الوهابية حصان طروادة لتطويق روسيا والصين واستعداء إيران

يونيو 17, 2017

محمد صادق الحسيني

لن يطول الوقت كثيراً حتى يُكشف الغطاء ويُبان المستور من الفيلم الأميركي الجديد، بأن ما وراء «حفلة» قطر إنما هو تهيئة الأجواء لمواجهة أكبر تتحضّر لها إدارة ترامب بهدف استعادة زمام المبادرة الاستراتيجية المنفلت من يدها…!

وكلما يمرّ يوم جديد على العاصفة الرعدية الخليجية المنبعثة من صحراء الربع الخالي يتأكد للمتابع الفطن بأن ما يُسمى أزمة قطر ليست سوى حصان طروادة لتتويج «إسرائيل» إلهاً بديلاً في شبه الجزيرة العربية…!

وإليكم ما تقوله عيون الراصد:

أولاً: يجب أن لا يختلف عاقلان حول حقيقة أن ما يُطلق عليه اسم «الأزمة القطرية السعودية « ليست أكثر من «حلقة من مسلسل هوليودي مضبوط السيطرة» تم التخطيط له وتنفيذه من قبل صناع القرار في الولايات المتحدة، آخذين بعين الاعتبار حيثيات صراع الادوار والنفوذ بين الأداتين المحليتين المتنافستين على قيادة الوهابية والمختلفتين على شكل توظيف الحركات الإخوانية…!

ونعني هنا بصناع القرار الأميركي دوائر الدولة العميقة هناك مثل البنتاغون ووكالة الاستخبارات المركزية الاميركية، وذلك لتحقيق أهداف عدة مجملها يرمي الى تعزيز الوجود الأميركي العسكري وترسيخه في غرب آسيا المسماة غربياً بـ «الشرق الأوسط» مع عدم تحمل التكلفة المالية لهذا الحضور العسكري الاستراتيجي من قبل الحكومة الأميركية…!

هل نسينا أن واضعي مخطط هذه «الأزمة» هم أنفسهم من كان كلّف ولا زال كلاً من السعودية وقطر بدعم التنظيمات الإرهابية في العالم بأسره وليس في سورية والعراق وليبيا والصومال واليمن فحسب…!؟

وعليه فإن السيد الأميركي هو الذي يقوم بتوزيع الأدوار في إطار خدمة استراتيجيته العالمية الثابتة والوحيدة ألا وهي الهيمنة على العالم ونهب خيرات شعوبه…!

وضمن خطوات هذه الاستراتيجية جاء تنفيذ هذه الخطوة بهدف تبرئة مملكة آل سعود من تهمة الإرهاب تمهيداً لدمجها السعودية في ما يُطلق عليه حلف الناتو العربي ومن خلال تسهيل إعلان خيانتها السرية للمبادئ العربية والإسلامية والاعتراف بالكيان الصهيوني والتنازل عن الحق العربي المسيحي الإسلامي في فلسطين…

وها هم عبيد السيد الأميركي في الرياض، وبأمر من سيدهم في واشنطن، يتفاوضون سراً وعلانية مع المحتل الصهيوني وبشكل مباشر، جنباً الى جنب مع رموز السلطه الفلسطينية والحكومه الأردنية، على تسيير رحلات جوية مباشره من مطار اللد الفلسطيني المحتل مطار تل أبيب إلى الديار المقدسة في الحجاز. ولا يُستبعد أن يتم إنجاز الترتيبات التقنية المتعلقة بتسيير هذه الرحلات قبل موسم الحج المقبل، مما يجعل مواصلة مسيرة الخيانة مع الكيان الصهيوني تتسارع وبشكل كبير.

ثانياً: وهذا يعني بالإضافة الى ما ذكر أعلاه أن المخططين الأميركيين قد اتهموا قطر بدعم الإرهاب ولكنهم لم يُبرئوا السعودية من التهمة نفسها، بل على العكس من ذلك تماماً، حيث انهم كانوا قد وجهوا لها هذه التهمة وبشكل اكثر جدية وقانونية عندما سنوا قانون «جاستا» الذي يخوّل متضرري تدمير برجي التجارة العالمية في نيويورك سنة 2001 مقاضاة السعودية امام المحاكم الأميركية وطلب تعويضات باهظة منها. حيث قام فريق محامي أهالي القتلى، الذي يتابع القضية، بتقدير المبالغ التي ستطالب حكومة آل سعود بدفعها بستة ترليونات دولار 6000,000,000,000 أي ستة آلاف مليار دولار وهو مبلغ يعادل ثلث قيمة الديون الأميركية.

لذا فإن الساحر الأميركي المسمّى ترامب لم يحل أزمة مملكة آل سعود بل إنه وظفها لجني المزيد من مليارات الدولارات العربية والتي ستوظف تمويل مشاريع توسعة قواعده العسكرية وتمويل زيادة إنفاقه العسكري الهائل ضمن عمليات الحشد العسكري الاستراتيجي ضد كلّ من روسيا والصين.

بمعنى أن ابتزازه قطر، بعد افتعال أكذوبة الأزمة وإرغامها على تنفيذ الجزء الأول من صفقة طائرات ف 15 والتي تشمل 72 طائرة من هذا الطراز تبلغ قيمتها الإجمالية اثنين وعشرين مليار دولار، حيث وقع وزير الدفاع القطري خالد العطيظة اتفاقيظة توريد نصف هذه الصفقة بقيمة 12 مليار دولار يوم 14/6/2017 في البنتاغون، نقول إن ابتزازه للقطري بعد إتمام ابتزازه للسعودي الذي سلّم الدفعة الاولى من الاتاوة المفروضة عليه أي أن القطري قد شرع في دفع الإتاوة المطلوبة منه لسيده الأميركي كما سبقته الى ذلك مملكة آل سعود وبالتالي بدأت مشاركته الفعلية في تمويل وتجهيز البنى العسكرية الأميركية الجديدة في الشرق الأوسط، والتي سيكون «الإسرائيلي» جزءاً أساسياً منها، بل وله دور قيادي فيها، والموجّهة ضد روسيا والصين وحلفائهم الإيرانيين والسوريين والعراقيين.

ثالثاً: كما تجب الإشارة إلى أن ما يقوم به البهلوان التركي، أردوغان، في اللعب على الحبال في إطار الموضوع القطري ليس إلا جزءاً من المخطط الأميركي لتعزيز الوجود العسكري الأميركي وأداته الشمال أطلسية، حلف الناتو، في المنطقة العربية إمعاناً منه في عمليات التطويق الاستراتيجي المباشر للجمهورية الاسلامية الإيرانية، حيث قواعده الكبرى في العديد والسيليه في مشيخة قطر، بالاضافة الى قواعده الاخرى في مملكة آل سعود وفي مشيخة البحرين، حيث توجد قيادة الأسطول الأميركي الخامس والذي صرّح قائده قبل يومين بأنه أرسل سفينتين حربيتين أميركيتين في زيارة لميناء الدوحة… فلماذا لا تقاطعون الدولة الراعية للإرهاب بدلاً من زيارتها، إذا كنتم صادقين…!؟

نقول إن الدور التركي ما هو إلا جزء من التحشدات الاستراتيجية ضد إيران وكلٍّ من روسيا والصين. وإلا فكيف يسمح السيد الأميركي لذنبه العثماني الجديد بإقامة قاعدة عسكرية وإرسال خمسة آلاف جندي تركي الى دولة تتهمها الولايات المتحدة بدعم الإرهاب!؟

وما هي حجة ترامب في تبريره فرض العقوبات الجديدة على إيران؟ بحجة تهمهم الباطلة لإيران بتمويل ودعم الاٍرهاب وهي الدولة الأكثر تضرراً من الإرهاب والأكثر تصدّياً لمحاربته في العالم كله!؟

إن السماح للسلطان العثماني بإرسال لواءي قوات بحرية خاصة إلى قاعدته في قطر إلى جانب قرار البنتاغون الصادر يوم أمس بإرسال أربعة آلاف جندي أميركي جديد الى أفغانستان لا يتساوق إلا مع خطط العدوان الأميركية ضد القوى الدولية والإقليمية المعادية لهيمنة القطب الواحد…!

ولا تنسوا هنا تصريحات الثعلب التركي المراوغ الجديدة ضد إيران واتهامها بالتوسعية والطائفية…!!

رابعاً: ثم كيف لنا أن نفسر الوجود الكثيف للغواصات الأميركية في شمال النرويج؟ ذلك الحشد البحري الذي تطرّق إليه الرئيس بوتين في حواره التلفزيوني يوم أمس الأول مع الشعب الروسي!؟

هل تريد الولايات المتحدة محاربة كوريا الشمالية انطلاقظاً من القطب المتجمّد الشمالي!؟ أم هي خطوة ضمن مسلسل الاستعدادات الجارية تحضيراً لعدوان واسع على روسيا بسبب فشل سياسة العقوبات الأميركية ضدها والتي ألحقت الضرر بأذناب أميركا الأوروبيين الذين انصاعوا لتنفيذ أوامر سيدهم الأميركي مما كلّفهم خسائر اقتصادية فاقت المئة مليار دولار، بينما تمكنت السياسة الروسية الحكيمة من الحدّ من خسائر روسيا الاقتصادية نتيجة ذلك الحصار وإبقائها في حدود الخمسين مليار دولار.

وما يعزز نظريتنا حول الاستعدادات العسكرية الأميركية الجارية في إطار تطوير ومراكمة الحشد الاستراتيجي المعادي لقوى ومكونات التحالف الصيني الروسي هي تصريحات الأدميرال هاري هاريس، قائد الأساطيل البحرية الاميركية في المحيط الهادئ والتي اتهم فيها روسيا بخرق اتفاقيات الحدّ من انتشار الصواريخ الاستراتيجية. هذا الاتهام الذي لا يمت الى الواقع بصلة وإنما هو تمهيد لنشر المزيد من الأسلحة الصاروخية الاميركية سواء في دول البلطيق او دول أوروبا الشرقية او دول «الشرق الاوسط»…

وما قيام الولايات المتحدة بتحريك بطاريات صواريخ HIMRAS البعيدة المدى من قواعدها في الأردن الى داخل الاراضي السورية وبحجة حفظ أمن قواتها هناك إلا جزء من الإجراءات العدوانية المشار اليها أعلاه. إذ ما هي حاجتهم لصواريخ يبلغ مداها 300 كم؟ خاصة أنهم يقولون بأنهم موجودون هناك لمحاربة داعش في معاقله في الرقة والموصل..!؟

إنها إذن صواريخ العدوان التي يريدون من ورائها التلويح بالقوة للجيش العربي السوري وحلفائه في الميدان السوري في محاولة لوقف او إبطاء سير الهجوم الاستراتيجي النهائي الذي ينفّذه السوري بمساعدة الحلفاء الروس، وتحت قيادة مباشرة للعمليات القتالية من قبل الجنرال قاسم سليماني إلى جانب إخوانه جنرالات الأركان في الجيش العربي السوري وقوات الرضوان اللبنانية وسائر القوات الرديفة…

إنها قاعدة جديدة او تعزيز وتوسيع لقاعدة أميركية موجودة على الأرض السورية أصلاً والتي لن يطول الزمن حتى يتم تدميرها وإبادة من فيها من جنود أميركيين ومرتزقة بمسمّياتهم المختلفة…

إن أرض سورية وبلاد الشام لن تكون لا ممراً ولا مقراً لكم، أيها الحمقى..

إنها معراجنا إلى السماء ومقبرة للغزاة كانت لنا وستبقى لنا..

لذلك ننصحكم أن احملوا أمتعتكم وارحلوا عن ديارنا سريعاً، قبل أن تصلكم عواصف أسودنا التي ستجعلكم كعصف مأكول فيما أموال وعديد عبيدكم الإقليميين هشيمٌ تذروه الرياح..!

ساعتئذ ستترحّمون على ما حصل لكم في بيروت في العام 1983م…!

هل تتذكّرون…!؟

بعدنا طيّبين قولوا الله.

(Visited 877 times, 877 visits today)

How I Know That the Sauds Did the 9/11 Attacks

How I Know That the Sauds Did the 9/11 Attacks

ERIC ZUESSE | 10.06.2017 | WORLD

How I Know That the Sauds Did the 9/11 Attacks

As a historian, I recognize that everything we know about history is from sources, and depends upon the reliability of those sources. Here, my main sources will be identified, and linked-to, so that any reader online can go directly to them, and won’t need to rely upon me but can go directly to the sources and evaluate them (my evidence) on one’s own.

First of all, however, reference will be made here to the three main countries (other than Afghanistan, which America first invaded for having allegedly perpetrated 9/11; and Iraq, which we next invaded for having allegedly perpetrated it) that have been accused, at different times, for allegedly having done those attacks; and anyone who wants to see my main previous article on each of these three country’s involvement or non-involvement in the 9/11 attacks, can access that presentation simply by clicking onto the respective link here for that given country:

ISRAEL

IRAN

SAUDI ARABIA

Regarding each one of those three ‘suspects’, my article there links directly to its sources, so that the reliance is, again, not to my own evidence, but to the evidence that others have presented.

Of course, the CIA and the George W. Bush White House have also been alleged to have been involved. Anyone who scours the present article and its sources will find plenty of evidence implicating them; but the U.S. regime cannot go to war against itself; and, so, only the foreign government that actually financed and organized the 9/11 attacks, will be the focus here.

However, none of that will make much sense outside of the broader context of the article that I wrote documenting how the Cold War had ended in 1991 only on the Russian side while it was secretly continued on the U.S. side, which resolutely aims to conquer Russia. As things have turned out subsequent to 1990, ‘the war against communism’ had really been just the sales-pitch for a campaign ultimately to achieve U.S. control over the entire world — it was not really an ideological war — on the American side. Understanding this, is basic to everything. And America’s ‘war against terrorism’ is (as is well documented in the excerpts below) likewise fake. But that’s being said only in the way of preparation — any reader here will make his decisions solely upon the basis of the evidence, which is given here.

Other than your reading those basics, the following will present the supplementary evidence to my case that Saudi Arabia — that’s to say, the Saudi government; that’s to say, the Saudi royal family — did it. This will be the relevant back-story, to how and why they did it, but all of it will be presented here by others, not by me.

My function in setting forth this history will simply be organizing these sources for the back-story, as follows:

——

Nafeez Ahmed, 2005, The War on Truth: 9/11, Disinformation and the Anatomy of Terrorism:

pp.3-5:

In the summer of 1979, a group of powerful elites from various countries gathered at an internationcal conference in Jerusalem to promote and exploit the idea of ‘international terrorism.’ The forum, officially known as the Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism (JCIT), was organized by Benjamin Netanyahu. … 

Over two decades ago, the JCIT established the ideological foundations for the ‘War on Terror.’ The JCIT’s defining theme was that international terrorism constituted an organized political movement whose ultimate origin was the Soviet Union. All terrorist groups were ultimately products of it, and could be traced back to, this single source, which — according to the JCIT — provided financial, military, and logistical assistance to disparate terrorist movements around the globe. The mortal danger to Western security and democracy posed by the worldwide scope of this international terrorist movement required an apropriate worldwide anti-terrorism offensive, consisting of the mutual coordination of Western military intelligence services.

But as Philip Paull documents extensively in his Masters thesis at San Francisco State University [and summarized in the link to this link], the JCIT’s own literature and use of source documentation was profoundly flawed [he shows they lied]. … 

Who exactly were the primary architects of the JCIT’s ‘international terrorism’ project? According to Paull, ‘present and former members of the Israeli and United States governments,… and reactionary British and French politicians and publicists.… [They] included: Menachim Begin,… Benzion Netanyahu, then Cornell University professor emeritus [and Benjamin Netanyahu’s father],… Paul Johnson,… Richard Pipes,… Ray S. Cline,… George Bush Sr. …

——

David B. Ottaway, 2008, The King’s Messenger: Prince Bandar:

pp.41-44:

In the fall of 1979, Bandar took eight courses in international economics and politics, political theory, U.S. foreign policy, and Middle Eeast politics, scoring four As, and four B pluses, according to a transcript of his school records.6 Mystery still surrounds his master’s thesis, which focused on the domestic origins of U.S. foreign policy. Though apparently it was extremely well written, Bandar received only a B plus. West said in one of his daily diary entries that the thesis was ‘exceptionally good’. … But in another entry, he said ‘I cannot help but wonder how much help he might have had with it.’8 One person who almost certainly helped Bandar was Fred Dutton.

West kept Bandar’s father informed abut his progress. When he went to tell Sultan about Bandar’s final grades in June 1980, Sultan joked that Bandar had ‘spent a lot of money’ on getting his degree, in resonse to which West quiped, ‘That was the reason he received a B plus instead of an A in economics.’9 Even [President] Carter’s national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, read the thesis, commenting that Bandar had learned a lot about the U.S. decision-making process and explained how it affected Saudi Arabia’s interests ‘in an interesting and imaginative way.’10…

Almost immediately after his return in June 1979, Bandar found himself called upon for help by President Carter once again. …

Secretly, Carter had already turned to the kingdom for help, calling in Bandar and asking him to deliver a message to [King] Fahd pleading for an increase in Saudi [oil] production. Fahd’s reply, according to Bandar, was ‘Tell my friend, the president of the United States of America, when they need our help, they will not be disappointed.’13 The king was true to his world. … 

West’s diary corroborates Bandar’s account of how Saudi Arabia came to Carter’s rescue. West wrote that on May 30 he began discussing with Hamilton Jordan what they could do to get Carter reelected. …

The success of this venture in oil diplomacy gave Bandar enormous standing in Washington. In early December 1979, Carter asked the prince to come to the White House so that he could thank him personally for the Saudi help in alleviating the U.S. energy crunch. … The meeting was kept secret even from the State Department. …

Bandar, still only a pilot and with no diplomatic standing, was becoming involved in every aspect of Carter’s Middle East policy.  …

pp.56-57:

The Saudi drive to export its religious influence eventually reached the United States. … In November 1980, a group of pro-Khomeni Iranian activists had seized control of the site [the Islamic Mosque and Cultural Center on Massachusetts Avenue] and ousted its Egyptian (Sunni) imam. …

In the turbulent decade after the Iranian revolution, the U.S. government welcomed this new Saudi religious activism, viewing it as a badly needed counterweight to help contain Iran’s drive to expand its religious and political influence. The Saudi export of Wahhabi Islam would eventually develop into an impressive soft power that the House of Saud could extend across the Muslim world. … Before long, this international activism took concrete form in a jihad aimed at the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, which had begun [invading on 24 December 1979] [months after having provided only advisors to an independent leftist-revolutionary government that turned out to be ignoring much of Moscow’s advice] the same year as Iran’s revolution. … Starting in the early 1980s, the Saudi government provided several billions of dollars in arms and other assistance to the cause of freeing Afghanistan from godless communists. Reagan, of course, was careful to call them ‘freedom fighters’ rather than ‘holy warriors.’

——

VIDEO: 1979 Zbigniew Brzezinski to the Mujahideen: “Your cause is right and God is on your side!”

——

The Brzezinski Interview with Le Nouvel Observateur (1998)

Translated from the French by William Blum and David N. Gibbs. This translation was published in Gibbs, “Afghanistan: The Soviet Invasion in Retrospect,” International Politics 37, no. 2, 2000, pp. 241-242/

Original French version appeared in “Les Révélations d’un Ancien Conseilleur de Carter: ‘Oui, la CIA est Entrée en Afghanistan avant les Russes…’” Le Nouvel Observateur [Paris], January 15-21, 1998, p. 76. Click here for original French text.

Note that all ellipses appeared in the original transcript, as published in Le Nouvel Observateur.

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs that the American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahiddin in Afghanistan six months before the Soviet intervention. Is this period, you were the national securty advisor to President Carter. You therefore played a key role in this affair. Is this correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahiddin began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan on December 24, 1979. But the reality, closely 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 [emphasis added throughout].

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into the war and looked for a way to provoke it?

B: It wasn’t quite like that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against secret US involvement in Afghanistan , nobody believed them. However, there was an element of truth in this. You don’t regret any of this today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, essentially: «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 that was unsustainable for the regime , a conflict that bought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported Islamic fundamentalism, which has given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B : What is more important in world history? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: «Some agitated Moslems»? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today…

B: Nonsense! It is said that the West has a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid: There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner, without demagoguery or emotionalism. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is t here in com m on among fundamentalist Saudi Arabia, moderate Morocco, militarist Pakistan, pro-Western Egypt, or secularist Central Asia? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries…

Additional Sources: …

——

Anatomy of a Victory: CIA’s Covert Afghan War

By: Steve Coll, Washington Post, July 19, 1992

… In 1980, not long after Soviet forces invaded Afghanistan [on 24 December 1979] to prop up a sympathetic leftist government, President Jimmy Carter signed the first – and for many years the only -presidential “finding” on Afghanistan, the classified directive required by U.S. law to begin covert operations, according to several Western sources familiar with the Carter document.

The Carter finding sought to aid Afghan rebels in “harassment” of Soviet occupying forces in Afghanistan through secret supplies of light weapons and other assistance. The finding did not talk of driving Soviet forces out of Afghanistan or defeating them militarily, goals few considered possible at the time, these sources said.

The cornerstone of the program was that the United States, through the CIA, would provide funds, some weapons and general supervision of support for the mujaheddin rebels, but day-to-day operations and direct contact with the mujaheddin would be left to the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI. The hands-off U.S. role contrasted with CIA operations in Nicaragua and Angola.

Saudi Arabia agreed to match U.S. financial contributions to the mujaheddin and distributed funds directly to ISI. China sold weapons to the CIA and donated a smaller number directly to Pakistan, but the extent of China’s role has been one of the secret war’s most closely guarded secrets.

In all, the United States funneled more than $2 billion in guns and money to the mujaheddin during the 1980s, according to U.S. officials. It was the largest covert action program since World War II.

In the first years after the Reagan administration inherited the Carter program, the covert Afghan war “tended to be handled out of Casey’s back pocket,” recalled Ronald Spiers, a former U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, the base of the Afghan rebels. Mainly from China’s government, the CIA purchased assault rifles, grenade launchers, mines and SA-7 light antiaircraft weapons, and then arranged for shipment to Pakistan. Most of the weapons dated to the Korean War or earlier. The amounts were significant — 10,000 tons of arms and ammunition in 1983, according to Yousaf — but a fraction of what they would be in just a few years.

Beginning in 1984, Soviet forces in Afghanistan began to experiment with new and more aggressive tactics against the mujaheddin, based on the use of Soviet special forces, called the Spetsnaz, in helicopter-borne assaults on Afghan rebel supply lines. As these tactics succeeded, Soviet commanders pursued them increasingly. …

In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166, and national security adviser Robert D. McFarlane signed an extensive annex, augmenting the original Carter intelligence finding that focused on “harassment” of Soviet occupying forces, according to several sources. Although it covered diplomatic and humanitarian objectives as well, the new, detailed Reagan directive used bold language to authorize stepped-up covert military aid to the mujaheddin, and it made clear that the secret Afghan war had a new goal: to defeat Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a Soviet withdrawal.

New Covert U.S. Aid

The new covert U.S. assistance began with a dramatic increase in arms supplies — a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987, according to Yousaf — as well as what he called a “ceaseless stream” of CIA and Pentagon specialists who traveled to the secret headquarters of Pakistan’s ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan.

There the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers to help plan operations for the Afghan rebels. …

——

Richard Labévière, 2000, «Dollars for Terror: The United States and Islam»

p.6:

…Between 1994 and 1997, Bill Clinton was happy to allow Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to support the Taleban, seeing them as a useful counterbalance to Iran’s influence. …

‘The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries worked marvelously well in Afghanistan against the Red Army’ explains a former CIA analyst. ‘The same doctrines can still be used to destabilize what remains of Russian power. …’ In a certain sense, the Cold War is still going on. For years Graham Fuller, former Deputy Director of the National Council on Intelligence at the CIA, has been talking up the ‘modernizing virtues’ of the Islamists, insisting on their anti-Statist concepts of the economy. Listening to him, you would almost take the Taleban and their Wahhabi allies for liberals. ‘Islam, in theory at least, is firmly anchored in the traditions of free trade and private enterprise,’ wrote Fuller.2 … ‘Islam does not glorify the State’s role in the economy.’ …

——

U. S. – Jihadists Relation, Part II: Waging Jihad to Defeat the Soviet Union

Akbar Ganji [7 July 2014. The links have been updated here.]

…Bin Laden was a civil engineer and a member of a wealthy Saudi family, which was not, however, a part of the Saudi royal family. He recruited 4000 Saudi citizens and took them to Afghanistan. Altogether, 100,000 fighters were recruited and taken to Afghanistan, who were funded, armed and trained by CIA and Saudi Arabia. The high level of civilian casualties that the war would certainly entail was considered by the Carter administration, but was set aside. One senior official of the Carter administration said, «The question here was whether it was morally acceptable that, in order to keep the Soviets off balance, which was the reason for the operation, it was permissible to use other lives for our geopolitical interests». Representative Charles Wilson, a Texas Democrat, said that Carter’s CIA director Stansfield Turner said, «I decided I could live with that [high civilian casualties]».

But, the United States did not stop there. Meeting in 1985 with the Mujahideen leaders at the White House, Ronald Reagan referred to them as the «moral equivalent of America’s Founding Fathers». Think about it for a moment: Bin Laden and other hardline Muslim fundamentalists and leaders of the Mujahideen, such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Taliban leader Mullah Omar, were moral equivalent of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and other founding fathers. In the same meeting with the Jihadists, Reagan said, «We have here six Afghanistan freedom fighters. There is a man here whose wife was killed in front of his two children. Another one [is here] who lost his brother in a town, village, in which 105 people were massacred. One lost a brother who was the mayor of that village. They are here to tell the outside world, the free world, what is really going on in Afghanistan». Earlier in 1982, Reagan had dedicated the space shuttle Colombia to what he called freedom fighters in Afghanistan. «This is Colombia lifting, representing man’s finest aspirations in the field of science and technology, so too the struggle of the Afghan people represents man’s highest aspirations for freedom. I am dedicating on behalf of the American people the March 22 of Colombia to the people of Afghanistan,» he said. …

——

Panama Papers reveal George Soros’ deep money ties to secretive weapons, intel investment firm

By Peter Byrne · Published May 16, 2016

… Soros Capital [on 24 January 1995] set up an offshore company in the Cayman Islands for the purpose of investing private equity with the Carlyle Group, alongside members of Saudi Arabia’s Bin Laden family. Carlyle’s partners include ex-heads of state and former CIA officials. The private equity partnership specializes in buying and selling weapons manufacturing and intelligence gathering companies with government and military contracts and it also uses secret offshore companies to conduct business. …

Bin Laden Family Liquidates Holdings With Carlyle Group

By Kurt Eichenwald, New York Times, October 26, 2001

…In recent years, Frank C. Carlucci, the chairman of Carlyle and a former secretary of defense, has visited the [bin Laden] family’s headquarters in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, as have former President George Bush and James A. Baker III, the former secretary of state. Mr. Bush works as an adviser to Carlyle, and Mr. Baker is a partner in the firm.

The family’s financial relationship with Carlyle began in 1994. At that time, they committed $2 million to a buyout fund, Carlyle Partners II, a tiny fraction of the $1.3 billion raised for the fund. …

——

‘Sensitive’ UK terror funding inquiry may never be published

Investigation into foreign funding and support of jihadi groups operating in UK understood to focus on Saudi Arabia

Shares 27,931, Jessica Elgot, Wednesday 31 May 2017 10.20 EDT

An investigation into the foreign funding and support of jihadi groups that was authorised by David Cameron may never be published, the Home Office has admitted. …

——

SAUDI ARABIA LAVISHES CONSERVATIVE U.K. OFFICIALS WITH GIFTS, TRAVEL, AND PLUM CONSULTANCIES

Lee Fang, June 4 2017, 7:00 a.m.

NEW FIGURES RELEASED by British Parliament show that, at a time when U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May’s ties to Saudi Arabia have become an election issue, conservative government officials and members of Parliament were lavished with money by the oil-rich Saudi government with gifts, travel expenses, and consulting fees.

Tory lawmakers received the cash as the U.K. backs Saudi Arabia’s brutal war against Yemen, the poorest country in the Middle East. …

Paris, Brussels, Nice, Berlin, Manchester… The Role of “Massive Casualty Producing Events”. The Roadmap to a Police State?

Global Research, May 28, 2017
Global Research 3 February 2004

Author’s Note

This article entitled the Criminalization of the State first published by Global Research in February 2004 examines the relationship between terrorist attacks (resulting in the tragic loss of life) and the transition in Western countries towards a totalitarian police State.  The article –which focusses on the role of a “massive casualty producing event”– is of particular relevance to an understanding of the terror attacks in Paris (January and November 2015), Brussels (March 2016), Nice (July 2016), Berlin (December 2016), Manchester (May 2017). According to Stephen Lendman:

UK police state laws already are some of Europe’s most draconian before Monday’s Manchester blast, including the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act, eviscerating longstanding legal protections.

Perhaps tougher legislation is coming. Following an emergency meeting, Prime Minister Theresa May acted as expected – elevating Britain’s threat level from severe to critical.

Claiming another attack “may be imminent” is part of her fear-mongering strategy, an effort to convince Brits they’ll be safer by sacrificing fundamental freedoms.

“Massive Casualty Producing Events”

Former CENTCOM Commander, General Tommy Franks predicted in a 2003 interview with cynical accuracy a scenario, which would result in the repeal of civil liberties and the installation of a de facto totalitarian state:

“a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the Western world … that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event.”1

A “massive casualty producing event” as described by General Franks will invariably result in a campaign of fear and intimidation, “creating a useful wave of indignation” (Operation Northwoods).  In turn, politicians in high office will use the tragic loss of life as a justification for the implementation of sweeping police state measures including the enactment of martial law.  

Flash Forward to Paris, November 13, 2015 and Brussels March 22, 2016.

The above scenario accurately describes  the tragic “massive casualty producing event” in Paris, depicted by France’s media as “Le 11 septembre à la française” (9/11 French Style).  

Announced in a midnight speech (local time) by the French president, the November 13 terrorist attacks were immediately followed by the enactment of a State of Emergency, the closing of France’s borders and the suspension of civil liberties as a means — according to president François Hollande– to safeguarding democratic values.  

In this context, the tragic loss of life was used by the Hollande government (with the support of the media) to harness the public into accepting the implementation of police state measures in the interest of French Republic, namely protecting France’s national security against an illusive self-proclaimed “Islamic State” based in Northern Syria. 

Is this the end of the French Republic?

Similarly in Brussels, the tragic loss of life is being used to justify drastic police state measures. Critical analysis is repealed. Within hours of the attacks, the European media went into overdrive.

Berlin, December 2016

In Berlin, according to a scanty political investigation, the Christmas terror attack was allegedly perpetrated on behalf of the Islamic State (ISIS), which happens to be a creation of US intelligence, covertly supported by several Western countries and their Middle East allies. 

It is worth noting that the release of the Hillary Clinton email archive as well as leaked Pentagon documents confirm that the US and its allies are supportive of ISIS, which according to European press reports, were the alleged architects of the Brussels as well as Berlin terror attacks.

Moreover, a  7-page Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document dated August of 2012, points to US complicity in supporting the creation of an Islamic State.(Excerpt below)

The governments of the countries whose citizens are the victims of terror attacks are supporting ISIS-Daesh.

“You are either with us or with the terrorists”, said George W. Bush in an address to the US Congress in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Western leaders are so to speak “with themselves as well as with the terrorists”.

Most people in Western countries are unaware that their own governments  are supporting and funding the terrorists.

When France provides (covert) military aid to both the Libya Islamic fighting Group (LIFG) and ISIS-Daesh in Syria, does this not suggest that the French government might at some future date be “held accountable” for the terror attacks in Paris and Nice (allegedly carried out by the ISIS), which have resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians?

Germany sells large amounts of weapons to Turkey and Saudi Arabia which in turn provide military aid to Al Qaeda and the Islamic State. Does this not signify –to put it mildly– that Angela Merkel’s government should take “some responsibility” for the Berlin terror attack allegedly conducted by ISIS-Daesh?

Combating ISIS on the one hand, Supporting ISIS on the other hand? A criminal undertaking.

Western Governments are State Sponsors of Terrorism

Despite the evidence, it is very difficult for people to accept the fact that their own government is supporting terrorism.

Most people will dispel this as an impossibility. But it is the forbidden truth.

The established consensus is that the role of a government is to protect its people. That myth has to be sustained.

The media’s role is to ensure that the truth does not trickle down to the broader public.

If that were to occur, the legitimacy of Obama, Hollande, Merkel, et al would collapse like a house of cards.

Michel Chossudovsky, December 26, 2016, updated May 25, 2017

*     *     *

The Criminalization of the State

by Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, February 3, 2004

America’s leaders in Washington and Wall Street firmly believe in the righteousness of war and authoritarian forms of government as a means to “safeguarding democratic values”.

According to Homeland Security “the near-term attacks will either rival or exceed the 9/11 attacks”.

An actual “terrorist attack” on American soil would lead to the suspension of civilian government and the establishment of martial law. In the words of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge: “If we go to Red … it basically shuts down the country,”

“You ask, ‘Is it serious?’ Yes, you bet your life. People don’t do that unless it’s a serious situation.” (Donald Rumsfeld)

The “Criminalization of the State”, is when war criminals legitimately occupy positions of authority, which enable them to decide “who are the criminals”, when in fact they are the criminals.

A terrorist attack on American soil of the size and nature of September 11, would lead —according to former CENTCOM Commander, General Tommy Franks– to the downfall of democracy in America. In an interview last December, which was barely mentioned in the US media, General Franks outlined with cynical accuracy a scenario, which would result in the suspension of the Constitution and the installation of military rule in America:

a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event.1

Franks was alluding to a so-called “Pearl Harbor type event” which would be used to galvanise US public opinion in support of a military government and police state. The “terrorist massive casualty-producing event” is presented by General Franks as a crucial political turning point. The resulting crisis and social turmoil is intended to facilitate a major shift in US political, social and institutional structures.

It is important to understand that General Franks was not giving a personal opinion on this issue. His statement very much reflects the dominant viewpoint both in the Pentagon and the Homeland Security department as to how events might unfold in the case of a national emergency.

The statement comes from a man who has been actively involved in military and intelligence planning at the highest levels. In other words, the “militarisation of our country” is an ongoing operational assumption. It is part of the broader “Washington consensus”. It identifies the Bush administration’s “roadmap” of war and Homeland defense.

The “war on terrorism” which constitutes the cornerstone of Bush’s national security doctrine, provides the required justification for repealing the Rule of Law, ultimately with a view to “preserving civil liberties”. In the words of David Rockefeller:

We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order. 2

A similar statement, which no doubt reflects a consensus within the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), was made by former National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book, The Grand Chessboard:

As America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.”]

Similarly, the NeoCons’ Project for the New American Century (PNAC), published in September 2000, barely a few months before George W. Bush’s accession to the White House, called for:

some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor. 3

What is terrifying in these assertions is that they emanate from the architects of US foreign policy. In other words, America’s leaders in Washington and Wall Street firmly believe in the righteousness of war and authoritarian forms of government as a means to “safeguarding democratic values”.

The repeal of democracy is portrayed as a means to providing “domestic security” and upholding civil liberties. Truth is falsehood and falsehood is truth. Realities are turned upside down. Acts of war are heralded as “humanitarian interventions” geared towards upholding democracy. Military occupation and the killing of civilians are presented as “peace-keeping operations.”

This dominant viewpoint is also shared by the mainstream media, which constitutes the cornerstone of the propaganda and disinformation campaign. Any attempt by antiwar critics to reveal the lies underlying these statements is defined as a “criminal act”.

In other words, the “Criminalization of the State”, is when war criminals, supported by Wall Street, the “big five” defense contractors and the Texas oil giants, legitimately occupy positions of authority, which enable them to decide “who are the criminals”, when in fact they are the criminals.

From Orange to Red Code Alert

The “terrorist massive casualty producing event” has become an integral part of the Bush administration’s propaganda campaign. The Administration has put the country on “high risk” Orange Code terror alert five times since September 11, 2001. Without exception, Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda has been identified as “a threat to the Homeland”. The official announcement invariably points to “significant intelligence reports” or “credible sources” of a terrorist attack “from the international terrorist group al-Qaeda”.

Since 9/11, Americans have accepted these terrorist warnings at face value. Al Qaeda is viewed as an enemy of America. The terror alerts have become part of a routine: people have become accustomed in their daily lives to the Orange Code terror alerts. Moreover, they have also accepted the distinct possibility of a changeover from Orange to Red Code Alert (as stated time and again by Homeland Security) in the foreseeable future, which would result from an actual terrorist occurrence.

Needless to say, the disinformation campaign, which is fed on a daily basis into the news chain, supports this process of shaping US public opinion. The hidden agenda ultimately consists in creating an environment of fear and intimidation, which mobilizes public support for an actual national emergency situation, leading to the declaration of martial law.

The Terror Alerts were based on Fabricated Intelligence

The evidence suggests that the Orange Code “high risk” alerts on February 7, 2003, and December, 21, 2003 were based on fabricated intelligence.

Orange Code Alert had been ordered on 7 February 2003, one day after Colin Powell’s flopped presentation on Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction to the UN Security Council. Powell’s intelligence dossier had been politely dismissed. The rebuttal came from UN Inspector Hans Blix, who showed that the intelligence used as a pretext to wage war on Iraq had been blatantly fabricated.

Colin Powell addressed the UN Security Council on the 6th. On the 7th, the Bush administration declared an ‘Orange Code’ Terror Alert. This “save face operation” contributed to appeasing an impending scandal, while also upholding the Pentagon’s planned invasion of Iraq.

Media attention was immediately shifted from Colin Powell’s blunders at the UN Security Council to an (alleged) impending terrorist attack on America. Anti-aircraft missiles were immediately deployed around Washington. The media became inundated with stories on Iraqi support to an impending Al Qaeda attack on America.

The objective was to present Iraq as the aggressor. According to the New York Post, (11 February 2003):

The nation is now on Orange Alert because intelligence intercepts and simple logic both suggest that our Islamic enemies know the best way to strike at us is through terrorism on U.S. soil.

Another story allegedly emanating from the CIA on so-called ‘radioactive dirty bombs had been planted in the news chain.4 Secretary Powell warned that “it would be easy for terrorists to cook up radioactive ‘dirty’ bombs to explode inside the U.S. … ‘How likely it is, I can’t say… But I think it is wise for us to at least let the American people know of this possibility.’” 5 Meanwhile, network TV had warned that “American hotels, shopping malls or apartment buildings could be al Qaeda’s targets as soon as next week…”

The hidden agenda in the weeks leading up to the invasion of Iraq was to link Baghdad to Al Qaeda, muster unbending support for President Bush and weaken the anti-war protest movement. Following the announcement, tens of thousands of Americans rushed to purchase duct tape, plastic sheets and gas-masks.

It later transpired that the terrorist alert was fabricated by the CIA, in all likelihood in consultation with the upper echelons of the State Department. 6

The FBI, for the first time had pointed its finger at the CIA.

This piece of that puzzle turns out to be fabricated and therefore the reason for a lot of the alarm, particularly in Washington this week, has been dissipated after they found out that this information was not true,” said Vince Cannistraro, former CIA counter-terrorism chief and ABCNEWS consultant.

(…)

According to officials, the FBI and the CIA are pointing fingers at each other. An FBI spokesperson told ABCNEWS today he was “not familiar with the scenario,” but did not think it was accurate. 7

While tacitly acknowledging that the alert was a fake, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge decided to maintain the ‘Orange Code’ alert:

Despite the fabricated report, there are no plans to change the threat level. Officials said other intelligence has been validated and that the high level of precautions is fully warranted. 8

A few days later, in another failed propaganda initiative, a mysterious Osama bin Laden audio tape was presented by Sec. Colin Powell to the US Congress as ‘evidence’ that the Islamic terrorists “are making common cause with a brutal dictator”. 9 Curiously, the audio tape was in Colin Powell’s possession prior to its broadcast by the Al Jazeera TV Network.10

Tom Ridge’s Christmas Terror Alert

On December 21st, 2003 four days before Christmas, the Homeland Security Department, again raised the national threat level from “elevated” to “high risk” of terrorist attack. 11

In his pre-Christmas Press Conference, Homeland Security department Secretary Tom Ridge confirmed in much the same way as on February 7, 2003, that: “the U.S. intelligence community has received a substantial increase in the volume of threat-related intelligence reports”. According to Tom Ridge, these “credible [intelligence] sources” raise “the possibility of attacks against the homeland, around the holiday season…”12

While the circumstances and timing were different, Secretary Tom Ridge’s December 21 statement had all the appearances of a “copy and paste” (Déjà Vu) version of his February 7 announcement, which according to the FBI was a hoax, based on fabricated intelligence..

What is disturbing in the December 21 statement is the fact that an “actual” or “attempted” Al Qaeda terrorist attack seems already to be in the official pipeline. Al Qaeda is once again identified as “the Outside Enemy”, without of course mentioning that Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA and an “intelligence asset” controlled by the US.13

Needless to say the atmosphere of fear and confusion created across America, contributed to breaking the spirit of Christmas. According to the media reports, the high-level terror alert is to “hang over the holidays and usher in the New Year”.

Terrorists still threaten our country and we remain engaged in a dangerous – to be sure – difficult war and it will not be over soon,” warned Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. “They can attack at any time and at any place.”

With America on high terror alert for the Christmas holiday season, intelligence officials fear al-Qaeda is eager to stage a spectacular attack – possibly hijacking a foreign airliner or cargo jet and crashing it into a high-profile target inside the United States. 14

The official Christmas announcement by the Homeland Security Department dispelled any lingering doubts regarding the threat level:

the risk [during the Christmas period] is perhaps greater now than at any point since September 11, 2001;

It also warned Americans, in no uncertain terms, but without supporting evidence, that there are:

indications that [the] near-term attacks … will either rival or exceed the [9/11] attacks.

And it’s pretty clear that the nation’s capital and New York city would be on any list…

Following Secretary Ridge’s announcement, anti-aircraft missile batteries were set up in Washington:

And the Pentagon said today, more combat air patrols will now be flying over select cities and facilities, with some airbases placed on higher alert.” Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “You ask, ‘Is it serious?’ Yes, you bet your life. People don’t do that unless it’s a serious situation. 15

According to an official statement: “intelligence indicates that Al Qaeda-trained pilots may be working for overseas airlines and ready to carry out suicide attacks.” 16

More specifically, Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists were, according to Homland Security, planning to hijack an Air France plane and “crash it on US soil in a suicide terror strike similar to those carried out on September 11, 2001.”

Air France Christmas flights out of Paris were grounded. F-16 fighters were patrolling the skies.

Yet it turned out that the stand down orders on Air France’s Christmas flights from Paris to Los Angeles, which were used to justify the Code Orange Alert during the Christmas holiday, were based on fabricated information.

According to the official version of events, Washington had identified six members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban on the Air France passenger list:

U.S. counter-terrorism officials said their investigation was focusing on the “informed belief” that about six men on Air France Flight 68, which arrives in Los Angeles daily at 4:05 p.m., may have been planning to hijack the jet and crash it near Los Angeles, or along the way.

That belief, according to one senior U.S. counter-terrorism official, was based on reliable and corroborated information from several sources. Some of the men had the same names as identified members of Al Qaida and the Taliban, a senior U.S. official said. One of the men is a trained pilot with a commercial license, according to a senior U.S. official.

U.S. law-enforcement officials said the flights were canceled in response to the same intelligence that prompted… Homeland Security… to ratchet up the nation’s terror-alert level to orange…

With that information, U.S. authorities contacted French intelligence … They prevailed upon Air France to cancel [their flights], because the original intelligence information warned of more than one flight being commandeered. 17

Other media confirmed that “the reports gathered by American agencies were ‘very, very precise'” Meanwhile Fox News pointed to the possibility that Al Qaeda was “trying to plant disinformation, among other things to cost us money, to throw people into panic and perhaps to probe our defenses to see how we respond?”18

“Mistaken Identity”

Needless to say these fabricated media reports served to create a tense atmosphere during the Christmas holiday. Los Angeles International airport was on “maximum deployment” with counter-terrorism and FBI officials working around the clock.

Yet following the French investigation, it turned out that the terror alert was a hoax. The information was not “very very precise” as claimed by US intelligence.

The six Al Qaeda men turned out to be a five year old boy, an elderly Chinese lady who used to run a restaurant in Paris, a Welsh insurance salesman and three French nationals.19

On January 2nd, the French government confirmed that the intelligence communicated by Washington was erroneous: There “was not a trace of Al Qaeda among the passengers.”

Yet, these “inconsistencies” regarding US intelligence had already been uncovered on the 23d of December by France’s antiterrorist services, which had politely refuted the so-called “credible sources” emanating out of the US intelligence apparatus.

France’s counter-terrorism experts were extremely “sceptical” of their US counterparts:

We [French police investigators] showed [on 23 December] that their arguments simply did not make sense, but despite this the flights were cancelled… The main suspect [a Tunisian hijacker] turned out to be a child… We really had the feeling of unfriendly treatment [by US officials] (ils nous appliquent un traitement d’infamie). The information was not transmitted through normal channels. It wasn’t the FBI or the CIA which contacted us, everything went through diplomatic channels… 20

The decision to cancel the six Air France flights was taken after 2 days of intense negotiations between French and American officials. They were cancelled on the orders of the French Prime minister following consultations with Sec. Colin Powell. This decision was taken following the completion of the French investigation. Despite the fact that the information had been refuted, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge insisted on maintaining the stand-down order. If Air France had not complied, it would have been prevented from using US air space, namely banned from flying to the US.

It was only on January 2nd, once the holiday season was over that the US authorities admitted that they were in error, claiming that it was a unavoidable case of “mistaken identity.” While tacitly acknowledging their error, Homeland Security insisted that “the cancellations were based on solid information.”

Emergency Planning

Needless to say, had the flights not been cancelled, the Administration’s justification for Orange Code Alert would no longer hold. In other words, Homeland Security needed to sustain the lie over the entire Christmas holiday. It also required an active Orange Alert to launch emergency planning procedures at the highest levels of the Bush Administration.

The day following Secretary Ridge’s Christmas announcement (December 21st), President Bush was briefed by his “top anti-terror advisors” in closed door sessions at the White House. Later in the day, the Homeland Security Council (HSC) met, also at the White House. The executive body of the HSC, the so-called Principals Committee (HSC/PC), headed by Secretary Tom Ridge. includes Donald Rumsfeld, CIA Director George Tenet, Attorney General John Ashcroft , FBI Director Robert Mueller and Michael D. Brown, Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, who overseas the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 21

In the wake of the HSC meeting held on 22 December, Secretary Ridge confirmed that:

we reviewed the specific plans and the specific action we have taken and will continue to take 22

According to the official statement, which must be taken seriously, an “actual terrorist attack” in the near future on American soil would lead to a Red Code Alert. The latter in turn, would create conditions for the (temporary) suspension of the normal functions of civilian government, as foreseen by General Tommy Franks. This scenario was envisaged by Secretary Tom Ridge in a CBS News Interview on December 22, 2003:

“If we simply go to red … it basically shuts down the country,” meaning that civilian government bodies would be closed down and taken over by an Emergency Administration. 23

Preparing for Martial Law

In preparation for a Red code Alert, the Homeland Security department had conducted in May 2003 a major “anti-terrorist exercise” entitled TOPOFF 2. The latter is described as “the largest and most comprehensive terrorism response and homeland security exercise ever conducted in the United States.”

In a Strangelovian logic, this “national response capability” translated into a military style exercise by federal, State and local level governments, including Canadian participants, establishes various “scenarios” under a Red Code Alert. In essence, it was conducted on the same assumption as military exercises in anticipation of anactual theater war, in this case, to be waged by foreign terrorists, examining various WMD attack scenarios and the institutional response of State and local governments:

It assessed how responders, leaders, and other authorities would react to the simulated release of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in two U. S. cities, Seattle, WA and Chicago, IL. The exercise scenario depicted a fictitious, foreign terrorist organization that detonated a simulated radiological dispersal device (RDD or dirty bomb) in Seattle and released the pneumonic plague in several Chicago metropolitan area locations. There was also significant pre-exercise intelligence play, a cyber-attack, and credible terrorism threats against other locations. 24

The terror exercise including the WMD scenarios is based on a big lie.

Let us be very clear on what is happening in America. We are no longer strictly dealing with a fear and disinformation campaign. Actual “terrorist massive casualty producing events” constitute the basic premise and driving force behind the Homeland Emergency response system, including its Ready.Gov instructions to citizens, its “anti-terrorist” legal framework under the Second Patriot Act, etc.

What we are dealing with is not only a criminal act, but a carefully engineered act of treason emanating from the highest levels of the US State apparatus. In short, what we are dealing with is “the Roadmap to a Police State” in America, to be implemented in the wake of an national emergency, either under a military form of government or under a police state, which maintains all the appearances of a functioning two party “Democracy”.

Notes

  1. Tommy Franks Interview, Cigar Aficionado, December 2003
  2. David Rockefeller, Statement to the United Nations Business Council, 1994
  3. See http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAC304A.html
  4. ABC News, 13 February 2003.
  5. ABC News, 9 February. 2003.
  6. ABC News, 13 February 2003, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CRG302A.html .
  7.  Ibid
  8. Ibid
  9. US official quoted in The Toronto Star, 12 February. 2003.
  10.  Ibid
  11. See Department of Homeland Security at http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/index.jsp
  12. For complete statement of Secretary Tom Ridge, 21 December 2003, http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/
  13. See Selected References at http://globalresearch.ca/articles/11SEPT309A.html
  14. Boston Globe, 24 December 2003
  15. ABC News, 23 December 2003
  16. quoted by ABC News, 23 December 2003.
  17. Seattle Post Intelligence, 25 December 2003.
  18. Fox News, 28 December 2003.
  19. Le Monde, Paris and RTBF TV, Bruxelles, 2 January 2004
  20. quoted in Le Monde, 3 January 2003.
  21. White House Briefing, 22 December 2003.
  22. AFP, 23 December 2003.
  23. The scenario is presented in detail at the Homeland department’s Ready.Gov website at http://www.ready.gov/
  24. 24. For full text see, Department of Homeland Security, Summary Conclusions From National Exercise, Office of the Press Secretary, December 19, 2003,http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=2693

 

The US-Jihadist Alliance Keeps Threatening the World

The US-Jihadist Alliance Keeps Threatening the World

ERIC ZUESSE | 26.05.2017 | WORLD

The US-Jihadist Alliance Keeps Threatening the World

With its $350 billion ten-year weapons-sale to the Saud family, the U.S. government’s alliance with the main family that funded and participated in the organization of the 9/11 attacks on the United States, and who have been protected now for 16 years by three successive U.S. Presidents — Bush, Obama, and currently Trump — reaches a higher level than ever before, and should finally begin to be recognized and widely discussed, no longer merely ignored, as it has been.

The former bagman who personally collected each one of the million-dollar-plus cash-donations to Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda until the organization’s bagman was captured by the FBI, said in his sworn court-testimony on 20 October 2014, «Without the money of the — of the Saudi, you will have nothing» of Al Qaeda. 9/11 required additionally the cooperation of George W. Bush. At first, Osama bin Laden blamed the Israeli government for the 9/11 attacks, but the flow of funds to the attackers came actually from the Saud family and their friends including the other royal families in the Gulf Cooperation Council, who are the other royal oil-Arabs, especially in Qatar and UAE — all of whom are allies of the Sauds and thus of the U.S. government. No money from Jews or from Israelis had actually supported anyone involved in producing the 9/11 attacks.

Furthermore, whereas anti-Semites, and also some anti-Zionists, picked up on bin Laden’s accusation that Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks, and they spread the myth of ‘the five dancing Israelis’ who allegedly had been somehow involved in or connected to the (supposedly unknown) perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, the FBI’s investigation into that entire question ended finally on 14 April 2004, when an FBI agent in Newark, NJ, closed the case, by saying, after exhaustive investigation into a possible link of those ‘five dancing Israelis’ to the FBI’s PENTTBOM Investigation, which is the FBI’s investigation into the 9/11 attacks, «the evidence related to the above-listed investigation was determined to be of no value to the PENTTBOMB investigation».

So, the FBI’s three-year effort to find evidence that possibly might support bin Laden’s allegation against Israel, ultimately concluded that there was no evidence for it, at all. Actually, Osama bin Laden was a longtime agent of the Saud family to help the U.S. government to weaken the Soviet government, and he subsequently — after the end of the USSR and of its communism and of their entire Warsaw Pact military alliance — helped the U.S. government to weaken the lone rump remaining nation Russia, and to create the jihadist movement in the Chechnya region of Russia, in an attempt to break Russia apart. So, one might say that Osama bin Laden, like Saddam Hussein before him, had been a CIA asset whom the U.S. aristocracy later abandoned and killed, when the U.S. aristocracy concluded him to be no longer overall constructive for their purposes, but more of a detriment than an asset.

Though there is a ceaseless song-and-dance by the U.S. government pretending to oppose Al Qaeda and the many other jihadist groups that are trained and sometimes also led by Al Qaeda, and though Barack Obama in his first Presidential term killed many of Al Qaeda’s top leaders, the U.S. government has been working behind-the-scenes, along with the Sauds and its Arab allies, in order to arm and train the jihadists in Syria, Yemen, Libya, Chechnya, and other nations and regions where allies of either Russia or Iran can be overthrown and replaced by allies of the U.S.-jihadist alliance.

The aristocracies that constitute ‘the Western alliance’ ‘for freedom and democracy’, are actually determined to bring the entire world under their control, and the American aristocracy claims to lead them, but if they were ever to succeed, and both Russia and Iran and their allies were to come under their control, then there would first be a war between the major parties to the alliance in order to determine where the global center of power will be — in the United States, or in Saudi Arabia — one having a Christian majority, and the other being a Sharia law fundamentalist-Sunni-Islamic dictatorship and the symbolic and physical center of the world’s second-largest religion on its way to becoming the largest religion: Saudi Arabia. Israel, the Jewish dictatorship over its non-Jews, is on good terms with both the Saudi and the U.S. aristocracy, and Judaism is a tiny religion except amongst the world’s aristocracies, where it constitutes a significant player. Israel’s dictators would be satisfied regardless of whether the world is led from ‘Christian’ Washington, or from fundamentalist-Sunni Riyadh. Either way, no Shia political force would remain.

However, remarkably little thinking is being devoted to how the world would even be able to reach that stage, a unified dictatorial world government, because both Russia and Iran would need to be conquered in order to reach that stage, and this would inevitably entail a nuclear war between Russia and the United States, which would soon thereafter end life on this planet.

Now, under U.S. President Donald Trump, V.P. Mike Pence, and the entire Trump team, as well as under the prior Obama regime, the old anti-Semitic charge about 9/11, that ‘the Jews did it’, is replaced by the lie that «Iran did it».

President Trump, on 5 February 2017, was asked in a Super Bowl television interview, what his policies would be regarding Iran, and he answered (video here, transcript here): «They have total disregard for our country. They are the number one terrorist state». This (boldfaced) phrase is the standard one that Israel uses to refer to Iran — which, unlike Saudi Arabia, does support terrorism against Israel (which itself is a terrorist state). So: the U.S. President there was representing actually the Israeli people (or, specifically, Jewish Israelis), and not at all the American people. Trump had changed his tune on that as soon as he became elected, when he appointed a team of anti-Iranian bigots to lead his foreign policies, and broke practically every promise he had made in his campaign to go against «radical Islamic terrorism» — which, except against Israel, is entirely fundamentalist-Sunni, not at all Iranian (nor Shiite). Even George W. Bush didn’t blame Iran for it; he blamed Iraq.

But what, then, about «Russia did it?» Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons, and in an environment such as this, maybe they should. Iranians would be idiots not to recognize where all of this is heading. They are now in America’s cross-hairs. And for Iranians (or anyone) to trust the U.S. would be insanity, under these conditions.

The real questions here are: Why is ‘the Western alliance’ ‘for freedom and democracy’ determined to conquer Russia and Iran? Why did U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush, on 24 February 1990, secretly double-cross the then-Soviet leader— soon to be Russia’s President — Mikhail Gorbachev, so that the Cold War ended only on Russia’s side, and not also on America’s (NATO’s) side (such as GHW Bush promised but then secretly negated)? What, precisely, was GHW Bush’s actual plan? How did he see this ongoing war against Russia as ending? Was he simply obsessed with America’s global conquest? Why haven’t subsequent U.S. Presidents abandoned his secret plan, instead of carrying it out? Why haven’t the leaders and peoples of Europe, Japan, etc., abandoned the U.S government, and joined with Russia, in order to stave off a globe-ending nuclear war — or even just in order to put a stop to international jihadism? Will the public in at least one of the nations that claim to belong to ‘the Western alliance’ ‘for freedom and democracy’ need to overthrow their own government (not just its leaders) in order for freedom and democracy and peace to be able to return in even just one country?

The global dictatorship is already gripping pretty hard. Look at what has happened to the people of Syria. And of Iraq. And of Libya (now so bad that it’s no longer even being polled). And of Yemen. And of Ukraine. And that’s just for starters.

Douglas Valentine’s acclaimed new book, The CIA as Organized Crime, documents the shocking psychopathy of that organization; and, so, no one should be particularly surprised at the psychopathy of the organization that controls it.

We Know What Inspired the Manchester Attack, We Just Won’t Admit It

In the wake of the massacre in Manchester, people rightly warn against blaming the entire Muslim community in Britain and the world. Certainly one of the aims of those who carry out such atrocities is to provoke the communal punishment of all Muslims, thereby alienating a portion of them who will then become open to recruitment by Isis and al-Qaeda clones.

This approach of not blaming Muslims in general but targeting “radicalisation” or simply “evil” may appear sensible and moderate, but in practice it makes the motivation of the killers in Manchester or the Bataclan theatre in Paris in 2015 appear vaguer and less identifiable than it really is. Such generalities have the unfortunate effect of preventing people pointing an accusing finger at the variant of Islam which certainly is responsible for preparing the soil for the beliefs and actions likely to have inspired the suicide bomber Salman Abedi.

The ultimate inspiration for such people is Wahhabism, the puritanical, fanatical and regressive type of Islam dominant in Saudi Arabia, whose ideology is close to that of al-Qaeda and Isis. This is an exclusive creed, intolerant of all who disagree with it such as secular liberals, members of other Muslim communities such as the Shia or women resisting their chattel-like status.

What has been termed Salafi jihadism, the core beliefs of Isis and al-Qaeda, developed out of Wahhabism, and has carried out its prejudices to what it sees as a logical and violent conclusion. Shia and Yazidis were not just heretics in the eyes of this movement, which was a sort of Islamic Khmer Rouge, but sub-humans who should be massacred or enslaved. Any woman who transgressed against repressive social mores should be savagely punished. Faith should be demonstrated by a public death of the believer, slaughtering the unbelievers, be they the 86 Shia children being evacuated by bus from their homes in Syria on 15 April or the butchery of young fans at a pop concert in Manchester on Monday night.

The real causes of “radicalisation” have long been known, but the government, the BBC and others seldom if ever refer to it because they do not want to offend the Saudis or be accused of anti-Islamic bias. It is much easier to say, piously but quite inaccurately, that Isis and al-Qaeda and their murderous foot soldiers “have nothing to do with Islam”. This has been the track record of US and UK governments since 9/11. They will look in any direction except Saudi Arabia when seeking the causes of terrorism. President Trump has been justly denounced and derided in the US for last Sunday accusing Iran and, in effect, the Shia community of responsibility for the wave of terrorism that has engulfed the region when it ultimately emanates from one small but immensely influential Sunni sect. One of the great cultural changes in the world over the last 50 years is the way in which Wahhabism, once an isolated splinter group, has become an increasingly dominant influence over mainstream Sunni Islam, thanks to Saudi financial support.

A further sign of the Salafi-jihadi impact is the choice of targets: the attacks on the Bataclan theatre in Paris in 2015, a gay night club in Florida in 2016 and the Manchester Arena this week have one thing in common. They were all frequented by young people enjoying entertainment and a lifestyle which made them an Isis or al-Qaeda target. But these are also events where the mixing of men and women or the very presence of gay people is denounced by puritan Wahhabis and Salafi jihadis alike. They both live in a cultural environment in which the demonisation of such people and activities is the norm, though their response may differ.

The culpability of Western governments for terrorist attacks on their own citizens is glaring but is seldom even referred to. Leaders want to have a political and commercial alliance with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf oil states. They have never held them to account for supporting a repressive and sectarian ideology which is likely to have inspired Salman Abedi. Details of his motivation may be lacking, but the target of his attack and the method of his death is classic al-Qaeda and Isis in its mode of operating.

The reason these two demonic organisations were able to survive and expand despite the billions – perhaps trillions – of dollars spent on “the war on terror” after 9/11 is that those responsible for stopping them deliberately missed the target and have gone on doing so. After 9/11, President Bush portrayed Iraq not Saudi Arabia as the enemy; in a re-run of history President Trump is ludicrously accusing Iran of being the source of most terrorism in the Middle East. This is the real 9/11 conspiracy, beloved of crackpots worldwide, but there is nothing secret about the deliberate blindness of British and American governments to the source of the beliefs that has inspired the massacres of which Manchester is only the latest – and certainly not the last – horrible example.

Patrick Cockburn is the author of  The Rise of Islamic State: ISIS and the New Sunni Revolution.

More articles by:

Which Government Dominates US-Saud Alliance?

Which Government Dominates US-Saud Alliance?

ERIC ZUESSE | 24.05.2017 | WORLD

Which Government Dominates US-Saud Alliance?

With America’s sale of $350 billion of its weapons to Saudi Arabia during the next ten years, which side will dominate, if the royal family of Saudi Arabia — the owners of Saudi Arabia, which is to say the Saud family — again finance, and participate in directing, an attack against the U.S., such as 9/11?

The last time around, the U.S. government hid for fifteen years the damning evidence (the ‘missing 28 pages’ that were actually 29 pages) in the 9/11 report that documented from the testimony to the congressional panel by FBI agents, that Prince Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud and his wife had personally financed the apartment rentals and flight training of at least some of the 15 Saudi members of the 19-member team that carried out the 9/11 attacks. The U.S. government also hid from the public the U.S. court testimony by Osama bin Laden’s captured bagman who had personally collected each one of the million-dollar-plus cash donations to Al Qaeda before 9/11, most of which mega-donations were from members of the Saud family — and Prince Bandar was among those, too — and so, it was more than just the tens of thousands of dollars which the FBI had found and had been reporting. Then, when the 9/11 victim families pursued in U.S. courts a civil case against the Saudi government (which is 100% owned by the Saud family), U.S. President Barack Obama vetoed the bill that Congress had passed to allow the case to proceed. That was the U.S. victims, seeking court investigations into possible massive criminality against them and against the United States of America, by members of Saudi Arabia’s royal family and their agents (perhaps including George W. Bush himself) working on their behalf — and U.S. President Barack Obama did everything he could to block even the investigations. He was George W. Bush #2, but with prettier rhetoric (designed specifically to fool liberals; not, like Bush’s, to fool outright conservatives).

Consequently: at the level of the U.S. Presidency, though ultimately not of the U.S. Congress, there has been a solid record of submission to the Sauds (andeven in the matters of symbolism and etiquette) (including participation in a head-chopper’s ritual dance) so as to be able to protect mega-criminals among them from facing American justice — even at its weaker, merely civil, level.

The Hill reported, on Tuesday, the 19th of April, in 2016, the view of the then-candidate Trump, regarding what the then yet-to-be-released ’28 redacted pages’ from the 9/11 report might likely show:

«I think I know what it’s going to say», he said on Fox News’s «Fox & Friends». «It’s going to be very profound, having to do with Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia’s role on the World Trade Center and the attack. That’s very serious stuff. It’s sort of nice to know who your friends are and perhaps who your enemies are. You’re going to see some very revealing things released in those papers… I look forward to reading them».

However, later, as President Trump, on 5 February 2017, he was asked in a Super Bowl television interview, what his policies would be regarding Iran, and he answered (video here, transcript here): «They have total disregard for our country. They are the number one terrorist state». This (boldfaced) phrase is the standard one that Israel uses to refer to Iran — which, unlike Saudi Arabia, does support terrorism against Israel. So: the U.S. President there was representing actually the Israeli people (or, specifically, Jewish Israelis), and not at all the American people. (He also wasn’t representing the European people, who, like the American people, suffer terrorism that’s financed by the Sauds and their fellow fundamentalist Sunnis, and who suffer virtually no terrorism from Iran or any Shiites at all — and yet whose aristocracies bond with America’s (the key Western backers of the terrorism they suffer).

So: he’s not entirely ignorant of at least the «redacted pages», and he even said he «looked forward to reading them», and his understanding of the situation prior to his having read them was that they had «to do with Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia’s role on the World Trade Center and the attack. That’s very serious stuff. It’s sort of nice to know who your friends are and perhaps who your enemies are». And, if he read them, then that’s precisely what they documented (from the FBI). They show exactly what he expected them to show. But now, as the President, he claims that Iran — and not its rabid enemy Saudi Arabia — is «the number one terrorist state».

As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted in a State Department cable on 30 December 2009, «Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide». She also mentioned other Islamic-majority countries in that cable, but none of them were Shiite majority or Shiite-led; they all were clearly fundamentalist-Sunni countries — the countries that America’s aristocracy allies with. (And never were the Sauds mentioned in her cable by name. She just wanted to get onto the official record, that she ‘cared’. Everything for her was PR, in order to win more power, and more money.)

The U.S. government, because of its bought Presidents, is now selling $350 billion of U.S. weapons to «the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups [which is all of the terrorist groups except for the Shiite group Hezbollah] worldwide».

There are contrasting hypotheses put forth to explain why this 180-degree turnabout by Trump is happening:

On May 21stBlake Hounshell at Politico attributed this change to its being allegedly due to Trump’s promise «to stop pestering them about human rights and political freedoms… Trump is offering, in short, a war on terror without the pretense of idealism. There has always been a strong odor of hypocrisy hanging over the U.S. relationship with regimes like Saudi Arabia, and perhaps there’s something refreshing in Trump’s ‘we are not here to lecture’ candor». Hounshell was using the internal self-contradictions within Trump’s sales-pitches, in order to ‘explain’ what was actually a stunning change in Trump’s sales-pitches. However, this excuse ignores that Trump is, in fact, not waging America’s «war on terror» (such as he’s implying) but instead Israel’s — and America already donates $3.8 billion per year to the Israeli government, which, moreover, is an enemy of the American people though not nearly to the extent that the Sauds (the Saudi government) are. At the very top level, the U.S. Presidency is owned by the Sauds but with considerable assistance from Jewish and some Christian billionaires who are American citizens. (And some of them are simultaneously Israeli citizens, which should be outlawed.) It’s not merely the Saud family, and their Thani family friends who own Qatar, and the other royal families who own yet other fundamentalist-Sunni kingdoms.

By contrast, I have put forth two hypothesis to explain Trump’s change-of-tune, which probably function in conjunction with one-another to provide a fuller explanation of this: (1) that the Sauds are crucial to the bottom lines of Lockheed Martin and America’s other top ‘defense’ contractors; and, (2) that the Sauds’ financing of jihadists in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Syria and other Russia-allied lands, is crucial to the conquest of Russia by America’s aristocracy, which conquest is the top foreign-policy goal of the U.S. aristocracy, who carry water for the Sauds. Combining those two partial explanations together produces an understanding both of the anti-Iranian and of the anti-Russian obsessions of the U.S. aristocracy — who, after all, are the main people who control America, and who thus control the U.S. President.

The Sauds are chiefly determined to conquer Iran, and the American aristocrats are chiefly determined to conquer Russia.

Israel is mainly on the side of the Sauds. (After all, Israel never militarily attacked Saudi Arabia, but it did militarily attack the United States — and the U.S. aristocracy hid that, much as they’ve hidden the Sauds’ attack, 9/11.) Furthermore, just as there were some U.S. operatives who knew about the 9/11 attacks before the event, and who benefited from it, there also were Israelis who knew about it ahead of time and who were delighted once it had occurred — and this delight went straight up to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself. (Anti-Semites claim that facts like those are somehow ‘proof’ that «the Jews did it», but these people simply ignore the ovewhelming mass of solid evidence implicating the Sauds and Al Qaeda in financing and executing the actual operation — as if «Foreknowledge entails guilt», instead of «Guilt entails foreknowledge and lots more than that», such as is actually the case.)

Even within a given aristocracy (or other, such as corporate, organzation), there are circles who know about and participate in a particular operation, and circles who are ignorant of it. Never is the full entity involved in it, no matter how organized the entity happens to be. And, of course, any ‘conspiracy theory’ that blames an ethnicity or other mass of people for anything, isn’t even a conspiracy-theory at all, because any conspiracy is a highly organized, and usually highly hierarchical, operation, no mass at all. Such a ‘theory’ is instead pure bigotry — like Adolf Hitler’s, or Paul Kagame’s, both of whom were themselves gifted at conspiracy, and, unfortunately, put it to the most evil of uses. In fact, good conspiracies also exist, and they were essential to, for example, the winning of World War II. Therefore, anyone who blanketly condemns «conspiracy theories» or even «conspiracies», is either a con-artist, or else a dupe of one.

If the Saud family again finance, and participate in directing, an attack against the U.S., such as 9/11, it will be with the participation of the U.S. aristocracy, just as it was on 9-11. In other words: the aristocracies of the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and Israel, are joined-at-the-head, inseparable. They function as one gang, though, like in the Mafia and other criminal gangs, they each have their respective turfs.

However, Donald Trump clearly knows about «Saudi Arabia’s role on the World Trade Center and the attack. That’s very serious stuff. It’s sort of nice to know who your friends are and perhaps who your enemies are». But, after he was elected, he got bought-off, by the Sauds, and by the Israelis. However, the Americans — this nation’s aristocracy, and not its people — have clearly been pushing him to do this, or else he’ll soon be replaced by his Vice President, Mike Pence. So: the people who have been carrying out this Saudi operation are their U.S. partners, who have big megaphones in the U.S.

Ranking the relative power between these three aristocracies would be difficult and merely a guess, but my own ordering of them would be: (1) the Sauds; (2) the Israeli and pro-Israeli aristocracy; (3) the U.S. aristocracy. In any case, since they’re all joined-at-the-head, they’re basically all one aristocracy — each of them needs the other two in order to be able to do what they do. That’s the world’s most powerful political force. It is by far the leading gang. And this is actually the most important thing to understand about international affairs today.

The main factual basis I can offer for that ranking, would be that, whereas the U.S. has been physically invaded by both of the others, (by Israel in 1967, and by the Sauds in 2001), the U.S. has not invaded either of the others. The U.S. instead continues to accept both of the others as ‘allies’. This is remarkable. What self-respecting, sovereign, country would do a thing like that? None. This is the main factual basis. But it’s not the only factual basis. For another factual example, several American Presidents have been captured on photographs as bowing down to the Saudi king. Never once has any indication been published of a Saudi king having bowed down to an American president. (Of course, no head-of-state ever should bow down to any other, except perhaps in a public and physical surrender. And for the American people to accept it from its presidents, is stunning. But the American people accept lots of abuse from the governments of Saudi Arabia and Israel. It’s par for the course in the tri-partite relationship — which yet further indicates that the U.S. is at the bottom of this totem-pole.)

«يوم الغفران»

بقلم | وضاح عبد ربه

لا يمكن تشبيه المهرجان الذي أقامه بنو سعود لاستقبال سيدهم الأميركي دونالد ترامب، سوى بيوم الغفران الذي يعتبره اليهود «اليوم المتمم لأيام التوبة العشرة»، وهذا اليوم، حسب التراث اليهودي، هو الفرصة الأخيرة لتغيير المصير الشخصي أو مصير العالم في السنة الآتية!

فبنو سعود قدموا للسيد كل ما يملكون من مال وما تبقى لهم من كرامة، طمعاً فقط بغفران الولايات المتحدة الأميركية وإعلان «التوبة» من الإرهاب الذي مارسوه، ولا يزالون، في أيلول ٢٠٠١ وفي أفغانستان حيث أسسوا تنظيم القاعدة، وفي سورية والعراق من خلال دعمهم المباشر للإرهابيين، لا بل نفضوا التهمة عنهم وألصقوها مصطحبة بمليارات الدولارات الإضافية بإيران، عسى ولعل ينسى أو يتناسى الأميركيون أن كل أو أغلبية العمليات الإرهابية التي تمت خلال العقود الأخيرة، كان منفذوها سعوديي الجنسية أو من خريجي المساجد الوهابية الممولة من الأمراء بشكل مباشر، وأن داعش مكون أولاً من السعوديين، وكذلك التنظيمات الإرهابية الأخرى، ولعل السعودي عبد اللـه المحيسني أحد أبرز قادة ومنظري جبهة النصرة في سورية خير مثال على ذلك!

المشهد كان سوريالياً بامتياز!! فالسيد الأميركي يخطب بالأمة الإسلامية، فيعتبر كل من يدعم الإرهاب شريكاً له! وأمامه يجلس الملك السعودي سلمان بن عبد العزيز مؤسس تنظيم القاعدة في العالم، ومقابله أمير قطر تميم بن حمد آل ثاني ممول وداعم جبهة النصرة وغيرها من التنظيمات المصنفة دولياً إرهابية، ويصنف ترامب حزب اللـه إرهابياً أمام أعين شريك الحزب في الحكومة اللبنانية سعد الحريري، أما حماس التي وضعها ترامب في سلة الإرهاب ذاتها، فيمولها آل ثاني ويستضيفون قادتها ويحاربون من خلالهم مصر وسورية!

وما أن انتهى من خطابه، حتى بدأ التصفيق الحار من قادة ومؤسسي التنظيمات الإرهابية ليس فقط تجاه الاتهامات والإهانات التي وجهها ترامب لهم، بل من أجل الغفران الذي حصلوا عليه ومن أجل الصفحة الجديدة التي فتحت وتكون إيران المتهمة الوحيدة فيها بتهم الإرهاب ولو كلّف ذلك كل أموال الخليج للعقود المقبلة، وهو في المحصلة هدف ترامب الأول والأخير من زيارته، ولم يخف ذلك.

ترامب أراد من خلال زيارته الأولى إلى الخارج وتحديداً الرياض، تصنيف بني سعود من «الإسلاميين المعتدلين» وتكريسهم زعماء للإسلام السني، والمقابل تابعناه جميعاً، كان مئات المليارات من الدولارات ثمناً لهذا «الاعتدال» و«للزعامة»، ملغياً بذلك دور أهم موطنين للإسلام الحقيقي المعتدل وهما دمشق والقاهرة على مر العصور.
لا يختلف اثنان على أن ترامب رجل أعمال وناجح، وزيارته كانت بدورها ناجحة تجاه ما كان يتطلع إليه من أموال الخليجيين الذين يحتقرهم، ولم يخجل من التصريح علناً بذلك، ومن الإعلان أنه يريد أخذ أموالهم من أجل حمايتهم! وحمايتهم مماذا؟ من شعوبهم التي قد تنتفض عليهم في يوم من الأيام للمطالبة بأبسط الحقوق المدنية والسياسية، أم من «بعبع» جديد أرادوا أن يكون إيران وتهويل دورها ولصق تهم الإرهاب بها وإدانة «تهديداتها» لدول الخليج؟
عملياً لم نسمع حتى الآن أن إيران هددت أي دولة في جوارها أو خارجه، ولم نسمع أن إيرانياً واحداً نفذ عملية إرهابية في أي دولة في العالم، كل ما نعرفه عن إيران أنها دولة إسلامية أغلقت سفارة الكيان الصهيوني ومنحتها الفلسطينيين ودعمت حركات المقاومة الشرعية وساندت الدول التي تتعرض لعدوان خارجي احتراماً لسيادة واستقلال الدول.
لسنا بصدد الدفاع عن إيران، فهي قادرة على الدفاع عن نفسها، لكن اللافت في كل ما جرى في الرياض، هو الكم الهائل من التهم التي ألصقت بإيران لتبرئة السعودية التي كانت أيام الرئيس الأميركي الأسبق باراك أوباما مهددة بفضح دورها في دعم وتأسيس الإرهاب حول العالم.

«الحلف» الورقي الذي نشأ فجأة في الرياض، هدفه الأول «الغفران»، ومن بعده انتزاع كل ثروات ممالك وإمارات الخليج لحمايتها من تهديد إيراني غير موجود أساساً!

إنها «قمة الغفران الترامبي» لبني سعود وآل ثاني وغيرهما، وهذا الغفران سيجعل السعوديين يصومون ليس في شهر رمضان فقط، بل في كل أشهر العام إرضاءً للسيد الأميركي الذي قد يهدد بسحب «غفرانه» بأي لحظة، ما لم تصل الحوالات في وقتها المحدد، وما لم يتم تنفيذ شروط سياسته الجديدة التي ستتبلور بعد زيارته لإسرائيل، حيث سيلتزم أمامها بأن العرب لم يعودوا أعداء للكيان الصهيوني، بل يمكن اعتبارهم أصدقاء ومستثمرين مستقبليين، وأن السلام الاقتصادي بات واقعاً، وأن المحور الذي شكلته زيارة ترامب ليس مع دول الخليج ودول إسلامية فقط، بل يمتد ليشمل إسرائيل، الرابح الأكبر من كل هذا العداء لإيران.

الوطن

%d bloggers like this: