Thierry Meyssan in this article, Jihadists in the service of imperialism, deals with a confusing aspect of U.S. foreign policy: How does CIA get so many Muslims to do its bidding?

CIA used Al Qaida as ground troops to overthrow the Libyan regime in 2011, hence the nickname for the group “Al CIAda.” And I’ve long understood that CIA was behind the training and arming of the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan in the 1980’s, the forerunners of Al Qaida. It is also easy to understand that CIA has long groomed and fashioned leaders of opposition groups, from Daniel Ellsberg to bin Laden himself along with Iraq’s Saddam Hussein – disposing of them when convenient.

Controlling the opposition by leading the opposition is nothing new. The latest phenomenon, ISIS, armed with American weaponry and seemingly unending money supply, is easily seen to be a western front. Just ask two questions: Why the timidity of the US military in attacking them, and why has ISIS no interest in Israel? That should tell you everything you need to know.

But if we can see that from here, why cannot the Muslim participants see it as well?

The answer, that CIA is expert at manipulation of existing hostilities, dividing enemies to force them to fight among themselves … that Muslims are as credulous and easily manipulated as Americans … is just an admission that CIA is that good at this business.

That is discouraging.

This is a continuation of this post.

Squawks: All passenger airliners have “squawk” buttons in the cockpits, one of many anti-hijacking protections. Cockpits are also sealed so that strangers cannot randomly enter, even by force. If a hijacking is attempted, the pilot merely hits the squawk button, and within six minutes a fighter jet will appear and escort the plane to a landing. On 9/11/2001 there were eight pilots, all swinging dicks with military backgrounds, but not one of them managed to hit a squawk button. In addition, it remains unexplained how purported hijackers made their way to the cockpits, which do not have swinging doors.
_______________
The FBI catches a lot of grief among skeptics, but it is a large organization and most of its people are trying to do their job, which is investigating crime. The organization is very good at its job. Here’s an example:

In August of 2001 FBI Agent FBI Agent Kenneth Williams in Phoenix notified superiors that eight bin Laden agents were training in an Arizona flight school. The report was ignored, and later Minneapolis Agent Coleen Rowley claimed in a thirteen page letter that senior FBI officials created a “roadblock” to derail the probe. Rowley claimed that FBI agents were so frustrated by the lack of response that they directly notified the CIA. They were, of course, reprimanded for this breach of protocol, that is, for notifying the CIA.

Most would quickly write it off to bureaucratic bungling, but anyone who is remotely familiar with spooks will instantly recognize a few things:

• Honest agents were doing their job.
• They were intercepted and thwarted by moles, or inside agents covertly working for those who were planning 9/11.
• The “hijackers” were being babysat, or monitored to be sure that when they were needed to take the fall for the crime, they were free and available. (It would not do, for instance, if Osama bin Laden was in jail on that day. He had to be kept free and his whereabouts known.)
• Finally, the “hijackers,” who were in reality patsies, were being sheepdipped*.

_______________
An anomaly here and there is to be expected, and not every oddball occurrence is significant. When they stack up, eyebrows should be raised. Of course, part of the American education process involves the shaving of eyebrows, or putting a damper on natural curiosity, but 9/11/2001 was a circus of anomalies. Thousands of people know much more than they dare say for a simple reason: They like being alive.
_______________
*In ranching, “sheepdipping” is a process by which the animals are cleansed of lice and parasites by physically dipping them in cleansing solutions. In the spy game, sheepdipping is the word used when an innocent person is framed in advance to take the fall for a later crime. Lee Harvey Oswald was a patsy, and was sheepdipped and put in place to take the fall for the JFK murder, allowing the real criminals to escape. The 9/11 “hijackers” were not actually training to fly passenger airliners, but rather were being manipulated to look guilty to distract people from the real criminals, still at large.

Anomaly (NOUN): something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected.

Anomalies often serve as doorways for investigators, as they can lead to important information. 9/11/2001 was an anomaly circus. I will highlight a few today and tomorrow.
______________
Anyone who has flown on an American passenger airline knows that the flights are almost always full, or nearly so. The airlines vary the size of the aircraft and shift passengers so that they maximize occupancy on any flight. They are pretty good at it. It’s rare even to have an empty seat next to us on most flights.

However, on September 11, 2001, the four flights that were supposedly hijacked carried very few passengers. In fact, on Flight 93, the source of the famous “Let’s Roll!” fable, each passenger enjoyed a full row of seats. Here’s the occupancy for that day:

• Flight 11: 180 seats, 76 passengers;
• Flight 175: 180/46
• Flight 77: 200/50
• Flight 93: 200/26

Such a shortage of passengers on these flights is suspicious. The 9/11 Commission did not investigate the matter.
_______________
“Short sales,” for those who are not familiar with stock market terminology, are a trading device used by investors to take advantage of a falling stock price. He “borrows” stock from a broker, sells it, and when the price falls buys it back and returns it to the broker, pocketing the difference. A “put” option is a form of shorting the market, betting that a stock will fall without actually buying and selling the stock.

Inside information is a huge part of stock market success, so the SEC monitors the Chicago Board Options Exchange for anomalies in puts and shorts.

Three stocks were heavily shorted immediately prior to 9/11/2001, United and American Airlines (whose planes were hijacked) and Morgan Stanly Dean Witter (offices in World Trade Center). There were spikes in activity on these stocks that caught the eye of investigators after 9/11. The Chicago Board Options Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines, and 4,516 on American Airlines, and 12,215 on Morgan. Previous activity might have seen at most a few hundred puts on these stocks, and there was nothing in the news just indicate that their price might fall. Someone was operating on inside information.

I regard this as humorous – someone, knowing 9/11 was coming down, simply could not resist. Mendacity, treachery, and greed operated hand-in-hand. Who did these puts? We don’t know. $2.5 million in profits lay unclaimed to this day. The 9/11 Commission investigated, of course, but found that there was no connection to Osama bin Laden, its predetermined villain, and so did not do further inquires.

More to follow. Stay tuned.
_____________
PS: This is in response to comments below: At some point in the near future I will write about the so-called “truth” movements and “truthers.” At this point the organizations with the words “…for 9/11 Truth” are Architects and Engineers, Scholars, Pilots, possibly one or two others. I avoid them, regarding them as merely part of the ongoing coverup.

The public execution of Boris Nemstov is well-handled at Saker and by Paul Craig Roberts, and given the usual and expected TASS-like state subservient treatment by FOX and Huffington Post and the other usual suspects.

But worth mention is one important principle: the absence of skepticism in American news media. If the state says it is so, it is so.

The murder most likely was false flag, designed to exacerbate internal dissent in Russia, and part of the overarching attack in that country by the U.S. and its European Union pawns, and of course, the putsch government in Kiev.

There’s little evidence, of course, and the matter will fade to the degree that evidence contradicts official truth, just as with the downing of Flight MH17 last year. I only highlight one certainty, that “Putin,” or the Russian state, is not stupid, and would not do such a clumsy crime. If they thought Nemstov important enough to warrant liquidation, he’d be just as dead, but in a far more sophisticated manner. Wellstone/JFK Jr.-like small plane crash is usually most effective.

I do not claim that the Russian government is innocent and pure. It is in survival mode, under attack by US and its subordinates. But Russians are wary and cagey people, long used to attacks from the West, and very good at self-preservation and self-defense. As demonstrated at Ossetia in 2008, they are also effective military strategists and warriors, quickly and easily dispatching US/Israeli backed fighters at that confrontation, to international consternation.

A direct military confrontation with Russia will be costly, so fomentation of internal rebellion is the next best option, and in that framework, a public murder of an opposition leader in a false flag operation is a natural course of events.

The murder of Boris Nemstov was clumsy and poorly done, timed for maximum effect, but probably having less than desired impact. The US and its agents probably messed up, and I am impressed.

I often think of the US war machine as unstoppable, but then I realize that it has undergone military defeat in Vietnam, Afghanistan/Pakistan, Iraq, Syria and now Ukraine. It might just be growing increasingly desperate. That is an extremely dangerous situation for children and other living things on this planet.

The attacks of January 2015 in France gave rise to a massive public demonstration (« Je suis Charlie ») and, immediately afterwards, a campaign of denunciation of any writers who asked questions about their meaning. Almost all the major media gave space to comments or articles which, instead of presenting and discussing the facts, chose to demonize anyone who disputed them.

The aim of this campaign was clearly exposed by the political director of France2, Nathalie Saint-Criq, who explained on the national news, the 12th January – « …it’s precisely those who aren’t “Charlie” that we have to pinpont, those who refused the minute of silence in schools, those who ’speak out’ on the social networks, and those who do not feel that this is their fight. Well, those are the ones we have to identify, treat, and integrate or re-integrate into the national community ».

The word “treat” is foreboding. These are fascist agents who want nothing less than ownership of the French mind. The article I clipped it from says this totalitarian mindset is spreading to other NATO countries as well among the media and intelligentsia, that use of one’s own critical mind to form one’s own thoughts is something that has to be “treated.”

In other words, Charlie Hebdo, like 9/11 itself, appears to be a PSYOP. The object of 9/11 was to stigmatize dissent in the US, to herd our befuddled masses in support of new wars to bring down seven countries in five years – this according to Wesley Clark. Two of those seven were Libya and Syria. The first was Iraq, a country that had done nothing to warrant attack, that was in fact suffering loss of its children to starvation and disease due to Clinton era sanctions. There was massive resistance in France to such naked aggression, and in the US it became popular to hate the French.

The tone of Saint-Crig’s words are ominous and foreboding, dark and totalitarian. This is the face of oppression, control of minds and actions in a supposedly free society. It happened here, but I thought the French a cut above, able to see through such nonsense. They are bearing down on dissent now, free and critical thought, Americanizing. I hold out for the French spirit that resisted the invasion of Iraq prevails.

Thierry Meyssan makes a head-slappingly obvious point in his recent piece, Charlie Hebdo has broad shoulders. After the attacks, French laws were invoked for times of emergency that banned all public demonstrations. The reason is simple: They don’t want more violence, and if terrorists are out and about, more people might get shot.

But then they did a turn-around, and had a demonstration in public where two million people showed up and forty heads of state paraded in the open. Meyssan rightly concludes,

Thus, the government could ban demonstrations because they might be dangerous to their participants, but its members could organize a huge one, inviting leaders of foreign governments without fear for their safety.

This manipulation confirms that, contrary to its declarations, the government knew precisely the extent of the threat and knew it did not concern gatherings.

He speculates that the drive behind the event, if false flag, is a new attack on Libya. We’ll have to wait for the other shoe.

We have … used that computer model about input, process, output, where the process is the thinking about whatever the input, or activating event is. … I remember the first time I talked about this on the show was after the supposed assassination of Osama bin Laden … in 2011 … May … Obama gets up and he gives a speech where he basically says “Yup. We got some actionable intelligence about the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden. We sent this elite group in called Seal Team Six …” that sounds like something out of a Hollywood movie … “and they killed bin Laden.”

Ten minute speech, over a hundred logical fallacies. No evidence presented. They dumped the body in the ocean. And like an hour later people were doing the Pledge of Allegiance at Ground Zero. Not a lot of processing [of] evidence there.

I’ll never forget the day I was listening to Rush Limbaugh and one of his callers – it was a rare caller who was taking issue with something he said – and the caller had the audacity to say, on the air, “Well, I really encourage your listeners to do their own research.” And Rush Limbaugh snapped at him and said “No! My listeners don’t need to do their own research. That’s what I’m for.”
(Bruce Veinotte, January 20, 2014 Podcast #331, Procrastinating NOW! (or soon), Part 2 – Techniques for Less Worry and More Action)

It is rare to come across anyone in this land who can see through something so transparent as the supposed killing of Osama bin Laden back in 2011. No evidence, body dumped in the ocean, no photos, as they are too gruesome (say the people who rush ISIS beheading videos front and center for us). I saw all around me that people were eating it up (the Pledge at Ground Zero inducing “think I’m gonna puke” sensations). And I thought “what the hell is wrong with these people?”

My way of thinking is far more basic – do not go where evidence does not take me. It is called “critical thinking,” otherwise known in this dunce-capped land of ignominy as “having a conspiracy theory.”

The events around Charlie Hebdo are fraught with similar lapses in credible evidence, the very photos of the supposed Kouachi Brothers are two men wearing hoods! Come on people! At what point do you stop trusting?

There is one event during that affair that might prove a Rosetta Stone to what really happened. Police Chief Helric Fredou supposedly committed suicide hours after the other killings. The story is slipping down the memory hole, as it does not fit the narrative. But for people who actually have critical thinking skills, and even an ounce of natural skepticism, it has to register with a loud thud. Something ain’t right.

JC, over at 4&20 cites the following from Paul Craig Roberts:

Neoconservatives arrayed in their Washington offices are congratulating themselves on their success in using the Charlie Hebdo affair to reunite Europe with Washington’s foreign policy. No more French votes with the Palestinians against the Washington-Israeli position. No more growing European sympathy with the Palestinians. No more growing European opposition to launching new wars in the Middle East. No more calls from the French president to end the sanctions against Russia.

That more or less sums up what I would call a “credible motive.” No doubt Roberts struggled with the word “using” instead of “causing.” And no doubt he knows, as I do, that when he uses the word “neoconservatives,” he includes one who doesn’t mingle with them in public but surely knows them all in private, Barack Obama.

We suffered now fourteen years of Neocons in the White House. I don’t worry too much about that, however, as I know the power of that office to register just barely above zero.
There’s an old Taoist saying: “Those who know don’t say; those that say don’t know.”