Sunday, May 31, 2009

Harper récompensé par le prix humanitaire du Congrès juif canadien

Encore une fois

Après le B'Nai Brith, maintenant c'est le Congrès Juif qui lui donnent un prix "humanitaire".

(Passez le sac à vomi! Accès à l'information - Un F pour le gouvernement Harper )

Une organisation qui donne un prix "humanitaire" à Harper... Ça laisse songeur.

Juste ça, ça nous montre à quel genre d'organisation on a a affaire...

Aussi crédible que la mafia qui se présenterait comme modèle de moralité et d'humanisme.

Harper assimile l'attentat de Mumbai à un acte antisémite (13 mars 2009)
Discours du Premier ministre Harper rendant hommage aux victimes des attaques terroristes de Mumbai devant les Chabad Loubavitch  (12 mars 2009)
Prime Minister Stephen Harper holds a prayer book given to him by Rabbi Mendel Kaplan, left, during the grand opening of the Ernest Manson Lubavitch Centre in Thornhill, Ontario on Thursday, (March 26, 2009)
PMO hires 2 former White House staff to boost Canada's profile in U.S. Mike McCurry — who served as press secretary to former U.S. president Bill Clinton — and Ari Fleischer [NEOCON JEW], who held the same role under former president George W. Bush, have been hired to boost Canada's profile in the U.S., said Kory Teneycke, the communications director for the PMO. (April 16, 2009)
Justice : Harper veut permettre aux victimes de poursuivre les terroristes L'avocat de Toronto Aaron Blumenfeld, qui oeuvre au sein de la Canadian Coalition Against Terror, a affirmé que les familles des victimes canadiennes d'attaques terroristes réclament depuis longtemps une telle loi.(...) Le chef du NPD, Jack Layton, et le vice-premier ministre d'Israel, Silvan Shalom, figuraient aussi parmi les invités de la 29e Assemblée plénière du Congrès juif canadien. (31 mai 2009)
Canadian Jewish Congress to give Prime Minister Stephen Harper a human-rights award This is Harper's third major award from a Jewish organization in less than a year. Last June, Harper was awarded the B’nai Brith International President’s Gold Medallion. B'nai Brith said it was in recognition of Canada's efforts to fight discrimination and uphold human rights in Canada and around the world. Harper was the first Canadian to win this prize. Last December, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations presented Harper with its first-ever International Leadership Award. (31 mai 2009)
Prime Minister Harper Receives Saul Hayes Human Rights Award / Le Premier ministre Harper reçoit le prix Saul-Hayes des droits de la personne (31 mai 2009)
PM Pledges Law to Let Terror Victims Sue Victims of terrorism could soon have the right to sue anyone who commits a terrorist act or anyone who funds terrorism, Prime Minister Stephen Harper told members of the Canadian Jewish Congress Sunday. (May 31, 2009)
Canada to allow terror trials PM Harper says proposed bill to permit lawsuits against terror groups, acts of anti-Semitism (June 1, 2009)
Ottawa to spend $1M on Holocaust education Creation of task force marks 70th anniversary of Canada’s rejection of Jewish refugees (June 1, 2009)
B'nai Brith Canada applauds Government anti-terrorism initiative (June 2, 2009)
Le ministre de la Sécurité publique annonce le dépôt d'un nouveau projet de loi visant à permettre aux victimes d'actes terroristes d'intenter des poursuites contre les auteurs de ces ceux qui les soutiennent "Le sénateur David Tkachuk (AGENT SIONISTE) est un grand défenseur des victimes d'actes terroristes. En déposant ce projet de loi aujourd'hui, je lui rends hommage pour les efforts qu'il a déployé à cet égard", a ajouté le ministre Van Loan.(2 juin 2009)
Une loi pour poursuivre les terroristes Dimanche, à Toronto, à l'occasion d'une rencontre du Congrès juif canadien, le premier ministre Harper a affirmé que cette loi enverrait un message clair aux terroristes et à leurs commanditaires: le Canada les tient juridiquement responsables de leurs actes. (2 juin 2009)
Terrorisme: milliards fictifs pour les victimes Ottawa a copié une loi américaine inéquitable et difficilement applicable (3 juin 2009)

Paraît qu'il y a des hordes d'avocats (français notamment) et des tonnes de poursuites déposées (surtout américaines) qui attendaient juste ça!

Harper appuierait une attaque préventive israélienne contre l'Iran

Ça aura valu la peine!

Harper et son combat contre l'antisémitisme

Berner le système immunitaire des Québécois

Le Congrès Juif Mondial

La secte

Canada’s Shabbaz Goi on Parade

Harper, Ignatieff, Layton and May. All four leaders shamed themselves by bowing to Canada’s Zionist Power elite. Harper got two awards, for being Shabbaz Goi of the year.
These “Jewish groups” nothing but political lobbies, pressure groups, and outright fronts for Isr-el.
As Canadians face the new hassle and economic hit of the requirement of passports to cross the US border(where’s the ‘freedom’ with free trade?- by the way the shape of the War of Terror that mandates this ’security’ upgrading, was also written by Zionist J-w and current Prime Minister of Isr-el Benjamin Netanyahu, who celebrates the J-wish terror bombing of the King David Hotel every year), Harper turns his back on Canadians and supplicates at the feet of the Bronfman’s Canadian Jewish Congress.

Harper got an award from another J-wish group the same day! (scroll down to bottom of article to see)
Harper took the opportunity to announce new laws that will allow terrorism victims to sue their perpetrators for financial compensation… hmmm could be interesting… nothing about meeting with the Americans to relax the ridiculous border restrictions(Change.. that’s another one of those words like ‘free’ trade), but he’s willing to defend a group of thieves halfway around the world.

White Phosphorous, banned by civilized nations, dropped on heavily populated areas by terrorist terrorist rogue state Isr-el
Harper’s Chabad Lubovitch friends agree, we must be steadfast in support of Isr-el, no matter what.
And children?
And children.
J-wish foot-licker Ignatieff on the Gaza slaughter: “I was proud to stand with Israel, my party was proud to stand with Israel, during that hour of trial.”

Ignatieff : “I was proud to stand with Israel, my party was proud to stand with Israel, during that hour of trial.”

“I was proud to stand with Israel, my party was proud to stand with Israel, during that hour of trial.”

Israhell's cowardly IDF targetted civilians with outlawed white phosphorous

Layton: Stronger ties with the “Jewish Community”

Layton Wants “Stronger Ties” With Zionist Powerbrokers
TORONTO - NDP Leader Jack Layton is making a pitch for stronger ties between his party and the Jewish community ahead of an award ceremony for Stephen Harper.
The Canadian Jewish Congress is to give the prime minister the Saul Hayes Human Rights Award at an event in Toronto. The award is given to an individual who has rendered distinguished service to the cause of human rights.
The CJC says Harper is getting the award for several reasons including his vigorous condemnation of anti-Semitism and his steadfast support for Israel.
Speaking before Harper, Layton said the CJC shares the New Democrats’ values when it comes to fighting poverty, discrimination, and advocating for the rights of First Nations.
This one says it all(emphasis, image, and comments in red are mine):

Canada’s leaders swoon over Israel

Rosie DiManno
Have you hugged a Jew today?
Couldn’t hurt, on any day, given some worrisome trends in Canada – though less here than in Europe – to demonize both Jews and Israel, particularly via the rubric of anti-Zionism, which anybody with half a brain recognizes for what it is: The same old anti-Semitism tarted up in sleazy pedantic finery.
[this J-w, or Shabbat Goi reporter, needs to set the stage with Isr-el and predatory J-wry as a beleagured victim, and characterizes all anti-Zionism as anti-semitism... of course she would. This serves as a reminder, it is not just the National Post that is full of Zionist hate propaganda against defiant Goyim, the Sayanim(J-wish helpers of Isr-el) are all over Canada's media].
But yesterday, at the Beth Emeth Bais Yehuda synagogue in North York, the most astonishing thing happened. Leaders of Canada’s political parties got all gushy and goopy, practically falling over one another to show they love Jews – and Israel – best.[yeah soooo astonishing... never saw that comeing! Never seen politicians genuflect in the direction of the terrorstate!]
How gratifying this must have been for those assembled, and a wider constituency that has found itself besieged anew, bewildered and alarmed by the increasing brazenness of Jew-bashing in this country, a toxic debate that finds fertile soil in the political sludge of the Middle East.[yep the toxic Zionists have found fertile soil in Masonic, corrupt, child-molestor infested Canada]
There was Prime Minister Stephen Harper using the occasion to announce a new bill that would allow victims to sue perpetrators and sponsors of terrorism – whether individuals, organizations or foreign states – through Canadian courts, civilly.[except for victims of the terrorist state of Israhell]
And there was Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, sounding rather ticked that the Tories had thus pre-empted a private member’s bill on that very issue, which justice critic Irwin Cotler had planned to introduce in the Commons.
Jack Layton had no such bill in his back pocket – perhaps left it in his other pants – but was adamant that New Democrats stood four-square with the Canadian Jewish Congress as human-rights advocates, whilst denying that new-wave anti-Semitism is a phenomenon of the modern left.[he's going right with their script-book, instead of exposing the fact that the label "anti-Semite" isn't for people who don't like J-ws, it is for people the J-ws don't like]
The Green party’s Elizabeth May extolled Israel as “an exemplar of democracy” in the Middle East, while claiming violence in the region is fuelled by “petro-dollars to petro-dictators.” [the shabbaz Green was well-trained too!] The Bloc called in sick and was excused. [Duceppe for PM!]
Of course, this was the 29th plenary assembly of the CJC and none of the invited speakers would dare wrangle with their hosts on the details. But beyond the core consensus of a two-state solution in the Middle East, it’s always the details that kibosh any proposals for ending the Palestinian conflict, securing Israel’s security, or civilizing the discussion.
Harper was there to accept the prestigious Saul Hayes Human Rights award, named for a former CJC executive director, the first time it’s been given to a sitting PM. The standing ovation lasted for several minutes. While traditionally tilting Liberal, many Canadian Jews now embrace Harper as Israel’s staunchest defender.
“I am troubled, very troubled, by the degree in which opposition to the government of Israel has become, in some circles, an intellectual cover for anti-Semitic discourse,” Harper said, to rousing cheers.
“It is all too common nowadays for people to claim to support Israel and the Jewish people. Yet when Israel is attacked for the umpteenth time, because its enemies refuse to accept the right of the Jewish state to exist, these same people are quick to condemn Israel and accuse it of war crimes and to demand that it unilaterally suspend its right to self-defence.
“You will not hear that kind of double-talk from our government – ever.”
While certainly not all Jewish Canadians support Israel’s conduct, the Harper government has been widely praised for being among the first to cut aid to the Palestians following the election of terrorist-designated Hamas, withdraw from Durban II and refuse to sign a francophone nation summit anti-Israel resolution.
Ignatieff yesterday conceded no ground to Harper’s Tories on steadfastness with Israel.
First he teed off on Iran, “a dreadful regime that uses a great religion and then poisons the wellspring of generosity in that great religion with statements inspired by hatred. This is a state seeking weapons of mass destruction. This is a member of the UN denying another member of the UN the right to exist. Canada cannot be silent when one state denies another state their right to exist. Canada cannot be silent when a president of a state denies the Holocaust. And we cannot be in the room when the president of a state engages in vicious lies. Denial of the Holocaust is an unacceptable moral disgrace.”[Right with the Zionist playbook again, and no surprize]
Ignatieff reminded that his father was a Canadian diplomat who served on the UN committee that recommended partitioning Palestine – “a plan accepted by Jews, but rejected by the Arab world. Too much violence has followed.”
Five months ago, Ignatieff drew intense criticism for refusing to assail Israel’s protracted military assault on Gaza, in response to incessant rocketing of Israeli towns. “I was proud to stand with Israel, my party was proud to stand with Israel, during that hour of trial.” [Wow, Ignatieff you say all the right things... to out yourself as a pawn of homicidal maniacs who killed far more civilians than 'combatants, many of them documented as being deliberate. You really are scum]

As an elected politician, Ignatieff added, he is required to represent and listen to all factions. “But it does not mean agreeing with everyone and there are some lines I cannot cross. I cannot be neutral between a member of the UN and a terrorist organization. I cannot be neutral between democracy and terror. I cannot be neutral with historical facts. I cannot meet groups or appear on platforms with groups that have links or connections to terror.
“I cannot say one thing in a synagogue and another in a mosque.”
But Ignatieff, sensing electoral drifts ahead, warned against exploitation of solidarity with Israel as a partisan political wedge.
“It is reckless, reckless, for leaders to try to score points by branding one another as anti-Israel, to try to claim votes by claiming a monopoly on support for Israel. The true interests of Israel will not be served if Israel becomes a domestic political football in this country.”
Sounded a lot like third-and-long yesterday, though.
Rosie DiManno usually appears Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday.
Stephen Harper also hopped over to the Simon Wiesenthal(the famous fiction author) event to grab another gratuitous ‘prestigious’ reward for his treachery against Canadians and betrayal of all human values in serving the powerful proponents of the terrorist state of Isr-el.
This is really weird, because none of the media mentioned this. Check out who the guest speakers were, Chertoff and Howard.
ATTN: News/Assignment/Arts/Community Editors
On Sunday, 2,200 people will gather at Toronto’s Roy Thomson Hall in the spirit of hope, solidarity and tolerance. The Spirit of Hope Benefit, created by Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center, features international keynote speakers who will discuss contemporary issues including: the financial crisis; President Obama’s version of change; Iran’s nuclear and regional ambitions; instability in Pakistan; and the possibilities of peace in the Middle East.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper will be onsite to receive the prestigious Simon Wiesenthal International Leadership Award. In receiving the award, the Prime Minister follows in the footsteps of accomplished world leaders including President Ronald Reagan, Senator Ted Kennedy, the Dalai Lama and King Hussein of Jordan. The award is bestowed to leaders who best exemplify the values and actions of the late Simon Wiesenthal in the pursuit of justice and human rights.
What:                Spirit of Hope Benefit
NOTE: limited interview opportunities

When:                Sunday, May 31, 2009
Patron's Reception: 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.
Doors open: 7 p.m.
Main Presentation: 7:30 p.m.

Where:               Roy Thomson Hall
60 Simcoe Street

Award Presentation:  Prime Minister of Canada, The Right Honourable Stephen
Harper, to accept the Simon Wiesenthal International
Leadership Award

Guest Speakers:      Rabbi Marvin Hier, Dean and Founder, Simon Wiesenthal
Silvan Shalom, Israel's Vice-Prime Minister
Secretary Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland
Security, 2005-2009
The Honourable John W. Howard, Prime Minister of
Australia, 1996-2007
Ambassador John Bolton, America's Permanent
Representative to the UN

Performances by:     RyanDan, Canadian musical duo whose music is a mix of
pop, opera and classical
Why wasn’t this picked up by the media? Two J-wish awards in one day, is that pushing it?
PM receives the Simon Wiesenthal International Leadership Award

Continues to fight against anti-Semitism on the world stage

31 May 2009
Prime Minister Stephen Harper today received the prestigious Simon Wiesenthal International Leadership award. The award is bestowed on leaders who best exemplify the values and actions of the late Simon Wiesenthal in the pursuit of justice and human rights.
“I am particularly humbled since this organization’s namesake, Simon Wiesenthal, was a man whose commitment to the principles of freedom, justice and human rights is world-renowned,” said the Prime Minister. “We are inspired by his example and recommit ourselves to expose, confront and repudiate the evils of anti-Semitism and hatred, whenever and wherever they appear.”
The Harper Government has been firm in defending human rights and fighting anti-Semitism since taking office three years ago. When the United Nations Durban Review Conference turned into a forum for the promotion of hatred, Canada was the first country to withdraw. When Hamas formed the government of the Palestinian Authority and refused to drop its commitment to the eradication of the State of Israel and its people, Canada was the first country to suspend ties with and assistance to its government.
The Harper Government also supports the Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance and Research and partnered with Winnipeg’s Asper family, the province of Manitoba, the city of Winnipeg and thousands of private donors to build the Canadian Museum of Human Rights.
The Prime Minister received the award and made his remarks during the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre’s Spirit of Hope Benefit at the Roy Thompson Hall.
And right on the heels of all this love, another gift to the “Jewish Community”.
Update(via Heidi Lore’s Musings)
*This is about as constructive as the Government Motors debacle.*

Ottawa to spend $1M on Holocaust education

Creation of task force marks 70th anniversary of Canada’s rejection of Jewish refugees
June 01, 2009
Canada will contribute nearly $1 million to create a three-year national task force to study and educate Canadians about the Holocaust.
Immigration Minister Jason Kenney announced the task force in Toronto this morning at the start of a conference on the Holocaust that marks the 70th anniversary of Canada’s refusal to let hundreds of Jewish refugees aboard the St. Louis from Hamburg, Germany dock in Canada. The ship was forced to return to Europe and the refugees dispersed to various countries. Many would not survive World War II.
Kenney “has broken the traditional Canadian mould” to be an unwavering friend and ally to the Jewish cause, Frank Dimant, executive vice-president of B’nai Brith Canada said in introducing the minister. The timing of the task force and conference are critical, Dimant said, as “Canadian universities have become a hotbed of anti-Semitism in the guide of anti-Zionism.”
He particularly commended Kenney and the Conservative government for its decision to boycott the recent Durban conference to review the results of the 2001 World Conference Against Racism, which Kenney said “degenerated into open and divisive expressions of intolerance and anti-Semitism.”
The work of the task force applies not just to the Holocaust, said Kenney, but also to the hatred behind the attacks on mosques in Canada. Education is a strong component of the task force, which will lead research and publish a teacher’s manual, a textbook for high school students and a documentary for teachers to use.
“It’s all about fairness to them,” said a Grade 7 teacher from Manitoba who teaches the Holocaust to her students. “Once (students) understand the exclusion of it, they can’t get enough of the story.”
A small group of supporters of the American war resisters in Canada picketed outside the Sutton Place Hotel where Kenney was speaking. Former U.S. soldier Kimberly Rivera has been living in Toronto with her family for two years fighting deportation to the United States. Her three months in Iraq, she said this morning, made her realize “It was wrong for me. Every person, no matter what they wear or what they believe deserves to be treated the same.” Rivera’s next court hearing is July 8.

2012: Pro-Israel Organization Rewards Stephen Harper for Whitewashing Israel's Human Rights Violations






"La lutte contre le terrorisme" et ses experts israéliens

Cela doit rester ainsi


House Considering Censoring Internet: Cleansing’ the Internet by Criminalizing Hurt Feelings

Des attaques militaires prévues contre les médias dissidents

US military recruiting 'hacker soldiers'

L'éternel retour des "extrémistes"

La police bientôt (officiellement) au contrôle de votre ordinateur ?
Tuesday, Jun 2 2009
Nous avons omis de vous parler de ceci … Cliquez sur l’image pour en savoir plus …

Paraît qu'il y a des hordes d'avocats (français notamment) et des tonnes de poursuites déposées (surtout américaines) qui attendaient juste ça!

Sécurité publique Canada

02 juin 2009 10h19 HE

Le ministre de la Sécurité publique annonce le dépôt d'un nouveau projet de loi visant à permettre aux victimes d'actes terroristes d'intenter des poursuites contre les auteurs de ces actes... ceux qui les soutiennent

OTTAWA, ONTARIO--(Marketwire - 2 juin 2009)

Ottawa veut permettre de poursuivre les commanditaires d'actes terroristes

Une loi pour poursuivre les terroristes

Obama crée un "M. cyber-sécurité"

Obama va se doter d'un coordinateur chargé de la cybersécurité

Pentagon Cyber Command seen as threat to civil liberties

Cyber-tactics gain growing importance in Israel's warfare

That commenter on your blog may actually be working for the Israeli government

US Cybersoldiers Suit Up
Omitted from Obama’s speech was any mention of the ongoing employment of ‘hacker soldiers’ by the US military that are engaged in a cyberoffensive against other foreign state and non-state targets. Further missing from mainstream coverage is that this offensive is overwhelmingly privatized and is controlled by the largest of private defense contractors that have typically been in the business of selling to the US government jetfighters and complex missile and satellite systems.


Internet – Un champ de bataille. Après, que faire?

Il devient de plus en plus évident que l’Internet est en passe de se transformer en un véritable champs de bataille. Un espace virtuel, mais une guerre réelle. La blogosphère dérange, les échanges d’idées et d’information s’effectuent en temps réel, dépassant le filtre des médias traditionnels. C’est une guerre de l’information.

Les exemples sont nombreux, mais allons-y avec quelques-uns.

On apprenait cette semaine qu’un nouveau projet de loi déposé à Ottawa vise à octroyer plus de pouvoir à la police et aux agents du renseignement (SCRS) pour surveiller et espionner l’Internet en leur permettant l’écoute et l’interception électronique de communications sur Internet ainsi que la collecte d’informations personnelles sur les utilisateurs. Selon ce nouveau projet de loi annoncé par Peter Van Loan, le ministère de la sécurité publique, les fournisseurs de services Internet (ISP) pourraient se voir obligé de partager les données concernant la consommation d’un client, ce qui les pousserait donc à stocker ces informations pour tous leurs clients, en tout temps.

«Ça voudrait donc dire qu’on serait surveillé, en quelque sorte, en tout temps,» expliquait au Globe and Mail Richard Rosenberg, président de la B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, une association de défense de la vie privée et de la liberté d’information basée en Colombie-Britannique.

Un autre projet de loi introduit par Nicholson exigerait entre autre: Que les forces policières puissent obtenir des données de transmission (informations sur le routage) qui est envoyé ou reçu via le téléphone ou l’Internet si autorisé par un mandat.

Des compagnies de télécommunications de garder les données relatives à des communications spécifiques ou abonnés si ces informations sont nécessaires à une enquête et demandé par une ordonnance.

De permettre à la police d’activer à distance des dispositifs de repérage qui sont inclus dans certaines voitures et autres bidules électroniques tels que les téléphones cellulaires.

Le même type de loi permettant la surveillance de l’Internet sont en place dans plusieurs autres pays. En Angleterre, il s’agit du Regulation of Investigatory Power Act de 2000. Aux États-Unis, le USA PATRIOT Act de 2001 donnait de l’expansion aux surveillances électroniques de l’Internet qui sous l’administration Bush, autorisait la National Security Agency (NSA) à le faire sans mandats. Le Protect America Act de 2007 et le FISA Amendments Act de 2008 augmentaient encore plus ce pouvoir. En Australie, le Surveillance Devices Bill de 2004 et le Intelligence Services Act de 2001 donnent à peu près les mêmes pouvoirs aux autorités australiennes et leurs services du renseignement. En Nouvelle-Zélande, c’est la même histoire avec le Search and Surveillance Powers Bill qui a été introduit en septembre 2008. En Suède, le parlement a approuvé de nouvelles lois permettant les services du renseignement de filtrer les appels internationaux, les fax et courriels sans ordre de la cour.


Facebook qui compte presque que 12 millions d’utilisateurs au Canada seulement et environ 250 mondialement, ne se gêne pas pour violer la vie privée de ses abonnés. On accumule vos données personnelles et les garde de façon indéfinie, même si vous fermez votre compte. Toutes ces informations personnelles deviennent la propriété de Facebook et seront partagées avec un million de fournisseurs tiers, sans compter la CIA.

La stratégie de cyberdéfense d’Obama

Aux États-Unis, un plan pour créer un poste de commande de la cyberespace sous le contrôle du Pentagone menace le droit à la vie privée et soulève de nombreuses inquiétudes diplomatiques. L’administration Obama soutient qu’elle veut protéger la nation de cyber-attaques et va de l’avant pour se préparer pour de possible opérations offensives contre des réseaux d’ordinateurs adversaires. Le Pentagone au contrôle d’un poste de commande d’intervention sur l’Internet. Tout ce qui a de plus rassurant. Les libertés civiles sous la responsabilité militaire du Pentagone et de ses contractants privés du secteur militaro-industriel.

Le futur de la censure sur Internet

Nous connaissons tous la censure de l’Internet par le régime communiste chinois. Mais l’Australie vient de nous donner un autre aperçu de ce que sera le futur de la censure sur Internet. Le gouvernement australien vient de produire une liste de 1 370 sites Internet bannis. Présentement, il s’agit d’un projet pilote volontaire auquel les fournisseurs d’Internet peuvent se soumettre. Mais si l’expérience est concluante est qu’ils en fassent une loi, quiconque mettra un lien sur son site vers l’un de ces sites interdits par la liste noire du gouvernement sera passible d’une amende de $11 000 par jour. Non seulement il sera un crime de reproduire le contenu d’un site Internet interdit, mais même le simple fait de reproduire son adresse le sera.

Ce n’est pas uniquement similaire à l’interdiction de certains livres. C’est comme interdire des livres et interdire de prononcer leur titre. Cela représente beaucoup d’interdictions. Mais voici la partie tortueuse: le gouvernement ne va même pas dire quels sont les sites interdits! C’est un secret. Alors, il existe 1 370 sites Internet qui pourraient résulter en une poursuite judiciaire contre vous si vous vous trouvez en Australie, mais vous ne pourrez pas savoir lesquels jusqu’à ce que vous tombiez sur l’un d’eux.

La police de la pensée

Le Ministre des affaires étrangères d’Israël a annoncé la création d’une nouvelle police de la pensée pour mener une guerre sur l’Internet. Le gouvernement va commencer à payer des anciens militaires et autres jeunes pro-israéliens parlant différentes langues pour se promener sur différents sites, blogs et forums sur Internet et ainsi influencer les débats en faveur d’une image positive d’Israël. L’establishment lui donnera le nom «d’escadron de guerre Internet». Cela va probablement par leur sauter en plein visage comme un vieux pétard parce que la blogosphère va maintenant simplement assumer que TOUS les commentaires pro-Israël sont de la propagande payée. Il faut contrôler la pensée, criminaliser certains segments de celle-ci, intimider. On va même chercher à criminaliser les comparaisons entre les israéliens, sionistes et juifs avec les nazis.

Peu à peu, la police de la pensée s’installe. C’est sur Internet que cette guerre va bientôt faire rage. Vous êtes sur le champ de bataille, avec vos pensées, votre ordinateur et vos données privées. Plus rien ne vous appartient, tout pourra être retenu contre vous. On commence par criminaliser certaines choses, puis peu à peu, c’est la dissidence politique et la critique du gouvernement qui deviendra un crime. C’est le gouvernement et les militaires qui vous dicteront ce qui est permis de penser et ce qui ne le sera pas. À moins qu’on renverse la vapeur et qu’on réalise qu’Internet est le dernier vrai bastion de la liberté au sens large et de la liberté d’expression en particulier.

De mai 68 à Bush

Le trotskyisme engendré un grand nombre d'idiots utiles du système (tant au USA -les néocons- qu'en France et ailleurs) qui ont notamment demandé d'"intervenir" en Irak pour "chasser le tyrans fasciste Saddam Hussein".


Zemmour (juif) face à André Glucksmann (juif)
Bruckner (juif)_Dantec_Halter

Ce que le créateur de ce vidéo ne semble pas avoir remarqué, c'est l'identité judaïque de ces individus, et le fait que la guerre en Irak visait à protéger Israël...

Voici plus bas, un article d'une juive définitivement pro-sioniste.

Mai 68 : «Ils sont tous des juifs allemands»

40 ans après mai 68, la France n’en finit pas de se questionner sur cette révolution manquée. Mais fait encore plus troublant, comment se fait-il qu’autant de Juifs aient participé à ce mouvement de révolte, ébauche révolutionnaire au sein d’une démocratie en paix ?
1968, Israël a 20 ans. Les baby-boomers aussi. Mais le monde frissonne. Une vague rouge s’apprête à emporter les démocraties libérales, un vent libertaire souffle du côté des démocraties populaires. Mai 68 renoue avec la pensée marxiste. La contestation révolutionnaire s’en prend à la superstructure, l’Etat et ses appareils : la culture, l’université, l’unité de production, la famille, l’autorité, la hiérarchie, le rapport de classe.
Délégitimisation du pouvoir
Comment se fait-il qu’une démocratie représentative post-industrielle, vivant en paix au sein de l’Europe Unie (fin du processus de décolonisation) se voie délégitimée par une partie de ses citoyens alors qu’ils jouissent de droits civiques, politiques et sociaux ? Le fait est unique : une révolution s’ébauche en Occident et un vent de liberté souffle au cœur des démocraties populaires en pleine guerre froide. La crise d’autorité que représentent les émeutes de 68 met en lumière l’influence des minorités politiques en démocratie alors que celle-ci est supposée reposer sur le principe de majorité. Ainsi, une petite minorité comptant une grande force d’action peut équilibrer et même dépasser une majorité peu active car l’influence politique est fonction de l’action entreprise et non du nombre de participants. Phénomène sans précédent, les protestataires nient la légitimité des dirigeants élus démocratiquement. La fracture se passe en trois temps : crise de confiance au nom de l’éthique démocratique (critique totale du pouvoir existant – gouvernement et opposition accusés de consensus), conflit de légitimité (radicalisation au sein de l’ordre légal, intensification des actions extra-parlementaires et confrontations avec les autorités), crise de légitimité (violence dirigée et organisée contre le régime en négation des normes démocratiques). Dans la crise de délégitimisation, le régime perçu comme inexact et injuste n’est donc plus reconnu.
Les universités sont instrumentalisées pour relayer les revendications étudiantes et pour unifier l’opposition contre le consensus dirigeant. Elles servent à enrôler les militants (même extra-universitaires) en vue d’un soutien actif à la cause. L’académie aussi veut se libérer et rentre dans la controverse. En tant qu’institution, elle devient une partie de la critique politique générale du régime.
Le mouvement étudiant formule des demandes précises, fait pression sur les décideurs et influence de façon décisive le gouvernement à agir.
Mais qui sont ces étudiants revendicateurs et quelle est leur utopie ? Selon le politologue Ehud Shprinchek, la plupart viennent de bonnes familles bourgeoises, plutôt socialisantes. Et surtout, beaucoup de Juifs. Tous sont des acteurs politiques. Les manifestants espèrent un changement social et sociétal radical. Des groupuscules émanant du parti communiste se développent contre l’establishment bourgeois .

Les Juifs et la révolution
En 1988, le quotidien Le Monde publie un article intitulé : ‘’Le mouvement de mai 68 fut-il une "révolution juive" ? En effet, la proportion de Juifs dans les mouvements révolutionnaires, que ce soit en 1917 ou en 1968, est importante. Est-ce une tradition juive que de vouloir changer le monde et de s’y engager ? Est-ce que le messianisme révolutionnaire fait écho (laïque) au messianisme juif dans sa version émancipatrice ? Existe-t-il un lien entre l’humanisme universaliste et la tradition mosaïque ?
La pérennité des Juifs a résidé tout au long de l’Histoire dans la lutte et le combat. Dans la tradition, le monde non fini a été donné à l’homme afin de le parfaire. Même laïcisés, les Juifs gardent ancrée en eux cette mission qui incombe à Israël de mener l’humanité à son accomplissement. Le judaïsme renferme donc les notions de réparation du monde (Tikoun), d’innovation et d'interprétation perpétuelles du monde (Hidouch) et de messianisme au sens de délivrance finale (Guéoula). Il y a un écho entre le déterminisme historique marxiste et le judaïsme vecteur de l’histoire de l’humanité. Comme l’a formulé Benny Lévy, philosophe ancien soixante-huitard revenu aux sources de la pensée juive, le Juif est un passeur. Il est le vecteur de l’histoire jusqu’à l’accomplissement de l’humanité dans le projet divin.
Les juifs seraient donc intrinsèquement, culturellement révolutionnaires, ne se satisfaisant pas du monde comme tel mais visant à son perfectionnement constant car fidèles à la tradition prophétique systématiquement opposée au pouvoir en place : Samuel face au roi Saül, Nathan face au roi David ou Chamaï face à Hérode.
De là l’engagement dans tout mouvement visionnaire visant à la réalisation d’un projet de monde meilleur. Ainsi, même dans les messianismes politiques modernes, les Juifs sont toujours présents, prenant une part active à ces mouvements. Selon Henri Weber , mai 68 a été un mouvement "démocratique et libertaire", "hédoniste, contre l'ordre moral et la rationalité capitaliste" et "romantique et messianique". Cette troisième dimension appartenant aux valeurs juives a implicitement rendu les jeunes Juifs plus réceptifs au discours révolutionnaire. Il s se sont davantage impliqués dans la direction des mouvements et organisations d'extrême gauche.

La génération post-Shoah
Pour la génération post-Shoah, 68 permet de libérer la parole, de rêver d’un monde meilleur. Le printemps de mai représente peut-être pour la ‘’seconde génération’’ une revanche sur l’histoire de leurs parents. Les jeunes peuvent agir, crier, revendiquer, prendre leur destin en main, être acteur et non spectateur passif de leur vie. Ces enfants d’après la Shoah exorcisent leur lourd héritage familial en devenant membres de groupes trotskistes, maoïstes ou anarchisants. Ils fondent et militent dans des mouvements révolutionnaires d’extrême gauche (Gauche prolétarienne, Jeunesse Communiste Révolutionnaire trotskyste (actuelle LCR),Organisation communiste internationaliste trotskyste) peut-être pour faire le pendant de l’extrême droite. Il est d’ailleurs intéressant de noter que les meneurs sont principalement ashkénazes. Tous ces intellectuels de la gauche radicale aujourd'hui reconvertis en député européen, maître de conférences, professeur d’histoire, philosophe (Daniel Cohn-Bendit, Daniel Schulmann, Yves Fleischl, André Glucksmann, Robert Linhardt, Henri Weber, Alain Krivine, Daniel Gluckstein, Alain Finkielkraut ) ont en commun d'avoir grandi dans des familles profondément marquées par le drame de la Shoah.

Moise, Marx et Trotski
Mai 68 fait appel aux deux grands théoriciens de la gauche révolutionnaire : Marx et Trotsky. Eux-mêmes Juifs, ils cherchent à travers le communisme une réponse au ‘’problème juif’’. Le marxisme et le trotskisme dans sa version plus radicale de mouvement permanent et mondial seraient donc en quelque sorte sa solution globale.
Aux USA, Herbert Marcuse, philosophe et sociologue néo-marxiste voit dans la révolte étudiante l’avant-garde révolutionnaire, agent du changement à venir, en remplacement du prolétariat. ‘’A la place de l'ancienne société bourgeoise, avec ses classes et ses antagonismes de classes, surgit une association où le libre développement de chacun est la condition du libre développement de tous. ’’ (extraits du manifeste du parti communiste, Karl Marx et Frederik Engels, 1847).
La sémantique marxiste évoque un mouvement émancipatoire : la minorité devient majorité pour le bien de tous. Le prolétariat jusqu’ici malmené, prend la forme d’une révolte qui changera la face du monde. Cette théorie révolutionnaire précède de quelques décennies l’idée du sionisme, autre mouvement politico-culturel moderne, destiné à reconstituer le peuple juif en un Etat souverain lui appartenant et à stimuler l'identité et le nationalisme juif.

La téchouva : réponse aux lendemains qui déchantent
Loin de la désespérance de certains face à l’échec de l’utopie qui les ont mené au suicide, plusieurs militants juifs comprennent qu’il y a un autre combat existentiel plus concret à mener ailleurs. Devant le parti pris inconditionnel de la gauche révolutionnaire pour les Palestiniens et sa critique permanente d’Israël, certains étudiants juifs français comme Joseph Atoun et Rony Akrish (devenus rabbins) ou l’historien Simon Epstein, militants engagés, prennent conscience finalement que pour eux le vrai combat se trouve en Israël. Ils renouent avec leur judaïsme. La construction du projet sioniste se substitue à la révolution.
En somme, 68 reste l’alternative collectiviste ‘’universaliste’’ de l’affirmation de soi face à celle plus authentiquement juive et individuelle du retour à soi provoqué par la victoire israélienne de 67.

Et le Rav Joseph Atoun de conclure dans une interview publiée dans Regards n° 207 : ‘’L’âme juive a une conscience très aigue de la responsabilité qui lui incombe de faire réussir l’histoire de l’humanité. [...] Le Juif a toujours voulu réussir l’histoire, non pour lui mais pour les autres. Il pensait être le ferment révolutionnaire au sein des sociétés non juives dans lesquelles il a été diasporisé. C’est le point positif de tous ces Juifs qui ont mené les combats révolutionnaires. [...] La notion la plus importante qui traverse tout combat révolutionnaire, c’est la notion de messianisme, c’est-à-dire qu’il y a un sens à l’histoire et que ce sens est un progrès. Le messianisme qui traverse l’histoire d’Israël depuis son début, c’est une sorte de ferment révolutionnaire. [...] La kippa, c’est la révolution permanente du Juif [...] Il n’y a pas d’autre moyen de réussir la révolution qu’avec la kippa. ’’
Noémie Grynberg 2008

MAI 68
une révolution juive !
" Israël Magazine " dans son numéro de juillet 2008 s'interroge :
" Mai 68 fut-elle une Révolution juive? "
Sous la plume de Noémie Grynberg, la réponse pourrait passer pour le délire d'un extrémiste anti-juif si " Israël Magazine " (1) ne s'inscrivait pas dans une ligne sioniste radicale.
Nous lisons : " Même laïcisés, les Juifs gardent ancrés en eux cette mission qui incombe à Israël de mener l'humanité à son accomplissement (...) Il y a un écho entre le déterminisme historique marxiste et le Judaïsme vecteur de l'histoire de l'humanité. Comme l'a formulé Benny Lévy (2), philosophe ancien soixante-huitard revenu aux sources de la pensée juive, le Juif est un passeur. Il est le vecteur de l'Histoire jusqu'à l'accomplissement de l'humanité dans le projet divin ".
Plus loin, l'auteur explique : " Mai 68 fait appel aux deux grands théoriciens de la gauche révolutionnaire : Marx et Trotski. Eux-mêmes Juifs, ils cherchent à travers le communisme une réponse au " problème juif " ".
Elle termine son article sur une citation du Rav (3) Joseph Atoun, et conclut par ces mots : " Le messianisme qui traverse l'histoire d'Israël depuis son début, c'est une sorte de ferment révolutionnaire. La kippa, c'est la révolution permanente du Juif. " Il n'y a pas d'autre moyen de réussir la révolution qu'avec la kippa " " .
(1) Alexandre Del Valle et Guy Millière figurent parmi les collaborateurs de cette publication.
(2) Benny Lévy, gauchiste devenu secrétaire de Jean-Paul Sartre, a fini par rompre avec l'athéisme pour rejoindre la ligne philosophique juive d'Emmanuel Levinas avec Alain Finkielkraut et Bernard-Henry Lévy, pour finalement s'installer en Israël en 1998.
(3) Rav est le titre porté par un rabbin.

Mai 68 “Une révolution juive” ?
Gabriel Enkiri

mardi 24 juin 2008, par Reprise d’article.

Ayant été moi-même [1] un “acteur” de Mai 68 à la fois en plein cœur du Quartier Latin et dans le monde “ouvrier”, dans le 15e arrdt, entre Citroën, l’Imprimerie Nationale et les magasins de distribution de Hachette ”Cévennes-Javel”, où je travaillais, j’estime être un témoin parfaitement fiable de cet étrange moment qui intrigue tant les “historiens” par sa ”démesure démentielle”. J’ai là-dessus ma petite idée (que l’on peut retrouver tout au long de mon blog ). Et voici que je retrouve dans mes archives un article publié dans le journal Le Monde, daté du 12/7/1988, sous le titre « Le mouvement de mai 68 fut-il une “révolution juive” ? »

Puisque vingt ans plus tard, de nombreux médias s’apprêtent à ouvrir des débats à l’occasion du 40e anniversaire du mouvement (lequel coïncide avec le 60e anniversaire de l’État d’Israël) j’offre ci-dessous aux lecteurs l’intégralité de ce papier qui peut servir d’entrée en matière au débat qui s’amorce. Je précise que la revue Passages qui a organisé le colloque en 1988, est une revue juive.

Voici donc l’article du Monde daté du 12 juillet 1988 :

« Mai 68 fut un appel messianique, écho du messianisme juif. Telle est la thèse qu’ont développée les participants au colloque organisé par la revue Passages, le jeudi 7 juillet à Paris sur le thème : “Mai 68, une révolution juive ?”. Plusieurs personnalités politiques et historiens ont tenté de répondre à la question : pourquoi y avait-il autant de juifs parmi les dirigeants du mouvement étudiant de mai. Ou plutôt : y avait-il un lien cohérent entre cet engagement et leur origine juive ? Rappelant que le phénomène s’était déjà produit dans l’histoire, par référence à la composition du bureau politique du parti bolchevik, en 1917, M. Henri Weber a expliqué que mai 68 avait été une grande poussée à trois dimensions :”démocratique et libertaire”, “hédoniste, contre l’ordre moral et la rationalité capitaliste”, et, “romantique et messianique”. C’est cette troisième dimension qui permet d’expliquer l’implication des jeunes juifs dans la direction du mouvement et les organisations d’extrême gauche. Plus jeunes, ils ont reçu une “éducation juive laïque”, porteuse d’un certain messianisme et “qui faisait que les jeunes juifs étaient plus réceptifs au discours révolutionnaire”. Cette éducation leur a inculqué l’image d’une société “absolument mauvaise” qu’on ne peut améliorer et qu’il fallait subvertir : ” L’histoire est un long périple qui va d’un âge d’or (le communisme primitif) à un autre âge d’or (la société sans classe), à travers une vallée de larmes (la lutte de classes).” Il fallait donc se battre pour “une société nouvelle d’où le mal était extirpé”. Cette perception de la société et du changement social, donnée par le père, se structure de la même façon que la pensée messianique religieuse.

M. Daniel Linderberg a renchéri en liant ce phénomène à une culture laïque du messianisme des organisations communistes (se référant au Bund - mouvement juif révolutionnaire marxiste anti-sioniste), culture insérée dans un cadre d’analyses du mouvement ouvrier moderne. Cette attention particulière aux événements de mai s’explique également par un “besoin de justice” fort chez les juifs, à cause de la Shoa, selon M. René Frydman. Les parents de cette génération, souvent d’anciens résistants de la MOI (main d’œuvre immigrée, organisation regroupant les étrangers, pour la plupart juifs, dans la résistance communiste) ont laissé ce besoin de justice comme héritage. La nécessité de continuer leur combat a poussé les jeunes juifs à être “les premiers sensibilisés” aux phénomènes comme la guerre d’Algérie, le Viet-nam et le mouvement de mai.

M. Benjamin Stora a soutenu une thèse complémentaire : l’engagement de mai 68 traduisait une “volonté d’insertion dans la société française”. Confrontés à une société bloquée, antisémite, véritable “carcan”, ces jeunes, en se mettant en mouvement et en s’insérant, voulaient “assumer au grand jour le fait d’être juif”. Le slogan “Nous sommes tous des juifs allemands” en fut l’expression la plus parfaite. Cette volonté d’intégration fut souvent “conflictuelle”, a ajouté M. Stora; elle se traduisait à la fois par “l’affirmation de sa judaïté au grand jour” et un engagement politique parfois contradictoire (notamment au moment du développement de la solidarité avec les Palestiniens). Si l’on peut trouver un lien entre l’engagement d’un grand nombre de juifs et leur origine, cet angle unique est toutefois apparu restrictif à la majorité des participants au colloque. Comme l’a rappelé M. Alain Geismar, cette dimension n’agitait ni le gros du mouvement, ni ses dirigeants”. M. Weber a souligné aussi que, malgré une participation active des juifs dans les organisations d’extrême gauche, “tout particularisme était effacé dans les mouvements révolutionnaires” par leur universalisme. Pour autant, “la question du judaïsme n’était nullement occultée”. Et de préciser :”nous étions des juifs glorieux plutôt que des juifs honteux !”. »

Source: Gabriel Enkiri Voir son blog

Sur ce blog:

Du trotskyisme au néoconservatisme

Obama et le retour des néocons

Pourquoi personne ne dit qu'ils sont juifs?

PNAC king Kristol
Antisioniste, mais seulement en apparence

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Le lobby qui n'existe pas

Elisabeth Lévy critique Cukierman qui (au dîner du Crif) semblait vouloir donner des ordres à Sarkozy

L'opinion scandaleuse du cinéaste Autant Lara

[Documentaire] Sans forme de politesse: regard sur la mouvance Dieudonné

Friday, May 29, 2009

La conspiration du 11 septembre: Hollywood avait tout prévu dès 1996

"Souviens-toi Charlie" (version québécoise)

"Au Revoir À Jamais" (version française)

"The Long Kiss Good Night" (V.O., USA, 1996)

Pour un meilleur son:

En résumé, l'agent du gouvernement explique qu'à cause des coupures faites par le Congrès dans le budget concernant le Moyen-Orient, il leur a fallu engager des fous dangereux et des terroristes, leur faisant commettre des attentats pour pouvoir obtenir leur hausse de budget escomptée (opération "Lune de Miel"). L'agent explique que la CIA était derrière les attentats de 1993 au WTC, qu'elle aurait pavé la voie aux terroristes arabes. Dans son procès, un des Arabes a dit que la CIA avait été informée avant les attaques... Ça fait marrer l'agent qui précise qu'en fait c'était aussi un agent de la CIA qui avait validé/fourni les passeports des terroristes! Selon lui, "il est pas impensable qu'ils aient pavé la voie aux terroristes pour obtenir plus de budget du Congrès". Mr Henessey (Samuel L. Jackson) s'exclame: "vous allez faire un faux attentat terroriste pour extorquer de l'argent du Congrès?" L'agent du gouvernement répond: "entre vous et moi, monsieur Henessey, je ne vois pas comment faire 'semblant" de tuer 4000 personnes... Nous allons devoir le faire pour vrai. Nous blâmerons les musulmans naturellement et j'obtiendrai mes subventions..."

C'est très exactement cela qui s'est passé.

De nombreuses sources, la plupart publiées après le 11 septembre, sont venues confirmer ces faits. Constatez cela en lisant cet article de Michael Collins Piper au sujet des attentats du WTC de 1993 et de ses connexions avec les attentats du 11 septembre.

En résumé: Comme l'a révélé l'ancien agent du Mossad Victor Ostrovsky dans The Other Side of Deception, les moudjahidines ont été entraînés par les soins du Mossad, avec de l'argent de la CIA. Le présumé cerveau des attaques de 1993 au WTC, Ramsi Yousef, le neveu du présumé cerveau du 11 septembre Khalid Cheik Mohammed, a collaboré étroitement avec un agent double avéré du Mossad, Ahmad Ajaj (c'est même dans la voiture de ce dernier que fut retrouvé le fameux manuel de pilotage écrit en Arabe).

traduction GOOGLE:

Le chef des opérations d'Al-Qaida
a un passé surprenant

Michael Collins Piper
American Free Press

Dans le numéro du 19 avril, American Free Press a mentionné le fait rarement rapporté selon quoi Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, le prétendu chef des opérations du réseau terroriste Al-Qaida, aurait dit à ses interrogateurs que les tours Sears à Chicago étaient visées elles aussi par d'Al-Qaïda -- un fait très significatif à la lumière de la preuve que des opérateurs israéliens, lesquels ont été mis en garde à vue sur le sol américain à la suite des attentats terroristes du 11 septembre, avaient des bandes vidéos détaillées de la tour Sears. Cette semaine, l'American Free Press apporte la suite de ces détails peu connus de l'historique de Mohammed.

Deuxième d'une série

Il y a un détail à propos du présumé chef des opérations d'Al-Qaida Khalid Sheikh Mohammed qui, bien qu'il ait été rapporté dans les médias, ne reçoit jamais l'attention qui lui est dû: Mohammed est l'oncle de Ramzi Yousef, le présumé cerveau derrière le premier attentat terroriste de 1993 contre le World Trade Center (WTC) et qui a souvent été « lié » par certaines sources aux bombardements de l'édifice Murrah à Oklahoma City en 1995.

Une croyance largement répandue suggère que le neveu de Mohammed, Yousef, était en fait un agent secret des services de renseignement d'Al-Qaida, le Mossad. En outre, c'est un fait des plus inconfortables que Yousef a travaillé en étroite collaboration avec un agent confirmé du Mossad, Ahmad Ajaj, dans le premier attentat du World Trade Center.

Donc la question est de savoir si Mohammed, comme son neveu et collaborateur de longue date, a été effectivement un secret agent-double du Mossad opérant dans un réseau arabe et musulman. Voyons quelques faits.

Pendant des années, il y a eu beaucoup de questions sans réponse quant aux arrières-plans ethniques ou culturels de Yousef, sans pas parler de son identité. Il a été décrit de plusieurs manières comme un "Irakien" ou comme un ressortissant Koweïtien, ou comme un Baloutche du Pakistan.

À l'époque où Yousef prétendant être un Irakien, au cours de sa période d'opérateur à New York juste avant la première attaque du WTC, des Arabes se sont mis à en douter. Toutefois, pour ceux qui étaient désireux d'établir un lien entre Saddam Hussein et l'Irak avec les deux attentats contre le WTC et, comme certains le font encore aujourd'hui, à l'attentat d'Oklahoma City, la prétention de Yousef au patrimoine iraquien tombait bien.

Selon un rapport d'enquête d'Emily Fancher, de l'École Graduée de Journalisme de l'Université Columbia: "l'identité de Yousef n'a jamais été déterminée par le tribunal." Donc la vérité est que pas même le gouvernement des États-Unis n'a pas déterminé -- du moins officiellement -- si Youssef est vraiment un Arabe ou un musulman ou d'un Baloutche.

Ce qui rend cette anomalie peu rapportée si intéressante est que l'évaluation anciennement secrète de la CIA, daté de mars 1979, des renseignements étrangers d'Israël et des services de sécurité, a signalé, candidement, que c'est une politique de longue date pour les renseignements israéliens de déguiser des Juifs en Arabes. Le rapport de la CIA affirme:

"L'un des objectifs des services de renseignement et de sécurité est que chaque agent de maîtrise l'arabe. Un cours intensifs de neuf mois de langue arabe est donné chaque année. . . aux étudiants. . . .

Comme formation additionnelle, ces officiers du Mossad travaillent dans les [terres arabes contrôlées par Israël] pendant deux ans pour renforcer leurs compétences linguistiques. . . .

Beaucoup d'Israéliens sont venus de pays arabes où ils sont nés et élevés et paraissent plus Arabes qu'Israéliens. . .

En forgeant des passeports et des documents d'identité des pays arabes et occidentaux et en fournissant des historiques et légendes raisonnables de couverture, le Mossad a envoyé avec succès, en Egypte et autres pays arabes, des Israéliens avec des papiers et des déguisements Arabes ou de citoyens de pays européens. . . .

Ces personnes sont également utiles pour leur capacité à passer complètement pour un citoyen de la nation en question.

Le talent israélien pour la contrefaçon ou la falsification des passeports et des documents supporte bien l'authenticité de l'agent.

Comme si cela ne suffisait pas à éveiller les soupçons, le 29 septembre 1998, le journaliste israélien Yossi Melman, écrivant pour le journal israélien Ha'aretz, a révélé:

"Des agents du Shin Bet, qui ont infiltré le secteur israélo-arabe dans les années 1950, allaient aussi loin que de marier des femmes musulmanes et avoir des enfants avec eux, dans le dessein de poursuivre leur mission sans éveiller de soupçons."

Donc, la question demeure: les personnes connues sous le nom de Mohammed et Yousef sont-elles réellement ce qui elles prétendent, et sont-elles vraiment Arabes ou Baloutches ou Musulmanes?

Et si l'équipe oncle-et-neveu sont vraiment des Arabes et des musulmans, le fait que le neveu, Yousef, travaillait en étroite collaboration avec un agent confirmé des renseignements israéliens actif dans le premier attentat du WTC est encore digne d'intérêt en effet, surtout considérant que l'agent israélien en question était lui-même Arabe.

Voici les faits sur la connexion de Yousef au mossad relativement à la première tragédie du WTC, tel que révélés pour la première fois par Robert I. Friedman dans l'article du 3 août 1993, paru dans Village Voice, un hebdo indépendant newyorkais de gauche dont les rapports ont été référencés par l'American Free Press.

Friedman a rapporté que le copagnon de voyage et proche collaborateur de Yousef, Ajaj, un Palestinien de Cisjordanie de 27 ans détenu dans une prison fédérale pour complot visant à faire sauter le World Trade Center, pourrait avoir été une taupe du Mossad.

Ajaj a été arrêté à l'aéroport Kennedy le 1er septembre 1992, après être débarqué d'un vol international pakistanais de Peshawar portant sur lui un faux passeport suédois et des manuels de fabrication de bombes. Il a été mis en garde à vue et a par la suite plaidé coupable d'être entré au pays illégalement. Le compagnon de voyage d'Ajaj était Yousef.

Bien que le FBI ait identifié Aja comme un des hauts terroristes de l'Intifada ayant des liens avec le Hamas, l'organisation fondamentaliste islamique palestinienne, Kol Ha'ir, un hebdo hébreu respecté publié à Jérusalem, a indiqué qu'Ajaj n'a jamais été impliqué dans des activités de l'Intifada ou avec le Hamas ou même avec l'Organisation de libération de la Palestine (OLP).

Au lieu de cela, selon Kol Ha'ir, Ajaj était un petit escroc arrêté en 1988 pour avoir contrefait des dollars américains dans Jérusalem-Est. Ajaj a été reconnu coupable de contrefaçon et fut ensuite condamné à deux ans et demi de prison.

Selon Friedman, écrivant dans The Village Voice: "C'est au cours de son séjour en prison que le Mossad, la CIA en Israël, l'aurait apparemment recruté, affirment des sources de renseignements israéliens. À l'époque où il a été libéré après avoir purgé seulement un an, il avait apparemment subi une transformation radicale. "

Friedman a déclaré que Ajaj était soudainement devenu un fervent musulman et un fervent nationaliste pur et dur. Ensuite, Ajaj a été arrêté pour contrebande d'armes en Cisjordanie, supposément pour le Fatah, une sous-division de l'OLP.

Mais Friedman affirme que cela était en fait une mascarade. Les sources de Friedman dans les renseignements israéliens disent que l'arrestation et la déportation ultérieure d'Ajaj ont été « organisées par le Mossad pour établir ses qualifications en tant que militant de l'Intifada. Le Mossad aurait "chargé " Ajaj d'infiltrer des groupes palestiniens radicaux opérant en dehors d'Israël et de faire ensuite rapport à Tel Aviv. Les sources de renseignement israéliens disent qu'il n'est pas inhabituel pour le Mossad de recruter dans les rangs des criminels communs. »

Après sa déportation d'Israël, Ajaj s'est manifesté au Pakistan où il s'est retrouvé en compagnie des rebelles moudjahidines anti-Soviet en Afghanistan.

Cela rendrait encore plus crédible la possibilité qu'Ajaj ait travaillé pour le Mossad, ecar selon le numéro de septembre 1987 du Covert Action Information Bulletin, le financement et l'approvisionnement des moudjahidines n'était pas seulement "la deuxième plus importante opération" dans l'histoire de la CIA, mais c'était aussi, d'après l'ancien agent du Mossad Victor Ostrovsky (dans The Other Side of Deception), sous la supervision directe du Mossad.

Selon Ostrovsky: "c'était un pipeline complexe, car une grande partie des armes des moudjahidines ont été faites en Amérique et ont été fournies à la Fraternité musulmane directement par Israël, en utilisant comme transporteurs les Bédouins nomades qui parcouraient les zones démilitarisées dans le Sinaï."

Après les aventures d'Ajaj avec les moudjahidines, il a resurgi à New York et visait à venir en aide aux membres d'une petite clique dite "radicale" entourant le Cheikh Abdel-Rahman, lequel a été accusé d'être le cerveau des attentats à la bombe de 1993 au WTC.

Le 26 février 1993, le jour des attentats au WTC, Ajaj était "en sécurité" en prison purgeant une peine de six mois pour être entré illégalement au pays avec un faux passeport. Plus tard, ensuite, il a été inculpé pour conspiration dans l'attentat du WTC.

"Si Ajaj a été recruté par le Mossad [Friedman met l'accent], on ne sait pas s'il a continué à travailler pour l'agence d'espionnage israélien après avoir été expulsé. Une possibilité est, bien entendu, qu'en quittant Israël et en s'acocquinant aux musulmans radicaux à proximité du cheikh égyptien aveugle, sa loyauté ait changé de bord ", écrit Friedman.

"Un autre scénario est qu'il ait eu connaissance préalable des attentats du WTC, connaissance qu'il a partagé avec le Mossad, et que le Mossad, pour quelque raison que ce soit, ait gardé le secret pour lui seul. Si cela est vrai, les sources de renseignements américains spéculent que le Mossad pourrait avoir décidé de garder l'information pour eux de façon à ne pas compromettre son agent ", écrit Friedman.
Emily Fancher de l'Université Columbia a indiqué que Robert Precht, un avocat de la défense de l'un des co-accusés d'Ajaj dans le procès du WTC, a déclaré: "Nous avons estimé qu'il y avait des acteurs invisibles derrière cela. Ni les avocats de la défense, ni le gouvernement ne savait de qui il s'agissait."

Ce n'est probablement pas un hasard, compte tenu du fait que lorsque Yousef a finalement été mis en garde à vue, selon l'agent des services secrets américains Brian Parr, "il était sympathique, il semblait détendu et il semblait avoir effectivement envie de nous parler." C'est précisément ce que l'on pourrait attendre d'un agent israélien faisant son travail, diffusant la légende d'Al-Qaïda pour le bénéfice de ses commanditaires israéliens.

La possibilité d'une couverture (cover up) dans les hauts niveaux du FBI concernant l'implication israélienne dans le premier attentat au WTC doit être considérée d'autant plus que l'ancien chef de la Force Spéciale Conjointe contre le Terrorisme du FBI, qui a joué un rôle clé dans la première enquête du WTC, était Neil Herman.

Après avoir quitté le FBI, Herman a temporairement occupé le poste du défunt récent Suall Irwin, qui fut le directeur de longue date de la section "recherche des faits" pour la ligue anti-diffamation (Anti-Defamation League, ADL) du B'nai B'rith.

Al-Qaida ou Al-Mossad?

C'est pas les musulmans

Le 11 septembre n'est plus un mystère

2009: Mossad Link Found to One of Key 9-11 Hijackers

FALSE FLAGS: Template for Terror, by Michael Collins Piper


Pondering the Unthinkable: 
Were Those Hijackers Really Arabs 
or Were They Really Israeli “Mista’Arvim”?

 On Dec. 24, 2001,writing in American Free Press, I put forth an alternative theory relating to 9-11 that—in the end—resulted in some international political reverberations.
Right up front, in my article for AFP, I asked these provocative questions:
Were those hijackers really Arabs? Would Israeli agents carry out a suicide mission that could cost American Jewish lives? My article challenged readers of AFP to consider some little-known facts:
In 1986 the New York-based leader of the terrorist Jewish Defense League, Victor Vancier, gave a prophetic hint of what may have been finally played out on Sept. 11, 2001:
If you think the Shiites in Lebanon are capable of fantastic acts of suicidal terrorism, the Jewish underground will strike targets that will make Americans gasp: “How could Jews do such things?”
According to Vancier—quoted by Robert I. Friedman in The Village Voice on May 6, 1986—his allies were “desperate people” who “don’t care if they live or die.”
Considering this warning it is entirely conceivable the “Middle Eastern” men purportedly described by the ill-fated passengers on the 9-11 airliners were not Arabs at all.
In fact, these hijackers could well have been Israeli-sponsored fundamentalist Jewish fanatics (posing as“bin Laden Arabs”) hoping to instigate an all-out war U.S.war against the Arab world.
“Jewish suicide bombers? Impossible!” the critics cried.
However, the fact is that there has been a “suicide tradition” that is much-revered part of Jewish history—going back to the famous mass suicide at Masada (however apocryphal) by Jewish zealots.
But in modern times, Israeli suicide missions have indeed been undertaken by officers of Israeli intelligence.
In The Other Side of Deception former Mossad officer Victor Ostrovsky described one 1989 venture: the participants were “all volunteers” advised that there was effectively “no possibility of rescue should they be caught.”And that is a suicide mission, by any definition.
What about the Arabic language heard on one airplane’s black box?
Some naive critics of my thesis immediately pointed out that the hijackers spoke Arabic., proving they were Arabs, not nice Jewish boys on a  highly-unlikely suicide mission on behalf of Israel’s survival.
However, those critics failed to consider a formerly secret CIA assessment, Israel: Foreign Intelligence and Security Services, dated March 1979,which reported that it had been a long-standing policy for Israeli intelligence to disguise Jews as Arabs:
One of the established goals of the intelligence and security services is that each officer be fluent in Arabic.
A nine-month, intensive Arabic language course is given annually . . . to students . . .
As further training, these Mossad officers work in the [Israeli-controlledArab lands] for two years to sharpen their language skills. . . .
Many Israelis have come from Arab countries where they were born and educated and appear more Arab than Israeli . . .
By forging passports and identity documents of Arab and western countries and providing sound background legends and cover, Mossad has successfully sent into Egypt and other Arab countries Israelis disguised and documented as Arabs or citizens of European countries. . . .
These persons are also useful for their ability to pass completely for a citizen of the nation in question.
The Israeli talent for counterfeiting or forging foreign passports and documents ably supports the agent’s authenticity.
And note this: 
Famed Pulitzer Prize-winner Jack Anderson—a vocal supporter of Israel and by no means an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist—wrote in his syndicated column on Sept. 17, 1972 that:
Israeli agents—immigrants whose families had lived in Arab lands for generations—have a perfect knowledge of Arab dialects and customs.They have been able to infiltrate Arab governments with ease.
Or consider this revelation from Israeli journalist, Yossi Melman, writing—on Sept. 29, 1998 in Israel’s Ha’aretz—of the intrigues of Israel’s domestic intelligence service, the Shin Bet:
Shin Bet agents,who worked undercover in the Israeli-Arab sector in the 1950s,went as far as to marry Muslim women and have children with them, in an attempt to continue their mission without raising suspicion.
Melman and his co-author, Dan Raviv, writing in their book, Spies Against Armageddon: Inside Israel’s Secret Wars, described this Shin Bet mission in detail:
In 1952, Shin Bet formed a highly secret unit of young Jews who were trained to behave asArabs and live in Arab towns and neighborhoods in Israel.
They were given fake identities and planted in such places as Nazareth and Jaffa to be the eyes and ears of the Shin Bet.
Their bosses called them“mista’arvim,”coining a new word by combining mistavim (Hebrew for “masqueraders”) and Aravim (the word for “Arabs”).
One of the main goals was to have trusted Israelis on the inside, in case a war were to break out and Israeli Arabs were to join the enemy.
Shmuel “Sami”Moriah, a senior Shin Bet officer who came to Israel from Iraq and had plenty of experience smuggling Jews out of his native country, led the unit. He recruited 10 other Iraqi-born men for this highly demanding mission.
With detailed cover stories about returning to Palestine after fleeing abroad in the 1948 war, they were sent into Arab villages and cities.Their genuine parents, siblings, and friends in Israel were kept in the dark about their whereabouts and activities.
These Shin Bet agents became so integrated in community life that it was fully expected by neighbors and village elders that they would get married—and most of them did.
Moriah said that he left the decision to each man, but “it seemed suspicious that young vigorous men would stay alone, without a spouse.When we sent them on the mission we didn’t order them to marry,but it was clear to both sides that there is such an expectation, and that it would help the job they were doing.”
The elders introduced them to eligible youngArab women.
They had the brief courtship typical in conservative Arab societies.
And most of the 10 men married, not ever telling their wives that they were Jewish Israelis.
As time passed, the intelligence from this daring deception proved to be almost worthless. Shin Bet wanted to call off the mission. But now Shin Bet had a tough problem.
“The double life they were living cost them a lot, emotionally,” said [Shin Bet Director Amos] Manor, who created this project but then backed away after seven years.“I saw that the price is not worth it and decided to put an end to it.”
The unit was disbanded by 1959, but the ramifications haunted Shin bet for years. The Muslim wives were informed that their husbands were actually Jewish—and, perhaps even worse, government agents—and then the women were given a choice of being sent to an Arab country, to avoid any local retaliation, or being resettled with their husbands in Jewish communities in Israel.
Almost all chose to stay with their husbands, even in the very changed circumstances. Some of the wives needed and got psychological counseling. 
So the idea that latter-day Israeli “mista’arvim” (also sometimes rendered as “mista-aravim”) may have been utilized in the 9-11 hijackings and the related intrigues surrounding the 9-11 tragedy has some very real foundation, no matter what the critics might otherwise contend.
In fact, serious questions have been raised about the identities of the Sept. 11 “Arab hijackers.”
While the media reported the ringleader’s passport conveniently landed atop rubble eight blocks from “Ground Zero,” The Orlando Sentinel also reported that at least four men identified as hijackers were not dead and had nothing to do with the attacks—that others unknown had stolen the identities of those individuals and used those identities during the 9-11 attacks.
And the fact remains that, to this day, there is really no firm evidence of precisely who the individuals were who were aboard (or purported to be aboard) the 9-11 airliners that day. We really don’t know if they were Arabs or even if they were the specific Arabs that they were said to be. Nor can it be discounted, as we’ve suggested, that at least some of them could have been Jewish assets of the Mossad, posing as Arabs. But it gets even murkier. In The NewYorker on Oct. 8, 2001 Pulitzer Prize winner Seymour Hersh pointed out:
Many of the investigators believe that some of the initial clues about the terrorists’ identities and preparations, such as flight manuals, were meant to be found. A former high-level intelligence official told me, “Whatever trail was left was left deliberately—for the FBI to chase.”
Why Arabs would plant evidence implicating their own is an interesting point the mainstream media chose not to address.
Nor has the media ever identified to a grateful nation the unnamed citizen who tipped off the FBI where the hijackers’ car (conveniently filled with“evidence”) was parked,having had a chance encounter with the hijackers at an airport parking lot. That story—much-ballyhooed by the media on Sept. 11—was quickly dispatched to the Memory Hole.
Hersh also raised questions about whether or not bin Laden’s network was capable of carrying out the terrorist attack alone.Hersh noted that a senior military officer had suggested to him that, in Hersh’s words, “a major foreign intelligence service might also have been involved.”
And while Hersh did not point any fingers anywhere, a reader familiar with Hersh’s past history of pinpointing intrigue by Israel’s Mossad could perhaps read between the lines and guess at which foreign nation Hersh’s source might, however obliquely, be alluding.
And for those who doubted that Israel would endanger American Jews via terrorism, consider this:hard-line Israelis are willing to kill Jews if it means assuring Israel’s survival.
The late Rabbi Meir Kahane—founder of the the Jewish Defense League, and a spiritual mentor of hard-line fundamentalists in Israel—exemplified those willing to sacrifice other Jews to guarantee Israel’s future.Kahane called for killing “Hellenist [i.e.Western-oriented] spiritually sick [Jews] who threaten the existence of Judaism.”And needless to say, that would include those Jews working in slick offices in the World Trade Center, living on Long Island, rather than kibbutzing in Israel.
Israeli journalistYair Kotler reported in his book, Heil Kahane, that Kahane wrote that “the adoption of foreign, gentilized [i.e. non-Jewish] concepts by a Jewish state . . . opens the door to a national tragedy.”
In his own book, Time to Go Home, Kahane called for all Jews to “go home” to Israel—the only safe place for Jews.Those who refused to “go home” were not safe and expendable. The CIA’s 1979 report on Israeli intelligence said this widely-held view mirrors “the aggressively ideological nature of Zionism.”
In fact, this Jewish attitude toward the West (exactly what the media says is the Islamic attitude) has support at the Mossad’s top levels.
In The False Prophet, his biography of Rabbi Kahane, the late Robert I.Friedman revealed that“high-ranking members of Mossad”were directing Kahane and that the “central player” was former Mossad operations chief (and later prime minister) Yitzhak Shamir, an often hateful critic of the United States America.
When Kahane said America would become “the major enemy of Israel,” due to “economic disintegration which no administration can stem,” he enunciated a popular Israeli view, one which is not widely known, particularly to American Christian supporters of Israel.
In his Kahane biography, Friedman noted that Kahane’s views “have taken root and have become ‘respectable,’” and that right-wing Israeli leader Ariel Sharon was one of the “most potent supporters” of such extremism. In the Oct. 15, 2001 issue of the stridently pro-Israel New Republic, Israeli writer Yossi Klein Halevi echoed this view:
The destruction of the World Trade Center has partially rehabilitated, if only by default, the Zionist promise of safe refuge for the Jewish people.
In the last year, it had become a much-noted irony that Israel was the country where a Jew was most likely to be killed for being a Jew.
For many, the United States had beckoned as the real Jewish refuge; in a poll taken just before the bin Laden attacks, 37 percent of Israelis said their friends or relatives were discussing emigration.That probably changed on Sept. 11.
I was among the thousands of Israelis who crowded Kennedy Airport on the weekend after the attack, desperate to find a flight to Tel Aviv. “At least we’re going back where it’s safe,” people joked.
Everyone seemed to have a story about an Israeli living in NewYork who just barely escaped the devastation. If this could happen in Manhattan, the reasoning went, you might as well take your chances at home.
What Halevi described reflects the widespread ideology known as “catastrophic Zionism” which rejects America, saying Israel is the only safe Jewish refuge.
In The Ascendance of Israel’s Radical Right, Israeli scholar Ehud Sprinzak asserted that these views are“a major school”of modern Israeli thought. Sprinzak described the Israeli movement, Sikarikin,which honors ancient Jews who “conducted a systematic terror campaign against Jewish moderates who were ready to come to terms with the Romans on questions of religious purity.” Israelis consider these terrorists “the symbolic defenders of religious and nationalist purity.”
Another popular rabbi, Israel Ariel,would risk massive loss of Jewish lives to achieve the “elimination” of the Arab countries to guarantee Israel’s survival.The hawkish rabbi once proclaimed:
There is a ruling that a war is permitted as long as no more than one-sixth of the nation be killed. And this was stated in relation to an ordinary war, a fight between neighbors.
A war for Eretz Israel does not depend on the number of casualties. The command is “Ase!” (“Do it!”), and you may be sure that the number of casualties will thus be minimal.
As far as non-Jews, Sprinzak cited Rabbi David Bar-Haim who declared that the concept that Jews and non-Jews are equals “stands in total contrast to the Torah of Moses, and is derived from a total ignorance and an assimilation of alien Western values.”
Ben-Haim cited ten religious authorities who “repeatedly proposed that Gentiles are more beast than human,”whereas,“only two authorities recognize non-Jews as full human beings created in the image of God.”
Bear in mind: these comments from supposed “allies” represent widespread opinion in Israel’s military and intelligence services.
And should anyone still doubt the concept of right-wing Israeli “suicide bombers” (posing as Arabs) orchestrating the events of Sept. 11, consider Israel’s own effective contingency plan for national suicide.
Most Americans have no idea that the possibility of a full-fledged nuclear “suicide bombing”by the state of Israel itself is a cornerstone of Israel’s national security policy.This policy is better known by what the aforementioned Seymour Hersh referred to, in his book by the same name, as “the Samson Option.”
As Hersh documented—and which Israeli historian Avner Cohen has confirmed in even more in-depth detail in his own book, Israel and the Bomb—Israel’s entire national defense policy (from its inception) was framed around the development of a nuclear bomb.As Hersh made clear, the Israelis are essentially willing, if necessary, to “blow up the world”—including themselves—if they have to do so in order to defeat their Arab foes if they perceive that Israel’s survival is actually in danger.
The so-called “Samson Option” for Israel is based on the story of Samson in the Bible who—after being captured by the Philistines—brought down Dagon’sTemple in Gaza and killed himself along with his enemies.This is what Hersh notes Israeli nuclear planners considered "the Samson Option"—that, as Samson of the Bible, after being captured by the Philistines,brought down Dagon'sTemple in Gaza and killed himself along with his enemies. As Hersh put it: "For Israel's nuclear advocates, the Samson Option became another way of saying 'Never again."
In his book Open Secrets—a study of Israel’s strategic foreign policy—Israeli writer Israel Shahak wrote that, contrary to general perception, Israel does not seek peace. It is a myth,he said, that there is any real difference between the supposedly “conflicting”policies being pursued by the “opposing” Likud and Labor blocs whose rivalries, played out on the global stage, have overflowed into the American political process.
Shahak contended that the Israeli lobby in the United States—with all its often-seemingly diverse factions—is ultimately propping up Israel’s policy of expansionism with the final aim of consolidating “Eretz Israel”—an imperial state in control of practically the entire Middle East.
Based almost entirely on public pronouncements in the Hebrew language press in Israel, Shahak’s provocative volume points out that what the Israeli government tells its own people about its policies is entirely inconsistent with Israel’s insistence to the West and the world at large that Israel “wants peace.” In Shahak’s informed judgment:
One cannot understand Israel until one understands Israel is essentially a militarist state and an un-democratic one at that, evidenced by the second-class status accorded its Arab inhabitants and those Christian and Muslim Palestinians in occupied territories.The nation’s very foundation rests upon its military and defense policies, which, as Shahak makes clear, ultimately stem from the fanatic religious tendencies dictating the thinking of its military and intelligence leaders who are the prime movers behind the engine of state.
Although Israel is quite capable of forging temporary (and often covert) alliances and strategic arrangements even with Arab or Muslim states—even to the point of dealing with the hated Saddam Hussein when it was in Israel’s immediate interest and even, at one point, with the Islamic Republic of Iran—the bottom line is, quite simply, that—as Shahak demonstrates quite chillingly—Israel will say and do anything to pursue its determined goal of winning total domination at all costs. If it fails, Israel is perfectly willing to choose “the Samson Option.”
Thus, it seems, when Winston Churchill said that the Jews suffered from a strong impulse of self-destruction, he was not far off the mark.
So the idea that Israeli Jews under the discipline of Israeli intelligence may indeed have postured as Arabs on Sept. 11, leading the illfated 9-11 airliners to their destruction, is not quite so easily discounted.
Therefore, my report on the possibility that “mista’arvim” Jews, working for the Mossad, had actually been the “real” 9-11 hijackers—or, at the very least, manipulating geuine “bin Laden Muslims” in some aspect of the 9-11 conspiracy—had some very real and very solid historical and geopolitical foundation.
Despite this, even a lot of folks who suspected Israeli involvement in 9-11 seemed to avoid mentioning this possibility. It seems that many of them preferred more exotic, less simple, explanations.
The truth is that so many 9-11 truth seekers preferred to dabble in endless debates about forensic matters relating to 9-11 that are, in most respects, far beyond the understanding of the average person and which thus have very little impact in awakening Americans to 9-11 truth.
And, in fact, one can find genuine “experts” who take completely opposite positions on these issues, with both (or, as the case may be, multiple) contrary arguments all seeming to put forth logical and scientifically-based explanations for the “truth” they have uncovered.
The bottom-line consequence of all of this is that 9-11 truthers find themselves in a bind, arguing among themselves over such matters as “what actually brought down the trade towers” and getting distracted from the real question at hand: WHO did it?
In fact, my speculation relating to the possibility that Israeli Jews were posing as “Arabs” on 9-11—first published in American Free Press, on Dec. 24, 2001—was actually picked up and—on Dec. 31, 2001—republished in its entirety by Arab News, an influential English-language newspaper of the Saudi Arabian government.And the story was subsequently picked up by Arab-language newspapers elsewhere.
That the the publication of my article by the Saudi government-sponsored journal set in motion a little-publicized (but politically significant) international controversy is, in itself (I think) quite telling indeed. After Arab News published the article, the U.S.government made an official demand that the Saudis repudiate any suggestion the hijackers were anything other than Arabs. My article apparently hit too close to the mark (and to this day, I think it may very well have been a bulls-eye).
But while many American critics would, naturally, say it was no surprise that an Arab media voice might take heart in the thesis that Israeli agents (posing as Arabs) might put themselves forward as suicide bombers, the thought of a Jewish Israeli suicide bomber is not something considered beyond the pale by the average Israeli.
In fact, the concept of a devoutly-religious Israeli suicide bomber was the talk of Israel for several years in the wake of the release of a blockbuster Israeli-made motion picture, Time of Favor. The Hebrew language film was not only a major hit, but it also captured six prizes in the Israeli Academy Awards, including best picture, best screenplay, best actor and best actress—quite an accomplishment indeed.
What is interesting is that Time of Favor was scheduled for release in NewYork theaters in September of 2001, but in the wake of the Sept. 11 “suicide bombing” tragedy that rocked the Big Apple and the world, the premiere was shelved. And according to the New York-based Forward, the respected Jewish newspaper, the film had even been played on flights of Israel’s El Al airlines.
The drama told the story of a brilliant Orthodox rabbinical student who—when rebuffed in romance—launched a plan to stage a suicide bombing under Israel’s Temple Mount, the site which has been a longstanding point of contention between Israel and the Muslim world.
Forward noted, intriguingly, that “central to the drama” is a character, an Orthodox rabbi, “for whom the Orthodox Zionist soldiers are disciples as well as students.”
The balance of the film told of the effort to stop the fanatic from carrying out his scheme which, if successful, could have sparked a major war,ushering in the Armageddon that Christian fundamentalists pray for.
Joseph Cedar, the film’s director, admitted to Forward that American audiences might find the film unsettling. “It’s about putting the Jews on the terrorist side, which is a reality, but it’s not a thing that American Jews, for example, are used to hearing. It’s about suspecting Jews of belonging to a terrorist group.”
What Forward did not mention was that most Americans—including those who lost friends and family in the 9-11 attacks—will probably never see the film which played largely in small “art” houses and in theaters catering to “Jewish-interest” audiences. And therefore, of course, they will never realize that Jewish boys can be suicide bombers, too.
Nor likewise will most Americans probably ever know one of the biggest secrets of the 20th Century—one carefully buried by the most influential media voices of our times: The fact that on Oct. 18, 1983 a Jewish Israeli suicide bomber, strapped with explosives,was captured in the spectators’ gallery of the U.S. House of Representatives in the U.S. Capitol in Washington. When it happened, it barely made the news.
Until I personally first unveiled this story to a national audience in the September 30, 2002 issue of American Free Press, anyone using the popular “Google” search engine on the Internet would have not found even a single mention of this little-known event.
Since that time, however, word of the story has begun to spread, thanks to people who read my report in American Free Press (or a later reference to it in my book, The Confessions of an Anti-Semite) and who subsequently distributed the information via the Internet.
However, despite the fact that Americans know all about “Muslim suicide bombers”—particularly in the wake of the 9-11 tragedy—the little-known story of an Israeli suicide bomber inside the United States Capitol building remains largely unknown.
Even The Washington Post—the newspaper of record in the nation’s capital—buried the story in its Oct. 19, 1983“Metro” section on page C13—across from the obituaries and next to a story about local political candidates in Fairfax County, Virginia. Evidently an attempt to bomb the U.S. Capitol—by an Israeli, anyway—wasn’t front page news.
The Post story about the Israeli attempt to bomb the Capitol was headlined “Man Arrested in U.S. Capitol After Alleged Bomb Threat”—note that it was “only” an “alleged” threat—and reported as follows:
A 22-year-old man was arrested in the public gallery of the House of Representatives during a roll-call vote yesterday after he allegedly threatened to blow up the building, U.S. Capitol police said.
The man, whom police said carried an Israeli passport indicating he had arrived in this country two weeks ago, was removed from the gallery without incident and taken downstairs to be questioned.
There, police said, they found the man had two soft-drink bottles filled with a powdered substance attached to his belt and wired to an apparently operative detonating cap.
Police said they charged Israel Rubinowits with threatening to kidnap a person or cause bodily harm in the incident, pending arraignment today in D.C. Superior Court.
The incident occurred about 1:30 pm as House members were in the chamber voting on a measure that would allow the U.S.Treasury to strike and sell a medal commemorating Vietnam veterans.The measure passed 410-0.
The man was sitting in House Gallery 10, an area of about 75 seats located in the far left corner of the chamber from the speaker’s platform, among a public tour group of about 50 persons when detectives noticed he was acting suspiciously and mumbling to himself, officials said.As the officers approached the man, officials said, he allegedly threatened to blow up the building.
Officials said the bottles and suspected detonator were turned over to demolition experts for examination, but it was unclear late last night whether they could have caused an explosion.
Rubinowits was being held last night in the central cell block at police headquarters. Officials said they [had] no additional information about his background.
On Nov. 2—nearly two weeks after the attempted suicide bombing—America’s most prestigious newspaper, The NewYork Times, finally deemed it appropriate to report on the story—buried on page A-22, hardly the front page of the distinguished daily.
And weirdly (or perhaps not so weirdly) a check of The New York Times online will find that the story (as indexed by the Times) is titled “Bomb Carrier Found in U.S. Home Prompts Tightened Security.” So according to the headline in the Times, the story was about a bomb found in a “home”—not the U.S. House of Representatives!
But the story did, in fact, tell of the Israeli suicide bomber in the House, raising the question as to why the word“home”—rather than the word “House”—somehow managed to be used “mistakenly” in a newspaper not generally perceived to be rife with typographical atrocities.
Wayne Todd, editor of the National Legislative Service & Security Association,noted in the Nov.1983 issue of his newsletter that the story of the Israeli suicide bomber’s attempt to detonate his weapon of terrorism inside the Capitol was “virtually ignored by the media.”
In any event, on Nov. 9—less than a month afterward—a bomb did explode near the Senate Chamber inside the U.S. Capitol, blowing the doors off a room leading to the offices of then-Senate Minority Leader Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.).The explosion took place just seven to nine minutes after a caller phoned Byrd’s office and warned a bomb was about to explode. Media reports said a group calling itself the “Armed Resistance Unit” claimed credit, saying its motive was to protest the U.S. invasion of Grenada and the presence of U.S.Marines in Lebanon.
Why Byrd—not known as a major advocate of U.S. intervention abroad—was the target was never explained. However, considering the fact Byrd was one of the few members of Congress in recent times to challenge Israel’s “war lobby” in Washington, there is always the possibility the bombing (apparently aimed at Byrd) was an Israeli “false flag” to shift the focus of blame elsewhere and hide Israel’s culpability.
In 1998 even the Legislative Resource Center (LRC) of the House of Representatives had “no further information” on what happened to the would-be Israeli suicide bomber after he was charged with, in the LRC’s words,“making threats.”However, The Titusville (Pennsylvania) Herald, reported on Jan.9,1986—long after the 1983 incident—that Rubinowits had been deported to Israel,much like the Dancing Israelis of 9-11. But even the Herald’ contained the report about the Israeli bomber amidst a longer story focusing on Arab terrorism!
Although I am not prepared to suggest that the young Israeli captured in the U.S. Capitol was acting as an asset of Israel when he engaged in his failed suicide mission—obviously I have no proof that he was—the possibility should not be ruled out.
However, these are the points that need to be emphasized: 1) There is a long-standing “suicide tradition” in Jewish history; 2) Modern-day Jewish zealots have talked about suicide missions; 3) There is evidence of Israeli utilization of Jews, posing as Arabs, in covert missions; and 4) Israel—as a state—is ideologically prepared to sacrifice other Jews to achieve the ultimate end of securing Israel’s survival.
Understanding these critical points is central to understanding Israel’s ultimate role in orchestrating the 9-11 terrorist tragedy.


Israel’s Agents Inside Al-Qaeda:
A Critical Element of the Mossad’s
Template for Terror in the 9-11 Conspiracy

After seven months of non-stop declarations by U.S. government spokesmen in the wake of 9-11 that there existed solid proof tying 19 Muslim men to plotting the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, FBI Director Robert Mueller actually admitted quite the opposite in a speech that he delivered to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco on April 19, 2002.
In its May 20,2002 issue, American Free Press reported this remarkable revelation which was based on a largely little-noticed report, originating with The Los Angeles Times, that was reprinted in The Washington Post on April 30.
In his speech in San Francisco, Mueller said that the purported hijackers, in his words,“left no paper trial.” The FBI director stated flatly:
In our investigation,we have not uncovered a single piece of paper—either here in the United States or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere—that mentioned any aspect of the Sept. 11 plot.
In describing Mueller’s evidence fiasco, Los Angeles Times reporters Erich Lichtblau and Josh Meyer, noted that:
Law enforcement officials say that while they have been able to reconstruct the movements of the hijackers before the attacks—all legal except for a few speeding tickets—they have found no evidence of their actual plotting.
The Times reporters acknowledged that Mueller’s comments “offer the FBI’s most comprehensive and detailed assessment to date of its investigation, remarkable as much for what investigators have not found as for what they have.”
The FBI director explained away the absence of evidence by making the disingenuous assertion that the hijackers used“meticulous planning, extraordinary secrecy and extensive knowledge of how America works” to conceal their scheme.
Mueller made this claim despite the fact that in the immediate wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, a variety of U.S. officials and media sources announced, almost instantaneously, that there was firm evidence not only that these 19 Muslim men were agents of Osama bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda “network” but that they were indeed the individuals who hijacked the doomed flights on Sept. 11.
Mueller seemed to forget that early government and media reports loudly hyped “discoveries”—letters and other documents—in the luggage and personal belongings of the presumed hijackers which “proved” that they were on a “mission for Allah,” etc etc. Now Mueller’s comments contradicted everything that had been said, everything that most Americans now assumed was “a fact.”
Government spokesmen defended the cited lack of evidence as somehow proving how professional the hijackers were, even in the face of the publicly-acknowledged scandal surrounding the fact that two of the hijackers purportedly got into the United States even though they were on a CIA terrorist “watch list.”
Skeptics rightly asked: If the 19 Muslims weren’t the hijackers, then who were? That 19 Muslim men who had apparently disappeared were named as the hijackers was not in doubt.What was in doubt is whether those 19 men were actually plotting anything, either individually or together.The amazing possibility remained that others carried out the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, using the identities of the 19 Muslims who were assigned guilt in the tragedy.
In fact, there was the possibility that someone was pretending, prior to Sept. 11, to be Muhammad Atta.This would recall the strange appearances of multiple “Lee Harvey Oswalds” in various places doing suspicious things prior to the JFK assassination.
For example, although The Washington Post reported on May 1, 2002 that longstanding claims that Atta met in Prague with a purported Iraqi intelligence officer turned out not to be true, some sort of meeting did take place, except that, according to the Post, “they were no longer certain that Atta was the person” in question. The Post cited a Bush administration official as saying that the person believed to be Atta “may be different from Atta.” So, although there was someone later identified as Atta in Prague, according to the Post,“there was no evidence Atta left or returned to the U.S.” at the time he was supposedly in Prague.
So it was that when the official 9-11 report, issued by the much-touted “blue ribbon” commission charged with the responsibility of telling the American people how and why the 9-11 attacks were able to happen, finally hit the presses—emerging as a veritable “best seller”—the truth is that it proved to be mostly a lot of fiction, based on lies and prevarications by some pretty suspect characters (as we shall see).
And that’s not to mention the additional “spin” added by a host of  “bipartisan”ghost writers, representing a bevy of special interest groups that had a keen desire to have the story of “what really happened”on 9-11 told the way they want it. (Earlier, in Chapter Twenty-One we examined how the Israeli lobby pushed a potential roadblock to its agenda out of a key post in the congressional inquiry into 9-11.)
Although Americans beat a path to bookstores to grab up copies of the 9-11 report, what few realized is that even top-notch U.S. intelligence investigators and others had raised questions—from the beginning—about how reliable the report’s primary sources really were.
For example, although the report was written in an almost grandiloquent and certainly omniscient tone, the fact is that the panoramic
overview of Osama bin Laden’s vaunted Al-Qaeda “network”was based largely on accounts provided by just two sources: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh.
While both were said to be key leaders in the 9-11 plot—with Mohammed often described as Al-Qaeda’s “operations chief”—or variations thereof—that’s about all that can be firmly said about either individual and the stories that they’ve told.
The truth is that—as even The New York Times pointed out in a quite circumspect yet still revealing story on June 17 2004: “Their accounts have stirred an unresolved debate about their credibility,” and “much of the information cited in the reports as fact is actually uncorroborated or nearly impossible to confirm.”
So even though the Times itself and every other major newspaper and magazine in America—not to mention hundreds of small town dailies—earnestly reprinted excerpts from the 9-11 report, along with extensive stories rehashing what appeared in the report, the Times’ candid characterizations went largely unnoticed.
In fact, as far as American Free Press could determine at that time, AFP was the only publication thus far to have referenced these remarkable revelations, with the exception of several Internet sources that republished the original Times story.
The truth is that there were multiple concerns regarding the reliability of the sources. First of all, the Times noted, questions have been raised as to whether Mohammed or al-Shibh was tortured or threatened with torture prior to or during their questioning.
But that actually proves to be only a minor consideration in the minds of many upper echelon intelligence analysts who have doubts about the 9-11 report. The Times pointed out:
Not all counterterrorism officials believe, for example, that Osama bin Laden exercised the kind of command over the Sept. 11 operation that is described in the report.
. . . In part, the officials said, they suspect that the captured Qaeda figures have a strong desire to play down their own roles and have been willing to make it appear that Mr. bin Laden was the dominant figure in an effort to enhance his stature.
Investigators conducted a vast analysis of communications, including cellphone, Internet and courier traffic between the Sept. 11 plotters and their confederates, like Mr. Mohammed, the officials said.
That analysis failed to show a close link between them in the months before the attacks and virtually no communication with Mr. bin Laden, a finding that contradicts [the 9-11 report].
And the truth is that, despite all of the media hoopla about bin Laden’s wide-ranging Al-Qaeda network, as far back as Nov. 5, 2001 The Washington Post itself reported that European investigators believed that the group alleged to have carried off the Sept. 11 attacks was “tightly insulated” and “had little if any contact with other Al-Qaeda terror cells in Europe.” According to the Post, investigators found that hijackers were “elite, insulated,” and that the question remained, according to one French terrorism expert, Roland Jacquard, as to who was in control:
“Who gives the order?” asked Jacquard.
Suggesting that Muhammad Atta was the ringleader, Jacquard said Atta “probably” gave the order. However, Jacquard noted,“But Atta also received instructions.And there is someone betweenAtta and the mountain” [in Afghanistan where bin Laden was said to have made his lair].”
The Post didn’t make the suggestion that perhaps this “elite, insulated” group—which didn’t seem to have any contact with the rest of the Al-Qaeda network—may have been under the actual and direct control of agents of Israel’s Mossad.
These kinds of details raised serious questions about the reliability of the official 9-11 report in and of itself.
In fact, after the capture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed—who became the primary “source” for the 9-11 commission report—the major media was rife with continuing scare stories surrounding “new revelations” about a variety of “terrorist plots.” The primary source of these stories ostensibly came from official U.S. interrogations of Mohammed.
At one point, Mohammed is reported to have claimed the Sears Tower in Chicago and the Library Tower in Los Angeles were also targets but the attacks on those structures—allegedly planned as an immediate follow-up to the terrorism of 9-11—were sidetracked because of George W. Bush’s thorough and immediate response to the 9-11 attacks.
While some might suggest that this kind of story actually plays into the Bush administration’s bid to portray itself as a forceful leader in the “war against terrorism,” Mohammed’s claim also has the perhaps unintended effect of providing fuel to the fire of belief that Israeli operatives were indeed involved in—or had foreknowledge of—the 9-11 attacks and of the impending attack on the Sears Tower.
Although the story was brushed under the rug in the wake of the 9-11 tragedies, American Free Press readers will recall that as early as Dec. 24, 2001 AFP reported that:
On Oct. 17, the Pulitzer Prize-winning Pottstown (Pennsylvania) Mercury published a story noting that “two men whom police described as Middle Eastern” were detained in in the Pottstown area (which is just northwest of Philadelphia) after being found with “detailed video footage of the Sears Tower in Chicago”—the tallest building in the world,widely mentioned as a possible terrorist target.
The Mercury did not identify the men’s nationality, but their names were Moshe Elmakias and Ron Katar. “Moshe” is a Hebrew name which is not likely to have been bestowed on a Muslim or an Arab. A woman named Ayelet Reisler, in their company, was also detained. She had a German passport in her name and medication in a different name.
The two men worked for a company known as “Moving Systems Incorporated.”And, as we’ve seen, Israeli-connected moving companies seemed to proliferate in the events surround the 9-11 tragedies, although most of the published accounts of the strange activities of the Israeli-owned moving companies focused on events surrounding the FBI’s seizure of what appears to be several groups of Israeli operatives in the New York-New Jersey area, one of which just happened to be videotaping theWTC towers as they collapsed.
Supporters of Israel protested that it was “just a coincidence” that several different suspiciously-acting groups of Israelis would be working for moving companies and have detailed videos of theWTC disaster and the Sears Tower, another potential terrorist target.
However, now that the purported Al-Qaeda chief of operations, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, had claimed that the Sears Tower was supposedly one of Al-Qaeda’s targets, the bizarre incident involving Israeli “moving company” workers in Pennsylvania with tapes of the Sears Tower in Chicago had new meaning.
The evidence, taken together, does indeed suggest that Israeli intelligence did indeed have “hands on” knowledge—at the very least—of the intentions of the terrorists who struck on American soil.
Although most “independent” 9-11 researchers fell back on the theory that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed’s claims about 9-11 were the consequence of having been tortured and made to say what he was reported to have said or, as some have contended, that the Mohammed in custody wasn’t, in fact, “the real” Mohammed, these theories very much pale behind the little-noticed and much bigger picture that so many 9-11 conspiracy theorists—the 9-11“truthers”—have missed (or otherwise deliberately ignored).
The fact is that an assembly of very real evidence suggests that Mohammed was a longtime covert Israeli intelligence asset operating inside Al-Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalist circles and that the stories he provided (ostensibly “under torture”) to the 9-11 commission were carefully-crafted“black propaganda”designed to paint Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda as the official “false flag” in the 9-11 attacks.
All of this suspicion surrounding Mohammed goes back even to the first attack on theWorld Trade Center in 1993.
Do not forget—and this is critical to recall:

It was Mohammed’s nephew (and longtime collaborator) Ramzi Yousef who was alleged to be the “brains” behind that terror bombing, and whom pro-Israel propagandists have also since claimed was “linked” to the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City in 1995.
We first met Yousef in Chapter Eighteen where we noted that when a young Palestinian named Ahmad Ajaj was arrested at Kennedy Airport in NewYork in 1992 (on passport charges) and then later indicted and convicted (after the first World Trade Center attack) with having been a conspirator in that crime,Yousef was Ajaj’s traveling companion at the time of his arrest.
But the significance of this, of course, is the fact that—as we have seen—the late investigative journalist Robert I. Friedman reported that Yousef’s associate AJaj, appeared to have been recruited as a Mossad asset and deployed as an infiltrator in Islamic fundamentalist circles.
In addition, as we have seen, there were other telling Israeli “links” to the strange circumstances surrounding both the instigation (and cover-up) of the first trade center bombing.
The bottom line is that, looking more closely at Yousef and his uncle, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed—the ostensible “mastermind” of 9-11, purportedly working on behalf of Osama bin Laden—we cannot help but conclude that these two key figures in this seeming “first family of terrorism”are the key to understanding that Israel’s Mossad did have a behind-the-scenes role in manipulating what we know as Al-Qaeda and what part (or parts) some of its lower-level operatives played in 9-11.
Going back to the first attack on theWorldTrade Center, there were, in fact, already suspicions among many Islamic elements that there was much more to Ramzi Yousef than would meet the eye.
First of all, for years, there have been questions as to RamziYousef’s actual ethnic or cultural background, not to mention his very identity.
He has variously been described (or otherwise described himself) as an “Iraqi” or as a Kuwaiti national or as a Baluchi, from Pakistan.
At the time Yousef was claiming to be an Iraqi, during his period operating in NewYork,prior to the first World Trade Center attack, there were many individuals of Arabic heritage who doubted it.
However, for those who were eager to link Saddam Hussein and Iraq to both attacks on theWorld Trade Center and, as some continue to do today, to the Oklahoma City bombing,Yousef’s claim of Iraqi heritage has been quite convenient indeed, no matter what the truth.
Even John Miller and Michael Stone and Chris Mitchell,writing in a semi-official 9-11 account, entitled The Cell: Inside the 9/11 Plot, and Why the FBI and CIA Failed to Stop It, described Yousef as “a shadowy figure whose background is still veiled in myth and controversy.”
In the end, according to an investigative report by Emily Fancher, of Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism: “Yousef’s identity was never settled in court.” So the truth is that not even the United States government has actually—at least officially—determined if Yousef really is even an Arab or a Muslim.
What makes this little-reported anomaly so interesting is that, as we noted in some detail in Chapter Twenty-Three, there is a long history of Israel utilizing“mista’arvim”—Jews posing as Arabs—as part of its intelligence operations. So a very real question remains: Are the individuals known as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi Yousef really who they say they are and are they really Arabs or Muslims at all?
And if the uncle-and-nephew team really are Arabs and/or Muslims, the fact the nephew,Yousef,was working closely with a reported Israeli intelligence asset in the first WTC attack is still noteworthy indeed, particularly since the Israeli asset in question was himself an Arab.
And it’s probably no coincidence, considering everything, that when Ramzi Yousef was finally taken into custody for his reported role in the first trade center attack, according to US Secret Service agent Brian Parr, “[Yousef] was friendly, he seemed relaxed and he actually seemed eager to talk to us.”
That’s precisely what one might expect from an Israeli agent, doing his job, spreading the Al-Qaeda legend for the benefit of his Israeli sponsors.
It also likewise reflects the seemingly quite forthcoming nature of the “revelations” that are reported to have emerged fromYousef’s uncle, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, in laying out, for the 9-11 commission, the Israeli “false flag” implicating Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda as the driving force behind the events of September 11, 2001.
Of the actual trial of the conspirators in the first trade center bombing, the aforementioned Emily Fancher of Columbia University reported that Robert Precht, one of the defense lawyers, said that “We felt that there were unseen actors behind this. Neither defense lawyers or government knew who it was”—certainly a cryptic suggestion that there was indeed much more to the story above and beyond the concept that the trade center attack was simply the product of an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist conspiracy.
And it’s probably worth noting that, during that trial, the law firm that represented the Palestinian, Ahmad Ajaj—the reputed Mossad asset inside the bombing conspiracy—on a pro bono (that is, for free) basis was Willkie, Farr & Gallagher, the “blue ribbon” Wall Street firm which included among its partners no less than Kenneth Bialkin, a longtime national chairman of the Anti-Defamation League, the American propaganda and intelligence conduit for Israel’s Mossad.
Of that trial, R. T. Naylor—a professor of economics at McGill University in Montreal, an authority and consultant on financial fraud and author of Satanic Purses: Money, Myth, and Misinformation in the War on Terror—noted that:
The FBI labwork implicating the defendants was revealed to be faked, and the case against the man who rented the truck was so full of inconsistencies that it might well have failed—but for two things.The prosecution successfully played on the sentiments of the jury, and the defense tried to rely on contradictions in the prosecution case rather than presenting a proper rebuttal.
And it’s worth recalling—as noted in Chapter Eighteen—that an Israeli woman (whom federal authorities refused to confirm or deny had ties to Israeli intelligence) was deeply involved with the individual who had rented the truck used in the trade center bombing in 1993.
Of Ramzi Yousef, the aforementioned Miller, Stone & Mitchell have noted some of the mystery surrounding how Yousef came to become involved with the Islamic fundamentalist group in New York that ultimately came to be implicated in the first trade center attack, saying that “There may always be a debate aboutYousef’s intended purpose,but the more pressing question is: Who sent him?” [Emphasis added.]
These authors also noted thatYousef’s involvement in the first trade center attack had some significant consequences for what they referred to as the “ragtag battalion.”Whoever bore responsibility, they said, for Yousef’s coming to the United States, Yousef’s effect was “indisputable.” According to the authors:
For one thing, [Yousef] helped professionalize the largely inept, undisciplined soldiers. For another, he radically changed the scale of their mission. Before Yousef’s arrival, even the Twelve Jewish Locations plot was based on classic terrorist strategy; a series of small, local explosions whose primary objective was to terrify, not kill or maim.
Yousef had much bigger plans—to build a bomb powerful enough to topple the World Trade Towers, one into the other, with a potential death toll in the tens of thousands—many levels of magnitude beyond anything the others had previously imagined.
In fact, to the extent that this previously“ragtag” group did have terrorist plans, they had evidently decided to focus on twelve key Jewish targets in the NewYork City area.
Yousef—you see—changed that and shifted the focus away from specifically Jewish targets to a much more broad-ranging target: the World Trade Center.And this, it should be noted, is akin to the way famed “Arab terrorist” Abu Nidal—another mysterious figure—focused on other Arab targets but seldom, if ever, aimed at Jewish or Israel targets.
As far as the role of Yousef’s uncle,Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, in the 9-11 attacks, Miller, Stone & Mitchell say Mohammed “seems to have been responsible at least for arranging the operation’s secret funding, though some investigators have come to believe that Mohammed masterminded the attacks himself.”
In short, that while Mohammed did have some role in facilitating the attacks—specifically in the realm of raising funds—it is otherwise not absolutely certain that he was the ultimate mastermind as “some investigators” had concluded.
Meanwhile, the aforementioned R.T. Naylor of McGill University—reflecting on what precise relationship Mohammed, in fact, had with Osama bin Laden, public perception to the contrary—referred to Mohammed’s alleged role in another purported terror operation (never carried out) known as “the Bojinka Plot,”which is said to have involved the crashing of airliners. Assessing one account of Bojinka, Naylor wrote:
[Bojinka] became an Al-Qaeda operation in retrospect not because it was planned by bin Laden but because the man into whose bank account some money allegedly for the plot had been placed was a brother-in-law of Osama’s brother-in-law.
More pointedly, in reference to Mohammed’s purported role in orchestrating 9-11 (presumably on bin Laden’s behalf), Naylor noted a March 2,2003 profile of Mohammed that appeared in The Observer and commented:
Assuming the events portrayed are roughly accurate,what emerges is that [Mohammed] ran his own operations and occasionally crossed paths with bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri but that there was no “merger” of their terror capacities into a corporate whole to justify the management hierarchy notion.
In other words, Mohammed was neither the direct underling—or under the supervision or even necessarily working at the behest—of Osama bin Laden.What role Mohammed played in 9-11 was solely of his own making and the perception that bin Laden was ultimately behind Mohammed’s ventures was simply just that: a perception. But it was a perception that the 9-11 commission (and the mass media) were eager to portray to the American people and the world.
However, neither the 9-11 commission nor the mass media were ever eager to explore the multiple connections, strange circumstances and anomalous bits of evidence linking Mohammed and Ramzi Yousef to the operations of Israel's Mossad over a very long period of time.
The truth is that there is much more to the Al-Qaeda network than meets the eye, and considering the power of the Israeli lobby in official Washington, it is no wonder that even the highest-ranking U.S. law enforcement officials would be loathe to pry too deeply into the covert Israeli connections of the Al-Qaeda figures who seem to be ubiquitous players in the various acts of terrorism that have rocked America in recent years. But these details are here for the historical record.
In a special report in the Oct/Nov. 1997 issue of The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Richard H. Curtiss, a respected former U.S. diplomatic officer, pointed out that, in a number of notable cases of what appeared to be “Arab terrorism,” the individuals involved seemed to have covert ties to Israeli intelligence.
Curtiss cited former Mossad operative Victor Ostrovsky who noted that, in fact, Israeli intelligence did indeed have a hand in manipulating Arab terrorist cells, and that “usuallyArabs who were carrying out Israeli plans had no idea where the plans really originated.”
And as far as terrorist operations against Americans by Israelis—disguised as “Arab” plots—Ostrovsky commented, “The point of all these Israeli operations is to convinceAmericans that they’re in the same boat as Israel [fighting Arab terrorism].”
However, the Mohammed-Yousef affair isn’t the end of it. It seems that “family connections” to 9-11 (and to Israel’s role therein) just won’t go away when it comes to the possibility that Arabs—working for Israel’s Mossad—might have played a role in that tragedy.
Buried in a New York Times story on Feb. 19, 2009 was the eye-opening revelation that a Lebanese Muslim Arab who had been taken into custody by Lebanon—which accused him of being a spy for some 25 years for Israeli intelligence—just happened to be a cousin of one of the Muslims alleged to have been one of the 9-11 hijackers.
Although Ali al-Jarrah was—publicly—an outspoken proponent of the Palestinian cause, it turned out that he was actually working as a paid asset of the Mossad for more than two decades, betraying his own nation and conducting spying operations against Palestinian groups and the pro-Palestinian party Hezbollah. Reporting on the al-Jarrah affair, The NewYork Times revealed this:
It is not the family’s first brush with notoriety. One of Mr. Jarrah’s cousins,Ziad al-Jarrah,was among the 19 hijackers who carried out the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
The Times added that the men were 20 years apart in age and “do not appear to have known each other well.
However, the gratuitous Times suggestion that the two cousins “do not appear to have known each other well” is intriguing, inasmuch as it is an admission that they did, in fact, know one another.
And that could be very telling, for there are those who have suggested that the older cousin may indeed have recruited his younger cousin (alleged to have been one of the 9-11 hijackers) as an asset (even an unknowing one) for Israeli intelligence.
The circumspect stance taken by the Times is no surprise, considering the fact that the Times was quite aware that there have been many sources which have alleged that the 9-11 conspiracy was infiltrated, if not controlled outright, by Israeli intelligence from the beginning.
If the younger al-Jarrah was an Israeli asset inside the 9-11 conspiracy, this would not be (as we have seen) the first time a Muslim Arab was involved, acting as a Mossad agent, in an attack on theWorld Trade Center. And the truth is that if—out of the archives of many different intelligence agencies—we could glean more about the purported participants in the 9-11 conspiracy,we would find,most assuredly, that the strange tale of the al-Jarrah family and that of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi Yousef are really only just the tip of the iceberg relating to the Mossad’s tentacles inside Islamic fundamentalist circles linked to 9-11.
While some 9-11 “truthers” seem to be convinced that there were absolutely no Muslim fundamentalists involved (even at least indirectly) in orchestrating the 9-11 attacks—that it was all plotted by the Illuminati or the Bush family and the military-industrial complex and then carried out by the CIA or some combine of other government agencies—this is, of course, sheer fantasy.
And it flies in the face of what we do know about the manner in which Israel has not only manipulated very real (call them “sincere’) Islamic hard-liners, but also of what we know of Israel’s deployment of Jews (masquerading as Arabs or Muslims) into Muslim and Arab organizations (terrorist and otherwise) and utilizing genuine Arabs—who’ve turned traitor—as assets inside those networks.
And that having been said, it appears—based on all that we have examined here, thus far, in these pages—Israel’s Mossad did indeed engage in some behind-the-scenes trickery used to manipulate Islamic fundamentalist elements—before and on 9-11—in order to achieve what it hoped to accomplish on 9-11 and did:
The 9-11 tragedy pushed America and its people onto a new path, in direct confrontation with the entire Islamic world. Once again, it was “Onward Christian Soldiers.” American men and women in uniform were deployed in what was really and simply and only but another war for Israel’s survival, this one cleverly dubbed “the War on Terror.”
The New American National Enemy—really an enemy of the entire world if truth be told—was never so vague as the old Communist bogeyman.
(What was Communism anyway?)
This time the New American National Enemy’s image and motivation was unquestionably clear. He had a face: the hook-nosed Arab wrapped in desert garb. An agenda: world conquest. A holy book: the Koran. And a prophet named Muhammed who followed a mysterious God named Allah, said to be “different” from the “good” God worshiped by Christians and their Jewish brethren alike.
This enemy hated Americans and God’s Chosen People and anything decent,determined to wipe Christianity and Israel and democracy and all nice things off the map and set up a worldwide Islamic dictatorship where good Christian girls would be sex slaves.
But Israel’s successful path to 9-11—by way of deception, if you will—was made possible because of the fact Israel (as we have seen) had a long and proven-quite-successful history of utilizing false flags (even on American soil) to achieve its ends.
In the chapter which follows, we’ll demonstrate how Arab false flags were utilized in Israel’s historic template for terror that had already been tested in the JFK assassination and the Oklahoma City bombing.

by Michael Collins Piper

The FBI-ADL-Mossad Nexus
In the First Attack on the World Trade Center:
The Little-Known (and Chilling) Story
It is probably no coincidence that an ex-FBI official who helped cover up the Mossad connection to the first bombing of the World Trade center in 1993—as well as FBI foreknowledge of the planning of the crime—was later appointed for a brief period to serve as chief of the infamous “fact finding” (spy) division of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith.
Neil Herman, a 27-year FBI veteran, succeeded Gail Gans who was appointed to the post upon the death of longtime ADL spymaster Irwin Suall.The former head of the FBI’s Joint Terrorist Task Force,Herman was not only a key player in the World Trade Center “investigation” but he also oversaw the equally suspicious FBI inquiry into the downing of TWA Flight 800 off Long Island on July 16, 1997.
That a veteran FBI official would take a key post with the ADL is an ominous signal that the long-standing covert relationship between the FBI and the ADL—forged in the years prior to World War II—was now “going public” with a vengeance.
As the ADL’s chief spymaster, Herman was able to provide the ADL far more wide-ranging contacts within the FBI and the intelligence community than ever before, but, strangely, he evidently did not remain in the post for long.
In fact, shortly after his appointment was announced in the New York press, Herman seemed to have dropped off the radar screen and—even today—very little can be found on the Internet about him. He was succeeded as chief of spying operations by one Mark Pitcavage.
It is, of course, possible to speculate as to why he departed so quickly from the ADL realm—if indeed he did—but the fact is that Herman, positioned as he was in the investigation of the first attack on the World Trade Center, was clearly part of a cover-up of the littleknown, seldom-commented-upon Israeli connection to the first attempt to bring down the twin towers that finally fell on September 11, 2001.
Here are the facts about the Mossad connection to the tragedy first revealed by investigative reporter Robert I. Friedman in the August 3, 1993 article in The Village Voice, an independent left-wing New York weekly that has occasionally dared to criticize Israel.
Friedman reported that Ahmad Ajaj, a 27-year-old West Bank Palestinian held in federal custody for conspiring to bomb the World Trade Center, may have been a Mossad mole, according to Friedman’s own Israeli intelligence sources.
Ajaj was arrested at Kennedy Airport on September 1, 1992, after he arrived on a Pakistani International flight from Peshawar carrying a forged Swedish passport and bomb-makng manuals. He was taken into custody, and subsequently pleaded guilty to entering the country illegally.
Ajaj’s traveling companion was Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, an Iraqi who law enforcement sources say is a “key player” in the World Trade Center bombing.’
Although the FBI identified Ajaj as a senior intifada terrorist, with links to Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic fundamentalist organization, Kol Ha’ir, a respected Hebrew-language weekly published in Jerusalem, said Ajaj was never involved in intifada activities or with Hamas or even the Palestine Liberation Organization.
Instead, according to Kol Ha’ir, Ajaj was actually a petty crook arrested in 1988 for counterfeiting U.S. dollars out of a base in East Jerusalem. Ajaj was convicted of the counterfeiting charges and then sentenced to two-and-a-half years in prison.
According to Friedman, writing in The Village Voice:“It was during his prison stay that Mossad, Israel’s CIA, apparently recruited him, say Israeli intelligence sources. By the time he was released after having served just one year, he had seemingly undergone a radical transformation.”
Friedman reported that Ajaj had suddenly become a devout Muslim and an outspoken hard-line nationalist.Then, Ajaj was arrested for smuggling weapons into the West Bank, supposedly for El Fatah, a faction of the PLO.
But Friedman says this was actually a sham. Friedman’s sources in Israeli inteligence say that the arrest and Ajaj’s subsequent deportation were “staged by Mossad to establish his credentials as an intifada activist.
Mossad allegedly ‘tasked’ Ajaj to infiltrate radical Palestinian groups operating outside Israel and to report back to Tel Aviv. Israeli intelligence sources say that it is not unusual for Mossad ro recruit from the ranks of common criminals.”
After Ajaj’s “deportation” from Israel, he showed up in Pakistan, where he turned up in the company of the anti-Soviet Mujihideen rebels in Afghanistan.
This, in itself, could point further evidence that Ajaj was working for the Mossad, for—according to Covert Action Information Bulletin (September 1987)—the funding and supply lines for the Mujahideen were not only the “the second largest covert operation” in the CIA’s history, but they were also, according to former Mossad operative Victor Ostrovsky (writing in The Other Side of Deception) under the direct supervision of the Mossad.
According to Ostrovsky:“It was a complex pipeline, since a large portion of the Mujahideen’s weapons were American-made and were supplied to the Muslim Brotherhood directly from Israel, using as carriers the Bedouin nomads who roamed the demilitarized zones in the Sinai.”
After Ajaj’s ventures with the Mujahideen, he popped up in New York and purported to befriend members of a small so-called “radical” clique surrounding Sheikh Abdel-Rahman who was accused of being the mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing.
On February 26, 1993, the actual day of the World Trade Center bombing,Ajaj was “safe” in federal prison serving a six-month sentence for entering the country on a forged passport. Later, he was indicted for conspiracy in the WTC bombing.
According to Robert Friedman, “If Ajaj was recruited by Mossad [Freidman’s emphasis], it is not known whether he continued to work for the Israeli spy agency after he was deported. One possibility, of course, is that upon leaving Israel and meeting radical Muslims close to the blind Egyptian sheikh, his loyalties shifted.”
However, Friedman also reported another frightening possibility:
“Another scenario is that he had advance knowledge of the World Trade Center bombing, which he shared with Mossad, and that Mossad, for whatever reason, kept the secret to itself. If true, U.S. intelligence sources speculate that Mossad might have decided to keep the information closely guarded so as not to compromise its undercover agent.”
Friedman broke amazing ground with these revelations that were ignored by the mainstream press.
What Friedman did not mention—and which only came out later—was that the copy of the infamous “Al Qaeda Terrorist Training Manual” that received widespread publicity following the second attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 had been uncovered . . . in the possession of Ahmad Ajaj, the Mossad undercover informant in the first WTC attack.And that point speaks volumes, far more than we can address in these pages.
However, there’s much more to the story of the first WTC attack: It also turns out that the FBI itself had its own undercover informant inside the “Arab bomb plot” and did nothing—repeat nothing—to prevent the tragedy from happening.
The facts indicate that the FBI had an informant inside the so-called “Arab terrorist cell” that may have fronted for Israel’s Mossad in the World Trade Center bombing.Although Americans have been told that a blind Arab sheik,Omar Abdel-Rahman,was the mastermind of the bombing, what they don’t know is that one of the sheik’s security guards, Emad A. Salem, was an FBI informant who had filled in the FBI, in advance, of the specifics of the bomb plot.
The FBI officially severed its contacts with Salem seven months before the bombing. However, in the aftermath of the tragedy, the FBI opened up relations with Salem once again. At that time, however, Salem—unbeknown to the FBI—began recording his exchanges with his FBI handler.
Salem’s recorded conversations confirmed that the FBI, in fact, had extensive prior knowledge of the plot to bomb the World Trade Center.
The recordings indicate that Salem had told the FBI that he would sabotage the plot by replacing the explosive components of the bomb with an inert powder, after which time the FBI could come in and capture those involved in the conspiracy.
In his book, The Medusa File, investigator Craig Roberts, a well-regarded 26-year veteran police officer and U.S.Marine Vietnam veteran, outlined the parameters of this outrageous scandal that has been effectively buried by the mainstream media.According to Roberts:
It seems that the FBI actually had more than a simple “informant” inside Rahman’s terrorist cell.What they actually had was an Egyptian intelligence officer named Emad Salem, who reported directly to his FBI control agent, Special Agent John Anticev. Salem, it turns out,was hired to infiltrate the Rahman group long before the bombing took place, and consistently reported on the activities of the radicals—including their plans to conduct bombings in the New York City area.
What the FBI did not know was that Salem recorded his conversations with his control agents.The tapes tell a far diffeent story than the official versions of the “investigation.”
According to The New York Times, which managed to obtain secret transcripts of some of the conversations, the FBI knew in advance when the bomb was going to be planted, who was going to do it, the names of everyone in the terrorist cell, and where the truck was rented. But worse, one tape went even further. It seems that the FBI not only knew about the planning, they actually assisted the bombers in obtaining and constructing the bomb!
The original FBI plan was for the informant to provide a non-explosive substance that would be labeled “ammonium nitrate,” then use it to construct a “bomb”that would not go off.All the FBI needed to show in court was the elements of conspiracy and intent. It would be a classic “sting” operation and the FBI would come out in the media as heroes—a much-needed polishing of their tarnished image since the earlier debacle at Ruby Ridge, Idaho.
Instead of arresting the conspirators when they received inside information that the bombing was being planned, the FBI instead kept their source in place and continued to monitor the progress of the terrorists in planning and preparing for their goal. According to the transcripts, the plan was changed and the informant was directed to provide the terrorists with real explosive materials. The reasoning behind this may have been simply that showing “intent” might not be enough to make a terrorism case in court, and that if real explosives were discovered then the case would make itself. But whatever the reason, the plan moved into stage two: building the bomb.
According to reports and transcripts, Salem was instructed to not only provide the materials, but to give instruction and help in building the bomb itself . . . In [one] transcript [Salem] admitted [to his FBI handlers] that he used government funds to procure the materials and build the bomb for the Rahman group, as he was instructed to do.
These interesting details about the first World Trade Center tragedy paint a starkly different picture of what happened than what we have been told by both the FBI and their allies in the ADL. It is another ugly profile of the manner in which The Enemy Within has been operating on American soil, and one which—quite obviously—raises the question:
“If the Israelis were responsible for the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993—using Arabs as “false flags”—did they come back in 2001 to finish the job?”
Don’t bet against it.