by Michel Chossudovsky
September 05, 2013
Americans have been repeatedly told that Al Qaeda under the helm of the late
Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
Formulated in the wake of the tragic events of
September 11, 2001, the U.S.
and its allies launched a "Global War on Terrorism" (GWOT) directed against
the numerous "jihadist" Al Qaeda affiliated terror formations in the Middle
East, Africa, Central Asia and South East Asia.
The first stage of the "Global War on Terrorism"
was the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan.
In the wake of 9/11, the" Global War on Terrorism" served to obfuscate the
real economic and strategic objectives behind the US-led wars in the Middle
East and Central Asia.
Patriot legislation was implemented. The national security doctrine
stated unequivocally that the American Homeland was to be protected against
For the last 13 years, war on terrorism rhetoric has permeated political
discourse at all levels of government. Al Qaeda related threats and
occurrences are explained by,
...under a single blanket "bad guys" heading,
in which Al Qaeda ("the outside enemy of America") is casually and
repeatedly pinpointed as "the cause" of numerous terror events around the
But somehow, in the last few months, this "Al Qaeda paradigm" has shifted.
The American public has become increasingly skeptical regarding
validity of the "Global War on Terrorism".
In recent months, with the unfolding events in Syria, something rather
unusual has occurred, which has had a profound impact on the public’s
perception and understanding of Obama’s "Global War on Terrorism".
The US government is actively and openly supporting
Syria’s Al Nusrah, the main fighting force
affiliated to al Qaeda, largely composed of foreign mercenaries.
Tax dollars are relentlessly channeled to the "rebels". In turn, Secretary
of State John Kerry meets with rebel commanders who oversee the Al
Qaeda affiliated entity.
Is this part of a "new normal": the
unity of opposites whereby "terrorism" and "counter-terrorism" are
merged into a single foreign policy focus?
Is it "politically correct" for a US
Senator to mingle with leaders of a terrorist organization, while at
the same time paying lip service to the "Global War on Terrorism"?
While this may be "business as usual" for the US
Secretary of State, American servicemen and women are now "refusing to
fight" a war in favor of terrorism under the emblem of the "Global War on
Channeling money and weapons to Al Qaeda in Syria is carried out "in the
open", via the US State Department and the Pentagon rather than in the
context of a covert CIA operation.
John McCain enters Syria illegally and poses for photo ops with Al
Hawkish US Senator John
poses with infamous kidnapper
in Syria, Mohamed Nour
(seen with his hand on his
chest and holding a camera)
The Movement within the US
Needless to say, this mingling of politicians and terrorists strikes at the
very foundations of the "Global War on Terrorism".
Despite the tide of media disinformation, people are increasingly aware that
these US sponsored rebels are not "revolutionaries" and that US military aid
is being channeled to the terror brigades.
A spontaneous movement on social media networks has emerged involving active
members of the armed forces.
"I will not fight for al Qaeda".
"Obama, I will not fight for your al Qaeda rebels in Syria."
"Our government tells us that we are
fighting a war on terrorism." That is what is taught to new recruits in
the Armed Forces. "We’re spreading democracy by combating terrorism".
Yet in recent months, millions of Americans have
become aware of the fact that the Obama administration is lying.
Supporting the Terrorists
Barack Obama and John Kerry are not fighting terrorism.
Quite the opposite: They are actively supporting
Al Qaeda terrorists in Syria, who are responsible for the most despicable
crimes, killings and atrocities directed against the civilian population.
These crimes have been amply documented. Beheadings, executions of children.
The most gruesome massacres.
The Al Nusrah brigades have performed thousands of executions. A recently
released video reveals how two young boys are executed following the reading
of a death sentence.
"In the video can be seen a terrorist reading death
sentence to the boys, gunfire is heard, boys fall dead."
Are these the people who
are being supported by the US government?
The terrorists are directly recruited by the Western military alliance. They
are trained in Saudi Arabia and Qatar in liaison with the US and NATO.
These are the rebels who, according to CNN, have also been trained by
Western special forces in the use of chemical weapons. And they have used
chemical weapons against innocent Syrian civilians.
US servicemen and women are adamant.
"I did not join the army to fight for
We were recruited to wage a "Global War on Terrorism" and now our government
is collaborating with Al Qaeda.
Congressman Dennis Kucinich said,
"striking Syria would make the U.S.
Military ‘Al-Qaeda’s Air Force’".
The concept which is spreading across the land is that the Obama
administration is supporting Al Qaeda.
It’s a bipartisan consensus: the Republican leadership in the US Congress
and the Senate have endorsed support and financial aid to the al Nusrah
brigades in Syria.
In the eyes of public opinion, the Global War on Terrorism has, so to speak,
Who is Supporting Whom? Who is Waging a War of Aggression?
The spontaneous movement in the armed forces is based on the notion that the
"US government is supporting al Qaeda".
The corporate media has failed to reveal the nature of the longstanding
relationship between Al Qaeda and the US government, which goes back to the
Al Qaeda - the "outside enemy of America" as well as the alleged architect
of the 9/11 attacks - is a creation of the CIA. Al Qaeda and its affiliates
are often referred to as "intelligence assets"
From the outset of the Soviet-Afghan war in the early 1980s, the US
intelligence apparatus has supported the formation of "Islamic brigades".
Propaganda purports to erase the history of Al Qaeda, drown the truth and
"kill the evidence" on how this "outside enemy" was fabricated and
transformed into "Enemy Number One".
The Global War on Terrorism is not geared towards curbing the "Islamic
The significant development of "radical Islam" in the wake of the
Cold War was consistent with Washington’s hidden agenda. The latter consists
in sustaining rather than combating international terrorism, with a view to
creating factional divisions within countries and destabilizing national
The numerous al Qaeda affiliated entities are routinely used in CIA covert
They are recruited, trained and indoctrinated under the
of the CIA and its intelligence counterparts in,
Unknown to the American public, the US has
spread the teachings of the "Islamic jihad" in textbooks "Made in America",
developed at the University of Nebraska
Al Qaeda is an intelligence asset which serves the interests of the US
With regard to Syria, the US government is not "supporting Al Qaeda".
The Al Qaeda mercenaries in Syria, recruited and trained in
Saudi Arabia and Qatar, are "supporting the US government". They are being
used by the US military intelligence apparatus. They are paid killers.
Their actions are implemented as part of a military agenda; they are the
foot-soldiers of the Western military alliance. The atrocities committed by
the terrorists are the direct result of paramilitary training and
indoctrination. The US government is behind this process.
responsible for the crimes committed by the "rebels" against the Syrian
We are at an important crossroads.
The "Global war on Terrorism" constitutes
the cornerstone of war propaganda. Yet at the same time the lies which
uphold the GWOT are no longer credible and the thrust and effectiveness of
the propaganda campaign are threatened.
No one can reasonably believe in a "war on terrorism" which consists in
channeling money and weapons to the terrorists.
Its a non sequitur.
"Support to terrorists", portrayed as "revolutionaries" cannot be heralded
as part of a foreign policy agenda which officially consists in "going after
Obama desperately needs to hold on to the "Global
War on Terrorism".
It’s the cornerstone of US military doctrine.
It’s a worldwide crusade. Without the "Global War on Terrorism", the Obama
administration does not have a leg to stand on: its military doctrine
collapses like a deck of cards.
Undermining the credibility of the "Global War on Terrorism" is a powerful
instrument of counter-propaganda.
We call on people across the land:
Mobilize against Obama’s war.
The war on Syria is illegal and criminal.
The President and Commander in Chief’s decision to support Al Qaeda in Syria
is in violation of international law and US anti terrorism legislation .
US and coalition troops have a moral and legal obligation to refuse to fight
in Obama’s "humanitarian war" on Syria, which consists in supporting Al
Qaeda affiliated terrorists.
The President and Commander in Chief has blatantly violated all tenets of
domestic and international law. So that making an oath to "obey orders from
the President" is tantamount to violating rather than defending the US
"The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution
and not to those
who would issue unlawful orders,
especially if those orders are in direct
of the Constitution and the UCMJ."
US troops have "A Duty to Disobey all Unlawful orders"
"Refusing to fight" an illegal war implies a rejection of the legitimacy of
the Commander in Chief. It denies the Obama administration the authority to
conduct an illegal and criminal war on behalf of the American people.
And the American people must support the US servicemen and women who refuse
to fight in an illegal war.
Obama is a war criminal.
He is supporting terrorists, who are his paid
Amply documented Syria’s rebels have been trained in the use of
chemical weapons and they have used chemical weapons against innocent
The Global War on Terrorism is a fabrication and a lie.
War is an illegal undertaking.
According to Nuremberg jurisprudence, the ultimate war crime consists in
starting a war.
Obama and his European counterparts including
and Francois Hollande are responsible for the supreme crime:
This war is illegal irrespective of a decision of the UN
Security Council to intervene in the internal affairs of a sovereign state:
"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat
or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence
of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the
Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the
United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the
domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit
such matters to settlement under the present Charter."
UN Charter - 1:
Purposes and Principles