Advertisement
Not a member of Pastebin yet?
Sign Up,
it unlocks many cool features!
- [MUSIC]
- OK, everybody. Welcome back to
- another episode of Porkins Policy Radio.
- As always, I am your host Pierce Redmond,
- and you can find this podcast
- and all the other podcats
- by going to porkinspolicyreview.wordpress.com
- Well, today we have a very special episode,
- and we have two very special guests.
- And we're going to be discussing The Lone Gladio,
- Sibel Edmond's new novel, in greater detail,
- As well as exploring some of the
- intricacies
- of Gladio Plan B in general.
- And joining me for this epic
- roundtable discussion on this
- is, of course, our good friend and
- frequent guest on the show Tom Secker
- from SpyCulture.com and the
- host of ClandesTime.
- And also joining us all the way
- on the West Coast
- in what has become the newest state
- to legalize marijuana
- is our wonderful, wonderful guest
- who's been on the show recently
- and that is, of course, the creator
- and founder of BoilingFrogsPost.com
- and the author of The Lone Gladio,
- Sibel Edmonds
- So Sibel, Tom: Thank you for joining
- me on the show today.
- Hi, thank you.
- Good to be talking to you both.
- Yeah, absolutely. So, basically me
- and Tom just wanted to ask you
- about a million more questions
- that we didn't get to
- when we both interviewed you
- for our respective shows
- So... and I guess... Tom, why don't you
- start the conversation off?
- (Tom): Sure. Well, I only have...
- Well, I managed to whittle it down to two
- that I didn't get to ask you before,
- Sibel.
- Because we were talking about,
- essentially,
- how your book The Lone Gladio
- Subverts an awful lot of the
- normal spy fiction.
- And that's because it's doing
- something vastly different.
- It's, in many ways, an attack on
- the security state.
- Rather than some kind of defense of it
- or glorification of it, which is
- what you normally get.
- And we picked up on... sorry,
- on various different things.
- And there were a couple that I
- didn't get around to asking you about.
- So the first one is this question of
- rogue agents.
- Because in the book, the protagonist,
- the titular Lone Gladio, Greg,
- He goes rogue and wreaks this havoc
- against his former colleagues,
- his former paymasters
- And normally in spy culture,
- the rogue agent is portrayed
- as the bad apple, right?
- The exception to the normal
- state of affairs.
- Sort of they're the bad people
- within a good institution.
- That's the usual picture you get.
- Whereas in your book, in The Lone Gladio
- Greg is a... I hesitate to say
- a good apple...
- [laughter] but he's somewhat good.
- He does do good things.
- He does protect people
- that need protecting
- and that deserve to be protected.
- Things like that.
- Some of his...
- some of the torture sequences,
- one might debate. [laughter]
- [xx] how good these things are
- but nonetheless, he is a somewhat
- good apple, if you like
- within the bad institution.
- So once again, this is a
- complete inversion
- and reinvention of a stereotype
- in spy stories.
- And yet you've said in other interviews
- that Greg is somewhat based on real people
- real black operatives that
- you've met along the way
- and had conversations with
- and to some extent got to know what
- kind of people they are.
- So my question -- and I hope this
- isn't too cheeky --
- is how realistic is Greg?
- How realistic is it that one day,
- there might be a real Lone Gladio?
- Well, you may call it
- to some degree, a wishful thinking.
- Because we haven't had a real-life
- Greg MacPherson
- Despite all the publicized, many of them totally scripted
- supposed CIA whistleblowers
- or people who have turned against
- the CIA to a certain degree.
- We have never had a real Greg from
- the Agency
- from the CIA
- And also, to answer your question,
- the first part of your question,
- my feeling and my knowledge,
- based on my knowledge, what I have seen,
- has been that many of these
- mass-market books
- the spy thrillers involving the Agency,
- they are the ones that always
- subvert the reality
- meaning, what really these people do
- and the culture of the agency
- who the agency actually serves,
- it's not the American people.
- And it's not even the United States
- government.
- So it goes to the heart of the Deep State.
- Those people who benefit from
- the Agency, from the CIA
- and whom the Agency really serves.
- So all the books that we see out there,
- the Hollywood-made movies,
- they subvert the facts, the reality
- of what the Agency is about.
- And because of this, all average Americans
- or even people in Europe,
- most people, they have
- a complete false notion of
- what the CIA is all about.
- Now, this is actually to a lesser degree
- or even, maybe, not even in any degree
- in countries that have been the targets
- of all these types of CIA,
- the Agency's, operations.
- Because if you go and talk with people
- in countries like Iran,
- the 1953 coup with Mossadeq
- being taken out
- and Shah being placed in there.
- If you go to some of the Central
- American, South American nations
- because they have, these countries
- -- in Middle East, in South and
- Central America --
- since they have had first-hand
- experience, real experience
- of what CIA actually does,
- they are not under this false notion.
- And you can engage in some
- really heated conversation
- with people in these countries
- with notions that they put forward
- that are far more realistic, factual,
- than, let's say, when you talk with
- people in the United States.
- So I would put it this way:
- I would say I subverted the
- subverted notion
- of the agency an dthe agency people.
- And you're absolutely right about Greg.
- It's hard to call him a good person,
- or the good apple,
- but the book and the characters
- in the book
- they go into the heart of what
- the Agency is about
- what kind of people
- are selected to be operatives.
- And of course, the fictional aspect being
- all it takes is one or two real good
- apples to actually,
- truly expose what the Agency's about
- and the operations, their objectives,
- and who they serve.
- And we haven't had, to date,
- such a good apple.
- And it's really, really amazing.
- For me, it's really amazing.
- But then, on the other hand,
- it may go to this whole notion of
- the chicken or the egg.
- In this way: that... well, to start with,
- the poeple they select for these jobs
- the operatives -- I'm not talking about
- the administrative people or analysts --
- to start with are the kind of people
- who would never
- become those good apples that
- they would step out
- and go all the way into exposing
- what the Agency is about.
- I mean, this fact applies to
- a lesser degree
- to agencies like, more law enforcement,
- the FBI
- even though I'm not saying that
- they are good,
- but we have had whistleblowers,
- or some good apples,
- that have really exposed some
- major black deeds
- performed or implemented
- by these agencies.
- But not really with the CIA.
- And some people may say,
- "Oh, here we have had this agents,
- or that agents,"
- and if you look at these so-called,
- supposed whistleblowers,
- you see how controlled
- heir supposed exposure
- or exposing of the agency is.
- First of all, you get to see them
- within the mainstream media, frequently.
- Which tells you right there that they are
- not exposing the Agency.
- They would never get a chance
- to be before millions of audience
- within the mainstream media
- putting forth some factual...
- or some facts
- that expose the true nature of the Agency.
- They would never, ever be given
- that kind of a chance.
- It doesn't happen.
- It has never happend.
- It really hasn't happened.
- You'll see some people who would
- talk about how
- the Agency is, by doing this
- particular thing,
- in this particular way...
- or people who are selling the notion
- of, yes, there are a few bad apples
- within the Agencies who are doing
- this, within the management.
- But this is similar to what people call
- the controlled opposition.
- It is tightly framed to further, still
- the Agency's legitimacy -- which is,
- they are not legitimate.
- And then within that tight frame,
- put forth some very shallow criticism
- of some agencies.
- And then, later on,
- if you see, it's usually blamed
- on a President
- or a particular party
- rather than going to the Deep State
- whom the Agency is there
- to protect and further their agenda,
- not some puppet President, or some party.
- Or... it boils down to some director
- not being good, being the bad apple.
- I mean, these are all the false notions
- that have been popularized
- by the mainstream media.
- By all the books that subvert
- what the Agency is about
- And alternative media as well,
- the so-called "alternative"media.
- A lot of them, they parrot the
- same notion,
- -- maybe they put it forth in a
- more heated manner --
- but in the end, they are actually
- repeating the same storyline.
- Within the storyline, some plots
- are maybe targeted and criticized,
- but not the story itself.
- Well, I mean, you're absolutely
- right there, I think.
- And when you were talking about
- how this was...
- whenever you do get any kind
- of significant revelation,
- it's always wrapped up in a
- "Oh, well, this was just"
- "the policy of this particular
- White House"
- "Or it was because there was
- a bad director of the CIA at that point"
- "or..." there's never any kind of sense
- of this being a fundamental,
- institutional problem
- at... a fundamental problem
- in the character
- of the CIA and other similar institutions.
- And I was thinking, they've even tried
- this with the original Gladio.
- That, this was always the way it was
- [xx] out there
- by anyone who was insincere.
- Was that, "Oh, this was just some
- stay-behind thing."
- "It was Cold War paranoia.
- Nothing really came of it."
- And they ignore that second phase
- of the original Gladio
- where it became this very aggressive means
- of carrying out false-flag terrorism.
- And they sort of pretend like
- that never actually happened.
- They say, oh, this was some...
- oh, we were all worried about
- Stalin or whatever.
- It's just written off in that way,
- the original Gladio.
- Yeah, sure.
- So, I mean, that's one of the things,
- I suppose,
- that I loved about The Lone Gladio
- is that, not only are you kind of throwing
- all of that bullshit out the window,
- you're actually talking about
- more or less the present day.
- I mean, it's set about ten years ago, OK,
- but it's the modern era.
- It's the War on Terror era.
- Absolutely.
- So you're cutting right to the heart
- of the modern-day reality
- and my other question is kind of
- related to that.
- And I'm not in any way trying to get you
- to contradict yourself here.
- But we do also have the question
- of blowback.
- Because in some ways, that's what Greg
- and his crusade of violence represents.
- He is, to some extent,
- the unintended consequence
- of these black operations
- Both in terms of his motivation
- -- his wife is killed, essentially,
- accidentally, or at least carelessly:
- they weren't trying to kill her --
- And yet that's his...
- that's at leat the point at which
- he then decides
- it's time to wreak havoc against them.
- I know your opinion of blowback
- is roughly the same as mine,
- that, again, it's one of these things
- that's hung out there
- to cover up something that would
- otherwise be quite damaging.
- Sometimes black operations do go bad.
- And unintended things happen
- but in general terms, blowback is
- just one of those covers.
- It's a smokescreen.
- It's..."the mujahideen in Afghanistan"
- "evolved into al-Qaeda completely
- by accident." [laughter]
- We've sort of accidentally
- let this happen.
- We took our eye off the ball,
- blah-blah-blah.
- It's totally untrue.
- Of course, we know it's totally untrue.
- And so I found it quite fascinating,
- that...
- knowing that your opinion
- of blowback is quite similar to mine
- if not the same as mine
- that this same basic idea forms
- such a central part of the story
- in The Lone Gladio.
- I mean, it's not a sort of explanation
- that you take all that seriously
- for real events, is it?
- But there, again, I suppose you're
- being quite subversive.
- Because instead of using blowback as a
- way of covering up for black operations,
- this story of Greg's retribution
- against the Company
- is actually his sort of means of
- exposing them.
- That's, I suppose, what... the overall
- point of this book was
- was to try and expose the reality
- and in doing so, that meant you simply
- had to subvert the usual way in which
- these things worked
- and therefore had to subvert
- even the concept of blowback.
- I suppose... OK, my question: is this
- something that you did consciously,
- or am I letting the literary analyst
- inside me get a bit carried away here?
- Um, no. Absolutely, absolutely.
- First of all, you're absolutely right:
- it is based on the notion of blowback
- and in this case, it's a real blowback.
- And that is: unintended consequences.
- Because, as we know, Greg's woman
- was killed purely accidentally.
- So that was not designed by the powers
- to get this reaction and this outcome
- that is brought forth by Greg.
- Because he starts the mission.
- And there are two things that
- are happening.
- There are two things that are
- motivating Greg.
- One, of course, we are talking
- about this Great Terror Event in 2001.
- In the US.
- And he was outside that highly-
- compartmentalized operation
- to execute this, this false-flag operation
- in the home front
- in the United States, on the US soil.
- And he realizes this as it happens,
- and it's reported
- by the tentacles of the Gladios.
- This is the CNN and BBC, or BCB,
- as they are listed there
- it may be a little bit cheesy [laughter]
- But... so...
- That is when it makes Greg stop and think
- and the blowback doesn't begin here
- but the roots, or the seeds, are
- planted there.
- Because he is, himself, a highly unusual,
- eccentric character
- with some dark, to a certain degree
- sad background
- that I don't get into in this book.
- It will, hopefully, once I write and if I
- write the second book
- will get more into Greg's childhood
- and what started his intense hatred
- of Russians and everything Russian.
- And that's one of the repeating t
- hemes there.
- And that has been one of the driving force
- for a lot of things that he has
- done in life.
- But in all this, this... for this
- operation, false-flag
- taking place in the US, that begins
- the process.
- It plants the seed, and then the
- catalyst, of course,
- two years later, becomes his
- woman accidentally
- taken out by the Agency
- So that basically triggers
- all these actions.
- And again, that was unintended.
- So that's a true blowback right there.
- And you used the word "intended,"
- and that is very, very important.
- It's the key word, because
- for a blowback to be really a blowback,
- the consequences have to be unintended.
- And with these operations themselves,
- the black ops, the false-flag operations,
- the recruitment and the training
- of these terrorists,
- in this case we had a black widow
- who's a Chechen,
- who's Chechen, in Azerbaijan
- and those operations are the
- false-flag operations
- with intended consequences.
- With intended consequences
- therefore, anything that results
- from those operations
- cannot in any way be considered blowback.
- Because when you look at, let's say
- a certain group being put in place,
- trained, armed, directed, managed,
- to execute a certain terror operation,
- whether it's in Russia or if it's
- in Syria,
- and if it's in Iraq,
- executing that terror operation
- is only a part of the intended results,
- the objectives, the means to get
- to the objectives.
- It's not all:all of consequences
- taking place afterwards,
- those are the intended consequences.
- So, let me give you an example.
- For example, let's say when you
- train the Chechens,
- a group of Chechens,
- and arm them, and drug them,
- and indoctrinate them, and manage them,
- and say, "You're gonna go and blow
- up this in this part of Russia,"
- for example.
- Well, the first result of it is, OK,
- this horrible terror incident happens
- in that particular city
- or targeting this particular school,
- et cetera.
- Now, what happens next is what
- is the intended consequence.
- And that is to get Russia to react to it,
- and to react to it, hopefully,
- dramatically.
- Emotionally, and start rounding up
- hundreds of Chechens,
- putting them in jail, or actually going
- and shooting 150 Chechens, right?
- And that, in return, turning around
- and causing this...
- more attacks over there.
- Then, you start getting closer and closer
- to the intended consequences.
- The intended consequence in executing
- this particular terror operation,
- this part of it
- where something is blown up
- and you have 100 people dying,
- is not the first intent,
- the most important objective here.
- That is a way to get the following
- five or six consequent events,
- which are intended,
- to cause that chaos,
- to cause that certain sect going
- after another sect
- to cause for that to actually become
- even more,
- explode even further
- and affect a neighboring country.
- Let's say, if it's in Syria, something
- is happening
- with Jordan, and then
- this happens in the border,
- and you have, let's say, maybe half
- a million refugees
- getting to this country.
- Those in the media,
- and then these so-called CIA analysts
- they are talking baout,
- they are always represented
- and presented to the viewers
- as the unintended consequences.
- I mean, they don't even say, "
- "OK, we did help blow this thing up."
- But let's say they armed it,
- and we didn't know.
- The usual storyline.
- "And look, all these things happen,
- and they're horrifying"
- while all along the intended consequences
- are events that take place long after,
- let's say,
- a building being blown up
- or 50 poeple getting killed.
- And that's what we are talking about.
- And in no way those can be considered
- as blowback
- because they are absolutely intended.
- Because when that chaos is taking place,
- then the next things comes as
- a result of that,
- and then these other two countries
- get involved,
- and as a result of that, let's say,
- another country which says,
- "You know what? Now we are really going
- to, let's say,"
- "put our candidacy to become a member
- of NATO."
- And as a result of that, this and this
- happens.
- It's like a chess board.
- And you want to look at the move
- that's gonna come
- eight moves after the first move
- in order to go and execute, or achieve
- what you want to achieve.
- Not the first, initial things that
- take place
- with the first or the second move.
- And for those to be considered blowback,
- is the fiction that, unfortunately,
- almost everyone -- except for you guys
- and a handful of other who I call
- the Irate Minority
- real informed people, people don't know.
- And I always try to give these
- examples and say,
- if a certain action, modus operandi
- results in unintended consequences...
- Let's say this was talked about
- a lot after 9/11, saying...
- "Oh, well, we supported the
- mujahideens in Afghanistan."
- "In early '80s, late '70s. We armed them,
- we trained them."
- "Including Osama Bin Laden;
- including Zawahiri."
- And then those people turned arouned
- and started doing these kinds of things.
- And those were unintended.
- So let's say what they say
- -- this is the Deep State; this is
- the mainstream media;
- this is the so-called CIA analyst,
- these are the so-called CIA dissenters
- such as people like Mike Scheuer --
- anonymously writing the
- blowback-related stories, fiction,
- being marketed as non-fiction,
- let's say if they were true, OK?
- Well, think about it:any person,
- any sane person, average normal
- person, would say,
- I did this, and these things came
- out of it -- unintended things.
- So you learn a lesson. You don't go
- and repeat it ten times again
- after seeing these supposed
- unintended consequences.
- But on the other hand, if you look
- at the reality
- and say, OK, for the past 30 or 40 years,
- how we repeat exactly the same script,
- the same scenario,
- the same operations,
- and getting the similar kind of blowback,
- the reactions, eight steps later,
- then you have to stop and say,
- "Well, really, is that unintended?"
- Because as the saying goes,
- "Fool me once, shame on you."
- "Fool me twice, shame on me."
- I mean, you can't keep doing
- the same thing.
- You do that with mujahideen:
- "Oops! Blowback!"
- Then you go and you get these cells
- you take then to Turkey from Syria
- -- These cells from Syria --
- You train them, you arm them,
- you put them there, back into Syria.
- You do the same thing with another cell:
- take them to Jordan, train and arm them,
- put there,
- knowing that, OK, they have...
- or selecting, intentionally, extremists.
- And then events take place, and say,
- "Oops! That was unintended."
- "Because our intention was getting
- this, really, just like mujahideen"
- And all the other groups that
- we have used,
- we consider them the freedom fighters.
- For how long the United States
- media glorified the mujahideen
- That includes Osama bin Laden as
- their commando, Zawahiri, in the '80s.
- If you go and get the archives
- -- the newspaper articles, OK? --
- all the clips from NPR, from CNN,
- what you see is, they were glorified.
- Nobody even put anything like
- "Islamists" or "extremists"
- or any of those adjectives in
- association with these people.
- They were the great freedom fighters.
- They made Americans, all of them,
- cheer for mujahideen.
- The fact that they had... they were
- stoning women, or doing...
- which they did, during those
- years as well.
- They were never exposed,
- because those were irrelevant.
- They were the glorified freedom fighters.
- Liberation armies, right?
- And then, lo and behold:
- one day they all turned to these
- awful, ferocious terrorists and al-Qaeda.
- And their commandos became
- the top terrorists in the world,
- with these extreme belief
- system and religious...
- all those things happen: "Oops!"
- Those were like, "Ooh, we were caught"
- "and we were shocked;
- and we were so surprised"
- -- supposedly.
- Again, we are doing the same thing.
- We have been doing the same things.
- Take these people, arm them,
- train them, manage them.
- And then later come and say, "Oops!"
- "Look at what these people are doing."
- "They are extremists. We did not..."
- "We did not acount for these
- kinds of reaction,"
- "and these kinds of practices
- by these people."
- So therefore, in no way these operations
- and the consequences of the operations,
- can be considered blowback.
- And then, the lastly, the most
- important thing to look at is:
- Who benefits? Who benefits
- from these operations?
- And the intended consequences.
- Well, whoever is the puppet President
- --whether it's Obama or Reagan --
- they don't really, personally benefit
- from these.
- It's not about the President.
- it's not about a political party,
- or the Republican Party:
- because of that, they got rich
- or they became powerful.
- No. So that... those are not the
- beneficiaries.
- So the people on the ground,
- people in Syria, or people in Afghanistan,
- they're not the beneficiaries.
- their homes have been wrecked,
- and they have lost tens of thousands
- of people.
- The American people haven't been
- better off.
- And either financially or security-wise.
- So take the American people's
- interests out of the equation.
- Then you look at the map,
- you look at the situation, and say,
- who has become richer and more powerful,
- as a result of this.
- And what you see is, "Oh, look at this."
- Without these wars, the sales and
- the stock prices
- for the military-industrial complex
- would just plunge. I mean,
- think about a scenario where we
- don't have these wars.
- We are not engaged in Syria
- and Afghanistan,
- and with the drones in Pakistan and Yemen.
- Who are they gonna sell it to,
- these drones and bombs?
- And then, when you look at NATO,
- and you look at the militaristic
- expansion,
- and, let's say, with 9/11,
- before 9/11, how many bases did
- we have in the region?
- Whether it's in Eastern Europe, or
- you're looking at nations like Azerbaijan,
- I know they shut it down, but Manas
- Airbase in Kyrgyzstan:
- look at how close they are to Russia.
- Now, what made these possible
- was the event that took place here,
- the operation that took place here
- in the United States, 9/11
- that gave us that legitimacy
- -- even though it's not legitimate --
- to say, "OK, we don't have the Cold War,"
- "We don't have Russia,"
- "but we need to expand our bases
- and take over these countries."
- Again, those countries, with our
- military bases
- in order to protect ourselves again
- a new enemy
- the enemy that we create, put in place,
- and manage.
- So therefore, that's when
- you're looking at
- the intended consequences
- War, and who benefits from that.
- How many military bases Russia
- has put in place,
- created, put in place,
- since the Cold War ended?
- How many military bases China
- has put in place, created
- and expanded and...
- you don't see these.
- But take a look at the United States,
- and then start putting it with the
- cover, legitimacy that they have done.
- It's always in the name of a great enemy
- that we have militaristically
- put these bases in these countries,
- taken over these countries
- and their regimes,
- or installing their regimes.
- Therefore, without these operations,
- without these wars, without
- these consequences,
- we couldn't.
- So this is how you, or anyone, could start
- putting the two and two together, and say,
- my father always taught me this,
- when I was six, seven, eight years old.
- He said, "Whenever you look at any wars,"
- "really look and see
- who benefits from it."
- And it's never the case of people.
- It's not ever the case of those,
- let's say, American soldiers
- who are losing their lives doing these
- atrocious things overseas.
- Then who benefits/
- And once you get that answer
- and start to pinpoint the beneficiaries,
- that's when you can in-depth,
- truly understand
- what these wars, or these terror
- incidents, or these conflicts are about.
- That was a long answer. [laughter]
- Well, yeah. And I suppose I'll just hand
- you over to Pierce here.
- Because I could pick up on a dozen
- things that you just said.
- Pierce, Iknow you wanted to kind of
- carry on on this topic of...
- Yeah.
- Not necessarily blowback, but,
- consequences of where this
- thing's going.
- Well, yeah, I guess with everything
- that you've just been saying, Sibel,
- and taking The Lone Gladio
- as kind of a roadmap for how this works
- -- and again, it takes place around 2003,
- so we can see how this is
- starting to form --
- but it seems that right now we're
- sort of starting
- to reach a new level, perhaps
- within the Gladio operation.
- And I guess my big question is,
- what is the end-game scenario
- for Gladio B?
- Or, even if there is one?
- Because at some point
- -- it's already happening to a
- slight degree
- in places like Azerbaijan or Kyrgyzstan --
- we're seeing a lot of these mercenaries
- trained by NATO returning.
- Now, if one of the major goals of Gladio B
- is the exploitation of natural resources,
- like oil and gas,
- and about encircling Russia,
- how are... at what point does this
- become untenable
- if you've got these jihadis running
- all over the place?
- And kind of fleshing that out
- a little bit,
- a lot of The Lone Gladio revolves
- around Turkey.
- And I was recently talking with
- Christoph Germann on our new show,
- and he was mentioning that more
- and more analysts
- are starting to come around to the idea
- that Turkey is entering this
- Pakistan-ization
- where it's being broken up into
- these little areas
- like Gaziantep or Hatay, which
- are right on the border
- or Sinop, where Serena Shim
- was recently murdered
- and they're starting to resemble
- more and more
- places like Peshawar in the
- 1980s and 1990s.
- And again, the relationship between MIT,
- the Turkish intelligence and ISIS
- is somewhat similar to the ISI
- and the Taliban.
- So I guess, is that really the direction
- that NATO and the CIA and MI6,
- -- the Deep State network --
- want to go in?
- Because it seems as if they're playing
- a very dangerous game here.
- And if Turkey really did become...
- like, a Pakistan-type scenario,
- is that really an intended
- consequence of this?
- I know, I don't want to keep
- bringing back...
- No, absolutely. Absolutely, it is.
- Because you have to look at the last,
- let's say, 8-10 years
- of what's been happening with Turkey.
- Having countries...
- -- especially the countries that we
- control, our allies:
- in this case, you just said Pakistan:
- very similar. --
- having countries weak and not unified,
- with lots of internal chaos...
- let's say in Turkey,
- a Turkey that has a lot of things
- going on with the Kurdish sects.
- The Kurds executing some
- terror operations,
- the atrocity of Turkish militaries
- against the Kurds,
- all the internal chaos created
- by that division
- between the Kurdish sects
- and the rest of Turkey.
- Then, to have other pockets.
- Division along the extremist religious
- people there,
- versus the secular.
- That's what we have always intended
- and we wanted...
- -- and we want:
- this continues --
- for countries that are allies.
- A strong, unified nation,
- especially for Middle East,
- for a strategically, geographically
- strategic nation,
- is something that we never want.
- We never want it.
- We want Iraq that is divided between
- Shia and Sunnis and Kurds.
- Because that makes Iraq much weaker,
- therefore much more susceptible
- to be a puppet nation.
- To take over, to take over their oil.
- Same thing with Pakistan.
- Same thing with Turkey.
- Now, what has been scaring...
- because there has been so much
- going on with the mainstream
- media reporting on Turkey
- in the past five, six years here
- in the United States,
- is a government that they don't like,
- and a country that has started
- becoming economically strong.
- If you look at what has been happening,
- or what really happened with
- Europe in 2008, 2009 and 2010,
- and turn around and look at what has...
- -- economically, I'm talking about --
- what has been happening during
- the same years,
- those same years, in Turkey,
- you see Turkey was one of the
- only nations there in the region
- that with economy that actually
- got stronger and better
- without all the havoc that was
- taking place in Europe.
- That's number one.
- Number two: you see what happened
- with the protests.
- The Gezi protests and all the chaos
- that were completely scripted
- and implemented in Turkey
- by the United States, by the
- Gladio operation
- being defeated. Because they...
- and there was so much coverage
- when they were talking about
- the elections coming
- and Erdogan was not gonna be elected.
- But Turkey still stood unified,
- and they re-elected this guy.
- So I'm not saying this guy is good
- or is bad.
- We never, ever, in the Middle East,
- intend to have
- any allies that can be strong and unified.
- So taking countries and making sure
- that they are bogged down by
- all these divisions
- and internal conflicts between
- various sects,
- either along the religious lines,
- Sunni versus Shia,
- or along race, or along the ideologies:
- that has been the recipe of...
- and again, this is really interesting
- because, Tom,
- this is something that we took from...
- -- I don't want to say "inherited..." --
- but took from the Brits,
- the British Empire.
- Sure.
- Because that has always been
- the modus operandi
- of the British Empire. The divide
- and conquer.
- And that has been, even in Iran,
- it's always been the tool utilized
- and the modus operandi
- put in place and practiced by the
- British Empire,
- and it is now part of the Gladio and
- the United States' modus operandi.
- So for... we don't want a strong Turkey.
- We don't want a peaceful, unified Turkey.
- We do not want a strong Iraq.
- I mean, one of the...
- look at, when we were taking over Iraq...
- -- the war against Iraq, and then
- Saddam, and going in there --
- one of the things that made it
- much easier...
- -- and the chaos that's going on there,
- currently, is completely intended --
- was the country was not one country.
- In the north, you had these whole
- big Kurds who are against Saddam
- they have had their internal wars
- for years and years
- between Saddam and the Kurds.
- In the south, we had the Shias.
- And in the center, we had the Sunnis.
- And even during the First Gulf War,
- that, again, was used:
- with the Kurds in the north
- and the Shias in the south,
- and, look: all the people that
- got massacred and killed
- and from all three sides.
- but that's exactly what we want.
- And that's exactly what the
- British Empire wanted before
- when they re-drew the maps
- of the entire region
- and that includes, even, Africa.
- The maps were drawn in such a way
- that would keep these countries
- to prosper, the region,
- and to be unified, and to be peaceful.
- These maps, the borders,
- were all drawn and created
- based on the division and the
- dividing lines
- between the tribes, between
- various religious sects.
- So absolutely, this is intended.
- And as far as to what end,
- this is why the book gets into,
- well, Operation Gladio B
- will be Operation Gladio C at some point
- and Gladio C will be Gladio D
- because one region you don't
- hear American media talking about
- it China and the Xinjiang region.
- They call it [East] Turkestan,
- they call it Uyghuristan.
- The Uyghurs, well, these are
- the Muslim minorities
- in that region of China.
- And they are Turkic heritage,
- and we don't hear much about that.
- But that is in the plan.
- That is part of Operation Gladio.
- And what we want, basically, is...
- and that's what's gonna happen.
- You're gonna see this happening
- in the next, I would say, less than five,
- six years.
- You see, once in a while, they talk
- about the US media
- how oppressive the Chinese regime
- is against these people.
- You know, these people, they don't
- consider themselves Chinese.
- They consider themselves Muslims.
- They consider themselves Uyghurs.
- They consider themselves Turkic.
- Their language is Turkic, OK?
- They want independence.
- Well, we have been cultivating that
- for the past...
- since 1997, 1996 there, OK?
- And what we want is
- we want some of these terror incidents
- and the escalation of that,
- and getting China to increase its
- oppression and react,
- because China wants to [xx] they just
- want to defend their interests,
- then show that to the international
- community by saying,
- "Look, these poor little minority
- groups there,"
- "They are being crucified. They are
- being massacred"
- "It's almost like genocide."
- They want this genocidal operation,
- they want it to escalate to the point
- of genocidal operations,
- they want to push China into reacting
- and turning this into a genocidal
- operations.
- So then, with the consent of the
- international community,
- we go there, in there, and say we
- are here to stand by the sects
- because we are such great nation.
- We care a lot [laughter]
- about humanity.
- And we always have these great
- intentions.
- It's always because we want to democrat---
- we bring democracy and
- democratize a nation.
- We want to protect some underdog.
- We want to defend some minority groups
- because we are that kind of nation, guys.
- OK? That's what we always,
- always have done, right?
- You know, it's always glorified.
- We always intend good things.
- And look, bad things happen as a result:
- but they are unintended.
- Again, going back to "blowback."
- But once we have that,
- once we have a situation escalate
- and we are pushing it to that degree
- -- this is all planned: it's been in
- motion since 1996 --
- then we're gonna say, "We've got to
- help these guys,"
- "so we've got to put our military there,"
- and it's going to be another Taiwan.
- That's the intention, OK?
- That's the objective.
- We want to separate Xinjiang area
- from the rest of mainland China.
- We will put a base there, in the name
- of protecting these minorities,
- and we're gonna turn it to
- another Taiwan.
- That is the ultimate goal.
- And look and see where Xinjiang is:
- not only for us to get close to China
- just the way we are doing with Russia,
- with using the Caucasus and Central Asia,
- this is the start for us with this
- Xinjiang region
- to exactly implement the same objective,
- the same plan
- and get close to China and close in
- on China.
- So, that's number one.
- And number two, if you look at the
- pipeline scenario
- -- this is for the oil and gas --
- the oil and gas resource-rich regions
- of Central Asia and Caucasus,
- when you look at Turkmenistan
- and Kazakhstan, et cetera,
- and you see all the business deals
- between China and these
- Central Asia/Caucasus,
- ex-Soviet nations...
- --because how many billion people
- are in China? --
- China has the greatest need for
- energy resources
- compared to any other nation
- in the world.
- They need this oil, they need this gas,
- and they are putting all these pipelines
- to bring...
- -- with business deals --
- this needed gas and oil into China.
- Into mainland china.
- Well, go and see where these pipelines
- pass through.
- Then you start realizing the significance
- of the Xinjiang region.
- So by having our power, our military
- boots on the ground,
- our base there in Xinjiang,
- not only we are controlling getting
- close to China,
- but we are sitting in the section
- that is the [xx] that the pipelines entry
- into mainland China.
- We can starve and deprive China of all
- oil and gas
- coming from that region by sitting there.
- So that's the area you don't hear much
- from the mainstream media, US,
- even though so much has been
- taking place.
- They only broadcast when China reacts
- to some terror incidents that we manage
- -- "we" being the United States,
- Operation Gladio --
- by the Xinjiang Uyghurs, and show
- how despotic they are.
- You know, they go there and they are
- oppressing people, repressing people,
- they are killing people, they are
- jailing people,
- awful stuff that China is doing to
- these people, right?
- We don't show the casualties of
- when these groups, our groups,
- implement terror operations in
- mainland China,
- but we right away broadcast
- what China did.
- So we are basically massaging
- the peoples,
- Americans and also
- international communities,
- and even especially the Muslim region,
- of, "Look, what is China doing
- to these people?"
- The same thing we've been doing with,
- "Look what Russians are doing
- to Chechens!'
- Exactly the same scenario.
- It's the same Operation Gladio.
- And again, when you said, "To what end?"
- That's... we are... we have these
- objectives in place.
- Not "we:" the Operation;
- the Operation Gladio.
- And China and getting close,
- controlling the entry of the needed oil
- and gas into China
- thus containing China from becoming
- the superpower,
- is in motion. And the same thing
- with Russia.
- And of course we have the prize
- there that we haven't done anything.
- That's for the next administration.
- Right now, we have Syria.
- We had Libya before that.
- Yemen, Afghanistan with... we're
- gonna stay there.
- Of course that's gonna be our
- permanent base.
- There's no question about that.
- Pakistan is our puppet region.
- Of course, these regions sometimes
- play off of US against China.
- "OK, so you do this, then I'm gonna
- go and make a deal with China."
- Well, we don't want that, right?
- And again, that ends up being
- some headlines once in a while,
- but the imporance of it is way beyond
- what the US media
- represents in its reporting.
- So of course the prize being Iran there.
- And between Central Asia, Caucasus,
- Iran, Afghanistan,
- the goal is whoever controls
- the resources,
- the needed resources: the oil, the gas, the needed minerals --
- that is the superpower.
- That is the sole empire of the globe, the world.
- And we have been doing it through
- Operation Gladio,
- and of course with our more
- militaristic covert wars.
- But then look at our competitors,
- supposedly our enemies,
- China and Russia:
- we haven't seen anything like that
- from them.
- And so that is our modus operandi,
- and that is the objective.
- The objective is who is going to be
- the sole superpower,
- the super-empire.
- And as long as that's the objective,
- these are the things we're
- gonna be doing.
- Hmm. And I think that you're really right
- n pointing out that this is...
- the situation in Xinjiang right now is
- actually starting
- to get more, sort of, intense;
- and we're already seeing Uyghurs
- that were fighting in Iraq
- that were captured.
- And it seems that perhaps
- we are entering into a different
- phase of Gladio.
- And just briefly, I just wanted to take
- your take on
- Tarkhan Batirashvili or Omar al-Shishani,
- who is the "Ginger Jihadi."
- And he seems to have been thrust
- into the spotlight of ISIS.
- There was a Daily Beast article calling
- him "The Bin Laden of the Group."
- Of course, and then a little bit down
- in the article they say,
- "Well, his brother is really the brains
- behind all of this."
- And Batirashvili has a somewhat
- similar background
- to a character in The Lone Gladio,
- Yusuf Mohammed
- and we'll leave that to the audience
- to decipher who is is.
- But of course, Batirashvili was trained
- by the Americans
- in a Georgian Special Forces outfit,
- fought against the Russians in Chechnya,
- and he has repeatedly said that he wants
- to bring the fight back to Kadyrov
- and Putin,
- with not so much as a peep out
- of Georgia.
- So I just wanted to see and get your
- take on this, Sibel.
- And is this a, sort of, new ramping up?
- Are we going to go from the small-scale
- attacks like in The Lone Gladio,
- like the bombing in the Defence Ministry
- in the beginning of the book,
- to a more, sort of, open war with Russia?
- And with, perhaps, this Batirashvili --
- this white jihadi guy -- at the forefront?
- My answer, I guess, will have three
- different segments into it.
- Number one, that's right: you mentioned
- the character Yusuf Mohammed.
- But the biography, the summary short
- biography that you just mentioned,
- fits exactly Ayman Zawahiri's.
- Mm.
- OK? Ayman Zawahiri was jailed;
- he was tortured.
- Then he went there and became the
- lieutenant for Osama Bin Laden
- and was fighting against Russia in...
- with mujahideen cell in Afghanistan.
- So you... as you said, you're looking
- at the repeated bios.
- So these are the... the profiles are
- so consistent.
- See, that's one of the other
- interesting things
- about the United States and NATO,
- the Operation Gladio,
- and that is the consistency.
- Really, you may see some small
- variations here and there,
- but if you look at it overall,
- the script is the same. The scenario
- is the same.
- I mean, in a way: it's awful, but it's
- also boring.
- But guess what?
- If it works, if it ain't break,
- don't fix it, right?
- That's how the saying goes?
- It worked with Afghanistan,
- it worked with... it has been working.
- So why change it, right?
- So that's number one aspect of it.
- That the bios being exactly consistent
- as the rest of them.
- you know, Zawahiri and Yusuf Mohammed.
- And the second part of it
- has to do with the psychological
- aspects of it.
- And this is the psychological warfare,
- and also propaganda.
- And that is when you put... let's say
- you have an enemy cell.
- ISIS, ISIS, right?They are doing
- these ferocious things.
- It goes only so far.
- Of course, let's say, look at the
- Americans' opinion:
- these barbaric Muslims -- they
- are Islamists, number one.
- "This is what Islam advocates,"
- "and these barbaric extremists
- , they're doing all this stuff. "
- Goes... it's effective; but it goes
- only so far.
- What you always need in a
- psychological warfare and propaganda
- is to put a human, actual human face
- and name to it.
- Because then, that makes it so
- personal, right?
- Because, as we did with Osama Bin Laden.
- Showing the picture of that Khalid
- Sheikh Mohammed.
- That evil-looking guy, you know?
- He's crazy, right?
- MOOONSTER!
- So we associate, when we think
- about the Americans...
- you know, people,
- then we are thinking about these
- horrifying boogeymen.
- If we don't have, put some pictures
- there...
- you know, it's like Freddy Krueger,
- right?
- Freddy Kruger. I mean, you can write
- all the stories about Freddy Krueger,
- but if you don't create an image
- that goes with Freddy Krueger,
- Freddy Krueger can't become
- that monstrously scary, right?
- So Osama Bin Laden, with that long
- beard and the dark, piercing black eyes,
- that screams evil, and you have Khalid
- Sheikh Mohammed, that crazed guy there.
- And then you are looking at
- Ayman Zawahiri,
- and the photos when he's talking
- passionate with his index finger up,
- you know, the extremist Islamist
- mullah with his headpiece.
- Well, those are effective.
- Because just like Hollywood movies,
- just like Freddy Krueger,
- you need to have a human face
- and name
- that you make it synonymous with
- whatever cell
- you have created and put in
- place, right?
- And that's exactly what we are
- seeing with this guy.
- Because ISIS,ISIL, IS-- they did this?
- OK, that's fine.
- But now it's time to enter, to bring in
- and introduce the face that
- represents it all.
- Now, you have [xx] this person.
- So that's the second segment.
- And as far as yet bigger war,
- I think we are putting things in place
- for that if needed,
- but I will offer my own
- hypothesis theory.
- Because I don't know this for a fact,
- but if someone were to ask me to speculate
- and say when and why...
- when we would do such things,
- in terms of going into full-blown war,
- this is what I have to offer.
- Again, this is based on my own analysis
- and opinion,
- and I'm not going to market it as,
- "Oh, this is pure fact."
- This is my opinion.
- First of all, we are going to see much
- more stuff
- with Georgia, Abkhazia region.
- We had that -= what was it? -- six-day
- war, eight-day war a few years ago?
- That was just a warm-up.
- But with Georgia's candidacy,
- integration into NATO that is coming,
- that is going to happen in that region.
- We're gonna see more conflict
- and confrontation there.
- Similar to Ukraine, we're gonna see it
- in the Abkhazia region there.
- And again, these terror cells and
- the groups,
- we have already cultivated,
- put together, put in place,
- we've been managing in that region.
- We got a little bit of taste of
- that during
- the so-called false flag Boston
- bombing.
- People started hearing,
- at least their ears got a little bit
- used to,
- this "Dagestan" region?
- [laughter]
- You see?
- Because ordinarily, most Americans:
- they don't like geography, OK?
- They like to view the world as this...
- the United States of America.
- OK? It's huge.
- Look, Turkey's the size of Texas, right?
- Well, I don't even know where Turkey
- exactly is.
- We are a big country,
- we are just by ourselves here.
- There are some countries and nations
- with weird names, oh,
- thousands of miles away.
- Who needs to know about them?
- If you were to ask Americans,
- I would say 94 percent -- I'm just gonna
- throw a number here --
- if you put the map and say,
- "OK, put your finger on the region that
- is considered Caucasus/Central Asia,"
- I can guarantee you, if we were to
- implement this test,
- You would see that 94% of Americans,
- their index finger would freeze
- in the air.
- "What?" "Can you show me Kyrgyzstan?"
- "What's that?"
- I mean, I'll just give you a quick...
- it's not a joke, it's a real-life thing.
- When I started college, university
- here in the United States --
- and this is during my second, third year,
- so this is not in high school
- this is in college-level
- this one guy in my class, he says,
- "You're from Turkey, right?"
- I said, "Yeah, I'm from Turkey."
- He says, "Turkey is in Saudi Arabia,
- right?"
- "One of the nations in Saudi Arabia?"
- And I was like, "Oh my goodness."
- They have made Saudi Arabia -- OK?
- A continent...
- and Turkey a nation
- n that continent called Saudi Arabia.
- But unfortunately
- -- this is a fact; this is true, OK? --
- we... I spent years living in
- other countries.
- I lived in Vietnam for a year.
- I lived in Russia in 1992, right after
- the end of the Cold War.
- And I have travelled to a lot of
- places, to many, many countries.
- But when it comes to geography,
- with Americans,
- I never... I'm still amazed, OK?
- It is just...
- and then I traveled... another thing
- I noticed, like, when I was
- when I was there, when I was in Vietnam,
- I saw all these backpackers
- from Scandinavian nations
- Australia, New Zealand, a lot of Brits.
- You know, they are 21, right
- out of college.
- Or they are taking a break from college.
- And they have their backpacks, and they
- are travelling all over Laos and Vietnam.
- And I struck a friendship with a lot of
- these people.
- You hardly see Americans doing that.
- There is this inherent desire to explore
- the world by some of those nations.
- But you don't see it much for Americans.
- That's another thing: that worldliness
- which reduces xenophobia.
- When you start getting more familiar,
- the culture and other traditions and
- people and races,
- that kind of reduces your xenophobia,
- but also it makes you an informed
- person about the world.
- It makes you worldly.
- Well, you don't see that much in America.
- So, going back to the topic
- of Kyrgyzstan,
- "I don't even know where that is,"
- we are going to see this conflict.
- We have already planted that.
- We said, "Let's make Americans
- familiar with this name Dagestan"'
- Dagestan and terrorism have become
- kind of synonymous
- thanks to the Boston bombing.
- So Chechen, Dagestan, these people came,
- they're extremists.
- They're somehow related
- to either al-Qaeda or Jamaati
- [sic: Jabhat?] al-Nusra... whatever.
- But that region has many,
- many terrorists, OK?
- We are going to reintroduce that
- topic again as a nation,
- as Operation Gladio, when the time
- comes, which is going to be soon
- in Georgia, Abkhazia region.
- But as far as a bigger war with Russia,
- I doubt it under current circumstances.
- That's my opinion,
- because of Putin and who Putin is.
- And again, Putin's rating went
- up in Russia,
- and Putin's popularity really went
- up there.
- And Putin has been portrayed,
- even here by US media,
- as a tough, nationalistic leader
- in Russia, right?
- Because Putin is standing up
- to the United States.
- He did -- he and the Russians --
- when we were talking about going
- into Syria two years ago, right?
- And of course what we saw with Ukraine.
- My theory is just like the limited
- opposition framed and controlled,
- I believe there is... we have Putin tied,
- and into a certain degree, Putin
- can only do it so much.
- And you're going to say, why that is?
- One of, again, our modus operandi
- has been...
- -- and you see it a lot in Operation Gladio-related sections
- of The Lone Gladio --
- is blackmail and collecting crap,
- shit from people, right?
- I mean, we do it with Congress.
- Even with the FBI we did it. FBI had files
- on some top figures in the House.
- Just in the operation that involved
- Turkey and the Turkish lobby, right?
- That was involved in my case.
- but CIA has been doing it forever,
- since its inception and creation.
- There are some Presidents,
- and we do that.
- Otherwise they won't become President.
- That's one of the qualifications,
- requirements.
- And again, the book The Lone Gladio
- goes into that.
- To be qualified to get to that level,
- to that level of power seat,
- you have to have a lot of dirt, OK?
- That makes you a viable candidate.
- because you are controllable.
- If you don't have lots of skeletons
- and dirt,
- you are not as easily controllable.
- It's pure and simple. Well we've been
- doing that with, also, world leaders.
- It just came out and leaked that, OK,
- we've been collecting dirt on Angela
- Merkel, right?
- With this NSA spying: her personal
- phones were being listened to, correct?
- Well, why would we do that?
- Think about it.
- Because at any given time...
- let's say someone like Angela Merkel, if
- she was not the scumbag that she is, OK?
- And we decided that you know, Germany,
- or this country or that country,
- is not backing us with this,
- what would happen if we...
- -- "We," the United States;
- Operation Gladio --
- would release to the media in France
- or in Germany or in, you know, in UK, OK?
- All sorts of recorded tapes,
- and also maybe some Internet activities
- showing that this particular leader
- is a pedophile, OK?
- Let's say... you know, let's say Sarkozy.
- I'm just giving you a hypothetical
- example.
- What would happen if all these pictures
- come out
- that Sarkozy has been having
- this relationship with five,
- six-years-old boys
- and, through... and he's been a pedophile?
- Can you imagine right away that leader
- not disappearing from that country?
- We have that power, because we've
- been... we've been doing this a lot.
- We first use what we collect on the
- world leaders in terms of blackmail
- by saying, "You know what? You don't
- do this and we will expose this."
- OK? Number two, if needed, we would
- do that.
- Some things happen with the Bakayev
- family in Kyrgyzstan
- A lot of things are associated with that
- that I'm not gonna get into right now.
- But with Putin, it's already estimated
- that his net worth, his wealth,
- is way over $500 million dollars, OK?
- Where is his money?
- As of 2003, 2004 --
- and this is based on direct,
- first/second-hand information
- from people within intelligence community
- a lot of his wealth is kept in the Greek
- portion of Cyprus, the banks there.
- And they're... so if intelligence
- agencies,
- CIA, and even through
- counterintelligence monitoring FBI,
- knows and has all the information
- about where Putin keeps some
- of his wealth,
- or if some other leader
- keeps it in Dubai,
- this ones keeps it -- let's say,
- hypothetically speaking,
- Putin keeps it in certain banks in Malta?
- OK? Malta is another important place.
- Nobody talks about it,
- but in terms of the money laundering
- and the financial operations center
- and in Cyprus.
- And if this were to come out in Russia --
- how did he get this wealth, OK?
- Because this is the nation's wealth
- that leaders go and take out, right?
- In countries like... whatever countries
- that you look at.
- And where they are kept.
- They can...
- -- and this is the Operation Gladio,
- this is the United States,
- this is the UK --
- they can make Putin a scandalous leader
- and take away all his popularity
- in less than a day, if they wanted to.
- If they wanted to.
- So you are looking at a leader,
- let's say in Russia, that has to
- balance... has to balance two things.
- Number one, to appeal to the
- nationalistic side of its nation
- Because any leader of Russia has to
- kind of be tough
- when it comes to the Western powers,
- right?
- Because it was not that long ago
- when Russia was the Soviet Union.
- It was the second empire in the world.
- It was the Western empire, and it
- was the Soviet Union, OK?
- So in order to stay in power,
- that leader has to appeal and maintain
- that faith of the people there,
- that he's tough, and he can stand up.
- He's not a butler, OK? He's not weak.
- He can stand up to the United States.
- He can growl and say, "Rawwwrr!" OK?
- Or maybe bark a little bit, and say,
- "Woof, woof!" OK?
- But, he won't bite.
- Because then that leader has
- to balance it.
- Because we know Russia has a
- lot of corrupt people.
- We know that. I lived there for a
- year, OK?
- And I know how a lot of top-level
- KGB, former KGB people
- got to be some of the top business
- people we hear about today,
- with hundreds of million or billion
- dollars net worth.
- So that... you need a leader that
- can growl,
- that can bark a little bit when the
- situation arises,
- and appeal to his people's
- nationalistic tendencies.
- They still have that pride, Russians.
- But yet, do it to a certain degree,
- and not totally piss off and totally
- stand up to
- the Western nations that have
- the blackmail power.
- That have the power to expose him, OK?
- That is, I believe, what we see
- with Putin.
- We do see some really
- nice-looking growling,
- and a little woof-woof,
- but Putin is not going to bite.
- And as long as Putin is in this position,
- I don't believe that we are going to
- see a full-blown war with Russia.
- It's not gonna happen, because
- another thing you should look at is,
- ask yourself,
- and I'm gonna ask, because you both
- are experts with this whole area
- and the region,
- how come Russia really hasn't done
- anything in the past 15 years
- when the United States and NATO
- has been closing in to Russia's borders
- by taking over Azerbaijan,
- you know, until last year, Manas,
- Kyrgyzstan;
- Georgia, OK?
- And you start looking at all this,
- and say, "Whoa!"
- Think about it!
- Why, for the past 14, 15 years,
- Russia hasn't become really antsy.
- Saying, "Well, these are my
- backdoor neighbords."
- "They're right there on my border."
- Think about it: why not?
- Let me put it on the other hand and say,
- what would happen...
- imagine, what would happen if
- Russia starts building closer relationship
- business relationship, militaristically
- relationship
- with Mexico,
- and starts coming to Mexico and
- put a huge base there
- with 15,000 boots on the ground
- in the base, with Mexico?
- Oh, it would be chaos!
- Can you imagine?
- First of all, we would not, as United
- States, let it get to that point, right?
- And even as a notion would arise,
- we would start using what power we
- have with Mexico, right?
- And do everything: that would not happen.
- It would not happen. Not...
- or in Canada, OK?
- Or even let's go further:
- what would happen if, Russia says,
- "Now I'm gonna go and put a base,"
- "because I have now put this
- relationship,"
- because a lot of these nations,
- all you have to do is make a contract,
- business contract for $15 billion
- dollars,
- you have the country and its leader.
- And I'm gonna put it in Panama, OK?
- Where the canal is. ;
- Put myself strategically in that
- situation.
- Can you imagine that being allowed?
- It wouldn't even come close
- to implementation.
- Now, let's go back to the other side.
- How come, for the last 15 years,
- Russia has not made a peep, sound,
- about the United States, NATO,
- going and putting all these bases in all
- these countries right along its borders?
- Why?
- [laughter]
- I actually don't know,
- because I see it as...
- with Abkhazia and now South Ossetia,
- that Russia might sort of be saying,
- "If you're gonna keep moving,"
- "Then we'll take these little tiny
- areas,"
- "And what are the Georgians going to do?"
- But I don't know. I'd like to hear your...
- That's right.
- But that would be similar, it would
- be parallel to saying,
- we would let Russia to come and
- put this bases in, let's say, in Mexico,
- and then if Russia starts coming
- towards Texas
- and do something right along
- the Texas border,
- then US may flex its muscle.
- But we would never let that happen
- in the first place,
- to put ourself in that vulnerable
- situation.
- And even the stupidest Russian
- general, Russian strategic analyst,
- they would know from 15 years ago
- that putting these bases by US and
- NATO in Kyrgyzstan and Azerbaijan,
- that would definitely lead to what
- we saw happening with Ukraine, OK?
- Because the preparation for this
- started taking place in mid-'90s.
- When after the fall of the Soviet Union,
- we started seeing with Eastern Europe
- and all these nations,
- we're gonna get closer and closer
- and closer:
- during this entire period of 20 years
- almost,
- Russia and Russian leaders...
- and we know what kind of Russian
- leaders we had even before Putin, right?
- Gorbachev? Very nationalistic, you think?
- Russia sat there and let the
- United States and NATO
- closing up on it, right?
- And closing in, closing in, and
- now we saw the stuff with Ukraine,
- and then we're gonna be seeing
- with Georgia.
- But it was allowed to happen.
- They didn't stand up and say,
- "Whoa-whoa-whoa-whoa-whoa!"
- "Over my dead body! You're not coming
- this close!"
- They didn't.
- Meaning, Russia never went to war
- for any of these places,
- the colonizations that we have been
- putting in place in that region.
- We didn't need to have any war
- with Russia.
- We didn't even have any kind of
- a posturing war with Russia.
- It happened, very easily. Smooth sail.
- Thus, this is why I'm thinking
- that the chances of having a full-blown
- war with Russia is highly unlikely,
- unless, unless, we have been
- reading the notion and the fact
- that there is a revival of nationalism
- in Russia.
- That people, they're... the segment,
- the nationalistic segment saying, OK,
- initially, at the end of Cold War, I went
- to Russia.
- I lived there for almost a year.
- It was this huge desire
- of Westernization,
- especially in Saint Petersburg
- and Moscow.
- I arrived in Moscow from Saint P,
- because my base was in Saint Petersburg,
- on the day that the first McDonald's opened
- In Moscow, in this big center there.
- And as we were approaching
- that downtown section where
- McDonald's opened,
- the traffic was just stood still.
- They had this line -- and it was a
- very big McDonald's building --
- there was this line that wrapped around
- this McDonald's building for the opening
- that was, like, going around about
- 14, 15 times.
- And if you would stand them up in
- one linear line,
- you would see almost quarter mile of
- a line in front of the first McDonald's.
- It was a huge deal, OK?
- I mean, it was...
- it was during the shock stage of the
- Soviet Union disappearing.
- People didn't know what to think.
- They had this desire of openness,
- they can wear the...
- they can have lipstick. They can go
- and buy this lipstick.
- You don't have to buy it from the
- black market.
- And then the country was saturated
- with all these vultures
- from the US and from Europe.
- Who were there to take away things
- quickly, while things were cheap.
- There was this US group that was buying
- the high-value downtown real estate.
- There was no regulation.
- I mean, it was total chaos,
- and the Western nations were
- taking advantage of it.
- They were just placing themselves,
- they were putting their boots,
- business boots, on the ground.
- But the Russians were just too baffled.
- They were excited about all the
- Western things.
- They were a bit shocked: they couldn't
- believe that the Soviet Union was over.
- And so that era of shock and awe for them
- started kind of wearing off around 2002,
- 2003.
- Now, gradually, we are seeing, to a
- certain degree,
- this revival of nationalism in Russia,
- by people who are...
- and maybe ex-generals,
- maybe some other ex-intelligence
- figures from KGB era
- that are seeing the fact that their
- mother nation is being surrounded.
- And they are looking, maybe, at Putin,
- and saying,
- "How could you let this happen?"
- OK? And it's the Russian pride.
- So if, for example, Putin is toppled,
- and we see a more real, nationalistic
- leader come into power,
- then, sure: I would say, then it would be
- likely to see some direct confrontation
- with Russia. But as of now, with Putin,
- with his limited woof and bark,
- I would say no: it's not likely. It's not.
- If it were going to happen, we would
- have seen it even with Ukraine.
- Yeah.
- We just saw some level of posturing.
- And it made him look taller,
- and his rating went up.
- But then I was reading just last week,
- that it's been going gradually
- down again.
- Because it gave hope
- to that nationalistic feeling
- on the ground in Russia
- that yeah, they're... our leader is
- standing up!
- We're not gonna let this happen!
- But, it happened.
- Really, with Ukraine, if you see,
- it really happened.
- And I think it's also important to note
- that at the end of the day,
- many of these people, while they might
- be confrontational in public,
- are essentially working towards the
- same end goals
- and, you know, the really, really
- indepenent leaders...
- -- people like Gaddafi or the former
- President of the Ivory Coast --
- you know, those people are taken out.
- They're really... they're just murdered
- and overthrown.
- You know, any sort of independent
- leader like that.
- So you know, you do have to
- wonder sometimes.
- But I know we've been talking now
- for quite a while,
- and Tom, you've been a little quiet,
- so before we wrap up, Tom,
- do you have any quick questions
- you'd like to ask Sibel?
- No, but I am thinking about this subject
- and this question that you've raised,
- and I'm not 100 percent convinced
- -- I'll say that much -- but...
- it is an interesting question.
- Maybe that would be a good place
- to kick off
- a further conversation on this,
- because we've perhaps got to the end of our conversation
- about The Lone Gladio per se
- but a lot of this stuff that's spinning
- out from this conversation, I think,
- is certainly worthy of greater
- discussion.
- And I'd be interested to see
- how our differing approaches
- kind of, how we could marry
- them together,
- and at least delineate differences
- between our perspectives on this.
- so, I mean, yeah. Perhaps we'll leave
- it here,
- and hopefully in the near future,
- the three of us can explore this again.
- Because I do think we're starting
- to, now,
- kind of get into some really
- interesting territory.
- But again, I'd like to thank both
- of you guys
- for joining me today. It was a
- wonderful conversation.
- And quickly, Sibel: where can they find
- The Lone Gladio? Where can
- they find your work?
- Sure. The Lone Gladio is available via Amazon,
- both print book and also
- electronically through Kindle.
- but people who don't want to
- deal with Amazon,
- they can purchase it directly from
- the website TheLoneGladio.com
- and they can have, even, signed copies.
- So those are the two top places,
- and easiest places,
- for people to obtain, purchase,
- The Lone Gladio
- But even if they just go to
- TheLoneGladio.com website,
- they will see the links from there
- to all the other channels where
- they can get the book,
- either electronically or in print.
- And Tom, I'm sure that almost all my
- listeners know where to find your work,
- but we've always got new people coming,
- so please, tell everybody about
- your website,
- your podcast, and your novel as well.
- Or -- excuse me! -- not a novel:
- book. [laughs]
- Sure. I mean, my main website
- is SpyCulture.com,
- and on there you'll find links to my book
- about 7/7, Secret Spies and 7/7.
- I also do an about fortnightly podcast
- called ClandesTime
- that's available on Spy Culture
- and on YouTube.
- So anybody who hasn't already
- checked that out, please do.
- All right. well, thank you both,
- again, for joining,
- and I hope we can pick this up
- again soon.
- But thanks so much.
- Thank you. Sorry for dominating
- the conversation.
- So next time, I really want to hear
- your perspectives on this.
- As I said, with some of the answers,
- I have had only hypotheses
- or some theories to offer,
- not as concrete fact,
- so I would love to get your opinions
- on that.
- And also, thank you for the opportunity.
- it was great, thank you.
- Thank you Pierce, and thank you Sibel.
- it's been great talking to both of you.
- OK, everybody. So that about does it
- for this episode of Porkins Policy Radio.
- Thank you all for joining me and
- listening to this podcast.
- And if you enjoyed this and you'd
- like to hear some more,
- then please visit
- PorkinsPolicyReview.wordpress.com
- And there you can find all of the
- podcasts free for download.
- you can, of course, find them on
- YouTube also,
- and if you use YouTube, then please,
- please subscribe to my youTube channel,
- which is YouTube.com/1138porkins
- And also definitely follow me on
- Twitter @porkinspolicy,
- and you can also follow the podcast
- through the RSS feed,
- and also through email blasts as well.
- And I just have a few quick programming
- notes before I completely sign off.
- Just want to thank everybody who listened
- to the second episode
- of me and Christoph Germann's
- new podcast,
- Porkins Great Game.
- We've gotten tremendous feedback
- and lots of hits on that episode.
- So I'm really grateful for everybody
- that's been listening to it
- and putting it up on social media,
- and whatnot like that.
- And it's been really great.
- And again, you can find that on the
- main site, as well as on YouTube.
- And I just want to say one other
- quick thing.
- And I know that I made a promise...
- I believe it was actually the last time
- I spoke to Sibel
- that I would have two episodes up
- on Porkins Policy Radio.
- One dealing with Scientology,
- and one dealing with Jim Jones
- and The People's Temple.
- Well, I just want to say that I have
- not forgotten about that,
- and I have been doing quite a bit
- of research on Jim Jones.
- And I think that'll probably be
- the episode,
- the next episode for
- Porkins Policy Radio.
- So definitely stay tuned, and look out
- for that one on the horizon.
- And again, we will be speaking with
- both Sibel and Tom again very soon,
- and expand on some of the issues that
- we discussed, again, in this podcast.
- So with that, I just want to
- thank everybody.
- And again, if you liked this podcast,
- please tell a friend.
- Email it to someone, put it up on
- your social media, whatever:
- just help spread the word, because... and
- I just want to say, the fans have been...
- the listeners are just fantastic.
- Everyone has been promoting the show,
- and it's really fantastic.
- And a quick shout-out to James Corbett,
- who included this podcast and me
- and Christoph's podcast
- as one of the podcasts that he listens
- to in his Reddit AMA.
- So that was very cool and very awesome,
- and thanks so much, James.
- So, I think we're there, we're gonna
- leave it,
- and I will be talking to you very soon.
- [MUSIC]
- [Captions by Adjuvant]
- [CC-BY 4.0]
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Advertisement