Individuals willing to be contacted for information and/or leading groups of activists striving for truth around the crimes of 9-11-2001. To request your name be added to this list, or to change or remove your information, please utilize the Contact form linked at the righthand column.

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

Global Research - U.S. & Israeli Intent to Balkanize Syria and Iraq

Balkanizing the Middle East: The REAL Goal of America and Israel: Shatter Syria and Iraq Into “Many Small Pieces”

Sec. State John Kerry confirmed that “Plan B” is to break Syria up into different states.

By Washington's Blog

Global Research, February 24, 2016

Region: Middle East & North Africa

Theme: US NATO War Agenda


The hawks in the U.S. and Israel decided long ago to break up Iraq and Syria into small fragments.

The Guardian noted in 2003:

President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt predicted devastating consequences for the Middle East if Iraq is attacked. “We fear a state of disorder and chaos may prevail in the region,” he said.


They are probably still splitting their sides with laughter in the Pentagon. But Mr Mubarak and the [Pentagon] hawks do agree on one thing: war with Iraq could spell disaster for several regimes in the Middle East. Mr Mubarak believes that would be bad.The hawks, though, believe it would be good.

For the hawks, disorder and chaos sweeping through the region would not be an unfortunate side-effect of war with Iraq, but a sign that everything is going according to plan.


The “skittles theory” of the Middle East – that one ball aimed at Iraq can knock down several regimes – has been around for some time on the wilder fringes of politics but has come to the fore in the United States on the back of the “war against terrorism”.

Its roots can be traced, at least in part, to a paper published in 1996 by an Israeli thinktank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Entitled “A clean break: a new strategy for securing the realm”, it was intended as a political blueprint for the incoming government of Binyamin Netanyahu. As the title indicates, it advised the right-wing Mr Netanyahu to make a complete break with the past by adopting a strategy “based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism …”


The paper set out a plan by which Israel would “shape its strategic environment”, beginning with the removal of Saddam Hussein and the installation of a Hashemite monarchy in Baghdad.

With Saddam out of the way and Iraq thus brought under Jordanian Hashemite influence, Jordan and Turkey would form an axis along with Israel to weaken and “roll back” Syria. Jordan, it suggested, could also sort out Lebanon by “weaning” the Shia Muslim population away from Syria and Iran, and re-establishing their former ties with the Shia in the new Hashemite kingdom of Iraq. “Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them”, the paper concluded.


The leader of the “prominent opinion makers” who wrote it was Richard Perle – now chairman of the Defence Policy Board at the Pentagon.

Also among the eight-person team was Douglas Feith, a neo-conservative lawyer, who now holds one of the top four posts at the Pentagon as under-secretary of policy.


Two other opinion-makers in the team were David Wurmser and his wife, Meyrav(see US thinktanks give lessons in foreign policy, August 19). Mrs Wurmser was co-founder of Memri, a Washington-based charity that distributes articles translated from Arabic newspapers portraying Arabs in a bad light. After working with Mr Perle at the American Enterprise Institute, David Wurmser is now at the State Department, as a special assistant to John Bolton, the under-secretary for arms control and international security.

A fifth member of the team was James Colbert, of the Washington-based Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (Jinsa) – a bastion of neo-conservative hawkery whose advisory board was previously graced by Dick Cheney (now US vice-president), John Bolton and Douglas Feith.


With several of the “Clean Break” paper’s authors now holding key positions in Washington, the plan for Israel to “transcend” its foes by reshaping the Middle East looks a good deal more achievable today than it did in 1996. Americans may even be persuaded to give up their lives to achieve it.

(Before assuming prominent roles in the Bush administration, many of the same people – including Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, John Bolton and others – advocated their imperial views during the Clinton administration via their American think tank, the “Project for a New American Century”.)

Thomas Harrington – professor of Iberian Studies at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut – writes:

[While there are some good articles on the chaos in Iraq, none of them] consider whetherthe chaos now enveloping the region might, in fact, be the desired aim of policy planners in Washington and Tel Aviv.


One of the prime goals of every empire is to foment ongoing internecine conflict in the territories whose resources and/or strategic outposts they covet.


The most efficient way of sparking such open-ended internecine conflict is to brutally smash the target country’s social matrix and physical infrastructure.


Ongoing unrest has the additional perk of justifying the maintenance and expansion of the military machine that feeds the financial and political fortunes of the metropolitan elite.

In short … divide and rule is about as close as it gets to a universal recourse the imperial game and that it is, therefore, as important to bear it in mind today as it was in the times of Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, the Spanish Conquistadors and the British Raj.

To those—and I suspect there are still many out there—for whom all this seems too neat or too conspiratorial, I would suggest a careful side-by side reading of:

a) the “Clean Break” manifesto generated by the Jerusalem-based Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS) in 1996


b) the “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” paper generated by The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) in 2000, a US group with deep personal and institutional links to the aforementioned Israeli think tank, and with the ascension of George Bush Junior to the White House, to the most exclusive sanctums of the US foreign policy apparatus.

To read the cold-blooded imperial reasoning in both of these documents—which speak, in the first case, quite openly of the need to destabilize the region so as to reshape Israel’s “strategic environment” and, in the second of the need to dramatically increase the number of US “forward bases” in the region ….

To do so now, after the US’s systematic destruction of Iraq and Libya—two notably oil-rich countries whose delicate ethnic and religious balances were well known to anyone in or out of government with more than passing interest in history—, and after the its carefully calibrated efforts to generate and maintain murderous and civilization-destroying stalemates in Syria and Egypt (something that is easily substantiated despite our media’s deafening silence on the subject), is downright blood-curdling.

And yet, it seems that for even very well-informed analysts, it is beyond the pale to raise the possibility that foreign policy elites in the US and Israel, like all virtually all the ambitious hegemons before them on the world stage, might have quite coldly and consciously fomented open-ended chaos in order to achieve their overlapping strategic objectives in this part of the world.

Antiwar’s Justin Raimondo notes:

Iraq’s fate was sealed from the moment we invaded: it has no future as a unitary state. As I pointed out again and again in the early days of the conflict, Iraq is fated to split apart into at least three separate states: the Shi’ite areas around Baghdad and to the south, the Sunni regions to the northwest, and the Kurdish enclave which was itching for independence since well before the US invasion. This was the War Party’s real if unexpressed goal from the very beginning: the atomization of Iraq, and indeed the entire Middle East. Their goal, in short, was chaos – and that is precisely what we are seeing today.


As I put it years ago:

“[T]he actual purpose was to blow the country to smithereens: to atomize it, and crush it, so that it would never rise again.

“When we invaded and occupied Iraq, we didn’t just militarily defeat Iraq’s armed forces – we dismantled their army, and their police force, along with all the other institutions that held the country together. The educational system was destroyed, and not reconstituted. The infrastructure was pulverized, and never restored. Even the physical hallmarks of a civilized society – roads, bridges, electrical plants, water facilities, museums, schools – were bombed out of existence or else left to fall into disrepair. Along with that, the spiritual and psychological infrastructure that enables a society to function – the bonds of trust, allegiance, and custom – was dissolved, leaving Iraqis to fend for themselves in a war of all against all.

“… What we are witnessing in post-Saddam Iraq is the erasure of an entire country. We can say, with confidence: We came, we saw, we atomized.”

Why? This is the question that inevitably arises in the wake of such an analysis: why deliberately destroy an entire country whose people were civilized while our European ancestors were living in trees?

The people who planned, agitated for, and executed this war are the very same people who have advanced Israeli interests – at America’s expense – at every opportunity. In “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” a 1996 document prepared by a gaggle of neocons – Perle, Douglas Feith, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was urged to “break out” of Israel’s alleged stagnation and undertake a campaign of “regime change” across the Middle East, targeting Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Iraq, and eventually Iran. With the exception of Iran – and that one’s still cooking on the back burner – this is precisely what has occurred. In 2003, in the immediate wake of our Pyrrhic “victory” in Iraq, then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon declared to a visiting delegation of American members of Congress that these “rogue states” – Iran, Libya, and Syria – would have to be next on the War Party’s target list.


And Michel Chossudovsky points out:

The division of Iraq along sectarian-ethnic lines has been on the drawing board of the Pentagon for more than 10 years.

What is envisaged by Washington is the outright suppression of the Baghdad regime and the institutions of the central government, leading to a process of political fracturing and the elimination of Iraq as a country.

This process of political fracturing in Iraq along sectarian lines will inevitably have an impact on Syria, where the US-NATO sponsored terrorists have in large part been defeated.

Destabilization and political fragmentation in Syria is also contemplated: Washington’s intent is no longer to pursue the narrow objective of “regime change” in Damascus. What is contemplated is the break up of both Iraq and Syria along sectarian-ethnic lines.

The formation of the caliphate may be the first step towards a broader conflict in the Middle East, bearing in mind that Iran is supportive of the al-Maliki government and the US ploy may indeed be to encourage the intervention of Iran.

The proposed re-division of both Iraq and Syria is broadly modeled on that of the Federation of Yugoslavia which was split up into seven “independent states” (Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia (FYRM), Slovenia, Montenegro, Kosovo). According to Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, the re division of Iraq into three separate states is part of a broader process of redrawing the Map of the Middle East.

Breaking Apart Syria

Similarly, Neooconservatives in the U.S. and Israel have long advocated for the balkanization of Syria into smaller regions based on ethnicity and religion. The goal was to break up the country, and to do away with the sovereignty of Syria as a separate nation.

In 1982, a prominent Israeli journalist formerly attached to the Israeli Foreign Ministry allegedly wrotea book expressly calling for the break up of Syria:

All the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units …. Dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run.

It is well-documented that – in 1996 – U.S. and Israeli Neocons advocated:

Weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria ….

As Michel Chossudovsky points out:

Destabilization and political fragmentation in Syria is also contemplated: Washington’s intent is no longer to pursue the narrow objective of “regime change” in Damascus. What is contemplated is the break up of both Iraq and Syria along sectarian-ethnic lines.

In 2013, former Israeli diplomat Alon Pinkas said:

Let them both [sides] bleed, haemorrhage to death: that’s the strategic thinking here. As long as this lingers, there’s no real threat from Syria.

Indeed, in May 2015, one of the key architects of the Iraq war – John Bolton – said:

The Arabs divided between Sunnis and Shias – I think the Sunni Arabs are never going to agree to be in a state where the Shia outnumber them 3-1. That’s what ISIS has been able to take advantage of.

I think our objective should be a new Sunni state out of the western part of Iraq, the eastern part of Syria run by moderates or at least authoritarians who are not radical Islamists. What’s left of the state of Iraq, as of right now, is simply a satellite of the ayatollahs in Tehran. It’s not anything we should try to aid.

In September 2015, Pentagon intelligence chief Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart said that he has “a tough time” seeing either Iraq or Syria really coming back together as sovereign nations.

Dan Sanchez noted last week:

In general, Israel ideally prefers regime changes that result in the installation of stable puppets. That is Plan A. But Plan B is to balkanize. Better to divide and conquer than to countenance a “rogue” (independent) neighbor. So it is noteworthy that Israel is endorsing its Plan B for Syria just when its enemies are making it plain that Plan A (“Assad Must Go”) is not happening any time soon.

And Sec. State John Kerry confirmed just yesterday that “Plan B” is to break Syria up into different states.

The original source of this article is Washington's Blog

Copyright © Washington's Blog, Washington's Blog, 2016

Sunday, February 21, 2016


by James Hufferd, Ph.D.
Coordinator, 911 Truth Grassroots Organization


Nothing seems to change. The people clamor for big change –new pleasing atmospherics at a minimum, new substance, reform, hope for prosperity and safety – and yet, the real levers of power remain invisible and are kept far too high for the people to ever reach.

After 9/11, the narrative put out didn’t make any sense to anyone who thought about it, didn’t add up, didn’t compute, and the evidence available all in fact pointed back at the personages and institutions making the initial allegations and claims themselves. Anyone who questioned the holy writ was called out as delusional and, at minimum, disrespectful.

Same thing time after time after time, regarding by now dozens of major and minor shock events since. (In fact, an extreme, though perhaps not implausible emerging view speculates that we are watching and all caught up in a totally-produced live global play, day by day by day by day.) But if you question anything, you’re a “conspiracy theorist” and your questioning of any of the evidence doesn’t deserve a substantive response – and doesn’t get one. And no one who doesn’t want to be considered daft or fanatical will hear a word you say about it.

Time after time after time, it’s the same response – i.e. no response from the powers-that-be or, generally, anyone else. Indeed, the public refuses to question anything. But don’t tell me they don’t ever suspect anything is wrong. Indeed, the level of trust of controlling institutions is abysmal. But when it comes to specifics and substance, people won’t take the risk, face the opprobrium that occasions questioning the received version, the given narrative – of considering evidence or arguments that run counter – any more than they will touch an electric line. And certainly, they don’t want to find out what they might uncover if they did, or what might become of them. So, they almost literally pull up the covers – you and I have both seen it. They already have plenty to contend with in their own lives without that – even though finding out the true bent and nature of their overlords could actually elucidate some other problems plaguing them as well.

Perhaps the most important and lasting lesson following 9/11 is this: “If you’re not on the train, you’re not going anywhere.” Or, as G.W. Bush more tactlessly put it, “If you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists.” (True, if the negative were removed from the first half of the sentence.) Because, “’We / us’ (G.W. & Associates) are plotting the narrative”.

Most recent case in point: Alex Jones, among at least a limited number of others, questions the reported narrative explaining the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. (See video - Alex Jones: DID OBAMA HAVE SCALIA KILLED?) It was, as you certainly know by now, initially reported that Mr. Scalia was discovered, still in bed late in the morning in a west Texas hunting lodge, dead with a pillow covering his head.

The county coroner, who never showed up personally at the scene, declared the cause of death to have been cardiac arrest – a heart attack (when people certainly die in bed from that, but sometimes due to other causes as well). And he didn’t perform or order an autopsy reportedly because there was no allegation of foul play. But no forensic investigation was ordered, either – same as with 9/11.

Some (including, by implication, Alex Jones) alleged that Justice Scalia was murdered, a murder ordered by the Executive Branch, said to possess ample motive, because Scalia, the Court’s right-wing bulwark, personally prevented a slew (or slough?) of rulings favored, indeed required by liberal partisans. Meaning that successfully replacing him on the Supreme Court could shift the balance and release the log jam.

A day or two after the initial allegations by “conspiracy theorists” of things being not as they were reported, if was suggested in articles (a small victory in itself, because opposing views seldom get any recognition), that the original news brief should have said that the pillow was lodged between the bed and the wall, and that that change (correction?) in the story should silence the critics.

The crimes of Jones and the others seem to have been “thought crimes” – that they thought at all. How Orwellian! The remedy? Keep on pitching!

JH: 2/21/2016

Thursday, February 11, 2016

Outline for upcoming podcast - A DIAGNOSIS OF AMERICA'S BASIC ILLS

Title: "A Diagnosis of America's Basic Ills" Presenter: James Hufferd, Discussant: J.M. Talboo

The main complaints I, and I'm sure many others, have about the way things are established and going in this country can be listed as follows (in no particular order) :

1. In a country that is super-productive above all others, only a tiny elite prospers financially, while everyone else tends to slide backward and struggle.
2. A vast, staggeringly super-funded global-scale piracy organization has replaced and is posing as the national defense force our military was intended and still pretends to be, dealing death, destruction, chaos, and near-totalitarian influence over more than 100 countries, its frequently-clandestine operations borne at the unconscionable expense of much else by U.S. taxpayers and all gains from the wars involved accruing to the super-elite referred to in Item 1.
3. U.S.-created and controlled terror groups and cells are used to pose as a grave national threat to elicit popular acquiescence.
4. The popular backing essential for this system to continue operating is sustained through lies perpetrated via the tightly-controlled media, demonization of truth-seekers, whistle-blowers, and truth-tellers, and false appeals to patriotism.

Accordingly, my thesis is this :
That the monetary system in place since 1913, featuring the Federal Reserve system, which is the American branch of the world central banking enterprise, loaning every penny needed to pay the government's operating expenses annually, with all revenues subsumed to service the existing and ever-deepening debt to the Fed/World Central Banking, necessitates an extraordinary additional sector of the U.S. economy in order to keep the political/economic system afloat. This circumstance provides the war finance and supply-dependent elite the persuasive leverage it needs to sell the idea of world-scale permanent comparatively low-grade warfare to the the political powers-that-be as an economic solution, which would neither be needed nor seriously considered as desirable or realistic if it were not for the Federal Reserve thus being in parasitic (and paralytic) choke-point control of the mechanism. Because, without the parasitic Federal Reserve added heavy burden, the productive capacity of the regular U.S. economy alone would more than suffice to beneficially finance the country's operation, rendering all of the tragic side-effects of the current system dispensable.

JH: 2/11/16