This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
They Sow The Cyclone - We Reap The Blowback
Submitted by Dan Sanchez via AntiWar.com,
“For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind”?—?Hosea 8:7
It may be surprising to hear, but it is a plain historical fact that modern international jihad originated as an instrument of US foreign policy. The “great menace of our era” was built up by the CIA to wage a proxy war against the Soviets.
A 1973 coup in Afghanistan installed a new secular government that, while not fully communist, was Soviet-leaning. That was a capital offense from the perspective of America’s Cold War national security state, at the time headed by Henry Kissinger.
Conveniently for Kissinger, the dirt poor country was sandwiched between two US client states: Pakistan to the east and Iran (then still ruled by the CIA-installed Shah) to the west. Immediately after the coup, the CIA and the clandestine security agencies of Pakistan (ISI) and Iran (SAVAK) began regime change operations in Afghanistan, orchestrating and sponsoring Islamic fundamentalist insurrections and coup attempts.
Due to these efforts, as well as the government’s own oppressiveness, a widespread rebellion broke out in Afghanistan in 1978. In July 1979, US President Jimmy Carter, on the advice of National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, officially authorized aid to the puritanical Mujahideen rebels, to be delivered through the CIA’s “Operation Cyclone.” This was on top of the unofficial aid that the CIA had already been funneling to Afghan Islamist insurgents for years through Pakistan and Iran.
In a 1998 interview, Brzezinski openly admitted that he and Carter thus “knowingly increased the probability” that the Soviets would militarily intervene. And indeed Russia did invade in December 1979, beginning the decade-long Soviet-Afghan War. In the same 1998 interview, Brzezinski boasted:
“The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.”
Shortly thereafter, the highest cleric of Saudi Arabia (another US client) endorsed a fatwa proclaiming jihad against the atheist Soviets in Afghanistan as an obligation for all Muslims throughout the world. It should be noted that the Saudis have a narrow definition of a true “Muslim,” as they follow Wahhabism, one of the most extreme and intolerant strands of Islam, highly similar to ISIS’s own. Throughout the 1980s, Saudi Arabia also provided the Afghan Jihad with hundreds of millions of petrodollars in aid and tens of thousands of madrassa-indoctrinated volunteer fighters.
The CIA also heavily participated in recruitment for the increasingly international jihad. And this is where Osama bin Laden enters the picture. As political scientist and terrorism expert Eqbal Ahmad said in a 1998 speech:
“Money started pouring in. CIA agents starting going all over the Muslim world recruiting people to fight in the great jihad. Bin Laden was one of the early prize recruits. He was not only an Arab. He was also a Saudi. He was not only a Saudi. He was also a multimillionaire, willing to put his own money into the matter. Bin Laden went around recruiting people for the jihad against communism.
I first met him in 1986. He was recommended to me by an American official of whom I do not know whether he was or was not an agent. I was talking to him and said, ‘Who are the Arabs here who would be very interesting?’ By here I meant in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He said, ‘You must meet Osama.’ I went to see Osama. There he was, rich, bringing in recruits from Algeria, from Sudan, from Egypt, just like Sheikh Abdul Rahman.”
The US publicly lionized the anti-Soviet jihadis. In 1983, President Ronald Reagan, who continued Carter’s Afghan policy, met with Mujahideen leaders in the Oval Office for a photo op, and released a statement which said:
“To watch the courageous Afghan freedom fighters battle modern arsenals with simple hand-held weapons is an inspiration to those who love freedom.”
The glorification even extended to popular culture. In the climactic battle scene of 1988’s Rambo III, the heroic John Rambo is about to be overrun by Soviet forces when he is saved by a Mujahideen cavalry charge. The movie closed with onscreen text that read, “THIS FILM IS DEDICATED TO THE BRAVE MUJAHIDEEN FIGHTERS OF AFGHANISTAN.” After the US went to war with the Mujahideen’s successors in 2001, the dedication was changed to, “THE GALLANT PEOPLE OF AFGHANISTAN.”
The film even has Rambo’s mentor echoing Brzezinski when he screams at his Russian captor, “We already had our Vietnam! Now you’re gonna have yours!”
After a decade of bloody war, the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan in February 1989. Later that year, the Berlin Wall fell and Romania left the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact. The year after, Poland and East Germany followed. And in 1991, the Warsaw Pact and then the Soviet Union itself both dissolved completely.
Brzezinski arrogantly took credit for this, claiming that his strategy of giving the USSR “its own Vietnam” brought about the Soviet “collapse.”
But it was not really a collapse. The Soviet Empire did not descend into failed-state chaos, the way Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia recently have thanks to the American War on Terror. That is what a true “collapse” looks like.
In contrast, what happened throughout the Soviet Empire was not a violent collapse, but a relinquishing of power and a generally peaceful dissolution. Such an outcome rarely results from war. To the contrary, war is the health of the State, as Randolph Bourne taught. War tends not to loosen, but to tighten a regime’s grip on power. It is not war, but peace and detente that can lead to peaceful dissolution. It is when people no longer feel so besieged by enemies abroad that they feel secure enough to demand greater freedom (even to the extent of full secession) from their “protectors” and rulers.
It was the Reagan-Thatcher-Gorbachev thaw of Reagan’s second term that created the necessary climate for ending the proxy war in Afghanistan. And it was the subsequent combination of far-abroad detente and near-abroad peace that created the necessary climate for the Soviet dissolution.
Brzezinski’s jihad did not win the Cold War. It only sowed the seeds for the Terror War.
In 1990, the US seized the emerging post-Berlin “unipolar moment” of peerless preeminence by launching its first globocop “police action”: the Persian Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm) against Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq.
Desert Storm was preceded by Operation Desert Shield, in which the US built up a military presence in Saudi Arabia (troops, arms, and bases) for use in staging attacks on Iraq in the upcoming war.
F-15Es parked during Operation Desert Shield.
Contrary to US promises, the military occupation of Saudi Arabia persisted after the war, as the bases were used to enforce a blockade on Iraq throughout the 90s (which starved over a half a million children). This had a twofold impact on Islamic radicalization.
As Lawrence Wright wrote in The New Yorker :
“The presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia was a shattering event in the country’s history, calling into question the ancient bargain between the royal family and the Wahhabi clerics, whose blessing allows the Saud family to rule. In 1992, a group of the country’s most prominent religious leaders issued the Memorandum of Advice, which implicitly threatened a clerical coup. The royal family, shaken by the threat to its rule, accommodated most of the clerics’ demands, giving them more control over Saudi society. One of their directives called for the creation of a Ministry of Islamic Affairs, which would be given offices in Saudi embassies and consulates. As the journalist Philip Shenon writes, citing John Lehman, the former Secretary of the Navy and a 9/11 commissioner, “it was well-known in intelligence circles that the Islamic affairs office functioned as the Saudis’ ‘fifth column’ in support of Muslim extremists.”
The occupation of the Arabian Peninsula also began Bin Laden’s vendetta against his former patrons. As Eqbal Ahmad told it:
“He turns at a particular moment. In 1990, the U.S. goes into Saudi Arabia with forces. Saudi Arabia is the holy place of Muslims, Mecca, and Medina. There had never been foreign troops there. In 1990, during the Gulf War, they went in, in the name of helping Saudi Arabia defeat Saddam Hussein. Osama Bin Laden remained quiet.
“Saddam was defeated, but the American troops stayed on in the land of the Ka’aba [the most sacred site of Islam, in Mecca], foreign troops. He wrote letter after letter saying, ‘Why are you here? Get out! You came to help but you have stayed on.’ Finally he started a jihad against the other occupiers. His mission is to get American troops out of Saudi Arabia. His earlier mission was to get Russian troops out of Afghanistan.”
Even after this turn, the western lionization of the the Soviet-Afghan War’s Mujahideen veterans, and of Bin Laden in particular, continued into the 90s. As late as December 1993, The Independent (a major British newspaper) even published a puff piece on Bin Laden, plastered with a huge photo of the smiling sheik, titled “ Anti-Soviet warrior puts his army on the road to peace.” The article lauded Bin Laden as a humanitarian, gushing over how the “Saudi businessman who recruited mujahedin now uses them for large-scale building projects in Sudan.”
As it turned out, his largest-scale project was to build up the international militia that the CIA helped him recruit into Al Qaeda, which he would then lead in a terror jihad against the West throughout the 90s. With that wave of attacks in mind, Brzezinski’s 1998 interviewers asked if he had any regrets over blowback from Operation Cyclone. The statesman was totally dismissive.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
Brzezinski: Nonsense!
Later in 1998, mere months after Brzezinski’s interview, Eqbal Ahmad delivered the exact opposite assessment of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, warning his American audience:
“They’re going to go for you. They’re going to do a lot more. These are the chickens of the Afghanistan war coming home to roost.”
Three years later, Brzezinski was proven spectacularly wrong, and Ahmad tragically right, when the terror jihad of Bin Laden’s Mujahideen-descended band of “stirred-up Moslems” culminated in the attacks of September 11, 2001.
During the planning of those attacks, Bin Laden and his inner circle were hosted by the Taliban, yet another band of Mujahideen-descended “stirred-up Moslems,” then ruling Afghanistan.
As Ahmad foretold, the chickens of the CIA’s Afghan Jihad (and of the Gulf War) had indeed come home to roost.
True to their names, Operations Cyclone and Desert Storm sowed the wind. Years later, it was 3,000 American civilians who reaped the whirlwind.
Incredibly, that whirlwind harvest was then reseeded, ensuring that still more civilians would later reap an even bigger whirlwind. Apparently cultivating chaos is the only trade that empires know. The regime and its kept news media sowed the whirlwind by exploiting America’s post-9/11 fear and anger to garner acquiescence for even larger and more frequent foreign misadventures: for a globe-spanning Long War that continues to this day.
First came the Afghanistan War against the Taliban and in pursuit of Al Qaeda. Almost inexplicably, Bin Laden escaped into hiding in US-alliedPakistan after being pinned down in the caves of Tora Bora. It is somewhat less inexplicable in light of the fact that the neocon-led Bush administration was trying to fear-monger the public into countenancing another war in Iraq, and that this involved pushing bogus intelligence connecting Saddam Hussein with Al Qaeda. At least until the regime got its post-9/11 bonus war, it was convenient to still have Dread Pirate Osama at large to keep America’s war fever up. Better dread than dead.
Similarly, in 2002, the Bush administration denied the military’s request for permission to kill another figurehead terrorist: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who had in the 80s been yet another recruit for the CIA’s Afghan Jihad. That too was likely about the administration getting its war in Iraq. At the UN, Secretary of State Colin Powell falsely identified Zarqawi as a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda (he was allied with neither, and an enemy of the former), in order to paint the planned invasion of Iraq as a necessary front in the War on Terror.
As it turned out it was the Iraq War itself that unleashed Zarqawi in 2003, freeing him to emerge from autonomous Kurdistan, where he had been hiding from Saddam’s security forces under the protective aegis of an American no-fly zone. His formerly obscure terrorist gang rapidly ascended amid the chaos of the Iraq War, becoming Al Qaeda in Iraq or AQI (after Zarqawi swore allegiance to Bin Laden), and then the Islamic State in Iraq or ISI (after Zarqawi was finally killed).
After suffering severe setbacks in Iraq, in 2011 the Zarqawiites began infiltrating neighboring Syria to take part in the insurgency against Bashar al-Assad’s regime. Thereafter renaming itself ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria), the group, along with its offshoot the Al Nusra Front and other Mujahideen militias, came to dominate that insurgency.
The growth of ISIS and Nusra in Syria was fed by the United States (the State Department, the Pentagon, and the CIA) and its Western and regional allies (the UK, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, etc.). By at least 2012, these powers had launched a veritable Operation Cyclone 2.0: recruiting, training, financing, and arming Mujahideen fighters for the purpose of overthrowing the secular ruler Assad (who, like the post-1973 secular Afghan regime, is an ally of Russia).
Just as in Afghanistan decades ago, young men, radicalized by the call to jihad and militarized by the promise of weapons and money, have poured in from countries throughout the Muslim world, and from Europe too. This has not only led to the death of hundreds of thousands of Syrians and the displacement of millions, but has turbo-boosted ISIS and Nusra in myriad ways.
US Senator John McCain with mujahideen from the Northern Storm Brigade.
The Syrian Jihad, like the Afghan Jihad, was preceded by less direct and lower grade subversion using militant Islamists. In the Afghan prelude, America’s dirty work was done by Pakistan and Iran. In the Syrian prelude, it was done by the Saudis and lesser Gulf Sheikdoms, who with US approval, began sponsoring anti-Assad Salafist militias in neighboring Lebanon as early as 2006.
There were voices even among the Saudis who, like Eqbal Ahmad, darkly forebode blowback from dealing with such devils. One former Saudi diplomat warned:
“Salafis are sick and hateful, and I’m very much against the idea of flirting with them. They hate the Shiites, but they hate Americans more. If you try to outsmart them, they will outsmart us. It will be ugly.”
Yet they were drowned out by voices who, like Brzezinski, shrugged off such concerns over “stirred-up Salafis.” A US government consultant related to the great journalist Seymour Hersh that:
“This time… Bandar and other Saudis have assured the White House that ‘they will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their message to us was ‘We’ve created this movement, and we can control it.’ It’s not that we don’t want the Salafis to throw bombs; it’s who they throw them at…”
In other words: “Thanks for paying for our jihad in the 80s. And sorry about your towers. But this time around it’ll be totally different, trust us. Sincerely, the Wahhabis.”
Yet, regarding Syria, the American deep state has been just as much sinister as it has been gullible and hubristic, if not more. As a recently disclosed Pentagon intelligence report reveals, US planners knew full well that they were once again “sowing the cyclone,” and that others would soon “reap the blowback.” The report from 2012 predicted that supporting the Syrian insurgency would create “the ideal atmosphere” for ISIS “to return to its old pockets” in Sunni Iraq and also create “the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist Principality” in the region.
And that is precisely what happened. In 2014, strengthened by the US-backed Syrian Jihad, ISIS burst back into “its old pockets” in Iraq, conquered the northwest of the country down to the gates of Baghdad, and declared a Caliphate (a Salafist Principality).
The wind sown by Operation Cyclone took two decades to fully germinate into the blowback that blew the Twin Towers down. Yet it only took two years for us to reap the whirlwind from the Syrian Jihad. Scott Horton proposes the term “backdraft” for blowback that is so prompt and predictable: like the firestorm that immediately erupts in your face upon opening the door of a burning hot room.
The US and its allies have opened the door to Hell in Syria. And the ensuing ISIS backdraft has lately spread far beyond Syria and Iraq, consuming 44 lives in the bombing of a Beirut marketplace, 224 lives with the bombing of a Russian airliner, and 130 lives with the recent attacks in Paris.
It took longer than it did in 1979, but America’s current proxy jihad has drawn in Russia once again. The chief difference is that this time, the US and its allies are not limiting themselves to covert ops, but are involving their air forces as well. This is ostensibly to “destroy” ISIS. However, the US-led coalition also wants the Assad regime gone, while the Russian-led coalition is trying to save it and to fight the US-supported non-ISIS Mujahideen as well (including Syrian Al Qaeda). So the countless warplanes buzzing over and bombing Syria are flying at cross purposes. This has turned the Levant into a nuclear powder keg.
And now, unthinkably, a US ally may have just lit a match. Just this week, Turkey shot down a Russian warplane. Two pilots were reportedly executed by anti-Assad insurgents in mid-air. A video has emerged on the internet of insurgents standing over one of the dead Russians saying “Allahu Akbar” and apparently calling themselves “Mujahideen.”
Remember, Turkey is a NATO member, who can drag the entire West into a thermonuclear war if it picks a big enough fight. The backdraft we reap from this latest American jihad may consume us all.
Even if we survive this near-term global existential crisis, our warlords have more in store for us. The Paris attacks especially have yielded yet another crop of fear and loathing in the West, which the tillers of terror are keen to plow right back into still more proxy warfare and mayhem.
But they cannot do so if we, their tax cattle, refuse to pull the plow or let them drive us like beasts of burden that are so easily spooked and prodded. We the people must convey that if they do not stop cultivating the storms of chaos, then we will cast off their yoke once and for all.
»
- 1476 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Toyota the official vehicle of terrorists
Nutella ©®™ official snack food peanut butter substitute of ISIS ©®™.
ISIS ©®™is an official trademark jointly owned by the Mossad and the CIA. Used with permission.
"Three years later, Brzezinski was proven spectacularly wrong, and Ahmad tragically right, when the terror jihad of Bin Laden’s Mujahideen-descended band of “stirred-up Moslems” culminated in the attacks of September 11, 2001."
That sentence and much of this article assumes that CFR member and NWO advocate Brzenzinski didn't have something to do with 9/11, and that a new Pearl Harbor was not part of the plan. I'll grant the author that Brzenzinski is a dangerous asshole, but I don't think he's stupid.
The author also fails to note that the Soviet coup that overthrew Afghanistan coincided with Soviet paratroopers landing in Kabul. They may have influenced the course of events a tad.
I am not aware of this. Please could you share a link or recommendation for a book?
Brzezinski: Obama Should Retaliate If Russia Doesn't Stop Attacking U.S. Assets
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43059.htm#idc-cover
Brzezinski: Obama Should Retaliate If Russia Doesn't Stop Attacking U.S. Assets
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43059.htm#idc-cover
I call that VERY dangerous
Brzezinski: Obama Should Retaliate If Russia Doesn't Stop Attacking U.S. Assets
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43059.htm#idc-cover
I call that VERY dangerous
when the terror jihad of Bin Laden’s Mujahideen-descended band of “stirred-up Moslems” culminated in the attacks of September 11, 2001.
9/11 was not caused by jihadists. It was a new Pearl Harbor to unleash a major war in the Middle East to balkanize it. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11 cost $6 trillion - many got very rich from them.
Anyone who has examined the 9/11 event closely knows that it was an inside job. Your own government is terrorizing you all the time, but that is what happens in a fascist, police state. Fear is the key to control the populace. Hence the eternal war on terror as terror can never surrender:
Ex-Italian President: Intel Agencies Know 9/11 An Inside Job
Man who blew the whistle on Gladio tells Italy's largest newspaper attacks were run by CIA, Mossad
Former Italian President and the man who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio, Francesco Cossiga, has gone public on 9/11, telling Italy’s most respected newspaper that the attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad and that this was common knowledge amongst global intelligence agencies.
Cossiga was elected President of Italian Senate in July 1983 before being winning a landslide 1985 election to become President of the country in 1985.
Cossiga gained respect from opposition parties as one of a rare breed – an honest politician – and led the country for seven years until April 1992.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/ex-italian-president-intel-agencies-know-9-...
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken
Yes, JustObserving, the article above FAILED the litmus test regarding what happened on 9/11.
The world is several orders of magnitude more screwed up than the article above indicated, since not only was 9/11 an inside job, false flag attack, but moreover, the "blowback" was deliberately designed to be driven by getting the "War on Terror" going as a self-fulfilling prophesy.
The recent article Thanks ISIS: We "Can't Keep Up With Surging Weapons Demand", Pentagon Says correctly pointed out that: "Any time there is a war ... two entities benefit: those who supply the weapons and those who supply the loans to buy the weapons."
Those were also the people who were behind enabling the events on 9/11/2001 to happen, as well as covering up the truth regarding those events, while selling the "official story" regarding those events, in order to start more genocidal wars, as well as prepare to impose democidal martial law.
When it comes to considering the apparent stupidity of Dan Sanchez via AntiWar.com, I have to ask HOW would it be possible to spend so much time learning about the history reviewed in that article, and still NOT come to the painfully obvious conclusion that the "official story" is physically impossible, while the abundance of publicly available information indicates beyond any reasonable doubt that 9/11 was the most spectacular symbol, so far, of the history of false flag attacks fitting perfectly well inside of the overall history of warfare ???
In my view, the article above provides silly, superficial analysis, which then concludes with similarly bogus "solutions:"
That reminded me of the similarly superficial bogus "solutions" that concluded this article:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-25/why-we’re-sliding-towards-world-war
Why We’re Sliding Towards World War
After lots of good analysis, it ends with another typically superficial statement of what the "solutions" should be: "But war is great for the bankers and the defense contractors. And – as discussed above – governments are desperate for war. So it’s up to us – the people – to stop wider war." That was yet another good example of the standard patterns present on Zero Hedge, as well as pretty well everywhere else, which are some relatively good analysis of the problems, followed by bogus "solutions," because the original analysis continued to be too superficial.
I have no doubt that Dan Sanchez is another example of pathetic controlled opposition. I only have doubts regarding HOW he manages to maintain those attitudes, or whether he is aware of how he has shied away from the deeper analysis, which leads to conclusions which are consistent with that deeper analysis.
Personally, it boggles my mind HOW people who are supposed to be "anti-war" can maintain attitudes of deliberate ignorance towards the history of warfare in general, and especially towards the most spectacular symbol of that, so far ... However, they generally manage to do that, which is why I think one has to be extremely pessimistic, due to the degree that most of the so-called anti-war movements have become pathetic forms of controlled opposition.
"HOW would it be possible to spend so much time learning about the history reviewed in that article, and still NOT come to the painfully obvious conclusion that the "official story" is physically impossible."
It isn't. That's why Sanchez and the rest at Antiwar.com are whores and cowards.
I don't care if they are whores or cowards, is the article factual about how the controllers are manipulating the sheeple? That is the central point. Care to expand on that?
I agree with the central thesis of the article, yes. My point was that, by slipping in the OBL did 9/11 meme he undermined his overall credibility.
I disagree. It may be an unpopular opinion here, but getting into all of that turns many people off to the entire anti war thing. It isn't necessary within the scope of this article. Many people who may otherwise be sympathetic to the views regarding just how wrong all this has been will immediately tune it out of you start into all the 'CIA and Mossad did it' stuff in an article that's supposed to be about blowback. You have to ease people into this kind of thought process. Throwing all that at them at once will make many dismiss you as nutjobs.
If this article and others like it are able to bring the bullshit lies and blowback out into the open, that's a good thing. Bringing those others who were responsible for 911 and the rest of it out into the public spotlight can come later. It's been over 70 years since Pearl Harbor and it's still uncouth to mention FDRs willful ignorance and shadowy dealings, this will take a while too. One step at a time.
The reason many people do not believe that 911 conspiracy theories is because most of the arguments put forth are moronic. One someone reads a few of them they simply ignore the rest.
Exactly this.
The ZHers here who have been around, digging and understanding, longer than your average sheeple love to rip anything that perpetuates the .gov story...but they forget that the sheeple are like frogs...you don't boil one by dropping it into a churning pot, you have to let it start from cold water.
If the article doesn't point in the direction you want it to, but its good enough as an opening salvo, then use it. You have to start somewhere...
Agreed. In spite of how deeply compelling so many people find the question of DID the US govt kill 4000 of its people, I don't see answering it as necessary to the larger story. Too bad 4,000 people were killed in NYC, a tragedy even. But it is virtually insignificant in relation to the psychopathic murder and mahem that is publicly known as indisputable FACT in the aftermath of 911. The US has killed MILLIONS OF INNOCENTS in its wars of aggression. You don't have to even picture "innocents" as women, children and the elderly. THEY WERE ALL INNOCENT . . . including their militaries atttempting defense. In the larger picture, if anyone doubts whether our own government (which any thinking and informed adult should recognize does not work in our interests in this faux democracy) WOULD do such a thing, they must be nuts.
Just the same, it's a toxic little subject to broach and I honestly cannot understand the obsessive fixation that so many have on the 911 inside job story. That's like focusing on Hitler's killing of political opposition in the days of his brownshirts as the all-important measure of his psychopathy and crime, rather than the millions subsequently killed in the war.
Comparing mole hills to fucking mountains. Like debating how many angels danced on the head of a pin.
The only motive for it that makes sense to me is feeling that it's only American lives that really matter.
I don't bother to argue it with anyone, but had to agree here since you stuck your neck out.
There is one explanation, and maybe for once I'm actually being optimistic - occasionally I do astound myself.
People need to be 'broken in' slowly. Start throwing 911 at them willy nilly and they are liable to switch off. If however you can give them documented/verified information that *was* actually plastered all over the mainstream shit they read then they occasionally start to think. They start to think "what the fuck else don't I know I thought I knew".
We often use the analogy of people being boiled like a frog. The same analogy can apply in reverse. Don't let them know they are on their way to finding the real truth but give them a notch - before they know it they will speaking in the same manner a lot of us do on here and not even know how they got there.
Cheers
Yes, Curiously_Crazy, that is often difficult to navigate through. I feel the George Washington, as I quoted above, does a better job of surfing the edge of what more mainstream people are able and willing to consider than Dan Sanchez.
I would have liked that Sanchez article much more if only he had put some words like "allegedly" to qualify the "official story," rather than presenting that as if it were true. Merely some indication that he was aware of the dubious nature of the "official story" regarding 9/11/2001 would have changed the rest of the article to make that much better, rather than having so blatantly failed to qualify the assertions made upon the basis of taking the "official story" for granted.
Maybe because the truth is that powerful men seek greater power in each generation by mining human resources the world over and have since time began. Maybe there is no really good solution except that all those being mined stop allowing it and that is such an unlikely scenario that the explorer of this article gives up after explaining the evidence - in essence ONLY exploring the evidence.
Probably the only way it will stop is the same way it has always stopped. It will reach its natural conclusion. We would all like to think that, like the anti-war protesters of the sixties, we can cajole each other into being THE participants, but we ourselves are content to sit home and type. Like me, we await the moment that never comes, hunkering down, collecting evidence, unable to conclude that it is either:
1. We lay ourselves, our lives, on the line. Or,
2. This plays out completely, until the corruption and usury is so profoundly disgustingly obvious that several generations are inoculated against the disease of power-mongering.
Good-Morning to all you brilliant thinkers.
i.
If you believe that a Towel-head living in a cave, with nothing more than a cell phone and a laptop completely out-witted every Security Agency in the US at the same time on 9/11, I've got property in Florida I want to sell you. Any article I see that buys into any of these "False Flag" narratives, I just dismiss as Tools of the Regime.
Blah. We do what every extraordinary country in the past 2000 years has done. Exploit and murder the Darkies. They are fucking ignorant and violent.
Happy TG!
Speaking of dark meat, I heard that Russia is going to celebrate Thanksgiving this year. Putin is going to cook Turkey.
Hopefully he overcooks that bird into Jerkey.
If Putin does Thanksgiving soon, it will be welcome news to America.
Two front wars for Russia —one in the Middle East and the other somewhere in Europe— is the best scenario for America.
However, it cannot go nuclear. And China stays neutral. Not difficult because China and Russia don’t trust each other.
Yeah, throw off the yoke and all that. You'd have to kill most of the plow pullers to get that to happen, lol........
"Just Do It!" Nike Isis ads will now show the suicide bomber wearing their shoes as his fellow camel jokes yell to him ... "Just Do It!"
Or, as Pink Floyd so eloquently stated: "And when you lose control, you'll reap the harvest you have sown..."
http://olduvai.ca
Remember, Turkey is a NATO member, who can drag the entire West into a thermonuclear war if it picks a big enough fight. The backdraft we reap from this latest American jihad may consume us all.
It occurs to me. When the House of Saud is driven from Riyadh, oil dumping stops and oil returns to fair value, the triple burden of taxes, debt, and having to pay what it actually costs to get oil out of the ground will finally bring the welfare-warfare states of north America and western Europe to their knees.
Eurasia will actually be fine. Russians will finally enjoy a developed-world living standard once they start getting a fair price for oil. Meanwhile, whatever replaces the bankrupt governments of the EU will be lining up to join the Eurasian Union, once they've seen to realistic solutions to their Muslim problems. They might even finally allow Israel to join the Eurasian Union, and finally take her place of honour among the nations.
It's DC who'll quickly discover that controlling 50 states with incompatible worldviews, interests, and IQ levels is impossible without a good way of financing a huge standing army. When Uncle Sugar loses his empire, Fed-confetti will lose reserve currency status, and Union Army soldiers, whose pay will either become worthless or stop coming at all, will quickly discover better things to do with their time than to shoot their friends and neighbours at the behest of a few rich thieves in New York. Shooting said thieves comes to mind.
If I learned at this point that our masters were deliberately choosing the Jonestown Option, murdering their slaves before killing themselves, over a real risk of having to accept the consequences of their actions, I wouldn't be at all surprised.
Why would Israel have a 'place of honour,' exactly?
You are at least one of the more fascinating Jewish Supremacists posting.
You take great pains to appear to be a great moralist, as any good Talmudist would.
;)
http://youtu.be/QphxGBXiA-M
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2009/11/16/shining-light-roots-terrorism
http://how911wasdone.com
Yea, the post was fine until that statement, it sticks out like a snowball in a coal scuttle.
Beware the Lamb!!!
One other thing, the honchos at Jonestown didn't die, Jones himself with some compadres walked to Venezuela, another pair of dudes dropped a suitcase full of cash while jumping a moving train...
These assholes don't intend to die either.
Beware the Lamb!!!
Dunno about Dan Sanchez's credibility here, he still seems to think bin Laden pulled off 9-11.
I very much doubt that the real financiers and beneficiaries of that operation would have entrusted it to a man who was on a dialysis machine in a Pakistani hospital at the time. But he might make an effective diversion and convincing patsy.
Well, Dick Cheney's heart wasn't too good yet he had control of a lot of things: and GWB's brain had issues, yet, um, never mind! Take a look at Cheney vis bin Laden. Who would TPTB trust to pull off such an event? I'm thinking that bin Laden was no more than a patsy, though a very important one on a boots-on-the-ground kind of level.
The term blowblack has no relevance to current affairs. I have posted this before but perhaps it is worth repeating.
Blowback: "an unforeseen and unwanted effect, result, or set of repercussions"
False Flag: "Something disguised to seem affiliated with a group OTHER THAN the one it really is affiliated with. For example, a "false flag operation" is a terrorist act committed by one group for the express purpose of discrediting another group, which is framed for it."
Get the fuck out of NATO.
Oh wait... the U.S. accounts for 94% of NATO's military assets.
Dissolve NATO?
https://www.rt.com/politics/how-should-nato-develop-immediately-disband/
America promotes terrorism
American constitution promotes terrorism :
Amendment II
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
-------------------
From the text of the constitution , it appears that militas or terrorists are essential for America(whatever be the origin) ,
This is how the new generationa are gonna interpret the constitution and in the hands of unscruplous ,criminal minded, immoral ppl (Read pervertObamma) these words are an excuse to carry out ANY ignoble , henious crimes against humanity anywhere in the world , but this is already being done by CIA & millions are already dead (Iraq, Vietnam, Libya...)
Boycott America , boycott american dollar , ban & burn american goods
You have it entirely backwards.
https://thinkpatriot.wordpress.com/2015/11/15/for-world-peace-arm-your-n...
Excellent write-up, but you skipped a very important chapter: how Petraeus' much-touted "surge" was nothing more than a cover-up to conceal the massive coopting of large part of the Iraqi resistance by literally handing out billions of dollars in bribes. Pallets full of fresh cash would be offloaded from C-5s and driven into the mud hamlets around the Sunni Triangle and handed cash not to attack US forces.
That's right. The US government paid the Iraqi insurgency to please stop attacking. The birth of ISIS traces directly back to this fucktarded program. Full scale lunacy.
stop attacking who? A major strategy of the Iraq boondoggle was to fund all sides in hopes they kill each other. This wasn't a bribe, this was the MIC run amok. Ask any cost plus contractor.
Bingo
Long time friend of mine who has done a half-dozen "tours" of Bananastan corrects everyone;
"IT'S A CRIME SCENE - NOT A BATTLEFRONT"
...and he also talked about pallets of cash, visqueened, fresh from the mint, offloaded from Hercules and all sorts of aircraft. Little pallets for smaller war lords, and bigger ones for "sweep and clear missions".
9/11 like the first world trade center bombings was an inside job. This article is bull.
will people please please please stop writing articles on this site that are thoughtful and reasonable, but then go into the whole '9/11 as an act of arab terrorists' thing???? i means jesus fekken christ. it was an inside job. you'd have to be braindead to not realize that at this point. can we at some point just collectively get it and move on?
As I suggested above, the real purpose of articles such as this could be to reinforce the official 9/11 story by way of osmosis. IOW the article is ostensibly about other things and appears to attack the security establsihment. With such credits achieved it's then neat to drop in as a byproduct about them damn Mulsim terrorists doing 9/11 all on their own. Gently reinforcing the meme.
I very much agree. The coverup by repeating the frame of "OBL did it" via various "Oh, it was so stressful and we made mistakes" stories like the recent George Tenet, Cofer Black etc discussions.
https://thinkpatriot.wordpress.com/2015/02/09/166/
https://thinkpatriot.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/3663/
It all works. Reading the artcles is psychologically stressful, the world obviously believes A and your mind says 'B' and is also anxious for you to agree with the crowd 'A'.
The article makes some good points, but every time I hear some stooge says Bin laden did 911- I tune out. The writer is either an ignorant fool -or a coward. I despise both types. The world needs honesty. If Americans ever realized the truth about 911-admitted the overwhelming evidence that it was an inside job-a false flag - the government would fall, the media would be dismantled, Israel would be wiped out and the cowardly lazy academia would all be out out of business. They are all involved in the coverup. They are all conspirators who need to be shut down and/or imprisoned as traitors.
This guy is a careerist coward, not an ignorant fool. He's in the security analysis field so of course he knows that the official 9/11 story is total BS.
Don't forget Bosnia. Al Qaeda and the Mujahedheen were used there as well. OBL was rumored of having BiH citizenship and many of them were flown in to fight there.
I quit supporting Antiwar.com when it became clear that Raimondo wouldn't allow any narrative of 9/11 other than the "official" line. Anyone who can't relate to physics isn't someone that I would trust, in the REAL WORLD. Sanchez had to sign on to supporting the bogus premise of 9/11 in order to be accepted. The article, aside from this fundamental FLAW, is pretty decent (as are most on Antiwar.com; but, unless you really understand the fundamental issues/problems there is NO way you're going to resolve/properly address them; and, as we can see, after all these years of Antiwar.com, NOTHING HAS CHANGED [and have actual gotten worse]).
My sentiments exactly. +100
It's one thing for the ordinary Joe on the street who knows nothing of physics, relying on TV talking heads and who's never heard for example of Larry Silverstein, Odigo or the 'dancing Israelis'. But for someone in the business (so to speak) like this writer, well he has to know the real story.
I can understand being cautious about running down rabbit holes, so I give him/them that. But, really, to run away from building 7? Just because it's uncomfortable to discuss doesn't mean that the discussion is some lunatic one! It's the same with DemocracyNow! (which purports to be anti-war, but has gone totally stupid, pretty much starting with 9/11)
Raimondo and Antiwar.com doesn't hold back punches on Israel, so I'm pretty sure it's not that. There's something else going on which I cannot put my finger on. It seems like they're just not smart enough to understand physics (they're mostly writers talking about politics). Perhaps it's more about them not having enough time to apply toward another angle that would turn them from reporting on current waring activities? Problem is, is that they refer back in history, so understanding where things come from matters; and here much of what is going on is highly linked to 9/11. Something just doesn't add up.
BTW - To the lazy junker: fuck off, punk.
Leaving out the obvious control mechanisms, the idea of .gov actually being fundamentally evil just sticks in the craw of the progressive thought paradigm.
Liberal/progressive/socialist/communist basic tenet is that since there is no God and mankind is on it's own, then govt is the hope of mankind. So they cling to that piece of sinking driftwood as their sole source of hope.
I have an adult daughter who lives and breathes Democracynow, she will not allow any contrarian thought into her progressive worldview.
Beware the Lamb!!!
Truth about 9/11 is such a big deal that it definitely requires a dedicated piece. Bringing that up in this article would only serve to lose the focus. Besides, the official narrative can sometimes be used against TPTB.
Like that congresswoman said: Look, we are aligning ourselves with the people who did 9/11.
There are multiple layers of lies out there, and forcing them to admit to one (smaller) lie makes it easier to later pick on the bigger ones.
Ok, but there's no need to repeat the lielike Sanchez did. Just don't mention 9/11 if you feel you have to parrot the offical explanation.
USSA/ISISrael/ZATO ---> The Troika Of Terror
There was a bombing in Beruit (Lebanon) the same day as the Paris attack. Dozens were killed, even more injured. It made the news in the Middle East and some parts of Europe - but was never reported in western media. This was hardly the only example where extremists killed fellow Muslims (and Christians and Jews and anyone else nearby).
These facts do not support the left wing conspiracy theories in this article. That doesn't mean there aren't many war mongers in Washington DC (in both parties). It just means that tin foil hat lunatics exist in the Middle East and they exist in the west too.
Seems like a good article but I note that it adopts the official version of 9/11, you know, carried out by the magic Cessna pilots. This devalues the rest of the analysis.
In fact it's whole purpose could be to obliquely reinforce the official 9/11 story. I see a lot of this.
http://how911wasdone.com
Aye.
Yes, subliminal messaging. Keep slipping in false premises. That's how it works. Repetition of The Lie.
I see that you too got junked. Looks like we have a troll running around trying to spit on (come on fucker, let's get some actual debate out of you!) anyone who dares mention that the official 9/11 story is shit.
Yes, what is it about these pseudo intellectuals that makes them 9/11 deniers?
Must be too difficult to stomach.
We want the whole truth or Nada.
"We want the whole truth or Nada."
"We want ALL the FACTS or Nada" - Fixed! (what is true to one person may be false to another; facts, on the other hand, are not so subjective)
What else devalues the article is the fear mongering about being dragged into a "thermonuclear war." The pattern of behavior on both sides shows a high degree of cautiousness; they are not suicidial. Remember, at Truman's time there was no risk of retaliation. Not so today.
I might have to reasses when Madam Hillary becomes president.
No, no, no. You assume that they CAN make intelligent decisions. The failure rate of civilization is very high. 2 world wars and many other wars in the last century. None of those wars benefited the people who started them.
https://thinkpatriot.wordpress.com/2015/10/02/warning-ideas-are-dangerous/
https://thinkpatriot.wordpress.com/2015/08/30/there-is-no-truth-in-the-r...
...and it starts out with a Bible quote...jades the entire piece from the jump...
That bin Laden also cited us support for Israel, multiple times, is once again as curiously memory-holed
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2009/11/16/shining-light-roots-terrorism
As the fact that it was Israeli Jews, not Muslims caught celebrating right after the planes hit...
http://youtu.be/QphxGBXiA-M
In McGovern's article he may be implicating the Israelis, but it's only indirectly. Based on what Israel has done, and is capable of doing, I HIGHLY doubt that their involvement is ONLY that of stirring the hornets nest. Again, here too the "official story" is supported.
As noted by the story of the Dancing Israelis, this tends to place them in a much closer proximity of direct involvement. Would be good to hear McGovern respond to your comment about this: I find it an excellent point!
Talk about the USSofA washing its dirty linen in full public view.
Skid marks on my undies reminds me Barry of you.
My List of Hates, in Order
1) NeoCons
2) Politicians
3) Banksters
4) Wahhabis
5) Born Again Christians
6) Crack Heads
7) Reformed Smokers
I ought to down-vote you, you smoker! :-)
I understand the hate for the article not pushing the true nature of 9/11...but I see this as a way to get people looking critically at US policy...is it perfect? Hell no, but if this gets the Uncle Joe the former hippie or Aunt Gladys the evangelical neo-con to take another look and start questioning the motives of their government, then its OK to reinforce the meme until they can ask the right questions.
Clearly this article isn't for learned individuals... It's a primer for the uninitiated.
"The occupation of the Arabian Peninsula also began Bin Laden’s vendetta against his former patrons."
This statement is not necessarily true. Not everyone believes that Bin Laden ever turned against the CIA, nor that he actually existed during the time when he was used as a boogeyman to scare Americans into giving up their rights.
absolutely wonderful article, sir
well done
BRAVO!!!
keep on diggin