Encore un peu d'information du FBI sur les Israéliens dansants. Pas de preuve fumante mais un pattern prouvé et reconnaissable de manipulation du terrorisme comme stratégie géopolitique.
La connexion israélienne est souvent censurée même dans les médias alternatifs, sinon elle est présentée par une source, un auteur non-fiable sinon anonyme (comme l'auteur de ce présent blog!). Mais il y a des exceptions à cette règle, ainsi on peut voir l'auteure journaliste Whitney Webb poster sur le site MintPress (devenu célèbre récemment grâce à la série de Webb sur Epstein et l'histoire des réseaux mafieux de chantage sexuel) un magnifique résumé de la symptomatique affaire des "Israéliens dansants", suite à de récentes divulgations de documents du FBI (voir les précédents rapports du FBI tout au bas de cet article dans la liste d'articles similaires sur ce blog). Webb aborde aussi le rôle de Netanyahou dans la construction du mythe du terrorisme international comme nouvelle menace, et le bienfait considérable et incontestable que le 11 septembre constitue pour les intérêts d'Israël (nul doute que ce fut au minimum une opportunité de maximisation de son capital de sympathie).
Nous tenons à souligner cependant qu'à notre avis le mouvement pour la "Vérité" (mis à part son obsession technique qui n'a réussi qu'à le faire tourner en rond) fait fausse route en ce qu'il n'a jamais considéré même la possibilté qu'au vu de son échec patent, ce mouvement de "Vérité" ait pu être en lui-même une opération de manipulation ("Black Operation") relevant de la guerre psychologique ("PsyOp"), et ce au meme titre que les attaques "sous faux drapeau" récupérées politiquement par des intérêts géostratégiques. Car à voir où a abouti ce mouvement (transformé en grande partie en sandyhookisme), on peut se demander franchement s'il n'a pas été conçu dès le départ pour mener à rien et ainsi protéger les criminels, les laissant libres de poursuivre leurs sombres desseins (les livres fort détaillés de David Ray Griffin, par exemple, ne mentionnent même pas le mot Israël). Que les deux côtés d'une controverse puissent être contrôlés et préventivement neutralisés, l'existence même d'oppositions contrôlées, ne devraient surprendre personne du côté des conspirationnistes. Autant la haine anti-musulmans générée par le récit officiel du 11 septembre que la haine anti-élites ocidentales (et/ou sionistes) générée par le discours conspirationniste du 11 septembre peuvent être instrumentalisées, politiquement: on les a même vus s'unir dans l'Alt-Right et constituer la base de Trump.
Nous arrivons donc à la conclusion que le 11 septembre est avant tout une opération de guerre psychologique à deux niveaux au moins: au premier degré elle suscite la haine ethnique anti-arabe et anti-islam, mais au second degré elle terrifie tous ceux dans la population qui sont assez intelligents pour comprendre qu'il s'agit de toute évidence d'un gros mensonge et que les gouvernements, les médias et le renseignement sont dans le coup et se soutiennent mutuellement dans leur propagande mensongère. On dirait que tout a été fait pour que même les imbéciles comprennent qu'il s'agissait sans doute d'un coup monté! Ceux qui ont décelé le gros mensonge reçoivent simplement un conditionnement différent des autres: ils apprennent en même temps qu'ils doivent la fermer et qu'ils risquent gros s'ils dénoncent le gros mensonge, ils comprennent qu'ils risquent non seulement d'être qualifiés d'anti-Américains (ou antijuifs s'ils blâment Israël) mais ils risquent même de tout perdre, jusqu'à leur moyen de subsistance. Au cas où ce ne serait pas assez clair: la version officielle est trop pleine de trous, les services secrets semblent jouer avec nous, cela semble fait exprès pour nous imposer une croyance aveugle (même si elle contredit les faits) en même temps que la terreur de tout perdre si on ose la contester. On nous fait comprendre que les responsables sont tout-puissants et qu'on ne peut pas les arrêter même si la version officielle est absolument incroyable, qu'ils sont des Dieux en somme, et avec le Patriot Act (et ses variantes internationales) on nous fait comprendre que, comme Dieu, Big Brother épie chacun de nos faits et geste. C'est un conditionnement mental très efficace et insidieux quand, pour nous intimider et nous démoraliser, on nous révèle un bout de la vérité, simplement pour mieux nous faire comprendre qu'on doit s'autocensurer, que c'est pratiquement un suicide professionnel que d'en parler. Savoir qu'on nous ment tout en sachant surtout qu'il faut garder le silence, a pour effet de nous déprimer et nous faire abandonner, nous faire perdre le courage et la volonté dire cette vérité. Comprendre cette tactique insidieusement psychologique, c'est comprendre plus profondément en quoi le 11 septembre relève d'une opération de guerre psychologique (PsyOp), une opération noire (BlackOp).
As another 9/11 anniversary comes and goes, many questions
surrounding the events remain unanswered. MintPress brings you a freshly
updated article, originally published in May, 2019 that seeks answers
to some of those questions.
Il s'agit d'une version augmentée de l'article suivant:
New information released by the FBI has brought fresh scrutiny to the possibility that the “Dancing Israelis,” at least two of whom were known Mossad operatives, had prior knowledge of the attacks on the World Trade Center. (by Whitney Webb)
À comparer avec l'apport de Michael Collins Piper, même si de son propre aveu, son travail ne concerne que les aspects oubliés ou ignorés par les autres chercheurs, concernant Israël...
(...) What
[George] Friedman said on 9-11 [source], only hours after the attack on the World Trade Center,
provided an absolute underscoring of my own thesis that Israel was ultimately
behind the events that had taken place that day. Friedman wrote in no uncertain
terms:
The big winner today, intended or not, is the
state of Israel. Israel has been under siege by suicide bombers for more than a
year. It has responded by waging a systematic war against Palestinian command
structures. The international community, particularly the United States, has
pressured Israel heavily to stop its operations. The argument has been made
that the threat of suicide bombings, though real, does not itself constitute a
genuine threat to Israeli national security and should not trigger the kind of
response Israel is making. Today’s events change all of this.
“The big
winner” Friedman said, was Israel. The events of that day—still unfolding
(including not far from me at the Pentagon)—changed everything vis-a-vis U.S.
policy toward Israel, he said.
You can imagine my sense of vindication. Here was a Jewish supporter of
Israel with substantial credentials in the world of intelligence essentially
confirming the very suspicions I had outlined in my conversation with my perhaps
a bit-incredulous sister-in-law hardly more than an hour or two before.
Friedman
actually seemed to be gloating that now that Americans had been (conveniently,
for Israel’s interests) victimized by terrorism, that: 1) Americans had now
being galvanized against Israel’s enemies; 2)that the terrorist acts
effectively put the United States in a position in which it could no longer
criticize Israel; and that 3)Americans would be forced to be “dependent” on
Israel (not vice versa):
First, the United States no longer can argue
that Israel should endure the bombings. Moving forward, the domestic American
political mood simply won’t tolerate such a stance.
Second, Israel now becomes, once again, an indispensable
ally to the United States. The United States is obviously going to launch a
massive covert and overt war against the international radical Islamic movement
that is assumed to be behind this attack.
Not only does this align U.S. and Israeli
interests but it also makes the United States dependent on the Israelis—whose
intelligence capabilities in this area as well as covert operational
capabilities are clearly going to be needed.
What
Friedman did not explain was why Israel’s vaunted “intelligence capabilities”
did not help stop prevent these acts of terrorism from happening in the first
place.
In any
event, Friedman stated that “There is no question, therefore, that the Israeli
leadership is feeling relief.” He contended the alleged Muslim terrorists
touted in the media as the likely 9-11 terrorists had calculated that their
acts would split the Arab world and force Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to
become more accommodating to Israel.
At the time
Friedman wrote his remarkable analysis, there was officially “no evidence” as to
who was actually behind the attacks—although the major media was already
chanting that “the Muslims” (and even Osama bin Laden) were most likely to
blame. However, Friedman was already speculating heavily, grinding the axe for
not just Islamic terrorists, but for an Islamic state itself. He wrote:
The greatest question right now is this: Which
Islamic state was involved in the attack? We suspect that there was such
involvement. The sophistication required means of communication and transport
available only to states. Afghanistan does not have the international
facilities needed. We assume that Sudanese and Iraqi diplomatic communications
and transport are both too closely monitored to be useful. If that is true,
what other nation provided support facilities for this operation? Answering
that question speaks to the future of the region.
Friedman
candidly answered the question “Who benefits?” by saying it was Israel. But his
question—“What other nation provided support facilities for this operation?” may
have been, in the end—in light of what we now know of evidence pointing toward
Israeli state sponsorship of the 9-11 tragedy—the most thought-provoking (if
ironic) aspect of Friedman’s essay, however obviously unintentional it may have
been.
So it
was—very early on 9-11—that George Friedman was effectively putting in
writing—although from an obviously different perspective from my own—the very
reasoning that led to my “controversial” assumption as to what really lay
behind the 9-11 terrorist attacks.
And needless
to say, I made good use of Friedman’s remarks in the days ahead, as I plowed
forward, along with my colleagues at American
Free Press, in trying to bring the real truth about 9-11 to our readers.
And let it
be stated without ambiguity: From the beginning, American Free Press (AFP) was the one national newspaper countering
the 9-11 lies that were being foisted on the American people and daring to
point the finger of blame in the direction of Israel.
The first
issue of AFP published immediately after Sept. 11 (dated Sept. 24) went to the
printer on Sept. 14. That issue made it clear our staff was already raising
questions about what really happened.
The lead
story, by Willis Carto, asked frankly: “Who benefits?” and pointed out that
Israel—above all—stood to benefit as a consequence of the United States
becoming more embroiled in the Middle East thanks to the likely reverberations
from 9-11.
That issue
of AFP also featured an article by yours truly, Michael Collins Piper, pointing
out there was evidence pointing to Mossad involvement in the first World Trade
Center attack in 1993, noting this revelation had first appeared in an article
in TheVillage Voice on August3, 1993 by respected Jewish-American
investigative journalist Robert I. Friedman (not to be confused with George
Friedman of stratfor.com).
After that
first attack on the trade center, I had written an article for TheSpotlight
reflecting on Friedman’s report and yet both The Spotlight’s story (and Friedman’s original report) continued to
be ignored, even by many so-called “conspiracy theorists.”
And in the
wake of 9-11, even many in the “alternative media” who were raising questions
about the 9-11 attacks preferred to avoid the possibility of Mossad
involvement, studiously refusing to address what Friedman had revealed about
the first WTC attack in 1993.
So—at the
very outset—AFP broached the No. 1 taboo relating to 9-11, that even many 9-11
dissidents are still hesitant to mention today. AFP was indeed the one national
media voice—perhaps the one international media voice—that said, from the
beginning, that Israel was certainly the chief suspect in the 9-11 tragedy.
In fact,
the second issue of AFP issued in the wake of 9-11 (dated Oct. 1but printed
Sept. 21), featured the front page headline asking the question, “Did Israelis
Have Foreknowledge?” That issue of AFP included an article (by yours truly)
entitled “U.S. Army Officers Say: ‘Mossad May Blame Arabs, ’which focused on
the aforementioned Sept.10 report (published in The Washington Times) describing the study from the Army’s School
of Advanced Military Studies which called the Mossad a “wild card” capable of
committing a terrorist attack and blaming it on the Arabs.
My article
tied the military’s assessment to George Friedman’s contention that “the big
winner” on 9-11 was Israel. The article also reiterated Robert I. Friedman’s
revelation of the Mossad link to the first World Trade Center attack that I had
reported the week before in AFP.
The balance
of my article provided an extended overview of the Mossad’s historic use of
false flags in global terrorism—the details of which now appear in this present
book in Chapter One.
Yes, I was
piling it on—driving home the point that Americans needed to ponder the
likelihood Israel had been involved in orchestrating 9-11. In fact, I was one
of the first print journalists—if not the first and certainly the first with a
wide-reaching audience—to focus on both Friedman’s revealing comments and the
report from the local Washington Times
on the U.S. Army’s concerns about the Mossad’s false flag trickery, both
stories of critical importance that could have otherwise been lost in the
massive avalanche of press frenzy following 9-11.
Later, as
the media added garbage upon garbage onto its mound of “evidence” that “the Muslims” were not only responsible
for 9-11 but also—horror of horrors—conveying the Hellish lie it was actually
Israel behind the tragedy, one pro-Israel propagandist, Harold Brackman of the Simon
Wiesenthal Center, prepared a special report entitled 9/11 Digital Lies: A Survey of Online Apologists for Global Terrorism.
One bit of
“evidence” of Muslim perfidy cited by Brackman was a quote attributed to Sheikh
Muhammed Hussein Fadlullah of Hizbollah on Islam On Line on Sept. 15, 2001. The
sheikh’s offending remark was that “Israel is the main beneficiary of this
terrible tragedy.”
In fact, most
of those who expressed outrage at the sheikh’s words probably had no idea the
sheikh’s remarks precisely echoed what our respected former CIA official, George
Friedman, a Jewish American, had said immediately after the 9-11 attacks.
And note,
too, what former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said about what the
9-11 attacks meant for relations between the United States and Israel. The
Sept. 12, 2001 issue of TheNew York Times quoted Netanyahu as
saying frankly, “It’s very good,” then adding hurriedly, “Well, not very good, but
it will generate immediate sympathy.”
In 2008
Netanyahu reaffirmed his view that Israel was indeed a beneficiary of 9-11. On
April 16, 2008, the online edition of Israel’s Ha’aretz newspaper reported
that, speaking at Bar Ilan University, Netanyahu had said, “We are benefiting
from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the
American struggle in Iraq.”
Ha’aretz
cited the other prominent Israeli newspaper, Ma’ariv, as having said that
Netanyahu had also added that those events “swung American public opinion in
our favor.”
Perhaps not
coincidentally, in the aftermath of the bombing at the Boston Marathon in early
2013, Ron Dermer a diplomatic advisor known to be especially close to
Netanyahu—once again serving as prime minister—told Jewish leaders in New York
that, just like the 9-11 attacks, the Boston bombing would increase American
support for Israel. The April 19, 2013 issue of Ha’aretz reported that Dermer
said:
The bulk of the American people stand firmly
with Israel and identify with Israel. If you can look, historically, there was
a big change after 911, and I am sure that after the tragic bombing in Boston,
people will identify more with Israel and its struggle against terrorism and we
can maintain that support.
Un autre aspect intéressant mais ignoré de l'utilité politique du 11 septembre concerne la "cause palestinienne". Après le 11 septembre, l'administration Bush n'a pas que déclenché la guerre en Afghanistan, il a également traîné en cour une grosse organisation pro-palestienne travaillant à l'établissement d'un État palestien, sous de fausses accusations mais qui ont permis de détruire l'organisation. L'histoire de ces évéements est racontée par Miko Peled dans son plus récent livre:
Les attentats majeurs servent à manipuler la population, que le contre-terrorisme fabrique ses terroristes: on le sait déjà mais encore faut-il avoir les preuves pour le dire. Max Blumenthal en parle dans son plus récent livre, en rappelant les liens de Netanyahou avec la fabrication et l'agitation de l'épouvantail terroriste.
