Now that Ayman
al-Zawahiri, or rather the stand-in we are told is Ayman al-Zawahiri, has
sanctioned Hezbollah’s resistance against Israel’s invasion of Lebanon,
we can expect the corporate media to have a field day, connecting Hezbollah
to “al-Qaeda” and its crazed Sunni beheaders.
As we know, al-Zawahiri has verified links to the Pentagon, as he served as
commander of the Mujahedeen forces in the Balkans.
“The role of the Pentagon in airlifting the Mujahedeen terrorists into
Bosnia and Kosovo between 1992 to 1995 has been well documented and widely reported
in the European and Canadian media, but almost completely ignored in the United
States,” writes Tim
Howells for Online Journal.
Another bit of information, long ago flushed down the memory hole (reconstituted
here), reveals how al-Zawahiri was sponsored by FBI operative and failed
CIA agent Ali Mohamed, who brought him to San Francisco on a “covert fund-raising
mission” during the Pentagon’s recruitment of “al-Qaeda,”
sent to Bosnia (see this congressional press
release, dated 16 January 1997).
“The war with Israel does not depend on cease-fires…. It is a Jihad
for the sake of God and will last until (our) religion prevails … from
Spain to Iraq,” the Pentagon operative al-Zawahiri told the world through
al-Jazeera television, never mind that al-Zawahiri’s violent version of
Wahabbi Sunni Islam is at odds with Shi’a Islam, the sect Hezbollah’s
“Zawahiri’s comments indicated that Al-Qaeda, which is made up
of Sunni Islamist extremists, was prepared to help Hezbollah despite differences
with the Shia sect,” adds the Khaleej
If we are to buy the official version of events, “al-Qaeda” has
spent a lot of time and money in Iraq slaughtering Shi’a Muslims, deemed
infidels deserving little more than an ignoble death. But both have put aside
their differences—for instance, the bloody Shi’a-Sunni sectarian
violence in Iraq—and are now happily collaborating.
In an effort to iron out this inconsistency, the neocons have flipped into
overdrive. “If the Lebanese conflict drags on, it would be likely that
al Qaeda would try to work again with its occasional ally in an alliance of
convenience that could benefit both groups,” writes Douglas
Farah, a former “investigative journalist” for the CIA’s
favorite newspaper, the Washington Post. “The chaos in the region benefits
all the non-state armed groups, and such circumstances often give rise to transitory
(or perhaps permanent) alliances between groups that share the same goals and
resources. While Zarqawi fanned the flames of the Sunni-Shi’ite divide
inside Iraq, it was in part a tactical decision to weaken the government and
cause a civil war, rather than a theological decision.”
Those silly Muslims didn’t really mean it and they are as amoral and
Machiavellian as their sponsors, a rotating lazy Susan of usual suspects, including
the Pentagon, CIA, ISI, MI6, and of course Mossad.
“The shells and rockets ripping apart Muslim bodies in Gaza and Lebanon
are not only Israeli (weapons), but are supplied by all the countries of the
crusader coalition. Therefore, every participant in the crime will pay the price.”
In other words, the CIA-ISI spawned “al-Qaeda,” supposedly headed
up by the dead Freddy Kruger Islamic nemesis Osama bin Laden, will attack the
“crusader coalition” in the name of Hezbollah.
Of course, no demonization of a legitimate resistance movement would be complete
without a cameo appearance by the Muslim Evil One himself. “Another new
audio or video message from bin Laden was also expected in the coming days and
was planned to deal with Gaza and Lebanon, according to IntelCenter. The U.S.-based
independent group provides counterterrorism information to the U.S. government
and media,” that is to say it serves as a propaganda outfit dispensing
scary campfire stories, designed in part to stampede Americans into supporting
the neocon Crusade and total “clash of civilizations” war, promised
by our rulers to last a hundred or more years.
Back in 2003, the scurrilous neocon, Iran-Contra criminal, PNAC and CFR member,
Armitage, told CBS’ Sixty Minutes “Hezbollah may be the ‘A-Team
of Terrorists’ and maybe al-Qaeda is actually the ‘B’ team.
And they’re on the list and their time will come…. There is no question
about it—it’s all in good time. And we’re going to go after
these problems just like a high school wrestler goes after a match. We’re
going to take them down one at a time.”
Here in America, a semi-somnolent and easily distracted public, consumers of
endless official lies and dissimulation wrapped in fancy computer graphics and
delivered by vacuous anchors, will likely buy into the effort to churn Hezbollah
into an “al-Qaeda” variant, or if neocons such as Armitage have
their way, an ominous terrorist group eclipsing “al-Qaeda.”
However, in Lebanon, this make-over is meaningless, as Hezbollah will continue
to fight against the invading and marauding Israelis, regardless of Israeli
and American propaganda.
Finally, Hezbollah’s Hasan Nasrallah told CBS’ Ed Bradley
in 2003: “I believe the Americans are just saying what the Israelis want
them to say. I consider this to be an Israeli accusation coming out of an American
mouth and nothing more.”
Indeed, this is the case every time one flips on Fox News and its imitators.
Neocons Ready to Send U.S. Troops to Lebanon
Another Day in the Empire
According to Ken
Silverstein of Harper’s Magazine, “a well-connected former CIA
officer has told me that the Bush Administration is … considering”
sending U.S troops to Lebanon as “peacekeepers,” that is to say
shock troops for the Israeli invasion.
The officer, who had broad experience in the Middle East while at the CIA,
noted that NATO and European countries, including England, have made clear
that they are either unwilling or extremely reluctant to participate in an
international force. Given other nations’ lack of commitment, any “robust”
force—between 10,000 and 30,000 troops, according to estimates being
discussed in the media—would by definition require major U.S. participation.
According to the former official, Israel and the United States are currently
discussing a large American role in exactly such a “multinational”
deployment, and some top administration officials, along with senior civilians
at the Pentagon, are receptive to the idea.
I bet they are, especially considering these “top administration officials”
(think Cheney) and “senior civilians at the Pentagon” are neocons.
Predictably, the “uniformed military … is ardently opposed to sending
American soldiers to the region, according to my source. ‘They are saying
“What the f—?”‘ he told me. “Most of our combat-ready
divisions are in Iraq or Afghanistan, or on their way, or coming back. The generals
don’t like it because we’re already way overstretched,’”
not that this matters to the neocons, who are well-accustomed to committing
U.S. troops to do Israel’s bidding.
“Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I’ll
tell you what I think the real threat [is] and actually has been since 1990—it’s
the threat against Israel,” declared Philip Zelikow, the executive director
of Bush’s nine eleven whitewash commission. Zelikow made this admission
before a crowd at the University of Virginia on September 10, 2002.
Sending U.S. troops to Lebanon “would be viewed in the Arab world as
the United States picking up a combat role on behalf of Israel,” Silverstein’s
CIA source added.
“Once you start fighting in a place like that you’re basically
at war with the Shiite population. That means that our soldiers are going to
be getting shot at by Hezbollah. This would be a sheer disaster for us.”
Indeed, it would also be a disaster for U.S. troops in Iraq, surrounded by
15 million Shi’ites. If Ayatollah Sistani issues a fatwa in response to
the neocons attacking fellow Shi’ites in Lebanon, the U.S. military is
doomed. It would make the Tet Offensive in Vietnam look like a tea party. It
would be a replay of Dunkirk.
The scenario of an American deployment appears to come straight out of the
neoconservative playbook: send U.S. forces into the Middle East, regardless
of what our own military leaders suggest, in order to “stabilize”
the region. The chances of success, as we have seen in Iraq, are remote. So
what should be done? My source said the situation is so volatile at the moment
that the only smart policy is to get an immediate ceasefire and worry about
the terms of a lasting truce afterwards.
But then the idea is not to “stabilize” the region or gain a “ceasefire
and worry about the terms of a lasting truce afterwards,” but rather pitch
it into chaos.
“The neo-Jacobins are rushing to get America involved in a general Middle
Eastern war before Americans have time to think,” warns Paul
Craig Roberts. “Once we have attacked other sovereign Islamic countries,
we will have to bring back the draft in order to raise the necessary armies
or resort to nuclear weapons…. The root of the Middle Eastern problem
is Israel’s uncanny ability to manipulate American public opinion and
US foreign policy. This unique power means Israel doesn’t have to compromise.
Instead, the Israelis escalate and involve us ever more deeply and one-sidedly
in their disputes with Arabs…. Bush’s neo-Jacobins will not be content
until they have 600 million enraged Muslims at our throats.”
Indeed, this is precisely what the neocons desire—millions of enraged
Muslims taking up arms against the United States, as this will force a reluctant
and usually peaceful population—always opposed to war because they pay
the ultimate price—to donate their sons and daughters to a horrific war.
The Straussian strain of neocon consider the American people little more than
sheep to be culled and manipulated for their gain—and the gain of Israel.
According to the aged neocon Norman Podhoretz, the only impediment standing
in the way of neocon glory is the American people, who have yet to demonstrate
they have “the stomach to do what will be required,” that is to
say sacrifice ourselves to neocon-neoliberal and Zionist hegemony and the eradication
(or at minimum submission) of the Muslim hordes.
According to Roberts,
the “vision” of the neocons “is to knock off Iraq, Iran and
Syria, the countries that could get in the way of Israel expelling the Palestinians
to Jordan and grabbing Lebanon, as well. This is what World War IV is all about.”
For the neocons, there is “no room for diplomacy, compromise and agreements.
These are the tools of wimps and will cause ‘a relapse into appeasement
and diplomatic evasion.’ There is only room for war…. To pursue
the insane agenda of conquering and occupying the Middle East not only requires
the stomach for inhumane acts, but also demands millions of Americans taking
up arms. Here come the draft and a generation of casualties.”
Or the end of the planet as we know it, as Hezbollah—and soon millions
of enraged Shi’ites not only in Lebanon but also in Iraq and Iran—have
no intention of throwing down their Kalashnikovs and RPGs and surrendering to
the Zionists, determined to wipe them out or at minimum enslave them, as they
attempt to enslave the Palestinians.
It will be a bitter fight to the end—and in order to “win,”
the United States and Israel will resort to dragging out the “mini-nukes”
and irradiating all those who dare resist. Bush’s neocons have already
indicated they fully intend to use nuclear weapons.
In fact, if you count depleted uranium, they are already nuking the Arabs of
Iraq and now Lebanon (see Dr. Doug Rokke, PhD., former Director, U.S. Army Depleted
Uranium project, Depleted
Uranium Situation Worsens Requiring Immediate Action By President Bush, Prime
Minister Blair, and Prime Minister Olmert, i.e., at least 100 GBU 28 bunker
busters containing depleted uranium warheads are on their way to Israel to be
used in Lebanon).
I am old enough to remember nuclear drills in grade school, as we were continually
propagandized as children to believe the evil commies would nuke us at any minute.
Of course, the Soviet Union had no intention of nuking us, nor us them, and
this was called MAD, or Mutually Assured Destruction—a good deal for the
death merchants, but a scary deal for everybody else, culminating in the Cuban
Missile Crisis, an event I am old enough to remember as well.
Later, when I was a bit older and more cynical, I made light of my grade school
nuke drills, declaring the reason we crawled down beneath our desks on hands
and knees was to kiss our posteriors good-bye, as any nuclear confrontation
between nations bristling with thermonuclear weapons would be certain suicide.
I am now beginning to believe such a suicide is actually possible.
Read from Looking Glass News
Babies Are Child's Play To Israel's Ethnic Cleansers
Conflict Another Illuminati War For Profit
administration assisting Israeli Defense Force attack on Lebanon
Kissinger's 1974 Plan for Food Control Genocide
Bash Bush; Pump Global War
president says Israel uses phosphorous arms
and Beirut compared - July 20, 2006
Mossad "has significantly infiltrated Hizbullah"
images of "Gifts from Israeli Children"
If Israel Had Never Been Created?
Bombardment Of Lebanon Escalation For World War Three