Nafeez Ahmed - International Terrorism: The Secret History Since 1945

[reprehensor]

http://nafeez.blogspot.com/2006/12/international-terror...

"Nafeez will give an introduction into the covert intelligence operations, economic intrigues and rampant political corruption that have dominated Western 'national security' policies since the end of the Second World War. Using newly declassified secret government files and other reliable documentation, Nafeez will reveal the official deceit that justified Anglo-American imperial expansion during the Cold War, post-Cold War and post-9/11 periods. He will lay bare the dynamics behind historical and current US and British militarism, its overarching goals, and the escalating political, economic and ecological crises generated by the current global imperial system."

The talk was recorded in full, including the Q & A session, by the London Sound Posse, and is available online here:
http://www.radio4all.net/index.php?op=program-info&prog...

Streaming here:
http://media.putfile.com/Nafeez-Ahmed-11-19-2006

[frylock]

1. kick for the pollyannas..

learn all you can about synthetic terrorism.

[mirandapriestly]

2. Just listened, great background on circumstances

leading to 9-11, I'll post my notes tomorrow. A few shockers in there, but I am a little unsure of the upcoming crisis theory.
At the end he was sort of saying it wasn't important to talk only about 9-11 Some of the audience disagreed, but his point is that it will never be uncovered just like JFK and he didn't want to talk about the towers were demolished, kind of stuff because it was pointless.
At end he was saying legislation being pushed through and huge powers are being given to government now "ie: public disorder act" because of upcoming crisis.
wtf I didn't even know about the "public disorder act".

[rman]

3. Nafeez Ahmed features in "Oil Smoke and Mirrors"

A clip from "Oil Smoke and Mirrors", about supposedly left-wing terrorist attacks being orchestrated by intelligence agencies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORnbxbwd8KM


Oil, Smoke & Mirrors
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=867738986954802...

[vincent_vega_lives]

4. So the US overstated the power of the Soviet Union during the cold war?

Secondly the Cold War saw the "Communist threat" justifying American expansion into all corners of the globe - Ahmed argues this threat was not only greatly overstated, but that internal government documents indicate that by and large both the British and the Americans were far more concerned about "ultra-nationalist" movements.

Sounds like revisionist history to me. This would imply that the Soviet Union did not have expanding interests "into all corners of the globe".

[reprehensor]

6. Team B certainly did.

http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares

Many of the creative frauds of Team B are crowing like roosters about "International Terrorism" now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_B

"Fool me once..."

[vincent_vega_lives]

5. Has he ever head of the "Troubles"?

In summary, the legal apparatus that has been established in the post-9/11 period, and whose stranglehold has dramatically intensified since 7/7, grants to the state the power to do almost anything it likes against the British public in the name of security.

Gilford Four? Birmingham Six? Bloody Sunday? Profiling Irish people? Shoot-to-kill Policy?

[reprehensor]

7. Infiltration.

https://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/TheAtlantic/2006/04/01/1...

"British spies subverted the IRA from within, leaving it in military ruin, and Irish Republicans—who want to end British rule in Northern Ireland and reunite the island—have largely shifted their weight to Sinn Féin and its peaceable, political efforts. And so the Dirty War provides a model for how to dismantle a terrorist organization. The trick is to not mind killing, and to expect dying.

This came clear to Kevin Fulton on the day his cover as an IRA man collapsed. It happened inside an IRA safe house in north Belfast, in 1994. Fulton sat facing a wall, blindfolded. Curtains shut out the pale light of winter. Bottles lay scattered on the floor, and the place stank of stale beer. An interrogator paced the room, his boots scuffing against the floor. He said, “I know what yer done, boyo.”

He pressed a thick index finger against Fulton’s temple, hard, then leaned in close to Fulton’s ear and murmured a series of threats: The IRA hunts down all snitches and executes them. Two quick bullets in the brain. Remember the boy from County Armagh who left behind the pregnant wife. Remember the boy from County Louth who left seven children mewling for a father. Remember them all.

British authorities had recently picked up Fulton for questioning. Now the IRA, which had begun to suspect him of being a British agent, wanted to know why.

Again, the finger to the temple.

“What did you tell them?”

Fulton knew the voice, and its owner: Scap, one of the IRA’s most feared interrogators. Fulton had once helped prepare safe houses for such interrogations, and knew that sometimes Scap’s subjects survived. Sometimes not.

Colleagues called both men “hard bastards”—true IRA boys, mothered by terrorism. They killed for the cause, time and again. But British spies had infiltrated the IRA, spreading deceit and rumors of deceit. The IRA had turned against itself. Scap couldn’t say for sure who fought on his side.

The interrogation dragged on for hours. Fulton remained outwardly calm, and denied everything. Inwardly, though, he felt sick. He’d been spying on the IRA for a decade and a half, and he knew that if Scap broke him—if he admitted anything—he’d be a dead man—own a hole,” in IRA slang.

So throughout the interrogation, Fulton sat stone-faced, blindfolded, and facing the wall. Double blind. He held tight to his secret: yes, he was a British spy.

But then, so was his interrogator..."

----------

"After the Long Kesh internment debacle, the IRA gained ground against the British. On patrol in Belfast, British soldiers dodged stones by day and firebombs by night. Troops in armored Rovers and protective helmets made no good friends; they only made good targets. They needed a better strategy, and a powerful personality to implement it. And they soon found the man for the job: Brigadier General Frank Kitson.

Kitson rolled into Northern Ireland in the early 1970s with considerable experience battling insurgencies in Kenya, Malaya, and elsewhere. He had learned valuable lessons, particularly in Kenya in the 1950s battling the Mau Mau, a band of rebels fighting for independence. He had rounded up suspected Mau Mau supporters, who then endured interrogation and torture at the hands of the British authorities. The Mau Mau couldn’t match the British militarily, so they resorted to guerrilla tactics, hiding in the hills and striking from the shadows. But Kitson followed them there, recruited locals with money and idealism, and infiltrated the insurgent ranks. With layer upon layer of sabotage, subterfuge, and duplicity, he obliterated the Mau Mau.

Kitson’s methods proved so effective that he wrote a now-classic counterinsurgency book, Low Intensity Operations: Subversion, Insurgency, Peacekeeping, which laid out principles now being followed by American forces in Iraq. By the time Kitson arrived in Northern Ireland, Low Intensity Operations had become his instruction manual for war there. He stayed for only about two years, but in that brief period he set a new course for the British army that, for better or worse, carried it through the Troubles. By 1978, using tactics endorsed by Kitson, the army had for years been regularly stopping vehicles at checkpoints and randomly arresting drivers to screen them. One of the men hauled in that year was Freddie Scappaticci, fresh from his beating by the IRA...

...So it started. He delivered a package—a pistol and bullets—across town. He made another delivery, then another. Always on time and dependable. The jobs escalated in subtle increments, and as his errands reached farther, the packages grew deadlier. Bullets became pipe bombs, and pipe bombs became car bombs...

...Each night Fulton rocked himself to sleep repeating the mantra his handlers had given him: “The greater good. The greater good. The greater good.” He and Scappaticci engaged in a difficult mathematics, a calculus of souls. If a man kills thirty people to save 3,000, has he done right? What about thirty for 300? Or thirty for thirty-one?

At one point I asked Fulton whether, in light of the human toll he would exact in the course of his career, someone could have served the greater good by killing him as a young man. I meant the question to be rhetorical. But Fulton just nodded.

“Yes,” he said..."

[mirandapriestly]

10. wow.eom

[mirandapriestly]

8. Here are some notes

If you don't have time to listen. He spoke sort of fast and so my notes aren't the greatest, but you should be able to get the gist. I didn't have time to write down his sources which are very good and credible and he names a lot of books, if you want those you should listen and get a good reading list.

He asked the audience what they thought of the recent US election results and one lady answered she thinks the difference will only be superfical and the people "pulling the strings" will still be the same. He basically agreed with this.
He went on to talk about what he called the "global imperial system" and how it sort of came to be after WWII.
The U.S. and Great Britain came together after WWII to find a way to continue dominance after decolonization(?) (I think that's the word he used), and the results were that the U.S. would be dominant in a partnership which has continued until today. The Blair "poodle" dynamic is nothing new (He refers to documents)
The Council of Foreign Relations came into existence at this time and it's goal was for US to have economic and military dominance globally. Mentions good book: Imperial Brain Trust.
Britain wanted to maintain control of same areas after decolonization, and they formed formal partnership with U.S. in dominant position to do this. He refers to a document from 1950. They wanted dependence of certain countries . The US wanted to gain control of former Brit controlled areas.
The reason election won't make difference is that "interlocking centers of military and corporate power" and the way they interact is what drives policy , not "cliques" or "factions"; the war on terror is the continuation of Anglo American imperialism post war (ie:nothing new)
U.S./Brit want to gain control of the development of areas that contain metals and oils,they want to maintain "indirect" dominance.
He talked about the CIA/NATO involvement/ funding in Operation Gladio, whereby Italian communist insurgent groups were penetrated then urged to commit violence (my thought - Is this what those Americans were up to in the recent Egyptian arrests? sounds identical, only geographic difference, they were urging Egyptians to go to Iraq. That story sure disappeared). The intent was to manufacture projected internal threat.
When the Soviet Union collapsed the way was open to go into the Middle East, but with the Soviets gone we needed a new threat. This is where "Al Qaeda" comes in. The term Al Q was not used before a trial for the US embassy bombing, where a suspected terrorist was asked if he was in "al qaeda". He answered well, I'm in the group that YOU call Al Q. It wasn't something that they ever called Al Q themselves. The term Al Q was "invented" by the US, it means literally "the database" and was the database names of the mujahadeen fighting in Afghanistan.
The narrative of the U.S story doesn't make sense, he says - where bin laden becomes our enemy after Afghanistan. He talks about Al q and pretty much says what I think which is that there are, of course, terrorists in the ME, but they are not a formal highly sophisticated tightly knit organization like the US propaganda makes you think.
There is a "Doctrine of Destabilization" which he discusses and documents. He also mentions the book "The Hidden History of 9-11" and says it is good, (this is the one someone posted about here that is outrageously expensive. He doesn't say why it is so expensive, though ) But this book The Hidden History of 9-11 covers the doctrine of destabilization and history leading to 9-11.
he says that the doctrine of destabilization is to counter asian influence on their neighbors and to control the bulk of the world strategic regions. he asserts that this is no conspiracy theory it is well documented.
Covers David Shayler the MI6 operative who was an operative in Libya where there was a plan to assassinate Qaddafi and things went wrong and civilians were killed. This is well tolerated by western governments and they were involved with it according to Shayler.
The reason western states would want the killing of Algerian civilians is to justify the militarization of state policy. (This is an important theme, and the reason behind the false flags) there are a lot of french books documenting the complicity of western countries with terrorism , then they walked away with nice oil and gas agreements with Algeria.
Al Qaeda roles:
legitimize militarization of western society, and subject places to western control . (Only places with resources, though, particularly global energy resources.)
This was a shocker to me:
In 1999 The Pentagon flew in Mujahadeen to Bosnia to help with destabilization (he documents)
quote from sir General Mike Jackson says something to the effect "we will stay to guard the energy resources across macedonian....(So, that explains that, I always wondered what was "really" going on there)


If you look at where 'al qaeda" is based you will see it's in countries where there are energy and/other resources - strategic countries. This is no accident.

3 tiers to "al Qaeda":
1. predominance of Anglo American interests/expansion/consolidation
2nd tier paucity of regional threats to legitimize militarization required to pursue interests (with soviet Union gone as threat they needed new threat)
3rd idealogical & operational construction via western countries that project external threat used selectively and systemically to justify certain policies and destabilize certain regions
So, Western companies wish for global dominance and with the fall of the Soviet Union, they lost a good "threat" (communism) to use as an excuse for military expansion, so they create one so that they have an excuse to : interfere in other regions, limit individuals rights, etc...


So here is where I became a little unsure, he says the reason for all this is that there are 3 impending crisis facing us. This is why BushCo is trying to militarize and grab power, he even gave a frightening nuclear scenario. He paints a real "doomsday" scenario. His sources and documentation do not seem as strong here, but that could have been the format of the lecture. Also he says that James Wolcott confirmed this idea. I don't know if that really gives me a lot of confidence. But anyway:

Why do western countries want destabilization and increased powers, etc...? (other than just greed and quest for power, etc...)
because the global imperial system is plagued by escalating global crisis which, in 10-15 years will destabilize the current power structure
James Wolsey of the ? Institute (couldn't understand name) in Washington "confirmed" crisis

the crisis are:
1. oil 2. economy 3. environment
oil production already peaked 2 years ago oil companies are "in denial" (?!). He gives the peak oil bit.
There is a plan to destabilize regions, in order to gain control of resources.

2. economy collapse by 2008 of banks
3. environment global catastrophe global warming, etc...

war games in Iran simulated nuclear disaster nuclear winter would occur, Bush ignored this warning..
system in decline are like Britain unraveling 100 yrs ago, but how do we maintain?
Why no interest in alternative energy- U.S. doesn't want because of different form of social energy will occur. decentralized power, they'll lose military industrial complex
current system almost dead what will take it's place?
call for new system based on respect, human rights, etc...we need to call for this

9-11 was the premise on what everything to come is based
9-11 didn't happen "in a vacuum", it's result of a system.

He sort of ridicules people who say "9-11 was an inside job!" over and over and talking about controlled demolition, not because it didn't happen, but because it will not get us anywhere. I disagree with that and don't really get where he's coming from, although I see where he prefers to talk about the historical context for what is happening and find it to be very convincing. A few in the audience were saying they thought 9-11 was important to talk about because it exposes a lot of what he is talking about, but he likened it to Kennedy assassination and said look what happened with that.

[Grateful for Hope]

9. Thank you for this, MP

This is fascinating material. I think I understand where he is coming from concerning talking about 9/11 (inside job and CD not getting us anywhere). The proof is not there (neither is it there to prove the OCT, but that is another story).

I like that he says we need to call for a "new system" (alternative energy) based on respect and human rights. I think he is spot on here.

Makes me so wish that Gore would run in 2008.

[mirandapriestly]

11. Good points

although I think evidence has been covered up. The policy of destabilization makes Iraq and 9-11 more clear and infiltration makes "al qaeda" a lot more clear. Unfortunately, I don't think those are any easier to prove than the physical evidence when you have such a corrupt system. The people who are assigned to investigate are appointed by the criminals. This is true for investigation of cd or policy. I don't know why he thinks it would be easier to "change the system" towards one of alternative energy than it would be to show controlled demolition or other physical aspects of 9-11.

[Grateful for Hope]

12. Because so much of the 9/11 physical evidence

is no longer available, which would make proving CD very difficult.

On the other hand, evidence of global warming is all around us. And, if peak oil is true, then the evidence for this should also be readily available.

Any new investigation of 9/11, I think, would need to be made from a historical perspective (events leading up to 9/11), meanwhile tying in whistle-blower accounts, etc.

[Contrite]

13. James Woolsey, American Enterprise Institute

"James Wolsey of the ? Institute (couldn't understand name) in Washington "confirmed" crisis"

Woolsey is a former CIA director (Clinton pushed him out), member of PNAC

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a04...

(snip)

Former CIA Director James Woolsey says the US is engaged in a world war, and that it could continue for years: “As we move toward a new Middle East, over the years and, I think, over the decades to come ... we will make a lot of people very nervous.” He calls it World War IV (World War III being the Cold War according to neoconservatives like himself), and says it will be fought against the religious rulers of Iran, the “fascists” of Iraq and Syria, and Islamic extremists like al-Qaeda. He singles out the leaders of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, saying, “We want you nervous.” This echoes the rhetoric of the PNAC, of which Woolsey is a supporter, and the singling out of Egypt and Saudi Arabia echoes the rhetoric of the Defense Policy Board, of which he is a member. In July 2002 (see July 10, 2002), a presentation to that board concluded, “Grand strategy for the Middle East: Iraq is the tactical pivot. Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot. Egypt the prize.”

Resident scholar at the AEI (American Enterprise Institute) aka "Neocon Central"

Covering up "Able Danger"?

http://www.topdog08.com/2005/09/james_woolsey_i.html