
	by Michel Chossudovsky
	September 05, 2013
	
	from
	
	GlobalResearch Website
	
		
			
				
					
						
						
						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.
 
					
				
			
		
	
	
	 
	
	The 
	
	Patriot legislation was implemented. The national security doctrine 
	stated unequivocally that the American Homeland was to be protected against 
	"Islamic terrorists".
	
	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 
	World.
	
	But somehow, in the last few months, this "Al Qaeda paradigm" has shifted. 
	The American public has become increasingly skeptical regarding
	the 
	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 
	Terrorism".
	
	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 
	Qaeda leaders.
	
	 
	
	 
	
	
	
	
	Hawkish US Senator John 
	McCain (C) 
	
	poses with infamous kidnapper 
	in Syria, Mohamed Nour 
	
	(seen with his hand on his 
	chest and holding a camera)
 
	
	
 
	
	 
	
	The Movement within the US 
	Armed Forces
	
	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."
 
	
	
	 
	
	 
	
	
	
	Screenshot YouTube
	
	
 
	
	 
	
	
	 
	
	
	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 
	al Qaeda."
	
	
	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, 
	fallen flat.
	 
	
	 
	
	 
	
	
	
	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 
	Soviet-Afghan war.
	
	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 
	jihad". 
	
	 
	
	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 
	societies.
	
	The numerous al Qaeda affiliated entities are routinely used in CIA covert 
	operations. 
	
	 
	
	They are recruited, trained and indoctrinated under the 
	supervision 
	of the CIA and its intelligence counterparts in,
	
		
			- 
			
			Saudi Arabia
 
			- 
			
			Pakistan
 
			- 
			
			Qatar 
 
			- 
			
			Israel
 
		
	
	
	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 
	administration.
	
	With regard to Syria, the US government is not "supporting Al Qaeda". 
	Quite 
	the opposite. 
	
	 
	
	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. 
	
	 
	
	
	Obama is 
	responsible for the crimes committed by the "rebels" against the Syrian 
	people.
	 
	
	 
	
	 
	
	
	
	Concluding Remarks
	
	
	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 
	the terrorists".
	
	
	But 
	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 
	Constitution.
 
		
	
	
	 
	
		
		"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 
	violation
		
		of the Constitution and the UCMJ." 
		
		
		Mosqueda
		
		
		
		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 
	killers. 
			 
			 
			- 
			
			Amply documented Syria’s rebels have been trained in the use of 
	chemical weapons and they have used chemical weapons against innocent 
	civilians.
 
 
			- 
			
			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
	David Cameron 
	and Francois Hollande are responsible for the supreme crime: 
	
		
		"the crime 
	against peace." 
	
	
	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 
	United Nations… 
		 
		
		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 
	
	
	 
	
	 
	
	
	
	
	 
	
	 
	
	
	
	
	 
	
	 
	
	
	