Dans un discours officiel, le sénateur Jim Inhofe a sermonné ses confrères républicains en déclarant que les États-Unis ont "ouvert la porte" aux attaques du 11 septembre en exigeant d'Israël de faire des concessions aux "terroristes palestiniens". Dieu aurait selon lui puni la grande nation chrétienne des États-Unis pour avoir failli à soutenir le "peuple élu", Israël!
Les gros médias ont propagé l'idée voulant que certains musulmans auraient sauté de joie et célébré quand ils ont appris la nouvelle des attentats du WTC. On a même dit que certains haineux anti-américains, en particulier musulmans, voyaient les attaques du 11 septembre comme un "acte de la volonté divine", preuve que les États-Unis méritaient une punition divine. Mais nous n'avons pas entendu nulle part la moindre mention des propos scandaleusement terroristes de ce sénateur sioniste chrétien Jim Inhofe justifiant les attaques du 11 septembre en prétendant que les États-Unis méritaient d'être frappé par la foudre divine à cause de leurs péchés envers le peuple élu. Pour ceux qui auraient le moindre doute sur l'authenticité de la citation, celle-ci se trouve sur le site du sénateur :
"The sixth reason is that Israel is a roadblock to terrorism. The war we are now facing is not against a sovereign nation; it is against a group of terrorists who are very fluid, moving from one country to another. They are almost invisible. That is whom we are fighting against today. We need every ally we can get. If we do not stop terrorism in the Middle East, it will be on our shores. We have said this again and again and again, and it is true. One of the reasons I believe the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States of America is that the policy of our Government has been to ask the Israelis, and demand it with pressure, not to retaliate in a significant way against the terrorist strikes that have been launched against them. Since its independence in 1948, Israel has fought four wars: The war in 1948 and 1949--that was the war for independence--the war in 1956, the Sinai campaign; the Six-Day War in 1967; and in 1973, the Yom Kippur War, the holiest day of the year, and that was with Egypt and Syria. You have to understand that in all four cases, Israel was attacked. They were not the aggressor. Some people may argue that this was not true because they went in first in 1956, but they knew at that time that Egypt was building a huge military to become the aggressor. Israel, in fact, was not the aggressor and has not been the aggressor in any of the four wars. Also, they won all four wars against impossible odds. They are great warriors. They consider a level playing field being outnumbered 2 to 1. There were 39 Scud missiles that landed on Israeli soil during the gulf war. Our President asked Israel not to respond. In order to have the Arab nations on board, we asked Israel not to participate in the war. They showed tremendous restraint and did not. Now we have asked them to stand back and not do anything over these last several attacks. We have criticized them. We have criticized them in our media. Local people in television and radio often criticize Israel, not knowing the true facts. We need to be informed. I was so thrilled when I heard a reporter pose a question to our Secretary of State, Colin Powell. He said: Mr. Powell, the United States has advocated a policy of restraint in the Middle East. We have discouraged Israel from retaliation again and again and again because we've said it leads to continued escalation--that it escalates the violence. Are we going to follow that preaching ourselves? Mr. Powell indicated we would strike back. In other words, we can tell Israel not to do it, but when it hits us, we are going to do something. But all that changed in December when the Israelis went into the Gaza with gunships and into the West Bank with F-16s. With the exception of last May, the Israelis had not used F-16s since the 1967 6-Day War. And I am so proud of them because we have to stop terrorism. It is not going to go away. If Israel were driven into the sea tomorrow, if every Jew in the Middle East were killed, terrorism would not end. You know that in your heart. Terrorism would continue. It is not just a matter of Israel in the Middle East. It is the heart of the very people who are perpetrating this stuff. Should they be successful in overrunning Israel--which they won't be--but should they be, it would not be enough. They will never be satisfied."
Source: "Peace in the Middle East Speech". Jim Inhofe. March 4, 2002. Retrieved May 16, 2015.
Michael Collins Piper fut le seul journaliste à en parler dans son livre "FALSE FLAGS" sur le 11 septembre et les attentats sous faux drapeau du Mossad (ainsi qu'à son émission de radio le 10 mai 2015 @39:10, quelques semaines avant son décès).
Even fanatically religious pro-Israel zealot, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) had risen to the floor of the Senate on March 4, 2002, to declare that God allowed terrorists to attack the United States on Sept. 11 to punish America for being too tough on Israel.
In a speech condemning his fellow Republican, President Bush, who then was perceived to be pressing too hard on Israel, Inhofe stated in no uncertain terms:
One of the reasons I believe the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States of America is that the policy of our government has been to ask the Israelis, and demand it with pressure, not to retaliate in a significant way against the terrorist strikes that have been launched against them.
Although American broadcast media had previously attacked speakers from the Muslim world who had suggested, in one fashion or another, that the Sept. 11 attack on the United States was the will of God, there was hardly a mention anywhere of Inhofe’s inflammatory remarks.
It certainly did not receive the attention it should have.
(Source: Extraits de FALSE FLAGS: TEMPLATE FOR TERROR (2013) de Michael Collins Piper, cité dans Élucidation complète de la responsabilité d'Israël et ses services secrets dans l'orchestration du 11 septembre et sa récupération géopolitico-médiatique )
AUDIO - The Piper Report - May 10, 2015 || Download Here
AUDIO - The Piper Report - Jan 24, 2011 Alex Jones launches "V for Victory Resistance Campaign", Sen. Jim Inhoffe blames US abandonment of Israel for 9/11 attacks, the scandal of Israeli espionnage in the US and all over the world, etc. Is espionage against America a Jewish bad habit? Among other things in tonight’s program, Michael Collins Piper suggests that while Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) is busy investigating so-called Muslim radicals in upcoming congressional hearings that King would do much more to contribute to American national security by launching a widespread inquiry into a recent and clearly-documentable political phenomenon–The repeated involvement by Jewish American supporters of Israel in all manner of espionage (including at the highest levels) that has been investigated by the FBI but which has been largely unreported (except for the Jonathan Pollard case) by the mass media in America. || Download Here
AUDIO - The Piper Report - May 10, 2015 || Download Here
AUDIO - The Piper Report - Jan 24, 2011 Alex Jones launches "V for Victory Resistance Campaign", Sen. Jim Inhoffe blames US abandonment of Israel for 9/11 attacks, the scandal of Israeli espionnage in the US and all over the world, etc. Is espionage against America a Jewish bad habit? Among other things in tonight’s program, Michael Collins Piper suggests that while Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) is busy investigating so-called Muslim radicals in upcoming congressional hearings that King would do much more to contribute to American national security by launching a widespread inquiry into a recent and clearly-documentable political phenomenon–The repeated involvement by Jewish American supporters of Israel in all manner of espionage (including at the highest levels) that has been investigated by the FBI but which has been largely unreported (except for the Jonathan Pollard case) by the mass media in America. || Download Here
Et pourquoi diable faudrait-il supporter Israël coûte que coûte? Parce que c'est Dieu lui-même qui l'a dit! Voilà un beau raisonnement circulaire pour nous réconcilier avec le sionisme chrétien... (ex: John Hagee on “God’s” foreign Policy)
"I believe very strongly that we ought to support Israel; that it has a right to the land. This is the most important reason: Because God said so. As I said a minute ago, look it up in the Book of Genesis. It is right up there on the desk. In Genesis 13:14–17, the Bible says, "The Lord said to Abraham, 'Lift up now your eyes, and look from the place where you are northward, and southward, and eastward and westward: for all the land which you see, to you will I give it, and to your seed forever. . . . Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it to thee.'" That is God talking. The Bible says that Abraham removed his tent and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar before the Lord. Hebron is in the West Bank. It is at this place where God appeared to Abram and said, "I am giving you this land — the West Bank". This is not a political battle at all. It is a contest over whether or not the word of God is true."
Source: "Peace in the Middle East Speech". Jim Inhofe. March 4, 2002. Retrieved May 16, 2015.
Jim Inhofe fut de ceux qui, suivant le leadership sioniste, se sont fortement opposés à la nomination de Chuck Hagel à la Défense, nomination favorisée par l'administration Obama. Pour se défendre de ne pas être suffisamment sioniste, Hagel avait dit : "Je suis un sénateur américain, pas un sénateur israélien".
Neocons Continue the Barrage Against New Defense Secretary
• Prestigious military institute says Hagel will be at war with warmongers
Sen.
James Inhofe (R-Okla.) opposed the nomination of fellow Republican and
former colleague Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense from the very start
back in early January. Yet, Inhofe’s sustained campaign against Hagel
soon was overshadowed by the dramatic anti-Hagel antics of Sens. John
McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) and newcomer Ted Cruz
(R-Texas), among others.
Hagel was confirmed by the Senate 58-41 on
Feb. 26, but Inhofe won’t drop the matter. He apparently believes Hagel
is a closet peacenik, who will excuse Iran’s supposed nuclear ambitions,
shirk America’s support of Israel and render the U.S. defenseless.
“I
continue to have serious concerns about the ability of . . . Hagel to
lead the Department of Defense during this consequential time for our
nation’s security,” Inhofe noted in a statement on his website. “His
long record of controversial positions on issues ranging from nuclear
disarmament, defense spending, Iran, and his misguided comments on
Israel demonstrate, in my view, a profound and troubling lack of
judgment. . . .”
Inhofe played a major role in trying to convince the
Senate to require a higher 60-vote majority, instead of a 51-vote
simple majority, for Hagel’s confirmation.
Inhofe wanted the higher
threshold with or without a filibuster. Had he obtained it, Hagel’s
confirmation would have failed by two votes.
The U.S. Naval Institute
(USNI), before Hagel’s confirmation, threw a lifeline to him in a
revealing Feb. 12 article: “[A]s Obama’s nominee, Hagel found himself in
the middle of a more-than-40-year war over control of U.S. military and
national-security policy. The neoconservatives who fought against
presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and
now Obama recognize that Hagel’s confirmation would reverse the policies
of ‘peace through strength’ that dominated the Bush and Ronald Reagan
administrations.”
The USNI pointed out: “That realization was clear
from the opening statement of the [Armed Services Committee’s] ranking
Republican, Sen. Jim Inhofe. . . . Confirming Hagel, Inhofe said, would
be ‘retreating from America’s unique global leadership role and
shrinking the military.’ That, he said, would not make America safer. ‘On
the contrary, it will embolden our enemies, endanger our allies and
provide opportunity for nations that do not share our interests to fill
the global leadership vacuum we leave behind.’”
The USNI article
added: “Inhofe’s statement, as well as McCain’s subsequent questioning
of Hagel about the Iraq surge, echoed the spiritual father of the
neoconservative movement—German émigré and strategist Fritz Kraemer,”
who for decades worked behind the scenes “as an influential Pentagon
policy analyst.”
Notably, Kraemer “had discovered Henry Kissinger as a
young Army enlisted man during WorldWar II and sponsored his rise to
become national security adviser under Nixon. . . . Kraemer also shaped
the policy views of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, who . . . decades
later echo Kraemer’s beliefs as they helped launch the Iraq War.”
Inhofe
thus deserves prominent placement on “the dishonor roll,” joining not
only McCain, Graham and Cruz, but also Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and
Tim Scott (R-S.C.) on “the list.” Voters in those states may see fit to
vote those senators out of office, yet only four GOP senators voted for
Hagel’s confirmation: Rand Paul (Ky.), Thad Cochran (Miss.), Mike Johanns
(Neb.) and Richard Shelby (Ala.).
L'ancien général pakistanais, qui est décédé récemment affirmait catégoriquement que le Mossad et la CIA sont les vrais responsables du 11 septembre et suggérait que le 11 septembre était en fait une "surprise de septembre" israélienne pour l'administration Bush. Avec le 11 septembre, Israël aurait voulu soumettre l'administration Bush (alliée aux pétromonarchies arabes et promouvant des politiques "paix contre terre" qui déplaisaient fortement à Israël) en lui faisant une offre qu'elle ne pourrait pas refuser... Déjà qu'Israël ne faisait pas confiance au père George H.W. Bush...
(Rappelons qu'Ostrovsky a révélé l'existence d'un complot israélien--avorté--pour le faire assassiner. Rappelons également qu'il avait osé tenir tête au lobby israélien dans les pourparlers de paix, ce qui pour la revue Commentary revient à nuire aux intérêts israéliens: "And we're up against a very strong and effective, sometimes, groups that go up to the Hill. I heard today there was something like a thousand lobbyists on the Hill working the other side of the question. We've got one lonely little guy down here doing it." (The American Presidency Project)
Although it’s become an article of faith among 9-11 dissidents that then-President George W. Bush simply had to have had foreknowledge of the impending 9-11 attacks, that thesis—as exciting though it may be—doesn’t take into consideration a number of nuances that, quite the contrary, might suggest that Bush was as taken by surprise by the horrific events as the rest of the American people.
A “September Surprise”
for George W. Bush?
Although it’s become an article of faith among 9-11 dissidents that then-President George W. Bush simply had to have had foreknowledge of the impending 9-11 attacks, that thesis—as exciting though it may be—doesn’t take into consideration a number of nuances that, quite the contrary, might suggest that Bush was as taken by surprise by the horrific events as the rest of the American people.
An
interesting counter-perspective in this regard came shortly after the 9-11
attacks from General Hameed Gul, the still highly influential former director
general of the Pakistani intelligence services, when he—Gul—gave a fascinating
interview to Arnaud de Borchgrave, UPI’s international editor at large,
providing perceptive insights into 9-11 that could only come from someone with
his contacts and “insider” knowledge of global affairs.
Having
worked closely for many years with the CIA in the American agency’s efforts to
drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan—the movement that launched Osama bin Laden
in the first place—Gul was no peripheral minor player easily dismissed. What
Gul said about Sept.11 deserves consideration.
Gul did not
believe Osama bin Laden (whom he knew) was responsible, but he did say that if
there was genuine evidence implicating bin Laden, that such evidence should be
brought forth. Gul noted the media’s role in hyping the widespread theory
implicating bin Laden:
Within 10 minutes of the second twin tower
being hit in The World Trade Center, CNN said Osama bin Laden had done it. That
was a planned piece of disinformation by the real perpetrators. It created an
instant mindset and put public opinion into a trance, which prevented even
intelligent people from thinking for themselves.
In Gul’s
judgment, while bin Laden was now actually revered by many in the Muslim world,
the Saudi millionaire was a spiritual leader—not a military commander or
tactician. Bin Laden, said Gul, simply “doesn’t have the means for such a
sophisticated operation” of the type that took place on Sept. 11.
If bin
Laden was not responsible for what happened on Sept. 11, then who was
responsible?
Gul
believed that Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad, orchestrated the
attacks of Sept. 11 and that the Mossad carried off the operation with the
support of a cadre of its own assets—traitors to America—inside the U.S.
defense establishment (probably in the U.S. Air Force, in particular). Here is exactly
what Gul said:
Mossad and its American associates are the
obvious culprits.
Who benefits from the crime?
The attacks against the twin towers started at
8:45 am and four flights are diverted from their assigned air space and no air traffic
controller sounds the alarm. And no Air Force jets scramble until 10 am.
That also smacks of a small scale Air Force
rebellion, a coup against the Pentagon perhaps? Radars are jammed, transponders
fail. No IFF [identification of friend or foe] challenge.
In Pakistan, if there is no response to IFF,
jets are instantly scrambled and the aircraft is shot down with no further
questions asked.
This was clearly an inside job. Bush was afraid
and rushed to the shelter of a nuclear bunker. He clearly feared a nuclear situation.
Who could that have been?
Will that also be hushed up in the
investigation, like the Warren report after the Kennedy assassination?
Why was
Bush a target?
Gul
asserted that Israel and its American lobby hated both former President Bush
and current President George W. Bush, because the father and son are considered
“too close to oil interests and the [Arab] Gulf countries.”
At this
juncture, let us stop for a moment.
Today years
later, in distant retrospect, Gul’s comments might sound a bit of a stretch,
considering the ardent pro-Israel stance of George W. Bush and the manipulation
of his administration by the Zionist neo-conservative element, bear in mind
that at the time Gul was making these assertions the younger Bush had, in fact,
been under fire from some hard-line pro-Israel elements who had been feverishly
asserting that his administration had not been pro-Israel enough.
Even
fanatically religious pro-Israel zealot, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) had risen
to the floor of the Senate on March 4, 2002, to declare that God allowed
terrorists to attack the United States on Sept. 11 to punish America for being
too tough on Israel.
In a speech
condemning his fellow Republican, President Bush, who then was perceived to be
pressing too hard on Israel, Inhofe stated in no uncertain terms:
One of the reasons I believe the spiritual door
was opened for an attack against the United States of America is that the
policy of our government has been to ask the Israelis, and demand it with
pressure, not to retaliate in a significant way against the terrorist strikes
that have been launched against them.
Although
American broadcast media had previously attacked speakers from the Muslim world
who had suggested, in one fashion or another, that the Sept. 11 attack on the
United States was the will of God, there was hardly a mention anywhere of
Inhofe’s inflammatory remarks.
It
certainly did not receive the attention it should have.
In any
case, as a consequence, George W. Bush was considered by Israel, in Gul’s
words, “a potential danger to Israel.” Gul opinioned that the Israelis “made
sure Bush senior didn’t get a second term. His land-for-peace pressure in
Palestine didn’t suit Israel.”
Gul
contends Israel’s suspicions about the younger Bush were further exacerbated by
the fact, he said, that Arab sources (through American conduits) funnelled some
$150 million into Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign, arranged by former
President Bush and former Secretary of State Jim Baker.
In
addition, according to Gul, former President Bush and Baker, as private
citizens, arranged the new strategic relationship between Saudi Arabia and
Iran. “I have this from sources in both countries,” stated the former Pakistani
intelligence chief.
“Jews were
stunned by the way Bush stole the election in Florida.
They had
put big money on Al Gore,” said Gul, who evidently believed that President
Bush, rather than take on the Mossad on Sept. 11, decided to turn the tables on
his Israeli enemies and make the best of a bad situation. (In other words, Bush
was turning a lemon into lemonade or making a silk purse out of a sow's ear, as
they say). Gul added this:
Israel has now handed the Bush family the
opportunity it has been waiting for to consolidate America’s imperial grip on the
Gulf and acquire control of the Caspian basis by extending its military
presence in Central Asia.
Bush conveniently overlooks—or is not told—the
fact that Islamic fundamentalists got their big boost in the modern age as CIA
assets in the covert campaign I was also involved with to force the Soviets out
of Afghanistan.
All summer long we heard about America’s
shrinking surplus and that the Pentagon would not have sufficient funds to modernize
for the 21st century. And now, all of a sudden, the Pentagon can get what it
wants without any Democratic Party opposition. How very convenient.
Even [America’s] cherished civil liberties can
now be abridged with impunity to protect the expansion of the hegemony of
transnational capitalism. There is now a new excuse to crush anti-globalization
protests.
“Bush 43” [George W. Bush] follows “Bush 41”
[Bush’s father]: Iraq was baited into the Kuwaiti trap when the U.S. told Saddam
it was not interested in his inter-Arab squabbles. Two days later, he moved
into Kuwait, which was an Iraqi province anyway before the British Empire
decreed otherwise.
Roosevelt baited the Pearl Harbor trap for the
Japanese empire, which provided the pretest for entering World War II.
And now the Israelis have given the U.S. the
pretext for further expansion into an area that will be critical in the next 25
years—the Caspian basin.
Gul
acknowledged his own hostility to former President George H. W. Bush, pointing
out that when Bush became president he issued an order to “clip the wings” of
Pakistani intelligence (of which Gul was then director general) which had been
coordinating the entire anti-Soviet effort in Afghanistan. Gul also said that
he was blocked for promotion because of pressure by the U.S. Until then, he
says, “We were all pro-American. But then America left us in the lurch and
everything went to pieces, including Afghanistan.”
According
to Gul, it was U.S. policy, after the collapse of the Soviet occupation of
Afghanistan, that led to the rise of the Taliban which was then being targeted
for destruction by the “Dubya” Bush administration:
The U.S. pushed for a broad-based Afghan
government of seven factions and then waved goodbye. Even in the best of democracies,
a broad-based coalition does not work. So we quickly had seven jokers in Kabul
interested only in one thing, jockeying for power. The gunplay quickly
followed, which led to the creation of Taliban, the students of the original Mujahideen,
who decided to put an end to it.
Gul was
critical of influential geopolitical strategists such as Samuel Huntington who,
in his widely-touted anti-Muslim screed, The Clash of Civilizations, “puts
Confucius and Judeo-Christians in one corner, and us [Muslims] in the other.” This,
Gul said, “is the diabolical school that wants to launch an anti-Muslim ‘crusade.’
”
Instead,
according to Gul:
We need a meeting—not a clash—of civilizations.
We are on the brink of disaster. It is time to pull back from the brink and
reassess before we blow ourselves up. The purpose of Islam is service to
humanity. The time for-like-minded people to have a meeting of the minds is
now.
When Gul
asserted his informed opinion that President Bush himself believed at one point
on Sept. 11 that traitors, perhaps within the Air Force, had played a part in
the hijackings and suggested that these traitors were part of a more
wide-ranging attempt at a coup d’état orchestrated by Bush-hating partisans of
Israel, critics dismissed Gul as a Muslim sympathizer of Osama bin Laden,
failing to point out Gul’s actual comments presented Bush himself as an
effective victim (or potential actual physical victim) of the events of 9-11.
However, in
its Dec. 31/Jan. 7, 2002 issue, Newsweek revealed that on Sept. 11, a military
officer in the White House communications room announced a threat had been
received against the president’s plane, Air Force One. When the top aide to the
vice president’s chief of staff asked, “How do we know?,” according to
Newsweek, the officer replied that the warning included the aircraft’s code
name, which is classified.
According to
Newsweek, “The threat was almost surely bogus—though to this day White House
officials say they do not know where it came from.” Newsweek quoted White House
National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice as saying, “I don’t think we’ll ever
know,” where the threat came from.
Newsweek
also reported there was also another report from the Federal Aviation
Administration of another plane—about 30 seconds away—heading straight for Washington.
Yet, said Newsweek: “The plane was a phantom of the fog of war; it never existed.”
Or did it?
Again,
these are the kind of questions that have been raised about what did—and
didn’t—happen on 9-11. And many of them, while, quite naturally, are simply the
result of bad “on-the-spot” reporting, a phenomenon that always plagues broad-ranging
events of this kind, the complete record of 9-11 demonstrates that, in fact,
the record is actually hardly complete at all and that, as American Free Press
asserted time and time again, there were just too many “unanswered questions.”
However, the
thesis put forth by General Gul—although widely suppressed or otherwise
ignored—does tend to point toward the very likelihood that, contrary to what
many 9-11“truthers” want to think, it is not beyond the realm of possibility
that on 9-11 George W. Bush was just as taken by surprise by what happened and
that, as Gul suggested, Bush himself may well have been one of the targets for
elimination that day.
And at this
juncture, it’s probably worth noting my own personal discussion regarding 9-11
with one of the highest-ranking figures in the Arab world, a conversation which
took place during my visit, in March of 2003, to Abu Dhabi in the United Arab
Emirates where I had been invited to lecture at the Zayed Centre for
Coordination and Follow-Up, at the time the officially-designated think tank of
the Arab League.
I spent
some four hours alone with Sheik Sultan, the chairman of the Zayed Centre, at
his remarkable palace in Abu Dhabi. The London-educated prince, the second son
of then-ruling Sheik Zayed and also the deputy prime minister, described his
“shock” at how, in the post-9-11 era, the United States, in his view, had begun
acting as an imperial power as the American media and U.S. government
policy-makers were now promoting a “clash of civilizations” (a theme, by the
way, first enunciated by a longtime Zionist theoretician, Bernard Lewis).
Following
the Cold War, the sheik said, he believed that there was arising a genuine
opportunity for world cooperation and that the United States would play a
front-line role therein. Instead, in the wake of 9-11, the Arab and Muslim
world had now become the new “enemy”—a new foundation, a new excuse, for U.S. military
adventurism abroad. Of 9-11 specifically, Sheik Sultan said: “The crime of
September 11 could not have come about without the support of a state
apparatus.
The
militant training camps of Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda simply did not have the
capacity to carry off a crime of this magnitude.” The implication, of course, was
that the 9-11 terrorists were assisted by others.
The sheik
pointed out, quite notably, that he had been a student in London at the time of
many Irish Republican Army attacks on British installations and noted that,
based on his own considerable knowledge of bin Laden and the vaunted Al-Qaeda network,
that Al-Qaeda’s capacities were essentially at the same relatively basic level
of that of the IRA and quite simply not capable of having carried off the 9-11
attacks.
Sheik
Sultan referenced the similarity between the actual consequence of the 9-11
attacks and what had been the intended consequence of Israel’s attack on the
U.S.S. Liberty wherein the American ship was deliberately attacked in the
Mediterranean by the Israelis on June 7, 1967, with the deaths of 34 Americans
and the wounding of 172 others.
“We all
remember the Liberty,” said the sheik, pointing out that if the Liberty had
been sunk with the loss of all aboard, as the Israelis certainly intended, this
attack—a classic false flag—would have been (and almost was) blamed on Egypt
and served as the provocation for a U.S. attack on Egypt and the Arab states.
Only the
dedicated efforts by the wounded men on the Liberty’s crew saved the ship. And
only at the last minute did the United States discover that Israel was the
guilty party—just as an American nuclear attack on Cairo was about to be set in
motion.
The
shocking details surrounding this Israeli false flag have been unveiled in
Peter Hounam’s remarkable book, Operation
Cyanide. And it is of more than passing interest to note—in light of what
we have already explored in these pages about the JFK assassination—that it was,
according to Hounam’s findings, Israel’s man in place at the CIA, James J. Angleton,
who played a pivotal role in setting up the Liberty for the intended “false
flag” attack by his friends in Israel.
But Sheik
Sultan was hardly alone in thinking that there was much more to the 9-11
attacks.
During my
presentation at the Zayed Centre itself, I had been asked directly as to
whether I viewed bin Laden as a tool of the CIA, a view that, in fact, was
quite common in the Arab world, a point that may surprise many in the West. Many
Arab diplomats, journalists and others with whom I spoke expressed the
suspicion that if, in fact, bin Laden had played some part in orchestrating 9-11
that he had done so acting at the direction of the CIA and/or the Mossad.
Noting that
this was, as I said, a “very complex” question, I pointed out that whether bin
Laden was a knowing or un-knowing tool of the CIA and the Mossad, the fact
remained that U.S. policy toward the Arab and Muslim worlds would have
ultimately caused the creation of a bin Laden-type character even if bin Laden
himself had never existed.
For his own
part, the aforementioned Sheik Sultan pointed out to me, quite notably, that:
Here in the Middle East, we never knew bin
Laden until after Sept. 11. We only heard of him, and he only gained great recognition,
as a result of the publicity he received in the American media.
The sheik
was not suggesting, of course, that neither he nor other Arab leaders (or the
broader “Arab street”) had never heard of bin Laden.
What he was
saying that that—prior to the mass media’s focus on bin Laden after 9-11—bin
Laden had never been of any substantial political consequence, that he was a
virtual unknown with no significant following.
Until that
time, most people in what the media now commonly refer to as “the Arab street”
had never even heard of Bin Laden.
It was the
Jewish-controlled media that made bin Laden a virtual overnight international
celebrity who gained what popularity he did achieve precisely because bin
Laden—having been accused of responsibility for 9-11—was seen as a
counterbalance to the power of Israel and not—as the average American might
think—because bin Laden’s Islamic fundamentalism holds such a spell over the
Muslim world.
A secondary
consequence of all of this, likewise, was that the media’s focus on bin Laden
led many Americans to believe bin Laden was—and had been—a major player in the
Arab and Muslim world when, in fact, he had not been. And this, of course,
played right into the hands of the Israeli intriguers and their collaborators
on American soil who hoped to stoke up American support for Israel and
opposition to Israel’s perceived enemies in the Arab world.
The truth
is, of course, that bin Laden was as certainly hostile to the ruling regimes in
Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Libya—and even Iraq—along with
the other Arab states as he was to the United States. Despite that, thanks to
the Jewish-controlled media, Americans wrongly perceived bin Laden to represent
the attitude of the entire Arab world toward the United States and the West.
With that
in mind, Arab leaders know full well that it has been a long-standing policy on
the part of Israel to keep the Arab world destabilized—“Balkanized”—to put a
European twist on the concept.
Thus, bin
Laden and his Al-Qaeda operations played a major part in fulfilling that
geopolitical aim on the part of Israel and its American allies. By keeping the
Arab states off balance, this has provided Israel the opportunity to continue
to expand its influence, if not its very borders.
So the
“idea” of Osama bin Laden—as opposed to the “reality”—has been a useful tool
for those who did orchestrate 9-11, especially since it is abundantly clear
that Osama bin Laden did not.
In fact, in
this realm, it is fitting to conclude with the remarkable assessment of 9-11
put forth in 2006 by former high-ranking Russian military figure General Leonid
Ivashov.
Then the
vice-president of the Russian Academy on Geopolitical Affairs, Ivashov had
previously served as the chief of the department for general affairs in the
Soviet Union’s ministry of defense, secretary of the council of defense
ministers of the Community of Independent states (CIS), chief of the military
cooperation department at the Russian federation’s ministry of defense and—most
notably, on 9-11 itself—the chief of staff of the Russian armed forces.
Here is
what Ivashov wrote:
1. The organizers of [the 9-11] attacks were
the political and business circles interested in destabilizing the world order and
who had the means necessary to finance the operation.
The political conception of this action matured
in the face of emerging tensions in the administration of financial and other types of
resources.
We have to look for the reasons of the attacks
in the coincidence of interests of Big Capital at global and transnational levels,
in the circles that were not satisfied with the rhythm of the globalization
process or its direction.
Unlike traditional wars, whose conception is
determined by generals and politicians, the oligarchs and politicians were the
ones who did it this time.
2. Only secret services and their current
chiefs, or those retired but still with influence inside the state organizations,
have the ability to plan, organize and conduct an operation of such magnitude.
Generally, secret services create, finance and
control extremist organizations.
Without the support of secret services, these
organizations cannot exist, let alone carry out operations of such magnitude inside
countries so well protected. Planning and carrying out an operation on this
scale is extremely complex.
3. Osama bin Laden and “Al-Qaeda” cannot be the
organizers nor the performers of the September 11 attacks. They do not have the
necessary organization, resources or leaders. Thus, a team of professionals had
to be created, and the Arab kamikazes are just extras to mask the operation.
Ivashov
concluded: “The September 11 operation modified the course of events in the
world in the direction chosen by transnational mafias and international
oligarchs; that is, those who hope to control the planet’s natural resources,
the world information network and financial flows. This operation also favored
the US economic and political elite that also seeks world dominance.”
Although
Ivashov did not use the word “Mossad,” of course, his assessment 1) most
definitely runs contrary to the “official” version of what happened on 9-11; 2)
incorporates much of the thinking about 9-11 that we have seen in the comments
of the aforementioned General Gul of Pakistan and of Sheik Zayed of Abu Dhabi;
and 3) does indeed point toward the Mossad—in its role as a key force in the
arsenal of the “transnational mafias and international oligarchs”—as a key
player behind the terror that rained (and reigned) upon America on 9-11.
Let us now
move forward and examine precisely the means by which the Mossad’s historic
template for terror was utilized on 9-11.
(Source: Extraits de FALSE FLAGS: TEMPLATE FOR TERROR (2013) de Michael Collins Piper, cité dans Élucidation
complète de la responsabilité d'Israël et ses services secrets dans
l'orchestration du 11 septembre et sa récupération
géopolitico-médiatique )
BLAME EVERYBODY BUT ISRAEL!
The Curtain of Deceit: A Fabric of Lies;
Blame Bush, the New World Order, the CIA,
But by No Means Blame Israel!
Blame Bush, the New World Order, the CIA,
But by No Means Blame Israel!
By way of being an essay on the parameters of popular discussion and
so-called “independent” dissent on the official version of what really happened
on September 11, 2001. Why many self-styled “9-11 truth seekers” fail to look
at the big picture.
It
is an article of faith among the vast majority of Americans—even many who have
doubts about the “official” story of what really happened on September 11,
2001—that the 9-11 attacks were carried out by fanatic Muslims who were under,
at the least, the spiritual discipline (if not the immediate guidance) of Osama
bin Laden.
Although
there are growing numbers who are beginning to believe that much evidence points
toward the possible culpability of at least some American defense and
intelligence personnel in having foreknowledge of—or involvement in—the 9-11
attacks (presumably in order to advance a covert agenda involving U.S. imperial
ambitions—a point this study has no problem in accepting) the truth is that
there is also a wide-ranging array of data indicating Israel’s Mossad not only
had advance knowledge of the attacks and allowed them to proceed but, in fact,
that Israeli intelligence directed and facilitated the 9-11 attacks.
Needless
to say, this proposition is met with squeals of outrage—mostly from what Pat
Buchanan referred to as Israel’s “Amen Corner” in this country—but in these
pages we will present this thesis as a plausible alternative explanation of the
events of 9-11.
All
of this will be uncomfortable reading for those who rely on the so-called “mainstream”
sources of “news,” but we hasten to point out, up front, that if it were
discovered that Israel did have foreknowledge of—or direct involvement in—the
events of 9-11, none of those news sources would ever rush forward with the
evidence.
It
is an indisputable fact—hysterical protests to the contrary—that the primary
major news sources in America—both publications and broadcast outlets are—if not
owned or controlled outright by Jewish families and interests sympathetic to
Israel—otherwise dominated at the highest editorial levels by persons
sympathetic to Israel or under the direction of those who are. This is not a
“myth from the Muslim world.”
It’s
a cold, hard fact, not honestly subject to dispute.
On
the same token, there are naive folks who would rise up in their most righteous
indignation and say, “Well, if Israel was involved in the 9-11 attacks, then
our president, George W. Bush, would have said so.”
We
think not. The truth is that if the Bush administration had brought forth such
evidence, the president would have been shouted down. He would have been
declared “an anti-Semitic hate-monger” and hounded out of office by an enraged
media, probably declared incompetent by the Cabinet and removed through the
mechanism of the 22nd Amendment which permits the Cabinet to remove a president
from office if he is found incapable of holding the office.
So,
in the wake of 9-11, Junior Bush chose what might be called the “path of least
resistance” and opted instead to target Afghanistan, a longtime center of
intrigue and the target of historic imperial design.
(Nor
should we ignore the fact that this same administration was littered with
pro-Israel operatives among the now-infamous “neo-conservative” network, a
clique of intriguers who would have certainly undercut any serious attempt by
real patriots inside the government to expose Israeli involvement in the 9-11
attacks.)
Ultimately,
of course, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq came into the gun sights, although—as we now
know too well—the pro-Zionist ideologues in the Bush administration were eager
to include Iraq as a target immediately in the wake of the 9-11 attacks.
Now
here’s where things get a bit tricky.
As
we’ve noted, there are quite a few self-styled “independent researchers” who,
to their credit, questioned the official version of 9-11.
However,
there is one constant thread in much of their “research”: they studiously avoid
mentioning the possibility of Israeli foreknowledge or involvement in the
matter. Instead, they direct attention to CIA and FBI bungling and/or
foreknowledge of possible terrorist attacks.
In
their boldest ventures into discussion outside popular understanding of 9-11,
these “researchers” focus on long-standing Bush family (and Bush circle)
financial connections to Arab (usually Saudi) interests, as though that
“proves” Junior Bush either had foreknowledge of the 9-11 attacks or that, in
some way, the Bush family is culpable because some Arab princes in Riyadh may
have been aware of what lay ahead.
But
then, again, this is all based on a presumption—faulty, we shall see—that the
responsibility for 9-11 did indeed lie in the laps of those stereotypical “rich
Arabs” who have always been favorite villains in the Jewish-controlled mass
media, including, especially, Hollywood.
(That’s
the same Hollywood that Internet big-mouth Alex Jones once claimed was
controlled by “the Arabs.” And that’s the same Alex Jones—whose rise to wide
fame sponsored by Jewish-owned Sirius satellite network—who says “the New World
Order” was behind 9-11. And that’s the same Alex Jones who touted the idea
there was a “Saudi connection” to the Boston Marathon bombing. Need we say
more?)
Of
course, the reasoning behind such prevarication regarding Bush family ties to
the Arabs (and the implication that the Bushes and their Saudi friends were to
blame for 9-11) is stilted in and of itself.
According
to even the official version of events, Osama bin Laden, alleged 9-11
mastermind, was a maverick rebel who abandoned his ties to the Western-oriented
Arab leaders and broke away to lead an Islamic fundamentalist rebellion.
Those
who “discover” Bush connections to the Arab elite don’t seem to understand that
this given fact doesn’t particularly gibe with their “independent” version of
events.
However,
because, again, these “dissenters” have fallen into the trap of avoiding even
to dare mention possible Israeli involvement, they force themselves to shape
their own “alternative” history of 9-11 to accommodate the thesis that “the
Arabs did it” (on behalf of Bush!).
And
since Bush and his family and their associates did have a historic—although
largely little-known to the American public—involvement with the Saudi and
Arabic elite, these researchers conclude this must somehow “prove” that Bush
and the Arabs were in cahoots in bringing about the 9-11 attacks.
Now
all of this does not mean that these researchers were not on the right track
when they suggested there was more to bin Laden than meets the eye—that is,
that bin Laden was initially a creature of the CIA (and of Bush-connected
intelligence circles in the American elite). In fact, bin Laden did have a
long-standing connection to the operations of the CIA in its Middle East
intrigues in league with Israel’s Mossad.
But
then, again, it is simply not “politically correct” to mention the misdeeds of
Israel and the Mossad. And even those who do dare to mention that bin Laden and
many of the Islamic fundamentalists in his sphere of influence who were
involved in fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan did work directly
with the Mossad are certain to be called . . .“anti-Semitic.” And today in America,
that—as my old friend, the late Dallas Texas Naylor would say—is “a very
serious charge.
Two
“independent researchers” who have a history (like many others) of looking the
other way when it comes to Israel and 9-11 bear mentioning. They are John Judge
and Michael Ruppert.
Judge,
a longtime wader—not a swimmer—in the sea of conspiracy research (he never goes
out too far, usually up to his knees, but no further) can scream “CIA” as loud
as the little old lady sitting on her rocking chair on the veranda, but the
word “Mossad” has never been a part of his vocabulary. For years he has
assembled seminars on the JFK assassination—and more recently, on 9-11—but one
will never find Judge daring to mention the Mossad, at least not in a negative
sense.
Judge
is not particularly reliable either. In the early 1990s he asserted that Mark
Lane—the longtime critic of the CIA who was among the first to point the finger
directly at the CIA in the assassination of President Kennedy—had always
avoided mentioning CIA involvement in the assassination, despite the
easily-documentable fact that as far back as August 7, 1970 Lane had written an
article for The Los Angeles Free Press (LAFP)
entitled “CIA Killed JFK to Keep War Going,” a point that Lane underscored in
far greater detail in a full-length LAFP special report headlined “JFK Murder
Solved: Killing Coordinated by CIA.”
So,
as we said, Judge is not reliable, but he has acted as a skilled disinformation
specialist and, for obvious reasons, has widely been suspected of being some
sort of officially-sanctioned “gatekeeper” charged with the dubious responsibility
of attacking serious critics of high-level misdeeds and muddying the waters of
inquiry all the further.
The
case of Ruppert, is a bit more complicated, but equally telling.
Although
Ruppert’s endeavors contributed to the cause of independent research into the
intrigues of the intelligence community, particularly some of the international
drug-arms-and-money laundering escapades of the CIA (which, more often than
not, have involved the Mossad, although the Mossad is seldom, if ever, mentioned
in Ruppert’s rendering of events), Ruppert has demonstrated a remarkable
capacity, obviously, to give the Mossad a “clear” as far as any criminal
culpability is concerned. And so it was with his “investigation” into 9-11.
Note
this: At a speech at Portland State University, Ruppert energetically denounced
what he said were rumors being circulated by what he called the “right wing”
that Israel was involved in 9-11. Ruppert said that was all a bunch of “bull-pucky,”
a choice term that may or not may be Yiddish in origin. (And I’m only being
slightly facetious here.)
In
the next breath, Ruppert praised Israel, saying the Israelis did have specific
advance knowledge about the impending attacks and warned the United States to
beware. God bless Israel!
Then
Rupert cited a number of media reports that appeared just after 9-11. The
Israelis—in Ruppert’s assessment, at that point—were essentially “the good
guys”—a wonderful ally—whose warnings had been stupidly ignored (or perhaps
deliberately suppressed) by bunglers or traitors—take your pick—in U.S. defense
and intelligence.
As
additional evidence of Israeli foreknowledge, Ruppert cited the fact that
Israel’s Zim shipping company actually closed its office in the World Trade
Center (WTC) one week before the attacks, losing money in the process by
breaking its lease. Ruppert then mournfully raised the question as to why “our”
government did not likewise warn Americans in the WTC about the impending
tragedy.
While
Ruppert’s allegation about Zim’s withdrawal from the WTC was quite correct—and
reported early on by American Free Press (AFP), a newspaper Ruppert was careful
never to mention since AFP is forthrightly critical of Israel—Ruppert seemed to
miss the point that even raising the story about Zim was considered “beyond the
pale” and “anti-Semitic” since—the official story goes—Israel had absolutely no
foreknowledge of the impending attacks.
Although,
initially, Ruppert wanted to place all of the blame for 9-11 on the Bush
administration and absolve Israel of any blame whatsoever, he began to shift
his own line somewhat by the time his book on 9-11, Crossing the Rubicon,
was finally committed to print.
In
that volume, Ruppert actually went so far as to finally suggest that Israel had
indeed played a part in 9-11, but that it was acting as an agent of the United
States ruling elite. Ruppert was essentially suggesting that Israel (however
much it actually benefited from the consequences of 9-11) was, if anything, a
secondary partner of the United States intriguers whom Ruppert charged were
responsible for the tragedy.
Israel,
as presented by Ruppert, was some sort of victim of U.S. intrigue, forced to
act—perhaps against its will (poor little country)—as a pathetic tool of U.S.
imperialism.
Ruppert
went to great lengths in his book to assure his readers that he was “not
anti-Semitic” and quite apologetically insisted that two of his chief allies in
the preparation of his book were Jewish and therefore “proof” that he, Ruppert,
was not anti-Semitic.
Yet,
despite his protestations, Ruppert’s book hardly presented much of a case at
all that Israel did have a part in the 9-11 attacks. In fact, the rather
physically substantial book, if placed under an analytic magnifying glass, was
largely devoted to peripheral issues and analysis that hardly shed any direct
light on 9-11 itself.
Although
the volume appeared to be quite an accomplishment if judged solely on its
length, it is actually quite diversionary, with the ultimate effect of
downplaying (really, negating) Israel’s role in 9-11.
Based
on the theory that “Oil Not Israel” was the motivating cause behind alleged
U.S. orchestration of the 9-11 attacks, when it is case of quite precisely the
opposite, the patently obvious obfuscation on this particular question by
Ruppert does direct attention to the fact that much of the material circulated
about 9-11 has actually been quite a bit of misinformation and, more
importantly, deliberate disinformation.
And
all of this, once again, underscores the need for an all-out open, un-biased
public inquiry into what really did happen.
In
the end, Ruppert astounded many in the 9-11 research community by declaring the
case “closed,” as though he alone had “found the answers” and that no more
need be said about the matter. It is no wonder then that genuine truth seekers
concluded that, from the beginning, Ruppert had been no more than another
“infiltrator,” a “gatekeeper” whose primary motive was to bury the truth,
rather than find it.
Now
that all is said and done, however, Rupert has largely been eclipsed, even
forgotten, but his initial influence in discussion of 9-11 was considerable and
indeed destructive.
At
this juncture it is appropriate to give credit where credit is due:
Victor
Thorn and Lisa Guliani of Wingtv.net were among the first to blow the whistle
on Ruppert and show him for the diversionary force he proved to be. Although
Thorn and Guliani took a lot of heat for daring to confront Rupert’s
prevarications head on, they were very much vindicated and are now widely
recognized for speaking truth to power in the course of their own effort to lay
bare the real facts about 9-11.
Thorn’s
own work, 9-11 Evil—issued under the auspices of American Free
Press—bears the distinction of being the first in-print work of consequence to
examine Israeli complicity in 9-11, later followed by his supplementary volume,
Made in Israel: 9-11 and the Jewish Plot Against America.
There
are other 9-11 researchers who don’t have the high profile of Michael Ruppert
but it has become all too apparent that many of the so-called “independent”
researchers are fearful of addressing the Israeli connection to 9-11, which,
consequently, directs (or misdirects) what they will (or will not) say about
9-11.
All
of this having been said, let us come to the key question . . .
Why
would Israel have an interest in allowing the 9-11 attacks to happen or, in an
even more sinister scenario which this book, False Flags puts forth,
actually perpetrate the tragedy?
The
answer is simple—so simple—that it might, quite ironically conversely, be “too
big” for the average American to understand. Earlier we heard how former CIA
analyst George Friedman had to say about why Israel was the immediate
beneficiary of 9-11 and he was right. But there’s more to the story and it’s
critical we examine it here and now.
The
historical record shows that in the year preceding the 9-11 attacks, Israel was
becoming a virtual world outcast—perhaps more than it had ever been—its
heavy-handed crackdown on the Muslim and Christian Palestinians a phenomenal
scandal that had resulted in global condemnation of Israel’s violence and
brutality.
Thousands
of people were marching in the United States—even in the United States, it
might be stressed—and millions were marching around the globe, loudly and
publicly and forcefully condemning Israel and vocally siding with the
beleaguered Palestinians.
For
the first time since Israel came into being in 1948, the tiny, yet powerful,
nation was widely perceived as a villain and a perpetrator, rather than as a
victim, by people outside the Arab world. Israel was under siege for its
misdeeds and its very right to exist was being called into question. Increasing
numbers of even Jewish voices were questioning the very viability of “the
Zionist project,” and its future.
In
addition, although American Christian fundamentalists remained steadfast
supporters of the Jewish state, leaders of many mainstream Christian churches
were beginning to rally behind the Palestinian cause.
The
situation for Israel was bad indeed—climaxed, just prior to September 11, by
the international conference on racism in Durban, South Africa. There, people
from around the globe were saying that Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians
was hardly different from the accounts of Nazi Germany’s treatment of the
European Jews.
It
was a bitter pill to swallow for many Americans who, until then, had perceived
Israel to be some sort of “special” nation loudly hailed for its bravery in the
face of war, a little country that had “risen from the ashes of the Holocaust.”
Even devotion to Israel on the part of America’s liberal community—which had
historically been a foundation of intellectual support for Israel—was beginning
to crack.
September
11, 2001 changed all that—almost instantaneously. The “news” that Islamic
fundamentalists—and largely natives of America’s staunchest Arab ally, Saudi
Arabia—were responsible for the slaughter of 3,000 Americans was equated by the
media (with intense, over-the-top enthusiasm, it might be said) as a reflection
of what “little Israel” had suffered for 50 years at the hands of those same
Arabs.
However,
the word “Israel” was seldom advanced in media commentary on that black day and
in the weeks and months that followed, at least in the context of “why”
American had been attacked on 9-11.
To
his credit, Alexander Cockburn, writing in The Nation, was one commentator who
bothered to mention that fact. The “attack on America” was presented as if it
had happened in some unusual vacuum, as if U.S. Middle East policy was
absolutely no part of the equation.
Instead,
the media was quick to ask the question, “Why do they hate us?” and the answer
was regularly supplied by such pro-Israel Jewish commentators as “terrorism
expert” Stephen Emerson and famed “Orientalist” Bernard Lewis, most notable
among those who arrogantly and condescendingly explained that “they hate us”
because “they” were “jealous” and “envious” of Western civilization, that
America is perceived as the pinnacle of Western civilization, that America’s
“democracy” and “way of life” were painful realities for the backward, savage
Arabs and Muslims who wanted to destroy it all.
The
Arabs and the Muslims also hated Judaism and Christianity, they said,
conveniently ignoring the fact that Muslims revere Christ and that there are
many Arabs who are Christians and have been for 2,000 years.
Seldom
was it mentioned that there was a widespread distaste within that Arab world,
not for the American people or their way of life, but instead for U.S.
government policies and a perception (an accurate one) that the pro-Israel
lobby in the United States had an inordinate influence on both the Congress and
the presidency, not to mention the mass media and other centers of power in
American life.
So
while these Zionist propagandists were busy telling us that “they hate us”
because of—well, almost everything—the media and the experts were careful to
avoid mentioning one very real reason that could have instigated the very type
of attack that Americans experienced on September 11. And this itself is quite
revealing, for it demonstrates that carefully-crafted curtain of deceit, drawn
together from a fabric of lies, that surrounded the 9-11 attacks from the
beginning.
While
it was certainly true that Muslim fundamentalists could have been motivated to
attack the United States because of its policies favoring Israel . . . that
possible motivation was never mentioned. The whole issue of U.S. Middle East
policy was suppressed.
And
while, admittedly, the word “never” is a strong and definitive word, it is
indeed largely correct. It was decided—virtually ruled—early on that “the
Muslims did it” and they did it because “they hate us” and the reason they hate
us is . . .well, certainly nothing to do with Israel, for God’s sake! Why
that’s ridiculous—just not true. Or so “they” said.
All
of this is particularly interesting, though, in that, in almost the same
breath, media commentators were crowing that the 9-11 attacks demonstrated the
need for the United States to further align itself with Israel, that Israel and
the United States were now as one, that, as one pro-Israel commentator put it
so insistently: “We are all Israelis now.”
Naturally,
the idea that Israel was the prime mover behind 9-11—although still not so
widely known within the general public—has created much distress for Israel and
its supporters. One advocate for Israel, a Canadian Jewish writer of
conservative bent, Jonathan Kay, has written an entire book declaiming against
those known as the “9-11 truthers.”
Although
Kay condemns any and all dissent against the official rendition of 9-11, he
reserves special ire for those who suggest Israel was behind that tragedy. But
what is especially revealing is that Kay openly acknowledges—even
celebrates—the role 9-11 played in firmly bringing the United States into the
Zionist camp. In his book, Among the
Truthers: A Journey Through America’s Growing Conspiracist Underground, Kay
writes:
If
the Holocaust and the reaction of the Jewish state jointly marked the first
great turning point in the modern history of anti-Semitism, 9-11 marked the
second.
Following
the attacks, supporters of Israel spoke of a silver lining. The war against militant
Islam suddenly was a global one. Now, the whole world would see and understand
the sort of nihilistic hatred that Israelis confronted every day.
. . . America’s fight became Israel’s fight.
Over the last decade, a period during which Republicans and Democrats [had]
fought over every other subject imaginable, support for Israel [remained] one
of the few issues to attract virtually unanimous bipartisan support.
Among war hawks on the Right, in particular,
the sudden identification of militant Islam as America’s greatest enemy capped
a startling transformation in the perception of the American Jewish community
[by the Right].
Whereas Jews might once have threatened the
American Right in their roles as communists, anarchists, trade unionists, civil
rights leaders, and Ivy League intellectuals, no Jew could ever be an Islamist.
Just the opposite:
The Jew was the perfect anti-Islamist, whose
zeal and reliability in the war on terrorism was hard-wired into his political
DNA thanks to six decades of Israeli warfare against Islamic terrorists in the
Middle East. [Kay’s emphasis.]
For
the first time in the history of Western civilization, the Jew’s “foreignness” and
mixed loyalties—to the United States, Israel, world Jewry—became a source of
respect and trust rather than suspicion.
Kay
finally lays it all on the line: The ultimate result of 9-11 . . .
The September 11 attacks changed America in a
thousand different ways. Perhaps the most ironic, given the terrorists’
intensely anti-Semitic ideology, was that it cemented the long process leading
to Jews’ full-fledged ascension into the American establishment.
In
fact—as we shall see—there is good reason to believe that Israel did play the
central role in bringing about the awful events of that terrible day. Let us
then proceed and demonstrate a likely scenario as to how Israel once again
utilized its tried-and-true tactic of employing “false flags” in orchestrating
the events of 9-11.
(Source: Extraits de FALSE FLAGS: TEMPLATE FOR TERROR (2013) de Michael Collins Piper, cité dans Élucidation
complète de la responsabilité d'Israël et ses services secrets dans
l'orchestration du 11 septembre et sa récupération
géopolitico-médiatique )
Senate candidate Roy Moore this year suggested 9/11 might have been punishment for US turning away from God
"911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB BY BUSH-CHENEY"? NO! It was ISRAEL! See 911 Timetable by takeourworldback.com The “inside job” meme can be traced back to Jared Israel, who created the domain emperors-clothes.com on May 28, 1999, and established himself as a “truth teller” in advance of 9/11/01, in the same way as Christopher Bollyn did when self-proclaimed "Khazar" Jerry Myers placed him at AFP. The Emperor’s Clothes website featured reports by Jared Israel that were critical of the official 9/11 story as early as September 13, 2001. Then on November 14, 2001, the article “Guilty for 9-11: Bush, Rumsfeld, Myers” was posted on the Emperor’s Clothes site; there was of course no mention of Israeli involvement.
Sur ce blog:
Chuck Hagel: "Je suis un sénateur américain, pas un sénateur israélien"
Le groupe Stern (Lehi) a tenté d'assassiner le président Truman; selon Victor Ostrovsky le Mossad a déjà tenté de tuer le président George Bush, qui disait "Je ne suis qu'un petit homme isolé qui se bat contre la puissance politique d'un millier de lobbyistes du Capitole"
David Brog, le nouveau leader juif anti-BDS choisi par le milliardaire juif Sheldon Adelson, est le directeur de l'organisation sioniste chrétienne du télévangéliste John Hagee: Christians United For Israel
Le directeur de 'Christians United for Israel' est l'un des 50 juifs les plus influents selon le magazine Forward
Médias juifs antijuifs? Selon Enderlin (France 2 à Jérusalem), cible favorite des extrémistes juifs, Israël tombe aux mains d'extrémistes juifs religieux alliés à la droite radicale pendant que la gauche plie bagage... Israël veut devenir une superpuissance pour conquérir le monde. Le documentaire de Charles Enderlin "Au nom du Temple", basé sur son livre, maintenant disponible sur youtube
La France a-t-elle été punie par des fanatiques à cause de caricatures scandaleuses hautement médiatisées et en réplique à la présence de l’armée française en Irak? Ou bien a-t-elle été punie plutôt par des fanatiques pro-israéliens pour ses positions pro-Palestine à l’Onu, afin d’en faire un exemple, montrant au monde entier ce qui arrive à ceux qui refusent de se battre aux côtés d’Israël contre le Hamas et l’ « Islam militant »? Quand Israël perd en crédibilité ou se trouve isolé sur la scène internationale, il redouble d’effort dans le but d’entraîner le « monde libre » en croisade contre l’Islam. Israël perd la guerre de l’info mais gagne du terrain dans la guerre de la désinfo.
11 septembre 2014, l'Islam à nouveau diabolisé, la victime toujours blâmée... Indignation sélective et interventionnisme à géométrie variable: tous ces politiciens qui crient au meurtre maintenant sont restés muets cet été lors du carnage israélien à Gaza. Les crimes de guerre occidentaux sont la cause réelle de la formation de l'État islamique; nos médias leur ont fait une pub du tonnerre, rien de mieux pour accroître les rangs de l'EI! Al-Qaida ne faisait plus peur, il fallait donc qu'un nouveau méchant de service prenne sa place... Serons-nous bernés encore une fois?
11 septembre et tout le reste: c'était pas les musulmans!
L'empire est de retour en Irak... Pour combattre les djihadistes et prévenir un "génocide"? Mais comment croire la CIA lorsqu'elle affirme s'être fait prendre par surprise par les récents exploits d'ISIS? N'a-t-elle pas prétendu la même chose à propos du 11 septembre? Nous sommes censés croire que les services secrets anglo-américains n'ont rien vu venir?
Collection audiovisuelle et livresque de Michael Collins Piper
"There Will Be A Hot Time In The Old Town Tonight!" Un projet de film de Michael Collins Piper, en réponse à l'abject "Inglourious Basterds" de Tarantino
Médias antijuifs? En 2010, un ancien directeur de la CIA à Paris, Charles G. Cogan, professeur à l'université Harvard et pro-gaulliste, dénonçait sur les ondes de France24 la forte campagne de propagande anti-arabe et anti-islam menée par l'état d'Israël et relayée par la communauté juive aux États-Unis
Vers une Seconde Révolution américaine? Les administrations Obama et Netanyahou à couteaux tirés... boycott du discours de Netanyahou au Congrès par plus de 50 Démocrates, menaces, accusations de mensonge sur la place publique... Une première dans l'histoire des relations entre les États-Unis et Israël. Cela alors que le Mossad contredit radicalement la campagne de peur de Netanyahou concernant la prétendue menace nucléaire iranienne. Tout ça juste à temps pour Pourim... L'admin Obama déclassifie un document top-secret sur le nucléaire israélien!
Pire que la menace iranienne: la menace du boycott anti-Israël! Après la réunion secrète d'urgence organisée par le milliardaire juif Sheldon Adelson (parrain des Républicains) sur la menace que BDS représente pour les juifs, les puissants milliardaires juifs Adelson et Haim Saban (parrain des Démocrates) mettent en garde contre le "tsunami d'antisémitisme" qui suivra inévitablement la montée du mouvement BDS
Qui était tout près du métro de Londres au matin des attentats du 7 juillet 2005?
Dans la série des terroristes juifs dont vous n'avez jamais entendu parler... L'organisation terroriste juive Honenu, qui prétend "défendre les Israéliens face aux agressions arabes", a-t-elle mis le feu à l'Église de la Multiplication à Jérusalem? Des suspects interpelés. Imaginez si c'étaient des arabes palestiniens ou des musulmans! Pendant ce temps, la United Church of Christ aux États-Unis rejoint le mouvement de boycott d'Israël
Dans la série des terroristes juifs dont vous n'avez jamais entendu parler: L'incendie criminel contre une école bilingue arabe-hébreu en ville sainte, un attentat politique du groupe extrémiste juif Lehava. Aucune accusation de crime haineux? Et ils retrouvent leur liberté même si leur leader a dit qu'ils n'arrêteront jamais de terroriser les Palestiniens et combattre le métissage
Inversion accusatoire: après l'accord sur le nucléaire iranien, Israël menace d'aller en guerre, mais c'est l'Iran qui est accusé de menacer la paix mondiale...
Pendant que le gouvernement canadien de Stephen Harper envisage une loi protégeant l'État juif contre les méchants boycotteurs, le milliardaire Sheldon Adelson, soi-disant "juif le plus riche du monde", magnat des casinos connecté au crime organisé, parraine la formation du nouveau gouvernement de Netanyahou comme il parraine (et contrôle) le parti républicain états-unien. Le nouveau gouvernement Netanyahou et le parti républicain d'Adelson sont à ce point identiques - judéomaniaques et anti-arabes, contre l'Iran, la Palestine et l'Irak - qu'on jurerait qu'ils ont été séparés à la naissance... L'Israélienne qui incitait publiquement à "tuer les mères des Palestiniens" est nommée ministre de la justice. Le ministre israélien qui avouait publiquement n'avoir "aucun problème à tuer des Arabes" devient ministre de l'éducation.
Bébé palestinien brûlé vif par des colons israéliens: Israël forcée de dénoncer le terrorisme juif, tente hypocritement de nous faire oublier le massacre de milliers de civils palestiniens, incluant femmes et enfants, commis par l'armée israélienne dans les dernières décennies. Des politiciens israéliens condamnant le racisme et le terrorisme juif menacés de mort par des juifs extrémistes.
Rappel: silence médiatique sur la piste pro-israélienne dans les attentats terroristes à l'Anthrax aux USA, juste après le trauma du 11 septembre. Tout en ravivant le trauma, il fallait faire croire que c'était des musulmans...
11 septembre: les détails techniques ne sont que des détails, il importe bien plus de savoir qui sont les ultimes responsables et pourquoi ils l'ont fait. Et c'était pas les nazis!
Médias antijuifs? Sur les ondes de C-Span2, l'ex-agent du Mossad Victor Ostrovsky lève le voile sur l'influence du Mossad dans la politique étatsunienne
Hormis les médias juifs ou pro-palestiniens, personne ne parle du rapport américain déclassifié en février dernier confirmant l'existence du nucléaire israélien
William Kristol, fauteur de guerre juif, roi du PNAC néocon, appelle à "défier l'idole de la fatigue de guerre" en se préparant et en se mobilisant pour la guerre
Médiats juifs antijuifs? Le milliardaire juif ultrasioniste Sheldon Adelson est "tout droit sorti des pages des Protocoles des sages de Sion" selon Uri Avnery, ancien membre de la Knesset et correspondant dans de nombreux médiats israéliens
Dans ses mémoires intitulées "Diary of a Foreign Minister", l'ancien ministre australien des affaires étrangères, Bob Carr, dénonce la domination malsaine du lobby juif sioniste international sur les affaires étrangères
Un "new Israel" au Texas? Pourquoi pas?
Médias antijuifs? Sur les ondes de MSNBC, discussion sur les néocons responsables de la guerre en Irak pour Israël, leur délirante théorie du complot irakien et leur guerre de cent ans contre le monde arabo-musulman
Les milliardaires juifs et magnats des médias Haim Saban (Démocrate) et Sheldon Adelson (Républicain) en compétition pour le titre du plus grand juif fauteur de guerres mondiales, insistent qu'il faut bombarder l'Iran
"Kerry a déclaré la guerre à Dieu!" Menaces de mort contre Kerry-Haman: c'est pas des musulmans! Les antijuifs de plus en plus décomplexés inquiètent... Mais qu'en est-il des menaces de mort à peine voilées proférées impunément par des juifs contre des hommes d'État?
Inversion accusatoire: Israël furieux que les États-Unis n'aient pas étouffé la nouvelle concernant les bombardements israéliens en Syrie
Brochette de sionistes juifs néocons, au bien cuit de Dick Cheney
Un des journalistes juifs du Watergate, Carl Bernstein, accuse les "néocons juifs" d'être derrière la guerre en Irak
Résumé des preuves liant le Mossad au 11 septembre
Les "Israéliens dansants" du 11 septembre et l'implication du Mossad, en français!
Les preuves que la fable du 11 septembre est un tissu de mensonge
"Je larguerais Israël demain matin!" dit au Congrès le professeur Michael Scheuer, ancien directeur de l'unité anti-Ben Laden à la CIA
Détenteur d'un important arsenal nucléaire et chimique, Israël est responsable de la course à l'armement nucléaire et chimique au Proche-Orient... Qu'attendent nos chères démocraties pour condamner cet état terroriste partisan d'al-Qaïda et le compter parmi leurs ennemis?
Al-Qaida, Israël: même combat... contre la Syrie
Légalisation de la torture: la CIA a une dette envers Israël
La CIA voit le Mossad comme sa pire menace en matière de contre-espionnage
Médias juifs antijuifs? Le Jerusalem Post confirme qu'Israël savait que le USS Liberty était américain
Encyclopédies antijuives? Menachem Begin, un terroriste exemplaire, selon Larousse.fr. La série télé "Homeland" antijuive? Elle compare Menachem Begin à un vulgaire terroriste taliban!
Selon Frank J. Gaffney (signataire du PNAC), les Frères Musulmans ont infiltré et contrôlent l'administration Obama
Le mouvement juif Néo-conservateur : du trotskisme au bellicisme sioniste
Les fauteurs de guerres
Netanyahou: "Nous vaincrons l'Islam militant!"
Netanyahou (2001): "Les États-Unis ne se mettront pas dans notre chemin, on peut facilement les faire bouger"
Les mensonges de Richard Perle
MAUDITE BOISSON ! L'alcool fait dire à George Tenet que "les Juifs" néocons de Bush ont voulu se servir de lui comme bouc émissaire dans le fiasco des Armes de Destruction Massives
PERLE, WOLFOWITZ, FEITH: LE MOSSAD AU PENTAGONE
Guerres sionistes et Option Samson: vers la délivrance ultime
Un lobbyiste pro-israélien appelle à provoquer un nouveau Pearl Harbor pour déclencher une guerre contre l'Iran
Selon le propagandiste juif sioniste anti-Islam Daniel Pipes, Netanyahou devrait menacer de nucléariser l'Iran
PNAC King Kristol
David Frum, l'inventeur du concept d' "Axe du Mal" veut y inclure le Pakistan
Grands prêtres de guerre: la guerre en Irak comme tremplin des néocons vers la domination mondiale
Du trotskyisme au néoconservatisme: The High Priests of War (PHOTO SECTION)
Selon Frank J. Gaffney (néoconsignataire du PNAC), les Frères Musulmans ont infiltré et contrôlent l'administration Obama
Le complot islamo-gauchiste contre l'Occident. Par l'humoriste juif Daniel Pipes
Un sinistre canadien dénonce le complot onusien-médiatique contre Israël
Ron Paul explique le non-interventionnisme dans les affaires étrangères
Qu'ont-ils en commun?
Derrière la tragédie du 11 septembre et la guerre au terrorisme
L'effet boomerang (contre-coup ou retour de manivelle): l'appui des USA à Israël comme motivation possible des terroristes censuré de la commission d'enquête du 11 septembre
Traître à la nation américaine: Philip Zelikow, conceptualisateur du "terrorisme catastrophique" et auteur de la commission d'enquête du 11 septembre
Zelikow et le mythe fondateur du 21e siècle américain
L'utilisation d'armes chimiques en Syrie (en 2013) pourrait être un false flag israélien, selon l'ancien chef de cabinet de Colin Powell sous l'administration Bush, le colonel à la retraite Lawrence Wilkerson
45e anniversaire de l'assassinat de JFK: mystère résolu (malgré l'obstruction par des chercheurs peureux tels Peter Dale Scott qui préfèrent blâmer un vague et mystérieux "État profond")
Surprise durant la semaine de l'anniversaire de l'assassinat de JFK: Arnon Milchan, producteur juif d'Hollywood, a confirmé ce que nous savions en avouant publiquement avoir été à l'emploi du Mossad dans le cadre du développement du programme nucléaire d'Israël...
La piste israélienne n'est plus ignorée dans les ouvrages de référence sur JFK, panique des néocons dans les médias (National Review, Washington Free Beacon) - Extrait de la fin du livre "The Letters of John F. Kennedy"
Après JFK et Obama, au tour de l'Onu de demander à Israël d'ouvrir ses installations nucléaires aux inspections
Mise au point sur la désinfo qui circule concernant le nouvel ordre mondial, Bilderberg, les nazis, le 11 septembre, etc.