U.S. Government Uses Al-Qaeda To Attack Iran

U.S. Government Uses Al-Qaeda To Attack Iran
Bush authorizes group formerly headed by alleged 9/11 mastermind to be bankrolled & armed by CIA for covert regime change

Paul Joseph Watson & Steve Watson
Prison Planet
Monday, May 28, 2007


Recent revelations illustrating the fact that the U.S. government is using a Sunni Al-Qaeda terrorist group formerly headed by the alleged mastermind of 9/11 to carry out bombings in Iran undermines the entire war on terror as a monumental hoax that is being exploited purely to realize a geopolitical agenda.
"President George W Bush has given the CIA approval to launch covert "black" operations to achieve regime change in Iran, intelligence sources have revealed. Mr Bush has signed an official document endorsing CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilise, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs."

"The CIA is giving arms-length support, supplying money and weapons, to an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, which has conducted raids into Iran from bases in Pakistan," the London Telegraph reported yesterday.

Jundullah is a Sunni Al-Qaeda offshoot organization that was formerly headed by alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Even if you believe the official story of 9/11 to the letter, the fact that Bush has personally authorized U.S. support for this group completely dismantles the facade of the war on terror.



The group has been blamed for a number of bombings inside Iran aimed at destabilizing Ahmadinejad's government and is also active in Pakistan, having been fingered for its involvement in attacks on police stations and car bombings at the Pakistan-US Cultural Center in 2004.

The U.S. government is arming and directing a Sunni Al-Qaeda group to carry out bombings in Iran and yet Bush has the temerity to grandstand during his Rose Garden speech last week and wave the Al-Qaeda bogeyman to strike the fear of God into American citizens.

"As to al Qaeda in Iraq, al Qaeda is going to fight us wherever we are. That's their strategy. Their strategy is to drive us out of the Middle East. They have made it abundantly clear what they want. They want to establish a caliphate. They want to spread their ideology. They want safe haven from which to launch attacks. They're willing to kill the innocent to achieve their objectives, and they will fight us. And the fundamental question is, will we fight them? I have made the decision to do so. I believe that the best way to protect us in this war on terror is to fight them," Bush said on Thursday.




Arms cache belonging to Jundullah - the Sunni Al-Qaeda terrorist group being funded by the CIA with President Bush's approval.

Bush's definition of fighting Al-Qaeda is apparently to lend them all the funds, weapons and tactical know how they need to carry out attacks against innocent civilians in Iran, and let us not forget that America's allies the British have also been caught training insurgents in Iraq to carry out hi-tech bombings that are later blamed on Iran - just as the SAS worked with U.S. special forces to train the KLA in Kosovo, which was also an Al-Qaeda chapter having been financed directly by Bin Laden himself.

But in the world of newspeak and the lowest common denominator propaganda that cloaks the real agenda of the "war on terror", anyone who rises up against occupation, be it a kid who throws a rock in Baghdad or a car bombing on behalf of an increasingly Shiite-led insurgency, the natural enemies of the Sunni "Al-Qaeda," are terrorists and are Al-Qaeda members.

A cruel irony exists whereby anyone and everyone who opposes military occupation is smeared as an Al-Qaeda terrorist and yet the only real Al-Qaeda terrorists are being bankrolled, armed and directed by the CIA itself, with Bush's explicit approval.

Since President Bush didn't know the difference between Sunni & Shiite Muslims until two months before the invasion of Iraq and the incoming chairman of a congressional intelligence committee said Al Qaeda prominently came from the Shia branch of Islam, we can't hold out much hope for Joe Public and this is why the simplest propaganda is always the most effective.

They're the bad guys, we're the good guys - black and white with no shades of gray.

In reality, Al-Qaeda only exists within intelligence circles coordinated by the highest echelons of the U.S. government, and is being used yet again as a tool for destabilization in nations targeted for regime change by the Neo-Cons.

Jundullah is not the only anti-Iranian terror group that US government has been accused of funding in an attempt to pressure the Iranian government.

Multiple credible individuals including US intelligence whistleblowers and former military personnel have asserted that the government is conducting covert military operations inside Iran using guerilla groups to carry out attacks on Iranian Revolution Guard units.

It is widely suspected that the well known right-wing terrorist organization known as Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, is now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations and carrying out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq.

After a bombing inside Iran in March, the London Telegraph also reported on how a high ranking CIA official has blown the whistle on the fact that America is secretly funding terrorist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear program.

Insurers Agree to Pay Billions at Ground Zero

Announcing the deal were, from left, Albert M. Rosenblatt, a retired judge; Gov. Eliot Spitzer; Anthony E. Shorris, Port Authority executive director; and Larry A. Silverstein, the developer.

By CHARLES V. BAGLI
Published: May 24, 2007
NEW YORK TIMES

The Spitzer administration announced the settlement of all insurance claims at ground zero yesterday, ensuring that $4.55 billion will be available for rebuilding the World Trade Center site.

The agreement, which the insurers described as the largest single insurance settlement ever undertaken by the industry, ended a protracted legal battle with insurers over payouts related to the terrorist attack.

New York State and Port Authority officials said yesterday that the deal removed any uncertainty over how much money would be available for rebuilding and would enable them to obtain private financing for the $9 billion project.

Officials had worried that the insurance dispute might drag on for years, eating up millions of dollars in lawyers’ fees and potentially delaying reconstruction. The settlement is the culmination of a two-month campaign by the state insurance superintendent, Eric R. Dinallo, and involved meetings in Geneva, Paris and Delaware.

The agreement was reached with seven of the two dozen insurers for the trade center who had not already settled — Allianz Global Risks, Travelers Companies, Zurich American, Swiss Re, Employers Insurance, Industrial Risk Insurers and Royal Indemnity. They agreed to pay a total of $2 billion. The other insurers had already made good on their claims and paid about $2.55 billion.

In recent weeks, Gov. Eliot Spitzer joined the negotiations with the seven companies, which lasted until the early morning yesterday.

“The unsettled insurance claims were the last major barrier to rebuilding and have been bitterly and intensely contested for almost six years,” Governor Spitzer said in an interview. “This means we can now fund construction, access the financial markets and move on to what should be our primary focus: rebuilding.”

Business leaders downtown, who have been frustrated by the legal and political wrangling and years of delays, were elated by the news.

“The downtown business community is pleased with the efforts of the governor and the insurance superintendent in removing the remaining uncertainty over the financing of the World Trade Center site,” said Eric J. Deutsch, president of the Alliance for Downtown New York. “In conjunction with a strong office market, the settlement will ensure success.”

All the parties to yesterday’s settlement signed confidentiality agreements barring them from saying how much each insurance company would pay.

The insurance money is critical to the rebuilding effort, but it can cover only about half of the $9 billion cost of building five towers, retail space and possibly a hotel.

“The train is now moving down the tracks,” said Larry A. Silverstein, the 76-year-old developer who had leased the World Trade Center complex six weeks before the Sept. 11 attack.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the land at ground zero and built the trade center, will get about $870 million from yesterday’s settlement, which is to go toward the cost of erecting the $3 billion Freedom Tower, the tallest and most symbolic skyscraper planned for ground zero, as well as the retail space at the complex.

Mr. Silverstein will get the remaining $1.13 billion for three large office towers to be built along Church Street, between Vesey and Liberty Streets.

As part of the deal, the Port Authority and Mr. Silverstein had to relinquish their claim that the companies owed more than $500 million in interest resulting from delays in making the payments. The insurers, in turn, abandoned their claim that they did not owe the money until the project was completed, in 2012.

Despite the insurance dispute, there has been some activity at the 16-acre trade center site. Hundreds of construction workers are laboring on the Port Authority’s $2 billion PATH train station and the foundation of the Freedom Tower. The authority expects to turn over the eastern portion of the site to Mr. Silverstein at the end of this year so that he can begin building. He completed a nearby tower, 7 World Trade Center, last year.

“Look how far we’ve come in the last year,” Mr. Silverstein said yesterday. “A year ago today, we opened 7 World Trade Center, a huge success and a validation of downtown as a world-class business district. We’ve started construction on the Freedom Tower. We reached an agreement on who would build what and when. And now we have the resources to rebuild as quickly and spectacularly as possible.”

Mr. Spitzer said the agreement, which ends all the litigation, was a collaborative effort on the part of many officials who had lost “patience with the ongoing fighting that didn’t serve the public interest or the effort to rebuild.”

Officials and real estate executives involved in the negotiations said they had asked the administration of Governor Spitzer’s predecessor, George E. Pataki, to have the state’s insurance superintendent become involved in the settlement effort, but that it never happened. That changed in late March when Mr. Spitzer’s superintendent, Mr. Dinallo, convened a meeting of the insurers, the Port Authority and the developer to prod them into a settlement.

Mr. Dinallo was working in tandem with Albert M. Rosenblatt, a retired judge who was overseeing an arbitration proceeding in the case.

Andreas Shell, claims crisis coordinator for Allianz, said at a news conference that it was the largest insurance settlement in industry history and that his company was “extremely happy with the result.”

The insurance battle has been complicated from the start by the circumstances of Mr. Silverstein’s lease of the trade center and the destruction of the complex by terrorists six weeks later. At that time, two dozen insurers had signed binders pledging to provide $3.5 billion in insurance coverage, but had not finished the documents.

An ugly dispute developed over which insurance policy was in effect at the time of the attack. Mr. Silverstein argued that since two jetliners had slammed into the two towers, he was entitled to a double payment on the $3.5 billion policy. But many of the insurers countered that they had agreed to a different policy that did not permit double claims.

In the sparring, the insurers attempted to paint Mr. Silverstein as a rapacious developer interested only in profiteering, while he asserted that the companies were being tight-fisted and shirking their moral and legal responsibilities.

At the end of two lengthy trials in 2004, a federal court found that the insurers owed a maximum of $4.6 billion, less than the $7 billion that Mr. Silverstein originally claimed but more than the $3.5 billion limit of the policy. Ever since, state, city and Port Authority officials have called on the insurance companies to make their payments in full.

Mr. Spitzer thanked 14 politicians yesterday for their help, including Senators Charles E. Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton. In a statement, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg commended the governor and Mr. Silverstein for the settlement.

9/11 Debunkers Hide From Slam Dunk Evidence Of Controlled Demolition

9/11 Debunkers Hide From Slam Dunk Evidence Of Controlled Demolition

Electron microscope analysis of steel spheres from WTC site proves thermate, proves collapse of twin towers was an act of deliberate arson

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, May 22, 2007


Professor Steven Jones presented brand new and compelling evidence for the controlled demolition of the twin towers and WTC 7 recently, but the 9/11 debunkers and the corporate media are loathe to tackle it because it represents a slam dunk on proving the collapse of the buildings was a deliberate act of arson.

During a talk at the Rebuilding America's Senses event at the University of Texas last month, Jones laid out facts about steel samples recovered from the WTC site that Popular Mechanics dare not even attempt to debate. Debunkers are scared to even get near this information because the science behind it fundamentally contradicts the official story of what happened on 9/11.

Jones detailed his lab experiments in which he attempted to replicate NIST's conclusion that the lava like orange material flowing out of the south tower is aluminum from Flight 175, the plane that hit the building. Jones clearly documents the fact that liquid aluminum is silver and not orange as is seen in the video of the south tower, therefore the material cannot be aluminum. Jones then explains that the material is in fact a compound that can cut through steel like a hot knife through butter, thermite with sulphur added to make thermate.



The crux of the fresh evidence revolves around newly uncovered globules or spheres that were discovered at the WTC site that Professor Jones was able to obtain and run a electron microscope analysis on.

The spheres contained iron and aluminum, which would be expected in any steel sample, but also sulphur which is a by-product of a thermate reaction.

So having moved from a hypothesis that thermate was used to bring down the towers from using video footage and debunking the aluminum explanation of NIST, Jones now has empirical scientific proof, undertaken under laboratory conditions, that thermate was indeed used as an artificial explosive at the World Trade Center.

It has now been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the collapse of the twin towers and WTC 7 was an act of deliberate arson and not as a result of fires from crashing planes.

Jones' evidence offers no other conclusion that insiders planted thermite devices within the buildings to literally pulverize the supporting columns and cause the collapse of the towers and also WTC 7. Debunkers have uniformly failed to address the existence of thermite and also molten metal at the ground zero site because they cannot dismiss the scientific proof, and are forced to resort to ad hominem insults and smears.

We are issuing a challenge to Popular Mechanics to rebut Professor Jones' analysis of the sphere samples and the clear evidence of thermate at the World Trade Center. Address the focused scientific proof without resorting to ad hominem attacks or straying off topic.

We don't expect the progenitors of yellow journalism to have any answers for what constitutes the smoking gun of controlled demolition.

Dear 9/11 Activists

Submitted by Reprehensor on Mon, 05/21/2007



You have taken to the streets, you have made the DVDs, you have been to the conferences, you have heard the testimony, you have made the calls, you have borne the brunt of criticism, (some of it deserved, some of it contrived to demoralize you), you have read the books, (the official and alternative theories), and you have decided where to cast your lot.

And, you have decided to act!

Ok, now what?

Now is the time to focus your energy like a laser beam. Now is the time to inject yourself into the political debate in this country, and by proxy, to inject discourse about 9/11 into the living rooms of America.

How to do it?

Here is a clue. Last month activists confronted John Kerry with tough questions on WTC7 in Austin, TX. The video was posted to the internet. Alex Jones' infowars.com ran a story on Kerry's obfuscation, and this story was mirrored across the web.

Within days, Webster Griffin Tarpley received a call from one of the producers from Hannity & Colmes, and got to spar with H&C in front of millions of FOX News regulars, about the merits of the official story of 9/11. The producer thought that FOX could make a pinata piece out the video segment, and invited the pre-eminent MIHOP author on to plug his book to millions of people who probably had never seen WTC7 "collapse", and had never heard of "9/11: Synthetic Terror".

Millions.

I repeat:

MILLIONS.

For the next 6 to 7 months, the mainstream media is going to follow the Presidential hopefuls for the Democratic and Republican Parties wherever they go.

So, it is your job to be there, with the toughest questions on 9/11 that you can muster, delivered with clarity and purpose. It's likely that questions about 9/11 aren't going to be spontaneously proposed by the General Electric talking heads during the debates. However, as the candidates tour the country gathering support, you will have opportunites to confront them. Watch your local County Party calendars.

As the Austin activists proved, it only takes one or two people lobbing questions and one person with a handycam to capture some amazing footage.

It's clear that a couple of these candidates have some serious questions to answer.

Especially Mr. Giuliani. Just for starters, how is it that Giuliani got forewarning of WTC "collapses" on 9/11? Did he pass this warning along promptly to all the first responders, or did he just high-tail his ass out of the area, entourage in tow, knowing that their radios weren't going to work anyway? Why did he let the first responders breathe the deadly toxins at Ground Zero without the proper respirators?

(Ron Paul, you could ask these questions too, you know.)

Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand could be quizzed on foreign policy. Specifically, will she, like her husband, facilitate and manipulate Islamic radicals to further geostrategic interests? This is precisely what happened in the 1990s in and around Kosovo, and is documented by the US congress in a minority report by the Republicans, and voluminously in books by Michel Chossudovsky of Canada, and Nafeez Ahmed of Britain.

There are a host of questions to ask, and now I ask you to help compile some of them in the comments area below.

Also, take advantage of the incredible networking opportunites available to you at www.truthaction.org

This is where the most active of the activists should coordinate, network and plan! The time is short, and this opportunity will not last forever. Conceivably, even before the Primaries begin early next year, the security will be too tight get the questions in.

Until then, you have a golden opportunity to introduce yourselves to the broader populace of the United States, and hold some politicians accountable, even if it isn't a Treason trial.

If you think this isn't the right path, google "911 truth squad" to see the rapid evolution of this political tactic.

All you need is a couple people with some good questions, and one (preferably two) handycams to catch the action. The internet will do the rest of the work.

It's time for some media Judo. Let the momentum of the corporate press do the work for you, as they try to steamroll over you, or as they engage with you. Either way, you win.

And if one of the brand name politicians are coming to town on the Eleventh, make that the focus of the day.

Make this your motto;

"I'm going to make a change today. I'm going to make an impact."

Engage.

Hours after 9-11 attacks,rumsfeld allegedly said"My interest is to hit saddam"

Raw Story
Wednesday May 02, 2007

According to NBC's chief Pentagon correspondent, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that his "interest is to hit Saddam Hussein" just hours after the attacks on September 11, 2001, "even though all indications pointed at al-Qaida as the guilty party," a Rhode Island newspaper reports.

At the annual Business Expo at the Rhode Island Convention Center Tuesday, NBC's Jim Miklaszewski "advanced a theme garnering attention since former CIA director George J. Tenet made his public revelations last week," writes Tom Mooney for the Providence Journal.

"Some things are right on the mark, when he says the Bush administration appeared predisposed to attack Iraq," Miklaszewski says of Tenet's book At the Center of the Storm.

The NBC correspondent's "information" comes from "off the record" notes given to him from an unidentified person who was "in the White House situation room in the hours after the attacks."

"However, the notes describe, Miklaszewski said, then-Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld vowing to avenge the terrorist attacks by voicing frustration that attacks against the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in 1983 and the attack on the Cole, in 2000, had gone unavenged," Mooney writes. "Reading from his notes, Miklaszewski quoted Rumsfeld as saying five hours after the terrorist attacks: 'My interest is to hit Saddam Hussein at the same time we go after al-Qaida.'"

Excerpts from article:

#
"We ought not to look only" at Osama bin Laden, Rumsfeld allegedly said before holding a conference call with President Bush. During the conversation, "Rumsfeld says not to focus solely on al-Qaida, consider all those range of options. And the president's response was yes."

Said Miklaszewski: "So there is no question that Tenet got the time wrong [with meeting Perle in the White House] but there is no question in my mind, and with subsequent conversations I had with officials in the Pentagon, that the Bush administration had their sights set on attacking Saddam Hussein and Iraq long before there was even an effort to gather any evidence ... that Saddam Hussein was involved in the attack. And all the evidence says quite the opposite."

The 911 Big Picture By Douglas Herman

Truthers Versus Debunkers -

By Douglas Herman
Exclusive to Rense.com
4-30-7
Recently, some intrepid Truthers (are there any other kind?) cornered Senator Swiftboat himself and asked John kerry about the sudden collapse of WTC-7, that 47 story US government building never mentioned in the Kean Commission Report. Was it a controlled demolition, these Truthers asked?
"Well that's a new one to me," Said Kerry. "I do know that that wall, I remember, was in danger and I think they made the decision based on the danger that it had in destroying other things-- that they did it in a controlled fashion..But I'll check on the story-- I'll take a look at it based on what you've said. You're the first people anywhere in the country who've brought this to my attention."
Really, Senator Kerry? First people? The first people to mention to you, sir, a controlled demotion may have occured at the WTC more than five years? The first people anywhere in the country? You, Senator Kerry, NEVER heard any other whispers about a controlled demolition before? Never heard any of your constituents in Massachusetts ask you about inconsistencies, and whether 911 might be an inside job?
Truly, the more I hear so-called intelligent well-informed people, like Senator Kerry, whether liberal or conservative, talk about 911, the more I realize what damn fools these educated and well-paid people are. How truly debased their thought processes--if they ever really possessed any independent thought processes--have become, through the power of propaganda and the belief in smoke and mirrors pseudo-science.
A Truther will look at a thing and try to determine, logically, scientifically, statistically or experimentally (when possible), whether a thing is true or false. A debunker will look at a thing and declare how scientific principals only apply to SOME things and not others.
Debunkers resemble that rich and well-educated fellow at the rail of the doomed Titanic who exclaimed: 'This ship cannot possibly sink!' Meanwhile the uneducated coal stokers stand beside him, shaking their grimy heads, having seen torrents of water gushing into the ship, and thinking what idiots these educated people are because they want--NO, DEMAND!--unscientific things to be true.
Most Truthers are like scientists, researchers, and good detectives. Most debunkers resemble stubborn alchemists, having devised a pet hypothesis, that is 'a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified,' and several lofty mathematical equations, they continue trying--and failing--to melt pot metal into gold.
Truthers believe, most of us anyway, that science is empirical, that is, 'relying upon or derived from observation or experiment.' Debunkers believe a thing is true because they wish it to be so and say it is so, or because their powerful and dictatorial government tells them it is so. Debunkers rely less on science and more upon those with advanced degrees, hired by that powerful, dictatorial government, to say 911 happene exactly as the government says it did.
Just because a dissenting theory is stated over and over again, does not make it true or false. Truth is in the verifiable, in the testing and retesting, in observing a hundred or a thousand times over. Not in the declared fragility or lack of integrity in modern steel skyscrapers, or in the integrity (or lack thereof) in government experts. 911 Science is not a popularity contest. Given the choice, I would much rather trust in the honest integrity of that skyscraper.
Truthers see a skyscraper falling from the sky, and then witness a second and a third skyscraper falling at near gravitational speed, and think how odd, how suspicious and how very unusual. None had ever happened before or since. Debunkers see falling skyscrapers and say, how natural, given the laws of gravity and the destructive power of fire.
Truthers thus look at that fire closely and realize--after thousands of years of mankind's experience with smelters, hundreds of years of engineering iron & steel beam construction, centuries of fuel experiments and our innate knowledge of oxygen, how absurd and unlikely an oxygen-starved fuel fire would cause not one but three skyscrapers to collapse at near gravitation speed due to heat weakening the steel core in a fifty minute fire.
As a controlled experiment that feat could not be duplicated in ten thousand years.
Debunkers therefore hired scientists to tell us commoners the NEW laws pertaining to heat, metal, mass, convection and conduction and gravity. These debunker scientists informed us how the OLD time-tested and verifiable scientific laws do not apply in the continental US after the expiration date of September 1st 2001.
Truthers then asked HOW modern steel beams, with a melting point exceeding 2500 degrees Fahrenheit, could be found in pools beneath the WTC rubble weeks later, yet a fuel fire cannot exceed 1500 degrees? Debunkers could not answer then and refused to answer still.
Instead, debunkers debased and denied the veracity of these very same professionals who saw the pools of molten metal. Thus they selectively skewed the experiment and debased their own observations, sabotaging their entire case.
Truthers ask the WHY and HOW, never claiming superior intelligence as proof of the validity of their claims, trying instead to understand the crucial details and anomalies of 911. Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF.
Instead, Debunkers claim their superior list of scientists with advanced degrees somehow proves their THEORIES are superior. But but denying their theories have ever been tested, they show their ignorance of how science works. Debunkers deny (when not outright lying) the hundreds of scientific anomalies, waving away the hundreds of suspicious coincidences, destroying any credibility they might once have possessed.
Debunkers are thus junk scientists and alchemists.
Truthers are akin to Galileo, Leonardo and Edison.
Debunker of dumb science and political alchemy, Douglas Herman writes for Rense regularly.