Richard Norton-Taylor, security affairs editor at the British Guardian newspaper, has written an interesting article titled “Al-Qaeda spy sought to overthrow Saddam”. It shows how the USA was sucked into Iraq, mind you, as a ‘more than willing’ captive by al Qaeda’s evil but brilliant design.
I say the Americans were ‘more than willing’ captives, meaning they met those who tricked them half-way, because of the Bush Administration characteristic triad of greed, fear and stupidity.
Greed for oil, fear (not of WMD but) of China gaining a strong foothold in Iraq and monopolizing the purchase of Iraq’s oil (because China would be willing to pay good prices, unlike the Americans), and the real reason (explaining the Bush government's stupidity) underlying and disguised by the the first two reasons, Zionists’ manipulations of America into a war for Israel's interest.
The Zionists brilliantly worked through the neocon think-tank American Enterprise Institute and finally in the Bush Administration to convert American greed, sinister ambition and sole-superpower arrogance (Project for the New American Century) into plans to dominate the important oil-rich Middle East region.
The plans called for direct US control of oil resources, meaning both Iraq and Iran must be occupied or brought under client control, like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
The cleverness in the (Zionist conceived and driven) plan was overtly to control Middle-East oil for US interests but covertly to destroy Iraq and Iran for Israeli long term interests. Iraq and Iran were/are (respectively) considered by the Israelis as the two most likely and dangerous threats to its long term survival.
Anyway, in today’s Sydney Morning Herald, the following is an extract of Richard Norton-Taylor’s article:
A senior al-Qaeda operative deliberately planted information to encourage the US to invade Iraq, a double agent who infiltrated the network and spied for western intelligence agencies said.
The claim was made by Omar Nasiri, a pseudonym for a Moroccan who says he spent seven years working for European security and intelligence agencies, including British intelligence (MI5). He said Ibn Sheikh al-Libi, who ran training camps in Afghanistan, told his US interrogators that al-Qaeda had been training Iraqis.
Libi was captured in November 2001 and taken to Egypt where he was allegedly tortured. Asked on BBC TV's Newsnight programme on Thursday whether Libi or other jihadists would have told the truth if they were tortured, Nasiri replied: "Never".
Asked whether he thought Libi had deliberately planted information to get the US to fight Iraq, Nasiri said: "Exactly".
Nasiri said Libi "needed the conflict in Iraq because months before I heard him telling us when a question was asked in the mosque after the prayer in the evening, where is the best country to fight the jihad?" Libi said Iraq was chosen because it was the "weakest" Muslim country.
It is known that under interrogation, Libi misled Washington. His claims were seized on by George Bush, vice-president, Dick Cheney, and Colin Powell, the then secretary of state, in his address to the security council in February, 2003, which argued the case for a pre-emptive war against Iraq.
Though he did not name Libi, Mr Powell said "a senior terrorist operative" who "was responsible for one of al-Qaeda's training camps in Afghanistan" had told US agencies that Saddam Hussein had offered to train al-Qaeda in the use of "chemical or biological weapons".
What is new, if Nasiri is to be believed, is that the leading al-Qaeda operative wanted to overthrow Saddam and use Iraq as a jihadist base. Nasiri also says that part of al-Qaeda training was to withstand interrogation and provide false information.
Well, around 700,000 Iraqis and 3000 young Americans lost their lives as a result of the Bush Administration’s greed, fear and stupidity.
How many trillions and trillions of dollars have been squandered by George Bush in his government’s evil war adventures, all for Israel's gain, when he could have been the most revered man in history if he had used that money to benevolently benefit the world, especially its poor and suffering.
For such a fundamentalist born again Christian, he failed miserably to heed the words of Isaiah 2:4 & Micah 4:3 - "They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore."
Instead Bush, egged on by his Zionist advisors, opted for an action that would best be described by the Book of Joel (3:10) in the Jewish Tanakh (Old Testament): "Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruninghooks into spears."
Amen - and God better bless the USA, for it's wallowing deep in blood and gore in Iraq.
Just in case you missed the whole point of invading Iraq. It is the stupid Muslim bastards who are doing most of the dying by killing each other with no end in sight.
ReplyDeleteAmen to that
I have just written at length in above posting on the true point of invading Iraq, in case you didn't read it.
ReplyDeleteAs for Muslims killing each other, it's just the way the Israelis had predicted and planned for it, using the Yanks to destroy the entity of Iraq as we knew it when Saddam Hussein was holding it together, admittedly by brutal force.
A fractured non-Iraq is less of a danger to Israel, at least in the intermediate term.
Thus my posting holds true - that the USA was 'more than a willing captive' to al Qaeda's clever but very sinister trap. The unholy alliance of USA, Israel and al Qaeda and their interests converged in Iraq, leading to its destruction sooner or later (it's almost there now).
So it was the Israelis who planned the US involvement in Iraq. You should stop allowing your hatred of Israel to blind yourself to the facts. Latching onto assertions of people with dubious identities and reported by reporters seeking journalistic glory is hardly the path of objectivity.
ReplyDeleteWhat we do know is that the al-Qaeda number two had to haul in Zarqawi's bombing spree because they know that the moment the Yanks leave Iraq as they will have to one day, the Shiite majority will massacre the Sunnis in retaliation for past and present killings. Al-Qaeda knows that its influence in Iraq will surely be eclipsed by a resurgent Shiite majority. In this I do not blame the Shiites as it is human to seek justice in what ever form that one can achieve it in.
Maybe at that point in time you will also blame the Israelis for the mayhem. You are giving the Israelis and al-Qaeda too much credit for what is happening in Iraq. Bush on the other hand through sheer incompetence has a god sent excuse to leave Iraq with the defeat of the Republicans in the House and Senate. At the same time he is able to leave the Muslims wallowing in their own blood and gore as Iraq is becoming and will become the focus of Muslim sectarian killings the moment the Yanks leave.
The only thing we know about the decision to go into Iraq is that it was not a well thought out decision. But the Yanks have by accident achieved an objective which every general seeks on the battlefield and that is to by hook or by crook kill as many of your opponents as possible in order to weaken them. Except this time the Yanks will not have to do the killings themselves. If this is the trap the Yanks fell into then it is a trap many would like to fall into when they are faced with an enemy.
We live in a strange cruel world Ktemoc. It is easy to be an arm-chair critic seeking blog glory by refusing to see reality while at he same time covering your butt from the Special Branch by being a Palestinian hero. What it all boils down to is stopping the sectarian differences among Muslims which allows others to use this weakness to keep Muslims disunited and oppressed. Here I do not see any Kissingers or Anwar Sadats who are willing to put their necks on the chopping block to achieve the seemingly impossible. I wish you every success in your quest to find a solution but please try to be more realistic and less exploitative of the Palestinian cause.
Amen
Anon,
ReplyDeleteif you read my posting carefully, you'd noted that I mentioned 'Zionists' which are different to what you attempted to put in my mouth, the 'Israelis' word.
If you argue that there's no difference, then there's no need to take this further.
OK, maybe I should have made it even more descriptive (though not necessary in the context of my posting), such as American Zionists, or if you prefer, Zionist Americans.
The man who wanted to attack Iraq the moment 9/11 happened was none other than Paul Wolfowitz - the Senate Inquiry into the Intelligence surrounding the pre 9/11 situation reported this fact, that Wolfowitz without rhyme or reason (with regards to 9/11) urged President Bush to attack Iraq.
To put Wolfowitz stand into context, his siser lives in Israel.
Douglas Feith, US undersec for defence then, is another ardent Zionist in Bush Administration. A brilliant Havard law graduate, Feith established the Washington, DC law firm of Feith & Zell. His law firm colleague, Marc Zell, was resident in Israel.
Feith was so pro-Israel (more than the average pro-Israel Jew who naturally would have spiritual connections with Israel) that he was believed to be more Israeli than American. A rightwinger, he cofounded the organization 'One Jerusalem' to oppose the Oslo peace agreement, with the purpose of saving a united Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel.
US National Security Advisor then, Condi Rice, was so pissed off with Feith's over-the-top blind devotion to Israel that she sarcastically told him off one day in a multi-departmental conference for Heads of departments "Thanks Doug, but when we want the Israeli position we'll invite the ambassador."
Then there were Richard Pearle, Elliot Abrams, and a host of others, including extra-Administration advisors such as the virulently anti-Arab Richard Pipes.
I had been prepared to debate this issue with you, and quite open minded about it. But you spoilt my willingness with two statements:
(1) You assigned to me a 'hatred for Israel' - you appear to be one of those who readily accuse anyone who criticises Israel's atrocities as harbouring 'hatred' for that country.
Let me advise you of a truth - I am Asian and don't suffer from the European guilt of the Holocaust - we Asians have had our own Holocausts but unlike some Jews/Israelis we don't exploit those tragedies to shut people up when they criticise our atrocities.
(2) You demolished whatever respect I might have for your comments when you accused my pro-Palestinain position as "... covering your butt from the Special Branch by being a Palestinian hero."
Why show your stupidity by that illogical accusation?
Did you for one moment imagine I could teflon-ise my backside from the SB by being pro-Palestinians? The fact is the Malaysian government, like most Muslim governments, are hypocrites and couldn't give a stuff about the problems of the Palestinains, other than to grandstand in front of their own local Muslim constituencies and mouth the usual meaningless support.
If I want to tefon-ise my ass, I might as well sokong (support) the UMNO-led government.
But perhaps like Douglas Feith, you wouldn't be able to understand why a leftwinger like me (even a non-Muslim Chinese) could support the Palestinains, could you? Sorry, can't help you here.
So Wolfowitz has a sister in Israel. Where's the connection? It is this kind of bullshit from you that I do not have any respect for your thoughts.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, Asians do exploit their holocust, look at mainland China's amnesia over the estimated 50 deaths wrought by the cultural revolution in its attitude towards Japan.
If you were to cover your butt by being pro-UMNO you know you will not be able to convince anyone of being impartial. The next best thing was to be a Palestinian hero.
Talk about branding people, any Jew who is strongly pro-Israel is a Zionist to you. Is there something wrong with being a nationalist? Why must Jew accept the partition of Jerusalem and why does refusal to do so turn him or her into a Zionist?
Now you tell the world you are a working class hero and a non-Muslim Chinese at that. Tell me Ktemoc why was it so difficult in your previous blogs to own up to your identity. My feeling is being a 'chap cheng' did not help the popularity of your blog so becoming a Chinese may.
By the way, I do not need nor want your respect. As I said previously if you are willing to point fingers then you should also let people know to whom the finger is attached. Don't have the balls to show your real self to the people who surf your blog?
Then do yourself a favour. Shut your blog.
;-) hah, so you're the bloke who calls people chap cheng, the one who's been trying to pry out my identity. Shut my blog? That would please you, wouldn't it?
ReplyDeleteBalek Bkt Aman lah!