Posts Tagged ‘CIA’

The CIA has been producing fake news for a long time and can “get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl”

December 12, 2016


It sounds like just another conspiracy theory. The Russians hacked the Democrats and the Republicans the story goes. They released selected material from the Democrats via Wikileaks but did not do the same with the Republican material. This was to help Trump win. This is an “assessment” by the CIA (and 16 other intelligence agencies). The FBI is not so certain in their assessments. Note however that it is not contested that the material released by Wikileaks was genuine. 

In the 1980s most of the Iran-Contra stories were planted by the CIA. One remembers of course how the same constellation of agencies, led by the CIA, concluded on the presence of Saddam Hussain’s WMD. Here they even invented evidence for Colin Powell to present to the UN and make an utter fool of himself. One notes also that these same intelligence agencies all missed 9/11 though they had links with Bin Laden. They also missed – or chose to miss – the rise of ISIS completely.

While the war of words continue about Russian hacking and the US Election, it is not fanciful to conclude that the CIA is “faking” news again. The CIA has and does spend a lot of effort on manipulating news not only abroad but also on US soil. Operation Mockingbird has now been well documented and was reported on by the US Congress in 1976.

Operation Mockingbird was a campaign by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to influence media during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Begun in the 1950s, it was initially organized by Cord Meyer and Allen W. Dulles, and was later led by Frank Wisner after Dulles became the head of the CIA. The organization recruited leading American journalists into a propaganda network to help present the CIA’s views. It funded some student and cultural organizations and magazines as fronts. As it developed, it also worked to influence foreign media and political campaigns, in addition to activities by other operating units of the CIA. The CIA’s use of journalists continued unabated until 1973, when the program was scaled back, finally coming to a halt in 1976 when George H.W. Bush took over as director.

In addition to earlier exposés of CIA activities in foreign affairs, in 1966, Ramparts magazine published an article revealing that the National Student Association was funded by the CIA. The United States Congress investigated the allegations and published a report in 1976. Other accounts were also published. The media operation was first called Mockingbird in Deborah Davis’s 1979 book, Katharine the Great: Katharine Graham and The Washington Post.

The CIA fake news activities never stopped. Even the Washington Post wrote 2 weeks ago. I particularly like the quote from a CIA operative that “you could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month”.

But – as we document below – the government and mainstream media are by far the biggest purveyors of fake news.

The Government’s Been Deploying Propaganda On U.S. Soil for Many Years

The United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities found in 1975 that the CIA submitted stories to the American press:

Wikipedia adds details:

After 1953, the network was overseen by Allen W. Dulles, director of the CIA. By this time, Operation Mockingbird had a major influence over 25 newspapers and wire agencies. The usual methodology was placing reports developed from intelligence provided by the CIA to witting or unwitting reporters. Those reports would then be repeated or cited by the preceding reporters which in turn would then be cited throughout the media wire services.

The Office of Policy Coordination (OPC) was funded by siphoning off funds intended for the Marshall Plan [i.e. the rebuilding of Europe by the U.S. after WWII]. Some of this money was used to bribe journalists and publishers.

In 2008, the New York Times wrote:

During the early years of the cold war, [prominent writers and artists, from Arthur Schlesinger Jr. to Jackson Pollock] were supported, sometimes lavishly, always secretly, by the C.I.A. as part of its propaganda war against the Soviet Union. It was perhaps the most successful use of “soft power” in American history.

A CIA operative told Washington Post owner Philip Graham … in a conversation about the willingness of journalists to peddle CIA propaganda and cover stories:

You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month.

Famed Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein wrote in 1977:

More than 400 American journalists … in the past twenty‑five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters.


In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America’s leading news organizations.


Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the Agency were [the heads of CBS, Time, the New York Times, the Louisville Courier‑Journal, and Copley News Service. Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA include [ABC, NBC, AP, UPI, Reuters], Hearst Newspapers, Scripps‑Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, the Miami Herald and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald‑Tribune.


There is ample evidence that America’s leading publishers and news executives allowed themselves and their organizations to become handmaidens to the intelligence services. “Let’s not pick on some poor reporters, for God’s sake,” William Colby exclaimed at one point to the Church committee’s investigators. “Let’s go to the managements.


The CIA even ran a formal training program in the 1950s to teach its agents to be journalists. Intelligence officers were “taught to make noises like reporters,” explained a high CIA official, and were then placed in major news organizations with help from management.


Once a year during the 1950s and early 1960s, CBS correspondents joined the CIA hierarchy for private dinners and briefings.


Allen Dulles often interceded with his good friend, the late Henry Luce, founder of Timeand Life magazines, who readily allowed certain members of his staff to work for the Agency and agreed to provide jobs and credentials for other CIA operatives who lacked journalistic experience.


In the 1950s and early 1960s, Time magazine’s foreign correspondents attended CIA “briefing” dinners similar to those the CIA held for CBS.


When Newsweek was purchased by the Washington Post Company, publisher Philip L. Graham was informed by Agency officials that the CIA occasionally used the magazine for cover purposes, according to CIA sources. “It was widely known that Phil Graham was somebody you could get help from,” said a former deputy director of the Agency. “Frank Wisner dealt with him.” Wisner, deputy director of the CIA from 1950 until shortly before his suicide in 1965, was the Agency’s premier orchestrator of “black” operations, including many in which journalists were involved. Wisner liked to boast of his “mighty Wurlitzer,” a wondrous propaganda instrument he built, and played, with help from the press.)


In November 1973, after [the CIA claimed to have ended the program], Colby told reporters and editors from the New York Times and the Washington Star that the Agency had “some three dozen” American newsmen “on the CIA payroll,” including five who worked for “general‑circulation news organizations.” Yet even while the Senate Intelligence Committee was holding its hearings in 1976, according to high‑level CIA sources, the CIA continued to maintain ties with seventy‑five to ninety journalists of every description—executives, reporters, stringers, photographers, columnists, bureau clerks and members of broadcast technical crews. More than half of these had been moved off CIA contracts and payrolls but they were still bound by other secret agreements with the Agency. According to an unpublished report by the House Select Committee on Intelligence, chaired by Representative Otis Pike, at least fifteen news organizations were still providing cover for CIA operatives as of 1976.


Those officials most knowledgeable about the subject say that a figure of 400 American journalists is on the low side ….

“There were a lot of representations that if this stuff got out some of the biggest names in journalism would get smeared” ….

An expert on propaganda testified under oath during trial that the CIA now employs THOUSANDS of reporters and OWNS its own media organizations. Whether or not his estimate is accurate, it is clear that many prominent reporters still report to the CIA.

A 4-part BBC documentary called the “Century of the Self” shows that an American – Freud’s nephew, Edward Bernays – created the modern field of manipulation of public perceptions, and the U.S. government has extensively used his techniques.

The activity has continued under the Obama Administration and is clearly still ongoing.

And the government is treating the real investigative reporters like criminals … or even terrorists:

  • The government admits that journalists could be targeted with counter-terrorism laws (and here). For example, after Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Chris Hedges, journalist Naomi Wolf, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and others sued the government to enjoin the NDAA’s allowance of the indefinite detention of Americans – the judge asked the government attorneys 5 times whether journalists like Hedges could be indefinitely detained simply for interviewing and then writing aboutbad guys. The government refused to promise that journalists like Hedges won’t be thrown in a dungeon for the rest of their lives without any right to talk to a judge
  • In an effort to protect Bank of America from the threatened Wikileaks expose of the bank’s wrongdoing, the Department of Justice told Bank of America to a hire a specific hardball-playing law firm to assemble a team to take down WikiLeaks (and see this)

Postscript: See this and this.


European Parliament was a CIA brainchild

May 7, 2016

The European Parliament is the most useless organisation in the world – by a very long way. It provides a gravy train for failed or second rate politicians. Those who fail to make it in their own countries, but are in the good books of their parties, are the ones who get sent to the European Parliament. An undemocratic, wasteful, ineffective organisation and without any useful purpose  – to be kind.

But I didn’t know that a single EU Parliament was all a CIA inspired idea from the 1950s. The basic thinking behind the CIA idea was that it would be easier for Washington to control one government, the EU, than to control many separate European governments.

Hardly surprising why Obama and Washington were against Grexit and are now against Brexit.

The Unz Review:

On September 19, 2000, going on 16 years ago, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of the London Telegraph reported:

“Declassified American government documents show that the US intelligence community ran a campaign in the Fifties and Sixties to build momentum for a united Europe. It funded and directed the European federalist movement.

“The documents confirm suspicions voiced at the time that America was working aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into a European state. One memorandum, dated July 26, 1950, gives instructions for a campaign to promote a fully fledged European parliament. It is signed by Gen. William J. Donovan, head of the American wartime Office of Strategic Services, precursor of the CIA.”

The documents show that the European Union was a creature of the CIA.

As I have previously written, Washington believes that it is easier to control one government, the EU, than to control many separate European governments. …. That is why President Obama recently went to London to tell his lapdog, the British Prime Minister, that there could be no British exit.

European parliament at work


India (finally) puts Ford Foundation and Greenpeace on watch list

April 25, 2015

The Indian government has put the Ford Foundation and Greenpeace on their “watch” list. It was about time. The Ford Foundation serves as an instrument of the CIA and the US government in prosecuting foreign policy and Greenpeace has degenerated into a home for the far-left and the communists who have been left homeless since the collapse of Marxist (and Maoist) ideologies.

NGOs, “not for profit” organisations and charities often take advantage of the misperception of an implied objectivity or impartiality or of being apolitical. A very few such organisations may come close to being so but the vast majority exist to promote a particular view or support a particular group of people or to carry out particular kinds of projects. In every instance they are deeply – and inevitably – political. Nothing wrong with that of course but it is a common misperception to think that being non-profit they are somehow above politics. They are sometimes funded by governments, sometimes used by governments and sometimes used by opposition to governments. They are sometimes used as a cover for espionage (industrial and by states) and sometimes to “promote democracy” by undermining some other view. They sometimes provide much needed education and health care. And sometimes they use education or health services as a cover for carrying out political or religious indoctrination. Madrasas funded from Saudi Arabia as being educational are purely religious and political. The ostensible reason for the existence of the organisation is often used to cloak a hidden agenda. So-called charity workers and others in the field may not even be aware of the hidden agenda they are promoting.

In most cases these organisations enjoy tax breaks. When they receive government funding it is often to enable governments to covertly act in a manner they can not as a government. They are sometimes used for money laundering and sometimes are just a scam for extracting funds from donors. Even so-called charities may actually donate to others less than 10% of the money they raise. Sometimes they do good and often they don’t.

But the bottom line is that they are all – without exception – political. The political standpoint may be implicit or it may be explicit but it is always there. There is no “human rights” charity or NGO which does not have a political agenda. There is no “centre for democracy” which does not have some political agenda which – perforce – is in conflict with the prevailing “authority” or “government”. ISIS, after all, would qualify as a “not for profit” NGO. There is no “wildlife protection” NGO which does not promote a political agenda which may be as simple as preventing poor farmers from clearing forests to grow more crops, or the development of a highway.

I have no doubt that some NGOs – and usually those without the backing of Big Funds – bring attention to and take action in areas that are desperately necessary but which fall between the cracks of government or public policy. But when an NGO is funded by the Ford Foundation or the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, I am automatically suspicious about the hidden agenda in that organisation’s objectives.

Many organisations – Greenpeace, the WWF and the FoE as examples – which once had some worthy aims and even did some good work have -since 1991 – been hijacked by the far-left and communists who had no place else to go. In India it is not surprising that the Maoists and the Naxals and other “dissenting and seditious” groups have become the beneficiaries of such NGOs. During my time in the Indian corporate world (2000 -2007) I met with many NGOs seeking corporate funds – but I was not too impressed. Even less so when I found that at remote sites where we were executing projects, the protection money (sometimes even ransom money for our engineers) being demanded by local mafiosos were to be channeled through some ostensibly do-gooding NGO.

The Ford Foundation has for long been used and is still used by the CIA (and the US government) as a vehicle for promoting US policy.

Global Research: The CIA uses philanthropic foundations as the most effective conduit to channel large sums of money to Agency projects without alerting the recipients to their source. From the early 1950s to the present the CIA’s intrusion into the foundation field was and is huge. A U.S. Congressional investigation in 1976 revealed that nearly 50% of the 700 grants in the field of international activities by the principal foundations were funded by the CIA (Who Paid the Piper? The CIA and the Cultural Cold War, Frances Stonor Saunders, Granta Books, 1999, pp. 134-135). The CIA considers foundations such as Ford “The best and most plausible kind of funding cover” (Ibid, p. 135). The collaboration of respectable and prestigious foundations, according to one former CIA operative, allowed the Agency to fund “a seemingly limitless range of covert action programs affecting youth groups, labor unions, universities, publishing houses and other private institutions” (p. 135). The latter included “human rights” groups beginning in the 1950s to the present. One of the most important “private foundations” collaborating with the CIA over a significant span of time in major projects in the cultural Cold War is the Ford Foundation.

….. History and contemporary experience tells us a different story. At a time when government over-funding of cultural activities by Washington is suspect, the FF fulfills a very important role in projecting U.S. cultural policies as an apparently “private” non-political philanthropic organization. The ties between the top officials of the FF and the U.S. government are explicit and continuing. A review of recently funded projects reveals that the FF has never funded any major project that contravenes U.S. policy.

So I was not too surprised to read that the Ford Foundation and Greenpeace India have been put on the Indian government’s watch list.  My surprise is that the Ford Foundation with its CIA connections has been allowed to fund – albeit indirectly – dissension and sedition within India for so long.

Zee News (PTI): The United States on Friday expressed concern over India’s crackdown on Ford Foundation and Greenpeace, and said it is seeking “clarification” on the action.

“We are aware that the (Indian) Ministry of Home Affairs suspended the registration of Greenpeace India and has placed the Ford Foundation on a prior permission watch list,” State Department Deputy Acting Spokesperson, Marie Harf, told reporters at her daily news conference.

“We remain concerned about the difficulties caused to civil society organisations by the manner in which the Foreign Contributions Regulations Act has been applied,” she said in response to a question.

“We are concerned that this recent ruling limits the necessary and critical debate within Indian society and we are seeking a clarification on this issue with the appropriate Indian authorities,” Harf said.

In a crackdown on foreign funding to NGOs, the Union Home Ministry has put the Ford Foundation of the US on its “watch list” and ordered that all funds coming from the international organisation have to be routed only with its nod due to “national security concerns”.

The Home Ministry said it has decided to keep a watch on all activities funded by Ford Foundation and by exercising the powers conferred under Section 46 of Foreign Contribution Regulation Act 2010, directed Reserve Bank of India to ensure that funds coming from it be brought to the notice of the Home Ministry.

The Ministry said it wanted to ensure that funds coming from Ford Foundation is utilised for “bonafide welfare activities without compromising on concerns of national interest and security”.

The move came after Gujarat government asked the Home Ministry to take action against Ford Foundation as it alleged that the US-based organisation was “interfering in the internal affairs” of the country and also “abetting communal disharmony” through an NGO run by social activist Teesta Setalvad.

Early this month, the Home Ministry had frozen seven bank accounts of Greenpeace India and barred it from receiving foreign funds for allegedly violating FCRA and “prejudicially” affecting the country’s public and economic interests.

Non-profit does not mean non-partisan or apolitical.

For me NGOs is a dirty word.

Psychologists do not swear any oath to “Do no harm”

December 14, 2014

Theoretically Doctors follow the Hippocratic Oath though I am not certain that all Doctors all around the world actually swear to do so. Psychologists and other therapists are not required to hold to any oath. They do not swear as many believe to “Do no harm”. So the two psychologists who designed and ran the CIA’s torture program and managed to extract $81 million for their services did not break any oaths. (Of course, $81 million for 2 people for 12 years is only $3.375 million per psychologist per year).  In any case any obligations to a patient did not and do not apply. Those being tortured were certainly not their patients – they were just subjects to be wrung dry. Medical Doctors were also around as reported by the Washington Post:

But in most instances documented, medical personnel appear to be enablers — advising that shackles be loosened to avoid extreme edema while a detainee was subjected to prolonged standing or stress positions; covering a wound in plastic during water dousing; and administering “rectal feeding” and “rectal rehydration,” which one medical official described as an apparently effective way to “clear a person’s head” and get him to talk.

The psychologists used the techniques developed by Martin Seligman on dogs. Learned helplessness is a behaviour in which an organism forced to endure aversive, painful or otherwise unpleasant stimuli, becomes unable or unwilling to avoid subsequent encounters with those stimuli, even if they are escapable.

Martin Seligman’s painful animal experiments and theory of learned helplessness began at the University of Pennsylvania in 1967. ….. In learned helplessness studies, an animal is repeatedly exposed to an aversive stimulus which it cannot escape. Eventually, the animal stops trying to avoid the stimulus and behaves as if it is helpless to change the situation. When opportunities to escape become available, learned helplessness means the animal does not take any action. ……. In CIA interrogation manuals learned helplessness is characterized as “apathy”

I suppose torture qualifies as painful and unpleasant stimuli.


Two psychologists contracted by the CIA to create enhanced interrogation techniques for al-Qaeda detainees have come under fire for violating human rights and medical ethics. Although pseudonyms were used in the 480-page report published this week by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, it was clearly referring to Bruce Jessen and James Mitchell, who were paid US$81 million for their work.

Both Jessen and Mitchell had worked on  the military’s Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) program in which soldiers are trained to endure brutal mock interrogations, including waterboarding. After 9/11 they were asked to design an interrogation program. …… 

The strength of ten

 The techniques they designed were based on the notion of “learned helplessness”, which was developed in the 1960s with dogs by Martin Seligman (who is mortified by his indirect link with torture). People who face unending adversity eventually become depressed and give up attempts to improve their situation. The CIA’s psychologists thought that this state would encourage detainees to become cooperative and volunteer information.

Physicians for Human Rights was highly critical of the participation of health professionals in all stages of the CIA’s program. Their involvement in monitoring the torture techniques was central to providing legal protection to interrogators, said PHR, as torture could them be described as “safe, legal, and effective”.

About half – if not more – of the US believes that the CIA torture program was justified even if torture – at heart – is wrong. I observe that the debate in the UK is about under what conditions torture may be acceptable, not on whether torture is wrong. In India, torture in the service of the State or of religion is implicit and considered justifiable. In Sweden torture is absolutely wrong and only to be used by others – where it may be justifiable. The prevailing Value which applies to humans as a whole, it seems to me, is that in certain circumstances, torture is regrettable but acceptable.

Human Rights are whatever a society determines it to be. The UN or European Human Rights conventions are supposed to be well meaning goals but that is all they are. Countries sign up to these conventions only because it is the “politically correct” and expedient thing to do. But what they truly  believe in is something different. Actual values determine actual behaviour. The conventions may represent “values we would like to aspire to” but they are not values that we do have. When Obama proclaims “That is not who we are” he forgets that what we do – not what we say – is who we are.

“That is not who we are” – Barack Obama. Oh Yes it is!

December 10, 2014

I heard Barack Obama trying to make the best of the CIA torture report released by the Senate yesterday. “One of the things that sets us apart from other countries is that when we make mistakes, we admit them. ……… brutal, and as I’ve said before, constituted torture, in my mind. And that’s not who we are.

But of course it is “who we are”. Certainly admitting a self-judged, wrong-doing – after the event – is also part of “who we are”. But the fact of the wrong-doing remains part of the behaviour which constitutes “who we are”. It does not vanish with a subsequent apology.

While behaviour includes what one says, what one does always overrides if the two are in conflict. So, while the US is certainly to be commended on admitting some wrong-doings after the event, it is also quite clear that that behaviour is – at times – quite acceptable. “American Values” clearly do allow torture under certain conditions. Abu Ghraib and My Lai are part of the reality of the behaviour of the US military. Such behaviour is what they are, notwithstanding that the behaviour was later declared to be “wrong”. Those values are ingrained and it is almost certain that some “torture”and some mistreatment of detainees is ongoing right now, to be apologised for later – if revealed. I conclude that torture itself is not against American Values. The Value could actually be formulated thus:

Torture is wrong but permitted, as a last resort, in special circumstances and must be apologised for if later revealed.

The map of all the countries who were complicit – actively or passively – with CIA’s torture program includes most of the countries who speak loudest and most sanctimoniously about human rights. Add to this all the other countries (Russia, China, India, South American countries, …. ) who also use torture in some form, and I come to the conclusion that there is not a single country today where some form of torture (physical as well as mental) is not at least tolerated under some specific conditions. Nobody claims that torture is a “good thing”, but every country also accepts that it can be justified. The concept of “absolute human rights” is fundamentally flawed. The “human rights” that any society is prepared to bestow upon those within or without that society is dynamic and variable.

Currently “what humans are”, all around the world, includes the use of torture – knowing that it is “wrong” – under certain conditions when deemed absolutely necessary.

There are no absolute values either, just as there are no absolute human rights. How should we judge the behaviour of an ISIS executioner with that of a CIA torturer? An ISIS executioner carries out his bloody beheadings in the belief that he is doing “right” in accordance with his values. A CIA torturer carries out his miserable activities knowing that it is “wrong” but that it is in a “good” cause and justified by his values.

I suppose they will both be gathered to the bosoms of their angry gods in their respective heavens.

Cliches to avoid from the CIA’s “Bestiary of intelligence writing”

September 25, 2014

Whatever one may think of the CIA, their reports are usually succinct and precise and an example to be followed by verbose NGO’s, second-rate scientists and  – especially – government departments. (Of course there are many examples, from Iraq for example, where their reports are not accurate or are just plain fiction – but they are well written). The US Department of Energy  – in my experience – have much to learn. They judge those who receive funding by the thickness of the reports they submit. The suspicion was that the US DoE actually employed people to measure and register the thickness of each report submitted to them. They then employed others to plot and correlate funding versus thickness-inches of reports submitted!! As a young researcher we had the benefit of a boss who trained us both to  “reduce 3 pages to 1” for scientific publication and also to “expand 1 page to 5” for the reports we had to submit every quarter for a DoE funded project.

Washington Post: The CIA has been hiding something from us: It once had a sense of humor — not to mention Maurice Sendak-esque artistic skills, all before the unfunny news of the agency’s role in the Iran-Contra scandal broke in 1986.

The 1982 fall edition of “Studies in Intelligence,” the CIA internal newsletter, describes a “collection of strange fauna” known as the “Bestiary of Intelligence Writing.” It was an illustrated guide for national security writers on cringeworthy cliches, with apologies to “A Political Bestiary,” a book by James Kilpatrick, former U.S. senator Eugene McCarthy and editorial cartoonist Jeff MacNelly.

 CIA Bestiary of Intelligence writing

(I have posted earlier about the CIA Style Manual: CIA Style Manual)

The author is only identified as (b)(3)(c) and he is also the illustrator

Older employees may recall that when the Headquarters Building was being constructed, guard dogs stalked the corridors by night to sniff out trespassers. Practically no one is aware, however, of the collection of strange fauna in a corner of a sub-basement, the location of which must remain secret. This collection known as the Bestiary of Intelligence Writing, consists of specimen samples of cliches and misused or overused word combinations that CIA editors have encountered frequently over the years.

Now for the first time, the Curator of the Collection has received permission to reveal the existence of the Bestiary and identify some of its principal specimens for the enlightenment, education and general edification of CIA writers. It is hoped that with their new awareness of the Bestiary, analysts and other authors will keep their eyes peeled, noses to the grindstone and ears to the ground, to call the attention of editors to other candidates for possible inclusion in the collection.

The Collection

  1. Multidisciplinary analysis.

  2. Viable alternatives.

  3. Mounting crises.

  4. Parameters

  5. Heightened tensions.

  6. Dire straits.

  7. Far-reaching implication.

  8. Available evidence.

  9. Foreseeable future.

  10. Almost inevitable.

  11. Nonstarter.

  12. Economic constraints.

  13. Broad outlines.

  14. Net effect.

  15. Overwhelming majority

This is the entry for “Overwhelming majority”

CIA Overwhelming majority - from the Bestiary

CIA Overwhelming majority – from the Bestiary

CIA OM text


Just a conspiracy theory or did the US and Turkey create ISIS?

September 1, 2014

ISIS appeared apparently from nowhere in June this year. For a supposedly splinter group of Al Qaida they were remarkably well armed, generously funded, well trained, completely ruthless, took Mosul without resistance and swept through Iraq to the outskirts of Baghdad.

How could this possibly have happened without the knowledge of the intelligence services and their massive data collection activities?

When something is inexplicable, conspiracy theories come out of the woodwork. But some conspiracy theories do turn out to be true.

Certainly the US did install Saddam Hussain in the 1960s and support him in the 1980s against Iran. Certainly the US helped in drawing the Russians into Afghanistan and then in creating the Taliban. And now come the theories of the connections between the overthrow of Gadaffi, the channeling of weapons and rebels by the US and Turkey to Syria to bring down Assad, the funding of the rebels (later ISIS) by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Ambassador Chris Stevens who was killed in the attack on the US Embassy in Benghazi was a key figure in setting up the agreement between the CIA, Turkey and the Syrian rebels to set up the “rat line”.

Even Haaretz wrote in February 2014 “Military option against Syria is alive. U.S., Saudi Arabia and Jordan are reportedly helping rebels plan attack starting in south and spreading to Damascus”. Front Line (PBS) reported in May on the training of jihadists by the US in Qatar on “how to finish off soldiers still alive after an ambush”.

A number of articles and a video came out last week on “The covert origins of ISIS” but more compelling is this article by Seymour Hersh from April this year. He exposed a classified agreement between the CIA, Turkey and the Syrian rebels to create what was referred to as a “rat line”. The “rat line” was a covert network used to channel weapons and ammunition from Libya, through southern Turkey and across the Syrian border. Funding was provided by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

The Red Line and the Rat Line

In 2011 Barack Obama led an allied military intervention in Libya without consulting the US Congress. Last August, after the sarin attack on the Damascus suburb of Ghouta, he was ready to launch an allied air strike, this time to punish the Syrian government for allegedly crossing the ‘red line’ he had set in 2012 on the use of chemical weapons. Then with less than two days to go before the planned strike, he announced that he would seek congressional approval for the intervention. The strike was postponed as Congress prepared for hearings, and subsequently cancelled when Obama accepted Assad’s offer to relinquish his chemical arsenal in a deal brokered by Russia. Why did Obama delay and then relent on Syria when he was not shy about rushing into Libya? …….. Obama’s change of mind had its origins at Porton Down, the defence laboratory in Wiltshire. British intelligence had obtained a sample of the sarin used in the 21 August attack and analysis demonstrated that the gas used didn’t match the batches known to exist in the Syrian army’s chemical weapons arsenal. ……

……. The full extent of US co-operation with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar in assisting the rebel opposition in Syria has yet to come to light. The Obama administration has never publicly admitted to its role in creating what the CIA calls a ‘rat line’, a back channel highway into Syria. The rat line, authorised in early 2012, was used to funnel weapons and ammunition from Libya via southern Turkey and across the Syrian border to the opposition. Many of those in Syria who ultimately received the weapons were jihadists, some of them affiliated with al-Qaida…… 

In January, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report on the assault by a local militia in September 2012 on the American consulate and a nearby undercover CIA facility in Benghazi, which resulted in the death of the US ambassador, Christopher Stevens, and three others. ……… A highly classified annex to the report, not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn’t always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer. (A spokesperson for Petraeus denied the operation ever took place.) ….. 

Read the whole article

ISIS did not come out of nothing and from nowhere. They were created and trained and armed and funded. Quite possibly the creators of ISIS did not fully realise the kind of monster they would spawn – just as they did not know what the Taliban and Al Qaida would become.

As SCG’s report puts it:

This is a tried and true geopolitical strategy.

Step 1: Build up a dictator or extremist group which can then be used to wage proxy wars against opponents. During this stage any crimes committed by these proxies are swept under the rug. [Problem]

Step 2: When these nasty characters have outlived their usefulness, that’s when it’s time to pull out all that dirt from under the rug and start publicizing it 24/7. This obviously works best when the public has no idea how these bad guys came to power.[Reaction]

Step 3: Finally, when the public practically begging for the government to do something, a solution is proposed. Usually the solution involves military intervention, the loss of certain liberties, or both. [Solution]

But under the big picture – conspiracy or not – we have the encouragement and nurturing of the vilest characteristics of gullible, degenerate, European Muslim youth who are enticed by jihadi cool.

And the weapons industry is still showing strong growth.

%d bloggers like this: