Yes, Gladio is just the tip of the iceburg.

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/august2005/170805operationgladio.htm

and:

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2007/911-Cossiga-Gladio4dec07.htm

understood - some are better than others - excerpt from the article at
http://www.threemonkeysonline.com/als/_nato_gladio_terrorism_strategy_of_t
ension.html

In August of 1990, Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti confirmed that a
secret army, called Gladio, had existed in Italy throughout the Cold War period.
His revelations were shocking, not simply because they admitted to something
that had long been denied (including by Andreotti himself when speaking to a
judicial enquiry in 1974 in his capacity as Italian Defence Minister), but because
he went on to claim that a network of secret ‘stay-behind’ armies had been set
up all throughout the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries. In short,
this was an issue that involved far more than just Italy.

As details emerged into the public realm, the story became ever more
incredible. In the wake of WWII, at the start of the Cold War, intelligence
agencies led primarily by the US and UK set up a network of agents and secret
arms dumps across Europe, a network that would remain secret but active
throughout the Cold War. An unregulated heavily armed military network.

The subsequent scandal that broke across Europe was limited by the outbreak
of the first Gulf War (Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1990), and
fifteen years after Andreotti’s confirmation, Gladio, and the NATO stay-behind
network, remain largely the subject of a host of unanswered questions. Why,
the casual reader might ask, should one be interested in a secret Cold War
structure? Partly because there are so many unanswered questions. The
existence of the network is a fact. It has, at this stage, been confirmed by
numerous heads of state, by three parliamentary investigations (Italy, Belgium
and Switzerland), and not least by a bizarre* denial and subsequent
confirmation of its existence by NATO itself in 1990. And yet, apart from those
involved in the network, very few people know for sure how the network
functioned, or how it defined its own role. There is enough evidence and
personal testimony to suggest, at best, casual links to right wing terrorist
groups active throughout the ‘70s and ‘80s, and at worst that this network was
itself responsible for implementing the so-called ‘strategy of tension’; that is
the deliberate use of terrorism to scare the voting population of a given country
into a rightward shift politically, towards a ‘law and order’ style government.
The questions are unanswered because, even in the case of parliamentary
investigations, when researching the subject one sooner or later runs up
against official secrecy regulations. Underlining the ‘off limits’ nature of the
subject, a NATO diplomat was quoted as saying, “I wouldn’t expect too many
questions to be answered, even though the Cold War is over. If there were any
links to terrorist organisations, that sort of information would be buried very
deep indeed” [Reuters 15th November 1990].

fearno:

That was tongue in cheek. And your research is much better than mine. I’ll take your word for it. As to the link- I don’t do links- they’re usually circular and very unobjective, especially with names like “threemonkeys”.

RE: There was no Commun… oh, wait. Maybe that one was real.

If, hypothetically, it were ‘real’, it begs the question: Why was NATO compelled to exploit its
‘stay behind networks’ in launching the Operation Gladio, Strategy of Tension at the height of
the Cold War?

Facts supporting this operation were revealed in abundance in Italian Parliamentary hearings ca.
1990 and by a number of dedicated investigative journalists.

The link below is an exhaustive article, which details a pretty extensive ‘conspiracy’ that’s never
quite gained ‘traction’ in the MSM, though its aggregate toll on innocent civilians rivals the 9/11
tragedy:

http://www.threemonkeysonline.com/als/_nato_gladio_terrorism_strategy_of_tension.html

As to the rhetorical question, ‘why’ - one analysis is that the anticipated Soviet invasion against
which the ‘stay behinds’ were organized to serve as rear-guard insurgents, never materialized.
What happened was that Socialists and Communists were taking seats in European Parliaments
through legitimate elections. So, the Strategy of Tension was implemented to terrorize the
electorate, smear the Left as the terrorists and turn away their electoral support

So how does such a vast ‘conspiracy’ flourish ‘in secret’? What’s so secret? Why don’t
neighborhoods plagued with gang violence, simply turn the gangsters in to the cops?

fearno:

“is everything really as portrayed in the MSM; i.e. don’t be silly, there are no conspiracies?”

No. Especially stories about aviation accidents. I also believe that conspiracies, like any secret, will unravel in direct exponential proportion to the number of people involved in them. So, if there are any out there, they involve very few actors with very narrow goals. BIG conspiracies, e.g., the Evil Zionist Plot to take over the world, require too many actors, the successful coordination of whom would be impossible to achieve. When some people see something going on they don’t understand and have no control over, they tend to label it a “conspiracy,” especially if they are against it. There is no Bildeburger Conspiracy. There is no Trilateral Commission conspiracy. There is no Big Oil conspiracy. There was no Commun… oh, wait. Maybe that one was real.

RE: Are you suggesting that the floods were caused by the CIA and State
Department as a pretext for “invasion?”

I’m only asking questions - but conjecture is out there:

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2010/08/21/top-us-senator-assassinated-as-obama-weather-war-plunges-world-into-chaos/

rico, suave, it appears that you, or at least your avatar, gets out and about the
world from time to time, gets to see things many others don’t; so, could you
confirm: is everything really as portrayed in the MSM; i.e. don’t be silly, there are
no conspiracies?

The Neocon’s favorite weapon, when they are pushed, is to attack the person, usually with an accusation of sexual misconduct. They did it to Scott Ritter; now they tried it with Julian Assange.

False accusations of this sort are particularly low and loathsome, but loathsomeness is the Neocon’s stock in trade.

fearnotruth:

Are you suggesting that the floods were caused by the CIA and State Department as a pretext for “invasion?”

Guess his wiki didn’t leak afte all.

The accusation against Assange really exemplifies the
disposition of these times with the disposition of
the times in this country when Ellsberg ‘leaked’ the
Pentagon Papers.

Ellsberg was brought to trial on ‘real’ charges,
which were dropped.  He was not accused of ‘rape’ or
‘molestation’ or any other crime against anybody.

And now?  Rather than using the law, working within
and according to the law, we smear - in the media, on
the floor of the Senate, on the floor of the House,
in this medium…Political campaigns have devolved
into mere smear campaigns.  Important issues are
hardly mentioned.  Small, petty, irrelevant, best
describe the disposition of these times.

Looks like a particularly amateurish CIA smear to me.

However, don’t kid yourself, NO Govt likes it’s “secret” documents leaked.

So Wiki is really challenging ALL Govt’s and can expect to get badly hurt somewhere along the way !!

the movie is a horror - anyone see any weapons? - so why are these leaks not shut
down? - are WikiLeaks’ network of servers really immune from NSA cyber attack? -
why this clumsy “smear” attempt? - why does this theatre appear scripted in such
detail?

going deeper, who’d benefit from this damning exposure of the Pentagon and its
charges? - it’s widely known that the Pakistani ISI worked hand-in-hand with the
CIA (just as Sadam once did) - so now, why is Pakistani ISI so maligned in these
leaks?

could it be that the ‘cross hairs’ are being adjusted away from Afghanistan and
onto Pakistan, now in earnest… beyond pestering drone attacks, a full-on
invasion? Could the floods have anything to do with it? - is everyone being played?

His example is extremely dangerous to The Empire. 

He’s a far more valuable target than Osama who actually serves the interests of The Empire that is destroying this country.

It’s good he is in Sweden. He established himself there for a good reason. But it
doesn’t mean he’s safe…. or that Swedes are safe for that matter.  It’s interesting
how someone with no money, weapons, or army can become a “terrorist.”

The first thought: smear.

But who? Who would be so clumsy and obvious, um, as in, for example, Scott Ritter?

The old honeypot scam, this is how the issies took down Vanunu.

Good on you John Ellis. You inspired me to fire off an email as well. Why not?
Anyone feel like they’re being not only fed, but overdosed with crazy pills? What a
goddamn joke.

Almost certainly the “charges” were concocted in a CIA office and fed to Sweden. You’d think the Swedes would have been inclined to look before they leaped. Funny how these sex scandal stories against lefties hit the front page…but slink off to retraction and oblivion on page 16 later on. Can anybody say “Al Gore and the Oregon masseuse.”