British State Terror

British State Terror

red pepper

July 1, 2003

The idea that Britain promotes terrorism would be an oxymoron in the mainstream political culture. Yet state-sponsored terrorism is responsible for more deaths in more countries than the “private” terrorism practised by groups like al-Qaeda.

And many of the worst offenders are British allies like Turkey and Russia. Equally, British military policies are extending the promotion of state terrorism into new areas. The fact is, Britain is one of the leading supporters of terrorism in the world today.

First, let us briefly consider direct British involvement in acts of terrorism. One of the major terrorist acts of the 1980s was the Beirut car bombing in March 1985. The bomb was placed outside a mosque and timed to explode when worshippers left. The aim was to kill Hezbollah leader Mohammed Hussein Sheikh Fadlallah, who was accused of complicity in terrorism. Around 80 people were killed, and over 200 wounded. Fadlallah escaped. The bombing was organised by the CIA and Saudi agents with the assistance of Britain’s MI6.

Previously, Britain had set up pseudo-terrorist ‘counter gangs’ in Palestine in the 1940s and Aden in the 1960s. The gangs consisted of former terrorists and, in Aden, loyal tribesmen, and were led by British officers disguised as locals. They were sent out in twos and threes to target those suspected of terrorism against British targets. In Palestine the squads were given a free hand to kill Jewish terrorists seeking an end to British rule.

In the mid-1960s an MI6 officer noted that his organisation was helping local security services in the Middle East neutralise threats to their regimes. ‘Killer squads’ were also used in the colonial war in Malaya. In the 1980s a British private security firm conducted (with a probable nod and wink from Whitehall) sabotage operations in Nicaragua and took part in Oliver North’s gun-running operations.

Trying to assassinate foreign leaders is a British tradition. Various attempts were made to kill Egyptian president Nasser in the mid-1950s. In one attempt MI6 injected poison into chocolates. Nerve gas, an SAS hit squad and firing a poisoned dart from a cigarette packet were also considered. Evidence suggests that MI6 planned the assassinations of Albanian president Enver Hoxha in 1948, Cypriot guerrilla leader Colonel Grivas in the late 1950s, Indonesian president Sukarno in the 1950s and Ugandan president Milton Obote in 1969.

In 1998 archbishop Desmond Tutu revealed possible British involvement in the death of UN secretary-general Dag Hammarskjold in 1961. Hammarskjold’s plane exploded when it was about to land in Rhodesia; he was on his way to mediate a peace agreement between Congo and the breakaway province of Katanga. Documents described meetings between MI5, the CIA and a South African military front company, and plans to place TNT in the wheel bay of the aircraft.

In addition, former MI6 officer Richard Tomlinson revealed that MI6 put forward a paper entitled ‘the need to assassinate president Slobodan Milosevic of Yugoslavia’ in 1992. Subsequently, Nato aircraft specifically targeted Milosevic for assassination during the war against Yugoslavia in 1999.

And in 1998 MI5 whistleblower David Shayler alleged British funding and support for an assassination attempt against Libya’s Colonel Gaddafi. A leaked MI6 cable later stated that “one officer and 20 men were being trained especially for this attack” in February 1996. The coup plotters had obtained 250 British pistols; their leader was Abdal Muhaymeen, a former member of the Afghan mujahideen who was possibly trained by MI6 or the CIA. Gaddafi survived the coup attempt, but six innocent bystanders did not.

Let us now consider two examples of terrorism committed by favoured British allies, and the importance of the London connection.

During its war against Kurds in the southeast of Turkey, the Turkish government destroyed 3,500 Kurdish villages, made 1.5 million people homeless and killed thousands more. During the peak period of the atrocities, between 1994 and 1996, John Major’s government actually increased arms exports to Turkey – delivering £68m worth in 1994 (the year Ankara began major offensive operations). Export credits for arms and military equipment reached £265m in 1995.

Atrocities decreased by the late 1990s as the scorched earth policy succeeded in terrorising the population and pacifying the region. However, abuses against Kurds continue. Hundreds of thousands of people forced out of their homes are unable to return; government-appointed “village guards” occupy much of their land. Several displaced villagers were recently shot dead for attempting to return to their homes. Human Rights Watch (HRW) says: “Most abandoned settlements remain no-go areas.”

Since 2002 there have been major improvements in human rights elsewhere in Turkey. The Turkish parliament has lifted many restrictions on the use of the Kurdish language in broadcasting and education. Yet numerous human rights abuses continue: Turkish law continues to heavily constrain free expression; former Kurdish parliamentarians remain in jail after unfair trials; police torture is systematic.

Meanwhile, British arms exports to Turkey were worth £179m in 2001, and Turkish military officers and police (the latter being responsible for many of the worst human rights abuses) receive training in Britain. London also aids Ankara by labelling the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) a “terrorist organisation”. While the PKK has certainly committed atrocities, the Turkish government has a much worse record. Britain also closed down the Kurdish TV station Med-TV in 1999.

The Labour government is also bending over backwards to support Turkey’s bid to join the EU. Former foreign secretary Robin Cook has said that “the question of rejection does not arise” – it being inconceivable that Britain would invoke human-rights atrocities to block Turkish entry. While its EU ambitions have forced Turkey to improve its human rights performance, London is more concerned with bringing a strategic ally into the Western orbit.

Another of Tony Blair’s greatest current allies is Russian president Vladimir Putin. The Blair-Putin relationship is one of the most extraordinary in recent British foreign policy, and is hailed by the Foreign Office as a great success. Ever since Moscow’s intervention in Chechnya in September 1999, Britain has been complicit in some of the worst horrors of our time.

Between November 1999 and February 2000 the Russians submitted the Chechnyan city of Grozny to a ferocious bombing campaign. Grozny was turned into a wasteland, and thousands of people died. The Guardian’s Maggie O’Kane wrote: “Usually in war there are some rules. But in Chechnya no one is saying sorry or even pretending that they are not dropping 1,000-pound bombs on houses, hospitals and schools.” While Grozny was being flattened, British defence minister Geoff Hoon said: “Engaging Russia in a constructive bilateral defence relationship is a high priority for the government… We wish to continue to develop an effective defence relationship with Russia.”

A week before Blair met Putin in March 2000, The Observer revealed the slaughter of 363 Chechens by Russian forces in the village of Katyr Yurt. Vladimir took Tony to the opera, prompting HRW to state: “this is absolutely the wrong signal to be sending… at a time when war crimes are being committed with impunity by Russian forces in Chechnya.” HRW accused the Russians of “mass executions of civilians, arbitrary detention of Chechen males, systematic beatings, torture and, on occasion, rape”.

After 11 September Britain, Nato and the EU abandoned all pretence of concern at continuing Russian atrocities in Chechnya. In Moscow the following month Blair said: “I would like to pay tribute to the strength and leadership of president Putin at this time.” He added that Britain and Russia were “working through problems in the spirit of friends and true partners”. This was Blair’s eighth meeting with Putin in under two years – “a very good indication”, Blair noted, “of the strengthening relationships” between Blair and Putin and Russia and Britain.

Thus Blair proposed creating a “Russia-North Atlantic Council” to bring Moscow closer to Nato. No wonder that in December 2001, Putin could say of Russia’s attempts to deal with terrorism (meaning Chechnya) that “we felt and we saw and we knew that our voice was being heard – that the UK wanted to hear us and to understand us and that, indeed, we were being understood”.

Late last year, Blair said that in view of the “terrorism coming from extremists operating out of Chechnya… I have always taken the view that it is important that we understand the Russian perspective on this”. He added: “I have always been more understanding of the Russian position, perhaps, than many others.” This came a week after a further (futile) attempt by HRW to urge Blair to press Putin on human rights abuses. HRW states that the human rights situation in Chechnya remains “abysmal”, with violations increasing and torture endemic. It recently reported on the highest rate of “disappearances” since the war began, but the hundreds of disappearances documented represent “only a fraction of the actual number”.

Whitehall claims it lacks levers to press the Russians to stop the worst abuses. In fact, Britain gives Moscow £30m in aid a year, as well as military assistance and training. In addition, British exports to Russia are worth £300m; the trade in the other direction is worth £700m. The truth is that Britain is the fifth largest foreign investor in the country; the two nations signed a trade and investment agreement in 1997. So, rather than pressing Moscow, London has been stepping up contacts – especially with the Russian military.

Yet British promotion of state terrorism goes even deeper; it now applies to its own basic military policy. The military attacks involving British forces on Afghanistan and Yugoslavia were justified in terms of Britain’s political objectives overseas. In recent years Britain’s armed forces have changed their ostensibly defensive role for an overtly offensive one. The military now has a “new focus on expeditionary warfare”, the all-party House of Commons Defence Committee comments approvingly.

This change was the major accomplishment of the government’s “strategic defence review” (SDR), which was concluded in 1998 (long before 11 September). The SDR stated: “In the post-cold war world we must be prepared to go to the crisis, rather than have the crisis come to us… Long-range air attack [is] an integral part of warfighting and a coercive instrument to support political objectives.” This “coercive instrument” is the modern version of imperial “gunboat diplomacy” – ie, the doctrine that Britain may threaten countries failing to do what “we” (or, more likely, the US) want. It is consistent with any reasonable definition of terrorism.

Britain is now using “the war against terrorism” to put its expeditionary aspirations into practice. The Foreign Office refers to “an effective doctrine of early warning and, where necessary, early intervention”. Foreign secretary Jack Straw has said: “Our aim must be to develop a clear strategy to head off threats to global order and to deal with the consequences within the evolving framework of international law.” (Britain will, in other words, conduct military interventions to preserve Western supremacy, while pressing for “evolution” in international law to make such intervention easier.)

The Defence Committee notes that Britain must “be free to rapidly deploy significant forces overseas”, and calls for “pre-emptive military action”. It says: “Operations in central Asia, East Africa, perhaps the Indian subcontinent and elsewhere will become necessary as part of an integrated political and military strategy to address terrorism.”

The new interventionism is backed by the most terrifying weapons. The Trident nuclear weapons system has a “sub-strategic” role intended for use on the battlefield as well as to deter all-out nuclear war. Like the Thatcher government, Blair’s administration says that “the credibility of deterrence… depends on retaining the option for a limited nuclear strike”. In March 2002 Geoff Hoon said: “I am absolutely confident that in the right conditions we would be willing to use our nuclear weapons.”

Current policies are seriously frightening. There is a much simpler way of countering some terrorism at least, and that is by changing policy closer to home. If we were honest, this is where the “war against terrorism” would begin.

This is an adapted extract from Mark Curtis’s new book, Web of Deceit: Britain’s real role in the world, (Vintage, £7.99).

Advertisements

French Press Echoes the Theme of Military “Ineptitude,” Instead of PURE EVIL

[(SEE:  “Britain’s military judgment is no more coherent than its political.”)   The blossoming war between Shia and Sunni is just the latest and most complicated application of the British science of chaos and destabilization that has been perfected within Imperial colonies over many decades of field research (SEE:  Mi6: Inside the Covert World of Her Majesty’s Secret Intelligence Service).  MI6 honed their spycraft over many years, struggling to keep their divided Empire from exploding, going from ‘extermination battalions’ and ‘pseudo gangs’ to the black art of pseudo-leadership (SEE: Khomeini – British Agent).  Further refining the concept of leadership development (both pseudo and real leaders), the spooks were able to control both sides in any conflict through infiltration and subversion of any group.  American spies adapted the concept to the West’s “terror war,” rebranding it as “conflict management,” enabling the CIA to market their skills worldwide, through a mixture of threats and bribery.  Smaller powers like Pakistan and India have copied the superpower’s strategy in dividing and conquering their own tribal populations.  Variations of this theme have enabled “The Powers That Be” to take over every political party in the world, as well as all important Enterprise.  Blowing the lid off MI6 and the CIA’s policies of purposely creating enemies for our military to fight is the only to end this war and set humanity on a sure path to survival.]

The Far-Reaching, Ever Fluid Shia v. Sunni Battle For The Soul Of Islam

LE MONDE

Mirroring the Catholic-Protestant battles of the past, intra-Islamic violence has global reverberations far beyond faith. Right now, it’s coming to a head in Syria.

The Far-Reaching, Ever Fluid Shia v. Sunni Battle For The Soul Of Islam
Praying in the night – (Muhammad Rehan)
By Christophe Ayad
LE MONDE/Worldcrunch

“By invading Iraq in 2003, and overthrowing the Arab ruler the most viscerally hostile to the Islamic Republic of Iran, the United States has —

unwittingly

— re-activated the Shia-Sunni conflict in its modern form.”

The Syrian Terrorists McCain Met Were Also Kidnappers

[McCain claims to be able to tell the “good guys” from the “bad guys” in Syria.  Does he consider these kidnappers good guys?  (SEE:  Sen. McCain Violates International Borders To Shake Hands with Syrian Terrorists In Syria)]

McCain crosses paths with rebel kidnapper

McCain stands in front of Nour, center, during his recent visit to Syria.(Razan Shalab AlSham/Syrian Emergency Task Force/HO)
McCain stands in front of Nour, center, during his recent visit to Syria.(Razan Shalab AlSham/Syrian Emergency Task Force/HO)
A+ A-

BEIRUT: U.S. Senator John McCain was photographed with a known affiliate of the rebel group responsible for the kidnapping of 11 Lebanese Shiite pilgrims one year ago, during a brief and highly publicized visit inside Syria this week.

The U.S. senator became the highest-level American official to enter Syria since the uprising began. A former presidential candidate and staunch opponent of President Barack Obama’s Syria policy, he has been leading calls to better arm moderate opposition groups fighting Syrian President Bashar Assad.

During a brief visit to northern Syria from Turkey, confirmed by his office Monday, McCain met with rebel leaders calling for greater support in their fight against Assad. He was accompanied by the chief of staff of the rebel Supreme Military Council, Gen. Salim Idriss.

The pilgrims were kidnapped by armed rebels in Azaz, in Syria’s Aleppo province, in May last year as they were making their way back to Lebanon from Iran.

Two of the kidnapped, Anwar Ibrahim and Hussein Ali Omar were released in August and September but intense negotiations are still underway for the remaining nine, believed to be in the custody of the “Northern Storm” brigade, headed by rebel commander Ammar Al-Dadikhi, aka Abu Ibrahim. The Northern Storm Brigade also claimed responsibility for the kidnap of a Lebanese journalist in October.

Head of Lebanon’s General Security Brig. Gen. Abbas Ibrahim was en route to Turkey Wednesday to continue negotiations for release of the remaining nine pilgrims.

According to families of the remaining captives and one of the released men, Anwar Ibrahim, one of the men standing alongside McCain in photographs released by the senator’s office, is Mohammad Nour, the chief spokesman and photographer for the Northern Storm kidnappers. Nour appears in several shots where McCain is posing with different officials.

Ibrahim and other members of the kidnapped family said they recognized Nour, and another man affiliated with the group, also identified as “Abu Ibrahim,” immediately after seeing the photos, widely circulated by international media following McCain’s visit.

Ibrahim, who had seen Nour multiple times in person during his captivity, said he was a close affiliate of Dadikhi who had photographed him and his fellow captors during the media campaign surrounding his kidnap. Nour has also acted as the spokesman for the kidnappers.

Photographs of Nour with the group of kidnapped pilgrims have been independently verified by The Daily Star. In the photographs released by McCain’s office, he is seen standing holding a camera, behind and in front of the senator as he poses alongside Idriss.

“I recognized him immediately. He was the photographer who was brought in to take our photos [during captivity]. He works with the kidnappers. He knows them very well,” Ibrahim said. “I don’t know anything about why McCain was visiting, or what he wanted, but I was very surprised to see [Mohammad Nour] there.”

A spokesman from McCain’s office said the senator had traveled to Syria with Idriss in coordination with the Syrian Emergency Task Force to meet with two Free Syrian Army commanders, but denied he had met with the two individuals identified by the kidnap victims.

“A number of other Syrian commanders joined the meeting, but none of them identified himself as Mohammad Nour or Abu Ibrahim,” the spokesman for McCain, Brian Rogers, said. “Two members of our organization were present in the meeting, and no one called himself by either name.”

Rogers said the photograph was “regrettable” but said Nour had not communicated with McCain.

“A number of the Syrians who greeted Senator McCain upon his arrival in Syria asked to take pictures with him, and as always, the senator complied. If the individual photographed with Senator McCain is in fact Mohammad Nour that is regrettable.

“But it would be ludicrous to suggest that the senator in any way condones the kidnapping of Lebanese Shiite pilgrims or has any communication with those responsible. Senator McCain condemns such heinous actions in the strongest possible terms.”

Idriss, a U.S. favorite as a possible conduit for weapons to rebel forces, is tasked with uniting the various factions of the Free Syrian Army in the hope of bolstering a cohesive, moderate rebel front amid fears of a growing role of extreme Islamist fighters on the ground in Syria. During McCain’s visit, Idriss reportedly requested a no fly-zone be enforced, more weapons for the rebels and airstrikes against the Syrian regime and Hezbollah forces playing an increasing role in supporting Syrian government forces from Lebanon.

While the Obama administration has provided hundreds of millions of dollars in nonlethal aid to the rebels, it has so far been reluctant to arm opposition forces, fearing weapons may fall in to the hands of extremists.

McCain, who sits on the Senate Committee for Foreign Relations, has repeatedly called for the U.S. government to arm moderate groups. Last week the committee voted overwhelmingly to authorize a bill to provide small arms and training to opposition groups “that have been properly and fully vetted and share common values and interests with the United States.”

McCain, however, according to comments reported in the Wall Street Journal, said more actions and heavier weapons were required “if we are going to reverse the tide that’s now taking place in favor of Bashar Assad.”

Rogers reiterated the purpose of the visit was to encourage “critical” support for the rebels.

“The senator believes his visit to Syria was critical to supporting the many brave Syrians who are fighting for their lives and the freedom of their country against a brutal regime and its foreign allies that are massacring Syrian citizens on Syrian territory,” he said.

“Britain’s military judgment is no more coherent than its political.”

[The following piece is an excellent British confession that the Western powers have destroyed the Middle East.  It is lacking in one major area—the author blames all of this on ineptitude and lack of foresight, rather than design.  Chaos and destabilization were the goals of US/British intervention from Asia to Africa, since the great war plan was hatched decades ago.  Only by sowing widespread chaos can the Western powers hope to establish their New Order.  American/British military policies for this time and place are not the “comedy of errors” that apologists for the Evil Empire want us to believe.  Our military leaders are masters of deceit, but they are lousy jugglers.  They have way too many psyops spinning around, not to drop a few of the balls, allowing us to see the masks of human depravity, hiding behind the smiling clown faces.]obama clown

Syria and the Middle East: our greatest miscalculation since the rise of fascism 

the guardian

By helping to destroy secular politics in the Middle East, the west has unleashed the Shia/Sunni conflict now tearing it apart

satoshi

Illustration by Satoshi Kambayashi

There could no more dreadful idea than to pour more armaments into the sectarian war now consuming Syria. Yet that is precisely what Britain’s coalition government wants to do. The foreign secretary, William Hague, seemed on Monday to parody his hero Pitt the Younger by demanding “how long must we go on allowing … ?” and “what we want to see is …”. Who is this we? But even Pitt would never be so stupid as to declare war on Syria, which is the only morally sound outcome of Hague’s rhetorical mission creep.

For two years pundits have proclaimed the imminent fall of Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad. High on Arab spring, they declared he would fall from the logic of history. Or he would fall because western sanctions would bring him down. Or he would fall because the media, as in the novel Scoop, were with the rebels and had decided they would win.

Assad has not fallen. He is still there, locked in the lethal Muslim schism that resurfaced with the demise of the region’s secularist dictators. These have now almost all gone: the shah in Iran, Najibullah in Afghanistan, Saddam in Iraq, Mubarak in Egypt, Gaddafi in Libya. They had faults in abundance, but they succeeded in suppressing religious discord, instilling rudimentary tolerance and keeping the region mostly in order. This was in the west’s interest, and the rulers, like those in the Gulf, were supported accordingly.

Turning turtle and abetting their downfall may yet prove the most disastrous miscalculation of western diplomacy since the rise of fascism. Prior to the Iraq war, Saddam persecuted the Shias, but their shrines were safe and intermarriage was common. After the war, Sunni and Shia are torn asunder, with a death toll of ghastly proportions. Similar agony may soon be visited on the Afghans. Libya’s Tripoli is more unstable now the west has toppled Gaddafi, its fundamentalist guerrillas spreading mayhem south across the Sahara to Algeria, Mali and Nigeria.

These upheavals might have occurred without western intervention. The revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt were largely self-starting. Islamist parties often came to power, because they offered an alternative discipline to the existing regimes. But the west’s sudden zest for “wars of choice”, its meddling in the politics of Pakistan and its sabre-rattling in Iran have created a cause on to which neoconservative Islamism could fasten.

Al-Qaida was in 2000 a tiny group of fanatics. America and Britain have portrayed it as an all-powerful enemy, apparently lurking in support of every anti-secularist rebellion. Cameron calls it “an existential terrorist threat… to inflict the biggest possible amount of damage to our interests and way of life”. Yet stabbings and bombings do not constitute an “existential threat”. The UK is a stronger culture than Cameron appears to believe. There is no threat to its existence, while the chief damage being done to its way of life comes from the incompetence of its government.

Syria is at present certainly a claim on the world’s humanitarian resources, to be honoured by supporting the refugee camps and aid agencies active in the area. Assad’s suppression of revolt has been appallingly brutal, but he was Britain’s friend, as was Saddam, long after his regime began its brutality. That is how things are in this part of the world. The west cannot stop them. To conclude that “we cannot allow this to happen” assumes a potency over other people’s affairs that “we” do not possess.

Pouring arms into Syria will no more topple Assad or “drive him to the negotiating table” than did two years of blood-curdling sanctions. Hague knows this perfectly well, as he knows there is no way arms can be sent to “good” rebels and not to bad ones. He knows that if you want one side to win a civil war, the only honest way is to fight on its side. We did that in Kosovo and Libya. In Syria, Hague has fallen back on Kipling’s “killing Kruger with your mouth”.

The differences between Sunni and Shia, now tearing at nations in the Middle East, are deeply embedded in Islam. As the scholar Malise Ruthven has pointed out, outsiders preaching tolerance are no use. These disputes are intractable “since the acceptance of pluralism relativises truth”. For Sunni to accept Shia and vice versa is for each to deny the faith.

Christianity, after centuries of similar bloodshed, has learned religious tolerance (though in Northern Ireland, Britain can hardly talk). Much of Islam has not. The one antidote lay in the rise of secular politics. This is the politics that Britain destroyed in Iraq and Libya, in the belief that it was bringing democracy and peace. It has brought chaos.

Britain’s military judgment is no more coherent than its political. It thinks it can conquer Syria – which is what toppling Assad would require – by proxy. But sending weapons cannot make a difference, and will merely entice Britain into promising troops, unless it wishes to desert the rebels. Like American backing for the Taliban in the 1990s, the idea that “my enemy’s enemy must be my friend” could yet see British special forces fighting alongside al-Qaida in Syria.

War holds a terrible appeal for democratic leaders. Most of Europe’s rulers have other matters on their hands, but Britain and France, two nations whose ancient empires carved up the Levant between them, cannot keep out of it. They see national interest and danger where none exists. They cannot relieve Syria’s agony, yet hope some vague belligerence might bring relief.

The reality is they hope that belligerence might draw attention from political troubles back home. That is the worst reason for going to war.

Turkish Police Grab 12 Al-Nusra Terrorists In Possession of Two Kilos of Sarin WMD

Adana al-Qaeda operation: 12 detention

zamanlogo

28 May 2013 

Security General Directorate (EGM), terrorist organizations in Turkey not do any extensive security measures in a bomb and so is the action.

Some suspicious vehicles and people arriving and departing to cities being reviews. In this context, the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda and Al Nusra Front militants connected with the organization of security units in preparation for some action, had pursued the fugitives. EGM Intelligence and Terrorism Department teams with whom they are connected by a recording of the suspects were followed step by step. Also possible action plans of the organization has been reached. After reaching this information, the addresses of 12 people were identified as being connected in Adana organization. In this context, the dawn of yesterday morning with the operation of the suspects were taken into custody and brought to Adana Security Directorate.

If staying in a large number of calls made from the suspects residence information, documents and digital data were seized. Also belonging to the suspects were taken to secure the weapons and bullets for review. In addition, the addresses of the suspects were seized two kilograms in the Sarin gas. As is known, Sarin gas, known as a kind of nerve gas. Is a colorless and odorless gas that is extremely difficult for the diagnosis of, a feature that is effective and lethal. In 1991, the United Nations (UN), the sarin gas in the category of weapons of mass stored by storing banned in 1993 by the Convention on Chemical Weapons. Anti-Terror Branch of Istanbul Police Department suspects the other hand, the Directorate continues to queries. Police accused, how to obtain Gazı’nı Sarin led to the question that they will use and for what purpose. The suspects, they’ll take their supplies to areas of conflict in Syria as a priority information they put forward. The police suspects that how they reached Gazı’na work deepens Sarin. Also on the subject of chemical immediate seizure of the property of a gas with the Interior Ministry and the Prime Minister’s Office also reported.

Father of man FBI shot claims his son was executed

Abdul-Baki Todashev holds a photo he claims is of his dead son Ibragim Todashev, during a
news conference in Moscow, Russia, Thursday, May 30, 2013. The father of a Chechen immigrant killed in Florida while being interrogated by the FBI about his ties to a Boston Marathon bombings suspect says agents killed his son “execution style.” Abdul-Baki Todashev showed journalists 16 photographs on Thursday of his son, Ibragim, in the morgue with what he said were six gunshot wounds to his torso and one to the back of the head. He said the pictures were taken by his son’s friend Khusen Taramov. (AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko)
By MAX SEDDON
Associated Press

MOSCOW (AP) — The father of a Chechen immigrant killed in Florida while being interrogated by the FBI about his ties to a Boston Marathon bombings suspect said Thursday that the U.S. agents killed his son ‘‘execution-style.’’

At news conference in Moscow, Abdul-Baki Todashev showed journalists 16 photographs that he said were of his son, Ibragim, in a Florida morgue. He said his son had six gunshot wounds to his torso and one to the back of his head and the pictures were taken by his son’s friend, Khusen Taramov.

It was not immediately possible to authenticate the photographs.

The FBI says 27-year-old mixed martial arts fighter Ibragim Todashev was killed last week during a violent confrontation in his Orlando home while an FBI agent and two Massachusetts state troopers questioned him about his ties to slain Boston Marathon bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev, as well as about a 2011 triple slaying in Massachusetts.

Three law enforcement officials said initially that Todashev had lunged at the FBI agent with a knife, although two of them later said it was no longer clear what had happened.

Greg Comcowich, a spokesman for the Boston FBI, declined to comment Thursday on the elder Todashev’s claim that his son was unarmed.

Abdul-Baki Todashev said the photos were emailed to him by Taramov, who apparently was at the morgue to identify the body. The father said Taramov was part of the Muslim community holding the body for the family until they could retrieve it.

The father said Taramov told him that U.S. agents interrogated him on the street while five officials interrogated Todashev in his Florida house for eight hours on May 22, the night he was shot. He said his son was ‘‘100 percent unarmed.’’

Todashev’s father said his son moved to the U.S. in 2008 on a study exchange program and met Tsarnaev at a boxing gym in Boston in 2011, about a year before he moved to Orlando. He said the two were ‘‘not particularly close friends.’’

Prior to last month’s bombings, Todashev underwent an operation for a sports injury and was on crutches, making it physically impossible for him to have been involved in the bombings, his father said. He added that Todashev had recently received a green card and was planning to return to Chechnya for the summer last Friday, two days after he was killed.

The father said he and his brother were interviewed at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow on Thursday as they sought a visa to take his son’s body back to Chechnya.

FBI agents interrogated the younger Todashev twice before the night he was shot, his father said. Todashev told him that he thought Tsarnaev had been set up to take blame for the bombings.

‘‘I’d only seen and heard things like that in the movies — they shoot somebody and then a shot in the head to make sure,’’ Todashev said.

‘‘These just aren’t FBI agents, they’re bandits,’’ he added.

___

Associated Press writer Denise Lavoie in Boston contributed to the story.end of story marker

The Buenos Aires Israeli False Flag Bombing Blamed On Hezbollah

The enigma of Israel embassy bombing, Argentina 1992

truth seeker

January 30, 2013

Nick Kollerstrom – Terror on the Tube March 8, 2010

The Phantom Truck

* 17 March 1992 In a busy street of Buenos Aires, in the early afternoon, a three-story Israeli embassy was entirely demolished: ‘a pickup truck driven by a suicide bomber and loaded with explosives smashed into the front of the Israeli Embassy located on the corner of Arroyo and Suipacha, and detonated. The embassy, a Catholic church, and a nearby school building were destroyed.’ – or, that is Wikipedia’s story. In fact, we shall here argue, no trace of any such car-bomb has ever been found, or suicide bomber, nor has any witness testified to seeing it; nor were other buildings adjacent destroyed, they merely had windows broken. Quoting from a more reliable source:

although the shock wave broke glass windows and plaster of practically all the buildings across the street from the Embassy – even blowing in a vitreaux of a church across the street, which sadly fell on a priest and killed him – the only building structurally affected was the Embassy itself.

A car bomb soon became the official story, but do you really want to believe that its blast could have worked in so selective a manner? We quote further from this expert (Salbuchi), below.

* Two years later, a seven-story building nearby was reduced to rubble, belonging to AMIA, l’Association Mutelle Israélite Argentine. Again, a car-bomb was alleged as the cause, but a US explosives expert who was part of the investigation, Charles Hunter, identified “major discrepancies” between the car-bomb thesis put forward and the blast pattern recorded in photos. A report drafted two weeks later noted that, in the wake of the bombing, merchandise in a store immediately to the right of AMIA was tightly packed against its front windows and merchandise in another shop had been blown out onto the street—suggesting that the blast came from inside rather than outside. Hunter also could not understand how the building across the street could still be standing if the bomb had exploded in front of AMIA.

The AMIA building blew up killing 85 innocent Argentinean civilians and 230 wounded. Once again the casualties were mainly Argentineans and only a few Jews. Those killed were all Argentine citizens, and the whole tragedy fell strictly under Argentine jurisdiction. None of the Israeli personnel in charge of security were killed in either of the two terrorist attacks.

On the day the first explosion took place, President Carlos Menem officially requested the assistance of the FBI and CIA from the United States and the Mossad intelligence service and the armed forces of Israel. Why, how very thoughtful of the President. Years later, these same guys somehow turned up immediately after the Bali bomb in Jakarta to ‘investigate’ it – and that was without even having been invited.

Car bombs were alleged for both of these events, despite a complete absence of witness testimony. A court hearing in 2004 continued to insist on the car bomb thesis despite the testimony of at least a dozen witnesses, who swore blind that there was no car bomb. This was dealt with in a section of the report headed “Those who didn’t notice it”[i.e.the car bomb]. Eg, Gabriel Alberto Villalba: “He related that…..his glance being directed towards the police patrol car in front of AMIA, he saw suddenly an explosion which came out of the main entrance of the building, from the inside outwards, which covered everything,” and “a ball of fire which came from the building towards the street”.

Another witness, Juan Carlos Alvarez, was a street cleaner standing in front of the main entrance just where the car bomb was meant to have passed- he would have been knocked over by it – when the explosion happened. Miraculously, he survived, the doorman with whom he had been speaking only seconds before dying instantly. He also failed to “notice” the car bomb, laden with 300 kilos of explosive, turn at speed, its breaks screeching as it came straight at him. He paid a heavy price for his insistence: in an article which appeared in October 2006 he recounts how his treatment at the hands of the prosecutors nearly lead him to suicide. He suffered terrible after-effects from the bombing and now lives in poverty in Buenos Aires without the medical support that he needs. Effectively, the court claimed that the failure of these witnesses to see the car bomb was attributable to post-traumatic stress rather than to the more obvious explanation that it simply wasn’t there.

The investigation of the 1994 bombing by the Argentine judiciary, which had no political independence from the executive branch, has had little credibility with the public, because of a bribe by the lead judge to a key witness and a pattern of deceptive accounts based on false testimony (Source)

Security Staff Unhurt

1996: Towards the end of the year a document entitled “Buenos Aires police are being scapegoated” is circulated, presumed to come from within the Federal Police. It questioned, in an ironic manner, the car bomb thesis, listing all the witnesses who say that there was no car bomb. It mockingly questioned how the car bomb managed to make it to the fourth floor, the epicenter of the 1994 explosion, and points out the exceedingly suspicious circumstance that none of the Israeli personnel in charge of security were killed in either of the two terrorist attacks.

May, 1997 The report of the National Academy of Engineers, commissioned by the Supreme Court, is heard. On the insistence of Beraja and DAIA this was held behind closed doors. However, the 77-page document came into the possession of Libre Opinion, who published a summary on their web site. In their report, these experts expressed their absolute certainty that the explosions at the Israeli Embassy came from bombs within the building.

“The day after this session, the spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires deplored these conclusions and accused the Supreme Court of anti-semitism.” Absolutely no witness recalled seeing the Renault van. The Israeli army turned up after the event, planted a flag in the rubble, and then one soldier ‘found’ a twisted fragment of Renault van. The existence of this phantom van has become central to such arguments. The final death toll was 29 killed, and 242 wounded. Several Israelis died, but most of the victims were Argentine civilians, many children.

The Israeli military Shin Beth may have been the actual bombers. They held complete security at the embassy and a bomb that size could never have been brought in. The Shin Beth also refused to allow an independent investigation of the embassy, only allowing Mossad allowed access to the site. The 1994 destruction of the seven-story AMIA building had some similarities to the Oklahoma City bomb two years later.

False-Flag Terror

JFWhat similarities do you find with other attacks in the US on 9/11, in the UK on 7/7, and in Madrid on 3/11?(interview by Jim Fetzer with Adrian Salbuchi on 13.10.09.)

AS: Well, they all seem to have the same “fingerprint” so to speak. As I say above:
• these false flag events all had near-perfect technical performance, where the buildings they wanted to be blown up and collapse, always did so – reflecting massive technological support and planning;
• but they left “loose ends” that were impossible to explain-away – their lies ended up showing glaringly;
• they all had episodes of planted evidence;
• the “right people” – common workers – died, while top brass – ambassadors, CEOs, governors, billionaires – were “luckily” out of the buildings at the time; and,
• finally, they all served to support the “Global War on Islamic Terror”.

See videos of Salbuchi.

 Argentina here needs philosophers – not politicians, lawyers or journalists – who are able to tell the difference between what is real and what is not. The media sneer at these, as ‘conspiracy theorists.’ Media hacks have sold their souls to Corporate Untruth and so are annoyed to come across persons who have not done this. Analogies with the Oklahoma bombing of the Murray federal building, where the local FBI lived, are relevant: none were present in the building when it blew up, and the FBI received an increase in funding after the event. Those perpetrating false-flag terror normally get an increase in funding as a consequence of the event. This is partly to ensure that everyone stays loyal and quiet. Blame at Oklahoma was meant to fall upon some local Muslims, but this didn’t go according to plan. The judge at the enquiry insisted upon the ‘lone nut’ explanation, a certain Mr Timothy McVeigh, and all other testimony was ignored – and lost. Its up to Argentinians to try and prevent this from happening and rescue the true and relevant facts – before they vanish down the Memory Hole.

‘9/11 was an inside job’ is a slogan, a motto, that is relevant to both Argentine terror-events. The bomb(s) were placed inside, not outside. If the two events of 1992 and 1994 were both ‘inside jobs’, then the two buildings both completely destroyed were wrecked from within – not by an external cause, viz a Renault truck packed with explosives. If they were ‘inside jobs’, then the hypothesis would have to be, that Shin Beth the Israel army perpetrated the event and then (in 1994) planted the fragment of a Renault van.

The turning-point of the investigation has to be the publication in May 1997 of the National Academy of Engineers report, which determined that the Israeli embassy explosion had originated from within the building. It is important that the full text of this report be published and circulated around science departments.

There are analogies with the London Israel embassy bombing ten days after the 1994 event in Buenos Aires. Here the blame was assigned to Palestinian sources. These two embassy bombings were both successfully blamed upon enemies of Israel. The London embassy was blown up by a car bomb (without excluding the option of a bomb also having gone off within the embassy). If a mere ten days separated the these two events, in Buenos Aires and London, is it not likely that the same agency was involved? 85 were killed in one event, none in the other. The latter was phantom terror in the sense that no-one was badly hurt. Phantom terror is cheaper, but it has to ride on the back of real terror. It aims to produce fear and terror, by reawakening the memory of what happened earlier.

In this new millennium, what called itself the ‘Truth’ movement came into existence, in the wake of 9/11. This looks at the global extent of false-flag terror, by those who seek to control our world: the Vampire Elite. Argentine philosophers need to use the insights gained by this movement, to acquire a proper perspective on things, and remedy the ghastly mistake that their country has made, of blaming Iran. A Mexican viewpoint could be relevant…

 Atomic Collaboration

JF: These events appear to me to have been orchestrated with the objective of undermining technical and scientific cooperation between Argentina and Iran in relation to the development of peaceful atomic energy.

Background: IranCen in 1987–88 signed three agreements with Argentina’s National Atomic Energy Commission. The first Iranian-Argentine agreement involved help in converting the U.S. supplied Tehran Nuclear Research Center (TNRC) research reactor from highly enriched fuel to 19.75% low-enriched uranium, and to supply the low-enriched uranium to Iran. The uranium was delivered in 1993. The second and third agreements were for technical assistance, including components, for the building of pilot plants for uranium-dioxide conversion and fuel fabrication. Under US pressure, assistance under second and third agreements was reduced

In December 1991, according to the detailed account in the report, the U.S. Embassy in Buenos Aires informed Argentina’s foreign ministry that the United States could not accept the continuation of the contracts on nuclear cooperation with Iran. In January, Argentina announced the suspension of the shipments of nuclear materials to Iran.

Feb 1993: The IAEA confirms that a shipment of nearly 20 percent enriched uranium from Argentina will arrive in Iran within the year. 1989 Argentina replaces the core of Iran’s research reactor at TNRC. 1988 Nuclear Fuel reports that Argentina has contracts to supply 115.8 kg of nearly 20 percent enriched uranium to Iran, which must by filled by mid-1990. Argentina was continuing to provide Iran with low-grade enriched uranium and the two countries were in serious negotiations on broader nuclear cooperation when the bombing occurred.(2) 

2002: The arrest warrants for former Iranian president Ali Akbar Rafsanjani and six other former top Iranian officials were issued only after the United States had applied diplomatic pressure, according to a Nov. 3 report by Marc Perelman in the Jewish daily Forward.Perelman also reported that the George W. Bush administration was going to cite the indictment as part of its campaign to get Russia and China to support a Security Council resolution on sanctions against Iran.

The main theory about Iran’s motive for ordering the bombing of the headquarters of the Jewish organisation AMIA on Jul. 18, 1994, is that Iran wanted to retaliate against Argentina for its decision to cut off exports of nuclear materials. That motive was asserted by former Iranian intelligence officer Abdolghassem Mesbahi in a 2002 deposition and repeated in a report by the Argentine intelligence service, SIDE, in September 2002.

Argentina has a Spanish ancestry, and so after 2004 some turned to the Madrid bombing, (Chapter 14 of ToT) to help make sense of the horror: ‘If you study the works of the Spanish investigator Del Pino, you can find out uncanny similarity to the attack in Atocha. Would you like to meet the twin sister of the false Ford truck used in the attack on the Embassy of Israel and the false Traffic used in the attack on AMIA? Meet the False Backpack that the “silly terrorists left behind” in the Spanish station Vallecas’.  item (5) In the early hours of the morning after terror struck the Madrid train stations, a planted rucksack was ‘found’ nearby and it had ‘clues’ that led the police straight to some hapless Muslims.

Why would Iran, thousands of miles away from Argentina, wish to cause this horror? Arrest warrants were issued in Argentina for top Iranian politicians with no scrap of real evidence, but instead only an allegation. The allegation concerned a supposed bitterness of Iran, over the cancellation of a civil nuclear-power program. In 1991 Argentina was instructed by America to cease this exchange program, after it had signed several binding contracts with Iran and was thereby put into a quite stressful situation. But, this program was evidently still ongoing, in that enriched-uranium was being exchanged, over the key period 1992-4. Iran was benefitting from this, it really needed that collaboration. No way could it have deliberately engineered such a bomb outrage, to terminate the collaboration. Is it not more likely that ve been

The US ambassador to Argentina at the time, James Cheek, commented in a 2008 article: “To my knowledge, there was never any real evidence of [Iranian responsibility]. They never came up with anything.” 

Voltaire Network commented: ‘While trying to provide grounds for the accusations against Muslims, the US are attempting to exploit the memory of the attacks perpetrated in 1992 and 1994 in the city of Buenos Aires. In fact, most encyclopedias continue to attribute those crimes to Hezbollah or Iran. Despite that, no one believes in those accusations anymore, and the Argentinean justice itself is currently turning towards an Israeli lead. Consequently, Washington is putting pressure to end an investigation that is becoming uncomfortable.’ T. Meyssane

The Fetzer – Salbuchi interview:

AS: ‘The case for a car bomb melted away when the State Prosecutor and the Court hearing on this case invited technical specialist surveyors from the Argentine National Engineers Academy to determine what caused the Israeli Embassy building to collapse. Their conclusion was that the explosion took place from inside the building and was not caused by an alleged car-bomb. To make matters worse for Zionist pressure groups, a passer-by had filmed from several blocks away the mushroom cloud that rose from that explosion, a characteristic effect that also pointed to an internal explosion….strong rumours surfaced that what actually blew up was an arsenal that the Israelis apparently had housed in the building’s basement.

AS: ‘The in-fighting among Zionists had as one of its bloody episodes the bombing of the Israeli Embassy and later the AMIA building in Argentina, which was perceived by theZionist Nazis at the time as a symbol of Labour’s stronghold. Why Buenos Aires, you might ask? Simple – because Argentine public security has always been, and still is, very weak, thus making both terror operations relatively easy with Argentine targets. … The problem with Argentina is that over the past forty years our Nation-State has eroded so badly that it has ceased being a Sovereign Institution and become a highly dependent Colonial Administration entity. Now, how can you expect a totally dependent nation like Argentina to have an “independent judiciary”? No way. Our judiciary does the bidding for those people who really control and run the country, where a global power network of think tanks, NGO’s, lobbies and pressure groups has the final say.

‘This network includes not just entities like the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Conference, and Chatham House, but also embedded within it are The World Jewish Council, AIPAC, the B’Nai B’Rith Masonic Lodge, the World Zionist Organization, the ADL, and the American Jewish Congress, among many, many others. It is this power network that calls the shots and twists our government’s arms! … Naturally, the global think-tank network also drafts what the global media should report and say. They are those who decide who will appear as “good guys” and who as “bad guys” onCNNFox NewsThe New York TimesWashington PostFinancial Times, and so on. More still, they are the ones who decide what is and what isn’t news!

A Mexican Clue

The Congress Hall of Mexico, Mexico City, 11 October, 2001: Two Israelis sneak past security into the Chamber of Deputies, Mexico’s parliament, posing as cameramen. But they arouse suspicion, and security guards frisk them. It turns out, they were armed with: 9-mm plastic Glock pistols (undetectable by metal detectors) nine grenades, several sticks of explosives, three detonators and 58 cartridges. Two terrorists, Ben Zvi and Smecke, have been caught red-handed, so what is their punishment? This is Guy Fawkes, plotting to blow up Parliament! Guy Fawkes and his gang were hung, drawn and quartered, for attempting so heinous a crime. But these guys – just went back home! Let’s quote John Leonard – in what is arguably the sole English-language account published of this event: ‘In a flurry of damage control, the Israeli embassy interceded, Sharon sent a special envoy, strings were pulled, the story was spiked, and everyone went home.’ (1) This edifying tale seems to have completely disappeared not only from the media but also from the web. You can only find it today on Rense. Thank God for Rense!

What was the motive for this foiled attempt at false-flag terror? There was no personal or evidently- national motive, no revenge called for – only a global strategy. Mexicans, and South Americans in general were not reckoned to be keen on the forthcoming war with Iraq. In fact they saw it as totally pointless. This act of terror would supposedly have gotten them in the mood for it – according to the schemes of the Vampire Elite. It is an axiom of false-flag terror, that it always strengthens the position of the far-right – who devised the act in the first place. But, we ask, how could the tiny state of Israel have extended its hand as far as Mexico, plucking away the guilty culprits, and then have the influence to crush media debate? And, who could ever be so wicked, as to want to do such a thing?

The Zion Mafia

Does the Old Testament help us to answer these issues? ‘I will send my terror ahead of you and throw into confusion every nation you encounter.’ (Exodus 23:27) In the Book of Deuteronomy, somebody is explaining the tactics of deception to the Hebrews (20:10-13) ‘When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it.’ Let’s refrain from quoting any further from these still-shocking texts…and just ask, does there exist a far-reaching ‘Zion Mafia’ in our modern world, inspired by such ethics? Here are some helpful attempts to describe it, by a colleague (I have made extracts):

* ‘Their ambition seems to go far beyond the desire for a Jewish homeland towards their own brand of world control. Their brand of world control does not seem to include the well-being of the existing world human population or the well-being of the world environment on which all our existence depends.

* ‘These people, who ever they are, have a lot of similarities with the Italian Mafia. They are secret, they are ruthless, they loan money to people, they kill people when necessary, even their own kind. Their success depends on the public not being aware of their activity and accepting the guilt of those publicly blamed.

* ‘In the early days of the Israeli State there was a lot of idealism and there was even socialism. The covert criminal militarism we see now was not part of the agenda.

* ‘The core of the Zion Mafia is probably a relatively small number of people, we can speculate as to who they are. At present they have the whole world under a spell.

* ‘To break a spell, it is recognised traditionally by magicians that one has to have a name, a word or group of words to focus on as a reference. Anyone can use the term ‘Zion Mafia’, and it refers to the inner circle of activists who are running, driving, coordinating the current global conspiracy.

* ‘The Zion Mafia have considerable influence on American foreign and military policy, in the banking system, in the security business and intelligence services, and in supply of fuel, and in Pharmaceuticals.’ Quotes from Here.

That notion of breaking a spell is important. Standard accounts of both of these Argentine events state matter-of-factly that a suicide driver blew up a truck etc., while those who doubt this are ‘anti-semitic.’ These trucks were nonexistent just like as the Boeing airplane alleged to have flown into the Pentagon on 9/11. People are made to believe in a phantom. It is indeed remarkable that they could pull off the same ploy, twice. (4)

Sources: http://inthesenewtimes.com/2008/05/16/timeline-israeli-embassy-and-amia-bombings1992-2006/  http://inthesenewtimes.com/2009/11/09/false-flag-attacks-in-argentina-1992-and-1994/

  1. John Paul Leonard, p.363 of The War on Freedom, How and Why America was attacked on September 11, 2001 Nafeez Ahmed, 2002.
  2. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HK15Ak03.html
  3. Zionist ideology was expressed by Yitzhak Shamir, former Israeli Prime Minister: “Neither Jewish morality nor Jewish tradition can be used to disallow terror as a means of war… We are very far from any moral hesitations when concerned with the national struggle. First and foremost, terror is for us a part of the political war appropriate for the circumstances of today…”
  4. Meyssan commented, ‘Il est étrange qu’il faille une dizaine d’années pour se rendre compte qu’un attentat a été réalisé en plaçant un explosif dans un bâtiment et non avec un véhicule kamikaze’ which, roughly translated, means, how odd that it took them ten years to realize, there was no truck. Still today, Israel Shamir, whose geo-political views are generally sound, has a page on the topic which begins: ‘Israel’s embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina was bombed on March 17, 1992, when a pickup truck, driven by a suicide bomber and loaded with explosives, smashed into the front of the Israeli Embassy and detonated destroying the embassy.’  To English-language readers, it will hopefully have become clear that no such truck existed, from Jim Fetzer’s interview with Adrian Salbuchi in October of 2009.

7.3.2010

Source