[BACK]

GLADIO B SERIES: [PART ONE] [PART TWO] [PART THREE] [PART FOUR] [PART FIVE]


Transcript of: "Sibel Edmonds Explains Who’s At The Top of the Pyramid" (Gladio B Series, [Unofficial] Part 6)


0:00 [START]

0:00 James Corbett: Welcome, friends. This is James Corbett of CorbettReport.com, and I am coming to you on the 14th of March, 2013. And today we are talking, once again, on the line to Sibel Edmonds for the next installment in our series on Operation Gladio Plan B and all of the things surrounding that... well, twisted tale, to say the least. And once again, for people who are just joining this conversation now, I will once again exhort you to start from the beginning of this conversation where we've been laying out now, for the past five hours, a lot of the different pieces of this puzzle and answering some of your listener and viewer questions on this. So, without further ado, let's bring Sibel right into this. Sibel, once again, of BoilingFrogsPost.com: thank you again for your time today.

0:45 Sibel Edmonds: Thank you. Thank you, James.

0:47 James: Well, let's start into what is really a topic that everyone is fascinated by and everyone likes to speculate about, but there isn't always a lot of substance behind that speculation. So let's see what we can bring to the table in terms of trying to identify some of the groups and some of the organizations that are really puppeteering these things that we've been talking about. And I think it should be obvious at this point to everyone out there that has been following the conversation at least this long that it isn't the United States government or any of the traditional power structures that are really at the top of this pyramid. There are certainly institutions and organizations and individuals who are ensconced in that government network, but also above it and beyond it, who are really the people that are bringing this together. But I want to start trying to see how we can start identifying some of those groups and putting the finger where it really needs to be pointed.

1:44 So, it's a broad topic. I'm not sure how you really want to start broaching it. But what would you say to people who are interested in... where is the top of this structure? What is really behind this organizational pyramid?

1:57 Sibel: Sure. I would like to start with my father, because he tried to teach me, or he tried to get me engaged in critical thinking, when we were in Iran -- and this was during Iran and Iraq War. And he was a lifelong anti-war activist: I mean, truly, in action as well. And so during this period, I was about eleven years old; ten-and-a-half and eleven years old. And for some reason, this was the period of time when -- for some reason -- I had gotten into watching all these classic war movies. You know, The Great Escape, all those... Paul Newman stuff, and Steve McQueen; and all these World War II theme; and the heroes, et cetera. And you have the typical Hollywood storylines and the happy ending; and, in a way, war is glorified. Even when they are showing the painful aspect, it is still glorified. "This is a time where you can really show off your heroic side," et cetera.

3:03 Anyhow, for some reason, I was into watching those movies during that period. And he... some people may call it a type of child abuse. I was very close to my dad, and he was a great person. I mean, he was always my role model. He said, "Uh, let's go to hospital" -- this is the hospital where he was the director: surgeon, and a director there -- "And I want to show you a few patients of mine; and I want you to see a few things because of how you have gotten into these war movies."

3:36 And he took me there, and he took me to this entire section of the hospital that was for the war victims. And he took me inside this one room; and we entered this room; and even before I could see what was lying or who was lying on the hospital bed in this particular room, I could smell. I mean, I could smell, like, fried food. I could smell, like, burned meat.

4:00 As I got closer I saw this... I saw this, about eight- or nine-months-old baby. And he was... they said that 80 percent of his body was burned. And his skin had completely melted and had become one with the clothes that the baby was wearing at the time when the bomb dropped in his house. So... and the temperature reached such level that his skin melted and became one with the clothes. So they couldn't even separate the clothes from this baby's skin. And his nose was completely melted, and they had to drill two holes in his face; and there were two tubes going there giving this baby oxygen. And it was a... it was a heartbreaking, shocking sight -- and especially for a child who's eleven years old.

4:50 And for my father, it was teaching a lesson. He said, "You smell this? You see this?" And the child, he couldn't even make a sound and cry in pain, because his lungs were all destroyed. He didn't even have any... much lungs left, you know? And he said, "This is war. And I want you to think of this whenever you think of war." Now, we never get to see babies like that on TV when we have our drone strikes during the wars, et cetera.

5:23 But one other thing that my father said during this session: and he said, "Every time you hear the news; or you hear, yourself, being present there..." -- because we heard some of the bombs that were being dropped during Iran-Iraq war -- and he said, "When you hear those bombs falling or read about them, think about this guy sitting there and... with a little abacus and saying, 'One bomb, three-and-a-half-million dollar plus' -- for someone." OK? And the cost of playing... because somebody is winning. And you have to always follow the money. People sometimes like to distinguish between power and money, but it's not really separable: because money is power, as we know. There are many forms of power, but money is power.

6:13 "And so when you..." he said, "When you chase the dollar and money, and follow the money, where you get is... with wars... and as far as the countries and peoples are concerned, on both sides, you just see losers. That baby on the hospital bed, now; that baby's parents; that baby's parents' family, financially; of Iran. Iraq: the same thing, with people in Iraq." However, there were winners in this war. There were people who were able to make a lot of money from the bombs and the chemical weapons sold. And we know where Saddam, at the time, got his chemical weapons; and some of those were used during Iran-Iraq war. And my father got to treat a lot of those patients, those people who were affected. They were burned by those chemical weapons that Saddam used.

7:09 And atrocities were on both sides. More than a million people died, OK? And there was no clear winner. There was really... there were losers-losers. Nobody gained an inch of soil; there was really nothing. But at the end of it, somebody won. And my father always asked me to always chase, follow the money and see, where does it end; and who are the ultimate winners?

7:36 So I think that's a good place to start, because in our culture -- especially here in the United States -- people tend to want to see, as I said before, guys in black hats and guys in white hats. They like to view the world as the villains and the heroes. We must have those. We have to have these clear-cut heroes -- those people we worship: they are great -- and then those awful, evil people. And in doing so, it was very easy, since 9/11, to pick a few people -- a handful of people -- and attach this evil villain status to them; and say, "These guys are the reasons 9/11 happened. These guys are the reasons we are engaged in all these wars. These guys are the reasons for Iraq wars; these guys are the reasons for..."

8:32 Well, we know some of these characters. We are talking about Dick Cheney, of course: who likes Dick Cheney? It's really easy to make him the Darth Vader here. Darth Vader: you just automatically think about him, think of him, as Darth Vader. You know, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith; and, to a certain degree, Donald Rumsfeld; and a little bit for Condoleeza Rice.

8:58 And I think, for some reason, Democrats are better at this game. Because if you look at it during the Obama administration, we haven't really created many villains. I mean, here is Obama of course... [laughs] But we don't have it, you know? We don't have these caricatures, these cartoon characters that we can assign the label -- the villain label -- and say, "These are the ultimate bad guys."

9:21 When you do that, it's easy. Because people, they say, "Here, these are the guys, these are the evildoers -- and they're rich!" So they have $50 million dollars, or they are worth $75 million dollars. And that distracts from the real villains. So this is one way of misleading people -- or people wanting to be misled.

9:43 The other one is this general notion of "The Government did it." You know? "It's the Government's fault." As if government... I mean, what is government? How do you define government? Government as in the Department of Agriculture and a bureaucrat working there? The secretary did it? Was it the director of the FBI, Mueller? Or was it that guy at the CIA agency, Wolfie? What do you mean by "Government?" You know, when you just talk about departments and say, "They did it: all of them. A few individuals from each department got together..." This is one of the reasons we are not getting anywhere with many discussions, and even in organizing, as far as wanting to counter and to challenge what's happening to us here in the United States -- also, globally. And that is: not wanting to go all the way up the chain, go to the top level.

10:39 See... OK, those guys. Let's talk about Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Perle and Douglas Feith and Condoleeza Rice. Take a look at these guys' background: before they became important people in the government, during the time when they were outside the government, then after they came back to government, and then after they retired. What are the common themes that you observe with these people? They are not working for themselves. They are not the ultimate bosses.

11:12 So if you go and check the top villains that we have picked in the last -- I wouldn't even start with 9/11. I would go back in the last 30, 40 years -- pick them. Then take a look at them and see who they are working for, OK? Their government jobs: they're in and out, and very influential within the government whether they are in or out -- from outside or from within. In fact, to a certain degree, it's easier to be influential from the outside. As we know, people like Kissinger and Brzezinski, they have their power influencing and guiding the decision-making process as much when they are outside... whether they are outside or inside. So, it doesn't end there.

11:58  But then you look and see who they have been serving. In general, the top two most important entities we end up with when we are looking at these villains in the last several decades, that's going to be: military-industrial complex; oil. And if you pick those two, of course, the financial institutions go with these two regardlessly. When you have these operations involving trillions, hundreds of billions of dollars, with it you have the financial institutions. So that goes along with it. I know some people are gonna say, "Well, you're forgetting to mention pharmaceuticals." That's for the domestic side of it; and I'm gonna keep that aside, put that aside for a while.

12:45 And just... let's talk about these people. Let's talk about the military-industrial complex. Let's talk about 9/11. Let's talk about all the wars we've been engaged in. Let's talk about winners. Let's talk about motivation in terms of these entities. If it's the military-industrial complex -- and our series started with all the NATO Plan A being switched to Plan B; Central Asia/Caucasus; the operations with the Turkish actors, Gladio actors; and we had this discussion mainly focus on the end of Cold War and the beginning of the new era.

13:29 Now, if we take the military-industrial complex and now look at that in relation to the Cold War -- the end of the Cold War, the period before 9/11 between the end of the Cold War and 9/11 -- and then the period post-9/11, we have... we get to see a lot of facts that are out there, open before us, that we don't need any whistleblowers for. We don't need any experts from Harvard or Yale: you know, the ones that come on NPR and they talk with their gobbledygooks. It's pretty simple: you look at the graph -- and when I say graph, look at the financial power, or the financial value -- the dollar value, net worth -- of these companies and how much business they did, OK?

14:21 If you look at that graph, which you will be showing when you publish this post: that graph is very revealing. I mean, we had these several decades that we had this wonderful excuse, reason created: perpetual war, as in Cold War. That we said, "We need to build our defense because there is this gigantic, humongous power out there that wants to be a superpower and turn the entire world Communist. They want to come and invade us here; they want to come and invade our neighbors. So we need to pile up, we need to spend all our money and build these nuclear weapons and the chemical weapons and the military bases." And we spent trillions of dollars.

15:08 Well, our government didn't produce any of these chemical weapons, or the planes, or the bombs, or the programs, or any of these things that the expenditure goes towards, is going into. They pay -- who? They pay these entities, the large ones. Let's take the top ten companies in the United States. Let's talk about Lockheed-Martin, General Dynamics, Northrup Grumman, and... Boeing. And they said, "OK, here the money, and we get these." OK?

15:47 So, the survival of these companies: and if you look at the net worth, the value of these companies -- and they have tens of thousands of workers, employees, OK? These are gigantic companies -- you're looking at worth close to a hundred billion dollars each. I mean, you're looking at a massive, massive industry. And their survival -- their existence -- depended only on one thing: fear factor and the fear of wars. So it's the war industry that is driven by the fear factor; and the fear factor was Communism.

16:22 And as long as we had the fear factor, and as long as we had these monsters -- which, in this case, monsters: the Soviet Union, the Communists -- which, again, is in line with our villains and the heroes: we always have to have the evil country. Remember George Bush, the "Axis of Evil," the evil Communists. You know, how Reagan was evil-izing it -- you do that, the fear factor, and you have a booming war industry, OK? Trillions of dollars. And it got bigger and bigger and bigger, and just became a monster.

16:59 And then we had the end of that Soviet Union. We had the end of that Communism. And this was the WTF moment for the industry. Because, put yourself in this industry's position: you're looking at hundreds of billions of dollars of industry, OK? Trillions of dollars. The fear factor, that Communism, is taken away; the monster is gone. And we are looking at shrinking war industry: meaning, what's gonna happen to tens of thousands of workers, billions of dollars of profits? OK? I mean, wouldn't you get nervous? I mean, this is... "Our existence depended on this monster being created -- and our mainstream media, of course, on the forefront pounding it, making it a really big, scary monster. Gone!"

17:52 So you look at the graph, and then you look at the expenditure that built up during the Reagan era, going up and up: "We gotta outspend them, man! We gonna bankrupt them. We gonna spend, spend, spend." Well, yeah; we outspent them, all right: and they're gone. Then look what's happening to the war industry. Look at those companies between 1991, 1992, till about 2001. The expenditure is going down. You are looking at some really, really, really nervous people. They are sitting and saying, "This was a great monster that we created. This was a good monster to pump up and create the fear factor around it."

18:37 "But next time around... we learned a lesson here; we're not gonna make the same mistake: we're not gonna pick a monster that can be taken out like this -- with the Soviet Union's fall, with the Berlin Wall coming down. We need to create some kind of a monster that we never have this kind of a risk with. Something that can go on forever: because it's an abstract, because it's invisible. One day it's in Mali; the other day it's in Sudan; it's in Iraq; oops! They are in the caves in Afghanistan; they are in the deserts in Yemen. I mean, they are all over the globe. And how many of them are there? Who knows? Maybe a hundred million, maybe a hundred. Nobody can put a number on them. How do you identify them? Where are their bases that we can go fry, and bomb, and..." It can never be destroyed.

19:26 Yet, these invisible... it's like amoeba. [laughs] We still take the traditional planes and traditional bombs and drop them in there, even though we have already concluded they are like amoebas, right? Because there are caves in Afghanistan... I believe we bombed every every cave in Afghanistan at least 186 times since 2001. Because if you look at the airstrike numbers in Afghanistan, you're looking at... I don't know. And they said it: even, seven, eight years ago, they said there's no more al-Qaeda left in Afghanistan, right? Then, for some reason, it turned into Taliban. And these airplanes have been going -- airplanes every day -- and we have been dropping 50-100 bombs there on these caves. Go back, hit the same cave again.

20:14 We've been, really, cave-hitting. Because there's no Pentagon, or equivalent of Pentagon, in Afghanistan. There are no military bases. They have... there are no planes, there are no tanks. There are caves: so we go out there and then we throw 50 bombs a day. [laughs] It's like, "Let's go hit some caves, man!" Now, the thing is: going back to my dad's line of thinking, saying, "Now think: every one of those bombs that they drop on the caves, how much is it? $3.5 million dollars?" I know there was a report published about the cost of each bomb. And just the fact, the logistics of taking that airplane, moving there, dropping them there, you're looking at several millions of dollars for each hit, right? Every time that goes, the guy with the abacus there goes, [makes siren noise] "$5 million dollars more!"

21:04 For who? $5 million dollars for who? More for who? Well, go back again to the post-Soviet: this happened, we needed to have something without walls like Berlin Walls that could come down. So we had this period of ten years for this industry to say, "We need to survive. We need to exist. Our existence is gonna come to an end, because what we gonna do? We don't a big monster enemy and a perpetual war out there. Your inventory's full, OK? You've got 180 tanks and you have 275... you have enough. So there's not much need left for more production. Things are getting... sitting there, rusty there. And this is gonna shrink: this trillions-of-dollars industry is going to shrink."

21:52 And this is why you look at that very important document, the letter written and signed PNAC, the Project for a New American Century, OK? Who... then look at the signatures of PNAC, and then start looking at their backgrounds and see who they... They are on the board of advisory of who? They are a part of board of directors of who? These peoples' existence really doesn't depend on the government, working for the government, or having titles -- whether they're a Vice-President or they are the Defense Secretary. It's none of those. Look at their ultimate bosses there. And look at the ultimate benefactors there.

22:35 So, beneficiary here is the military-industrial complex, to a large degree. And they're suddenly like, "This is what we need. We need to go back to our plans. Now the Soviet is gone: we need to establish the United States of America as a global power." They are looking at the definition of an empire, basically. "We wanna be the empire, and the world is our field: we wanna take over everyone." OK? "With the Soviet gone, this is our opportunity. However, for that to happen, we need something really massive here, because people have been happy in the States. They're like, 'OK: Soviet is gone, Communism is defeated.'"

23:21 And as you and I were talking, James, when we are looking at that graph with the trough there, with the defense expenditure falling -- and this is during Clinton administration -- and if you look at the US the last half-century: this is the only time, or the longest period of time, that our economy actually had surplus. You know, we'd been always bogged down with all the deficits and everything. Look at the surplus period coinciding with end of the Cold War and the war machine not working really... good. It's... they were on a vacation. [laughs] They were exhausted after all this Cold War, and they were regrouping. They were coming up with their plans -- including PNAC, including NATO Plan B -- to say, "This is not acceptable. Let's replace what we lost with something bigger and better and unending. Something that could never be defeated."

24:21  We will never, ever, ever be able to say, "We, today -- on March 18, 2026 -- today, we won the War on Terror. We executed, with our drone, the last terrorist in the world. Of the seven billion, we pinpointed every single one, and the last terrorist is dead. People, TSA's going to disappear. We are going to bring all our troops home. We're not gonna bomb the hell out of people. We're gonna... whatever money we have, surplus we have, we're gonna spend on people." Can you imagine a day like this, when we come out and declare the end of the War on Terror? We eliminated the last terrorist on Planet Earth? [laughs] Planet Earth.

25:05 Well, that's for the military-industrial complex. And if you go back now and look at that graph and see what has been happening to that industry since that day, 9/11: and this is... this is... this is humongous! This is the largest it's ever been. And if you look at the graph, look how steep it is. So you don't have a graph that says, "Yeah, we had some period during the first two years we were bombing Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Iraq stuff; and then, most of the..." Look, I mean, Bin Laden has been, what: one and a half, two years? I mean, it's been going like this: up!

25:45 Look at the number of wars we have been engaged. And if you start -- and it's very easy to speculate it's going to end up getting more and more. I mean, we have also these so-called secret wars that are not really secret. Whether it's Somalia... what is it? I mean, when did we declare war on Pakistan? Did we ever declare a war on Pakistan? So what's the deal? Why are we bombing Pakistan, a sovereign nation -- a supposed sovereign nation -- day in, day out? And when did we declare war on Somalia or Yemen?

26:17 We don't even need to declare war anymore: we just go and make war. And if we don't find some people on their donkeys crossing the desert to hit, we'll hit the cave. [laughs] There must be more caves out there. After we [unintelligible 26:32] the caves... [unintelligible 26:35] [laughs]

26:35 James: It is so ridiculous, isn't it? I mean it would be funny if it wasn't just so... so tragic, in so many ways. But absolutely: and I think it's important, again, to think about that period in the 1990s where not only, I think, the military-industrial complex was looking at that with concern, but also I think you have the financiers looking at that with concern: well, that the US isn't getting into debt as much anymore. They're actually getting surpluses now. That's no good for the financiers. And then also at that period of time, you had oil at extremely low prices -- at least compared to what it is today. And you notice in the Age of Terror, oil has gone back up into the triple-digit range and stayed around there for some time now. So guess who else is making money off of this whole war on terror?

27:21 Sibel: Uh-huh, exactly. Absolutely. And if you go and look at Pepe Escobar's "Pipelineistan" -- this whole chessboard based on the pipelines, OK? That is... -- and this is why we have been pounding together Central Asia, Caucasus, NATO Plan B. It's all about the "Pipelineistan." It's all about the resources: the gas, the oil the region. What's going to replace today's Saudi Arabia and Iraq? Because they are looking at 30 years, 40 years down the road. They are not looking at next year.

27:58 And you look at the players; you look at the actors; and you look at Exxon; you look at Chevron. And you say, "All right." So... and then you start looking at what they have been doing, where they have been investing, where they have been going and doing their things. And then the picture gets a little bit more clear. And then people, they say, "OK now, all right: military-industrial; oil." But they are not that separate: because when we have our oil -- and these are these companies, they're the industry, oil industry -- with oil, you must have the protection. What protection? The military protection. Why do we have the military base in Saudi Arabia? Why do we have the base in Azerbaijan, and having NATO base in Azerbaijan?

28:48 And you start... why we wanted to go and take over Iraq's oil? But if you have oil, you've got to have the base to along with it. Because you have oil, you have pipelines. Who's gonna protect the pipelines? You can't really count on these puppet dictators you plant there. We talked about the Saudi royals. I mean, they're busy out there: they're drinking and they're screwing and they're just, you know, warped. Same thing: Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, look at these guys. I mean, they are some puppet dictators there, symbolic out there. So we have to manage the country.

29:23 How can we manage the country? Financially, is one way. This is why wherever we go, we bring with us IMF, World Bank, and a military base. Those are the three elements we have. And under that, the bottom-feeders, the parasites: all these NGOs, the Human Rights and Amnesty and all the stuff with different names -- and then there's a miniature version of the same ones. This is our way of operation.

29:49 So, you have those pipelines, and you have the oil wells, and you have the oil refineries: you need to protect it. Here comes military bases. Now, look at the US military bases that have been erected since 2001, since 9/11. Start going through the map. And there is one map that I will send you -- I'm sure you have that map -- that shows. And it shows the timeline, because it shows the bases in red, and the blue is after 2004, and then 2006: all these places that we have been putting military bases thanks to 9/11.

30:27 So, 9/11 happens: we have created perpetual monster and a perpetual war to go after perpetual monster, the invisible monster. And we have, as a result, an industry. Look at the money; look at the growth of the war industry, the military-industrial complex. Now look at the growth of our bases; now look at where we are putting pipelines and oil -- the oil wells, the oil refineries: it comes together. And: look at 9/11. And people say, "Well, 9/11..."

31:00 James: And just let me interject: it comes together with the drugs as well, because the bases are important stations for that drug route; like the Manas Airbase, which has been used for shipping out drugs from Afghanistan.

31:11 Sibel: Absolutely. Or what we just reported on Azerbaijan. Because with all the movement, they said -- Azerbaijan: because we talked about this during one of our episodes, about how the casinos shifted from Turkey to Azerbaijan. Same with a lot of refineries, the labs for these heroin conversion, and Azerbaijan becoming NATO candidates -- and it's about almost finished there -- and with an airbase there, became a perfect, logical base for heroin.

31:41 So a lot of things that were being done through Turkey, now it's being done through Azerbaijan: with the Turkish NATO actors, but in Azerbaijan. And logistically, again, it makes sense. And Manas Airbase: absolutely, same thing over there. And we talked about the influence of the Russians on Afghan heroin versus us, and how that power balance shifted. We went from having maybe 10, 20 percent of that share before 9/11, to today having basically 90 percent, 100 percent of that revenue -- with much, much more increased production. So, you're looking at heroin; you're looking at military-industrial complex, the war industry; you're looking at oil.

32:25 And with the protection: again, one of the issues that we've been reporting on with all the pipelines between Iran and Pakistan. And I just came across this particular article that was pooh-poohing the deal and saying: "Even if US, it says it's OK and doesn't hit Pakistan with some sanctions, it's really suspect that this can ever go through and be accomplished -- because look at the region." Where are we looking at? Baluchistan. There is no way. This project is going to be sabotaged, the refineries are gonna be blown up, the pipelines are gonna be blown up. You know why? Because we're gonna ensure that that's gonna be the case, because our guys are there to blow them up!

33:11 You know, we have been planting those seeds. The whole thing with Baluchistan, the importance of the whole thing with the Gwadar port, with Iran and Pakistan today: well, we have been doing our homework in Baluchistan. And one positive externality of the things we are doing there is, we have our foot-soldiers there. We have our groups there, and we know that we're not going to let this come to fruition -- whether it is the refinery going up or the pipelines -- because they're gonna blow them up, and we can watch and see.

33:42 Until -- and it has happened, with China, with Russia -- when they declare it "not feasible." They say, well, they were going to invest; but in the middle of this project, they pulled out because it was not... security-wise, it was "not feasible." Well, they are gonna make sure that Baluchistan is not gonna be feasible for this project, because Baluchistan has been under our thumb. And with everything that is being reported daily on Baluchistan -- and again, compare that to Chechens, and you compare that to all the other places with our modus operandi -- you'd know that: who is doing what in Baluchistan, and what is the big game.

34:26 You know, divide and conquer. Have these little pockets, get them on each other's throat, then have controls on either side. But that's exactly the case. With Pakistan and Iran, well, who's gonna protect that pipeline? I mean, unless they have that much military power being transferred there to really watch out for what is about to come within Iran and Pakistan, developing this. Otherwise it's not gonna even take off and get anywhere because... we've already said it: Baluchistan.

34:58 James: Exactly right. And let me once again stress to people out there who haven't done their homework on what's happening in Baluchistan: it's important to understand the characters that are lining up behind the Baluchi cause and the transparent nature of that as just, exactly, to have that force up their sleeve to do things like sabotage this pipeline. And that's such an important piece of this puzzle. And I agree completely with what you're saying.

35:23 I would only caution against the use of the word "we," because it is so easy to slip into that language. "We" have done our homework, "we" have our forces on the ground, "we" are going to sabotage the pipeline. It is, of course, not you and I: it is these people in these positions who are doing this. And the trick that they've done is to get it to be done in the name of America and the American people; but it has nothing to do with the American people. It's just these people who have ensconced themselves in those positions of power.

35:51 And when we talk about people like the Cheneys or the Feiths or all of these people who are obviously part of this but not the key or central players in this, sometimes it's beneficial to look at where these characters congregate, the type of organizations and umbrellas that they're working under. And for example, something that's been oft pointed out -- but deserves to be so -- is something like the Council on Foreign Relations, which has obviously been host to so many of these people.

36:18 But there's another organization -- speaking of organizations of interest -- that does not get anywhere near the attention, but is absolutely important. That would be the American-Turkish Council, which is an organization which has had some very interesting people associated with it: from Brent Scowcroft, to everyone else you can think of who you would not necessarily associate with Turkey in any way, shape, or form. So let's talk about the ATC and its role in this, as an organization that has played such an integral part in these operations.

36:49 Sibel: Excellent point, James. And as you know, ATC was exposed in my case as one of the FBI's major targets of investigations. It's a lobby organization. It's like AIPAC: even though it's a lobby, they have set it up... in fact, do you know who set up American-Turkish Council in 1995? It was Richard Perle and Douglas Feith that... they set it up. So what happened was, in 1989 Richard Perle went to Turkey, to Ankara, for some meetings; came back. And this is... he was outside the government, but still inside as advisory role. And he set up a Strategies... I forgot the name, I think it was a Strategies Industry, Inc., or Strategic Industries, Inc. [International Advisors, Inc.]: a lobby group. And he actually registered under FARA, Foreign Agents Registration Act and became an official lobbyist for Turkey.

37:48 But then what happened was Wall Street Journal wrote this piece -- and, I don't know, this is '94, '95 -- and turned this into a scandal, because he was still officially working for the government. So you can't, theoretically, be a foreign agent lobbyist while you're still working for the government as an advisor and getting paid; same thing with Douglas Feith. So they shut it down. What they did instead was they took their Turkish contacts and they said, "We are going to set up another arm that is not going to be, exactly, lobby; and we are going to model it for you after AIPAC." In fact, if you look at the initial board of advisors, board of directors for American-Turkish Council, you're gonna see every single person -- from Richard Perle to Douglas Feith and a lot of American Enterprise Institute -- but a lot of AIPAC actors, with American-Turkish Council.

38:42 So they set it up as such, and it was absolutely modeled after AIPAC. It's not exactly a foreign lobby. It's not, because it's not Turkish government-linked, really -- not much. And so they set it up that way. And again, it didn't come from me, but from sources from the Justice Department and the FBI and other supporters who talked with the media: they identified -- and even the Department of Defense -- the American-Turkish Council as the top FBI target in Sibel Edmonds' case. That's how it's listed.

39:17 And if you go and look at the actors and people there -- from board of directors to board of advisors, active members -- what you're gonna see, mainly, is the top-tier players. You're going to see the military-industrial complex -- the US military-industrial complex -- and oil companies. And then you're gonna see what characters? Again, you're gonna see similar characters that we have been talking about, the ones that we call villains. And again, they are serving their own bosses.

39:45 So, American-Turkish Council: from my own first-hand experience, if people were to ask me, "Well, who are they serving? The US government?" No. "Turkish government?" No. There were some major illegal operations: some of them involving heroin, some of them involving terror. Because, as I said during one of our episodes, when the State Department and CIA said: "One way to carry these operations, carry them out, is to get Congress to allocate millions, hundreds of millions of dollars in total to be used in Central Asia and Caucasus; is to give it to these subcontractors, the Turkish companies." They are -- every one of those companies are -- the members of the American-Turkish Council. Every one of those criminal entities today, if you were to go look, you would see them there.

40:38 I'm not saying every company of American-Turkish Council is criminal; I'm saying every one of the top criminals also happen to be the members. So they constitute maybe 20, 25 percent of American-Turkish Council. But these are the companies that get US tax dollars -- hundreds of millions of dollars; various projects: forty, fifty; and for tourism development or construction development in Central Asia and Caucasus -- which doesn't get to be used. But also a lot of stuff with the false end-user certificate, with the weapons companies sending tons of weapons that are supposed to be going to Turkey, but then in Turkey right away gets transferred and goes somewhere else -- all parties involved knowing what's going on, including the players within the US government.

41:26 And again... and if you come back again to the notion of who are the real bosses, you say, "Really, who does the CIA serve?" Do they serve a President? I mean, they're come-and-go. Obama, Bush, Clinton, Jimmy Carter. Do they serve Dick Cheney? No. Does CIA... and then, granted, of course, people who know their history, they know how it came about, the CIA; how it was established; who were the major players from the beginning in there.

42:02 A few years ago I read a very interesting book that was almost like a biography of the Rockefellers' families. And there was a chapter that dealt with so many of the family members who were part of the CIA -- actually worked officially, I mean, for the CIA, some of them with their names known. So the CIA is not serving the American people or the Constitution or some President. Those people are not consequential: they're inconsequential. They are not the bosses.

42:32 And this is why I always refer to this term as the "shadow government," the "real powers." Whenever I put in quotes, I put "real powers," the "real government:" those... not those people you see. And again, back to this notion of 9/11 and government, or the fact that "Government did this." Saying, "What government? What agency? Who? Department of Agriculture?" You've got to look at the main agencies involved in carrying out, if you are talking about wars, on foreign-policy-related operations and relations.

43:10 And if you look at the State Department and the CIA, again, it becomes very, very obvious that -- and even with some of the documents that became exposed a few months back -- that the major role for US embassies and consulates abroad is to market, promote US businesses. And they were mainly the military-industrial complex and the oil companies. In fact, that was was even part of this whole WikiLeaks document shenanigans, that the communication showed that close to 80 percent of the work, job they did -- these State Department employees -- were not... had anything to do with US State, really. But it was, "Don't buy it from France, buy it from Northrup Grumman. Because currently three companies are bidding for $2 billion dollars worth of Turkish helicopters," or... et cetera. And our embassies try to -- sometimes with blackmail, sometimes with carrots, sometimes with all sorts of different methods -- to say, "No, you buy from Northrup Grumman."

44:16 So they do represent Northrup Grumman, and Boeing, and General Dynamics, and Chevron, and Exxon. So it's irrelevant, really, who is President. It's irrelevant if it's Woolsey or if it's Brennan: you are looking at the second, third, fourth tiers, starting with those people we have assigned an adjective "villain" to. And then come to the agencies and the agents we had: they are not the top tier, and we need to put our focus on the top-tier people.

44:48 James: I couldn't agree more. And it's interesting, in the picture that you're painting, how the real positions of the most power are not in the positions of directorship of this or that agency, or the President, or that... it's the people who have the access to both the government positions and the positions within these lobby groups. Because that revolving door and that closed circuit creates the real power that directs and shapes the policy and creates these contracts that creates the private wealth, et cetera. It's those nexus points where I think the real power in the system comes.

45:19 Sibel: No, absolutely. And this can't be emphasized enough. I mean, you can just... you have to pound and pound and pound this until people get it. You know, one of the funny things that happened with Henry Kissinger was... this was during the period when I was working with the Jersey Moms, the Jersey Widows from 9/11. And they appointed -- and this is George Bush, his administration, and then Congress said, "Yeah, that's a great idea!" -- Henry Kissinger to be the chairman of the commission to investigate 9/11.

45:55 Now think about it: if these ladies, in two or three days, found out about Henry Kissinger actually representing Bin Laden family members -- several of them -- but George Bush and the US Congress, they didn't know about it? I mean, you get it, and then you look at all the advisory positions that Henry Kissinger has. They usually like to list their university, prestigious academic positions, and some of these NGOs. But their real bread and butter, their real role, is actually serving the masters within the oil industry and the military-industrial complex.

46:33 Again, you look at Condoleeza Rice and you start focusing on, where is it coming from? Who gave her the power to get there within the government agencies? And after they leave, where did they go back? And those sidelines are the academic and some NGO positions. But their real jobs is to serve their masters. And if they were to ask me, especially if people are focusing on the wars, and the police state practices, our foreign policy: you're looking mainly at the oil industry, military-industrial complex; and -- to go with both -- is our major mega financial institutions.

47:17 James: Well, that's exactly right, and it is such a fascinating topic. There's so much to explore, and we do have a lot of related links for people. So once again, if you're listening or watching this video, please go back to the show notes to find some of the links. And you can see, for example, the graph we've been talking about: military spending. You can see some of the top companies. You can see more information about the American-Turkish Council. So we have a lot of information to back this up. But Sibel, we're already coming up against the one-hour mark here, so I'd like to move on to just maybe a couple of viewer questions.

47:46 Sibel: Sure.

47:47 James: We're still continuing to get more in. But before we do that, obviously, this is a big and important topic. So anything you'd like to say to sort of wrap up at least this section of the conversation on the powers at the top?

48:01 Sibel: Uh, [laughs] I'm going to first quickly mention this news that you and I broke, the report on Jordan being used as the base of operations for NATO and the West and the US against Syria. The prep: and that was 15 months ago. And maybe you can put that headline there, your interview. The reason I'm mentioning is this: 15 months later, suddenly that becomes the total news headline -- Spiegel, Guardian -- and I'm looking at it, like, "This? We covered it, we reported on it 15 months ago."

48:46 Same thing for what we have been discussing in these episodes. A lot of people -- unfortunately, it's not really going through. Some people, they are still not able to realize the significance. And some do: and I really... I love it when I get to see some emails and say, "Yes, there's a spark, somebody's getting it." And then we have one more person among us who is aware, with their eyes wide open. Well, syncing with these episodes, as time goes, six months from now, something is going to be leaked. And if you pick the headlines that plug in to what we have been covering, it's going to say, "We covered this; it's really been exposed."

49:30 And this is one of the reasons I tell people... actually, first, I get pretty upset, because there is this -- first -- an addiction to scandals. You know, it's like, "Why more whistleblowers are not coming forward?" Then they come, some things gets public: [slaps table] "Oh, well, that's boring. I want more: something new." It's only -- the attention span is there for three, four days, or... max. And that is max. It's this made-up disease that now they're saying our schoolchildren are afflicted with. I think as a nation, our nation has this made-up disease called Attention Deficit Disorder. That is to move and say, "OK, that's it, I want something... and the next one better be bigger."

50:16 And I ask people and say, "What do you mean, by 'bigger?'" And they say, "Huge! I want the smoking gun." I'm like, "What smoking gun?" "I want the smoking gun, the evidence, the fingerprints saying that Chinese pulled the plug," or something [laughs] like that. It's really discouraging, frustrating. And you can say, "Well, how come you're smiling?" Because that's one of the things that I have taught myself in the last four or five years, since I became a mother. I don't let myself to get really... [laughs] I laugh because there is this need for more: more explosive, smoking gun. Something that says, "Here!" Like: people, they leave a note before suicide... note that Cheney says, "I did it," and with a finger because he's not signing it. He's actually putting his fingerprint there. And today, they can extract DNA as well.... [laughs] from the same letter saying, "I did it."

51:12 It's really detrimental. It's terrible, because so much is public. So much you've been covering with these not-so-secret organizations. The stuff we've been covering on CIA. This stuff, these episodes we've been covering on NATO operations, Gladio operations, Plan B. These are really big. A lot of it is really supported with public documents. Extremely important: it is the explanation for so many things that are out there and people are confused about. And if they really pay attention, they see that the pieces really start falling into place. To think of it in those terms and go deep into things rather than be in this search, this... or in lots of... I don't... "Giving up hot stuff: I want big, big whistleblowers!" That's all I want to say.

52:08 But we have so much, and I hope we have more and more people who will take the time, watch it, go do their own research, read -- because you also include really good, wonderful links in there -- and then sit and think. If you don't want to agree, or you arrive at a different conclusion, that's perfectly fine. You may come up with some other, because you may be able to connect some dots that we have missed, or we haven't covered here, or that may be related to something that that some whistleblower six months from now may expose. But be aware of the dots, and critically think. And that's the most important thing I want to emphasize here. And we can go to the questions.

52:52 James: Excellent. Well, let me just reiterate exactly what you're saying there: I think it is important for people to understand that this information we're covering: it might not be the sexiest smoking gun; it might not be the easiest thing to understand or wrap your head around; but it is worth the effort, and it is ultimately what reality looks like. It's not going to come in the form of that smoking gun that everyone's looking for. And I remember, early last year, around April 1st, there came out an April Fool's joke about Darth Vader, Dick Cheney himself, confessing to doing 9/11. And that lie, that complete fabrication, got emailed to me dozens of times in the course of a few hours, because everyone is waiting for that type of stunning confession.

53:34 I hope people will stop waiting for that and start doing the actual legwork that it requires to put these pieces together and to form the bigger picture; that... hopefully we are helping to do that in these conversations. And you, again, have been laying out some great information about one of, I think unarguably, the most important sections of the world -- Central Asia and the Caucasus -- that a lot of people don't know anything about right now. But it's exactly like the Middle East: it became something that a lot of Americans now understand something about. In the exact same way, Central Asia and the Caucasus is going to be an area we're going to be hearing more about in the future.

54:10 And on that note, we got an email in... we've gotten so many emails, so many questions, we can't possibly get to all of them, at least not in this conversation. But please continue to send them in: I will continue to keep track of them, and we'll get to them as we can. But on this very note, we had an email in from Hannah who writes, "I'm curious about the importance of the BTC oil pipeline, which takes oil from Russia's back yard through Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey bound for Western refineries. Could Ms. Edmonds comment on any collaboration there may have been between Western interests and Gladio B forces in terms of bringing this pipeline to fruition?

54:47 Sibel: Uh, I really don't have much detail in terms of information, and I haven't really studied it. But you've got to also remember that Russia is also a major player. And we have already seen the kind of powers that that gives: whether it's Russia, or the United States, or China, it doesn't make a difference. But when Russia says, "I'm going to shut off, turn off that valve;" and, "Ukraine, I'm not gonna give you gas..." I mean, can you imagine that? Or in terms of how the prices, they've been up in Europe because of the shortage, or because of what's happening with US foreign policy.

55:25 So when you're looking at Europe, it's an interesting -- really interesting -- situation. Because especially since 2006, 2007 -- and that, again, coincides with this economic crisis -- they have been far more hawkish in what we are seeing with France and Mali, and what we are seeing with Germany suddenly trying to establish itself as a military power. And a lot of these also have correlation with the latest economic situations in Europe. So they have been far more supportive of US imperialistic pursuits since 2007, 2008 than they were during the Bush administration -- and that would be right after 9/11 between 2001 and 2008. This was when we had some of the European nations within the United Nations saying, "No, we won't help you with Iraq War." And they were raising red flags with some of those things.

56:24 That Europe is gone; and you look at the latest Europe, you are looking at, "We wanna be part of the yee-haw! We'll have a smaller one. So, you get Iraq; you get Syria and Iran; we get Mali." That may be France's little crumb. And that's one of the things US does: US just throws some crumbs. "Now, I give you a crumb." You know, when you watch some of these National Geographic documentaries: the deer comes; and you get the lion, the tiger going there and take it into pieces; and then after that you get the hyenas coming, and they take theirs; and after that the crows come. You've got to look at these nations sometimes -- I know it's an ugly, ugly kind of a visual [laughs] -- but that's how it is with the power structure.

57:09 It's even... I would use the same metaphor, the same imagery, with a lot of stuff with the US. With the companies: that, you get the top ones, then you get the vultures, and then you get the bottom-feeders: you know, some of those little NGOs and the so-called "alternative media," et cetera. But with Russia, it's a matter of power; and with Europe in this particular case, it's the -- they're trying not to put all their eggs in one basket. And it's a competitiveness, too: the deal they're getting with Russia versus what they will be getting with the other pipeline that would be with the US and Turkey leading the way.

57:49 So again, these are all the strategic thinking from European side. I don't think US is very happy about it: it's all about competition. And every day, every night, I include any kind of development with Gazprom or Rosneft, because all of these things are extremely important. Because if you look at it, handle it this way, you would say, "Here it is, the Russian company. Now they are having this business venture together with Shell, and they are coming and they're doing something together in Gulf of Mexico; but at the same time, they are dire enemies of each other."

58:22 Because it's business, and this is how the whole business diplomacy gets to intertwine and become one. And each party is seeking to gain their own point of advantage. And sometimes, with the European case -- with this case -- it is a matter of being able to cover your butt and say, "I won't put all my eggs in one basket." And that's my two cents. But I'm sure there are people with much higher-level, better expertise than that to come up with even more comprehensive explanation.

58:57 James: Well, hopefully we could get Pepe Escobar on to talk about it: obviously a wealth of information. I'd also be interested in talking to William Engdahl about some of this...

59:05 Sibel: Yes.

59:06 James: And his take, especially, on the divisions within Europe as well. Because we look, for example, at Germany dragging its feet on things like Libya and Mali and places like that -- as opposed to France, which is all about it. I think there are some interesting divisions within Europe as well. So lots of different things to add to that mix. And the pipelines, again, can be a bewildering mixture of acronyms and... IP and BTC and Nabucco and South Stream and all of this. But once you start to get into that, I mean, it is so obvious that it is absolutely integral to the geopolitics of the region and to the economy generally. So I hope people will start getting into that and start researching it some more, and we will continue to cover that.

59:44 Let's just move on to one other thing: last time we were talking, for example, about the idea of a contest for people to come up with the best synopsis of what we've been talking about. Obviously, we aren't sponsoring an official contest, but we have had, actually, someone write in about this. And just on my own note, I've been attempting to try to include this information that we're bringing out here in some of my work. So you can look at my podcast episode on Gladio Revisited. I just came out with a video trying to put terror in Central Asia into perspective, incorporating some of the knowledge of what we've been talking about.

60:20 But it's extremely difficult to try to compress this down and to try to put it into other forms, so my hat's off to everyone who's trying to do that. And on that note, we have an email in from Robert who has a blog called AmericanJudas.BlogSpot.com, where he is starting to synopsize our conversations. And he's got Part One and Part Two up already, and has done a good job of putting in some relevant links and explaining some of the characters and the details. So I will put the links to those blog posts in the show notes for this. And also, Robert had a question. He said, "In Part Two, Sibel mentioned that the Pentagon doesn't call it Gladio B, but there is a designated section -- a physical office -- that deals with Gladio operations. Can she tell us what the actual name is, or has she been gagged from doing so on the grounds of state secrets?"

61:09 Sibel: Right. The FBI's file -- because the name of the file itself wouldn't be even considered classified, it's the name of a file -- the operation is considered the Operation Gladio Plan B. With the Pentagon, I can't: because it has not become public, and it is part of, or under, another division. And again, that division: if I were to name the division, people would be very familiar. And it is... it will be... say, "That's an interesting place to put the Operation Gladio Plan B, and the office there."

61:48  I can tell you that the division is mainly international NATO officers. You're looking at lieutenant colonel and higher. And it has the only office that I know in Pentagon with the highest number of Turkish officers. They have both US citizenship and Turkish, but they are assigned to this Pentagon division. Now, it changes: every four, five years, some are stationed somewhere else. But if you look at it, let's say, during a certain period of time, the highest percentage are Turkish officers there; female and male.

62:28 James: That is extremely fascinating. And on that note, I think we're going to wrap things up there for now. And as I say, people continue to send questions in, and I'm glad that they are doing it. We will try to get to your questions if and when possible. And again, if there's anyone out there who's creating videos, starting blogs, doing something to try to raise awareness of this, let us know, and we'll be happy to link to your efforts as well. So...

62:53 Sibel: It's making... we are making some people very nervous. It doesn't have to do with the number of people who have downloaded and have the DVDs, but if you start... I did that after our first session, first episode before we published our Part One: I put it in Google. I put "Turkey Gladio Operation," and I didn't get much. I mean, there was Wikipedia. Today, if you go to Google and run the search with "Operation Gladio Turkey NATO and Central Asia," you put that, you'll be surprised how many hits you get. Which... we didn't have this two months ago.

63:34 So... and this alone is enough to make some people way up there extremely, extremely nervous. Because there are even some journalists sitting on the sidelines watching everything, listening to everything. And I sometimes get -- because some of them are semi-friends -- they send an email too. Because they know their publication won't cover, but we are getting the attention of some people, including some people way up there. And they are nervous, because this is when they... if this gets to a point where they would consider a certain operation maybe too public or getting too much visibility or too many eyes... because, think about it: how many whistleblowers have we had from NATO? Ever?

64:24 James: I can't think of any off the top of my head.

64:27 Sibel: Exactly. We don't have public ones. But I had one person from NATO, Belgium office, who retired in 2003, 2004, who provided -- and this was during a time when my court case was still going -- voluntarily provided a signed letter, affidavit, for me -- and so to be used with my attorneys as well -- to vouch for terrorist operations that Major Douglas Dickerson -- now Lieutenant Colonel Douglas Dickerson -- was involved in; and he knew it from first-hand experience. But I wouldn't call him a whistleblower because his name is not public. I got the letter, I had communication with this person. But, we haven't had any, because people would not bear doing it.

65:17 This is even, I would say -- as far as especially this operation is concerned -- it is far more secret or sensitive than even the most sensitive CIA-alone... individual CIA black op, operation black op. So this is getting them very, very nervous. And the more we put this out, the more eyes we get to point at this whole topic, the better we are going to be off in terms of bringing this macro-level knowledge of what is going on and why some things are happening or have been happening in certain ways. Because if you just look at what is available, the official public channels and the mainstream media, you would see that nothing makes sense. Because you put them in one place, what do you get from...? All you get is confusion.

66:13 And now, that's by design. I know that. So, you get so many people confused that you won't get outrage. Because confusion overcomes outrage; because when people are confused, they try... or, they'd rather not to take actions. Because first you want to be sure: it's like, "I know this, I'm very angry about this, and I'm gonna do something about this." But if -- and I've heard a lot of people telling me, "But I'm kind of... I'm confused!" Well, because they want to make it very confusing. As long as you're confused, you're not gonna be decisive. As long as you're not decisive, you're not gonna do anything. And as long as you don't attempt to do anything, you're fine: they are not worried about that. So no: get over the confusion. These things will help you get over your confusion; and that will lead us to the decisiveness stage and taking action.

66:59 James: Absolutely. And that's something that we're going to continue to explore in our future conversations. And it is heartening, on the one hand, to note that we are garnering attention for this. Also a bit intimidating, of course: and that's one of the other reasons why I hope people are helping to spread the word about this. Because we want to make sure it's not just Sibel and James that are talking about this. The more people that are talking about this, the bigger effect it will have, the more decentralized the information will be, and the more difficult it will be to shut any one of us up from talking, if there are lots of people talking about it. So, all very important pieces of the puzzle. So once again, please help to spread the word about this. Help to mirror the... and for all the people listening, please download and save these files: because, again, who knows how long this type of information will be openly and freely available on the Internet? So...

67:46 Sibel: Not for long.

67:47 James: Exactly. Let's take advantage of it while we can. Well: on that note, Sibel, I know you're going to be doing some traveling and are going to be out of the country for a little while; so this will, I assume, be our last conversation until at least April. So...

67:59 Sibel: Yes. And I have been getting a lot of comments on our potential weekend round table for the two of us and bringing each time different guests -- maybe Pepe, and some weeks we'll have different guests -- and we'll have a heated, casual, fun discussions. And as I'm getting this feedback from people, I'm getting... actually, I'm looking forward to it even more. [laughs] So as soon as I come back, we'll go about setting up that arrangement, and we'll go have fun.

68:28 James: Excellent. Well, I'm looking forward to that at least as much as you. So, absolutely: and again, please keep the questions and comments coming in, and we'll do our best to get to them as we can. Sibel, once again, just thank you so much for doing this, and thank you for your time.

68:39 Sibel: And thank you, James. Any time.

68:43 [END]


GLADIO B SERIES: [PART ONE] [PART TWO] [PART THREE] [PART FOUR] [PART FIVE]

[BACK]


Creative Commons License
This transcript by "Adjuvant" is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

changed November 2, 2014