Posts
If anyone still had any doubts that Al Qaeda is nothing but the "Islamic" office of the CIA-Mossad complex, with the mission of stirring up the "Greter Middle East" and bringing the region to their knees, they must read/watch this.
Al Jazeera: US Iraq jail an "al-Qaeda school".
Witness Adel Jasim Mohammed, former prisoner at Camp Bucca:
In 2005, an extremist was sent to our camp. At first, Sunnis and Shias rejected his teachings. But we were told that he was imposed by the prison authority.
He stayed for a week and recruited 25 of the 34 detainees - they became extremists like him.
5 comments:
More or less all resistance movements got off the ground by being backed by intelligence services. A captain in Irish army intelligence virtually created the Provisional IRA as a armed organisation. James Kelly.
History shows that although intelligence services can in effect create movements by giving key support at a initial stage resistance movements tend to get get out of control. It's a fact that the (CIA predecessor) OSS's "support for the Viet Minh played a significant symbolic role in helping them fill the power vacuum left in the wake of Japan’s surrender".
Therefor although the CIA supported some Islamic radicals in the past that is no reason to see Al Qaeda as their stooge or cats paw. Israel supported Hamas in the early days does that mean it does today. Hamas, Son of Israel.
Sure there are some people who are glad Al Qaeda has given them an way to have the US attack every country that Israel doesn't like but that is no kind of evidence for saying they have knowingly created and sustained Al Qaeda for that reason.
This post does not talk of the Cold War but of post-2003 events, when Al Qaeda was already the official "public enemy no. 1" and the main pretext for tow US interventions in the strategic region of West/Central Asia.
So what are you talking about?!
It's obvious that the USA and friends use Al Qaeda for their own purposes, which basically is to de-stabilize by provoking civilian massacres (the most strict meaning of "terrorism" probably) and to serve as excuse for further interventions in order to achieve what they call total global dominance.
The fact that all more or less serious Islamist organizations, from Hamas to the Taliban have detached themselves from such a dubious gang of butchers also supports that they are nothing but an intelligence maneuver.
Just a carefully engineered "Pearl Harbor".
I spotted that soon after the 9/11 attacks: the father of Mohammed Atta claiming he was alive, the BND (the most serious western secret service probably) saying that Atta was a liason of the anti-Taliban guerrilla, etc.
The fact that all the wealthy Saudi Arabians, including Bin Ladin relatives, were allowed to leave the USA when the air space was officially blocked. The technical impossibility that the skyscrapers would fall vertically like in a controlled demolition (what in fact was) or that a mere fire at the highest floors would cause such collapse at all. The fact that the alleged attackers were reported by La Habana to Washington, a warning that Washington suspiciously ignored.
And so much more.
"The fact that all more or less serious Islamist organizations, from Hamas to the Taliban have detached themselves from such a dubious gang of butchers also supports that they are nothing but an intelligence maneuver".
There you go again thinking Mossad and the CIA are ten feet tall, well they're not. They have went from failure to failure often - as I pointed out above - bringing into being the very forces that have caused them so much trouble.
If they really were running the show things would be arranged to make them look good. They would have 'found' Bin Laden for example.
Everbody thinks invading Iraq was the most disasterous thing to happen to the US since Vietnam. You think they can destroy the WTC but 'finding' (faking) a Iraqi nuclear bomb or germ/ chemical weaponn is beyond them?
Have you ever seen the old cowboy films where the hero shoots the gun out someone's hand?; too good to be true right, well the US would have made itself look too good if it was all a set up.
Reality is messy.
I'm not saying that the intervention in Afghanistan or Iraq is any success. But what the secret services did was not guaranteeing the success of such military adventures but to guarantee public support for them. However they became too arrogant with Iraq and did things quite poorly in that second phase of their plan, allowing people to see that it was just an ill-conceived plot.
I understand that the evidence is there for all to see. I realized the very evening after the 9/11 attacks. I recall a tavern discussion, after having watched the crashes once and again all day long, when I already suggested that it was a plot and a friend protested it was not: that "things happen".
Such big things don't happen under the noses of half a dozen different secret services. Some even detected "anomalies" but were diverted from their hot track before they could do anything about it. It was a political decision that of "allowing" the "terrorists" to cause such harm. And it was done because they badly wanted a pretext (and public support) to go to war.
And not just to go to war. Maybe even more important is the massive erosion of civil liberties in the NATO countries after those events: with the pretext of terrorism a real coup has happened against our rights.
Post a Comment