Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The Façade of “Humanitarian Intentions” in Libya

Review of Paolo Sensini’s book, Sowing Chaos: Libya in the Wake of Humanitarian Intervention

By Edward Curtin | Global Research | August 10, 2016

It is rare for a historian to write a history of a significant issue and bring it into the present time; even rarer when the work coincides with the reemergence of that issue on the world stage. Paolo Sensini has done just that with Sowing Chaos: Libya in the Wake of Humanitarian Intervention (Clarity Press, 2016). It is a revelatory historical analysis of the exploitation and invasion of Libya by colonial and imperialistic powers for more than a century.

It is also timely since the western powers, led by the United States, have  once again invaded Libya (2011), overthrown its government, and are in the process (2016) of creating further chaos and destruction by bombing the country for the benefit of western elites under the pretext of humanitarian concern.

As with the history of many countries off the radar of western consciousness, Libyan history is a tragic tale of what happens when a country dares assert its right to independence – it is destroyed by violent attack, financial subterfuge, or both.

Although an Italian and Italy has a long history of exploiting Libya, a close neighbor, Sensini stands with the victims of colonial and imperial savagery. Not an armchair historian, he traveled to Libya during the 2011 war to see for himself what was true.  Despite his moral stand against western aggression, his historical accuracy is unerring and his sourcing impeccable.  For 234 pages of text, he provides 481 endnotes, including such fine sources as Peter Dale Scott, Patrick Cockburn, Michel Chossudovsky, Pepe Escobar, and Robert Parry, to name but a few better known names.

His account begins with Italy’s 1911 war against Libya that “Francesco Saverio Nitti charmingly described …. as the taking of a ‘sandbox’.”  The war was accompanied by a popular song, “Tripoli, bel suol d’amore” (Tripoli, beauteous land of love).  Even in those days war and love were synonymous in the eyes of aggressors.

This war went on until 1932 when the Sanusis’s resistance was finally crushed by Mussolini. First Italy conquered the Ottoman Turks, who controlled western Libya (Tripolitania); then the Sanusis, a Sunni Islamic mystical militant brotherhood, who controlled eastern Libya (Cyrenaica). This Italian war of imperial aggression lasted 19 years, and, as Sensini writes, “was hardly noticed in Italy.”

I cannot help but think of the U.S. wars against Afghanistan and Iraq that are in their 15th and 13th years respectively, and counting; they are not making a ripple on the placid indifference of the American people.

Sensini presents this history clearly and succinctly. Most of the book is devoted to the period following the 1968 overthrow of King Idris by the Free Unionist Officers, led by the 27 year old captain Mu’ammar Gaddafi. This bloodless coup d’état by military officers, who had all risen from the poorer classes, was called “Operation Jerusalem” to honor the Palestinian liberation movement. The new government, The Revolutionary Command Council (RCC), had “three key themes …. ‘freedom, socialism, and unity,’ to which we can add the struggle against western influences within the Arab world, and, in particular, the struggle against Israel (whose very existence was, according to Gaddafi, a confirmation of colonialization and subjugation).”

Sensini explains the Libyan government under Gaddafi, including his world theory that was encapsulated in his “Green Book” and the birth of what was called “Jamahiriyya” (State of the Masses). Gaddafi called Libya the “Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriyya.”

Under Gaddafi there was dialogue between Christians and Muslims, including the establishment of diplomatic relations with the Holy See, and visits from Eastern Orthodox and Anglican religious leaders. Fundamentalist Islamic groups criticized Gaddafi as a heretic for these moves.  Gaddafi described Islamists as “reactionaries in the name of Islam.”  His animus toward Israel remained, however, due to the Palestinian issue. He promoted women’s rights, and in 1996 Libya “was the first country to issue an international arrest warrant with Osama bin Laden’s name on it.”

He had a lot of enemies: Israel, Islamists, al Qaeda, the western imperial countries, etc. But he had friends as well, especially among the developing countries.

A large portion of the book concerns the U.S./NATO 2011 attack on Libya and its aftermath. This attack was justified and sanctioned by UN Resolutions 1970 (2/26/11) and 1973 (3/17/11). These resolutions were prepared by the work of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) that in 2000-2001 produced a justification for powerful nations to intervene in the internal affairs of any nation they chose. Termed the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P), it justified the illegal and immoral “humanitarian” attack on Libya in 2011. The ICISS, based in NYC, was founded by, among others, the Carnegie Corporation, the Simons, Rockefeller, William and Flora Hewitt, and John D. and Catherine MacArthur foundations, elite moneyed institutions devoted to American interventions throughout the world.

When the US/NATO attacked Libya, they did so despite the illegality of the intervention (an Orwellian term) under the UN Resolutions that prohibit arming of ‘rebels’ who do not represent the legal government of a country. On March 30, 2011 the Washington Post, a staunch supporter of US aggression, reported an anonymous government source as saying that “President Obama has issued a secret finding that would authorize the CIA to carry out a clandestine effort to provide arms and other support to Libyan opposition groups.” None of the mainstream media, including the Washington Post, noted the hypocrisy of reporting illegal activities as if they were legal. The law had become irrelevant.

The Obama administration had become the opposite of the Kennedy administration. Whereas JFK, together with Dag Hammarskjold the assassinated U.N. Secretary General, had used the UN to defend the growing third world independence movements throughout the world, Obama has chosen to use the UN to justify his wars of aggression against them. Libya is a prime example.

Sensini shows in great detail which groups were armed, where they operated, and who they represented.  The US/NATO forces armed and supported all sorts of Islamist terrorists, including the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), led by Abu al-Laith al Libby, a close Afghan associate of Osama bin Laden, and al Qaeda’s third in command.

“These fanatical criminals (acclaimed as liberators by the mainstream media worldwide) were to form Libya’s emerging ruling class. These were people tasked to ensure a democratic future for Libya. However, the ‘rebel’ council of Benghazi did what it does best – ensuring chaos for the country as a whole, under a phantom government and a system of local fiefdoms (each with a warlord or tribal chief). This appears to be the desired outcome all along, and not just in Libya.”

Sensini is especially strong in his critical analysis of the behavior of the corporate mass media worldwide in propagandizing public opinion for war. Outright lies – “aligning its actions with Goebbels’ famous principle of perception management” and the Big Lie (thanks to Edward Bernays, the American father of Public Relations) – were told by Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, and repeated by the western media, about Gaddafi allegedly slaughtering and raping thousands of Libyans. Sensini argues persuasively that Libya was a game-changer in this regard.

Here, the mass media played the part of a military vanguard. The cart, as it were, had been put before the horse. Rather than obediently repackaging and relaying the news that had been spoon fed to them by military commanders and Secretaries of State, the media were called upon actually to provide legitimation for armed actors. The media’s function was military. The material aggression on the ground and in the sky was paralleled and anticipated by virtual and symbolic aggression. Worldwide, we have witnessed the affirmation of a Soviet approach to information, enhanced to the nth degree. It effectively produces a ‘deafening silence’ – an information deficit. The trade unions, the parties of the left and the ‘love-thy-neighbor’ pacifists did not rise to this challenge and demonstrate against the rape of Libya.

The US/NATO attack on Libya, involving tens of thousands of bombing raids and cruise missile, killed thousands of innocent civilians. This was, as usual, explained away as unfortunate “collateral damage,” when it was admitted at all. The media did their part to downplay it. Sensini rightly claims that the U.S./NATO and the UN are basically uninterested in the question of the human toll. “The most widely cited press report on the effects of the NATO sorties and missile attacks on the civilian population is most surely that of The New York Times. In ‘Strikes on Libya by NATO, an Unspoken Civilian Toll’, conveniently published after NATO’s direct intervention had ceased. The article is truly a fine example of ‘embeddedness’:”

While the overwhelming preponderance of strikes seemed to hit their targets without killing noncombatants, many factors contributed to a run of fatal mistakes. These included a technically faulty bomb, poor or dated intelligence and the near absence of experience military personnel on the ground who could direct air strikes. The alliances apparent presumption that residences thought to harbor pro Gaddafi forces were not occupied by civilians repeatedly proved mistaken, the evidence suggests, posing a reminder to advocates of air power that no war is cost or error free.

The use of words like “seemed” and “apparent,” together with the oft used technical excuse and the ex post facto reminder are classic stratagems of the New York Times’ misuse of the English language for propaganda purposes.

Justifying the killing, President Obama “explained the entire campaign away with a lie. Gaddafi, he said, was planning a massacre of his own people.”

Hillary Clinton, who was then Secretary of State, was aware from the start, as an FOIA document reveals, that the rebel militias the U.S. was arming and backing were summarily executing anyone they captured: “The State Department and Obama were fully aware that the U.S.-backed ‘rebel’ forces had no such regard for the lives of the innocent.”

Clinton also knew that France’s involvement was because of the threat Gaddafi’s single African currency plan posed to French financial interests in Francophone Africa. Her joyous ejaculation about Gaddafi’s brutal death – “We came, we saw, he died” – sick in human terms, was no doubt also an expression of relief that the interests of western elites, her backers, had been served.

It is true that Gaddafi did represent a threat to western financial interests. As Sensini writes, “Gaddafi had successfully achieved Libya’s economic independence, and was on the point of concluding agreements with the African Union that might have contributed decisively to the economic independence of the entire continent of Africa.”

Thus, following the NATO attack, Obama confiscated $30 billion from Libya’s Central Bank. Sensini references Ellen Brown, the astute founder of the Public Banking Institute in the U.S., who explains how a state owned Central Bank, as in Libya, contributes to the public’s well-being. Brown in turn refers to the comment of Erica Encina, posted on Market Oracle, which explains how Libya’s 100% state owned Central Bank allowed it to sustain its own economic destiny. Encina concludes, “Hence, taking down the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) may not appear in the speeches of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy [and Clinton] but this is certainly at the top of the globalist agenda for absorbing Libya into its hive of compliant nations.”

In five pages Sensini tells more truth about the infamous events in Benghazi that resulted in the deaths of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three American colleagues than the MSM has done in five years. After the overthrow of Gaddafi, in 2012 Stevens was sharing the American “Consulate” quarters with the CIA. Benghazi was the center of Sanusi jihadi fundamentalism, those who the US/NATO had armed to attack Gaddafi’s government. These terrorists were allied with the US. “Stevens’s task in Benghazi,” writes Sensini, “now was to oversee shipments of Gaddafi’s arms to Turkish ports. The arms were then transferred to jihadi forces engaged in terrorist actions against the government of Syria under Bashar al-Assad.” Contrary to the Western media, Sensini says that Stevens and the others were killed, not by the jihadi extremists supported by the US, but by Gaddafi loyalists who had tried to kill Stevens previously. These loyalists disappeared from the Libyan and international press afterwards. “The reports now focused on al-Qaida, Islamists, terrorists and protesters. No one was to mention either Gaddafi … or his ghosts.”

The stage for a long-term Western intervention against terrorists, who were armed by the US/NATO, was now set. The insoluble disorder of a vicious circle game meant to perpetuate chaos was set in motion. Sensini’s disgust manifests itself when he says, “Given its record of lavish distribution of arms to all and sundry in Syria, the USA’s warning that, in Libya, arms might reach ‘armed groups outside the government’s control’ is beneath contempt.”

Sowing Chaos: Libya in the Wake of Humanitarian Intervention is a superb book. If you wish to understand the ongoing Libyan tragedy, and learn where responsibility lies, read it. If the tale it tells doesn’t disgust you, I’d be surprised.

In closing, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, a stalwart and courageous truth teller, has written a fine forward where she puts Libya and Sensini’s analysis into a larger global perspective.  As usual, she pulls no punches.

Copyright © Edward Curtin, Global Research, 2016

September 18, 2016 Posted by | Book Review, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

US airstrikes on Syrian airbase intentional, says aide to Assad

df10ecd3-111b-4896-a837-50d6233ba0a4

Buthaina Shaaban, a senior adviser to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
Press TV – September 18, 2016

A senior adviser to Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad has accused US-led coalition forces of carrying out “intentional” airstrikes against a Syrian military airbase in Dayr al-Zawr province, where 90 soldiers were killed.

Buthaina Shaaban said in an interview with AFP on Sunday, “None of the facts on the ground show that what happened was a mistake or a coincidence.”

The Syrian official also blamed Washington and its allies for colluding with the Takfiri Daesh terrorist group in the region.

“Everything was calculated and Daesh knew about it … Even Russia reached the terrifying conclusion that the United States is colluding with Daesh,” Shaaban stated, adding, “When Daesh advanced, the raids stopped.”

The coalition aircraft, purportedly fighting Daesh in Syria, bombed the airbase on Saturday. At least a hundred soldiers were also injured.

Two F-16 and two A-10 jets entered the Syrian airspace from Iraq to conduct the attacks.

The US military says it halted the raids after Russian officials said the targets were Syrian government forces and not Daesh terrorists.

Elsewhere in her remarks, Shaaban said since the US-led intervention began in Syria in 2014, “We have been saying that this is not against Daesh, that they are not striking Daesh.”

The so-called coalition has been conducting the airstrikes in Syria without any authorization from Damascus or a UN mandate.

Many have criticized the ineffectiveness of the raids.

Washington and some of its regional allies have supported Takfiri groups fighting against Syria’s government.

The Syrian Foreign Ministry has called on the UN Security Council to condemn the attacks and to make the US respect Syria’s sovereignty.

US airstrikes jeopardize ceasefire

Shaaban said such attacks could endanger a US-Russia brokered ceasefire deal meant to end hostilities in the conflict-ridden Arab country.

She added that Damascus believed the Saturday raids may signal divisions within the US administration on deepening cooperation between Washington and Moscow under the truce deal.

“What is worrying is its (the strikes’) effect on the US-Russia agreement. I believe that some elements in the United States do not want this deal,” Shaaban said, adding, “There is a side that agrees with the Russians and another side that rejects the agreement. This makes it seem to us that the White House wants this agreement while the Pentagon rejects it.”

However, Shaaban said Damascus was committed to the existing truce. “We are committed to the truce. The truce is continuing until its expiration. Maybe it will be extended, maybe there will be another agreement.”

On September 9, Russia and the United States agreed on a milestone deal on the crisis in Syria after marathon talks in the Swiss city of Geneva.

The deal, which went into effect on September 12 and was initially agreed to last seven days, calls for increased humanitarian aid for those trapped inside the embattled northwestern city of Aleppo.

Under the terms of the ceasefire agreement, Russian and US fighter jets would launch joint airstrikes against Daesh.

September 18, 2016 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, War Crimes | , , | 1 Comment

Pathetic Fail #5: Jack Holmes and Esquire

WinterPatriot | September 13, 2016

Jack Holmes, Accessory after the Fact [source: Daily Beast ]

Number 5 : Jack Holmes and Esquire, for “Disproving 9 of the Biggest 9/11 Conspiracy Theories”

We continue our review of pathetic propaganda disasters with a piece from Jack Holmes and Esquire. It begins with one of the niftiest bits of verbal gymnastics I have seen in a long time. Get a load of this:

An extraordinary event requires an extraordinary explanation. But for some, the idea that 19 men could commandeer four commercial airliners in a coordinated attack and use them as 400-ton missiles to destroy such massive buildings still doesn’t make sense.

There’s magic in them there words, and it’s powerful magic, too.

You don’t believe me? Read it again, without the magic:

An extraordinary event requires an extraordinary explanation. For some, the idea that 19 men could commandeer four commercial airliners in a coordinated attack and use them as 400-ton missiles to destroy such massive buildings doesn’t make sense.

Now read it again, the original text this time, with emphasis on the magical words:

An extraordinary event requires an extraordinary explanation. But for some, the idea that 19 men could commandeer four commercial airliners in a coordinated attack and use them as 400-ton missiles to destroy such massive buildings still doesn’t make sense.

I can’t disagree with Jack Holmes when he says, “An extraordinary event requires an extraordinary explanation.” This is clearly true. Who could disagree?

And I can’t argue against the statement that “for some, the idea that 19 men could commandeer four commercial airliners […] and use them […] to destroy […] massive buildings doesn’t make sense.” This is clearly true as well.

So we have two statements that nobody could deny, strung together and twisted with the words “but” and “still” to create the implication that the official explanation should make sense to everybody because it’s extraordinary, as was the attack. And that makes no sense on the face of it.

The attack was extraordinary in many ways. It was certainly extraordinary in scale and ferocity. It was also an extraordinarily brazen attack, and one that would be, under normal conditions, extraordinarily unlikely to succeed.

The official explanation is extraordinary in many ways as well. It arrived with extraordinarily promptness; we “knew” Osama bin Laden was behind the attack before it was even over, and we “knew” the twin towers had “collapsed” due to “damage from aircraft impact and the resulting fires” almost as quickly. It was also extraordinarily flexible; we got three very different stories about why the Air Force didn’t stop those “400-ton missiles” which were on course to “destroy massive buildings.” But above all, the official explanation is extraordinarily implausible, in more ways than Jack Holmes cares to admit.

But many readers won’t take the time to think this through, and there’s the magic. If you don’t think too much about the magical opening passage, it all looks true, but if you pay attention to the magic words, you can see that Jack Holmes is kicking off his attempt to “disprove” the “conspiracy theories” by sneakily implying that the official explanation should satisfy everyone because the attack and the explanation were both extraordinary — i.e. because the attack was extraordinarily unlikely and the explanation is extraordinarily implausible.

This is as twisted as anyone could hope for, because in the world of sane people, an extraordinary event requires an extraordinarily credible explanation.

Unexpected: The top of the South Tower turns to dust as explosives pulverize the steel and concrete below the damaged zone. This was called a “collapse.” [source: Esquire ]

If a scientist sees something unexpected in an experiment, and a colleague offers a loopy explanation, the scientist doesn’t say, “Well that must be it, then. It’s a weird explanation, but it was a weird event, so you must be right!” On the contrary: The stranger the event, the more plausible, the more thorough, and the better supported the explanation must be, otherwise nobody will believe it. But we’re not supposed to think this way about 9/11, according to Jack Holmes.

The rest of his “appetizer” is not quite so magical, so I want to focus on the “main course,” so to speak. Jack Holmes has written a catchy and provocative headline, and it made me wonder: How will he “disprove 9 of the biggest 9/11 conspiracy theories”?

Jack Holmes says he will do it through the use of evidence:

Below are nine of the most prominent theories, as well as the evidence explaining why they simply don’t add up.

“Aha!” I thought. “Now we’re getting somewhere. Most defenders of the official story run away from evidence as fast as they can. They want to talk about other things. But this is better. Or at least, this promises to be better.”

And what’s the evidence? What evidence does Jack Holmes have? The answer is … a rehash of Popular Mechanics !

Jack Holmes not only copies the format used by Popular Mechanics in its infamous “Debunking 9/11” fiasco, he also quotes freely from it.

The format: (1) Reduce all the implausible aspects of the official story to a short list of bullet points. (2) Then, for each point: Reduce all the relevant evidence and all its implications to a single sentence, a crazy one if possible; then “debunk” it with a “telling quote” from an “expert source.”

It’s a combination of logical fallacies, primarily Special Pleading, Straw Man, and Appeal to Authority. And it’s all predicated on the notion that “denied” means the same as “debunked.” In other words, if Jack Holmes can find one “expert” who says X is false, then X is false and that’s the end of the discussion. The one statement settles the matter and closes the case forever, no matter how much or how little sense it makes, no matter how much or how little evidence supports it.

For example:

THE HOLES WERE SIMPLY TOO SMALL

The theory: The two holes in the Pentagon after the attack—75 and 12 feet wide—were too small to have been carved by a 125-foot-wide jet. Some theories have concluded the attack was actually carried out with a satellite-guided missile.

The debunk: “A crashing jet doesn’t punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building,” says Popular Mechanics, citing Mete Sozen, a structural engineering expert at Purdue University. One wing hit the ground, while the other was torn off by the force of impact. “What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to liquid than a solid mass.” The 12-foot hole was punched through by the plane’s landing gear.

There are multiple obvious problems with this attempted refutation.

If “one wing hit the ground,” why are there no scars on the lawn? Why is there no broken-off wing? What happened to the fuel in the wing? If “one wing hit the ground,” even if that wing magically bounced through the hole and into the Pentagon, even if all the fuel that was in the wing burned in a great fireball that nobody saw or reported, we should still see a large patch of black where the grass used to be green. This is what’s always left behind when there’s been a fire. So what happened to it this time?

And if the other wing “was torn off by the force of impact,” where did it go? Mete Sozen isn’t saying, and we can probably take that as a hint that he doesn’t know.

As for the rest of the plane, are we supposed to believe it “almost” melted, rather than crumpling and breaking up, as all the other planes that have ever crashed have done?

And even if the force of the impact caused the plane to “almost” melt, how did all that “almost” molten metal get through the hole?

It’s all very mysterious; nothing like this has ever happened before or since; the explanation is literally incredible, and Mete Sozen has a long track record of telling obvious lies about 9/11.

He explained the “collapse” of the twin towers by talking about fire heating the steel until “the steel goes away.” He demonstrated the plane crashing into the Pentagon using a computer simulation which shows the plane’s engines disappearing on impact.

How was this computer simulation built? One can only imagine: “What happened to the engines?” “Nobody knows. We can’t find any sign of engine damage in the building.” “Well, can’t we make up something the Truthers might believe?” “Probably not.” “Well, then, just get rid of the engines! Make them go away!”

Maybe the words are not quite verbatim, but this is clearly the level of integrity that we’re dealing with here. Mete Sozen is one of the most infamous accessories after the fact, reviled by anyone who has studied the issue. Why should we believe him this time? Especially when his “explanation” makes no sense.

This is a representative sample of Jack Holmes’ work, both the style of presentation and the “depth” of research. It’s a lame enough fail to make my short list all on its own, but there are eight more lame fails with it.

Here’s another example, possibly even a better one:

INSIDER TRADING

The theory: In the days leading up to September 11, a large volume of American and United Airlines stock was traded—and in many cases shorted, or bet against—by people who had prior knowledge of the attacks.

The debunk: Bloomberg Trade Book data did show much higher than normal put option volume (people betting against the stock of American and United) in the weeks and days leading up to the attacks, Snopes reports, including a volume 100 times above average on the Thursday before. However, the 9/11 Commission found no evidence those trades were the result of prior knowledge. For example, “a single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent” of the put options on United’s parent company on September 6, according to the report, while “much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American [stock] on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9.”

As that’s a government report, the conspiracists will likely remain unconvinced.

Quoting the 9/11 Commission to prove the official story is like quoting the Bible to prove that Jesus was born of a virgin. It’s convincing for those who already believe it, but it doesn’t do anything for the skeptics except confirm their opinion. Surely any other source, any other evidence, would be more convincing. And Jack Holmes knows this. That’s why he says, “that’s a government report, [so] the conspiracists will likely remain unconvinced.” So why does he offer nothing else? Because he’s got nothing else to offer. That’s why!

Again there are multiple problems with the attempted refutation. It may well be true that “95 percent of the put options on United’s parent company” were purchased by “a single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda.” But is this a legitimate reason not to investigate the investor? Or is it a hint that al Qaeda may not have been behind the attacks at all? What conceivable ties does this U.S.-based institutional investor have, exactly? How could he have known? What was the object of the trade? Was he gambling millions of dollars on a hunch? We’ll never know because the 9/11 Commission wasn’t the slightest bit curious about anybody who wasn’t obviously and intimately connected with al Qaeda.

And it may be true that “much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American [stock] on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9.” But in what way does this imply that whoever sent the newsletter on September 9 had no idea what was going to happen on September 11? Here, the Commission doesn’t even offer the lame excuse of “no conceivable connection,” which suggests the question: Did the author of this newsletter have some conceivable connection with al Qaeda?

Maybe I’m missing the point. Maybe the suspicion of inside knowledge is ruled out by the fact that the newsletter was faxed, because terrorists don’t know how to use fax machines.

It’s all so very lame, especially when we know that serious investigators always “follow the money.” But in this case it appears they ran away from the money, even by their own account.

In sum, even if it’s true, this “explanation” is a pathetic fail because it does nothing to prove or even support the official story, nor does it state or even imply — let alone prove — that the investors who bought the suspicious put options had no prior knowledge of the attack.

What it does prove — whether it be true or false — is that the so-called “investigation” was set up to run backwards: First they decided who did it, then they decided which evidence to consider, based on whether or not it agreed with their predetermined conclusions. This is probably why defenders of the official story accuse “conspiracy theorists” of “cherry-picking evidence.” They always accuse us of the very things they themselves are doing.

But there’s good reason to believe that the core of this “debunk” is false, because we’ve had a number of reliable reports indicating that the bulk of the suspicious insider trading was carried out by a German bank closely affiliated with a certain “former” high-ranking CIA officer, which makes ties to al Qaeda slightly less than “inconceivable,” does it not?

al Qaeda, you may recall, was allied with the CIA before and after 9/11, but not during, at least according to defenders of the official story.

Again, this “debunk” is sufficiently pathetic to put Jack Holmes on my short list, even if he had not qualified already.

But let’s look at one more example. This one shows the same technique, but with a slightly different twist:

THE HIJACKERS ARE STILL ALIVE

The theory: Conspiracists seized on news reports in the immediate aftermath of the attacks—particularly one from the BBC—that reported various hijacker suspects identified by authorities were actually still alive and well. This indicates that the attacks had been carried out by actors with other means.

The debunk: The people who were found to still be alive in those reports were different people with similar or identical names to the hijackers, as other BBC reports showed. “The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names,” a subsequent report suggests, adding that both the 9/11 Commission and the FBI are confident they correctly identified the 19 hijackers.

The main problem here concerns the disappearing layers of detail.

The first BBC piece linked by Jack Holmes, which was published in September of 2001, reports on four of the hijackers who survived their martyrdom, beginning with Waleed Al Shehri. It explains that he saw his name and his photograph on the news, along with the name of the flight school he had attended, so he was sure he was the man the FBI had named as a suicide hijacker.

The second BBC piece refers to yet another BBC piece, published in October of 2006, which acknowledges some confusion but certainly does not refute — or even refer to — the 2001 story.

In other words, the 2006 piece does not state or even imply that Waleed Al Shehri was the one who was confused. It doesn’t even mention Waleed Al Shehri at all. So it’s difficult to see how the 2006 story could be used to support the claim made here by Jack Holmes, or by the BBC editors, for that matter.

Crucially, we’re still left with the mystery of how “different people with similar or identical names” could have posed for identical photographs and attended the same flight school.

But once again, it’s a case where the refutation doesn’t have to be thorough, plausible, or credible in any way. A “denial” is as good as a “debunking” as far as Jack Holmes is concerned. And why?

The BBC article that supposedly settles the question also says:

There is no direct evidence in the public domain linking Osama Bin Laden to the 11 September attacks. At best the evidence is circumstantial. […]

The evidence is not being judged in a court of law. It only needs to persuade governments around the world to back the US-led war on terrorism and to a lesser extent to carry public opinion.

As Dr. David Ray Griffin says, “The evidence wasn’t good enough to go to court, but it was good enough to go to war!”

And it looks as if the BBC itself was (and still is) trying “to persuade governments around the world to back the US-led war on terrorism and to a lesser extent to carry public opinion,” which is totally more important than petty insignificant details like getting a credible account of what happened, and who did it, and why — or seeing that the perpetrators are brought to justice. But as far as Jack Holmes can see, the FBI’s word is gold, even if it took them five years to not find any direct evidence implicating the mastermind who was fingered on the very morning of the attack.

And the BBC’s word is gold too, and so is the unnamed subsequent report. Nobody can say, “Wait a minute! What about the photograph? What about the flight school? You’re positing one of the craziest coincidences ever, without even a shred of evidence.” That would be too journalistic, apparently. Too confrontational. Insufficiently dedicated to persuading governments around the world, and to a lesser extent carrying public opinion.

Jack Holmes gives us six more bullet points, but there’s no point grinding through them all. This is America, right? Three strikes and you’re out!

Sorry, Jack! You lose! If this is the best you can do, maybe you ought to find something else to write about — at least until you learn to do your own research.

Sorry, Esquire! You lose, too! Maybe this drivel is good enough for guys who are mostly thinking about how much their next suit is gonna cost, but for real people who are really connected to the real world … no! sorry! That’s a big sad fail!

I said at the top that Jack Holmes’ magical implication “makes no sense on the face of it.” But then again, maybe it does make sense, if you consider that it’s coming from a bright young man who knows where his next meal is coming from, if not his next suit. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you, Jackie Boy! Don’t rock the boat! We need more young men like yourself, clever and clueless and eager to peddle transparent lies in support of our indefensible fiction!

It’s an extraordinarily pathetic fail, if you ask me. It’s almost as if Jack Holmes were a closet Truther, putting out the weakest nonsense he could find, trying to lead his readers to the obvious logical leap — since this is the best evidence that can be marshaled in defense of the official story, the story must be 100% phony — without running the risk of saying so in plain English.

But in the final analysis, there’s no evidence to support this line of thinking, and therefore no good reason to believe it. I think we have to assume that Jack Holmes meant what he said and said what he meant. In other words, I don’t think he’s a cowardly Truther. I think he’s a pathetic Liar.

As I’ve been saying:

The facts must be suppressed, and the people who are trying to gather and disseminate those facts must be suppressed, and that is the one and only thing that matters to these people. And why? Why would you hide the crime unless you were trying to protect the criminals?

Series: Accessories After The Fact Go Splat!!
Previous: Pathetic Fail #6: Robert Bridge and RT
Next: Pathetic Fail #4: Matt Kwong and the CBC

September 18, 2016 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular | , , | 1 Comment

US Desperately Pumps ‘Humanitarian’ Smokescreen for Failing Syria Ceasefire

By Finian CUNNINGHAM | Strategic Culture Foundation | 18.09.2016

Washington’s lie about seeking a genuine ceasefire in Syria is in danger of being exposed for the world to see. So, hilariously, a charade is being hurriedly orchestrated in order to hide this ignominy. As usual, the Syrian government is being scapegoated for the real cause of violence in the country. That real cause is Washington’s state-sponsored terrorist-fueled war for regime change.

After four days of continuing deadly breaches by US-backed «rebels» since the Kerry-Lavrov ceasefire deal was implemented last Monday, Washington and the dutiful Western mainstream media are preparing the inevitable excuses.

Rather than focusing on ongoing «rebel» violence in contravention of the truce, US Secretary of State John Kerry fingered the Syrian government for preventing humanitarian access to insurgent-held eastern Aleppo as the reason for why the ceasefire is in danger of collapsing.

Kerry accused the Syrian government of causing «unacceptable repeated delays» in delivery of humanitarian aid convoys to the northern city. Some 300,000 people are estimated to be stuck in dire conditions in the eastern side of Aleppo, which has become a key battleground in the five-year war.

Western media reports followed suit with Reuters reporting: «Syria ceasefire deal in balance as Aleppo aid plan stalls». Another publication, USA Today, made the more pointed claim: «The regime has broken its pledges on the distribution of life-saving supplies».

So, in Washington’s artful spin of events, it is the Syrian government of President Bashar al Assad which is reneging on the ceasefire arrangement by blocking food and medical supplies to starving civilians. This, of course, plays handily into the broader Western narrative that the Syrian «regime» is the ultimate villain of the piece. The vile Assad is mercilessly denying children food and water, goes the spin.

Based on that premise, Washington is giving notice that it will not follow through on its ceasefire commitment to join with Russian air forces for targeting terror groups like ISIS (Daesh) and al Nusra Front. Those anticipated «joint operations» between US and Russian aircraft were supposed to be the highlight of the ceasefire plan worked out last weekend in Geneva by Kerry and his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov.

But that supposed «breakthrough» is now in doubt. McClatchy News reported at the end of the week: «US to Russia – Syria military cooperation not guaranteed».

US State Department spokesman John Kirby told reporters four days into the truce: «If, by Monday we have continued to see reduced violence and no humanitarian access, there will be no Joint Implementation Center [with Russian military]».

Washington is mendaciously trying to pretend that there have been no breaches of the ceasefire and that the whole problem revolves around «no humanitarian access» being granted by the Syrian authorities. If the US does indeed backtrack from its stated prior commitment to cooperate with Russian forces for targeting terror groups then it is safe to assume that the entire ceasefire «deal» will be dead, even as a rhetorical concept.

Admittedly, the level of violence in Aleppo and across the country subsided when the US-Russian ceasefire pact came into effect on September 12. Russian and allied Syrian forces halted their campaign of air strikes. Opposition violence appeared to abate too. Nevertheless, the truce was reportedly violated multiple times by anti-government militias, not just in Aleppo, but in other locations, such as Latakia, Hama and Homs.

Furthermore, there was no apparent distinction between so-called US-backed moderate rebels and recognized terror groups in carrying out these violations. All insurgents groups were engaging in sporadic attacks – in contravention of the putative ceasefire.

Credible Russian military reports confirmed that Syrian army units had observed the truce and had begun demilitarizing a major access road into eastern Aleppo. Syrian troops are being replaced by Russian units to safeguard the route. However, it is the militants who are refusing to withdraw from the Castello Road area, which would provide the humanitarian aid convoys access to the city.

Indeed, insurgent factions openly declared that they would continue shelling and sniping in the Castello Road precisely in order to prevent the aid convoys arriving because they opposed the ceasefire accord even being implemented.

Russia has correctly criticized the US as using a «verbal smokescreen» to conceal why the ceasefire is failing. The point is that Washington has negligible control over its declared moderate rebels. In fact, there is no control because in practice there is no distinction between the myriad illegally armed insurgents.

Like the ceasefire called earlier this year in February, this latest one is breaking down because all the militants continue to breach any cessation. As Lt General Vladimir Savchenko, chief of the Russian Center for Reconciliation in Syria, points out, the US-backed opposition is using the ceasefire simply as an opportunity to rearm and regroup.

And Washington’s policy is impotent about altering that. The CIA and Washington’s allies in Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey armed the anti-government insurgents, including the known terror groups. The regime-change conspirators created a veritable Frankenstein monster over which they now have little control even to the point of getting it to at least appear to be complying with a ceasefire for tactical reasons.

The latest ceasefire is floundering like the previous attempt because Washington’s assertions about «moderate rebels» dissociating from «terror» groups is total and utter humbug.

Risibly, as one could have predicted, John Kerry’s bombastic appeal last weekend for US-backed «rebels» to «separate» from the extremists so that American and Russian forces could then get on with the task of eliminating the terrorists has been subsequently shown to be the consummate delusion that it is.

Washington and its allies are being caught out spectacularly in their lies over the Syrian conflict. The stone-cold truth is that they have been sponsoring terrorist proxies for the criminal purpose of regime change.

So conspicuous and damning is Washington’s nefarious role in Syria’s conflict – which has resulted in 400,000 dead and millions turned into desperate refugees – that this crime has to be covered up at all costs. But covering it up is becoming futile because of the increasing glaring reality.

Syria’s ceasefire is flawed because Washington, the supposed co-architect of the truce along with Moscow, is not motivated by finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict. The conflict is all about regime change and deploying terrorist agents to achieve that. That is why the ceasefire is failing – yet again.

The unbearable truth about Washington and its criminal gang of state-sponsors of terrorism has to be concealed from public view. And that is why Washington and the dutiful Western media lie machine are cranking up the «explanation» for the ceasefire unravelling as being due to the fault of the Syrian «regime» and its Russian ally for not delivering on humanitarian commitments.

This American smokescreen has been pumped out for nearly six years in Syria. It is really galling to hear the likes of John Kerry and Barack Obama talk about «human suffering» and the need for humanitarian ceasefires.

The suffering and violence in Syria will stop when Washington is seen for the criminal regime that it is. That day is coming. The American smokescreen is dissipating with each passing day because of its absurd contradictions.

And the terrorists – state sponsors and proxies alike – are finally being exposed.

September 18, 2016 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment