Startseite > Geo Politik > Deutscher Professor, über die Geheimdienst Spezialisten welche den 11.9.2001 organisierten

Deutscher Professor, über die Geheimdienst Spezialisten welche den 11.9.2001 organisierten


Univ.-Prof. Dr. August Pradetto,

Ansichten eines echten Experten, über die false flag Anschläge vom 11.9.2001! Und wie die NeoCons damals klar sagten: „Wir brauchen ein 2. Pearl Harbour“ um den Irak Krieg beginnen zu können.

Die SZ schrieb damals (Mitte September 2001) einen ähnlichen Arikel, das nur hoch spezialisierte Westliche Geheimdienste hinter den Anschlägen stecken können.


Univ.-Prof. Dr. August Pradetto professor at the German Military Academy in Hamburg, published a lengthy contribution on the theme “Management of Conflict through Military Intervention? The Dilemma of Western Policy”.

Interview im n-tv 17.9.2001

N-tv-Reporterin (Leo Busch): Bei mir im Studio ist August Pradetto, er ist Professor für internationale Politik an der Uni der Bundeswehr Hamburg. Herr Pradetto, die ganze Zeit ist die Rede davon: Es war Osama Bin Laden. Was deutet auf ihn hin und was nicht?

Pradetto: Osama Bin Laden ist seit Jahren, sogar seit zwei Jahrzehnten bekannt, als internationaler Top-Terrorist. Er ist einer der zentralen Figuren, er hat eine Reihe von Anschlägen verübt, ist daran beteiligt gewesen, daran besteht kein Zweifel. Für so eine Aktion, für so ein gewaltiges, unglaubliches Verbrechen, wie es jetzt passiert ist, ist Osama Bin Laden allein nicht in der Lage. Der Mann wird, wie schon im Beitrag eben gezeigt wurde, seit Jahren gejagt. Auf den Mann sind fünf Millionen Dollar ausgesetzt. Der Mann wurde 1998 mit Cruise Missiles von amerikanischen Flugzeugen beschossen. Er ist ständig auf der Flucht. Um eine Aktion, um ein Verbrechen wie dieses, das jetzt geschehen ist, vorzubereiten, jahrelang, in Ruhe, und zwar nicht etwa in Afghanistan, sondern in den USA und in Deutschland, um das zu machen, braucht man ganz andere Leute, ist eine ganz andere Logistik notwendig, und da stecken noch viel mehr und wichtigere Leute dahinter.

Busch: Wer war‘ s denn dann Ihrer Meinung nach?

Pradetto: Ich denke, die Handschrift dieser Aktion, dieser Vorbereitung, weist auf hochspezialisierte und sehr erfahrene Geheimdienst-Experten hin, woher die kommen, das vermag ich nicht zu sagen, darüber kann man Vermutungen anstellen, aber die will ich jetzt nicht äußern, aber für mich steht fest, dass hochrangige Geheimdienst-Leute diese Aktion im wesentlichen Maße gesteuert haben. Geheimdienst-Leute, die nicht aus arabischen Ländern kommen. Der britische Geheimdienst hat ja ausgeschlossen, aufgrund seiner sehr guten Verbindungen beispielsweise zu dem Geheimdienst des Irak, dass Saddam Hussain dahinterstecken könnte. Das sind möglicherweise doch eine Andeutung aus dem ehemaligen sowietischen Imperium, auch da sind Geheimdienste zusammengebrochen. Wir haben über eine Reihe von Dingen gesprochen, die mit Proliferation zusammenhängen, wir haben nicht so sehr gedacht an Proliferation in dieser Expertise. Busch. Ich glaube, „Proliferation“ müssen sie erklären. Pradetto: Eine Weitergabe von Atomwaffen beispielsweise, spaltbares Material, darüber würde diskutiert. Was passiert mit all dem, was in der ehemaligen Sowietunion, im ehemaligen sowietischen Bereich, in diesen südlichen Republiken der Sowietunion, die jetzt islamisiert werden, was passiert mit den ganzen Waffen, die dort gelagert gewesen sind? In welche Hände geraten sie? Aber es gibt auch menschliches Potential und menschliche Kriminalität, die nach der Auflösung dieses Imperiums exportiert worden ist.

Busch: Ich muss noch mal nachfragen: Wenn Sie sagen, es waren womöglich Menschen, die ehemals für einen Geheimdienst gearbeitet haben, oder es noch tun. Also Menschen, die ausgebildet worden sind, solche Aktionen durchzuführen oder zu leiten. Welche Motivation sollte da denn dahinterstecken?

Pradetto: Ich könnte mir vorstellen, dass abgesehen von dem Hass auf die Vereinigten Staaten, auf die westliche Welt, ein Plan dahintersteckt, auf den möglicherweise, ungewollt, die Vereinigten Staaten hereinfallen, nämlich die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika und die NATO, die westliche Welt insgesamt, zu einer militärischen Aktion gegen die islamische Welt zu bewegen, die tatsächlich etwas viel Schlimmeres bewirken würde als der furchtbare Einsturz der beiden WTC- Towers oder der Einsturz eines Teils des Pentagons. Dies sind Perspektiven, die mit so einer Aktion, bei dieser Kaltblütigkeit, mit der diese Dinge geplant worden sind, mit diesem Kalkül, mit dem sie ausgeführt worden sind, bei den Leuten zu vermuten sind, die hinter diesen Aktionen stecken.

Busch: Ganz neue Aspekte von August Pradetto. Vielen Dank, dass Sie bei uns im Studio waren.
Pradetto: Bitte schön.

Francesco Cossiga: 9/11 war eine «false flag operation»

MIT: Al-Quida ist eine verdeckte CIA Operation

Am 8. Mai 2001 überreichte das US-Außenministerium im Namen des US-Außenministers Powell dem Taliban-Regime Mio. Dollar, um dessen Kooperationsbereitschaft beim Pipeline-Projekt zu fördern.
Am 10. Juni 2001 warnte der BND die CIA-Zweigstelle in der US-Botschaft in der Bundesrepublik, dass bestimmte arabische Terroristen planten, ein kommerzielles amerikanisches Flugzeug zu entführen, um es als Massenvernichtungswaffe gegen bedeutende amerikanische Symbole einzusetzen. Dies wurde lediglich als eine allgemeine Warnung angesehen. Die bundesdeutsche Warnung vom 6. August hingegen war sehr konkret hinsichtlich Datum, Zeit und Ort der Anschläge.
Am 11. Juli 2001 trafen die folgenden US-Regierungsvertreter mit russischen und pakistanischen Geheimdienstlern in Berlin zusammen: Thomas Simmons, früherer US-Botschafter in Pakistan, Lee Coldren, Asien-Experte .des US-Außenministeriums, und Karl Inderfurth, Abteilungsleiter für südasiatische Angelegenheiten des US-Außenministerium.

Pullach, 5. April 2002

Planspiel vor dem 11.9. 2001 und eine Frage
samt einer Leserantwort

Frage an überzeugte Bushisten:Angenommen, Osama und Atta seien wirklich die supergemeinen Planer des 11.9. Ebenfalls angenommen, der uns seitens der US-Regierung erzählte Blödsinn stimme, dass man die Warnung nicht ernst genug genommen habe, dass CIA und FBI nicht so gut zusammengearbeitet hätten, dass einfach alles schief gelaufen sei, chaotisch auch am 11.9., weil man ja mit „so etwas“ nicht habe rechnen können.
Also all dieser Stuss sei einfach mal unwidersprochen. Dass es Stuss ist, wurde schon vor 9(11 erkennbar: In July 2001, Alex Jones Warned of Globalist Plan to Use Bin Laden to Attack America

Nur wie um alles in der Welt konnten Osama und Atta denn in ihrer PLANUNG davon ausgehen, dass CIA und FBI die Vorbereitungen nicht entdecken würden. Wie konnten sie PLANEN, dass zwei Stunden lang keine Abfangjäger am Himmel sein würden ?  *) Eine Antwort – siehe unten

Polizei und insbesondere Feuerwehrleute waren immerhin umgehend da – und viele starben beim Versuch, Menschenleben zu retten. Auch Kamerateams rückten umgehend an, um den Einschlag in den zweiten Tower zu filmen. Krankenwagen waren zur Stelle. Und alle diese Notfalldienste hatten nicht den Vorlauf von einer halben Stunde, also das Wissen um die Entführungen. Und sie wussten auch nicht, dass der zweite Turm getroffen werden würde, für se kam alles wirklich überraschend. Aber „vor Schreck gelähmt“ war keiner. Auch Sie selbst als Nachrichtenkonsument wussten sofort, daß etwas Besonderes passierte.

Die Luftverteidigung hingegen „versagte“. Bush las weiter Ziegengeschichten, Rumsfeld frühstückte weiter.


1) Planspiel im Jahre 2000:
http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/Contingency_Planning.html
seit Frühjahr 2006 nur noch im Webarchiv archive.org aufzufinden:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050311095411/http://www.
mdw.army.mil/news/Contingency_Planning.html
vgl. zur Archivproblematik auch /andrews.htnl
Vorbereitung.

Das Flugzeugmodell – unübersehbar ein grosser Verkehrsflieger.

Ein Einschlag im eben renovierten Flügel richtet den geringeren Schaden an. Tausch des minimalsten Schadens gegen maximalen Nutzen.

Nochmals: es handelt sich um eine VORbereitung, nicht um eine Nachbereitung. Man könnte argumentieren, es gehe hier um eine Katastrophenübung im Zusammenhang mit dem nahegelegenen Reagan-Airport.Was auch sonst ? „You have to plan for this. Look at all the air traffic around here.“ Mit diesem Argument müßten in nahezu allen Großstädten dieser Welt solche Übungen stattfinden. Die alten Flughäfen liegen allesamt jeweils innerhalb dieser Städte. Aber auch aus Washington ist uns diese fürsorgliche Vorsorge, für den „Absturz“ einer großen Passagiermaschine zu proben, nur von den verantwortlichen des Pentagon bekannt. In grober Fahrlässigkeit scheinen Kongreß und Weißes Haus, state department und -zig andere ministerien das Szenario NICHT durchgespielt zu haben, als sei für sie der Reagan Airport oder Luftverkehr insgesamt weit entfernt.

Herr Rumsfeld sollte sein Frühstück sicher genießen können.

„Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people.“
George W. Bush, The White House, May 17, 2002„I don’t think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile,“ Miss Rice said then. „Had this president known a plane would be used as a missile, he would have acted on it.“ ( „Few CIA analysts put on al Qaeda case“  By Bill Gertz September 19, 2002 THE WASHINGTON TIMES) 
„You hate to admit it, but we hadn’t thought about this.“

und so lügt Myers, Generalstabschef

MR. MINETA: Well, I would have to, again, say that I had no thought of the airplane being used as a weapon. I think our concentration was more on hijackings. And most of the hijackings, as they occur in an overseas setting, or the hijacking, if it were to be a domestic one, was for the person to take over the aircraft, to have that aircraft transport them to some other place. But I don’t think we ever thought of an airplane being used as a missile.
und so lügt Verkehrsminister Mineta am 23.Mai 2003 vor der Untersuchungskommission

2) Planspiel im Jahre 2001:

„Though the Department of Defense had no capability in place to protect the Pentagon from an ersatz guided missile in the form of a hijacked 757 airliner, DoD medical personnel trained for exactly that scenario in May.“


3) Bauliche Vorbereitung:
„So resilient was the newly strengthened section of the Pentagon that a glass display case only 40 feet (12 meters) from where the plane entered the building survived without a crack.“
Stahlstützen, Kevlar an der Außenwand, explosionssicher Fenster
im Rahmen des PENREN Programms


Verschwörungstheoretiker mögen diese Fotos nicht. Sie lassen keinen Raum für Spekulationen über die Täter. Oder über das beliebte Rätselraten über das  „Ding“, das in das Pentagon geflogen sei. Obige Fotos belegen, daß man sich im Pentagon auf genau das vorbereitet hatte, was dann auch geschah – mehr oder minder getarnt durch schlichte Umdefinierung als Notfall- Planspiel.  Die objektive Funktion der Verschwörungstheoretiker ist, von den offen zutage liegenden Tatsachen abzulenken. Wissenschaftliche Theoriebildung zeichnet sich dadurch aus, daß sie vorliegende Fakten nutzt und auswertet, sie keinesfalls ignoriert und durch schiere Spekulation ersetzt.

Paul Hellyer, ehemaliger National Defense Minister of Canada, fragt die richtigen Fragen: „… Why did the President just sit in the schoolroom when he heard the news? Why did he not acknowledge that he already knew what was going on? As a former Minister of National Defense, when the news came out I had to wonder. Why did airplanes fly around for an hour and a half without interceptors being scrambled from Andrews [Air Force Base]? Is it Andrews right next to the capitol?
… With a quick action alert they should have been there in five minutes or ten minutes. If not, as the Minister of National Defense, which in the United States is the Secretary of Defense, I would want to say „why not?“

 http://www.medienanalyse-international.de/planspiel.html

 

Die Hintermänner mit Richard Perle vor allem:

CIA, PKK, Frank Wisner, John Negroponte: World enemys Nr. 1

 

Kategorien:Geo Politik Schlagwörter: , , , ,
  1. agron
    Februar 12, 2015 um 2:49 pm

    Die Krim, die bösen Russen und der empörte Westen
    Ukraine: Die schwelende Krise
    Foto: George Layne (CC BY 2.0) Foto: George Layne (CC BY 2.0)
    von August Pradetto

    ………….
    Cui bono – wem nützt es?

    Vor diesem Hintergrund kann das Erstarken des russischen Nationalismus kaum erstaunen. Gerade in Deutschland sollte die Erfahrung von 1918 bis 1945 gelehrt haben, welche Folgen eine demütigende Nachkriegsordnung haben kann. Zumal die entscheidende Frage lautet: Cui bono? Wem nützt es? Ist die gegenwärtige Entwicklung im deutschen und europäischen Interesse?
    ……………
    https://www.blaetter.de/archiv/jahrgaenge/2014/mai/die-krim-die-boesen-russen-und-der-empoerte-westen

  2. navy
    September 1, 2015 um 5:45 pm

    Der Sprengmeister aus Wien, Johann Kalari, spricht über seine Zweifel an der offiziellen 9/11 Version. Die Terroranschläge vom 11. September 2001 müssen neu untersucht werden! Weitere Infos unter http://www.info-direkt.at/das-schweig

    http://www.info-direkt.at/das-schweigen-zum-11-september-ist-gebrochen/

  3. agron
    Oktober 25, 2015 um 5:39 pm

    man wusste genau das ein grosser Anschlag kommt, aber die Super Beraterin Condoleezza Rice,von Georg Bush jun. ignroierte die Fakten und traf keine Vorkehrungen. ne bessere Sekretäring war plötzlich Sicherheits Beraterin des Präsidenten

    washingtonpost.com
    NEWS | LOCAL | POLITICS | SPORTS | OPINIONS | BUSINESS | ARTS & LIVING | GOING OUT GUIDE | JOBS | CARS | REAL ESTATE |SHOPPING
    Two Months Before 9/11, an Urgent Warning to Rice

    Sunday, October 1, 2006

    On July 10, 2001, two months before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, then-CIA Director George J. Tenet met with his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black, at CIA headquarters to review the latest on Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorist organization. Black laid out the case, consisting of communications intercepts and other top-secret intelligence showing the increasing likelihood that al-Qaeda would soon attack the United States. It was a mass of fragments and dots that nonetheless made a compelling case, so compelling to Tenet that he decided he and Black should go to the White House immediately.

    Tenet called Condoleezza Rice, then national security adviser, from the car and said he needed to see her right away. There was no practical way she could refuse such a request from the CIA director.

    For months, Tenet had been pressing Rice to set a clear counterterrorism policy, including specific presidential orders called „findings“ that would give the CIA stronger authority to conduct covert action against bin Laden. Perhaps a dramatic appearance — Black called it an „out of cycle“ session, beyond Tenet’s regular weekly meeting with Rice — would get her attention.

    Tenet had been losing sleep over the recent intelligence he’d seen. There was no conclusive, smoking-gun intelligence, but there was such a huge volume of data that an intelligence officer’s instinct strongly suggested that something was coming. He and Black hoped to convey the depth of their anxiety and get Rice to kick-start the government into immediate action.

    He did not know when, where or how, but Tenet felt there was too much noise in the intelligence systems. Two weeks earlier, he had told Richard A. Clarke, the National Security Council’s counterterrorism director: „It’s my sixth sense, but I feel it coming. This is going to be the big one.“

    But Tenet had been having difficulty getting traction on an immediate bin Laden action plan, in part because Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had questioned all the National Security Agency intercepts and other intelligence. Could all this be a grand deception? Rumsfeld had asked. Perhaps it was a plan to measure U.S. reactions and defenses.

    Tenet had the NSA review all the intercepts, and the agency concluded they were of genuine al-Qaeda communications. On June 30, a top-secret senior executive intelligence brief contained an article headlined „Bin Laden Threats Are Real.“

    Tenet hoped his abrupt request for an immediate meeting would shake Rice. He and Black, a veteran covert operator, had two main points when they met with her. First, al-Qaeda was going to attack American interests, possibly in the United States itself. Black emphasized that this amounted to a strategic warning, meaning the problem was so serious that it required an overall plan and strategy. Second, this was a major foreign policy problem that needed to be addressed immediately. They needed to take action that moment — covert, military, whatever — to thwart bin Laden.

    The United States had human and technical sources, and all the intelligence was consistent, the two men told Rice. Black acknowledged that some of it was uncertain „voodoo“ but said it was often this voodoo that was the best indicator.

    Tenet and Black felt they were not getting through to Rice. She was polite, but they felt the brush-off. President Bush had said he didn’t want to swat at flies.

    As they all knew, a coherent plan for covert action against bin Laden was in the pipeline, but it would take some time. In recent closed-door meetings the entire National Security Council apparatus had been considering action against bin Laden, including using a new secret weapon: the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle, or drone, that could fire Hellfire missiles to kill him or his lieutenants. It looked like a possible solution, but there was a raging debate between the CIA and the Pentagon about who would pay for it and who would have authority to shoot.

    Besides, Rice seemed focused on other administration priorities, especially the ballistic missile defense system that Bush had campaigned on. She was in a different place.

    Tenet left the meeting feeling frustrated. Though Rice had given them a fair hearing, no immediate action meant great risk. Black felt the decision to just keep planning was a sustained policy failure. Rice and the Bush team had been in hibernation too long. „Adults should not have a system like this,“ he said later.

    The July 10 meeting between Tenet, Black and Rice went unmentioned in the various reports of investigations into the Sept. 11 attacks, but it stood out in the minds of Tenet and Black as the starkest warning they had given the White House on bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Though the investigators had access to all the paperwork on the meeting, Black felt there were things the commissions wanted to know about and things they didn’t want to know about.

    Philip D. Zelikow, the aggressive executive director of the Sept. 11 commission and a University of Virginia professor who had co-authored a book with Rice on Germany, knew something about the July 10 meeting, but it was not clear to him what immediate action really would have meant. In 2005 Rice hired Zelikow as a top aide at the State Department.

    Afterward, Tenet looked back on the meeting with Rice as a tremendous lost opportunity to prevent or disrupt the Sept. 11 attacks. Rice could have gotten through to Bush on the threat, but she just didn’t get it in time, Tenet thought. He felt that he had done his job and had been very direct about the threat, but that Rice had not moved quickly. He felt she was not organized and did not push people, as he tried to do at the CIA.

    Black later said, „The only thing we didn’t do was pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head.“

    Editor’s Note: How much effort the Bush administration made in going after Osama bin Laden before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, became an issue last week after former president Bill Clinton accused President Bush’s „neocons“ and other Republicans of ignoring bin Laden until the attacks. Rice responded in an interview that „what we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years.“

    View all comments that have been posted about this article.
    © 2006 The Washington Post Company
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/30/AR2006093000282_pf.html

  4. November 20, 2015 um 11:33 am

    Nun nach so vielen Jahren, hört man aus vielen Quellen, das einige Politiker gewarnt wurden an diesem Tag in ihre Büros zugehen, im WTC, ebenso jeder Jude und die CIA Options Spekulationen werden nun nochmal bestätigt. CIA Direktor Georg Tenet wusste von den Anschlägen, ebenso der Anti Terror Chef: Cofer Blakc, ebenso weitere Personen. Condoleezza Rice und Georg Bush jun. wurden informiert, weigerten sich irgendetwas als Vorsichts Massnahme zuunternehmen.

    ONLINE JOURNAL

    18.11.2015 | 00:00
    Eric ZUESSE
    Strategic-Culture.org

    Politico Reports Bush Knew 2001 Terror-Attack was Imminent and Wanted It

    A stunning news-report at Politico on November 12th, titled «The Attacks Will Be Spectacular», reveals that the then CIA Director George Tenet, and his anti-terror chief Cofer Black, say that they had told the White House this, but that the response coming back to them was «We’re not quite ready to consider this. We don’t want the clock to start ticking.» As Politoco’s reporter, Chris Whipple, then explains: «(Translation: they did not want a paper trail to show that they’d been warned.)»

    It can’t get much more damning than that. Bush knew it was going to happen but did nothing to stop it. In other words: his only concern at the time was for it to be done in such a way that his prior knowledge of it wouldn’t be provable — that his participation in it, his consciously allowing it to happen, would be deniable. He insisted on that deniability. He has consistently followed through with it.

    Whipple then writes:

    That morning of July 10, the head of the agency’s Al Qaeda unit, Richard Blee, burst into Black’s office. «And he says, ‘Chief, this is it. Roof’s fallen in,’» recounts Black. «The information that we had compiled was absolutely compelling. It was multiple-sourced. And it was sort of the last straw.» Black and his deputy rushed to the director’s office to brief Tenet. All agreed an urgent meeting at the White House was needed.

    This meeting was held in the White House. But it was with Condoleezza Rice, Bush’s National Security Advisor and close friend, not with Bush himself — deniability was Bush’s obsession, and, doing things this way would preserve it; if word of this meeting would ever get out, then Rice would be the only person with explaining to do. Deniability would be preserved; she was protecting the President, from accountability for allowing the attack — whenever it would come.

    Black and Tenet were stunned by her response. Black told Politico, «To me it remains incomprehensible still. I mean, how is it that you could warn senior people so many times and nothing actually happened? It’s kind of like The Twilight Zone».

    However, when the White House had said «We don’t want the clock to start ticking», the answer to that mystery was already clear, and both Black and Tenet were intelligent people; they knew what the explanation was, but they also knew they’d be in danger if they were to say it publicly: The White House was planning to assert something like «We didn’t know it was coming», once it had come. And, of course, that is precisely what the White House did say. And it continues to say: Bush’s successor has no interest in denying it, and President Obama even perpetrates his own lies upon the public, such as by his saying that the 21 August 2013 sarin gas attack in Syria was done by Bashar al-Assad’s forces, instead of by forces that Obama supplied — and knew had actually done it — and such as his saying that the overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected (but, like virtually all of recent Ukrainian leaders, corrupt) President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014 was a democratic revolution there, instead of the American coup that it was, which his own Administration had started organizing in the Spring of 2013.

    George W. Bush comes from an oil family, and this was an oil-based operation. Another of Bush’s buddies was «Bandar Bush», Prince Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud, the Saudi royal who was at the time the Kingdom’s Ambassador in Washington, but who, subsequently became the Saud family’s chief international strategist. Wikipedia, for example, notes of him that, «After tensions with Qatar over supplying rebel groups [to take down Assad in Syria], Saudi Arabia (under Bandar’s leadership of its Syria policy) switched its efforts from Turkey to Jordan in 2012, using its financial leverage over Jordan to develop training facilities there, with Bandar sending his half-brother and deputy Salman bin Sultan to oversee them.»

    President Obama continues protecting George W. Bush, and protecting the Saud family from being pursued for its being the world’s chief financial backer of jihadists («terrorists»), by Obama’s keeping incommunicado in a federal prison the man who had served Osama bin Laden throughout as the bookkeeper for Al Qaeda and as the bagman who traveled especially to the Sunni homeland Saudi Arabia, but also to other Sunni Arabic kingdoms, collecting loads of cash multimillion-dollar donations for Al Qaeda’s cause of global jihad —cash from, among other people, Prince Bandar bin Sultan himself. The bookkeeper/bagman said that they paid their fighters high salaries. Those were at least as much mercenaries as they were jihadists. The bookkeeper/bagman also said, «without the money of the — of the Saudi you will have nothing». The bookkeeper’s/bagman’s testimony became required in a court case that had been filed by 9/11 family members, and even the U.S. President wasn’t able to prevent it, or else was subtly signaling the Saudi King that the U.S. is the boss and can bring him down, if Obama should decide to do that. Only with the continued cooperation of the American press now would the secret of the funding of the interntional jihad movement remain a secret.

    But the U.S. aristocracy certainly don’t want the President whom they own to do that; after all, the Sauds have always been extremely profitable for them. As Thalif Deen of Inter Press Service reported on 9 November 2015, «The biggest single arms deal – up to 60 billion dollars worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia — has been described as the largest in U.S. history. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the nonpartisan investigative arm of the U.S. Congress, about $40 billion in arms transfers was authorised to the six Gulf countries between 2005 and 2009, with Saudi Arabia and the UAE as the largest recipients.» The Sauds were buying more than all the other Sunni royal families together, even more than the Thanis, who control Qatar. Those two, and UAE, all being Sunni fundamentalist dictatorships, have contributed the most to bringing down the secular Shiite leader of Syria, Bashar al-Assad. America’s aristocracy also benefits by the Saud family’s long history of assisting the U.S. aristocracy in its long-held dream of taking control of Russia.

    On 9 October 2001, just after 9/11, The New York Times quoted Bandar Bush:

    «Bin Laden used to come to us when America, underline, America, through the C.I.A. and Saudi Arabia, were helping our brother mujahedeen in Afghanistan, to get rid of the communist secularist Soviet Union forces,» Prince Bandar said. «Osama bin Laden came and said `Thank you. Thank you for bringing the Americans to help us.’ «

    Though communism is over, the secularism in Russia’s government isn’t, and Russia has increasingly become a major competitor to the fundamentalist Sunni oil dictators, competing in international oil and gas markets (especially the European market); so, the jihadist dictatorships, and the United States, share common cause in replacing the government of Russia, for the mutual benefit of all of those nations’ aristocracies.

    And, besides, the investors in Lockheed Martin and other Pentagon contractors are greatly profiting from selling the weaponry etc. to do this job. The U.S. President is their best salesman. President Obama’s «National Security Strategy 2015» thus points the finger of blame at Russia for 17 of the 18 times it employs the term «aggression.» That’s Obama’s assignment for the U.S. ‘Defense’ Department and they would never participate in aggression; and, so, too, the term «aggression» is never applied there to the U.S. itself. For example, our bombing of Libya to get rid of Muammar Gaddafi, an ally of Russia, was purely defensive, entirely in keeping with the traditions of the U.S. ‚Defense‘ Department.

    Here’s something else that Bandar Bush said there:

    He acknowledged that the root of some of the rage in radical Islamic circles is economic, and that human rights was a luxury some Arab states cannot afford. «We want the right to eat for a lot of people. Let’s first finish that. Then we get to all your fantasies in America,» he said.

    The Saudi King is the world’s wealthiest person, by far: he owns the Saudi government, which owns Saudi Aramco, which has oil reserves of 260 million barrels, which at $40/barrel, is, alone, a trillion dollars; and that’s just for starters. And it doesn’t include the purely private wealth of people such as Prince Bandar, or of Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal bin Abdulaziz al Saud — the latter of whom is among the top stockholders both in Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. and in Citigroup (and in other large corporations). So, with that trillionaire King and those billionaire Princes, «human rights is a luxury Saudi Arabia cannot afford».

    And here’s something else that Bandar Bush said there:

    «In a Western democracy, you lose touch with your people, you lose elections,» Prince Bandar said. «In a monarchy, you lose your head».

    So: the reason why Bush’s (and much of the rest of the U.S. aristocracy’s) buddy, Prince Bandar, doesn’t want democracy in Saudi Arabia, is that it’s a monarchy and each of the royals might therefore lose his head if his country were to become democratic. They want «the right to eat for a lot of people» in their Kingdom, but not «all your fantasies in America.» They need to build their own palaces instead. After they’ve had enough of that (which will be never), the Sauds will allow in ‘their’ country «human rights.»

    This also is a reason why each one of the royals needs to pay heavily into the funds that the Saudi clerics — the most-fundamentalist of the clergies in any majority-Muslim country — designate as being holy, such as jihadist groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS, which aim to spread their religion throughout the world. This reason had its origin in the deal in the year 1744, that the fanatical anti-Shia cleric Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab and the ambitious gang-leader Muhammad ibn Saud (the founder of Saudi Arabia) made, which established simultaneously the Saudi-Wahhabist nation and the Wahhabist sect of Islam, which is joined-at-the-head with Saud’s descendants. This deal was the most clearly and accurately described in the 1992 U.S.-Library-of-Congress-published book by Helen Chapin Metz, Saudi Arabia: A Country Study (and the highlighting of a sentence here is by me, not by Metz):

    Lacking political support in Huraymila [where he lived], Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab returned to Uyaynah [the town of his birth] where he won over some local leaders. Uyaynah, however, was close to Al Hufuf, one of the Twelver Shia centers in eastern Arabia, and its leaders were understandably alarmed at the anti-Shia tone of the Wahhabi message. Partly as a result of their influence, Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab was obliged to leave Uyaynah, and headed for Ad Diriyah. He had earlier made contact with [and won over to his hatred of Shiia] Muhammad ibn Saud, the leader in Ad Diriyah at the time, and two of [Saud’s] brothers had accompanied [Saud] when he [in accord with Wahhab’s hate-Shiia teachings] destroyed tomb shrines [which were holy to Shiia] around Uyaynah.

    Accordingly, when Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab arrived in Ad Diriyah, the Al Saud was ready to support him. In 1744 Muhammad ibn Saud and Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab swore a traditional Muslim oath in which they promised to work together to establish a state run according to Islamic principles. Until that time the Al Saud had been accepted as conventional tribal leaders whose rule was based on longstanding but vaguely defined authority.

    Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab offered the Al Saud a clearly defined religious mission to which to contribute their leadership and upon which they might base their political authority. This sense of religious purpose remained evident in the political ideology of Saudi Arabia in the 1990s.

    Muhammad ibn Saud began by leading armies into Najdi towns and villages to eradicate various popular and Shia practices. The movement helped to rally the towns and tribes of Najd to the Al Saud-Wahhabi standard. By 1765 Muhammad ibn Saud’s forces had established Wahhabism — and with it the Al Saud political authority — over most of Najd.

    So: Saudi Arabia was founded upon hatred of Shiia Muslims, and it was founded upon a deal that was made in 1744 between a Shiia-hating fundamentalist Sunni cleric Wahhab and a ruthless gang-leader Saud, in which deal the clergy would grant the Sauds holy legitimacy from the Quran, and, for their part of the deal, the Sauds would finance the spread of Wahhab’s fanatical anti-Shiia sect.

    Whereas the U.S. aristocracy want to conquer Russia, more than anything else, the Saudi aristocracy want to conquer Iran, more than anything else.

    Here is how Saudi Prince al-Waleed bin Talal al-Saud was quoted on this matter on 27 October 2015 in Kuwait’s newspaper Al Qabas:

    The whole Middle-East dispute is tantamount to life and death for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from my vantage point, and I know that Iranians seek to unseat the Saudi regime by playing the Palestinian card, hence to foil their plots Saudi Arabia and Israel must bolster their relations and form a united front to stymie Tehran’s ambitious agenda.

    The enemy, to Saudi aristocrats, isn’t Israel; it is Iran. They hate Iranians even more than they hate Russians. In fact, Talal also said there: «I will side with the Jewish nation and its democratic aspirations in case of outbreak of a Palestinian Intifada (uprising).» Israelis hated Iranians as much as Iranians hated Israelis; and Prince Talal was welcoming Israelis aboard his mission to destroy Iran. So: both the Sauds and Israel are on the same side.

    George W. Bush continued America’s war against Russia. On 29 March 2004, he proudly brought into the anti-Russian military club, 7 new members, all of which had previously been allied together with Russia in the U.S.S.R. and its NATO-mirror group, the Warsaw Pact. These 7 are: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.

    Barack Obama continued that anti-Russia policy, on 1 April 2009, by adding Albania, and Croatia, and then by perpetrating a coup in Ukraine which turned that country rabidly anti-Russian and eager to join NATO. Obama also had the pro-Russian Libyan Muammar Gaddafi killed, and the pro-Russian Syrian Bashar al-Assad invaded by jihadists who are armed by the royal families of Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

    The friend of the Arabic royal families, Osama bin Laden, was ultimately sacrificed to the greater goal of the U.S.-Saudi alliance, which has been to eliminate the pro-Russian secular leader of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and to provide (via 9/11, etc.) the public hysteria that has successfully enabled dictatorial laws to be passed in the United States Congress, and, increasingly throughout the rest of the U.S.-Saudi Empire.

    Furthermore, the U.S. military industries have recovered from their stock-market slumps prior to 9/11, largely because of the success of the fear-Russia campaign, and of the increases in terrorism and the resulting public hysteria that enables a ‘democratic’ country to invade and invade so as to kill the jihadist fighters that ‘our friends’ the Sauds and other Sunni Arabic royal families finance.

    The Saudis became extremely angry at Barack Obama for his negotiating seriously with the Iranians. For the U.S. aristocracy, the target to be destroyed isn’t Iran, but Russia. Regarding that priority, the U.S. and Saudi aristocracies part ways.

    This has been a very productive alliance. Perhaps, when George W. Bush surprised and even shocked his CIA by sending them the message, «We’re not quite ready to consider this. We don’t want the clock to start ticking», he had already personally and privately discussed with his buddy Bandar Bush, how they might achieve the most important objectives of both the U.S. and Saudi aristocracies; and this was the plan that they mutually arrived at, well before the CIA had any knowledge of it. This seems to be the likeliest explanation of Bush’s puzzling response there.

    —————

    Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

    http://www.strategic-culture.org/pview/2015/11/18/politico-reports-bush-2001-terror-attack-was-imminent-and-wanted-it.html

    Republishing is welcomed with reference to Strategic Culture Foundation on-line journal http://www.strategic-culture.org.


  5. navy
    April 14, 2016 um 5:16 pm

  6. balkansurfer
    Juni 10, 2016 um 8:31 pm
    JASTA: The US vs. Saudi Arabia

    Alexander KUZNETSOV | 10.06.2016 | WORLD

    JASTA: The US vs. Saudi Arabia

    On May 17 the US Senate approved the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA). This bill essentially accuses Saudi Arabia of involvement in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The proposal would provide US citizens «with the broadest possible basis… to seek relief against persons, entities, and foreign countries… that have provided material support, directly or indirectly, to foreign organizations or persons that engage in terrorist activities against the United States».

    If the bill is passed by the House of Representatives and signed by the president, it will eliminate the sovereign immunity protections enjoyed by the members of the al-Saud family, and US courts will be able to demand compensation from that kingdom for the families of those killed in the terrorist attacks on New York’s Twin Towers. (According to the official US version of that event, 15 of the 19 terrorists who carried out the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks were Saudi nationals).

    The act was sponsored by Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer and his Republican colleague John Cornyn. The Senate’s decision hinged on testimony obtained from Zacarias Moussaoui, who has been accused of helping to plot the September terrorist attacks and is currently being held in a US prison in Colorado. Moussaoui claimed that King Salman bin Abdulaziz and Princes Bandar bin Sultan and Turki bin Faisal were some of the members of the royal family who supported al-Qaeda.

    A ruling handed down by a US District Court in New York on March 16 set an amount for prospective compensation from Iran, ordering the Islamic Republic to pay $10.5 billion to the victims of the terrorist attacks.

    The US Senate’s decision followed an announcement by Saudi officials that the kingdom might sell the US securities that it owns. The US bonds purchased by the Saudi treasury are estimated to be worth $116.8 billion. And the total value of the US assets owned by both the state as well as individuals in that country – primarily those connected to the royal family – comes to $750 billion.

    ……………………..

    http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/06/10/jasta-us-vs-saudi-arabia.html

  7. navy
    Juli 18, 2016 um 7:48 am

    NIchts Neues, denn auch die Finanzierung ueber Prinz Bandar, dem Bankkonto der Ehefrau war Alles bekannt. Ebenso das CIA Direktor DEUTCH, persoenlich „Put“ Options Schein Handel betrieb mit Flugzeug Aktien. Ebenso hatte eine Woche vorher Georg Tenet, der Chef der Anti Terror Abwehr persoenlich Condella Rice gewarnt, welche aber Geistig behindert ist und war.

    Saudi Ties to 9/11 Detailed in Documents Suppressed Since 2002
    Murtaza Hussain — July 16

    The 28 pages detail circumstantial evidence of ties among Saudi government officials, intelligence agents, and several of the hijackers.
    Saudi Ties to 9/11 Detailed in Documents Suppressed Since 2002


    Murtaza Hussain
    July 16 2016, 12:51 a.m.

    After years of political wrangling, the suppressed section of a 2002 congressional report that detailed possible ties between the Saudi government and the 9/11 terrorist attacks was released today. The classified documents have been the source of heated speculation for years, as they highlighted alleged links between high-ranking members of the Saudi royal family and the 9/11 hijackers.

    Many political figures who had previously seen the report led the charge calling for its release, including former Sen. Bob Graham, who said the 28 pages “point a very strong finger at Saudi Arabia,” and Minnesota Congressman Rick Nolan, who said the pages “confirm that much of the rhetoric preceding the U.S. attack on Iraq was terribly wrong.”

    The suppressed pages, redacted in parts, detail circumstantial evidence of ties among Saudi government officials, intelligence agents, and several of the hijackers.

    “While in the United States, some of the September 11th hijackers were in contact with or received assistance from, individuals who may be connected with the Saudi government,” reads the report, which added that FBI sources believed at least two of those individuals were Saudi intelligence agents.

    The report also mentions that numbers found in the phonebook of Abu Zubaydah, a detainee currently held in Guantánamo, could be traced to a company in Denver, Colorado, connected to former Saudi ambassador to the U.S. Prince Bandar bin Sultan.

    One of the most notable figures mentioned is Omar al-Bayoumi, alleged by the report to have likely been a Saudi intelligence agent. Al-Bayoumi was in close contact with hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhar, providing them financial assistance during their time in the United States and even helping them find an apartment. Bayoumi in turn is believed to have been on the payroll of the Saudi Ministry of Defense and was regularly in receipt of large lump sums of money from the Saudi Ministry of Finance and other undisclosed arms of the government.

    Another figure highlighted in the documents is Osama Bassnan, a Saudi citizen who was an associate of al-Bayoumi and lived in an apartment nearby al-Hazmi and al-Midhar. According to the report, Bassnan “made a comment to an FBI source after the attacks suggesting that he did more for the hijackers than al-Bayoumi did.” Bassnan and his wife received regular payments from the wife of Bandar bin Sultan. On one occasion, Bassnan is said to have received a check directly from Bandar’s account.

    Fahd al-Thumairy, a former Saudi consular officer in the United States who served as an imam at a mosque attended by al-Hazmi and al-Midhar, is also mentioned briefly, as is Saleh al-Hussayen, who is described in the report as a “Saudi Interior Ministry employee/official.” Al-Hussayen stayed at the same hotel as one of the hijackers in the days before the attack. While being interviewed by FBI agents after the attacks, al-Hussayen “either passed out or feigned a seizure,” causing the interview to be terminated. He later managed to successfully flee the country.

    Much of the information in the 28 pages is not new and has been mentioned in previously released documents on the 9/11 investigation. As such, the public release of these suppressed pages is unlikely to precipitate major changes in the relationship between the United States and the Saudi government. In a statement issued on Friday, the Saudi Embassy in the United States said that it “welcomes the release” of the suppressed pages, saying that they exonerate Riyadh of any direct role in the attacks.

    While the report does not find any smoking gun pointing to official Saudi involvement, it does highlight one consistently troubling theme of the kingdom’s response to the attacks: its refusal to cooperate with investigators seeking to uncover information about the hijackers. As the report notes, “In testimony and interviews, a number of FBI agents and CIA officers complained to the [inquiry] about a lack of Saudi cooperation in terrorism investigations both before and after the September 11th attacks.”

    Referencing a May 1996 Director of Central Intelligence memo, the report cited agency beliefs that “the Saudis had stopped providing background information or other assistance on Bin Ladin because Bin Ladin had ‘too much information about official Saudi dealings with Islamic extremists in the 1980s for Riyadh to deliver him into U.S. hands.’”

    https://theintercept.com/2016/07/15/saudi-ties-to-911-detailed-in-documents-suppressed-since-2002/

     

  1. Juni 18, 2016 um 12:56 pm
  2. September 9, 2016 um 6:48 pm

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Trage deine Daten unten ein oder klicke ein Icon um dich einzuloggen:

WordPress.com-Logo

Du kommentierst mit Deinem WordPress.com-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Twitter-Bild

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Facebook-Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Google+ Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Google+-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Verbinde mit %s

%d Bloggern gefällt das: