OBAMA GETS OSAMA
OBAMA'S "BIG LIE": WHITE HOUSE PROPAGANDA AND THE “DEATH” OF OSAMA BIN LADEN
Larry Chin
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24594
On the evening of May 1, 2011, President Barack Obama declared that the CIA, on his personal order, successfully killed Al-Qaeda “mastermind” Osama bin Laden. In a conveniently scheduled Sunday evening telecast, Obama shamelessly wielded tired lies and 9/11 propaganda, while congratulating himself and the CIA. In classic lying George W. Bush fashion, Obama announced “mission accomplished”.
Obama has pronounced Osama bin Laden to be dead. But according to historical facts and extensive documented evidence, he may never have been alive in the way that the official propaganda has portrayed him. Or alive at all. Osama bin Laden has been a CIA asset in reality, and a propaganda boogeyman in official fiction.
The official Osama bin Laden narrative, along with “Islamic terrorism” and Al-Qaeda, is a CIA military-intelligence fabrication designed to provide a pretext for an eternal global war agenda, and to provide an ongoing propaganda pretext for the “war on terrorism”.
The “Militant Islamic Network”, including bin Laden himself, has been, since the Cold War a intelligence network that has been “run” on behalf of Anglo-American interests. The attack of 9/11 was a false flag operation, planned and carried out by Anglo-American intelligence assets, blamed on “Al-Qaeda”, despite no credible supporting evidence.
On the other hand, evidence abounds concerning the manipulation of terror assets, including bin Laden, by the CIA. This milieu was thoroughly examined by Mike Ruppert in Crossing the Rubicon, in which he concluded: “Given the degree of documented intelligence penetration of al Qaeda; the fact that Osama bin Laden had been a CIA asset during the first Afghan conflict against the Soviets; the fact that a number of the so-called hijackers and/or al Qaeda members had been trained in CIA training camps in Chechnya; had fought in CIA/US-sponsored guerrilla conflicts (e.g. in Kosovo with the KLA in 2000), or had received military training at US installations; given all that, it is reasonable to assume that one or more top al Qaeda officials were in fact double or triple agents…”
“Based upon what is known about successful intelligence penetrations for years prior to the attacks of 9/11, Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda could not have sneezed without the CIA or the NSA knowing about it.”
The assertion that bin Laden’s whereabouts have been unknown, that he could have eluded detection for a decade (including the “he’s hiding in caves along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border” and other such fables) was debunked years ago. According to a November 2003 Reuters report, bin Laden was received kidney dialysis in a US military hospital in Dubai two months before the 9/11 attacks, and again on September 10, 2001, according to Pakistani intelligence. These and other reports support the conclusion that Osama bin Laden was not only a CIA asset (one whose whereabouts were more than known), but one who was deathly ill. Other reports over the years suggest that the “mastermind” may have certainly died at some point, even while his image continued to be used incessantly to keep the “war on terrorism” alive.
President Obama’s lying before the cameras was as shameless as the clumsiness of the mainstream corporate media dance surrounding it. At the same time Obama stated in his speech that the killing of bin Laden had taken place “tonight” in a mountain hideout in Pakistan, various reporters on competing networks, citing multiple sources, contradicted Obama, stating that bin Laden was killed a week ago in a firefight near Islamabad, and that bin Laden’s body had been tested for DNA ever since. This conflict alone raises enough doubt to throw this new official story into the question. In the coming days, there will undoubtedly be more holes revealed.
Seasoned observers have said for years that Osama bin Laden---the mythic figure--- would elude capture as long as the Anglo-American elites needed to continue the current course of war in the Middle East and Central Asia. He would never be captured, absolutely never be put on trial, and would not be “killed” unless political expediency demanded it. The elites, for various reasons, have chosen this hour to end this tired and overused trump card.
The “successful kill” of bin Laden comes at a convenient time. Obama’s popularity has plummeted. His political opponents are threatening to unseat him in 2012. The continued US presence in the Middle East and support for the “war on terrorism” is fragile, weakened by popular protests, and ambivalence among Americans.
The “war on terrorism” narrative, the continuing world war done in its name, will never end. It is clear, however, that some change in course is in the works; at the very least, a tactical shift. In the meantime, Barack Obama can now claim to have “finished the job” in Afghanistan, just as he promised to do when elected, and declare himself to be a champion anti-terrorist, a “take-charge” military leader and bastion of justice who has avenged 9/11. Obama will ride this hard for his re-election campaign.
In response to Obama’s victory speech, crowds (of unknown origin) gathered outside the White House chanting “U.S.A.”. Whether this spectacle was staged or genuine is not known. What is known is that the vast majority of the American public remains oblivious to the fact that their own government, Bush/Cheney and Obama administrations alike, have never stopped lying to them about 9/11, the “war on terrorism”, or Osama bin Laden. On this night, Obama repeated The Big Lie, the biggest one of all.
OSAMA BIN LADEN’s SECOND DEATH
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24587
If today were April 1 and not May 2, we could dismiss as an April fool’s joke this morning’s headline that Osama bin Laden was killed in a firefight in Pakistan and quickly buried at sea. As it is, we must take it as more evidence that the US government has unlimited belief in the gullibility of Americans.
Think about it. What are the chances that a person allegedly suffering from kidney disease and requiring dialysis and, in addition, afflicted with diabetes and low blood pressure, survived in mountain hideaways for a decade? If bin Laden was able to acquire dialysis equipment and medical care that his condition required, would not the shipment of dialysis equipment point to his location? Why did it take ten years to find him?
Consider also the claims, repeated by a triumphalist US media celebrating bin Laden’s death, that “bin Laden used his millions to bankroll terrorist training camps in Sudan, the Philippines, and Afghanistan, sending ‘holy warriors’ to foment revolution and fight with fundamentalist Muslim forces across North Africa, in Chechnya, Tajikistan and Bosnia.” That’s a lot of activity for mere millions to bankroll (perhaps the US should have put him in charge of the Pentagon), but the main question is: how was bin Laden able to move his money about? What banking system was helping him? The US government succeeds in seizing the assets of people and of entire countries, Libya being the most recent. Why not bin Laden’s? Was he carrying around with him $100 million dollars in gold coins and sending emissaries to distribute payments to his far-flung operations?
This morning’s headline has the odor of a staged event. The smell reeks from the triumphalist news reports loaded with exaggerations, from celebrants waving flags and chanting “USA USA.” Could something else be going on?
No doubt President Obama is in desperate need of a victory. He committed the fool’s error or restarting the war in Afghanistan, and now after a decade of fighting the US faces stalemate, if not defeat. The wars of the Bush/Obama regimes have bankrupted the US, leaving huge deficits and a declining dollar in their wake. And re-election time is approaching.
The various lies and deceptions, such as “weapons of mass destruction,” of the last several administrations had terrible consequences for the US and the world. But not all deceptions are the same. Remember, the entire reason for invading Afghanistan in the first place was to get bin Laden. Now that President Obama has declared bin Laden to have been shot in the head by US special forces operating in an independent country and buried at sea, there is no reason for continuing the war.
Perhaps the precipitous decline in the US dollar in foreign exchange markets has forced some real budget reductions, which can only come from stopping the open-ended wars. Until the decline of the dollar reached the breaking point, Osama bin Laden, who many experts believe to have been dead for years, was a useful bogyman to use to feed the profits of the US military/security complex.
FACT OR FICTION?
Pakistan Military Knew About Bin Laden Raid Well In Advance Of Attack
Rick Ungar
May 06, 2011 "Forbes" - - Evidence is now emerging that the Pakistani government and military not only knew of America’s plans to launch an attack on Osama bin Laden’s compound far in advance, but assisted the United States in the effort.
According to GlobalPost, the Pakistan government’s willingness to continue the narrative that they were caught totally by surprise is in response to their fear of a popular backlash among the Pakistani people were they to know that their government and military had helped the Americans execute the raid.
One senior military official, who asked not to be named because he is not permitted to speak to the press, said that Pakistani army troops were in fact providing backup support when the United States began its operations inside the compound where bin Laden had been staying, including sealing off the neighborhood where the compound was located.”
Via Global Post
Adding further support to the notion that Pakistan was in on the mission, a number of local residents have confirmed to the BBC that they were visited by Pakistani army personnel two hours before the attack commenced, ordering them to switch off the lights inside and outside their homes and instructing them to stay indoors until they were informed it was safe to come out.
The report goes on to add-
Gen. David Petraeus paid an extraordinary visit to Islamabad on April 25,” said a senior military official said. The official said Petraeus held a one-on-one meeting with Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Pakistan’s army chief of staff, in which they discussed the details of the operation.
The next day, Pakistan’s top military body — the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee — held its quarterly session, which was attended by Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, the country’s intelligence chief, who is not a regular member of the body. Pasha had visited the United States to meet with the head of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon Panetta, on April 11.”
General Patraeus, who is preparing to take over as CIA Director, has yet to confirm or deny the report.
So, why would the Pakistani government endure the embarrassment and charges of incompetency that have come with appearing not to know the U.S. was conducting a raid on their soil without permission?
To answer the question, it is important to understand the current political environment in the country and the growing displeasure among the population with the presence of American military and ongoing CIA operations within Pakistan’s borders.
These feelings are particular sensitive in the wake of the recent killing of two Pakistanis by a CIA contractor who claimed that the deceased were attempting to rob him.
The Pakistani Street has also grown tired of what they perceive as the over-involvement of the United States in their affairs over the last decade and are particularly unhappy with the constant drone attacks being conducted in their country by Americans – many resulting in the deaths of innocent civilians.
Were it to be known that the Pakistani military and government was assisting the United States in taking out Bin Laden, the government would not only face the potential of a popular uprising but would also be forced to deal with the displeasure of many of its Arab nation allies who would not approve of their cooperation.
The revelations come on the heels of today’s disclosure that the CIA had maintained a ’safe-house’ within eyesight of bin Laden’s Abbotabad compound since August, 2010 in order to keep an eye on the location. Again, Pakistani officials deny any knowledge of the CIA presence in the area.
Like so many of the difficulties faced by Pakistan in its awkward relationship with the United States, the government may have, again, found themselves in a ‘no win’ situation.
If the Pakistani government did know what was coming, the current disclosures may only be the tip of the iceberg as top members of the military are said to be angry over appearing to be incompetent in the eyes of the public.
[b]OSAMA BIN LADEN: DEAD OR ALIVE?
[/b]
Tod Fletcher
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22708.htm
Osama Bin Laden: Dead Or Alive? by David Ray Griffin is a crucially important and timely examination of the whole range of evidence bearing on the question, is Osama bin Laden still alive? The importance of this question for the present comes from the fact that the United States under its new president is escalating its offensive in Afghanistan and expanding the war into Pakistan, and has claimed that the “hunt for bin Laden” is one of its principal motivations for doing so. Either explicitly or implicitly, the US government and major media outlets such as The New York Times and Washington Post continue to assert that bin Laden is alive, hiding in the tribal territories on the “AfPak” border, posing an undiminished threat to US security.
In his gripping new book, Griffin strikes at the root of this pretext for war by closely examining all the evidence that has come out since September 11, 2001, either indicating that bin Laden is still alive or that he is in fact dead. His conclusion is that bin Laden is certainly dead, and that in all likelihood he died in very late 2001. Griffin shows that many US experts in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency came to this very same conclusion long ago, but their views, which do not support the continuation of what President Obama, borrowing the term from Dick Cheney, calls “the long war,” have received very little media attention. Were they to do so, one of the main props for the war regime would be undermined.
In Chapter 1, “Evidence that Osama bin Laden is Dead”, Griffin surveys in detail the many different indications published in the major media in late 2001 and early 2002 that bin Laden had been very ill and had died. These included a December, 2001 video in which he appeared to be at death’s door (as admitted by a Bush administration spokesperson), analyses by medical experts of the grave state of his health, the sudden and total cessation in December, 2001 of any surveillance intercepts of communications from him, and even reports of his funeral. In this early period, various high-level officials in the US and Pakistani governments, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and President Pervez Musharraf, speculated that he was dead. By mid-2002 many experts had concluded that he was dead, including FBI counterterrorism official Dale Watson, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, and Israeli intelligence officials. The conviction that he died in 2001 is held today by former intelligence operatives Robert Baer and Angelo Codevilla.
In Chapter 2, “Two Fake bin Laden Videos in 2001?”, Griffin shows that two videos which purportedly showed bin Laden taking credit for the attacks of 9/11 and thus established his guilt for them, were not only very conveniently timed for the Bush and Blair administrations’ legislative and military agendas, but also were highly suspect for other reasons. One of them was never actually released, but simply claimed by the Blair government. The other showed a bin Laden who did not physically resemble the genuine bin Laden of earlier videos, in which he in fact denied responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. Griffin presents strong arguments that both claimed videos were faked, suggests likely motivations behind such a risky undertaking, and cites the opinions of experts (including the FBI) who came to this conclusion long ago.
In Chapter 3, “Purported bin Laden Messages After 2001”, Griffin argues that if fake bin Laden videos were produced in this early period, when he was probably still alive, then there is even stronger reason to be suspicious of “bin Laden videos” or other claimed “messages” that were released later, after all communications intercepts from him had ceased and many experts had concluded that he was dead. Yet, in subsequent years, a long series of such dubious “bin Laden messages” were released. Griffin presents an exhaustive survey of 19 of these, from an “email message” of March, 2002 to the “bin Laden audiotape” of January 14, 2009. For each and every one, Griffin identifies key indications of fakery or strong reasons to be suspicious of its authenticity. In the course of the discussion of the messages, he establishes that the technical capability to fabricate fake messages of the different types already existed.
In Chapter 4, Griffin turns to the important question “Who Might Have Been Motivated To Fabricate Messages?” He shows that the US military in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 employed a psychological operations unit to produce bogus evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, as a pretext for the invasion. The psyops unit produced a “letter” from a Jordanian in Iraq, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, that was then “intercepted”, purportedly enroute to Al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan. The psyop was advanced after the invasion by the New York Times reporter Dexter Filkins, who wrote front-page stories presenting the “evidence” as genuine. Journalists at other organizations, including Newsweek magazine and The Telegraph of London, however, thought it highly likely at the time that the letter was bogus. Griffin concludes that the target of the psychological operation was the US public. He asks, could something very similar have been going on with the “bin Laden messages”? Does the US government desire to expand its war operations anywhere, say into the precise places it claims bin Laden is still living in? Based on the evidence Griffin presents, there is no reason to assume that comparable psyops would not be utilized to achieve this goal.
In Chapter 5, “The Convenient Timing of Many of the Messages”, Griffin shows that another reason to suspect the inauthenticity of the “bin Laden messages” is that they frequently were released at key moments when they would benefit the Bush administration in the pursuit of particular objectives. In other words, the “messages” were almost always objectively detrimental to the enemies of the US, and beneficial to the Bush administration or the Blair government. Griffin lists 11 specific instances of this unusual characteristic of the “messages.”
Osama Bin Laden: Dead Or Alive? by David Ray Griffin is a book to rally around – that is, a basis on which we can mobilize and organize resistance to yet another incalculably bloody war of aggression by the predatory military-industrial-financial elite that runs this country, and is running it into the abyss. Griffin has placed a strong weapon of truth in our hands with which to stop the brutal war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Let’s use it!
WHAT ROLE DID THE US-ISRAELI RELATIONSHIP PLAY IN 9-11?
Jeff Gates
On the day of the 9-11 attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked what the attack would mean for US-Israeli relations. His quick reply was: "It's very good. Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)."
Intelligence wars rely on mathematical models to anticipate the response of "the mark" to staged provocations. Reactions thereby become foreseeable-within an acceptable range of probabilities. When Israeli mathematician Robert J. Aumann received the 2005 Nobel Prize in
economic science, he conceded that "the entire school of thought that we have developed here in Israel" has turned "Israel into the leading authority in this field."
With a well-planned provocation, the anticipated response can even become a weapon in the arsenal of the agent provocateur. In response to 9-11, how difficult would it be to foresee that the U.S. would deploy its military to avenge that attack? With fixed intelligence, how difficult would it be to redirect that response to wage a long-planned war in Iraq - not for U.S. interests but to advance the agenda for
Greater Israel?
The emotionally wrenching component of a provocation plays a key role
in the field of game theory war planning where Israel is the authority.
With the televised murder of 3,000 Americans, a shared mindset of
shock, grief and outrage made it easier for U.S. policy-makers to
believe that a known Evil Doer in Iraq was responsible, regardless of
the facts.
The strategic displacement of facts with induced beliefs, in turn,
requires a period of "preparing the mindset" so that "the mark" will
put their faith in a pre-staged fiction. Those who induced the March
2003 invasion of Iraq began "laying mental threads" and creating
agenda-advancing mental associations more than a decade earlier.
Notable among those threads was the 1993 publication in Foreign Affairs
of an article by Harvard professor Samuel Huntington. By the time his
analysis appeared in book-length form in 1996 as The Clash of
Civilizations, more than 100 academies and think tanks were prepared to
promote it, pre-staging a "clash consensus" five years before 9-11.
Also published in 1996 under the guidance of Richard Perle was A Clean
Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (i.e., Israel). A member
since 1987 of the U.S. Defense Policy Advisory Board, this
self-professed Zionist became its chairman in 2001. As a key adviser to
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Perle's senior Pentagon post
helped lay the required foundation for removing Saddam Hussein as part
of a Greater Israel strategy, a key theme of A Clean Break released
five years before 9-11.
A mass murder, articles, books, think tanks and Pentagon insiders,
however, are not enough to manage the variables in a "probabilistic"
war-planning model. Supportive policy makers are also required to lend
the appearance of legitimacy and credibility to an operation justified
by intelligence fixed around a pre-determined agenda.
That role was eagerly filled by Senators John McCain, Joe Lieberman, a
Jewish Zionist from Connecticut, and Jon Kyl, a Christian Zionist from
Arizona, when they co-sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.
Echoing Tel Aviv's agenda in A Clean Break, their bill laid another
mental thread in the public mindset by calling for the removal of
Saddam Hussein three years before 9-11.
The legislation also appropriated $97 million, largely to promote that
Zionist agenda. Distracted by mid-term Congressional elections and by
impeachment proceedings commenced in reaction to a well-timed
presidential affair involving White House intern Monica Lewinsky, Bill
Clinton signed that agenda into law October 31, 1998 - five years
before the U.S.-led invasion that removed Saddam Hussein.
After 9-11, John McCain and Joe Lieberman became inseparable travel
companions and irrepressible advocates for the invasion of Iraq.
Looking "presidential" aboard the aircraft carrier USS Theodore
Roosevelt in January 2002, McCain laid another key thread when he waved
an admiral's cap while proclaiming, alongside Lieberman, "On to
Baghdad."
By Way of Deception
The chutzpah with which this game theory strategy progressed in plain
sight could be seen in the behavior of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul
Wolfowitz, another Zionist insider. Four days after 9-11, in a
principals' meeting at Camp David, he proposed that the U.S. invade
Iraq. At that time, the intelligence did not yet point to Iraqi
involvement and Osama bin Laden was thought to be hiding in a remote
region of Afghanistan.
Frustrated that President George H.W. Bush declined to remove Saddam
Hussein during the 1991 Gulf War, Wolfowitz proposed a No-Fly Zone in
northern Iraq. By 2001, the Israeli Mossad had agents at work for a
decade in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul. Intelligence reports of
Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda also came from Mosul - reports that later proved
to be false. Mosul again emerged in November 2004 as a center of the
insurgency that destabilized Iraq. That reaction precluded the speedy
exit of coalition forces promised in Congressional testimony by senior
war-planner Wolfowitz.
The common source of the fixed intelligence that induced America to war
in Iraq has yet to be acknowledged even though intelligence experts
agree that deception on such a scale required a decade to plan, staff,
pre-stage, orchestrate and, to date, cover up. The two leaders of the
9-11 Commission report conceded they were stopped by Commission members
from hearing testimony on the motivation for 9-11: the U.S.-Israeli
relationship.
The fictions accepted as generally accepted truths included Iraqi WMD,
Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, Iraqi meetings with Al Qaeda in Prague, Iraqi
mobile biological weapons laboratories and Iraqi purchases of
"yellowcake" uranium from Niger. Only the last fact was conceded as
phony in the relevant time frame. All the rest were disclosed as false,
flawed or fixed only after the war began. An attempt to cover-up the
yellowcake account led to the federal prosecution of vice-presidential
chief of staff Lewis Libby, another well-placed Zionist insider.
Did game theory-modeled pre-staging also include the Israeli
provocation that led to the Second Intifada? An intifada is an uprising
or, literally, a "shaking off" of an oppressor. The Second Intifada in
Palestine dates from September 2000 when Israeli Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon led an armed march to Jerusalem's Temple Mount one year before
9-11.
After a year of calm-during which Palestinians believed in the
prospects for peace-suicide bombings recommenced after this
high-profile provocation. In response to the uprising, Sharon and
Netanyahu observed that only when Americans "feel our pain" would they
understand the plight of the victimized Israelis. Both Israeli leaders
suggested that shared mindset ("feel our pain") would require in the
U.S. a weighted body count of 4,500 to 5,000 Americans lost to
terrorism, the initial estimate of those who died in the twin towers of
New York City's World Trade Center-one year later.
The American Valkyrie?
When successful, game theory warfare strengthens the agent provocateur
while leaving the mark discredited and depleted by the anticipated
reaction to a well-timed provocation. By game theory standards, 9-11
was a strategic success because the U.S. was portrayed as irrational
for its reaction - the invasion of Iraq that triggered a deadly
insurgency with devastating consequences both for Iraq and the U.S.
That insurgency, in turn, was an easily modeled reaction to the
invasion of a nation that (a) played no role in the provocation, and
(b) was known to be populated by three long-warring sects where an
unstable peace was maintained by a former U.S. ally who was rebranded
an Evil Doer. As the cost in blood and treasure expanded, the U.S.
became overextended militarily, financially and diplomatically.
As "the mark" (the U.S.) emerged in the foreground, the agent
provocateur faded into the background. But only after catalyzing
dynamics that steadily drained the U.S. of credibility, resources and
resolve. This "probabilistic" victory also ensured widespread cynicism,
insecurity, distrust and disillusionment along with a declining
capacity to defend its interests due to the duplicity of a game
theory-savvy enemy within.
Meanwhile the American public fell under a regime of oversight,
surveillance and intimidation marketed as "homeland" security. This
domestic operation even features rhetorical hints of a WWII
"fatherland" with clear signs of a force alien to the U.S. with its
welcome embrace of open dissent. Is this operation meant to protect
Americans or to shield those responsible for this insider operation
from Americans?
By manipulating the shared mindset, skilled game theory war-planners
can wage battles in plain sight and on multiple fronts with minimal
resources. One proven strategy: Pose as an ally of a well-armed nation
predisposed to deploy its military in response to a mass murder. In
this case, the result destabilized Iraq, creating crises that could be
exploited to strategic advantage by expanding the conflict to Iran,
another key Israeli goal announced in A Clean Break-seven years before
the invasion of Iraq.
Which nation benefitted from the deployment of coalition forces to the
region? Today's mathematically model-able outcome undermined U.S.
national security by overextending its military, discrediting its
leadership, degrading its financial condition and disabling its
political will. In game theory terms, these results were "perfectly
predictable"-within an acceptable range of probabilities.
In the asymmetry that typifies today's unconventional warfare, those
who are few in numbers must wage war by way of
deception-non-transparently and with means that leverage their impact.
Which nation-if not Israel-fits that description?
Treason in Plain Sight?
Game theory war-planners manipulate the shared mental environment by
shaping perceptions and creating impressions that become consensus
opinions. With the aid of well-timed crises, policy-makers fall in line
with a predetermined agenda-not because they are Evil Doers or
"imperialists" but because the shared mindset has been pre-conditioned
to respond not to the facts but to manipulated emotions and consensus
beliefs. Without the murder of 3,000 on 9-11, America's credibility
would not now be damaged and the U.S. economy would be in far better
shape.
By steadily displacing facts with what "the mark" can be induced to
believe, the few-within-the-few amplify the impact of their duplicity.
By steady manipulation of the public's mindset, game theory
war-planners can defeat an opponent with vastly superior resources by
inducing those decisions that ensure defeat.
Intelligence wars are waged in plain sight and under the cover of
widely shared beliefs. By manipulating consensus opinion, such wars can
be won from the inside out by inducing a people to freely choose the
very forces that imperil their freedom. Thus in the Information Age the
disproportionate power wielded by those with outsized influence in
media, pop culture, think tanks, academia and politics-domains where
Zionist influence is most rampant.
Induced beliefs act as a force-multiplier to wage intelligence wars
from the shadows. At the operational core of such warfare are those
masterful at anticipating the mark's response to a provocation and
incorporating that response into their arsenal. For those who wage war
in this fashion, facts are only a barrier to overcome. For those
nations dependent on facts, the rule of law and informed consent to
protect their freedom, such insider treachery poses the greatest
possible threat to national security.
America is far less safe than before 9-11. Tel Aviv clearly intends to
continue its serial provocations, as evidenced by its ongoing expansion
of the settlements. Israel has shown no sign of a willingness to
negotiate in good faith or to take the steps required to make peace a
possibility. To date, Barack Obama appears unwilling to name senior
appointees who are not either Zionists are strongly pro-Israeli. The
greatest threat to world peace is not terrorists. The greatest threat
is the U.S.-Israeli relationship.
In the same way that a decade of pre-staging was required to plausibly
induce the U.S. to invade Iraq, a similar strategy is now underway to
persuade the U.S. to invade Iran or to support and condone an attack by
Israel. The same duplicity is again at work, including the high profile
branding of the requisite Evil Doer. From its very outset, the Zionist
enterprise focused on hegemony in the Middle East. Its entangled
alliance with the U.S. enabled this enterprise to deploy American might
for that purpose.
Only one nation had the means, motive, opportunity and stable nation
state intelligence required to take the U.S. to war in the Middle East
while also making it appear that Islam is the problem. If Barack Obama
continues to defer to Tel Aviv, he can rightly be blamed when the next
attack occurs in the U.S. or the European Union featuring the usual
orgy of evidence pointing to a predetermined target. Should another
mass murder occur, that event will be traceable directly to the
U.S.-Israeli relationship and the failure of U.S policy-makers to free
America from this enemy within.
Jeff Gates, A widely acclaimed author, attorney, investment banker,
educator and consultant to government, corporate and union leaders
worldwide, Jeff Gates' latest book is Guilt By Association—How
Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War (2008). His previous
books include Democracy at Risk: Rescuing Main Street From Wall Street
and The Ownership Solution: Toward a Shared Capitalism for the 21st century.
AHMADINEJAD APPLAUDED AFTER QUESTIONING 9/11 ATTACK
September 23, 2010
Eric Shawn
Fox News Blog
He was greeted by applause when he walked into the United Nations General Assembly, and applauded again, even after questioning 9/11 and claiming that the American government may have been behind the attack.
That’s right, applauded after questioning the motivation for the terrorist attacks, who was responsible for them, and essentially suggesting they were a U.S. plot.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made a variety of claims over the years during his appearances here, but he never has gone this far when talking about 9/11.
During his General Assembly address, the Iranian President called for a “U.N. fact finding group” to investigate 9/11.
He also said that ”the majority of the American people as well as most nations and politicians around the world” believe that “some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining of the American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order to save the Zionist regime.”
Before his speech, the Obama administration must have had high hopes that Ahmadinejad would have listened to the offers of diplomacy as presented by the administration and its allies on the Security Council. Members of the U.S. delegation remained in their seats. In years past, only what is called a “low-level note taker” has often been posted behind the little plastic “United States” sign, when Ahmadinejad took the stage.
On Tuesday, when Ahmadinejad spoke during the global summit on poverty, the American delegation remained even as he predicted the defeat of capitalism.
But true to form, he quickly went over the line with his 9/11 remarks and that prompted the U.S. diplomats, and others, to get up and walk out.
“ It’s outrageous,” said State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley. “a short distance from here, nine years ago, three-thousand people were killed in an attack perpetrated by nineteen people, and an attack that was orchestrated by Al Qaeda. We know exactly who did it, they’ve admitted it, the facts are not in dispute, so for the President of Iran to come here and make the suggestion that somehow this was an American plot, is simply outrageous.”
But as Ahmadinejad walked from the podium, he did so rewarded by applause in the august chamber of the world body.