Mosquito Blog: False Flag Operation

Showing posts with label False Flag Operation. Show all posts

Friday, February 08, 2008

Welcome to the Dark World of Operation Gladio and Its Children

This information is a little dated, but still worthy of note. I originally posted it at OpEdNews.com:

Here is an excerpt from an eye-popping article by Paul Joseph Watson, dated December 3, 2007:

Ex-Italian President: Intel Agencies Know 9/11 An Inside Job

Man who set up Operation Gladio tells Italy's largest newspaper attacks were run by CIA, Mossad (original article)

Former Italian President and the man who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio, Francesco Cossiga, has gone public on 9/11, telling Italy's most respected newspaper that the attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad and that this was common knowledge amongst global intelligence agencies.

Cossiga was elected President of the Italian Senate in July 1983 before winning a landslide 1985 election to become President of the country in 1985.

Cossiga gained respect from opposition parties as one of a rare breed - an honest politician - and led the country for seven years until April 1992.Cossiga's tendency to be outspoken upset the Italian political establishment and he was forced to resign after revealing the existence of, and his part in setting up, Operation Gladio - a rogue intelligence network under NATO auspices that carried out bombings across Europe in the 60's, 70's and 80's. (again, click here for full article)

Cossiga is a man with deep ties to intelligence communities who are privy to knowledge and information the general public doesn't get to see. Now the truth is being allowed to surface, slowly but deliberately perhaps. Cossiga likely would not have come forward if he did not have some kind of support from these communities.

Now, what is Operation Gladio? In a nutshell, it was a European-wide, criminal enterprise that recruited from the Right, up to and including ex-Nazis, serving Western powers against both the Soviet Union and Leftist political organizations in general. It specialized in False Flag Ops, violent acts that enraged the public and were engineered in such a way that they could be blamed on an intended victim, such as a political party or radical group.

I'm going to let the BBC introduce the subject with the following videos. You are about to enter a covert, dangerous world that most of you had no idea existed, yet which has been influencing our lives for decades, a world of Right-Wing and State-sponsored terror, assassinations and, as I mentioned, False Flag Ops designed to manipulate public opinion and eliminate enemies. Such methodology and philosophy is ongoing today on the world stage and is practiced by our own government. To what extent might shock you.

Here is the first video on the history of Operation Gladio. Note that a lot of this series is in French or Italian with sub-titles:

Here is the second video:

And the third video:

Friday, January 11, 2008

Democracy Now Interview with Gareth Porter on US Navy-Iran Incident

One of the Iranian Patrol Boats in the so-called "provocation" against the US Navy (source)

Here is a poignant interview by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, on audio and in print, of veteran reporter and historian Gareth Porter discussing the US Navy/Iranian Naval incident of Sunday morning, January 6, 2008. It includes the Arnold Schwarzenegger-type deep voice threatening in a rather un-Iranian accent that "You will explode after a few minutes".

Porter points out that the commander of the 5th Fleet, Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff has made it clear that his "ships were never in danger, that they never believed they were in danger, and that they were never close to firing on the Iranian boats."

So what we have been witnessing is YELLOW JOURNALISM at its worst by the major media, who blew this event up into a near sea-battle, with the Navy "seconds away" from firing on the Iranians, without doing the simplest fact-checking or corroborating. The media mindlessly began dragging us down the rabbit-hole again into the world of make-believe. This is why our country is in such a wretched state. The truth gets slaughtered daily by the mass media. If things had gone wrong enough over this incident, we could be at war with Iran today, spilling blood and treasure on both sides by the bucketful. Ready to sacrifice another half a trillion dollars and thousands of loved-ones to the dogs of war again?

And the big question is out of all this, whose voice issued the Terminator-type threat that sent the media into a feeding frenzy?

*****************************

You can listen to the transcript of the interview by clicking here.

Here is the printed transcript:

January 11, 2008

Gareth Porter: Official Version of U.S.-Iranian Naval Incident Starts to Unravel
The United States has lodged a formal diplomatic protest against Iran for its “provocation” in the Strait of Hormuz on Sunday morning. But new information reveals that the alleged Iranian threat to American naval vessels may have been blown out of proportion. We speak to investigative historian Gareth Porter. [includes rush transcript]

Guest:

Gareth Porter, Investigative historian specializing in U.S. national security policy. He writes regularly on Iran for the Inter Press Service. His latest book is called “Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam.”

JUAN GONZALEZ: The United States has lodged a formal diplomatic protest against Iran for its “provocation” in the Strait of Hormuz on Sunday morning. But new information reveals that the alleged Iranian threat to American naval vessels in the Strait might have been blown out of proportion.

On Tuesday, the Pentagon released video of Iranian patrol boats approaching American warships and an audio recording of a direct threat in English. The accented voice says, “I am coming to you,” and then adds, “You will explode after a few minutes.”

IRANIAN VOICE: I am coming to you.

US NAVAL OFFICER: Inbound small craft, you’re approaching a coalition warship operating in international waters. Your identity is not know. Your intentions are unclear. You’re sailing into danger and may be subject to defensive measures. Request you establish communications now or alter your course immediately to remain clear. Request you alter course immediately to remain clear.

IRANIAN VOICE: You will explode after a few minutes.

US NAVAL OFFICER: “You will explode after a few minutes.”

JUAN GONZALEZ: That was an audio recording released by the Pentagon along with the video of the encounter between American warships and Iranian patrol boats in the Strait of Hormuz.

But a Navy spokesperson told ABC News Thursday that the threat might not have come from the Iranian patrol boats, but from the shore or another ship passing by. The spokesperson added, “I guess we’re not saying that it absolutely came from the boats, but we’re not saying it absolutely didn’t.”

Iran has denied all allegations of a confrontation and released its own video of the encounter. This is an excerpt of the Iranian video broadcast on Thursday showing what seems to be a routine exchange between an Iranian Navy patrol boat and the American ship.

IRANIAN NAVAL PATROLMAN: Coalition warship 73, this is Iranian Navy patrol boat. Request side number [inaudible] operating in the area this time. Over.

US NAVAL OFFICER: This is coalition warship 73. I’m operating in international waters.

AMY GOODMAN: Gareth Porter is a historian and national security policy analyst. His latest article for IPS News analyzes how the official US version of the naval incident has begun to unravel. He joins us now from Washington, D.C. Gareth Porter, welcome.

GARETH PORTER: Good morning, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about everything that happened from Sunday, what President Bush said, what the Pentagon was alleging, and now what we understand?

GARETH PORTER: Well, this alleged crisis or confrontation on the high seas is really much less than what met the eyes of the American public as it was reported by news media. And the story really began from leaks from the Pentagon. I mean, there were Pentagon officials apparently calling reporters and telling them that something had happened in the Strait of Hormuz, which represented a threat to American ships and that there was a near battle on the high seas. The way it was described to reporters, it was made to appear to be a major threat to the ships and a major threat of war. And that’s the way it was covered by CNN, by CBS and other networks, as well as by print media.

Then I think the next major thing that happened was a briefing by the commander of the 5th fleet in Bahrain, the Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff, which is very interesting. If you look carefully at the transcript, which was not reported accurately by the media, or not reported at all practically, the commander—or rather, Vice Admiral Cosgriff actually makes it clear that the ships were never in danger, that they never believed they were in danger, and that they were never close to firing on the Iranian boats. And this is the heart of what actually happened, which was never reported by the US media.

So I think that the major thing to really keep in mind about this is that it was blown up into a semi-crisis by the Pentagon and that the media followed along very supinely. And I must say this is perhaps the worst—the most egregious case of sensationalist journalism in the service of the interests of the Pentagon, the Bush administration, that I have seen so far.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And, Gareth Porter, there have been some reports about the apparent splicing of audio onto the actual video that appear to be from two different sources. Could you talk about that?

GARETH PORTER: Well, that’s right. I mean, we don’t yet know exactly what the sequence of events was in this incident. We don’t know exactly when the voices that we hear making what appear to be a threat to the American ships, where—when that occurred in the sequence of events in this incident. And it seems very possible that indeed the Pentagon did splice into the recording, the audio recording of the incident, the two bits of messages from a mysterious voice in a way that made it appear to occur in response to the initial communication from the US ship to the Iranian boats. And it seems very possible that, in fact, those voices came at some other point during this twenty-minute incident.

So this is something that really deserves to be scrutinized and, in fact, investigated by Congress, because of the significance, in the larger sense, of a potential major fabrication of evidence in order to make a political point by the Bush administration.

AMY GOODMAN: Gareth Porter, what about the timing of this, on the eve of President Bush’s visit to the Middle East?

GARETH PORTER: Well, of course, there’s no doubt that the motivation for the Pentagon to blow this incident up was precisely the timing of President Bush leaving on a trip to the Middle East, in which one of his major purposes was to try to keep together a coalition of Arab states, which—a very, very loose and shaky coalition to oppose Iran and to support, hopefully, according to the administration’s policy, the US pressure on Iran through diplomatic and financial means, through the Security Council and through its allies in Europe. So this is definitely part of the reason, very clearly, that what was a very minor incident which did not threaten US ships, as far as we can tell from all the evidence so far, was turned into what was presented as a confrontation and a threat of war.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Gareth Porter, I’d like to ask you, I was watching the Republican debate last night on Fox News and was astonished to see one of the moderators spend quite a bit of time on this topic, questioning every one of the candidates as to whether they believe the Navy commander on the scene did the right thing by not blowing the Iranian boats out of the water. Surprisingly, only Ron Paul, the maverick, even questioned some of the facts of the incident as reported. Your response to this suddenly becoming a topic for the presidential debates?

GARETH PORTER: Well, I think it’s astonishing that you have this incident being regarded as a test of whether the United States is being belligerent enough, when the commanders of the ships themselves clearly did not regard this as a threat to the safety of their ships. This is the point, again, that the commander of the 5th fleet made very clearly. He was asked by reporters whether the commanders were close to firing on the Iranian ships, and he said, “No, that was not the case,” that at no point were they about to fire on the ships and that they did not feel threatened by the Iranian boats. Bear in mind, what has not been reported by the media, that these are essentially small speedboats that are at most armed with machine guns, not with any weapons that were capable of harming those ships.

AMY GOODMAN: Gareth Porter, this also comes right at the time that new documents have—newly declassified documents have revealed that the Johnson administration faked the Gulf of Tonkin incident to escalate the war in Vietnam, to provide a pretext for increased bombing and increased troops there.

GARETH PORTER: Well, you know, this is an incident—the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the policy shenanigans surrounding it are something that I wrote about in my book, Perils of Dominance, about the US involvement in the Vietnam conflict. And what actually happened regarding the Gulf of Tonkin was that the ships, because of anxiety on the part of the crew of these ships in the Gulf of Tonkin, they thought they were under fire originally. They sent back messages saying that.

But within a matter of a couple of hours, the commander of the flotilla had decided that they had been mistaken, and he passed that message on to the Pentagon, and the Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara was informed by early afternoon on the same day. And it is my interpretation, based on the evidence, that he failed—he refused to inform President Johnson of that fact, and that’s why Johnson went ahead with a decision to bomb North Vietnam, which had already been made at noontime.

JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask you, going back to the incident also, one of the key contradictions now that have surfaced between the initial reports and certainly after the Iranian release of their own video is that initially the public was told that these were Revolutionary Guard boats, and now the Iranian government has said no, that they were actually boats of the Iranian Navy, and they clearly identified themselves as such.

GARETH PORTER: I do not know what the provenance of these Iranian boats was, whether it was IRGC or Iranian Navy. We do have pictures, photographs of the IRGC small speedboats that clearly resemble the boats that are depicted—at least one of them—depicted in the video. But from the evidence that we have right now, it’s really impossible to say what—whether these boats belonged to be on IRGC or not. It is the case, however, that the IRGC does have, apparently, the primary responsibility to patrol in this area of the gulf. I heard yesterday a former commander of the IRGC state very clearly that they do in fact have the primary responsibility to patrol in that area. So it’s certainly the—it’s a possibility, a good possibility, that these were IRGC boats.

AMY GOODMAN: Gareth Porter, I want to thank you for being with us, investigative historian, writes for Inter Press Service. His latest book is called Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thursday, January 10, 2008

U.S Navy Ship and Iran Boats Stand-off - Iranian's Video

Here is The Great Confrontation between the Evil Iranian swift boats and the poor little ole' US Navy as fimed from an Iranian boat. Even the US Navy footage just shows the boats approaching and tailing the flotilla for several minutes. The only source of controversy is a separate audio the Navy released where someone is stating that "You will explode after [indecipherable] minutes."

Listen to this video and determine for yourself if this seemed like a threat to world peace and the US Navy, as the Great Demagogue, George Bush, has alleged. It sounds more to me like the only thing missing was some tea and cookies as the Iranian commander and an American radio operator exchanged inane information for several minutes. How does this get transformed into a grave provocation to the US Navy?"

Now the Navy is saying that they are not sure who made the alleged threatening comment. Something is quite askew here. Have we got a little creative audiotaping going on by someone who wants to stir up trouble between the US Navy and Iran? In otherwords, was this more than just a routine incident, but rather a cynical attempt to make something sinister out of nothing?

Wednesday, October 03, 2007

MIT Engineer Jeff King on 9/11

(source) Note the sharp 45 degree cut, with molten slag, on the massive steel column in the far background. Quite a glaring contradiction to the official theory that the Twin Towers simply collapsed spontaneously from fire and impact. This had to have been quite a talented cataclysm to make such a neat cut. Any steel worker or demolition expert will immediately recognize that such a cut in steel could only be made with some kind of torch or other method that can produce intense, sharply focused heat and energy, leaving the tell-tale slag. But this steel is way too thick for a torch. That leaves one other obvious suspect: a shaped cutter-charge.

***************************

There is a myth out there in the mainstream media that there is a consensus among engineers and architects that the official 9/11 Commission-NIST-FEMA reports, which state that fire and plane impact brought down the Twin Towers, closes the book on the subject.

Nothing could be farther from the truth! As I write, there are now at least 186 engineering and architectural professionals who officially reject the official theory. (Reference)

Jeff King, an engineer from MIT who is one of them, recently gave a powerful presentation at a forum on 9/11. Here is a You Tube video capturing a ten minute excerpt: see video

You can find this one and 151 others at 911triumph. And there are many other sites. Thousands of people have been pouring over all the available evidence in attempts to reconstruct what really happened.

Of course the government, which wisked away all the crime scene evidence in a matter of days, is also holding on to even more evidence, lots of it, and refusing to release it. Even so, enough is known now to demand a new, independent investigation. America will never be whole again until all the truth comes out.

On that fateful day, September 11, 2001 the country turned down the path of fear, a path that ultimately leads to the lowest pit of Hell if you continue down it long enough.

Thursday, September 27, 2007

The Elephant In The Room:Kevin McPadden, 9/11-1st Responder

9/11

The books have not closed on 9/11, not by a long shot. There are actually more unanswered questions than ever before, and new contradictions pop up weekly. For instance, note this video, which throws a monkey wrench into all the official protestations that there was not, not, not any controlled demolition at WTC7, you know, the building that just went swisshh and collapsed on the afternoon of 9/11. That was not too long after Larry Silverstein issued his famous "pull it" statement.

"Pull it" means only one thing in demolition parlance: take the building down. Larry later said he meant, "pull the firefighters", although they were apparently largely out of the building anyway. What followed was one of the worst cases of identity-theft in history, a building collapse trying to look just like a controlled demolition without actually being one, or so we are told. But this video puts us right back to square one. BOOOOMM!