Brit Press Amplifies the Lie of “Taliban Independence From Pakistan”

[Taliban (religious students) have always been tools of the CIA and the ISI, there to project Pakistan’s power into Afghanistan, without projecting blame for the murderous war crimes committed by them (SEE:  Taliban Have Always Been ISI Foot Soldiers, Working For the CIA).  There can be no independence from their parent paramilitary institutions in Islamabad. 

Afghan Pres. Ghani is just like Hamid Karzai, in that, both of them were there because the Pentagon/CIA wanted them there, to serve Western will.  It is a calculated seduction, intended to seduce the Afghan people into surrendering to Taliban fascism once again, and to seduce the American people into surrendering to Pentagon plans for permanent war in Southeast Asia and a permanent US presence in Afghanistan.  The Western peace ploy was never intended to foster peace in Afghanistan, but merely to make possible the placement of (some other nations’) military forces along planned pipeline routes and highways, in sufficient numbers to limit property damage to Western and Arab-financed development projects.  Everything else is just play-acting and media disinformation, intended to push the broadway production, disguised as “war” to people in love with war and Hollywood-style entertainment.  War movies have always fascinated the American public.]

In Secret Meetings, Taliban Rejected Pakistan Pressure On Peace Process



In Secret Meetings, Taliban Rejected Pakistan Pressure On Peace Process

File photo: A member of Afghan security forces holding up his rifle as he walks at the site of an attack in Kabul, Afghanistan February 27, 2016. (Reuters Photo)

Islamabad/Peshawar, Pakistan:  Pakistani officials threatened to expel Afghanistan’s Taliban from bases in Pakistan if they did not join peace talks this month, but the militants rebuffed their traditional patron, two officials said, casting doubt on how much influence Islamabad retains over them.

After the secret meetings with Pakistani officials about two weeks ago, the Taliban’s Supreme Council met at an undisclosed location and voted to reject the talks scheduled for early March with the Afghan government, according to a council member.

Instead, the insurgents are now pouring back into Afghanistan for what they say will be a fierce spring offensive to be launched soon.

Pakistan’s influence over the insurgents is the lynchpin to the peace plan developed over last few months by Afghanistan, Pakistan, the United States and China to bring an end to the 15-year-old war in Afghanistan.

A Pakistani official in Islamabad said the Taliban’s recent success on the battlefield inside Afghanistan had changed the equation.

“They no longer need their Pakistan bases in the same way, so if Pakistan threatens to expel them, it does not have the same effect,” said the official, a retired military officer close to the talks.

The insurgents have won new zones of influence – if not outright control – from Afghan security forces since the United States and its allies pulled most combat troops from Afghanistan at the end of 2014, Afghan and Western officials acknowledge.

“Pakistan’s trump card – safe havens on its soil – is in danger of being snatched away,” said Michael Kugelman of the Woodrow Wilson Institute, a Washington-based think tank.

“The Taliban have little incentive to step off the battlefield now, given recent gains and those likely to come in the next few months. In effect, why quit while you’re ahead?”

Nafees Zakaria, a spokesman for Pakistan’s Foreign Office, said he had no knowledge of meetings with the Taliban but added, “We usually don’t know who has met with whom” in the sensitive and high-level peace initiative.

In Kabul, however, members of the Afghan government were sceptical about Pakistan’s assertions.

“Pakistan’s honesty and sincerity with regard to the Afghan peace process has always been a question,” said an Afghan cabinet member, echoing the sentiment of several officials interviewed there.

Pakistan’s military has long been accused of fostering the Taliban as a way of pursuing regional rivalry with India.

Pakistani officials, however, deny the charge and insist the government and military recognise that Afghanistan’s war threatens their own security .

“Their Dream”

A member of the Taliban’s leadership council, or shura, whose members are mostly based in Pakistan and Afghanistan but also travel between Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, said rebel representatives met in Islamabad with Pakistani officials a little more than two weeks ago.

“They have asked our representatives to bring more decision-making people to the next meeting … to the meeting with U.S. and Afghan officials. This is their dream, but they will not be able to see our senior commanders,” the Taliban council member said.

A senior Pakistani security official with knowledge of the talks said: “I don’t think the talks are dead, but they are definitely plagued by a serious illness.

“The ones who are in Pakistan … We have told them repeatedly that they will have to leave if they don’t participate in the process,” the Pakistani official said..

“We have done what we can … but influence does not mean control. Those days are long gone.”

The Taliban source had knowledge of, but did not attend, the meeting with Pakistani officials in Islamabad. He was at the subsequent Taliban council meeting to decide on whether to join the peace talks.

The pro-talks camp largely comprised supporters of nominal Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mansour, believed to be hiding in Pakistan after being shot in a leadership dispute last year and rumoured killed, and his chief rival, Mullah Mohammad Rasoul, who is believed to be in Afghanistan.

“I personally feel that Mullah Mansour and some other leaders are in favour of peace talks and they don’t want to annoy Pakistan … but they can’t make decisions without approval of other shura members,” said the Taliban council member.”

Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid declined to comment on any meetings with Pakistani representatives. He confirmed the Leadership Council meeting but would not give details.

Publicly, both the Afghan and Pakistani government are expressing hopes that peace talks can begin before the traditional Taliban spring offensive .

Pakistan’s top diplomat Sartaj Aziz spoke last week of progress in restarting talks “in coming days”.

However, Taliban commanders told Reuters that with the council’s decision, they are focusing on launching their annual fighting season with the hopes of grabbing more territory.

“We already have started focusing on the spring offensive, and that’s why the majority of the fighters and commanders are going there (Afghanistan),” said a senior Taliban figure, based in the Pakistani province of Baluchistan.

© Thomson Reuters 2016

Aljazeera Arabic Teaches “Jihadi 101”, Including Bomb-Making and Social Agitation

[SEE:  Aljazeera and ‘The Arab Spring’]

  • Al-Jazeera — in Arabic — encourages terrorist attacks in Egypt and the Sinai Peninsula by the Muslim Brotherhood, and preaches the destruction of Israel, non-stop.
  • Recently Al-Jazeera has been broadcasting a “documentary” series glorifying Hamas and the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, its military-terrorist wing. The entire series is devoted to idealizing Islamist terrorism and encouraging mass-casualty terrorist attacks against Jews, in the name of radical Islamist ideology.
  • One of the stars is the Palestinian arch-terrorist, Abd al-Karim al-Hanini, who was released from prison in Israel and found safe haven in Qatar.
  • No one has even tried to prevent Qatar’s participation in a global anti-terrorism forum.

The EU and the U.S. have recently been holding meetings in Brussels and Ankara with Turkey and Qatar, two of the major funders of terror groups, to form an “anti-terrorism task force” — while the very Islamists they support have been spiritedly spreading out. Turkey and Qatar have even agreed to help fight ISIS, apparently on the condition that the Turkish-trained forces also try to unseat Syria’s President, Bashar al-Assad.

Turkey, under the leadership of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated AKP Party, has been a supporter of terrorists, such as Hamas and ISIS.

Turkish President (then Prime Minister) Recep Tayyip Erdogan, right, meeting with Hamas leaders Khaled Mashaal (center) and Ismail Haniyeh on June 18, 2013, in Ankara, Turkey. (Image source: Turkey Prime Minister’s Press Office)

Meanwhile, Qatar’s TV channel, Al-Jazeera, regularly incites terrorism against Egyptian President el-Sisi’s pro-Western regime. El-Sisi’s heroic pro-Western stance is apparently unreciprocated: the U.S. State Department just hosted an official meeting for his arch-enemy, the Muslim Brotherhood, father of Hamas, while Al Jazeera — in Arabic — encourages terrorist attacks in Egypt and Sinai Peninsula by the Muslim Brotherhood, and preaches the destruction of Israel, non-stop.

It was Al-Jazeera that created the “Arab Spring” by twisting a story about a Tunisian fruit-seller, who set himself on fire because he could not get a work permit, into a story of Tunisian oppression. The station ran the story again and again, whipping up Tunisians to overthrow their secular leaders and bring in Islamist leaders. To the Tunisians’ credit, like the Egyptians, after a few years of Islamist rule, they also threw the Islamist leaders out.

Recently, Al-Jazeera has been broadcasting a “documentary” series glorifying Hamas and the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, its military-terrorist wing. The entire series is devoted to idealizing Islamist terrorism and encouraging mass-casualty terrorist attacks against Jews, in the name of radical Islamist ideology.

One of the stars of the series is the Palestinian arch-terrorist, Abd al-Karim al-Hanini, who was released from prison in Israel and found a safe haven in Qatar. He explains how to construct explosives from agricultural substances, such as chemical fertilizer and sulfur; how to fill an empty gas balloon with the explosives, and how to detonate the bomb mechanically, electronically or with a suicide-bomber (shaheed), in order to kill as many Israelis as possible.

Al-Hanini boasts about his terrorist activities killing Israeli civilians and soldiers, and details tactics that mujahideen will use in their jihadi “inner struggles,” and presumably also their outer ones. These tactics can be used as blueprints by future terrorists. The series can easily be viewed by all intelligence agencies in the world, but so far no one has tried to prevent it from being broadcast — or has even criticized Qatar for broadcasting it.

No one has even tried to prevent Qatar’s participation in a global anti-terrorism forum.

Bassam Tawil is a scholar based in the Middle East.

The Spinning Top of 9/11–(Kenny’s Sideshow)

[Kenny, thanks for fighting the lies.  Maybe we will actually get to meet, once they put us all behind the wire.  Peter]

The Spinning Top of 9/11

 kennys sideshow
13 years is a mighty long time. What can be said that hasn’t been said a thousand times before? 
We know a few things. The official story is a 100% lie. It was a psychological operation against the entire world. It was an inside/outside false flag operation. The media is complicit in the cover-up. Treason lies at the heart of the event. There were some who benefited greatly, most did not.
Truth is out there. Somewhere. In spite of the so called truth movement which was part of the original planning and infiltrated from day one in anticipation of a great number of individuals seeing through the operation and speaking out. The perpetrators made a lot of mistakes, some so sloppy that they couldn’t be totally hidden. Obfuscation worked to cloud reality. Cognitive dissonance became a new meme in an effort to stop truth in its tracks. There are those who sell themselves for a few nickels to act as deceivers, confusers, shills and trolls in the effort to divide us, to control us.
Yet we persist. We may not agree on all the specific points of the how but we get the gist. The whos in the criminal conspiracy are well known although there are some deep within the world wide central banking system that remain somewhat hidden under the layers of deceit.
9/11 was the big lie of our time. It set the stage for more wars, more theft, an increasing police state and even more false flags and staged events.
Just where do we go from here? Spinning like a top forever with no disclosure, closure or justice?
Once again, thanks to all who have not given up and remain a voice of sanity in an insane world. It may seem like it’s all shouting into the wind and no one is listening but that would be a defeatist attitude and we are never going to take that route. Nor will we ever forgive.

Thievery Corporation Live At The 930 club

When they present any problem like 9/11 they offer the solution, war on terror, loss of freedom. Housing bubble, economic collapse, bailout tax theft. Swine flu, imminent death, forget about torture & the economy, hate foreigners & take the poison vaccines bought by tax dollars. They attack from above & below. They create the problems & offer the solutions, usually a choice between two evils, one lesser than the other. The same as the coming choice between Corrupt UN control of a global government or corrupt corporate control of the global government. You’re getting one world government & it’s going to be a tyranny, you just get to choose which one. Inevitably it’s the same owners at the top

The CIA Fakes is a catchphrase term used to describe a group which includes:
-Covert Operatives of the CIA, NSA and DIA; of the U.S. Corporate/Military Industrial Complex; of the intelligence services of U.K. Spain, France Holland, Germany, & Russia
-Political Agents working within the Democratic Party, Republican Party, Democratic Black Caucus, Green Party, & Patriot Movement
-Politicians in the U.S., U.K. Spain, France, Germany and Russia — who pose as 9/11 skeptics & Conspiracy theorists
-Media, including Mainstream, Alternative Media and Internet broadcasting media who either front for, cooperate with, or are directly employed by intelligence services mentioned aboveThe primary objectives of the CIA FAKES are:

-To leverage the Fakes into position as the leadership/spokespersons for the Conspiracy movement
-To splinter and divide that movement
-To promote lame, tame and/or booby-trapped questions about Conspiracy
-To be sufficiently over-the-top as to prevent the Conspiracy issue getting any traction in the media or left-wing
-To ensure that the movement would not have a politically-active leadership capable of turning it into an effective political lobby campaignThe questions about 9/11 were bound to be asked, the important aspect for the perpetrators was & is …by whom?

Turn off the tell lie vision. If you think it enriches your life, provides crucial information, is a socially acceptable pastime & will deliver you & your family to Utopia you may be too far gone already. Fakery TV is how they can control entire populations in their corporate debt slave central bank income tax pyramid scam. The world is nothing but a bunch of corporate slave coloniesPolitics is irrelevant, stop validating it by participating. Create a new artifact, design something, an open communicative cooperative community of planet earth.


  1. My mother knew a retired opera singer – she lived in my hometown. I don’t know how they met, but Marie knew a lot about things – she had sung on the same stage with Caruso and was a star during the golden age of opera. This is a picture

    She used to dine at the Rockefeller estates in Europe – she said she got a lot of information from their servants – for one thing, they said that the Rockefellers were Turkish Jews whose original name was something like Raw-ghen-mute or Row-ghen-mute.

    She once said that whenever you see these weird happenings, it means a dictatorship is coming soon. She was talking about some incident prior to WWI – some guy rushes out of a shop somewhere in Europe, starts slashing someone’s horses to death with a butcher knife. It’s basically the same m.o., these days on a much bigger scale.


  2. You should have used a dreidel for the graphic. ;)


  3. When I was a kid we were taught you never talk about politics or religion in polite company. We adhered to it, avoiding a lot of controversy and family fights. Except for our uncles. Get togethers were fraught with political discussions and eventually verbal fights. And I mean the left-right wing, public-private kind of thing.

    Now, I ask myself how can politics or religion be irrelevant if they are a crucial part of people’s lives? How can you even try to make a change if you don’t talk about the necessary ingredients? It’s not like we live in a vacuum, tend to our gardens and say high to our neighbours once in a while. Politics decides if the potholes in my neighbourhood are getting fixed or the public pool is open.

    Politics is the thing going on at City Hall. I know it isn’t easy to come up with different alternatives. Someone still has to show me it is possible the way society works at present. My fear is that we really need a major upheaval in order to be able to make real changes. Just turning off the TV isn’t going to do it.


  4. I’ve been asking those same questions my entire life, MachtNichts. I can’t even talk about the weather anymore without being called a conspiracy kook. “just in case” I wear a duct tape bangle bracelet for laughs now when I get together with the family

    well…..actually – come to think of it — I don’t get invited to go out much anymore

    don’t know what I’d do w/o blogs like this


  5. You mean weather like in cesium skies, tic-tac-toe artificial clouds, rain that’s either coming down in a deluge or sometimes even doesn’t touch the ground?

    I know, I wish they would give me a buck for every one of their weird looks. I’d be rich.


  6. Great site, Kenny’s Sideshow. Became also a portal to the many links you have some yeaers ago. When I googled ‘ exposing the jewish crime network behind 911’ I entered a Crimi as the Germans call the crime movies. You can check out out any time you like but you can never leave. Kali’s fornuis. Kali’s stove in (in Dutch fornuis). Mossad – in Tel Aviv talk: ‘the institute’- has not yet succeeded to do me de das om. To tighten the scarf the tie around me neck, imho I did that to them.

    www we will win

    Gabreal Jones / Sam Hita

    CIA O


  7. What is meant with imho i did it to them should be read as i=we did it to them. Not really able to describe exactly all that is happening on the gross and subtle planes since…..Turning off the TV is a must. Having faith as big as the size of a mustardseed the second that will open your own magic box that is full of weaponry to slay these evil forces. Think everyone here knows that…..

    www we will win, is this nonsense or what? Absolutely not. The G4S 2012 Olympic terror attack did not come about as the rockefeller foundation report so arrogantly boasted in retrospect. Not due to this former childactor Ben…

    Kenny, you write here key words: NOR WILL WE EVER FORGIVE. Last Walpurgis night (the Christmas of the Satanists) 30 april-1may i spent in the most heavy what i called now ‘stralen bunker’ radio frequency bunker in the PIL Penitantiary Institution Lelystad, in Lelystad, Holland. After having a esp visit in another prisoncell by Jacob R. the head of the cabal.
    Someone close to me taught me via esp in that PIL that very night the difference between the different satanic magica judaica lines. And said- while i was again bombarded by frequencies and also by the not so fresh air from the airconditioning of that isolation cell- and kept emphasizing you should never ever forgive (like the JC faith prescribes) cause when you don’t forgive the person with whom i had a heart contact and who monitored me via a very sophisticated chip placed in me and who is an agent for the nazizionsatanists of jr- for what he did to you then he is dismantled by his higherups his ultimate higherup is of course Jabulon or whatever name this very real entity has…..I survived that night…..and still survive.

    The jacob r. story published in a comment by gj at Dublinmick’s Here Comes The Sun 30 june has taken a definite different turn. He did not die the 25th but as far as i can conclude he did now.

    Hope you will publish this Kenny. No forgiveness, not turning the other cheek, The Master Key to our survival and victory over these satanists. Which means no atonement with them. As Benjamin F. and the like suggest. That would be classjustice optima forma. How is forgiveness possible for 9/11 , Fukushima, g.o.d.=Gulf Oil Disaster, MH17 and the like…..Enfin

    CIA O


  8. We may use a little different terminology but we are seeing things essentially the same. There is no forgiveness for the most heinous of crimes. Only after true justice could we even begin to let it go.


  9. I’ve read that the actual “quote” reads:

    Forgive them NOT, Father, for they know what they do.

    Somehow it got lost in translation by moving a few words around.


  10. Truth really matters even if all the idiots who watch TV can’t stand to hear it…

    Truth is “we” have a right to know the truth that precedes “their” so-called “right” to print
    the currency and LIE on the TV…and we have a right to self defense that precedes their
    “right” to commit mass murder….with “Taxpayer” so-called “dollars”.

    It is an either or situation…even if the braindeadgoy don’t …”get it”.




  11. I’ll be gone for the rest of the day and will get to the comments later. Wish I could leave the thread open without moderation but I’m afraid it won’t work. Thanks…..


  12. “Turn off the tell lie vision. If you think it enriches your life, provides crucial information, is a socially acceptable pastime & will deliver you & your family to Utopia you may be too far gone already. Fakery TV is how they can control entire populations in their corporate debt slave central bank income tax pyramid scam. The world is nothing but a bunch of corporate slave colonies”

    Bingo! – No tell a vision at my house. No cable. No satellite. No telly all day long. Hubby watches a few shows, but, other then that- zero, zip, zilch

    “Politics is irrelevant, stop validating it by participating. Create a new artifact, design something, an open communicative cooperative community of planet earth”

    Last election here in Ontario, Canada I declined my ballot- Officially
    It has to be marked that way- I went to the poll and declined my paper ballot
    This sends a message that there is no one to vote for
    And even worse- I spoke loudly with someone else who was there about our frustration with the offerings and how sick we were of the whole situation. I will vote for my locals, though.

    -I am still paying with cash except for large purchases- non trackable and my privacy intact
    -I go to my local farmers for food we can’t grow ourselves
    and Yes I have a garden- who else does?

    I am not on facebook and don’t want to be- it’s too creepy, tracks you everywhere on line and what with all those friend connections much dirt can be dug
    Bad enough to be on blogger,but, in order to get news out, someone has to do it? Keep personal info to the minimum

    And I talk, I drop memes to everyone- Yes, I actually think of short, direct sentences to drop at appropriate times that I hope will get people to think about reality- or what is presented to us as reality

    And tell people all the time, stop allowing yourself to be ‘moved along’ like cattle to the slaughterhouse, because that is exactly what is happening-

    And one last think I urge everyone to do- drop your smart phone- it’s just an addiction inducing device and is equal to an ankle bracelet some criminal is forced to wear, which anyone would feel resentful of being forced to wear, but, willingly drag their smart phone everywhere with them? I don’t get it?!

    I am one person doing everything I possibly can to clog the gears, if everyone did this the paradigm would shift


  13. Hey Penny, all great advice. Most of which I strive for. Yes, had/have a garden. Ate and put up a lot but it’s all played out except for jalapenos and okra, do you guys eat breaded fried okra where you are? Lately I’ve been getting some Amish grown organic produce at a local fruit stand. Those people don’t fool around when it comes to their crops.

    Yard sales are also an outside the system source for necessities, at least for me. Even men are discarding their almost new cotton with no logos t-shirts, shirts, shorts, jeans, everything I need for 50 cents or a dollar. I hope to never pay retail and sales tax for clothes again. :)


  14. Hi Kenny
    Okra is not a big food in this area- Is it good? I would try it?
    I can get it at the grocery store, but not at the local market.
    We had a cool summer, so, unfortunately my peppers and eggplant were duds
    And yes the garden is just about finished here also
    We planted a late batch of pole beans and they have been going gangbusters
    Everything else did good. I have been freezing, vacuum sealing and prepping food

    A few years back yard sales used to be frequent and plentiful, but now not so much
    It’s quite depressed where I live, lots of unemployment
    I have watched globalization destroy a once solid community
    It’s pitiful :(


  15. The purpose of “9/11” was to induce a trauma based fear into Americans in order to control them. It is that simple. The less you are traumatized the less they have control over you. In fact, they can’t control you. They can only control the system. You can not be made to do anything you don’t want to do. They can only create conditions that force you to comply because you fear the repercussions in noncompliance. The spinning top only stops in the real world. In the dream state (believing in fakery or make believe), the top spins forever. In my view, the “9/11” spinning top no longer spins. There may be another “9/11” in the works. If it does, it won’t have any effect on me.

    “The organizing principle of any society is for war. The basic authority of a modern state over its people, resides in its war powers. Today its oil. Tomorrow, water. Its what we like to call the GOD business. Guns, oil, and drugs. But there is a problem. Our way of life. Its over. Its unsustainable and in rapid decline. Thats why we implement “demand destruction”. We continue to make money as the world burns. But for this to work, the people have to remain ignorant of their problems until its too late. Thats why we have triggers in place, 9/11, 7/7, WMDs, a population in a permanent state of fear does not ask questions. Our desire for war, becomes its desire. A willing sacrifice. You see, fear is justification, fear is control, fear…is money.”

    Fear is control.


  16. Very wise words Aris. Thank you for adding them to this narrative.


  17. The Jews have hated us GOYIM for centuries and centuries, killing us in batches when they get the chance, whether its killing nearly 3,000 on 9/11 or nearly 3,000 back in Biblical times to placate their psycho G-d.

    Yes, I know, not being politically correct and saying Zionists, but we don’t have enough time left for niceties.

    From the Book of Exodus, Chapter 32: 26-29:

    26 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD’S side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.

    27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.

    28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.


  18. Supposedly the Hebrews were wandering around in the desert, but their camp had gates!? :-/


  19. Personally I don’t think anything in the ‘hebrews’ book they wrote actually happened to them . The stole all the stores from prior ones and put their own often perverted spin on them.


  20. All Bible history makes sense IF one wants to understand it, but understanding is based on believing in the existence and divine power of God — as revealed in the Bible that revisionists don’t want to believe. Selectively choosing theological talking points is a form of revisionism just as is the Jewish version of history is today. Truth is what anyone wants it to be, that is why so much information is censored, and why so many people become victims of oppression and death. The power on earth belongs to Satan and his ruling agents — Jews like the Rothschilds, Even the Bible states this. That is why real Christians do not base their faith on earthly realms and rulers, because these people have gotten their power and kingdoms from Satan. Even the occultic State of Israel exists because of Satan and not by the power of a Holy God. But then, Satan can’t be real — he is only a made up character from a made-up Bible.


  21. Re 9/11 justice in the United States…all you need is one honest judge. Is there even one honest judge in the US who will listen to the evidence? So far….all these long, painful years of grief…it appears not.


  22. There may be some honest judges here but none that have the courage.


  23. An honest judge will never be allowed to hear the case, and I’m not sure how many truly honest judges there are. Can you act honestly in a dishonest/corrupt/rigged system. Also, honesty requires courage in my opinion.

    Alex in vermont


  24. The US doesn’t even have an honest Att. General, Eric Holder, or DOJ, or Supreme Court. I agree with Alex in Vermont. Courage often means death when someone even tries to counter the “dishonest/corrupt/rigged system.” One current example being the cop, Darren Wilson. Eric Holder has already promised black protesters that Wilson will be held guilty for murder. Right now the system is being corruptly rigged so that even if Wilson gets a trial, it will only be a show one. Straight out of the former Soviet Union’s Communist playbook. Remember how Americans used to deride them for their fake, public trials? Now it is done here!

    — mtw —


  25. Spot on, Kenny. I’d also add, movies deserve to be shunned as well.

    Oh, and I love Thievery Corp but their new album – waaaay too sedate. Still, hoping they’re coming up to Cascadia this fall. Have you listened to Ancient Astronauts? Give the album Into Bliss and Time a listen. Trip Hop Happiness.


  26. I’ve listened to the Thievery live show I linked in the background, fairly loud, a couple of times. I like the groove. The industry has promoted them a little but has not really made them ‘stars.’ With up to 24 members in the band, they are different. The live show would be exceptional to see.


  27. I have a feeling you would love this album
    Whipped Cream and Other Delights ReWhipped
    (Thievery does Lemon Tree)


  28. Dreidel Song
    Dreidel music with lyrics
    By Chayim B. Alevsky
    My dreidel’s always playful
    It loves to dance and spin
    A happy game of dreidel
    Come play now, let’s begin!

    Israel And The Art Of War, Spin And Slaughter
    By Michael Brull
    The real story about the destruction of Gaza by Israel, and the targetting of civilians, schools, hospitals and other infrastructure must be told. Michael Brull explains.

    — mtw —


  29. actually there are no “Jews” in the Old Testament…

    and the deity of the Talmud is a stool sculpture…named Lucifer

    if the Almighty gave you a brain…why not use it




  30. “Truth really matters even if all the idiots who watch TV can’t stand to hear it…” Neither can some bloggers.
    PC spin keeps lies in circulation, the dreidel version that is.

    Making vulnerable persons aware of the truth can save lives. Warnings could save unwitting victims from harmful attacks. Censoring truthful facts by claiming it is racial prejudice is applied only to black criminal behavior; not white. Why do bloggers not care about whites being the victims, often very violently assaulted? Why hide the truth that is becoming a more and more abusive societal norm under Obama/Holder? It is a crisis subject, too, for Black power and Jewish power are intertwined on a destructive agenda for America. — mtw —


    Wanting to preserve our White Nations is RACIST!
    There is a cure for wanting that, It is called WHITE GENOCIDE!
    “Anti-Racist is a code-word for Ant-White.”

    “Sadly the vast majority of the peoples opinions are not based on fact, rather they are based in Agenda Driven Rhetoric, wrapped in emotion. Based on ‘feelings,’ or ‘acceptable opinions’ (dogma) that, while ‘some what’ rooted in fact, having been wrapped in emotion, it is only to hide an agenda, that is DESIGNED for their own destruction.”

    Feb 20 2014
    Google Cracks Down on WND for Reporting Racial Mob Violence

    The world’s most powerful Internet search engine has accused WND of using “hate speech” and has threatened to block ads on the news site over its use of the term “black mobs” in news stories and columns reporting on a two-year epidemic of racial attacks in the U.S.

    A little background:

    Two years ago, WND began investigating and reporting on a spree of unprovoked attacks by groups of blacks on non-black victims, spearheaded by accounts compiled by journalist Colin Flaherty, author of “White Girl Bleed A Lot.” The book has been endorsed prominently and repeatedly by celebrated black scholar Thomas Sowell for connecting the dots between hundreds of incidents taking place in cities across the country. Flaherty’s reporting also first identified the phenomenon known as “the knockout game,” in which groups or individual black people have targeted non-black victims for unprovoked attacks designed to knock them unconscious with a surprise blow to the head.

    If not for sites like WND, the mainstream media never would have acknowledged this nationwide and extremely alarming phenomenon even as briefly as it did. Cut off from reality by liberal censorship, unwitting victims would continue to wander into situations that put their lives at risk, like teenagers who never received John Derbyshire’s talk.

    As Sowell puts it:
    “Most of the media see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil. In such an atmosphere, the evil not only persists but grows.”

    Google’s policy is totalitarianism wrapped in the usual squishy-soft coating of politically correct “tolerance”:

    — mtw —


  31. Cannot watch any of the media ‘outrage porn’ of 9/11 today as it highlights what I already know…what a horrible job they do of informing the public. [sigh]

    After 9/11, America was so outraged by the deaths of thousands of innocent American civilians over a political beef, that in response we killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians over a political beef. ~ LanceThruster


  32. This is a good one for today from Visible…

    “Today we celebrate the incredible and mind blowing ignorance of the American public, not only their ignorance but also their cowardice and arrogant sense of entitlement. We celebrate the many wars generated by the dual national Israeli neo-cons who used the lies woven around 9/11 in order to justify attacking one country after another in the Middle East to fulfill their Ersatz Israel Zionista fantasies. Millions have died and millions more displaced. There was no reason for these wars because these wars all came out of a ridiculous presumption that a handful of stone age Arabs had masterminded this colossal event, when, in fact, it was masterminded and carried out by agents of Israel and compromised and corrupt intelligence agencies.”

    more here


  33. hmmm

    Sibel Edmonds via Washington’s Blog calls out the ‘masterminds’ of 9/11 but leaves Israel out of the mix.

    FBI Whistleblower: Pentagon, CIA, NATO and MI6 Were Masterminds Behind 9/11


  34. Here’s an interesting exchange [edited]:

    Alananda: …I believe, based on reading your site’s posting for a couple years, you — like Stephen Lendman, Paul Craig Roberts, Michel Chossudovsky, and (now with sorrow I have to add) “Cognitive Dissonance” — serve in part as a “gatekeeper”, directing attention away from those who actually carried out 9/11/2001, lifted the load, so to speak, the same cadre who carried out the attack on the USS Liberty, the bombing of the London Underground, and so may more “false flags” and mass killings. “Limited hangouts” this 13th Anniversary of the murders and destruction on 9-11 (WTC 1 & 2 & 7, Pentagon) and later (murders of witnesses, investigators, journalists) seem all the rage. I recommend ZH’ers look up Lasha Darkmoon’s collage of quotes from that period, currently posted on and on the website devoted to her work. GOOGLE still returns legitimate links for Lasha Darkmoon at last try. She told the truth about 9-11 without shrinking from, and skirking, the task of describing the “elephant in Room 911”.

    George Washington [of Washington’s Blog]: If Israel was involved, it was a SUBCONTRACTOR to bigger players.

    Also, alot of what Veteran’s Today writes is disinfo.

    Alananda: …I have to disagree and then question on what authority you assert that “If Israel was involved, it was a subcontractor to bigger players.” What dots did YOU connect for that conclusion? Is that something you know you know with high certainty? Let’s refer to the essay of Cognitive Dissonance, then, shall we?

    As for your assertion and link that “what writes is disinfo” — VT has “columnists and contributors and editors”, some of which (Stephen Lendman comes to mind), you yourself post on YOUR blog. I have had a run in with Mr. Gordon Duff (senior editor and contributor, VT) about his ill-advised statement that 40% of what “he” writes is disinfo. He “outed me” — posted my own real name, called me a paid troll or shill (I can’t recall which as I type), and left it like that. Irrascible for sure, Mr. Duff. I would recommend your reading the postings of Jonas Alexis and Jim Fetzer and others, though. Tell me when you do that what they write is “disinfo”!

    One man’s disinfo, I suppose, in your and Cognitive Dissonance’s epistemology, is another’s truth, and vice versa. All relative, right? There is no Truth, correct? Sounds like the formula that dumbed down America and corrupted what values remained among the common folk, those not chosen, the goyim, so to speak.

    I submit to you that lies of omission — especially omitting facts and verified information about (1) the role of the “State of Israel” (a poor and misleading construct, I think, perhaps “agencies and corporations serving interests associated with that ‘state'” is more precise), (2) the role of many people who hold dual Israeli-US citizenship, most if not all are “Jews” — whatever that appellation means today — and (3) the evidence of their involvement in events leading up to and including the murders and destruction on 9-11-2001 along with murders and cover-ups since — identify “gatekeepers” just as certainly as those who espouse the “offical government conspiracy theory”, one or two of whom I knew professionally if not personally…

    Alananda’s comments begin at the following link, although the link won’t take you directly to the comment — you’ll have to search the page for the comment number, and the comment may be on a different page than it is now:


  35. The upper level perpetrators of 9-11 and every other mass-media-orchestrated major PsyOp are the bankers, of course, predominantly Jews from the Rothschilds on down. Nothing ‘world-changing’ or even just society-changing gets done without their given go-ahead. However, any list of the lower-level operational perps of 9-11, no matter how many tribe members it contains, that does not include the names Steven Rosenbaum, Rick Leventhal, Joel Meyerowitz, Charles Hirsch, Kenneth Feinberg, Alvin Hallerstein, Howard Lutnick, Matt Lauer, Katie Couric, Diane Sawyer, etc. is amateurishly incomplete at best and completely ignorant of proven image-fakery and merely dogmatic movie-criticism passing as ‘real research’ at worst.

    The fact that most 9-11 truthers and especially the plane-huggers have never even heard of Rosenbaum, Lutnick and the rest shows you how well the gatekeeping has worked in the alternative media. The fact that not just the video of building seven, given as a red herring on a Silverstein platter on Jew-owned PBS to the troofers, was faked ahead of time, but even the birds flying in the sky

    goes to show how unafraid of possible discovery and brazen the planners of the PsyOp were and how knowledgeable of what it takes to permanently install divide-&-conquer from the root up, the root being PROPER PROCEDURE in criminal investigations which always puts IMAGE VERIFICATION ahead of any analysis based on images. They not only brazenly put Silverstein, an obvious Jew, in there as a front man, when they could have easily paid him off and got a gentile front-man, but they had the unmitigated audacity and balls to put false-trails in the PsyOp further promoted by their agents in the alternative media for practically EVERYBODY, knowing that it’s all a numbers game and a few marginalized people on the internet pointing directly to Jews and Israel means practically nothing in the grand scheme of things, as long as they get to use their Weapon of Mass Deception, the mass-media (both mainstream and a large chunk of the alternative) to churn-out these mostly media-faked PsyOps over and over again and re-trigger the FEAR-&-TRAUMA-BASED programming constantly.

    Furniture – Brilliant Mind Lyrics

    Artist: Furniture

    Album: The Wrong People

    I’m at the stage
    Where everything I thought meant something
    Seems so unappealing
    I’m ready for the real thing
    But nobody’s selling
    Except you and yours
    Saying open up your eyes and ears
    And let me in

    You must be out of your brilliant mind

    You’re at the stage
    You want your empty words heard
    And everybody’s ready
    They want to know your secret
    But you are not telling
    You’re just gesturing saying open up your arms and hearts
    And let me in

    You must be out of your brilliant mind

    I’m at the stage
    Where I want my words heard
    When no one wants to listen
    Because everybody’s yelling
    About you and yours
    And how I’d have the answer if I’d only open up, up, up
    And let you in

    They must be out of their brilliant minds

    I said shame
    Shame on you
    Shame on you
    Shame on you

    You must be out of your brilliant mind
    And they must be out of their brilliant minds
    Everyone out of their brilliant minds
    I’m must be out of my brilliant mind
    My brilliant mind

    ~ Negentropic MK IReply

  36. Flashback. A reminder to all those who were called morons by one unreliable blogger who assured everyone that Sandy Hook was real and a missile hitting the Pentagon, only very stupid people could believe that. Never rely on just one know-it-all disinfo agent whose purpose is to foggy up truth. — mtw —

    Ryan Dawson: Sandy Hook Was Real, Morons
    By Jesse Herman On January 2, 2013

    “Youtube has been absolutely blowing up with conspiracy theories regarding Sandy Hook. People are claiming that the because the father of Emily Parker was giggling and asking for money before a speech that he was a paid actor. There have been in-depth analyses of how actors are meant to act and paralleled with his motions.

    They have also pointed to the movie Dark Knight and the fact that a town called “Sandy Hook” was pointed to on a map and that there was a building called Aurora. There is another video that shows past victims, such as Caylee Anthony whose mom allegedly killed her, whose pictures are popping up as if they are still alive. These people claim that there is a network of psyop mind control at play here, maybe by the CIA or other underground agency. These are all rabbit holes, which will never produce real answers, only further rabbit holes to chase.

    Don’t get me wrong, the chase can be fun, in a sick and twisted sort of way. For the people that do this research, they exist for a reason and they have a purpose to serve. For the people who believe every rabbit hole they peak into, they have a purpose to serve as well. As for Ryan Dawson, his purpose is to call these people out.”

    “It is exactly as the conspiracy site claim for Sandy Hook and other massacres. It is all too real. It’s hard to be hard on “Conspiratards” as Ryan Dawson calls them. They are just participating in the illusion like the rest of us, no matter what side of the fence you happen to fall.”

    Sandy Hook fake?
    Ry Dawson
    Published on Jan 1, 2013

  37. Obama has started another war on 9/11/2014. Never, ever again support any more the US military murderers who don’t have the guts to refuse! Cowards in uniform! A shame for any DECENT American family! — mtw —

    Thursday, September 11, 2014

    ON THE SAME god damned DAY that the JEW war pigs GLOATED that they got their blackmailed homosexual puppet of a U.S. president, Barack Obama, to BOMB SYRIA…
    a “policy” that was SOLD TO AMERICANS as being “only” “low cost, low-threat drone ‘srikes’ that would only attack ISIS terrrorists”…
    the evil jew owned press/media now, instantly!, DEMANDS “US BOOTS ON GROUND” in Syria to go along with their “camel’s nose in the tent” DRONE STRIKES”

    and then getting their BRIBED & BOUGHT-OFF, blackmailed, extorted, and MASS-MURDEROUSLY CORRUPT U.S. government & congressional COWARDS

    at USA Today TO THE HAGUE!

    Syria airstrikes need boots on the ground, AF officer says
    Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY 11:26 p.m. EDT September 11, 2014

    WASHINGTON — U.S. special operations forces will be needed on the ground in Syria to make the expanded air war President Obama has ordered there more effective, a senior Air Force commander told USA TODAY.

    The spy planes flying missions over Iraq and Syria can develop a list of potential Islamic State targets, said the commander who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe what the war might look like. But it’s “absolutely crucial that pilots are talking to an American on the ground” who can verify that the target is legitimate.


  38. Flashback: President Obama should already have been forcibly, and legally removed from office by designated US Military commanders. Should they have tried, undoubtedly they would have been removed first by Obama’s military loyalists. Perhaps a “7 Days In May” has actually happened. Any of the last few Presidents have certainly deserved removal. “America’s Coups Blues” should be a song. — mtw —

    Thursday, March 24, 2011
    Obama A Traitor And War Criminal – Where’s Congress?

    On the eighth anniversary of the day President George W. Bush ordered US troops into Iraq in 2003, with the full support of the US Congress and majority support from the UN Security Council, Barack Obama launched a Tomahawk missile assault on the sovereign nation of Libya with no majority support in the UN and without even consulting congress.

    Acting alone while congress was away on recess, solely at the command of the United Nations and without constitutional authority, Barack Obama dropped over $70 million worth of Tomahawk missiles on the sovereign nation of Libya in a dictatorial maneuver to force regime change of a foreign land.

    He launched a military assault on Libya under what authority? To be certain, Gadhafi is no prize, but what Obama just did is far worse. Acting all alone in a truly imperialistic fashion, Obama violated his Oath of Office, Article I and II of the US Constitution and The War Powers Act all in one mindless kneejerk decision.
    Article II – Section II of the US Constitution identifies the US President as the civilian oversight of the US Military and Commander-in-Chief. But it gives the US President no authority to use military might to enforce its political will upon foreign nations.

    Article I – Section VIII of the US Constitution rests the power to declare war solely with the US Congress. It requires both the Commander-in-Chief and Congress to commit US troops to combat, without which the act is wholly unconstitutional.



A Brilliant Pentagon Plan for Spreading Perpetual “Persistent War” Looks Just Like A “Failed” Terror War

[This is an excellent explanation of the mess that we find ourselves in today, due to the miserable, evil policies of the past two American Administrations, but the author from TomDispatch misses the most important point, as always.  That singular, vital to understand point is this–the American war on terror HAS NOT FAILED, it has succeeded brilliantly in its primary mission–to spread conflict over the entire planet.  The war on terror was NEVER intended to be won, it was just a means to an end, prepositioning military forces in every nation, before unleashing global nuclear war.  All of these little “piss ant” wars that we have been fighting, the various Partnership-for-Peace programs, Special Forces training missions, drug-interdiction and border control operations, along with the overall rubric of “fighting terrorism,” have all provided the means to preposition American “Special Operators” and their weapons within other national militaries and police forces.  Their original mission has been to “win the hearts and minds” of foreign military men, before the real war begins, the war against all enemies at once.  

The Pentagon would prefer to be known as a bumbling,”inept giant,” rather than as the monstrous, devouring beast that it really is.  The Joint Chiefs have been faithfully carrying-out the desires of their corporate masters and their puppets in the White House, by spreading the Pentagon’s tentacles into every corner of the planet, even to the depths of the oceans and the heights of sub-orbital space.  The Pentagon is a monster, that is set upon devouring all of the little peasant villagers who will besiege the fortified fortresses of their dark overlords.  The Pentagon is firmly committed to a policy that is best defined as “Malthusian,” the calculated thinning-out of the human herd.  The Pentagon has been setting itself up as the ultimate protectors of a small group of racist elitists, who consider the rest of us as cattle, fit only to be bought and sold, improved in limited numbers through selective crossbreeding and genetic experimentation, with the remainder of the herd to be  eventually slaughtered, probably to be processed into “Soylent Green” for them.  

The day is nearly upon us when open-air thermonuclear detonations will become a regular occurrence.  The day after that day comes and goes, will be the only time when Bush’s war could be judged either a resounding success, or a total failure.  Until then, only the spread of death and terminal madness will spread across the face of the Earth.]  

A failed formula for worldwide war

How the empire changed its face, but not its nature.
US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey has been holding “strategic seminars” over a giant map of the world larger than a basketball court [EPA]
They looked like a gang of geriatric giants. Clad in smart casual attire – dress shirts, sweaters, and jeans – and incongruous blue hospital booties, they strode around “the world”, stopping to stroke their chins and ponder this or that potential crisis. Among them was General Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a button-down shirt and jeans, without a medal or a ribbon in sight, his arms crossed, his gaze fixed. He had one foot plantedfirmly in Russia, the other partly in Kazakhstan, and yet the general hadn’t left the friendly confines of Virginia.Several times this year, Dempsey, the other joint chiefs, and regional war-fighting commanders have assembled at the Marine Corps Base in Quantico to conduct a futuristic war-game-meets-academic-seminar about the needs of the military in 2017. There, a giant map of the world, larger than a basketball court, was laid out so the Pentagon’s top brass could shuffle around the planet – provided they wore those scuff-preventing shoe covers – as they thought about “potential US national military vulnerabilities in future conflicts” (so one participant told the New York Times). The sight of those generals with the world underfoot was a fitting image for Washington’s military ambitions, its penchant for foreign interventions, and its contempt for (non-US) borders and national sovereignty.A world so much larger than a basketball court

In recent weeks, some of the possible fruits of Dempsey’s “strategic seminars”, military missions far from the confines of Quantico, have repeatedly popped up in the news. Sometimes buried in a story, sometimes as the headline, the reports attest to the Pentagon’s penchant for globetrotting.

In September, for example, Lieutenant General Robert L Caslen, Jr, revealed that, just months after the US military withdrew from Iraq, a unit of Special Operations Forces had already been redeployed there in an advisory role and that negotiations were underway to arrange for larger numbers of troops to train Iraqi forces in the future. That same month, the Obama administration won congressional approval to divert funds earmarked for counterterrorism aid for Pakistan to a new proxy project in Libya. According to the New York Times, US Special Operations Forces will likely bedeployed to create and train a 500-man Libyan commando unit to battle Islamic militant groups which have become increasingly powerful as a result of the 2011 US-aided revolution there.

Earlier this month, the New York Times reported that the US military had secretly sent a new task force to Jordan to assist local troops in responding to the civil war in neighbouring Syria. Only days later, that paper revealed that recent US efforts to train and assist surrogate forces for Honduras’s drug war were already crumbling amid a spiral of questions about the deaths of innocents, violations of international law, and suspected human rights abuses by Honduran allies.

Shortly after that, the Times reported the bleak, if hardly surprising, news that the proxy army the US has spent more than a decade building in Afghanistan is, according to officials, “so plagued with desertions and low re-enlistment rates that it has to replace a third of its entire force every year”. Rumors now regularly bubble up about a possible US-funded proxy war on the horizon in Northern Mali where al-Qaeda-linked Islamists have taken over vast stretches of territory – yet another direct result of last year’s intervention in Libya.

 Empire – The decline of the American empire

And these were just the offshore efforts that made it into the news. Many other US military actions abroad remain largely below the radar. Several weeks ago, for instance, US personnel were quietly deployed to Burundi to carry out training efforts in that small, landlocked, desperately poor East African nation. Another contingent of US Army and Air Force trainers headed to the similarly landlocked and poor West African nation of Burkina Faso to instruct indigenous forces.

At Camp Arifjan, an American base in Kuwait, US and local troops donned gas masks and protective suits to conduct joint chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear training. In Guatemala, 200 Marines from Detachment Martillo completed a months-long deployment to assist indigenous naval forces and law enforcement agencies in drug interdiction efforts.

Across the globe, in the forbidding tropical forests of the Philippines, Marines joined elite Filipino troops to train for combat operations in jungle environments and to help enhance their skills as snipers. Marines from both nations also leapt from airplanes, 10,000 feet above the island archipelago, in an effort to further the “interoperability” of their forces. Meanwhile, in the Southeast Asian nation of Timor-Leste, Marines trained embassy guards and military police in crippling “compliance techniques” like pain holds and pressure point manipulation, as well as soldiers in jungle warfare as part of Exercise Crocodilo 2012.

The idea behind Dempsey’s “strategic seminars” was to plan for the future, to figure out how to properly respond to developments in far-flung corners of the globe. And in the real world, US forces are regularly putting preemptive pins in that giant map – from Africa to Asia, Latin America to the Middle East. On the surface, global engagement, training missions, and joint operations appear rational enough. And Dempsey’s big picture planning seems like a sensible way to think through solutions to future national security threats.

But when you consider how the Pentagon really operates, such war-gaming undoubtedly has an absurdist quality to it. After all, global threats turn out to come in every size imaginable, from fringe Islamic movements in Africa to Mexican drug gangs. How exactly they truly threaten US “national security” is often unclear – beyond some White House adviser’s or general’s say-so. And whatever alternatives come up in such Quantico seminars, the “sensible” response invariably turns out to be sending in the Marines, or the SEALs, or the drones, or some local proxies. In truth, there is no need to spend a day shuffling around a giant map in blue booties to figure it all out.

In one way or another, the US military is now involvedwith most of the nations on Earth. Its soldiers, commandos, trainers, base builders, drone jockeys, spies, and arms dealers, as well as associated hired guns and corporate contractors, can now be found just about everywhere on the planet. The sun never sets on American troops conducting operations, training allies, arming surrogates, schooling its own personnel, purchasing new weapons and equipment, developing fresh doctrine, implementing novel tactics, and refining their martial arts. The US has submarines trolling the briny deep and aircraft carrier task forces traversing the oceans and seas, robotic drones flying constant missions and manned aircraft patrolling the skies, while above them, spy satellites circle, peering down on friend and foe alike.

“The US military should have the planet on lockdown… yet after more than a decade of war, it has failed to eliminate a rag-tag Afghan insurgency with limited popular support.”

Since 2001, the US military has thrown everything in its arsenal, short of nuclear weapons, including untold billions of dollars in weaponry, technology, bribes, you name it, at a remarkably weak set of enemies – relatively small groups of poorly-armed fighters in impoverished nations like Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Yemen – while decisively defeating none of them. With its deep pockets and long reach, its technology and training acumen, as well as the devastatingly destructive power at its command, the US military should have the planet on lockdown. It should, by all rights, dominate the world just as the neoconservative dreamers of the early Bush years assumed it would.

Yet after more than a decade of war, it has failed to eliminate a rag-tag Afghan insurgency with limited popular support. It trained an indigenous Afghan force that was long known for its poor performance – before it became better known for killing its American trainers. It has spent years and untold tens of millions of tax dollars chasing down assorted firebrand clerics, various terrorist “lieutenants”, and a host of no-name militants belonging to al-Qaeda, mostly in the backlands of the planet. Instead of wiping out that organisation and its wannabes, however, it seems mainly to have facilitated its franchising around the world.

At the same time, it has managed to paint weak regional forces like Somalia’s al-Shabaab as transnational threats, then focus its resources on eradicating them, only to fail at the task. It has thrown millions of dollars in personnel, equipment, aid, and recently even troops into the task of eradicating low-level drug runners (as well as the major drug cartels), without putting a dent in the northward flow of narcotics to America’s cities and suburbs.

It spends billions on intelligence only to routinely find itself in the dark. It destroyed the regime of an Iraqi dictator and occupied his country, only to be fought to a standstill by ill-armed, ill-organised insurgencies there, then out-manoeuvered by the allies it had helped put in power, and unceremoniously bounced from the country (even if it is now beginning to claw its way back in). It spends untold millions of dollars to train and equip elite Navy SEALs to take on poor, untrained, lightly-armed adversaries, like gun-toting Somali pirates.

How not to change in a changing world

And that isn’t the half of it.

The US military devours money and yet delivers little in the way of victories. Its personnel may be among the most talented and well-trained on the planet, its weapons and technology the most sophisticated and advanced around. And when it comes to defence budgets, it far outspends the next nine largest nations combined (most of which are allies in any case), let alone its enemies like the Taliban, al-Shabaab, or al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, but in the real world of warfare this turns out to add up to remarkably little.

In a government filled with agencies routinely derided for profligacy, inefficiency, and producing poor outcomes, itsrecord may be unmatched in terms of waste and abject failure, though that seems to faze almost no one in Washington. For more than a decade, the US military has bounced from one failed doctrine to the next. There was Donald Rumsfeld’s “military lite”, followed by what could have been called military heavy (though it never got a name), which was superseded by General David Petraeus’s “counterinsurgency operations” (also known by its acronym COIN). This, in turn, has been succeeded by the Obama administration’s bid for future military triumph: a “light footprint” combination of special ops, drones, spies, civilian soldiers, cyberwarfare, and proxy fighters. Yet whatever the method employed, one thing has been constant: Successes have been fleeting, setbacks many, frustrations the name of the game, and victory MIA.

Convinced nonetheless that finding just the right formulafor applying force globally is the key to success, the US military is presently banking on that new six-point plan. Tomorrow, it may turn to a different war-lite mix. Somewhere down the road, it will undoubtedly again experiment with something heavier. And if history is any guide, counterinsurgency, a concept that failed the US in Vietnam and was resuscitated only to fail again in Afghanistan, will one day be back in vogue.

“The more time, effort and treasure the US invests in its military and its military adventures, the weaker the payback.”

In all of this, it should be obvious, a learning curve is lacking. Any solution to America’s war-fighting problems will undoubtedly require the sort of fundamental reevaluation of warfare and military might that no one in Washington is open to at the moment. It’s going to take more than a few days spent shuffling around a big map in plastic shoe covers.

American politicians never tire of extolling the virtues of the US military, which is now commonly hailed as “the finest fighting force in the history of the world”. This claim appears grotesquely at odds with reality. Aside from triumphs over such non-powers as the tiny Caribbean island of Grenada and the small Central American nation of Panama, the US military’s record since World War II has been a litany of disappointments: Stalemate in Korea, outright defeat in Vietnam, failures in Laos and Cambodia, debacles in Lebanon and Somalia, two wars against Iraq (both ending without victory), more than a decade of wheel-spinning in Afghanistan, and so on.

Something akin to the law of diminishing returns may be at work. The more time, effort and treasure the US invests in its military and its military adventures, the weaker the payback. In this context, the impressive destructive power of that military may not matter a bit, if it is tasked with doing things that military might, as it has been traditionally conceived, can perhaps no longer do.

Success may not be possible, whatever the circumstances, in the twenty-first-century world, and victory not even an option. Instead of trying yet again to find exactly the right formula or even reinventing warfare, perhaps the US military needs to reinvent itself and its raison d’être if it’s ever to break out of its long cycle of failure.

But don’t count on it.

Instead, expect the politicians to continue to heap on the praise, Congress to continue insuring funding at levels that stagger the imagination, presidents to continue applying blunt force to complex geopolitical problems (even if in slightly different ways), arms dealers to continue churning out wonder weapons that prove less than wondrous, and the Pentagon continuing to fail to win.

Coming off the latest series of failures, the US military has leapt headlong into yet another transitional period – call it the changing face of empire – but don’t expect a change in weapons, tactics, strategy, or even doctrine to yield a change in results. As the adage goes: The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Nick Turse is the managing editor of and a fellow at the Nation Institute. He is the author/editor of several books, including the just published The Changing Face of Empire: Special Ops, Drones, Spies, Proxy Fighters, Secret Bases, and Cyberwarfare  (Haymarket Books). This piece is the final article in his series on the changing face of American empire, which is being underwritten by Lannan Foundation.

A version of this article first appeared on TomDispatch.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.


Ramifications of Saudi Duplicity

[Somehow, the Saudis have managed to work some form of primitive desert magic over us, effectively blinding us to what they have been doing, mostly in our name (CIA), obscuring the fact of their centrality in the realm of “Islamist” terror.  It is no coincidence that 15 of the 19 names which have been forever wedded to the 911 events were Saudis.  Using their dominance over other Muslim nations like Pakistan and Turkey, the Saudis have drawn together the force known as “al-Qaeda,” and dozens of other terrorist outfits that have been hiding behind constantly changing Arabic-sounding names, to exact revenge primarily upon the “unbelievers” and secondly upon “the infidels.”  The Pakistanis grew the Wahabbi virus right there upon their own soil, while the Turks toned down their rhetoric just a bit, so that they could export their “Wahabbi lite” extremist beliefs into the former Soviet Union and into other equally receptive Muslim nations, like Indonesia.

Around the world, we are doing the will of the Saudi royal family.  We are their enforcers, in the sense of “mob enforcers,” as we push the world around in the name of “fighting terrorism,” when it is the Saudis (and the others which they hold influence over) who are the authors of all global “Islamic terrorism.”  By making the Saudis partners in exporting CIA policy (to skirt the laws against arming terrorists), we have allowed US policy towards Muslims to become focused through this Wahabbi lens.  We have helped the Saudis export their terrorist beliefs to the entire Muslim world, so that their militant beliefs stood alongside True Islam, and understanding true believers.  We have helped them to infect millions with the false belief that The Living God has commissioned them with a duty to kill “non-believers,” as defined by them.  The world media reports this killing spree of the non-believers as acts of “terrorism,” committed by shadowy, unknown terrorists and nameless sponsors of that terror.  They call it “Al-Qaeda,” as if it really was that anonymous entity killing Muslims and the occasional Westerner around the world.  Sectarian ethnic killing is going on around the world under the protective umbrella of the US and NATO militaries.  The sad truth is, we are fighting the “war on terror” to extend Saudi power around the world and to create for them a “seat at the table” of “civilized” nations.  We are helping the tribal barbarians to use their enormous wealth to purchase respectability from the world.]

Ramifications of Saudi Duplicity

Center for Democracy and Human Rights In Saudi Arabia

By Ali Alyami

Coerced into living under the yoke of a monarchical tyranny since the formation of the Saudi state in 1932, many Saudis have been cowed into accepting this system of oppression as their divine fate, eradit Allah. Prior to WikiLeaks’ shocking publication of classified diplomatic cables between American diplomats in Saudi Arabia and their handlers in the State Department, the Saudi people may not have realized the full extent of their ruling family’s sinister nature. Via these documents the Saudi people learned that their “beloved” King Abdullah and his nephew Foreign Minister Saud Al-Faisal were covertly engaged in duplicitous schemes that would inexorably result in heavy loss of life and crippling damage to their oil facilities in eastern Saudi Arabia which provide the bulk of the country’s revenues. These dangerous Saudi schemes would also eventuate in far-reaching consequences.

The published WikiLeaks’ documents quoted King Abdullah pressuring President Obama to invade Iran and “cut off the head of the snake.” The dispatches also quoted Saudi Foreign Minister, Prince Saud Al-Faisal, arguing for what would amount to US and other NATO forces invading Lebanon: “The U.S. and NATO would need to provide transport and logistical support, as well as naval and air cover,” ostensibly to help a coordinated Arab ground invasion of Lebanon to crush Hezbollah. The Saudi monarchs know that such Saudi-instigated attacks by the US, most likely from Saudi territory, would result in the killing of many fellow Arabs and Muslims and would generate punishing retaliation by Iran and its supporters against the Saudi people and their oil rich Eastern Province, located within the range of Iranian guns. The stark revelations by WikiLeaks exposed the Saudi monarchy for what it is, a regime that will not hesitate to sacrifice its citizens’ lives and livelihood to maintain its autocratic rule at home and influence abroad.

For the autocratic Saudi monarchy, maintaining control at home is inseparable from cultivating its influence abroad. The monarchy utilizes its exclusive domination over the nation’s oil wealth and over Muslims’ holy shrines as well as employing its extreme Wahhabi ideology to subdue Saudi citizens. As an extension of its domestic policies, the Saudi monarchy exports its lethal ideology, finances religious infrastructure projects and extremist groups for the purpose of establishing pro-Saudi Muslim regimes and communities which the monarchs use to influence decision-making in other countries and to extract favorable policies from Muslim and non-Muslim governments throughout the world.

While American Administrations, main stream media, some think tanks and prominent institutions of higher learning publicly hail Saudi monarchs as partners in the “War on Terror,” privately they concede that the Saudi government actively supports and encourages terrorism worldwide. What has been concealed from the Saudi and American peoples was publicly revealed in the released WikiLeaks documents. The documents quoted Secretary of State Hillary Clinton complaining about the Saudi regime’s unwillingness to cut off support for terrorism; “It has been an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority…donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.” While cutting off financial support for extremist and terrorist groups is a priority for the US and the West, continuing it is a major element of the Saudi regime’s overall policy of global religious imperialism.

In addition to spreading its extreme brand of Sunni Islam worldwide, the Saudi monarchy seeks to eliminate Iran as a potential rival for leadership in the Muslim world. Furthermore, the Saudi rulers fear the possibility of rapprochement between the West and Iran which would drastically undermine the crumbling Saudi influence in the Gulf region. By pressuring the US and NATO to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities and to invade Lebanon to neutralize Hezbollah, the Saudi monarchy hopes to eliminate its current remaining rivals in the region. As implied in King Abdullah’s phrase ‘cut off the head of the snake,’ an attack on Iran will not stop at taking out its nuclear facilities as publicly advocated, but would have to destroy Iran’s military and disrupt its political infrastructure if Iran’s threats to the Saudi monarchy and to other Arab Gulf regimes are to be removed. The Saudi monarchy knows that such an undertaking by the US and NATO will come at a high cost domestically, regionally and globally, but for the Saudi royals no price is too high to pay for their survival and regional dominance, including the lives of their populace.

The reason no one seems eager to embrace the warmongering Saudi schemes, including Israel which the Iranian leadership has vowed to “wipe from the surface of the earth”, is because the consequences of attacking Iran and Lebanon would be widespread and devastating. The would-be executors of the Saudi wishes realize that it would entail tremendous loss of lives and destruction of property in Iran, Saudi Arabia, other Gulf States and Lebanon. Regardless of how hard Iran and Hezbollah are hit initially, Iran’s proximity to the Saudi oil facilities and a large portion of the Saudi population makes it seem inevitable that the Iranians will retaliate against Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States from which attacks might be launched. In the unlikely event that the Iranians are unable to retaliate, their sympathizers (marginalized Arab Shi’a) who reside in Eastern Saudi Arabia and in other Gulf countries, would be expected to rise in support of Iran against their oppressive Sunni rulers. In such an event, the autocratic Sunni rulers of the Gulf States would use this opportunity to crush their vocal Shi’a minorities whom they consider threats to their exclusionary Sunni rule.

Likewise, if Hezbollah is attacked by a Saudi-instigated Arab force, the former would likely seek revenge on its Lebanese Sunni and Christian fellow citizens. Even though the Saudi royals employ the widely appealing rhetoric of crushing Hezbollah, an objective shared by many Arab and non-Arab states, the Saudi monarchy’s true intent is to ensure Sunni Muslim supremacy in Lebanon along the lines of Saudi-Wahhabi doctrine. Given Lebanon’s bloody history of civil strife, retaliation by Hezbollah on Sunni Muslims and Christians could lead to a prolonged Lebanese civil war that would guarantee interventions by Syria and Israel to protect their conflicting interests in Lebanon. Many Christians around the world would also pressure their governments to rescue their fellow Christians in Lebanon.

Given these likely scenarios, the regional and global consequences of the duplicitous ensnaring Saudi schemes exposed by the WikiLeaks’ documents would be more than the current fragile international political and economic environment can absorb.

Attacking Iran and Lebanon as the Saudi monarchy advocates will indubitably interrupt production, refining and shipping of oil from the Persian Gulf region to oil consuming nations worldwide. This would likely create global political, economic and psychological disorder that would make the 1973 Arab oil embargo look benign and would negatively impact national and international economies which are struggling to emerge from the recent protracted global financial downturn. In addition to global economic disorder, increased tension within Muslim communities and between Muslims and non-Muslims worldwide would quickly boil over. Strife between the already antagonistic Sunni and Shi’a Muslims would intensify and spread to other communities regardless of beliefs.

Moreover, Saudi instigated military campaigns against Iran and Lebanon by the West would drastically increase extremism, terrorism and anti-Americanism in Arab and Muslim countries and communities. Even though the Saudi royals and other Arab regimes are pressuring the West to rid them of what they consider their mortal Persian Shi’a enemies, these regimes will use their controlled media, mosques, clerics, Arab American intellectuals, Muslim groups in the West, selected American universities and Western recipients of their largess to depict the West as modern day Crusaders intent on destroying Islam and Muslims.

Given the probable consequences discussed here, the only beneficiaries of the Saudi schemes as exposed in WikiLeaks would be the Saudi ruling family and other totalitarian Arab regimes. It appears that the Machiavellian Saudi strategy is designed to prove that the West is an aggressive villain determined to destroy Arabs and Muslims.

In the past, the Saudi ruling family successfully linked Western interest to the monarchs’ survival and dominance in Arab and Muslim countries despite the Saudi regime’s draconian domestic polices and its ideological threats to Western democracies. The Saudi monarchs achieved their objective by making sure that the only alternative to their rule at home would be the extremists and terrorists they helped create and by ensuring that their external political and military rivals, such as Nasser of Egypt and Saddam of Iraq, are removed from the regional landscape.

By urging the US and other NATO forces to invade Iran and Lebanon regardless of consequences the Saudi rulers aim to maintain the status quo which is being relentlessly punctured by events some of which they myopically created. In recent years, geopolitical shifts and the rise of formidable power players around the Gulf area, the region and globally are slowly eroding the Saudi royals’ domination over OPEC, the financing of extremist groups and projects and undermining the Saudi monarchs’ invented indispensability to the West. The rise of Iran to regional and global prominence, the creation of Hezbollah and Hamas, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the imbalance of power in OPEC and the global search for new sources of energy continue to diminish the usefulness of the Saudi monarchy to the West. In addition, Western democracies have wrenchingly discovered that a royal Saudi autocracy empowered and protected by the West has proved more harmful than useful as exemplified by the 9/11 attacks on the US, the spread of Saudi-Wahhabi doctrine and the financing of extremists and terrorists worldwide as described by Secretary Clinton in the WikiLeaks documents.

The US and other Western democracies are faced with one of their most grim challenges ever: a choice between protecting our individual liberties and democratic values or continuing to rely on the flow of oil and cash from an erratic, tyrannical system whose policies and practices promote destruction of democratic institutions and replace them with a totalitarian Islamic system.

Abdel-Hakim Belhadj Seeks Revenge for CIA Drone Attack On Comrade, Just As Hakeemullah Mehsud Did

[Washington sometimes tastes the bitter revenge for overplaying its audacious hand with its little toy planes.  The “Al-Qaeda” leaders have no fear that they have outlive their usefulness in carrying-out its revenge attacks against CIA and US military targets for such assassinations like that of Baitullah Mehsud.  Hakeemullah struck the CIA drone command center in Khost without worry about falling out of grace with Washington.  Our conniving leaders need people like Mehsud and  Abdel-Hakim Belhadj too much to let petty disagreements get in the way of their plans.  After today’s bomb attack in Benghazi, things will likely cool back down, unless Obama really fouls-up in a reactionary revenge attack of his own.] 

Bomb targets U.S. mission in Libya

By Mohammed Al-Tommy


(Reuters) – A bomb exploded outside the U.S. diplomatic mission in the Libyan city of Benghazi overnight, an attack that could be retaliation for the killing, in a U.S. drone strike, of al Qaeda’s Libyan second-in-command.

An improvised explosive device was dropped from a vehicle outside the mission, in an upmarket area of central Benghazi. It exploded moments after, slightly damaging the building’s gate but no one was hurt, U.S. and Libyan officials said.

Washington had confirmed a few hours before the attack that a U.S.-operated drone had killed Abu Yahya al-Libi, a Libyan-born cleric and senior al Qaeda operative, in Pakistan.

U.S. diplomats said after the Benghazi blast they had asked the Libyan authorities to step up security at U.S. facilities in the country, where last year Muammar Gaddafi was overthrown in an uprising supported by NATO air power.

“The possibility that this act took place because of what happened to Abu Yahya is, in my personal opinion, a very strong one,” said Noman Benotman, a Libyan former Islamist who is now an expert on militant groups.

He said there were several possible scenarios, but one was that the attack was carried out by militants connected to al Qaeda’s north African arm.

“Al Qaeda loyalists maybe wanted to deliver a message to the U.S. …to say enough is enough,” Benotman said.

The bombing will revive concerns about the lack of security in Libya. The fragile government is still struggling to restore stability after last year’s revolt and arms and explosives looted from Gaddafi’s arsenals are easily available.

Tuesday’s attack was the first time a U.S. facility had been targeted since Gaddafi was overthrown.

“We have asked the Libyan government to increase its security around U.S. facilities,” an official at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli told Reuters.

The street in Benghazi where the diplomatic mission is located was cordoned off on Wednesday. At the embassy building in Tripoli, three security guards were on duty but there was no evidence of any increased Libyan security presence.

A trade mission from the United States was scheduled to hold meetings starting on Thursday in Tripoli and Benghazi. It was not clear if these would now go ahead.

Amin Salam, of the National U.S.-Arab Chamber of Commerce, said some delegates of the mission had arrived in Tripoli. “They may still go to Benghazi,” he said.


A spokesman for Libya’s ruling National Transitional Council, Mohammed al-Harizy, said investigators had some leads on who may have carried out the attack.

He acknowledged that security was still a challenge for the new Libyan authorities. “There is no doubt that there is a weakness in security and there may be some people who will try to take advantage of this void,” he said.

Experts on militant groups had been predicting that the killing of Libi, described by U.S. officials as a major blow to al Qaeda, would provoke some kind of backlash inside his home country.

Though he spent much of his life outside Libya, he was a member of the now-defunct Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which fought an insurgency against Gaddafi in the 1990s, and his family is well known in Libya.

One of his brothers, Abu Bakr al-Gayed, told Reuters by telephone he knew nothing of the Benghazi attack. Asked if he thought there would be a reaction in Libya to Libi’s killing, he said only: “I don’t know, but the Muslim is the brother of the Muslim.”

Benghazi, Libya’s second city, has become a focus for insurgent-style attacks in the past few months.

On May 22, a rocket-propelled grenade hit the offices of the International Committee of the Red Cross in the city, blasting a small hole in the building but causing no casualties.

A month earlier, a bomb was thrown at a convoy carrying the head of the U.N. mission to Libya.

Underscoring the lack of proper security in Libya, a disgruntled volunteer militia this week occupied Tripoli international airport for several hours, leaving bullet holes in at least one jet and forcing airlines to cancel flights.

Some observers have raised the prospect of a major insurgency breaking out in Libya along the lines of the violence that followed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Security experts though say this is unlikely, not least because, unlike in Iraq, the United States has no military presence in Libya.

(Additional reporting by Hadeel Al Shalchi, Ali Shuaib and Marie-Louise Gumuchian in Tripoli and William Maclean in London; Editing by Rosalind Russell)

Azerbaijan Neutralizes Terrorist Bomb Plot Linked To Dagestan “Islamists”

Azerbaijan Thwarted ‘Terror Attack Plot’ during Eurovision

إقرأ هذا الخبر بالعربية


Azerbaijan foiled an attempt to stage “terrorist” attacks while it was hosting the Eurovision Song Contest last week and arrested dozens of suspected plotters, the security ministry said Wednesday.

“The main goal of the group was to stage terrorist acts in Baku during Eurovision,” the National Security Ministry said in a statement. “As a result of the measures taken, 40 members of the group were arrested.”

The group was planning attacks on the concert hall where Eurovision was held, on Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, police buildings, hotels used by foreigners, mosques and other religious sites in the ex-Soviet state, it said.

The plotters “obtained Eurovision tickets with the aim of (committing) a terrorist act at the Baku Crystal Hall” where the pop competition was held, it said.

They were allegedly planning to hit the oil-rich, mainly Muslim country’s strongman leader Aliyev during his visit to Azerbaijan’s north-western regions last month.

They also intended to target the luxury Hilton and Marriott hotels in Baku by blowing up cars packed with explosives, according to the statement.

Security services detained the alleged gang during operations in the cities of Baku, Ganja and Sumgayit as well as several other regions of the country, the ministry said without giving dates.

“The National Security Ministry opted not to disseminate information about neutralizing the group during Eurovision in order not to provoke panic among citizens and foreign guests,” it said.

Some of the alleged plotters put up armed resistance and two suspects were killed, both of them Azerbaijani citizens, the statement said.

A large amount of firearms and explosives was also allegedly seized when the suspects were detained.

The plot was said to have been hatched during a meeting between three of the suspects and what the statement described as “Dagestani emirs” across the border in the neighboring Russian republic of Dagestan in February 2011.

“The goal was to create an atmosphere of anarchy, to spread panic among citizens,” the ministry said.

After the attacks, the group was planning to hide in the forests of Dagestan and wait for more armed militants to join them, it said.

Eurovision, watched by more than 100 million people worldwide, was the biggest cultural event staged in Azerbaijan since independence from the Soviet Union in 1991.

The authorities spent hundreds of millions of dollars building the Crystal Hall venue and beautifying the capital ahead of the competition in an attempt to win acclaim for the Caspian Sea state previously known mainly as an energy exporter on Europe’s eastern fringe.

The contest’s grand final on Saturday was won by Swedish singer Loreen.

The Azerbaijani security services have thwarted a series of alleged attack plots in recent months, accusing some of the suspects of having links with neighbor Iran.

US/NATO Seeking Escape Mechanism for New Formula for Imperial Aggression

[Not only are they looking for a face-saving way out, the meeting of Imperial aggressors is seeking to formalize a formula for so-called “humanitarian warfare,” before entering into the next aggression, a contract-killing of the free state of Syria.  This will enable them to claim right out of the gate that their next aggression (which will be once again be impersonating “humanitarianism”) will be limited in nature, with set goals.  The formula will never mention how many more poor souls perished because of the massive Libyan intervention than ever would have died in a natural conflict.  These carefully manufactured conflicts, obscured by all the pretty words, are NOT natural.  In other words, they probably never would have happened without US/British/Israeli/French/German/Turkish interference.  Look for NATO to simply pat themselves on the back, while they leave the Libyan people to recover on their own (just like Afghanistan, Somalia and Iraq, etc.).  Look for them to quickly change the subject from war crimes in Libya to chasing purloined weapons, especially those of the chemical variety.  If not for these American/NATO assholes empowering the same terrorists whom we normally hate, there would be no problem with tons of mustard gas now being in the hands of crazed militant “Islamists,” or 10,000 missing hand-held surface-to-air missiles, in the hands of the same Western-trained Islamist terrorists.  Fuckin’ Obama!]

Nato allies debate when to end to Libya air war

British Minister of Defence Liam Fox (C) is seen along with US Secretary of Defence Leon Panetta (R) and United Arab Emirates Brigadier General Falah Al Qahtani (L) during the Nato Defence Ministers meeting at Nato headquarter in Brussels, on October 6, 2011. Nato defence ministers, joined by partners from the Middle East, hold a second and final day of talks on the missions in Afghanistan and Libya. – Photo by AFP

BRUSSELS: Nato allies on Thursday grappled with how quickly they could end their bombing campaign in Libya, where Qadhafi loyalists are cornered and the number of air strikes has declined in recent weeks.

With Moammer Qadhafi diehards surrounded by the new leadership’s forces in Sirte and Bani Walid, and the fallen Libyan leader in hiding, diplomats are optimistic that the six-month-old air war could end in a matter of weeks.

Nato defence ministers discussed the prospects of successfully wrapping up the mission during two days of talks in Brussels, with officials insisting the campaign will continue as long as Qadhafi forces pose a threat to civilians.

“Sirte is extremely symbolic. But it is important that we no longer have pockets of resistance,” French Defence Minister Gerard Longuet told reporters.

“We will stop when we no longer identify a resistance prohibiting the normal functioning of a state,” he said. “Whether Qadhafi disappears from the scene is important, but it’s not enough.” Spanish Defence Minister Carme Chacon said Nato would continue fulfilling its UN mandate to protect civilians even though “the Qadhafi dictatorship is over.” Nato Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, US Admiral James Stavridis, recommended to the ministers late Wednesday that the mission continue until the new leadership consolidates control of the entire country, diplomats said.

Once the country is deemed secure, Stavridis suggested that the aerial and maritime surveillance missions carry on for two weeks until Nato is “sure that fighting has ended,” the diplomat told AFP on condition of anonymity.

Qadhafi loyalists have made it tricky for Nato warplanes to bomb them by hiding in built-up areas, using civilians as human shields to deter air strikes, officials said.

Nato reported eight air strikes in Bani Walid, a desert town southeast of Tripoli, on Wednesday but no bombings in Qadhafi’s hometown of Sirte in the east, compared to between 15 and 20 raids daily across Libya earlier in the mission.

The campaign began in March when Qadhafi troops had rebels on the back foot. Nato’s strikes helped tip the balance in favour of a loose coalition of opponents who in August overran the capital Tripoli, winning international recognition.

Nato Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the decision to halt the operation would hinge on the ability of National Transitional Council (NTC) forces to maintain order — not on the fate of Qadhafi.

“The termination of the operation is not dependent on Colonel Qadhafi,” he told reporters on Wednesday.

Officials said the alliance had to make a political judgement, balancing the need to prevent attacks on civilians while avoiding the impression of meddling.

“It will be a political decision, which will involve the UN and the NTC and it will be a question of an international concert of opinion that the time has come,” said a senior Nato official.

“The big risk is that one day we stop and the next day there is a massacre, in which case we would have failed.” Senior military officers overseeing the operation from Naples, Italy, were increasingly eager to call an end to the effort given the retreat of Qadhafi’s troops, officials said.

But alliance members are waiting for a clear conclusion to fighting in Sirte and Bani Walid, where NTC troops are trying to finish off Qadhafi loyalists.

Success in Afghanistan, a war marking its 10th anniversary on Friday, also depends on the ability of local forces to ensure security for the population under a Nato plan to withdraw foreign combat troops by 2014.

“Transition is on track,” Rasmussen said, “and it will not be derailed.”

Saudi Arabia Forging a New Sunni State?

[Excellent analysis of Saudi power play in Middle East.]

Saudi Arabia Forging a New Sunni State?

The kingdom may be aiding Syrian protesters in an effort to break up their nation and create a Sunni state.

Is Saudi Arabia conniving with the United States to unseat the Assad regime in Syria? The possible smuggling of satellite phones into the country suggests so but the kingdom’s ultimate aim may not necessarily align with American policy in the region—the creation of a new Sunni state between Syria and Iraq.  [ed.–SEE:  US, Saudi Arabia Smuggle Satellite Phones to Syrian Rebels]

Iranian intelligence experts in Damascus attempted to disrupt the Syrian opposition’s telephone and Internet connections in recent weeks, making it all the more difficult for news of the uprising to reach the outside world. To help the rebels, Saudi Arabia and the United States reportedly smuggled thousands of satellite phones into Syria. Other than that, there’s little the Americans can do short of military intervention. President Bashar al-Assad may have lost the “legitimacy to lead” but he doesn’t need Washington for anything, rendering sanctions virtually useless.

Protests erupted in Syria in March after the “Arab spring” deposed veteran dictators in Tunisia and Egypt. In Bahrain, Shī’ah Muslims also took to the streets to pressure their largely Sunni government into enacting reforms but Saudi troops quelled the uprising before it could pose a serious threat to the small Arab Gulf state’s monarchy.

The oil kingdom is now rooting for the protesters in Syria, or at least some of them. Besides supposedly supplying the anti-government forces with satellite phones in conjunctions with the Americans, Saudi Arabia privately and clandestinely poured money and arms into the country in the hopes of stiffening the resistance and buying the loyalty of desert tribes.

The ultimate aim could be the erection of a new state encompassing not only the Euphrates’ river valley in Syria roughly corresponding with the southeastern Deir ez-Zor Governorate but Iraq’s central Al Anbar province as well. Both are overwhelmingly Sunni and home to more than a couple of million people. Such a country would put a natural geostrategic ally of Saudi Arabia’s in the heart of the Arab world—a “forward operating base” for Riyadh from where to watch Syria, Turkey and Iraq, three Middle Eastern states that are increasingly assertive, and from where to counter Iranian influence.

Riyadh blamed Tehran for stirring the uprising in Bahrain even if there was little evidence of Iranian involvement. The accusation and Saudi led military action nevertheless demonstrated just how worried the Saudis were about Iran extending its influence in the region.

They have ample reason to be concerned. The Saudi backed government in Lebanon was undermined by Iranian ally Hezbollah earlier this year while two of the kingdom’s allies in containing the Islamic Republic, Egypt and Iraq, have been rocked by internal unrest. With Iraq now a democracy—ruled by a Shiite prime minister—and Hosni Mubarak out of office and facing trial, Saudi Arabia and Iran are the only two powers still standing in the Middle East.

A political disintegration of Iraq and Syria, prompted by the creation of another Saudi client state, would weaken both a friend of Iran’s and one of its traditional foes. The United States, after spending considerable blood and treasure stabilizing Iraq, might rather not see its experiment in multiethnic Arab democracy fall apart. It’s anyone’s guess what will happen to Syria after Assad moreover. But the development could bolster the club of pro-Western regimes in the region.

Neighboring Jordan conveniently joined the Gulf Cooperation Council two months ago which formally sanctioned March’s intervention in Bahrain. Whether Morocco also joins the organization or not, it is a moderate Islamist bulwark against Iranian encroachment in West Asia, providing Saudi foreign policy with extra legitimacy and sometimes an alternative to dollar diplomacy. Whatever the emirates contribute in funding, the Saudis are obviously in the lead. And they’re disappointed about their American ally’s reluctance to support them.

The Saudis didn’t particularly care for President Barack Obama’s championing of human rights and reform in the face of the Arab spring and blamed him for forcing Mubarak out of power.

From Washington’s perspective, the alliance with the Wahhabi kingdom is one of convenience. It regards its religious intolerance and backwardness as an embarrassment even if the two countries share interests in the region. Both want to keep the oil flowing, the Gulf free of Iranian influence and neither wants the ayatollahs to go nuclear and embolden their terrorist proxies in the Levant. The clear strategic rationale of the relationship tends to be overshadowed by moral objections on America’s part however. Saudi nation building abroad is likely to raise more than a few eyebrows in the State Department therefore.

Actually, sponsoring the foundation of a brand new republic (presumably) in the Middle East wouldn’t be such a stretch for the United States ideologically. It’s not as though today’s national boundaries in the Middle East necessarily reflect cultural and religious divides—let alone encompass specific peoples or nations. Rather, a Sunni polity separate of multicultural Syria and Shī’ah majority Iraq conforms much better to notions of sovereignty and self determination than the status quo.

It’s not often that American interests and ideology coincide in the Middle East. The risks of too overtly endorsing the Saudi effort—if it is a serious effort to begin with—are clear. America could be perceived as once again meddling in the internal affairs of Arab states. Success, on the other hand, could leave Iraq, then virtually a Shiite homeland, much stabler and Saudi Arabia, a pivotal Western ally, in an enhanced position to balance against Iranian intrigue. Now Washington has only to recognize the opportunity.

Nick Ottens is an historian from the Netherlands who researched Muslim revivalist movements and terrorism in nineteenth century Arabia, British India and the Sudan for his Master’s thesis. He also studied the history of transatlantic relations and is currently a contributing analyst with Wikistrat. Nick blogs about politics and economics at Free Market Fundamentalist.

First Factual Report On Libya from a Mainstream Media Source

[The photo of the puny little rebels on the outside peering over the concrete barrier speaks volumes about the alleged impending “defeat” of the Qaddafi regime, which nearly all Western news sources have been reporting since the escalation by NATO forces over the weekend.  If it was not for the continuous NATO airstrikes, the Libyan insurgency would have already been put-down.  

In Libya, it is the same as it first was in Bosnia, where Western military support for the Islamist forces  were able to effectively:

“Convert NATO into Muslim air force, Western press into Muslim propaganda, and soon – American troops into Muslim combat troops.”–Yossef Bodansky, “Offensive in the Balkans    

Foreign news sources have been reporting that covert Western Special Forces have been leading the charge on Tripoli.  If it were not for NATO support there would be no war.  The only difference between NATO’s Balkan wars and its war on Libya is that the world has been made so comfortable with the idea of NATO aggression against weaker countries that world opinion finds it acceptable that US and British Special Forces openly commit these war crimes today.

The more time passes, the more these things remain the same.  The current American govt. is continuing to act as world aggressor.  It will do so until we put an end to it.]

Libya rebels lose territory as battle for Tripoli deepens

A quick rebel victory is fading into uncertainty as Qaddafi gunmen are fighting back and Muammar Qaddafi’s politically powerful son Saif al-Islam reemerges.

Rebel fighters observe the fighting near the main Muammar Qaddafi compound in Bab al-Aziziya district in Tripoli, LIbya, Tuesday, Aug. 23, where some of the heaviest fighting took place. The compound, which has been heavily damaged by NATO airstrikes, has emerged as one of the centers of government resistance since tanks rolled out and began firing at rebels trying to get in.

Sergey Ponomarev/AP

Two days after rebels exulted in their swift takeover ofTripoli, signaling the endgame for Libyan leaderMuammar Qaddafi, the capital has become a stage for a potentially protracted battle between rebels and loyalists.

The rebels expected a decisive victory after entering the city easily this weekend, Bloomberg reports, but they are still locked in battle with Mr. Qaddafi’s fighters inside and outside Tripoli.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the rebels pulled back from much of the territory in the city that they took earlier in the week and seemed to be in control of only a “slice of land leading from the western edge to near the city center.” Qaddafi gunmen have staked out several neighborhoods and Green Square, where rebel supporters celebrated Sunday night, is now a “no-man’s land.”

The scenes in Tripoli undermined early impressions that forces loyal to Col. Gadhafi, who has ruled the oil-rich Mediterranean country for nearly 42 years, had been all but neutralized. Instead, the leader remains unaccounted for as fighting continues. The unease suggested instead that the regime’s end, while broadly expected, may bring more bloodshed, this time in a densely populated urban theater.

According to the Associated Pressthe fiercest fighting took place around the Bab al-Aziziya compound, where Qaddafi, his family, and his closest advisers have barricaded themselves for much of the war. On Monday, government tanks repelled rebel forces attempting to infiltrate the compound.

NATO has put its air campaign in overdrive in the past two days, hitting at least 40 targets in Tripoli – the highest number in one location since its intervention began in March.

In a major blow, Qaddafi’s son and one-time heir apparent, Saif al-Islam Qaddafi, reappeared after rebels had claimed to have captured him, saying that the rebel forces in the city had walked into a trap and that loyalist fighters had broken the back of the rebels.

He walked into the Rixos Hotel, where the government has sequestered foreign journalists, and offered to take foreign journalists on a tour to prove the regime’s continued control over the capital.

“I will take you [the press] on a tour in Tripoli in the most heated areas, and you will see that all is secure, the world will know it’s secure,” he said.

The rebels said yesterday that they had captured Saif and were considering sending him to theInternational Criminal Court, but he denied today that he had ever been in rebel custody. The rebels had also said they captured his older brother, Mohammad, who has now escaped, Al Jazeera reports.

The false reports about the two Qaddafi sons raises questions about the credibility of the rebel leadership, which was already in doubt, The New York Times reports.



By Karl Schwarz

I was not going to comment on the death of SEAL Team 6, until I read the article on your website “The Execution of SEAL Team Six, Penned by Ann Barnhardt”.

She has tracked the chronology very well as cited in her essay. She is right; the Obama Administration is beyond desperate to appear to have any results at all in these pathetic 3 years we have had to endure this completely arrogant nitwit in the Oval Office.

But it goes much deeper. The CIA never gets involved in such operations unless there is a real risk that their covert operations will be exposed for the world to see. That is when the CIA goes into panic mode.

It saddens me to see any US soldier killed, maimed, or even have their life upended to be deployed to serve one of the greatest lies ever invented on this planet. There was never a Global War on Terror until the US invented it, deployed it with two objectives. First, a resurgence of military power while the USSR broke apart – China was not a threat then but is now. They made a wrong assumption that the US is the world’s only Superpower. Second, the US has an agenda to control world energy supplies so it can control the economies of other nations so they can neither be Superpower status nor competitors. That idea was a pipedream, too. That is what The Grand Chessboard is all about. That lunatic notion has now been embedded into our laws, our federal government policies and our economic and war policies.

It was an idiotic idea when they hatched it, and it has now killed the nation that dreamed it up and probably rightfully so. It was an elitist arrogant fascist idea, and failed. It has truly failed; they are too arrogant in DC to admit it. History will show that it was an Ivory Tower aberration born in a presumption of self-importance and power that did not exist.
Being a Superpower militarily can assure peace, it does not assure victory when the Superpower lied and is in the wrong.

You see, when they have to admit defeat is says two things very loudly. First, they were wrong and not near as powerful as they pretend to be. When the veil of arrogance is ripped away it will be easy to see what pathetic excuses as humans they are. Secondly, once they have to admit defeat their power will be taken away and then the real truth will surface. At that time, many in the US will be indictable under some very serious charges such as genocide, war crimes, treason, and willful murder just to protect their sorry asses.

I think ST6 was just sent on one of those ‘willful murder’ missions to silence the truth.

I will tell the whole story soon on your radio show. This nutcase Global War on Terror was planned in Washington DC during the time period of 1994 to 1996. My office was in DC from 1989 to 1996 and you already know some about my affiliation with the Republican National Committee. Their biggest concern was how to ‘sell it’ to America.

Pakistan is not pro-terrorism. The problem with Pakistan is they sided with CHINA (and India) and screwed up The Grand Chessboard. What we are seeing from the Bush and Obama Administrations toward Pakistan is a temper tantrum and neither China nor Pakistan is going to back down. Both clearly see and know that the US Grand Chessboard plan has failed, they lost; the US will not win no matter how hard they try or how many US soldiers are wounded or killed serving this Great Lie.

There are major pipelines being done that checkmate the Grand Chessboard. One is from Iran to Pakistan and India, the IPI Pipeline and they turned to China as the financial partner. The other is discussed below and is sponsored by China and Pakistan. (And I think it is fitting that the three Bridas Corporation pipelines that have been done have also negated their Grand Chessboard plan.)

That Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline that was to have run from Ashgabat Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan, through Baluchistan Province, Pakistan to the port of Gwadar. The problem is now it is a Chinese commercial port and naval base. It is a major strategic hub for China.

The US is delusional in its thinking that only it has the right to locate military bases around the world.

The US has reasonable control over everything but Helmand Province in Afghanistan, the one that borders on Baluchistan Province, Pakistan. They do not control Helmand or Baluchistan, which is why the CIA is very active there trying to destabilize and take it over.

The Chinese are building a large pipeline from Gwadar to eastern China while Washington DC dithers around trying to find their ass with both hands and a flashlight as to how they can push China out. Without Gwadar, they have to come up with an entire new plan for that Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline that they have conspired for over 30 years to steal from first Russia (Russia Afghan War 1980-1988) and then secondly from Bridas Corporation in 2001.

As you know, Bridas Corporation is from Argentina. They smartly aligned with Russia, Iran and China after they were wronged by the US in Turkmenistan, Pakistan and lastly, Afghanistan. They had the entire deal sewed up and the US went way out of its way to push them aside during the Clinton and Bush Administrations.

The US took the position that they could not let the USSR build that pipeline, develop the vast oil and natural gas of the Caspian Basin, and be a major energy and economic player in the world through energy might alone. Well, Russia endured and is now the world’s largest energy producer. Even after the CIS states split from USSR, the Russian Federation now controls most of the oil and natural gas in the former USSR states of Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Those were our objectives and we lost; DC does not want the American people to wake up to that fact.

Is it not odd that the CIS states know they can trust the Russia Federation and China more than they can the US? That sort of puts a black-eye on our version of democracy, especially the form at gunpoint while they kick our ass with contracts and pens. The simple answer is there have now been over three decades of US sponsored terrorism and hostile actions in those areas to try to bully them into submission to the US game plan.

It amazes me that the US prefers to seek oil by war when the US has the largest known reserves of oil just in the Dakota / Montana area and Alaska. It is all about The Grand Chessboard, about domination, control, manipulation, etc and we have lost. They do not want to admit defeat because then maybe Americans will decide it is time they be shown the door, possibly a prison cell door.

It is far beyond ‘vote them out’; some truly deserve to be in prison for the rest of their life or executed.

The Chinese plan to pipe oil from Africa and Iran (and any place else they purchase it in that region) from Gwadar to China. They have no intentions of allowing the US and UK to control their economy by controlling who gets the Caspian Basin oil and natural gas, or oil and LNG from Iran, too. Both China and Russia have already made it clear to Washington DC that any attack on Iran will be viewed as an attack on the vital interests of Russia and China.

This was in my presentation at ‘9-11-2004, Confronting the Evidence’. This came out the day before on September 10, 2001:

“”September 10, 2001: “Those who control the oil routes out of Central Asia will impact all future direction and quantities of flow and the distribution of revenues from new production,” wrote energy expert James Dorian in Oil & Gas Journal, published the day before the terrorist attacks.””

That is exactly what they were after and they have lost. It was checkmate even before they engineered the attack on the US so they could justify attacking Afghanistan. Think on this ­ what sort of desperation would cause a nation to attack itself so it had the excuse to launch a war that was lost before they launched it?

Take a close look at America right now and even a blind man can see it. The US is in decline in just about every category except bullshit, lies, fraud and military belligerence to get their way.
So, without further ado this is additional information for your readers.

If you are one of those Americans that clings to the belief that the US Navy SEAL Team 6 (ST6) recently cornered and killed Osama bin Laden, this essay is for you.

The likelihood that they killed Osama bin Laden is less than 1%. Reputable sources knew that Osama would die of natural causes (renal failure) sometime during 2001 to 2003. The elite US Navy SEAL Team 6, a counter-terrorism force under DEVGRU may well have been sent to head off and silence the truth.

If you are emoting or saddened by the news that the entire US Navy SEAL Team 6 is now dead due to a Chinook helicopter crash in Afghanistan, stop, read and pay attention.
It is time to take off the rose-colored glasses. It is time for the American Mushrooms to get the cow manure out of the ears and come out into the light.

It is far more likely that SEAL Team 6 was sent to kill someone that was about to be a major liability to the US. Someone that was going to spill out the truth, nothing but the truth and many asses in DC would be in big trouble. By big trouble I mean charges of murder, treason, and war crimes, just to name a few. Some may even be facing genocide charges at The Hague when all the truth comes out.

An elite group of shitforbrains Americans have willfully bankrupted the United States just so they could line their pockets with trillions of dollars in oil and gas that is in the Caspian Basin. One of their dilettante ringleaders even wrote their bible, their operational mantra game plan, otherwise known as ‘The Grand Chessboard’. That was not an instructional manual to play chess, it was an illusion and delusion of what the author and his sycophant buddies thought they could pull off.

They do not want Americans to learn that most of the natural gas is gone; it has all been tied up by Russia, China, India, etc. They do not want Americans to learn that most of the oil is now gone too, having been contracted with companies that can get something done including the drilling and the pipelines.

Of course, it was sort of difficult to come up with an excuse as to why we needed to attack Afghanistan. They had never done anything to the US. Voila!!! September 11, 2001, Pearl Harbor happened again, go shop America while Mighty Mouse GW rides to the rescue and defense of America.

I often wonder what Americans pay attention to. I have seen at least 100 times that even though Osama bin Laden was on the FBI Top 10 Most Wanted, there was not any mention that he was wanted for being the ‘mastermind’ behind 9-11. If he was such a high priority target due to 9-11, why did they fail for almost 10 years to state exactly why they were after him? Silence the truth is the correct answer. His involvement in the Russia-Afghan War was directly related to US desires to block Russia from benefitting from the energy resources that the USSR had within its footprint.

I have been waiting for 10 years for even one person in the United States government to mention the name Bridas Corporation. They had the pipeline deal under contract; all the way, until the US decided they wanted that pipeline and all of that oil and natural gas. Since 9-11-2001, Bridas has built pipelines from Turkmenistan across Iran to the Black Sea. Another one from Turkmenistan north into Russia and will soon finish construction of a very long pipeline from Turkmenistan to the eastern part of China.

Americans have not been told this yet, but Russia and China are excellent at chess, these arrogant twits in DC suck. The Grand Chessboard game is over, done, the US lost.
That all being done while Washington DC was circle-jerking off themselves and America with every lie and excuse under the Sun as to why they cannot get the nation-building done in Iraq or Afghanistan. Liars never win, trespassing is rarely condoned by anyone and we (the United States) are the trespassers and the transgressors.

We as a nation lied our way into this mess and there is no lie that will get us out of it. It disgusts me when they talk about nation building in Afghanistan and Iraq while they are rapidly killing America.

The US has had 10 years and has not gotten the job done since September 11, 2001. However, the planning and the hostile actions began way before then when the CIA and black-ops special forces were operating out of Baku Azerbaijan as the US Chamber of Commerce and MEGA Oil (no kidding, no pun intended) to be closer and able to destabilize easier without Americans being any the wiser that a covert war was in progress during the 1980s and 1990s leading up to 9-11-2001. It was all about that damned Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline to exploit the vast reserves of the Caspian Basin area.

Some readers may remember the names Gary Best, Simon Mann, two of those black-ops operatives that were MEGA Oil as a front. Simon Mann is the person who was captured while trying to overthrow the government of Equatorial Guinea and assassinate its president. Mann was a British military operative that became a mercenary, sort of like the long list of people who served and then became what was then known as Blackwater USA, now Xi Corporation.

Since the US plans to come through Afghanistan have been blocked for the most part, the only other route out (without mending fences with Iran) is across the Caspian Sea and slipping through the narrow gap that is Georgia on the east end of the Black Sea.

George W Bush was 100% behind the Georgia assault on South Ossetia in August 2008. He wanted Russia backed up to the north side of the Caucasus Mountains and widen that pipeline right-of-way. Well, that hockey game ended badly for GW because Russia hit hard and fast, final score was about Russia 50, US backed Georgia 0. The president of Georgia finally had to admit publicly that it was not Russian aggression; he started it with full backing of the US.

I was the first person to write that it was Georgia that started it, not Russia. Just two days before that attack, Jeff Rense and I did a radio show and discussed that Georgia would be a flashpoint. Little did we know that the attack was only 2 days away.

Bush never admitted that he put about 4,000 Blackwater USA mercenaries in Georgia. Their probable mission is to destabilize Dagestan, a Russia province that is needed to run a huge pipeline from Kazakhstan, across the Caspian Sea, through tiny Georgia to the Black Sea.

US military forces were planning, procuring and practicing the invasion of Afghanistan as early as March 2001, a full 6 months before September 11, 2001. That is not a hard fact to verify.
They did not want piss-ant little nations (their opinion, not mine) like Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan profiting from that mother-lode of oil and natural gas. They spent over 30 years, all the way back to President Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski creating Al Qaeda to go in there and disrupt their governments, the USSR and anyone else who got in their way. Old Zbig is the author of the book ‘The Grand Chessboard’. I have read it, was written by a delusional power broker that just happens to be a diehard Russia hater as a vocation. Russia grew up, Zbig went off in La-La Land.

The objective was to break up the USSR and take over all of the oil and natural gas. Uh, they managed to break up the USSR but in the energy game they lost!! Pens and contracts have proven to be mightier than US military power, and the nitwit plan that was hatched because of The Grand Chessboard.

The US government has still not admitted that its true objective in Afghanistan is not nation building and democracy is just a pretense. The true mission is a pipeline from Turkmenistan, across Afghanistan and Pakistan to the ocean. Our ‘elite’ have a big stake, big investment that they stand to lose if they cannot get that pipeline done.

One has to dig very deep to find the truth when Washington DC is in Industrial Lie Mode. This was also part of my presentation at ‘9-11, Confronting the Evidence’:

“23 Feb 2003: OPIC agrees to fund the pipeline and Bush has guaranteed to protect it with U.S. troops (without telling the United States citizens). “23-02-03 Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan (TAP) have signed a protocol for trans-Afghanistan Gas Pipeline Project However, some recent reports had indicated that the United States was willing to police the pipeline infrastructure through permanent stationing of its troops in the region. The US ExIm Bank, the Trade and Development Agency (TDA) and the Overseas Private Insurance Corporation (OPIC) had also shown readiness to finance such a project, if leading American energy giants come forward.”

Leading Russian and Chinese oil companies have completely negated their Grand Chessboard. It is hard to grasp the level of stupefying ignorance of arrogance that abides in Washington DC. Those same CIS states set up their own national oil companies as well, for the benefit of their own people, not the US insiders.

Of course, that Bush commitment to permanently station US troops in Afghanistan happened without notifying the US public and was just about 1 month before Bush and Blair launched their other war crimes against the people of Iraq on March 20, 2003. I have met many Iraqi exiles in Europe. They openly discuss that their life was much better under Saddam Hussein than this pretense democracy and freedom the US thumps it chest about delivering to the Iraqi people.

For any American that does not or cannot accept what the definition of a war crime is, it is simply when a nation lies, falsifies intelligence to justify war, and there was NO LEGITMATE THREAT TO THE SECURITY OF THE ATTACKING NATION. The US and UK are both egregiously guilty of that definition.

The Grand Chessboard book was their plan. The PNAC (Project for a New American Century) was their lobbying group. It is now all gone up in smoke, we lost. The Chilcote Report in the UK is now pointing the blame at Tony Blair as the liar and war criminal he is. That by implications indicts George W Bush, Dick Cheney and the entire cabal of liars that cooked up this lunatic plan.

The objective of the US was military, energy and economic domination of the entire world. The US lost that battle on September 11, 2001. That is the day that America defined just how truly desperate they are to keep this a unipolar world led by the US.

Most Americans do not know that the northern third of Afghanistan is not controlled by the Afghans or the puppet government in Kabul. It is controlled by General Rashid Dostum, an Uzbek that was a stay behind after Russia pulled out in 1988. It is pretty well known that he is a CIA asset.

Not enough Americans read the expose I wrote as ‘Pop Goes the Bush Mythology Bubble, Part 6’. In that article I introduced readers to Todd Engstrom, who was as of 9-11-2001 part of UNMIK. That acronym stands for UN Mission in Kosovo. It is sort of hard to make a connection between Kosovo and Afghanistan, other than it was yet more US military belligerence where it did not belong. Of course, let us not forget that Clinton had serious need to Wag the Dog to get America’s mind off the Monica Lewinsky fiasco.

Mr. Engstrom was assigned with others to guard a large amount of cash (crates of cash, billions of dollars) that left Kosovo on a military transport for the Caspian Basin area the same day that WTC 1, 2, 7 and the others lay in ruin. The plane landed, the crates were transferred to helicopters and then flown into Northern Afghanistan. Well, since I have already given readers a hint of who controls the northern third of Afghanistan, try doing the math as part of the ‘wake up exercise’.

In the book I wrote I disclosed that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld flew to Central Asia immediately after 9-11, went into Northern Afghanistan and met with General Rashid Dostum and Mohammed Atta. It was in the print media outside of the US and I made sure the footnote had the link and the pertinent part of the article. Hmm, Mohammed Atta, wasn’t he the alleged ringleader of the 9-11 hijacker / terrorist evildoers? His passport just conveniently survived the maelstrom and was found on the street in New York City.

The Defense Department, White House and Washington DC avoid the issue that 9 or 10 of the alleged hijackers / terrorists / evildoers have names that are directly tied to the US military.
While our investigators were trying to locate Mr. Todd Engstrom to get all of the details of that secret military flight, he wound up dead in Iraq when the vehicle he was in was hit by an RPG. It was known that we were looking for him.

It is not very likely that SEAL Team 6 killed Osama bin Laden. They were probably sent to kill a problem before the truth got out. They may have been sent to kill who was in control of the Pakistan ­ China pipeline that originates at Gwadar. Losing Gwadar means they have no place to run the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline to so they can get the oil and natural gas to the ocean.
It is more likely that SEAL Team 6 was sacrificed to silence them so it never got out that Osama bin Laden was never found; was not killed by SEAL Team 6. That information does not fit the Official Story (Official Delusion) that DC has tried to maintain and has failed. The respect for the US around this world is at an all-time low. The US has become a predator, a liar, and a warmonger, the pre-eminent terrorist on the face of this planet, all in the name of greed for certain US insiders.

One of the facts about the assault that supposedly took out Osama bin Laden is that ST6 is part of DEVGRU, an elite counter-terrorism group that operates under the Joint Chiefs of Staff command. For the entire Osama bin Laden mission control of that group was handed over to the CIA. They were sent to eliminate a problem and it evidently scared them enough to send the most elite team they have.

The only reason the CIA gets involved in such an operation is their covert actions are about to be exposed. Their dirty deeds are about to be front page news. That is the most likely reason ST6 was sent and sent under CIA operational control.

Think on that. DC is terrified of the Truth.

I find it both saddening and laughable that they supposedly track down and kill Osama bin Laden in May and just months later the US gets downgraded to AA+ credit due to the wanton excesses of DC and Wall Street. I guess the Guinness Book of World Records can list that as the most expensive manhunt in history since it bankrupted the world’s largest economy nation.
Think on that, too.

The official story from the Defense Department is that these brave counter-terrorism soldiers, an elite and classified group sent on very sensitive missions, was on its way to reinforce US troops. Hmm, are we to deduce that they would risk the most elite, most highly trained soldiers and did not have any other US soldiers they could have sent? That would be such a waste it does not even make sense.

They are no longer a classified group since Barky Obama wanted to brag about his ‘accomplishment’ and let anyone and everyone know about ST6. Compared to the fiasco he has been in office, that is akin to a little boy bragging about his first penile erection.

The question comes up as to why ST6 was still in Afghanistan, since they are so covert and classified and elite and why operational control was handed over to the CIA. It is also likely that they were headed to take out another threat that was about to expose the entire US charade. The CIA intervenes when it is necessary to silence and maintain its covert nature. Think on that. They may have hit someone that was about to spill the beans on a wide variety of US transgressions and dirty deeds the CIA has been up to.

I have multiple sources who indicate that there have been many chances for peace in Afghanistan but for some reason Bush and Obama do not want there to be peace. They keep intentionally making sure that peace cannot be accomplished. My guess it is another temper tantrum that the Grand Chessboard is in checkmate and we lost.

Think on that one.

Frankly, I do not believe a single word that Washington, DC or their media mouthpieces have to say. They have been caught in too many lies to trust them on any subject, any word or sentence.

I walked out on the RNC in 1996, but in parting I told them they were lunatics to think they could pull it off, a global war on terror aimed at Islamic nations that had vast oil and natural gas resources. Lust for money, lust for greed, lust for power are not justifications that create a Just War. They would kill America doing so and they have.

What they were afraid of is the decline of America if we lost control as the leading economic and energy Superpower. They already knew in 1994-1996 that America was in decline. They were desperate to find a way to get that back, thinking in error that this would always be a unipolar world led by the US. They could already see that it was becoming a multi-polar world and the US could no longer control the shots.

That is why they did it.

It brings me no joy to say today that I was right. We did not learn from Vietnam, we have not learned from Afghanistan or Iraq that we were never in the right. Lies cannot be twisted enough to make an Unjust War into a Just War. Just look at America right now and weep for the damage they have done in the name of greed and their delusions of grandeur.

The world grew up, changed for the better and the US did not. When a person adds it all up, it is really quite sad.

US/Saudi Oil Facility Defense Force and Anti-Missile Shield In the Works

FILE – In this April 6, 2011, file photo, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, left, U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia James Smith, center, and Maj. Gen. Robert Catalanotti, right, walk across the tarmac in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Despite their deepening political divide, the United States and Saudi Arabia are quietly expanding defense ties on a vast scale, led by a little-known project to develop an elite force to protect the kingdom’s oil riches and future nuclear sites. (AP Photo/Chip Somodevilla, Pool)

US quietly expanding defense ties with Saudis


WASHINGTON (AP) — Despite their deepening political divide, the United States and Saudi Arabia are quietly expanding defense ties on a vast scale, led by a little-known project to develop an elite force to protect the kingdom’s oil riches and future nuclear sites.

The U.S. also is in discussions with Saudi Arabia to create an air and missile defense system with far greater capability against the regional rival the Saudis fear most, Iran. And it is with Iran mainly in mind that the Saudis are pressing ahead with a historic $60 billion arms deal that will provide dozens of new U.S.-built F-15 combat aircraft likely to ensure Saudi air superiority over Iran for years.

Together these moves amount to a historic expansion of a 66-year-old relationship that is built on America’s oil appetite, sustained by Saudi reliance on U.S. military reach and deepened by a shared worry about the threat of al-Qaida and the ambitions of Iran.

All of this is happening despite the Saudi government’s anger at Washington’s response to uprisings across the Arab world, especially its abandonment of Hosni Mubarak, the deposed Egyptian president who was a longtime Saudi and U.S. ally. The Obama administration is eager to ease this tension as it faces the prospect of an escalating confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program.

Saudi Arabia is central to American policy in the Middle East. It is a key player in the Arab-Israeli peace process that President Barack Obama has so far failed to advance, and it is vital to U.S. energy security, with Saudi Arabia ranking as the third-largest source of U.S. oil imports. It also figures prominently in U.S. efforts to undercut Islamic extremism and promote democracy.

The forging of closer U.S.-Saudi military ties is so sensitive, particularly in Saudi Arabia, that the Pentagon and the State Department declined requests for on-the-record comment and U.S. officials rejected a request for an interview with the two-star Army general, Robert G. Catalanotti, who manages the project to build a “facilities security force” to protect the Saudis’ network of oil installations and other critical infrastructure.

The Saudi Embassy in Washington did not respond to two written requests for comment.

Details about the elite force were learned from interviews with U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of Saudi security concerns, as well as in interviews with private analysts and public statements by former U.S. officials.

The special security force is expected to grow to at least 35,000 members, trained and equipped by U.S. personnel as part of a multiagency effort that includes staff from the Justice Department, Energy Department and Pentagon. It is overseen by the U.S. Central Command.

The force’s main mission is to protect vital oil infrastructure, but its scope is wider. A formerly secret State Department cable released by the WikiLeaks website described the mission as protecting “Saudi energy production facilities, desalination plants and future civil nuclear reactors.”

The cable dated Oct. 29, 2008, and released by WikiLeaks in December said the Saudis agreed to a U.S. recommendation to create the program after they received an Energy Department briefing on the vulnerability of certain oil facilities.

The program apparently got under way in 2009 or 2010, but it is not clear how much of the new force is operating.

The Saudis’ security worries were heightened by a failed al-Qaida car bombing in February 2006 of the Abqaiq oil processing facility, one of the largest in the world. The State Department cable said a subsequent U.S. assessment of Abqaiq security standards determined that it remained “highly vulnerable to other types of sophisticated terrorist attacks.” That warning was conveyed to top Saudi officials on Oct. 27, 2008.

“The Saudis remain highly concerned about the vulnerability of their energy production facilities,” the cable said. “They recognize many of their energy facilities remain at risk from al-Qaida and other terrorists who seek to disrupt the global economy.”

One U.S. official said the Saudi force’s mission might be expanded to include protection of embassies and other diplomatic buildings, as well as research and academic installations. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the diplomatic sensitivity of the issue.

The newly established specialized force is separate from the regular Saudi military and is also distinct from Saudi Arabian National Guard, an internal security force whose mission is to protect the royal family and the Muslim holy places of Mecca and Medina. The U.S. has had a training and advising role with the regular Saudi military since 1953 and began advising the National Guard in 1973.

The new arrangement is based on a May 2008 deal signed by then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Saudi Interior Minister Prince Nayef. That same month the U.S. and Saudi Arabia also signed an understanding on civil nuclear energy cooperation in which Washington agreed to help the Saudis develop nuclear energy for use in medicine, industry and power generation.

In October 2008, Ford Fraker, then the U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, called the facilities security force program “probably the single biggest initiative for the U.S.-Saudi relationship” and said the value of contracts associated with the program could reach tens of billions of dollars.

Christopher Blanchard, a Middle East policy analyst at the Congressional Research Service, said the arrangement is important on multiple levels.

“The noteworthy thing is that it’s such a sensitive area,” he said in an interview. “It’s probably the most sensitive area for the Saudis, in the sense that those facilities are the lifeblood of the kingdom.”

“It’s not only about defending against a single military threat like Iran but also an expression, politically and symbolically, of a U.S. commitment to Saudi Arabia’s long-term security,” he added. “It’s about seeing the U.S.-Saudi relationship into the next generation.”

The U.S. had dozens of combat aircraft based in Saudi Arabia from 1991 to 2003. When the planes departed, the U.S. turned over a highly sophisticated air operations center it had built in the desert south of Riyadh.

The U.S.-Saudi relationship has been rocked by a series of setbacks, including the 9/11 attacks in which 15 of the 19 hijackers turned out to be Saudis. Saudi Arabia also is the birthplace of Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaida leader killed by U.S. Navy SEALs on May 2 in Pakistan, and Saudis remain active in al-Qaida in Afghanistan. U.S. officials said this month a Saudi considered the No. 1 terrorist target in eastern Afghanistan, Abu Hafs al-Najdi, was killed in an airstrike. They said he helped organize al-Qaida finances.

Even so, Saudi Arabia has become one of Washington’s most valued counterterrorism partners. It also is a top client for U.S. arms. When Defense Secretary Robert Gates visited Riyadh in April, he reaffirmed U.S. intentions to proceed with the deal announced last fall to sell up to $60 billion in weaponry, including 84 F-15s and the upgrading of 70 existing Saudi F-15s.

U.S. officials said the arms deal might be expanded to include naval ships and possibly more advanced air and missile defense systems. The Saudis want to upgrade their Patriot air defenses to the latest U.S. version, which can knock down short-range ballistic missiles in flight. And they have expressed interest in a more capable system designed to defend against higher-flying, medium-range missiles.

Robert Burns can be reached at

The CIA’s Libya Rebels: The Same Terrorists who Killed US, NATO Troops in Iraq

2007 West Point Study Shows Benghazi-Darnah-Tobruk Area was a World Leader in Al Qaeda Suicide Bomber Recruitment

“Serpents, thirst, heat, and sand … Libya alone can present a multitude of woes that it would beseem men to fly from.”
Lucan, Pharsalia

Webster G. Tarpley, Ph.D.
March 24, 2011

Washington DC, March 24, 2011 — The current military attack on Libya has been motivated by UN Security Council resolution 1973 with the need to protect civilians. Statements by President Obama, British Prime Minister Cameron, French President Sarkozy, and other leaders have stressed the humanitarian nature of the intervention, which is said to aim at preventing a massacre of pro-democracy forces and human rights advocates by the Qaddafi regime.

But at the same time, many commentators have voiced anxiety because of the mystery which surrounds the anti-Qaddafi transitional government which emerged at the beginning of March in the city of Benghazi, located in the Cyrenaica district of north-eastern Libya. This government has already been recognized by France and Portugal as the sole legitimate representative of the Libyan people. The rebel council seems to be composed of just over 30 delegates, many of whom are enveloped in obscurity. In addition, the names of more than a dozen members of the rebel council are being kept secret, allegedly to protect them from the vengeance of Qaddafi. But there may be other reasons for the anonymity of these figures. Despite much uncertainty, the United Nations and its several key NATO countries, including the United States, have rushed forward to assist the armed forces of this rebel regime with air strikes, leading to the loss of one or two coalition aircraft and the prospect of heavier losses to come, especially if there should be an invasion. It is high time that American and European publics learned something more about this rebel regime which is supposed to represent a democratic and humanitarian alternative to Gaddafi.

The rebels are clearly not civilians, but an armed force. What kind of an armed force?

Since many of the rebel leaders are so difficult to research from afar, and since a sociological profile of the rebels cannot be done on the ground in the midst of warfare, perhaps the typical methods of social history can be called on for help. Is there a way for us to gain deeper insight into the climate of opinion which prevails in such northeastern Libyan cities as Benghazi, Tobruk, and Darnah, the main population centers of the rebellion?

It turns out that there is, in the form of a December 2007 West Point study examining the background of foreign guerrilla fighters — jihadis or mujahedin, including suicide bombers — crossing the Syrian border into Iraq during the 2006-2007 timeframe, under the auspices of the international terrorist organization Al Qaeda. This study is based on a mass of about 600 Al Qaeda personnel files which were captured by US forces in the fall of 2007, and analyzed at West Point using a methodology which we will discuss after having presented the main findings. The resulting study1 permits us to make important findings about the mentality and belief structures of the northeastern Libyan population that is furnishing the basis for the rebellion, permitting important conclusions about the political nature of the anti-Qaddafi revolt in these areas.

Darnah, northeast Libya: World Capital of Jihadis

The most striking finding which emerges from the West Point study is that the corridor which goes from Benghazi to Tobruk, passing through the city of Darnah (also transliterated as Derna) them represents one of the greatest concentrations of jihadi terrorists to be found anywhere in the world, and by some measures can be regarded as the leading source of suicide bombers anywhere on the planet. Darnah, with one terrorist fighter sent into Iraq to kill Americans for every 1,000 to 1,500 persons of population, emerges as suicide bomber heaven, easily surpassing the closest competitor, which was Riyad, Saudi Arabia.

Libya map

According to West Point authors Joseph Felter and Brian Fishman, Saudi Arabia took first place as regards absolute numbers of jihadis sent to combat the United States and other coalition members in Iraq during the time frame in question. Libya, a country less than one fourth as populous, took second place. Saudi Arabia sent 41% of the fighters. According to Felter and Fishman, “Libya was the next most common country of origin, with 18.8% (112) of the fighters listing their nationality stating they hailed from Libya.” Other much larger countries were far behind: “Syria, Yemen, and Algeria were the next most common origin countries with 8.2% (49), 8.1% (48), and 7.2% (43), respectively. Moroccans accounted for 6.1% (36) of the records and Jordanians 1.9% (11).”2

This means that almost one fifth of the foreign fighters entering Iraq across the Syrian border came from Libya, a country of just over 6 million people. A higher proportion of Libyans were interested in fighting in Iraq than any other country contributing mujahedin. Felter and Fishman point out: “Almost 19 percent of the fighters in the Sinjar Records came from Libya alone. Furthermore, Libya contributed far more fighters per capita than any other nationality in the Sinjar Records, including Saudi Arabia.” (See the chart from the West Point report, page 9)3

West Point Study - page 9

But since the Al Qaeda personnel files contain the residence or hometown of the foreign fighters in question, we can determine that the desire to travel to Iraq to kill Americans was not evenly distributed across Libya, but was highly concentrated precisely in those areas around Benghazi which are today the epicenters of the revolt against Colonel Gaddafi which the US, Britain, France, and others are so eagerly supporting.

As Daya Gamage of the Asia Tribune comments in a recent article on the West Point study, “…alarmingly for Western policymakers, most of the fighters came from eastern Libya, the center of the current uprising against Muammar el-Qaddafi. The eastern Libyan city of Darnah sent more fighters to Iraq than any other single city or town, according to the West Point report. It noted that 52 militants came to Iraq from Darnah, a city of just 80,000 people (the second-largest source of fighters was Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, which has a population of more than 4 million). Benghazi, the capital of Libya’s provisional government declared by the anti-Qaddafi rebels, sent in 21 fighters, again a disproportionate number of the whole.”4 Obscure Darnah edged out metropolitan Riyadh by 52 fighters to 51. Qaddafi’s stronghold of Tripoli, by contrast, barely shows up in the statistics at all. (See chart from West Point report, page 12)

What explains this extraordinary concentration of anti-American fighters in Benghazi and Darnah? The answer seems related to extremist schools of theology and politics which flourished in these areas. As the West Point report notes: “Both Darnah and Benghazi have long been associated with Islamic militancy in Libya.” These areas are in theological and tribal conflict with the central government of Colonel Gaddafi, in addition to being politically opposed to him. Whether such a theological conflict is worth the deaths of still more American and European soldiers is a question which needs urgently to be answered.

West Point Study - page 12

Felter and Fishman remark that “The vast majority of Libyan fighters that included their hometown in the Sinjar Records resided in the country’s northeast, particularly the coastal cities of Darnah 60.2% (52) and Benghazi 23.9% (21). Both Darnah and Benghazi have long been associated with Islamic militancy in Libya, in particular for an uprising by Islamist organizations in the mid-1990s. The Libyan government blamed the uprising on ‘infiltrators from the Sudan and Egypt’ and one group—the Libyan Fighting Group (jama-ah al-libiyah al-muqatilah)—claimed to have Afghan veterans in its ranks. The Libyan uprisings became extraordinarily violent.”5

Northeastern Libya: Highest Density of Suicide Bombers

Another remarkable feature of the Libyan contribution to the war against US forces inside Iraq is the marked propensity of the northeastern Libyans to choose the role of suicide bomber as their preferred method of struggle. As the West Point study states, “Of the 112 Libyans in the Records, 54.4% (61) listed their ‘work.’ Fully 85.2% (51) of these Libyan fighters listed “suicide bomber” as their work in Iraq.”6 This means that the northeastern Libyans were far more apt to choose the role of suicide bomber than those from any other country: “Libyan fighters were much more likely than other nationalities to be listed as suicide bombers (85% for Libyans, 56% for all others).”7

The anti-Qaddafi Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) Merges with al Qaeda, 2007

The specific institutional basis for the recruitment of guerrilla fighters in northeastern Libya is associated with an organization which previously called itself the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). During the course of 2007, the LIFG declared itself an official subsidiary of al Qaeda, later assuming the name of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). As a result of this 2007 merger, an increased number of guerrilla fighters arrived in Iraq from Libya. According to Felter and Fishman, “The apparent surge in Libyan recruits traveling to Iraq may be linked the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group’s (LIFG) increasingly cooperative relationship with al-Qaeda, which culminated in the LIFG officially joining al-Qaeda on November 3, 2007.”8 This merger is confirmed by other sources: A 2008 statement attributed to Ayman al-Zawahiri claimed that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group has joined al-Qaeda.9

Terrorist “Emir” Touts Key Role of Benghazi, Darnah in al Qaeda

The West Point study makes clear that the main bulwarks of the LIFG and of the later AQIM were the twin cities of Benghazi and Darnah. This is documented in a statement by Abu Layth al-Libi, the self-styled “Emir” of the LIFG, who later became a top official of al Qaeda. At the time of the 2007 merger, “Abu Layth al-Libi, LIFG’s Emir, reinforced Benghazi and Darnah’s importance to Libyan jihadis in his announcement that LIFG had joined al-Qa’ida, saying: ‘It is with the grace of God that we were hoisting the banner of jihad against this apostate regime under the leadership of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which sacrificed the elite of its sons and commanders in combating this regime whose blood was spilled on the mountains of Darnah, the streets of Benghazi, the outskirts of Tripoli, the desert of Sabha, and the sands of the beach.’”10

This 2007 merger meant that the Libyan recruits for Al Qaeda became an increasingly important part of the activity of this organization as a whole, shifting the center of gravity to some degree away from the Saudis and Egyptians who had previously been most conspicuous. As Felter and Fishman comment, “Libyan factions (primarily the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group) are increasingly important in al-Qa’ida. The Sinjar Records offer some evidence that Libyans began surging into Iraq in larger numbers beginning in May 2007. Most of the Libyan recruits came from cities in northeast Libya, an area long known for jihadi-linked militancy.”11

The December 2007 West Point study concludes by formulating some policy options for the United States government. One approach, the authors suggest, would be for the United States to cooperate with existing Arab governments against the terrorists. As Felter and Fishman write, “The Syrian and Libyan governments share the United States’ concerns about violent salafi-jihadi ideology and the violence perpetrated by its adherents. These governments, like others in the Middle East, fear violence inside their borders and would much rather radical elements go to Iraq rather than cause unrest at home. U.S. and Coalition efforts to stem the flow of fighters into Iraq will be enhanced if they address the entire logistical chain that supports the movement of these individuals—beginning in their home countries — rather than just their Syrian entry points. The U.S. may be able to increase cooperation from governments to stem the flow of fighters into Iraq by addressing their concerns about domestic jihadi violence.”12 Given the course of subsequent events, we are on firm ground in concluding that this option was not the one selected, neither in the closing years of the Bush administration nor during the first half of the Obama administration.

The West Point study also offers another, more sinister perspective. Felter and Fishman hint that it might be possible to use the former LIFG components of Al Qaeda against the government of Colonel Qaddafi in Libya, in essence creating a de facto alliance between the United States and a segment of the terrorist organization. The West Point report notes: “The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group’s unification with al-Qa’ida and its apparent decision to prioritize providing logistical support to the Islamic State of Iraq is likely controversial within the organization. It is likely that some LIFG factions still want to prioritize the fight against the Libyan regime, rather than the fight in Iraq. It may be possible to exacerbate schisms within LIFG, and between LIFG’s leaders and al-Qa’ida’s traditional Egyptian and Saudi power-base.”13 This suggests the US policy we see today, that of allying with the obscurantist and reactionary al Qaeda fanatics in Libya against the Nasserist modernizer Qaddafi.

Arming the Rebels: The Experience of Afghanistan

Looking back at the tragic experience of US efforts to incite the population of Afghanistan against the Soviet occupation in the years after 1979, it should be clear that the policy of the Reagan White House to arm the Afghan mujahedin with Stinger missiles and other modern weapons turned out to be highly destructive for the United States. As current Defense Secretary Robert Gates comes close to admitting in his memoirs, Al Qaeda was created during those years by the United States as a form of Arab Legion against the Soviet presence, with long-term results which have been highly lamented.

Today, it is clear that the United States is providing modern weapons for the Libyan rebels through Saudi Arabia and across the Egyptian border with the active assistance of the Egyptian army and of the newly installed pro-US Egyptian military junta.14 This is a direct violation of UN Security Council resolution 1973, which calls for a complete arms embargo on Libya. The assumption is that these weapons will be used against Gaddafi in the coming weeks. But, given the violently anti-American nature of the population of northeast Libya that is now being armed, there is no certainty that these weapons will not be soon turned against those who have provided them.

A broader problem is represented by the conduct of the future Libyan government dominated by the current rebel council with its large current majority of northeastern Islamists, or of a similar government of a future Cyrenaica rump state. To the extent that such regimes will have access to oil revenues, obvious problems of international security are posed. Gamage wonders: “If the rebellion succeeds in toppling the Qaddafi regime it will have direct access to the tens of billions of dollars that Qaddafi is believed to have squirreled away in overseas accounts during his four-decade rule.”15 Given the northeast Libyan mentality, we can imagine what such revenues might be used for.

What is al Qaeda and Why the CIA Has Used It

Al Qaeda is not a centralized organization, but rather a gaggle or congeries of fanatics, dupes, psychotics, misfits, double agents, provocateurs, mercenaries, and other elements. As noted, Al Qaeda was founded by the United States and the British during the struggle against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Many of its leaders, such as the reputed second-in-command Ayman Zawahiri and the current rising star Anwar Awlaki, are evidently double agents of MI-6 and/or the CIA. The basic belief structure of Al Qaeda is that all existing Arab and Moslem governments are illegitimate and should be destroyed, because they do not represent the caliphate which Al Qaeda asserts is described by the Koran. This means that the Al Qaeda ideology offers a ready and easy way for the Anglo-American secret intelligence agencies to attack and destabilize existing Arab and Muslim governments as part of the ceaseless need of imperialism and colonialism to loot and attack the developing nations. This is precisely what is happening in Libya today.

Al Qaeda emerged from the cultural and political milieu of the Moslem Brotherhood or Ikhwan, itself a creation of British intelligence in Egypt in the late 1920s. The US and the British used the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood to oppose the successful anti-imperialist policies of Egyptian President Nasser, who scored immense victories for his country by nationalizing the Suez Canal and building the Aswan High Dam, without which modern Egypt would be simply unthinkable. The Muslim brotherhood provided an active and capable fifth column of foreign agents against Nasser, in the same way that the official website of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb is trumpeting its support for the rebellion against Colonel Qaddafi.

I have discussed the nature of Al Qaeda at some length in my recent book entitled 9/11 Synthetic Terrorism: Made in USA, and that analysis cannot be repeated here. It is enough to say that we do not need to believe in all the fantastic mythology which the United States government has spun around the name of Al Qaeda in order to recognize the basic fact that militants or patsies who spontaneously join al Qaeda are often sincerely motivated by a deep hatred of the United States and a burning desire to kill Americans, as well as Europeans. The Bush administration policy used the alleged presence of Al Qaeda as a pretext for direct military attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq. The Obama administration is now doing something different, intervening on the side of a rebellion in which Al Qaeda and its co-thinkers are heavily represented while attacking the secular authoritarian government of Colonel Gaddafi. Both of these policies are bankrupt and must be abandoned.

Rebel Leaders Jalil and Younis, Plus Most of Rebel Council are Members of the al Qaeda-linked Harabi Tribe

The result of the present inquiry is that the Libyan branch of Al Qaeda represents a continuum with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group centered in Darnah and Benghazi. The ethnic base of the Libyan Islamic fighting group is apparently to be found in the anti-Qaddafi Harabi tribe, the tribe which makes up the vast majority of the rebel council including the two dominant rebel leaders, Abdul Fatah Younis and Mustafa Abdul Jalil. The evidence thus suggests that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, the elite of the Harabi tribe, and the rebel council supported by Obama all overlap for all practical purposes. As the late Foreign Minister of Guyana Fred Wills, a real fighter against imperialism and neo-colonialism, taught me many years ago, political formations in developing countries (and not just there) are often a mask for ethnic and religious rivalries; so it is in Libya. The rebellion against Qaddafi is a toxic brew compounded of fanatical hatred of Qaddafi, Islamism, tribalism, and localism. From this point of view, Obama has foolishly chosen to take sides in a tribal war.

When Hillary Clinton went to Paris to be introduced to the Libyan rebels by French President Sarkozy, she met the US-educated Libyan opposition leader Mahmoud Jibril, already known to readers of Wikileaks document dumps as a favorite of the US.16

While Jibril might be considered presentable in Paris, the real leaders of the Libyan insurrection would appear to be Jalil and Younis, both former ministers under Qaddafi. Jalil seems to be the primus inter pares, at least for the moment: “Mustafa Abdul Jalil or Abdul-Jalil (Arabic: مصطفى عبد الجليل, also transcribed Abdul-Jelil, Abd-al-Jalil, Abdel-Jalil or Abdeljalil; and frequently but erroneously as Abud Al Jeleil) (born 1952) is a Libyan politician. He was the Minister of Justice (unofficially, the Secretary of the General People’s Committee) under Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi…. Abdul Jalil has been identified as the Chairman of the National Transitional Council based in Benghazi… although this position is contested by others in the uprising due to his past connections to Gaddafi’s regime.”17

As for Younis, he has been closely associated with Qaddafi since the 1968-9 seizure of power: “Abdul Fatah Younis (Arabic: عبد الفتاح يونس) is a senior military officer in Libya. He held the rank of General and the post of Minister of Interior, but resigned on 22 February 2011….”18

What should concern us most is that both Jalil and Younis come from the Haribi tribe, the dominant one in northeast Libya, and the one that overlaps with al Qaeda. According to Stratfor, the “…Harabi tribe is a historically powerful umbrella tribe in eastern Libya that saw their influence wane under Col. Gadhafi. The Libyan leader confiscated swaths of tribal members’ land and redistributed it to weaker and more loyal tribes…. Many of the leaders now emerging in eastern Libya hail from the Harabi tribe, including the head of the provisional government set up in Benghazi, Abdel Mustafa Jalil, and Abdel Fatah Younis, who assumed a key leadership role over the defected military ranks early in the uprising.”19 This is like a presidential ticket where both candidates are from the same state, except that Libya’s ferocious tribal rivalries make the problem infinitely worse.

The Rebel Council: Half the Names Are Kept Secret; Why?

This picture of a narrow, sectarian tribal and regional base does not improve when we look at the rebel council as a whole. According to one recent version, the rebel council is “chaired by the well-spoken former justice minister for Libya, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, [and] consists of 31 members, ostensibly representatives from across Libya, of whom many cannot be named for “security reasons”…. “The key players on the council, at least those who we know about, all hail from the north-eastern Harabi confederation of tribes. These tribes have strong affiliations with Benghazi that date back to before the 1969 revolution which brought Gaddafi to power.”20 Other accounts agree about the number of representatives: “The council has 31 members; the identities of several members has not been made public to protect their own safety.”21 Given what we know about the extraordinary density of LIFG and all Qaeda fanatics in northeast Libya, we are authorized to wonder as to whether so many members of the council are being kept secret in order to protect them from Qaddafi, or whether the goal is to prevent them from being recognized in the west as al Qaeda terrorists or sympathizers. The latter seems to be a more accurate summary of the real state of affairs.

Names released so far include: Mustafa Abduljaleel; Ashour Hamed Bourashed of Darna city; Othman Suleiman El-Megyrahi of the Batnan area; Al Butnan of the Egypt border and Tobruk; Ahmed Abduraba Al-Abaar of Benghazi city; Fathi Mohamed Baja of Benghazi city; Abdelhafed Abdelkader Ghoga of Benghazi city; Mr. Omar El-Hariri for Military Affairs; and Dr. Mahmoud Jibril, Ibrahim El-Werfali and Dr. Ali Aziz Al-Eisawi for foreign affairs.22

The State Department needs to interrogate these figures, starting perhaps with Ashour Hamed Bourashed, the delegate from the terrorist and suicide bomber stronghold of Darnah.

How Many al Qaeda Members, Veterans, or Sympathizers are on the Rebel Council?

Seeing as clearly as we can in the fog of war, it looks like slightly more than a dozen of the members of the rebel council have had their names officially published — in any case, not more than half of the reported 31 members. The US and European media have not taken the lead in identifying for us the names that are now known, and they above all have not called attention to the majority of the rebel council who are still lurking in the shadows of total secrecy. We must therefore demand to know how many LIFG and/or al Qaeda members, veterans, or sympathizers currently hold seats on the rebel council.

We are thus witnessing an attempt by the Harabi tribe to seize dominance over the 140 tribes of Libya. The Harabi are already practically hegemonic among the tribes of Cyrenaica. At the center of the Harabi Confederation is the Obeidat tribe, which is divided into 15 sub-tribes.23 All of this might be of purely academic ethnographic interest, were it not for the fact of the striking overlap between the Harabi tribe and the LIFG and al Qaeda.

The Senussi Movement of Libya — Monarchist Democracy?

The political-religious tradition of northeast Libya makes this area such fertile ground for the more extreme Muslim sects and also predisposes it to monarchism rather than to the more modern forms of government favored by Qaddafi. The relevant regional tradition is that of the Senussi or Sanussi order, an anti-western Moslem sect. In Libya the Senussi order is closely associated with monarchism, since King Idris I, the ruler installed by the British in 1951 who was overthrown by Gaddafi in 1969, was also the leader of the Senussi order. The Senussi directed the rebellion against Italian colonialism in the person of Marshal Rodolfo Graziani and his army in the 1930s. Today, the rebels use the monarchist flag, and may advocate the return to the throne of one of the two pretenders to the Idris line. They are far closer to monarchism than to democracy

King Idris, Revered by the Libyan Rebels of Today

Here is the Stratfor view of King Idris and the Senussi: “King Idris came from a line of rulers of the Sanussi order, a Sufi religious order founded in 1842 in Al Bayda, that practices a conservative and austere form of Islam. The Sanussiyah represented a political force in Cyrenaica that preceded the creation of the modern state of Libya, and whose reverberations continue to be felt to this day. It is no coincidence that this region is the home of Libyan jihadism, with groups like the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). The Gadhafi family has thus been calling the current uprising an elaborate Islamist plot….”24 Under the monarchy, Libya was by some estimates absolutely the poorest country in the world. Today, Libya ranks 53 on the UN Human Development Index and qualifies as the most developed country in Africa, ahead of Russia, Brazil, Ukraine, and Venezuela. Qaddafi’s stewardship has objective merits which cannot be seriously denied.

Glen Ford’s Black Agenda Report has correctly sought to show the racist and reactionary character of the Libyan insurrection. The tribes of southern Libya, known as the Fezzan, are dark skinned. The tribal underpinning of the Gaddafi regime has been an alliance of the tribes of the West, the center, and the southern Fezzan, against the Harabi and the Obeidat, who identify with the former monarchist ruling class. The Harabi and Obeidat are known to nurture a deep racist hatred against the Fezzan. This was expressed in frequent news reports from the pro-imperialist media at the beginning of the rebellion evidently inspired by Harabi accounts, according to which black people in Libya had to be treated as mercenaries working for Gaddafi — with the clear implication that they were to be exterminated. These racist inventions are still being repeated by quackademics like Dean Slaughter of the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton. And in fact, large numbers of black Africans from Chad and other countries working in Libyan have been systematically lynched and massacred by the anti-Gaddafi forces. The Obama White House, for all its empty talk of not wanting to repeat the massacre in Rwanda, has conveniently ignored this shocking story of real genocide at the hands of its new racist friends in Cyrenaica.

Against the obscurantism of the Senussi, Qaddafi has advanced the Moslem equivalent of the priesthood of all believers, arguing that no caliphate is necessary in order to discover the meaning of the Koran. He has supplemented this with a pan African perspective. Gerald A. Perreira of the Black Agenda Report writes the following about the theological division between Gaddafi and the neo-Senussi of northeast Libya, as well as other obscuranitsts: “Al Qaeda is in the Sahara on his borders and the International Union of Muslim Scholars is calling for [Qaddafi] to be tried in a court…. [Qaddafi] has questioned the Islam of the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda from a Quranic/theological perspective and is one of the few political leaders equipped to do so…. Benghazi has always been at the heart of counter-revolution in Libya, fostering reactionary Islamic movements such as the Wahhabis and Salafists. It is these people who founded the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group based in Benghazi which allies itself with Al Qaeda and who have, over the years, been responsible for the assassination of leading members of the Libyan revolutionary committees.”25 And what would be for example the status of women under the neo-Senussi of the Benghazi rebel council?

Al Qaeda from Demon to US ally in Libya

For those who attempt to follow the ins and outs of the CIA’s management of its various patsy organizations inside the realm of presumed Islamic terrorism, it may be useful to trace the transformation of the LIFG-AQIM from deadly enemy to close ally. This phenomenon is closely linked to the general reversal of the ideological fronts of US imperialism that marks the divide between the Bush-Cheney-neocon administrations and the current Obama-Brzezinski-International Crisis Group regime. The Bush approach was to use the alleged presence of Al Qaeda as a reason for direct military attack. The Obama method is to use Al Qaeda to overthrow independent governments, and then either Balkanize and partition the countries in question, or else use them as kamikaze puppets against larger enemies like Russia, China, or Iran. This approach implies a more or less open fraternization with terrorist groups, which was signaled in a general way in Obamas famous Cairo speech of 2009. The links of the Obama campaign to the terrorist organizations deployed by the CIA against Russia were already a matter of public record three years ago.26

But such a reversal of field cannot be improvised overnight; it took several years of preparation. On July 10, 2009, The London Daily Telegraph reported that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group had split with Al Qaeda. This was when the United States had decided to de-emphasize the Iraq war, and also to prepare to use the Sunni Moslem Brotherhood and its Sunni Al Qaeda offshoot for the destabilization of the leading Arab states preparatory to turning them against Shiite Iran. Paul Cruikshank wrote at that time in the New York Daily News about one top LIFG honcho who wanted to dial back the relation to al Qaeda and the infamous Osama Bin Laden; this was “Noman Benotman, a former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. While mainstream Muslim leaders have long criticized Al Qaeda, these critics have the jihadist credentials to make their criticisms bite.”27 But by this time some LIFG bosses had moved up into al Qaeda: the London Daily Telegraph reported that senior Al Qaeda members Abu Yahya al-Libi and Abu Laith al-Libi were LIFG members. Around this time, Qaddafi released some LIFG fighters in an ill-advsided humanitarian gesture.

Northeast Libyan Jihadis Killing US, NATO Forces in Afghanistan Right Now

One of the fatal contradictions in the current State Department and CIA policy is that it aims at a cordial alliance with Al Qaeda killers in northeast Libya, at the very moment when the United States and NATO are mercilessly bombing the civilian northwest Pakistan in the name of a total war against Al Qaeda, and US and NATO forces are being killed by Al Qaeda guerrillas in that same Afghanistan-Pakistan theater of war. The force of this glaring contradiction causes the entire edifice of US war propaganda to collapse. The US has long since lost any basis in morality for military force.

In fact, terrorist fighters from northeast Libya may be killing US and NATO troops in Afghanistan right now, even as the US and NATO protect their home base from the Qaddafi government. According to this account, a top Al Qaeda commander in northwest Pakistan was killed by US action as recently as October 2010: “A senior al Qaeda leader who serves as al Qaeda’s ambassador to Iran, and is wanted by the US, is reported to have been killed in a Predator air strike in Pakistan’s Taliban-controlled tribal agency of North Waziristan two days ago…. [This was] Atiyah Abd al Rahman, a Libyan national who has been based in Iran and served as Osama bin Laden’s ambassador to the mullahs. Unconfirmed press reports indicate that Rahman was killed in an airstrike….”28 The US State Department’s Rewards for Justice page for Atiyah Abd al Rahman notes that he was al Qaeda’s “emissary in Iran as appointed by Osama bin Ladin.” Atiyah “recruited and facilitated talks with other Islamic groups to operate under” al Qaeda and was “also a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and Ansar al Sunna.”29 Rahman was ranked high enough in al Qaeda to be able to give orders to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of al Qeada in Iraq, in 2005.

Also killed in Pakistan was another apparent northeast Libyan going by the name of Khalid al Harabi, whose choice of a nom de guerre may well link him to the jihadi farm among the Harabi tribe in Cyrenaica. According to one account, “Khalid al Harabi is an alias for Khalid Habib, al Qaeda’s former military commander who was killed in a US Predator strike in October 2008.”30

The Scenario Uncovered by the 1995 Shayler Affair is Operative Today

In 1995, David Shayler, an official of the British counterintelligence organization MI-5, became aware that his counterpart at the British foreign espionage organization MI-6 had paid the sum of £100,000 to an Al Qaeda affiliate in exchange for the attempt to assassinate Qaddafi. The assassination attempt did occur, and killed several innocent bystanders, but failed to eliminate the Libyan ruler. As Shayler understood the MI-6 scenario, it included the liquidation of Gaddafi, followed by the descent of Libya into chaos and tribal warfare, with a possible option for a direct seizure of power by al Qaeda itself. This situation would then provide a pretext for Britain, probably but not necessarily acting together with the United States or other countries, to invade Libya and seize control of the oil fields, probably establishing a permanent protectorate over the oil regions, the pipelines, and the coast.31 This remains the goal today.

Timed to coincide with the attempt to assassinate Qaddafi, MI-6 and other Western secret intelligence agencies fomented a considerable insurrection in northeast Libya, almost precisely in the same areas which are in rebellion today. Its insurrection was successfully crushed by Qaddafi’s forces by the end of 1996. The events of 2011 are simply a reprise of the imperialist attack on Libya 15 years ago, with the addition of outside intervention..

The War Against the Nation State

Today’s attack on Libya comes in the context of a broad attack on the institution of the sovereign nation state itself, as it has existed since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. The United States and the British are deeply concerned by the large number of nations which are seeking to escape from Anglo-American hegemony by actively pursuing large-scale cooperation with Russia on security, with China on economic questions, and with Iran for geopolitical considerations. The CIA/MI-6 response has been a wild orgy of destabilizations, people power coups, color revolutions, and palace putsches, signaled by the document dumps by the CIA limited hangout operation known as Wikileaks, which has targeted names of the CIA hit mist from Ben Ali to Qaddafi. The Obama strategy would have preferred an exclusive reliance and the illusion that the Arab Spring was really a matter of youthful visionary idealists gathering in the public square to praise democracy, the rule of law, and human rights. This was never the reality: the actual decisions were being made by brutal cliques of generals and top officials bribed or blackmailed by the CIA who were moving behind the scenes to oust such figures as Ben Ali or Mubarak. Whatever else Qaddafi has done, he has undoubtedly forced the CIA and NATO to drop the pleasant mask of youthful idealism and human rights, revealing a hideous visage of Predator drones, terror bombing, widespread slaughter, and colonialist arrogance underneath. Qaddafi has also ripped the mask of “Yes We Can” off Obama, revealing a cynical warmonger intent on the continuation of Bush’s infamous “Dead or Alive” and “Bring it on” policies, although by other means.

A Distant Mirror for Imperialists in Libya: Lucan’s Pharsalia

Modern imperialists eager to rush into Libya should ponder Lucan’s Pharsalia, which treats of warfare in the Libyan desert during the contest between Julius Caesar and Pompey the Great at the end of the Roman Republic. A critical passage in this Latin epic is the speech by Cato of Utica, a follower of Pompey, who urges his soldiers to undertake a suicide mission into Libya, saying: “Serpents, thirst, heat, and sand … Libya alone can present a multitude of woes that it would beseem men to fly from.” Cato goes forward, and finds “a little tomb to enclose [his] hallowed name, Libya secured the death of Cato….”32

Let us not imitate this folly.

Investigative leads from the West Point Study: An Appeal to Scholars

The West Point study, as noted, was conducted on the basis of almost 700 Al Qaeda personnel files captured by coalition forces in Iraq.33 The authors of the study have promised to keep available online the documentary basis of this investigation, both in the form of the raw Arabic language al Qaeda personnel files34, and also of the same file cards in English translation.35 Assuming that this material remains available, it might be possible for researchers and reporters, and especially those with capabilities in Arabic not possessed by the present writer, to investigate the Libyan fighters who went into Iraq with a view to determining whether any of them are family members, neighbors, or even political associates of the known members of the Benghazi rebel council or of other anti-Qaddafi forces. Such a procedure could contribute to allowing the European and American public as well as others around the world to better understand the nature of the military adventure currently unfolding in Libya by gaining a more specific knowledge of who the Libyan rebels actually are, as distinct from the hollow panegyrics purveyed by the controlled Western media.


1 Joseph Felter and Brian Fishman, “Al Qa’ida’s Foreign Fighter in Iraq: A First Look at the Sinjar Records,” (West Point, NY: Harmony Project, Combating Terrorism Center, Department of Social Sciences, US Military Academy, December 2007). Cited as West Point Study.
2 Joseph Felter and Brian Fishman, “Al Qa’ida’s Foreign Fighter in Iraq: A First Look at the Sinjar Records,” (West Point, NY: Harmony Project, Combating Terrorism Center, Department of Social Sciences, US Military Academy, December 2007). Cited as West Point Study.
3 West Point Study, pp. 8-9.
4 Daya Gamage, “Libyan rebellion has radical Islamist fervor: Benghazi link to Islamic militancy, U.S. Military Document Reveals,” Asian Tribune, March 17, 2011, at
5 West Point Study, p. 12.
6 West Point Study, p. 19.
7 West Point Study, p. 27.
8 West Point Study, p. 9.
10 West Point Study, p. 12.
11 West Point Study, p. 27.
12 West Point Study, p. 29.
13 West Point Study, p. 28.
14 See “Egypt Said to Arm Libya Rebels, Wall Street Journal, March 17, 2011, at; see also Robert Fisk, “America’s secret plan to arm Libya’s rebels,”Independent, Mach 7, 2011, at
15 Gamage.
19 Stratfor, “Libya’s Tribal Dyanmics, February 25, 2011, available at
20 Venetia Rainey, “Who are the rebels we are fighting to protect,” The First Post,news-comment,news-politics,who-are-the-rebels-we-are-fighting-to-protect#ixzz1HMRIrUP9
22 Statement by “Transition National Council,” Benghazi, March 5, 2011 at;
23 Massimo Introvigne, “L’occidente alla guerra delle tribù,” La Bussola quotidiana, March 22, 2011, at
24 Stratfor, “Libya’s Tribal Dyanmics, February 25, 2011, available at
25 Gerald A. Perreira, “Libya, Getting it Right: A Revolutionary Pan-African Perspective,” Black Agenda Report, March 2, 2011, at
26 Webster G. Tarpley, “Obama Campaign Linked To Chechen Terrorism: Grant Of Taxpayer-Funded U.S. Asylum For Chechen Terror Envoy Gave Obama Foreign Policy Guru Zbigniew Brzezinski ‘One Of The Happiest Days Of My Life,’” February 2, 2008, Obama the Postmodern Coup: The Making of a Manchurian Candidate (Joshua Treet CA: Progressive Press, April 2008), pp. 97-115, online at
27 Paul Cruikshank, “How Muslim extremists are turning on Osama Bin Laden,” New York Daily News, June 8, 2008, at Cruickshank is a fellow at the NYU Center on Law and Security and the co-author, with Peter Bergen, of the … cover story in the New Republic, “The Jihadist Revolt against Bin Laden.”
31 See Machon, Annie (2005). Spies, Lies & Whistleblowers. MI5, MI6 and the Shayler Affair. Lewes, East Sussex: The Book Guild Ltd. 185776952X; Hollingsworth, Mark; Nick Fielding (1999). Defending the Realm: MI5 and the Shayler Affair. Andre Deutsch Ltd. ISBN 0233996672; see also Guardian, April 10, 2000
32 Lucan, Pharsalia, Book IX, trans Riley (London: Bell, 1903), p. 355.

Coalition of Crusaders join with al Qaeda to oust Qaddafi and roll back Libyan Revolution

Coalition of Crusaders join with al Qaeda to oust Qaddafi and roll back Libyan Revolution

PDF Print E-mail
A coalition of Crusaders, as Qaddafi described them, including the US, Britain, France, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Spain and Canada, have begun an all out military assault against Libya. Using what Libya claims is an invalid and illegal UN resolution as a pretext, the coalition is pounding the Libyan defense forces with a military might that has not been seen since the Gulf war.

The real and illegal goal of what has been called Operation ‘Odyssey Dawn’ is ‘regime change’. A replay of the nightmarish Gulf war scenario, the plan is clear: to disable Libya’s defense ability, and to arm and strengthen the reactionary conglomerate of  rebel forces in Benghazi, in the hope that this rag tag bunch will roll back, once and for all, the Libyan revolution.

This is not the first imperialist attempt to lynch Qaddafi and bring Libya to its knees. In 1986, the US falsely accused Libya of the bombing of a discotheque in Berlin and Reagan attempted to assassinate Qaddafi, by bombing the Bab al-Azizia compound in Tripoli where he was housed, killing Qaddafi’s daughter and over one hundred Libyans. Next, Libya was falsely accused of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing as an excuse for initiating sanctions, in order to economically cripple the revolution.

Not the first time Britain and al Qaeda have collaborated on  Libya

In 1996, British intelligence employed the services of  an al Qaeda cell inside Libya, paying them a huge fee to assassinate Muammar Qaddafi.  A grenade was lobbed at Qaddafi as he walked among a crowd in his hometown, Sirte.  He was saved by  one of his bodyguards, who threw herself on the grenade.

Former  MI5 operative, David Shayler revealed that while he was working on the Libya desk in the mid 90s, British secret service personnel were collaborating with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which is connected to one of Osama bin Laden’s trusted lieutenants.

Muammar Qaddafi and the Libyan revolutionary forces were the first to issue an arrest warrant for Osama bin Laden. They have spent years trying to warn the world about the very serious threat posed by these Islamic deviants. According to Shayler, western intelligence turned a deaf ear to Libya’s warnings because they were actually working with the al Qaeda group inside Libya, to bring down Qaddafi and the Libyan revolution.

Anas al Libi was a member of the Libyan al-Qaeda cell. He remains on the US government’s most wanted list, with a reward of $25 million for his capture, and is wanted for his involvement in the African embassy bombings. al Libi was with bin Laden in Sudan before the al Qaeda leader returned to Afghanistan in 1996.

Surprisingly, or not so surprisingly, despite being a high-level al Qaeda operative, al Libi

was given political asylum in Britain and lived in Manchester until May of 2000.

Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM)

The claims by Qaddafi and the Libyan revolutionary forces that the rebels in Benghazi are inspired by al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and the serious threat this poses, not only to Libya but to the entire region, are once again falling on deaf ears, just as David Shayler said they did back in the mid 90s. Why?  Because once again, British intelligence forces, among others, are clearly in collaboration with the rebels in Benghazi  – those referred to all over Libya as the ‘bearded ones’, who have close ties to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.

The evidence for this is overwhelming. As revealed by Shayler, the British have a long standing relationship with the al Qaeda affiliated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, based inside Libya. The British also have an historical relationship with the Wahhabi/Salafi brand of Islam, espoused today by Ikhwan al Muslimeen (Mulsim Brotherhood) and their offshoots, including al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.

A Battle with a Long History

In 1744, an alliance was formed between the founder of Wahhabism, Muhammad ibn Abdal-Wahhab and the ruthless tribal leader, Muhammad ibn Saud, whose descendants rule Saudi Arabia up to today. This reactionary brand of Islam was the perfect theological foundation for the colonial creation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and Wahhabism remains the official Islamic tendency in Saudi Arabia up till today. In 1915, the British entered into a treaty with the murderous House of Saud, protecting their lands and supplying them with weaponry, as part of the colonial project to establish the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. At the same time, the British did every thing they could to help the Wahhabist doctrine to flourish, recognizing  it as the perfect ideological tool to further their imperialist objectives. Some scholars have argued that the British actually helped to create Wahhabism.

Imagine, today, the British are calling on the descendants of Muhammad ibn Saud, the current Saudi regime, and their present day army of Wahhabis in the form of al Qaeda, to join in a medieval crusade to crush a bastion of revolutionary Islam, which is present day Libya. And the contradictions verify this. We have to wonder why a Saudi government official can say on BBC that “to allow the people to choose their own government is a very bad thing”, and why, with all the Western outcry about women’s rights in the Muslim world, the Saudi regime, which does not even allow women to vote or drive motorcars, is never questioned. Instead they are the ones that the Americans, British, and French are calling on to join them in the destruction of Libya which has liberated women and struggled to bring real democracy to its people.

As early as the mid 19th century, Wahhabi fundamentalism was imported into Benghazi by the reactionary and feudal Senussi fraternity. The influence of this tendency has been passed on from generation to generation, and Benghazi has been the center for those who have consistently opposed the liberatory Islam articulated by Qaddafi and implemented by the Libyan revolution.

The Muslims of Benghazi, who embrace the same ideology as al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, and have done for the last hundred years or more, have been reinvigorated in the last few years by AQIM’s presence on Libya’s borders. There is a renewed interest in the possibility of achieving the stated goal of AQIM, which is the establishment of an Wahhabi Islamic Emirate in the Maghreb, stretching over the entire North African region. When we understand the history of this region, we realize why the the imperialists have not gone out of their way to find Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri and how and why these reactionary forces and doctrines are actually encouraged by western powers.

To understand Qaddafi’s current claims about al Qaeda in the Maghreb, we have to understand both the history of this current battle and also the present day chapter: how al Qaeda affiliated organizations operate in the region in 2011. There is a deliberate attempt to misguide the uninformed with the suggestion that Qaddafi is throwing up a simplistic image of Osama bin Laden directing the rebellion in Benghazi from a cave somewhere, as a scare tactic. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Qaddafi is well aware of  the reactionary aims of Wahhabism and understands only too well their modus operandi in the region. Being affiliated to al Qaeda does not mean that each cell refers to an al Qaeda central command. Rather, al Qaeda is a Wahhabi/Salafi   ideological movement and it has reinvigorated Salafi movements and cells worldwide.   The term Salafi simply refers to a contemporary strain of Wahhabism.

If there remains any skepticism regarding Qaddafi’s claims, let us turn to the Washington based think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations, which gives us a description of AQIM’s operations in the region.

On their official website they state:

“Terrorist activity in North Africa has been reinvigorated in the last few years by a local Algerian Islamist group turned pan-Maghreb jihadi organization: al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). A Sunni group that previously called itself the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC), the organization has taken responsibility for a number of terrorist attacks in the region, declared its intention to attack Western targets, and sent a squad of jihadis to Iraq. Experts believe these actions suggest widening ambitions within the group’s leadership, now pursuing a more global, sophisticated, and better-financed direction. Long categorized as part of a strictly domestic insurgency against Algeria’s military government, AQIM claims to be the local franchise operation for al Qaeda, a worrying development for a region that has been relatively peaceful since the bloody Algerian civil war of the 1990s drew to a close. European officials are taking AQIM’s international threats seriously and are worried about the growing number of Europe-based cells.”

The Struggle Continues

This current battle in Benghazi is not new in Libya. For many years, the revolutionary forces have been struggling to keep this feudal, reactionary brand of Islam in check.

On February 24th, 2011, at the very outset of the Benghazi rebellion, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb posted the following statement on the al Qaeda affiliated al Fajr website: “We declare our support for the legitimate demands of the Libyan revolution. We assert to our people in Libya that we are with you and will not let you down, God willing. We will give everything we have to support you, with God’s grace.”

A few days after this statement was issued by AQIM, al Libi resurfaced. The same al Libi exposed by David Shayler as an al Qaeda operative working inside Libya back in the 90s. Now a top al Qaeda commander based in Afghanistan, he urged his countrymen to overthrow Muammar Qaddafi’s regime and establish Islamic rule.  Al Libi, a pseudonym that means ‘the Libyan’ in Arabic, said in a video, produced by As-Sahab, the media wing of al Qaeda,  that “it would bring shame to the Libyan people if the strongman (Qaddafi) were allowed to die a peaceful death”.

Al Qaeda and Drugs in the Maghreb

Libya’s revolutionary forces have also made continual references to the fact that there are drug problems in the region and that many of the young people are affected. Once again, this claim was scoffed at by Western media and analysts, who are ill informed about what is actually taking place on the ground.

As recently as November 2010, Moroccan police detained 34 people with ties to al Qaeda in the Islamic Mahgreb, attempting to move 1,300 pounds of cocaine through the country.

Moroccan Interior Minister, Taieb Cherquaoui said “We are dealing with an apparent coordination and collaboration between drug traffickers and terrorists linked to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.”

He added that the leader of AQIM’s drug ring was detained in Mali, and he stated that the international drug peddling ring involved local Moroccan drug traffickers, who were collaborating with al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, as well as cartels in Latin America.

Until recently, Moroccan authorities have been able to keep the actions of al Qaeda inside Morocco at bay. The drug activity, however, has now revealed the extremist organization’s growing network, and the interior minister expressed “the urgent need for the Sahel countries to collaborate to secure their territories and to fight the group’s expansion.”

Tragically, the ‘coalition of crusaders’ has seen fit to pound Qaddafi’s defense installations, thereby preventing Libya from being able to challenge AQIM’s expansion into their sovereign territory.

In a further development on this front, the Wahhabi spiritual leader of Ikhwan al Muslimeen, Egyptian cleric, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, issued a fatwa stating that any Libyan soldier who can shoot dead embattled leader Muammar Qaddafi should do so “to rid Libya of him.”

Qaradawi is a neo-feudalist, who has defended the practice of female genital mutilation, called for the death penalty to be applied to those who leave Islam and advocates separate systems of law for different classes of citizens. Such are the views of those who are opposing Muammar Qaddafi.

In a letter to Barak al Hussein Obama and in a separate letter to Sarkozy, Cameron and Banki Moon hours before the coalition launched its first military strikes, Qaddafi stated clearly that the destabilization of Libya’s eastern cities was being inspired and assisted by al Qaeda in the Islamic Magreb, and he invited member states of the coalition to come to

Libya and confirm this reality for themselves.

Of course, just as the war in Iraq was not about establishing the truth regarding weapons of mass destruction, this war against Libya was not about discovering the truth of events on the ground or verifying Qaddafi’s claims. When we understand the historical and present day facts, we realize that the crusader coalition is well aware of exactly who they are fighting and who they are supporting.  In fact, that is why they were in such a hurry to act – to prevent any international fact finding mission which would verify Qaddafi’s claims for the world to see.

In the letter to Obama, Qaddafi asked him if al Qaeda was occupying American cities what Obama would do so that he (Qaddafi) could follow his lead. All to no avail, because Qaddafi has been demonised to the point of being inhuman and therefore not requiring even the courtesy of a response. Named by US media as the Castro of the Middle East there is only one aim – remove him by any means necessary.


In contrast to the Wahhabis and the neo-colonial regimes in the region, Qaddafi is a revolutionary leader who has consistently opposed western hegemony in the Arab and African World. Libya’s revolution has, for the past three decades, assisted liberation movements all over the world struggling against neo-colonialism and imperialism.

Libya’s oil resources are of course a factor. We know for sure that control of oil resources is a top priority for the the US and Europe. but even more worrying for the imperialists is Qaddafi’s call for a United States of Africa – with one government, one army and one currency.

Not surprisingly, the actions taken against Qaddafi and Libya are in stark contrast to western inaction with regard to events on the ground in other countries in the region such as Yemen, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia, where protesters are being shot in the streets.  In the case of Bahrain, protesters are being brutally suppressed with the assistance of invading Saudi ground forces and in Saudi Arabia itself, the regime has told its people that “anyone who raises a finger against the Saudi monarchy will have their finger cut off!.”

The so-called international community can barely name their long time partner in crime, Saudi Arabia, in their pronouncements, such is their support for this most undemocratic of regimes. In fact, far from condemning the actions of these governments, the Crusading coalition is frantically trying to get some of these same Arab countries to actively join the military operation against Libya so that this whole thing does not look like another US and European led aggression.

Are we going to hear impassioned pleas regarding the aspirations of the people of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia? Are the US, Britain and France going to launch attacks on Yemen and Bahrain to assist the uprisings there to achieve regime change. I don’t think so.

Arab League legitimizes Crusade

The Arab League endorsed this imperialist attack on Libyan soil despite the nightmare of Iraq, where the number of civilian deaths has now reached one and a half million. It is an honor for Qaddafi to have no support among this league of bloated imperialist surrogates. At a recent meeting, he told them, prophetically it now seems, that they should be ashamed of themselves, having sat by and watched the US hang the entire leadership of the Iraqi Arab Ba’ath regime.  It should be noted that although there were serious ideological and political differences between Qaddafi and Saddam Hussein, Libya took a principled position regarding hostile external aggression against Iraq. A few days ago, the National Leadership of the Arab Ba’ath Socialist Party issued a statement expressing solidarity with the revolutionary forces of Libya.

The Arab League has been consistently embarrassed by Qaddafi’s outspoken criticism of their double standards and hypocrisy with regard to Palestine, Iraq and a host of other issues, they are terrified by Qaddafi’s revolutionary Islam, and are contemptuous of Black Africa and Qaddafi’s attempts to bring about African-Arab unity.

Recently, when Qaddafi urged Libyans to intermarry with Africans, following the example of  Prophet Muhammad himself, who encouraged intermarriage between races, Libyan and Arab  contempt for Black Africans re-surfaced. Extremely few fair skinned Arabs would sanction the marriage of their daughters to a Black African. Rarely do fair skinned Libyans marry Black Libyans. Their disdain for Black people runs deep.

In fact, across other Arab countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and the Gulf States, the horror stories emerging regarding the mistreatment of African domestic servants is reminiscent of the kind of treatment meted out to Black people during the days of chattel slavery. So a project for the development and unification of all of Africa, uniting, on equal terms, the ‘Arab’ north with Black Africa, is not close to the hearts of many fair skinned Arabs. Qaddafi is an exception to the rule.

In his book ‘Islam and the Third Universal Theory: The Religious Thought of Muammar Qaddafi’ ,the respected Muslim scholar, Mahmoud Ayoub, states that:

“he (Qaddafi) wishes to follow the example of the Prophet who fought with such determination against oppression and inequality in society that Bilal, the Black slave, became equal with his master Umayyah. He sees his own mission and the task of the

Libyan revolution as having the same motivations and goal for modern Muslim society. The basic aim of the Green Book is to present in general and contemporary terms the ideals of justice and equality which Qaddafi sees in the Qur’an and the life of the Prophet and his community.”

And what of Libya’s African neighbors?

‘A Million Man March’

Already an estimated 16,000 African freedom fighters (not mercenaries as the BBC, CNN and Al Jazeera would have us believe) have poured into Libya from the Congo, Guinea, Zimbabwe, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Niger, Chad, Mauritania, Southern Sudan, Kenya, Ethiopia and Burkina Faso to fight to the death for the Libyan revolution and Brother Muammar Al Qaddafi.

According to an official in northern Mali, hundreds of young Tuaregs from Mali and Niger are also among the African fighters,  “We’re very worried”, said Assalat Ag Abdou Salam, president of the Regional Assembly of Kidal, “These young people are moving in droves to Libya. It’s very dangerous for us because whether Qaddafi wins or falls the impact will be felt in our region.”

We are witnessing a Pan-African unity on the ground that we have never seen before. Who is this man and this revolution that has the moral authority and power to draw an army of Africans from every corner of the continent?

One Tripoli resident answered with the following statement:  “Qaddafi is our Che Guevara, and for Libyans and many people around the world, he is a symbol of freedom and democracy.”

He explained that the West does not understand Libya and the age old tribal and religious battles that are being waged, and pointed out, that even if Qaddafi was to leave Libya, these armed gangs and tribes would fight till judgment day. He added that it is Qaddafi who has tried for the last 40 years to overcome these age old conflicts and the backwardness that accompanies them, and build real democracy, through a system of people’s congresses and popular committees.

He finished by saying that “the West does not know this man but that they would surely come to know who he is now.”

The Pan-Africanism we are finally witnessing is not the ivory tower academic brand, which has been viewed as relatively harmless and ineffective by the imperialists, but a grassroots Pan-Africanism – bottom up –  which has given birth to the continent’s first Pan-African army, willing to lay down their lives for a revolution and a leader that they love and to whom they owe a great deal.

Many of these fighters and liberation movements have received education, military training and assistance from Libya when they were battling imperialist backed despotic regimes in their own countries, and now they are determined to defend the man and country who stood by them in their darkest hour. This attack on Libya has serious repercussions for the entire African continent.

The Pan-Africanist Congress of Azania (South Africa) travelled to Libya to meet with Qaddafi face to face and express their support and solidarity. They issued a statement expressing “their support to Qaddafi, who had been crucial to the PAC during the days of apartheid in South Africa.”

“We have a long cooperation with Qaddafi himself  and Libya. Our cadres were trained in Libya by Qaddafi and a friend is a friend no matter what,” said the party’s spokesman,

Mzwanele Nyhontso.

Qaddafi has been a friend to all oppressed peoples throughout the  world. There is hardly a liberation movement that has not been helped in some way by Qaddafi and Libya over the past three decades. He is our friend and brother and let’s hope everyone is clear on who our enemies are.

The Emperor is naked – what’s new?

Of course, imperialist maneuvers and crusades similar to this current one have been on going for centuries.  In more recent times, from Vietnam to Iraq, we have seen the same scenario played out based on a litany of lies. So what is different this time around?

Certainly not the lying part – they are still weaving their usual web of lies. The African freedom fighter Kwame Ture, who had close ties with the Libyan revolution, warned us that “the imperialists don’t just lie sometimes, they lie all the time.”

What is different is that things are changing for the imperialists as the world plunges deeper and deeper into chaos, and their ability to influence affairs worldwide is diminishing rapidly. In the midst of rebellions all over the Arab world, what is clear is that fewer and fewer people give a damn what the US and Europe thinks. So they saw fit to take desperate measures in an attempt to regain some political hegemony and limit the demise of their strategic influence in the region.

Even as Mussa Kussa, the Libyan Foreign Minister, announced a cease fire and the Libyan authorities determination to accept the UN resolution and utilize it in a positive way, the French and British were in a frenzy, trying to get international support for military strikes against the Libyan forces. We have witnessed their war mongering   before, however, they were quite literally foaming at the bit this time.

Such a frenzy can only be understood against a backdrop of their dwindling ability to dominate. Even in the economic sphere, their power is decreasing, as China, India and Brazil emerge as vital new trading partners in Africa and South America. In the words of Kwame Nkrumah, “Neo-colonialism is not a sign of imperialism’s strength, but rather of its last hideous gasp”.

In 2011, the imperialists have brought the world to the brink of disaster. At an economic summit, at the outset of the current ongoing global capitalist crisis, former president of Brazil, Lula da Silva, publicly told the gathering that “the credit crunch was the fault of white, blue-eyed people”.

As the capitalist crisis worsens, and the world plunges deeper and deeper into chaos, the imperialists will become more and more desperate in their attempts to regain their influence and direct events worldwide as they are used to doing. Events which they are increasingly incapable of comprehending – not only because of the speed at which these events are occurring, but also because of the complexity of the events and the paradigm shifts taking place, that are, quite simply, far outside their western imagination.

Furthermore, they have lost all credibility as the Iraq and Afghanistan debacles continue. The Emperor is naked, and the hypocrisy of the Empire has become so transparent, that even the least informed observers are finally realizing that something is horribly wrong.

A Last Hideous Gasp?

Imperialism is experiencing its ‘last hideous gasp’ and it is imperative for progressive and revolutionary movements worldwide to seize this moment and to oppose this current assault with all of our collective strength. Those who still struggle to see the wood from the trees remain enablers of the continued enslavement of our people. As Pan-Africanists we need to come together as never before to defend this brother and the Libyan Al Fateh revolution.

Sadly, the African Union has become another impotent international body with a neo-colonial mindset, due to the fact that unfortunately, a number of member states  are still imperialist facilitators. The Pan-Africanist scholar, Chinweizu, calls these facilitaors of imperialism  ‘leaders in Africa’, because, as he points out, they are not ‘African leaders’.

Despite this, the African Union, under the guidance of progressive members, have managed to take a principled stand on Libya. In a statement issued by the AU Peace and Security Council, headed by Zimbabwe, they unanimously opposed any foreign military intervention and recognised the unity and territorial sovereignty of the North African State of Libya. The statement went on to call for “an urgent African action for the immediate cessation of all hostilities”.

How good and how pleasant it would be, before God and man…
Muammar Qaddafi has a vision for Africa – a United States of Africa – with one government, one army and one currency. Of course, if this were to happen, it would shift the balance of power globally. The well documented fact is that if Africa stopped the flow of all African resources and raw materials to the western nations for just one week – the United States and Europe would grind to a halt – they are that dependent on Africa and are therefore determined to maintain their ability to control events on the continent.

Control over Africa’s affairs has always been a priority for the imperialist project. As Minister Louis Farrakhan pointed out many years ago at a conference in Libya, “Europe and the US cannot go forward into the new century without unfettered access to the vast natural resources of Africa” and he added that “Qaddafi is one who stands in their way.”

If they cannot maintain control, then at least they must try to maintain Africa’s divisions, thereby ensuring it is always in a position of weakness. African unity and true independence is something white supremacy, in all of its manifestations – capitalism, imperialism and neo-colonialism – will oppose with all its might.

When Sarkozy the clown, to quote Saif Qaddafi, made his ridiculous pronouncement recognizing the rag tag conglomerate of reactionaries in Benghazi as the sole legitimate representative of the Libyan people, and Hillarity rushed to meet with the ‘Libyan opposition’, the sinister imperialist plot began to unfold. Their mission was certainly not to ‘protect innocent civilians’. They had from the outset, very clearly chosen a side and now, as they bombard the Libyan revolutionary forces we know without any doubt, whose side they are on.

Their plot further unraveled, when a Dutch helicopter, carrying Dutch marines on some kind of sabotage/espionage mission was captured right inside Libyan territory. The Dutch government finally acknowledged that its warship, the Tromp, was offshore in the sea off Sirte and the captured helicopter had lifted-off from there. If the rebellion in Benghazi was, as the media has reported, ‘a spontaneous rebellion, like others in the region’, then the Dutch were surprisingly well prepared. Actually, it would have been impossible for them to arrive so swiftly at the scene, and so they had to have had prior knowledge of what was taking place. It is now crystal clear that this rebellion in Benghazi was an orchestrated attempt, supported by foreign sources, to use the events taking place across North Africa as a cover for the overthrow of the Libyan revolution.

And then there was William Hague’s brazen landing of the British SAS personnel inside Libyan territory to make contact with the al Qaeda inspired rebels. Of course  it is no surprise that the British and al Qaeda are on the same side – as noted above they have been collaborating to destroy Libya for a very long time. Reactionaries inevitably end up dovetailing, and a partnership with the imperialists is after all where al Qaeda had its beginnings: as a US instrument in the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. George Bush Senior had close ties with the Taliban, and Ronald Reagan poured millions of dollars into assisting the Jihadists in Afghanistan, the forerunners of al Qaeda, which means ‘the base’, and refers to a data base of Mujahideen from numerous countries, compiled with the help of the CIA.

Many Battlefronts

In addition to the battle between ‘true religion and false religion’ to paraphrase the Muslim revolutionary thinker, Ali Shariati, there is another major battlefront in Libya.  It is the battle between Black Africans and those fair skinned ‘Arab settlers’, who embrace a ‘separatist’  stance, refusing to acknowledge their African heritage, and who want little to do with the Pan-African project although they are on the African continent. As noted above, these  ‘Arabs’ look upon black people with utter contempt and disdain. They definitely do not share Qaddafi’s vision of a united Africa and resent the resources of Libya being used to assist projects towards this end throughout the continent.

It has been well documented that the Libyan rebels are committing crimes against humanity. There have been ‘African hunts’ in rebel held territory. Black workers, students and refugees have been detained, raped and executed – some of them were led into the desert and stabbed to death. Even Black Libyans have been targeted, and many of them have been abducted by armed rebels and are being held in secret locations. These are the forces that the imperialists are racing to support. There has been a deafening silence from the  so-called international community and western media regarding these well documented ‘African Hunts’ and the massacre of Black Africans by the rebels.

From Washington, France  and London, they continue their attempts to demonise Muammar Qaddafi with their lies. But the truth is that he is a revolutionary and a freedom fighter, who has assisted almost every struggle for liberation over the past three decades, and worked tirelessly, day and night, to facilitate African advancement and unification. At the same time,  the revolution he has led, has taken Libya from the status of being the poorest country in the world to a country that has attained the highest standard of living in Africa. The  ‘weapons of mass deception’ assembled by the Crusaders can never succeed in portraying him as a ruthless dictator – an enemy of humanity?  Let us heed the warning of the great revolutionary, Al Hajj Malik Al Shabazz, better known as Malcolm X:

“The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power because they control the minds of the masses.”

As I write this article, Qaddafi is addressing the world. He is defiant, preparing Libyans for a long war and assuring the crusaders that they will never get their hands on Libya and its resources. Meanwhile, the coalition of Crusaders and their Arab enablers are starting to show some signs of strain.

I am reminded of Qaddafi’s words in 1986, when Reagan bombed his residence,

“They may hit us with long range missiles and aircrafts – this is expected, but they will never stay. This land is too hot for their feet.”

Gerald A. Perreira has lived in Libya for many years. He served in the Green March, an international battalion for the defense of the Libyan revolution and was an executive member of the World Mathaba based in Tripoli.

‘Al-Qaeda’ a “Fusion” of Yemeni and Saudi Terrorists, “Greatest Threat” To US Homeland

[With the introduction of this new idea/theme (“meme“), that the greatest threat to the US resides in Saudi Arabia and Yemen, the Saudi royal family moves to number one spot on the American “hit list,” edging-out former “America’s most wanted,” Pakistan, from the seat it has held since 2001.   Both states owe their high status to the imaginary “al-Qaeda,” which has been nurtured in the bosom of both states, since the evil seed was planted there thirty-odd years ago.   The Saudis, just like their clients in Pakistan, should have always known, somewhere in the back of their minds, that the “Islamist” experiment that they were all enthusiastically participating in, would one day bring the full weight of US force upon their own soil, to eradicate the Frankenstein monster of jihadi militancy that a handful of American “advisers” had worked so hard creating.  The merger of religious zealotry with highly-skilled military training produced thousands of expertly trained “holy warriors,” who served as the recruiting and training “base” of every terrorist group that calls itself “Islamist.”   Since the American military follows wherever their decoy/constructs, known as “al-Qaeda” raise their ugly heads, then the royal family should have foreseen the day when the US Army would begin combat on the Arabian peninsula, seeking to erase the evidence that American “advisers” had trained the real “al-Qaeda.”  Saudi Arabia is in deep, deep trouble.]

‘Al-Qaeda’ gunmen kill 4 in Yemen

Anti-government protestors

Anti-government protestors

SANAA: Suspected Al-Qaeda gunmen killed four soldiers from Yemen’s elite Republican Guard in an attack east of the capital Sanaa on Sunday, a local official told AFP.

Unidentified gunmen opened fire on the soldiers as they passed in a truck near Marib, about 170 kilometres (110 miles) east of Sanaa, the official said.

“The attack was similar to others by Al-Qaeda,” he added.

On February 22, five people, including three soldiers, were killed in a gunfight with Al-Qaeda militants in Marib, the defence ministry said.

In separate attacks in January, suspected Al-Qaeda militants killed 12 soldiers in ambushes on military convoys and an attack on a military checkpoint in the south of the country.

A US State Department official last month described Yemen-based Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula

— a fusion of the Yemeni and SAUDI branches of the jihadist network —

as the “most significant” threat to the US homeland.

Washington in December called on Yemen to step up its fight against Al-Qaeda, a year after a botched attempt to blow up a US passenger plane.

Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has been accused of being behind the attempted 2009 Christmas Day attack, allegedly carried out by a young Nigerian who had reportedly studied in Yemen.

In addition to its struggle against Al-Qaeda, Sanaa is also grappling to control mounting protests against President Ali Abdullah Saleh, in power since 1978.

At least 19 people have been killed since the protests began on February 16, according to an AFP toll based on reports and witnesses. Human rights group Amnesty International has put the toll at 27.

The demonstrations come amid a regional wave of unrest that has already forced the presidents of Tunisia and Egypt to quit and thrown Libya into civil war.


Despite Western Media Lies, “Al-Qaeda” Terrorists Served As First Shock Troops

[Contrary to Western reports that bin Laden’s descendants were froze out of the revolution, when in fact, they may have been there helping to radicalize and instigate the uprisings.   According to Qaddafi, “al-Qaeda” infiltrators seized guard posts, early on.  He also claimed that protesters were treated to various hallucinogenic mind-control drugs, by “Al-CIAda.”  (SEE:Egyptian and Other Revolutions Take Steam Out of Zawahiri’s Sails)]

Upbeat Gaddafi fires trademark blast at West and Qaeda

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi speaks at an event in Tripoli in this March 2, 2011 image from video. REUTERS/Libyan TV via Reuters TV 

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi speaks at an event in Tripoli in this March 2, 2011 image from video.

Credit: Reuters/Libyan TV via Reuters TV

By Maria Golovnina

TRIPOLI | Wed Mar 2, 2011 9:42am EST

(Reuters) – Muammar Gaddafi, orchestrating a populist response to rebels threatening his rule, blamed al Qaeda on Wednesday for creating turmoil and told applauding supporters there was a conspiracy to control Libya and its oil.

Gaddafi, who said no more than 150 people were killed in the unrest caused by “terrorists,” told an audience of loyalists in a speech shown live on state television that if Washington or other foreign powers entered Libya they would face a bloody war.

Apparently confident and relaxed, but in denial about the occupation of swathes of Libya by rebels seeking an end to his long rule, Gaddafi said he was willing to discuss constitutional change without arms or chaos and would even talk with al Qaeda.

“I am ready to debate any one of them, one of their ’emirs’, but they do not have demands at all,” he said.

“There is a conspiracy to control the Libyan oil and to control the Libyan land, to colonize Libya once again.”


Speaking to supporters who punctuated the address with cheers of support and declarations of loyalty, he said Libyans would fight to the “last man and last woman” against foreigners.

“We will enter a bloody war and thousands and thousands of Libyans will die if the United States enters or NATO enters,” Gaddafi said, laughing at points during his long address.

“Do they want us to become slaves once again like we were slaves to the Italians … We will never accept it,” he said.

On the sequence of events that started the unrest, Gaddafi, who in a previous speech said protesters against his rule were brain-washed by Osama bin Laden and had their milk and Nescafe spiked with hallucinogenic drugs, said: “How did that all begin? Small, sleeper al Qaeda cells.”

Wearing long, white robes, a brown head-dress and gesticulating, Gaddafi said: “Al Qaeda’s cells attacked security forces and took over their weapons … After Bayda, the Qaeda cells moved to Benghazi and Derna.”

Gaddafi, 68, said there were no protests against his rule and that “underground groups” were whipping people up and reports by the media to the contrary were wrong. There were no political prisoners in Libya, he said.


The international community should set up a fact-finding committee to find out just how many people had been killed in the Libyan unrest, he said.

Gaddafi, who once said democracy was for donkeys, told the meeting that the world did not understand the Libyan system that puts power in the hands of the people,

“Muammar Gaddafi is not a president to resign, he does not even have a parliament to dissolve,” he said at the celebration to mark the declaration of Libya as a Jamahiriya in 1977.

Admirers say the system of town hall meetings, in which political parties are banned, guarantees ordinary people a direct say in ruling themselves and ensures political stability.

Critics say the country’s Jamahiriyah or “state of the masses,” the only government most Libyans have known, is a fig leaf for authoritarian rule and has kept the country poor.

“We put our fingers in the eyes of those who doubt that Libya is ruled by anyone other than its people,” he said, referring to his system of “direct democracy.”

At one point during the appearance, a woman in black robes and a green scarf seized a microphone and shouted: “How can you go? You will not go and you will never leave! You are all that is good! You are a sword that doesn’t bend.”

Gaddafi told the excited supporters: “Calm down youths.”

(Reporting by Dina Zayed, Shaimaa Fayed, Tom Perry, Sherine Al Madeny,: Writing by Edmund Blair and Peter Millership in Cairo)

“Islamists” Doing British Dirty Work In Denmark?

[If there are no coincidences, then does the appearance of “Al-CIA-da” clones in Denmark, just as the Brits are seeking to expand their claims to seabed rights to oil and gas around this tiny rock island (102′ x 83′) also claimed by Denmark, implicate the secret services in the Danish “Islamist” plots?   SEE: “Islamists” Go Where Oilmen Fear to Tread ; Denmark terrorism plot thwarted with arrest of five suspected militants, authorities say]

Oil billions at stake as UN examines British claims to Rockall

Britain, Ireland, Denmark and Iceland battle over Atlantic outcrop sitting on lucrative oil and gasfields

Rockall UN oilfields

Ownership of Rockall is disputed by Britain, Ireland, Denmark and Iceland. The competing applications are likely to be reviewed by the UN in March. Photograph: David Simms/AFP/Getty Images

British claims to ownership of Rockall – the isolated Atlantic outcrop jutting out of a potentially vast and lucrative oilfield around 240 miles west of Scotland – is to be examined within weeks by the UN.

A formal claim for thousands of square miles of the seabed surrounding the rock has been made by Denmark and the Faroe Islands, potentially overriding the claims of Britain, Ireland and Iceland. At stake could be licences and income worth billions of pounds.

The four competing applications are likely to be reviewed by the UN’s Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) in March.

Diplomatic talks between the four countries have been rotating around European capitals for several years, in the hope of agreeing an amicable division of the seabed in the Hatton-Rockall basin. They have failed so far to map out a mutually acceptable settlement.

The hunt for offshore gas and oil at a time of increasing energy demand is driving enthusiasm among coastal states around the world to annex as much of the seabed as they are legally permitted.

In June, the commission’s panel of marine experts dismissed Britain’s application to extend its prospecting rights over 200,000 square miles of the ocean floor around Ascension Island in the south Atlantic. The commission ruled that the island, an overseas British territory that is also a volcanic pinnacle, was too slender to generate rights to an extended zone of the submerged continental shelf.

The dispute over Rockall is historically complex. The Royal Navy formally annexed the rock in 1955 by hoisting the Union flag.

The 1972 Island of Rockall Act formally declared it as part of Invernesshire, even though the nearest permanently inhabited settlement is 228 miles away in the Outer Hebrides.

Imperial ambitions were set back, however, by international ratification of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which states that: “Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.”

All of the rival claims submitted to the commission over the past few years have focused on the surrounding Hatton-Rockall Basin, under which are believed to be extensive oil and gas deposits.

Rockall, nonetheless, sits on a plateau claimed by all four nations. Britain and Ireland have agreed a common marine border that leaves Rockall in the UK sector.

A Foreign Office spokeswoman said: “We note that Denmark has made its submission in respect of the Faroe-Hatton plateau. We are presently studying this and the attached note verbale, which Denmark presented to the UN secretary-general.

“The UK … re-affirms its own commitment to the quadrilateral talks between the UK, Denmark, Iceland and Ireland. The next round of talks is scheduled to be held in Reykjavik in May 2011.”

IMU–Veteran Destabilization Machine Opening Doors for American Intervention

[The professional soldiers of the IMU are the perfect instruments for the destabilization of all of the governments within its reach.  Its terrorist exploits have provided many, if not most, of the stories of attacks that have been attributed since 2001 to the mythical “al-Qaeda.”  It is only natural that its foot soldiers serve as the vanguard of the American military destabilization of Central Asia.  The world is slowly waking-up to the fact of America’s historical use of paramilitary/guerrilla/terrorist groups to gain control of troubled, poor nations.  Look at the thirty year history of American paramilitary destabilization of Afghanistan, or across the seas to Colombia/Central America, where paramilitary guerrilla forces have tormented the region for the same period of time.  American “low-level conflicts” are the bane of mankind.  The world must bring them to an end.]

IMU returned to Central Asia

A decade after its debut on the terrorist scene in the Pamirs, as the most aggressive groups in Central Asia, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) has undergone a transformation in the hundreds of kilometers to the southeast, in the mountains of Pakistani-troubled region of Waziristan.

IMU is no longer a small group of fighters, concentrated on the overthrow of the Uzbek regime, and change its Islamic state. Today it has a much broader and more ambitious goals, and emphasizes its rebirth attacks, which indicate their presence in South and Central Asia.

In recent years, militants belonging to the IMU directly or its branches were related to a deadly explosion in Tajikistan and violence in the eastern Rasht Valley country. His name was also in connection with the terrorist plot, which were aimed at Europe. Experts say that the security forces faced with the elements of the IMU during the sweeps in southern Kyrgyzstan this month, and they see signs that the group is gaining momentum in Central Asia and creates a new safe haven in northern Afghanistan.
Few could have predicted this turn of the century.

From the ashes

After retiring from Central Asia to Afghanistan to join Taliban in their final effort against the Northern Alliance commander Ahmad Shah Masood in 2000, almost all of IMU fighters were killed in the fight against the slave of U.S. forces in November 2001. From there, they have sought refuge across the border in the north-west Pakistan.

IMU is initially adhered to a relatively low profile in his new seekers, even when thousands of recruits from Central Asia began to strengthen an alliance with militant organizations such as al-Qaida, Pakistani Taliban and other Pakistani jihadi groups.

Shabkadara bombing in February 2008, agricultural area near Peshawar, the provincial capital of Khyber Pahtunkva made it clear that the IMU is once again became a force to be reckoned with.

Their goal is a secular Pashtun politician Afrasiab Khattak, survived the attack. But the 25 people who gathered to hear him were killed.

Khattak, who is today a senator and leader of the Awami National Party (ANP), said that the government investigation revealed that the attack was a suicide bomber IMU.Provincial government, which is under the leadership of ANP, later fought and captured many Central Asian militants in the Swat valley during the years of military operations in 2009, providing further evidence of the expansion of its role in Central Asia and Pakistan.

Khattak said that the IMU and its splinter groups, have deep ties to al-Qaeda and a large part of its foot soldiers who fought in the Federal Tribal Areas (FATA), the band Pashtun areas along Pakistan’s western border with Afghanistan.
“Despite the fact that the leadership of al-Qaeda is made up of Arabs, personnel representatives of the IMU is the Central Asian countries. They include ethnic Uzbeks, Chechens and Muslims from the southern regions of Russia”, – said Khattak. “It’s not that, in their series [some number] of people who live here a long time. They attract new recruits [Central Asia]. Hence, they get back to northern Afghanistan, and from there take the attack in Central Asia” .

This will mean that the IMU is returned to its roots, though not in its original form.

New look

In their ranks IMU no longer has any of its founders. This summer, the group acknowledged the death of one of its founders, Tahir Yuldash, a year after he died from injuries sustained when struck with a U.S. drone in South Waziristan. Usmon Odile was declared the new leader of the IMU, though there is no real confirmation of his identity.

Pakistani journalist and writer Ahmed Rashid said that the IMU can no longer be considered as one group, she gave birth to other groups with more aggressive and far-reaching plans.

“Some things seem to have occurred. First of all, they split,” – says Rashid. “There are several Central Asian groups, who seem to have formed due to the split the IMU, is the Islamic Jihad Union, [and] The Central Asian Taliban. We do not know exactly how these fragments were formed, but, probably due to Al-Qaeda for the sake of maintaining control over these groups. ”

IMU or any of its affiliates were involved in a number of recent attacks, both at home and abroad.
Islamic Jihad Union (IJU), was charged in the attacks in Uzbekistan in May 2009 and appeared in the titles of publications around the world this fall, after Western intelligence agencies discovered that they were planning attacks in Europe in Mumbai style. More than 10 of its decision makers were subsequently killed in collision with an unmanned aircraft in North Waziristan. BWI is considered more radical branch of the IMU, which draws recruits from a thriving Turkish community in Germany and the Turkic peoples. Casters observers have suggested that they were motivated by pan-Turkic goals.

In September, a convoy of government troops was attacked in the eastern part of Tajikistan, killing 23 soldiers. Tajik authorities have been accused of attacking militants with ties to the IMU. In the same month, the first in the history of Tajikistan attack involving a suicide bomber, two suicide car bomber struck, killing one policeman and wounding 30 in an attack on a police station in the northern city of Khujand. Jamaat Ansarulla, a previously unknown group, which is now the Tajik authorities say a radical offshoot of the IMU, claimed responsibility for the attack.

During the operation to contain the threat of militants on its soil this year, Tajik authorities have stated that they had destroyed dozens of IMU militants, who were walking across the border from northern Afghanistan. In Afghanistan itself, a growing number of attacks have been attributed to the IMU.
Analyst on behalf of Rashid, who is a pioneer in the study of the IMU, said that even during the development of the group and its offshoots, their brand of defense of the Islamic Revolution supported by some Central Asian community.

Rashid notes that in May 2005 during the Andijan massacre, in which Uzbek troops opened fire on protesting against the government, there were conditions for a set of people in the IMU and the jihadist movement as a whole. The deaths of hundreds if not thousands, of civilians in the largest city in the Ferghana Valley, which stands at the intersection of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, has caused shock throughout the region. Then Rasheed says of the IMU, “was a great number of Central Asians who fled and went to join him” in the Pakistani tribal areas. ”

There, he says, “they fought for a lot of different people – Pakistani Taliban, Afghan Taliban, the Haqqani group. They have taken part in internal fighting in the tribal areas in Pakistan.”

This, he adds, “gave them a lot of experience.”

Does it trump the power of some of the city?

Retired Lt. Gen. Masood Aslam, who was commander of the IX Corps and Pakistani military operations conducted in Islamabad in the fight against terrorism in the north-west, agrees. He said that some Central Asians, are also in demand by various militant groups. ”

For Islamabad, the presence of fighters from Central Asia on its territory is a major irritant in its relations with Central Asian states. These States, whose markets are considered important for economic growth of Pakistan, fear that militants might struggle to extend their territory.

Regimes of Central Asia in the past have stood the raids IMU and other groups of jihadists. But nobody wants to face an enemy that has gained considerable combat experience.
“Whether it’s Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan – the press secretary of President of Pakistan Asif Ali Zardari Fartulla Babar, talk about the issue of the prevailing military threat in its relations with Islamabad.”

Babar said that Islamabad is doing everything possible to eliminate the threat, but his hands are tied by complex borders and the rapid growth of criminal and economic systems in the region.
“The most important things that need to be considered are the control over the movement of militants and control over their finances,” – said Babar. “What’s finances them? We believe that the drug trade is the source of their funding. Thus, we believe that drug trafficking should be stopped and should be improved management of border control to the militants were isolated and were not able to move freely.”

Rashid said that the weakness of the states themselves, which increases the threat of the IMU and its offshoots.
“We have seen Tajikistan faces enormous poverty, the collapse of the public sector and mass migration,” – says Rashid. “Kyrgyzstan is under tremendous political upheaval. And Uzbekistan remains highly repressive, and there is no confidence in the future of these countries. They are very fragile, very vulnerable.”

Abubakar Siddyk,
December 8, 2010,
Translation –

Source –

“Al Qaida”

The Imperial Anatomy of Al-Qaeda. The CIA’s Drug-Running Terrorists and the “Arc of Crisis”

Part I
by Andrew Gavin Marshall


As the 9th anniversary of 9/11 nears, and the war on terror continues to be waged and grows in ferocity and geography, it seems all the more imperative to return to the events of that fateful September morning and re-examine the reasons for war and the nature of the stated culprit, Al-Qaeda.

The events of 9/11 pervade the American and indeed the world imagination as an historical myth. The events of that day and those leading up to it remain largely unknown and little understood by the general public, apart from the disturbing images repeated ad nauseam in the media. The facts and troubled truths of that day are lost in the folklore of the 9/11 myth: that the largest attack carried out on American ground was orchestrated by 19 Muslims armed with box cutters and urged on by religious fundamentalism, all under the direction of Osama bin Laden, the leader of a global terrorist network called al-Qaeda, based out of a cave in Afghanistan.

The myth sweeps aside the facts and complex nature of terror, al-Qaeda, the American empire and literally defies the laws of physics. As John F. Kennedy once said, “The greatest enemy of the truth is not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, pervasive, and unrealistic.”

This three-part series on “The Imperial Anatomy of Al-Qaeda” examines the geopolitical historical origins and nature of what we today know as al-Qaeda, which is in fact an Anglo-American intelligence network of terrorist assets used to advance American and NATO imperial objectives in various regions around the world.

Part 1 examines the origins of the intelligence network known as the Safari Club, which financed and organized an international conglomerate of terrorists, the CIA’s role in the global drug trade, the emergence of the Taliban and the origins of al-Qaeda.

The Safari Club

Following Nixon’s resignation as President, Gerald Ford became the new US President in 1974. Henry Kissinger remained as Secretary of State and Ford brought into his administration two names that would come to play important roles in the future of the American Empire: Donald Rumsfeld as Ford’s Chief of Staff, and Dick Cheney, as Deputy Assistant to the President. The Vice President was Nelson Rockefeller, David Rockefeller’s brother. When Donald Rumsfeld was promoted to Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney was promoted to Chief of Staff. Ford had also appointed a man named George H.W. Bush as CIA Director.

In 1976, a coalition of intelligence agencies was formed, which was called the Safari Club. This marked the discreet and highly covert coordination among various intelligence agencies, which would last for decades. It formed at a time when the CIA was embroiled in domestic scrutiny over the Watergate scandal and a Congressional investigation into covert CIA activities, forcing the CIA to become more covert in its activities.

In 2002, the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Turki bin Faisal gave a speech in which he stated that in response to the CIA’s need for more discretion, “a group of countries got together in the hope of fighting Communism and established what was called the Safari Club. The Safari Club included France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and Iran [under the Shah].”[1] However, “The Safari Club needed a network of banks to finance its intelligence operations. With the official blessing of George H.W. Bush as the head of the CIA,” Saudi intelligence chief, Kamal Adham, “transformed a small Pakistani merchant bank, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), into a world-wide money-laundering machine, buying banks around the world to create the biggest clandestine money network in history.”[2]

As CIA director, George H.W. Bush “cemented strong relations with the intelligence services of both Saudi Arabia and the shah of Iran. He worked closely with Kamal Adham, the head of Saudi intelligence, brother-in-law of King Faisal and an early BCCI insider.” Adham had previously acted as a “channel between [Henry] Kissinger and [Egyptian President] Anwar Sadat” in 1972. In 1976, Iran, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia formed the Safari Club “to conduct through their own intelligence agencies operations that were now difficult for the CIA,” which was largely organized by the head of French intelligence, Alexandre de Marenches.[3]

The “Arc of Crisis” and the Iranian Revolution

When Jimmy Carter became President in 1977, he appointed over two-dozen members of the Trilateral Commission to his administration, which was an international think tank formed by Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Rockefeller in 1973. Brzezinski had invited Carter to join the Trilateral Commission, and when Carter became President, Brzezinski became National Security Adviser; Cyrus Vance, also a member of the Commission, became Secretary of State; and Samuel Huntington, another Commission member, became Coordinator of National Security and Deputy to Brzezinski. Author and researcher Peter Dale Scott deserves much credit for his comprehensive analysis of the events leading up to and during the Iranian Revolution in his book, “The Road to 9/11”,* which provides much of the information below.

Samuel Huntington and Zbigniew Brzezinski were to determine the US policy position in the Cold War, and the US-Soviet policy they created was termed, “Cooperation and Competition,” in which Brzezinski would press for “Cooperation” when talking to the press, yet, privately push for “competition.” So, while Secretary of State Cyrus Vance was pursuing détente with the Soviet Union, Brzezinski was pushing for American supremacy over the Soviet Union. Brzezinski and Vance would come to disagree on almost every issue.[4]

In 1978, Zbigniew Brzezinski gave a speech in which he stated, “An arc of crisis stretches along the shores of the Indian Ocean, with fragile social and political structures in a region of vital importance to us threatened with fragmentation. The resulting political chaos could well be filled by elements hostile to our values and sympathetic to our adversaries.” The Arc of Crisis stretched from Indochina to southern Africa, although, more specifically, the particular area of focus was “the nations that stretch across the southern flank of the Soviet Union from the Indian subcontinent to Turkey, and southward through the Arabian Peninsula to the Horn of Africa.” Further, the “center of gravity of this arc is Iran, the world’s fourth largest oil producer and for more than two decades a citadel of U.S. military and economic strength in the Middle East. Now it appears that the 37-year reign of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi is almost over, ended by months of rising civil unrest and revolution.”[5]

With rising discontent in the region, “There was this idea that the Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets. It was a Brzezinski concept.”[6] A month prior to Brzezinski’s speech, in November of 1978, “President Carter named the Bilderberg group’s George Ball, another member of the Trilateral Commission, to head a special White House Iran task force under the National Security Council’s Brzezinski.” Further, “Ball recommended that Washington drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the fundamentalist Islamic opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini.”[7] George Ball’s visit to Iran was a secret mission.[8]

Throughout 1978, the Shah was under the impression that “the Carter administration was plotting to topple his regime.” In 1978, the Queen and Shah’s wife, told Manouchehr Ganji, a minister in the Shah’s government, that, “I wanted to tell you that the Americans are maneuvering to bring down the Shah,” and she continued saying that she believed “they even want to topple the regime.”[9] The US Ambassador to Iran, William Sullivan, thought that the revolution would succeed, and told this to Ramsey Clark, former US Attorney General under the Johnson administration, as well as professor Richard Falk, when they were visiting Sullivan in Iran in 1978. Clark and Falk then went from Iran to Paris, to visit Khomeini, who was there in exile. James Bill, a Carter adviser, felt that, “a religious movement brought about with the United States’ assistance would be a natural friend of the United States.”[10]

Also interesting is the fact that the British BBC broadcast pro-Khomeini Persian-language programs daily in Iran, as a subtle form of propaganda, which “gave credibility to the perception of United States and British support of Khomeini.”[11] The BBC refused to give the Shah a platform to respond, and “[r]epeated personal appeals from the Shah to the BBC yielded no result.”[12]

In the May 1979 meeting of the Bilderberg Group, Bernard Lewis, a British historian of great influence (hence, the Bilderberg membership), presented a British-American strategy which, “endorsed the radical Muslim Brotherhood movement behind Khomeini, in order to promote balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. Lewis argued that the West should encourage autonomous groups such as the Kurds, Armenians, Lebanese Maronites, Ethiopian Copts, Azerbaijani Turks, and so forth. The chaos would spread in what he termed an ‘Arc of Crisis,’ which would spill over into the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union.”[13] Further, it would prevent Soviet influence from entering the Middle East, as the Soviet Union was viewed as an empire of atheism and godlessness: essentially a secular and immoral empire, which would seek to impose secularism across Muslim countries. So supporting radical Islamic groups would mean that the Soviet Union would be less likely to have any influence or relations with Middle Eastern countries, making the US a more acceptable candidate for developing relations.

A 1979 article in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, described the Arc of Crisis, saying that, “The Middle East constitutes its central core. Its strategic position is unequalled: it is the last major region of the Free World directly adjacent to the Soviet Union, it holds in its subsoil about three-fourths of the proven and estimated world oil reserves, and it is the locus of one of the most intractable conflicts of the twentieth century: that of Zionism versus Arab nationalism.” It went on to explain that post-war US policy in the region was focused on “containment” of the Soviet Union, as well as access to the regions oil.[14] The article continued, explaining that the most “obvious division” within the Middle East is, “that which separates the Northern Tier (Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan) from the Arab core,” and that, “After World War II, Turkey and Iran were the two countries most immediately threatened by Soviet territorial expansionism and political subversion.”[15] Ultimately, “the Northern Tier was assured of a serious and sustained American commitment to save it from sharing the fate of Eastern Europe.”[16]

While Khomeini was in Paris prior to the Revolution, a representative of the French President organized a meeting between Khomeini and “current world powers,” in which Khomeini made certain demands, such as, “the shah’s removal from Iran and help in avoiding a coup d’état by the Iranian Army.” The Western powers, however, “were worried about the Soviet Union’s empowerment and penetration and a disruption in Iran’s oil supply to the west. Khomeini gave the necessary guarantees. These meetings and contacts were taking place in January of 1979, just a few days before the Islamic Revolution in February 1979.”[17] In February of 1979, Khomeini was flown out of Paris on an Air France flight, to return to Iran, “with the blessing of Jimmy Carter.”[18] Ayatollah Khomeini named Mehdi Bazargan as prime minister of the Provisional Revolutionary Government on February 4, 1979. As Khomeini had demanded during his Paris meeting in January 1979, that western powers must help in avoiding a coup by the Iranian Army; in that same month, the Carter administration, under the direction of Brzezinski, had begun planning a military coup.[19]

Could this have been planned in the event that Khomeini was overthrown, the US would quickly reinstate order, perhaps even place Khomeini back in power? Interestingly, in January of 1979, “as the Shah was about to leave the country, the American Deputy Commander in NATO, General Huyser, arrived and over a period of a month conferred constantly with Iranian military leaders. His influence may have been substantial on the military’s decision not to attempt a coup and eventually to yield to the Khomeini forces, especially if press reports are accurate that he or others threatened to withhold military supplies if a coup were attempted.”[20] No coup was subsequently undertaken, and Khomeini came to power as the Ayatollah of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

As tensions increased among the population within Iran, the US sent “security advisers” to Iran to pressure the Shah’s SAVAK (secret police) to implement “a policy of ever more brutal repression, in a manner calculated to maximize popular antipathy to the Shah.” The Carter administration also began publicly criticizing the Shah’s human rights abuses.[21] On September 6, 1978, the Shah banned demonstrations, and the following day, between 700 and 2000 demonstrators were gunned down, following “advice from Brzezinski to be firm.”[22]

The US Ambassador to the UN, Andrew Young, a Trilateral Commission member, said that, “Khomeini will eventually be hailed as a saint,” and the US Ambassador to Iran, William Sullivan, said, “Khomeini is a Gandhi-like figure,” while Carter’s adviser, James Bill, said that Khomeini was a man of “impeccable integrity and honesty.”[23]

The Shah was also very sick in late 1978 and early 1979. So the Shah fled Iran in January of 1979 to the Bahamas, allowing for the revolution to take place. It is especially interesting to understand the relationship between David Rockefeller and the Shah of Iran. David Rockefeller’s personal assistant, Joseph V. Reed, had been “assigned to handle the shah’s finances and his personal needs;” Robert Armao, who worked for Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, was sent to “act as the shah’s public relations agent and lobbyist;” and Benjamin H. Kean, “a longtime associate of Chase Manhattan Bank chairman David Rockefeller,” and David Rockefeller’s “personal physician,” who was sent to Mexico when the shah was there, and advised that he “be treated at an American hospital.”[24]

It is important to note that Rockefeller interests “had directed U.S. policy in Iran since the CIA coup of 1953.”[25] Following the Shah’s flight from Iran, there were increased pressures within the United States by a handful of powerful people to have the Shah admitted to the United States. These individuals were Zbigniew Brzezinski, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, John J. McCloy, former statesman and senior member of the Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, who was also a lawyer for Chase Manhattan, and of course, David Rockefeller.[26]

Chase Manhattan Bank had more interests in Iran than any other US bank. In fact, the Shah had “ordered that all his government’s major operating accounts be held at Chase and that letters of credit for the purchase of oil be handled exclusively through Chase. The bank also became the agent and lead manager for many of the loans to Iran. In short, Iran became the crown jewel of Chase’s international banking portfolio.”[27]

The Iranian interim government, headed by Prime Minister Bazargan, collapsed in November of 1979, when Iranian hostages seized the US Embassy in Teheran. However, there is much more to this event than meets the eye. During the time of the interim government (February, 1979 to November, 1979), several actions were undertaken which threatened some very powerful interests who had helped the Ayatollah into power.

Chase Manhattan Bank faced a liquidity crisis as there had been billions in questionable loans to Iran funneled through Chase.[28] Several of Chase’s loans were “possibly illegal under the Iranian constitution.”[29] Further, in February of 1979, once the interim government was put in power, it began to take “steps to market its oil independently of the Western oil majors.” Also, the interim government “wanted Chase Manhattan to return Iranian assets, which Rockefeller put at more than $1 billion in 1978, although some estimates ran much higher,” which could have “created a liquidity crisis for the bank which already was coping with financial troubles.”[30]

With the seizure of the American Embassy in Iran, President Carter took moves to freeze Iranian financial assets. As David Rockefeller wrote in his book, “Carter’s ‘freeze’ of official Iranian assets protected our [Chase Manhattan’s] position, but no one at Chase played a role in convincing the administration to institute it.”[31]

In February of 1979, Iran had been taking “steps to market its oil independently of the Western oil majors. In 1979, as in 1953, a freeze of Iranian assets made this action more difficult.”[32] This was significant for Chase Manhattan not simply because of the close interlocking of the board with those of oil companies, not to mention Rockefeller himself, who is patriarch of the family whose name is synonymous with oil, but also because Chase exclusively handled all the letters of credit for the purchase of Iranian oil.[33]

The Shah being accepted into the United States, under public pressure from Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Rockefeller, precipitated the hostage crisis, which occurred on November 4. Ten days later, Carter froze all Iranian assets in US banks, on the advice of his Treasury Secretary, William Miller. Miller just happened to have ties to Chase Manhattan Bank.[34]

Although Chase Manhattan directly benefited from the seizure of Iranian assets, the reasoning behind the seizure as well as the events leading up to it, such as a hidden role for the Anglo-Americans behind the Iranian Revolution, bringing the Shah to America, which precipitated the hostage crisis, cannot simply be relegated to personal benefit for Chase. There were larger designs behind this crisis. So the 1979 crises in Iran cannot simply be pawned off as a spur of the moment undertaking, but rather should be seen as quick actions taken upon a perceived opportunity. The opportunity was the rising discontent within Iran at the Shah; the quick actions were in covertly pushing the country into Revolution.

In 1979, “effectively restricting the access of Iran to the global oil market, the Iranian assets freeze became a major factor in the huge oil price increases of 1979 and 1981.”[35] Added to this, in 1979, British Petroleum cancelled major oil contracts for oil supply, which along with cancellations taken by Royal Dutch Shell, drove the price of oil up higher.[36] With the first major oil price rises in 1973 (urged on by US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger), the Third World was forced to borrow heavily from US and European banks to finance development. With the second oil price shocks of 1979, the US Federal Reserve, with Paul Volcker as its new Chairman, (himself having served a career under David Rockefeller at Chase Manhattan), dramatically raised interest rates from 2% in the late 70s to 18% in the early 80s. Developing nations could not afford to pay such interest on their loans, and thus the 1980s debt crisis spread throughout the Third World, with the IMF and World Bank coming to the “rescue” with their Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs), which ensured western control over the developing world’s economies.[37]

Covertly, the United States helped a radical Islamist government come to power in Iran, “the center of the Arc of Crisis,” and then immediately stirred up conflict and war in the region. Five months before Iraq invaded Iran, in April of 1980, Zbigniew Brzezinski openly declared the willingness of the US to work closely with Iraq. Two months before the war, Brzezinski met with Saddam Hussein in Jordan, where he gave support for the destabilization of Iran.[38] While Saddam was in Jordan, he also met with three senior CIA agents, which was arranged by King Hussein of Jordan. He then went to meet with King Fahd in Saudi Arabia, informing him of his plans to invade Iran, and then met with the King of Kuwait to inform him of the same thing. He gained support from America, and financial and arms support from the Arab oil producing countries. Arms to Iraq were funneled through Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.[39] The war lasted until 1988 and resulted in over a million deaths.

This was the emergence of the “strategy of tension” in the “Arc of Crisis,” in particular, the covert support (whether in arming, training, or financing) of radical Islamic elements to foment violence and conflict in a region. It was the old imperial tactic of ‘divide and conquer’: pit the people against each other so that they cannot join forces against the imperial power. This violence and radical Islamism would further provide the pretext for which the US and its imperial allies could then engage in war and occupation within the region, all the while securing its vast economic and strategic interests.

The “Arc of Crisis” in Afghanistan: The Safari Club in Action

In 1978, the progressive Taraki government in Afghanistan managed to incur the anger of the United States due to “its egalitarian and collectivist economic policies.”[40] The Afghan government was widely portrayed in the West as “Communist” and thus, a threat to US national security. The government, did, however, undertake friendly policies and engagement with the Soviet Union, but was not a Communist government.

In 1978, as the new government came to power, almost immediately the US began covertly funding rebel groups through the CIA.[41] In 1979, Zbigniew Brzezinski worked closely with his aid from the CIA, Robert Gates (who is currently Secretary of Defense), in shifting President Carter’s Islamic policy. As Brzezinski said in a 1998 interview with a French publication:

According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.[42]

Brzezinski elaborated, saying he “Knowingly increased the probability that [the Soviets] would invade,” and he recalled writing to Carter on the day of the Soviet invasion that, “We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.” When asked about the repercussions for such support in fostering the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, Brzezinski responded, “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?”[43]

As author Peter Dale Scott pointed out in, The Road to 9/11:*

For generations in both Afghanistan and the Soviet Muslim Republics the dominant form of Islam had been local and largely Sufi. The decision to work with the Saudi and Pakistani secret services meant that billions of CIA and Saudi dollars would ultimately be spent in programs that would help enhance the globalistic and Wahhabistic jihadism that are associated today with al Qaeda.[44]

Hafizullah Amin, a top official in Taraki’s government, who many believed to be a CIA asset, orchestrated a coup in September of 1979, and “executed Taraki, halted the reforms, and murdered, jailed, or exiled thousands of Taraki supporters as he moved toward establishing a fundamentalist Islamic state. But within two months, he was overthrown by PDP remnants including elements within the military.”[45] The Soviets also intervened in order to replace Amin, who was seen as “unpredictable and extremist” with “the more moderate Barbak Karmal.”[46]

The Soviet invasion thus prompted the US national security establishment to undertake the largest covert operation in history. When Ronald Reagan replaced Jimmy Carter in 1981, the covert assistance to the Afghan Mujahideen not only continued on the path set by Brzezinski but it rapidly accelerated, as did the overall strategy in the “Arc of Crisis.” When Reagan became President, his Vice President became George H.W. Bush, who, as CIA director during the Ford administration, had helped establish the Safari Club intelligence network and the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) in Pakistan. In the “campaign to aid the Afghan rebels … BCCI clearly emerged as a U.S. intelligence asset,” and CIA Director “Casey began to use the outside – the Saudis, the Pakistanis, BCCI – to run what they couldn’t get through Congress. [BCCI president] Abedi had the money to help,” and the CIA director had “met repeatedly” with the president of BCCI.[47]

Thus, in 1981, Director Casey of the CIA worked with Saudi Prince Turki bin Faisal who ran the Saudi intelligence agency GID, and the Pakistani ISI “to create a foreign legion of jihadi Muslims or so-called Arab Afghans.” This idea had “originated in the elite Safari Club that had been created by French intelligence chief Alexandre de Marenches.”[48]

In 1986, the CIA backed a plan by the Pakistani ISI “to recruit people from around the world to join the Afghan jihad.” Subsequently:

More than 100,000 Islamic militants were trained in Pakistan between 1986 and 1992, in camps overseen by CIA and MI6, with the SAS [British Special Forces] training future al-Qaida and Taliban fighters in bomb-making and other black arts. Their leaders were trained at a CIA camp in Virginia. This was called Operation Cyclone and continued long after the Soviets had withdrawn in 1989.[49]

CIA funding for the operations “was funneled through General Zia and the ISI in Pakistan.”[50] Interestingly, Robert Gates, who previously served as assistant to Brzezinski in the National Security Council, stayed on in the Reagan-Bush administration as executive assistant to CIA director Casey, and who is currently Secretary of Defense.

The Global Drug Trade and the CIA

As a central facet of the covert financing and training of the Afghan Mujahideen, the role of the drug trade became invaluable. The global drug trade has long been used by empires for fuelling and financing conflict with the aim of facilitating imperial domination.

In 1773, the British colonial governor in Bengal “established a colonial monopoly on the sale of opium.” As Alfred W. McCoy explained in his masterful book, The Politics of Heroin:

As the East India Company expanded production, opium became India’s main export. [. . . ] Over the next 130 years, Britain actively promoted the export of Indian opium to China, defying Chinese drug laws and fighting two wars to open China’s opium market for its merchants. Using its military and mercantile power, Britain played a central role in making China a vast drug market and in accelerating opium cultivation throughout China. By 1900 China had 13.5 million addicts consuming 39,000 tons of opium.[51]

In Indochina in the 1940s and 50s, the French intelligence services “enabled the opium trade to survive government suppression efforts,” and subsequently, “CIA activities in Burma helped transform the Shan states from a relatively minor poppy-cultivating area into the largest opium-growing region in the world.”[52] The CIA did this by supporting the Kuomintang (KMT) army in Burma for an invasion of China, and facilitated its monopolization and expansion of the opium trade, allowing the KMT to remain in Burma until a coup in 1961, when they were driven into Laos and Thailand.[53] The CIA subsequently played a very large role in the facilitation of the drugs trade in Laos and Vietnam throughout the 1960s and into the 1970s.[54]

It was during the 1980s that “the CIA’s covert war in Afghanistan transformed Central Asia from a self-contained opium zone into a major supplier of heroin for the world market,” as:

Until the late 1970s, tribal farmers in the highlands of Afghanistan and Pakistan grew limited quantities of opium and sold it to merchant caravans bound west for Iran and east to India. In its decade of covert warfare against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the CIA’s operations provided the political protection and logistics linkages that joined Afghanistan’s poppy fields to heroin markets in Europe and America.[55]

In 1977, General Zia Ul Haq in Pakistan launched a military coup, “imposed a harsh martial-law regime,” and executed former President Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (father to Benazir Bhutto). When Zia came to power, the Pakistani ISI was a “minor military intelligence unit,” but, under the “advice and assistance of the CIA,” General Zia transformed the ISI “into a powerful covert unit and made it the strong arm of his martial-law regime.”[56]

The CIA and Saudi money flowed not only to weapons and training for the Mujahideen, but also into the drug trade. Pakistani President Zia-ul-Haq appointed General Fazle Haq as the military governor of Pakistan’s North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), who would “consult with Brzezinski on developing an Afghan resistance program,” and who became a CIA asset. When CIA Director Casey or Vice President George H.W. Bush reviewed the CIA Afghan operation, they went to see Haq; who by 1982, was considered by Interpol to be an international narcotics trafficker. Haq moved much of the narcotics money through the BCCI.[57]

In May of 1979, prior to the December invasion of the Soviet Union into Afghanistan, a CIA envoy met with Afghan resistance leaders in a meeting organized by the ISI. The ISI “offered the CIA envoy an alliance with its own Afghan client, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar,” who led a small guerilla group. The CIA accepted, and over the following decade, half of the CIA’s aid went to Hekmatyar’s guerillas.[58] Hekmatyar became Afghanistan’s leading mujahideen drug lord, and developed a “complex of six heroin labs in an ISI-controlled area of Baluchistan (Pakistan).”[59]

The US subsequently, through the 1980s, in conjunction with Saudi Arabia, gave Hekmatyar more than $1 billion in armaments. Immediately, heroin began flowing from Afghanistan to America. By 1980, drug-related deaths in New York City rose 77% since 1979.[60] By 1981, the drug lords in Pakistan and Afghanistan supplied 60% of America’s heroin. Trucks going into Afghanistan with CIA arms from Pakistan would return with heroin “protected by ISI papers from police search.”[61]

Haq, the CIA asset in Pakistan, “was also running the drug trade,” of which the bank BCCI “was completely involved.” In the 1980s, the CIA insisted that the ISI create “a special cell for the use of heroin for covert actions.” Elaborating:

This cell promoted the cultivation of opium and the extraction of heroin in Pakistani territory as well as in the Afghan territory under Mujahideen control for being smuggled into Soviet controlled areas in order to make the Soviet troops heroin addicts.[62]

This plan apparently originated at the suggestion of French intelligence chief and founder of the Safari Club, Alexandre de Marenches, who recommended it to CIA Director Casey.[63]

In the 1980s, one program undertaken by the United States was to finance Mujahideen propaganda in textbooks for Afghan schools. The US gave the Mujahideen $43 million in “non-lethal” aid for the textbook project alone, which was given by USAID: “The U.S. Agency for International Development, [USAID] coordinated its work with the CIA, which ran the weapons program,” and “The U.S. government told the AID to let the Afghan war chiefs decide the school curriculum and the content of the textbooks.”[64]

The textbooks were “filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings,” and “were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines.” Even since the covert war of the 1980s, the textbooks “have served since then as the Afghan school system’s core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books.” The books were developed through a USAID grant to the “University of Nebraska-Omaha and its Center for Afghanistan Studies,” and when the books were smuggled into Afghanistan through regional military leaders, “Children were taught to count with illustrations showing tanks, missiles and land mines.” USAID stopped this funding in 1994.[65]

The Rise of the Taliban

When the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989, the fighting continued between the Afghan government backed by the USSR and the Mujahideen backed by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, so too did its aid to the Afghan government, which itself was overthrown in 1992. However, fighting almost immediately broke out between rival factions vying for power, including Hekmatyar.

In the early 1990s, an obscure group of “Pashtun country folk” had become a powerful military and political force in Afghanistan, known as the Taliban.[66] The Taliban “surfaced as a small militia force operating near Kandahar city during the spring and summer of 1994, carrying out vigilante attacks against minor warlords.” As growing discontent with the warlords grew, so too did the reputation of the Taliban.[67]

The Taliban acquired an alliance with the ISI in 1994, and throughout 1995, the relationship between the Taliban and the ISI accelerated and “became more and more of a direct military alliance.” The Taliban ultimately became “an asset of the ISI” and “a client of the Pakistan army.”[68] Further, “Between 1994 and 1996, the USA supported the Taliban politically through its allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, essentially because Washington viewed the Taliban as anti-Iranian, anti-Shia, and pro-Western.”[69]

Selig Harrison, a scholar with the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars and “a leading US expert on South Asia,” said at a conference in India that the CIA worked with Pakistan to create the Taliban. Harrison has “extensive contact” with the CIA, as “he had meetings with CIA leaders at the time when Islamic forces were being strengthened in Afghanistan,” while he was a senior associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. As he further revealed in 2001, “The CIA still has close links with the ISI.”[70] By 1996, the Taliban had control of Kandahar, but still fighting and instability continued in the country.

Osama and Al-Qaeda

Between 1980 and 1989, roughly $600 million was passed through Osama bin Laden’s charity front organizations, specifically the Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK), also known as Al-Kifah. The money mostly originated with wealthy donors in Saudi Arabia and other areas in the Persian Gulf, and was funneled through his charity fronts to arm and fund the mujahideen in Afghanistan.[71]

In the 1980s, the British Special Forces (SAS) were training mujahideen in Afghanistan, as well as in secret camps in Scotland, and the SAS is largely taking orders from the CIA. The CIA also indirectly begins to arm Osama bin Laden.[72] Osama bin Laden’s front charity, the MAK, “was nurtured” by the Pakistani ISI.[73]

Osama bin Laden was reported to have been personally recruited by the CIA in 1979 in Istanbul. He had the close support of Prince Turki bin Faisal, his friend and head of Saudi intelligence, and also developed ties with Hekmatyar in Afghanistan,[74] both of whom were pivotal figures in the CIA-Safari Club network. General Akhtar Abdul Rahman, the head of the Pakistani ISI from 1980 to 1987, would meet regularly with Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, and they formed a partnership in demanding a tax on the opium trade from warlords so that by 1985, bin Laden and the ISI were splitting the profits of over $100 million per year.[75] In 1985, Osama bin Laden’s brother, Salem, stated that Osama was “the liaison between the US, the Saudi government, and the Afghan rebels.”[76]

In 1988, Bin Laden discussed “the establishment of a new military group,” which would come to be known as Al-Qaeda.[77] Osama bin Laden’s charity front, the MAK, (eventually to form Al-Qaeda) founded the al-Kifah Center in Brooklyn, New York, to recruit Muslims for the jihad against the Soviets. The al-Kifah Center was founded in the late 1980s with the support of the U.S. government, which provided visas for known terrorists associated with the organization, including Ali Mohamed, the “blind sheik” Omar Abdel Rahman and possibly the lead 9/11 hijacker, Mohamed Atta.[78]

This coincided with the creation of Al-Qaeda, of which the al-Kifah Center was a recruiting front. Foot soldiers for Al-Qaeda were “admitted to the United States for training under a special visa program.” The FBI had been surveilling the training of terrorists, however, “it terminated this surveillance in the fall of 1989.” In 1990, the CIA granted Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman a visa to come run the al-Kifah Center, who was considered an “untouchable” as he was “being protected by no fewer than three agencies,” including the State Department, the National Security Agency (NSA) and the CIA.[79]

Robin Cook, a former British MP and Minister of Foreign Affairs wrote that Al-Qaeda, “literally ‘the database’, was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.”[80] Thus, “Al-Qaeda” was born as an instrument of western intelligence agencies. This account of al-Qaeda was further corroborated by a former French military intelligence agent, who stated that, “In the mid-1980s, Al Qaida was a database,” and that it remained as such into the 1990s. He contended that, “Al Qaida was neither a terrorist group nor Osama bin Laden’s personal property,” and further:

The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive the ‘TV watcher’ to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US and the lobbyists for the US war on terrorism are only interested in making money.[81]

The creation of Al-Qaeda was thus facilitated by the CIA and allied intelligence networks, the purpose of which was to maintain this “database” of Mujahideen to be used as intelligence assets to achieve US foreign policy objectives, throughout both the Cold War, and into the post-Cold War era of the ‘new world order’.

Part 2 of “The Imperial Anatomy of al-Qaeda” takes the reader through an examination of the new imperial strategy laid out by American geopolitical strategists at the end of the Cold War, designed for America to maintain control over the world’s resources and prevent the rise of competitive powers. Covertly, the “database” (al-Qaeda) became central to this process, being used to advance imperial aims in various regions, such as in the dismantling of Yugoslavia. Part 2 further examines the exact nature of ‘al-Qaeda’, its origins, terms, training, arming, financing, and expansion. In particular, the roles of western intelligence agencies in the evolution and expansion of al-Qaeda is a central focus. Finally, an analysis of the preparations for the war in Afghanistan is undertaken to shed light on the geopolitical ambitions behind the conflict that has now been waging for nearly nine years.

* [Note on the research: For a comprehensive analysis of the history, origins and nature of al-Qaeda, see: Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire and the Future of America, which provided much of the research in the above article.]

Andrew Gavin Marshall is a Research Associate with the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).  He is co-editor, with Michel Chossudovsky, of the recent book, “The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century,” available to order at


[1]        Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America. University of California Press: 2007: page 62

[2]        Ibid, page 63.

[3]        Ibid, page 62.

[4]        Ibid, pages 66-67.

[5]        HP-Time, The Crescent of Crisis. Time Magazine: January 15, 1979:,9171,919995-1,00.html

[6]        Peter Dale Scott, op. cit., page 67.

[7]        F. William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New  World Order. London: Pluto Press, 2004: page 171

[8]        Manouchehr Ganji, Defying the Iranian Revolution: From a Minister to the Shah to a Leader of Resistance. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002: page 41

[9]        Ibid, page 39.

[10]      Ibid, page 41.

[11]      Ibid.

[12]      F. William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New  World Order. London: Pluto Press, 2004: page 172

[13]      Ibid, page 171.

[14]      George Lenczowski, The Arc of Crisis: It’s Central Sector. Foreign Affairs: Summer, 1979: page 796

[15]      Ibid, page 797.

[16]      Ibid, page 798.

[17]      IPS, Q&A:  Iran’s Islamic Revolution Had Western Blessing. Inter-Press Service: July 26, 2008:

[18]      Michael D. Evans, Father of the Iranian revolution. The Jerusalem Post: June 20, 2007:

[19]      Peter Dale Scott, op cit., page 89.

[20]      George Lenczowski, The Arc of Crisis: It’s Central Sector. Foreign Affairs: Summer, 1979: page 810

[21]      F. William Engdahl, op cit., page 172.

[22]      Peter Dale Scott, op cit., page 81.

[23]      Michael D. Evans, Father of the Iranian revolution. The Jerusalem Post: June 20, 2007:

[24]      Peter Dale Scott, op cit., page 83.

[25]      Ibid, page 84.

[26]      Ibid, page 81.

[27]      Ibid, pages 85-86.

[28]      Ibid.

[29]      Ibid, page 87.

[30]      Ibid, pages 88-89.

[31]      Ibid.

[32]      Ibid, pages 87-88.

[33]      Ibid, page 85.

[34]      Ibid, page 86.

[35]      Ibid, page 88.

[36]      F. William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New  World Order. London: Pluto Press, 2004: page 173

[37]      Andrew Gavin Marshall, Controlling the Global Economy: Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission and the Federal Reserve. Global Research: August 3, 2009:

[38]      Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America. University of California Press: 2007: page 89

[39]      PBS, Secrets of His Life and Leadership: An Interview with Said K. Aburish. PBS Frontline:

[40]      Michael Parenti, Afghanistan, Another Untold Story. Global Research: December 4, 2008:

[41]      Oleg Kalugin, How We Invaded Afghanistan. Foreign Policy: December 11, 2009:

[42]      ‘’Le Nouvel Observateur’ (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76:

[43]      Ibid.

[44]      Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America. University of California Press: 2007: page 73

[45]      Michael Parenti, Afghanistan, Another Untold Story. Global Research: December 4, 2008:

[46]      Peter Dale Scott, op cit., page 78.

[47]      Ibid, page 116.

[48]      Ibid, page 122.

[49]      Ibid, page 123.

[50]      Ibid,.

[51]      Alfred W. McCoy, The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade. (Lawrence Hill Books: Chicago, 2003), page 80

[52]      Ibid, page 162.

[53]      Ibid.

[54]      Ibid, pages 283-386.

[55]      Ibid, page 466.

[56]      Ibid, page 474.

[57]      Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America. University of California Press: 2007: page 73

[58]      Alfred W. McCoy, op cit., page 475.

[59]      Peter Dale Scott, op cit., page 74.

[60]      Ibid, pages 75-76.

[61]      Ibid, page 124.

[62]      Ibid, pages 75-76.

[63]      Ibid, page 124.

[64]      Carol Off, Back to school in Afghanistan. CBC: May 6, 2002:

[65]      Joe Stephens and David B. Ottaway, From U.S., the ABC’s of Jihad. The Washington Post: March 23, 2002:

[66]      Steve Coll, Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, From the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001. Penguin Books, New York, 2004: Page 328

[67]      Steve Coll, Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, From the Soviet Invasion to September 11, 2001. (London: Penguin, 2005), page 285

[68]      Steve Coll, “Steve Coll” Interview with PBS Frontline. PBS Frontline: October 3, 2006:

[69]      Robert Dreyfuss, Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam. (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2005), page 326

[70]      ToI, “CIA worked in tandem with Pak to create Taliban”. The Times of India: March 7, 2001:

[71]      Robert Dreyfuss, Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam. (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2005), pages 279-280

[72]      Simon Reeve, The New Jackals: Ramzi Yousef, Osama bin Laden, and the Future of Terrorism. (London: André Deutsch Ltd, 1999), page 168

[73]      Michael Moran, Bin Laden comes home to roost. MSNBC: August 24, 1998:

[74]      Veronique Maurus and Marc Rock, The Most Dreaded Man of the United States, Controlled a Long Time by the CIA. Le Monde Diplomatique: September 14, 2001:

[75]      Gerald Posner, Why America Slept: The Failure to Prevent 9/11. (New York: Random House, 2003), page 29

[76]      Steve Coll, The Bin Ladens. (New York: Penguin, 2008), pages 7-9

[77]      AP, Al Qaeda Financing Documents Turn Up in Bosnia Raid. Fox News: February 19, 2003:,2933,78937,00.html

[78]      Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America. University of California Press: 2007: pages 140-141

[79]      Ibid, page 141.

[80]      Robin Cook, The struggle against terrorism cannot be won by military means. The Guardian: July 8, 2005:

[81]      Pierre-Henri Bunel, Al Qaeda — the Database. Global Research: November 20, 2005:



According to Andrew Gavin Marshall, at Global Research, 5 September 2010, (The “Arc of Crisis”):

When Jimmy Carter became President, his government decided to support the Ayatollahs in Iran.

In 1978, Zbigniew Brzezinski referred to “an arc of crisis” and according to Time magazine, in January 1979, the “center of gravity of this arc is Iran, the world’s fourth largest oil producer.”

According to Peter Dale Scott, in The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America, “There was this idea that the Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union.”

In 1978, Carter named George Ball to head a special White House Iran task force.

“Ball recommended that Washington drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the fundamentalist Islamic opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini.” (F. William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order. )

Manouchehr Ganji was a minister in the Shah’s government and he has Defying the Iranian Revolution: From a Minister to the Shah to a Leader of Resistance.

According to Ganji, in 1978, the Shah believed that “the Carter administration was plotting to topple his regime.”

In 1978, the Shah’s wife, told Ganji that, “I wanted to tell you that the Americans are maneuvering to bring down the Shah… they even want to topple the regime.”

Ramsey Clark, a former US Attorney General, and a professor Richard Falk, visited Khomeini in Paris.

According to Manouchehr Ganji, James Bill, a Carter adviser, felt that, “a religious movement brought about with the United States’ assistance would be a natural friend of the United States.”

The BBC broadcast pro-Khomeini programs daily in Iran. (F. William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order)

At the 1979 Bilderberg meeting, Bernard Lewis, a British historian, presented a British-American plan which supported “the radical Muslim Brotherhood movement behind Khomeini, in order to promote balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines.”

While Khomeini was in Paris, a representative of the French President organized a meeting between Khomeini and “current world powers.” (

In February 1979, Khomeini was flown out of Paris on an Air France flight, to return to Iran, “with the blessing of Jimmy Carter.”

(Michael D. Evans, Father of the Iranian revolution. The Jerusalem Post: June 20, 2007:

Covertly, the United States immediately stirred up war in the region.

Iraq invaded Iran, in April 1980.

Two months before the war, Brzezinski met with Saddam Hussein in Jordan, where he gave support for the destabilization of Iran.




Formula for Instant “Islamists”

[The groundwork has been prepared well here, over a period of many years.  The radicalization process has advanced to the point where the “Gladio” science can now be successfully applied, turning a political hotbed of desperate people into a war zone.  The development of the science of “Gladio” has given the CIA/military psy-warriors the knowledge of how to compel a certain type of man (and to induce large groups of like-minded men) into taking-up arms in defense of himself and his own family.  Careful behavioral studies of targeted populations gives them intimate knowledge of the local leadership–Which men should be groomed for leadership roles and which ones would resist at all costs, and therefore had to be eliminated.

The political assassinations of the targeted resistance leaders was done in a manner to implicate the opposing party–the right-wing would hit its own allies, if need be, otherwise they would be hit by  mercenary groups or military infiltrators, to create popular animosity and demands for revenge against the left-wing.  Through this long drawn-out process, simple human rights issues become magnified into justification for democratic-revolution and grounds for military intervention, if they are successful.

Into this heated atmosphere, international spokesmen for human rights causes like Ban Ki-moon charge in , to incite the angry victimized societies, like we just witnessed in Kyrgyzstan.

The intensive study of the Nazi mind-control science taken-up at the end of world war II and the follow-up studies done in the subsequent Gladio experiments in terror, which were inflicted upon America’s European allies since then seem to have really paid-off for the evil empire.]

State Islam, Outsiders Compete For Influence In Central Asia

Muslim men pray during Friday Prayers at a mosque in Osh, Kyrgyzstan. Some Central Asians question whether their local clerics are influenced by politics and state doctrine.

By Bruce Pannier

“Islam is a religion of knowledge,” the cleric told a television audience. “Unfortunately, some people attempt to use Islam — the religion of knowledge, goodness, and development — wrongly or for their own selfish ends.”

It’s a message that might not appear extraordinary — the virtues and peaceful nature of Islam have long been espoused — until you consider the source. As imam-khatib at Tashkent’s Kukeldash Mosque, Anvar Qori Tursunov enjoys the backing of the Uzbek authorities, making it apparent that his words address not only Islamic adversaries, but perceived enemies of the state itself.

In the ideological vacuum left by the demise of communism, religion reentered the scene in Central Asia. And with officially sanctioned Islam pitted against outside interpretations that authorities do not want to take root, the region’s regimes have deployed clerics like Tursunov in an ongoing battle for influence.

Central Asia’s Islamic history dates back more than a millennium, but for most of the 20th century, the region was part of the Soviet Union, cut off from the rest of the Islamic world. With the fall of the USSR, the newly independent states of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan quickly re-embraced their Islamic heritage.

Islamic groups saw fertile recruiting ground in the region, with its 50 million primarily Sunni Muslims. Since making their entrance to the region, they have posed an immense challenge to clerics like Tursunov in thousands of officially registered mosques.

Zeyno Baran, a senior fellow and director for the Center for Eurasian Policy at the Hudson Institute in Washington D.C., says that the governments of Central Asia were unprepared for the arrival of widely divergent religious groups from outside the region.

“Central Asia was perfect ground and many of the governments in Central Asia at the time, including Uzbekistan, did not understand that not all Islamic groups are the same,” Baran says.” They did not know and they did not understand that some of them are radical, some of them have political ideologies.”

Over time, the states of Central Asia tried to strengthen the voice of their official interpretations of Islam by silencing the outsiders. Hizb-ut Tahrir from the Middle East, Tablighi Jama’at from Pakistan, Salafiya from the Arab world, and Nurchilar from Turkey were banned, among other groups.

But despite these bans, continued reports of arrests of various prohibited groups’ followers in Central Asia suggest that they enjoy significant support, and that their appeal may even be on the rise.

Competing Sects

The chief mufti of Kyrgyzstan’s Spiritual Directorate, Murataaly-Hajji Jumanov, the highest Islamic official in his country, explains the need to combat outside Islamic groups. “Their brainwashing of some of our citizens is a big problem,” Jumanov tells RFE/RL’s Kyrgyz Service. “We can’t hide our heads in the sand and ignore them, we have to prevent this and maintain order. Otherwise we will have problems later.”

The preferred alternative preached by Jumanov and other state clerics is the region’s traditional Hanafi School of Islamic Law — considered by some to be the most liberal of the four schools of Sunni Islam (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali) — mixed with Naqshbandi Sufism, a mystic order whose founder, Baha-ud-Din Naqshband Bukhari, came from Central Asia.

This form of Islam, its official adherents believe, best reflects the values of Central Asia’s mostly Turkic and Persian peoples, and the region’s rich Islamic history is often invoked by clerics and Islamic scholars as they exhort people to resist forms of Islam arriving from other countries.

But another element of the region’s history works against state Islam. Sultans, emirs, khans, and others tried for centuries to bend Islamic clerics to their will, knowing that Islam was the greatest unifying force in their regions, and therefore both the biggest potential threat to their regimes and the best way of legitimizing their rule.

Today’s regimes, in this respect, are no different than their predecessors.

Hoji Akbar Turajonzoda of Tajikistan has a unique perspective on the modern role of Islam and the state in Central Asia. He was the Qazi Qalon of Tajikistan, the country’s highest Islamic imam, in the last years of the Soviet Union and first years after Tajikistan became independent.

He joined the Islamic opposition that was fighting government forces during the 1992-97 Tajik civil war and was forced to flee the country. But he and other opposition figures were amnestied as part of the agreement that ended the war, and he has been back in Tajikistan for more than a decade.

Turajonzoda, who since his return has held state positions not related to religion, tells RFE/RL’s Tajik Service there is a clear connection between the state and the imams preaching in mosques.

“Some 90 percent of imams are appointed by the government, by local government [officials] and offices of the security agency,” Turajonzoda says. “Even the law says that imams are supposed to be appointed by worshippers at the mosques with the approval of the government. But it is actually the government that selects who the imams will be, and when they appoint imams it is clear [the government] controls the mosque through these protégés.”

Clerics Under Pressure

The influence of the state is apparent in mosques throughout Central Asia. As Kudrat, who spoke to RFE/RL’s Kyrgyz Service on condition that his full name not be used, explains, official clerics are not entirely free to say what they wish.

Kudrat prays five times daily and goes to mosque when he can — “Fridays for sure,” he says — but laments that “our clerics are very restricted and talk only about the way to behave. We need to learn about politics also.”

Qosimi Bekmuhammad, a Tajik expert on politics and religion, supports Kudrat’s impression. State clerics, he says, “avoid speaking about important topics, the problems of today and tomorrow, and concentrate on topics from 500 years ago.”

Adding to the problem, according to the Hudson Institute’s Baran, is that some state-trained clerics are simply unable to answer all the questions youths have regarding social justice or identity issues. Seeing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, they get conflicting messages about whether the West is at war with Islam, and what they should be doing, because state-trained imams focus “primarily on Islamic ethics and [are] purely sticking to religious areas.”

“They are not able to always answer the questions that the youths have, and then the youth goes to the charismatic and self-appointed religious leaders or imams who do then provide them often with black-and-white answers that seem satisfactory,” Baran says.

This failure to address contemporary issues exposes a significant vulnerability of state Islam in Central Asia, according to Bekmuhammad.

While he does not think that a large number of young people have been attracted to outside Islamic groups, he recognizes that the social conditions in Central Asia have led some to join up with outside, and potentially violent, forms of Islam.

“Never say all youth do this, but some do,” Bekmuhammad says. “There are several reasons. First, there are socioeconomic conditions. There are no jobs. These problems have been in the country for 15 years and have led to disappointment among young people.”

The youth of Central Asia, Bekmuhammad says, are looking for advice and spiritual instruction on how to be good Muslims and still survive in the modern world. And this is where state imams are not delivering an adequate message.

In their effort to recruit new followers, outside Islamic groups also seize on state Islam’s connection to secular authorities to discredit its message.

Separation Of Mosque And State

Ayubkhan is a member of Hizb-ut Tahrir, a group formed by Palestinians in the 1950s that is officially banned throughout Central Asia. Ayubkhan currently lives in Kyrgyzstan’s section of the Ferghana Valley. He spoke to RFE/RL’s Kyrgyz Service, on condition that his full name not be used, about why he has no faith in state Islam.

“The mufti and his people — in a democratic country they don’t have to do what the government says. There is a law on religion and the government being separate,” Ayubkhan says. “Politicians should not be involved in the mufti’s affairs and the mufti should not follow government orders. The Koran says the mufti should follow Shari’a. I don’t see the mufti doing this.”

Tajik expert Bekmuhammad notes that young people who join outside Islamic groups “often do so because they feel governments in their countries have too much influence in Islam, whereas they would rather Islam had a dominant influence in government.”

Hizb-ut Tahrir member Ayubkhan backs Bekmuhammad’s assessment.

“I study Shari’a and study Hizb-ut Tahrir. I found out that Hizb-ut Tahrir teaches exactly what the Prophet Muhammad wanted us to know,” Ayubkhan says. “The Holy Koran is the ideology of Hizb-ut Tahrir — not just how a person should live in society but how a person should serve other people.”

Body And Soul

State clerics themselves portray the relationship between official Islam and secular authorities in Central Asia as inevitable.

Omurbek, the press secretary for Kazakhstan’s Muslim Religious Directorate, speaks of a symbiosis between Islam in his country and the state.

“According to our constitution the state and religion are separate. But, in fact, we can’t divide the body from the soul of a human being,” Omurbek says. “A human being has reason, a body, and a soul, and we can’t separate them. It’s not possible.”

And Omurbek is insistent that it is not the state that is influencing Islam, but Islam that is influencing politicians.

“God forbid there would be such a thing! To the contrary, our president himself built a huge mosque in the town where he was born,” he says. “Following his example, many rich people, governors, mayors, and others are building many mosques.”

Kyrgyzstan’s chief mufti Jumanov says there is no reason for conflict between Islam and secular authorities in his country.

“First of all, of course, in a secular country sometimes there are different opinions on religion, but during my time as mufti I haven’t seen any problem or conflict,” Jumanov says. “On the other hand, our state is following the correct policy toward Islam. From our side we are trying to work on a path where religion doesn’t have any conflict with state policy.”

There are, of course, the examples to the contrary. One notable conflict between state Islam and the secular authorities happened in the most authoritarian of the Central Asian states, Turkmenistan.

In 2002, Turkmenistan’s chief mufti, Nasrullah ibn Ibadullah, objected to having passages from authoritarian President Saparmurat Niyazov’s “Rukhnama,” his lengthy spiritual guide, inscribed on the walls of a new mosque alongside passages from the Koran. The mufti was sacked, convicted of plotting to kill the president, and jailed for 22 years.

So state imams do have limitations on what they can say, and authorities expect those imams to support the state.

‘Connections To Terrorism’

For many Central Asians dissatisfied with their governments, Islamic opposition groups represent the best and sometimes seemingly only hope for changing the system.

This may explain why Central Asian governments often portray these outside Islamic groups as having links to terrorism.

There is no question that some members of these groups clearly are violent. In one recent example, Imam Anvar Qori Tursunov of Tashkent’s official Kukeldash Mosque was stabbed outside his home on July 31, 2009. Several Islamic militants killed in a security operation in the Uzbek capital in August were blamed for the attack.

In neighboring Tajikistan, the small extremist group Bayat has for years been tied to sometimes deadly attacks against non-Muslims and state-approved Islamic clergy.

But while Central Asian states often resort to describing adherents of alternative forms of Islam as “terrorists,” the label is sometimes false.

Former high imam Turajonzoda rejects charges that all the foreign Islamic groups have connections to terrorism.

“I’m not really sure they are terrorists,” Turajonzoda says. “I’m against terrorism myself, against forcibly propagating ideas, against extremism. But most of these organizations are terrorists in name only.”

Turajonzoda says that by trying to paint all these Islamic groups with the same brush, Central Asia’s governments and state imams only discredit themselves. Central Asians see how some groups behave and perceive them as pious, not violent. This leads people to question the motives of authorities and state imams in branding all groups as terrorists.

Others suggest alternative methods of dealing with the outside Islamic groups.

Tursunbai Bakir Uluu, a former Kyrgyz ombudsman, has called for legalizing Hizb-ut Tahrir in his country. This, he believes, would allow the group to publicly demonstrate what it has to offer, while removing the element of mystery that may attract some to the Islamic sect.

His appeal was rejected and Hizb-ut Tahrir remains banned in Kyrgyzstan and throughout Central Asia.

“I think the region in general still suffers from knowing too little about Islamic history and their own history, because Central Asia once upon a time used to be the center of Islamic civilization,” says the Hudson Institute’s Baran. “Across the Silk Road there were great centers of Islamic learning where scientific thinking and spirituality and rationality and knowledge spread from Central Asia to the rest of the Islamic world and brought great civilization.”

It’s a message that official clerics like Tursunov of Tashkent’s Kukeldash Mosque might incorporate in future sermons. Confidence in traditional belief systems, combined with the ability to communicate those beliefs today, might prove to be the most effective way of countering the influence of outside Islam.

Saida Kalkulova and Erzhan Karabek of RFE/RL’s Kazakh Service, Venera Djumataeva of RFE/RL’s Kyrgyz Service, and Iskander Aliev and Salimjon Aioubov of RFE/RL’s Tajik Service contributed to this report



Arab Princes Can Get Away With Torture If They Are Wasted On Drugs

[C’mon, beating people with boards with nails in them?  That’s not torture, or it is acceptable torture?]

UAE prince acquitted of torture charges

Sheikh Issa bin Zayed Al Nahyan
An Abu Dhabi prince has been acquitted of charges of torturing an Afghan citizen after a United Arab Emirates court ruled he had been drugged and so was “unaware of his actions.”

Allegations against Sheikh Issa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the half brother of Abu Dhabi’s president, emerged after US network ABC aired a video in April that appears to show him torturing an Afghan grain dealer.

“The court acquitted Sheikh Issa after establishing he was not responsible,” for the torture, said his lawyer, Habib al-Mulla, on Sunday.

“The court accepted our defense that the sheikh was under the influence of drugs (medicine) that left him unaware of his actions,” he added.

The court in the oasis city of Al-Ain ordered Sheikh Issa to pay a “temporary compensation” of 10,000 dirhams ($2,724) to the Afghan, who can file a new lawsuit to claim full compensation, according to the lawyer.

The victim needed months of hospital care following the torture, during which he was beaten with whips, electric cattle prods, and a wooden plank with protruding nails.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) harshly criticized the trial, saying in a statement that the UAE “needs to do more than quietly prosecute Sheikh Issa… if it is to restore confidence in the country’s justice system”.

“If the UAE government really wants to stop torture and to restore its sullied image, one trial will not be enough,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, HRW’s Middle East director.

Sheikh Issa was once charged with endangering a life, causing bodily harm, and rape in 2004.

He has been in custody for several months and was charged at an opening hearing in October.

Yemen dismisses Al Qaeda threat as ‘exaggerated’

Yemen dismisses Al Qaeda threat as ‘exaggerated’

By Borzou Daragahi

But the U.S. and Britain, citing evidence of a viable threat, close their embassies in the Yemeni capital.

January 4, 2010

Reporting from Beirut – Yemeni officials on Sunday dismissed the threat posed by Al Qaeda in their country as “exaggerated” and downplayed the possibility of cooperating closely with the United States in fighting Islamic militants, even as the U.S. and Britain temporarily closed their diplomatic outposts in Yemen because of unspecified Al Qaeda threats.

The statements by Yemen’s foreign minister, chief of national security and Interior Ministry came a day after the region’s top American military commander vowed to step up U.S. military support for the beleaguered Arabian Peninsula nation.

Analysts said the Yemeni statements reflected domestic political concerns about President Ali Abdullah Saleh appearing weak and beholden to the West as he faces numerous political challenges.

The group Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula claimed responsibility for the failed attempt at bombing a Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines flight on Christmas Day. The alleged attacker’s claim that he was tutored in Yemen set off alarm bells in Western capitals about the relatively lawless nation of 23 million, which is also facing an insurgency in the north and a separatist movement in the south.

U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus visited Yemen on Saturday and vowed to give Saleh increased aid to fight Al Qaeda. His promise was echoed by President Obama, who said the United States would step up intelligence-sharing and training of Yemeni forces and perhaps carry out joint attacks against militants in the region.

But Yemeni officials Sunday appeared to rebuff any close cooperation with the West. Foreign Minister Abubakr Qirbi told a government-run newspaper that his country welcomed intelligence-sharing but had made no commitment to conducting anti-terrorism operations in conjunction with the West.

“Yemen has its own short-term and long-term schemes to tackle terrorists anywhere in the republic that only call for intelligence and information coordination with other countries,” he told the daily newspaper Politics, the official Saba news agency reported.

A statement posted to the U.S. Embassy website cited “ongoing threats by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula to attack American interests in Yemen.” The British Foreign Office confirmed that its embassy had been closed for security reasons and said discussions would be held today on when to reopen the facility.

Both diplomatic missions in Sana, the Yemeni capital, normally are open Saturday through Wednesday.

The U.S. Embassy has been the site of attacks in the past. At least 16 people died there in a Sept. 17, 2008, car bomb attack that was claimed by Al Qaeda. Three mortar rounds missed the embassy and crashed into a nearby high school for girls in March 2008, killing a security guard. Police and alleged Al Qaeda militants exchanged small-arms fire near the embassy a year ago.

On Sunday, Obama’s top counter-terrorism advisor said the U.S. had evidence of a viable threat against the embassy, which led to the decision to close it.

“There are indications that Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is targeting our embassy and targeting our personnel,” John Brennan said on “Fox News Sunday,” adding: “We’re not going to take any chances with the lives of our diplomats and others who are at that embassy.”

Asked whether Americans in the country are safe, Brennan said, “I think until the Yemeni government gets on top of the situation with Al Qaeda, there is a risk of attacks. A number of tourists have been, in fact, kidnapped. A number of tourists have been killed.”

But Yemen’s Interior Ministry posted a message to its website Sunday boasting that Al Qaeda militants were “under surveillance around the clock.”

And Saleh’s national security chief, Ali Anisi, said Sunday that Al Qaeda’s presence in Yemen was “exaggerated” and touted the success of his nation’s forces in stemming terrorism, according to an account of his comments reported by Saba news agency.

He reportedly insisted that Yemen was not a haven for Al Qaeda and pointed to “preemptive operations against militants which thwarted planned attacks on vital domestic and foreign interests in the country.”

According to Saba, he said that only 40% of the five dozen attempted terrorist attacks in the country since 1992 had succeeded.

Analysts say the increased focus on Yemen’s security situation creates a dilemma for Saleh, who is worried about appearing to cede sovereignty to the Americans when he is being politically assailed from all segments of the population.

“It’s about control,” said Abdullah Faqih, a professor of political science at Sana University. “The international actors need to assure the Yemeni government about its control. They don’t want to give concessions” to their rivals in the north or south.

A member of a smaller Shiite Muslim sect, Saleh has been accused for years of gaining political allies by turning a blind eye to the growing influence of Sunni extremists who have begun enforcing Islamic dress codes and setting up religious schools.

Qirbi, the foreign minister, emphasized in the interview published Sunday his nation’s “continuing rehabilitation of and advising misled terrorists,” a reference to its controversial program of re-educating and releasing convicted Islamic militants, some once held by the United States at Guantanamo Bay. About 90 Yemeni detainees are still being held at Guantanamo.

Faqih suggested that the United States and Britain announced the temporary closures of their embassies as a way of turning up the heat on Saleh, whose government depends on international assistance to combat a number of issues, including piracy off its Gulf of Aden coast and a drought along its mountain ridges.

“This could also be a kind of pressure,” he said. “If the World Bank decides to close its office, the country might collapse.”

Saleh has presided for decades over the Arab world’s poorest nation, a generally lawless and mountainous land that faces vast unemployment, high birthrates and a plummeting water supply. Rampant corruption and festering tribal disputes exacerbate the problems.

U.S. officials have limited direct aid to Yemen in the past for fear it would disappear into a government widely considered corrupt and unaccountable. But Washington increased the total anti-terrorism assistance from $4.6 million in 2006 to $67 million in 2009, according to the Pentagon.

Following a Dec. 24 airstrike against suspected Al Qaeda militants in Yemen, which killed 30 and was suspected by many of having been directed by Americans, some Yemenis fear U.S. involvement could further destabilize their country.

“We’re afraid that you will repeat the same mistake as in Iraq and Afghanistan,” said Mohamed Abdul-Malik Mutawakil, a political scientist at Sana University. “The real challenge is to correct the situation. If you come to Yemen and you push for reform, justice, political change, a better economy, then you will pull the rug out from under Al Qaeda.”

Jim Tankersley in the Tribune Washington Bureau and Times staff writer Janet Stobart in London contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times

Evidence Mounts for U.S. Complicity in Terrorism

Evidence Mounts for U.S. Complicity in Terrorism



By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor


When nothing adds up, its time we starting looking at what we know.  Our recent terrorist, now dubbed “the crotch bomber” is another dupe.  He could have been working for anyone, drugged, brainwashed or simply influenced, maybe by crazy Arabs, maybe by the Mossad, maybe by the CIA.  We only know the game is falling apart.

We do know a couple of things.  Dad, back in Nigeria, ran the national arms industry (DICON) in partnership with Israel, in particular, the Mossad.  He was in daily contact with them.  They run everything in Nigeria, from arms production to counter-terrorism.  Though Islamic, Muttalab was a close associate of Israel.  He has been misrepresented.  His “banking” is a cover.  Next, what do we know about the two Al Qaeda leaders Bush had released, the ones who planned this?

According to ABC news, the Al Qaeda leaders running the insurgency in Yemen were released from Guantanamo, although two of the highest ranking known terrorist there, without trial.

Guantanamo prisoner #333, Muhamad Attik al-Harbi, and prisoner #372, Said Ali Shari, were sent to Saudi Arabia on Nov. 9, 2007, according to the Defense Department log of detainees who were released from American custody.

Both of the former Guantanamo detainees are described as military commanders and appear on a January, 2009 video along with the man described as the top leader of al Qaeda in Yemen, Abu Basir Naser al-Wahishi, formerly Osama bin Laden’s personal secretary.

With all the hoopla about trials in New York, not a word is said when top level terrorists are released to Saudi friends of the Bush family who let them go.  We are now fighting these two Bush friends in Yemen.  They are running a major insurgency there.  We have been using Cruise missiles and our jets to attack their bases in the last weeks.


CBS News has learned that as early as August of 2009 the Central Intelligence Agency was picking up information on a person of interest dubbed “The Nigerian,” suspected of meeting with “terrorist elements” in Yemen.

Sources tell CBS News “The Nigerian” has now turned out to be Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. But that connection was not made when Abudulmutallab’s father went to the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria three months later, on November 19, 2009. It was then he expressed deep concerns to a CIA officer about his son’s ties to extremists in Yemen, a hotbed of al Qaeda activity.


CIA admits broad information during the November interview, information not acted on in any responsible way but failed to understand that the terrorist they were warned of in November was the one they had been tracking since August.

We learned of him in November, when his father came to the U.S. embassy in Nigeria and sought help in finding him. We did not have his name before then,” said Paul Gimigliano, a CIA spokesman. “Also in November, we worked with the embassy to ensure he was in the government’s terrorist database – including mention of his possible extremist connections in Yemen. We also forwarded key biographical information about him to the National Counterterrorism Center.


It is claimed by groups claiming to be Al Qaeda in Yemen that the Detroit attack was in retaliation to US attacks on bases in Yemen run by Al Qaeda leaders released by Bush.

The government of Yemen, as reported in the BBC , says that the Al Qaeda terrorists, led by those released by Bush, are really Israeli agents though they have organized attacks against US targets:

Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh has said the security forces have arrested a group of alleged Islamist militants linked to Israeli intelligence. Mr Saleh did not say what evidence had been found to show the group’s links with Israel, a regional enemy of Yemen. The arrests were connected with an attack on the US embassy in Sanaa last month which killed at least 18 people, official sources were quoted saying.

“A terrorist cell was arrested and will be referred to the judicial authorities for its links with the Israeli intelligence services,” Mr Saleh told a gathering at al-Mukalla University in Hadramawt province. “Details of the trial will be announced later. You will hear about what goes on in the proceedings,” he added.

The 17 September attack was the second to target the US embassy since April. Militants detonated car bombs before firing rockets at the heavily fortified building.

Mr Saleh did not identify the suspects, but official sources were quoted saying it was same cell – led by a militant called Abu al-Ghaith al-Yamani – whose arrest was announced a week after the attack.

With continual reports from Pakistan that India and Israel have been involved in terrorst attacks against US supporters there and the recent reports that the Detroit bomber was assisted by an Indian while boarding in Amsterdam and partially confirmed reports that a second bomber, an Indian, was arrested and taken from the plane in Detroit.  MILive broke this story in the US which originated with Reuters:

Reuters reports Dutch military police are investigating claims that an accomplice may have helped Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab board Northwest Flight 253 in Amsterdam on Christmas day without a passport.

Kurt Haskell of Newport, Mich., took to the comments section of this Web site early Saturday to share his story: That he and his wife, Lori, saw a well-dressed man help Abdulmutallab board the flight without a passport under the guise he was a Sudanese refugee. The military police have already said Abdulmutallab did not go through passport control at Schiphol when he arrived from Lagos.

In another interview on Inside Edition, Haskell described what happened:

A passenger has come forward with disturbing new details about the plot to bring down a jet, including the astonishing claim that the accused terrorist was able to board the plane without a passport.

Kurt Haskell showed INSIDE EDITION his boarding pass for Northwest flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit. The lawyer, who lives outside Detroit, was returning home from an African safari when he says he saw the terror suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallabm, and another man, who he thought was Indian, approach the ticket agent.

“Only the Indian man spoke,” says Haskell, “And what he said was, ‘This man needs to board the plane but he doesn’t have a passport.’ ”

“His clothes were like jeans and a t-shirt or something, he looked kind of thin, like a 16-year-old teenager, and the other man, looked like he was 50 years old, looked like he was a wealthy, Indian man. I just couldn’t figure out why they were together,” Haskell tells INSIDE EDITION.

An earlier CBS news report today stated:

CBS News has learned the State Department system designed to keep track of active U.S. visas twice failed to reveal Nigerian terror suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab had been issued an active visa allowing him multiple entries into the United States.

According to a law enforcement source, the first failure came on Nov. 19, 2009, the very same day Abdulmutallab father’s, Dr. Umaru Mutallab, a prominent banking official in Nigeria, expressed deep concern to officials at the U.S. Embassy in Abjua, Nigeria, that his 23-year-old son hadfallen under the influence of “religious extremists” in Yemen.

The second failure to flag an active visa belonging to Abdulmuttalab occurred the very next day in Washington, after Mutallab’s concerns were forwarded to officials there. It was only after the Christmas Day terror attack in Detroit that U.S. officials learned that Abdulmuttalab had been issued a visa by the U.S. Embassy in London valid from June 16, 2008, through June 12, 2010. ..

Thus, in another set of coincidences, the system put in place after 9/11, meant to prevent the misuse of student visas for terrorist acts, single, Islamic engineering students tied to religious extremists being a risk factor in that area, failed totally.

Picture the November 19 interview.  A poor taxi driver comes to the US embassy:  “My son, he is hanging around with a rough crowd.  He says he wants to blow something up!”

No, wait, that was someone else.  Picture the November 19 interview.  One of the richest people in the world, head of a major bank, cabinet minister, head of the national armaments industry, close associate of the US Ambassador and someone known around the world makes an appointment to come to the US embassy.

He wouldn’t have met a clerk.  The US Ambassador himself would have arranged for the highest ranking officer in the embassy hold the interview.  Mr. Muttalab would have been greeted by the ambassador when he came to the embassy.


We have confirmed that Mutallah met with the CIA chief of station in Nigeria.

Imagine this person of great power and influence, with friends at the highest levels of the CIA and Mossad.  When he came to announce his son may be a terrorist, he was a loving father asking for help?  He would have made this points:

  • My son is a danger to himself and others, please keep him safe
  • Do not allow my son to travel to the United States under any imaginable circumstances as he is likely to be involved in acts of911 & Terror War terrorism
  • Please assure me that you will act immediately and contact me as to what measures you have taken

Were any of this true, this is what would have been said.  Were any of what we have been told true, none of what we saw in Detroit could have happened.  What we know is that something very different than this really happened.  Go ahead and Google “muttalab, nigeria, bank, mossad, defense”


Let’s look at the Wayne Marsden report on the failures at the airport in Amsterdam along with direct ties between this case and the shoe bomber Richard Reid:

The Mutallab case also resembles that of another attempted plane bombing, that of the hapless “shoe bomber” Richard Reid. It has also been revealed that Mutallab is the son of Alhaji Umaru Mutallab, the former chairman of First Bank of Nigeria. According to This Day of Lagos, the elder Mutallab claims he reported the extremist views of his son to Nigerian security agencies, as well as to the U.S. embassy in Abuja, yet no attempt was made to prevent the radically-inclined Nigerian student to board the plane in Schiphol. The attempted plane bomber was schooled at the British International School in Lome, Togo and attended college in London and moved to Egypt and Dubai. The elder Mutallab is a frequent visitor to the United States and he is married to a Yemeni woman. …

Marsden points out the well established family ties to Yemen thru his wife.  He further points out how Israel managed to bring the terrorist son of Mutallab through multiple airport security obstacles with the same ease the United States shephered a known terrorist through a visa process.  What we hadn’t seen is how much this process had been tested during the “shoe bomber” episode.

For a number of years, passengers at Schiphol flying to the United States have been subjected to intense grilling by security personnel linked to an Israeli firm.

US bound passengers at Schiphol are asked a number of personal questions, including where they have stayed either in the Netherlands or in their country of origin. Hotel receipts are routinely requested by security personnel and the addresses of private temporary residences are recorded. Mutallab boarded a KLM flight in Lagos for Schiphol where he transited for his onward flight to Detroit on Northwest/Delta. Six months prior to Reid’s near shoe bombing of American Airlines flight 63 from Paris to Miami in December 2001, while memories of 9/11 were still fresh in everyone’s mind, Reid attempted to board an El Al flight from Schiphol to Tel Aviv.

Reid was taken aside by El Al security and identified as a terrorist suspect. Reid paid for a one-way ticket with cash and would not reveal what he planned to do in Israel.

However, rather than turning Reid into Dutch security for further action, he was allowed to board the El Al flight by Israel’s Shin Bet security so his movements during his five days in Israel could be monitored.

Six months later, Reid attempted to ignite his shoe on the flight from Paris to Miami. Israel had not informed British, American, or any other security agency of the concerns about Reid. Reid’s aunt, Claudette Lewis who raised Reid in south London, was quoted as saying she believed her nephew had been “brainwashed.” Reid later said El Al failed to detect that he had explosives in his shoes on the flight to Tel Aviv, an amazing revelation considering the Israeli airline’s tight security. .. The links between El Al security and Mossad are extremely close with abundant cross-pollination of senior personnel back and forth. The security company that allowed Reid to board American Airlines 63 at Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris was ICTS (International Consultants on Targeted Security) International. ICTS’s senior management are all ex-Israeli security officials, many of whom worked for El Al security.

It was ICTS that largely developed the passenger “profiling” procedures used at Schiphol and other airports around the world through its subsidiary, ICTS Holland Products BV.


Let’s review what we know thus far:

  • Our terrorist traveled to Yemen to meet with terrorist there
  • The terrorists in Yemen had been in Guantanamo but had been ordered released by the Bush Administration though they were, perhaps the most dangerous detainees held
  • The government of Yemen tells us that Islamic terrorists there have been arrested who have proven ties to Israeli intelligence
  • Our terrorists father, though we are told is a retired “Nigerian banker” actually ran their defense industry in close cooperation with Israeli Intelligence (Mossad)
  • Our terrorist’s visa to the US was never with withdrawn, though he was on a “terrorist watchlist”
  • Our terrorist, though flying from Nigeria, entered the Netherlands without passing thru customs, something impossible to do without assistance from an intelligence agency
  • Our terrorist, while at the Amsterdam airport, was being assisted by a man appearing to be Indian, who claimed our Nigerian terrorist was a Sudanese refugee with no passport (no passport was used entering the EU, something technically impossible)
  • However, Dutch authorities, the same ones who confirmed he entered the country with no passport also confirmed he had a valid US visa, though on a terrorist watch list that is shared with Dutch authorities.
  • Airport security in Amsterdam is contracted to an Israeli controlled company with, not only the most sophisticated technologies, but, in fact, the company that had developed the concept of security profiling.
  • The parallels between this case and the Richard Reid “shoe bomber” case are much more than admitted.


We keep going back to 2007.  Why were these terrorists released to Saudi custody?  Why did Saudi Arabia release them soon afterward?  With the 2nd major terrorist front in the world being Yemen and the terrorist operation there under the control of released Bush detainees, there is reason for suspicion.

While we have all of these facts, easily verifiable, we have a much stronger case against the Bush Administration or Israel than Al Qaeda.  There is no real evidence that Al Qaeda would be operating in Yemen without American or Saudi help and even, as stated by the Government of Yemen, direct material assistance from Israel.

Why would such a thing be done, something against all reason unless terrorism itself was part of a larger regional plan and a “war on terror” was only a ruse.

When Pakistan comes to us and says that Israel and India are involved in terrorism there and we ignore it, is it because it isn’t credible or because the US government has been involved, as we seem to be involved in Yemen?


Why are we satisfied to take one person into custody, one person who ties to so many irregularities and ask nothing else?

As with 9/11 and so many other seeminly impossible times when so many things go wrong that only great power and the cooperation of many agencies in many countries could make it possible, why do we ask nothing.

We have a major investigation in Nigeria, not only of the father and his connections to Israel but our own embassy and why they left this visa alone when the individual was a known terrorist.

How could this terrorist travel to Yemen to meet with an organization run by former detainees released by Bush and his Saudi friends, former detainees that Yemen claims are working for israel?  How could he do this and be allowed to return to Nigeria, a country whose intelligence services are tied to Israel and trained by Israel.  They would have known in a second.

How did this terrorist enter the Netherlands without showing a passport?  Try it.  You will meet lots of Dutch people who will keep you in a small room for hours, days even.  It is absolutely impossible.

People are picked up in the EU while in passport control for non-payment of child support.  I am being told they can’t find a terrorist?

We haven’t begun to discover how he got past security equipment and screening.  It isn’t like he isn’t the highest profile potential terrorist who has entered Nigeria in decades.  He is Islamic, young and traveling alone.  Ask any young Islamic traveler how many times they have been searched.

Is is on a terrorist watchlist.  This is like the “no fly list” on steroids.  You aren’t just denied flight, you are put under immediate surveillance.

If he had shown his passport, it would have shown him entering Yemen, a known terrorist training ground.  This would have stopped him also.

With the Bush administration releasing terrorist leaders and shepherding them back into their former profession, with our embassy, State Department, Homeland Security and every other organization we spent so many billions of dollars to “coordinate” all failing, is there, just perhaps, a minor sign of conspiracy?

I would call President Obama to account for failures to discover what appears to be a conspiracy of his predecessor but, as the GOP blogs that fill the internet are working overtime to obscure the facts and place the blame on Obama alone, there could be no greater proof of non-involvement.

duffsterFrankly, if the Obama administration was involved with Bush, as it seems they are, then the Bush/Cheney “disinformation” attack dogs would be leashed.  They are not.  Thus, Bush and Cheney should be targeted for investigation.

Veterans Today Senior Editor Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran and regular contributor on policial and social issues.

Moronic Neocon Press Calls 3 Terrorists, Islamic “Tet Offensive”

[In a classic example of the lion, or the elephant and the mouse, imbecilic war-mongers are so afraid of the CIA’s “Islamist” pets that they see comparisons between a couple of incompetent terrorists and Vietnam’s Tet Offensive.  Here is an example of neocon agitators trying to rally the misled and uninformed sheep of the United States into supporting another illegal war.  We look back on the tragic beginnings of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and understand the level of pure bullshit that was sold to the American people and then unto the world to get those wars started.  The same asinine, though astonishing power is at work here in the Yemen drama.  Just like the fake WMD scam in Iraq, we see a well-planned, comprehensive scam unfolding in Yemen.   The conspiratorial process followed by the government/corporate media nexus was described by the Bushies: “when we act, we create our own reality…all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” The Yemen front in the arc of war that stretches from Pakistan to Somalia is being opened in the same manner, with ludicrous explanations given for planned terror attacks, the snake oil salesmen commit war crimes, right before our eyes…and, so far, we do nothing to stop them.  Just consider this one impossible “coincidence” that is the basis of the new Yemen war fever–at the exact same moment that the Ft. Hood (influenced by Yemeni Mullah) shooter was opening fire in Texas, Saudi jets were launching their first airstrikes in Yemen, Nov. 6.  This coincidence justifies sending-in US Special Forces trainers and cruise missiles.  The little mentally-deficient Nigerian who lit his junk on fire was just icing on the Pentagon cake.]

Are We Under an Islamist ‘Tet Offensive’?

‘No al-Qaeda on Nigerian soil’

‘No al-Qaeda on Nigerian soil’

Nigerian Muslim leaders say bombing attempt against US airliner doesn’t prove any al-Qaeda terroirst action inside country.
Nigerian Muslim leaders have vehemently dismissed the alleged reports on the al-Qaeda network’s terrorist activities inside Nigeria, media reports say.

In an interview with the Abuja-based Daily Trust, a number of Nigerian Muslim leaders argued that the failed attempts of a 23-year-old Nigerian youth to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day is not proof of al-Qaeda’s activities in Nigeria.

The announcement came after the al-Qaeda claimed that it was behind the bombing attempt of US airliner on approach to Detroit.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab purportedly was subdued when attempting to light up a “fairly sophisticated” combustible mixture aboard a Northwest Airlines flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit on Friday.

“There is no affiliation between this young Nigerian man and Islamic and religious groups in the country,” Muslim scholar Abdulfattah Adeyemi said.

“We can not accuse the Nigerian Muslim groups of cooperation with al-Qaeda in their terrorist acts,” he added.

Meanwhile, Friday prayers leader of Abuja University Taofik Abdulazeez warned against any hasty judgment on recent events and connecting the failed terrorist attempt to Nigeria’s internal and religious affairs.

The Muslim Supreme Council, the Muslims Federation and other Islamic organization of Nigeria condemned Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s actions vehemently.

US President Barack Obama blamed the US intelligence network and the Homeland Security for failing to identify the Nigerian man, who was already in the US and UK terrorist watch list.

Speculations suggest that Obama’s increasing pressure on security officials to pursue terrorist suspects and the media hype behind the event seem to be Washington’s effort to justify a move similar to the controversial measure taken by former US president George W. Bush, who led the invasions of Afghanistan and subsequently Iraq in the aftermath of the September 11 attack in 2001.

The current approach lumps Obama and his predecessor as well as the Neo-cons together in continuing their hegemonic policies in the Middle East.

The United States invaded Afghanistan in 2001 in an attempt to capture the al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Not only the US-led war did not remove the terrorist leader, it led to the killing of many civilians, including women and children.

It would appear that the ‘Nigerian’ case, as we have it, which is non-verifiable and without any shred of legally binding evidence pointing to the Nigerians being in cohorts with the actions of this ‘lone operative’ is another Afghanistan or Iraq in the making.

Nigeria, however, has plenty of oil and other resources which would provide excellent spoils of war, should the ‘war on terror’ decide to drop in on them!

Mass Burial For Boko Haram Victims

Mass Burial For Boko Haram Victims

Written by Newstime Africa

Boko Haram VictimsBoko Haram Vic­tims

There has been a mass bur­ial of vic­tims of last week’s Islamist upris­ing in the north-eastern city of Maid­uguri, which killed hun­dreds of peo­ple, a gov­ern­ment spokesman said Sun­day. “Our evac­u­a­tion team has fin­ished remov­ing all dead bod­ies from the streets of the city. Fam­i­lies are nor forth­com­ing in claim­ing the dead bod­ies.  There­fore, the gov­ern­ment decided to bury them in mass graves,” Usman Chi­roma, spokesman of Borno State gov­ern­ment, said.

“It is dif­fi­cult for the bod­ies to be claimed, because their dead rela­tions were mem­bers of the Boko Haram (sect) that waged war against the gov­ern­ment. They just don’t want to be asso­ci­ated with them,” he added.

Although the police and mil­i­tary declined to give a fig­ure for the num­ber of bod­ies involved, This­Day news­pa­per put it at about 700. Clashes between secu­rity forces and sect mem­bers in four north­ern states — Bauchi, Kano, Yobe and Borno — killed more than 600 peo­ple in five days of vio­lence, accord­ing to police and wit­nesses.

Most of the dead were in Maid­uguri, the Borno State

cap­i­tal, where the Niger­ian mil­i­tary bom­barded the head­quar­ters of the Boko Haram extrem­ist sect and killed its leader Mohammed Yusuf, 39. His killing while in mil­i­tary cus­tody has been con­demned by rights groups. Res­i­dents in Maid­uguri told an AFP reporter by tele­phone that rot­ting bod­ies that had lit­tered the streets of the north­east­ern uni­ver­sity city had been removed for bur­ial. Lawan Gal­adima, a trader in Bayan Quar­ters, which was home to many fol­low­ers of the anti-Western sect, said: “by yes­ter­day (Sat­ur­day) evening, all dead bod­ies in this area had been removed.” “Health work­ers and police piled them into trucks and took them away. Now we are relieved of the nau­se­at­ing stench that dis­turbed us in the past few days,” he added.