Daniel Pipes’ 2005 article on terrorism starts with the following statement “What do Islamist terrorists want? The answer should be obvious, but it is not.” After a tortuous description of so many cases of terrorism, Daniel Pipes finally pronounces the verdict: “In nearly all cases, the jihadi terrorists have a patently self-evident ambition: to establish a world dominated by Muslims, Islam, and Islamic law, the Shari’a. … Their ‘real project is the extension of the Islamic territory across the globe, and the establishment of a worldwide ‘caliphate’ founded on Shari’a law’.”
Pipes’ conclusions draw on an earlier article on Jihad: “Jihad in the sense of territorial expansion has always been a central aspect of Muslim life. That’s how Muslims came to rule much of the Arabian Peninsula by the time of the Prophet Muhammad’s death in 632. It’s how, a century later, Muslims had conquered a region from Afghanistan to Spain. Subsequently, jihad spurred and justified Muslim conquests of such territories as India, Sudan, Anatolia, and the Balkans.” Vehemently dismissing the opposing authoritative opinions of three American professors of Islamic studies, Pipes concludes that “jihad is the world’s foremost source of terrorism” that inspires “a worldwide campaign of violence by self-proclaimed jihadist groups.”
Pipes’ opinions cannot be justified by scholarly standards. A modicum familiarity with history would have prevented such sweeping generalizations, let alone the assumption that imperial conquests spurred into existence with the advent of Islam – neither Alexander the Great, the Roman Emperors nor the British that conquered half the know world were Muslims. Pipes’ claims fit the Zionist program of demonizing Islam in the eyes of the West: “Although terrorists state their jihadi motives loudly and clearly,” Westerners refuse to hear them. It takes a Zionist psychic like Pipes to interpret this message and push it down the Western throat: “What the terrorists want is abundantly clear. It requires monumental denial not to acknowledge it, but we Westerners have risen to the challenge.”
Indeed, it does require “monumental denial” to dismiss the fact that the Zionist program of targeting Islam worked marvellously. Faisal Shahzad’s May 1, 2010 “attempt” to detonate a crude car bomb in Times Square – called a “terrorist plot aimed at murdering Americans” by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. – was designed to perpetuate the notion that all Muslims are Jihadists. Few pondered upon the fact that the naturalized American citizen from Pakistan, who stemmed from a secular family, despite his supposed Pakistani Taliban training had used the “the wrong kind of fertilizer for his bomb.
Frank Doyle, a bomb expert and a 33-year veteran of the FBI questioned Shahzad’s training and “a series of really serious mistakes he made.” This was besides the fact that Mr. Shahzad left “clues at every turn” and obviously expected to be caught. Shahzad’s “failed attempt” hammered a few key phrases in the Zionist-controlled media – “weapons of mass destruction,” “terrorism,” “Taliban,” “Al-Qaeda” – that justified the new reality of a police state with depleting individual rights, and promoted the sale of new security measures, including Full Body Scanners, designed to make a few Zionist executives wealthier.
A private security company called ICTS-International (International Consultants on Targeted Security), owned by an Israeli, Ezra Harel and registered in the Netherlands, was in charge of security at Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam where the “alleged would be bomber” Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab boarded an airplane headed for the USA “without a passport.” Mr. Mutallab claimed he “received orders from Al-Qaeda operatives” to blow up the Northwest Airlines Flight 253, carrying 278 passengers and 11 crew members. The father of the terror suspect, Alhaji Umaru Mutallab, a former minister and a Nigerian banker had alerted the U.S. authorities of his son’s “extreme religious views” and was “shocked that his son was even allowed to fly to the U.S.”
In his January 1, 2010 article former Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff argued that instead of focusing on why Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab “was not placed on a watch list that would have prevented him from flying, even though the government had received information that he was a potential extremist,” it was better to focus on a “more fundamental question: How can we keep explosive materials off planes?” Endorsing the need for buying more Full Body Scanners for airports, the former Secretary of Homeland Security wrote: “Most airport security checkpoints use metal detectors. Al-Qaeda has shown that it knows how to avoid detection by using an explosive device that contains little or no metal, such as PETN, or pentaerythritol tetranitrate, used by Abdulmutallab and ‘shoe bomber’ Richard Reid in 2001.”
Chertoff’s mention of Richard Reid, the British citizen accused of trying to blow up an American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris to Miami “with explosives hidden in his shoes” was a convenient way of linking Abdul Mutallab’s failed attempt to another abortive effort by a so called Muslim fanatic -Reid had “converted to Islam while in Feltham Young Offenders’ Institute” and had “left prison with radical leanings which were further developed by extremists who targeted him at the Brixton Mosque.” Even though he wasn’t officially tied to any terrorist organization – the FBI believed “he was acting alone and not as part of a terrorist cell” – Reid’s conversion to Islam and subsequent ties to Brixton Mosque were trumpeted around the Zionist-controlled media.
The crucial fact that Reid had flown to Israel aboard El Al, prior to his attempt to blow up American Airlines Flight 63 was dismissed as “a dry run for his planned attack.” No one doubted the validity of this claim. No one raised the pertinent question as to “why fly to Israel?” Consequently, no one suspected that perhaps the explosives he carried to Flight 63 were supplied in Israel. Reid’s admission that “El Al had failed to detect the explosives in his shoes on the flight to Tel Aviv” – an incredible disclosure that helped redirect attention from El Al security’s close ties to Mossad – helped avert questions relating to the crucial fact that the security company at Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris was ICTS International whose senior management are all Israeli security officials, “many of whom worked for El Al security.”
As expected, Michael Chertoff’s January 1, 2010 article circumvented all of these issues by focusing on Abdul Mutallab’s use of PETN and the need to buy more Full Body Scanners: “During my time as secretary of homeland security, the Transportation Security Administration began working to replace the 1970s-era metal detectors used at airports across America with modern technology able to detect non-metal weapons concealed by terrorists on their bodies – even in their underwear, where Abdulmutallab allegedly hid his bomb. The latest versions of these machines – sometimes called whole-body imagers – are deployed at 19 airports, and the TSA is attempting to place them throughout the nation.”
In his bid to promote Full Body Scanners, Mr. Chertoff, whose Israeli citizenship is kept out of public scrutiny by the Zionist Media, conveniently forgot to mention that one of the clients of the Chertoff Group, a security consulting firm he co-founded, was the manufacturer of the Full Body Scanners. Abdul Mutallab’s “extreme religious views” and his ties to Al-Qaeda were hammered in the media. Few questioned the unlike scenario of a wealthy school boy’s membership in a terrorist organization – Mr. Mutallab’s last residence near the University College in London was a $4 million apartment – and still fewer wondered the coincidence that the same Israeli private security company (ICTS-International) “was in charge of security at all American airports where the alleged hijackers had boarded the airplanes” on September 11, 2001.
A few hours before the “House version of the first Patriot Act” went to a vote, “technical corrections” were incorporated into the body of the text that allowed foreign security companies such as ICTS-International to enjoy the benefits of immunity from lawsuits related to the events of September 11. The person that introduced the Patriot Act and made sure that the Israeli security firm ICTS-International was protected under the new law was Michael Chertoff. Manufacturing a new terrorist plot allowed Chertoff and Company to reinforce the belief of the so called Islamic threat and to get around a prior opposition by the House of Representatives that had voted to prevent the use of Full Body Scanners.
After the alleged terrorist plot “the mainstream media … bombarded the world for the requirement of new security measures.” Meanwhile, referring to Abdul Mutallab’s failed attempt, on January 2, 2010, military analyst and counterinsurgency specialist Gordon Duff said: “His explosives [80 grams of PETN] couldn’t have blown up his own seat. Even if full power, it wouldn’t have worked.” Mr. Duff further explained how Abdul Mutallab’s “country of origin, Nigeria, is clandestinely controlled by the Israeli army and Mossad.” “These entities train the military, sell weapons, run the airports, and wield power over DICON (Defence Industries Corporation). Furthermore, Mutallab’s father is a Mossad partner and Israel’s No. 1 contact in Nigeria. As the former CEO of his country’s most influential bank and the man who ran their national arms industry, Mr. Mutallab also harbours extremely close relationships with the U.S. ambassador and CIA chief in Nigeria.”
The elder Mutallab, “one of the richest people in the world, head of a major bank, head of the national armaments industry and close associate of the U.S. ambassador” and “a Mossad asset” warned the CIA station chief in Nigeria, and surprisingly no one did anything about it – “his Yemeni-influenced ‘terrorist’ son” was assisted to board a Detroit bound flight without a passport. Kurt Haskell, a passenger on Flight 253 described an Indian-looking, middle-aged man who assisted Abdul Mutallab to walk around the post-9/11 security measures without a passport. The only people that “could have permitted this security breach” were people within the system that were implicated in the plot – “the ‘Indian’ obviously had a high-level pass (CIA, Mossad, or high-level security clout).”
Gordon Duff explained the Indian connection: “Israel and India are very close business partners, especially via their military contracts. Also, the Indian intelligence agency (Research and Analysis Wing) works hand-in-hand with Israel. Essentially, the two governments are one.” As for the “Yemeni-influenced” terrorist connection, on October 7, 2008, BBC News reported that “Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh has said that security forces have arrested a group of alleged Islamist militants linked to Israeli intelligence.” Thus Abdul Mutallab received his “Islamist militant” training through Mossad operatives in Yemen as well as in his home country of Nigeria, where according to a September 5, 2008 article: “Nigeria: Lawmakers Divided over Mossad,” there was high-level support for Mossad’s presence.
As for Mr. Mutallab’s claims that he “received orders from Al-Qaeda operatives” to blow up the Northwest Airlines Flight 253, Gordon Duff’s explanation helps clarify a crucial fact – “There is no Al-Qaeda in Yemen. George Bush released a couple of phony operatives from Guantanamo, and after traveling to the Middle East, they hooked up with the Mossad. The only reason Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez released them is because they’re assets.” As expected, the public was fed the usual lies – “Al-Qaeda operatives” give orders to detonate bombs on planes flying over U.S. soil, Muslim terrorists hold “extreme religious views,” “they hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.”
George W. Bush’s address to a joint session of Congress on Thursday, September 20, 2001 employed all the tricks of Classical Rhetoric to convince Americans that Al-Qaeda was their enemy: “Americans have known surprise attacks, but never before on thousands of civilians. All of this was brought upon us in a single day, and night fell on a different world, a world where freedom itself is under attack.” Bush did not acknowledge the five dancing Israelis arrested on September 11. He did not mention that these Mossad agents “had set up video cameras aimed at the Twin Towers prior to the attack on Tuesday, and were seen congratulating one another afterwards.”
Instead of acknowledging the truth, Bush said: “The evidence we have gathered all points to a collection of loosely affiliated terrorist organizations known as Al-Qaeda. … The terrorists’ directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans and make no distinctions among military and civilians, including women and children. This group and its leader, a person named Osama bin Laden, are linked to many other organizations in different countries, including the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.” While officially adopting a milder form of Islamophobia – “The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics; a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam” – Bush made sure that expressions like “Islamic Jihad” and “Islamic Movement” are prominently featured in his address.
As for Bush’s claims that Osama bin Laden commanded “a collection of loosely affiliated terrorist organizations known as Al-Qaeda” and was behind the 9/11 attacks, a September 28, 2001 interview with bin Laden, published in a Karachi-based Pakistani daily newspaper Ummat, exposed the lie: “I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle. It is the United States, which is perpetrating … maltreatment of women, children and common people of other faiths, particularly the followers of Islam. All that is going on in Palestine for the last 11 months is sufficient to call the wrath of God upon the United States and Israel. … What had earlier been done to the innocent people of Iraq, Chechnya and Bosnia? Only one conclusion could be derived from the indifference of the United States and the West to these acts of terror and the patronage of the tyrants by these powers that America is an anti-Islamic power and it is patronizing the anti-Islamic forces.”
As much as Bush attempted to demonize Al-Qaeda – “On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country” – Osama bin Laden’s interview proved that neither he nor Al-Qaeda hated Americans: “Whoever committed the act of 11 September are not the friends of the American people. I have already said that we are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed. … The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the U.S. system, but are dissenting against it. Or those who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology could survive. … In the U.S. itself, there are dozens of well-organized and well-equipped groups, which are capable of causing a large-scale destruction.”
Bin Laden’s evaluation of the post-Cold War political reality in the U.S. was perceptive if not very accurate. He, for example, did not mention the role of FBI’s informant Abdussattar Shaikh, who housed two hijackers without telling the FBI. Listed “as a retired Professor of English at San Diego State” and “the Vice-President of International Projects at the American Common Wealth University,” “Shaikh never taught at San Diego State. He never taught English at all.” Shaikh possessed “a phony Ph. D. from a bogus diploma mill with U.S. Military and Intelligence connections” in Florida. “American Common Wealth University doesn’t exist. … It’s merely a mail-drop which was previously named William Lyon University. And William Lyon University was founded by the retired Air Force General William Lyon.” Lyon was the chairman of the Republican Team victory in 2004 and played a crucial role in the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger. The question is: What was Abdussattar Shaikh – an FBI informant linked to the GOP (Grand Old Party) through his bogus diplomas provided by top level Republican government officials – doing with future hijackers?
Neither did bin Laden mention Omar Al Bouhami, the Saudi intelligence officer of the GID (General Intelligence Directorate) – the Saudi version of the CIA – working at the Saudi Arabian embassy in Los Angeles that picked the potential hijackers and sent them to an FBI informant at San Diego. Instead, bin Laden identified “intelligence agencies in the U.S.” that required billions of dollars of funding from Congress. “This [funding …] was not a big problem till the … [collapse] of the former Soviet Union but after that the budget of these agencies has been in danger. They needed an enemy. So, they first started propaganda against Osama and Taliban and then this incident happened. You see, the Bush Administration approved a budget of 40 billion dollars. Where will this huge amount go? It will be provided to the same agencies, which need huge funds and want to exert their importance. Now they will spend the money for their expansion and for increasing their importance.”
Bin Laden’s clarification seems to explain the treatment Pentagon gave to one of its own. Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer of U.S. Army was “gagged,” “punished” and his security clearance revoked because he dared to speak about the findings of Able Danger that had successfully identified the plan one year prior to September 11, 2001. Out of the massive amounts of documents, the 9/11 Commission received only two briefcase-size containers that represented 1/20 of the total amount of information contained in the Able Danger files that were conveniently deleted at the request of people higher-up. When Able Danger was called to a Senate Investigation, the Pentagon attempted to prevent the sharing of information by asking for “secret closed-door hearings,” without the presence of the media.
At the morning of September 11, 2001, Senior Bush was at the White House closely watching the events of 9/11. Osama bin Laden’s father and brother – both members of the Carlyle Group – were in Washington at the time to discuss the coming year’s financial ventures with Senior Bush, also a member of the Carlyle Group. Considering that Senior Bush and the bin Laden family had a lot to gain from the events of 9/11 – the company’s investments were primarily in defence, aerospace, automotive industries – both parties had a financial stake in the events that unfolded on September 11, 2001. Senior Bush’s Carlyle partners did not suffer the fate of most Americans that were stranded in airports around the country – the bin Ladens were conveniently flown out of the United States in a plane chartered either by Osama bin Laden or the Saudi Arabian Royal Family. The U.S. government provided a military escort for their protection.
George W. Bush’s address to a joint session of Congress on Thursday, September 20, 2001 did not mention that a single day before the address, on September 19, 2001 his administration had ordered escorted safe passage to the bin Laden family. Instead, the TV stations of the nation exploited images of Osama bin Laden, in his white garb, surrounded by armed commandos in military outfits. At the time, no one knew that the “fighters” in the video “had been hired for the day and told to bring their own weapons.” Beyond his own small group, bin Laden had no formal organization till the Americans invented one for him. In January 2001 a trial began in a Manhattan Courtroom of four men accused of embassy bombings in East Africa. But the Americans had also decided to prosecute bin Laden “in his absence.” In order to do this, under American law, the prosecutors needed “evidence of a criminal organization.” “As with the Mafia, that would allow them to prosecute the head of the organization, even if he could not be linked directly to the crime.” The evidence for that organization was provided for them by an ex-associate of bin Laden, Jamal Ahmed Mohamed al-Fadl.
According to Jason Burke, the author of Al Qaeda, al-Fadl became “a key prosecution witness” and was “given huge amounts of American tax-payers’ money.” His testimony helped draw a picture of Al-Qaeda that would fit the existing laws. Those laws were designed to combat “the Mafia,” “organized crime,” “membership in organized crime” – all of which required a pre-existing organization to start with. Al-Fadl and a number of other witnesses helped create “the first bin Laden myth,” “the first Al-Qaeda myth.” Influential as these were, both drew upon Ali Baba-style Hollywood fantasies that portrayed bin Laden as an all-powerful head of a hierarchical organization in control of a vast terrorist empire. The reality, however, was different. There were a few disillusioned militants who looked at bin Laden for “funding and assistance” but did not consider him their “commander.” There was no organization called Al-Qaeda – bin Laden adopted the name only after the Americans christened him as the leader of Al-Qaeda.
Jamal al-Fadl, who had stolen over a $100,000 from bin Laden and was asked for a reimbursement, became a star witness at the trial and was given “witness protection” in the U.S. for his lies concerning Al-Qaeda and its leader Osama bin Laden. Sam Schmidt, a Defence Lawyer at Embassy Bombings Trial, said that Jamal al-Fadl’s lies helped create an “identifiable” organization that didn’t exist in reality – “it made Al-Qaeda the new Mafia or the new Communists.” Ever since the invasion of Afghanistan, the Americans have been led to believe that bin Laden was hiding in the mountainous regions using caves to conduct his operations. The images of these caves draw a picture of a “fortress” with “bedrooms and offices,” “secret exits,” “cut deep to avoid thermal detection,” “ventilation system,” “valleys guarded,” “arms and ammunition,” “main entrance,” “hydroelectric power” – caves large enough to accommodate cars, trucks and even tanks.
Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary under George W. Bush from 2001 to 2006, described it as “serious business” and said that the cave under discussion was not the only one, “there were many of those.” The Americans bombed the Tora Bora region in the hopes of destroying Al-Qaeda hideouts with the most sophisticated weapons they had. The Northern Alliance was paid over $1,000,000 for their help in locating Al-Qaeda. Donald Rumsfeld had his Ali Baba wish fulfilled – Sesame opened, but there was no treasure. All they found were a number of small empty caves used primarily to store ammunition. There were “no underground bunker systems,” “no secret tunnels.” “The fortress didn’t exist.” As for Al-Qaeda fighters, the Northern Alliance produced “some prisoners,” they claimed were Al-Qaeda fighters. The truth was that the Northern Alliance was in the business of kidnapping villagers that bore a slight resemblance to Arabs and then selling them to the Americans as Al-Qaeda fighters.
When the British arrived in Afghanistan, confident that their unique experience of fighting terrorists in Northern Ireland would make them worthy allies with the United States “in the global war on terrorism,” they were sure to succeed where others had failed. Yet, the scenario repeated itself with more punch. “Ten Thousand pieces of gold for the body of Ali Baba and the destruction of the band of thieves” yielded nothing. Five weeks after their arrival, the British admitted that they had neither captured nor killed an Al-Qaeda member. The truth was “Al-Qaeda, as an organization did not exist.” The Americans and the British were “chasing a phantom enemy” and deliberately misleading the public into believing that the “global war on terror” was real.
Osama bin Laden too helped sustain the “phantom enemy” of the “global war on terror.” His interview published in a Karachi-based Pakistani daily newspaper Ummat on Friday, September 28, 2001, helped perpetuate the myth that Al-Qaeda was in the business of waging a war against infidels: “Al-Qaeda was set up to wage a Jihad against infidelity, particularly to counter the onslaught of the infidel countries against the Islamic states. … We are in favour of armed jihad only against those infidel governments, which are killing innocent Muslim men, women and children just because they are Muslims.” However, bin Laden failed to mention that the “global war on terror” was the most profitable business that benefited his father and brother, Senior Bush, and other partners of the Carlyle Group.
George W. Bush too was careful about keeping the truth well beyond the reach of public scrutiny. On August 22, 2001, John O’Neill, the head of the FBI’s National Security Division for Counterterrorism, resigned “citing repeated obstruction of his investigations into Al-Qaeda.” Counterterrorism expert John O’Neill was prevented from investigating Al-Qaida by the President of the United States himself. George W. Bush signed a Presidential Directive W199I “making it a crime to investigate or hinder the operations of one Abdullah bin Laden in any way.” According to BBC Investigative Journalist Greg Palast, Bush stopped the investigation of “the money behind the terrorists.” Saudi Arabia was the source of most of the funding, and the FBI knew about it. Yet, no one was allowed to question Omar and Abdullah bin Laden. “What makes this family so special that they’re protected from investigation?”
The same question could be asked about Pakistani sources that were known to have funded the attacks. Mohammed Atta was financed by Pakistani Ahmad Umar Sheikh that wired the funds under orders from ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) chief, General Mahmoud Ahmad. One week before the attacks, General Ahmad was in the U.S., “meeting with Pentagon, White House, National Security Council and CIA officials.” On the “very morning” of the attack, the General, one of the financiers of the attacks, was having “a breakfast meeting on Capitol Hill” hosted by Sen. Bob Graham and Representative Porter Guss, the chairman of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees. Two days after the attack, on September 13, 2001 the ISI chief, General Mahmoud Ahmad also met with Joseph Biden, the Vice President of the United States who was the chairman of the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee at the time. When asked about the ISI funding of the 9/11 attacks, Mr. Biden answered that it was “classified” information.
“Classified” information indeed! John O’Neill’s briefcase was stolen and all his files had fallen into the hands of those that wanted to keep the real story a secret. Shortly after his resignation, John O’Neill was hired by Larry Silverstein as Deputy of Security at the World Trade Center. Silverstein did not have a security company; he had people that worked as security, and John O’Neill, whose stolen briefcase contained sensitive information, was conveniently placed at the mercy of a man, who would profit mightily by the events of 9/11. A few weeks before September 11, 2001 Silverstein had become the lease-holder of the WTC complex. He faced the “daunting task” of removing the “illegal asbestos” that covered every steel beam of the Twin Towers – a “job that would have cost $1,000,000,000.” When Larry Silverstein took possession of the buildings, he reworked the insurance policy to cover “terrorist attacks.” After 9/11 he received $7,000,000,000 as compensation from his insurance. The murder of one FBI whistleblower John O’Neill was well worth it – O’Neill’s first day at the new job, September 11, 2001, also became the last day of his life.
What was the connection between Larry Silverstein and the powerful cabal that wanted to terminate counterterrorism expert John O’Neill? Osama bin Laden’s interview, published on Friday, September 28, 2001, holds the clue: “I have already said that we are not hostile to the United States. We are against the [U.S. Government] system, which makes other nations slaves of the United States, or forces them to mortgage their political and economic freedom. This system is totally … control[ed] … [by] the American Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States. It is clear that the American people are themselves the slaves of the Jews and are forced to live according to the principles and laws laid by them. So, the punishment should reach Israel. In fact, it is Israel, which is giving a blood bath to innocent Muslims and the U.S. is not uttering a single word.”
Ironically, the comments of the most wanted outlaw coincide with those made by someone at the opposite end of the spectrum -Tzipora Menache, an Israeli spokeswoman, who proudly bragged of the Zionist control of the United States. “You know very well, and the stupid Americans know equally well, that we control their government, irrespective of who sits in the White House. You see, I know it and you know it that no American president can be in a position to challenge us even if we do the unthinkable. What can they (Americans) do to us? We control Congress, we control the media, we control show biz, and we control everything in America. In America you can criticize God, but you can’t criticize Israel.” Tzipora Menache’s arrogance could not be matched by any one, not even by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who conveniently believed in Ali Baba’s cave-fortress when bombing Tora Bora.
John O’Neill’s briefcase “contained classified documents.” The stolen Top Secret FBI Documents included e-mails, annual field reports and one “very sensitive investigation” conducted by another New York counterintelligence FBI special agent Michael Dick. “After the incident, whoever stole O’Neill’s briefcase, had found out what O’Neill knew about both Al-Qaeda and their Israeli shadows.” John O’Neill’s FBI colleague “aggressively investigated the Israeli ring before and after 9/11.” The removal of the American-Israeli Zim shipping company from the seventeenth floor of the North Tower, one week before the attacks seemed suspicious to Michael Dick. Similarly, evidence that other Israelis had been forewarned several hours before the attacks surfaced on an “Israeli instant messaging service, known as Odigo.” Odigo that was owned and managed by Comverse, an Israeli telecommunications firm specializing in wire-tap computer programs, widely used by the U.S. government for electronic eavesdropping, had its headquarters two blocks from the World Trade Center. Yet, Odigo employees failed to notify New York authorities of an imminent danger.
As for Comverse Infosys, Fox News presented a four-part series (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4) on Israel Spying on the USA through telecommunication products it sold and through systems it operated as well as wire-taps it provided to the FBI. Shortly after, the series was withdrawn by Fox News without explanation. But the information it provided was invaluable for assessing the extent of Israeli infiltration inside the most sensitive government departments, including Organized Crime Intelligence Division, the FBI and the Secret Service. Organized Crime in Israel had obtained private, often sensitive information on U.S. government officials, working in various Law Enforcement departments, through Amdocs, a publicly traded firm based in Israel. Israelis detained for “organized intelligence gathering operations, designed to penetrate government facilities,” had served in the IDF and had wire-tap expertise coming from their affiliation with Amdocs and other Israeli companies.
As expected, the Bush Administration dismissed allegations that the Israeli infiltration “compromised” the work of detectives assigned to various cases. But the fact remains that “Israel’s booming High-Tech Industry is a branch of Mossad” that successfully spied on Americans long before 9/11. Agencies involved in the investigation included “the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Service, the DOD, the DEA, the INS, the ATF, the U-SSS, the U.S. Customs, the State Department, the IRS,” while the “Penetrated Targets” of the Israeli espionage included “Military Bases/DOD, the DEA, the FBI, the Secret Service, the ATF, the U.S. Customs, the IRS, the INS, the EPA, the Interior Department, the U.S. Marshal’s Service, Various U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, Secret Government Offices” and “unlisted private homes of law enforcement and intelligence personnel.”
On March 22 and 27 of 2002 DEA agents arrested five Israelis in Irving, Texas. A $10,000 bond was placed by an employee of the Israeli Telecommunications firm, Amdocs, the company that had “operational access to the telephones being used by FBI agents John O’Neill, Michael Dick and the DEA agents involved in tracking the Saudi Mafia drug shipments … used to support various terrorist cells in the U.S. and abroad.” Like O’Neill, Michael Dick “soon found himself removed from his duties on the orders of the then Head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, Michael Chertoff.” Michael Chertoff’s later activities, discussed earlier, included another false-flag operation related to the incident of Abdul Mutallab that endorsed the sale of Full Body Scanners for airports. It is no wonder that Chertoff took the trouble of removing Michael Dick. Similar to Larry Silverstein, who assisted in the demise of FBI agent John O’Neill, Michael Chertoff expected long-range benefits from the elimination of FBI special agent Michael Dick.
After the attacks of September 11, thoughts and sentiments similar to those expressed by Osama bin Laden in the interview, published on Friday, September 28, 2001, were on most people’s mind: “Whether it is President Bush or any other U.S. president, they cannot bring Israel to justice for its human rights abuses or to hold it accountable for such crimes. What is this? Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United Sates? That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks.” Indeed, Bin Laden’s question seems relevant, especially when one considers the coincidence of Larry Silverstein’s new insurance policy with the circumstances of John O’Neill’s demise, or the particulars of the removal of Michael Dick by Michael Chertoff, the Head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division.
Another question – although never asked by Osama bin Laden, yet equally important for the clarification of the issues bin Laden addressed in the original question – should read: “Who benefited the most from the events of September 11?” The answer is not hard to guess. Larry Silverstein and Michael Chertoff benefited immensely from the events of 9/11. The Carlyle Group with all its members, including the Bush family and the bin Laden family, benefited from the company’s manufacture of weapons. The unending “global war on terror” will contribute even more to their wealth. The Arms Industry got its biggest boost in the arm since the end of the Cold War. Vice President Dick Cheney, the former CEO of Halliburton, whose stock “increased since the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq,” was another beneficiary of the bogus “war on terror.” U.S. Oil Companies too benefited from the “global war on terror.”
The Neo-Conservative PNAC (Project for the New American Century) group that included the names of Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney and the Ali-Baba-Defence-Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, among others, not only benefited but also helped create “the phantom enemy.” Page 51of the September 2000 Report of The Project for the New American Century contained the following statement: “… the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbour.” A year later the events of 9/11 – the “New Pearl Harbour” – took place and the PNAC group got what it wanted: The Abandonment of Antiballistic Missile Treaty, Permanent Military Bases in the Middle East that gave added security to Israel, the establishment of a Global “Constabulary” unchallenged by the UN and the rest of the world, Regime Change in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.
The lion’s portion of the benefits fell to the U.S. government, or to use Osama bin Laden’s definition “the government within the government in the United Sates.” This “secret government” pursues a goal of establishing a New World Order (NWO) by means of real war – the most profitable business for the Arms Industry and the Israeli cabal, closely associated with it. Apart from huge financial benefits, Israel’s share in the profits included an opportunity to demonise Islam – an opportunity that carried the added benefits of covering up the atrocities committed against the Palestinians. On the day of the 9/11 attacks, Benjamin Netanyahu was asked what the attacks would mean for U.S.-Israeli relations. Netanyahu answered that “September 11, 2001 terror attacks had been beneficial for Israel.” “We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq. … These events ‘swung American public opinion in our favour’.”
The 9/11 puzzle, with so many movers and shakers needs one more piece to complete the picture. The missing piece comes to us in the form of yet another question: Who lost everything as a result of the events of September 11? The answer is not hard to guess – The American People, the ordinary tax-payers, whose hard-earned money is used to sustain the bogus “global war on terror.” While the real war keeps on claiming American lives, the Ali Baba “war on terror” – a mockery of people’s loyalty and sacrifice – is pushed on American public through the Zionist Media. The Patriot Act that stripped the American People of its most cherished civil liberties allows the “secret government” to spy on the communications of every citizen, to conduct a sampling of DNA of every person convicted of any crime of violence, to “arrest on suspicion” without a warrant, in secret, without notifying anybody, without the right to see a lawyer. It’s time to change the game. It’s time to make the criminals answer for 9/11. It’s time to expose the “secret government” for what it is: power-hungry, greedy warmongers.
* Anait Brutian (B. Mus. with Honours in Theory, McGill University; M. A. in Music Theory, McGill University) is a student in the Faculty of Religious Studies at McGill. Her previous research includes a self-published book entitled: Reconciling Geometry, Rhetoric and Harmony: A Fresh Look at C. P. E. Bach. She is currently working on another book on mathematical paradigms in literature (Old and New Testaments), art, architecture, and music. She can be contacted at [email protected]