Startseite > Geo Politik > Saudi Arabien finanziert die Terroristen im Irak, Syrien und dem Iran

Saudi Arabien finanziert die Terroristen im Irak, Syrien und dem Iran

Nichts Neues aus der Kriegs Front der NATO Partner und Financiers

Saudi-Arabien liefert Waffen an die Terroristen in Syrien

von Freeman am Dienstag, 9. Oktober 2012 , unter , | Kommentare (2)
Ein Reporter der BBC hat in Aleppo Holzkisten gesehen und fotografieren können die beweisen, Saudi-Arabien liefert den Terroristen Waffen und Munition. Drei Kisten, die ursprünglich von einem Waffenhersteller in der Ukraine stammen und an Riad adressiert sind, lagen in der Basis der Terroristen in Aleppo, die in einer Moschee sich befindet. Der BBC-Reporter durfte den…

Die Granaten auf die Türkei sind NATO-Munition

von Freeman am Samstag, 6. Oktober 2012 , unter , , , | Kommentare (37)
Es ist genau wie von mir schon oft berichtet, die NATO-Länder versorgen die Terroristen der Al-CIAda entweder direkt oder indirekt über die befreundeten Golfstaaten mit Waffen und Munition, die dann gegen sie selber eingesetzt werden. So geschehen beim Angriff auf das US-Konsulat in Bengasi und jetzt beim Beschuss des türkischen Grenzgebiet von Syrien aus. Terroristen…

Türkische Demonstraten wollen keinen Krieg mit Syrien

von Freeman am Freitag, 5. Oktober 2012 , unter , , | Kommentare (29)
Die türkische Regierung und das Parlament nehmen den Einschlag von Granaten auf türkischem Gebiet als Anlass, um Militäroperationen gegen Syrien zu starten. Ob die Granaten vom syrischen Militär überhaupt abgefeuert wurden ist fraglich, denn es gibt Berichte, Mitglieder der sogenannten Freien Syrischen Armee (FSA) schiessen diese ab, um es dem syrischen Militär in die…
Kategorien:Geo Politik
  1. uka
    November 4, 2012 um 10:44 am

  2. navy
    Oktober 13, 2015 um 4:57 am

  3. balkansurfer
    Juni 11, 2017 um 4:43 pm

    Alles bekannt in 2001, durch die Italienische Polizei, Albanische MIlitär Offiziere, weil man zuvor schon die MIlitärs fragte, ob man mitmacht beim Aufmarsch für den Irak Krieg. In Kuvait liefen die Vorbereitungen für den Krieg und Aufmarsch schon im Juni 2001

    Eric ZUESSE | 10.06.2017 | WORLD

    How I Know That the Sauds Did the 9/11 Attacks

    As a historian, I recognize that everything we know about history is from sources, and depends upon the reliability of those sources. Here, my main sources will be identified, and linked-to, so that any reader online can go directly to them, and won’t need to rely upon me but can go directly to the sources and evaluate them (my evidence) on one’s own.

    First of all, however, reference will be made here to the three main countries (other than Afghanistan, which America first invaded for having allegedly perpetrated 9/11; and Iraq, which we next invaded for having allegedly perpetrated it) that have been accused, at different times, for allegedly having done those attacks; and anyone who wants to see my main previous article on each of these three country’s involvement or non-involvement in the 9/11 attacks, can access that presentation simply by clicking onto the respective link here for that given country:




    Regarding each one of those three ‘suspects’, my article there links directly to its sources, so that the reliance is, again, not to my own evidence, but to the evidence that others have presented.

    Of course, the CIA and the George W. Bush White House have also been alleged to have been involved. Anyone who scours the present article and its sources will find plenty of evidence implicating them; but the U.S. regime cannot go to war against itself; and, so, only the foreign government that actually financed and organized the 9/11 attacks, will be the focus here.

    However, none of that will make much sense outside of the broader context of the article that I wrote documenting how the Cold War had ended in 1991 only on the Russian side while it was secretly continued on the U.S. side, which resolutely aims to conquer Russia. As things have turned out subsequent to 1990, ‘the war against communism’ had really been just the sales-pitch for a campaign ultimately to achieve U.S. control over the entire world — it was not really an ideological war — on the American side. Understanding this, is basic to everything. And America’s ‘war against terrorism’ is (as is well documented in the excerpts below) likewise fake. But that’s being said only in the way of preparation — any reader here will make his decisions solely upon the basis of the evidence, which is given here.

    Other than your reading those basics, the following will present the supplementary evidence to my case that Saudi Arabia — that’s to say, the Saudi government; that’s to say, the Saudi royal family — did it. This will be the relevant back-story, to how and why they did it, but all of it will be presented here by others, not by me.

    My function in setting forth this history will simply be organizing these sources for the back-story, as follows:


    Nafeez Ahmed, 2005, The War on Truth: 9/11, Disinformation and the Anatomy of Terrorism:


    In the summer of 1979, a group of powerful elites from various countries gathered at an internationcal conference in Jerusalem to promote and exploit the idea of ‘international terrorism.’ The forum, officially known as the Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism (JCIT), was organized by Benjamin Netanyahu. …

    Over two decades ago, the JCIT established the ideological foundations for the ‘War on Terror.’ The JCIT’s defining theme was that international terrorism constituted an organized political movement whose ultimate origin was the Soviet Union. All terrorist groups were ultimately products of it, and could be traced back to, this single source, which — according to the JCIT — provided financial, military, and logistical assistance to disparate terrorist movements around the globe. The mortal danger to Western security and democracy posed by the worldwide scope of this international terrorist movement required an apropriate worldwide anti-terrorism offensive, consisting of the mutual coordination of Western military intelligence services.

    But as Philip Paull documents extensively in his Masters thesis at San Francisco State University [and summarized in the link to this link], the JCIT’s own literature and use of source documentation was profoundly flawed [he shows they lied]. …

    Who exactly were the primary architects of the JCIT’s ‘international terrorism’ project? According to Paull, ‘present and former members of the Israeli and United States governments,… and reactionary British and French politicians and publicists.… [They] included: Menachim Begin,… Benzion Netanyahu, then Cornell University professor emeritus [and Benjamin Netanyahu’s father],… Paul Johnson,… Richard Pipes,… Ray S. Cline,… George Bush Sr. …


    David B. Ottaway, 2008, The King’s Messenger: Prince Bandar:


    In the fall of 1979, Bandar took eight courses in international economics and politics, political theory, U.S. foreign policy, and Middle Eeast politics, scoring four As, and four B pluses, according to a transcript of his school records.6 Mystery still surrounds his master’s thesis, which focused on the domestic origins of U.S. foreign policy. Though apparently it was extremely well written, Bandar received only a B plus. West said in one of his daily diary entries that the thesis was ‘exceptionally good’. … But in another entry, he said ‘I cannot help but wonder how much help he might have had with it.’8 One person who almost certainly helped Bandar was Fred Dutton.

    West kept Bandar’s father informed abut his progress. When he went to tell Sultan about Bandar’s final grades in June 1980, Sultan joked that Bandar had ‘spent a lot of money’ on getting his degree, in resonse to which West quiped, ‘That was the reason he received a B plus instead of an A in economics.’9 Even [President] Carter’s national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, read the thesis, commenting that Bandar had learned a lot about the U.S. decision-making process and explained how it affected Saudi Arabia’s interests ‘in an interesting and imaginative way.’10…

    Almost immediately after his return in June 1979, Bandar found himself called upon for help by President Carter once again. …

    Secretly, Carter had already turned to the kingdom for help, calling in Bandar and asking him to deliver a message to [King] Fahd pleading for an increase in Saudi [oil] production. Fahd’s reply, according to Bandar, was ‘Tell my friend, the president of the United States of America, when they need our help, they will not be disappointed.’13 The king was true to his world. …

    West’s diary corroborates Bandar’s account of how Saudi Arabia came to Carter’s rescue. West wrote that on May 30 he began discussing with Hamilton Jordan what they could do to get Carter reelected. …

    The success of this venture in oil diplomacy gave Bandar enormous standing in Washington. In early December 1979, Carter asked the prince to come to the White House so that he could thank him personally for the Saudi help in alleviating the U.S. energy crunch. … The meeting was kept secret even from the State Department. …

    Bandar, still only a pilot and with no diplomatic standing, was becoming involved in every aspect of Carter’s Middle East policy. …


    The Saudi drive to export its religious influence eventually reached the United States. … In November 1980, a group of pro-Khomeni Iranian activists had seized control of the site [the Islamic Mosque and Cultural Center on Massachusetts Avenue] and ousted its Egyptian (Sunni) imam. …

    In the turbulent decade after the Iranian revolution, the U.S. government welcomed this new Saudi religious activism, viewing it as a badly needed counterweight to help contain Iran’s drive to expand its religious and political influence. The Saudi export of Wahhabi Islam would eventually develop into an impressive soft power that the House of Saud could extend across the Muslim world. … Before long, this international activism took concrete form in a jihad aimed at the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, which had begun [invading on 24 December 1979] [months after having provided only advisors to an independent leftist-revolutionary government that turned out to be ignoring much of Moscow’s advice] the same year as Iran’s revolution. … Starting in the early 1980s, the Saudi government provided several billions of dollars in arms and other assistance to the cause of freeing Afghanistan from godless communists. Reagan, of course, was careful to call them ‘freedom fighters’ rather than ‘holy warriors.’


    VIDEO: 1979 Zbigniew Brzezinski to the Mujahideen: „Your cause is right and God is on your side!“


    The Brzezinski Interview with Le Nouvel Observateur (1998)

    Translated from the French by William Blum and David N. Gibbs. This translation was published in Gibbs, „Afghanistan: The Soviet Invasion in Retrospect,“ International Politics 37, no. 2, 2000, pp. 241-242/………………..

    Zbigniew Brzezinski: Transcript of Testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

    Global Research, February 25, 2007
    Federal News Service – 2007-02-01

    Editor’s Note

    We bring to the attention of our readers the complete transcript of Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski’s statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as well as the transcript of the debate.

    It is important to note that Brzezinski acknowledges US military ambitions with regard to Iran and the possibility that the Bush administration could choose to trigger a war pretext incident which would then justify a „defensive“ war on Iran.

    „A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks, followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure, then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the United States blamed on Iran, culminating in a quote-unquote „defensive“ U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire, eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    Indeed, a mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potential expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about WMDs in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the decisive ideological struggle of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist extremism and al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated America’s involvement in World War II.

    This simplistic and demagogic narrative overlooks the fact that Nazism was based on the military power of the industrially most advanced European state, and that Stalinism was able to mobilize not only the resources of the victorious and militarily powerful Soviet Union but also had worldwide appeal through its Marxist doctrine“.

    Brzezinski tacitly acknowledges that the „war on terrorism“ is bogus. He points at length at the fabricated pretext for waging war on Iraq and cites the controversial Downing Street Memo.

    In the present context, Brzezinski’s statement, from within the Washington establishment, is a breath of fresh air; while it upholds the basic tenets of US foreign policy, it constitutes a voice of moderation in relation to the Neoconservative agenda.

    Carefully read both his opening address but also the discussion, where he points to the politically corrupt nature of the Bush administration and how fake intelligence was used as a pretext to wage war on Iraq.

    If you do not have time to go through the entire transcript, read the highlights below.

    Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 24 February 2007

    Highlights of Dr Brzezinski’s statements

    Al Qaeda is an isolated fundamentalist, Islamist aberration, most Iraqis are engaged in strife because of the American occupation, which destroyed the Iraqi state, while Iran, though gaining in regional influence, is itself politically divided, economically and militarily weak. To argue that America is already at war in a region with a wider Islamic threat of which Iran is the epicenter is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    …no country in the world — no country in the world — shares the Manichean delusions that the administration so passionately articulates. And the result, sad to say, is growing political isolation of and pervasive popular antagonism towards the U.S. global posture.

    Iran and Syria have no reason, however, to help the United States consolidate a permanent regional hegemony. It is ironic, however, that both Iran and Syria have lately called for a regional dialogue, exploiting thereby the self-defeating character of the largely passive and mainly sloganeering U.S. diplomacy. A serious regional dialogue, promoted directly or indirectly by the United States, could be buttressed at some point by a wider circle of consultations involving other powers with a stake in the region’s stability, such as the EU, China, Japan, India and Russia.

    Escalating the war as a consequence of protracting it is hardly an attractive option for the United States, because before too long, as I say in my statement, we could be facing a 20-year-long involvement not only in Iraq but Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    [Real Reasons behind the War]

    I have no idea what his [ president Bush] initiative objective was because the motives he provided for the action proved to be entirely erroneous, and if they were the real motives, then the whole campaign was based on false assumptions.

    Now, if there were hidden motives, I can imagine potentially several. One would be to gain American domination over the region’s oil, to put it very simplistically. Another could be to help maximize Israel’s security by removing a powerful Arab state. Another one could have been to simply get rid of an obnoxious regime with which the United States had accounts to settle going back to ’91 and the alleged assassination attempt against President Bush Sr. There could be a variety of motives.


    My horror scenario is that if we simply stay put this will continue, and then the dynamic of the conflict will produce an escalating situation in which Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks will be blamed on the Iranians. There’ll be, then, some clashes, collisions, and the war expands.

    But basically, escalation, accusations, some incidents — there have already been some incidents between us and the Iranians. There are some allegations that the Iranians are responsible for certain acts — allegations but not facts. And that would spark, simply, a collision. It could even be in some fashion provoked.

    [WMD and the Downing Street Memo}

    Let me draw your attention to something that your staff should give you, and I think this might be of interest to some other members of this committee. And that’s a report in The New York Times dated March 27, 2006. It’s a long report on a private meeting between the president and Prime Minister Blair two months before the war, based on a memorandum of conversation prepared by the British official present at this meeting.

    And in it, according to this account, the president is cited as saying that he’s concerned that there may not be weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq and that there must be some consideration given to finding a different basis for undertaking the military action. And I’ll just read you what this memo allegedly says, according to The New York Times.

    The memo stated, „The president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq.“

    This is two months before the war.

    „Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation.“


  1. Oktober 24, 2012 um 9:30 am
  2. Oktober 24, 2012 um 9:34 am

Kommentar verfassen

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

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Abmelden /  Ändern )

Google Foto

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


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


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

Verbinde mit %s

%d Bloggern gefällt das: