— The Erimtan Angle —

Archive for the ‘NSA’ Category

Another Cold War Legacy: A United Europe as an American Project

telegraph_logo

As long ago as the year 2000, the international business editor of the Daily Telegraph Ambrose Evans-Pritchard wrote that “DECLASSIFIED American government documents show that the US intelligence community ran a campaign in the Fifties and Sixties to build momentum for a united Europe. It funded and directed the European federalist movement. The documents confirm suspicions voiced at the time that America was working aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into a European state. One memorandum, dated July 26, 1950, gives instructions for a campaign to promote a fully fledged European parliament. It is signed by Gen William J Donovan, head of the American wartime Office of Strategic Services, precursor of the CIA. The documents were found by Joshua Paul, a researcher at Georgetown University in Washington. They include files released by the US National Archives. Washington’s main tool for shaping the European agenda was the American Committee for a United Europe, created in 1948. The chairman was Donovan, ostensibly a private lawyer by then. The vice-chairman was Allen Dulles, the CIA director in the Fifties. The board included Walter Bedell Smith, the CIA’s first director, and a roster of ex-OSS figures and officials who moved in and out of the CIA. The documents show that ACUE financed the European Movement, the most important federalist organisation in the post-war years. In 1958, for example, it provided 53.5 per cent of the movement’s funds. The European Youth Campaign, an arm of the European Movement, was wholly funded and controlled by Washington. The Belgian director, Baron Boel, received monthly payments into a special account. When the head of the European Movement, Polish-born Joseph Retinger, bridled at this degree of American control and tried to raise money in Europe, he was quickly reprimanded”.[1]

ACUE_untitled

In 1997, the Professor of International Security at the University of Warwick Richard Aldrich published an article stating that after “1945, a variety of Western organizations, not just intelligence agencies, drew up programmes of covert operations designed both to undermine Communist influence in Europe and to ensure a welcome for the Marshall Plan. Examples have been documented in the fields of electoral politics, organized labour and cultural affairs. US officials trying to rebuild and stabilize postwar Europe worked from the assumption that it required rapid unification, perhaps leading to a United States of Europe. The encouragement of European unification, one of the most consistent components of Harry S. Truman’s foreign policy, was even more strongly emphasized under his successor General Dwight D. Eisenhower. Moreover, under both Truman and Eisenhower, US policymakers conceived of European unification not only as an important end in itself, but also as a way to solve the German problem. The use of covert operations for the specific promotion of European unity has attracted little scholarly attention and remains poorly understood”.[2]

professor-of-international-security-richard-j-aldrich-appearing-at-eynpy8

In May 1956, for instance, President Eisenhower gave a speech at Baylor University in Waco, Texas, saying that “European union, one of the greatest dreams of Western man, seems nearer today than at any time in centuries . . . a free, United States of Europe” [would turn the continent into] “a mighty pillar of free strength in the modern world”.[3] Professor Aldrich, for his part, merely points out that “[o]ne of the most interesting US covert operations in postwar Europe was the funding of the European Movement. The European Movement was an umbrella organization which led a prestigious, if disparate, group of organizations urging rapid unification in Europe, focusing their efforts upon the Council of Europe, and counting Winston Churchill, Paul-Henri Spaak, Konrad Adenauer, Leon Blum and Alcide de Gasperi as its five Presidents of Honour. In 1948, its main handicap was the scarcity of funds. It will be argued here that the discreet injection of over three million dollars between 1949 and 1960, mostly from US government sources, was central to efforts to drum up mass support for the Schuman Plan, the European Defence Community and a European Assembly with sovereign powers. This covert contribution never formed less than half the European Movement’s budget and, after 1952, probably two-thirds. Simultaneously they sought to undermine the staunch resistance of the British Labour government to federalist ideas”.[4] Aldrich then adds that the “conduit for American assistance was the American Committee on United Europe (ACUE), directed by senior figures from the American intelligence community. This body was organized in the early Summer of 1948 by Allen Welsh Dulles, then heading a committee reviewing the organization of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) on behalf of the National Security Council (NSC), and also by William J. Donovan, former head of the wartime Office of Strategic Services (OSS). They were responding to separate requests for assistance from Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, a veteran Pan-European campaigner from Austria, and from [Winston] Churchill. ACUE worked closely with US government officials, particularly those in the Economic Cooperation Administration (ECA) and also with the National Committee for a Free Europe”.[5]

Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi_untitled

Still, Professor Aldrich seems confident enough to say that “[Winston] Churchill was effectively the founder of the European Movement”.[6] Going down to the nitty-gritty, Aldrich declares that the “emerging European Community and the growing Western intelligence community overlapped to a considerable degree. This is firmly underlined by the creation of Retinger’s Bilderberg Group, an informal secretive transatlantic council of key decisionmakers developed between 1952 and 1954. The Bilderberg Group grew out of the same overlapping networks of drawn from the European Community and the Western intelligence community. Bilderberg was founded by Joseph Retinger and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands in 1952 in response to the rise of anti-Americanism in western Europe and was designed to define some sort of Atlantic consensus amid diverging European and American outlooks. It brought leading European and American personalities together once a year for an informal discussion of their differences. Retinger secured support from Averell Harriman, David Rockefeller and Bedell Smith. The formation of the American wing of Bilderberg was entrusted to Eisenhower’s psychological warfare coordinator, CD. Jackson, and the funding for the first meeting, held at the Hotel de Bilderberg in Holland in 1954, was provided by the CIA. Thereafter, much of its funding came from the Ford Foundation. By 1958, those attending Bilderberg included McCloy, Dean Acheson, George Ball and Paul Nitze. It is striking that three important transnational elite groups emerging in the 1950s: the European Movement, the Bilderberg Group and Jean Monnet’s Action Committee for a United States of Europe all shared the broadly the same origins and sources of support”.[7]

blogger-image--601280278

In his Telegraph piece, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard then concluded that the “leaders of the European Movement – [Joseph] Retinger, the visionary Robert Schuman and the former Belgian prime minister Paul-Henri Spaak – were all treated as hired hands by their American sponsors. The US role was handled as a covert operation. ACUE’s funding came from the Ford and Rockefeller foundations as well as business groups with close ties to the US government. The head of the Ford Foundation, ex-OSS officer Paul Hoffman, doubled as head of ACUE in the late Fifties. The State Department also played a role. A memo from the European section, dated June 11, 1965, advises the vice-president of the European Economic Community, Robert Marjolin, to pursue monetary union by stealth”.[8]

euro-countries2

 

 

[1] Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, “Euro-federalists financed by US spy chiefs” The Telegraph (19 September 2000). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1356047/Euro-federalists-financed-by-US-spy-chiefs.html.

[2] Richard J. Aldrich, “OSS, CIA and European unity: The American committee on United Europe, 1948-60” Diplomacy & Statecraft (01 March 1997). https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/people/aldrich/publications/oss_cia_united_europe_eec_eu.pdf.

[2] “Letter written by William J. Donovan, Chairman. of the ACUE, to Senator Lehman of New York” (19 June 1956). http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital/collections/rbml/lehman/pdfs/0235/ldpd_leh_0235_0027.pdf.

[4] Richard J. Aldrich, “OSS, CIA and European unity: The American committee on United Europe, 1948-60”.

[5] Richard J. Aldrich, “OSS, CIA and European unity: The American committee on United Europe, 1948-60”.

[6] Richard J. Aldrich, “OSS, CIA and European unity: The American committee on United Europe, 1948-60”.

[7] Richard J. Aldrich, “OSS, CIA and European unity: The American committee on United Europe, 1948-60”.

[8] Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, “Euro-federalists financed by US spy chiefs”.

Advertisements

Panama Papers: The Revolution Will Be Digitized

john_doe_untitled

About a month ago, the Panama Papers were first revealed . . . and the world has never been the same, or rather, for a few days the whole world was abuzz but then the buzz died down and people went about their business as usual. In the coming days, the whole circus is set to start up anew: “On May 9 ICIJ will publish information about secret offshore companies and the people behind them, based on data from the Panama Papers investigation. The searchable database will include information about more than 200,000 companies, trusts, foundations and funds incorporated in 21 tax havens, from Hong Kong to Nevada in the United States”.

Panama Papers (2016)

John Doe has now broken his silence and issued a public statement explaining himself: “Titled The Revolution Will Be Digitized the 1800-word statement gives justification for the leak, saying that “income inequality is one of the defining issues of our time” and says that government authorities need to do more to address it. Süddeutsche Zeitung has authenticated that the statement came from the Panama Papers source”.[i] And here are some of his words: “Income inequality is one of the defining issues of our time. It affects all of us, the world over. The debate over its sudden acceleration has raged for years, with politicians, academics and activists alike helpless to stop its steady growth despite countless speeches, statistical analyses, a few meagre protests, and the occasional documentary. Still, questions remain: why? And why now? The Panama Papers provide a compelling answer to these questions: massive, pervasive corruption. And it’s not a coincidence that the answer comes from a law firm. More than just a cog in the machine of ‘wealth management’, Mossack Fonseca used its influence to write and bend laws worldwide to favour the interests of criminals over a period of decades. In the case of the island of Niue, the firm essentially ran a tax haven from start to finish. Ramón Fonseca and Jürgen Mossack would have us believe that their firm’s shell companies, sometimes called ‘special purpose vehicles’, are just like cars. But used car salesmen don’t write laws. And the only ‘special purpose’ of the vehicles they produced was too often fraud, on a grand scale”.[2]

mossack2

And then, John Doe goes on to explain himself: “For the record, I do not work for any government or intelligence agency, directly or as a contractor, and I never have. My viewpoint is entirely my own, as was my decision to share the documents with Süddeutsche Zeitung and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), not for any specific political purpose, but simply because I understood enough about their contents to realize the scale of the injustices they described. The prevailing media narrative thus far has focused on the scandal of what is legal and allowed in this system. What is allowed is indeed scandalous and must be changed. But we must not lose sight of another important fact: the law firm, its founders, and employees actually did knowingly violate myriad laws worldwide, repeatedly. Publicly they plead ignorance, but the documents show detailed knowledge and deliberate wrongdoing. At the very least we already know that Mossack personally perjured himself before a federal court in Nevada, and we also know that his information technology staff attempted to cover up the underlying lies. They should all be prosecuted accordingly with no special treatment. In the end, thousands of prosecutions could stem from the Panama Papers, if only law enforcement could access and evaluate the actual documents. ICIJ and its partner publications have rightly stated that they will not provide them to law enforcement agencies. I, however, would be willing to cooperate with law enforcement to the extent that I am able”.[3]

mossack-logo

As an apparently self-conscious and strong-willed whistleblower and moral crusader, John Doe then goes on to make the following case: “I call on the European Commission, the British Parliament, the United States Congress, and all nations to take swift action not only to protect whistleblowers, but to put an end to the global abuse of corporate registers. In the European Union, every member state’s corporate register should be freely accessible, with detailed data plainly available on ultimate beneficial owners. The United Kingdom can be proud of its domestic initiatives thus far, but it still has a vital role to play by ending financial secrecy on its various island territories, which are unquestionably the cornerstone of institutional corruption worldwide. And the United States can clearly no longer trust its fifty states to make sound decisions about their own corporate data. It is long past time for Congress to step in and force transparency by setting standards for disclosure and public access. And while it’s one thing to extol the virtues of government transparency at summits and in sound bites, it’s quite another to actually implement it. It is an open secret that in the United States, elected representatives spend the majority of their time fundraising. Tax evasion cannot possibly be fixed while elected officials are pleading for money from the very elites who have the strongest incentives to avoid taxes relative to any other segment of the population. These unsavoury political practices have come full circle and they are irreconcilable. Reform of America’s broken campaign finance system cannot wait. Of course, those are hardly the only issues that need fixing. Prime Minister John Key of New Zealand has been curiously quiet about his country’s role in enabling the financial fraud Mecca that is the Cook Islands. In Britain, the Tories have been shameless about concealing their own practices involving offshore companies, while Jennifer Shasky Calvery, the director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network at the United States Treasury, just announced her resignation to work instead for HSBC, one of the most notorious banks on the planet (not coincidentally headquartered in London). And so the familiar swish of America’s revolving door echoes amidst deafening global silence from thousands of yet-to-be-discovered ultimate beneficial owners who are likely praying that her replacement is equally spineless. In the face of political cowardice, it’s tempting to yield to defeatism, to argue that the status quo remains fundamentally unchanged, while the Panama Papers are, if nothing else, a glaring symptom of our society’s progressively diseased and decaying moral”.[4]

Jennifer Shasky Calvery

Finally, John Doe calls for a revolution: “Democratic governance depends upon responsible individuals throughout the entire system who understand and uphold the law, not who understand and exploit it. On average, lawyers have become so deeply corrupt that it is imperative for major changes in the profession to take place, far beyond the meek proposals already on the table. To start, the term ‘legal ethics’, upon which codes of conduct and licensure are nominally based, has become an oxymoron. Mossack Fonseca did not work in a vacuum—despite repeated fines and documented regulatory violations, it found allies and clients at major law firms in virtually every nation. If the industry’s shattered economics were not already evidence enough, there is now no denying that lawyers can no longer be permitted to regulate one another. It simply doesn’t work. Those able to pay the most can always find a lawyer to serve their ends, whether that lawyer is at Mossack Fonseca or another firm of which we remain unaware. What about the rest of society? The collective impact of these failures has been a complete erosion of ethical standards, ultimately leading to a novel system we still call Capitalism, but which is tantamount to economic slavery. In this system—our system—the slaves are unaware both of their status and of their masters, who exist in a world apart where the intangible shackles are carefully hidden amongst reams of unreachable legalese. The horrific magnitude of detriment to the world should shock us all awake. But when it takes a whistleblower to sound the alarm, it is cause for even greater concern. It signals that democracy’s checks and balances have all failed, that the breakdown is systemic, and that severe instability could be just around the corner. So now is the time for real action, and that starts with asking questions. Historians can easily recount how issues involving taxation and imbalances of power have led to revolutions in ages past. Then, military might was necessary to subjugate peoples, whereas now, curtailing information access is just as effective or more so, since the act is often invisible. Yet we live in a time of inexpensive, limitless digital storage and fast internet connections that transcend national boundaries. It doesn’t take much to connect the dots: from start to finish, inception to global media distribution, the next revolution will be digitized. Or perhaps it has already begun”.[5]

economic-slavery_jpg-e1412721770536

[1] “Panama Papers Source Offers Documents To Governments, Hints At More To Come” ICIJ. https://panamapapers.icij.org/20160506-john-doe-statement.html.

[2] “Panama Papers Source Offers Documents To Governments, Hints At More To Come”.

[3] “Panama Papers Source Offers Documents To Governments, Hints At More To Come”.

[4] “Panama Papers Source Offers Documents To Governments, Hints At More To Come”.

[5] “Panama Papers Source Offers Documents To Governments, Hints At More To Come”.

SNOWDEN

Snowden-2016SNOWDEN stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt and is written and directed by Academy Award-Winning Director Oliver Stone. The script is based on the books The Snowden Files: The Inside Story of the World’s Most Wanted Man by Luke Harding and Time of the Octopus by Anatoly Kucherena. Published on Apr 27, 2016.

Annalee Newitz writes that “it’s no surprise that Oliver Stone, a master of political thrillers, is turning the real-life version of Snowden’s experiences into a movie that feels—at least in the trailer—as tense and exciting as the latest Mission Impossible installment. Which is good but also means that you’ll need to forgive this movie for its unrealistic tech tropes. Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Inception, Looper) does a pitch-perfect impression of Snowden as a patriotic geek with smartass tendencies. Injured during military training, he sets his sights on intelligence work, where he scores off the charts on every task the government throws at him. And then one night, one of his fellow intelligence geeks shows him a tool that they can use to spy on everyone in the country. As Snowden has a crisis of conscience, we’re treated to one of those classic ‘hacking scene’ moments where a nonexistent piece of software behaves in ways that make no sense, swirling around and showing us random pieces of private data from all the social networks ever. I know, I know. This is not how it happened. Just go with it. Probably the best part of the trailer, which captures both the serious and mischievous sides of Snowden, is when we see him sneaking data out of the NSA contractor where he works by hiding it on an SD card inside a Rubik’s Cube. Then we see a rapid-fire series of scenes where the stakes get higher, Snowden meets with Glenn Greenwald (played by Zachary Quinto, AKA Spock), and the tension mounts as blinky lights illuminate everybody’s faces. It’s satisfying to see events that aroused so much passion around the world translated into an emotionally gripping story. But ‘story’ is the operative term here. Stone, who co-wrote the film, has taken a lot of liberties to turn this tale of people typing and talking into a suspenseful drama”.[1]

snowden-files_oliver-stone

[1] Annalee Newitz, ” Oliver Stone’s Snowden looks like the greatest techno-thriller ever” ars technica (27 April 2016). http://arstechnica.com/the-multiverse/2016/04/oliver-stones-snowden-looks-like-the-greatest-techno-thriller-ever/.

Bush & Obama: Age of Terror

The Untold History of the United States

In 2012 the three-time academy award winning filmmaker, Oliver Stone, and American University Professor and Historian, Peter Kuznick, released a book and Showtime series entitled The Untold History of the United States.[1] Below is a copy of the “last episode in the series called Bush & Obama: Age of Terror. It covers the following subjects: The Project For A New American Century, a neoconservative think tank that called for a Pearl Harbor-type event to catalyze military action in the Middle East. The tyranny of neoconservatives who pushed us to war with Iraq using faulty intelligence. The rushing through of the Patriot Act, which stripped Americans of a wide variety of civil liberties while bestowing legal precedent to the new surveillance state. The national brainwashing and fear-mongering of the War on Terror. Invading Afghanistan to defeat some of the same terrorists the U.S. armed and trained two decades earlier. Unconstitutional torture and interrogation tactics at Guantanamo Bay. The mainstream media’s facilitation of war through propaganda and corporate collusion. Obama selling out to J.P. Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, General Electric, and Big Pharma. The $700 billion financial bailout paid for by workers, pensioners, homeowners, small businessmen, and students with loans. The rise of CEO compensation amid the collapse of the middle class. Obama’s failure to deliver hope, change, or transparency, his prosecution of government whistleblowers, his fortification of Bush’s national security state.[2]

 

Bushama

The retired four-star general of the United States Army who served as Director of the National Security Agency Gen. Keith Alexander put it like this: “Obviously [, Bush and Obama] come from different parties, they view things differently, but when it comes to the security of the nation and making those decisions about how to protect our nation, what we need to do to defend it, they are, ironically, very close to the same point. You would get almost the same decision from both of them on key questions about how to defend our nation from terrorists and other threats”.[3]

pnac-Obama1

 

[1] “Breaking the Set: The Untold History of the US | Interview with Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick” The Erimtan Angle (15 Dec 2012). https://sitanbul.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/breaking-the-set-the-untold-history-of-the-us-interview-with-oliver-stone-and-peter-kuznick/.

[2] “Oliver Stone’s The Untold History of The US .. Bush & Obama Age of Terror” Before it’s News (23 Sep 2015). http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2015/09/oliver-stones-the-untold-history-of-the-us-bush-obama-age-of-terror-2744352.html.

[3] Glenn Greenwald, “Keith Alexander Unplugged” The Intercept (08 May 2014) .https://theintercept.com/2014/05/08/keith-alexander-unplugged-bushobama-matters/.

CrossTalk: The Yemen Proxy?

‘Yemen’s agony is without end. While the Saudi-led and American-backed military assault continues unabated, it remains unclear what Riyadh and Washington are really fighting for. Though one thing appears undeniable – Yemen is joining the ranks of Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, and Somalia as places where warlords rule in conditions of anarchy. CrossTalking with Gareth Porter, Ross Harrison, and Massoumeh Torfeh (13 May 2015)’.

Citizenfour

‘CITIZENFOUR is a real life thriller, unfolding by the minute, giving audiences unprecedented access to filmmaker Laura Poitras and journalist Glenn Greenwald’s encounters with Edward Snowden in Hong Kong, as he hands over classified documents providing evidence of mass indiscriminate and illegal invasions of privacy by the National Security Agency (NSA). Poitras had already been working on a film about surveillance for two years when Snowden contacted her, using the name “CITIZENFOUR,” in January 2013.  He reached out to her because he knew she had long been a target of government surveillance, stopped at airports numerous times, and had refused to be intimidated. When Snowden revealed he was a high-level analyst driven to expose the massive surveillance of Americans by the NSA, Poitras persuaded him to let her film. CITIZENFOUR places you in the room with Poitras, Greenwald, and Snowden as they attempt to manage the media storm raging outside, forced to make quick decisions that will impact their lives and all of those around them. CITIZENFOUR not only shows you the dangers of governmental surveillance—it makes you feel them. After seeing the film, you will never think the same way about your phone, email, credit card, web browser, or profile, ever again’.[1]

[1] “About” CITIZENFOUR. https://citizenfourfilm.com/about.

Documents show al-Baghdadi trained by MOSSAD???

‘Press TV has conducted an interview with Edward Corrigan, a human rights attorney, from Ontario, about the irony of American airstrikes on ISIL militants in Iraq, an entity created and supported by the US itself (23 August 2014)’.

The following is an approximate transcript of the interview

‘Press TV: The situation dealing with the ISIL terrorists continues to spiral out of control now we’ve seen that more and more Westerners are actually also involved in this. We see now in the United States, the UK and other Western governments condemning the terrorists for their actions. The question is, do you think they would have even gotten this far if it hadn’t been for the situation in Syria and basically the propping up of these kinds of groups by Western governments?

Edward Corrigan: I agree with that. I think the whole ISIS, ISIL were generated by the West. The Americans, the British, the Israelis have all been supporting them with arms and money; they’ve also gotten money from some Western client states like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar. The original foundation is simply from British intelligence. According to documents supposedly released by Edward Snowden, Abu al-Baghdadi who is supposed to be the head of ISIL, he was trained by the MOSSAD for a year and may in fact be a MOSSAD agent. He is trying to organize Islamic fundamentalist and radicals to destroy the secular national Arab state of Syria and they’ve expanded into Iraq. But you’ve got the American government, British government and the Israelis supporting the Islamic fundamentalists in Syria, ISIL, giving them weapons and arms and at the same time they’re attacking them because they’re posing a threat to the American client state in Iraq. So you’re arming them in Syria and then you’re attacking the same people in Iraq. I think that’s my definition of insanity. You can’t have it both ways. The other thing is, according to documents released by Edward Snowden that this is sort of a honey-trap where they want to gather all of the Islamic radicals and militants in one place; they control them, use them for their own purposes, but also maybe in the end destroy them. And especially when you’re getting Islamic militants coming from the United States, Britain and other countries… the person who executed the gentleman journalist in Iraq, he had a British accent. So you are concentrating them there, using them to destroy Syria obviously, but now they are posing a threat to Iraq and they’re talking about attacking Saudi Arabia and other feudal countries in the Persian Gulf region. It’s a very dangerous game; it’s a crazy game… ISIL supposedly executed 2,000 Yazidis; they’re fighting the Iraqi government; they’re fighting the Kurds – the whole thing is chaos and destruction and out of that supposedly some people think they can get some sort of political and economic benefit. But it really is a crazy policy that doesn’t make any sense unless your idea is to destroy the whole region.

Press TV: What about what you just said, “unless your goal is to destroy the whole region”… When Western countries support this type of terrorist or extremist behavior, going into it do they not realize that it could also go back to haunt them? Obviously this type of insanity you can’t control and just limit to a particular country or region, but it will expand as we have seen so many individuals from all over the world joining in to fight for ISIL. So why can’t they as far as these political experts and strategists that look all at these situations prior to going into it, why could they not have foreseen this happening?

EC: It’s happened repeatedly. I think part of it is the arrogance of the CIA and British and Israeli planners because they think they can control the situation. But what you’re talking about is the term ‘blowback’, when you support Islamic radical to let’s say the Russian in Afghanistan and then when they turn on you and perhaps were involved in the 9/11 attack or other terrorist attacks against the United States… you train the you arm them you show them how to do things and then you’re happy they’re attacking the superpower of Russia in Afghanistan, but when they turn their attention to the other superpower then you get upset. But it’s something that they really set the dynamics for and trained people, armed them and given them the weapons. So you’ve given the weapons to ISIL in Syria and the same weapons end up in Iraq fighting allies of the American government. I think it’s arrogance and hubris that they think they can do it, but now they realize there is a real threat of blowback and terrorist attack especially if they’re British or American citizens who are trained at basically the defense of the Americans or the British and the Israelis and then they’re also going to resort to terrorism in their home countries’.

On his personal website, Corrigan calls himself a ‘Barrister & Solicitor’, adding that he is the “only specialist certified by the Law Society of Upper Canada in citizenship and immigration and also immigration and refugee protection in London and Central South-Western Ontario”.[1]

The Canadian Centre of Research on Globalization released a somewhat dubious and not necessarily completely trustworthy statement, attributed to the Gulf Daily News (with circular hyperlink provided): the “former employee at US National Security Agency (NSA), Edward Snowden, has revealed that the British and American intelligence and the Mossad worked together to create the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Snowden said intelligence services of three countries created a terrorist organisation that is able to attract all extremists of the world to one place, using a strategy called “the hornet’s nest”. NSA documents refer to recent implementation of the hornet’s nest to protect the Zionist entity by creating religious and Islamic slogans. According to documents released by Snowden, “The only solution for the protection of the Jewish state “is to create an enemy near its borders”. Leaks revealed that ISIS leader and cleric Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi took intensive military training for a whole year in the hands of Mossad, besides courses in theology and the art of speech”.[2]

 

 

[1] Citizenship and Immigration Law Office. http://www.edcorrigan.ca/.

[2] “ISIS Leader Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi Trained by Israeli Mossad, NSA Documents Reveal” Global Research (16 July 2014). http://www.globalresearch.ca/isis-leader-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-trained-by-israeli-mossad-nsa-documents-reveal/5391593.