Saturday 27th of November 2021

fake evidence, real war...

red linered line


















During the summer (Winter in Australia), we continue the publication in episodes of Thierry Meyssan’s book, Before Our Very Eyes. In this episode, the chemical attack in Ghouta and the Western hesitations up to the financing of Daesh.



From false accusations to the real massacre


by Thierry Meyssan



This article is an extract from the book Fake wars and big lies.

See Contents.



The adult victims of the Ghoutta gassing were almost exclusively men. The children were all close in age, having been abducted together by the jihadists in Aleppo.

27 - The "red line

In May 2013, Nato distributed a report to its members indicating that the population supported President el-Assad at 70%. 20% support the rebels and 10% have no opinion [1]. Paris and Ankara conclude that there will be no victory without returning to the original plan to bomb Syria. An initiative must be taken to put pressure on Washington.

On August 21, a chemical attack hit Syrian civilians in the suburbs of Damascus, in an area controlled by the jihadists, the Ghouta. In the hours that followed, a vast communication machine was set in motion, accusing the Syrian Arab Republic of being responsible. This attack would mark the crossing of the "red line" set by President Obama. The West prepared to "punish the regime" by bombing its capital.

The Syrian government denied any involvement and recalled that on May 23, Turkish police arrested 11 jihadists in Adana in possession of a large stock of sarin gas [2]. While the leader of the group, Hytam Qassap, was of Syrian nationality, the others were Turkish. In addition, the Free Syrian Army itself released videos of a small chemical weapons laboratory and threatened to gas the Alawites [3].

What happened in Ghouta was questionable: the US secret service claimed to have observed - without intervening - the Syrian Arab Army preparing the gas for the previous four days [4]. Videos were released by the opposition, but one of them was dated by YouTube (California time) before sunrise in Damascus, although it was filmed in daylight. The victims are either children - all the same age - or men, only 2 women out of the 1,429 victims counted by the US. The dead children turn out to be Alawites who were abducted by the jihadis a few weeks earlier [5]. Although they were officially absent from the country, France and the United Kingdom assured us that they took samples on the spot and analyzed them immediately. They confirmed the use of sarin gas. Problem: the only known test requires ten days to be performed.

According to the French and British intelligence services, the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian army is attested by telephone interceptions of officers. But it turns out that these interceptions were carried out by the Israelis [6]. Very quickly, it became clear that French military intelligence was cautious. It was not the author of the summary note distributed by the French Ministry of Defense [7]. It was produced by Sacha Mandel, a bi-national French-Israeli advisor to the Minister.

Basically, we do not understand why the use of chemical weapons would be a "red line". How is it worse than other "weapons of mass destruction"? Why does the United States, a signatory to the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, blame Syria for using them when it is not a signatory and when it violated its own signature in 2003 in the Baghdad palm grove? [8]

Marcus Klingberg, was deputy director of the Israeli Institute for Research in Biology (IIRB) in Ness Ziona. He transmitted to the KGB the results of Israeli research on biological weapons. Arrested in 1982, he refused to be called a spy, assuring that he worked for Humanity. He is the grandfather of the deputy mayor of Paris, Ian Brossat.

When chemical weapons first appeared in the First World War, they came as a surprise and, as a result, were very deadly. However, states quickly found ways to deal with them, so that none used them significantly on the battlefield during the Second World War. In the Middle East, Israel refused to sign the Convention, taking Egypt and Syria with it. From 1985 to 1994, Israel funded research in South Africa to create racially selective weapons. The aim was to identify toxic agents that would kill only blacks and Arabs and not the Jewish people [9]. They were conducted under the direction of President Peter Botha’s cardiologist, Colonel Wouter Basson. It is not known whether they were successful, which seems scientifically unlikely. Several thousand human guinea pigs died during the experiments [10].

The British services quickly validated the above observations and warned the Prime Minister, David Cameron, against a false flag operation [11]. Syrian television broadcasted a video of a jihadist driver. He testified that he went to Turkey and received the toxic shells in a Turkish barracks, then secretly transported them to Damascus [12].

Questioned by the Russian press, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad replied: "The statements made by American, Western and other politicians are an insult to common sense and an expression of contempt for the public opinion of their peoples. It is nonsense: first you accuse, then you gather evidence. (...) This kind of accusation is exclusively political, and responds to the series of victories scored by government forces over the terrorists [13]."

François Hollande, for his part, claims loudly that his conscience orders him to "strike" Damascus [14]. In so doing, he continues the work of the colonization party which, during the provisional governments of Charles de Gaulle and Georges Bidault, in May 1945 and November 1946, bombed Sétif, Guelma and Kherrata (Algeria), then Damascus (Syria), and finally Hai Phòng (Indochina/Vietnam) on its own initiative. At the moment of withdrawing its troops, just after independence, the army of General Fernand Olive attacked Damascus, just to show spite. It destroyed part of the thousand-year-old souk (as it did today in Aleppo) and the National Assembly, the symbol of the new Republic it rejected.

Germany was the first to observe that, even if Syria had used chemical weapons, its bombing would still be illegal under international law, unless the Security Council decides otherwise [15]. The British and the Americans are ultimately convinced that the case was fabricated by Turkey with the support of France and Israel.

In London, the House of Commons forbade the Prime Minister to attack Damascus until the responsibility of Bashar al-Assad’s government were established with certainty. The MPs, many of whom know the extent of their country’s involvement against Syria, remember the damage done to the Kingdom following its war against Iraq in 2003, based on the false accusations of George Bush and Tony Blair. In Washington, Barack Obama relied on Congress, which he knew was opposed to any new military adventure whatsoever [16]. This was of course a delaying tactic, because the Syrian Accountability Act of 2003 gave him all the powers to destroy Syria.

François Hollande, who spoke too loudly and too quickly, remained alone in the race. Powerless, he holed up in the Elysée Palace, while France’s word was discredited internationally. No one asked Turkey to account for anything, especially not Anne Lauvergeon, Alexandre Adler, Joachim Bitterlich, Hélène Conway-Mouret, Jean-François Copé, Henri de Castries, Augustin de Romanet, Laurence Dumont, Claude Fischer, Stéphane Fouks, Bernard Guetta, Élisabeth Guigou, Hubert Haenel, Jean-Pierre Jouyet, Alain Juppé, Pierre Lellouche, Thierry Mariani, Gérard Mestrallet, Thierry de Montbrial, Pierre Moscovici, Philippe Petitcolin, Alain Richard, Michel Rocard, Daniel Rondeau, Bernard Soulage, Catherine Tasca, Denis Verret and Wilfried Verstraete, all of whom received "gifts" from Turkish patrons on behalf of Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Russia helped the United States to emerge from the crisis with its head held high. They invited Syria to sign the Convention on the prohibition of chemical weapons, which it did without delay. President Bashar al-Assad negotiated with the OPCW to destroy the existing stockpiles, but at Washington’s expense.

Subsequently, the American journalist Seymour M. Hersh highlighted his country’s hesitations in this matter [17]. Then, professors Richard Lloyd and Theodore Postol of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology demonstrated that the chemical shells had been fired from the "rebel" zone [18]. However, France alone persisted in accusing the Syrian Arab Republic. "He who wants to drown his dog accuses it of rabies", as the saying goes in the French countryside.

In any case, the West would regularly repeat its accusations against Syria of chemical weapons use, even though all stocks had been destroyed jointly by Russia and the United States. This game would end when Damascus discovered such weapons in jihadist bunkers. They had been delivered by the CIA and were manufactured by Chemring Defense (UK), Federal Laboratories and Non-Lethal Technologies (USA).

On July 6, 2012, François Hollande chaired a Friends of Syria summit. Among the honored guests were several criminals against humanity (i.e., having organized the mass execution of people solely on the basis of their religious affiliation). Twelve days later, he gave the order to assassinate the members of the Syrian National Security Committee and to storm Damascus.

28 - Indecision

Having closed its embassy and recalled all its personnel in 2012, having withdrawn most of its Special Forces after its commitment in Mali in early 2013, having been disavowed by Washington, Paris no longer had any means on the ground, nor any plan of action.

Not knowing what to do, François Hollande turned to his long-time ally, Tel Aviv, which had provided him with false evidence of Syrian responsibility in the false flag attack on Ghouta. A brief look at his activity in favor of the colonization of Palestine during his tenure as first secretary of the Socialist Party is in order:

 In 2000, while southern Lebanon was occupied, he and future Paris mayor Bertrand Delanoë prepared Prime Minister Lionel Jospin’s trip to Palestine. His speech included a condemnation of the Resistance to the occupation, which he equated with terrorism.

 In 2001, he demanded the resignation from the Socialist Party of the geopolitician Pascal Boniface, guilty of having criticized, in an internal note, the blind support of the Party to Israel.

 In 2004, he wrote to the Conseil supérieur de l’Audiovisuel to question the broadcasting authorization given to Al-Manar, the Hezbollah television channel. He would not stop his pressure until the Resistance channel was censored.

 In 2005, he was received behind closed doors by the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France (CRIF). According to the minutes of the meeting, he gave his support to Ariel Sharon and strongly criticized the Gaullist Arab policy. He was quoted as saying, "There is a trend that goes back a long way, what is called the Arab policy of France, and it is not acceptable that an administration have an ideology. There is a recruitment problem at the Quai d’Orsay and at ENA and this recruitment should be reorganized. In doing so, he reverses reality because "France’s Arab policy" is not a policy in favor of the Arabs against the Israelis, but a policy in the Arab world.

 In 2006, he took a stand against President Ahmadinejad, who invited rabbis and historians, including Holocaust deniers, to Tehran. He pretended to ignore the meaning of the congress, which aimed to show that Europeans had substituted the religion of the Holocaust for their Christian culture. And, in contradiction, he explained that the Iranian President intended to deny the right of Israelis to exist and that he was preparing to continue the Holocaust.

 He mobilized for the release of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, a prisoner of Hamas, on the grounds that the latter had dual French and Israeli nationality. It does not matter that the young man was arrested while serving in an army of occupation at war with the Palestinian Authority, also an ally of France.

 In 2010, he published with Bertrand Delanoë and Bernard-Henri Lévy, an open letter in Le Monde to oppose the boycott of Israeli products. According to him, the boycott would be a collective punishment, also inflicted on Israelis who work for peace with the Palestinians. A reasoning that he did not hold during the similar campaign against apartheid in South Africa.

Upon his arrival in Israel on November 17, 2013, President François Hollande declared in Hebrew, "Tamid écha-èr ravèr chèl Israël," and in French, "Je suis votre ami et je le serai toujours." (« I am and will always be your friend. »)

Israeli Prime Minister, Benyamin Netanyahu, observed that the United States and the United Kingdom had withdrawn from the theater of operations, which did not prevent the CIA and MI6 from continuing the secret war. He therefore proposed to set up a coordination of those who wish to continue the open war until the overthrow of the Syrian Arab Republic: Saudi Arabia, France, Israel, Qatar and Turkey. Lebanon and Jordan would continue to provide logistical support, but would not intervene in the direction of operations. Since Washington no longer wished to appear, the whole operation would be directed by Jeffrey Feltman from the UN in New York. We needed to act quickly. Indeed, the storm was rumbling in Washington. The supporters of the attack on Syria were being pushed aside. On November 8, General David Petraeus was forced to resign as director of the CIA, while Hillary Clinton suffered an "accident" and disappeared for a month.

Jeffrey D. Feltman was the mastermind of the "Arab Spring", and is also a great friend of Netanyahu. He had been the UN’s Director of Political Affairs for over a year. He had a plan for the total and unconditional surrender of Syria drawn up by Volker Perthes, the director of the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP), the most powerful European think tank. He had also taken charge of the North Africa and Middle East Directorate of the European Union’s External Action Service. The High Representative of the Union, Catherine Ashton, had become his parrot. Feltman entrusted Saudi Arabia for a second time with the training of an army of 50,000 men in Jordan. At the same time, he began a reorganization of the jihadist groups. Finally, on instructions from the White House, he organized the "Geneva 2" negotiations.

Benyamin Netanyahu imagined a three-way alliance: France would defend the interests of Israel and Saudi Arabia internationally, in exchange for huge contracts, investments and bribes. The aim was to sabotage the US-Iran negotiations, so as to maintain the monopoly of the Tel Aviv-Riyadh regional directoire.

Majed al-Majed admitted during his arrest to being an officer of the Saudi secret service, under the direct authority of Prince Bandar Ben Sultan. He was the head of a branch of Al Qaeda and was the link between it and high-level figures in the Middle East.

The King of Arabia, whose most important agent, Majed Al-Majed, had just been arrested by the Lebanese army, agreed to offer 3 billion dollars in French arms if the Lebanese did not record his confession. The terrorist leader conveniently died while the King distributed "gifts" to the Lebanese and the French (for example, $100 million for the unconstitutional "President" Michel Sleimane) [19]. In reality, while the beneficiaries of the royal "gifts" would keep them, the arms orders would never be formalized [20]. The only French leader not to receive a royal "gift" personally, Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian negotiated for his region the rescue of the Doux poultry group, indebted to the tune of 400 million euros, which was partially bought out and bailed out by the Saudi company Al-Munajem.

After the resignation of Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General appointed the Algerian Lakhdar Brahimi to follow the Syrian file. Unlike Annan, he did not have the title of "mediator" because Ban Ki-moon now considered that "Bashar must go!" His mission was to lead Syria towards "a political transition, in accordance with the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people." Brahimi was responsible for the creation of the "Decision Support Service", the personal secret service of the Secretary General, because from now on the UN is no longer a forum for peace, but has a secret service to implement Washington’s policy. French diplomacy knows it well, given its successive roles at the end of the civil war in Lebanon, the military coup in Algeria and the Anglo-Saxon aggression in Afghanistan [21].

Geneva 2 is a trap. Unlike Geneva 1 - which brought together the United States and Russia in the presence of their closest partners, but to the exclusion of all Syrians - not only Syria and "opposition representatives" are invited to this second round, but all the states involved. Except for Iran, whose invitation, after having been issued, was cancelled, allegedly at the request of the Saudis. But who can believe that Arabia has such power over the UN? In reality, Jeffrey Feltman is also organizing the 5+1 negotiations with Iran and does not intend to anticipate the lifting of US and European sanctions against it. As for the representatives of the opposition, it will only be those who have been endorsed by Arabia, that is to say the new National Coalition of Opposition Forces and Revolution, chaired by Ahmed Jarba. The latter is a small-time drug trafficker who finds his hour of glory there because he comes from the Saudi-Syrian tribe of Chammars, the same as the king’s.

Two days before the opening of the conference, Qatar had the London law firm Carter-Ruck publish a report by three former international prosecutors on the testimony of "Caesar" and the exhibits he had given them [22]. "Caesar" claims to be a Syrian military police officer, usually in charge of photographing crime scenes. He claims to have photographed the victims of the "regime" during the conflict in the morgues of military hospitals. He recently defected. He handed over 55,000 photographs, representing 11,000 corpses, which he claims to have taken himself. To make matters worse, each page of the press release announcing the report is stamped with the double mention "Confidential". The former prosecutors conclude that food deprivation and torture were systematically administered by the "regime" to "people [it] imprisoned. In reality, those of these photographs that were taken in Syria show the bodies of mercenaries of various nationalities who were picked up by the Syrian Arab Army on the battlefield and those of civilian and military personnel who died under jihadist torture because they supported the Syrian Arab Republic.

The new Secretary of State, John Kerry, who knows Bashar al-Assad well, obviously knows that all of this is pure propaganda, but the Carter-Ruck cabinet statement provides him with one more argument for his speech at Geneva 2 on January 22, 2014. Since no one quite understands what is going on since the ouster of Hillary Clinton and her supporters, the world’s television stations are there. When the Syrian foreign minister whom the French tried to assassinate, Walid Mouallem, takes the floor, he does not fit the situation and addresses the Syrian public, missing the only opportunity he will have to dismantle the Western plot live in the eyes of the world. He is a diplomat of rare loyalty: at a meeting of the Arab League, he refused a bribe of 100 million dollars offered by his Qatari counterpart if he turned against his country. His speech raises the question of support for terrorism by the "opposition delegation" and its sponsors in the room.

In the end, nothing will come out of Geneva 2 because, between the time it was convened and the time the conference was held, Washington adopted a new strategy. The United States does not have to give up its dream of a unipolar world and make a pact with Russia. It still has a card to play: terrorism.

While the diplomats are talking in Geneva 2, President Obama is receiving the King of Jordan to set the conditions for his country’s participation. At the same time, the National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, is hosting the heads of the Coalition’s secret services [23].

As every year, Congress held a closed session during which it voted on the Pentagon’s "black budgets". The existence of this session is attested to by a dispatch from the British agency Reuters [24], but it was never mentioned by the American press and does not appear on the official records. The parliamentarians authorized the continuation of the financing and arming of armed groups in Syria, in violation of Security Council resolutions 1267 and 1373 [25]. Without knowing it, they had just opened the gates of hell.

(To be continued ...)


Thierry Meyssan



Roger Lagassé


Read more:





redzikowo missiles...


At the Redzikowo base in Poland, work has begun on the installation of the Aegis Ashore system, at a cost of more than $180 million. It will be the second U.S. missile base in Europe, after that of Deveselu in Romania became operational in 2015. The official function of these bases is to protect, with the "shield" of SM-3 interceptor missiles, the U.S. forces in Europe and those of European NATO allies from "current and emerging ballistic missile threats from outside the Euro-Atlantic area".

In addition to the two land installations, four ships equipped with the same Aegis system, deployed by the U.S. Navy at the Spanish base of Rota, cross the Mediterranean, Black Sea and Baltic Sea. The U.S. Navy has about 120 destroyers and cruisers armed with this missile system.

Both ships and Aegis land installations are equipped with Lockheed Martin’s Mk 41 vertical launchers: vertical tubes (in the body of the ship or in an underground bunker) from which the missiles are launched. Lockheed Martin itself, illustrating the technical characteristics, documents that it can launch missiles for all missions: anti-missile, anti-aircraft, anti-ship, anti-submarine and attack against land targets. Each launch tube is adaptable to any missile, including "those for long-range attack," including the Tomahawk cruise missile. It can also be armed with a nuclear warhead.

It is therefore impossible to know which missiles are actually in the vertical launchers of the Aegis Ashore base in Romania and which will be installed in the one in Poland. Nor which missiles are on board the ships that cross the limits of Russian territorial waters. Not being able to check, Moscow takes for granted that there are also nuclear attack missiles. Same scenario in East Asia, where Seventh Fleet Aegis warships cross in the South China Sea. The main US allies in the region - Japan, South Korea, Australia - also have ships equipped with the US Aegis system.

This is not the only missile system the US is deploying in Europe and Asia. In his speech at the George Washington School of Media and Public Affairs, General McConville, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, stated last March that the U.S. Army is preparing a "task force" with "long-range precision fire capability that can go anywhere, consisting of hypersonic missiles, medium-range missiles, precision strike missiles" and that "these systems are capable of penetrating anti-aircraft barrage space. The general pointed out that "we plan to deploy one of these task forces in Europe and probably two in the Pacific."

In such a situation, it is not surprising that Russia is accelerating the deployment of new intercontinental missiles, with nuclear warheads that, after ballistic trajectory, glide for thousands of kilometers at hypersonic speed. Nor is it surprising to hear the news, published by the Washington Post [1], that China is building over one hundred new silos for intercontinental ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads. The arms race takes place not so much on the quantitative level (number and power of nuclear warheads) as on the qualitative one (speed, penetrating capacity and geographical location of nuclear carriers). The response, in case of attack or presumed attack, is increasingly entrusted to artificial intelligence, which must decide the launch of nuclear missiles in a few seconds. It increases the possibility of a nuclear war by mistake, risked several times during the Cold War.

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, adopted by the United Nations in 2017 and entered into force in 2021, has so far been signed by 86 states and ratified by 54. None of the 30 NATO and 27 EU countries (except Austria) have ratified or even signed it. In Europe, only Austria, Ireland, Malta, San Marino and the Holy See have signed and ratified it. None of the nine nuclear countries - the United States, Russia, France, Great Britain, Israel, China, Pakistan, India and North Korea - has ratified or even signed it.


Manlio Dinucci


Roger Lagassé


Il Manifesto (Italy)


Read more:




FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW≥≥≥≥≥≥≥≤≤≤≤≤≤≤÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷!!!!

france sabotages syria



France, against its adversaries and its allies


by Thierry Meyssan


We continue the publication in episodes of Thierry Meyssan’s book, Before Our Very Eyes. Pursuing its neo-colonial dream without taking into account the realities, France is largely disowned by the Syrian People, then sidelined by its US allies before falling victim to its Turkish ally.


The French foreign intelligence service (DGSE) advocated "the diplomatic banishment of the Syrian regime" and "substantial military aid to the Free Army brigades". In order to convince French public opinion, they brought Bassma Kodmani, the mistress of their former director, Jean-Claude Cousseran, who had become the spokesperson for the Syrian opposition in France. Her sister, Hala Kodmani, spread the DGSE’s propaganda in the left-wing daily "Libération".

The Syrian people speak out

While Bassma Kodmani, the spokeswoman for the "Syrian opposition" - and companion of former French secret service director Jean-Claude Cousseran - had declared that "the regime is incapable of organizing a presidential election [and that] this is proof that it is a dictatorship," a new electoral code was adopted - in accordance with Western standards - and the election was called.

Until then, the President had been appointed by the Baath party and then validated by referendum. For the first time, he would be elected by direct universal suffrage. It was unlikely that the National Coalition of Opposition and Revolutionary Forces would put forward a candidate, not because of the requirement that candidates have lived in Syria for the past ten years, but because the armed groups are violently opposed to democracy. In their view, as the Muslim Brotherhood has put it, "The Koran is our constitution" and any election is illegitimate. There is therefore no doubt that the regime’s candidate will be elected. However, his eventual legitimacy will depend not on the percentage of votes cast in his favour, but on the number of votes cast and their representativeness in relation to the entire population.


To sabotage the election, everything had to be done to prevent those Syrians who wanted to participate from doing so. Out of 22 million Syrians, less than 2 million lived in the "liberated areas" and would therefore not participate in the election. Another 2 million were refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Europe. France succeeded in convincing its European partners to follow suit and to prohibit the holding of polling stations in Syrian consulates, in violation of the Vienna Convention of April 24, 1963. The Conseil d’Etat, seized by refugees of this abuse of power [1], declared itself incompetent. Meanwhile the "Friends of Syria" denounced a "parody of democracy" aimed at "continuing the dictatorship".

The election pitted three candidates against each other: the communist Maher el-Hajjar, the liberal Hassan Al-Nouri and the Baathist Bashar el-Assad. The state provided them with the means to campaign and guaranteed their security. The media gave them a voice. In reality, if the voters followed the proposals of both sides with interest, Bashar al-Assad was in a situation comparable to that of de Gaulle in 1945. The choice was to stand behind him for the survival of the Syrian Arab Republic or not to vote and side with the jihadists.


Before the ballot opened in Syria, refugees who wished to do so were invited to vote. Western propaganda convinced Syrians that the refugees were all "opponents". Yet, when questioned, most assured that they did not leave their homeland "because of the dictatorship," but because of the fighting. On May 28 and 29, 2014, the vote in Lebanon, where it was authorized at the embassy, moved a crowd of at least 100,000 people according to the Lebanese General Security, which blocked the entire capital. The army intervened to disperse the crowd, but it came from all over the country. Overwhelmed, the embassy had to extend the hours and dates of the vote. It was a nice surprise for Syrians in Syria and a shock for Western chancelleries [2].

In the end, despite calls for a boycott, 73.42% of Syrians of voting age went to the polls [3]. 360 foreign media, present on the spot, and all the embassies opened in Damascus attest to the regularity of the election. Bashar al-Assad obtained 10,319,723 votes, or 88.7% of the votes cast and 65% of the voting age population. The liberal candidate Hassan Al-Nouri obtained 500,279 votes, and the communist Maher el-Hajjar 372,301 votes.


During this campaign, France and its allies, pushed by Jeffrey Feltman, tried to have the Security Council recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court in the Syrian civil war. Of course, the draft resolution referred to all the Syrian actors, both the Republic and the jihadists, but could have anticipated that the prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, would act as her predecessor Luis Moreno Ocampo had done in Libya: at the behest of Nato.

This draft resolution followed accusations by the "Caesar" report and the Carter-Ruck cabinet, as well as those of the daily Le Monde that the "Alawite dictatorship" was systematically raping Sunni opposition women. Le Monde journalist Annick Cojean published the testimony of a victim who said: "We were raped every day with cries of : "We Alawites will crush you". Cojean, president of the Albert Londres Prize, was trained by the Franco-American Foundation. It was she who published, a year after the death of the Leader, Les Proies: dans le harem de Kadhafi [4], a fanciful book that accused him of having raped many children, thus justifying a posteriori and without the slightest evidence the destruction of Libya.

But after the triumphant democratic election of Bashar al-Assad, who could still believe in cruelty, widespread torture, and the "Alawite dictatorship"? The French draft resolution was rejected by Russia and China, who used their fourth veto.


France has been kept out of the loop by the United States in the formation of Daesh. It is surprised to discover that this new actor is upsetting its plans. It is a huge, over-equipped army. Here a training camp on the Israeli border.

Daesh and the Caliphate

A conflict arose within Al Qaeda. The Syrians of the Islamic State in Iraq, who had formed the Front for Victory (Arabic for "Jabhat Al-Nosra"), entered into a rivalry with their parent organization when the Iraqis of the Emirate also moved into Syria. When the conflict degenerated into a pitched battle, France and Turkey supported the Syrians against the Iraqis. Both countries sent ammunition to al-Nosra, via the empty shell that is the Free Syrian Army. However, the fighting between the two organizations was not widespread. Thus in Qalamoun (i.e., on the Lebanese border) it was always the same men who carried both flags.

When in May 2014, Turkey announced to France that it was participating with Saudi Arabia, the United States, Israel, Jordan, the Iraqi Kurdish Regional Government, Sunni tribes and the Iraqi Naqchbandi Order, as well as Norway in the preparation of a large operation with the Islamic Emirate in Iraq, the internal war stopped.


Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (then US presidential candidates) presented the strategic interest of the Muslim Brotherhood to the NATO think-tank, the Bilderberg Group, in 2008, during a meeting at the Marriott Hotel in Chantilly (USA).

France provided Special Forces and the multinational Lafarge. A brief look back is necessary here. In June 2008, NATO organized the annual meeting of the Bilderberg Group [5] in Chantilly (USA), during which Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama introduced themselves to the participants. Among the 120 present were Basma Kodmani (the future spokesperson for the Syrian National Coalition) and Volker Perthes (Feltman’s future assistant at the UN for Syria). During a debate on the permanence of US foreign policy, they intervened to present the importance of the Muslim Brotherhood and the role it could play in the "democratization" of the Arab world. Jean-Pierre Jouyet (the future secretary general of the Élysée), Manuel Valls (the future prime minister) and Bertrand Collomb (the boss of Lafarge) were present alongside Henry R. Kravis (the future financial coordinator of Daech and patron of Emmanuel Macron).

Let’s go back to our story. Lafarge is the world’s leading cement company. NATO, for which it had already secretly worked in 1991, entrusted it with the construction of bunkers for jihadists in Syria and the reconstruction of the Sunni part of Iraq. In exchange, Lafarge let the Alliance manage its installations in these two countries, in particular the Jalabiyeh plant (on the Turkish border, north of Aleppo). For two years, the multinational supplied the building materials for the gigantic underground fortifications that enabled the jihadists to challenge the Syrian Arab Army. Lafarge was now headed by the American Eric Olsen, who had integrated into the company the factories of the Sawiris brothers and Firas Tlass (the brother of General Manas Tlass, whom France had thought of making the next Syrian President). The links between Lafarge and the French Special Forces were facilitated by the friendship between Bertrand Collomb (who became honorary president of the multinational) and General Benoît Puga (who was still President Hollande’s chief of staff).


The Lafarge factory in Jalabiyeh produced 6 million tons of cement to build Daesh’s numerous underground fortifications. At the same time, it housed NATO special forces (France, Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States). Here, Daesh soldiers in the factory.

When the online newspaper Zaman Al-Wasl [6] published evidence that Lafarge was paying money to Daesh, the daily Le Monde came to the rescue. It would publish its version of events, assuring that the multinational was paying for oil to run its plant. This was not true, as the plant ran mainly on coke, which was still being delivered from Turkey. However, Le Monde acknowledged, probably without realizing it, that Lafarge was building Daech’s fortifications insofar as it admitted that the 2.6 million tons of cement produced annually were destined for "rebel areas".

The amount of cement produced by Lafarge for Daech - at least 6 million tons - was comparable to that used by the German Reich in 1916-17 to build the Siegfried Line. Since July 2012, it was therefore no longer a fourth-generation war masked as a revolution, but a classic war of position. This production would cease with the intervention of the Russian air force, solely able to destroy these bunkers. At that time, the Jalabiyeh factory would be transformed into the headquarters of the Nato Special Forces (United States, France, Norway, United Kingdom).


On the sidelines of the "Je suis Charlie" demonstration on January 11, 2015, 56 heads of state and government gathered on a street adjacent to the procession and posed for a few minutes in front of the cameras before returning home. Based on these images, they were portrayed as leaders of a demonstration they never joined.

On January 7, 2015, two individuals dressed as military commandos and claiming to be al-Qaeda assassinated members of the editorial staff of the satirical weekly Charlie-Hebdo in Paris, while a third claiming to be a member of Daech killed a policewoman and took the customers of a kosher convenience store hostage. As usual since 9/11, the terrorists left clues to their identification, in this case identity papers. The government overplayed its reaction and the whole country gave in to stupor, then to fright. President Hollande and heads of state demonstrated with more than a million and a half French people shouting "We are all Charlie!" Among them, France’s main allies against Syria: Benyamin Netanyahu (Israel) and Ahmet Davutoglu (Turkey), who publicly support the jihadists. As I contested this staging and many people refused to "be Charlie", the director of information of France2 Nathalie Saint-Criq intervened in the news to castigate the conspiracists that must be "identified, treated, integrated or reintegrated into the national community". Later, we learn that the terrorists bought their weapons from an ex-mercenary working for the police [7] and that the investigation would be interrupted by the "secret Defense" [8], that two of them were trained by an agent of the DGSE [9], and that the heads of state posed separately for the photographers, but never marched in Paris. No matter, the government decreed a state of emergency, which was approved by the Parliament. It was extended not only to metropolitan France, but also to the overseas departments and territories. It was renewed four times and was always prolonged on the model of the USA Patriot Act.


Reneging on Alain Juppé’s commitments to create a Kurdistan in Syria, President François Hollande received a delegation of anti-Turkish PKK fighters at the Élysée Palace.
In application of the secret Juppé / Davutoglu Treaty, François Hollande envisaged the creation of a "Kurdistan" outside the historical Kurdish territories, he organized a secret meeting at the Élysée, on October 31, 2014, between his Turkish counterpart, Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the co-chairman of the Kurds of Syria, Salih Muslim, to whom he promised the presidency of the future state. However, when in early 2015, the other co-chair of the Syrian Kurds, Asya Abdullah, won the victory in Kobane and was praised by the United States, Hollande received her publicly on February 8, 2015, accompanied by another female officer in uniform.


Commissioner Patrick Calvar, Central Director of Internal Intelligence, confirms to deputies that he has identified the state that gave the order for the attacks of November 13, 2015 (the Bataclan). He would be careful not to name it. This revelation would be deleted from the official record of his hearing.

This turn of events provoked the fury of Erdogan, who ordered the November 13 attacks in Paris. On the second floor of the Bataclan, hostages were tortured and mutilated, others were decapitated. François Hollande sheepishly forbade the publication of this information, despite the fact that it was attested to by police officers before a parliamentary commission [10]. Patrick Calvar, the central director of counter-espionage, testified before a parliamentary commission that his services had identified the ordering state. Shirking his responsibilities, the President would organize tearful commemoration ceremonies and persuade his fellow citizens that terrorism is an inevitable scourge. He will institute a medal of "recognition to the victims of terrorism", and will compensate the "prejudice of anguish of imminent death" and even the "prejudice of waiting". But he will not take any action against Turkey. Turkey will order another crime, five months later, against Belgium at Brussels-Zaventem airport and in front of the European Commission headquarters, at the exact place where the PKK had just demonstrated.


The British press reveals that Mohammed Abrini, the only Daesh soldier involved in both the Paris and Brussels attacks, is an informer for Her Majesty’s Secret Service (MI6).

Far from hiding his responsibility, Recep Tayyip Erdogan gave a resounding speech at the ceremonies marking the 101st anniversary of the battle of Çanakkale ("the battle of the Dardanelles"), four days before the attacks on Belgium [11]. He accused the Europeans of supporting the PKK and announced what would happen in Brussels. The day after the attack, the AKP press (Star, Akit, Internethaber) claimed that the Europeans only got what they deserved [12].

To give the impression that it is taking the initiative against Daech, France deploys the aircraft carrier Charles-de-Gaulle, successively in February/March and November/December 2015. It was escorted by an impressive armada and equipped with 32 aircraft (drones, helicopters and planes). During its second mission, President Hollande went on board and emphasized that the ship will command a large-scale international force. In reality, the French were integrated into Task Force 50 of the US NavCent, i.e. the fleet of the US Central Command. Although the sixty or so ships are commanded by Rear Admiral René-Jean Crignola, he is placed under the authority of the commander of the Fifth Fleet, Vice Admiral Kevin Donegan, who in turn is under the orders of General Lloyd J. Austin III, commander of CentCom. It is indeed an absolute rule of the Empire that command of Allied operations always falls to U.S. officers, with the Europeans being merely deputies.


At the end of 2015, France sent its Prime Minister, Manuel Valls, to collect easy money in Saudi Arabia. There is renewed talk of 3 billion in orders for the Lebanese army and 10 billion in other contracts. But the Saudis are furious about the Iranian nuclear agreement - which the French had pledged to sabotage - and do not appreciate Paris’s hesitations in Syria. The French are proving to be costly and ineffective vassals. The harvest will therefore be much smaller than expected and so will the "gifts."

In early 2016, the French did not flinch when François Hollande appointed Laurent Fabius as president of the Constitutional Council. Thus they cut in this with the Iranians. They received him after the signing of the nuclear agreement with the 5+1. He was hoping to establish business relations even though he had tried to sabotage the agreement for years and confessed, during a dinner, to having spied for Israel, to which he transmitted an account of the negotiations as they went along. He was therefore welcomed with the protocol honors due to his rank by the authorities, while revolutionary associations demonstrated on his way, from his arrival at the airport to his departure. They held up signs recalling his responsibility for the death of more than 2,000 hemophiliacs in 1985-86, as well as his support for al-Qaeda, which "did a good job" killing tens of thousands of Syrians.

Jean-Marc Ayrault replaced him as Minister of Foreign Affairs. Very concerned about the growing gap between France and Germany, he devoted his energy to avoiding their separation. In doing so, he sacrificed the Syrian file and, after a few weeks of hesitation, decided to hold the positions of his predecessors, Juppé and Fabius.


Ayrault has no relationship with the new Prime Minister, Manuel Valls, and deals directly with François Hollande who himself takes charge of the Syrian issue.

If Ayrault is a moderate supporter of Israel, Valls is much harder on the issue. He thus came into conflict with President Hollande over the archaeological work undertaken by Tel Aviv in Jerusalem to the detriment of Muslim monuments. Once committed to the Palestinian cause, he attributes his reversal to his marriage to the Jewish violinist Anne Gravoin.


In Nice, a new attack kills 86 people and injures 484. President Hollande continues to lie to his fellow citizens to hide his responsibility. The French still do not understand the consequences of what is being done in their name in Syria.

On the national holiday, the evening of July 14, 2016, an individual claiming to be a member of Daech, Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel, crushed random passersby with a truck on the Promenade des Anglais, killing 86 people and injuring 484. Although no one has ever succeeded in killing and injuring so many people with a vehicle, investigators assure that the man had no special training and was acting alone. However, his family in Tunisia had just received 100,000 euros, without any attempt to find out who paid for this crime. While we are in a state of emergency, it appears that the terrorist was able to act all the more easily as 60 gendarmes had been moved from Nice to Avignon to ensure the security of President Hollande who was dining with his mistress and actors.

In Paris, the jihadists’ breakthrough in Syria is commented on by stressing that the regime now controls only 20% of the territory and will soon fall. In reality, two thirds of Syria is a desert that nobody controls, neither the Republic nor the jihadists. President al-Assad has chosen to defend his population rather than his territory. At least 8 million Syrians have chosen to flee the jihadists and take refuge in the cities of the Republic. None of them is known to have made the reverse journey: from government zones to those of the jihadists.

So François Hollande was seized with fury when, in February 2015, he learned of the trip to Damascus of two senators, Jean-Pierre Vial (Les Républicains) and François Zocchetto (centrist), and two deputies, Jacques Myard (Les Républicains) and Gérard Bapt (PS). A second trip, in September 2015, brought Gérard Bapt again, this time accompanied by deputies Jérôme Lambert (PS) and Christian Hutin (Chevènementiste). Then a third, in March 2016, brings together deputies (Les Républicains) around Thierry Mariani, with Valérie Boyer, Nicolas Dhuicq, Denis Jacquat and Michel Voisin. And finally a fourth, in January 2017, with the same and Jean Lassalle (centrist). All, except Gérard Bapt, are received by President el-Assad.

It is that the socialist Bapt, too, came to do business. He represented the Grand Lodge of the French Masonic Alliance (GLAMF) - directly dependent on Prince Edward, Duke of Kent -, a spin-off of the French National Grand Lodge (GLNF), created by Alain Juillet (former head of Economic Intelligence at the General Secretariat of National Defense) for the British. He meets with businessmen and promises them to have their names removed from the European sanctions list, in exchange for cash. Of course he has no power in this matter. He is accompanied by another crook, Jérôme Toussaint, now imprisoned in France.

The third trip highlights the presence in Syria of the association SOS Chrétiens d’Orient, which recruits mainly from the National Front. If its volunteers devote themselves without counting the cost - at their own expense -, their activity in favor of only Christians linked to Rome discriminates against the Orthodox. The millions of euros they claim to collect in France do not reach Syria. The local religious authorities began to get angry when these Western Christians, reviving the spirit of the Crusades, celebrated a mass in the ruins of the Krak des Chevaliers, the imposing 12th century Crusader fortress. The young people were unaware that at the time, the Christians of the Levant had defended their country against the Crusader invaders, whom they considered to be imperialist conquerors.

In the end, as France sank into decline, its leaders failed to form an anti-imperialist front, which was an essential precondition for economic recovery. Only a few groups are taking a stand against this colonial war: Marine Le Pen’s National Front, Jean-Frédéric Poisson’s Christian Democratic Party, Nicolas Dupont-Aignan’s Debout la France, François Asselineau’s Union populaire républicaine, the group of Republicans close to François Fillon and Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s France Insoumise.

Deprived of information from the field since the closure of its embassy, unable to analyze the origin of the events, but still trying to pretend that it is initiating them, France has obviously not foreseen what will follow.

(To be continued...)


Thierry Meyssan



Pete Kimberley
Roger Lagassé


Read more:


Read from top.


Free JULIAN ASSANGE NOW £££££££§§§§§!!!!

the west should pay...


France : from colonial fantasy to disaster

by Thierry Meyssan

We are finishing the publication of the second part of Thierry Meyssan’s book, "Before our very eyes". In this episode, he reviews the amateurism of the last French presidents, on the advice of the few supporters of colonialism, and on the disaster they caused.


François Hollande and Emmanuel Macron had no foreign policy experience when they became president. It was not important to them. Oblivious to their responsibility, they followed the advice of their entourage and found themselves embroiled in crimes against humanity.

Russia’s intervention

The Hollande government was stunned when it learned, in September 2015, of the Russian military deployment. It had never imagined it although Russia and Syria had been preparing for three years. It would be even more surprised, in August 2016, when Russia installed another base, this time in Iran. Yet this had been concerted for a year.

The Russian army presents many new weapons and uses the battlefield to promote its defense industry. In a few months, it destroyed one by one all the bunkers and fortifications that Lafarge and NATO had built. However, Paris did not immediately understand what was going on, especially since Washington was not quick to let it know. Russia had installed in Latakia a system that inhibits NATO’s controls and commands [1]. The Alliance becames deaf and blind within a radius of 300 kilometers. Moreover, when its planes crossed the zone, they could no longer operate their weapons [2]. In order to allow international actors to verify the effectiveness of this new kind of weapon, Russia carried out tests over Lebanese and Cypriot space (including the large British military base) [3], and then in Iraq.

The same system is deployed in Crimea and Kaliningrad. In fact, as NATO’s Supreme Commander has acknowledged, Russia has become the leading conventional military power ahead of the United States. Paris is falling back on the Juppé / Davutoglu project while participating in the [US] International Coalition against Daech. The latter publishes triumphant communiqués of its bombings against the jihadists. However, on the ground, many witnesses testify that it is not fighting Daech, but rather dropping weapons and ammunition on it, while the Syrian Arab Republic is sending the UN lists of oil and gas installations that the Coalition is destroying, with a view to subsequent reparations.

The Russian economy has suffered greatly from European sanctions during the Ukrainian conflict, and Moscow cannot continue its bombing campaign indefinitely. While it should have stopped on January 6 (date of Orthodox Christmas), it continued until mid-March.

The French leaders, thinking only in terms of interests, were convinced that the Russians had only come to Syria to fight the jihadists and extend their zone of influence. They interpreted the religious symbols that Moscow wielded as internal communication devices. It never occurred to them that anything else could move a great nation like Russia.


The ancient "Silk Road" connected Iran to the Syrian coast through Iraq and on to Palmyra. It is geographically impossible to open other major communication routes through the desert. As a result, the city has become a central issue in the Syrian war. After being occupied for a year by Daesh, it was liberated by the Syrian Arab Army. It hosted two concerts, televised in Syria and Russia, to celebrate the victory of civilization over terrorism (...and its sponsors).

Syria and Russia’s struggle for civilization is celebrated, on May 5 and 6, 2016 (Syrian Army and Allied Victory Against Nazism holidays), at concerts in liberated Palmyra. Presidents Vladimir Putin and Bashar al-Assad both speak on a giant screen while symphony orchestras play amidst the ancient ruins. The "city of the desert" embodies the ancient resistance of the peoples of the Levant to Roman imperialism. It is also one of the most strategic places of the war: it had been occupied by Daech.

Before withdrawing its bombers, Moscow signs an agreement with the State Department. The United States swore that they were acting in good faith and claimed not to know what Jeffrey Feltman was doing with Daech from the UN. John Kerry and Sergei Lavrov therefore decided to resume the Geneva negotiations. They agreed to impose a ceasefire on both sides - excluding the "terrorists" -, to deliver humanitarian aid to the besieged populations and to form the next Syrian government themselves; good resolutions that did not last long.

Macron the Undecided

In May 2017, the French, scalded by the catastrophic mandates of Nicolas Sarkozy and François Hollande, chose an unknown, Emmanuel Macron as president. A senior Treasury official, having made a notable detour through the Rothschild bank, he is a "mandarin", with no political party, but who represents the 300 members of the General Inspection of Finance. As such, he knows nothing about international politics. He therefore relies on a few advisors, some of whom shamelessly display in their office at the Élysée Palace the certificate of competence they received from a foreign authority, the US State Department.

Out of nowhere - he had resigned from his position at the Élysée and was destined to become a professor at the London School of Economics and the University of Berlin - he was suddenly appointed Minister of the Economy and received strong support for his election campaign. He seems to have benefited above all from the help of his friends Henry and Marie-Josée Kravis, the reference shareholders of one of the largest investment funds in the world, KKR [4].


The former CIA boss, General David Petraeus, is putting himself at the service of the ultra-billionaire Henry Kravis.

President Macron wants to maintain good relations with all. So he begins his term with a few words in favor of restoring diplomatic relations with Damascus and sends emissaries to Syria. To his great surprise, they were not received by President al-Assad. The latter told them that he would only accept a French embassy when Paris had stopped its military support to the jihadists. Emmanuel Macron then discovered the extent of France’s secret involvement in this war.


Trained in Washington, ambassador Michel Duclos is one of the main relays of Western warmongering in French diplomacy.

In the end, after having made pro- and anti-Syrian statements "at the same time", he did a third thing. On the advice of Michel Duclos, he left the Syrian file to his Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jean-Yves Le Drian. The latter, when he was Minister of Defense under François Hollande, pushed more than any other for the destruction of the Syrian state. Michel Duclos is a neo-conservative, special advisor to the Montaigne Foundation and the Atlantic Council. He was ambassador in Damascus where he befriended great Sunni bourgeois secretly members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

He only accidentally became interested in Syria again, via the Lebanese dossier. Successively, popular protests against the political class (October 2019), a banking crisis (November 2019), a health crisis (July 2020), an explosion at the port of Beirut (August 2020) caused a sudden disappearance of the middle classes and a general decline in the standard of living of around 200% [5].


Double explosion in the port of Beirut. One of them causes a tactical mushroom cloud.

President Macron visits Beirut twice after the explosion at the port. The first time he was greeted by a petition, orchestrated undercover by the DGSE, demanding the restoration of the French "mandate" over the country. The second time he celebrated the centenary of the proclamation of Greater Lebanon by General Henri Gouraud, leader of the French Colonial Party [6].

Asked by President Michel Aoun to reveal the satellite photos of the explosion at the port, he never followed up. The disaster corresponded to the overflight of Beirut by two unidentified fighter-bombers. The explosion had caused a "mushroom cloud". Three embassies had immediately taken air filters from the vehicles present at the scene and had them analyzed in their respective countries. They are now convinced, as well as the Lebanese army, that the explosion was caused by a tactical nuclear missile. However, the judicial investigation persists in pursuing false leads, just as it did in the assassination of Rafik Hariri.

In the end, French claims to re-colonize Lebanon in the absence of Syria came up against the US plan to partition Lebanon [7] and Israel [8], and then against the agreement reached between Presidents Biden and Putin [9].

Provisional assessment

It is a mistake to speak of French policy in the face of the "Arab Spring. First, because Paris did not understand who was causing the events, nor why, and second, because successive French governments have never sought to defend the interests of their country. At most, we can see the erratic behavior of France, looking for good opportunities for its leaders to make easy money.

On this subject, as on many others, the distinction between right and left is meaningless. Nicolas Sarkozy, Alain Juppé, François Hollande and Laurent Fabius have carried out the same "privatization" of national policy, even if President Sarkozy was more flexible and stopped attacking Syria when he understood the impossibility of victory. On the other hand, there is a colonialist/anti-imperialist cleavage within almost every political party and a few men who have tried to save the country’s honor.


The bottom of the contradictions of French foreign policy was expressed by former President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, in Le Parisien of September 27, 2015 [10]. Giving his support to his left-wing successor, this right-wing man said, "I wonder about the possibility of creating a UN mandate on Syria, for a period of five years"; an elegant formula to reintroduce the mandate exercised by France, with the approval of the League of Nations, from 1920 to 1946. The mandate was a politically correct expression to designate the colonization of Syria, as planned during the First World War by Sir Mark Sykes, François Georges-Picot and Sergei Sazonov, representing respectively the United Kingdom, France and the Tsarist Empire (the "Sykes-Picot agreements"). Now, and this is no coincidence, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing is the first cousin of François Georges-Picot.

In a court of law, if there were to be a Nuremberg for them, the members of the Sarkozy administration would have to answer for the privatization of national policy and for the 160,000 deaths of the operation in Libya (figure established by the International Red Cross). Of course, they would share this responsibility with others, mainly Americans, British, Qataris and Turks. They would, on the other hand, be given a clean slate for their crimes in Syria, given their reversal in February 2012 and their peace agreement with the Syrian Arab Republic. The Hollande administration and its accomplices should be held accountable for the 300,000 Syrian deaths (figure established by the UN Secretary General) and the 200,000 to 300,000 jihadists they supported and who were also killed (assessment established by the Syrian and Iraqi Arab armies).

France and its allies should be held responsible for the events they have caused. The question of whether or not the French people were aware of the crimes committed in their name is irrelevant: in a democracy, every citizen who says nothing shares the responsibility exercised by the leaders they elected.

The French and their allies should pay for the destruction of two thirds of Syria (at least 300 billion dollars, according to the World Bank), including almost all the oil and gas infrastructures as well as a large part of the ancient monuments.


Thierry Meyssan


Pete Kimberley
Roger Lagassé


Read more:


FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

never ending wars...



The post-9/11 American empire watches, plunders and kills


by Thierry Meyssan  

We continue the publication of Thierry Meyssan’s book, « Before Our Very Eyes ». In this episode, he exposes the transformations of the American Empire thanks to 9/11: the creation of a system of internal surveillance of the civilian population and, externally, the launching of the endless war in the wider Middle East. He also looks at the posthumous influence of the philosopher Leo Strauss in removing any scruples that US and Israeli leaders might have had about implementing such a programme.


Admiral Arthur Cebrowski divided the world into two: the globalised states and all the others. The latter are condemned to be mere reservoirs of natural wealth and labour. The Pentagon’s post-9/11 mission is no longer to win wars, but to deprive non-globalised regions of state structures and to install chaos there.
Washington’s strategy

Let us return to our narrative. By 2001, Washington had become intoxicated and convinced itself of an imminent shortage of energy sources. The National Energy Policy Development (NEPD) Task Force, chaired by Dick Cheney, had heard from all the private and public officials responsible for hydrocarbon supply. Having met the secretary-general of this body, which the Washington Post called a "secret society" [1], I was impressed by his determination and his plans to deal with the shortage. So, knowing nothing about the issue, I bought into this Malthusian vision for a while.

In any case, Washington concluded that it needed to seize known oil and gas reserves as soon as possible to keep its economy going. This policy was abandoned when the US elite realised that other forms of oil than Saudi crude, Texas oil or North Sea oil could be exploited. By taking control of Pemex [2], the US will seize the reserves of the Gulf of Mexico and proclaim its energy independence by hiding its failure behind the promotion of shale oil and gas. Today, contrary to Dick Cheney’s predictions, oil supply has never been so large and remains cheap.

In order to control the "wider Middle East", the Pentagon demands to have full latitude and to distinguish its strategic objective from the wishes of the oil companies. Based on British and Israeli work, it plans to reshape the region, i.e. to disrupt the borders inherited from the European empires, to eliminate the large states capable of resisting it and to create small, ethnically homogeneous states. In addition to being a project of domination, this plan deals with the whole region without taking into account local specificities. Although the populations are sometimes geographically distinct, they are also totally intertwined, making it illusory to separate them except by carrying out vast massacres.


According to the Rumsfeld/Cebrowski doctrine, no more wars should be won. Stability is the enemy of the US. That is why the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, which were supposed to be won in a few weeks, are still going on.

In fact, the team that organised the 9/11 attacks - of which Dick Cheney is a member - knows all this and thought about it long before. It is therefore implementing a vast reform of the armed forces based on the model of Admiral Arthur Cebrowski. This man has already transformed US military practices according to the new computer tools [3]. He has also developed a strategy to destroy states as political organisations and allow large computer companies to run the globalised world in their place [4]. The very next day after 9/11, the Army magazine Parameters [5] outlined the plan to reshape the ’wider Middle East’ and said that it would be particularly bloody and cruel. It states that crimes against humanity will have to be carried out and may be outsourced to third parties. Then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld gives Admiral Cebrowski an office in the Pentagon to oversee it all.

September 11 was therefore not only a means of urgently adopting an anti-terrorist code, the USA Patriot Act, drafted at least two years in advance, but also of undertaking a vast reform of institutions: the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and the creation of clandestine Special Forces (within the armies).


The 3rd Secretary of the US Embassy in Moscow, Ryan C. Fogle, was arrested by the FSB in 2013. He was one of the Pentagon’s Secret Special Forces men. He was in the process of recruiting a spy for the Caucasus Counter-Terrorism Directorate. When he was arrested, he was in possession of all the necessary equipment to disguise himself and change his fingerprints.

The Department of Homeland Security is not only an umbrella for various agencies such as the Coast Guard or the immigration services. It is also a vast system for controlling the US population, employing 112,000 full-time ’domestic spies’ [6]. The clandestine Special Forces are an army of 60,000 highly trained men, acting without uniform in defiance of the Geneva Conventions [7]. They can assassinate anyone the Pentagon wants, anywhere in the world. And the Pentagon will not hesitate to make the most of this investment in the greatest secrecy.

The wars against Afghanistan and Iraq

Operations began with the war against the Taliban, in application of the Cheney doctrine after the breakdown of negotiations to build a pipeline through Afghanistan in mid-July 2001. Ambassador Niaz Naik, who represented Pakistan in the Berlin negotiations with the Taliban, had returned to Islamabad considering the US attack inevitable [8] . His country had begun to prepare for its consequences. The British fleet had deployed to the Arabian Sea, NATO had sent 40,000 troops to Egypt, and the Tajik leader Ahmed Shah Massoud had been assassinated two days before the attacks in New York and Washington.

The US and UK representatives at the UN, John Negroponte and Sir Jeremy Greenstock, insist that President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair are applying the right of self-defence in attacking Afghanistan. However, all the chancelleries know that Washington and London wanted to wage this war independently of the attacks. At best, they conclude that they are instrumental in the crime of which only the former was a victim. However, I manage to cast doubt worldwide on what really happened on 9/11. In France, President Jacques Chirac had my work evaluated by the DGSE. After an extensive investigation, the DGSE found that all the elements on which I based my work were true, but it could not confirm my conclusions.

The daily newspaper Le Monde, which had launched a campaign to discredit me, mocked my predictions that the United States would attack Iraq [9]. Yet the inevitable happenned. Washington accused Baghdad of harbouring members of al-Qaeda and of preparing weapons of mass destruction to attack the "land of the free". So it would be war, as in 1991.


To accuse Iraq of possessing chemical weapons, Donald Rumsfeld relied on those he had sold to President Saddam Hussein during the war against Iran. But he had used them all.

Everyone is then faced with a case of conscience. By persisting in turning a blind eye to the 9/11 coup, one is prevented from challenging the US discourse and is forced to approve the next crime: the invasion of Iraq in this case. Only a senior international official, Hans Blix, decided to defend the truth [10]. This Swedish diplomat is the former director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). He chairs the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, which is responsible for monitoring Iraq. Standing up to Washington, he asserted that Iraq did not have the resources it was accused of having. He was soon under unprecedented pressure: not only the US Empire, but all his allies were pressuring him to stop his childishness and let the world’s leading power destroy Iraq. He would not give in, even when his successor at the IAEA, the Egyptian Mohamed el-Baradei, pretended to play the conciliator.

On February 5, 2003, Secretary of State and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell delivered a speech to the Security Council, the text of which was drafted by Cheney’s team. He accused Iraq of all the evils, including protecting the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks and preparing weapons of mass destruction to attack Western states. In passing, he revealed the existence of a new face of Al-Qaeda, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi.


French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin came to the UN Security Council to oppose the US war against Iraq.

But Jacques Chirac, in turn, refused to join in the crime. He did not imagine that he would denounce Washington’s lies. He sent his foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, to the Security Council. He left the DGSE reports in Paris and focused his intervention on the difference between an imposed war and a chosen war. It is clear that the attack on Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11, but is an imperial choice, a conquest. Villepin will then underline the results already obtained by Blix in Iraq. He then deflated the US accusations to show that the use of force was not justified at this stage and concluded that there was no evidence that the war could achieve better results than continuing the inspections. Believing that this intervention would provide a way out for Washington and that war would be avoided, the Security Council applauded it. This was the first time that diplomats had applauded one of their own in this room.

Not only would Washington and London impose their war, but forgetting Hans Blix, the US would undertake all sorts of operations to ’make Chirac pay’. The French President would soon let his guard down and serve his American overlord more than necessary.


Despite threats, Hans Blix, chairman of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), refused to confirm that Iraq held weapons of mass destruction in 2003. This was the argument used by President Bush to justify his war against Iraq.

We must learn from this crisis. Hans Blix, like his compatriot Raoul Wallenberg during the Second World War, refused to accept that Americans (or Germans) were superior to others. He decided to try to save men who had committed no other crime than being Iraqis (or Hungarian Jews). Jacques Chirac would have liked to be like them, but his previous mistakes and the secrets of his private life exposed him to a blackmail that left him with no choice but to step down or submit.

Washington plans to place in power in Baghdad Iraqis in exile whom it had selected from a British association, the Iraqi National Council, chaired by Ahmed Chalabi. The fact that Chalabi was considered an international fraudster after his conviction in the bankruptcy of Jordan’s Petra Bank was not taken into account. The aircraft manufacturer Lockheed Martin created a Committee for the Liberation of Iraq [11], of which the former Secretary of State and mentor of Bush Jr, George Shultz, took the chair. This Committee and the Chalabi Council sold this war to the American public. They assured that the US would only assist the Iraqi opposition and that it would not take long.

Like the attack on Afghanistan, the attack on Iraq was prepared before the attacks on New York and Washington. Vice President Dick Cheney had himself negotiated the establishment of US military bases in Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan in early 2001 as part of the development of the Central Asia Battalion (CENTRASBAT) arrangements of the Central Asian Economic Community. Planners anticipated that the war would require 60,000 tonnes of equipment per day, so the Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC) was tasked with starting to move logistics there in advance.


A determined opponent of the Rumsfeld/Cebrowski tandem, General Paul Van Riper (already retired) came to command the "red forces" (Iraq) during a simulation of the attack on that country. He managed to cause damage that would have cost the US at least 20,000 men. Before attacking Iraq, the Pentagon preferred to bribe President Saddam Hussein’s generals rather than confront his army.

The training of the troops only took place after the attacks. These were the largest military manoeuvres in history: "Millennium Challenge 2002". This war game mixed real-life manoeuvres with staffroom simulations made with the technological tools used in Hollywood for the film Gladiator. From July 24 to August 15, 2002, 13,500 troops were mobilised. The islands of San Nicola and San Clemente, off the coast of California, and the Nevada desert were evacuated to serve as the theatre of operations. This debauchery of means required a budget of 235 million dollars. For the record, the soldiers simulating Iraqi troops were commanded by General Paul Van Riper; using an unconventional strategy, they outperformed the US troops so well that the staff stopped the exercise before it was completed [12].

Ignoring Hans Blix’s reports and French objections, Washington launched "Operation Iraqi Liberation" on March 19, 2003. Given the meaning of its acronym, OIL, it was renamed "Operation Iraqi Freedom". Fire of unprecedented power rained down on Baghdad, causing ’Shock and Awe’. Baghdadis were dazed as the US and its allies took over the country.


Donald Rumsfeld handed over the conquered Iraq to Henry Kissinger’s private assistant, L. Paul Bremer III. He ran a private company there, pompously named the Coalition Provisional Authority. It is not known who were the lucky beneficiaries of this operation.

The government was first taken over by a Pentagon office, the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance(ORHA), then after a month by a civilian administrator appointed by the Secretary of Defense, L. Paul Bremer III, Henry Kissinger’s private assistant. He soon assumed the title of Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority. However, contrary to what the name suggests, this Authority was not created by the Coalition, which never met and whose composition is not known [13].

For the first time, a body has appeared that depends on the Pentagon, but does not appear on any US organisation chart. It is an offshoot of the group that took power on September 11, 2001. In documents released by Washington, the Authority is referred to as a Coalition body if the document is intended for foreigners, and as a US government body if it is intended for Congress. With the exception of one British official, all the Authority’s employees are paid by US administrations, but are not subject to US law. So they take their cues from the Government Procurement Code. The Authority seizes the Iraqi treasury, i.e. $5 billion, but only one billion appears in its accounts. What happened to the remaining $4 billion? The question was asked at the Madrid conference for reconstruction. It would never be answered.


Ambassador Peter W. Galbraith, who invented the myth of President Saddam Hussein as a genocidist of Kurds, was tasked with implementing Senator Joe Biden’s plan to divide Iraq into three separate states.

Paul Bremer’s deputy is none other than Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the UK representative on the Security Council who justified the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq. During the occupation, the United States examined the possibilities of reshaping Iraq, in this case the partition into three states, according to the plan of Democratic Senator Joe Biden. So Bremer sent Ambassador Peter Galbraith - who had organised the partition of Yugoslavia into seven separate states - to advise the Kurdish Regional Government.


Professor Leo Strauss had chosen some of his Jewish students to form a group of hoplites (Spartan soldiers). He sent them to disrupt the classes of his rivals at the University of Chicago. He taught them that it was better to form a dictatorship than to be a victim of one.

Bremer works directly with the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, who defined the future US strategy upon the dissolution of the USSR. He is a Trotskyite Jew who was trained in the thought of Leo Strauss. He has installed many followers of the German philosopher in the Pentagon. Together they form a structured, very coherent and united group. According to them, learning from the weakness of the Weimar Republic in the face of the Nazis, Jews cannot trust democracies to protect them from a new genocide. Instead, they must side with authoritarian regimes and place themselves on the side of power. In this way, the idea of a world dictatorship is legitimised in a preventive way [14].

Wolfowitz set the broad lines of the Coalition Provisional Authority’s work, namely the de-Baathification of the country - i.e. the dismissal of all civil servants who are members of the secular Baath Party - and its economic plunder. On his instructions, Bremer awarded all public contracts to friendly companies, usually without competitive bidding; this excluded, as a matter of principle, the French and Germans who were guilty of opposing this imperial war [15].

The entire membership of the Project for a New American Century, the think tank that prepared 9/11, is incorporated, directly or indirectly, into or works with the Coalition Provisional Authority.

From the outset, these people raised a lot of eyebrows. First, that of the representative of the UN Secretary General, the Brazilian Sérgio Vieira de Mello. He was assassinated on August 19. 2003, allegedly by the jihadist Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, whom Powell had denounced to the UN. The diplomat’s relatives, on the contrary, underline the conflict that opposed him to Wolfowitz and directly accuse a US faction. Then, it was General James Mattis, commander of the 1st Marine Division, who worried about the disastrous consequences of the de-Baathification. He eventually fell into line.

Carried away by their successes in the United States, Afghanistan and Iraq, the men of 9/11 direct their country towards new targets.


From October 12 to 14. 2003, a strange meeting was held at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. According to the invitation card: « Israel is the moral alternative to Eastern totalitarianism and Western moral relativism. Israel is the ’Ground Zero’ of our civilisation’s central battle for survival. Israel can be saved, and the rest of the West with it. It is time to unite in Jerusalem. »

Several hundred personalities from the Israeli and US far right are being entertained at the expense of the Russian mafia. Avigdor Lieberman, Benyamin Netanyahu and Ehud Olmert congratulate Elliot Abrams, Richard Perle and Daniel Pipes.


All of them share the same belief: theopoly. According to them, the ’End of Days’ is near. Soon the world will be ruled by a Jewish institution based in Jerusalem [16].

This meeting worried the Israeli progressives, especially since some speakers referred to Baghdad, which had been conquered six months earlier, as the ancient "Babylon". It is obvious to them that the theopolitics that this congress claims to follow is a resurgence of Talmudism. This school of thought - of which Leo Strauss was a specialist - interprets Judaism as a thousand-year-old prayer of the Jewish people to avenge the crimes of the Egyptians against their ancestors, their deportation to Babylon by the Assyrians and even the destruction of the Jews of Europe by the Nazis. He considers that the "Wolfowitz doctrine" prepares the Armaggedon (the final battle) which will be the establishment of chaos first in the wider Middle East, then in Europe. A general destruction that will mark the divine punishment of those who made the Jewish People suffer.

Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak realises the mistake he made in refusing the peace he himself had negotiated with Presidents Bill Clinton and Hafez al-Assad; a peace that would have preserved the interests of all the peoples of the region and that the theopoliticians did not want. He began to gather the officers who would try in vain to prevent the re-election of Benyamin Netanyahu, in November 2014, within the Commanders for Israel Security. He would continue his fight until he delivered his speech in June 2016, at the Herzliya conference, in which he denounced Netanyahu’s policy of the worst and his desire to institutionalise apartheid. He would call on his compatriots to save their country by blocking these fanatics.

(To be continued...)


Thierry Meyssan


Pete Kimberley
Roger Lagassé


Read more:


See also: 

"The Age of Deceit"


memory loss...