JUST AS THEY CREATED AL QAEDA IN AFGHANISTAN TO FIGHT RUSSIA SO MANY YEARS AGO AND LIED TO US BY CLAIMING AL QAEDA WAS THE SOLE PERPETRATOR OF THE 911 FALSE FLAG THAT LED US INTO IRAQ INSTEAD OF FIGHTING OUR REAL ENEMIES IN ISRAEL,SAUDI ARABIA,THE UAE AND THE CITY OF LONDON ETC.....
"9-11/Israel did it" - Wikispooks
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/Israel_did_it
One of the first operational steps in preparation for the 9/11 attacks would have been to secure control of the World Trade Centre Complex itself. This is .... The security at the Schiphol Airport is also handled by the Israeli-owned ICTS International. ... Odigo was later acquired by another Israeli company called Comverse.Zionists Did 9-11 | Antonio LaMotta | Pulse | LinkedIn
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zionists-did-9-11-antonio-lamotta
Oct 29, 2016 - Hellerstein has been involved in several high-profile 9/11-related cases, including cases against the three airlines, ICTS International, Pinkerton's airport security, ... Ari Fleischer, White House spokesman for Bush on 9-11; Harlined Iraq WMD lies to the press; “dual citizen” of US and Israel; connected to the ...
NOTE ZIONIST WIKIPEDIA OF INTERNET PORN PIONEER AND CHICAGO MERCANTILE MONEY LAUNDERER JIMBO WALES CALLS ISRAELIS OF ICTS INTERNATIONAL WHO CONTROLLED LOGAN AIRPORT BOSTON ON 9/11 THAT ACCORDING TO OFFICIAL STORY BROUGHT DOWN DONALD TRUMP'S PL SILVERSTEIN'S AND MOSSAD AUSTRALIAN ISRAELI BILLIONAIRE FRANK LOWY'S WTC AND MAKING THEM EVEN RICHER THAN THEY ALREADY WERE
Crimes of Zion: Larry Silverstein and 9/11
crimesofzion.blogspot.com/2007/06/silverstein-and-911.html
Jun 20, 2007 - One of these individuals is Larry Silverstein, who purchased the 99 year lease on the World Trade Center complex in July 2001 and who oversaw control of the complex before and during the attacks, along with Australian-Israeli real estate tycoon Frank Lowy of Westfield America. Silversteinand Lowy are ...ICTS International - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICTS_International
ICTS International N.V. is a Dutch firm that develops products and provides consulting and personnel services in the field of aviation and general security. It was established in 1982, by former members of the Shin Bet, Israel's internal security agency, and El Al airline security agents. The company's shares are traded on ...9/11 Was the Excuse for an Already Planned Invasion of Iraq ...
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/.../9-11-excuse-already-planned-invasion-iraq/
3 days ago - 9/11 Was the Excuse for an Already Planned Invasion of Iraq. 9/11 was the neoconservatives' “New Pearl Harbor,” the excuse the neoconservatives said they needed to launch Washington's invasions of the Middle East. As General Wesley Clark told us, the plan was seven countries in five years. The plan ...
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/.../9-11-excuse-already-planned-invasion-iraq/
3 days ago - 9/11 Was the Excuse for an Already Planned Invasion of Iraq. 9/11 was the neoconservatives' “New Pearl Harbor,” the excuse the neoconservatives said they needed to launch Washington's invasions of the Middle East. As General Wesley Clark told us, the plan was seven countries in five years. The plan ...A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America's Intelligence ...
https://www.amazon.com/Pretext-War-Americas-Intelligence.../dp/140003034X
A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies [
https://www.amazon.com/Pretext-War-Americas-Intelligence.../dp/140003034X
A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies [
Did the Anthrax Attacks Kick-Start the Iraq War? | WIRED
https://www.wired.com/2011/03/did-the-anthrax-attacks-kickstart-the-iraq-war/
Mar 29, 2011 - Secretary of State Colin Powell went to the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003, to make the case for war in Iraq. A central plank of his presentation: the anthrax attacks that killed five people and helped send the United States into a panic in the days after 9/11. “Less than a teaspoonful of dry \[…\]
https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/01/how-the-iraq-war-still-haunts-new-york-times/199946
https://www.wired.com/2011/03/did-the-anthrax-attacks-kickstart-the-iraq-war/
Mar 29, 2011 - Secretary of State Colin Powell went to the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003, to make the case for war in Iraq. A central plank of his presentation: the anthrax attacks that killed five people and helped send the United States into a panic in the days after 9/11. “Less than a teaspoonful of dry \[…\]US Evacuates ISIS Militants from Syria and Iraq to Afghanistan
On Sunday, February 4, 2018, Iranian Defense Minister Brigadier General Amir Hatami stated that the U.S. is transferring ISIS to Afghanistan to justify its presence in the Central Asian region.
Brigadier General Amir Hatami emphasized that U.S. had created ISIS to dominate Syria and Iraq, but after the ISIS’ defeat in those two countries, the United States tried to transfer the group to Afghanistan in order to justify their continuing presence in this country.
On Thursday, February 6, 2018, Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces Maj. Gen. Mohammad Bagheri blamed the U.S. for relocating members of the ISIS terrorist group from Syria and Iraq to Afghanistan.
According to him, since ISIS and other terror groups lost their territories in Iraq and Syria, the Americans have been relocating the terrorists to Afghanistan by various means.
Moreover, Mohammad Bagheri believes that Washington creates tension and conflict in Southwest Asia.
“The US has to gather up its troops and leave the regional countries to take care of their own security,” he added.
For his part, the Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei said in late January that the goal behind Washington’s move to relocate ISIS terrorists to Afghanistan is to justify its military presence in the region and to provide security for the Zionist regime. He also called the Americans as the main source of instability in Afghanistan. At the same time, by words of Khamenei, the U.S. intends to promote its political and economic interests through the destabilization of Afghanistan.
It’s worth noting that several days ago the U.S. started pulling its forces from Iraq. However, the American servicemen don’t return to home soil. They are redeployed to Afghanistan, and it is not unlikely that they traveling with ISIS terrorists.
According to many experts, the number of ISIS militants in Afghanistan is estimated at 7,000 fighters. Apart from existing forces, the redeployment of reinforcement from Iraq and Syria will allow them to strengthen positions in the country that is a direct threat to the civilians.
*
Sophie Mangal is a special investigative correspondent from Inside Syria Media Center where this article was originally published.
Featured image is from the author.
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Sophie Mangal, Global Research, 2018
..................................................
Iran Dominates in Iraq After U.S. 'Handed the Country Over' - The New ...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/15/world/middleeast/iran-iraq-iranian-power.html
The United States spent more than $1 trillion and lost about 4500 troops in the effort to make Iraq the cornerstone of a Western-facing Middle East. But today, Iran's influence is paramount.Lie by Lie: A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq – Mother Jones
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline/
But the blame for Iraq does not end with Cheney, Bush, or Rumsfeld. Nor is it limited to the intelligence operatives who sat silent as the administration cherry-picked its case for war, or with those, like Colin Powell or Hans Blix, who, in the name of loyalty or statesmanship, did not give full throat to their misgivings. It is also ...Why we stuck with Maliki — and lost Iraq - The Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/...iraq/.../0dd6a8a4-f7ec-11e3-a606-946fd632f9f1_sto...
To understand why Iraq is imploding, you must understand Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki — and why the United States has supported him since 2006. I have known Maliki, or Abu Isra, as he is known to people close to him, for more than a decade. I have traveled across three continents with him. I know his ...Iraq | Reuters.com
https://www.reuters.com/places/iraq
Exclusive: U.S. not planning to contribute money at Iraq reconstruction conference - officials. WASHINGTON The United States does not plan to contribute any money at a conference in Kuwait next week to fund Iraq's reconstruction drive after the war against Islamic State forces, U.S. and Western officials said, a move critics ...
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/spotlight/the911decade/2011/09/201197155513938336.html
The connection between Iraq and 9/11
Why Iraq?
Ten years after the tragedy in Manhattan it is a question that many still ask. The response in Afghanistan was in some ways a reaction, and perhaps understandable given the defined linkage between the Taliban and al-Qaeda. But what about Iraq? How and why did the Bush administration somehow link Saddam Hussein and Iraq to the events of 9/11?
Ambassador Joe Wilson is one who has some reasons and is uniquely qualified to express them. He was the last US diplomat to meet Saddam before the first Gulf War - as acting ambassador in Baghdad he actively challenged him. Saddam had issued an order saying any person "sheltering" foreigners could face execution. There were more than a hundred US citizens in the embassy at that stage and Wilson appeared at an off-the-record news conference wearing a noose around his neck and famously said - "If the choice is to allow American citizens to be taken hostage or to be executed, I will bring my own [expletive] rope".
All in the embassy were evacuated safely.
Challenging President Bush
Having confronted Saddam, Wilson then went on to challenge his own president little more than a decade later. It was a precise issue - in his State of the Union address in January 2003, George W Bush made the following statement:"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa".
| Former US ambassador to Iraq discusses 9/11, invasion of Iraq, and the "dire consequences" of both |
A few months earlier, though, Wilson had travelled to Niger at the request of the CIA to investigate the claim, and found it to be false. He was shocked that the Bush administration was using what he knew to be incorrect information as a justification for war. After weeks of attempting to set the record straight, Wilson went public - writing an article entitled "What I didn't find in Africa" in the New York Times, repudiating what the president said.
The response was ferocious - not just against Wilson himself. His wife, Valerie Plame, was outed as a CIA agent by the administration - a move that put her life in danger, along with that of the many sources she had cultivated in Iraq and other areas.
Now the two live with their children and black Labrador dog as far away from Washington as possible while staying in the US. Years after these events, Wilson still asks that the location is not revealed - though not specifying whether the threat is internal or external.
We had a wide-ranging discussion focusing on reasons why Iraq was a target of the Bush administration. Wilson refers firstly to then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's comment: "There are no targets worth striking in Afghanistan, go strike Baghdad."
Then he recollects the statement made by Bush at a fundraiser that "they tried to kill my daddy".
But the heart of the reason, Wilson believes, lies in a document called the Project for the New American Century. In it, a group that came to be known as the "Neo-Cons" postulate an American military presence around the world, rather like the great Roman Empire. "It says quite clearly that in order to make their grandiose imperialistic ambitions come to life, you were going to need a cataclysmic event along the lines of Pearl Harbor - 9/11 provided them that."
Linked to this, Wilson argues, is a Middle East policy the Neo-Cons espoused. "They talked in terms of the way to peace in the Middle East is not through Jerusalem, it is through Baghdad."
I asked the obvious question: "Are you saying that 9/11 provided an excuse to push that global agenda?" – the response: "I am not sure it provided an excuse; it was certainly an opportunity they seized."
'No real connection'
This assertion that the Bush administration also saw opportunity in tragedy was echoed by another person I spoke to. Geoff Millard's National Guard Unit was the first to be deployed in the wreckage of the World Trade Center, on the evening of the attacks. Subsequently, he was deployed to Iraq as a member of the 42nd Armored Division, working in their intelligence section.
He remembers clearly discussions with fellow intelligence officers. "I used to talk to the major in charge of our unit all the time, and he would talk about how al-Qaeda in Iraq was actually set up by us. In the sense that we named it. So our intel officers freely admitted in private that there was no real connection between al-Qaeda in Iraq and the bin Laden al-Qaeda."
It was all, says Geoff Millard, a lie - one that led to the loss of thousands of US and Iraqi lives. He himself, like so many others, came back from Iraq physically disabled and deeply angry at an administration that went to war under false pretenses.
The question again - why would the administration want to link 9/11 to Iraq?
"Nine-eleven got connected to Iraq because you can't argue with 9/11," he says. "We lost 2000 people in a matter of hours. That's too much of a connection, and then the constant media coverage of something like that just seared into us. Every American out there and most people worldwide have a gut reaction to 9/11. It is the perfect selling point."
In the view of this veteran, all the death, all the destruction, all the loss of trust in the United States came about ultimately because of one simple fact.
The Bush administration went to war in Iraq because it could.
Ambassador Joe Wilson is one who has some reasons and is uniquely qualified to express them. He was the last US diplomat to meet Saddam before the first Gulf War - as acting ambassador in Baghdad he actively challenged him. Saddam had issued an order saying any person "sheltering" foreigners could face execution. There were more than a hundred US citizens in the embassy at that stage and Wilson appeared at an off-the-record news conference wearing a noose around his neck and famously said - "If the choice is to allow American citizens to be taken hostage or to be executed, I will bring my own [expletive] rope".
All in the embassy were evacuated safely.
Challenging President Bush
Having confronted Saddam, Wilson then went on to challenge his own president little more than a decade later. It was a precise issue - in his State of the Union address in January 2003, George W Bush made the following statement:"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa".
.................................
https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/01/how-the-iraq-war-still-haunts-new-york-times/199946
How The Iraq War Still Haunts New York Times
The Return of Ahmed Chalabi, Judith Miller's Source
If you are aware, the gaping holes in the above description are profound.
Here's what the Times left out of its Chalabi story today and here's what the newspaper continues to grapple with eleven years after President Bush ordered the costly invasion of Iraq: Chalabi was reportedly the main source of bogus information that former Times reporter Judith Miller used in her thoroughly discredited work about Iraq's supposedly brimming stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. It was Chalabi who wove Saddam Hussein fiction and it was Miller, then a widely respected Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, who gave it the Times stamp approval as the paper did its part to lead the nation to war. (Miller is now a Fox News contributor.)
That history is one that the paper continues to wrestle with, especially as the effects of the war return to international focus and the country struggles with internal violence that threatens its very stability.
Today's omission in the Chalabi story seems to fit a long-running pattern at the Times. Franklin Foer noticed the look-the-other-way approach back in 2004 [emphasis added]:
For the past year, the Times has done much to correct that coverage, publishing a series of stories calling Chalabi's credibility into question. But never once in the course of its coverage--or in any public comments from its editors--did the Times acknowledge Chalabi's central role in some of its biggest scoops, scoops that not only garnered attention but that the administration specifically cited to buttress its case for war.
That year, facing intense external criticism, the Times did publish something of a mea culpa about its war coverage. In that case, the newspaper acknowledged its flawed reliance on Chalabi as an "occasional source" for its stories as well as a " a favorite of hard-liners within the Bush administration and a paid broker of information from Iraqi exiles." But the Times never mentioned Miller by name as the chief propagator of the neoconservative campaign to convince the American public, as well as the international community, that Hussein processed a deadly arsenal that threatened world peace.
"Some critics of our coverage during that time have focused blame on individual reporters. Our examination, however, indicates that the problem was more complicated," the Times informed readers, suggesting editors shouldered as much blame as its reporters. Yet, Miller informed a colleague that Chalabi had "provided most of the front page exclusives on WMD to our paper."
The way the pre-war game worked was that Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress, an exile opposition group, served as a public relations clearing house for Iraqi defectors under Hussein. Chalabi then connected the defectors with journalists like Miller so they could tell their wild tales, based on what they claimed was first-hand knowledge, about Iraq's mounting WMD threat. Of all the mainstream journalists on the defector beat however, Miller was the most impressed and least skeptical of Chalabi's sources; sources who were spreading pro-war talking points on behalf of the pro-war American administration.
Here's how a former CIA analyst described the closed loop between Miller, Chalabi and the Bush White House, in a James Moore piece in Salon:
"Chalabi is providing the Bush people with the information they need to support their political objectives with Iraq, and he is supplying the same material to Judy Miller. Chalabi tips her on something and then she goes to the White House, which has already heard the same thing from Chalabi, and she gets it corroborated by some insider she always describes as a 'senior administration official.' She also got the Pentagon to confirm things for her, which made sense, since they were working so closely with Chalabi."
Just last week the newspaper's public editor, Margaret Sullivan, acknowledged "The lead-up to the war in Iraq in 2003 was not The Times's finest hour." As the return of Chalabi highlights, it's a legacy the paper continues to struggle with.
If you are aware, the gaping holes in the above description are profound.
Here's what the Times left out of its Chalabi story today and here's what the newspaper continues to grapple with eleven years after President Bush ordered the costly invasion of Iraq: Chalabi was reportedly the main source of bogus information that former Times reporter Judith Miller used in her thoroughly discredited work about Iraq's supposedly brimming stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. It was Chalabi who wove Saddam Hussein fiction and it was Miller, then a widely respected Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, who gave it the Times stamp approval as the paper did its part to lead the nation to war. (Miller is now a Fox News contributor.)
That history is one that the paper continues to wrestle with, especially as the effects of the war return to international focus and the country struggles with internal violence that threatens its very stability.
For the past year, the Times has done much to correct that coverage, publishing a series of stories calling Chalabi's credibility into question. But never once in the course of its coverage--or in any public comments from its editors--did the Times acknowledge Chalabi's central role in some of its biggest scoops, scoops that not only garnered attention but that the administration specifically cited to buttress its case for war.
"Chalabi is providing the Bush people with the information they need to support their political objectives with Iraq, and he is supplying the same material to Judy Miller. Chalabi tips her on something and then she goes to the White House, which has already heard the same thing from Chalabi, and she gets it corroborated by some insider she always describes as a 'senior administration official.' She also got the Pentagon to confirm things for her, which made sense, since they were working so closely with Chalabi."
No comments:
Post a Comment