There is a struggle going on between the West and China over Africa. African governments are choosing self-interested, Chinese investment deals over Western feudal deals. The usual bribery is not working. But the West does have its covert action and destabilisation techniques to use. When Kenyan was doing so much business with China it became less reliant on Western aid, then a brutal 'tribal conflict' suddenly appeared, changed the government and has as quickly disappeared.

This bomb attack is clearly too professional for a radical group. Terrorists have to be professional and do it 24/7. The state has that expertise not farmers. They need finance to live as well as to do their terrorism. The CIA are all over Somalia. And you should ditch any belief in 'suicide bombers'. Real suicide bombers in Israel only kill up to ten people.

Okaaay. So your theory is that the US are behind a group that has spent the last few years in direct, bitter conflict with the Ethiopians. Who are backed by - ooops - the US.

You do realise that makes no sense whatsoever?

Given the HSM has previously claimed responsibility for a bomb attack that killed 24, and killed hundreds in their incursion into Mogadishu last year, I'm not sure why this is regarded as such an improbable leap.

(Oh, and for the record, that 7/7 Luton station Photoshop thing was debunked years ago).

from the archives:


The Strategy of Tension: NATO’s Hidden Terrorism

by Silvia Cattori, 22 January 2007


Editorial note: Daniele Ganser, professor of contemporary history at Bale University (Switzerland) and chairman of the ASPO - Switzerland, published a landmark book about "NATO’s Secret Armies." According to him, during the last 50 years the United States have organized bombings in Western Europe that they have falsely attributed to the left and the extreme left with the purpose of discrediting them in the eyes of their voters. This strategy is still present today, inspiring fear for the Islam and justifying wars on oil.

_________________


Silvia Cattori: Your book about NATO’s Secret Armies [1] explains that the strategy of tension [2] and the False Flag terrorism [3] imply great dangers. It teaches us how NATO - together with the intelligence services or the West European countries and the Pentagon - utilised secret armies during the Cold War, hired spies among the extreme right wing, and organized terrorist acts for which they blamed the left. Becoming aware of this, we can wonder about what is likely to happen today behind our back.

Daniele Ganser: It is extremely important to understand what the strategy of tension truly represents the way it works nowadays. This can help us clarify the present and to see more clearly to what extent it is still in action. Only a few people know what the expression ’strategy of tension’ means. It is very important to talk about it, to explain it. It is a tactic that involves carrying out criminal acts and attributing them to someone else. By the term ’tension’, we mean emotional tension, all that which creates a feeling of tension.
By ’strategy’ we make reference to that which increases people’s fear in regard to a determined group. These secret structures of NATO had been equipped, financed and trained by the CIA, in coordination with the M16 (the British secret service), to fight against the Army of the Soviet Union in a case of war, but also according to the information to which he have access today, to commit terrorist acts in several countries [4]. That is how, since the 70s, the Italian secret services have been using these armies to foment terrorist attacks, with the purpose of causing fear among the population, and later, to accuse the communists of being the authors. The strategy of tension was designed to serve the purpose or discrediting, weakening and stopping communism from reaching executive power.

Silvia Cattori: To learn what it means is one thing. But it is still difficult to believe that our government could have let NATO, the West European intelligence agencies and the CIA act in such a way that could threaten their own citizens’ security!

Daniele Ganser: NATO was at the core of this clandestine network linked to terror; the Clandestine Planning Committee (CPC) and the Allied Clandestine Committee (ACC) were two substructures of the Atlantic Alliance, and they are clearly identified today. But, now that this has been established, it is still hard to know who was doing what. There are not any documents proving who was at the head, who organized the strategy of tension, how NATO, the West European intelligence services, the CIA, M16, and the hired terrorists among the extreme right, distributed each other’s roles. The only certainty that we have is that there was, inside these clandestine structures, some elements that used the strategy of tension. The terrorists from the extreme right have explained in their statements that it was NATO’s secret services that had supported them in this clandestine war. But when we ask for explanations from some members of the CIA or NATO - which I have done for many years - they limit themselves to say that it could be possible that a few criminal elements might have managed to avoid control.

Silvia Cattori: Were these secret armies active in every Western European country?

Daniele Ganser: In my research, I put forward evidence that these secret armies not only existed in Italy, but also in all Western Europe: in France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Turkey, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Switzerland, Greece, Luxembourg and Germany. In the beginning, we thought that there existed only one guerrilla-structured organization, and therefore, that all these secret armies had participated in the strategy of tension, and therefore, in terrorist acts. However, it is important to know that not all these secret armies have been involved in attacks, and to understand what differentiated them.

What appears to be clear today, is that NATO’s clandestine structures, usually called ’Stay Behind groups’ [5], were created in the beginning to act as a guerrilla in case of an occupation of Western Europe by the Soviet Union. The United States stated that the guerrilla networks were necessary to overcome the lack of preparedness of the countries attacked by Germany.

Several of the countries that were occupied by the Germans, like Norway, wanted to learn the lessons of their incapacity to resist the occupier, and they said to themselves that, in case of a new occupation, they had to be better prepared, to have another option at hand and to count with a secret army in case that the official one were to be defeated. Inside these secret armies, there were honest people, sincere patriots, who only wanted to defend their countries from an occupation.

Silvia Cattori: If I understand well, these Stay Behind groups, whose original goal was to be prepared in case of a Soviet invasion, have been deviated from that goal and were reorganised to defeat the left. From that, it is difficult to understand why the left parties have not investigated this or denounced this earlier.

Daniele Ganser: When we take the case of Italy, it appears that, every time that the communist party has interviewed the government to find an explanation about the secret army that was operating in this country under the coded name of Gladio [6], there was never any answer, under the pretext that it was a ’state secret’. It wasn’t until 1990 that Giulio Andreotti [7] recognised the existence of Gladio and its direct links with NATO, the CIA, and M16 [8]. _ It is also during that time that the judge Felice Casson was able to prove that the true author of the bombing in Peteano in 1972, that had shocked Italy, and that had been attributed up to that moment to the extreme left militants, was Vincenzo Vinciguerra, linked to ’Ordine Nuovo’, a group of the extreme right wing. Vinciguerra avoided blame for the bombing in Peteano with the help of the Italian secret services. Vinciguerra also spoke about the existence of this secret army, Gladio. He explained that, during the Cold War, these clandestine acts had caused the death of women and children [9]. He stated as well that this secret army controlled by NATO, had branches all around Europe. When this information was released, there was a political crisis in Italy. And it is thanks to the investigations of the judge Felice Casson that we got to know about NATO’s secret armies.

In Germany, when in 1990 the SPDs (German Social Democrat Partisans) became aware that in their country - as well as in all the other European countries - there was a secret army, and that this structure was linked to the German secret services, they loudly denounced it as a scandal and accused the Christian democratic Party (CDU). This party reacted by saying: "If you accuse us, we are going to say that, you too, together with Willy Brandt, you have been involved in this conspiracy". This happened at the same time as the first elections of the reunified Germany, which the SPD hoped to win. The leaders of the SPD understood that that was not a good electoral subject; in the end, the story was twisted in such a way as to make the existence of these secret armies seem justified.
In the European Parliament, in November 1990, many members exclaimed that the existence of such clandestine armies could not be tolerated and that the European people needed to know the true origin of terrorist acts and that an inquiry was needed. Therefore, the European Parliament wrote a complaint to NATO and to president George Bush Senior. But nothing was done. It is only in Italy, Belgium and Switzerland that there have been public queries. And they are the only three countries that have set some order in this subject, and that have published a report about their secret armies.

Silvia Cattori: What about today ? Are these secret armies still active? Is it possible that there exist secret national structures which escape the control of each State?

Daniele Ganser: For a historian, it is difficult to answer that question. We haven’t got an official report of each country. In my books, I analyse some facts that I can prove. Concerning Italy, there is a report stating that the secret army Gladio has been destroyed. About the existence of the secret army P26 in Switzerland, a report was also issued by the Parliament, in November 1990. Therefore, these clandestine armies, which had stocked explosives in hidden places everywhere in Switzerland, have been dissolved.
But in the other countries, nothing was done. In France, while president François Mitterrand stated that all that belonged to the past, we discovered later that these secret structures had always been present when Giulio Andreotti suggested that the French president was lying: "You say that the secret armies do not exist anymore; but, during 1990’s secret meeting in the autumn, you, the French, were also present; don’t say that this doesn’t exist anymore." Mitterrand became quite angry with this Andreotti because, after this revelation, he was forced to rectify his statement. Later, the head of the French secret services, admiral Pierre Lacoste, confirmed that these secret armies existed in France as well, and that France had also been involved in terrorist attacks. [10]. It is therefore difficult to say whether all this has been solved or not. And, even if the Gladio structures have been dissolved, new armies might have been created, still utilizing this technique of the strategy of tension and the False flags.

Silvia Cattori: Can we speculate that, after the fall of the USSR, the United States and NATO have continued developing the strategy of tension and of the false flags in other fronts?

Daniele Ganser: My research is based in the period of the Cold War in Europe. But it is known that there have also been false flags in other places, where the States’ responsibility was proved. For example: the Iran bombings in 1953, for which the communist Iranians were blamed at first. So it happened that the CIA and the Mi6 had used some agents provocateurs to orchestrate the overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh’s administration, within the framework of the war, to control the oil. Another example: the bombings in Egypt, in 1954, for which the Muslims were accused first. It was proved later that, in what was called the Lavon affair [11], it was the agents of Mossad who had been the perpetrators. This time, it was for Israel to stop the British troops from leaving Egypt, to make them stay there, and also to ensure the protection of Israel. Therefore, we have examples in history showing that the strategy of tension and the false flags have been used by the US, Great Britain and Israel. Given that throughout their history other countries have also used the same strategy, the research must continue in these fields.

Silvia Cattori: These clandestine structures of NATO, created after the Second World War, to supply the European countries with a guerrilla capable of resisting the Soviet invasion, ended up serving nothing but to build criminal operations against the European Citizens? Everything leads to the thought that the United States have another purpose!

Daniele Ganser: You are right in raising this question. The United States were interested in the political control. This political control is an essential element of Washington and London’s strategy. General Geraldo Serravalle, at the head of Gladio, the Italian network Stay-behind, gives an example of this in his book. He tells us that he understood that the United States were not interested in the preparation of the guerrillas against an eventual Soviet invasion, when he saw that, what interested the CIA agents who went to the training exercises of the secret army that he was leading, was to make sure that the army worked, could control the communist militants. Their fear was that the communists took the power in countries such a Greece, Italy and France. Therefore, the strategy of tension was meant to serve that purpose: to orient and influence the politics of certain countries of Western Europe.

Silvia Cattori: You have talked about an important emotional factor in the strategy of tension. Therefore, the terror, whose origin is vague, uncertain, the fear that it causes, all that helps to manipulate the public opinion. Are we not assisting today to the same kind of procedure? Yesterday, we fuelled the fear of communism, today aren’t we fuelling the fear of Islam?

Daniele Ganser: Yes, there is a very clear parallel. During the planning of the war in Iraq, it was said that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons in his possession, that there was a link between Iraq and the Al-Qaeda terrorists. But none of that turned out to be true. By means of these lies, it was intended to make people believe that Muslims wanted to spread terrorism all around, and that this war was necessary to fight against terror. However, the true reason for this war is the control of energy resources. This is due to the fact that the geology, the richness in gas and oil, are concentrated in the Muslim countries. He who wants to monopolize them, must hide behind this type of manipulations.
We cannot say that there is not a lot of oil left because the global production - the ’peak oil’ [12] - is going to arrive probably before 2020, and that therefore oil must be taken from Iraq, because people would say that children must not be killed to obtain oil. And they are right. They can’t be told, either, that in the Caspian Sea there are huge reserves and that there is a plan to create a pipeline that would go to the Indian Ocean but, given that it’s is not allowed to go through the South of Iran or the North of Russia, it must pass through the East, Turkmenistan and Afghanistan, and therefore, this country must be under control. That is why Muslims are labelled as "terrorists". It is all a big lie, but if it is repeated a thousand times that Muslims are "terrorists", people will end up believing it and thinking that the wars against Muslims are useful; and to forget that there are several types of terrorism, that violence is not necessarily a feature of Islam.

Silvia Cattori: So, these clandestine structures might have well been dissolved, but the strategy of tension continues?

Daniele Ganser: Exactly. The structures might have been dissolved, and other ones could have been formed. It is important to explain how, in the strategy of tension, the tactic and manipulation work. None of that is legal. But, for the governments, it is easier to manipulate people than to tell them that they are trying to get hold of somebody else’s oil. Nevertheless, not all these attacks arise from the strategy of tension. But it is difficult to know which ones are the manipulated attacks. Even those who know the amount of attacks that have been manipulated by the governments to discredit a political enemy, can be confronted by a psychological obstacle. After every bombing, people are afraid, they feel confused. It is very difficult to accept the idea that the strategy of tension, the strategy of false flag, is a reality. It is easier to accept the manipulation and to say: "I have kept informed for 30 years, and I have never heard about these criminal armies. The Muslims are attacking us; this is why we fight against them."

Silvia Cattori: Since 2001, the European Union has created anti-terrorist measures. Later, is has been seen that these measures have allowed the CIA to kidnap people, to move them to secrete places and torture them. Have the European States become a sort of hostages to their submission to the United States?

Daniele Ganser: The European countries have had quite a weak attitude concerning the United States after the attacks on September 11th, 2001. After having confirmed that the secret prisons were illegal, they let them continue. The same happened with the prisoners in Guantanamo. Many voices stood up in Europe to say: "The prisoners cannot be deprived of a lawyer or defence." When Mrs. Angela Merkel mentioned this question, the United States clearly suggested that Germany was a little bit involved in Iraq, that its secret services had contributed to prepare this war, and therefore they must shut up.

Silvia Cattori: Within this context, where there are still many unclear areas, what type of security can NATO give to the peoples it is supposed to protect if it allows the secret services to manipulate in this way?

Daniele Ganser:Concerning the terrorist attacks carried out by the secret armies of the network Gladio during the Cold War, it is important that we are able to determine clearly which is the real implication of NATO in this, to know what really happened. Is this about isolated acts secretly organised by NATO? Until this day, NATO refuses to talk about the strategy of tension and terrorism during the Cold War. NATO refuses all questions related to Gladio.

Today, NATO is used as an offensive army, even though this organization was not created to play that role. It was activated in that sense on September 12th 2001, immediately after the attacks in New York. NATO’s leaders affirm that the reason for their involvement in the war against the Afghans is to fight against terrorism. However, NATO is in danger of losing that war. Therefore, when that happens they will be a big crisis, a debate. And this will allow us to know whether NATO is really fighting a war against terrorism, or if it is trying to create an analogous situation to that of the Cold War with the secret army Gladio, where she had a link to terror. The next few years will tell us if NATO has acted outside the mission that was accorded to it: to defend the European countries and the Unites States in case of Soviet invasion, an event that has never occurred. NATO was not funded to take over the oil and gas of the Muslim countries.

Silvia Cattori: We could understand that Israel, who is interested in widening the conflicts in the Arabic and Muslim countries, encourages the United States in that direction. But, we cannot see what it is that interests the European countries and that makes them engage their troops in the wars decided by the Pentagon, as was the case in Afghanistan.

Daniele Ganser: I think that Europe is confused. The United States are in a strong position, and the Europeans have a tendency to think that the best thing is to collaborate with the strongest one. But we would have to think about this more thoroughly. The European politicians give in easily to the pressure put by the US, who is always asking for more troops in this or that front. The more the European countries give in, the more they subordinate, and the more they will find themselves confronted to bigger and bigger problems. In Afghanistan the Germans and the British are under the command of the American army. Strategically, it is not an interesting position for these countries. Now, the US has asked the Germans to engage their soldiers in the South of Afghanistan as well, in the areas were the battle is the hardest. If the Germans accept, they take the risk of being massacred by the Afghan forces which refuse the presence of any king of occupier. _ Germany should ask itself seriously whether she should not rather withdraw their 3000 soldiers from Afghanistan. But, for the Germans, to disobey the US’ orders, to which they are a bit like lieges, it is a very hard step to make.

Silvia Cattori: How much do our current government know today about the strategy of tension ? Can they just let the war-doers foment coups d’état, kidnap and torture people without reacting? Have they any means to stop these criminal activities?

Daniele Ganser: I do not know. As an historian, I observe and take notes. As a political adviser, I always say that one must never give in to the manipulations that try to induce fear and to make people believe that the "terrorists" are always the Muslims; I say that this is about a struggle for controlling the energy resources; that some means of surviving the lack of energy must be found without needing to go to a militarization. Problems cannot be solved in this way; they only become worse.

Silvia Cattori: When we observe the demonisation of the Arabs and Muslims in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, we might think that this does not have anything to do with the oil.

Daniele Ganser: No. In this case not. But, in the US perspective, it is definitely about taking control of the energy reserves of the Eurasian block that is situated in a ’strategic ellipse’ that goes from Azerbaijan to Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait and the Persian Gulf, passing through Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan. It is precisely over there, in that region where this false war ’against terrorism’ is taking place, that the biggest oil and gas reserves are concentrated. In my opinion, it is not about anything else but a geo-strategic game inside which the European Union can do nothing but lose. Because, if the US takes hold of the resources, and the energy crisis becomes worse, it will tell them: "You want gas, you want oil. Very well, in exchange we want this and that." The US is not going to give the oil and gas for free to the European countries. A few people know that the "peak oil", the maximum production of oil in Europe - the production to Norway and Great Britain - is declining.

The day when people will realise that these wars ’against terrorism’ are manipulated, and that the accusations against the Muslims are, among other things, propaganda, they are going to be surprised. The European countries must wake up and understand once and for all how the strategy of tension works. And they must also learn to say "no" to the US. Moreover, in the US also, there are many people who do not want this militarizing of the international relationships.

Silvia Cattori: You have also done some research on the attacks that took place in September 11th 2001 and you have signed a book [13] jointly with other intellectuals who worry about the inconsistencies and contradictions of the official version of these events, as well as the conclusions of the commission of survey ordered by Mr. Bush. Do you not fear being accused of being a "conspiracy theorist"?

Daniele Ganser: My students and other people have always asked me : if this "war against terrorism" concerns indeed the oil and gas, the 911 attacks have also been manipulated, haven’t they? Or is it a coincidence that Osama Ben Laden’s Muslims have struck exactly at the precise moment that the occidental countries were starting to understand that an oil crisis was announcing itself?

Therefore, I became interested in what had been written about September 11th and I also studied the official report that was presented in 2004. When we dig into this subject, we realize from the start that there is a big worldwide debate around what really happened on 911. The information that we have is not very precise. What makes one question this 600 page report is that the third tower that collapsed on that day is not even mentioned. The commission only talks about the collapsing of two towers, the Twin Towers. But there is a third 170 meters high tower that collapsed too; the WTC 7 tower. A small fire is mentioned concerning it. I have talked to professors who know very well the building structures; they say that a small fire cannot destroy such a big structure. The official story of 911 and the commission’s conclusions, are not reliable. This lack of clarity puts the researchers in a difficult situation. The confusion predominated as well about what really happened at the Pentagon. In the pictures that we have, it is very difficult to see a plane. We cannot see how a plane would have fallen there.

Silvia Cattori: The Venezuelan Government has asked the US for further explanations to clarify the origin of the attacks. Would this not be the example to follow?

Daniele Ganser: There are many uncertainties about September 11th. Politicians, members of the academia and citizens can all claim to explain what really happened. I think that it is important to continue asking questions. It is an event that no one can forget; everybody remembers where he/she was at that precise moment. It is unbelievable that five years later, we still cannot see clearly what happened.

Silvia Cattori: It is almost as if none of the structures created wanted to doubt the official version. Is it possible that they let themselves be manipulated by the lack of information organized by the ones who organize the strategy of the tension and the False flags?

Daniele Ganser: We are prone to manipulation if we are afraid. Afraid of losing the respect from the people that we love. We cannot go out of this spiral of violence and terror if we let the fear take over. It is normal to be afraid, but we must overtly talk about this fear and about the manipulations that generate it. Nobody can escape their consequences. This is even more serious when the politicians in charge react often under the effect of fear. One must find the strength to say: "Yes, I am afraid to know that these lies make people suffer; yes, I am afraid to think that there is less oil left; yes, I am afraid to think that this terrorism they talk about is the consequence of manipulations, but I will not let myself become intimidated."

Silvia Cattori: Up to what extent do countries like Switzerland participate, right now, in this strategy of tension?

Daniele Ganser: I do not think there is any strategy of tension in Switzerland. This country does not know any terrorist attacks. But, it is true that, in Switzerland as everywhere else, the politicians are afraid of the US and its strong position, and they have a tendency to say to themselves: "They are good friends, we’d better not fight against them."

Silvia Cattori: Doesn’t this way of thinking and of covering up the lies that arise from the strategy of tension make everyone an accomplice of the crimes that it causes? To start with the journalists and the political parties?

Daniele Ganser: I personally think that everyone - journalists, professors, politicians - must think about the implications of the strategy if tension and the false flag. Here we are, indeed, in presence of phenomena that escape from every kind of agreement. That is why, every time that there are terrorist attacks, we must ask questions and try to understand what that implies. It is only on the day that we officially admit that the false flags are a reality, that it will be possible for us to create a list of the false flags that took place in history and to agree upon what should be done.

The subject that interests me is how to achieve peace. It is important to open a debate on the strategy of tension and to take cognizance of the fact that this is a very real phenomenon. Since as long as we do not recognize its existence, we cannot act. That is why it is important to explain what the strategy of tension truly means. And, once we have understood, we must not let fear and hatred against one group win. We must say to ourselves that it is not only one country that is involved in this; that it is not only the United States, Italy, Israel or the Iranians, but that it occurs everywhere. Even if certain countries participate in a more intensive way than others. We must understand, without blaming one country or one person. Fear and hatred do not help us to advance, they paralyse the debate. I see many accusations against the Unites States, against Israel and against great Britain, or alternatively against Iran and Syria. But the search for peace teaches us that one must not get lost in accusations based on nationalism, and that neither hatred nor fear are needed; that the most important thing is to explain the reality. And this comprehension will be beneficial for everybody.

Silvia Cattori: Why is your book about NATO’s secret armies published in English, translated into English, Turk, Slovenian and soon Greek, but it is not published in French?

Daniele Ganser: I haven’t found any publisher in France, yet. If any publisher happens to be interested in publishing my book, I will be very pleased to see it being issued in French.

None of us really know who, in fact, committed the atrocities in Uganda. However, what we do know for sure is that we cannot trust international news corporations to tell us the truth.

Blame has already been apportioned to yet another previously unheard of organisation with zero evidence. No court of law would stand for such a lack of integrity in considering non-evidence.

In the absence of evidence, why is it then that blame is always attached to 'enemies' of israel by international news corporations when it is also entirely equally reasonable to assume, in the absence of any evidence, that it could be another false-flag operation?

So let's get this straight - have Muslim militants ever carried out ANY atrocities against the West, or elsewhere? We get the 'false flag' thing after every incident...
Muslim extremists are engaged in 2 major wars with western forces and numerous regional struggles, including the atrocious Israeli occupation of Palestine. There is a large diaspora of emigres with various Muslim faiths all over the world. And they have NEVER let off a bomb anywhere?
Sounds like a conspiracy to me. Maybe none of them are Muslims, but all paid CIA operatives. Maybe there's no such place as Afghanistan. Maybe some viscerally anti-Western people have got far too much spare time and write long involved articles that prove nothing. Maybe I'm a Zionist troll.
Just a thought.

Rather than generalise about Muslims, or continental wranglings, let alone ascribing every attack to false flags.

Al Shabab were initially the militia force of the Islamic Courts Union. After the Ethiopians invaded Al Shabab spearheaded the insurgency. Already the most hardline of the ICU's islamists, their ideology grew more extreme during the insurgency.

Following the Ethiopian withdrawal in 2008-9 Al Shabab broke away from what they saw as 'collaborator' or 'apostate' elements of the ICU, and have been at war with them ever since.

Not only does the Shabab practice of political islam include beheadings, stonings and the smashing of the graves of saints, but earlier this year Al Shabab's publicly stated that it had joined Al Qaeda in its global jihad, renaming itself Al Shabab Mujahadeen.

The group has used the tactics of international jihadists (for example: attacks on civilians, suicide bombings, and a sophisticated web & dvd based recruitment campaign).

Given the presence of African Union troops in Somalia (not to mention Somalia's porous borders) an Al Shabab attack outside of Somalia was inevitable.

"Blame has already been apportioned to yet another previously unheard of organisation with zero evidence. No court of law would stand for such a lack of integrity in considering non-evidence."

"Previously unheard of"? You may not have heard of Al Shabab before, but that reflects your own knowledge of the subject. There have been hundreds of articles about it in newspapers in the UK since 2006 or so - you can check that by doing a quick search for it on the Independent, Telegraph and Guardian's websites.

And blame for the bombings wasn't "apportioned". The group's spokesman publicly announced on Monday that the group was behind the attack. Funnily enough, I think a court of law would take into account if an alleged murderer announced: "I did it, and I'd like to do it again".

The world’s oldest extant military bloc (formed 61 years ago) and the largest in history (twenty eight full members and as many partners on five continents), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, counts among its major member states all of Africa’s former colonial powers: Britain, France, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Germany and Belgium.

After World War II and the groundswell of anti-colonial sentiment throughout Africa and Asia, the European powers were forced to withdraw from most of the African continent, though Portugal retained its possessions until the 1970s.

Most every new African nation adopted some model of socialist-oriented economic and political development and the continent as a whole more closely aligned itself with the Soviet Union, which moreover had for decades supported the anti-colonial struggles in Africa, than with the West, both Western Europe and the United States.

With the end of the Cold War and the breakup of the Soviet Union nearly twenty years ago, the major Western powers on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, united under the aegis of NATO, saw that as with the Balkans and the former republics of the Soviet Union itself, Africa was now wide open for penetration and domination.

NATO’s largest, most powerful and dominant member is of course the United States. On October 1, 2007 the Pentagon established United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) under the temporary wing of United States European Command, which at the time included in its area of responsibility all of Africa except for four island nations in the Indian Ocean and the Horn of Africa states and Egypt. (The first were in Pacific Command and the others in Central Command where Egypt, alone among Africa’s 53 nations, remains.)

A year to the day later AFRICOM was launched as the first new U.S. regional military command outside North America since Central Command was activated 25 years earlier in 1983. It takes in far more nations – 52 – than any other military command in history.

AFRICOM was conceived, carried, nurtured and delivered by the Pentagon’s European Command (EUCOM), based in Stuttgart, Germany where AFRICOM headquarters are also based as no nation in Africa has yet volunteered to be the host.

The top commander of EUCOM is “dual-hatted” as NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) and has been from General Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1951 to Admiral James Stavridis today.

The three top EUCOM/NATO military commanders most instrumental in the creation of AFRICOM were General Joseph Ralston (2000-2003), General James Jones (2003-2006) and General Bantz John Craddock (2006-2009). Arguably Jones, former Marine Corps four-star general and current U.S. National Security Adviser, was the real father of Africa Command. [1]

The distinction between the Pentagon and NATO in relation to Europe and Africa – and increasingly the Caucasus, the Caspian Sea Basin, Central Asia, South Asia and the Indian Ocean – is blurred and more and more of a strictly formal nature.

NATO has now joined AFRICOM’s first war, in Somalia.

The bloc’s Allied Command Operations website announced on March 18 that from March 5-16 the North Atlantic military alliance had airlifted 1,700 Ugandan troops from their homeland to the Somali capital of Mogadishu for the intensified fighting that began there earlier this month.

The Pentagon supplied the transport planes “under the NATO banner” and the operation was “undertaken by USA contracted DynCorp International.” [2]

The commander of AFRICOM, General William Ward, recently informed the Senate Armed Services Committee of plans to focus the military command’s attention on East Africa and indicated plans to assist the formal government of Somalia to reclaim the country’s capital.

In May the European Union is to began training 2,000 Ugandan troops for deployment to war-wracked Somalia to assist the regime being propped up by the West.

NATO recently confirmed that it has prolonged an agreement to provide strategic sealift and airlift support for African (Ugandan, Rwandan and Burundian) troops to assist Somalia’s Transitional Federal Government in the nation’s civil war.

The bloc’s European command, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE), “delegated the authority to Joint Command Lisbon to have the operational lead for NATO engagements with the African Union and they provide the majority of the personnel to support the mission.” [3]

As with the government of Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, the Western-backed Transitional Federal Government doesn’t even control its own capital. Since last week fighting there has led to hundreds of people being killed and wounded and thousands displaced.

Six days earlier NATO effected a changing of the guard “in the Gulf of Aden and Somali Basin” [4] as part of its Operation Ocean Shield, and five warships of the Standing NATO Maritime Group 2 joined four from the Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 in Djibouti, where there are some 2,000 U.S. troops and where AFRICOM bases its Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa. Djibouti also hosts over 1,000 French soldiers and France’s second largest military base abroad.

On March 10 NATO extended its deployment of warships in the Gulf of Aden and the Horn of Africa until the end of 2012 in what originally was portrayed as an ad hoc, short-term deployment when Operation Ocean Shield was initiated last August following Operation Allied Protector in March. Instead, NATO has effectively expanded its over eight-year-old naval operation in the Mediterranean Sea, Operation Active Endeavor, through the Red Sea and into the Arabian Sea and is now involved in the Horn of Africa both on land and at sea.

The Standing NATO Maritime Groups consist of warships from member states assigned for the occasion – the latest deployment in the Gulf of Aden includes a U.S. ship – and is under the command of Allied Component Command Maritime Naples, one of the two Component Commands of Allied Joint Force Command Naples.

Allied Joint Force Command Naples (JFC Naples) was inaugurated six years ago as part of NATO strategy to deploy further south and east, succeeding Allied Forces Southern Europe (AFSOUTH). The reorganization was a component of Alliance transformation policy growing out of the 2002 NATO summit in Prague. JFC Naples takes in the entire NATO Area of Responsibility (AOR) which, as will be seen, includes the Balkans, Africa, the Mediterranean Sea region and Iraq.

Its commander is the U.S.’s Admiral Mark Fitzgerald, who is also the top commander of U.S. Naval Forces Europe and U.S. Naval Forces Africa. Earlier this year Fitzgerald was in Kosovo threatening Serbian authorities in the north, branding them “a threat to Kosovo stability.” [5]

NATO’s Naples Command has offices and is involved in operations throughout the Balkans: In Albania, Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia and Serbia.

The NATO Training Mission – Iraq is also conducted under JFC Naples’s supervision. (Its first commander was General David Petraeus, now in charge of United States Central Command.)

In his dual capacity as head of U.S. naval forces in Europe and Africa, Fitzgerald is also in charge of the Pentagon’s Africa Partnership Station (APS), created in 2006 and now part of AFRICOM.

Its first deployment was to West Africa, including the Gulf of Guinea, in 2007 and 2008 when the USS Fort McHenry and HSV (High Speed Vessel) Swift visited Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Ghana, Senegal, Sao Tome and Principe, and Togo. Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, current U.S. National Security Adviser, James Jones years ago marked off that expanse of Africa along its Atlantic Coast as a vital theater in the battle for world oil resources. [6]

On March 13 the U.S. began military exercises in Ghana which will last to the end of the month.

“The three-week exercise, with about 120 Ghana Armed Forces personnel and about 95 US Marines, forms part of the Africa Partnership Station (APS) 2010 project.” [7]

The operation is the first of three U.S. Marines will conduct in Africa this year.

The day before the Ghanaian maneuvers began, AFRICOM completed the Africa Partnership Station East operation at the other end of the continent.

On its final day a review was held in Mombasa, Kenya with leaders from Kenya, Namibia, Tanzania and the U.S., which was hosted by Admiral Mark Fitzgerald of U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa (and NATO’s Allied Joint Force Command Naples).

Two American warships were deployed for the occasion, the frigate USS Nicholas and HSV Swift.

A Kenyan naval officer described what preceded the exercises in East Africa: “From Naples, the ships steamed to Souda Bay, Greece, and then through the Suez Canal to our first Africa Partnership Station engagement in Djibouti.

“During this deployment, Swift and Nicholas covered a total of 12,500 nautical miles and conducted 11 ports of calls; namely, Mombasa, Kenya; Dar es salaam, Tanzania; Durban and Cape Town, South Africa; Maputo, Mozambique; Port East, Reunion; Port Louis, Mauritius; and Port Victoria, Seychelles.” [8]

The commander of Africa Partnership Station East, Captain James Tranoris, described its significance: “While APS has been active in East Africa for a few years, this year marks the inaugural deployment of an international staff to execute the mission.”

AFRICOM’s APS has established itself in both the Gulf of Guinea and the western shores of the Indian Ocean.

At the north end of the continent, Admiral Giampaolo Di Paola, chairman of the NATO Military Committee, was in Algeria to promote both the Mediterranean Dialogue partnership and the Alliance’s new Strategic Concept.

The first is a NATO program that includes Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia, expanding the bloc’s influence – and presence – from both banks of the Jordan River to well down Africa’s western coast.

The second is the formalization of NATO’s 21st century military strategy to further the global, expeditionary character of the military bloc.

“During his address the Chairman underlined the cooperation between NATO and Algeria in the framework of the Mediterranean Dialogue and praised Algeria’s great contribution to the formation of its Officers in the NATO Regional Cooperation Course (NRCC) at the NATO Defense College (NDC).

“Admiral Di Paola also stressed the need to bring forward Mediterranean Dialogue views into the New NATO Strategic Concept.” [9]

Di Paola also visited Morocco and delivered a speech on “the new NATO Strategic Concept to officers of the Royal Moroccan Army General Staff.

“He praised the cooperation between NATO and Morocco in the framework of the Mediterranean Dialogue and the contribution of the Royal Moroccan Armed Forces to NATO operations,” and urged the “ongoing development of the new Strategic Concept to strengthen the ties between NATO and its Mediterranean partners.” [10]

In 1884 the major European powers gathered at the Berlin Conference to divide up those parts of Africa that had escaped colonization and to create a consortium to dominate and exploit an entire continent and its peoples.

The anti-colonial struggles after the Second World War put an end to that enforced order, but 126 years later there are ominous indications that the former colonial masters are nostalgic for their past power.

________________


Notes


1) Global Energy War: Washington’s New Kissinger’s African Plans
Stop NATO, January 22, 2009

 http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/global-energy-war-washingtons-new-kissingers-african-plans

2) North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Allied Command Operations
March 18, 2010

3) Ibid

4) North Atlantic Treaty Organization, March 12, 2010

5) 11 Years Later: NATO Powers Prepare Final Solution In Kosovo
Stop NATO, March 18, 2010

 http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/11-years-later-nato-powers-prepare-final-solution-in-kosovo

6) Global Energy War: Washington’s New Kissinger’s African Plans

7) Ghana Government, March 18, 2010

8) United States Africa Command
Africa Partnership Station
March 17, 2010

9) North Atlantic Treaty Organization
International Military Staff
March 15, 2010

10) North Atlantic Treaty Organization
International Military Staff
March 18, 2010

_________________

No sense whatsoever

Says Jinn:

‘Al Shabab were initially the militia force of the Islamic Courts Union. After the Ethiopians invaded Al Shabab spearheaded the insurgency. Already the most hardline of the ICU's islamists, their ideology grew more extreme during the insurgency.

Following the Ethiopian withdrawal in 2008-9 Al Shabab broke away from what they saw as 'collaborator' or 'apostate' elements of the ICU, and have been at war with them ever since.’

Mossad calling:
‘So let's get this straight - have Muslim militants ever carried out ANY atrocities against the West, or elsewhere? We get the 'false flag' thing after every incident...’

Says Norvello:
‘Okaaay. So your theory is that the US are behind a group that has spent the last few years in direct, bitter conflict with the Ethiopians. Who are backed by - ooops - the US.
You do realise that makes no sense whatsoever?
(Oh, and for the record, that 7/7 Luton station Photoshop thing was debunked years ago).’


Right, so Al Shabab are part of a movement of Muslim extremists that the media tell us are told are financed by Western ally, Saudi Arabia and trained by Western ally, Pakistan? Another place that is a hot bed of Muslim extremism is Egypt, who is, you guessed it, a Western ally.

Of course, the reason Western intelligence has done nothing about this is because they are stupid and journalists are far more in touch with what their Muslim intelligence allies are doing than them.

And, oh yes, and Al Qaida was financed and trained by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the CIA.

Meanwhile, training received in Pakistan by the 7/7 bombers iwas carried out by Kashmir rebel groups supported by the Pakistan government - you remember, the Western ally.

So, no reason at all to think that the Al Shabab is likely to be a false flag attack, then.

We seem to have a rash of poorly-thought out conspiracy theory posts just recently.

They all seek to bamboozle the reader by posting ludicrously long waffly diatribes with hundreds of pointless references to other conspiracy theory sites. I doubt anyone actually reads the whole of them, I know I don't.

Are there sometimes "false flag" operations? Sure, but not often. There is no real reason to suspect this was anything other that an well-executed attack by Islamic fundamentalists. They have done it before and I'm sure they will do it many times again.

I always enjoy your posts. And sometimes you make me look at things differently, so thanks for that.

But... you mean to say that stuff that the Brits and the US have backed in the past (when the enemy was the Russians) has come back to bite both countries on the arse?

Well, yes. That's sort of been widely covered. Hollywood even made a Tom Hanks comedy about it.

“Western intelligence has done nothing about” [Islamacist terrorist groups] in Pakistan, you say.

Well, apart from all that spying, all the predator drones and all the other incursions into Pakistan, which have caused international incidents… but let’s ignore those.

Incidentally, you suggest that Al Shabaab is funded by the Saudis and trained in Pakistan. Got any evidence for that?

Or are you just falling into the classic trap – usually one journos and politicians are – of exaggerating the power and range of “Al Qaida”?

It’s not one simple big coporate entity, like Microsoft, with direct branches in different contries. As Jason Burke writes in his perceptive book on Al Qaida, there are several different definitions, but when some groups claim affiliation it can be a pretty loose affilliation. It’s like an Welsh music fan club in Rome suddenly saying it wants to exchange letters with a Tom Jones fanclub in Wales. It’s an ideological connection, rather than a direct command link.

This much we know: until last year Al Shabaab denied links with Al Qaida. This year it’s started saying that "jihad of Horn of Africa must be combined with the international jihad led by the al-Qaeda network".

I think it’s worrying how willing politicians and the media are to label groups as “linked to Al Qaida” when the link can be pretty spurious (see the way the Russian government has used it against Chechen forces, to get the US on side). But that’s no reason to start imagining that local Islamicist groups in other parts of the world haven’t been killing hundreds of people – unless you believe that the thousands of people involved, in all the hundreds of attacks that have taken place in the Middle East and Africa, are all CIA agents.

Says Norvello,
Incidentally, you suggest that Al Shabaab is funded by the Saudis and trained in Pakistan. Got any evidence for that?

 http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/03/29/somalia.protest.march/index.html
Hundreds protest against Al-Shabaab in Somalia
March 29, 2010 -- Updated 1637 GMT (0037 HKT)
(CNN) -- Hundreds of Somalis marched through the streets of Mogadishu, Somalia, on Monday, protesting against Al-Shabaab militants…
…Al-Shabaab follows the strict Saudi Arabian-inspired Wahhabi interpretation of Islam, rather than the Sufi Islam of many Somalis…

 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100709/ap_on_re_af/af_somalia
Somali clerics work to denounce radical al-Shabab
Associated Press
…Al-Shabab seeks to topple Somalia's weak, U.N.-backed administration and install a harsh brand of Islam.

U.S. officials say veteran insurgents of the Afghan and Pakistan conflict have joined al-Shabab, infusing the group with bomb-making expertise and global links…


Can someone explain what exactly is the US State Department, CIA, FBI, NSA, DIA and the rest of them are doing about the spread of anti-Western, violent and non-violent, Muslim extremist Wahhabism financed by and inspired by their ally Saudi Arabia?

Let me guess, nothing. But there’s nothing odd there, is there?


Says anon
Has Indymedia been taken over by troofers?
13.07.2010 14:55
We seem to have a rash of poorly-thought out conspiracy theory posts just recently.

Whereas believing that there is nothing strange about anti-Western Muslim extremism being financed by the West’s best Muslim allies is the height of logical thought, right anon?

"unless you believe that the thousands of people involved, in all the hundreds of attacks that have taken place in the Middle East and Africa, are all CIA agents"

They do, mate, they do. There is no conspiracy theory too outlandish to find a dedicated little bedsit army. Anything is better than believing that the world is a complicated place, and that the people you hate may sometimes be telling the truth.

Modern European Colonial-Imperialism initiated the world slavery of black people, and their basic Racist theories still apply to the treatment of Africa. America has carried the concept of superiority of the "Whites' forward making huge monied profits selling sophisticated genocidal weapons, and is selling more weapons than all the other countries combined with the hope that the divide and rule principles of its, and world Imperium will prevail to the destruction of the Blacks throughout Africa.

Otherwise why would they sell the Africans military weapons which allows the massacre that is taking place throughout the African Continent? Imperialism trains the peoples up in the former colonial countries to serve the interests of the Imperialist nation/s with resources so its colonial economies can continue to function and funnel the wealth to them. That is what is happening to the detriment of the African peoples today.

What is new since the neo-colonies achieved their so-called independence is the worlds' Imperium is inciting Africans to commit genocide, and then buying up the vacated agricultural lands for future occupation and use. Millions of Africans are being slaughtered including plants (forest trees) and the wildlife animals, and huge Eurocentric Corporations are monopolzing the land and resources to themselves, thusly impoverishing the African peoples while suggesting with further genocidal wars that the whites will return and eventually own and control all the lands and resources, thusly enslaving the fragmented remnant minorities of black communities to their control.

Cop 15 was a clear expose' of this strategie when the Imperium refused to pay reparations for the climate change that their exploitation of Africa has caused over the last five hundred years. In truth, the Africans' were told no, the whites can cause climate damage and exploitation thereby, and America-- Europeans will continue to sell weapons of massacre to the black quislings and form Military alliances to practice genocide Africa wide until Africa and its resources are in the Imperiums' hands again, and the blacks cannot do anything about it because Euro-centric weapons will continue to ensure black impoverishment.

Bob Marley once wrote a truthful song called 'Africa Unite!!. That is the only way the blacks will be able to take ownership and control of the African Continent again, and stop the divide and rule of the Imperialist nations globally. Peoples China wants to make a new world economics and global society that is based on mutual benefit, and to end the Imperialist plunder of Africa.

Surely the black armies need to end the plunder and genocide with a new strategy of 'AFRICA UNITE' and to trade with the worlds' countries that are friendly and will trade with them on the basis of mutual benefit rather then exploitation and genocidal wars of aggression.

So, EVERYONE in a country that is an "ally" is on message? I think the fact you have avoided entertaining the idea that terrorist recruiting may be at a premium in the countries who are allied/dependent on US/UK money and weapons/protection for reasons other than it being a "false flag" speaks volumes about your ability to evaluate data dispassionately and impartially.

I dare say the fact that the regime in Egypt CONTRIBUTES to the terrorist situation not by design but by dint of the fact it is there to prevent the Muslim Brotherhood from seizing power... but you being such a savvy researcher already knew about the links between Egypt and al the founder of al Qaeda.

No, there is no bona fide terrorism in the world. And any country that has a government in the pay of the US is 100% controlled by that regime, there is only fake dissent. No one hates the West either for valid reasons or for loony religious regions. There are no "freedom fighters" in Central Asia, the sub-continent or Africa... all the refugees the UN reports on are part of the big NWO ruse too.

No one wants to kill us or anyone for ideological reasons, because violence is monopolised by the New World Order...

Pakistan, Kashmir, Saudi, Africa, Central & East Asia, the Middle East are not a powder keg... the problems in those areas are all made up by the media as backstory for their false flags.

I had a potato that looked like Kim Il Jong once... or was it the other way around.

This site needs an enema.

Says Norvello
So, EVERYONE in a country that is an "ally" is on message? I think the fact you have avoided entertaining the idea that terrorist recruiting may be at a premium in the countries who are allied/dependent on US/UK money and weapons/protection for reasons other than it being a "false flag" speaks volumes about your ability to evaluate data dispassionately and impartially.

Who’s a conspiracy theorist now? Saudi Arabia encourages terrorism in order to get military subsidies from the US! What did mossy troll say? Obviously you do believe "…that the thousands of people involved, in all the hundreds of attacks that have taken place in the Middle East and Africa, are...” all Saudi agents.

And does mossy troll really believe that there are thousands of people around the world all eager to blow themselves up because “they hate our freedoms”? Does he/she think that CIA agents are all law abiding, moral citizens? Is it not the case that thousands of CIA officers and agents have done immoral and illegal things without whistleblowing?

Says Mossy troll: ‘Anything is better than believing that the world is a complicated place, and that the people you hate may sometimes be telling the truth.’

But it would help if mossy troll did not go around half asleep.

 http://www.sott.net/articles/show/167154-Mossad-s-Islamic-Militants-Exposed-In-Yemen
Yemen seizes 'Israel-linked' cell
Tuesday, 7 October 2008
BBC News
Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh has said the security forces have arrested a group of alleged Islamist militants linked to Israeli intelligence.


Says Norvello
‘I dare say the fact that the regime in Egypt CONTRIBUTES to the terrorist situation not by design but by dint of the fact it is there to prevent the Muslim Brotherhood from seizing power... but you being such a savvy researcher already knew about the links between Egypt and al the founder of al Qaeda.’

Now you are taking tips from neo-cons. They said that dictatorial governments lead to terrorism. But I am a savvy researcher and I know that it was the CIA who transported the Muslim Brotherhood to Saudi Arabia in the1950s after Nasser persecuted them.

But this ‘everyone in a country that is “ally” and not on message includes powerful people in the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. And the same Pakistan intelligence service that we are told helps the Taliban has received billions from the US.

I come back to my original question.

What has the US government done about the promotion of Muslim extremism by the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?

Why is the US government not made this a high profile issue? Why have they not condemned the Saudi government in the UN?

Why have we not had one Pakistan intelligence agent imprisoned for their support of the Taliban?

If there are people in Iran, Syria, etc who hate the US, why are there not lots of Al Qaida supporters there?

"does mossy troll really believe that there are thousands of people around the world all eager to blow themselves up because “they hate our freedoms”? "

No - they are eager to blow themselves up because that's the only way they can counter overwhelming force being directed against them by what they see as a western-backed tyranny


"Does he/she think that CIA agents are all law abiding, moral citizens?"

Law-abiding : generally yes, as they are intimately related to the bodies that set the laws
Moral : depends on your point of view - I have my doubts


"Is it not the case that thousands of CIA officers and agents have done immoral and illegal things without whistleblowing? "

No idea and I wouldn't trust the doughnuts on the internet for an answer to that.


"Says Mossy troll: ‘Anything is better than believing that the world is a complicated place, and that the people you hate may sometimes be telling the truth.’ "

Conspiracy ravings may be satisfying and make you feel clever, but that doesn't make them real.

First, Lost Will to Live – I think his post is sarcastic, in which case he seems to have mistaken me for one of those who believe everything is a false flag, when I’ve been arguing the precise opposite.

After addressing the message “Norvello”, he writes: “So, EVERYONE in a country that is an "ally" is on message?”

Again, no, that’s precisely the opposite of what I’ve been saying. It’s the troofers who seem to think that the US must be involved in everything that goes on in Pakistan and Egypt, because they are ostensibly allies and the CIA be omniscient. I’ve not argued that at all. What I have stated, however, is that it makes no sense for the US to be running both sides of the (little cared about) battle in Mogadishu – why set up Al Shabaab to carry out false flags, if they’re spending most of their time battling US-backed Ethiopean forces?

As for Insidejob. Why are you falsely attributing quotes to me that were written by “Lost Will to Live”? What’s all this “Says Norvello” stuff? I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume cock-up rather than conspiracy….

Insidejob doesn’t seem to be be able to get his head round the face the US might be friendly to another country to its face for financial and diplomatic reasons, then go totally behind its back for security ones. That’s the grim modern world of diplomacy for you.

I think the fact that the US has repeatedly kept Pakistan in the dark about its raids within Pakistan shows how much it trusts and really respects its “ally”.

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/21/us-forces-secret-pakistan-raids

Insidejob implies the US hasn’t publicly criticised Pakistan for allowing Muslim extremism to flourish. They’ve done it many times.

Here’s a quick one from 2007: “US officials have publicly said recently that they believe Pakistan has let al-Qaeda and Taleban militants reorganise themselves in tribal areas bordering Afghanistan.”

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6926663.stm

When it comes to CIA/Al Qaida collaboration, who am I going to believe - Norvello, mossy troll or John Joseph Loftus (February 12, 1950, Boston, Massachusetts) is an American author, former US government prosecutor and former Army intelligence officer, who’s read the CIA files. ( http://uk.ask.com/wiki/John_Loftus)

 http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=11146
The Muslim Brotherhood, Nazis and Al-Qaeda
By: John Loftus
Jewish Community News | Monday, October 04, 2004

‘….At the end of World War II, the Muslim Brotherhood was wanted for war crimes. Their German intelligence handlers were captured in Cairo. The whole net was rolled up by the British Secret Service. Then a horrible thing happened.

Instead of prosecuting the Nazis -- the Muslim Brotherhood -- the British government hired them. They brought all the fugitive Nazi war criminals of Arab and Muslim descent into Egypt, and for three years they were trained on a special mission. The British Secret Service wanted to use the fascists of the Muslim Brotherhood to strike down the infant state of Israel in 1948…

…But the Egyptians became nervous. Nasser ordered all of the Muslim Brotherhood out of Egypt or be imprisoned, and we would execute them all. During the 1950's, the CIA evacuated the Nazis of the Muslim Brotherhood to Saudi Arabia. Now when they arrived in Saudi Arabia, some of the leading lights of the Muslim Brotherhood like Azzam, became the teachers in the Madrasas, the religious schools. And there they combined the doctrines of Nazism with this weird Islamic cult, Wahhabiism…

…The lawyers studied all the documents I collected, and on August 15, 2002, they filed the largest class-action lawsuit in American history in the Federal District Court in Washington D.C., asking for one trillion dollars damages against the Saudis. The lawsuit said essentially that all these Saudi banks had one thing in common. They were bribing Osama bin Ladin 300 million dollars a year to stay out of Saudi Arabia and go blow up someone else…’

(BCCI)

Apologies to Norvello for mixing you up with Lost the will to think, who, of course, didn’t have the will in the first place.

You still do not offer any adequate explanation of why the US has publicly said little about Saudi support for Muslim extremism or done little.

US newspapers have reported on CIA meeting with Pakistan and publicly attacked its ISI for supporting the Taliban. Newspapers have also reported US officials defending giving billions of dollars to the ISI for their pursuit of the Taliban. Apparently.

If Saudi Arabia and Pakistan can get away with pretending to have friendly relations with the US and secretly attacking it, how come other countries don’t do it?

Ignorance should not win any prizes. When you are ignorant and too ignorant to admit it, then perhaps, you should humble yourself. Norvello, mossy troll and lost the will to think, you’re all far too ignorant to comment about conspiracy theory.

This ignorance is not shared by people outside the West. Many people in Pakistan believe that the US contractor, Blackwater, carry out the terrorism in their country. Many people in Afghanistan believe that NATO supports Taliban. War and Peace Reporting last year published an Afghan army officer who says this. Many people in Japan believe David Rockefeller rules America. A senior Japanese MP says the US did 911. A senior adviser to Putin, months before 911 warned the Russian people that the US was about to be attacked (she said it would start in August, which is when a run on the dollar started).

I think I would find it very easy to exposure how ignorant you all actually are about any conspiracy theories. I doubt whether I would be able to learn anything of any significance about Muslim extremism and the West from any of you. This is because I take the trouble to find out before shooting my mouth off. (I bet you're ignorant about my reference to BCCI.)

I say to people who seek to learn from indymedia - don't let ignorance dominate.

Make up your mind, insidejob.

If you want to believe Loftus that’s your problem. He thinks the CIA today is great, and all the terrorism in the world is caused by an evil global Muslim network, which began back in the 1920s and was on the side of the Nazis (okaaaaay). In his story the British secret service then took the secret army of the Muslim Brotherhood under their wing after WWII to destroy Israel (err?), and the CIA brought them back in the 1970s to help take on the Commies. But now they are operating around the world, funded by the Saudis - while the modern CIA is lovely and doing its upmost to bring those Islamacist evildoers to justice, unaware of what happened four decades ago.

To quote the same speech you’ve quoted by Loftus: “A whole generation: the current CIA people know nothing about this. And believe me, the current generation CIA are good and decent Americans and I like them a lot. They're trying to do a good job, but part of their problem is their files have been shredded. All of these secrets have to come out.”

So if you want to believe Loftus, fine. I’ve read more convincing Dan Brown novels. But in his version it’s the Evil Muslims, led by Osama Bin Laden. what are doing all the terrorism, including 9/11, and the nice modern CIA need help to stop them... so the total opposite of the troofer theories.

I really wouldn't accuse others of lacking intelligence or failing to do their research.

Norvello
Make up your mind
14.07.2010 17:37

'So if you want to believe Loftus, fine. I’ve read more convincing Dan Brown novels. But in his version it’s the Evil Muslims, led by Osama Bin Laden. what are doing all the terrorism, including 9/11, and the nice modern CIA need help to stop them... so the total opposite of the troofer theories.'

I'm sure there will be some things that I agree with you on, Norvello. Loftus only knows what he's read in CIA files. There's much he doesn't know. But on CIA and Muslim extremists, I would still rather believe Loftus than you or Loss the will to think, who knows more than what's written in mainstream media and the odd Left publication, that will tell you that Muslim extremism is a reactionary response to Western imperialism.

You still don't know why BCCI is relevant to this, do you?

When you find out something more than what's in the news and Left publications on this, tell me.

The Bank of Credit and Commerce International is important because it funneled funds to Al Qaida in their fight against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Bin Laden had an account. Directors of BCCI included friend of George Bush, James Bath and former defence secretary and a founder of the CIA, Clifford Clark. BCCI did other things such as drug dealing, arms smuggling, bribery, assassination, etc. It represents the nexus between Muslim extremism and the West.

Why would the US fund and train groups that attack it?

Machiavelli offered advice to a Prince, or head of a state, about how to maintain his position after reviewing strategies and tactics that have already been used.

‘Without a doubt, princes become great when they overcome difficulties and obstacles imposed upon them. And therefore, Fortune…creates enemies for him, and has them undertake enterprises against him so that he will have the chance to overcome them and to climb higher up the ladder his enemies have brought him. Thus, many people judge that a wise prince must cunningly foster some hostile action, whenever he has the opportunity, so that in repressing it his greatness will emerge the more.’
The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli, p74, Oxford University Press, 2005

There is nothing new about false flag theory among the elite. Today, the elite takes Machiavelli’s advice: it is sometimes necessary to encourage people to attack your country to achieve an objective. But they have amended it: false flags are used to condition the majority’s thinking so that they do stop elite from achieving an objective where they otherwise might. Such a strategy can work because it is beyond most people’s thinking, including people on the Left.

If you want to criticize conspiracy theory without talking nonsense, you should find out about it:
Rhodes Milner Group
Royal Institute of International Affairs
Council on Foreign Relations
Bilderberg
Rhodes Scholars
The Pilgrim Society
Theosophy
Bank of International Settlements
Venice
War of the League of Cambrai or War of the Holy League (Europe’s most important war)
Rockefeller
Rothschild, Waterloo and UK bond markets
Scottish Rite Freemasonry
Boule
Knights Templar
Knights of Malta
Debt-based money system
Plato’s Republic
Skull and Bones
Was Karl Marx a Freemason?
‘Superclass’ by David Rothokpt (read critically)
‘The Choice’, Zbignew Brezinski (read critically)
Professor Carroll Quigley

Aplogies, I did indeed get you 180 degrees out of phase... Must have been the aneurysm I experienced reading the conspiracy fantasies.

People like InsideJob will sieze every opportunity to use the lamest tricks in the book: to cite precedence as though it is evidentially relevant to what their thesis is. It wouldn't be admissible if a court of law, and it would be admissible in a peer-review journal as a substitute for hard evidence.

That the West backed the Mujhadin, various Afghan factions (against each other) including the Taliban doesn't automatically mean to say that attacks on the West are false flags. The West bombed the training camps into dust in a matter of days, it's currently losing a war there still...

People HATE the West. I know it is hard to believe considering how nice we are to everyone, but there are people out there will to kill and be killed.

Were the P-IRA, ETA, RAF all inventions too?

False flags are possible. They have happened (and likely more than these silly people think). But to monotonously accuse every single thing taht happens of being a false flag is embarrassingly stupid and just undermines any valid research into what is actually going on... including all teh genuine false flags.

In fact, if I were in the CIA I'd be busy circulating as many crappy crazy theories as possible (as they did against the USSR in the 60-80s) because conspiracy theorists shouting about false flags and Mossad like Father Jack is just what I'd want if I were them.

No one has any hard evidence of any recent false flags, if they did, the press would be over it like a rash; there'd be no stopping it. So, presenting rumour and supposition as anything but tittletattle is totally counter productive, even from a "truth researcher's" point of view.