Wednesday, February 22, 2006

If Bush giving ports to Bin Laden backers, how real is war on terror?

I recall seeing this story earlier. We had a couple of chances to kill bin Laden with Predator drones, but didn't in at least one instance because of who was with him, including members of the United Arab Emirates royal family.

Hmmm...the royal family gives money to al Qaeda and the 9/11 hijackers, they visit Osama in Afghanistan...what would have happened if Saddam had done this?

Bush may have done what liberal bloggers could not--drawn attention to how his friends are the real supporters of terrorism, not the hapless Iraqis. And reinforces my doubts about how real the war on terror is, and whether it isn't just us and our allies intelligence agencies prodding and corralling these groups into attacks that suit their purposes.

There is historical precedent and current evidence:

Israel was caught recruiting an al Qaeda cell in Gaza, which has a historical precedent in the Lavon Affair in the 1950s, when Israeli agents set off bombs in Egypt and tried to blame Muslims.

In Iraq, British special forces were caught, disguised as Iraqis and carrying explosives by Iraqi police (which so freaked out Brits they didn't ask for them back--the busted them out and freed 100 other prisoners). British member of Parliament and former cabinet member Michael Meacher has confirmed the Brits are doing this.,,1566916,00.html

and Rumsfeld himself discussed using covert agents to provoke terrorists, supposedly to catch them, but just as likely to use their attacks the way Britain and Israel have done. That story was first covered in the LA Times, and later got a Project Censored Award.

False flag tactics, pretending to be someone you're not to shift blame, are not new in history, nor have they only been used by us and our allies. The Nazis posed as US troops to sow confusion during one of our offensives in Europe, and in any country with insurgencies, the military will commit atrocities posing as the rebels to undermine their public support.

I know I lose a lot of people on this because you can't believe our government would do something so vile and convoluted. But think of the effort and sophistication that has gone into weapons research. Think of the care that went into building the right wing media machine, propaganda networks, consolidation and intimidation of mainstream news networks, and even covertly paying pundits to sell their policies. They have been giving similar care to developing public relations and espionage methods as Sen. Frank Church's committee found out in the 1970's.

If Americans are not aware of this thread of history and its current use, we will continue to be vulnerable to manipulation by it. I would be surprised if Bush tried to strike Iran without a terrorist attack to rally support for that war because it will evaporate even faster than it did for Iraq. It could also be a Gulf of Tonkin type military incident, which was also recently proven a fraud by declassified documents. If either of these happens, you have to ask yourself why Iran would attack us when they know it would lead to the certain decimation of their country.

But this started with the port issue.

It's a short article. First few paragraphs give the gist:

UAE royals, bin Laden's saviours

March 25, 2004 12:04 IST

The Central Intelligence Agency did not target Al Qaeda chief Osama bin laden once as he had the royal family of the United Arab Emirates with him in Afghanistan, the agency's director, George Tenet, told the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States on Thursday.

Had the CIA targeted bin Laden, half the royal family would have been wiped out as well, he said.

The rest:

public relations

No comments: