Sunday, February 8, 2015

The True History of the Origins of Police -- Protecting and Serving the Masters of Society

Go To Original

In most of the liberal discussions of the recent police killings of unarmed black men, there is an underlying assumption that the police are supposed to protect and serve the population. That is, after all, what they were created to do. Maybe there are a few bad apples, but if only the police weren’t so racist, or didn’t carry out policies like stop-and-frisk, or weren’t so afraid of black people, or shot fewer unarmed men, they could function as a useful service that we all need.

This liberal way of viewing the problem rests on a misunderstanding of the origins of the police and what they were created to do. The police were not created to protect and serve the population. They were not created to stop crime, at least not as most people understand it. And they were certainly not created to promote justice. They were created to protect the new form of wage-labor capitalism that emerged in the mid- to late-19th century from the threat posed by that system’s offspring, the working class.

Before the 19th century, there were no police forces that we would recognize as such anywhere in the world. In the northern United States, there was a system of elected constables and sheriffs, much more responsible to the population in a very direct way than the police are today. In the South, the closest thing to a police force was the slave patrols. Then, as Northern cities grew and filled with mostly immigrant wage workers who were physically and socially separated from the ruling class, the wealthy elite who ran the various municipal governments hired hundreds and then thousands of armed men to impose order on the new working-class neighborhoods.

Class conflict roiled late-19th century American cities like Chicago, which experienced major strikes and riots in 1867, 1877, 1886 and 1894. In each of these upheavals, the police attacked strikers with extreme violence. In the aftermath of these movements, the police increasingly presented themselves as a thin blue line protecting civilization, by which they meant bourgeois civilization, from the disorder of the working class. This ideology has been reproduced ever since — except that today, poor black and Latino people rather than immigrant workers are the main threat.

Of course, the ruling class did not get everything it wanted. It had to yield on many points to the immigrant workers it sought to control — this is why, for instance, municipal governments backed away from trying to stop Sunday drinking and why they hired so many immigrant police officers, especially the Irish. But despite these concessions, businessmen organized themselves to make sure the police were increasingly isolated from democratic control. The police, meanwhile, increasingly set themselves off from the population by donning uniforms; establishing their own rules for hiring, promotion and firing; working to build a unique esprit de corps; and identifying themselves with order. And despite complaints about corruption and inefficiency, they gained more and more support from the ruling class, to the extent that in Chicago, for instance, businessmen donated money to buy the police rifles, artillery, Gatling guns and buildings and to establish a police pension out of their own pockets.

There was a never a time when the big city police neutrally enforced “the law” — nor, for that matter, a time when the law itself was neutral. Throughout the 19th century in the North, the police mostly arrested people for the vaguely defined “crimes” of disorderly conduct and vagrancy, which meant that they could target anyone they saw as a threat to “order.” In the post-bellum South, they enforced white supremacy and largely arrested black people on trumped-up charges in order to feed them into convict labor systems.

The violence the police carried out and their moral separation from those they patrolled were not the consequences of the brutality of individual officers, but of policies carefully designed to mold the police into a force that could use violence to deal with the social problems that accompanied the development of a wage-labor economy. For instance, in the short, sharp depression of the mid-1880s, Chicago was filled with prostitutes who worked the streets. Many policemen recognized that these prostitutes were generally impoverished women seeking a way to survive and initially tolerated their behavior. But the police hierarchy insisted that the patrolmen arrest these women, impose fines and drive them off the streets and into brothels, where they could be ignored by some members of the elite and controlled by others. Similarly, in 1885, when Chicago began to experience a wave of strikes, some policemen sympathized with strikers. But once the police hierarchy and the mayor decided to break the strikes, policemen who refused to comply were fired.

Though some patrolmen tried to be kind and others were openly brutal, police violence in the 1880s was not a case of a few bad apples — and neither is it today.

Much has changed since the creation of the police — most importantly, the influx of black people into Northern cities, the mid-20th century civil rights movement and the creation of the current system of mass incarceration in part as a response to that movement. But these changes did not lead to a fundamental shift in policing. They led to new policies designed to preserve fundamental continuities. The police were created to use violence to reconcile electoral democracy with industrial capitalism. Today, they are just one part of the “criminal justice” system that plays the same role. Their basic job is to enforce order among those with the most reason to resent the system — in our society today, disproportionately among poor black people.

If there is one positive lesson from the history of policing’s origins, it is that when workers organized, refused to submit or cooperate and caused problems for the city governments, they could force the police to curb the most galling of their activities. The murders of individual police officers, as happened in Chicago on May 3, 1886, and more recently in New York on December 20, 2014, only reinforced calls for harsh repression. But resistance on a mass scale could force the police to hesitate. This happened in Chicago during the early 1880s, when the police pulled back from breaking strikes, hired immigrant officers and tried to re-establish some credibility among the working class after their role in brutally crushing the 1877 upheaval.

The police might back off again if the widespread reaction against the killings of Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Tamir Rice and countless others continues. If they do, it will be a victory for those mobilizing today, and will save lives. But as long as this policing system endures, any change in policy will be aimed at keeping the poor in line more effectively.

A democratic police system in which police are elected by and accountable to the people they patrol is imaginable. But as long as we have an economic and political system that rests on the exploitation of workers and pushes millions of people into poverty, we are unlikely to see policing become any more democratic than the rest of society.

War: Where 69¢ of Each of Your Tax Dollars Goes

Go To Original

The Nobel Peace Laureate President Barack Obama, the guy who once campaigned claiming one US war — the one against Iraq — was a “bad” one, and the other — against Afghanistan — was a “good” one, turns out to be a man who, once anointed commander-in-chief, can’t seem to find a war he doesn’t consider to be a “good” idea.
Obama turned out, on taking office, to have a hard time saying good-bye to the occupation of Iraq, only leaving when he was forced out by an Iraqi government that refused to continue giving US forces legal immunity for killing Iraqi civilians. In Afghanistan, he decided to copy the same “surge” — a massive increase in targeted assassinations and violence — that he had once condemned in Iraq. Then he stepped up drone-launched rocket attacks and bombings in seven other countries.
More recently he has begun an air war against Syria (okay, he says it’s against the so-called Islamic State, but the whole world, with the exception of a lot of ill-informed US citizens, knows it’s ultimately against the Syrian government), and now his Secretary of Defense (sic) Ashton Carter and his Secretary of State John Kerry are pushing for sending heavy arms and, inevitably, US “advisors” to Ukraine to escalate US involvement in the civil war there. What makes that latest war particularly dangerous is that all the while, Peace Laureate Obama makes it clear that the “enemy” is Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Russian military.
Never mind that it is the US that originally orchestrated and encouraged the fascist coup that overthrew the elected government of Ukraine, setting in motion a huge pogrom against ethnic Russians in the east of that country and provoking the current armed conflict, and never mind that Russian concern about the Ukraine stems from a decades-long history of the US pushing NATO ever closer to Russia’s western border, with Ukraine kind of the last straw.
Anyone looking objectively at the war making and war-promotion of this administration would have to conclude that President Obama is one of the most bellicose Chief Executives in the history of the United States.
If you don’t believe me, just look at the US military budget President Obama has proposed for FY2016. At $585.3 billion, it would if approved by Congress represent an increase in spending of $24.9 billion, or about 4%, over the 2015 budget, and that is despite a decline in what, since the Bush/Cheney years, has euphemistically been called Overseas Contingency Operations spending, or spending on actual wars. The proposed OCO budget for 2016 in this “peace” president’s budget is “just” $50.9 billion, down about $13.3 billion from 2015 thanks to what the president, in one whopper offered during his State of the Union address, called the “end of combat” in Afghanistan (that war is actually continuing, with some 12,000 US troops expected to remain stationed in that country indefinitely).
The thing about OCO funding is that it is really not predictive of anything. It could soar way beyond that $50.9-billion level, for example, in a flash if the US follows through and escalates the war in Ukraine — especially if Russian troops are drawn directly into that conflict and the US responds by upping its own involvement.
In fact, the OCO part of the budget has been used by the Pentagon and the administration over the last few years to get around the constraints of an ongoing Congressional “sequestration” requirement that cuts so-called discretionary spending, both military and non-military. Congress, ever mindful and solicitous of the country’s imperial ambitions, provided an exemption for ongoing military conflicts, and the Pentagon has since been deceptively slipping all kinds of other spending under the OCO heading now ever since the loophole was created.
But the Obama administration’s warmongering stance, in terms of the budget, isn’t told just by looking at the official Pentagon budget. There is much more spending that is really all about war. Not included in that $585.3 billion figure is $70.2 billion in discretionary spending for Veterans Affairs (that’s in addition to $90 billion in mandated spending). This is money to pay for the damages of the nation’s war making — the injured or ailing veterans who served or are now serving in the nation’s armed forces. Then there’s the intelligence agencies’ budgets — the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, the DIA, the DEA, the ATF and Homeland Security, etc. — most of which is really part of part of the war machine, thanks to the so-called “War on Terror,” which has re-defined the US itself as part of a global war zone. While much of that intelligence budget is concealed from the public on the spurious grounds of “national security,” it is known to exceed $100 billion a year. Add to that the $24-billion share of the Department of Energy budget that is weapons and war related, and you have a real military budget for 2016 of $707 billion. That’s out of a $1.2 trillion total discretionary spending budget (the rest of the $4 trillion proposed 2016 budget is called mandatory because it is debt repayment or spending on mandated things like Social Security and Medicare, which are funded by dedicated payroll taxes, not income taxes and other federal taxes, and which are promised to recipients like retirees and the sick.
What this means is that when you look closely, some 59% of the entire discretionary budget of the federal government – things that are funded each year by money that Congress has to appropriate — is being spent on the military. Given that the total amount of taxes collected by the federal government (income, corporate profits, exist, inheritance, etc.) also comes in at about $1.2 trillion, we’re saying that taxpayers this coming year will be pouring not just $707 billion, but 59 cents of every tax dollar into war, planning for war, or paying for war. But it’s actually worse than that because actually the US government operates at a deficit, and doesn’t ever finance its wars on a pay-as-you-go basis. Instead, it borrows the money and then pays interest on that debt. Every year that interest comes to about $240 billion, and roughly half that is for borrowing to pay for past wars and past and current military spending. So add $120 billion to the $707 total and it becomes $827 billion.
In other words, it’s really 68.9% of every tax dollar you pay this April 15 that’s going to pay for America’s wars and its obsession with militarism.
No wonder our schools and universities, our parks, our roads, our once-vaunted global scientific leadership, our environment, our health and safety, our family budgets and even our life expectancy, have been going to hell! The only thing that’s really getting funded in this country is war.
By the way, the reason you may not have realized how much you are paying for war out of your taxes is that the government, and the corporate media, carefully avoid letting you know. They do this by sleight of hand. You see, they never really break out just the “discretionary” budget, or point out the parts of the budget that are outside the Pentagon but that are still really military-related, like spending on nuclear weapons and weapons development, nuclear research and cleanup, decommissioning of nuclear processing plants, and of course veterans affairs and benefits. They also do it by lumping the huge outlays for Social Security benefits and Medicare into the overall spending budget, though actually those benefits are funded not by income taxes but by a Trust fund of some $1.7 trillion that was created over the years by specially-dedicated payroll taxes separately paid by workers and their employers over the working life of each person. Adding those items into the national budget, while leaving out things like spending on veterans, nukes and war debt, appears to reduce military spending to a much less troubling 6.8% of the budget.
But it’s a fraud.
If we want to revitalize the US, the only way to do it is to end militarism and war, and to generously fund human needs.
To do that, we need a real peace president and a peace congress, not the Nobel Laureate warmonger we have now in the White House, and the bi-partisan war chorus we have in the Congress.

Why the West and Kiev Regime Must Kill the Truth

Go To Original

The detention, incommunicado, of two female Russian journalists over the weekend by Kiev’s secret police, the SBU, was said to be on the grounds of «national security». That admission by the Kiev authorities, ironically, reveals more than is intended. Journalists «armed» only with cameras threatening national security, you may ask? Yes, you better believe it – because any truth being reported about the nature of the Western-backed Kiev regime and its military onslaught in eastern Ukraine is indeed a very real «security threat» – the threat of being exposed for war crimes and unlawful aggression towards Russia. The legal consequences for the Kiev regime and its Western patrons would be devastating. 

The two journalists were named as correspondent Elizaveta Khramtsova and photographer Natalia Kalysheva, who both work for LifeNews based in Moscow. The media outlet’s director Markian Lubkovsky reportedly said he only found out about the detention of his staff after one of them managed to make a hurried phone call before they were «disappeared». Their whereabouts was not known even after several hours from them having been taken into detention. That amounts to abduction and is a grave abuse of international law. Russia’s foreign ministry has demanded that the pair be released immediately. The Kiev-based SBU reportedly would only confirm that the two women will be «expelled in the near future» and that they would be denied future entry into Ukraine.



A second aspect for this heavy-handed treatment of Russian journalists is this: the absolute imperative prevention of the West’s false propaganda against Russia over the Ukraine conflict being completely exposed. More than 80 Russian professional journalists have been expelled from Ukrainian territory since the conflict erupted last year. At least four have been killed by live fire from the Kiev forces. What are the Kiev regime and its Western supporters afraid of?

Washington and its European allies, as well as the NATO military alliance, have for months been churning out claims and bald assertions that Russia has invaded eastern Ukraine with thousands of troops and mechanised divisions. These provocative claims of Russian «aggression» have been amplified, unswervingly and without the slightest investigation or verification, by all Western mainstream media outlets, including the BBC, France 24, Deutsche Welle, CNN and the New York Times. 

Strangely, these multi-million-dollar Western media corporations do not seem to have the resources to send teams of reporters and camera crews into the eastern Ukraine conflict zones of Donetsk and Luhansk to give appropriate extensive coverage. You would think such an assignment would a basic priority, given the supposed duty to report on extreme violence and also given the all-out-war implications of Western accusations against Moscow. Instead, Western corporate media rely inordinately, and tellingly, on the US State Department, NATO and dubious Kiev regime «sources».

Never perhaps has a war on the European landmass been so under-reported in the real sense of proper reporting. Why such a dearth of on-location news? Again, what are they afraid of? Why the studied reluctance by Western media to find out «the story»? And a big story at that.

In fact, on the rare occasion that the Western media bother to report from the Ukraine conflict location, the information uncovered tends to contradict, or at least not substantiate, the Western grand narrative that claims it’s all Russia’s fault for stealthily subverting Ukraine. On countless occasions, the august New York Times – America’s supposed finest bastion of journalism – has been found fabricating or peddling uncorroborated claims of Russian military presence in Ukraine. NYT’s reporters have also confirmed in one rare report from the location – albeit in an oblique way – that the self-defence militia of Donetsk and Luhansk are manned by local inhabitants, not Russian covert forces, and that the militia are not secretly being armed by the Russian state. Yet this basic fact has not stopped the NYT from, at all other times, peddling rumour and innuendo that fit with the anti-Russian narrative. In another rare report, post-Minsk ceasefire, the NYT also confirmed that the Western-backed Kiev military was shelling indiscriminately, without knowing the coordinates of enemy self-defence fighters. The NYT jokingly referred in that report to the Kiev artillery using «fire and forget» practices. Bear in mind that nearly 5,000 people have been killed since the Kiev regime launched its offensive 10 months ago. Over half of the victims are civilians and many of them have been killed from indiscriminate shelling by Kiev’s army and National Guard units, firing on residential centres with rockets, mortars and ballistic missiles. The town of Gorlovka near Donetsk provides a snapshot of the whole criminal story, with nearly 100 civilians, including young children, dying from incessant shelling of houses, apartments, churches, hospitals, schools and public spaces by Kiev’s military since last April.



So, now are approaching what the West and its Kiev puppet-regime fear most. Because such a perspective gets straight to the point: Russia has not invaded eastern Ukraine. Russia has not sent in tanks, artillery units, howitzers, or truckloads of assault riffles and rocket launchers. Humanitarian aid convoys are the only thing that Moscow has supplied. 



Russian citizens who might be fighting in eastern Ukraine are private volunteers who have, of their own volition and at their own personal expense, taken the initiative to join the ethnic Russian self-defence militia as an act of solidarity with the Donbas people, with whom Russia has centuries of kinship with. The voluntary nature of these Russian fighters in eastern Ukraine has even been admitted – inadvertently – in a report by the CIA-directed news/propaganda outlet, Radio Free Europe (see previous SCF editions of this column for more details on the above NYT and RFE reports, published on this site on May 7, 2014 and October 29, 2014, respectively).

Further to the salient point is that the Nazi-adulating regime in Kiev – brought to power in an illegal Western-sponsored coup last February – is committing huge crimes against humanity, including disposal of victims in mass graves and the use of cluster bombs on civilians centres. This regime is not a «pro-democracy movement» as the West mendaciously and outrageously pretends. It is propped up and allowed to continue its criminal offensive through billions of dollars of financial and military aid from Washington and Brussels, courtesy of Western taxpayers’ money.

Western governments, NATO and the Western news media thus stand accused of sponsoring, or being complicit in, state terrorism in eastern Ukraine. Western media complicity in distorting facts, suppressing the truth, and concealing systematic crimes is in itself a grave war crime under international law. There is no difference between the crimes of Josef Goebbels’ Nazi propaganda ministry and the functioning of the Western corporate news media. Both are guilty of facilitating war crimes and state terrorism, despite the latter’s pretensions of objectivity and independence. 

Apart from rare, unintended Western admissions of the real situation in Ukraine, the only sources who are actually providing a semblance of the truth of the full Western-backed horror are citizen-bloggers from the eastern regions, as well as the self-declared independent authorities of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics – who have refused to recognise the legitimacy of the Western-sponsored junta headed up by oligarch-president Petro Poroshenko and the CIA-asset prime minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk.

A third reputable source for information out of Ukraine’s killing fields and its blockaded eastern regions are Russian journalists. When three separate sources tell a consistent story then that is significant and one can reliably take it as a fair approximation of «the truth». As already noted, nearly 80 Russian journalists working for accredited news organisations have been detained by Kiev’s secret police and four have been killed in violent circumstances in eastern Ukraine. Video evidence and witness accounts indicate that these media workers were deliberately targeted by Kiev’s military – yet another war crime under international law. You can imagine the hue and cry if, say, BBC journalists were somehow shot dead or blown up by Russian forces. We would never hear the end of it. But when the Western-backed Kiev regime kills Russian journalists, well, that’s deemed not newsworthy by Western media. The twisted prejudice is probably that the Russian journos are «Kremlin spies» and therefore deserve it.

The targeting of journalists in Ukraine is a stark exposure of the West’s fraudulent claims of venerating the right to free speech, which the West made such a song and dance about over the massacre at the Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris last month. 

But, more importantly, the genuine operation of independent media coverage in Ukraine is a mortal threat to the existence of the Western-backed regime. That’s because it would illuminate the criminality of the junta and the collusion of Western governments and media in propping up the criminals. It would otherwise expose the odious Western narrative of trying to criminalise Russia as being entirely false and riven with lies. Western sanctions against Russia and the US-led NATO drumbeat of war would be seen for what they are: stacked up and framed on an edifice of falsehood, distortion and meretricious lies. It would turn out that it is not Moscow that should be sanctioned; it is Washington, Berlin, Paris and London and those other European governments that are backing this criminal regime in Kiev.

There is a huge amount at stake in the West’s propaganda war against Russia. If Western propaganda were to be exposed then Western governments and media organisations should be prosecuted for gross breaches of international law, including capital offences and inciting a wider war with Russia. And Russia should likewise be compensated with billions of dollars for this unlawful aggression, including economic damages and defamation. Also, if the mass of people in the West were to know the full extent of their governments’ and media’s criminality there would be hell to pay on the streets.

That is why Russian and other independent journalists must be – at all costs – killed, abducted, intimidated or deported from Ukraine by this Western-backed regime. The West cannot afford – absolutely cannot afford – to let the facts get in the way of their «story» that seeks to criminalise Russia.

Updated List of ADMITTED False Flag Attacks

Go To Original

Governments from around the world admit they’ve used the bully’s trick … attack first, and then blame the victim:
  • Japanese troops set off a small explosion on a train track in 1931, and falsely blamed it on China in order to justify an invasion of Manchuria. This is known as the “Mukden Incident” or the “Manchurian Incident”. The Tokyo International Military Tribunal found: “Several of the participators in the plan, including Hashimoto [a high-ranking Japanese army officer], have on various occasions admitted their part in the plot and have stated that the object of the ‘Incident’ was to afford an excuse for the occupation of Manchuria by the Kwantung Army ….” And see this
  • A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that – under orders from the chief of the Gestapo – he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland. Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building in 1933, and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson
  • Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev admitted in writing that the Soviet Union’s Red Army shelled the Russian village of Mainila in 1939 – while blaming the attack on Finland – as a basis for launching the “Winter War” against Finland. Russian president Boris Yeltsin agreed that Russia had been the aggressor in the Winter War
  • The Russian Parliament admits that Soviet leader Joseph Stalin ordered his secret police to execute 22,000 Polish army officers and civilians in 1940, and then blamed it on the Nazis.  Current Russian president Putin and former Soviet leader Gorbachev have also admitted that the Soviets were responsible for the massacre
  • Israel admits that an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind “evidence” implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this)
  • The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister
  • The Turkish Prime Minister admitted that the Turkish government carried out the 1955 bombing on a Turkish consulate in Greece – also damaging the nearby birthplace of the founder of modern Turkey – and blamed it on Greece, for the purpose of inciting and justifying anti-Greek violence
  • The British Prime Minister admitted to his defense secretary that he and American president Dwight Eisenhower approved a plan in 1957 to carry out attacks in Syria and blame it on the Syrian government as a way to effect regime change
  • In 1960, American Senator George Smathers suggested that the U.S. launch “a false attack made on Guantanamo Bay which would give us the excuse of actually fomenting a fight which would then give us the excuse to go in and [overthrow Castro]“.
  • Official State Department documents show that, in 1961, the head of the Joint Chiefs and other high-level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. The plans were not carried out, but they were all discussed as serious proposals
  • As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in 1962, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.
  • In 1963, the U.S. Department of Defense wrote a paper promoting attacks on nations within the Organization of American States – such as Trinidad-Tobago or Jamaica – and then falsely blaming them on Cuba
  • The U.S. Department of Defense even suggested covertly paying a person in the Castro government to attack the United States: “The only area remaining for consideration then would be to bribe one of Castro’s subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on Guantanamo.”
  • The NSA admits that it lied about what really happened in the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 … manipulating data to make it look like North Vietnamese boats fired on a U.S. ship so as to create a false justification for the Vietnam war
  • A U.S. Congressional committee admitted that – as part of its “Cointelpro” campaign – the FBI had used many provocateurs in the 1950s through 1970s to carry out violent acts and falsely blame them on political activists
  • A top Turkish general admitted that Turkish forces burned down a mosque on Cyprus in the 1970s and blamed it on their enemy. He explained: “In Special War, certain acts of sabotage are staged and blamed on the enemy to increase public resistance. We did this on Cyprus; we even burnt down a mosque.” In response to the surprised correspondent’s incredulous look the general said, “I am giving an example”
  • The German government admitted (and see this) that, in 1978, the German secret service detonated a bomb in the outer wall of a prison and planted “escape tools” on a prisoner – a member of the Red Army Faction – which the secret service wished to frame the bombing on
  • A Mossad agent says that, in 1984, Mossad planted a radio transmitter in Gaddaffi’s compound in Tripoli, Libya which broadcast fake terrorist trasmissions recorded by Mossad, in order to frame Gaddaffi as a terrorist supporter. Ronald Reagan bombed Libya immediately thereafter
  • The South African Truth and Reconciliation Council found that, in 1989, the Civil Cooperation Bureau (a covert branch of the South African Defense Force) approached an explosives expert and asked him “to participate in an operation aimed at discrediting the ANC [the African National Congress] by bombing the police vehicle of the investigating officer into the murder incident”, thus framing the ANC for the bombing
  • An Algerian diplomat and several officers in the Algerian army admit that, in the 1990s, the Algerian army frequently massacred Algerian civilians and then blamed Islamic militants for the killings (and see this video; and Agence France-Presse, 9/27/2002, French Court Dismisses Algerian Defamation Suit Against Author)
  • Senior Russian Senior military and intelligence officers admit that the KGB blew up Russian apartment buildings in 1999 and falsely blamed it on Chechens, in order to justify an invasion of Chechnya (and see this report and this discussion)
  • According to the Washington Post, Indonesian police admit that the Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002 and blamed the murders on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a terrorist organization.
  • The well-respected former Indonesian president also admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings
  • As reported by BBC, the New York Times, and Associated Press, Macedonian officials admit that the government murdered 7 innocent immigrants in cold blood and pretended that they were Al Qaeda soldiers attempting to assassinate Macedonian police, in order to join the “war on terror”
  • Senior police officials in Genoa, Italy admitted that – in July 2001, at the G8 summit in Genoa – planted two Molotov cocktails and faked the stabbing of a police officer, in order to justify a violent crackdown against protesters
  • Similarly, the U.S. falsely blamed Iraq for playing a role in the 9/11 attacks – as shown by a memo from the defense secretary – as one of the main justifications for launching the Iraq war. Even after the 9/11 Commission admitted that there was no connection, Dick Cheney said that the evidence is “overwhelming” that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein’s regime, that Cheney “probably” had information unavailable to the Commission, and that the media was not ‘doing their homework’ in reporting such ties. Top U.S. government officials now admit that the Iraq war was really launched for oil … not 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction (despite previous “lone wolf” claims, many U.S. government officials now say that 9/11 was state-sponsored terror; but Iraq wasnot the state which backed the hijackers)
  • Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having “our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt others’ identities and to question the validity of communications.”
  • United Press International reported in June 2005:
U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.
  • Undercover Israeli soldiers admitted in 2005 to throwing stones at other Israeli soldiers so they could blame it on Palestinians, as an excuse to crack down on peaceful protests by the Palestinians
  • Quebec police admitted that, in 2007, thugs carrying rocks to a peaceful protest were actually undercover Quebec police officers (and see this)
  • At the G20 protests in London in 2009, a British member of parliament saw plain clothes police officers attempting to incite the crowd to violence
  • Egyptian politicians admitted (and see this) that government employees looted priceless museum artifacts in 2011 to try to discredit the protesters
  • A Colombian army colonel has admitted that his unit murdered 57 civilians, then dressed them in uniforms and claimed they were rebels killed in combat
  • U.S. soldiers have admitted that if they kill innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, they then “drop” automatic weapons near their body so they can pretend they were militants
  • The highly-respected writer for the Telegraph Ambrose Evans-Pritchard says that the head of Saudi intelligence – Prince Bandar – recently admitted that the Saudi government controls “Chechen” terrorists
  • High-level American sources admitted that the Turkish government – a fellow NATO country – carried out the chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government; and high-ranking Turkish government admitted on tape plans to carry out attacks and blame it on the Syrian government
  • The former Ukrainian security chief admits that the sniper attacks which started the Ukrainian coup were carried out in order to frame others
  • Britain’s spy agency has admitted (and see this) that it carries out “digital false flag” attacks on targets, framing people by writing offensive or unlawful material … and blaming it on the target