By Graham Pick
‘Terrorist’ is a word that for the majority, conjures up mental images of sadistic evildoers carrying out atrocious acts upon innocents. Terrorists are visualised as violent, ruthless, vindictive, and remorseless.
The dictionary definition of the word terrorism is; “The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organised group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.”
It is a word that strikes fear into the hearts of many, and feelings of fury in others. A word that is used daily by politicians and the media, to further fuel the dread of the populace. A word that has become synonymous with our normal everyday lives.
The latest in a long line of bogeymen to allegedly be terrified of is ISIS or ISIL or just plain old IS, as they’re now known. The party line espoused by the media regarding these CIA/Mossad created ‘Jihadists’ is becoming comical in its content.
If one were to ask the general population to define a terrorist the popular consensus would most probably be; “A brown or dark skinned person, presumably from a Middle Eastern or North African country, and in all probability of Muslim or Islamic allegiance”.
That characterisation is understandable because that is how terrorists are portrayed by the media and politicians. It is how they want us to envisage them. It is what we are supposed to believe and how we are supposed to think. In fact the propaganda has become so ridiculous that anyone who questions the official definition is now themselves classified as an extremist….
In recent years, people like Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, and most recently Bashar al-Assad, have all been vilified and pilloried as terrorists and evil dictators by Western governments and media in their endeavour to influence our understanding, and to justify illegal conflict and occupation of their respective countries.
The ‘war on terror’ began officially on September 11th 2001 with the attack on the twin towers and the Pentagon. Following this event new legislation was hurriedly introduced by George Bush, and the Patriot Act was signed into law in October of that year.
Thus began the “war on terror”, and the subsequent (but intended) erosion of our freedom and privacy.
The act, significantly lessened restrictions on law enforcement agencies gathering of intelligence within the United States and worldwide. This vastly increased surveillance on everybody has been publicly disclosed recently by whistleblower Edward Snowden, and it is going to get much worse as evidenced by the plethora of new legislation being introduced by many western governments to further diminish our rights and privacy. The act vastly increased the powers of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants merely suspected of terrorism-related acts.
But interestingly the act also expanded the definition of terrorism to include ‘domestic terrorism’, thus greatly enlarging the number of activities to which the Patriot Act’s expanded law enforcement powers could be applied, and more importantly, the number of citizens it could be applied to. This new legislation effectively meant that anyone, at home or abroad, could be labelled a terrorist (with little or no evidence) and detained indefinitely at the whim of the President, as evidenced by the illegal detention of suspects without trial in the infamous Guantanamo Bay.
Whilst there is no doubt that the tragedy of 9/11 took place, there is extreme doubt concerning the official version of events. Within hours of the collapse of the twin towers, and with no investigation having taken place whatsoever, a perpetrator was named – Osama bin Laden.
Suddenly a previously unheard of character was public enemy number one. The mainstream media were broadcasting his name and photograph on the front page of every newspaper and on every TV set worldwide, yet no credible evidence was, or has ever been presented, that links Osama bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks. In reality the FBI has subsequently admitted that they have never possessed any evidence whatsoever linking Bin Laden to 9/11.
Almost 3 months after the event, and following demands for evidence, in December of 2001 a poor quality videotape of Osama bin Laden confessing to the 9/11 attacks was released. This video evidence is the only ‘proof’ that the authorities have ever provided to substantiate their accusations.
Below is a series of stills taken from the video.
Now take a look at the composite of various pictures of Osama bin Laden below.
Even the most hardened sceptic would have to agree that Osama ‘E’ stands out like a sore thumb, and this is the man on the confession tape. To anyone with functioning eyesight and basic cognitive ability, it is blatantly obvious that the man from the video is NOT Osama Bin Laden. Now one needs to ask themselves for what purpose would the American government falsify evidence to falsely incriminate a suspect.
Once again, in order to answer the question one only needs to ‘follow the money’. America needed a tolerable excuse to invade Afghanistan, and what better justification could they fabricate than to apprehend the most wanted man on the planet! So henceforth the war on terror was declared and thus began the invasion of the Middle East.
But there was an ulterior motive for this particular incursion. Prior to the invasion in 2001, and due to the Taliban destroying poppy fields throughout Afghanistan, poppy producing was only about 185 tons a year. This was having a profound effect upon the CIA’s black market money supply, so something had to be done to re-establish and protect that income. This year, due primarily to US troops patrolling and protecting the poppy fields, production is expected to surpass the previous 2008 record of 8,000 tons!
Once the USA had control of opium production in Afghanistan (the real reason they invaded) and a puppet regime was installed, a new foe was required to maintain the “war on terror”, and to distract the public from the true agenda. It was time for the pretext of “Weapons of Mass Destruction” to be rolled out, along with their possessor Saddam Hussein. Subsequently yet another supposedly psychopathic public enemy is exhibited to the world by politicians and the media, and as a result, in 2003, yet another sovereign country was invaded in the “war on terror”.
The country’s President, Saddam Hussein, was captured shortly after the invasion, and following a trial by kangaroo court was sentenced to death for the murder of 148 Shiite in the town of Dujail in 1982.
Yet no weapons of mass destruction were initially found in Iraq, and none have subsequently been found. Thus far, and despite assurances to the contrary, occupying troops are still there some twelve years later, and they are still murdering civilians daily. In fact to put into perspective the human cost of this illegal war, in 2010 some 5 years ago, there had been 1,455,590 civilian casualties reported. Then they stopped counting.
Some big oil fields were found though, so bonus!
I for one cannot comprehend the logic used to justify the invasion of a country to find its leader guilty of killing just 148 civilians, whilst in the process the supposed “liberators” (the US and UK) are predominantly responsible for the deaths of over 1.5 million Iraqis. But it’s OK because we’re fighting a war on terror!!! Go figure…[button link=”http://www.maltanow.com.mt/?p=3718″ color=”default”]Continue Reading →[/button]
Source: Graham Pick — Malta Now