"ONLY 9/11 Truth can stop Bush, the Iran War, World War III...
...if you do not address 9/11 YOU GET NOTHING..."
Quotes from Fox News host Andrea Tantaros
“The United States of America is awesome, we are awesome”
“But we’ve had this discussion. We’ve closed the book on it, and we’ve stopped doing it. And the reason they want to have this discussion is not to show how awesome we are. This administration wants to have this discussion to show us how we’re not awesome.”
“They apologized for this country, they don’t like this country, they want us to look bad. And all this does is have our enemies laughing at us, that we are having this debate again”
“Because they believe if we can just shame ourselves and convince the world how horrible we are, and put us on a moral equivalency with all these other countries then maybe they will stop beheading Americans and putting our heads on sticks.
They’re fools.”
Well, torture is not the issue when it comes to Guantanamo anyway.
No-one is (or was) in Guantanamo because they possess useful information that they have failed to give up - the torture and the interrogation is there merely to force submission, at which point the CIA offers you a job as a double agent and the training begins.
Guantanamo isn't an intelligence centre or a Black Site, it's a terrorist training and Mind Control indoctrination facility.
The point with something like Waterboarding is that after 15-20 seconds, most people will do whatever they are told to do immediately thereafter - which, in most cases, means "go and be a Jihadi for the US".
Remember, KSM had to be water boarded over 300 times to obtain his detailed, factually correct false confession to 9/11.
The uproar is
1) Most of them are not terrorists - they are Afghan goat herders who got sold by their neighbours in October 2001.
2) They ARE terrorists by the time the US lets them out.
3) That's the whole point.
"If roles are reversed they'll be treating our soldier captives far, far, far worse."
It's already far, far worse - you are the aggressor. The US was not attacked on 9/11.
The Afghan, Iraqis, Syrians, Lebanese, Yemenis, Libyan, Egyptians, Algerians, Iranians, Kurds and Tunisians have done absolutely nothing to youYou have invaded their countries, smashed their infrastructure, raped their women, maimed their children, stolen all of their shit and keyed their car.
"Every country tortures the enemy in war time. "
This is an absolute, complete lie.
For instance - the Nazis put captured allied officers in a Magical German Castle Fortress and let them iron their uniforms and put on nativity plays.
I lived through Irish terrorism, the Provisional IRA (some of them) were determined to blow up my English ass for at least the first 14-18 years of my life.
Here's the thing with terrorists - if you ignore them and tell them to fuck off, eventually they get bored, go home and ask to be allowed to offer surrender terms.
You do not change your way of life. Ever.
And who are "Our soldier captives"?
I don't support the troops. Not any more For the first five years only.
And I ALWAYS maintained "Not in my name" - I want no part of The Occupation.
After that time, anyone over there is a racist, a killer or too stupid and ignorant to know what they are getting into when they have every opportunity to find out and they deserve everything that happens to them. Especially decapitation.
Cartoon on the May 22, 1902 cover of Life magazine depicting American application of the water cure while Europeans watch. The caption reads:
"Chorus in background: 'Those pious Yankees can't throw stones at us anymore.'"
Lieutenant Grover Flint during the Philippine-American War:
"A man is thrown down on his back and three or four men sit or stand on his arms and legs and hold him down; and either a gun barrel or a rifle barrel or a carbine barrel or a stick as big as a belaying pin, – that is, with an inch circumference, – is simply thrust into his jaws and his jaws are thrust back, and, if possible, a wooden log or stone is put under his head or neck, so he can be held more firmly. In the case of very old men I have seen their teeth fall out, – I mean when it was done a little roughly. He is simply held down and then water is poured onto his face down his throat and nose from a jar; and that is kept up until the man gives some sign or becomes unconscious. And, when he becomes unconscious, he is simply rolled aside and he is allowed to come to. In almost every case the men have been a little roughly handled. They were rolled aside rudely, so that water was expelled. A man suffers tremendously, there is no doubt about it. His sufferings must be that of a man who is drowning, but cannot drown."
In his book The Forging of the American Empire Sidney Lens recounted:
A reporter for the New York Evening Post (April 8, 1902) gave some harrowing details. The native, he said, is thrown on the ground, his arms and legs pinned down, and head partially raised "so as to make pouring in the water an easier matter". If the prisoner tries to keep his mouth closed, his nose is pinched to cut off the air and force him to open his mouth, or a bamboo stick is put in the opening. In this way water is steadily poured in, one, two, three, four, five gallons, until the body becomes "an object frightful to contemplate". In this condition, of course, speech is impossible, so the water is squeezed out of the victim, sometimes naturally, and sometimes – as a young soldier with a smile told the correspondent – "we jump on them to get it out quick."
One or two such treatments and the prisoner either talks or dies.
Tim Osman, aka The Bin Laden of 1998 of the CIA and his boss and handler, Ayman al-Zawahiri of MI6
From : 9/11 : Synthetic Terror - Made in USA
AL QAEDA AND LONDONISTAN
The role of London as the leading center of Islamic radicalism has been an open secret for years, but has never been reported by the U.S. controlled corporate media. In the nineteenth century, when Mazzini and Marx operated out of London, the slogan was that "England supports all revolutions but her own." In the post-colonial world, the British have found it to their advantage to encourage violent movements which could be used for destabilizations and assassinations in the former colonies, which their ex-masters did not want to see become strong and effective modern states. Between 1995 and 1999, protests were lodged by many countries concerning the willingness of the British government to permit terror groups to operate from British territory. Among the protestors were: Israel, Algeria, Turkey, Libya, Yemen, India, Egypt, France, Peru, Germany, Nigeria, and Russia. This is a list which, if widely known, might force certain U.S. radio commentators to change their world picture about who is soft on terrorism.
A number of groups which were cited as terrorist organizations by the U.S. State Department had their headquarters in London. Among them were the Islamic Group of Egypt, led by Bin Laden's current right-hand man, Zawahiri, who was a known participant in the plot to assassinate Egyptian President Sadat; this was also the group which had murdered foreign tourists at Luxor in an attempt to wreck the Egyptian tourist industry. Also present in London were Al Jihad of Egypt, Hamas of Palestine, the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) of Algeria (responsible for large-scale massacres in that country), the Kurdish Workers' Party (PKK), which attacked targets in Turkey, and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (Tamil Tigers) of Sri Lanka, who assassinated Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Ghandi. Sheikh Bakri, Bin Laden spokesman's spokesman, was openly active in London into mid-1998 and later; he gave a press conference after the bombings of the U.S. East African embassies. The killings of figures like Sadat and Rajiv Ghandi should indicate the scale of the destabilization in developing countries of which some of these groups are capable.
Non-Anglo-Saxon press organs have from time to time pointed up the role of London in worldwide subversion. "The track of ... the GIA leader in Paris leads to Great Britain. The British capital has served as logistical and financial base for the terrorists," wrote Le Figaro on Nov. 3, 1995, in the wake of a murderous terror attack carried out in France. A report by the French National Assembly in October 2001 alleged that London played the key role as clearinghouse for money laundering of criminal and terrorist organizations. On March 3, 1996: Hamas bombed a market in Jerusalem, leaving 12 Israelis dead. A British newspaper reported soon after: "Israeli security sources say the fanatics ... are funded and controlled through secret cells operating here. ... Military chiefs in Jerusalem detailed how Islamic groups raised £7 million in donations from British organizations." (Daily Express, London, March 5, 1996)
In the midst of a campaign of destabilization against Egypt in the mid-1990s, the semi- official organ of the Egyptian government pointed out that "Britain has become the number one base in the world for international terrorism." (Al Ahram, Cairo, September 7, 1996) Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak noted that "... some states, like Britain, give political asylum to terrorists, and these states will pay the price for that." (Al-Hayat, September 18, 1996)
British newspapers were also alarmed by the level of Islamic extremist activity they saw around them. By the late 1990s, there were so many Islamic extremists in London that the city had acquired the nickname of "Londonistan." The leading right-wing paper in the UK wrote: "Britain is now an international center for Islamic militancy on a huge scale. ..and the capital is home to a bewildering variety of radical Islamic movements, many of which make no secret of their commitment to violence and terrorism to achieve their goals." (London Daily Telegraph, November 20, 1999)
President Putin of Russia saw a direct link between the London Islamic scene and terrorism in his own country. He said in an interview with a German newsmagazine: "In London, there is a recruitment station for people wanting to join combat in Chechnya. Today -- not officially, but effectively in the open -- they are talking there about recruiting volunteers to go to Afghanistan." (Focus, September 2001)
Brixton Mosque was one of the notorious centers for terrorist recruitment in the heart of London. This was the home base of Zacharias Mousawi, the French citizen put on trial in Alexandria, Va. It was also the home of Richard Reid, the shoe bomber of December 2001. Imam Qureshi of Brixton and others were allowed by the British authorities to preach anti-U.S. sermons to the some 4,000 Moslem inmates in British prisons, and thus to recruit new patsies for the world-wide terror machine.
According to Bakri, Bin Laden's spokesman, during the late 1990s 2,000 fighters were trained yearly, including many in the U.S. because of the lax firearms legislation. The rival of Brixton Mosque was the equally redoubtable Finsbury Mosque, the home of the Saudi demagogue al Masri, who was finally taken into custody in the spring of 2004. There is every reason to believe that London is one of the main recruiting grounds for patsies, dupes, fanatics, double agents, and other roustabouts of the terrorist scene.
AL QAEDA AND MI-5 AGAINST LIBYA
Muammar Qaddafi of Libya, who had been bombed by the U.S. in the mid-1980s, not coincidentally became a target of al Qaeda. In March 1994, Bin Laden supporters killed 2 German agents in Libya. In November 1996, there was an MI-5 assassination attempt against the Libyan dictator with the help of the local Bin Laden organization, in which several people were killed. Here is a prime example of al Qaeda being employed by UK intelligence for purposes of state sponsored terrorism with the goal of eliminating a political leader who was not appreciated by London. (Hollingsworth and Fielding) The conclusion is clear: al Qaeda is a subsidiary of Anglo-American intelligence.
According to the French authors Brisard and Dasquie, Bin Laden's controllers had been using him to cause trouble for Qaddafi since the early 1980s, when Bin Laden had demanded permission to set up a base of operations in Libya, but was rebuffed by Qaddafi. "Enraged by Libya's refusal, Bin Laden organized attacks inside Libya, including assassination attempts against Qadaffi," Dasquie told IPS press service. The French authors cited the Islamic Fighting Group, headquartered in London, as the Libyan opposition group most closely allied with Bin Laden. Author Dasquie told IPS, "Qadaffi even demanded that Western police institutions, such as Interpol, pursue the IFG and Bin Laden, but never obtained cooperation. Until this very day [late 2001], members of IFG openly live in London." In 1998, former MI5 officer David Shayler told reporters that the British secret services had financed the assassination attempt against Qadaffi.
(Inter Press service, November 15, 2001)
A rare moment of truth about the infrastructure of international terrorism was provided in October 2001 by Qaddafi, who was aware of al Qaeda's track record of attempting to eliminate him in the service of the U.S. and UK. In an appearance on the popular Al-Jazeera program "The Opposite Direction," Qaddafi condemned the 9/11 attacks, and referred to Bin Laden's Arab Afghans as "stray dogs" and terrorists. But then Qaddafi began to talk about the support network for al Qaeda:
Qaddafi: I am actually puzzled. I mean, if America were serious about eliminating terrorism, the first capital it should rock with cruise missiles is London.
Interviewer: London!?
Qaddafi: London. It is the center of terrorism. It gives safehousing to the terrorists. I mean, as long as America does not bomb London, I think the U.S. is not serious, and is using a double standard. I mean, on the contrary, London is far more dangerous than Kabul. How could it rock Kabul with missiles and leave London untouched?
(Al-Jazeera, Qatar-Tripoli, October 25, 2001)
The interviewer, a former BBC employee, quickly changed the subject before the mercurial dictator could say more. At this time, al Jazeera was closely monitored by all the international wire services, since it had the best reporting from inside Afghanistan. But none of them reported these illuminating remarks from Qaddafi.
NEOCONS' PLAN FOR AL QAEDA'S GLOBAL FUTURE
Voices from the Washington neocon oligarchy leave no doubt that the U.S. establishment's reliance on al Qaeda as its tool for ordering world affairs is intended to be a long-term one. The neocon retired Army colonel Robert Killebrew considers al Qaeda as the "once and future threat, : since he believes that "the al Qaeda we will face in 2010 will be an even more dangerous threat to Americas than the al Qaeda our troops are fighting today." According to Killebrew, "we can expect that within a decade al Qaeda will open one, or possibly several, political fronts in predominantly Islamic states, transforming itself from a deadly but diffuse terrorist movement into implacably hostile governmental factions throughout the Middle East that will pose critical geostrategic challenges to America and our allies.... the political transformation of al Qaeda into a radical pan Islamic movement would divide the world between the progressive West and a number of deeply reactionary, nuclear-armed states, and raise the possibility of far more serious conflict." (Washington Post, August 8, 2004) Here we see the oligarchy's intent of employing the benighted ideology of al Qaeda to organize the Arab and Islamic worlds for their own destruction. As we will see, neocolonial and neo-imperial powers have always feared secular Arab nationalism of the Nasser type, and have been eager to foment fundamentalist alternatives in the hope of perpetuating backwardness and isolation. The big danger for the U.S. has always been that Arab oil producers would reach their own economic development accords with western Europe, Japan, and the larger third world nations, such as Brazil. Al Qaeda fanaticism makes precisely these types of understandings impossible, preventing the forms of cooperation which would do the most damage to U.S.. The U.S. is biggest backer of al Qaeda, in just the same way that the Bank of England, Royal Dutch Shell, the City of London, and Wall Street were the biggest boosters of Hitler: if you know that you may face an adversary, the reasoning goes, then try to make sure that adversary will have a raving, incompetent, fanatical leader who will be structurally incapable of making successful alliances with your other foes.
Perhaps this is what Bush 43, whose family tradition includes grandfather Prescott Bush's implication in the Thyssen Nazi financial infrastructure, meant when he said in late 2001 that the United States has "the best intelligence we can possibly have," and what Porter J. Goss, the Florida Republican who chaired the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in 2001, meant when he denied that any intelligence failure had taken place around 9/11. (R.W. Apple, New York Times, December 14, 2001)
PRELIMINARIES: TERRORISM IN THE 1990s
Guys, now you saw this bomb went off and you both known we could avoid that. -- Emad Salem to the FBI, 1993
Synthetic terrorism is an enterprise that terrorist controllers often choose to escalate gradually, partly to enhance their own technical preparedness, and partly as a means of progressively degrading public intelligence while institutionalizing fantastic lies about what is going on. The Italian terrorism of 1967-1985, for example, which was directed by NATO intelligence, MI-6, the CIA, and SISMI, shows an unmistakable pattern of escalation, inasmuch as each terrorist attack became the stepping stone of the successive one, with an overall tendency towards larger and more complicated operations with higher and higher numbers of victims, reaching a culmination at Bologna in 1980. lf we look at terrorism in the U.S. during the 1990s, we see a similar pattern. One has the impression of looking at a crescendo of terror attacks, in which each new attack introduces new elements which will be important in the attacks to come. It is worth pointing out that, during the 1990s, few if any wealthy oligarchs became victims of terrorism; the dead were almost always the little people, the masses, and so it was to remain on 9/11. In addition, each new distortion accepted by the public increased the overall gullibility of the political system.
No comments:
Post a Comment