Am I a Threat to National Security?
by Justin Raimondo • September 30th, 2011 • Related • Filed Under

When I first saw the memo from the FBI’s counterterrorism center in Newark, declaring that I’m “a threat to National Security,” not to mention an “agent of a foreign power,” I was incredulous. These can’t be real FBI documents, I thought to myself. Someone is pulling my leg.

Sadly, no. As I discovered upon further investigation, the memo is all too real. The provenance of the documents, which indicate that the feds launched a “preliminary investigation” of Antiwar.com, myself, and our webmaster, Eric Garris, is as follows: An obscure blogger made an FOIA request for information about the FBI’s investigation of the “High Fivers”—the five Israelis who were arrested on September 11 and held for six months on suspicion that they had some foreknowledge of the events on that dark day. I wrote about this subject in the August 2003 issue of Chronicles—and, what do you know, that piece is included in the FBI file! Isn’t it encouraging to learn that our state-subsidized sneaks are reading this magazine?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/22/foia-shows-bush-admin-targeted-antiwar-com/

By Stephen C. Webster
Monday, August 22nd, 2011

During the Bush-era, a great many Americans were swept up in the spying dragnet laid after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 by federal officials hoping to prevent another major terrorist attack -- people like pacifist Christians, liberal activists, families with members overseas and even street-level falafel sellers.

Now Americans can add another group to the list of those who were viewed as a potential threat: the staff of Antiwar.com.

The alternative media has been hijacked, conquered, by forces that will not allow the truth of 911 to even be discussed. What in the world has happened? Here is one example.

In 2002, Counterpunch runs an article deeply questioning the official story, one that could be found on 911 blogger, with information that shows clearly that something is wrong with the official 911 story.

In 2004, Counterpunch runs a story that insults the 911 movement, calling us "conspiracy nuts", and never again runs any story at all that has any of the mounting and well documented evidence that shows the official story to be at least conflicted.

What happened during the years from 2002 to 2004? Alexander Cockburn was the editor throughout it all. Was he threatened, or convinced of something, or did he receive some kind of support from foundations that would ultimately not want the real truth to come out?

The exact same thing happened with Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com. In fact, Raimondo even sold a book about the Israeli connection to 911. And then he went mum, except to also insult 9/11 truthers.

Something is going on, and I wish someone would come forward with what it could possibly be.

in 2002...

http://www.counterpunch.org/loughery1001.html

and 4 years later . . .

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn09092006.html

Justin Raimondo draws some parallels with 9/11 and Flight 253 in his article entitled: “The Weird Factor: The panty bomber mystery deepens” http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/01/10/the-weird-factor/

EXCERPTS below

What I call the Weird Factor, for lack of a better name, seems to have become a permanent feature of our post-9/11 world, a dark and sinister leitmotif that plays in the background. On 9/11, of course, the Factor was on full display as a whole string of unusual events and unexplained phenomena were visited on us. The 9/11 Commission did little to clear these matters up, for the most part because they didn’t address them. Just a few for the record…

The Trial of the Century and the Long Shadow of 9/11

Excerpt: ...

Furthermore, we have to ask the question: what else will the defendants reveal about how they managed to down the twin towers and devastate the Pentagon armed only with some box-cutters?

In spite of the numerous commissions, studies, books, films, and seemingly endless public discussion of this signal event, a great deal of the facts surrounding the 9/11 attacks remain shrouded in mystery. And of course, this has given rise to a whole panoply of conspiracy theories, conjectures, and alternative narratives that have continuously threatened to overtake the official story and replace it with something far darker and more ambiguous.

Justin Raimondo of AntiWar.com has written an editorial about the evidence (all old news to 911Blogger readers) regarding Israel's possible role in the attacks. He begins by condemning the government and the media for smearing and/or destroying the careers of anyone who questions the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. Then, without even taking a breath, he turns right around and smears everyone who -- after studying the vast amount of scientific and common-sense evidence -- believes the buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition (as part of an inside job) and that no plane hit the Pentagon.

The majority of the reader comments at the end of the editorial (some excellently written) take strong issue with Raimondo's blanket insult of the the 9/11 Truth Movement.

-----

9/11: Our Truth, and Theirs: The "official" 9/11 narrative doesn't make sense
by Justin Raimondo, September 11, 2009

Today marks the 41st anniversary of the USS Liberty incident. Although perceived by many as a purely hostile attack on the part of Israel, recent documentaries make a strong case that the Liberty incident was a failed False Flag attempt, with the intent of drawing the U.S. into an attack on Egypt during the 6 Day War, which would have led to a massive bloodbath, and possibly a larger confrontation with the USSR. Further, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and President Lyndon B. Johnson were fully aware of what was going on that day, yet the Liberty was still not given air cover.* Proceeding from the possibility that the Liberty incident was a conscious, tandem act of deception, I offer a brief survey of U.S./Israeli covert cooperation.

The Liberty

What happened to the USS Liberty should not be looked upon as an isolated incident. It was preceded in 1964 with the infamous Tonkin Gulf fabrication, which kicked off a major escalation in the Vietnam War. The Liberty incident was probably destined to be the capstone for Israel's covert war against Egypt, now in overt mode during the 6 Day War. Also, the Liberty incident was followed in 1968 by another incident involving North Korea and the USS Pueblo, another Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) ship, which also appears to have been a failed attempt at a provocation.(1) The intent: to provoke U.S. retaliaiton against North Korea, and get the North/South Korean standoff to heat up again.

The covert mission against the Liberty failed because the boat was not sunk, and the survivors were able to talk about what had happened to them. Had the U.S. launched an attack against Egypt, there would have been some serious problems explaining away the stories of the survivors, who knew they had been surveilled by Israeli aircraft.

In 2002, the BBC broadcast "Dead in the Water", a documentary by Christopher Mitchell which proposed the general theory that the Liberty incident was a False Flag failure to a broad (British) audience. Alex Jones came to the same conclusion in his 2006 film "Terrorstorm", based mostly on his own original interview work.

If you have not seen Christopher Mitchell's film, I strongly encourage you to watch it, most visitors to this site have probably already seen Terrorstorm. It's just over an hour long, and it's a fine way to honor the casualties of the Liberty on this anniversary;

(article continues below the fold)

[There is an interesting discussion going on at 911Blogger, about how we should respond to the apparent breakthrough statements by Justin Raimondo on his Antiwar.com blog. I suggest that people visit the discussion at http://www.911blogger.com/node/11232 , then respond to Justin Raimondo at the "Talkback" section at his blog http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11584 , including the 911Blogger node URL in your comment. ]

Submitted by Dmx on Sun, 09/09/2007 - 10:14pm.
As Robert Fisk did two weeks ago, Justin Raimondo, the leader of Antiwar.com is now expressing doubts about the official theory on Al Qaeda and 9/11 :

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11584

"Al-Qaeda and the War Party: one could not succeed without the other.There is no conclusive evidence that this odd symbiosis is more than just ideological. Yet I wouldn't be surprised if it extended to the operational. The mysteries of al-Qaeda are intertwined with the unsolved mysteries of 9/11: how did 19 young men evade detection for years and pull off one of the boldest, most destructive terrorist acts in modern history? Or were they detected, and allowed to go through with their task?"