DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Who CAN you trust?
*****************************************************
#Post#: 12038--------------------------------------------------
Re: 911 > September 11 2001 > U.S. Fascist COUP?
By: AGelbert Date: April 10, 2019, 10:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Agelbert NOTE: Yes, this is certainly related to the 911 Treason
conducted on behalf of Israel (See PNAC = FDD discussed at the
end of the interview).
[center]Who Are the Real Terrorists? Trump 🦀 Intensifies
Economic War Against Iran [img
width=20]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183404.bmp[/img][/center]
April 8, 2019
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization on Monday, upping
the economic war against Iran, the rift with Europe and China,
and preparing conditions for a “military option” - Col. Larry
Wilkerson joins Paul Jay
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/Dg2vARqpysw[/center]
[center][font=times new roman]Story Transcript[/font][/center]
PAUL JAY: The Trump administration on Monday upped their
economic war against Iran, and perhaps it’s a step towards a
military war. That’s next on The Real News.
[TRNN INTRO]
PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Paul Jay. On
Monday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo designated the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard, known as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, a
terrorist organization. We’re about to play the clip of that.
But keep in mind as you’re hearing him speak the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard is part of the Iranian government. So they
are essentially–it’s if someone declared the Marines a terrorist
organization. You can’t do that without essentially declaring
the government terrorists. But that’s exactly what the Trump
administration has done. Here’s Mike Pompeo today.
MIKE POMPEO: The United States is continuing to build its
maximum pressure campaign against the Iranian regime. I am
announcing our intent to designate the Islamic Revolutionary
Guard Corps, including its Quds Force, as a foreign terrorist
organization in accordance with section 219 of the Immigration
and Nationality Act. This designation will take effect one week
from today. This is the first time that the United States has
designated a part of another government as an FTO. We’re doing
it because the Iranian regime’s use of terrorism as a tool of
statecraft makes it fundamentally different from any other
government. This historic step will deprive the world’s leading
state sponsor of terror. The financial means to spread misery
and death around the world.
PAUL JAY: Now joining us to analyze what this means for Iran and
the world–because in my opinion it’s a rather dangerous upping
of the Trump administration’s policies towards Iran–is Larry
Wilkerson. Larry is a retired American army colonel. He’s the
former chief of staff to the United States Secretary of State
Colin Powell, and he’s now a professor at William and Mary
College. Thanks for joining us, Larry.
LARRY WILKERSON: Good to be with you, Paul.
PAUL JAY: So, why now? I mean, nothing–what’s changed in Iran’s
behavior that all of a sudden now the Revolutionary Guard is
designated as terrorist? And what do you make of this issue of
how do you designate part of their armed forces terrorist and
not the Iranian government? Because the implication of this is
no one can do business not just with the Iranian Revolutionary
Guard, but you can’t do business with anyone that does business
with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which one would think
means the entire Iranian government.
LARRY WILKERSON: Well, you’ve just touched on a number of
aspects of it, Paul. Start with the number one aspect for me,
and I think for American security in the world, and that is that
we just are sanctioning everything that we don’t like, and the
world is getting sick and tired of it. These sanctions have
repercussions second tiers and third tiers. Friend, ally,
neutral, and enemy is going to detest the United States of
America. And that’s not a good development.
The second level I would address these sanctions on is–and by
the way, Secretary Pompeo didn’t know his history very well–we
might not have called them a foreign terrorist organization, but
we did declare a part of a government a criminal organization in
World War II, the Waffen SS. The Schutzstaffel. Now, if you want
to argue to me that the Waffen SS and the IRGC or Quds Force in
Iran are equivalents, I’ll tell you you are a fool. So,
Secretary Pompeo, you register as a fool. I knew that
beforehand, but I’ll state it again.
The third level it bothers me on is for the U.S. military, the
U.S. Foreign Service, CIA, in stations equivalent, or in our
embassies around the world, who are not in Washington safe and
secure like fat old Mike Pompeo, or some of these other people
who are doing this, and are going to have to suffer the
repercussions of this. We had the leader of the IRGC, when was
it, 2017 or so, he actually said that he was going to consider
the armed forces of the United States as being the equivalent of
ISIS. That’s probably the way Iran is going to look at it. And
while their reach is not nearly as wide and deep and long as
ours, still we do come in contact with one another. Case in
point, the last two or three ambassadors Iran has sent to
Baghdad have been Quds Force officers. There are IRGC officers
in similar capacities operating in the region. So we’re going to
treat these people as terrorists? What is Mahdi, the prime
minister in Iraq, going to say about this?
These are just very stupid moves, and they’re aimed at one thing
and one thing only, and that is so contracting the contacts that
Iran has with the world, and that we have with Iran, that we
wind up bringing the regime down if for no other reason just for
the fact that it can’t function in the world. Now, that’s the
purpose of them. There is a repercussion of this, though, that
we’ve seen before and we’re going to see again in Iran, I
suspect. And that is that the people we are actually
sanctioning, the organizations were actually sanctioning, get
richer, get more powerful, because of the sanctions. Because
they will run around and buy up their already multipronged
operations in Iran’s economy that are run by the IRGC and the
Quds Force. They will run around and buy up things that shrink
because of sanctions at fire sale prices, and they’ll be even
more powerful when we get to the end of this. Unless, of course,
as you insinuated before, we are looking for ultimately going to
war for Saudi Arabia and others in the region, like Israel, who
want us to go to war with Iran. That seems to me to be what
we’re designing.
And knowing John Bolton, the national security adviser, and the
attention span of the president, I would say that John Bolton is
running this administration.
PAUL JAY: And Bolton has wanted regime change by any means
necessary for quite a long time. Now, China has major
investments in Iran. Germany has had major investments in Iran.
I’m not sure where they’re at now with the current sanctions.
But a reporter asked Pompeo at this news conference where Pompeo
announced this declaration. Here’s what the reporter asked.
Because the question is how is this going to affect Europe now
with these upped sanctions? Let’s roll that.
REPORTER: …this affect EU trade, oil waivers, since the IRGC is
involved in most parts of the Iranian economy. So the
question–including banking and everything else. So how does this
affect those relations?
MIKE POMPEO: If you’re the general counsel for a European
financial institution today, there is more risk. It is
absolutely the case that the IRGC amounts to a significant piece
of the Iranian economy through pure kleptocracy. And it is also
the case that it is sometimes difficult to know whether the IRGC
is involved. That is, the diligence effort is an enormous
undertaking. I think this–I think this will require more
diligence to be done by every business that is considering doing
things that are even now second and third orders removed from
what you might think of as a traditional connection to the
Iranian economy.
PAUL JAY: And it goes even further than that, because it’s not
just you have to do diligence, according to my understanding of
the act, that whether the Revolutionary Guard is involved in
such and such specific sector of the economy. But one can extend
it that anyone who just does any business with anyone that does
business with a Revolutionary Guard is implicated.
LARRY WILKERSON: That’s why these sanctions work. And unwinding
them, Paul, when a sane and sober administration finally comes
into the White House–which it will, one day–unwinding these
sanctions is a nightmare. And Department of Defense and others
in the security business have been against this for a long time.
Department of Defense is against it because you just look at
this, we’re sanctioning, we’re calling a terrorist group a
military that operates under the orders of its sovereign
government. No matter what we may think about that government,
that’s how the military operates. So we are declaring this
military operating under the direction, guidance, and orders of
its government as terrorists. This is preposterous. And it’s
extremely dangerous. It sets a horrible precedent in the world.
And it’s supposed to be the country that believes in the rule of
law that’s setting it. This is a horrible precedent.
PAUL JAY: In 2007, Senators Kyl and Lieberman put forward a
resolution in the Senate which called for what’s taking place
now, to declare the Revolutionary Guard as terrorists. It passed
as a resolution but didn’t get through as a–it never became
enforced. President Obama, at that time Senator, was against it;
Joe Biden was against it. Interestingly enough, Hillary Clinton
was for it. But now there’s a seven day window here, it seems
awfully small, where Congress could block this. Should they? And
do you think they will?
LARRY WILKERSON: Absolutely they should, and no, I don’t think
they will. And “We came, we saw, and he died” lady, Hillary
Clinton, was despicable, especially with regard to that crisis
in Libya. Look at where we are now. We’re having to come out of
Libya because the situation is so dicey, so dangerous, that we
can’t even stay around anymore. We created an absolute nightmare
in Libya. So anybody that voted for that was just what Lieberman
was, a person who had to stand up for Israel under any
circumstance whatsoever, even if that circumstance were against
the national security of his own country. That’s what it’s all
about, Israel.
PAUL JAY: The upping of this pressure, it’s going to cause great
contradictions both with China, with Europe, with Russia. They
don’t seem to care. There’s floods now in Iran. The current
sanctions, apparently, are obstructing aid relief of foreign
international aid organizations are saying they can’t bring aid
because of these sanctions. The administration seems to think
that they can create such an economic crisis in Iran, which is
essentially create economic war against Iran; that internal
forces will create such destabilization they get the regime
change they were hoping for. But how possible do you think this
may be accompanied with some kind of bombing, or some kind of
military action?
LARRY WILKERSON: I don’t think so. I just wrote two letters
today, one to Senator Risch, who is the new chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and one to Senator Romney,
who is the subcommittee chair on the Middle East. And in those
letters essentially said if you want to demonstrate to the
Iranian people how corrupt their government is, then you need to
let the humanitarian assistance that is waiting at the border,
as it were, go through–OFAC is blocking it right now, Office of
Foreign Assets Control–go through and get to the Iranian people.
The floods are still happening. The problem still exists. It is
demonstrating the corruption of the Iranian government. It’s
demonstrating how little it is able to do. IRGC, Quds Force, the
government itself, the military in Iran. They can’t get the
right aid in, they can’t get the assistance in that needs to go
there.
So if you want to get the people of Iran energized about the
corruption in their government and to do something about it,
don’t drop bombs. Don’t sanction people. Deliver humanitarian
assistance, as we did in 2003 from the Bush administration.
Didn’t even have to convince George Bush to do it. We started
shipping things in, we started helping organizations get there
during that terrible earthquake in Bam in 2003 when thousands of
people were impacted. Now look at what we’re doing. Instead of
taking action, humanitarian action to help these innocent people
who are caught up in these ravages, these floods, we are
blocking that. We’re keeping that humanitarian assistance from
getting there. We’re unconscionable. This administration is
unconscionable.
PAUL JAY: And let’s put this into a little bit of a historical
context. Whatever the Iranian government might have done that is
“supporting” some kind of terrorist group, and even that is I
don’t think very clear that there was much of anything. Perhaps
in Iraq you could say there were some. But what the United
States did in Iraq was so much more significant, was a war
crime, was an illegal war, the invasion of Iraq. Nothing Iran
has done is anywhere on that scale. The use of allying with
terrorist groups and the destruction of Syria, the United States
allying with Saudi Arabia directly and encouraging all kinds of
various terrorist groups there. The use of terrorist groups has
been part of U.S. foreign policy for quite a while, not the
least of which in Afghanistan, inviting bin Laden to come to
Afghanistan and create which leads to the creation of al Qaeda.
It goes on and on. Whereas what–why are they so upset at Iran?
Because of support for Hezbollah. And Hezbollah essentially,
one, it’s part of the Lebanese government. It has seats in the
cabinet. And the Hezbollah armed forces has primarily been in a
defensive posture in Lebanon. So what is the terrorism?
LARRY WILKERSON: You just stated it all yourself. I don’t know
whether I’m interviewing you or … The bottom line, to at least 3
million people in the world, is that the United States in
Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, and Syria, has, conservatively
speaking, killed 300,000-500,000 people as human beings. No
telling how many we’ve sent into an almost endless diaspora
where they will never be able to come back to their homes. So if
Iran operated on that scale for the next two decades, I doubt
very seriously if they could in that sense do what the United
States has done to make the rest of the world truly fearful of
them, truly marking on a pole, for example, that the number one
threat to their and their family’s future is the United States
of America.
Ronald Reagan used to say, or people around Ronald Reagan used
to say, one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist.
Well, this kind of distinction that we’re making now in the law,
so to speak, is being made because we have the power. We have
the power, and we’re doing it. It doesn’t make it right, and it
doesn’t make it lawful. What it makes it is a hegemonic action
by a superpower that is operating in the thrall of the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia, and Jerusalem, Israel and the Saudis, who will
very, very much love it if we take Iran out. And we’re just like
a vassal state operating as their lackey in this regard.
And I put this directly at the feet of the National Security
Adviser John Bolton, because I know that has been one of his
purposes for a long time, arguably since he learned to speak and
walk. This is John Bolton. This is John Bolton wading into the
absence of any real political skill, talent, or direction,
certainly no strategic direction, of President Trump, and
orchestrating the administration as he sees fit. And as Mike
Pompeo, the sycophant Secretary of State, saying “Aye, aye, sir,
three bags full, we’ll do whatever you want us to do. How high
do you want me to jump tomorrow?” This is an incredibly bizarre
administration. And God knows where they’re going to lead us.
PAUL JAY: I’ll push back a little bit on one thing, Larry. This
is the vision of the neocons from the late 1990s, if not
earlier. You know, this group we keep referring to, the Project
for a New American Century, this aim of regime change of Iran
has been their passion for a long time.
LARRY WILKERSON: PNAC is FDD. The new PNAC is the Foundation for
the Defense of Democracy, which is laughable when you think
about they were created, exist, and will exist, probably, for
the defense of Israel.
PAUL JAY: Well, I think it’s not just the defense of Israel.
It’s very much American interest to assert U.S. dominance in the
region. Which–Israel is a piece of that, and so’s the Saudis.
LARRY WILKERSON: These people aren’t stupid. If this were for
American interests they wouldn’t be doing half of what they’re
doing. Now, if you want to tell me that it’s for the interest of
a few Americans, I might reconsider.
PAUL JAY: Oh, definitely, that’s what I would say. This is very
much the vision of the far-right of American foreign policy and
military establishment. It’s certainly to make money for the
arms manufacturers. And it certainly–but to assert the U.S.–I
don’t think the United States has ever gotten over the overthrow
of the Shah of Iran.
LARRY WILKERSON: [Inaudible] other things, too. I mean, you just
look at the track record. And just think about this for a
moment. This is a small example, but think about this. Remember
when the Iranians captured some of our people who ventured into
their waters, and gave them back within 48 hours or so?
PAUL JAY: Yeah.
LARRY WILKERSON: What do you think they’re going to do now?
PAUL JAY: If the Middle East becomes in flames as a result of
this there is a lot of money to be made if you’re in fossil fuel
or arms.
LARRY WILKERSON: Absolutely. If you’re Raytheon, Lockheed
Martin, or any of these other defense contractors, you salivate
at the prospect of your production lines just running endlessly.
PAUL JAY: And oil probably goes to I don’t know what, $200,
$300? Who knows.
LARRY WILKERSON: That just depends on how much it’s threatened.
PAUL JAY: All right. Thanks, Larry. Very good.
LARRY WILKERSON: Sure. Take care.
PAUL JAY: Thank you for joining The Real News Network.
HTML https://therealnews.com/stories/whos-the-real-terrorists-trump-intensifies-economic-war-against-iran
Agelbert NOTE: Yep, the Military Industrial Complex and Fascist
Israel, partners in the 911 CRIME, just CONTINUE TO DO WHAT
THEY DO to fleece we-the-people 24/7.
[center][img
width=640]
HTML https://i.ytimg.com/vi/k2JNAG1hHSA/maxresdefault.jpg[/img][/center]
[center][img
width=640]
HTML https://www.nextbigfuture.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/f71b3dd82aa47ac4862d5bcba5fc2852-730x430.jpeg[/img][/center]
#Post#: 12042--------------------------------------------------
Re: 911 > September 11 2001 > U.S. Fascist COUP?
By: AGelbert Date: April 11, 2019, 8:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Agelbert NOTE: Though most of the pseudo-Christian lackeys for
Trump would violently disagree, this is the true Christian
position in regard to WAR in general and the monstrously evil
M.I.C. in particular. [img
width=35]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130418202709.png[/img]<br
/>
[center][img
width=440]
HTML https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/Graphics/046-0524040444-101310cartoong1-1024x801.jpg[/img][img<br
/>width=200]
HTML https://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/us-flag-bombs.jpg[/img][/center]
[center][img
width=20]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-250817135149.gif[/img]<br
/>MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/k2JNAG1hHSA[/center]
[font=times new roman]Psalm 51 Channel[/font]
Published on Apr 29, 2017
This teaching was preached in 2016 but is as relevant today as
it was during the times of the quote by MacArthur. I urge you
listen to the entire teaching by Pastor Robert Reed🕊.
👍👍👍
Category Education
[center][img
width=640]
HTML https://portside.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/spending-by-country.jpg[/img][/center]
[center][img
width=160]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-041115022304.png[/img][/center]
#Post#: 12047--------------------------------------------------
Re: 911 > September 11 2001 > U.S. Fascist COUP?
By: AGelbert Date: April 12, 2019, 12:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]The FRUITS of 911: Blood Drenched SWAG for the MIC (AND
ISRAEL)[/center]
[center][img
width=640]
HTML https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b792-20bd8d8fa069.storage.googleapis.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_desktop/public/inline-images/TDWU-1-24-e1548387003964_0.jpg?itok=QjFN1J83[/img][/center]
#Post#: 12048--------------------------------------------------
Re: 911 > September 11 2001 > U.S. Fascist COUP?
By: AGelbert Date: April 12, 2019, 1:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center][img
width=640]
HTML https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b792-20bd8d8fa069.storage.googleapis.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_desktop/public/inline-images/TDWU-1-24-e1548387003964_0.jpg?itok=QjFN1J83[/img][/center]
[center]Assange Arrested for Exposing U.S. War Crimes – Paul
Jay[/center]
April 12, 2019
Wikileaks released Manning’s leaked documents and exposed
multiple crimes committed by the U.S. government and armed
forces - Jay says this is getting lost in the corporate media
coverage of Assange’s arrest; when he was arrested, Assange
carried a copy of TRNN’s book “Gore Vidal on the History of the
National Security State” which was based on a series of
interviews conducted by Paul Jay between 2005 to 2007; the
premise of the book is the American state and its loyal media
use patriotism to lie to the American people about U.S. foreign
policy and militarism
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/QfuIqkzflc4[/center]
[center][font=verdana]Story Transcript[/font][/center]
MARC STEINER: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Marc
Steiner. Great to have you with us once again.
As we all know by now, Julian Assange was kicked out of the
Ecuadorian Embassy in London and then arrested, and has been
indicted by the U.S. government for allegedly helping Chelsea
Manning to crack a password code on a Defense Department
computer to unearth restricted classified documents. That took
place in 2010.
As Assange was being hauled out of the Ecuadorian Embassy he was
holding in his hand a book, a copy of Gore Vidal’s History of
the National Security State. That’s a collection of interviews
he did with Paul Jay, CEO and editor-in-chief here at The Real
News Network. And there really is a critical juncture between
the book and Assange’s arrest that involves the role of the
national security state in our country. So, Paul Jay, welcome to
your own network.
PAUL JAY: Well, it’s not my network. I work for this network.
MARC STEINER: I couldn’t resist. Anyhow.
Obviously the first question here is we were all looking at this
and saying, “We know that book. Why is he holding that book?
What is he trying to tell the world and us holding this book by
Gore Vidal on the national security state?” What were your first
thoughts, and what do you think that meant, if anything?
PAUL JAY: Well, I think it was deliberate, obviously. He’s known
that he was going to be arrested for quite some time, and
certainly in the last couple of days it was just a question of
when. So I mean, I’ve never met or talked to Julian. But I’m
assuming he did it with some intent. And I think it’s to send
the message that this is the national security state that has
come for him, and that the national security state is a
dangerous thing for people and they should be aware of it.
I think the most important thing to keep in mind here is just
what he’s been arrested for; this alleged collusion, if you want
to use the word, with Chelsea Manning to leak the various reams
of information that Chelsea Manning leaked. They’re claiming he
crossed the line in helping to create a password–crack a
password–which a journalist is only supposed to receive the
information, not in any way collaborate. I have no idea whether
Julian did or didn’t do what they’re alleging. But I think a far
more important thing is being lost in, so far, most of the media
coverage I’ve seen of this arrest, which is they exposed war
crimes; they being Julian, Chelsea Manning. They exposed
American war crimes in Iraq. And of course there’s this famous
footage of a helicopter essentially murdering people as they
walk across a square in–I guess it’s Baghdad. But we know in
that story that not only did they kill the people in the
original video, but they go ahead and strafe a van where there
were children in it. And that was just a tip of the iceberg of
the kind of war crimes being committed by the United States in
Iraq.
And most importantly, what should be discussed again at this
moment is that the war itself was a war crime. It was an illegal
war. It was not sanctioned by the United Nations. The United
States did not face a threat of imminent attack by Iraq, which
is the only justification for war. These types of wars of
aggression–and it’s clear it was a war of aggression. There was
no weapons of mass destruction, and the UN inspectors were all
saying so. The Nuremberg trials, they put the Nazis on trial.
And it was said at the time and it’s been said since it’s the
highest form of war crime, an aggressive war.
So what did WikiLeaks, what did Julian Assange, what did Chelsea
Manning do? They exposed war crimes. So whether it may have
technically broken an American law or not, if there’s ever going
to be democracy, there better be whistleblowers. And the fact
that the Obama administration and now the Trump administration,
the deep state is going after whistleblowers–and particularly
the most well known other than Snowden, Assange–is to send a
message. And it comes at a very critical time when I think the
Trump administration is planning for some kind of attack on
Iran; certainly massive economic destabilization. And who knows
what other nefarious things they are planning.
So it’s not just an attack on press freedom, which it is. It’s
not just a way to intimidate journalists and news organizations
from accepting leaked material, which it is. But it’s saying
even if you’re exposing war crimes, we’re coming after you. And
the corporate media is ignoring the whole substance of what was
done by Chelsea and Julian.
MARC STEINER: So as we talk about the corporate media–let’s for
a moment play this clip from MSNBC that kind of, I think, will
describe the tenor of how the corporate media is going to follow
this particular case, and some of the things they may be saying.
Let’s take a look at it and kind of figure out what they’re
saying here and how this fits into the whole thing.
SPEAKER: Yes. WikiLeaks began as a transparency organization.
And at the time WikiLeaks was viewed as sort of an independent
organization basically holding governments accountable. But over
the years it became clear that WikiLeaks was growing ever closer
to Russia and that all the leaks seemed to go in one direction.
There were, there were never leaks that criticized authoritarian
governments; only the West and the United States. And at some
point the U.S. government, even during the Obama administration,
began concluding that WikiLeaks was essentially acting as an arm
of Russian intelligence. And then you get to the election.
WikiLeaks was the recipient of leaked, hacked Democratic emails.
And we’ll all remember that Donald Trump cited WikiLeaks more
than 130 times during the campaign because they were publishing
DNC emails that were embarrassing to the Democrats. They were
clearly helping with this Russian election interference effort.
And then the U.S. intelligence community weighed in and said
that was not by accident.
MARC STEINER: So this is, I think, how part of the establishment
media is going to play this and the Russian connection, that
they’re going to push very hard in all of this with Assange. And
it’s–and that will muddy the waters. Well, let me just stop
there, before I get to the next question.
So I think–so what becomes incumbent on the rest of the media to
talk about in light of this, this mass media push?
PAUL JAY: Well, it’s a complete and utter distraction. The whole
Russia thing is a complete and utter distraction from the real
crimes of the Trump administration. We’ve been saying this over
and over again. The Russiagate–this whole raising as a
significant issue some perhaps minor meddling in the 2016
elections as a distraction, because it plays into the hands of
certain Democrats, Democratic Party, corporate Democrats people
call them, the media, to kind of dredge up the demons and ghosts
of the Cold War, and actually run to the right of Trump. Like,
oh, we’re bigger Cold Warriors than you are; we’re more
militarist than you are. In fact it’s not true. Trump is very
much a militarist.
But the–but it’s a complete distraction from the specific case
as well, because as I just said, this isn’t about Russia. It’s
not about hacking Clinton emails. If that’s what it’s about,
charge him with that. But he’s not charged with anything to do
with the current controversies. He’s charged with working with
Chelsea Manning, I’ll say it again, to expose war crimes. So,
you know, everything else is just a complete rhetorical,
partisan, hysterical response. Russia, no Russia, it’s
irrelevant. Do you have the right to expose war crimes as a
journalist? Do you have a responsibility? That’s the only issue
here.
MARC STEINER: So what he’s being charged with, clearly it has
nothing to do with Russia or what people think he did or did not
do when it comes to working with Russia in terms of WikiLeaks
and the exposure of of Hillary Clinton’s emails. But the issue
is that he’s being charged with hacking, which is–that in itself
is a crime, if they go after him for that, A. B, so the question
is there’s that, and there’s also what might have been at work
here we’re not seeing, and why this happened now. I mean,
because what he was really hiding from in the Ecuadorian Embassy
was not showing up in court for being–to be put on trial in
Sweden on rape charges. So he now faces 12 months in English
prison, and be extradited to Sweden, too, if they go after him,
as well as being extradited to the United States. So what’s at
work here?
PAUL JAY: The timing, one can speculate. I think it’s a few
things. Recently WikiLeaks exposed the president of Ecuador
having some shady bank accounts and involved in some corruption.
Moreno. And clearly Moreno is not the same kind of politics as
Correa, the previous president, who was willing to stand up to
the Americans on various things. This new president is not. And
he’s joined in on the attack on isolation of Venezuela, and he’s
trying to cozy up to the Trump administration. So he has his own
motives. Why should I protect Julian Assange when Wikileaks is
exposing some of the corruption in Ecuador? As well as to curry
favor with the Americans. Why not? He’s got no love for Assange.
So that’s the–there may be more to the Ecuadorian side of the
story. But as far as what’s in the public domain, that makes
some certain amount of sense.
Why the Americans are pushing it now is partly, I would guess,
part of a process. They’ve been wanting to do this for quite
some time, and now Ecuador is willing to, for its own reasons.
Now, there is some speculation that they want to try to get hold
of Assange and push him on the narrative of Trump collaborating
with Russia. Politico had a story about that today, that the–you
know, the deep state, or the state, Mueller kind of forced this,
they want to see if they can still make this collusion case.
It’s possible. This whole idea that WikiLeaks is an arm of
Russia I think is nonsense. The fact that the accusation that
they never publish stuff against authoritarian regimes is not
true. They’ve published stuff about Saudi Arabia. They’ve
published stuff about Russia, exposing various things in Russia.
But if they expose more about the United States, duh, you think
it’s possible because the United States commits more crimes than
anywhere else? I mean, maybe because the United States is the
global hegemon, and tries to dominate the world with what is it,
800, 900 military bases? A military budget more than the rest of
the world put together. So yeah, you know, if you’re going to be
in this exposé business it’s not hard a big stretch of the
imagination that the United States is going to get most of it.
And it’s also funny they say WikiLeaks doesn’t go after
authoritarian regimes. Well, most of the authoritarian
regimes–not all, but most in the world–are supported by the
United States. So the hypocrisy here is too rich.
MARC STEINER: So I mean, if and when he gets extradited to the
United States, what he’ll be charged with, clearly, is this
hacking, if that happens. I mean, to me I think one of the
biggest dangers here–and I’m curious your thoughts on this–and
he may have to go to Sweden before he gets the United States,
because they clearly want him there, before the statute of
limitations runs out in Sweden on rape, and that will take place
in 2020. So there’s gonna be a battle taking place over who gets
Assange first.
PAUL JAY: It’s not clear that–first of all, let’s be clear about
the Swedish case. There are allegations he has denied. The
Swedish authorities wanted to interview him and made a big stink
about wanting to interview him. But he offered to be interviewed
in the Ecuadorian Embassy. And over and over again the Swedes
refused to do it. They made the issue he has to come to Sweden,
he has to leave the safety of the Ecuadorian Embassy. And
there’s absolutely no reason they couldn’t have gone to the
embassy and interviewed him. So as far as where the Swedish case
is right now, the latest I saw, it’s unclear whether they are
going to try to reassert themselves.
MARC STEINER: Well, we don’t know if they’re going to do that or
not. But they could very well do that. But the question is that
it seems to be the biggest issue here is the United States is
using this this alleged hacking and in collusion with–for want
of a better term–with Chelsea Manning is one more way to silence
the press, one more way to stop journalists doing their
investigative work in a democracy, or in a democratic situation.
And so it seems to me this is the clearest danger here of what a
national security state is doing, to silence people who are
whistleblowers as well as those who would expose atrocities that
take place by our government. That to me that is one of the
biggest dangers.
PAUL JAY: Yeah, I think that that is the biggest issue of the
whole arrest. As I said, we’re heading into an extremely
dangerous period, the lead up to the 2020 elections. Massive
investment in the military budget. But most recently, the Trump
administration naming the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, calling
them terrorists.
MARC STEINER: Right.
PAUL JAY: This is something that was tried in 2007 with
something called the Kyl Lieberman amendment. aAnd a lot of
Democrats voted for it. Although some significant ones didn’t
vote for it, including Biden and Obama. Hillary Clinton did. But
it was said at the time that that is a step–in fact, it was a
Democratic senator who said this–it’s a step towards the
military option with Iran. Because once you say the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard are terrorists, well, they’re part of the
armed forces of the government of Iran. So you’re, you know, one
micro hair away from saying that the government of Iran is a
terrorist organization. Which means not only can nobody in the
world do any business with Iran, but you can’t even negotiate.
You know, you’re almost left with only a military option.
And people like John Bolton, the national security adviser for
Trump, and others, Pompeo and other people around Trump, and
Trump himself, and certainly Steve Bannon, they wanted to go
after Iran from day one of this presidency. And a lot of crap is
going to come out. Look at the lies that we’re told in the lead
up to the war in Iraq. We are going to see the same kind of lies
unfold at a super scale towards as they try to destabilize and
bring down the government of Iran.
And this is a shot across the bow there, as well. You
journalists, you leakers, you better be careful. Because if we
can get Assange out of the Ecuadorian Embassy we can get
anybody. And that’s no doubt part one of the reason is to create
a real chill. And not just in a generalized way, but as we head
into a very dangerous period in history.
MARC STEINER: That makes our job here at The Real News and other
places, and places like Real News, all the more important to not
let this happen.
PAUL JAY: Let me just add one other thing about why he’s
carrying that book. Just to give a little background. Gore
Vidal’s History of the National Security State is, as you said,
a series of interviews I did with him back in 2007. And at the
core of the formation of the national security state–and this is
done under Truman, a Democrat–is the underlying narrative that
the Soviet Union was an existential military threat to the
United States. Now, Soviet Union a lot of people thought was
some form of socialism. And you can debate, you know, what you
think of that form of socialism. But certainly in 1945-1946 and
into the ’50s the Soviet Union was very popular in the world.
The Soviet Union had broken the back of Hitler. The Soviet Union
was recovering from terrible destruction. There seemed to be
full employment and healthcare and so on and so on.
So you know, the sort of viciousness of the Soviet state
domestically, it was known. It came to be better known after
1956 in what was called the Khrushchev revelations, and so on.
The terror of the Stalin government, and so on. So yeah,
ideologically the Soviet Union was a threat. Because socialism
versus capitalism. But it was not a military threat. And that
was bullshit that the American intelligence agencies, the
governments, knew. You watch my series of interviews with Daniel
Ellsberg, and it became clear to him–and he had access to a high
level intelligence–that the Soviet Union had zero plans to
invade Western Europe, the justification for NATO. The Soviet
Union had zero plans to use nuclear weapons as blackmail or a
threat to assert some kind of global presence. Global
domination. The Soviet Union was in a defensive posture.
And the same is true today. Whatever you make of Putin
domestically, whatever you make of Russia domestically, you can
argue that, you could debate it. There is zero evidence that
Russia is trying to project global power in a way that threatens
the people of the United States. Yes, is Russia projecting
regional power? Sure. So is China. And what mid to big
capitalist size country wouldn’t? Only the United States is
projecting global power. But it’s not a military threat. And
this whole underlying thesis of Russiagate, the Russians are
destroying democracy and all of this, this minor meddling is
raised to such a level because the military industrial complex
and sections of the corporate Democratic Party that have been
hawkish, militarist and hawkish from the days of Truman, they
need this narrative. It justifies their whole outlook on the
global affairs.
MARC STEINER: We don’t have time to get into it today,
obviously, in this conversation. I agree, I mean, Russia was
never a military threat to the United States in that sense of
starting a war and going after Western Europe. And that clearly
was not going to happen. But the United States and world
capital, period, saw the Soviet Union as a threat because they
were supporting revolutionary movements across the globe.
PAUL JAY: That’s what it was really about.
MARC STEINER: That was the real threat. And you had 1.3 billion
people from Addis Ababa to Shanghai that were living in
communist nations. That was the threat they saw. And they played
it off as a threat about a major world war, which allowed the
U.S. to build their military. But I mean, I think it’s–anyway.
PAUL JAY: I mean, I agree with that. But just–the point here is
that you blame the Russians no matter what the heck is going on.
And now, as I say, the real issue of this current arrest of
Assange, this is the national security state asserting itself,
which is why I think he’s carrying the book around, and it’s a
coverup for more crime.
MARC STEINER: Well, I’m glad he was carrying the book around.
Maybe people will read it. So, Paul Jay, this has been a
pleasure. See you back in Baltimore. Thanks so much for taking
the time out in New York.
PAUL JAY: All right, thanks for doing it.
MARC STEINER: And I’m Marc Steiner here at The Real News Network
in Baltimore. Thank you all for joining us. Take care.
HTML https://therealnews.com/stories/assange-arrested-for-exposing-u-s-war-crimes-paul-jay
#Post#: 12054--------------------------------------------------
Re: 911 > September 11 2001 > U.S. Fascist COUP?
By: AGelbert Date: April 12, 2019, 9:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S.A. has been an Oligarchy FROM THE START, as Gore vidal
states in te following interview (notice the date of the
interview). After 911, the FANGS of that Fascist Warmongering
U.S. Oligarchy👹 came out in the "Patriot" Act for the
express purpose of destroying any remaining semblance of Liberty
afforded to Americans.
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-040718162656-14241872.gif<br
/>
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-120818185038-1648302.gif
August 1, 2007
[center]Gore Vidal on Liberty (3/7)[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/u_8u1Emw614[/center]
[center][font=times new roman]Story Transcript[/font][/center]
PAUL JAY: In this period after World War II and this sort of
feeling of world supremacy, domestically we see McCarthyism.
GORE VIDAL: Well, McCarthy kind of misread the tarot cards. You
know, he thought it was a simple matter of conquest. Probably
the only thing he basically cared about was Ireland, because he
was an Irishman. And he liked the British Empire being kicked in
the butt by Americans. So anything that would, you know, do them
in or do in, you know, Dean Acheson, the Secretary of State, who
seemed like an Englishman. I think he did a lot of, you know,
ethnic one-upmanship. But no.
Well, first of all, we were taken over by big businesses, we
always have been, but this time it was pretty severe because the
stakes were greater. Somebody said- oh, the kid last night who
was interviewing me, Adam something. He said, you know,
certainly the United States is basically an altruistic country.
Look at the Marshall Plan. I said, what’s altruistic about
seizing control of Western Europe? It seems to be very much part
of an imperial plan. Oh, he couldn’t believe it. He just thought
we did it out of goodness of heart. Now, he’s a very bright guy,
writes for The New Yorker and so on, yet he’s been so misled.
And he reads a lot of history; he’s very intelligent. You cannot
get through the density of the propaganda with which the
American people, through the dreaded media, have been filled and
the horrible public educational system we have for the average
person. It’s just grotesque.
PAUL JAY: There’s this fundamental belief, religious belief,
that America’s foreign policy since World War II has been a
fight for freedom.
GORE VIDAL: Well, it never was. And the belief that we’re a
democracy. That means you know nothing about the Constitution.
The people who made the Constitution hated democracy. Some of
them put up with it better than others. Jefferson was pretty
good on the subject. The others just loathed it.
PAUL JAY: But certainly there’s more democracy in the United
States than there was in Hitler’s Germany.
GORE VIDAL: Well, I suppose that if you’re being tortured to
death by Mao Tse-Tung, it’s much better to be with Paul Revere
in front of a fireplace in Concord, New Hampshire. I mean, you
can sort out [crosstalk]-.
PAUL JAY: No, but there are stages of this process of democracy,
or lack thereof.
GORE VIDAL: The Federalist Papers are very clear. Whenever one
of the founding fathers, and one of the people who was inventing
the Constitution, they start to get apoplectic at the mention of
Athens, the mention of Pericles, the mention of democracy. They
go on and on about mobs, and we don’t want this, and we don’t
want that. We’re an oligarchy of the well-to-do. We were at the
very beginning, when the Constitution was made, and we’re even
more so now.
PAUL JAY: But within that context there is more or less right of
free assembly. There is more or less right of free speech. Of
course, you have more free speech if you own a television
network than if you don’t.
GORE VIDAL: Well, yes, as you’ll find out with The Real News.
PAUL JAY: But there are some constitutional rights here that you
wouldn’t have seen.
GORE VIDAL: They’ve been eliminated one by one over the last
four years.
PAUL JAY: That’s my question.
GORE VIDAL: When habeas corpus was removed, I think they
attributed it to certain desires of the USA Patriot Act. When
they got rid of that, they got rid of Magna Carta. When you get
rid of that, you get rid of our liberties. The only good thing
England ever left us was Magna Carta. Magna Carta guarantees due
process of law. You cannot have your life removed, you cannot
have your money removed, your freedom removed, except by a trial
by jury of your peers, and you could be represented by a lawyer.
That’s been eliminated. Sixth Amendment is gone. The speed with
which it was done is sort of miraculous, because this is a
screw-up administration. They can’t do anything properly. There
are those who keep quoting me, because I had said, well, they’d
had enough warnings about 9/11 to have done something. Well,
that’s the CIA’s warning. They did nothing. So I have to face
this every now and then. Well, you said that Bush was in favor
of it. And can you prove that? I said, of course I can’t. How
would I know? I do know that he is so incompetent. This was a
great, successful mission conducted by some crazed religious
zealots.
HTML https://therealnews.com/stories/gore-vidal-on-liberty-3-7
[center]Gore Vidal on US Media 😈 and Society
(4/7)[/center]
August 1, 2007
Gore Vidal discusses taboo subjects in the media and society,
and says the people have no voice because they have no
information
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/RGgiHyEGrV8[/center]
[center][font=times new roman]Story Transcript[/font][/center]
PAUL JAY: There’s a lot of taboo subjects in the media, and even
sometimes in the society.
GORE VIDAL: Particularly in the society.
PAUL JAY: Yeah. But one of them is trying to draw any historical
lessons from the rise of fascism in Germany, in Italy, and say
there’s anything in common.
GORE VIDAL: I’m not joking when I refer to our country as the
United States of Amnesia, although I was corrected recently by
Studs Terkel out of Chicago. And he said, Gore, it’s not the
United States of Amnesia; it’s the United States of Alzheimer’s.
I stand corrected.
PAUL JAY: Fascism in Germany wasn’t a coup; it was a many-year
process. [crosstalk] feel normal. I’m not suggesting we’re
living in an equivalent period, but there are lessons to be
learned about it.
GORE VIDAL: But it is equivalent. I mean, don’t be shy of saying
that. The response to the Reichstag Fire is precisely that to
9/11, which was invoked by this administration’s people. And if
we don’t fight them over there, we got to fight ’em here. This
little fool. How are they going to get here? Greyhound bus? I
mean, he is so stupid himself that he assumes everybody else is
equally stupid. If he had been really elected, I would say
everybody else was stupid, but he wasn’t.
PAUL JAY: But the party that was really elected went along with
most of what he did until very recently.
GORE VIDAL: Oh, he didn’t do much of anything. They went along
applauding it because they were getting huge contracts for
Halliburton.
PAUL JAY: No, I’m talking about the leadership of the Democratic
Party went along with the Patriot Act, went along with the war
in Iraq.
GORE VIDAL: Have you ever found them? You know where they live?
PAUL JAY: The leadership of the Democratic Party?
GORE VIDAL: They’re like rocks. You know, they’re not visible.
There’s some obviously good people in the party. I like Dennis
Kucinich, I like Senator Leahy. There are some very good people
in Congress. And lets hope they start doing some oversight. But
I’m not very sanguine.
PAUL JAY: In the period between 9/11 and Katrina, where in
Katrina some cracks started to appear in the Bush armor, we saw
a kind of capitulation by American media and all the opposition
political leadership. And you saw a face of America that we
might see more of.
GORE VIDAL: After all, you are in opposition to American media,
and so am I. And we know how false it is, and how corrupt it is,
and how engaged they are for mischief, making money for the
ownership of the country. There’s nothing to be done about them.
And no wonder, even when the American people might ever again,
which I doubt, have an uncorrupted presidential election. 2000
was corrupted. 2004 was corrupted. I don’t think we’ll ever get
to know the people’s voice, and the people have no voice because
they have no information. That is why you’re doing useful work
here. That’s why I’m chatting with you here. That could be
useful, to tell them actually what happens around the world.
That poor guy running for Congress, everybody jumped on him,
particularly [inaudible] people. He suggested that our foreign
policy might have had something to do with 9/11, that we were
deeply disliked in the Muslim world for other reasons. It’s the
same presidential, I guess. ‘Do you believe in evolution?’ said
this idiot. I mean, to reveal the leadership of the United
States hasn’t made it to the 20th century, that our leadership
is as ignorant as that. Five of them said, no, no, thinking
little lord Jesus was going to vote for them.
PAUL JAY: It’s in these moments of crisis, like terrorist
attack, that you start to see people’s colors.
GORE VIDAL: Yellow.
PAUL JAY: In Britain as well, and I was really taken aback.
After the bus London bombings, Ken Livingstone, I read Ken
Livingstone was asked, was there any connection between these
bombings and UK foreign policy, and he said there’s no
connection whatsoever. This is just people that hate our way of
life.
GORE VIDAL: Yeah, that’s the new lie that they like to tell.
Well, that’s Bush all over. They just hate us. Why? Nobody has
to ask them why. He doesn’t know why. Well, they envy us, our
form of government. Who envies us that can of worms we’ve got in
Washington? And it’s been many years in the United States since
I have seen a Norwegian coming to get a green card.
HTML https://therealnews.com/stories/gore-vidal-on-us-media-and-society-4-7
#Post#: 12058--------------------------------------------------
Re: 911 > September 11 2001 > U.S. Fascist COUP?
By: Surly1 Date: April 14, 2019, 5:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Gore Vidal's singular voice is much missed.
#Post#: 12059--------------------------------------------------
Re: 911 > September 11 2001 > U.S. Fascist COUP?
By: AGelbert Date: April 14, 2019, 2:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Surly1 link=topic=278.msg12058#msg12058
date=1555239316]
Gore Vidal's singular voice is much missed.
[/quote]
True. I didn't know his dad taught Groves at West Point. Groves
was really the founder of the M.I.C. AND the greatest war
criminal in U.S. History. He was in charge of the production of
the "enriched" ☠️ (General Groves must have thought
up that happy talk adjective - few things are more deadly than
concentrated ☠️ Bomb quality Uranium) Uranium
Atomic Bomb and pushed hard to drop it on Japan (Yes, the
firebombing of Japan probably murdered more civilians in Japan,
but it took longer).
It's been all M.I.C. Fascist 'Paradise' downhill since then.
[img
width=20]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183404.bmp[/img]
Gore Vidal did not want to deal with the fact that 911 was an
inside job, but I'm sure he suspected that Osama Bin Laden and
"crazed religious" Ayrab friends was a convenient Fascist M.I.C.
scapegoat.
[quote]The response to the Reichstag Fire is precisely that to
9/11, which was invoked by this administration’s people.
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/who-can-you-trust/911-gt-september-11-2001-gt-u-s-fascist-coup/msg12054/#msg12054<br
/>-- Gore Vidal[/quote]
Here's the latest from those brave Patriots exposing the truth
behind all the heinous events that took place on September 11,
2001:
[img
width=150]
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/2/3-140419144017.png[/img]<br
/>[font=times new roman]NEWS Lawsuit Seeks Answers on Five Men
Arrested on 9/11[/font]
[center][img
width=990]
HTML https://www.ae911truth.org/images/articles/2019/april_2019/wtc-40-768.jpg[/img]<br
/>[/center]
[center] Image Credit: Aman Zafar[/center]
[center]Lawsuit Seeks Answers on Five Men Arrested on
9/11[/center]
AE911Truth April 14, 2019
They were among the few individuals we know of to be arrested on
9/11. Five men were pulled over in a white Chevrolet van and
taken into custody on the afternoon of September 11, 2001, after
they were seen celebrating the World Trade Center attacks from a
parking lot across the Hudson River in New Jersey.
The FBI had alerted local police departments to be on the
lookout for the van, which was pulled over in East Rutherford,
N.J., by Bergen County police. The van was searched by a
bomb-sniffing dog, yielding a positive test for the presence of
explosive traces, and samples were taken for testing, but the
public has never been told whether actual explosive residues
were found.
The men were held for 71 days, according to ABC News, before
they were deported to their home country of Israel without being
charged. Much of the findings of the FBI’s investigation were
redacted and have yet to be released to the public.
Though the story received considerable news coverage, neither
the FBI nor the U.S. Department of Justice has ever adequately
explained to the public why the five men were released without
any criminal charges being filed. The 9/11 Commission then
failed to consider any of the evidence developed during the
FBI’s investigation of the five men.
[center][img
width=800]
HTML https://www.ae911truth.org/images/articles/2019/april_2019/FBI-Newark-9-23-01-Report-p2-768.jpg[/img][/center]
[center]FBI Newark 9 23 01 Report p2 768[/center]
Now, nearly 18 years later, victims’ families and advocates are
looking to put an end to the mystery. On March 25 of this year,
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the Lawyers’ Committee
for 9/11 Inquiry, and 9/11 family member Bob McIlvaine filed a
lawsuit seeking to force the FBI to assess and report the
evidence it gathered during the detention of the five men. The
lawsuit also calls for the FBI to address evidence of the World
Trade Center’s explosive demolition along with four other areas
of unreported 9/11 evidence.
AE911Truth is not attached to the four latter counts of the
lawsuit, since they do not relate to our mission of researching
and educating the public about the World Trade Center’s
explosive demolition. However, we are keenly interested in
compelling the FBI to address the evidence regarding the five
men arrested in New Jersey Jersey because of the potential that
explosives traces were present in the van. Our goal is for the
FBI to report the results of any tests for explosive residues
that were performed, as such results may shed further light on
how the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7 were
destroyed.
Other types of evidence could also be relevant. For example, one
FBI report indicates that a visitor’s card for WTC 1 (or
possibly WTC 7) was found in the white van. According to another
FBI report, one of the men stated that he had been told by one
of his fellow detainees on the morning of 9/11, “They are taking
down the second building,” and that they went to watch from the
roof. The man further stated that, at the time, he thought the
second tower had been demolished to prevent it from tipping
over.
Whatever the FBI found during its investigation of these five
men, none of it was included in the 9/11 Commission Report nor
in the 2015 report by the 9/11 Review Commission, which was
mandated by Congress to conduct an assessment of any evidence
known to the FBI that was not considered by the 9/11 Commission.
Now we are working to enforce Congress’s mandate because the
American people and everyone affected by 9/11 deserve to know
the truth.
These men were arrested and held for 71 days. What evidence did
the FBI gather about them and why was so much redacted? Why were
they deported without being charged? And why have the details
been kept secret all these years? With this lawsuit, AE911Truth,
the Lawyers’ Committee, and Bob McIlvaine are hoping to finally
get answers to all these questions.
The full text of the count in the FBI Lawsuit complaint
regarding the arrest and investigation of these five individuals
is shown below.
COUNT II.A.: CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER
THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT RELATING TO DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE
TO COMPLY WITH THE MANDATE FROM CONGRESS THAT DEFENDANTS PERFORM
AN ASSESSMENT OF ANY EVIDENCE KNOWN TO THE FBI THAT WAS NOT
CONSIDERED BY THE 9/11 COMMISSION RELATED TO ANY FACTORS THAT
CONTRIBUTED IN ANY MANNER TO THE TERRORIST ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER
11, 2001, SPECIFICALLY REGARDING EVIDENCE REGARDING THE ARREST
AND INVESTIGATION OF THE “HIGH-FIVERS” OBSERVED AND
SELF-PHOTOGRAPHED CELEBRATING THE ATTACKS ON THE WORLD TRADE
CENTER ON 9/11
50. This is an action pursuant to the Administrative Procedures
Act to compel agency action unlawfully withheld; to hold
unlawful and set aside agency action found to be arbitrary,
capricious, and an abuse of discretion; to hold unlawful and set
aside agency action found to be not in accordance with law; and
to hold unlawful and set aside agency action found to be in
excess of statutory authority or limitations, or short of
statutory right.
51. All of the foregoing and subsequent paragraphs are
incorporated herein by reference.
52. Another category of evidence related to the 9/11 attacks
ignored in the FBI 9/11 Review Commission’s Report is the
evidence regarding five individuals who were arrested on 9/11
after witnesses reported that at least three individuals in a
white van (license number recorded) were seen celebrating and
filming the WTC attack early in the morning of September 11,
2001.
53. The FBI has the names of the five individuals arrested and
Plaintiffs’ are in possession of several lengthy redacted
investigative reports by the FBI regarding the arrest,
interrogation and investigation of these individuals.
54. New Jersey police stopped and arrested these individuals
pursuant to a bulletin issued on 9/11 by the FBI regarding the
white van, and these individuals were transported by New Jersey
State Police to a location where the FBI took custody of these
arrestees.
55. According to the FBI’s detailed reports, three individuals
were witnessed celebrating (the FBI’s term was “high-fiving”)
and filming the WTC during the terrorist attacks on the morning
of 9/11/01 as early as the first aircraft strike at the WTC,
prior to the second tower being struck by an aircraft, according
to two separate eye-witnesses (and a third witness who observed
their van arrive at the apartment building in question at 8:15
am on 9/11). The FBI held and interviewed the five persons
arrested for some time (weeks).
56. These arrestees self-identified as Israelis, who were
eventually deported without indictment or prosecution.
57. One of these individuals arrested has been publicly reported
to have made a statement after returning to Israel to the effect
that these Israelis were sent to the United States to “document
the event” (indicating foreknowledge of 9/11).
58. One foreign newspaper reported, based on an interview with a
family member of one of the arrestees, that these individuals
had videotaped the collapse of both WTC towers.
59. The five specific individuals arrested on 9/11 in this
incident were all reported to have worked for a specific moving
company at the time, but evidence was obtained by the FBI
indicating that the company may not have been a legitimate
moving company.
60. Police and FBI investigations related to the arrest of these
individuals on 9/11 are reported to have included, in addition
to development of the film confiscated from the arrestees and
creation of enlarged prints which showed some of the arrestees
smiling as they watched one or both of the WTC towers burning,
an explosives residue test on a fabric sample from a blanket
found in these individuals’ van and swab samples to be tested
for explosive residue.
61. The white van driven by these arrestees was searched by a
trained bomb-sniffing dog which yielded a positive result for
the presence of explosive traces.
62. At least one WTC1 visitors’ card was found in these
arrestees’ van. A phone number was also found in the possession
of one of the arrestees which corresponded to another moving
company that the FBI’s Miami office believed had been used by
one of the alleged 9/11 hijackers.
63. One of the arrestees stated to the FBI that one of his
coworkers told him on the morning of 9/11 that “they are taking
down the second building” and he and a few of his coworkers
climbed onto the roof of the company’s building to observe the
WTC and take photographs, and at the time he stated he thought
the second WTC tower had been demolished intentionally to
prevent it from tipping over.
64. The FBI as part of its investigation compiled the addresses
used by the alleged hijackers, the addresses used by suspected
associates of the alleged hijackers, and the addresses used by
the five arrestees. An FBI report indicates that one or more of
these arrestees was possibly connected to a suspect in the WTC
terrorist attacks.
65. The manager of the company that employed the five
individuals arrested, whose name is also known by the FBI,
apparently fled the country after the arrest of his five
employees.
66. Some of the FBI agents who were involved with the detention
and interviews of these “high-fivers” were reported to have
drawn the conclusion that these arrestees were in some way
involved with the 9/11 terror attacks.
67. These arrestees were eventually released and deported,
apparently against the better judgment of some of the FBI agents
involved in the investigation.
68. The evidence noted above regarding these “high-fivers” was
not considered by the original 9/11 Commission, and was not
assessed in the later 9/11 Review Commission’s Report.
69. Although all of the above referenced facts and FBI
investigative reports regarding these “high-fivers” were
(obviously) in the possession of the FBI during the FBI 9/11
Review Commission’s work, none of this evidence was assessed by
the 9/11 Review Commission or reported to Congress by the 9/11
Review Commission, in violation of the mandate of Congress.
70. The actions of Defendants challenged in this Count of the
Complaint are final agency actions for which there is no other
adequate remedy in a court other than via the federal mandamus
statute 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (addressed in Count II.B infra).
71. For all the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs are entitled
to declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy Defendants’
failure to comply with their non-discretionary duty imposed by
Congress requiring Defendants to have prepared an external
independent assessment of any evidence known to the FBI that was
not considered by the 9/11 Commission related to any factors
that contributed in any manner to the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, specifically in regard to the aforementioned
evidence of the arrest, interrogation, and investigation of the
9/11 “High-Fivers.”
COUNT II.B.: REQUEST FOR MANDAMUS RELIEF
72. All of the foregoing and subsequent paragraphs are
incorporated herein by reference, specifically including the
paragraphs in Count II.A.
73. The actions of Defendants challenged in this Count of the
Complaint are final agency actions for which there is no other
adequate remedy in a court, other than via the APA (addressed in
Count II.A. supra).
74. For all the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs are entitled
to injunctive relief via the federal mandamus statute 28 U.S.C.
§ 1361 to remedy Defendants’ failure to comply with their
non-discretionary duty imposed by Congress requiring Defendants
to have prepared an external independent assessment of any
evidence known to the FBI that was not considered by the 9/11
Commission related to any factors that contributed in any manner
to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, specifically in
regard to the aforementioned evidence of the arrest,
interrogation, and investigation of the 9/11 “High-Fivers.”
HTML https://www.ae911truth.org/news/519-lawsuit-seeks-answers-on-five-men-arrested-on-9-11
#Post#: 12062--------------------------------------------------
Re: 911 > September 11 2001 > U.S. Fascist COUP?
By: AGelbert Date: April 14, 2019, 9:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Agelbert NOTE: Don't miss this podcast interview with two
engineers who tell it EXACTLY how it is. The way a building
collapses under the laws of physics is NOT a "conspiracy
theory".
[center][img
width=640]
HTML http://911freefall.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/ff-411.png[/img][/center]
Host Andy Steele is joined by structural engineer Fred Schaejbe
and civil engineer Dan May who, as volunteers with Project Due
Diligence, recently gave a public presentation of the WTC
evidence in Wisconsin.
🔊 4/11/19: Fred Schaejbe and Dan May Interview Podcast
HTML http://911freefall.com/9-11-free-fall-4-11-19-fred-schaejbe-and-dan-may/
#Post#: 12063--------------------------------------------------
Re: 911 > September 11 2001 > U.S. Fascist COUP?
By: AGelbert Date: April 14, 2019, 10:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Agelbert NOTE: This is how I dealt, three years ago now, with
two propagandist bold faced liars trying to mock my efforts to
expose the 911 truth. I suggest you do the same.
[quote author=AGelbert link=topic=173.msg4734#msg4734
date=1458511669]
[quote author=Palloy link=topic=6769.msg99607#msg99607
date=1458441379]
[quote]👹 MKing: Don't say you weren't warned when you
lift the lid on the crazy box. [/quote]
👹 I know. ;)
I am completely open to being persuaded that the conspiracies
are true, but it has to be based on evidence, not joining the
dots.
I am completely up to speed on this, and have no doubt I will
NOT be given evidence.
Abuse, certainly, especially from AG.
I could always spend my time on some other blog - moonofalabama
has far fewer crazies on it.
[/quote]
I'm so sorry you feel so abused by the Law of Gravity and its
"stubborn" applicability to the physics involved in the
demolition of WTC 7. The last time I checked, New York City is
on the surface of the Earth and WTC 7 was there too. The force
of gravity there is 32 feet per second squared for ANY object,
or part of one, in free fall. I was taught that "free fall"
acceleration cannot be achieved when something is in the way of
that free fall. When any part of a building being demolished is
in the way because it ain't broke yet, you CANNOT achieve free
fall.
And, in order to break all that stuff in the way OUT OF THE WAY
in order to achieve FREE FALL, you need a very precise
demolition sequence on EVERY support column, not just one or a
few, that supports the building NEAR THE BASE OF THE BUILDING
(where, in WTC 7' s case, there WERE NO FIRES). It takes at
least two weeks ( rush job) to rig that demolition sequence.
I guess you have other special knowledge about how to get around
the laws of physics that you would like to enlighten us with.
;)
As for MKing, it is expected that he would label "crazy" anyone
that understands and can accurately measure what an acceleration
of 32 feet per second squared is. That is what propagandists
devoid of any ethical constraints whatsoever do to defend the
propaganda lies they are paid to push.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp
But if you pair of propagandists want to push this BULLSHIT
effectively, I suggest you switch from fallacious debating
techniques like appeals to authority or arrogant puffery to some
really clever mendacity like, for example
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp,<br
/> claiming the following video below has been "doctored" to mak
e
it look like the building fell at free fall speeds. You really
ought to do that because, as long as you agree that the
following video was not "doctored", you expose, for all to see,
your serial mendacity.
[move][size=18pt]Who are ya gonna believe, Palloy and MKing, or
yer own lyin' eyes? [/move][/size]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/hycank4AxBo[/center]
[center]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-100216204839.gif[/center]
[/quote]
#Post#: 12064--------------------------------------------------
Re: 911 > September 11 2001 > U.S. Fascist COUP?
By: AGelbert Date: April 14, 2019, 11:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Anatomy of a Great Deception[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/l0Q5eZhCPuc[/center]
Sep 16, 2014 | 3,116,485 views | by Stop And Think
More info at
HTML http://www.ae911truth.org/
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page