|
I saw this on another thread and thought it was extremely important: And now, from the man himself. Some of Ledeen's own words, on a leadership trait he admires, from his book Universal Fascism:
"In order to achieve the most noble accomplishments, the leader may have to 'enter into evil.' This is the chilling insight that has made Machiavelli so feared, admired and challenging... we are rotten.... It’s true that we can achieve greatness if, and only if, we are properly led."
http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/yellow-cake-and-black-shirts.html
Given that Michael Ledeen is one of Bush's most influential advisors and a key neocon, is it any wonder that so many suspect or believe the neocons had something to do with 9/11? This ties into the Leo Strauss doctrine that the neocons are so fond of, that again argues one must do evil to do good.
And given this quote about Gladio from US military documents:
"...when the revolutionaries temporarily renounce the use of force ….US army intelligence must have the means of launching special operations which will convince Host Country Governments and public opinion of the reality of the insurgent danger…”
plus the fact that Ledeen was apparently deeply involved in Gladio and has such an influence in the Bush Administration now, it shouldn't be too surprising to see the likes of this entry from my book:
September 26, 2002: New U.S. Military Organization Will “Stimulate” Terrorist Attacks Instead of Stopping Them
A leaked August 16, 2002, report from Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s influential Defense Science Board 2002 is exposed. (UPI, 9/26/02) The board “recommends creation of a super-intelligence support , an organization it dubs the Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG), to bring together CIA and military covert action, information warfare, intelligence, and cover and deception. Among other things, this body would launch secret operations aimed at ‘stimulating reactions’ among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction—that is, for instance, prodding terrorist cells into action and exposing themselves to ‘quick-response’ attacks by U.S. forces. Such tactics would hold ‘states/sub-state actors accountable’ and ‘signal to harboring states that their sovereignty will be at risk.’” (LOS ANGELES TIMES, 10/27/02; ASIA TIMES, 11/5/02) An editorial in the Moscow Times comments: “In other words—and let’s say this plainly, clearly and soberly, so that no one can mistake the intention of Rumsfeld’s plan—the United States government is planning to use ‘cover and deception’ and secret military operations to provoke murderous terrorist attacks on innocent people.” It is further suggested terrorists could be instigated in countries the U.S. wants to gain control over. (MOSCOW TIMES, 11/1/02)
Of course, Seymour Hersh's recent New Yorker article "The Coming Wars" shows this is happening, and is well on the way to becoming overt, official doctrine:
Under Rumsfeld’s new approach, I was told, U.S. military operatives would be permitted to pose abroad as corrupt foreign businessmen seeking to buy contraband items that could be used in nuclear-weapons systems. In some cases, according to the Pentagon advisers, local citizens could be recruited and asked to join up with guerrillas or terrorists. This could potentially involve organizing and carrying out combat operations, or even terrorist activities. Some operations will likely take place in nations in which there is an American diplomatic mission, with an Ambassador and a C.I.A. station chief, the Pentagon consultant said. The Ambassador and the station chief would not necessarily have a need to know, under the Pentagon’s current interpretation of its reporting requirement.
The new rules will enable the Special Forces community to set up what it calls “action teams” in the target countries overseas which can be used to find and eliminate terrorist organizations. “Do you remember the right-wing execution squads in El Salvador?” the former high-level intelligence official asked me, referring to the military-led gangs that committed atrocities in the early nineteen-eighties. “We founded them and we financed them,” he said. “The objective now is to recruit locals in any area we want. And we aren’t going to tell Congress about it.” A former military officer, who has knowledge of the Pentagon’s commando capabilities, said, “We’re going to be riding with the bad boys.”
One of the rationales for such tactics was spelled out in a series of articles by John Arquilla, a professor of defense analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School, in Monterey, California, and a consultant on terrorism for the rand corporation. “It takes a network to fight a network,” Arquilla wrote in a recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle:
When conventional military operations and bombing failed to defeat the Mau Mau insurgency in Kenya in the 1950s, the British formed teams of friendly Kikuyu tribesmen who went about pretending to be terrorists. These “pseudo gangs,” as they were called, swiftly threw the Mau Mau on the defensive, either by befriending and then ambushing bands of fighters or by guiding bombers to the terrorists’ camps. What worked in Kenya a half-century ago has a wonderful chance of undermining trust and recruitment among today’s terror networks. Forming new pseudo gangs should not be difficult.
---
There's really no telling any more, if there ever was, if any given terrorist act is a false flag operation or not. But anytime anyone suggests any false flag operations, they're immediately branded conspiracy theorists. Should we be more afraid of the terrorists, or the "pseudo-terrorists"?
As an aside, I remember back around 1991 when the details of Operation Gladio burst onto the front pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post. I think the story made the main headline of both newpapers. I expected to see a huge fallout in the days that followed, a debate raging about the ethics of it, people going to jail eventually, etc... but there was nothing. Not even letters to the editor about it. I thought it was really bizarre at the time, but now I realize the bizarre thing was that the story made the front page in the first place, because people just don't want to know these things. They want to believe their government is honest and good. Of course this continues to this day. Note the huge debate in the wake of the above Hersh article on the topic of if we're going to war with Iran or not, and no debate on the topic of the ethics of "riding with the bad boys."
If anyone can find and post those original New York Times and Washington Post articles on Gladio from back then, I'd really appreciate it.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
