The situation of the West, especially of the United States, has been getting worse on the world scene in recent weeks. The United States has been swept by the most powerful demonstrations of protest since early this century, with socio-economic demands chanted together with the slogan: “Down with the Dictatorship of Oligarchy!” Unrest in the countries of North Africa and the Middle East has acquired anti-American overtones. The dollar is teetering on the brink, the US foreign debt has grown out of all proportion, and experts predict another upward spiral in the world crisis, while confidence in Barack Obama and his administration is falling and may reach an all-time low.
Nor is the situation of the US European allies, namely Spain, Greece, Portugal and Italy any better, given that they are about to default on their loans; protests against aggression in Libya are growing; people are outraged over the war-caused flow of refugees; socio-economic problems are exacerbated by interethnic tension, while the Schengen Agreement is falling apart at the seams.
Both the US and European public fails to realize the objective of the Afghan war. The US-led NATO force invaded Afghanistan to allegedly track down and arrest Osama bin Laden, who managed to launch the horrific 9/11 terrorist attack on the US from his Tora Bora cave. Almost 10 years have elapsed since, but the US still has no evidence of his guilt to offer but the killed NATO servicemen and Afghan civilians. There are, of course, the flow of drugs that has grown dozens of times and the killing of Muammar Gaddafi’s son and underage grandchildren. But then, how does NATO differ from Adolf Hitler’s SS organization, or from secret societies carrying out ritual killings? Or is it an echo of the Holocaust, which was mournfully remembered precisely on the day when NATO carried out its Nazi-Style massacre of the Libyan leader’s family?
There is nothing that could possibly justify child destruction, and it’s useless to resort to any lie. It is both Arabs and Europeans that wonder just how this kind of democracy differs from Nazism. Perhaps, the difference lies in that Nazis gassed children, while NATO uses missiles to kill them? It is certainly to get rid of uncomfortable questions that the US and NATO played their trump card, one that the CIA has long since laid up, – Osama bin Laden.
It follows from Osama’s agent biography that he showed up each time that he was needed by the “global superpower”. Bin Laden first emerged when the Soviet troops entered Afghanistan in December 1979. The Soviet invasion dealt a shattering blow to the US plans that Washington pressed ahead with in 1977 following US State Secretary Henry Kissinger’s visit to Afghanistan. During that visit Kissinger met the future initiators of the 1978 revolution. Washington’s first failure was the revolutionaries’ refusal to elect as their leader Hafizullah Amin, whom the US had staked on. It transpired during the consideration of candidacies that Amin had been recruited by the CIA during his training in the United States, and although he tried hard to persuade his comrades-in-arms that he had long since broken with his one-time friends in America, he was denied credence. But Amin staged a coup in late 1979, personally strangled the revolution leader Nur Muhammad Taraki, seized power and got down to a consistent destruction of those in favour of cooperation with the USSR. The introduction of Soviet troops in December 1979 restored the status quo, with Amin killed in the process.
And then the CIS and Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence, ISI, turned for help to bin Laden, heir to a major Saudi businessman whose business was closely intertwined with that of the family of Bush Sr.
…The CIS told its agent to ensure that radical Islam would rise in arms against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan. Bin Laden got US instructors, while Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence provided him with fighters, some recruited from the Pakistan Army. That was the way that the myth about the “terrorist No. 1” was being created… This was followed by a series of time-divided terrorist attacks justifying the US policy of fighting “international terrorism”…
True, Al-Qaeda was by no means behind all terrorist attacks, but almost all of those were attributed to it in an effort to create a sinister image of global “Islamic terrorism”.
When the US economy began to cave in, in 2001, and the US image of the stronghold of democracy was tarnished following the punishment of Yugoslavia; when the discrepancy between the international law system dating back to the time of balance of forces and the US monopoly of power was further exacerbated, the United States again felt the need for Osama, so he would attain another global-scale objective, one that would prove shocking to the Americans and enable the government to tighten the screws, and, most important of all, to change the entire system of international security by making US aggression anywhere in the world look lawful and expedient.
Just as in 1979, the Muslim Osama bin Laden was again to play the role of a decoy-duck, – the organizer of a large-scale terrorist multi-move operation calling for super-coordination and the penetration by secret agents of dozens of US services, which is absolutely unfeasible to conduct from Afghanistan’s Tora Bora, which boasts no communications whatsoever. But the cave is of no consequence any more, since most Americans did believe in the scary story in question, and the US public lined up behind their government on paying the price of several thousand lives on September 11th 2001, while the international community legitimated Washington’s international brigandage in the future.
Osama bin Laden conscientiously accomplished the task set and, once September 11th 2001 was over, earned peace and quiet that he was promised by his US bosses. But 10 years went by, and the masters of America decided they needed him again, this time clearly for the last time. Had it not been for the hurriedly masterminded murder of the “terrorist No. 1”, the mass media throughout the world would have focused on the United States and NATO, which loom up behind the merciless killing of Gaddafi’s son and grandchildren.
Source: Strategic Culture Foundation
Forget OBL whether he is dead (or had been dead) or not, killed point blank while unarmed and/ or buried in the sea for eternity. No answers now or ever. No matter what, the US has a deep rooted agenda in this operation.What is that? We’ll know someday.
My questions to the author and the smart folks are:
a)Was the operation by the US Navy SEALS, undertaken for 40 minutes, meant to discredit Pakistan?
b)How could the US conduct a 40 minute operation without the knowledge of Pakistan’s armed forces? How come the radar installations got jammed?
c)Was it meant to test Pakistani intelligence info and state of Pakistan’s armed forces readiness?
d)Is it the US intention to stop aid to Pakistan? If yes, how can the government and people survive without Israeli sanctioned aid by the US?
I think Yes, the idea is to blame Pakistan authorities in deception and hiding the Terrorist # 1. Thus they plan to upset Pakistan, oust Zardari and expand the Middle Eastern ‘boiling pot’ to Central Asia.
Some people in Pakistani Army/intelligence might be working for the US agencies (private mercenaries special units, first of all) and covered the flight.
The Unites States understand that after dollar collapse they will not be able to afford sustaining pro-American regimes worldwide. So they seek to establish self-financing (drug-traffic) radical counter-progressive quasi-Islamic guys who would keep fulfilling the malicious agenda free of charge. Their idea is to prevent alternative sustainable development of the Greater Middle East off the IMF hook. But BRICS will not allow such horrible scenario, I believe :))
What surprises me, in fact impresses me, is that Obama happily utilizes the word “Kill” in favor of such sanitized, politically correct terms as “eliminate” or “terminate” or “eradicate” or even “execute”. Certainly this must have been intensely argued out in high circles. To me this indicates a certain candidness and honesty and forthrightness in his administration.
On the other hand the word “assassinate” is strictly verboten. Very, very interesting, no?
All the best of British luck to you.
Love the representation of your site, by the way. In the infamous words of our beloved Mr Schwarzenegger, “I’ll be back” (if you’ll have me)