Conflict in Syria is an example of War 2.0

Another case of Slam Dunk, Yellow Cake, WMDs.

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | DECEMBER 7, 2012

Nothing makes a better case for war than fear. There is not a better way to create fear than with allegories and hyperbole that remind people about past painful events, even though such events have nothing to do with the present. But during the George W. Bush administration, both fear and hyperbole came in handy as fuel to ‘justify’ another war in Iraq.

Now, in 2012, the same deceivers who swindled the international community into believing that Iraq posed a nuclear threat are out at their best game generating fear about chemical weapons in Syria. No one is arguing that Bashar al-Assad possesses or not chemical weapons just as no one argues that the U.S. possesses them, too. Nobody is questioning whether Assad is a tyrant who might decide to use chemical weapons just as nobody questions that the U.S. has used them and continues to use them in every conflict it intervenes.

The question is, why is the military industrial complex, aided by its minions resorting to the same rhetoric it used a few years ago to carry out another war? Well, first, because war is very profitable. Second, because it may the only possible way to destroy Assad aside from massively invading Syria with foreign troops both through air and land.

The war in Syria has been built around character assassination techniques to a point where people may buy the argument that Assad intends to use chemical weapons on his own people. Recent events resemble similar attacks; for example when the U.S. government said that Saddam Hussein was roasting babies in microwave ovens, or that Al-Qaeda was operating out of Iraq.

Now, after seeing the strong build up to war, with American battleships off the coast of Syria for no apparent reason, the Assad government has, for the thousandth time, publicly said that it has no intention of using chemicals weapons in any way, shape or form, despite the scaremongering from Western oppressors.

Since their indirect attacks on Syria have not worked as expected, the globalist who seek to control Syria — after invading and controlling Egypt and Libya — are using the tool of last resort, which is to create a fake threat to justify their invasion of yet another country in what is perhaps the most volatile region in the planet.

Meanwhile, the Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister, Faisal Maqdad, said that the controversy about the possible use of chemical weapons by the regime of Bashar al-Assad is a “pretext for international intervention” in Syria.

In an interview with Lebanese television station Al Manar, Maqdad insisted that the Syrian regime “would not use chemical weapons against its people” if it had any. In his opinion, the latest allegations about the possible use of these weapons by the Syrian regime “are part of a psychological warfare and a pretext for intervention” in the country, which would imply a “regional catastrophe.”

The U.S. network NBC released yesterday accusations by U.S. officials against Damascus, which include statements suggesting that Assad is preparing to use such weapons, and that the it is only a matter of receiving a final order from the president.

This week, the UN expressed concern over the possible presence of chemical weapons in the country, while the United States warned the Assad regime that the use of such weapons would have consequences. The U.S. knows very well what it is talking about as it has a long history of using chemical and biological weapons in almost every country it has invaded as well as against its own citizens.

“We fear that the U.S. and European countries could provide such weapons to terrorist organizations to say later that it was Syria who used them,” the deputy minister said, He added that he saw the controversy as a “theater to increase pressure” on Syrian authorities.

Maqdad also warned that the results of a possible intervention in Syria “will be catastrophic for the region” while implying that the Lebanese opposition was  collaborating with the rebels Syrians.

Violence has intensified in Syria amid political paralysis and mediating efforts that have failed to end a conflict that has resulted in an open civil war. The rebels have been fully advised, financed and armed by Western forces from NATO countries. Turkey, the Western puppet in the region has facilitated the air and land invasion of Syria by rebel groups and foreign military and paramilitary forces, who have been perpetrating attacks on cities all over the country.

It is estimated that since March 2011 at least 30,000 people have died in Syria as a direct result of the war between the rebels and the Syrian army. Hundreds of thousands of Syrians have left the country and turned into refugees in neighboring countries. The United Nations estimates that at least 200,000 have fled the country since the conflict began 9 months ago.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

America’s Death Pornography Culture

Celebrating brutal deaths of Muammar Qaddafi and Saddam Hussein.

by Wayne Madsen
Strategic Culture Foundation
November 2, 2011

The United States government and military revel in death and pornographic intimidation. The videos and photographs of howling Iraqis celebrating the hanging of Iraqi president Saddam Hussein after his U.S.-administered kangaroo court trial in Iraq and the physical abuse, alleged sodomizing, and execution of Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi by NATO-armed and directed rebels after his convoy in Sirte was reportedly struck by a U.S. drone-launched missile, exemplify America’s fixation with pornographic death scenes…

The George Walker Bush and Barack Hussein Obama administrations share a fascination for displaying the dead bodies of their vanquished enemies. For Bush, it was the gruesome stone-slabbed corpses of Qusay and Uday Hussein, Saddam’s sons, after they were killed in a firefight with U.S. troops in. That was followed by the body of Saddam after his hanging in.

Of course, it did not suit President Obama to broadcast a photograph of Osama Bin Laden, allegedly killed while resisting arrest in Abbotabad, Pakistan. In the case of Bin Laden, there is a strong reason to believe that Osama’s body could not be shown because there was no body of Osama. Whether an Osama Bin Laden look-a-like was killed or not may never be known, but what is certain is that the Obama administration’s explanation for ”Osama’s” burial at sea from a U.S. aircraft carrier appears dubious.

There was also the curious designation of the operation to kill Bin Laden as “Geronimo.” President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates were in the White House Situation Room when they heard the news from the strike team: “We’ve ID’d Geronimo,” followed by “Geronimo EKIA” or “Geronimo enemy killed in action.”

There was outrage among Native Americans over the designation of Bin Laden as Geronimo. But the code name has its own ghastly history. In 1918, in another macabre display of ghoulishness by America’s political elite, Prescott Bush, the future U.S. senator and father and grandfather of two future presidents, allegedly dug up the grave of the famed Apache leader Geronimo and stole his skull and some bones. The remains are said to be among the prized possession of Yale’s elite and secretive Skull and Bones society, along with the skull of former President Martin van Buren, the only president of the United States who was not in the blood line, close or distant, of the British royal family.

As Qaddafi’s body, along with those of his son, Mo’tassim, and the former Libyan army commander, Abu Bakr Yunis, rotted in a meat freezer in Misrata – for the whole world to see — more details emerged about Qaddafi’s last hours in Sirte. On October 19, at around 8:00 am in Sirte, a convoy of 70 vehicles departed the heavily-bombed out city, heading west. There were also Twitter messages coming out of Sirte reporting that several white flags of surrender were seen in the city at day break. However, a CIA Predator drone tracking the convoy passed its coordinates on to NATO. French and other NATO jets pounded the convoy, incinerating many of the drivers and passengers. Many of those killed were black Libyans. There are now reports of mass graves in Sirte containing the bodies of scores of Qaddafi supporters and fellow tribal members.

There have been some reports that a truce and a surrender by Qaddafi and his forces was worked out between some rebel leaders and Qaddafi’s entourage through the auspices of the Qaddadfa (the tribe to which Qaddafi belonged) tribal leaders in Sirte. After the convoy was on the highway heading west, with reported white flags from some of the vehicles, the motorcade, which was not engaging in fire with rebel or NATO forces, was set upon by NATO forces. Witnesses to the surrender and/or safe passage negotiations will be hard to come by, since one of those murdered in his home in Sirte by Libyan rebels was reportedly the chief of the Qaddadfa tribe who was part of the negotiations for surrender and safe passage.

Reports that Qaddafi and his group were trying to make a dash through the offensive lines around Sirte make no sense since the convoy left after sun up and in broad daylight, when white flags could clearly be seen by the belligerents, and the Twitter messages out of Sirte indicated that rebels, pro-Qaddafi forces, and neutral observers could all see the white flags. If Qaddafi wanted to make a break for it, he would have done so at night with headlights out.

One of the last things Qaddafi is heard asking his captors is “Do you know right from wrong?” If the rebels or NATO reneged on a promise of safe passage and ignored the universally-recognized white flag signifying truce and surrender, it would constitute a gross violation of the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, and would, therefore, be a war crime. Under the conventions, the white flag is protected as a sign that an approaching party intends to surrender or negotiate the terms of surrender. Those displaying a white flag may not fire or be fired upon.

If NATO and the rebels violated the white flag in Sirte, it would represent one of the first major violations of a practice that began with the Eastern Han dynasty in China in the year 25, and was recognized by the Roman Empire, armies during the Middle Ages, and every major and minor nation since. A violation by NATO of the flag of truce would represent a flagrant return to barbarism by the “collective defensive” organization.

Hillary Clinton reacted to news of Qaddafi’s death by chortling like a school girl. Preparing for an interview with CBS News, Clinton, who had just paid a visit to Libya, joked, “We came, we saw, he died.” Other NATO leaders, including Obama, David Cameron, Nicolas Sarkozy, and Anders Fogh Rasmussen, as well as UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who all self-identify themselves as Christians, expressed relief and joy at the news of Qaddafi’s death, a very “un-Christian” trait.

The brutal treatment of Qaddafi and his forces matches the treatment meted out by American forces to detainees in Iraq, including the pornographic abuse of prisoners, including minors, at Abu Ghraib and other prisons. In the report by U.S. Army General Antonio Taguba, there are instances of U.S. guards forcing male and female prisoners into naked and explicit positions, including human piles, and taking photographs and video shots, forcing male prisoners to wear women’s underwear, forcing male prisoners to masturbate while being photographed and videotaped, and sodomizing detainees with broom sticks and chemical lights. One prisoner murdered by U.S. forces, Manadel al-Jamadi, was kept on ice to prevent decomposition and spirited away from investigators to cover up his suffocation by U.S. prison guards.

The abuse at Abu Ghraib continues to have ramifications and has resulted in a lawsuit in California, Ford v. CAARNG (California Army Reserve National Guard). The suit charges that “retired Sergeant Frank G. Ford who, in 2003, was assigned to Iraq with the 223 Military Intelligence Unit under the 205 Military Intelligence Brigade as a Counter Intelligence Agent and Medic, was strapped to a gurney against his will and kidnapped. He was then sent from a war zone [Iraq] to Germany . . . because he reported the torture going on at Abu Ghraib prison as well as the death by torture of a prisoner while in custody.” The suit also alleges that “Ford cared for and treated, as an onsite medic, numerous victims of torture.”

A video currently circulating of a Libyan rebel sodomizing Qaddafi with what appears to be a rifle barrel brings back the scenes of the U.S. house of horrors at Abu Ghraib. Obama’s decision to become judge, jury, and executioner in the death sentences (“targeted killings”) carried out by a CIA drone flying over Yemen on September 30, on U.S. citizens Anwar al Awalaki (a former Islamic confidante of the Pentagon), and Samir Khan, and an additional October 14 drone strike in Yemen that killed Awlaki’s teenage son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, also a U.S. citizen, reinforces a growing belief that Obama lords over a voodoo-like death cult that has taken over U.S. military and foreign policy.

By word and action, the U.S. military and its NATO underlings have discarded thousands of years of chivalric military tradition, common practices, and law against a backdrop of ghoulish and pornographic behavior.

Switching Focus from Iraq to Iran

Ray McGovern
Consortium News
Tuesday, October 25, 2011

President Barack Obama’s withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq is a blow to the neocons who had long dreamt of permanent military bases. But the neocons are now trying to spin the Iraq disaster into another excuse to confront Iran.

You might think that by now I would be so used to infuriating neocon drivel that, to preserve my own sanity, I would avoid looking at the Washington Post or at least its editorial pages.

I have tried. But it seems that after almost a half century in Washington, and particularly after the recent rash of “wars of choice,” it is simply not possible. One has to keep an eye on what bloody mischief the neocons are devising.

The Post’s lead editorial on Sunday is ostensibly about Iraq and blaming President Barack Obama if things get worse after U.S. troops leave in December. But these days Iran is the main concern of the neocons who infect that editorial page.

In the wake of Obama’s withdrawal announcement on Friday, the Post’s neocon editors are worried that:

“Mr. Obama’s decision to carry out a complete withdrawal [of troops from Iraq] sharply increases the risk that … Iran will be handed a crucial strategic advantage in its regional cold war with the United States; and that a potentially invaluable U.S. alliance with an emerging Iraqi democracy will wither.”

The bugaboo of Iran is raised no less than six times in the five-paragraph editorial. One is prompted to ask an innocent question: Which country did the neocons think would profit if Saddam Hussein, Iran’s archrival, were removed and his army destroyed?

America’s neocons apparently hoped that Israel would be the beneficiary, with a U.S.-occupied Iraq serving as a land-based aircraft carrier for applying military pressure on neighboring Iran and Syria. But you don’t start a war on hope.

That Iran would almost surely benefit the most from the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a no-brainer. And that is precisely why, before the attack on Iraq, Israeli leaders were insisting “we do Iran first.”

But the U.S. neocons thought they knew better and that sequencing Iraq before Iran would be an easier sell with the American people. After all, they had already been trained to hate Iraq’s Saddam Hussein because of the first Persian Gulf War in 1990-91. In the early part of the last decade, Iran’s leaders were a much more amorphous target.

The neocons also thought the conquest of Iraq would be easy with American military might crushing not only the Iraqi military but the country’s will to fight. “Shock and awe” would pave the way to a “cakewalk.”

In 2003, the joke circulating in neocon-dominated Washington was whether the next U.S. target should be Iran or Syria with the punch-line: “Real men go to Tehran.”

Also, the neocons’ top allies in the Bush administration – Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld – understood Bush’s personal animus toward Hussein. Bush once called Hussein “the guy that tried to kill my dad.” Cheney and Rumsfeld knew an open door when they saw one. Bush, an impressionable fundamentalist Christian-Zionist, was bereft of strategic understanding.

However, eight-plus years later – with nearly 4,500 U.S. soldiers dead and about $1 trillion spent, with Iraq torn by sectarian and political violence and with the Iraqi government essentially ushering the U.S. forces out by refusing to extend immunity from Iraqi laws for any U.S. troops who would remain – the neocons must finally face the hard truth: their grandiose scheme was a flop.

Chicken Hawks

It is not only American soldiers who will be coming home from an immoral, illegal and ill-thought-out war. The chickens, too, are coming home to roost. And, without admitting they were really dumb, the neocon chicken hawks are inadvertently admitting soto voce, that they didn’t have a strategic clue.

And they still don’t. It is a safe bet that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Likud associates are admonishing the neocons who still hold great sway in Official Washington: “See? We told you we should have done Iran first. But it’s not too late.

“Now we have another compelling reason to put the ‘military option’ on Iran right in the middle of the table — and, finally, exercise that option. Or you can go down in history as a bunch of wimps.”

The new compelling reason for war is that Iran’s influence in the region has zoomed in this zero-sum game between “evil” Tehran and the Tel Aviv-Washington “axis of good.” In the words of this Sunday’s Post, “Iran will be handed a crucial strategic advantage,” ironically, because of the disaster in Iraq.

So, there’s no time to waste. To warn still-gullible Americans about the dangers of Iran’s new strategic advantage, it’s imperative to enlist the neocons in the U.S. news media, those running the foreign policy shops for the leading Republican candidates, and the neocon holdovers inside the Obama administration.

Time, also, to revive the specter of Iran getting a nuclear weapon. Let’s see if neocon favorite CIA Director David Petraeus can twist enough arms of his subordinates to reverse the unanimous judgment of the U.S. intelligence community that Iran stopped work on a nuclear weapon in 2003.

Petraeus has always risen to the occasion when the neocons have wanted to accuse Iran of meddling in Iraq — evidence or no evidence. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Petraeus’s CIA Steers Obama on Policy.”]

Let’s have him issue warnings about the possibility that Iran will take potshots at U.S. troops as they leave.

And, oh yeah, let’s get him to provide the kind of “intelligence” that will turn a cockamamie plot about Iran supporting an assassination attempt on the Saudi ambassador from admittedly “implausible” status to that of plausible — well, plausible enough for the neocons who dominate the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM). [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Petraeus’s CIA Fuels Iran Murder Plot.”]

Chalabi Made Us Do It

Speaking of which: One of the Post’smost prominent neocon columnists, David Ignatius, sought out the neocons’ beloved charlatan Iraq War propagandist Ahmed Chalabi, whom Ignatius describes as “the most effective lobbyist in favor of the 2003 U.S. invasion.”

“You will not be surprised,” wrote Ignatius, “that Chalabi offered no apologies for a war that cost many thousands of American and Iraqi lives and more than a trillion dollars.  Quite the contrary, he lauded the United States for its role in overthrowing Saddam Hussein,” though he criticized the follow-through of the occupation.

Ignatius, too, raised the obligatory specter of Iran, asking Chalabi about reports that he has become “an overly enthusiastic supporter of Iran.” The slippery Chalabi replied that he favored good relations with Iran and “wanted Iraq and Iran to be ‘a meeting ground rather than a battle ground.’”

Is Ignatius, at this late stage in the U.S. history with Chalabi, not yet aware that he tends to play both ends … and then goes with the side that appears to be winning?

Ignatius wants us to believe that the mess in Iraq was pretty much all Chalabi’s fault, ignoring the painful reality that Chalabi could have accomplished zilch if not for the neocon-dominated FCM that eagerly promoted his self-serving lies.

Many of the Iraqi “walk-ins” who lied to U.S. intelligence and the FCM about Saddam Hussein’s supposed WMD and alleged ties to al-Qaeda had been scripted beforehand by Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress.

Knowing Chalabi (all too well), Ignatius says it should come as no surprise that Chalabi remains adamantly unapologetic for the war on Iraq. But why should Chalabi be subjected to any accountability when almost none of his willing collaborators in the press have been?

Chalabi may have been, as Ignatius claims, “the secret instigator of the Iraq war.” Even so, he would have accomplished little without a mountain of intentional gullibility at the Washington Post and other top U.S. news outlets, a pattern that continues to this day.

Ray McGovern works for Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He served as an Army infantry/intelligence officer and then a CIA analyst for a total of 30 years and is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

A Ressurreição de Osama Bin Laden

Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
10 de maio de 2011

Quando é que a mídia é credível? Quanto é que um contratante dos EUA é credível? Quando Al-Qaeda é credível?

A mídia corporativa mentiu por 50 anos sobre a realidade histórica de nossas vidas. Não existe nenhuma empresa que receba 500.000 dólares por ano do governo dos EUA que irá contradizer sem constrangimento o que dizem em Washington. Nenhum grupo terrorista fundado pelos EUA na década de setenta, e que recebeu armas e milhões de dólares desde então e que foram usado para matar cristãos e muçulmanos no Sudão, Bósnia, Afeganistão e Iraque, cujo líder é o filho de um milionário Saudita fará alguma coisa diferente daquilo que seus criadores querem fazer.

Quatro dias antes de Obama anunciar a morte de Bin Laden (embora ele morreu em 2001), Ben Bernanke, anunciou que os EUA manteria as taxas de juro baixas, para acomodar a fraude de Wall Street e evitar a correção que deve ocorrer para que o mundo saia da atual crise económica. Depois, várias agências que avaliam a confiabilidade do governo dos EUA como devedor, afirmaram que o governo deveria ter uma nota “C”, e não AAA. Também naqueles dias, o preço futuro do petróleo subiu e ultrapassou 110 dólares o barril. O preço do dólar caiu para o menor nível em três anos e, como resultado, o preço do ouro subiu vertiginosamente em 20 dólares a onça.

E de repente, na noite de domingo, surgiram rumores de que o presidente Obama aparacería na televisão para falar sobre uma operação militar no Paquistão.

Tudo o anterior foi esquecido …

Depois que o governo dos EUA teve que mudar sua história sobre a operação militar no Paquistão várias vezes e teve que aceitar que Bin Laden não estava armado, nunca usou a sua esposa como um escudo, não houve tiroteio e que a equipe de segurança de Obama não tinha visto o vídeo, um contratante do governo dos EUA emitiu um relatório alegando que a Al-Qaeda confirmou a morte de Bin Laden. O contratante, o Instituto SITE, publicou o seu relatório a tempo para tentar resgatar o governo do Obama do ridículo no qual estava caindo.

Mas o que é SITE?

SITE é um contratante do governo dos EUA que no passado foi exposto pelas suas publicaçoes falsas que, eles disseram, vinham de Al-Qaeda. Esta organização escreveu falsos artigos, e produziu áudios e vídeos falsos que a mídia corporativa sempre tratou como legítimos. Então, o governo dos EUA depende de uma organização de baixa reputação a qual paga meio milhão de dólares por ano para reforçar a desintegração da fábula que foi feito na noite de domingo.

“A Al-Qaeda divulgou um comunicado nos fóruns jihadistas confirmando a morte de seu líder, Osama bin Laden, de acordo com o SITE Intelligence Group, que monitora as mensagens de militantes”, segundo a CNN. “A declaração, traduzida pelo SITE, elogiou o defunto, ameaçou tomar medidas contra os Estados Unidos, e pediu aos paquistaneses a se levantarem.”

SITE é uma organização que pertence ao complexo militar industrial e foi pego em flagrante com tanta frequência que só um público crédulo e ignorante poderia acreditar no que esta organização diz no seu site ou o que esta organização diz que encontrou em um fórum de pouca reputação . O Instituto SITE foi fundado por Rita Katz, a filha de um espião de Israel. Katz tem trabalhado em estreita colaboração com o Departamento de Justiça, o Departamento do Tesouro e o Departamento de Segurança Interna.

Todas as informações conhecidas sobre o SITE indica que é mais um cavalo de tróia que é regularmente utilizado pelo complexo militar industrial para postar vídeos da Al-Qaeda, como parte da campanha de propaganda para justificar a brutal guerra contra o terrorismo. SITE milagrosamente foi capaz de obter uma fita de vídeo de Bin Laden antes que esta fosse publicada pelo grupo Al-Qaeda em 2007.

E para dar mais “credibilidade” ao que SITE disse, a organização terrorista Blackwater, outro contratante militar dos EUA, fundada pelo NAVY SEAL Erik Prince, disse que o que SITE publicou é verdade. .Blackwater esteve envolvido em várias massacres de civis iraquianos desde 2003, quando os EUA invadiram o Iraque para derrubar Saddam Hussein. SITE também disse que, juntamente com a afirmação encontrada no fórum, a Al-Qaeda pretende publicar uma fita de áudio, que a organização pretende publicar.

Para ocultar o fato de Anwar al-Awlaki, um agente duplo da CIA e membro da Al-Qaeda havia jantado no Pentágono, SITE divulgou um vídeo do al-Awlaki dizendo que a organização continuaria lutando mais do que nunca o seu jihad global, enquanto elogiou as ações suicidas de Fort Hood e o “guerreiro” que foi auxiliado pelas agências de inteligência a bordo de um avião indo para os EUA embora não tinha passaporte ou visto.

De acordo com relatos do Paul Joseph Watson em Infowars.com, o mesmo fim de semana, SITE lançou uma fita de Adam (Pearlman) Gadahn, um outro agente duplo da CIA, que elogiou Abdulmutallab Shazad Farouk Faisal, o suspeito de ter tentado realizar atos de terrorismo no Times Square, em Nova York. Adam Pearlman é um espião da Mossad, a agência de inteligência israelense.

Devido a que a história oficial sobre o Bin Laden falhou, e a Casa Branca teve que “corrigir” os detalhes do que realmente aconteceu, o estabelecimento empresarial e político decidiu implementar um plano para assustar o público americano e do resto do planeta. Nada de novo. É por isso que os políticos continuam clamando por mais guerras, a mídia ecoa ameaças falsas emitidas por fornecedores sem credibilidade e as pessoas continuam acreditando tudo o que ouvem da mídia.

La Resurrección de Osama Bin Laden

Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
06 de mayo, 2011

¿Desde cuándo lo que dicen los medios de comunicación es creíble? ¿Desde cuándo lo que dice un contratista de Estados Unidos es creíble? ¿Desde cuándo lo que dice Al-Qaeda es creíble?

Los medios de comunicación corporativos han mentido por 50 años sobre la realidad histórica de nuestras vidas. Ningún contratista que recibe 500.000 dólares al año del gobierno estadounidense va a contradecir lo que los sin vergüenzas en Washington dicen. Ningún grupo terrorista fundado por Estados Unidos en los años setentas, que recibió armas y millones de dólares desde entonces y el cual fue usado para matar cristianos y musulmanes en Sudán, Bosnia, Afganistan e Irak, cuyo cabecilla es el hijo de un millonario Saudita, hará nada diferente de lo que sus creadores quieran que haga.

Cuatro días antes de que Obama anunciara la muerte de Bin Laden (aunque ha estado muerto desde 2001), Ben Bernanke, anunció que Estados Unidos mantendría las tasas de interés bajas, para poder acomodar los fraudes de Wall Street y así evitar la corrección que debe ocurrir para que el mundo salga de la actual crisis económica. Después, varias agencias que evalúan la confiabilidad del gobierno estadounidense como deudor, manifestaran que el gobierno debería tener una calificación de “C”, y no de AAA. También en esos días, el precio futuro del petróleo había subido y sobrepasado 110 dólares por barril. El precio del dólar había caído a los niveles más bajos en tres años y como consecuencia, el precio del oro subió estrepitosamente en 20 dólares.

Y de repente, el domingo en la noche, el rumor se corre que el presidente Obama aparacería en televisión para hablar sobre una operación militar en Pakistán.

Todo lo anterior se olvidó…

Después de que el gobierno estadounidense tuvo que cambiar su historia sobre la operación militar en Pakistán varias veces y tuvo que aceptar que Bin Laden nunca estuvo armado, nunca uso a su mujer como escudo, que no hubo tiroteo y que el equipo de seguridad de Obama no había visto el video como primero se había reportado, hoy, un contratista del gobierno estadounidense publicó un informe en el que alega que Al-Qaeda confirmó la muerte de Bin Laden. Este contratista, el Instituto SITE, publicó su informe justo a tiempo para mantener a flote la decaída farsa del gobierno encabezado por Barack Obama.

Pero, ¿qué es SITE?

SITE es un contratista del gobierno norteamericano, que en ocasiones anteriores fue desenmascarado por publicar falsos comunicados de Al-Qaeda. Esta organización produjo falsos artículos, audios y videos que los medios de comunicación corporativos siempre trataron como legítimos. Entonces, el gobierno estadounidense depende de una organización de poca reputación y a la cual paga medio millón de dólares al año para apuntalar el desmoronamiento de la fábula que fue fabricado en la noche del domingo.

“Al Qaeda emitió un comunicado en los foros yihadistas que confirma la muerte de su líder, Osama bin Laden, según el Grupo de Inteligencia SITE, que monitorea los mensajes de militantes”, informó la CNN. “La declaración, traducida por SITE, elogió el fallecido del militante, amenazó con tomar medidas contra los Estados Unidos, e instó a los paquistaníes a” levantarse y rebelarse. ”

SITE es una organización que pertenece al complejo militar-industrial y ha sido sorprendido in fraganti tantas veces, que solo un publico crédulo e ignorante podría creer lo que se diga en su sitio o lo que esta organización diga que encontró en un foro de mala muerte. El Instituto SITE fue fundado por Rita Katz, la hija de un espía israelí. Katz ha colaborado estrechamente con el Departamento de Justicia, el Departamento del Tesoro y el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional.

Toda la información conocida sobre SITE indica que no es más que un caballo de troya que es usado regularmente por el complejo militar-industrial para publicar cintas de vídeo de Al-Qaeda como parte de la campaña propagandística para justificar la brutal guerra contra el terrorismo. SITE fue milagrosamente capaz de obtener una cinta de vídeo de Bin Laden antes que está fuera liberado por el grupo Al-Qaeda en 2007.

Y para dar más “credibilidad” a lo que SITE ha dicho, la organización terrorista Blackwater, también contratista militar de EE.UU. fundada por el ex Navy Seal Erik Prince, ha dicho que lo que SITE dice es verdad.Blackwater estuvo involucrado en varias masacres de civiles iraquíes desde 2003, cuando Estados Unidos invadió Irak para remover a Saddam Hussein. SITE también ha dicho que junto con el comunicado encontrado en el foro, Al-Qaeda pretende publicar una cinta de audio, la cual ellos pretenden publicar primero.

Para esconder el hecho que Anwar Al-Awlaki, un doble agente de la CIA y miembro de Al-Qaeda había cenado en el Pentágono,SITE publicó un video de Awlaki diciendo que la organización estaba comprometida más que nunca con yihad global, mientras alabó las acciones del suicida de Fort Hood y el desconocido que fue ayudado por las agencias de intelligencia para abordar un avión que se dirigía a Estados Unidos sin tener pasaporte o VISA.

Según reporta Paul Joseph Watson, en Infowars.com, el mismo fin de semana, SITE publicó una cinta de Adán (Pearlman) Gadahn, otro doble agente de la CIA, quien alabó a Farouk Abdulmutallab y Shazad Faisal, los supuestos sospechosos del intento de terrorismo en Times Square, Nueva York. Adam Pearlman es un espía de Mossad, la agencia de inteligencia Israelí.

Debido a que la historia oficial sobre la fábula de Bin Laden se ha derrumbado, y la Casa Blanca tuvo que “corregir” los detalles de lo que realmente sucedió, el establecimiento político y corporativo ha decidido implementar un plan para asustar al público norteamericano y del resto del planeta. Nada nuevo. Por eso es que continuaremos escuchando políticos clamando por más guerras, medios de comunicación haciendo eco de falsas amenazas emitidas por contratistas con dudosa credibilidad y personas que se creen todo lo que escuchan de estos medios.

“Todo lo que tenemos que temer es al miedo mismo.”