Interview 1385 - Niels Harrit Exposes the Terror War Lie

09/07/201822 Comments

Prof. Niels Harrit joins us to discuss the mysterious "Frank Taylor report" that launched 17 years of NATO destruction in the middle east. He connects the dots with a little-known declassified document and exposes the lie that has resulted in the deaths of untold millions.

Please watch the full report for links and supporting documents: The Secret Lie That Started the Afghan War

Filed in: Interviews
Tagged with:

Comments (22)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. pearl says:

    Thank you, James, for deciding to post your research interview with this gentleman. His passion and dedication is the perfect complement to your and Broc’s final report.

  2. richardwhite890 says:

    thank you James for giving me more ammo to try to wake my friends up

    • BennyB says:

      I hear you Richard. James’ work is a great reference for sharing with other people. In general, but particularly for supporting different ideas that come up in conversation. Always thorough and clear on the facts, so I never feel like I have to add any caveats beforehand.

  3. fire says:

    A very important addendum to the document, gratefully received. As always… Thanks, James!

  4. oeo says:

    another part of the puzzle .

  5. generalbottlewasher says:

    I can’t help but think of Hamlet and Hector. The spycopaths of NATO are all smoke and mirrors and the treachery of men was well documented by Shakespeare and Homer long time ago. How ironic, the new world order Anglo-American Aneiad, like the wars waged on Troy by Achilles , will be undone by the arrows of the courageous Dane Prof. H. Harrit. I pray the lacquer of law and order will hold until all the stinking fish in Denmark (USA & G.B.) are held accountable. Witches and Trojan horses of the past remind us tomarrow to think with our heads but know in our hearts who has (will) betrayed us.

  6. lee.k says:

    Renewed my subscription just to come say: really though? Love the Corbett Report but I’m really not connecting the dots between this document and the Taylor report. Assuming there is no report and this document is all there is, is great, but it’s still assuming. Unless I’m missing something? Here to learn 🙂

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      connecting the dots
      I understand. It can be a bit confusing. Part of the confusion is because the system is so insane. The system is so “looney tunes” it becomes difficult to connect the dots.

      Here is what helped me…
      From the Corbett Report transcript of Episode 345 – The Secret Lie That Started the Afghan War

      …there is the sentence which James Corbett writes…
      ” …The document went largely unnoticed until earlier this year, when Professor Niels Harrit wrote an article, “The Mysterious Frank Taylor Report: The 9/11 Document that Launched US-NATO’s ‘War on Terrorism’ in the Middle East,” connecting the dots between this document and the briefing that Ambassador Taylor gave to the North Atlantic Council.”

      So, I clicked the link to the Niels Harrit article and it did help to settle pieces of my confusion.
      Harrit is a wonderful writer.
      For me, personally, I highlighted this paragraph which Niels wrote about NATO’s Article 51 …
      That is, military action is forbidden in the absence of an armed provocation, and the legality of the attack on Afghanistan depends exclusively on the evidence presented in Frank Taylor’s report. But it was classified together with the minutes from the pertinent meetings.

      Corbett and Niels link to the Frank Taylor document.

      When you read the document (the last part regarding ‘evidence’), it gets really looney. It sounds like a badly played spousal argument with silly stretches of the facts.

      Quoting Harrit here about the document…
      Is there any forensic evidence provided in this document to serve as a legal basis for the invocation of Article 5?
      There is absolutely no forensic evidence in support of the claim that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated from Afghanistan.

      Any attorney would laugh their ass off when they read the ‘evidence’ listed at the last part of the document as THE REASON to invade Afghanistan.

      I was smirking sardonically at many parts of the document…such as the mention of Pakistan working with the Taliban…heck, why not just invade Pakistan too?! But the hi-jackers were from Saudi Arabia…let’s invade them too.
      And oh!…we get a prelude of what is to come when there is the mention of “weapons of mass destruction” and sure enough, the Iraq invasion was around the corner.

      Anyway, hope this helps Lee.

  7. MondoShawan says:

    Hi James Corbett and thank you for all the excellent work you do.
    Greetings from Brittany, France.

  8. AnimalsArentFood says:

    If you want to subscribe but don’t want a note on your bank/paypal statement that says ‘corbett report’ (or similar), you can donate via Patreon instead, then it will just say ‘Patreon’.
    Another huge thanks to James for understanding how critical it is to keep the 9/11 truth movement alive, and thank you for producing many of the most informative and eye-opening interviews, articles & videos that have ever come out of the movement.

  9. zyxzevn says:

    “the next false flag might be nuclear”

    I was thinking about that too, but will they use Iran or North Korea as
    the enemy?
    I don’t think they want to fight Russia, as it gives a much higher
    profit to have a cold war against them.
    Syria will probably be attacked with a false-flag chemical attack,
    or a pretend one like previous times. I don’t think the US will
    start a full war, as it is more profitable to keep the war active.

    Weapons are available on the “black market”

    There have been some reports of nuclear weapons missing from storage
    facilities. Some from US and some from Russia.
    I think one report was on zerohedge.

    Victims and patsies?

    I wonder who they would choose as victims and who as patsies.

    Boston maybe? Or a right-wing place where Trump might go to?

    If they want to involve Russia, Ukraine could be a target too,
    or a base near Syria targeted with a small nuke. Kurds /Turkish?
    They can just get the military out in secret and have only a few victims.

    I think the CIA will let other agencies do some of the dirty work.
    It would be easy for them to get Iran-looking patsies,
    as north-Koreans are harder to find (and hide).

    I agree with Niels that if people are well informed
    and critical thinkers, it is much harder to fool us.

  10. tiffany.p says:

    Any time I try to talk about 9/11 no one wants to hear it. The more I read the sadder I get, but it seems like no one cares. I makes people mad to even suggest the official story is a lie. I just wish people would be open to the conversation is all.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      I understand. Sometimes, the low interest level of others regarding matters of substance can be disheartening. Or their volatile emotional response becomes uncomfortable. I hear ya.

      After personally talking, face to face, to well over 10,000 people through the years about 9/11, I can tell you that it does make a difference to just mention the topic.
      I can cite some cool examples. Here is one…
      This guy got some 9/11 DVDS from his sister who got the DVDs from someone else…
      The last paragraph of the “Memoriam” has some humor to it.

      In 2005, a lady who I had known since the 1970’s lightly mentioned to my wife that “9/11 was an inside job”. I got wind of it. It made me mad! I went to the internet to prove her wrong. Damn! Was I surprised and distressed on what I found! I couldn’t sleep for weeks…actually, months.

  11. jeff.g says:

    But there’s one loose end to this story. If all this was really about building a pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan across Afghanistan, what happened to that pipeline? They could have built it by now, certainly, couldn’t they?

  12. danmanultra says:

    Great interview! Prof Harrit proves once more to me that often times the best English speakers are those whom it is not their first language. I find his last words especially powerful. This whole interview is enlightening to me as I had not really considered too much that Europe as a whole had been pulled into this whole thing, when they have basically nothing to do with the Middle East at all. The world army (NATO) seems to really be coming together….

  13. raddysh says:

    All this intelligence, WMD’s and this Nato Briefing, would have been part of the reason that Canada did not participate in the 2nd Gulf War. We made up for that bout of conscience by joining in Afghanistan for 12+ years and $22 billion.

  14. s.jamieson says:

    I don’t want to become terminally cynical, but terminal cynicism seems to be overtaking me as I listen to this, as it merely confirms an obvious truth. Namely, that people in the hierarchies upon and within hierarchies that claim to “be in charge” are just a group of people who identify with Playing Along with lies as if they were the truth. What are the lives of millions of people compared to your prestigious career, and how will you be able to cope with reality once you are blacklisted in your specific area of expertise and experience? People hide from any kind of power-challenging truth, and not for pure cowardice, as the consequences can be harsh, and they do include your personal disappearance. I’ve martyred myself as much as I want to, and so it goes, to quote Kurt Vonnegut.

    • manbearpig says:

      kurt vonnegut, my hero… take care of yourself first… then you’ll see…cynicism’s part of the game…take care of yourself first…and don’t forget to laugh…8-)) damn, can’t get my emoticon right here…the con in emoticon…

  15. lorenzo.c says:

    James, thank you for releasing the interesting interview.

    However, I would really appreciate it if you could be more specific regarding the selection process of your new assistant..?

  16. manbearpig says:

    Finally had the time to listen to this interview. The statements that echoed in my mind:

    …(the brief) It’s a digression, most of it, actually… 15:29 (well, what part isn’t a digression in your opinion?)

    …(9/11) characterized as an act of war and you don’t investigate acts of war…there has been no criminal investigation by the FBI or anyone else because you don’t investigate wars… 20:11 (defeated by technicalities, the manipulation of legalese…)

    …Just as a side note, is the Taylor report and the minutes of the meeting; is that still actually classified…? 20:56 (would seem like a very crucial question even if we’re almost certain we know the truth)

    I don’t know…The point is; there is no Taylor report…it’s the same document…We wrote to our foreign minister…”Did you see the Frank Taylor report”…”I didn’t take it along”…He wasn’t allowed to take it along. It’s specific in the document: don’t leave this as a hard copy anywhere…

    …you really think there are two documents? they’re sending this out to all diplomats and they’re showing something different in Brussels the same day? No. …

    …The Western world is falling apart…when the tsunami comes we should have reached critical mass, there should be enough people understanding how we have been deceived for so many years…(the tsunami of migrants caused by war? the nuclear false flag?)

    …it’s far easier to fool people than to convince them they’ve been fooled…31:59 (mark twain… yes…I recall…something about the (feigned) pleasure of whitewashing…)

    for those who insist on the circumstantial aspect of the evidence stated against the official version of 9/11, would they find anything but circumstantial evidence in this…Taylor brief? or not?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top