Aside from the high profile false flags of 9/11 and JFK assassination, there are many others which Dr. Barrett contextualizes and deconstructs. A portrait emerges of how the government routinely uses and rationalizes terror to enforce public acceptance of its permanent war agenda. It’s internal catch phrase is: The enemy must be created and sustained.
Dr. Barrett offered the following bio
Kevin Barrett, Ph.D., an American Muslim and Islamic Studies scholar is one of America’s best-known critics of the War on Terror. A specialist in North African Studies and Sufism, his career underwent a sudden shift in 2006, when Wisconsin state legislator Steve Nass and 60 Republican colleagues demanded he be fired from his teaching position at the University of Wisconsin-Madison due to remarks he made on Jessica McBride’s WTMJ radio show characterizing 9/11 as a false flag operation. Although UW-Madison initially refused to fire him and his students gave him high marks, the witch-hunt created an un-erasable Internet “paper trail” that left him “politically unemployable,” as whistleblowers on two hiring committees, including Dr. Howard Ross at U.W.-Whitewater, have observed.
Since then Dr. Barrett has authored and edited several books, including Truth Jihad (2007), 9/11 and American Empire, Vol. 2 (2007), Questioning the War on Terror (2008), We Are NOT Charlie Hebdo (2015), ANOTHER French False Flag (2016) and Orlando False Flag (2016). He has edited and translated From Yahweh to Zion by Laurent Guyenot (2018). Dr. Barrett has appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS and other broadcast outlets.
He has inspired feature stories and op-eds in The New York Times, The Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, and other mainstream publications. He also authored the first three mainstream American newspaper op-eds (in The Capital Times of Madison, Wisconsin) calling 9/11 an inside job, and organized Dr. David Ray Griffin’s April 2005 talk at UW-Madison nationally telecast on C-SPAN. A former teacher at colleges and universities in Paris, the San Francisco Bay Area, and Wisconsin, Dr. Barrett currently works as author, talk radio host, False Flag Weekly News host, editor at Veterans Today, and international TV pundit. His website is TruthJihad.com.
PRE- AND POST-9/11 FALSE FLAGS:
HOW WEAPONS OF MASS DECEPTION ARE INTERDEPENDENT
By Kevin Barrett
(The following is an excerpt fromWe Are NOT Charlie Hebdo!: Free Thinkers Question the French 9/11 (2015)
We interpret new information by comparing it to past experience—more precisely, to stories we tell ourselves about past experience. If we have perceived an apparent pattern, such as angry Muslims reacting violently when their Prophet is insulted, we assume that each new incident, such as the Charlie Hebdo attack, must fit the same template. It is these "pubic myths," as they are called by self-styled public mythmaker Philip Zelikow, that structure the social reality we inhabit. And as Zelikow notes, it doesn't matter whether or not they are true; the important thing is that they are widely believed to be true.
One of the public myths that grounds Americans' and Europeans' understanding of their political systems is the myth of the lone nut. Assassinations of powerful and influential individuals, public outbursts of violence with political consequences—these are generally attributed to marginalized individuals or groups, rather than to the powerful individuals and institutions that stand to benefit from the crimes. Each new incident, each new lone nut, each new terrorist attack, is written off in advance as another example of senseless violence, of the lashing-out of the marginalized.
But what if there are other patterns at play? What if such violence is more often instrumentalized than random? What if much of the spectacular mayhem fed to us by the media has been fabricated by those who gain from it?
Lance deHaven-Smith writes in his groundbreaking Conspiracy Theory in America:
The tendency to consider suspicious political events individually and in isolation rather than collectively and comparatively is not limited to the conspiracy-theory literature; it is built into the conspiracy-theory label and has become a pervasive predisposition in U.S. civic culture. For Americans, each assassination, each election breakdown, each defense failure, each war justified by "mistaken" claims is perceived as a unique event arising from its own special circumstances. While Americans in the present generation have personally witnessed many political crimes and tragedies, we see them as if through a fly's eye, situating each event in a separate compartment of memories and context.1
Smith asserts that the bias toward considering each suspicious political event as a separate case prevails even when those events are closely connected. For example, he suggests, despite obvious circumstantial evidence that John and Robert Kennedy were killed by the same people (right-wing US military and intelligence personnel backed by conservative oligarchs) for the same reasons (to maintain the Cold War in general and the Vietnam war in particular) the two assassinations are generally "seen as entirely unrelated" even by those who recognize them as inside jobs.2
Another series of apparent State Crimes Against Democracy (SCADS) that should be viewed as a coherent group, but often is not, is the subject of this chapter: The continuing progression of suspected false flag events serving as a public relations campaign for the so-called Global War on Terror (GWOT). From the questionable World Trade Center bombing of 1993, the "al-Qaeda" attacks on the US embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi in 1998, the attack on the USS Cole in October 2000, to the subsequent false flag atrocities of 9/11-anthrax, Bali, Madrid, London, and Mumbai, to the Fort Hood shooter, the underwear bomber, the Boston Marathon bombing, the Times Square bomb attempt, the chemical weapons attack at al-Ghouta, Syria, and Islamic State atrocities and beheading videos, to the late 2014 through early 2015 attacks in Canada, Australia, France, and Denmark, the ongoing phenomenon of extremist, apparently strategically counterproductive terror attributed to radical Islam but sometimes performed or enabled by Western intelligence agencies and their privatized spin-offs, demands to be considered as a unified phenomenon, not a series of isolated events.
Those who question any one of these alleged Islamic terror incidents in isolation are at a disadvantage in relation to the purveyors of the official story, who can draw on a larger narrative that synthesizes the whole series of events as examples of an alleged Islamist threat. For example, 9/11 truth-seekers are routinely challenged about other alleged Islamic extremist attacks, especially those that preceded 9/11, by defenders of the received notion equating terrorism with radical Islam. The larger notion of a radical Islamist terror threat, for mainstream thinkers, has become a myth that conditions the interpretation of any specific event purporting to involve Islam and terrorism. Because they have accepted the Islamic terror myth as a mode of interpreting reality that is ontologically superior to mere facts, defenders of the status quo are impervious to challenges questioning the empirical evidence supporting a conventional interpretation of any specific terror incident.
9/11-Anthrax: Lynchpin of a Terror Myth
The mythic interpretive template directing Americans to blame Muslims for terrorist incidents was hammered deep into public consciousness on September 11th, 2001. Almost from the moment the Twin Towers were struck, TV news anchors, expert guests and political leaders began chanting the magic words "al-Qaeda" and "Bin Laden" despite the lack of evidence supporting such an interpretation. The very next day, as if by magic, a list with 19 names of alleged radical Muslim hijackers materialized, supposedly discovered in Mohamed Atta's suitcase, which (we were told) had somehow failed to make the transfer between the commuter plane Atta took from Portland, Maine to Boston and the doomed Flight 11.3
Though the list of 19 names included two who died before 9/11 and ten who were alive after 9/114, and though Atta's suitcase included incompetently forged documents such as his supposed will beginning with a botched bismillah reading "In the name of God, myself and my family"5 – and though the notion of Atta putting his will and a list of hijackers in a suitcase headed for oblivion makes even less sense than the story of his driving from Boston to Portland on September 10th so he would have to catch a commuter flight with a tight connection to Flight 11 – the absurdly improbable account was uncritically accepted by mainstream institutions including the media, the courts, Congress, and most of the academy. Even when a former high-level intelligence official admitted to the New Yorker that the so-called evidence implicating the alleged hijackers was obviously planted, saying “Whatever trail was left was left deliberately—for the FBI to chase,” mainstream investigative journalists were unwilling to dig deeper to discover who had planted the evidence and left the false trail.6
9/11-anthrax appears to have been designed to etch in stone the mythic template equating Islam and terrorism.7 One year earlier, in September 2000, the neoconservative Zionists at Project for a New American Century had called for a "catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a New Pearl Harbor."8 As 9/11 Commission scriptwriter Philip Zelikow had written in a 1998 Foreign Affairs article envisioning a terrorist attack destroying the World Trade Center: "Like Pearl Harbor, this event would divide our past and future into a before and after."9 Zelikow, that self-described expert in the "creation and maintenance of public myths,"10 knew that 9/11 or its equivalent would be remembered in the collective imagination as the kind of primordial event similar to the creation of the world in creation myths. Such events are remembered as transformative catalysts that divide time into a nebulous long-ago-and-far-away "before" and an "after" that is the world as we know it. Zelikow and his fellow Zionist neocons also knew that the new world "after" 9/11 would be dominated by a mythic interpretive framework demonizing Muslims as terrorist enemies. After the creation of the public myth of Islamic terror via the "catastrophic and catalyzing event" of 9/11-anthrax, maintenance of that public myth could be performed by intermittently creating or publicizing smaller terror events.
Thus 9/11-anthrax played a central role in the creation of the Islamic terror myth. Prior to the autumn of 2001, such high profile but far-from-catalyzing events as the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the African embassy bombings, and the USS Cole attack paved the road to 9/11-anthrax by creating a plausible enemy image on whom the coming "New Pearl Harbor" could be blamed. While space does not permit a detailed analysis of these three events, I will briefly summarize key points cited by those who argue for the false flag interpretation of the three major pre-9/11 alleged Islamic extremist attacks.
Pre-9/11 False Flags: Creating a Plausible Enemy
Compelling evidence indicates that the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, like 9/11, was an inside job. Such evidence includes testimony by an outraged Emad Salem, the FBI informant and agent provocateur who hatched the plot and directed its logistics, that the FBI had promised him that it would build a phony non-explosive bomb but "we didn't do that."11 As the New York Times reported: "'Do you deny,' Mr. Salem says he told the other agent, 'your supervisor is the main reason of bombing the World Trade Center?' Mr. Salem said Mr. Anticev did not deny it."12 Additionally, the official story that the FBI cracked the case when Mohammed A. Salameh, who had rented the truck used in the bombing, was arrested when he returned to the rental company to ask for his deposit back makes no sense.
Like the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the bombings of two US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998 appear to have been inside jobs facilitated by an American agent provocateur. The undercover American agent who arranged the African embassy bombings was US Army Sgt. Ali Mohamed. Though the official cover story holds that Sgt. Mohamed infiltrated the US military on behalf of al-Qaeda rather than the other way around, the preponderance of evidence suggests the contrary. Mainstream investigative journalist Peter Lance, pretending to support the cover story while publishing evidence against it, reports:
Ali Mohamed … was something of an al Qaeda super-spy who managed to work with terrorists, the Green Berets, the CIA and become an FBI informant, even while ensuring Osama bin Laden’s safe passage around the middle east. For years, Triple Cross alleges, the FBI and specifically [prosecutor Patrick] Fitzgerald, knew about him but allowed Mohamed’s activities to continue unchecked.14
University of California professor Peter Dale Scott confirms that Sgt. Mohamed "worked for the FBI, the CIA, and U.S. Special Forces."15 Scott reports that Sgt. Mohamed's FBI handler John Zent facilitated the African embassy bombings by telling the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to release Mohamed, who had been held as a terrorist suspect.16 Scott cites numerous similar examples showing that Mohamed enjoyed official US government protection while carrying out his terrorist activities.
Like the 1993 and 1998 bombings, the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, which killed 17 sailors and wounded 49, appears to have been facilitated or orchestrated by corrupt US government officials. Handicapped teenager Tawfiq Bin Attash, publicly billed as a mastermind of the attack, was in no position to succeed with his harebrained scheme of filling a dinghy with explosives and attacking the next American ship that passed by. Attash and his friends must have had professional inside help finding out when the USS Cole would be passing within range; their booby-trapped dinghy provided cover for a pre-planted explosion from within the ship that did most of the damage. (The modus operandi echoed the false flag sinking of the USS Maine by a bomb planted inside the ship, blamed on a nonexistent Spanish attack from without.17 In July, 2001, the Yemeni government's investigation concluded that the American government had bombed its own ship as a pretext for military action of some kind, possibly including a planned invasion and occupation of the port of Aden.18But in retrospect it seems that the overriding strategic purpose of the USS Cole bombing was to pave the road to 9/11-anthrax by hoisting the false flag of al-Qaeda to the level of plausible patsy.
Post-9/11 False Flags: Maintaining the Public Myth
Just as an intermittent series of relatively small false-flag attacks set the stage for 9/11-anthrax and its enshrinement of the Islamic terror myth, another series of relatively minor attacks since 2001 has kept the terror pot boiling. The first major 9/11-anthrax follow up was the Bali bombing, which Australian journalist Joe Vialls argued was accomplished by an Israeli miniature nuclear weapon.19 While this may come as news to consumers of the Western mainstream media, most Indonesians recognized the false flag from day one. As Sidney Jones reported in The Observer two weeks after the crime: "Absurd, as it may seem, if talk shows and media commentaries are any indication, the most likely candidates in most Indonesians' minds are the U.S. government and the Indonesian army."20 The Indonesians were likely right. Eyewitness Dmitri Khalezov has testified that former Israeli Mossad chief Mike Harari was arrested in Thailand for orchestrating the Bali bombing, then released under pressure from foreign governments. Khalezov has provided documents supporting his assertion.21 An American-supported Israeli mini-nuke attack has emerged as the most plausible scenario for the Bali attack.
The next spectacular international attack attributed to al-Qaeda was the Madrid train bombing of March 11th, 2004 – which, coincidentally or not, occurred exactly 911 days after 9/11. French journalist Mathieu Miquel, relying exclusively on official court documents and from Spanish mainstream media sources, reports: "As incredible as it may seem, the evidence that supposedly confirms the theory (that Islamists carried out the attacks) cannot stand up to rigorous analysis. And the suspicious behavior of certain elements of the police forces clearly indicates the existence of an intent to sabotage the investigation."22 If the police framed innocent Muslims and sabotaged the investigation, the attack must have been yet another false flag designed to maintain the Islamic terror myth.
Then came the London mass transit bombings of July 7th, 2005. Once again, the official attempt to convict Islamist terrorists falls apart upon close inspection. Scholar and author Nafeez Ahmed has written a book raising questions about the official story,23 while another British academician, Nick Kollerstrom, has written an even longer book demonstrating at length and in detail that the event was clearly a government-sponsored false flag attack and that the Muslim patsies were innocent.24
In November 2008 another spectacular, supposedly Muslim extremist attack occurred in Mumbai, India. Pakistani TV host and defense analyst Zaid Hamid has cited evidence that this attack, known in India as 26/11, was the product of Hindu extremists in Indian intelligence in collaboration with the Israeli Mossad.25 It later emerged that a CIA agent named David Headley had orchestrated the attack.26 Headley apparently masterminded the attack on behalf of Zionist elements in US and Indian intelligence, with Mossad behind them, in order to falsely blame the attack on Pakistan: "Although American and Indian investigators have used David Headley in order to link him with Pakistan, yet his real connections are concerned with Indian secret agency RAW [ India's most powerful intelligence agency] and American CIA."27
For simplicity's sake, I will focus for the remainder of this overview of post-9/11 synthetic terror on the USA, the would-be unipolar world hegemon whose acceptance of the Islamic terror myth is most crucial to the neoconservative-Zionist program.
After a hiatus lasting most of the decade, the false flag of Islamic terror was re-hoisted in the USA following the Fort Hood shootings of November 2009. (Technically this event cannot be classified under the terrorism rubric since the victims were soldiers, not civilians.) American historian and terror analyst Webster Tarpley writes that the Fort Hood massacre attributed to Major Nidal Hasan unleashed "an articulated campaign of media hysteria and mass manipulation."28 Tarpley went on to question the official story of the shootings by citing reports of multiple shooters, adding: "There remains the question of whether Major Hasan’s psychosis has been artificially produced through a program of brainwashing and heavy-duty 'Clockwork Orange' psychological manipulation." That question would re-emerge in 2014 in connection to another likely Manchurian Candidate terrorist, the leader of Islamic State and self-proclaimed Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
If the Fort Hood shooting was tragic, the follow-up incident involving a so-called underwear bomber was pure farce. While the American people were told that a terrorist named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab had packed his underwear full of plastic explosives in hope of blowing up a jetliner, they were not told that Abdulmutallab did not have a detonator—and that plastic explosives cannot explode without a detonator. Worse, eyewitnesses saw Abdulmutallab boarding the Detroit-bound plane in Amsterdam without a passport, escorted by a "sharply-dressed man" who appeared to be some sort of security agent. A cameraman on board the plane was clearly complicit in the attack, beginning to film shortly before the attack began, and panning seamlessly to capture the entire episode as if on cue. Passenger and eyewitness Kurt Haskell, a Detroit attorney, has published convincing evidence that the whole affair was a poorly-disguised false flag operation.29 ABC News reported Haskell's courtroom testimony: "I am convinced that Umar was given an intentionally defective bomb by a U.S. agent to stage a false terrorist attack."30
A subsequent headline-garnering reminder of the alleged Islamic terror threat was the Times Square bombing attempt of May 1st, 2010. Like the underwear bombing incident, the Times Square scare involved an utterly incompetent terrorist patsy and a so-called bomb that was highly unlikely to explode. According to former US intelligence insider Gordon Duff, editor of Veterans Today, the fake attack was "part of a CIA false flag against Pakistan."31
The next major American myth-maintenance operation was the Boston Marathon bombing of April 2013. If anything, this alleged Islamic terror incident was an even more crushingly obvious false flag than its predecessors. Photographs taken at the scene show that the exploded backpack the FBI claims held a bomb was not worn by either Tsarnaev brother, but instead by an unknown man wearing a cap with insignia of Craft International, a Blackwater-style outfit owned by "American Sniper" Chris Kyle specializing in mercenary mayhem whose motto is "Sometimes violence does solve problems." Craft and the officials who hired them hid from the media and refused to either deny or explain the mercenaries' presence at the Marathon.32 Video taken at the scene reveals apparently staged carnage complete with theatrical pseudo-amputations of artificial limbs and poorly-distributed amounts of cinematic fake blood..33 The FBI murdered a key witness, Ibrahim Todashev, execution style while he was in custody.34 The Tsarnaevs' uncle Ruslan Tsarnaev was married to Samantha Fuller, daughter of notorious CIA agent Graham Fuller, until 2004.35 Graham Fuller has allegedly been implicated in a number of scandals including the Iran-Contra affair and the creation of al-Qaeda.36 He provided support to Chechens fighting against Russia.37
Fuller has advocated "guiding the evolution of Islam" and has been called the CIA controller for the ethnic Turkish USA-based Fethullah Gulen organization which controls over $20 billion in assets and has been accused of trying to overthrow the government of Turkey.38 While in Turkey in May 2011 I met with leading Turkish journalists who said Fuller, who headed the CIA station in that country in September 2001, threatened them and told them not to question the official story of 9/11 in print. In a February 20th 2015 email to this author, Fuller derided the allegations, saying "My voluminous writings over the years make abundantly clear what my position is on a wealth of issues and my consistent criticisms of US policies; these ridiculous allegations are simply utterly inconsistent with what I say, do or write." Given his opposition to neoconservative-driven Islamophobia, it is conceivable that Fuller has been slandered by neocon operatives, and that the accusations against him are baseless or exaggerated.
With or without Graham Fuller, think tanks and covert operations professionals have certainly "guided the evolution of Islam" not only by propping up such "moderate Muslim" Zionist apologists as Fethullah Gulen, but also by promoting the appalling and repulsive sectarian cruelty of so-called Islamic State, formerly known as ISIS or ISIL. This extremist group, which primarily attacks Muslims and to a lesser extent Christians as it destabilizes Israel's potential enemies, was armed and trained at CIA bases in Jordan and unleashed against the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad and later Iraq.39 According to an American mainstream media report that has been scrubbed from the internet, as well as numerous Iraqi reports, pretender to the caliphate Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was held by US forces at Camp Bucca at least four years despite official denials.40 The official attempt to cover up al-Baghdadi's four year stay at Camp Bucca suggests that the self-styled caliph may have been enlisted or even mind-controlled while in US custody.41 The preponderance of evidence suggests that Zionist elements of US-NATO manufactured ISIS not only to destabilize Israel's potential enemies, but also to maintain the public myth of Islamic terror and the clash of civilizations it spawned.
The Emerging Counter-Narrative
By considering the above series of high-profile false flag attacks attributed to Muslims as a coherent phenomenon, rather than a series of isolated events, we are preparing the ground for an emerging counter-narrative challenging the myth of Islamic terror. This counter-narrative begins with the observation that no rational American should fear terrorism of any kind, since it poses a threat to human life and limb far below the level of lightning strikes and bathtub drownings.42 It continues with the observation that according to the American FBI, only 6% of terrorist attacks on American soil are even attributed (whether correctly or incorrectly) to radical Muslims, who statistically pose less of a terror threat than radical Jews, leftists, or hispanics – despite imbalanced media coverage suggesting the contrary.43 Finally, it asks who created and promoted the false notion of an Islamic terrorist threat, and for what ends...and answers the question by pointing to neoconservative Zionists, whose political philosophy is based on the need for an enemy, whether actual or mythical.44
In the absence of a coherent counter-narrative, those questioning the official story of any alleged terror attack are at a serious disadvantage. A high-level aide to George W. Bush, reputed to be Karl Rove, famously suggested to journalist Ron Suskind that artificially-created public myths have superseded empirical reality:
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore." He continued "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."45
While narratives can certainly take leave from reality, especially when fabricated by liars, they can also serve as honest efforts to communicate reality. The reality-based community should recognize the power of narrative and fight back against the empire of lies by telling truthful stories that outstrip the false ones promulgated by political hacks. And perhaps the most important truthful counter-narrative available today is the above-sketched revisionist account of the so-called War on Terror.