Posts Tagged ‘false flags’

Our latest ‘Underground Knowledge’ group poll on the popular literary site has taken an interesting turn with one of our Muslim members adding to the discussion.

Goodreads: Book reviews, recommendations, and discussion

The poll simply asks: Do you believe in God? Results remain largely unchanged since our last poll update with 71% of poll respondents saying Yes (I believe in God); 16% saying No (I am an atheist); and 13% saying Undecided (I am an agnostic).

Our Muslim member, whom we shall call “Aabid” for the sake of this post, comments as follows:

 I am a believer, I believr in God, Allah, and I would like to point out that Muhammad Peace be upon him, is the a prophet and messenger of God, he’s a person just like all human beings, and in Islam, he’s Not considered a God, God is the Great Creator of the universe, the ultimate power and mighty of all, so please if you’re not a believer don’t be offensive to other religions, Islam Christianity Judasim Pagan or all, please dig things up before you say anything, just like I respect all of your opinions.  

Further random comments follow from other poll respondents (names withheld):

Aabid, finally! It’s nice to have a Muslim member commenting as there have been a lot of ill-informed comments about Islam in various posts (just as there are a lot of ill-informed comments in the media about your religion) so it’s great that you have joined the group. I look forward to reading more of your comments.


I actually find it incredible that the media has managed to blur people’s opinions, and logic, of Islam and Islamic State etc. We’re on dangerous ground when it comes to confusing someone’s religion with others’ terrorist political religious views. (Especially when Islam and Christianity, along with Judaism of course, are from the same root)…And, oh…. how many examples there have been throughout history, especially with Christianity…


Stop tarring all with the same brush. Think it through. It’s pretty damn easy to see that terrorism and Islam are two completely different things. And yet, I still feel the need to point it out because people are being brainwashed by the media. Look at who funds both sides of this new world war. That’s who the enemy is. Look at your own governments and ask: “Was it something we did?” You’ll soon find out, hell yes, it was. They’re fighting the West for a reason. You wanna stop the increasing war? Start by changing your own country’s philosophy and start asking: “What can we do to HELP this situation?”


There are also elements of Islam I disagree with. But I just feel Muslims are being misrepresented in Western media. And moderate Muslims (the vast majority) are paying the price for extreme zealots (small minority).


Aabid summarizes the sentiments of most poll respondents to date with the following comment:

…Loving the spirit in this poll by the way.


To view the comments of all poll respondents, or better still to have YOUR say, go to:—a-discussion-group?type=group

Poll ends January 26.


Our ‘Underground Knowledge’ discussion group is aimed at those with an interest in the world we live in and a desire to learn or to uncover “underground knowledge” on important issues of our times.

Everyone’s welcome to join! All you need is an enquiring mind. Our members include scientists, teachers, historians, authors, intelligence agency personnel, bankers, housewives, whistleblowers, students and many more.

Visit the group at:—a-discussion-group




A discussion thread titled “War, what is it good for? Absolutely nuthin!” on our Underground Knowledge group on has prompted an outpouring of anti-war comment, the overwhelming concensus being that war is, indeed, good for absolutely nuthin.

Gulf War Photobox.jpg

The discussion was prompted by publication of an excerpt from our book THE ORPHAN CONSPIRACIES. It was lifted from a chapter titled ‘False flag operations’ and reads as follows:

According to our research, WW2 was one of the last legitimate wars. Legitimate in that there was probably no other alternative but war. Nearly all other wars since – especially the Gulf Wars, Vietnam, The Falklands War and the various Afghan wars – have simply been money-spinners spawned by the fear of fabricated enemies or at least unproven enemies.

This all leads to other questions.

Were communists ever a valid threat? When the US pulled out of Vietnam, why didn’t the much hyped Domino Theory ever occur? Why weren’t most other Asian countries overrun by communism as this theory stated was inevitable?

Is it realistic to have a war on ‘terror’ instead of a conventional war against a recognizable nation or group of nations? Can bearded nomads living in caves in Afghanistan or Pakistan really be a genuine threat to superpowers? And can isolated and impoverished nations like North Korea prevent world peace if the rest of the world wants peace?

Would North Korean president Kim Jong-un actually order his military to fire nuclear weapons and incite war? If so, what would be in it for North Korea when they’d obviously be committing suicide by inviting the rest of the world to immediately invade them? Can a leader of any nation really be that stupid?


A random selection of some of the more interesting responses from group members follow. (Names withheld):

Some conflicts/wars I believe are a necessary evil – a terrible waste and disgraceful but if you lived in Africa wouldn’t you want someone to help you. There in lies your argument who decides where we go to war and where we ignore?


I’d replace the word ‘country’ with ‘government’. That’s the biggest con of all- this belief that we’re all countries of people starting and fighting wars, when it’s always been the top elite (government, royalty…) creating those wars. And in today’s age especially, the vast amount of people in the world want peace. It’s the governments that make those decisions, not the people.


Somewhere along the way the US was hijacked by elitists and American values were discarded.


War is often propaganda-dly sold to us with fear.


All we’ve got to do is defend rather than invade. It’s effing simple.


At the beginning of the “War on Terror,” here in New Mexico I was shocked and awed to see so many American flags erected on private properties as well as a popular bumper sticker which said; “SUPPORT OUR TROOPS,” which really meant “SUPPORT OUR WAR.”


There used to a sarcastic slogan back in the 60’s; “Sure its a dirty little war. But its the only one we’ve got.”


Fighting just creates more fighting; its an endless loop in human history that will never cease until we go about things another way.


If we don’t work for those in power… if we don’t pay those in power, they’re stuffed. But it’ll take a huge amount of people, including people in politics, armed forces, police forces… to come together to change the world.


History strongly suggests that the human story is the story of wars and dominance. So, to escape all that has gone before, it seems necessary to do something new; a miracle, if you will. Its hard to keep believing in the face of reality.


ISIS seems like yet another fabricated enemy ala Al Qaeda. And indeed there is already much evidence to support this theory.


There have always been evil doers…terrorists, dictators, are all over the show – yet for some reason we always inflate the Middle Eastern ones and under-report other ones…5 million people have been killed in the Congo (formerly Zaire) in the last 10 years plus 1 million women have been raped. But no Western country wants to invade The Congo and try to do the right thing.


Trying to achieve peace by one more war is like saying terrorists can be defeated by terrorizing other nations in the charade they call the War on Terror…For me, Jim Morrison said it best when he sung “They got the guns, but we got the numbers.”… It’s similar to what Gandhi said during the time of the British Raj: “100,000 Englishmen simply cannot control 350 million Indians, if those Indians refuse to cooperate.”


The debate continues. To see all comments, or better still to have YOUR say, go to:


The Underground Knowledge group is open to everyone! All you need is an enquiring mind, an interest in the world we live in and a desire to learn or to uncover “underground knowledge” on important issues of our times.

Goodreads: Book reviews, recommendations, and discussion

Our members include whistleblowers, scientists, historians, conspiracy theorists, students, authors, doctors, teachers, librarians and more.

To visit our Underground Knowledge group go to:—a-discussion-group



A suggestion that Al Qaeda was created in the West “to destabilize and destroy sovereign countries while sustaining the illusion of an outside enemy” has sparked a timely debate in our ‘Underground Knowledge’ discussion group on Goodreads. Timely given current events in Iraq and Syria involving ISIS, IS, ISIL et al.

Al-Shabab: The Somalian terrorist group with Al Qaeda links, has seen four San Diego residents been arrested in the past month

The debate was prompted by the airing of a contentious article originally published by Global Research, shedding light on the nature of Al Qaeda.

Here’s an excerpt from that article:

The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaeda. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive the ‘TV watcher’ to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US and the lobbyists for the US war on terrorism are only interested in making money.

To read the full article, and members’ responses to it, go to:

Judging by the comments received in our group’s ‘False Flag Operations’ discussion thread, many if not most members believe Al Qaeda is a creation of the West, or, as one American contributor points out, “Another fabricated enemy we built in the US for sinister purposes.”


Here’s some more random comments (names redacted) on the subject of Al Qaeda:

ISIS, ISIL, IS… Al Qaeda… The ‘enemy’ keeps changing. The ‘enemy’s’ name and location keeps changing. We’re getting more and more used to a war that doesn’t really bother a lot of the West, when the video of someone’s cat on YouTube is more important. You have all read 1984, right?


It seems like once the media repeats the names and evil intentions of these often-fabricated organizations enough times, the masses believe it and nobody (not even investigative journalists) researches the true origins of these groups.


Al Qaeda weren’t even ever mentioned in mainstream news (hardly) before 9/11, just as other groups that now spring up weren’t known about- but it’s a complex subject.


Yes it’s all BS. Believe exactly 0% of what the main stream media and the government says…0%


This story is just one of numerous pieces of evidence pointing toward Al Qaeda being created in the West (specifically in New York, actually). And when all those evidences are added up, it equates to an absolute fact that Al Qaeda was yet another fabricated enemy we built in the US for sinister purposes. And yet now there’s a new enemy in ISIS and still people never study history before reacting to the exact things in the present that the globalists want us to react to.


On a related note to this thread, RT have reported on the FBI inventing terrorists. Apparently, since 9/11, only 11 cases of ‘terrorist arrests’ posed a “potentially significant” threat to the United States. The rest of ’em are pretty much FBI entrapments to make the threat of terrorism on home ground look more worrying that it is.…


Bin Laden’s death highly suspicious in my opinion. Check out this post here:…


What the truth is about Bin Laden’s alive or dead status is anyone’s guess, but there’s not a shadow of doubt in my mind that the official raid and quick burial was just utter bollocks. A classic example of where one country just feeds something to the news (their little cabaret act in Pakistan on video and mention of some undisclosed intelligence) and lo and behold, the press and subsequently the people take it as being true.


Our ‘Underground Knowledge’ discussion group is open to everyone! All you need is an enquiring mind, an interest in the world we live in and a desire to learn or to uncover “underground knowledge” on important issues of our times.

This group is also for like-minded people to discuss the controversial topics explored in The Underground Knowledge series – of which the first book in that series is The Orphan Conspiracies: 29 Conspiracy Theories from The Orphan Trilogy. This non-fiction title was written by James Morcan & Lance Morcan with a foreword by leading scientist Dr. Takaaki Musha and an afterword by renowned historian Professor Richard Spence.

The Orphan Conspiracies: 29 Conspiracy Theories from The Orphan Trilogy

To visit our Underground Knowledge group go to:—a-discussion-group


As the dust settles in Afghanistan (kind of) and tensions simmer in the Ukraine and America deliberates on what to do about the situ. in Iraq, we are reminded that to create wars there don’t need to be any genuine enemies, only perceived enemies. If enough citizens believe their national security’s in jeopardy then politicians who propose wars will receive the support they need.

Governments have known this for a very long time, and manufacturing consent to go to war – à la False Flag Operations – ain’t new.


Take Vietnam for example… In our new release book THE ORPHAN CONSPIRACIES: 29 Conspiracy Theories from The Orphan Trilogy, we highlight the false flag that began the Vietnam War. Here’s an excerpt…

On August 4, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson alerted his fellow Americans on national television that North Vietnam had attacked the American destroyer USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin.

Not long after, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which gave Johnson the green light to begin military operations against North Vietnam. American troops were soon stationed in Vietnam and neighboring countries, and the war that would dominate an era began.

However, President Johnson and his Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, successfully hoodwinked the American people because North Vietnam never attacked the USS Maddox as the Pentagon had claimed, and the so-called unequivocal evidence of a second attack by the North Vietnamese is now commonly acknowledged as being a false report.

A National Security Agency (NSA) report on the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, declassified in 2005, concluded that USS Maddox had engaged the North Vietnamese Navy on August 2, 1964, but (and this is a big but) “The Maddox fired three rounds to warn off the communist boats. This initial action was never reported by the Johnson administration, which insisted that the Vietnamese boats fired first.”

Regarding the all-important second attack on August 4 – which effectively caused the Vietnam War – the NSA report concluded there were no North Vietnamese Naval vessels present during the entire incident: “It is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night.”


“No attack happened.” – NSA report on Gulf of Tonkin incident.

If an organization as biased as the NSA says no attack ever happened then it seems very safe to say the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was nothing but a phantom attack on the US Military. It was carefully crafted propaganda devised to manufacture consent for all-out war.

In this instance that propaganda ended up costing approximately 60,000 American lives and three million Vietnamese lives.


Not so much conspiracy theory as conspiracy fact.


Read more in The Orphan Conspiracies: 29 Conspiracy Theories from The Orphan Trilogy – available now via Amazon at:

A book that’s for the common people.


Happy reading! –James & Lance




In the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s vault a description of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is listed as follows: “Saddam Hussein (1937-2006) was the president of Iraq from 1979-2003. In 2003, coalition forces invaded Iraq and deposed Hussein. In 2006, he was tried by the Iraqi Interim Government and convicted of the retaliatory executions of 148 Iraqi Shiites. He was executed on December 30, 2006.”

Saddam Hussein hanging AFP

The FBI summary goes on to mention the “Iraqi Special Tribunal concerning Hussein’s commission of crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide.”

This image obtained from an Arab language website and seemingly shot on a camera phone appears to show former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein hanging on a noose after being executed.

Saddam in death.

Describing Saddam as a war criminal and an enemy of the West sounds to us like a fair summary that few would argue with.

As Steve Pickering, then intern with the Washington Peace Center (WPC), wrote for the center in a June 1998 article: “The history of Iraq under Saddam Hussein is one of harsh oppression, with widespread abuses of human rights, and frequent torture and murder of political opponents, or just those who displease him.”

However, even with the knowledge of Saddam’s confirmed atrocities, it seems there’s little doubt the US was in bed with him for decades before his eventual removal from power if the assertions of various independent researchers are correct.

To this day, those assertions remain theories – unproven in the eyes of many.

At the heart of such theories is the idea that the West needs enemies to lambast in the media in order to engineer wars. Once a leader like Saddam has been condemned, or at least heavily derided, through media propaganda the masses hardly blink when false flag attacks are attributed to those who have been labeled dictators, despots and war criminals.

“Saddam’s military machine is partly a creation of the Western powers,” according to American investigative journalist Murray Waas, who extensively researched and wrote about the Gulf Wars and earlier Middle East conflicts.

As is the case with many conspiracy theories, the theories surrounding Saddam Hussein are often extreme and unprovable. Some go so far as to say that Saddam, along with Osama Bin Laden, was CIA-trained; others suggest the real Saddam was killed long before he was officially put to death, and the man who was executed in 2006 was one of the Iraqi leader’s doubles.

There’s enough evidence to suggest the Iraqi leader had at least one double. But to our knowledge there’s no evidence to prove that the man they executed wasn’t the real deal.

However, at the very least, there’s a question that needs to be asked. It is: Why did Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney all have extensive dealings with Saddam Hussein?

                 Above: A US Marine places the American flag over the face of Saddam’s statue.                  

Below: The iconic photo that shows the statue toppling in downtown Bagdhad. 


The Iran-Iraq War

During the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), it has been widely reported that governments of the US, Germany, France, the Soviet Union and the UK all sold Saddam vast quantities of weapons, including everything from missiles and armored vehicles to nerve gas and fighter planes.

Again, war is just about business to the global elite. And wars in the Middle East are big business.

Officially, the US was neutral in the Iran-Iraq conflict. Certainly, all White House and Pentagon statements made during that period confirm this supposed stance.

However, a US interests section cable since declassified under the Freedom of Information Act appears to radically contradict the official role of America in the conflict. It describes presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld’s planned meeting with Saddam Hussein. Expected talking points for the meeting included the Iran-Iraq War – a war which the cable states the US “would regard any major reversal of Iraq’s fortunes as a strategic defeat for the West”.

It wasn’t just the US that profited from the Iran-Iraq War, of course. Numerous sources claim various industrialized nations were arming both sides during the conflict. For example, the Washington Times claimed that “France has been sleeping with Saddam for decades.”

Trench warfare during the bloody Iran-Iraq War.


Kentbridge spun around from the blackboard and held up an infamous photograph of former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The special agent gave the photo to Eleven, a stunning brunette orphan who had been genetically engineered for beauty. She looked at the image before sharing it with the other orphans. The Orphan Factory


That infamous photograph

One of the potential pieces of evidence that possibly confirms Saddam Hussein was a pawn of the West is a mysterious photograph he appears in with former US Secretary of Defense and then private businessman Donald Rumsfeld. This photo was taken in December 1983, at the height of the Iran-Iraq War, when Rumsfeld met with Saddam on behalf of President Ronald Reagan. The meeting took place in the Iraqi dictator’s Baghdad palace.


Photos don’t lie…Rumsfeld meets Saddam.

This has become a much talked about photo in conspiracy circles, primarily because Saddam Hussein’s atrocities were known to the US Government by this point and the Reagan Administration claimed it fostered zero ties with Iraq.

Declassified documents reveal the main motivations of Rumsfeld’s semi-secret meeting with Saddam were to discuss how to increase Iraqi oil production via new pipelines in the region and preventing arms sales to Iran by foreign countries – potential outcomes of which were both deemed beneficial to US interests.

In The Orphan Factory, our orphans are shown the photo of Rumsfeld and Saddam during a lecture in the fictitious Pedemont Orphanage. The following excerpt from this passage provides what we believe could be an accurate summation of the background to that historic photo shoot:

“That photo was taken in Baghdad in 1983 during the Iran-Iraq War,” Kentbridge stated. “Officially, Donald Rumsfeld was sent as special envoy of President Reagan. The thing is though, people, Saddam was already a known war criminal by that stage.”

When the revealing photo reached Nine, he studied it before flipping it over. On the reverse side was a handwritten question. It read: Saddam Hussein = CIA Puppet?

Nine turned the photo over again and inspected Rumsfeld’s smiling face. The handshake looked suspiciously like a deal had gone down. Nine couldn’t be certain, but nothing would surprise him given the game he understood secret organizations such as Omega orchestrated on the world stage.

The ninth orphan also understood that game often involved an official story – usually presented to the media via politicians – that created a believable enough smokescreen to conceal the truth. And he was learning the truth nearly always had to do with money and power.

In his 2006 memoir Known and Unknown, Rumsfeld denies any wrongdoing in the 1983 meeting with Saddam. He states his meeting with the Iraqi President “has been the subject of gossip, rumors, and crackpot conspiracy theories for more than a quarter of a century… Supposedly I had been sent to see Saddam by President Reagan either to negotiate a secret oil deal, to help arm Iraq, or to make Iraq an American client state. The truth is that our encounter was more straightforward and less dramatic.”

However, various official US Government documents fly in the face of Rumsfeld’s denials. For example, one declassified document points out that a major issue discussed in the meeting between Rumsfeld and Saddam was the “expansion of Iraqi pipeline facilities”. Another declassified document – a cable from Charles H. Price II to the Department of State retrieved from the US Embassy in the UK – states that Rumsfeld encouraged “arrangements that might provide alternative transshipment routes for Iraq’s oil, including pipelines through Saudi Arabia or to the Gulf of Aqaba in Jordan.”

Beyond the photo itself, video recordings of the 1983 Rumsfeld-Saddam meeting have been posted on YouTube and other Internet sites in recent years. In these videos, Rumsfeld looks surprisingly at home in the Iraqi dictator’s grand palace – as you’ll see for yourself if you check them out.

Rumsfeld and Saddam…old chums.


“Conspiracy means there is more than one player knowingly engaged. But with that term (conspiracy), you think of all the people with the tin foil on their heads before you think of what it really means. So these people are often discounted before you even hear them … I think the best way to hide is to do it in broad daylight and in public. So, a lot of your present-day conspiracies are literally major multi-national corporations working with governments, including America’s, to extract minerals from countries with ridiculous contracts to oil.” –Henry Rollins. Excerpt from an interview with the Swerve Magazine.


The Gulf Wars

In 1989, President George H. W. Bush signed a National Security Directive ordering closer ties with Iraq. Yet conversely, around the same time, Bush condemned Saddam Hussein in press interviews – like the one in which he accused the Iraqi leader as being “worse than Hitler.”

The following year, in 1990, the First Gulf War began and the US invaded Iraq.

It was one of the most surreal wars ever, and few if any journalists seemed to be able to accurately describe what caused it. Other than the obvious, that is. We refer of course to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait – something countries do to each other with frightening regularity and with little or no interference from the international community.

Iraq invades Kuwait.

Someone said the First Gulf War was like a movie without a screenwriter. Can’t remember who it was who said that. Wait a minute…oh yes, it was us! Certainly, it seemed to lack a coherent storyline or plot.

Some journos observed that the war was about overthrowing a dictator, which didn’t happen if you recall, while others said it was fighting to free the Iraqi people, which didn’t happen either.

As former Pentagon defense analyst Pierre Sprey told Congress, “The shallow, Nintendo view of the war on TV was false. It was created by hand-picked video tapes and shamelessly doctored statistics.”

Let’s return to the June 1998 article Washington Peace Center intern Steve Pickering wrote for the center. It was curiously headlined The Making of an Enemy: Saddam Hussein. In this insightful article, which was written in the interim between the First and Second Gulf Wars, Pickering goes to great lengths to acknowledge the Iraqi leader’s war crimes, but also mentions US “foreign policy propaganda” and states the US had reasons for “demonizing Saddam Hussein”. He claims those reasons had nothing to do with fighting for the freedom of the Iraqi people.

In the article, Pickering goes on to describe how throughout the period of the Iran-Iraq conflict “United States foreign policy was firmly in support of Iraq”. During this time, the Soviet Union, the UK, the US and various other major nations, all saw their (mainly oil) interests being threatened. As “the war shifted in Iran’s favor,” these superpowers and industrialized nations suddenly realized if Iran defeated the Iraqi regime, “Iraq would have become a mirror of the political situation seen in Iran”.

“In order to tip the scales back in the favor of Iraq,” Pickering continues, “the international community began to supply technologically advanced weapons, credit facilities and important military information to Iraq.”

Pickering also explains how the West saw its Middle Eastern interests threatened again in 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Only this time, Iraq was in the position Iran had formerly been in where they were the ones threatening Western interests.

And thus, Pickering concludes, Western media suddenly informed the public of “the horrors of Saddam Hussein, of his despotic control, of his endless paranoid quest for power”.


From the many years he’d spent in the Omega Agency, the special agent understood there were no obvious good guys or bad guys on the world stage. Contrary to the PR spin generated within Congress and spoon-fed to the well-meaning American public by a gullible or at least malleable media, Kentbridge also knew there were no clear sides anymore. As he often told the orphans, patriotism was a useless emotion because the modern world was no longer shaped by countries or governments. In fact, nations had long since been superseded by the vast spider web of elite conspirators spanning the globe. The Orphan Factory


The Iraq War

File:UStanks baghdad 2003.JPEG

US tanks enter Baghdad.

The plot thickens when we come to the Iraq War (aka the Second Gulf War). That’s the conflict that followed the George W. Bush Administration’s erroneous allegation that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

Conspiracy theorists and opponents of that war are pretty unanimous in their opinion of the WMD allegation. Most view it as a trumped-up justification to invade Iraq. Whether those two factions are right or wrong about that is still up for debate. However, we all know that weapons of mass destruction were never found despite the best efforts of the Bush Administration and the UN weapon inspectors on the ground.

Further allegations leading up to the American-led coalition’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 included the never-proven and apparently unfounded accusation that Saddam was harboring al Qaeda terrorists and, of course, that old chestnut that the Iraqi Government was responsible for the most despicable human rights abuses.

There’s no doubting the validity of the latter allegation. Under Saddam, Iraq had a terrible and well documented reputation for abuses of human rights. However, the same could be said of numerous other countries – then and now.

Remember Rwanda? In just three months, in 1994, an estimated 800,000 Rwandans (mainly Tutsis) were killed in one of the worst cases of genocide in the 20th Century.

But where were the Coalition Forces then? They were conspicuous by their absence. Could it have something to do with the fact that Rwanda has few natural resources and little strategic value?

Iraq on the other hand was, and is, almost literally swimming in oil. According to Wikipedia, Iraq has 143 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, which ranks it second in the world behind Saudi Arabia for reserves of the precious black gold.

Starting to get the picture?

Even Saddam Hussein’s capture and subsequent execution in 2006 sparked a flood of conspiracy theories, throughout the Middle East in particular.

Theories to emerge from the Arab world have ranged from Saddam being an agent of America, waging war against Iran to help out the US, and even the suggestion that Saddam was already a prisoner of the Americans who, for PR reasons, opted to delay his capture.

This last conspiracy theory was highlighted in WND Weekly’s online news site beneath the heading The mother of all conspiracy theories. In an article dated December 19, 2003, WND quotes Middle East Media Research Institute senior analyst Dr. Nimrod Raphaeli who, it says, “explains the dramatic flowering of fanciful explanations for Saddam’s capture”.

Dr. Raphaeli is quoted as saying, “Almost every calamity that adversely affects the Arab world prompts conspiracy theories that are quickly woven into intricate shapes and patterns to demonstrate innocence and blame others for the calamity. In recent times this was demonstrated by conspiracy theories surrounding the September 11th attack and the terrorist attacks inside Saudi Arabia. The capture of Saddam Hussein served as yet another new cause celebre generating, to paraphrase Saddam’s own words, ‘the mother of all conspiracies’.”

Perhaps the most iconic photo of Saddam…taken in Baghdad in 2000.


It seems clear there’s enough smoke to indicate the presence of fire regarding the West’s demonizing and usage of Saddam Hussein, in particular by the US. And that fire would prove that at least some of the conspiracy theories regarding the Iraqi leader and the Gulf Wars are true, or at least very close to the mark.

Then again, we’ve never been to Iraq and we don’t have a direct line to the White House. Nor do we know anyone in the Bush family. So again we ask, why listen to us?


Read more in The Orphan Conspiracies: 29 Conspiracy Theories from The Orphan Trilogy – available now via Amazon at:

A book that’s for the common people.


Not all is what it seems! –James & Lance