Saturday, April 27, 2013

"Al Qaeda elements located in Iran"

Normally, I respect the folks at Global Research, but their recent piece on the Boston bombings is as frustrating as it is helpful. It's frustrating because it focuses on an allegation that is clearly wrong. The article says that Tamelan Tsarnaev was Naked Guy, the fellow in police custody who was ordered to strip -- as cameras recorded the whole humiliating business.

Tamerlan did indeed resemble Naked Guy. But Tamerlan had copious chest hair, and Naked Guy clearly does not.

When I pointed that fact out in a previous post, a reader suggested that jihadis who wear explosive vests have been known to shave their chests. First, I have no idea why body-shaving would prove advantageous to a suicide bomber. Second, although there was some talk of "suicide vests" in early reports, later (and supposedly more authoritative) news accounts have assured us that Tamerlan did not possess anything other than a 9mm pistol. Third -- and most damningly -- the corpse seen in the morgue photo has chest hair, matching the shots we have of Tamerlan Tsarnaev in the boxing ring.

Conclusion: Two different guys.

I still think that the Watertown police chief lied when he said that Tamerlan was run over by his brother. The morgue photo shows a bullet wound, and the doctor who worked on the body insisted that the corpse showed no sign of vehicular impact. (We've discussed all of this in previous posts.) So it remains quite possible that Tamerlan died after capture. But he wasn't Naked Guy.

There are other problems with the Global Research piece. Right now, I want to talk about that article's most important revelation -- a revelation which has nothing to do with the Boston affair. At the same time everyone in the U.S. was frantic about the bombers, the Canadian Mounties announced that they had broken up a terror plot north of the border...
At Monday’s press conference, the RCMP asserted that Esseghaier and Jaser had acted under the “direction and guidance” of “al-Qaeda elements located in Iran.”

The RCMP said that they had no evidence of Iranian government involvement.
Most American newspapers covering this story left out that last sentence -- the bit about "no evidence of Iranian government involvement." In fact, Al Qaeda (a Sunni organization) has always hated the government in Iran (ruled by Shi'ites). Al Qaeda (or whatever is left of it) has allied itself with the rebels trying to overthrow the current Iranian government.

To prove the point, Global Research links to this important 2008 Sy Hersh piece in the New Yorker:
The Administration may have been willing to rely on dissident organizations in Iran even when there was reason to believe that the groups had operated against American interests in the past. The use of Baluchi elements, for example, is problematic, Robert Baer, a former C.I.A. clandestine officer who worked for nearly two decades in South Asia and the Middle East, told me. “The Baluchis are Sunni fundamentalists who hate the regime in Tehran, but you can also describe them as Al Qaeda,” Baer told me. “These are guys who cut off the heads of nonbelievers—in this case, it’s Shiite Iranians. The irony is that we’re once again working with Sunni fundamentalists, just as we did in Afghanistan in the nineteen-eighties.” Ramzi Yousef, who was convicted for his role in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is considered one of the leading planners of the September 11th attacks, are Baluchi Sunni fundamentalists.

One of the most active and violent anti-regime groups in Iran today is the Jundallah, also known as the Iranian People’s Resistance Movement, which describes itself as a resistance force fighting for the rights of Sunnis in Iran. “This is a vicious Salafi organization whose followers attended the same madrassas as the Taliban and Pakistani extremists,” Nasr told me. “They are suspected of having links to Al Qaeda and they are also thought to be tied to the drug culture.”
We have the same problem in Syria: The guys we're backing -- the Nusra Front -- have inextricable ties to Al Qaeda. I have a strong suspicion that if Nusra wins, they will soon turn on us.

My jaw dropped while watching David Ignatius pontificate about Syria on the Chris Matthews show the other day. After confidently predicting that Assad will fall, Ignatius said that the administration was now concentrating on making sure that "moderates" took over.

Laughable. The more moderate Assad opponents have been dying on the vine, because all of the Western aid has gone to the Al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front. I discussed that point at some length last month.

That earlier post links to this piece in the Telegraph:
And in recent weeks it is Jabhat al-Nusra, a radical jihadist group blacklisted by the US as terrorists and a group that wants Syria to be an uncompromising Islamic state governed by sharia, that is holding sway.

The group is well funded – probably through established global jihadist networks – in comparison to moderates. Meanwhile pro-democracy rebel group commanders say money from foreign governments has all but dried up because of fears over radical Islamists.
The New York Times revealed that Nusra's money wasn't coming through "established global jihadist networks" (unless you want to define that term in a rather novel fashion). In fact, the cash comes from your tax dollars.
The airlift, which began on a small scale in early 2012 and continued intermittently through last fall, expanded into a steady and much heavier flow late last year, the data shows. It has grown to include more than 160 military cargo flights by Jordanian, Saudi and Qatari military-style cargo planes landing at Esenboga Airport near Ankara, and, to a lesser degree, at other Turkish and Jordanian airports.

As it evolved, the airlift correlated with shifts in the war within Syria, as rebels drove Syria’s army from territory by the middle of last year. And even as the Obama administration has publicly refused to give more than “nonlethal” aid to the rebels, the involvement of the C.I.A. in the arms shipments — albeit mostly in a consultative role, American officials say — has shown that the United States is more willing to help its Arab allies support the lethal side of the civil war.
The likeliest explanation is that the U.S. is aiding Nusrah because Nusrah has the boldest fighters. Wisely, they have also set up an effective humanitarian aid program for ordinary people affected by the war.

That said, I am beginning to find the pattern alarming. In both Iran and Syria, the United States is backing jihadis who have Al Qaeda links. These warriors will probably turn against the west once in power, as did the anti-Soviet Afghan fighters. Part of me wonders if there isn't a faction in DC that considers such an outcome desirable. Perhaps the neocons want a new version of the Cold War. Or perhaps they want a hot war. Maybe that's why they're so desperate to replace Assad and Ahmadinejad with people who are more belligerent.
A Boston Globe reporter interviewed on NPR reported that he had interviewed a witness to the shootout who told him that Tamerlan had been cuffed and was being held between two policemen when Dzhokhar drove the Mercedes SUV at the three.

The cops dived to either side and Tamerlan was run over and dragged for a short distance before popping out from under the rear of the escaping SUV.

Regarding the body shaving: jihadis preparing for martyrdom shave off all their body hair. The 9/11 hijackers did this. May have something to do with the 72 virgins awaiting?;-)
I'd like to hear more from that witness. Right now, it seems that the body is the best evidence.

Do afterlife virgins really prefer guys with no body hair? I guess I'll just have to made do with the afterlife sluts.
"After Attack, Suspects Returned to Routines, Raising No Suspicions"

"Boston bombers’ uncle married daughter of top CIA official"

Read these two articles. How do you deal with the amazing 'coincidences' in the life of the uncle? How do you deal with the combination of no attempt at disguise, suspects leading perfectly normal lives the day after, and then a crazed frenzy at escape (not to mention the amazing series of outright lies told by American authorities)? You just can't. If you have an IQ over 75, you can only reach one possible conclusion - false flag.

And we've now reached the point in any false flag, when the authorities, perhaps giddy from all the seemingly successful lying, start to lay it on a bit thick (the brothers obviously weren't even prepared to get out of Boston, but I guess Bloomberg was feeling ignored). American officials lied about there being other bombs (or they covered them up - the fire at the JFK Library was some coincidence - as they did on 9/11), they probably lied about the details of the stolen car (in order to cover up the fact the brothers used Tamerlan's car), they lied about the 7-11 robbery, they outright murdered Tamerlan and lied in blaming it on Dzhokhar, and they lied about Dzhokhar having a gun so they could justify their attempt to murder him (his survival, after over an hour of police bullets, is a miracle). Now we are supposed to believe a series of increasingly ridiculous lies to cover up the false flag. It is extra ironic that Tamerlan's CIA trip to Dagestan is being used to explain how he was 'radicalized'.

As Lee Harvey Oswald learned, the lifespan of a patsy after an operation is very short. It is likely Tippet was supposed to kill Oswald, and when that failed Oswald was supposed to die 'resisting arrest' in the Texas Theater, until they had to send in Jack Ruby to do the job. Both brothers were supposed to end up dead. I was a little worried when the controlled media started to boast he was being treated by Israeli doctors (and that the Boston hospital was able to look after the victims of the blasts because they were trained by Israelis, and how this never would have happened if the United States used Israeli security methods, and how immigration reform should have a Muslim exception . . . . ).

The death penalty, on the table because of the ludicrous assertion the brothers used a Weapon of Mass Destruction, is being used to force a plea bargain which will involve a gag order. Forty years from now, when Dzhokhar is released, it won't matter what he has to say.
I agree that the Iran- al Qaeda links are unlikely and that there is greater evidence for them being enemies at all levels.

NATO was supporting al Qaeda forces in Libya and now in Syria. It has little to do with tyrants and everything to do with US support for Sunni radicals to achieve geopolitical aims. That's not me saying it. That's the conclusions that can safely be drawn from of a detailed 2008-9 study by military students at the US West Point Academy. They showed that the insurgents that later formed the basis of the Libyan uprising (and were armed, protected and directed by NATO) were from the same jihadist groups that had been shuttled into Iraq by Syrian jihadists, and that they formed the basis of the al Qaeda insurgency against Iraqi Coalition forces. The detailed West Point study makes it clear that Sunni jihadists in Libya were massively represented in Iraq, that they came from regions that were the centre of the later Libyan uprising and that they were known as jihadists and actively backed by NATO in that uprising. Those same forces have now relocated into Syria and joined with Sunni radicals there (the same ones who had assisted their previous passage into Iraq), occupying the Syrian territory where 'insurgents' have reportedly been most successful. When you add to that multiple accounts from Syrian locals, even local protestors against Assad, of abuses committed by imported jihadist forces, then the conclusion is inescapable: while both Libya and Syria had local insurgency protests, a large number of these 'insurgents' have been known Sunni jihadist forces -- al Qaeda -- actively and knowingly supported by the US, Saudi Arabia and NATO.
"Perhaps the neocons want a new version of the Cold War. Or perhaps they want a hot war."
War is not the point. It is a means to an end. There is plenty of info out there to prove the fact that these people want to take away the rights of the average American.
The best way to erode those rights is through fear tactics. It is called the Hegelian Dialectic and it is very effective against a, mostly, uninformed and apathetic public.
"Please Mr. Policeman protect me so the mean old terrorists won't get me. I'll do anything."
This was proven in Boston when thousands of Bostonians allowed police and Feds to invade their homes without warrants because there might be a deranged man on the loose.
It was obviously a Black-Op or another of many FBI entrapments. The difference being that this time the FBI actually gave the kids real bombs instead of the fake ones they have used in the past. This, primarily, because the American people and the Federal Courts were no longer buying their BS set-ups of more or less innocent people.
If not innocent at least incapable of doing very much damage without assistance from the FBI.
If it was a Black-Op the goal was the same if the tactics a bit different and these kids were set-up in some other way that will likely come out later but be very underreported by the American Press.
Time to WAKE UP folks!
I agree with some of what you have said, Eph -- but at the same time, this crap about Hegel is a holdover from some of the crazier conspiracy writings that appeared in various John Birch-ish publications throughout the 1970s and earlier. The Bichers were big on pretending that Hegel was the key to the political universe.

Well, I've looked and looked, and I've never seen any evidence that the most powerful people in this country ever gave a rat's ass about anything Hegel ever said. Take, for example, the Bush family. Do you really think they any one of them has any clear idea as to who Hegel WAS? Poppy is the smartest of that bunch, and I'm pretty sure he has read less Hegel that I have -- and I've never been able to tolerate Mr. H for more than two or three pages. (Most of what I know of Hegel comes from Will Durant and Marx.)

Yes, yes, I know -- you are now dying to quote chapter and verse from your favorite conspira-crap book about the "Hegelian dialectic." Most of those books were written to support the Birchers' dumbshit theory Powerful International Bankers (i.e., the Jews) controlled both Wall Street and the godless Bolshies.

But be honest -- YOU'VE never read Hegel, and chances are good that the guys who wrote your favorite conspira-crap books never read him either. Neither can you cite real evidence that Hegel's writings have influenced any major political/financial decisions in the modern age.

Please note: I said "the modern age" -- so citing shit that happened in the 19th century doesn't count. Note, too, that I spoke of EVIDENCE. Not supposition, presumption, or question-begging.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?