st Century hyped terror operations are government-sponsored. 2. The Boston 2013 explosions, in particular, are one incontestable example of concocted terror.
Acts of terror involve meticulous preparations. Often, someone not privy to their true authorship notices them and alerts the government. As might be expected from the Gladio-USA hypothesis (but not from its “Jihadist” rival), such alarms are invariably ignored: Would Al Capone heed alerts that someone was planning to kill one of Al Capone’s lieutenants, when that someone was Al Capone himself?
We now live in a land where peaceful and idealistic whistle blowers are incarcerated, tortured, and driven insane; a land where the dying 73-year-old idealist Lynne Stewart is imprisoned and chained to her hospital bed because she dared provide a spirited legal defense to a fraudulently-accused blind Muslim cleric; a land where a careless joke can bring upon you the wrath of the Cheka.
In this land, there are tens of thousands of ordinary, law-abiding, citizens who may or may not hold dissident views but who, without the benefits of a judge or jury, without a trial, without an explanation, without advance warning, arrive at American airports only to be told that they are on a secret, typically arbitrary, Orwellian no-fly-list. The list includes terrorists such as Mikey Hicks, an 8-year-old frequent traveler from New Jersey who “has seldom boarded a plane without a hassle because he shares the name of a suspicious person.”
Tens of millions of others are mercilessly harassed, irradiated, physically abused, and humiliated before boarding an airplane. If these boarders happen to have an Arabic name, or if they are men, women, or children enough to show displeasure at governmental abuses, all the more so. All this harassment, mind you, often takes place on the basis of the flimsiest evidence–or no evidence at all.
So you would naively expect the death squads (e.g., FBI) to jump out of their bulletproof vests when informed by reliable sources that someone is contemplating blowing up an airplane or two. And yet, they hardly ever react.
In Boston, advance warnings about Tamerlan Tsarnaev came in fast and furious, including two Russian wake-up calls:
According to US officials, they were twice warned by Russia that he may have been tied to Caucasian militants. In 2011, Russians security officials requested that the US investigate Tamerlan’s activities. The FBI would make a brief investigation and then close the case leading to unsatisfied Russian security officials making the same request four months later in September 2011. Tamerlan was actually being watched by the Russian secret services whenever he visited the Russian Federation.
The Saudi theocracy, and even the CIA, also issued warnings. The Saudi dictatorship practiced what they preached and “denied an entry visa to the elder Tsarnaev brother in December 2011, when he hoped to make a pilgrimage to Mecca.”
As a result, the entire family was under watch:
about 18 months before the Boston Explosions, the CIA added the mother of the two suspects to a terrorism database after Russian authorities raised concerns that she and her oldest son were religious militants.
The adjacent Napolitano photo and caption have been copied from the corporate media:
Despite the warnings, the Boston would-be “terrorists” were apparently exempted from the harassments that the rest of us are subject to. The late Tamerlan Tsarnaev, especially, was a Muslim, a mixed martial arts fighter, a non-citizen, a subject of multiple warnings, and altogether a highly-suspicious character, if we are to take several governments at their own word. Yet, unlike the rest of us, that alleged would-be detonator of the Boston pressure cookers was never harassed. He was allowed to fly out of the USA, attend a CIA-sponsored militant conference in Russia, and then was welcomed back to America—no questions asked.
I have run across two excuses for this seeming lapse of security.
The first is “the threadbare and all-purpose mantra of a ‘failure to connect the dots.’”
The second was recited by the cat’s paw-in-chief:
Well, and the FBI followed up on them, but the FBI can’t arrest somebody because of a rumor, and that is our system of law.
This excuse is even lamer than the first, given that our Constitution keeled over in 2001. Our system forbids torture, and yet this cat’s paw’s subordinates practice torture every day, on a massive scale everywhere, including on millions of American prisoners. Our system advocates free speech, yet it controls the masses’ sources of information, tries to take over the most important free-speech forums left (universities and the internet), and tortures or executes those who practice free speech to help save the world from slavery and environmental destruction. In theory, our system forbids bribery, theft, police brutality—yet all of these and more happen daily, in broad daylight.
I shall let the reader decide whether such inactions in the face of repeated notifications are more consistent with the government’s version of events or with its “tinfoil” rival.
The Syndicate typically knows who the perpetrators of terror are within days and it is astoundingly successful in capturing or killing them.
This impeccable record defies common sense. To see this, stand aside for a second and think: If you were depraved enough to contemplate the killing of, say, one American boy, an American restaurant manager, and a Chinese statistician, and if you wanted to injure a couple of hundred Americans and foreigners, couldn’t you figure out a way of doing so without getting caught within days? Isn’t it a common assumption in crime novels and the very best police departments that months or years are sometimes needed to pinpoint blame? Did Sherlock Holmes ever solve a crime in three days?
This superlative record is also at odds with the Syndicate’s apprehension record as a whole:
A. When it comes to identifying the killers of friends of humanity, the bankers invariably fail to notice that a crime has been committed, fail to identify the criminals, or misidentify them. We shall set aside here the bankers’ ineffectuality in ever noticing their own, gargantuan, financial crimes (see, this for example), or massive drug laundering operations, and shift our gaze to the deaths of people they deem inconvenient but influential. To this day, the bankers fall short of explaining the premature deaths of numerous union strikers and ordinary black folk; influential anti-fascist, one-of-a-kind, Major-General Smedley Butler at age 58; enemy of the Federal Reserve (that is, enemy of the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and related banking families) Congressman Charles August Lindbergh Sr., 65; his grandson Charles August Lindbergh Jr. (“the crime of the century”), 20 months; enemy of the Federal Reserve and powerful congressman Louis McFadden, 60 (the third unsolved attempt on his life finally succeeded); opponent of Iraq’s neo-colonization Army Ranger and ex-footballer Pat Tillman, 24; would-be bankers’ accuser Deborah Jeane Palfrey, 52; “Dark Alliance” journalist Gary Webb, 49; financial muckraking journalist Mark Pittman, 52; former Pentagon Generals and CIA’s nemesis, journalist Michael Hastings, 33; Nick Rockefeller’s nemesis movie producer Aaron Russo, 64; union leader Walter Reuther, 62 (following at least two unsolved earlier attempts); journalist and would-be senator John Fitzgerald Kennedy Jr., 38; anti-poverty and anti-war crusader Martin Luther King, 39 (following a miraculous survival from at least one other bizarre attempt); peace-loving Senator Paul Wellstone, 58, peace-loving Folksinger Phil Ochs, 35 (who survived two unsolved earlier attempts); peace-loving Jamaican singer Bob Marley, 36–and thousands other unsolved murders of our heroes. And it’s not like the death squads (FBI, CIA, DIA and their dozens of sisters) were taken by surprise by these deaths. On the contrary, most or all of these victims had been followed and had a massive death squad file before their untimely death.
B. The bankers dread selfless revolutionaries like Thomas Paine, Che Guevara, or Malcolm X, often forcing them to go underground or seek asylum in a country not yet parasitized. And although such idealists, in sharp contrast to officially-labeled terrorists, do pose minor threats to the reign of the bankers, and although the bankers are desperately thirsting for their blood, many of these revolutionaries manage to vanish without a trace or escape to a Syndicate-free country.
A recent news story illustrates this point. Assata Shakur, a member of the Black Liberation Army, is on the bankers’ most wanted list. She had been framed in 1973, sentenced to prison in 1977, escaped and vanished in 1979, and managed to reach Cuba in 1984, where she still lives (70 other American fugitives live in that island nation too). Even though the bankers offered to print $2,000,000 out of thin air and hand them over to any Judas willing to betray her, Assata “flaunts her freedom,” continues her activism, and stirs “supporters and groups to mobilize against the US by any means necessary.” The bankers sizzle and foam at the mouth, and yet have been unable to lay their sticky fingers on her.
C. Third, and most obvious, are ordinary crimes. They too, in contrast to alleged acts of terror, often go unsolved.
In Boston, it took four days or less to attribute the explosions to a Saudi national, retract this attribution, come up with a new positive identification, then proceed to murder one of the new suspects (Tamerlan Tsarnaev) and shoot, slash the throat of, and almost kill, the other (Dzhokhar Tsarnaev).
A related telltale sign focuses on the terrorists themselves. Because terrorism is a particularly risky calling, a terrorist would naturally do anything to minimize her chances of getting caught. Before committing misdirected murders, she would have a getaway plan. The world is a very big place, and, as we have just seen, it is still possible to vanish without a trace. She would then hide for a year or two, make sure the coast is clear, change her appearance, start a new life—or plan her next outrage.
We are not talking theory of relativity here, but elementary common sense: She develops a getaway plan, plants the bombs, and escapes–preferably long before they blow up. And yet, most official terrorists have yet to figure this out. The poor schlemiels kill themselves, get caught, and generally do not behave as common sense suggests they should.
In Boston too, the “terrorists” didn’t try to vanish until—to their surprise and shock—they realized they were the wanted killers. In fact, the younger brother, smart enough to receive a scholarship from the University of Massachusetts, was apparently too dumb to cut and run. On the first three days between the explosions and his capture, he appeared relaxed, worked out, partied, and attended classes.
It is common knowledge that criminals and revolutionaries, in an effort to dodge capture and retribution, often assume an identity or appearance radically different from their own. If you were planning random homicides, wouldn’t you wish to minimize your chances of being caught, trampled to death, waterboarded, dumped in a solitary cell for years and years, given mind-altering drugs, and forced into degrading subservience?
Sherlock Holmes, for instance, was a master of disguise. Even the good Dr. Watson couldn’t recognize his cocaine-addicted partner when Holmes creatively relied on deceptive garb, gait, posture, voice, wig, and dyes. Or, speaking of Boston, didn’t some of the original Tea Party terrorists find it necessary to conceal their identities, long before the age of surveillance cameras, computers, and a cop on every street corner?
Just in case you think disguises belong to fictional narratives or are relics of the past, let me relate one of many contemporary examples. As I was writing these lines, I came across a story of a death squad (CIA in this case) agent trying to recruit a Russian intelligence officer. Now, by the strange conventions of our spooky world, this agent, formally an American diplomat in Moscow, only risked humiliation, deportation, and re-assignment, not his career or life. Yet he was detained with a spy arsenal of wigs and glasses.
By contrast, Gladio-USA “terrorists” rarely if ever bother to change their appearance. We must therefore conclude that all Syndicate-designated terrorists are suicidal, morons–or scapegoats.
In Boston, in particular, the two brothers made no effort to disguise themselves before, during, or after the bombing.
The perpetrators of every single incident of the Gladio-USA Conspiracy control the crime scene and evidence, and are thus in a position to make it fit the Procrustean bed of their fictional narrative.
This point is so straightforward, one example from Boston should suffice. Tamerlan’s autopsy was performed by Syndicate agents, thereby permitting the government to come to whichever conclusion suited its interests.
Once the bankers’ marionettes designate a tragedy as a “terror” incident, the physical response on the ground is out of proportion to the magnitude of the incident and to the subsequent risks to the public. Hence, one must surmise that the goal of such overkill is not to protect the public or capture criminals. The goal, rather, must be to reduce the number of eyewitnesses to what is actually taken place, doctor the crime scene, provide an excuse to undermine the Second Amendment (which amendment, alongside the internet, is one of the few remaining checks to an immediate fascist take-over), get Americans to cower by such awesome displays of raw power, make them forget that no man is an island, inures them to brutality and hooliganism, and force “the people to turn to the state to ask for greater security.”
Paul Craig Roberts:
That response in Boston, I mean it was absurd to have 10,000 troops and tanks on the streets looking for one 19 year old. Close down an entire metropolitan area, one of our major cities, because they are looking for one kid?
For those like myself who have studied emerging police states, the sight of a city placed under martial law—its citizens under house arrest (officials used the Orwellian phrase ‘shelter in place’ to describe the mandatory lockdown), military-style helicopters equipped with thermal imaging devices buzzing the skies, tanks and armored vehicles on the streets, and snipers perched on rooftops, while thousands of black-garbed police swarmed the streets and SWAT teams carried out house-to-house searches . . . of two young and seemingly unlikely bombing suspects—leaves us in a growing state of unease.
Mind you, these are no longer warning signs of a steadily encroaching police state. The police state has arrived. . . . We have in actuality allowed ourselves to be bridled and turned into slaves at the bidding of a government that cares little for our freedoms or our happiness.
In high profile “terror” cases (“high profile” not because the crimes stand out but because the Syndicate tagged them as acts of terror and used its media to drive the people into a paroxysm of fear, confusion, and anger), there is the conundrum that the televised people still vaguely remember the days when the accused could at times defend himself. With Gladio-USA, since the accused is typically a fall guy, the Syndicate is stuck with an uncomfortable dilemma of losing face by trampling over vestiges of judicial norms, or risking embarrassment by letting the fall guy tell his side of the story. The solution: Silence him, so that his version is never heard. You deprive him of the power of speech; incarcerate him indefinitely without trial; torture, humiliate, and drug him; “classify” the trial itself; deny him a civilian or jury trial–or any trial at all. If nothing works, you have long ago mastered the techniques of suiciding or killing him.
In short, you deny your patsies the right to defend themselves, and deny the public the right to hear their version of events. Right from the start, this suggests Syndicate’ culpability. If the accused were indeed guilty, wouldn’t the Syndicate’s interests be served by letting his testimony refute millions of “conspiracy theorists?” If the Bin Laden official accounts were not a fairytale, wouldn’t it be in the Syndicate’s interests to have him confess or convicted by a jury of his peers instead of supposedly killing him and dumping his corpse at sea? By contrast, didn’t the state of Israel give the Adolf Eichmann trial the greatest possible publicity, allowing him to defend himself the best he could? When the accused is guilty, the Syndicate has nothing to fear and much to gain from a fair trial. When the accused is innocent, a fair trial can only cause an unwelcome (albeit minor) headache.
Boston fits perfectly into this pattern.
Tamerlan was probably captured alive, needlessly stripped naked, executed—and silenced forever.
The Syndicate’s stooges tried to kill the unarmed younger brother too, but he miraculously survived. So according to one death squad (SWAT) team member at the scene, Dzhorkhar’s throat was cut with a knife, leading the Israeli (just another odd coincidence, to be sure) chief of the hospital where he was being tortured to the view that Dzhorkahr “may never speak again.” True, a mute person can still defend himself, but clearly not as movingly and well. (A few weeks later, against all odds, Dzhokahr apparently regained the ability to speak.)
After his capture, this 19-year-old had
endured an unconstitutional 16-hour interrogation by the FBI’s crack interrogation team . . . all of it conducted while he was hospitalized in serious condition, sedated and chained to his bed, and despite having his repeated requests for an attorney blatantly denied.
Commenting on Tamerlan’s execution, the attempted murder of her other son, Dzhorkhar, and the subsequent shooting in the back of the head of Tamerlan’s friend Ibragim Todashev (even the co-opted ACLU felt compelled to “monitor the case”), Tamerlan and Dzhorkhar’s grief-stricken mother asked the question that every American, and certainly every journalist covering the case, should have asked:
Now another boy has left this life. Why are they killing these children without any trial or investigation?
There are other ways of denying innocent people the right to defend themselves. Thus, the Syndicate had enough money to have 9,000 cops and an undisclosed number of “rent-a-special forces-soldier people,” but, the Rockefeller media tell us:
Budget Cuts Could Delay ‘Boston Bomber’ Trial: Defense lawyers for suspected Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev could be “severely affected” by federal budget cuts, resulting in potentially lengthy delays to his eventual trial, said federal court officials. And it’s not budget cuts across the board, you understand: Though both the public defender and U.S. attorney prosecuting the case are federal employees, only the defense lawyers will be subject to furloughs.
As far as I can tell, this is not meant as a joke. If such an outlandish claim had indeed been made, the most likely explanation is this: They need the delay to make sure—by driving Dzhorkhar crazy or destroying his memory with drugs and torture, by brainwashing him, by threatening incarceration or death of a family member, or by simply suiciding him—that he never gets a chance to tell his version of events.
And what about Dzhorkhar’s multiple, bizarre, past and future, alleged confessions, you might ask? In the unlikely event that such confessions were made, believing them is nothing more than another affirmation of Bertrand Russell’s aphorism that “there is no nonsense so arrant that it cannot be made the creed of the vast majority by adequate governmental action.” As Arthur Koestler showed in his Darkness at Noon, and as every professional interrogator knows, under no-holds-barred physical and mental torture you can get anyone to admit to anything. Chase down Evelyn Rothschild with 9,000 heavily-armed brawny yes-sayers, slash his throat, and then subject him to a 16-hour-interrogation accompanied by mental and physical torture. In that case, I can assure you, said Rothschild will not only admit to engineering global chaos, millions of deaths, needless hunger for billions of human beings, and environmental cataclysm, but to taking out Mayer Amschel Rothschild, the founder of the dynasty who died long before Evelyn was born (and whose draconian child-rearing modus operandi, by the way, imprisons his unfortunate descendants to this very day).
Dzhorkhar’s case is still young, but there is every reason to suspect that this teenager—who had already been tried and found guilty in the court of bankers-controlled public opinion—will never get a chance, while still of sound mind and body, to defend himself against his Machiavellian accusers.
A basic rule of criminal justice is this: You are presumed innocent until guilty. It is common knowledge that all policemen, prosecutors, and judges are fallible, that many are corrupt, and that countless innocents spent decades behind bars. And yet, when it comes to hyped terror, the corporate politicians and media unanimously and hysterically presume guilt.
The overarching principle here should be that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is entitled to a presumption of innocence until he is actually proven guilty. As so many cases have proven – from accused (but exonerated) anthrax attacker Stephen Hatfill to accused (but exonerated) Atlanta Olympic bomber Richard Jewell to dozens if not hundreds of Guantánamo detainees accused of being the “worst of the worst” but who were guilty of nothing – people who appear to be guilty based on government accusations and trials-by-media are often completely innocent. Media-presented evidence is no substitute for due process and an adversarial trial.
The Rockefeller police and media immediately demonize the accused of fake terror, selecting for instance photos that make them look unkempt and uncouth.
Two examples of many would suffice to illustrate this obvious point in Boston.
A. The corporate media (parroting the police) first accused the two brothers of being common criminals and robbing a convenience store, only retracting this story at the insistence of the brave (or naïve) director of communications of that convenience store chain who actually bothered to examine the surveillance video of the robbery.
B. The police and media were also trying to implicate the two brothers and Todashev in a gruesome and unrelated earlier murder, an extreme example of one of the Rockefellers’ favorite tactics: Scandal-mongering (to borrow Upton Sinclair’s 1919 phrase).
Once an occurrence has been tagged TERROR, it is covered massively, incessantly, and hysterically by the bankers’ media, totally out of proportion to what actually happened.
This generalization is too obvious to require documentation. Even in foreign lands, American terror is disgracefully covered as if American lives are of far greater significance than the lives of citizens of those lands themselves. To convince yourself, following the next act of “terror,” turn on your TV (if you haven’t yet reached the point of trashing it), read the headlines of a corporate newspaper as you walk down the street (but please don’t buy it), or eavesdrop on your neighbor’s radio in the flat above yours. Or better still, don’t expose yourself directly to this rubbish at all: Conversations with ingenuous friends and relatives would be proof enough.
This generalization is merely another way of saying that investigative journalism in America is comatose, and that the media are a mere mouthpiece of the Syndicate. Even though independent historians and economists have documented 1000s of government lies, distortions, and about-faces, and even though each act of “terror” is indisputably entangled in a web of deceit and retractions, the media always act as if the latest government say-so must be true.
Indeed, the mass media in America serve as a conveyor belt between the Syndicate and the people, transmitting incessant crass propaganda, lies, half-truths, and distractions. We don’t have journalists (many outstanding internet bloggers excepted), only messenger boys.
[According to a report circulating today in the Kremlin, on April 1, 2013 the White House averred that on March 31 the sun refused to shine. As might be expected, this grim report continues, each and every corporate media outpost repeated the message--and over 90% of the citizens believed them.]
As we have seen in the second part of this six-part essay, presstitution was already rampant in 1919. Sinclair’s conclusions have been repeatedly documented (probably before he wrote his book too) and updated, most notably perhaps by Michael Parenti and Ben Bagdikian. I too had the misfortune of writing scholarly diatribes on media coverage of the greenhouse effect and the Cold War, and was forced to the same conclusion.
In my research of the Boston explosions, I obtained a few isolated facts from the corporate media. Almost everything else in the current posting, including considerable amount of indisputable facts and brilliant deductions, and including, specifically, any effort to connect the dots, was derived from alternative sources.
Or take Stella Tremblay, a member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, who claimed that the Federal Government plotted the Boston explosions. Jim Fetzer quotes Tremblay’s naïve query to the media:
Why are you leaving it to some dumb representative to ask questions, when the reporters should be doing their job? Are you that blind that you’re not willing to ask questions of your government?
Indeed, the media and fellow legislators overwhelming response to this courageous member of the legislature had been the silent treatment. On the rare occasions she had been mentioned, they “pilloried and belittled” her.
Mark Twain solemnly observed (and his audience thought he was joking!):
It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them.
Stella is finding out the costs of imprudence. By mid-June she sold her house. By June 19, 2013, she “emailed the entire 424-member legislature to reiterate her claims and suggested the need for more investigation into the April attacks.” By June 20, she resigned. The worst, I fear, is yet to come.
It is inevitable in cases of fake terror that some people—in addition to the patsies themselves—must be silenced. After all, most MI6, or Mossad, or FBI, agents operate under the misguided notion that what they are doing is for the common good. When such people discover they have been had, they face a grim choice: remain silent and be granted a temporary or permanent stay of execution, or tell the truth, have that truth be effectively blocked by the Syndicate’s media, and be executed. It is to the great credit of humanity that quite a few people prefer to sacrifice their lives for truth, freedom, justice, peace, decency, and humanity’s long-term survival. As a result, most Gladio-USA incidents are accompanied by injuries to and untimely deaths of insiders and witnesses.
So far in the 2-month-old Boston case, the number of such tragedies is modest:
A. On May 22, 2013, in Orlando, FL, police were interrogating an acquaintance of Tamerlan, Ibragim Todashev, and—executed him. He told a friend that they were going to kill him, but even this unarmed man did not foresee that he was going to be “shot SEVEN times during questioning — including once in the back of the head.”
Todashev’s probable crime?
He did not believe the Tsarnaevs did this. He said they had been set up. These were his exact words.
At times, it takes a foreigner to see America for what it has become: “I have questions for the Americans,” said Zaurbek Sadakhanov, a lawyer who has worked with the Todashev family as well as the family of Mr. Tsarnaev and his brother, Dzhokhar, the other suspect in the Boston bombings:
Why was [Ibragim] questioned for the third time without a lawyer? Why wasn’t Ibragim’s questioning recorded on audio or videotape, seeing as he was being questioned without a lawyer? What was the need to shoot Ibragim seven times, when five fully equipped police officers with stun guns were against him . . . We will never know whether Ibragim Todashev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev were criminals, because the investigation ends with their death. If that’s what happens in American democracy, then I am against the export of that democracy to Russia.
David Martin provides an excellent update of Todashev’s assassination.
B. It would be hard to directly silence Tamerlan and Dzhorkhar’s outspoken mother, given her outraged bereavement and given that the tragedy found her in the Russian Federation, but there are indirect ways of muzzling almost anyone. It just so happened, you see, that, in May 2013 “the sister of Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev faces a drugs charge in New Jersey.” Another coincidence? Was she arrested so that Dzhorkhar, reportedly a teenager with a heart of gold, might falsely confess in return for her release? Or was the mother the real target, forcing her into a Sophie’s Choice: Her daughter’s life or her son’s?
C. Three days after the bombing, a university police officer, Sean Collier, was fatally shot. As in the JFK assassination, Russ Baker argues, it was the
killing of a police officer that turbocharged the police pursuit—and that, once the suspect was apprehended, convinced the public quickly that the police had their man. . . . the shooting of the police officer did not make a lot of sense in the context of the “main event” – but nevertheless gave the pursuit a jolt of adrenaline. Only later would crucial details of the narrative be changed—at a time when few would notice. . . . In the case of Officer Collier, if we look carefully, we can see that the script was rewritten after most people stopped paying attention. Early reports left the impression that Collier had some kind of active interaction with his killers.
D. And this chapter of the official narrative, in this looking-glass world of ours, gets curiouser and curiouser. One of the first officers to arrive at the scene of Sean Collier’s mysterious and serviceable murder, Richard Donohue, was himself a cop and a close friend of Collier.
A few hours later, he would be critically wounded in the Watertown shootout with the Tsarnaev brothers. Russ Baker comments on this “coincidence:” What are the odds? Of all the law enforcement people who could get shot in Watertown, only Donohue was.
And then, more….We learned later that Donohue was hit not by the Tsarnaevs, but by “friendly fire. [Here we seem to repeat, step by step, the assassination of Pat Tillman]” That is, an early witness on the scene of the mysterious shooting of Officer Collier shortly thereafter became himself the victim of a strange shooting— by fellow law enforcement officers.
Donohue survived and, according to the Boston Globe on May 19, is saying nothing about that night because he . . . can’t:
‘Officer Richard “Dic” Donohue of the MBTA Transit Police remembers almost nothing of the night he was shot during chaotic gunfire on a normally quiet Watertown street, or of the murder of his close friend, MIT police Officer Sean Collier, hours before in Cambridge.’
E. On May 17, 2013, two members of the FBI’s elite counter-terrorism unit “fell” from their helicopter during a training exercise. The perceptive reader would not be surprised to learn that these two men belonged to the team that “was involved in the arrest of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.”
This last episode of falling from an airplane into the sea in turn calls for four brief comments:
If most of your friends and relations (like most of mine), dear reader, are indoctrinated conspiracy scoffers, present them with the naked emperor fable, then with this “mystery of the vanishing Boston Marathon witnesses,” and inquire of them: What would Sherlock Holmes’ first working hypothesis be? Better still: How would an alert TV-free eight-year-old approach this mystery?
With lightning speed, every alleged act of terrorism is followed by coordinated, seemingly pre-planned, attacks—through the bankers-owned police, presidents, legislators at all levels, mayors, and, above all, the media–on the Constitution and everything it stands for, including the right to physically defend oneself from uniformed thugs. This post-terror treason points to the obvious: The Constitution is precisely one target of the phony war on terror.
Within hours of the Boston tragedy, for instance, there have been well-publicized calls by public puppets and naïve citizens for more surveillance cameras in our cities, more drones in our skies, and less guns and gunpowder to defend ourselves with against an increasingly corrupt, vicious, arbitrary, and lawless government.
To find a single, wounded, scared, unarmed, plausibly innocent, 19-year-old kid, the Syndicate declared martial law in an entire city (actually, they used the lying euphemism, as is always their wont, of a “lockdown”) and, ignoring the 4th amendment of the Constitution, conducted gunpoint house-to-house searches.
A partial veil of secrecy surrounds each and every act of official terror, leading inexorably to the question: What are they hiding? The most likely answer: Their complicity in terror.
Here is a Boston sampler:
“There is a well established history of the government using entrapment to facilitate terror plots. The New York Times reported on several “lethal terrorist plots” which were “facilitated by the F.B.I, whose undercover agents and informers posed as terrorists… They list the use of dummy missiles, fake C-4 explosives, disarmed suicide vests, and inert chemical bombs as tools provided to naive suspects in order to fabricate these operations.”
At the very least, this would suggest that the Syndicate is intimately associated with terror, which, at best, should be viewed with suspicion. At worst, it would suggest that terror is conceived let loose by the syndicate itself.
In Boston, as of now, there is only indirect evidence of entrapment.
Virtually every terror case in the US since 9/11 has had the FBI’s fingerprints all over it, and the Boston bombings are no exception.
If the general analysis provided in this essay is on the mark, a more direct government facilitation of the Boston explosions might eventually emerge.
This parallelism is obviously more consistent with a government-sponsored conspiracy than with an anti-government conspiracy.
There are reasons to believe that this applies to the Boston Explosions as well.
US security forces were conducting a terrorist drill at precisely the same place and time as the real terror act unfolded. Security cameras have showed US Security personnel with black backpacks all over the scene earlier, but dispersed just a minute or two before the explosion occurred.
An eyewitness reports:
At the Athlete’s Village, there were people on the roof looking down onto the Village at the start. There were dogs with their handlers going around sniffing for explosives, and we were told on a loud announcement that we shouldn’t be concerned and that it was just a drill. And maybe it was just a drill, but I’ve never seen anything like that — not at any marathon that I’ve ever been to. You know, that just concerned me that that’s the only race that I’ve seen in my life where they had dogs sniffing for explosions, and that’s the only place where there had been explosions.
Two weeks after the above lines were written, another truly bizarre drill surfaced. Long before the 2013 Boston marathon, the government was planning for a “massive police exercise” to take place on June 8-9, 2013. The exercise “funded by a $200,000 Homeland Security grant,” would have involved a “terrorist group prepared to hurt vast numbers of people around Boston” by leaving “backpacks filled with explosives.” “The basic plot was this: [the fake terrorists] . . . would plant hoax devices.” “Months of painstaking planning had gone into the exercise.” “Officials from a dozen agencies had been meeting for months to plan the scenario. They behaved much like movie producers, recruiting students from Northeastern University and the Boston Police Academy to play the parts of terrorists and witnesses.” Conveniently for the Gladio-USA masterminds, in this exercise, very few actual participants if any would know what was actually going on: “The people who participate in this don’t know what the scenario is.” “The planned exercise has eerie similarities to the police investigation that led to the capture of the alleged Boston Marathon bombers.” “But two months before the training exercise was to take place, the city was hit with a real terrorist attack executed in a frighteningly similar fashion.” (Italics are mine)
All this secrecy, eerie parallelism, rank-and-file ignorance of the larger picture, is perfectly compatible with the Gladio hypothesis—and absolutely, irrevocably, inexplicably irreconcilable with its Muslim terrorist rival.
In many cases of faked terror (going at least as far back as the assassinations of J. F Kennedy Sr. and John Lennon, and the near-assassination of Ronald Reagan (by the son of a close associate of the Bush clan), the purported perpetrators are linked to official death squads (e.g., FBI, CIA).
In Boston, we observe at least three such connections.
A. Until 1999, Tamerlan and Dzhorkhar’s uncle was married to the daughter of a high-ranking CIA operations officer (in fact, her father was, as F. William Engdahl notes, the man who recruited Osama Bin Laden and other extremists, Chechen and otherwise, to undermine the secular, comparatively civilized, government that ruled Afghanistan in the early 1980s. Moreover, the uncle had worked for companies with ties to Haliburton, and ran an outfit that has all the markings of a CIA front organization. As well, said uncle lived in the house of that top-level CIA official for one year: even while his “company was sending aid to Islamic terrorists in Chechnya (in an effort to destabilize Russia), its listed address was in the home of the uncle’s father-in-law.”
Is it mere “coincidence” that the uncle of the two young men accused of the Boston bombings was related in marriage to the CIA figure who advocated using the networks which were later named ‘Al Qaeda’ across Central Asia including Chechnya where the Tsarnaev brothers had roots?
B. Tamerlan’s wife is the “granddaughter of Richard Warren Russell, Skull and Bones member and entrepreneur in the energy industry.”
According to Anthony C. Sutton, the Skull and Bones order “is powerful, unbelievably powerful,” comprising such “Old Line American families” as the Tafts, Sloanes, Harrimans, and the ubiquitous Rockefellers. Other bloodlines and individuals implicating a fascist ideology and a chokehold on America include William Buckley (a CIA officer and later a Rockefeller propagandist), Nazi collaborator Preston, his sons Jonathan and George H., grandson George W. Bush, and 2013 Secretary of State John Kerry.
C. According to a major Russian newspaper, Tamerlan might have been a US intelligence asset. In 2012, for instance, “he attended a US-sponsored workshop in the Caucasus, the goal of which was to destabilize the southern regions of Russia.” Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya observes:
All the small details that have come up about him show that he had been interacting with US authorities and that he was suspected of espionage in Russia.
Official versions often ignore the fact that many terror operations require money. We are always told who the perpetrators are, but hardly anything is ever said about their financial sponsors. We are thus left with the nagging suspicion that something is being covered up.
also begging an answer is the question of where the two brothers, neither of whom had obvious access to wealth, got the money to spend on fancy clothes or, in the case of Tamerlan (who with his wife and small daughter, on the basis of his publicly available information, qualified until this year for welfare assistance), owned a late model Mercedes-Benz sedan.
Western governments, intelligence agencies and mainstream media have proven to be untrustworthy sources of information on alleged “terrorist attacks” or “foiled terrorist plots.”
Within days of the bombings in Boston, massive contradictions have opened up in the official accounts given by the Obama administration, the FBI and other state agencies as to how this terrorist attack transpired.
When it comes to such oddities, there is strength in numbers. Diehard conspiracy scoffers could perhaps explain away a couple of unsavory episodes, but could they explain away the following A through M alphabet soup?
A. The Tsarnaev brothers were born in Chechnya and then moved to the USA. Chechnya, a republic of the Russian Federation, inhabited largely by Muslims. Chechens, even more than ethnic Russians, suffered unspeakable horrors during Stalin’s reign. Also, they had often been discriminated against by the Soviet government and ordinary Russians. The banking Syndicate feasts on this kind of justified discontent in the same way that leeches in the Kathmandu valley feast on human blood. As in Afghanistan and elsewhere, as part of Syndicate’s efforts to destabilize and fragment Russia—perhaps the only significant nuclear challenge to the bankers—and as part of its deliberate program to destabilize the entire world (including the USA), the Syndicate, via its CIA and MI6 death squads, orchestrated and supported a secessionist movement in Chechnya. As part of this support, the death squads actively created, encouraged, and facilitated acts of terror in Chechnya and in the non-Chechen parts of Russia.
Like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn before his first visit to the USA, and later, like his tragically-misinformed backing of the Vietnam war, naïve Chechen militants witlessly view the CIA and the USA as their benefactors; it defies common sense that they would perform acts of terror against America. Before receiving the official script, blackshirt in good standing Rudy Giuliani, for example, correctly observed that Chechen extremists only wished to terrorize Russia and harbored no animosity toward the U.S. Supporting this, in 2013, among foreign mercenaries tasked with bringing genocide, chaos, fanaticism, and religious strife to Syria, Gordon Duff notes the presence of “Chechen mercenaries working with the CIA and Al Qaeda.”
Similarly, “Wayne Madsen and other journalists have established that the ‘Chechen terror groups’ linked to the elder Tsarnaev brother, by way of his CIA controllers ... were actually pro-USA terror groups run by the US government against the Russian government.”
And yet we are asked to believe that two Chechens, including a Chechen who actually attended a CIA-sponsored “conference” in Russia, would hate America enough to risk death in order to kill one Chinese woman, one little American boy, and one American restaurant manager, and in order to injure scores of other American and foreign innocents. All this, moreover, in an international athletic event where the top three prizes, in both the men and women categories, went to Kenyans and Ethiopians.
B. In a masterpiece of detective work, Dave Lindorff put to the test a simple question: How would the shoulder straps of a backpack filled with nails and explosives look like? The answer: It definitely would not look like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s backpack! This simple scientific experiment—comparing a backpack with comparable weight of explosives to a photo of Dzhorkhar’s backpack—allowed Lindorff to conclude that whatever Dzhorkhar “is carrying, it is clearly not a 30-lb., or even a 20-lb. cylinder.” A similar comparison holds for Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s backpack.
C. Lindorff notes that the backpacks of both brothers appeared gray, but that the damaged backpacks the FBI says belonged to them were black.
D. Meanwhile, there were people on the scene near the finish line who were wearing backpacks that were both very dark black and large enough and full-enough looking to be containing a loaded pressure kettle. These men were observed and photographed wearing baseball caps and shirts bearing the uniquely drawn white skull logo of a Houston, TX-based mercenary-for-hire firm called Craft International Security (whom no governmental agency will admit to having hired).
It so happens that this private mercenary firm has “a close and incestuous relationship to the CIA.” The backpacks of these private mercenaries do match perfectly the backpacks the FBI alleges carried the explosives.
E. The FBI originally feigned ignorance over the identity of the two Boston bombing suspects, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, as they appealed to an unwitting public to help them ‘identify’ and ‘find’ the suspects, but they later retracted this statement, following disclosures that the older brother—and indeed the entire family—were under constant surveillance.
F. The FBI also deliberately lied about the circumstances leading to the capture of the suspects. For example, the FBI falsely accused the two brothers of robbing a convenience store. And, if this was not enough, the FBI raised the specter of a fierce, armed battle, with these desperados, asserting that they had killed a policeman. As we have seen, it turned out however that the unfortunate policeman was assassinated by another policeman (they call it “friendly” fire, again playing with our minds and delaying the realization that one cop might be ordered to shoot another).
G. Contradicting claims by authorities that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev ran over his own brother, an eyewitness to the incident said that police ran over Tsarnaev with an SUV and then pumped bullets into him.
H. As we have seen, “US security forces were conducting a terrorist drill at precisely the same place and time as the real terror act unfolded.” Naturally, at first the government denied this drill.
I. “Officials now claim that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was unarmed as he hid in [a] boat in Watertown [a suburb of Boston].” This new version contradicts (i) Boston Police Commissioner’s account of hour-long firefight with Tsarnaev, (ii) a New York Times report that an ‘M4 rifle had been found’ on the boat where he was hiding, and the (iii) claim that “Tsarnaev shot himself onboard”–since he had no gun, he couldn’t possibly suffer from a self-inflicted gunshot.” And besides, it’s likely that his throat and vocal cords were slashed by a knife, not by a gun.
J. And then there is the execution of Tamerlan’s friend, Ibragim Todashev, during his death squad (FBI) interrogation (see above). At first, the squad claimed that Todashev “went for the agent with a knife while being interrogated in his home.” The squad later retracted that statement and conceded that Ibragim was unarmed.
K. Or take the matter of who’s to blame. As we have seen, according to the police, the original suspect was a young Saudi national with familial links to al-Qaeda. The investigation of this suspect was suddenly dropped, after “the Saudi ambassador held one unscheduled meeting with Barack Obama and another with Secretary of State John Kerry, and after Obama’s wife visited that mysterious Saudi national in the hospital.” That man was deported post-haste for “terrorist activities.”
This expulsion makes no sense: Why deport him so fast, depriving themselves of the light this man might be able to throw on the case? Also, we have imported into the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp “terrorists,” but now we are exporting a possible suspect before we can even be sure about his connection to the bombings in Boston? Could it be that this deportee was the intended sitting duck but that our dictatorial friends from Riyadh had made it clear that the 9/11 Saudi patsies were enough, and that they would no longer abide the Syndicate implicating one more Saudi national in the Syndicate’s own acts of terror? Could it be that the Saudi rulers’ defiance forced the Syndicate to revise the narrative at the last moment and that the Syndicate settled on the Tsarnaev brothers (as it turned out, the Tsarnaevs belonged to the same mosque as that Saudi deportee)? If indeed they had to improvise, that would explain the larger-than-usual gaps in the official narrative.
L. We have seen earlier, when discussing the curious cases of dead Officer Collier and injured and amnesic Officer Donohue, that the police lied—and was forced to issue retractions—about the circumstances of Collier’s death and of Donohue’s serious injuries.
M. New Hampshire’s “State Rep. Stella Tremblay (R-Auburn) [said] that she knows the federal government was behind the attacks because Jeff Bauman, a bombing victim who helped identify the suspects, was not ‘screaming in agony’ after both his legs were blown off.”
In support of this view, Jim Fetzer’s put forward evidence suggesting “that the loss of Bauman’s legs below the knees appears to have been faked.” Following such a trauma, there should have been blood everywhere, but none was observed. The victim should have been unconscious, but he remained alert throughout. “When he is subsequently rushed off in a wheel chair, a prosthesis (with the extending bone) falls off and they have to stop and reattach it.”
This posting no doubt overlooked some telltale signs of contrived terror and misinterpreted or misjudged others. The take-home point, though, is not factual errors, omissions, and oversights, but the incontestable point that officially-designated terror does conform to a general pattern. It is this pattern, not its numerous details, which forcefully suggests Syndicate involvement.
Let me put this a bit more strongly. Our 19 telltale signs, taken together, are open to two, and only two, interpretations. The first is that we live in a bizarre topsy-turvy world in which rules of evidence and logic no longer apply. The second is government-sponsored terror.
After reviewing the available evidence of the Boston tragedy, Prof. James Petras writes:
The most likely hypothesis is that the FBI facilitated the bombing in order to revive the flagging fortunes of the ‘war on terror’ foisted on a war-weary and economically depressed American public.
The 19 signs above, I daresay, convert this likelihood into a virtual certainty.
Time and emotional strength do not permit me to show that most of these signs apply to just about any act of terror, at least since 9/11. The reader can check for herself by applying the above 19 telltale signs of Gladio-USA to any past incident. Better still, she can check their usefulness by applying them to the next act of hyped terror.
You may ask: Will the terror continue? My answer: Will the sun rise tomorrow? Will the international bankers steal from you tens of thousands of dollars in the coming years? Will the bankers, via their governments and media messenger boys, continue to lie about inflation, unemployment, gold prices, imperial wars budget, casus belli—and everything else? Will they go on treating their own soldiers, police, and assassins in line of duty, wounded, or dead, with indifference and contempt? Will they continue to call their drug-running operations “the war on drugs?” Will they continue to call their war on the American middle class and the poor “free trade agreements?” Will they continue to “liberate” countries by killing a significant fraction of their people, handing them over to genocidal maniacs, deliberately raising, forever and ever, the incidence of birth defects and malformations, and setting in motion ethnic and religious strife? Will they go on murdering influential American dissidents? Will they keep doctoring the past, warping the present, and robbing our grandchildren of their future? Of course they will—unless we forcibly remove them from power.
Yes, they will terrorize, parasitize, and suck us dry again, and again, and again. And, since we, their meek zombified subjects, let them get away with it, they will fire up their terror and agenda—until there is nothing left of freedom, holistic or critical thinking, justice, peace, compassion, spirituality, and common decencies. And since the blueprints they follow have been provided by Orwell and Hitler, there is every reason to believe that the terror they will visit upon us would persist not only until they enslave us, but long after: Until, in fact, the whipped Pachamama collapses and takes with her humanity and the philistine bankers who now lord over it.
History: Read it and Learn Revolutionary's Toolkit