MARS SPECIAL INTEREST MISSIONS: NASA NOW WORKS FOR HALLIBURTON

http://www.petroleumnews.com/pnarch/010228-49.html

NASA Ames Center looks at problem of drilling on Mars


Kristen Nelson

PNA Editor-in-Chief


If there is life on Mars, it would probably be microorganisms in water deep
below the surface of the planet. Dr. Geoffrey Briggs, director, Center for
Mars Exploration at the NASA Ames Center, told “Meet Alaska” that NASA is
looking at ways to drill on Mars to look for water — and the life it might
contain.

Briggs said NASA has been working with Halliburton, Shell, Baker-Hughes and
the Los Alamos National Laboratory to identify drilling technologies that
might work on Mars.

The first goal, he said, would be “to drill a hole down into the permafrost,
maybe 100 meters as a trial of the technology; ultimately we want to go to
several kilometers.”

The earliest drilling opportunity would be 2007, and one of the problems
will be power. A very power-efficient system might cut out cores a meter at
a time, Briggs said, perhaps grinding away at material needed to get the
core at a rate of one core a day for hundreds of days.

Deeper drilling, into the multi-kilometer range, might occur as part of a
2014 Mars mission which would put astronauts on the planet to assist.

Los Alamos developed a melting tool intended for use in high-technical
geothermal drilling, he said, and that’s one of the things NASA is looking
at. The melting tool would also “tend to sterilize the hole on the way down”
which would help with the problem of contamination issues.

Halliburton and Baker-Hughes are working on some very advanced systems,
Briggs said, some so advanced they aren’t willing to talk much about them.
He said the NASA Ames Center relies on working with people in the industry
who “really understand the problems and make us face up to the realities …

“We do appreciate,” he said, “that this is a non-trivial activity.”

And as a side note: There's be no reason to expect oil on Mars if NASA
didn't have prior undisclosed knowledge that Mars once had abundant planet
and animal life.

NASA is lying to the public big time.

Actually,

As the Russians already know - oil is created when superheated and super
pressurized (sea)water is mixed with calcium carbonate (limestone) in
the presence of iron oxide as catalyst. This is proved and well known
everywhere in the world but the USA. It is the primary reason why the
huge oil reserves in the USA haven't been found (and why Russia is about
to lead the world in proved reserves).

Biological activity is not needed to create limestone (though it has
helped on Earth), or water (which Mars seemed to have had plenty of), or
iron oxide (which Mars seems to still have plenty of).

The "Spirit" images seemed to show lots of limestone like rocks, and
then *oops* - spirit unexpectedly has a "problem". "Opportunity" lands
in lava ash where no limestone like rocks present themselves - go figure.

Hematite is theorized to be synthesized by bacteria - so..

The Military Industrial Complex, Defense Department, Intelligence
Bureaus have all had various grips on NASA, using NASA to do the
research they couldn't afford, or which was too risky to explore with
corporate dollars. Public funds being funneled thru NASA to do research
for Boeing and Lockheed projects that the Defense Department can't
defend because they're too wacky is AOK though. Like the Penguin. How
much did that net L&M?

What the world needs is fewer Bush's killing folks for mining rights or
rigging laws to make huge profits in Saving & Loan institutional scams.
Essentially stealing bucks through 'legal' means from the American
Taxpayers. "Perfectly Legal" and "The Bush Dynasty" are good reads.
Look at wosu.org for the 'openline' streaming interviews of the authors
on 820am.

If the super-rich paid any taxes (they pay negative taxes) - we'd have
enough money to solve not only all the USA's problems - but all the
world's problems.

JS

supertax the superrich










none wrote:

> http://www.petroleumnews.com/pnarch/010228-49.html
>
> NASA Ames Center looks at problem of drilling on Mars
>
>
> Kristen Nelson
>
> PNA Editor-in-Chief
>
>
> If there is life on Mars, it would probably be microorganisms in water deep
> below the surface of the planet. Dr. Geoffrey Briggs, director, Center for
> Mars Exploration at the NASA Ames Center, told “Meet Alaska” that NASA is
> looking at ways to drill on Mars to look for water — and the life it might
> contain.
>
> Briggs said NASA has been working with Halliburton, Shell, Baker-Hughes and
> the Los Alamos National Laboratory to identify drilling technologies that
> might work on Mars.
>
> The first goal, he said, would be “to drill a hole down into the permafrost,
> maybe 100 meters as a trial of the technology; ultimately we want to go to
> several kilometers.”
>
> The earliest drilling opportunity would be 2007, and one of the problems
> will be power. A very power-efficient system might cut out cores a meter at
> a time, Briggs said, perhaps grinding away at material needed to get the
> core at a rate of one core a day for hundreds of days.
>
> Deeper drilling, into the multi-kilometer range, might occur as part of a
> 2014 Mars mission which would put astronauts on the planet to assist.
>
> Los Alamos developed a melting tool intended for use in high-technical
> geothermal drilling, he said, and that’s one of the things NASA is looking
> at. The melting tool would also “tend to sterilize the hole on the way down”
> which would help with the problem of contamination issues.
>
> Halliburton and Baker-Hughes are working on some very advanced systems,
> Briggs said, some so advanced they aren’t willing to talk much about them.
> He said the NASA Ames Center relies on working with people in the industry
> who “really understand the problems and make us face up to the realities …
>
> “We do appreciate,” he said, “that this is a non-trivial activity.”
>
> And as a side note: There's be no reason to expect oil on Mars if NASA
> didn't have prior undisclosed knowledge that Mars once had abundant planet
> and animal life.
>
> NASA is lying to the public big time.

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 20:35:24 -0500, Joe Schmoe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Actually,
>
>As the Russians already know - oil is created when superheated and super
>pressurized (sea)water is mixed with calcium carbonate (limestone) in
>the presence of iron oxide as catalyst.

Really?

Where'd you get your chemistry knowledge?

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 03:28:07 GMT, none <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 20:35:24 -0500, Joe Schmoe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Actually,
>>
>>As the Russians already know - oil is created when superheated and super
>>pressurized (sea)water is mixed with calcium carbonate (limestone) in
>>the presence of iron oxide as catalyst.
>
>Really?
>
>Where'd you get your chemistry knowledge?

The same place he got his economics knowledge if he thinks there may
be a profit in shipping oil from Mars.

d

_____________________________

http://www.pearce.uk.com

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 07:02:20 +0000, Don Pearce <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 03:28:07 GMT, none <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 20:35:24 -0500, Joe Schmoe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>Actually,
>>>
>>>As the Russians already know - oil is created when superheated and super
>>>pressurized (sea)water is mixed with calcium carbonate (limestone) in
>>>the presence of iron oxide as catalyst.
>>
>>Really?
>>
>>Where'd you get your chemistry knowledge?
>
>The same place he got his economics knowledge if he thinks there may
>be a profit in shipping oil from Mars.

Knowing Cheney's Halliburton penchant for ripping of the US government, I'd
wager that the government will get billed ship the oil back from Mars under
the guise of space exploration,

Is there anything that goes on that isn't Bush or Chaney's fault?
It seems that since Herr Clinton did NOTHING to assist NASA and now someone
steps up to the plate starts the process of making space exploration again,
all you dingbats can do is talk about who someone used to work for and act
like he is still there and has any control.

Are any of you still responsible for anything that happens for the business
that you used to work for?
Oh wait, that assumes that any of you has had a job....

"~~~~~" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 07:02:20 +0000, Don Pearce <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 03:28:07 GMT, none <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >>On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 20:35:24 -0500, Joe Schmoe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Actually,
> >>>
> >>>As the Russians already know - oil is created when superheated and
super
> >>>pressurized (sea)water is mixed with calcium carbonate (limestone) in
> >>>the presence of iron oxide as catalyst.
> >>
> >>Really?
> >>
> >>Where'd you get your chemistry knowledge?
> >
> >The same place he got his economics knowledge if he thinks there may
> >be a profit in shipping oil from Mars.
>
> Knowing Cheney's Halliburton penchant for ripping of the US government,
I'd
> wager that the government will get billed ship the oil back from Mars
under
> the guise of space exploration,
>

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:27:40 GMT, none <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>And as a side note: There's be no reason to expect oil on Mars if NASA
>didn't have prior undisclosed knowledge that Mars once had abundant planet
>and animal life.

>NASA is lying to the public big time.

Wonder who'll get the contract to build the pipeline?

--
Jock.

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 07:31:29 GMT, "Clif Davis" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Is there anything that goes on that isn't Bush or Chaney's fault?

Very little...

--
Jock.

lol what makes you think Martian oil is of ANY USE TO US WHATSOEVER

"none" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> http://www.petroleumnews.com/pnarch/010228-49.html
>
> NASA Ames Center looks at problem of drilling on Mars
>
>
> Kristen Nelson
>
> PNA Editor-in-Chief
>
>
> If there is life on Mars, it would probably be microorganisms in water deep
> below the surface of the planet. Dr. Geoffrey Briggs, director, Center for
> Mars Exploration at the NASA Ames Center, told "Meet Alaska" that NASA is
> looking at ways to drill on Mars to look for water - and the life it might
> contain.
>
> Briggs said NASA has been working with Halliburton, Shell, Baker-Hughes and
> the Los Alamos National Laboratory to identify drilling technologies that
> might work on Mars.
>
> The first goal, he said, would be "to drill a hole down into the permafrost,
> maybe 100 meters as a trial of the technology; ultimately we want to go to
> several kilometers."
>
> The earliest drilling opportunity would be 2007, and one of the problems
> will be power. A very power-efficient system might cut out cores a meter at
> a time, Briggs said, perhaps grinding away at material needed to get the
> core at a rate of one core a day for hundreds of days.
>
> Deeper drilling, into the multi-kilometer range, might occur as part of a
> 2014 Mars mission which would put astronauts on the planet to assist.
>
> Los Alamos developed a melting tool intended for use in high-technical
> geothermal drilling, he said, and that's one of the things NASA is looking
> at. The melting tool would also "tend to sterilize the hole on the way down"
> which would help with the problem of contamination issues.
>
> Halliburton and Baker-Hughes are working on some very advanced systems,
> Briggs said, some so advanced they aren't willing to talk much about them.
> He said the NASA Ames Center relies on working with people in the industry
> who "really understand the problems and make us face up to the realities .
>
> "We do appreciate," he said, "that this is a non-trivial activity."
>
> And as a side note: There's be no reason to expect oil on Mars if NASA
> didn't have prior undisclosed knowledge that Mars once had abundant planet
> and animal life.
>
> NASA is lying to the public big time.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 07:31:29 GMT, "Clif Davis" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Is there anything that goes on that isn't Bush or Cheney's fault?

Not much.

America's War For
Global Domination
By Michel Chossudovsky
globalresearch.ca
1-20-4


We are the juncture of the most serious crisis in modern history.

The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which
threatens the future of humanity.

The wars on Afghanistan and Iraq are part of a broader military agenda,
which was launched at the end of the Cold War. The ongoing war agenda is a
continuation of the 1991 Gulf War and the NATO led wars on Yugoslavia
(1991-2001).

The post Cold War period has also been marked by numerous US covert
intelligence operations within the former Soviet Union, which were
instrumental in triggering civil wars in several of the former republics
including Chechnya (within the Russian Federation), Georgia and Azerbaijan.
In the latter, these covert operations were launched with a view to securing
strategic control over oil and gas pipeline corridors.

US military and intelligence operations in the post Cold War era were led in
close coordination with the "free market reforms" imposed under IMF guidance
in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and the Balkans, which resulted
in the destabilization of national economies and the impoverishment of
millions of people.

The World Bank sponsored privatization programmes in these countries enabled
Western capital to acquire ownership and gain control of a large share of
the economy of the former Eastern block countries. This process is also at
the basis of the strategic mergers and/or takeovers of the former Soviet oil
and gas industry by powerful Western conglomerates, through financial
manipulation and corrupt political practices.

In other words, what is at stake in the US led war is the recolonization of
a vast region extending from the Balkans into Central Asia.

The deployment of America's war machine purports to enlarge America's
economic sphere of influence. The U.S. has established a permanent military
presence not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, it has military bases in several
of the former Soviet republics on China's Western frontier. In turn, since
1999, there has been a military buildup in the South China Sea.

War and Globalization go hand in hand. Militarization supports the conquest
of new economic frontiers and the worldwide imposition of "free market"
system.

The Next Phase of the War

The Bush administration has already identified Syria as the next stage of
"the road map to war". The bombing of presumed 'terrorist bases' in Syria by
the Israeli Air Force in October was intended to provide a justification for
subsequent pre-emptive military interventions. Ariel Sharon launched the
attacks with the approval of Donald Rumsfeld. (See Gordon Thomas, Global
Outlook, No. 6, Winter 2004)

This planned extension of the war into Syria has serious implications. It
means that Israel becomes a major military actor in the US-led war, as well
as an 'official' member of the Anglo-American coalition.

The Pentagon views 'territorial control' over Syria, which constitutes a
land bridge between Israel and occupied Iraq, as 'strategic' from a military
and economic standpoint. It also constitutes a means of controlling the
Iraqi border and curbing the flow of volunteer fighters, who are traveling
to Baghdad to join the Iraqi resistance movement.

This enlargement of the theater of war is consistent with Ariel Sharon's
plan to build a 'Greater Israel' "on the ruins of Palestinian nationalism".
While Israel seeks to extend its territorial domain towards the Euphrates
River, with designated areas of Jewish settlement in the Syrian heartland,
Palestinians are imprisoned in Gaza and the West Bank behind an 'Apartheid
Wall'.

In the meantime, the US Congress has tightened the economic sanctions on
Libya and Iran. As well, Washington is hinting at the need for a 'regime
change' in Saudi Arabia. Political pressures are building up in Turkey.

So, the war could indeed spill over into a much broader region extending
from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Indian sub-continent and China's
Western frontier.

The "Pre-emptive" Use of Nuclear Weapons

Washington has adopted a first strike "pre-emptive" nuclear policy, which
has now received congressional approval. Nuclear weapons are no longer a
weapon of last resort as during the cold War era.

The US, Britain and Israel have a coordinated nuclear weapons policy.
Israeli nuclear warheads are pointed at major cities in the Middle East. The
governments of all three countries have stated quite openly, prior to the
war on Iraq, that they are prepared to use nuclear weapons "if they are
attacked" with so-called "weapons of mass destruction." Israel is the fifth
nuclear power in the World. Its nuclear arsenal is more advanced than that
of Britain.

Barely a few weeks following the entry of the US Marines into Baghdad, the
US Senate Armed Services Committee gave the green light to the Pentagon to
develop a new tactical nuclear bomb, to be used in conventional war
theaters, "with a yield [of up to] six times more powerful than the
Hiroshima bomb".

Following the Senate decision, the Pentagon redefined the details of its
nuclear agenda in a secret meeting with senior executives from the nuclear
industry and the military industrial complex held at Central Command
Headquarters at the Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. The meeting was held
on August 6, the day the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, 58
years ago.

The new nuclear policy explicitly involves the large defense contractors in
decision-making. It is tantamount to the "privatization" of nuclear war.
Corporations not only reap multibillion dollar profits from the production
of nuclear bombs, they also have a direct voice in setting the agenda
regarding the use and deployment of nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon has unleashed a major propaganda and public
relations campaign with a view to upholding the use nuclear weapons for the
"defense of the American Homeland."

Fully endorsed by the US Congress, the mini-nukes are considered to be "safe
for civilians".

This new generation of nuclear weapons is slated to be used in the next
phase of this war, in "conventional war theatres" (e.g. in the Middle East
and Central Asia) alongside conventional weapons.

In December 2003, the US Congress allocated $6.3 billion solely for 2004, to
develop this new generation of "defensive" nuclear weapons.

The overall annual defense budget is of the order of 400 billion dollars,
roughly of the same order of magnitude as the entire Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) of the Russian Federation.

While there is no firm evidence of the use of mini-nukes in the Iraqi and
Afghan war theatres, tests conducted by Canada's Uranium Medical Research
Center (UMRC), in Afghanistan confirm that recorded toxic radiation was not
attributable to 'heavy metal' depleted uranium ammunition (DU), but to
another unidentified form of uranium contamination:


"some form of uranium weapon had been used (...) The results were
astounding: the donors presented concentrations of toxic and radioactive
uranium isotopes between 100 and 400 times greater than in the Gulf War
veterans tested in 1999." www.umrc.net


The Planning of War

The war on Iraq has been in the planning stages at least since the
mid-1990s.

A 1995 National Security document of the Clinton administration stated quite
clearly that the objective of the war is oil. "to protect the United States'
uninterrupted, secure U.S. access to oil.

In September 2000, a few months before the accession of George W. Bush to
the White House, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) published its
blueprint for global domination under the title: "Rebuilding America's
Defenses."

The PNAC is a neo-conservative think tank linked to the Defense-Intelligence
establishment, the Republican Party and the powerful Council on Foreign
Relations (CFR) which plays a behind-the-scenes role in the formulation of
US foreign policy.

The PNAC's declared objective is quite simple - to:


"Fight and decisively win in multiple, simultaneous theater wars".


This statement indicates that the US plans to be involved simultaneously in
several war theaters in different regions of the World.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
and Vice President Dick Cheney had commissioned the PNAC blueprint prior to
the presidential elections.

The PNAC outlines a roadmap of conquest. It calls for "the direct imposition
of U.S. "forward bases" throughout Central Asia and the Middle East "with a
view to ensuring economic domination of the world, while strangling any
potential "rival" or any viable alternative to America's vision of a 'free
market' economy" (See Chris Floyd, Bush's Crusade for empire, Global
Outlook, No. 6, 2003)

The Role of "Massive Casualty Producing Events"

The PNAC blueprint also outlines a consistent framework of war propaganda.
One year before 9/11, the PNAC called for "some catastrophic and catalyzing
event, like a new Pearl Harbor," which would serve to galvanize US public
opinion in support of a war agenda. (See
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAC304A.html )

The PNAC architects seem to have anticipated with cynical accuracy, the use
of the September 11 attacks as "a war pretext incident."

The PNAC's reference to a "catastrophic and catalyzing event" echoes a
similar statement by David Rockefeller to the United Nations Business
Council in 1994:


"We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right
major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."


Similarly, in the words Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book, The Grand
Chessboard:.


"it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus [in America] on
foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and
widely perceived direct external threat."


Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was National Security Adviser to President Jimmy
Carter was one of the key architects of the Al Qaeda network, created by the
CIA at the onslaught of the Soviet Afghan war (1979-1989).

The "catastrophic and catalyzing event" as stated by the PNAC is an integral
part of US military-intelligence planning. General Franks, who led the
military campaign into Iraq, pointed recently (October 2003) to the role of
a "massive casualty-producing event" to muster support for the imposition of
military rule in America. (See General Tommy Franks calls for Repeal of US
Constitution, November 2003,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/EDW311A.html ).

Franks identifies the precise scenario whereby military rule will be
established:


"a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in
the Western world - it may be in the United States of America - that causes
our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize
our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing
event." (Ibid)


This statement from an individual, who was actively involved in military and
intelligence planning at the highest levels, suggests that the
"militarisation of our country" is an ongoing operational assumption. It is
part of the broader "Washington consensus". It identifies the Bush
administration's "roadmap" of war and "Homeland Defense." Needless to say,
it is also an integral part of the neoliberal agenda.

The "terrorist massive casualty-producing event" is presented by General
Franks as a crucial political turning point. The resulting crisis and social
turmoil are intended to facilitate a major shift in US political, social and
institutional structures.

General Franks' statement reflects a consensus within the US Military as to
how events ought to unfold. The "war on terrorism" is to provide a
justification for repealing the Rule of Law, ultimately with a view to
"preserving civil liberties."

Franks' interview suggests that an Al Qaeda sponsored terrorist attack will
be used as a "trigger mechanism" for a military coup d'état in America. The
PNAC's "Pearl Harbor type event" would be used as a justification for
declaring a State of emergency, leading to the establishment of a military
government.

In many regards, the militarisation of civilian State institutions in the US
is already functional under the facade of a bogus democracy.

War Propaganda

In the wake of the September attacks on the World Trade Center, Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld created to the Office of Strategic Influence (OSI),
or "Office of Disinformation" as it was labeled by its critics:


"The Department of Defense said they needed to do this, and they were going
to actually plant stories that were false in foreign countries -- as an
effort to influence public opinion across the world. (Interview with Steve
Adubato, Fox News, 26 December 2002.)


And, all of a sudden, the OSI was formally disbanded following political
pressures and "troublesome" media stories that "its purpose was to
deliberately lie to advance American interests." (Air Force Magazine,
January 2003, italics added) "Rumsfeld backed off and said this is
embarrassing." (Adubato, op. cit. italics added) Yet despite this apparent
about-turn, the Pentagon's Orwellian disinformation campaign remains
functionally intact: "[T]he secretary of defense is not being particularly
candid here. Disinformation in military propaganda is part of war."(Ibid)

Rumsfeld later confirmed in a press interview that while the OSI no longer
exists in name, the "Office's intended functions are being carried out".
(Quoted in Federation of American Scientists (FAS) Secrecy News,
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2002/11/112702.html , Rumsfeld's press
interview can be consulted at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2002/11/dod111802.html ).

A number of government agencies and intelligence units --with links to the
Pentagon-remain actively involved in various components of the propaganda
campaign. Realities are turned upside down. Acts of war are heralded as
"humanitarian interventions" geared towards "regime change" and "the
restoration of democracy". Military occupation and the killing of civilians
are presented as "peace-keeping". The derogation of civil liberties --in the
context of the so-called "anti-terrorist legislation"-- is portrayed as a
means to providing "domestic security" and upholding civil liberties.

The Central Role of Al Qaeda in Bush's National Security Doctrine

Spelled out in the National Security Strategy (NSS), the preemptive
"defensive war" doctrine and the "war on terrorism" against Al Qaeda
constitute the two essential building blocks of the Pentagon's propaganda
campaign.

The objective is to present "preemptive military action" --meaning war as an
act of "self-defense" against two categories of enemies, "rogue States" and
"Islamic terrorists":


"The war against terrorists of global reach is a global enterprise of
uncertain duration. America will act against such emerging threats before
they are fully formed.

Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional
means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of
terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction ()

The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our civilian
population, in direct violation of one of the principal norms of the law of
warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses on September 11, 2001, mass
civilian casualties is the specific objective of terrorists and these losses
would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons
of mass destruction.

The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to
counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the
threat, the greater is the risk of inaction- and the more compelling the
case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, (). To forestall or
prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if
necessary, act preemptively."12 (National Security Strategy, White House,
2002, http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html )


To justify pre-emptive military actions, the National Security Doctrine
requires the "fabrication" of a terrorist threat, --ie. "an outside enemy."
It also needs to link these terrorist threats to "State sponsorship" by the
so-called "rogue states."

But it also means that the various "massive casualty-producing events"
allegedly by Al Qaeda (the fabricated enemy) are part of the National
Security agenda.

In the months building up to the invasion of Iraq, covert 'dirty tricks'
operations were launched to produce misleading intelligence pertaining to
both Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and Al Qaeda, which was then fed into
the news chain.

In the wake of the war, while the WMD threat has been toned down, Al Qaeda
threats to 'the Homeland' continue to be repeated ad nauseam in official
statements, commented on network TV and pasted on a daily basis across the
news tabloids.

And underlying these manipulated realties, "Osama bin Laden" terrorist
occurrences are being upheld as a justification for the next phase of this
war. The latter hinges in a very direct way:


1) the effectiveness of the Pentagon-CIA propaganda campaign, which is fed
into the news chain.

2) The actual occurrence of "massive casualty producing events" as outlined
in the PNAC


What this means is that actual ("massive casualty producing") terrorist
events are part and parcel of military planning.

Actual Terrorist Attacks

In other words, to be "effective" the fear and disinformation campaign
cannot solely rely on unsubstantiated "warnings" of future attacks, it also
requires "real" terrorist occurrences or "incidents", which provide
credibility to the Washington's war plans. These terrorist events are used
to justify the implementation of "emergency measures" as well as
"retaliatory military actions". They are required, in the present context,
to create the illusion of "an outside enemy" that is threatening the
American Homeland.

The triggering of "war pretext incidents" is part of the Pentagon's
assumptions. In fact it is an integral part of US military history.(See
Richard Sanders, War Pretext Incidents, How to Start a War, Global Outlook,
published in two parts, Issues 2 and 3, 2002-2003).

In 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had envisaged a secret plan entitled
"Operation Northwoods", to deliberately trigger civilian casualties to
justify the invasion of Cuba:


"We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," "We could
develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other
Florida cities and even in Washington" "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers
would cause a helpful wave of national indignation." (See the declassified
Top Secret 1962 document titled "Justification for U.S. Military
Intervention in Cuba"16 (See Operation Northwoods at
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NOR111A.html ).


There is no evidence that the Pentagon or the CIA played a direct role in
recent terrorist attacks, including those in Indonesia (2002), India (2001),
Turkey (2003) and Saudi Arabia (2003).

According to the reports, the attacks were undertaken by organizations (or
cells of these organizations), which operate quite independently, with a
certain degree of autonomy. This independence is in the very nature of a
covert intelligence operation. The &laqno;intelligence asset» is not in
direct contact with its covert sponsors. It is not necessarily cognizant of
the role it plays on behalf of its intelligence sponsors.

The fundamental question is who is behind them? Through what sources are
they being financed? What is the underlying network of ties?

For instance, in the case of the 2002 Bali bomb attack, the alleged
terrorist organization Jemaah Islamiah had links to Indonesia's military
intelligence (BIN), which in turn has links to the CIA and Australian
intelligence.

The December 2001 terrorist attacks on the Indian Parliament --which
contributed to pushing India and Pakistan to the brink of war-- were
allegedly conducted by two Pakistan-based rebel groups, Lashkar-e-Taiba
("Army of the Pure") and Jaish-e-Muhammad ("Army of Mohammed"), both of
which according to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) are supported by
Pakistan's ISI. (Council on Foreign Relations at
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/harakat2.html , Washington 2002).

What the CFR fails to acknowledge is the crucial relationship between the
ISI and the CIA and the fact that the ISI continues to support Lashkar,
Jaish and the militant Jammu and Kashmir Hizbul Mujahideen (JKHM), while
also collaborating with the CIA. (For further details see Michel
Chossudovsky, Fabricating an Enemy, March 2003,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO301B.html )

A 2002 classified outbrief drafted to guide the Pentagon "calls for the
creation of a so-called 'Proactive, Pre-emptive Operations Group' (P2OG), to
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." (William Arkin, The Secret War,
The Los Angeles Times, 27 October 2002)

The P2OG initiative is nothing new. It essentially extends an existing
apparatus of covert operations. Amply documented, the CIA has supported
terrorist groups since the Cold War era. This "prodding of terrorist cells"
under covert intelligence operations often requires the infiltration and
training of the radical groups linked to Al Qaeda.

In this regard, covert support by the US military and intelligence apparatus
has been channeled to various Islamic terrorist organizations through a
complex network of intermediaries and intelligence proxies. In the course of
the 1990s, agencies of the US government have collaborated with Al Qaeda in
a number of covert operations, as confirmed by a 1997 report of the
Republican Party Committee of the US Congress. (See US Congress, 16 January
1997, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/DCH109A.html ). In fact during
the war in Bosnia US weapons inspectors were working with Al Qaeda
operatives, bringing in large amounts of weapons for the Bosnian Muslim
Army.

In other words, the Clinton Administration was "harboring terrorists".
Moreover, official statements and intelligence reports confirm links between
US military-intelligence units and Al Qaeda operatives, as occurred in
Bosnia (mid 1990s), Kosovo (1998-99) and Macedonia (2001).(See See Michel
Chossudovsky, War and Globalisation, The Truth behind September 11, Global
Outlook, 2003, Chapter 3,
http://globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/truth911.html )

The Bush Administration and NATO had links to Al Qaeda in Macedonia. And
this happened barely a few weeks before September 11, 2001, Senior U.S.
military advisers from a private mercenary outfit on contract to the
Pentagon, were fighting alongside Mujahideen in the terrorist attacks on the
Macedonian Security forces. This is documented by the Macedonian press and
statements made by the Macedonian authorities. (See Michel Chossudovsky, op
cit). The U.S. government and the Islamic Militant Network were working hand
in glove in supporting and financing the National Liberation Army (NLA),
which was involved in the terrorist attacks in Macedonia.

In other words, the US military was collaborating directly with Al Qaeda
barely a few weeks before 9/11.

Al Qaeda and Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI)

It is indeed revealing that in virtually all post 9/11 terrorist
occurrences, the terrorist organization is reported (by the media and in
official statements) as having "ties to Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda". This in
itself is a crucial piece of information. Of course, the fact that Al Qaeda
is a creation of the CIA is neither mentioned in the press reports nor is it
considered relevant to an understanding of these terrorist occurrences.

The ties of these terrorist organizations (particularly those in Asia) to
Pakistan's military intelligence (ISI) is acknowledged in a few cases by
official sources and press dispatches. Confirmed by the Council on Foreign
Relations (CFR), some of these groups are said to have links to Pakistan's
ISI, without identifying the nature of these links. Needless to say, this
information is crucial in identifying the sponsors of these terrorist
attacks. In other words, the ISI is said to support these terrorist
organizations, while at same time maintaining close ties to the CIA.

September 11

While Colin Powell --without supporting evidence-pointed in his February
2003 UN address to "the sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaeda
terrorist network", official documents, press and intelligence reports
confirm that successive US administrations have supported and abetted the
Islamic militant network. This relationship is an established fact,
corroborated by numerous studies, acknowledged by Washington's mainstream
think tanks.

Both Colin Powell and his Deputy Richard Armitage, who in the months leading
up to the war casually accused Baghdad and other foreign governments of
"harboring" Al Qaeda, played a direct role, at different points in their
careers, in supporting terrorist organizations.

Both men were implicated --operating behind the scenes-- in the Irangate
Contra scandal during the Reagan Administration, which involved the illegal
sale of weapons to Iran to finance the Nicaraguan Contra paramilitary army
and the Afghan Mujahideen. (For further details, see Michel Chossudovsky,
Expose the Links between Al Qaeda and the Bush Administration,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO303D.html )

Moreover, both Richard Armitage and Colin Powell played a role in the 9/11
cover-up. The investigations and research conducted in the last two years,
including official documents, testimonies and intelligence reports, indicate
that September 11 was an carefully planned intelligence operation, rather
than a act conducted by a terrorist organization. (For further details, see
Centre for Research on Globalization, 24 Key articles, September 2003)

The FBI confirmed in a report made public late September 2001 the role of
Pakistan's Military Intelligence. According to the report, the alleged 9-11
ring leader, Mohammed Atta, had been financed from sources out of Pakistan.
A subsequent intelligence report confirmed that the then head of the ISI
General Mahmoud Ahmad had transferred money to Mohammed Atta. (See Michel
Chossudovsky, War and Globalization, op.cit.)

Moreover, press reports and official statements confirm that the head of the
ISI, was an official visit to the US from the 4th to 13th of September 2001.
In other words, the head of Pakistan's ISI, who allegedly transferred money
to the terrorists also had a close personal relationship with a number of
senior Bush Administration officials, including Colin Powell, CIA Director
George Tenet and Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage, whom he met in the
course of his visit to Washington. (Ibid)

The Antiwar Movement

A cohesive antiwar movement cannot be based solely on the mobilization of
antiwar sentiment. It must ultimately unseat the war criminals and question
their right to rule.

A necessary condition for bringing down the rulers is to weaken and
eventually dismantle their propaganda campaign.

The momentum of the large anti-war rallies in the US, the European Union and
around the world, should lay the foundations of a permanent network composed
of tens of thousands of local level anti-war committees in neighborhoods,
work places, parishes, schools, universities, etc. It is ultimately through
this network that the legitimacy of those who "rule in our name" will be
challenged.

To shunt the Bush Administration's war plans and disable its propaganda
machine, we must reach out to our fellow citizens across the land, in the
US, Europe and around the world, to the millions of ordinary people who have
been misled on the causes and consequences of this war.

This also implies fully uncovering the lies behind the "war on terrorism"
and revealing the political complicity of the Bush administration in the
events of 9/11.

September 11 is a hoax. It's the biggest lie in US history.

Needless to say, the use of "massive casualty producing events" as pretext
to wage war is a criminal act. In the words of Andreas van Buelow, former
German Minister of Technology and author of The CIA and September 11:


"If what I say is right, the whole US government should end up behind bars."


Yet it is not sufficient to remove George W. Bush or Tony Blair, who are
mere puppets. We must also address the role of the global banks,
corporations and financial institutions, which indelibly stand behind the
military and political actors.

Increasingly, the military-intelligence establishment (rather than the State
Department, the White House and the US Congress) is calling the shots on US
foreign policy. Meanwhile, the Texas oil giants, the defense contractors,
Wall Street and the powerful media giants, operating discreetly behind the
scenes, are pulling the strings. If politicians become a source of major
embarrassment, they can themselves be discredited by the media, discarded
and a new team of political puppets can be brought to office.

Criminalization of the State

The "Criminalization of the State", is when war criminals legitimately
occupy positions of authority, which enable them to decide "who are the
criminals", when in fact they are criminals.

In the US, both Republicans and Democrats share the same war agenda and
there are war criminals in both parties. Both parties are complicit in the
9/11 cover-up and the resultant quest for world domination. All the evidence
points to what is best described as "the criminalisation of the State",
which includes the Judiciary and the bipartisan corridors of the US
Congress. .

Under the war agenda, high ranking officials of the Bush administration,
members of the military, the US Congress and the Judiciary have been granted
the authority not only to commit criminal acts, but also to designate those
in the antiwar movement who are opposed to these criminal acts as "enemies
of the State."

More generally, the US military and security apparatus endorses and supports
dominant economic and financial interests - i.e. the build-up, as well as
the exercise, of military might enforces "free trade". The Pentagon is an
arm of Wall Street; NATO coordinates its military operations with the World
Bank and the IMF's policy interventions, and vice versa. Consistently, the
security and defense bodies of the Western military alliance, together with
the various civilian governmental and intergovernmental bureaucracies (e.g.
IMF, World Bank, WTO) share a common understanding, ideological consensus
and commitment to the New World Order.

To reverse the tide of war, military bases must be closed down, the war
machine (namely the production of advanced weapons systems like WMDs) must
be stopped and the burgeoning police state must be dismantled. More
generally we must reverse the "free market" reforms, dismantle the
institutions of global capitalism and disarm financial markets.

The struggle must be broad-based and democratic encompassing all sectors of
society at all levels, in all countries, uniting in a major thrust: workers,
farmers, independent producers, small businesses, professionals, artists,
civil servants, members of the clergy, students and intellectuals.

The antiwar and anti-globalisation movements must be integrated into a
single worldwide movement. People must be united across sectors, "single
issue" groups must join hands in a common and collective understanding on
how the New World Order destroys and impoverishes.

The globalization of this struggle is fundamental, requiring a degree of
solidarity and internationalism unprecedented in world history. This global
economic system feeds on social divisiveness between and within countries.
Unity of purpose and worldwide coordination among diverse groups and social
movements is crucial. A major thrust is required which brings together
social movements in all major regions of the world in a common pursuit and
commitment to the elimination of poverty and a lasting world peace.

-
The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca
grants permission to cross-post original CRG articles in their entirety, or
any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the text and
title of the article are not modified. The source must be acknowledged as
follows: Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca
.. The active URL hyperlink address of the original CRG article and the
author's copyright note must be clearly displayed. (For articles from other
news sources, check with the original copyright holder, where applicable.)
For publication of CRG articles in print or other forms including commercial
internet sites, contact: (E-Mail Removed) .

© Copyright Michel Chossudovsky 2003 For fair use only/ pour usage équitable
seulement.

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO312A.html