September 29, 2013
Mail Fakes Nairobi Pictures
The British Daily Mail, in a now deleted
piece, promoted what it called exclusive CCTV pictures of the Nairobi mall attack.
London Times Africa correspondent Jerome Starkey points out that the picture in the middle is from an April 16 2010 FBI Miami release of photographs of a bank robbery (see pic 4). The picture on the left is from a Reuters distributed video of a raid on a hospital in Columbia released on September 19 2013. The provenance of the other two pictures are yet unknown.
The FBI picture from 2010 is also used in this Mail Online piece, still online, where it is attributed and copyrighted to Keith Waldegrave, a Mail on Sunday photographer.
The caption reads:
Terror at the mall: A gunman takes aim at the hostages as they lie face down inside a bank at the Westgate shopping centre during the terrorist attack
How can a CCTV picture from a public FBI release be copyrighted to a Mail photographer?
Posted by b on September 29, 2013 at 05:10 AM | Permalink
Thank you B for posting this.
Posted by: Forrestal | Sep 29, 2013 5:18:03 AM | 1
B says that "The provenance of the other two pictures are yet unknown." Methinks they were heretofore lodged in Melanie Phillips' a$$.
Posted by: Unknown Unknowns | Sep 29, 2013 5:34:52 AM | 2
the photo is gone from the second Mail piece (the still online one). But it contains this simple remark, which I really wasn't aware of:
The Westgate Mall ... is Israeli-owned.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 29, 2013 7:05:19 AM | 5
You're pretending that the Op somehow got "screwed"
Looked pretty successful to me
"Londonistan" is a propaganda word invented by arch zio-racist Melaine Phillips. She invented it to spread the fear that london is being over run by big bad smelly Musselmenz. Hilariously ironic that Zina, posing as an egyptian "dissident" would latch onto it in the manner she does.
It is a concept beloved of the racist Pam Gellers and Robert Spensers of this world, all financed by zionist money, love to spread. Zina can say what she liks, i just find it funny that she poses as an egyptian "dissident" while spreading zio-racist propaganda
Posted by: hmm | Sep 29, 2013 7:23:50 AM | 6
It reminds me of 9/11, where the WTC was owned by Silverstein & Lowy.
The militants who led the attack on a Kenyan mall hired a shop there in the weeks leading up to the siege, senior security sources have told the BBC. This gave them access to service lifts at Westgate enabling them to stockpile weapons and ammunition. Having pre-positioned weapons they were able to re-arm quickly and repel the security forces.
That reinforces my reminiscences of 9/11, where I believe the real demolition team set the cutting charges on the core columns from inside the lift-shafts.
A dossier from the National Intelligence Service, amounting to more than 8,000 pages according to Kenya's Standard newspaper, also suggests the Israelis issued warnings that buildings owned by its citizens could be attacked between Sep 4 and 28.
I wonder whether the 'terrorists' wired Westgate the way they wired the Twin Towers.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 29, 2013 7:26:22 AM | 7
"the BBC knew the White Widow flew from South Africa to Nairobi with a fake passport, who gave them the picture and why wasn't she monitored?"
Only 2 days ago you were muttering about "paranoia" when this subject came up. Now it looks like you've donned a little tin foil hat all of your own.
Posted by: hmm | Sep 29, 2013 7:29:29 AM | 8
I don't know if it's my imagination, but googling around, it seems to me that early AP and Reuters stories said "The mall is Israeli-owned," or words to that effect, but later ones substitute "Some kiosks were Israeli-owned," or words to that effect. If I am correct, then maybe certain quarters are concerned that people like me may draw the comparison with the WTC. If you consider both attacks as having not only direct effects but much broader, long-term ones, then a difference becomes apparent. The WTC symbolised western (and specifically US) control over the global forces of 'exchange" (actually extortion). But Westgate symbolises something more complex: the contradiction between the aspiration to western standards of living in countries which are deprived of it, and their actual reality as producers of the real physical goods (and services) which are then extorted from them by the western system of 'exchange'. So maybe, having bankrupted the USA, our mystery guests are moving on to the producer countries (what used to be called the 'Third World'), aiming to establish the same sort of throttling grip over production that they have already established over 'exchange'.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 29, 2013 7:53:40 AM | 9
Interesting figure in the second of those:
This group of 161 individuals represents the financial core of the world’s transnational capitalist class. They collectively manage $23.91 trillion in funds and operate in nearly every country in the world. They are the center of the financial capital that powers the global economic system. Western governments and international policy bodies work in the interests of this financial core to protect the free flow of capital investment anywhere in the world.
It's interesting because Bernanke gave $27 trillion to the 'zombie banks' via his bailout schemes.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 29, 2013 8:45:46 AM | 12
The Israeli ownership was mentioned in the BBC live update all along, and this is also where the picture of Samantha's passport comes from.
"Londonistan" in the Middle East points at the special relation enjoyed by some people who had been given refugee statute in the UK while they who had been condemned in their own countries (Yemen, Lebanon etc) and which the UK refused to extract but happily played with, "returning" them to be used later.
Posted by: Mina | Sep 29, 2013 8:57:28 AM | 13
Odin, have another raven on me:
It has since emerged that Sony Holding Limited, a real estate company led by Israeli Alex Trajtenberg, insured Westgate Shopping Mall through UK’s Lloyd’s market for about Sh6.6 billion. According to the Business Daily of Kenya (27, Sept. 2013 article "Westgate insurer faces Sh6.6 billion compensation bill"), the insurance deal specifically included a cover against political violence where acts of terrorism fall. Mr. Trajtenberg declined to comment on the matter. Alas, another smoking gun very reminiscent of Larry Silverstein's little murderous insurance fraud on 9/11. If you need any confirmation that this was a pre-planned false flag synthetic terror incident, it's right here. Keep in mind also, that the Westgate Mall was built by the Westfield Group in 2007. Now what you may not know, is that the Westfield Group was owned by Frank Lowry, who alongside Larry Silverstein made billions from the 9/11 synthetic terrorist attacks.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 29, 2013 9:41:13 AM | 15
At the end of the quoted paragraph above, 'Lowry' should be 'Lowy'. I've left a note on the blog site to that effect.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 29, 2013 9:45:41 AM | 16
" If I am correct, then maybe certain quarters are concerned that people like me may draw the comparison with the WTC.........
" So maybe, having bankrupted the USA, our mystery guests are moving on to the producer countries (what used to be called the 'Third World'), aiming to establish the same sort of throttling grip over production that they have already established over 'exchange'."
"Certain quarters...Our mystery guests." This is a very weird mixture of Marxism for Boys and satanic forces. Please choose, Rowan.
Posted by: bevin | Sep 29, 2013 9:47:49 AM | 17
Bevin, the fact that I do not subscribe to your superannuated Trotskyite views does not make me a satanist.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 29, 2013 9:56:06 AM | 18
The only thing missing - I may have missed it - from the Kenyan mall "incident" is there are no reports of military/police "training" taking place the same day.
9/11, 7/7, Boston, Sandy Hook...any good "incident" seems to have as one of its hallmarks the fact that coincidentally there always seems to be a "training exercise" going on right before the real incident takes place.
Also, to make sense of an "incident" don't just look at the fake pictures, b and everyone, look at the supposedly "legitimate" ones for more information. Look at the wounds. Try and find authentic pictures of the dead. Notice people's faces.
Often times, the conspicuous placement of easily verifiable false photos is done to add legitimacy to the "legitimate" photos from an incident.
Sorry, you're right THOSE photos were from another crime but THESE photos are really from the "terrorist incident" in Kenya.
Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 29, 2013 10:42:39 AM | 19
I also find the Israel angle interesting as Rowan notes:
Israel has taken the leading role among foreign countries in aiding and advising Kenyan forces after al-Shabaab Islamist extremists attacked the Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi, according to security and intelligence sources.
You all may not remember but it was - surprise, surprise - Israel who was also at the forefront of the Boston Marathon bombing investigation:
Israeli police head to US to aid in Boston Marathon bombing investigation
Because whenever there's a crime, it's probably good to get the opinions of some expert criminals, right?
I'm sure that they just didn't have the resource in the US, huh? Boston is a kind of a backwoods.
Similarly, for those who haven't read about Israel fingerprints all over 9/11 please read this informative essay
Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 29, 2013 10:51:17 AM | 20
Lots of terror these days is 90% or more Hollywood, so no surprise. Look for Max Malone's videos for starters. Of course, almost all of his stuff has been banned from YouTube, so you have to make some effort.
Don't forget the plans and attempts to sway the Syrians with those movies from Qatar. It's not that different in the West or Kenya.
And this latest thing looks like an attempt to muddy the waters because the bogus nature of so much is being discussed widely.
Posted by: Ozawa | Sep 29, 2013 1:01:24 PM | 21
Slightly off topic but I felt it extremely relevant to the thread as it accentuates Israel's role in all of the turmoil as of late especially concerning the "Arab Spring" as nothing more than the implementation of the Israeli Yinon Plan and a Clean Break by which a balkanized ME will be ripe for Israeli hegemony.
In today's Zionist mouthpiece the NYT there appeared this article Imagining a Remapped Middle East . Here is a link to the accompanying graphic Bascially, it is the Yinon Plan spelled out for all to see. There are some glaring omissions in the piece, however, a few quickly grabbed:
1) "Israel" is not mentioned by name ONCE
2) The is no mention of the turmoil in Egypt
3) No mention of Sudan which was also recently split up.
Readers will find many others I'm sure - I have to run.
Here is the author's concluding paragraph so laden with propaganda and omissions it's laughable:
But other factors could keep the Middle East from fraying — good governance, decent services and security, fair justice, jobs and equitably shared resources, or even a common enemy. Countries are effectively mini-alliances. But those factors seem far off in the Arab world. And the longer Syria’s war rages on, the greater the instability and dangers for the whole region.
The author works for the US Institute of Peace - hold you laughter - which was up to its ears in the demise of Libya and has aided and abetted the Syrian opposition as it is just another NGO extension of the US government. She also sits on the Wilson Center.
I don't know if TPTB have just decide to continue on with their originally scheduled programming vis a vis Syria/Arab Spring the facts on the ground be damned or whether this might be a new rollout as they are playing for a "stalemate."
Either way, everyone should be made aware of this "new" propaganda push by the Zionist west; the further implementation of Israeli hegemonic designs.
Also, read the piece in same section of the NYT on Kenya which very deftly ties Kenya into the 9/11 "attacks" and the rest of the GWOT.
Propaganda on top of propaganda.
Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 29, 2013 1:03:37 PM | 22
Assuming such a thing exists, wouldn't "journalistic ethics" require some kind of retraction and explanation? Or does stuff like this just go straight down the memory hole?
The Nairobi attack is another glaring example of the fact that the the massive NSA-GCHQ spying program is either useless as a means for (or likely not intended to) "protect the world from terrorism."
I'm not optimistic enough to think that people would never sacrifice liberty for security, but I really don't think they'll be content to sacrifice their liberty for nothing at all. The spying has got to end, if need be by regions and countries building alternatives to the US-centric "world wide web".
Posted by: guest77 | Sep 29, 2013 1:04:36 PM | 23
I recieved an email from the Ron Paul folks....
"The government's stranglehold on the media has suppressed the truth. I have started my own online news source: a place where the truth will prevail, a place where government is taken to task"
"I ask that you join me in the revolution to take back your right to be informed. I am not supported by the government. I am not supported by advertisers nor big business -- I am supported by you"
"The government is robbing us of the truth through media manipulation and propaganda. At Ron Paul Channel, we aren't scared of the truth. We embrace and champion it. We don't fear the government, they are afraid of us. They don't want this channel to exist - a media destination made by the people, for the people"
....unfortunately, this dinosaur of a desktop I use is utterly incapable of streaming video, so I can't check out what Paul is offering. But I believe Paul to be honestly mindful of the "truth", and expect his news magazine to be a reflection of the man's integrity.
Here, check it out. Let me know if I'm just being naive, will ya?
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Sep 29, 2013 2:00:24 PM | 24
@ 21 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-XhW0tRzRk
Malone makes many excellent points particularly about the ubiquitous "cameraman" who's apparently impervious to bullets. But doesn't help his cause with the Stepen Fetchit voices and hysterical delivery.
Posted by: ruralito | Sep 29, 2013 3:46:05 PM | 25
If you're interested in conspiracy theories, you should look at SITE. It is mentioned by hmmm in an earlier thread. Here we have an organisation which is uniquely used by western media for sourcing jihadi forums, but is actually headed by an Israeli, with an American assistant. You can't access the jihadi forums through them and you have no idea whether what they say is true. The only jihadi forum I succeeded in accessing in 2005 was open, and anyone could post.
It's at this point that you have to ask how much of the jihadi dialectic reported is true, and how much invented to demonise them.
Posted by: alexno | Sep 29, 2013 4:27:50 PM | 26
@ 27 They call it GWOT now.
No, that was during the Bush II Administration.
Under Obama they call it Overseas Contingency Operations...
Posted by: crone | Sep 29, 2013 6:07:24 PM | 27
Right on cue. Israel arrests Iranian spy in Tel Aviv who had - get this - photographs of the US Embassy in Israel. What a great plan!!
News of the arrest was released just hours after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu left for Washington and New York, determined to expose what he described as "sweet talk" by Israel's arch-foe Iran.
I don't often use the word "retarded" but when I do, it I prefer for it to refer to Israel.
Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 29, 2013 6:08:59 PM | 28
@9;Were they selling toy copters at those kiosks?
How come Israeli security fails abroad and is fortress Zion domestically?
Posted by: dahoit | Sep 29, 2013 6:27:57 PM | 29
In a similar vein, whatever you do do NOT call attention to the fact that an Israeli firm ICTS provides security services for United Airlines and did so at the Boston airport on 9/11 and just happened to let the scary "underwear bomber" onto a flight a bit later.
ICTS International and its two subsidiaries, ISEC and PI, provide security services to the Schipol airport, United Airlines and US Airways. The firm's security system came under scrutiny and as part of the international investigation into how Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was able to board Northwest Airlines Flight 253 with explosive materials.
ICTS' subsidiary, Huntleigh, shared security duties at Boston's Logan Airport on September 11, 2001, where two of the four planes hijacked for use in the attacks originated. According to Logan Airport officials, the company provided gate and baggage security services for United Airlines. Huntleigh faced multiple lawsuits for alleged screening failures by its workers at Logan Airport, but denied any liability for those cases.
Yup, those Israelis are just masters of security but not so much at certain times. Oh well. I'm sure it's an honest mistake.
As an American it just overjoys me to no end knowing that the apartheid/war criminal nation of Israel:
1) taps into the raw data of our intelligence agencies
2) provides security for our airports and airplanes
3) trains the police forces of nearly every major metropolitan area in the tactics of genocide/apartheid .
What a great friend that country is! Nah, there's just NO reason to not trust such a great war criminal "ally", right?
Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 29, 2013 6:46:01 PM | 30
"It's at this point that you have to ask how much of the jihadi dialectic reported is true, and how much invented to demonise them"
The answer to that question is blatantly exposed by the purposeful media mistranslations, (repeated by rote by our DC maggotry), of Iranian presidential speeches and statements.
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Sep 29, 2013 7:51:36 PM | 31
why fake photos of a real event?
Posted by: brian | Sep 29, 2013 7:52:06 PM | 32
@27 - wow, GLADIO! you really did dig deep in your studies of Us colonialism! you really think no one here can cope with such astounding revelations?
Posted by: claudio | Sep 29, 2013 8:06:50 PM | 33
you are trolling, hmm; you keep feeding bits of info we are all aware of, and well digested in our schematics, with an air of superiority, and consistently downplaying the relevance of our analysis of specific events in the face of general propositions taken from some anticolonialism-101 crash course
Posted by: claudio | Sep 29, 2013 8:48:41 PM | 34
Oh shit, here we go again. What is the actual goal of a true "troll"? And who here is actually achieving that goal?
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Sep 29, 2013 8:55:44 PM | 35
The actual goal of a real troll, in the case of a site like this that consistently crushes the right-center MSM perspective, is to eliminate interest and activity, as hmmm here has been quite effective at so far.
If his antics are enough to potentially drive off long time reader and commenter such as yourself, then what do you think he does to the average lurker?
Posted by: guest77 | Sep 29, 2013 9:08:07 PM | 36
Few will even bother asking it - people would have to re-evaluate everything they thought they knew.
I was talking about people in general @27
you were whining about your scarce popularity here at MoA
Posted by: claudio | Sep 29, 2013 9:10:38 PM | 37
@guest77 - on spot
Posted by: claudio | Sep 29, 2013 9:14:13 PM | 38
@42 another climbdown by hmm. He is such a fan of Obama's Syria policy, he's beginning to apply its lessons to his experience here at MOA.
Posted by: guest77 | Sep 29, 2013 9:34:33 PM | 39
hmm - what is Gladio's strategy in Kenya? Without you being able to articulate that, there's no way to decide whether your statement has any meaning
Posted by: claudio | Sep 30, 2013 2:30:20 AM | 40
i think there are some sophisticated trollers on this blog :-)
everybody's got your number, though, so please go elsewhere with your drivel.
Posted by: easy e | Sep 30, 2013 3:01:29 AM | 41
what is Gladio's strategy in Kenya? Without you being able to articulate that, there's no way to decide whether your statement has any meaning. Posted by: claudio | Sep 30, 2013 2:30:20 AM | 46
That is a stupid question, and even though it isn't addressed to me, it irritates me, because I hate to be forced to waste time on the obvious. And it is obvious. The strategy is to use pseudo-gangs to incriminate genuine rebels and to legitimate massive repression. OK?
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 30, 2013 3:08:46 AM | 42
@RB, of course it's a stupid question, one that only hmm could have made; he should be held to the standards he imposes on others, don't you think?
and it's not so stupid because Kenya is already at war with Islamists over Somalia so it doesn't need to delegitimize or justify repression of anything
it'd say that if it was a false flag attack, then it would be directed at delegitimizing the Kenyan government, not the rebels; or to force the Kenyan government to proceed to a mass repression it didn't want to do ("it's not investing enough on security", someone said)
see it's not enough to throw a word on the table?
Posted by: claudio | Sep 30, 2013 3:23:10 AM | 43
denk, yes, but it's even worse: they want to drag Kenyafurther in the wot; the destiny of ALL countries neighbors to Us intervention is to risk becoming a failed state
Posted by: claudio | Sep 30, 2013 4:48:31 AM | 45
If it was a false flag attack, then it would be directed at delegitimizing the Kenyan government, not the rebels; or to force the Kenyan government to proceed to a mass repression it didn't want to do ... see it's not enough to throw a word on the table? Posted by: claudio | Sep 30, 2013 3:23:10 AM | 49
This is nonsense. It's intrinsic to the concept of a false flag attack that the government knows about it in advance, and indeed we have evidence, not hearsay but direct evidence, that it knew (or at least that its intelligence service knew), apparently because the Israelis told it, so unless you want to create a rather trivial paradox, that eg the Prime Minister's office was the only entity not warned, or something like that, you have merely demonstrated that you don't understand the meaning and implications of the concept 'false flag attack', and therefore FOR YOU "it's not enough to throw a word on the table," because you haven't studied the literature which explains the theory, practice, history, possibilities and impossibilities of it.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 30, 2013 5:06:12 AM | 46
we cant rule out the possibility that this latest *terrarists* attack is a ff to justify more kenya aggressions in somalia.
Posted by: denk | Sep 30, 2013 5:10:25 AM | 47
I know you're going to say, "no, that is not part of the definition of a false flag attack: a false flag attack can take place in a third party country without the knowledge of the government of that country, such as eg the Burgas bus bombing of July last year in Bulgaria or the two sticky bomb attacks that preceded it, in New Delhi and Tbilisi in February, all of which the Mossad performed and attempted to pass off as the work of the IRGC or Hezbollah. But these were not properly executed false flag attacks and do not measure up to the textbook concept, which requires that the government of the country in which the attack happens is part of the plot, and this is why they did not achieve their object. None of the three governments concerned played the necessary role of confirming the false attribution of the attack.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 30, 2013 5:21:21 AM | 48
@denk - yes, I'm just saying that if it were so, there would be two ways at looking at: the Kenyan government preparing public opinion for an unpopular policy, or outside actors coaxing the Kenyan government in producing greater (and costly) effort; it's only an imperssion, but I sense far more hostility than solidarity towards Kenya by the MSM; for example, I don't remember all this fervor by BBC in pointing at "early warnings" of 9/11
Posted by: claudio | Sep 30, 2013 6:03:16 AM | 49
@RB, don't get so excited about the proper "false flag" book definition; we are talking about (alleged) Gladio-like actions aimed at coaxing a "friendly" country into policies it dislikes, or destabilizing the "unfriendly" government of a "friendly" country, etc;
Posted by: claudio | Sep 30, 2013 6:09:23 AM | 50
@brian #34 " why fake photos of a real event?"
I wouldn't read too much into it, except to underline MSM sloppiness and unreliability; they probably simply didn't have "spectacular enough" real pictures, and a rule of present-day journalism is that there's no "story" without pictures (part of the infantilization-of-the-people program)
Posted by: claudio | Sep 30, 2013 6:17:31 AM | 51
Well...before I head out to the jobsite for the week, I gotta throw in my two cents.
claudio..I get the distinct impression that you are ad libbing your argument, putting out reflexive responses rather than offering a theory that has been thought out to any depth.
I too believe Bin Laden was dead far before the airing of his carefully choreographed demise. In fact, I believe him to be a loose end that the criminals responsible for 9/11 could not possibly tolerate. In my opinion, he needed to be dead shortly after the 9/11 trifecta, and very probably was in fact so. The Bora Bora thing was most probably the intended script for the opportunity for that hapless little monkey Bush to puff up and proclaim "We got 'im!"
However, these satanic and traitorous maggots in the Cheney camp decided to go off script, realizing the vast marketing appeal that the Bin Laden boogie man brought to thier agenda warranted keeping him "alive" until they no longer had reason to insert this monster under the beds of our gullible and brainwashed public.
Of course, its all theory, and you know the old adage about opinions and assholes I'm sure. Sad fact is, we'll never know. The only conclusion that can be written in blood is that we were lied to, because even a halfwit cannot fail to see the massive holes in the script that makes this whole 9/11-GWOT deception no better than a low budget B movie.
Dead yesterday, or yesteryear, Bin Laden served his purpose to Dick Cheney, the zionist machine, (and all the scum characters that sold us the GWOT), in hiding the identity of those truly behind the horror of 9/11. So when he died, and how, is just one small part of a huge deception. And, as such, is irrelevent.
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Sep 30, 2013 6:53:49 AM | 52
RB: "It's intrinsic to the concept of a false flag attack that the government knows about it in advance"
Cl: "don't get so excited about the proper "false flag" book definition; we are talking about (alleged) Gladio-like actions"
For what it's worth, he's got you there Rowan. As far as I understand, Gladio was run against the sitting Italian Government, not by it. Which would be what is being suggested here.
Posted by: guest77 | Sep 30, 2013 7:28:49 AM | 54
@#54: OK. I admit it, #46 was nothing less than a brain-fart on my part, which I then did my best to recover with #48. You may think this comment is by a troll impersonating me, but it's not. The only thing I can say in my defense is that I tend to start work in the very small hours of the pre-dawn a.m., (#46 was written at 5 a.m.)
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 30, 2013 8:35:20 AM | 55
But having admitted that, ie that my 'textbook definition' was completely spurious, I have to point out that you're wrong about Gladio itself: Italian military intelligence was part of it, see General Maletti's confession here, and note that he was convicted of providing false papers to one of the Gladio plotters.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 30, 2013 8:38:48 AM | 56
@RB - of course; italian intelliegnce was reorganized after WW2 by the "allies"; intelligence chiefs, faithful to the Us, decided on a case-by-case basis which prime ministers and other top politicians were "trustworthy" enough to be informed of Gladio and other activities; so Gladio operations were at times led by the government, at others against it or anyhow keeping it in the dark
Posted by: claudio | Sep 30, 2013 9:12:02 AM | 57
If I want to take my own ill-advised claim that a 'textbook definition' of 'false flag operations' should somehow involve the condition that 'the government of the country where it occurs is party to it', then I have to unpack the term 'government'. As I suggested when I was trying in my early morning delirium to be sarcastic at your expense, you could stipulate that 'the Prime Minister's Office was the only entity not informed', and this is not as silly as I made it sound. The real 'government' is surely the secret services themselves and no-one else, because they and they alone are in a position to falsify the official records, plant evidence, rig trials with bogus witnesses, blackmail everybody else, and in other ways make sure that official history goes their way. The politicians, in particular, are just performing artists of a specialised sort, 'actors' in the screen & stage sense. They don't write their own lines, and usually mumble incoherently when required to extemporise. They are just paid performers, they are not 'the government'. Mr Uhuru Kenyatta is certainly not anybody's 'government'. He isn't even worth plotting against, probably. Though conceivably the secret services might pull some stunt to get rid of him, it wouldn't need to be anything as apocalyptic as this.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 30, 2013 9:45:09 AM | 58
how distracted can we be? I had completely forgotten this important post by b on Kenya, and nobody else referred to it; it would have saved me some work in trying to understand the context (see #10)
Posted by: claudio | Oct 1, 2013 7:11:43 PM | 59
Well, I followed the line back from Global Research to Simon Tisdall in the Guardian (as usual GR didn't bother to give a link), and from there back to here:
Is Al-Shabab Disintegrating?
Richard Mugisha, AllAfrica.com, Sep 8 2013
On Jun 26 the world woke to the news that the leader of the group, Ahmed Abdi Godane, ordered the execution of his four top commanders including two of the co-founders al-Alfghani and Burhan. Other top leaders fled for their dear lives and sixteen others were put under arrest in Barowe, one of al-Shabab’s remaining strongholds, 250 km south of Mogadishu. Godane, the emir of al-Shabab, also known as Mukhtar Abu Zubayr, accused his longtime colleagues of insubordination and standing against the unity of the movement. Abd’ul-Aziz Abu Musab, al-Shabab spokesman, told the media that these leaders disobeyed the orders and tried to divide the group by issuing statements contrary to the Shabab position endangering the cohesion of the movement. Musab said: "There came out some of Mujahedin individuals and leaders who stood up to disintegrate the Mujahedin, who are against the unity of the Mujahedin. They were noticed and told that the unity of the Muslims is Allah’s order. We have informed their widows of their deaths, as they must now wear the clothes of mourning." The senior leaders of the group, including those killed, accused Godane of a brutal and un-Islamic style of leadership. Al-Afghani is quoted as having said before he was executed: "Godane has grown tyrannical and close-minded and strayed from the true path of Jihad."
So there you have it. This Godane only took over, via a coup & murder spree, just over 3 months ago. It gets better:
According to media reports, the wrangle in the top leadership of the al-Shabab reached irreconcilable level when in Apr 2013, a letter criticizing Godane for his leadership style was circulated on extremist websites reportedly authoured by al-Afghani to Ayman al-Zawahiri. In the letter, Al-Afghani claimed to be speaking on behalf of what he called “the silent majority” of members, decried the deterioration of al-Shabab as a power to contend with in the war in Somalia. He attributed this state of affairs to the personal conduct and dictatorial leadership of Godane. In the letter, Al-Afghani also lamented that al-Shabab had lost ground, as well as the sympathies and support of the local population because of the militant leadership’s arrogance and draconian methods.
And as if that wasn't enough to establish the exact pattern of a pseudo-gang leader in the Kitson (Robert Thomson, Gerald Templar, whoever) mould, finally let me offer this:
Godane, aged 36, claimed to have ordered and perpetuated the Jul 11 2010 bombings in Kampala that killed 74 people. He is one of the most radical supporters of global Jihad. Godane is one of the most wanted terrorists in the world, with a $7m reward for his arrest. In 2011, he issued a Jihadi video titled “At your service, Osama”. In it, he urged all Somalis to follow the AQ leader, and vowed: "The wars will not end until Sharia is implemented in all continents in the world."
You remember what I said on Sep 26:
For quite a few years now I have had a simple model of this. It applies equally well to Somalia, Yemen and Mali, just to give a few parallels. First, you have a genuine, indigenous revolt. Then you have the mysterious appearance of an AQ-affiliate right alongside it, and even intermittently allying with it. This AQ-affiliate is what the originator of this whole system of counter-insurgency, Brigadier Frank Kitson of Kenya and Malaya fame, called a "pseudo-gang". But the genuine indigenous rebels don't realise this, unfortunately. They think al-Qaeda is the greatest thing in anti-imperialism since sliced bread. They shiver with delight whenever they remember 9/11, because they take it at face value. They admire AQ, and they think Zawahiri is genuine too. So the 'alliance' is something they accept with a real sense of being honoured. But then things start to go wrong. The AQ-affiliated "ally" starts doing things that make no sense, but have the effect of bringing down massive retaliation from the central government. If our poor rebels had read some basic textbooks on guerrilla warfare, they would know as a matter of doctrine that you don't for instance, bomb prestigious restaurants in the capital city when there are only a few hundred of you, your grievance is essentially regional or ethnic, and you have not yet developed any support among the vast masses of the peasantry. But now it's too late. As the distinguished theoretician Vo Nguyen Giap would have put it, ya fucked.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Oct 4, 2013 3:02:18 PM | 63
"Godane"=Adam Gadahn, born Adam Pearlman, who's Jewish paternal grandfather, Carl Pearlman, was on the Board of Directors of the Anti-Defamation League.
The fact that most if not all the media are refusing to call him by the name that everyone knows him as, and instead using some ridiculous spelling of his name, should tell you something.
It's not like they don't know how to spell his name properly
Posted by: OK | Oct 4, 2013 3:20:18 PM | 64
Al-shish-kebab? Wom wom.
Yes, two different people entirely. More on Gadahn, interesting to me especially since i grew up in south orange county, ca
I agree with the theory about legit indigenous movements being subverted. Kinda like agent provacateurs to disrupt, infiltrate, discredit social/environmental justice groups. In a way. A bit more complicated in foreign Islamist groups, scale and scope, similar principal though i suppose. But jeebus I crepes, with all the shady dealings of security/intelligence agencies, with so many agents/i informers/infiltrators and groups being just directly controlled if not created entirely by those agencies across the globe, add the propaganda in the mix, hard to know what the f*ck is really going on at any given time, anywhere, until after the fact. Beyond the general fact that you can be sure as sh*t most if not all of the terror is manufactured for one reason or another, for the benefit of the few, at the expense of the many. But you knew that already.
Posted by: Colinjames | Oct 5, 2013 3:37:07 AM | 67
@Colinjames, #67: If you start from the fact that 9/11 itself was fake, everything else follows from that (hard luck for people who do not accept this starting point). If 9/11 was fake, then Osama bin Laden was also fake, because he never repudiated 9/11 (or maybe he died before he could; there are conflicting interviews with him in some of which he may have repudiated it); but whether he was fake or not, Zawahiri is certainly fake, because he has certainly never repudiated 9/11. And as I said, it is 9/11 itself which constitutes the great inspiration, the great examplar of heroic Islamist anti-imperialist action, for the naive would-be rebel such as the founders and early members of Shabab, of the Yemeni or Malian peasant revolts, etc. They have never been taught that the true measure of an anti-imperialist action is its results. 9/11 is judged as an expressive totality. It speaks for itself and says what its rhetoricians want it to say, namely: "Shiver in your shoes, puny USAians, because the might of Allah is upon you." So the naive rebels are overawed when someone comes along and says he is an emissary of the great Zawahiri. And this is why, in both the Nusra case (al-Golani) and the Shabab case (al-Afghani), they actually write to the great Zawahiri pleading that a mistake has been made, that his emissary is not an inspired Jihadi but a lunatic. And in the Nusra case, Zawahiri replies, agreeing, but nothing changes. In the Shabab case, as far as I know, he doesn't reply at all.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Oct 5, 2013 5:04:20 AM | 68
PS: You might say, "Surely this Shabab founder, the fact that he was known as al-Afghani must imply he was a veteran of the Afghan Jihad, he must have known something." But even in Afghanistan, the majority of Jihadis must have been, and must still be, no more than "useful idiots" from the point of view of the inner circle of AQ, like Zawahiri, who incidentally has a record of CIA collaboration that goes right back to 1985, though you won't see that in his Wikipedia entry.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Oct 5, 2013 5:27:22 AM | 69
I would not give too much credibility to 9/11 conspiracy theories. Sometimes interests just converge.
Yes, powerful political factions in the US needed another enemy and wanted to take the country to war. And, yes, there is the propaganda of the deed (no, anarchism was not a monarchist conspiracy).
Grow up. There is not one hand deciding our destiny. History is the outcome of the actions of something like 7 billion people.
Those planes flying into the world trade center are an incredibly powerful image which huge symbolism. If you think it was a conspiracy made in the US you have to accept that it was an incredible own goal. On a par to getting sucked in/defeated in Afghanistan after having actively watched the Soviet Union going down there. On a par to curtailing US civil liberties making the country close to a police state and not allowing free discussion of 9/11 by declaring part of the findings secret. On a par to thinking Al Qaeda constitutes a useful tool with assets the US should protect.
Posted by: somebody | Oct 5, 2013 5:39:36 AM | 70
Grow up. There is not one hand deciding our destiny. History is the outcome of the actions of something like 7 billion people.
"Grow up." I like that. I'm over 60 years old, and I've been doing this online conspiracy-mongering, as you choose to regard it, for over 10 years. I've seen all your type of amateur psychology and amateur historiography before.
If you think it was a conspiracy made in the US you have to accept that it was an incredible own goal. On a par to getting sucked in/defeated in Afghanistan after having actively watched the Soviet Union going down there. On a par to curtailing US civil liberties making the country close to a police state and not allowing free discussion of 9/11 by declaring part of the findings secret. On a par to thinking Al Qaeda constitutes a useful tool with assets the US should protect.
You seem to be arguing against yourself here. Each point you make just reinforces the assumption that AQ is exactly what I say it is. On the day of 9/11, martial law
was declared under the Continuity Of Government procedures worked out by Ollie North and FEMA in (appropriately enough) 1984. It has been in effect ever since. "Curtailing US civil liberties making the country close to a police state and not allowing free discussion of 9/11 by declaring part of the findings secret" is exactly what has happened. And AQ certainly does constitute a useful tool with assets the US should protect. That is why it is indestructible.
Posted by: somebody | Oct 5, 2013 5:39:36 AM | 70
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Oct 5, 2013 6:08:43 AM | 71
Whose interests, somebody? Mossad, PNAC, AIPAC, and the Dancing Israelis?
Posted by: DM | Oct 5, 2013 6:16:11 AM | 72
72) anybody whose paycheck is for warfare.
Posted by: somebody | Oct 5, 2013 7:24:16 AM | 73
Ha - now it's amateur sociology: the devil makes work for idle hands, and in this case, the unemployed spend their time conspiracy-mongering. Unlike working stiffs, they are only weakly moored to 'reality', and easily float away into, um, monocausal explanations for complex social phenomena.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Oct 5, 2013 7:34:01 AM | 74
71)lol :-)) rofl ...
I remember you used to post/pose as some kind of Marxist, and now you claim history is not made by the people?
"Grow up." I like that. I'm over 60 years old, and I've been doing this online conspiracy-mongering, as you choose to regard it, for over 10 years. I've seen all your type of amateur psychology and amateur historiography before.
Posted by: somebody | Oct 5, 2013 8:24:52 AM | 75
add to 71) You seem to assume it is a US interest to be a police state. It is not. It is a sign of weakness. Hegemony from Roman times onwards is based on the attractiveness/economic know how/advanced technology of a society/culture. Call it soft power. What it means is that hegemony is possible when people actually prefer the enlightened rulers of a distant place to the stupid tyrant next door. US violent invasions and double standards on freedom and human rights destroyed all that.
Posted by: somebody | Oct 5, 2013 8:35:08 AM | 76
Ha ha, this time - for the very idea that the US has ever been an exponent of 'soft power' or 'attractiveness'. You must be living in a dream world. You pose a false dichotomy between "US interest" and "weakness". The US is weak and getting weaker. However, its interest remains the same as before, namely to maintain as much leverage on its own population and on the world outside it as it can, given its current state of strength or weakness, whatever that may be. And becoming a police state, or more simply a fascist state, is how it is doing that, not surprisingly, as this is what capitalist states tend to do when they feel themselves to be extremely weak. And by the way, I still pose as some kind of marxist. I'm not aware of any kind of marxist who says "history is made by the people," though. Perhaps you have us confused with populists.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Oct 5, 2013 8:51:00 AM | 77
77) Don't know how you interpret this, it seems to say that people make their own history - the quote is by Marx himself.
Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language. Thus Luther put on the mask of the Apostle Paul, the Revolution of 1789-1814 draped itself alternately in the guise of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, and the Revolution of 1848 knew nothing better to do than to parody, now 1789, now the revolutionary tradition of 1793-95. In like manner, the beginner who has learned a new language always translates it back into his mother tongue, but he assimilates the spirit of the new language and expresses himself freely in it only when he moves in it without recalling the old and when he forgets his native tongue.
There is no way a Marxist can be a conspiracy theorist.
Posted by: somebody | Oct 5, 2013 10:11:49 AM | 78
The phrase "conspiracy theorist" is a product of pop psychology, suggesting delusions in the psychiatric sense, as when a person darts about furtively, clutching his coat collar closed tightly about his neck with a damp and trembling hand, and muttering "They're after me. Them. the - o my god - they're there! Don't you see them?" and so forth. But this is a projection of the beholder, usually a journalist, who has plenty of repressed "conspiracy theories" himself, about his sub-editor, his editor and his owner, which are bound to be perfectly justified, too, because that's how newspapers work. So he projects his fantasy onto the political target du jour, who might be anyone from David Irving to David Icke. Consequently, conversations about this phrase are not worth having. And your terribly well-known quote from the prelude of Marx's "18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte" does not at all prove what you seem to think it does.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Oct 5, 2013 12:26:39 PM | 79
79, Well, you have to explain how "Men make their own history" can be any different from "history is made by the people". In German the quote is "Die Menschen machen ihre eigene Geschichte", "Die Menschen" meaning "humans" making it a characteristic of the whole species.
The definition of people is
human beings in general or considered collectively
the men, women, and children of a particular nation, community, or ethnic group
Clearly 1. fits.
When posing as a Marxist one should know the fundamentals.
Posted by: somebody | Oct 5, 2013 1:06:40 PM | 80
When posing as a Marxist one should know the fundamentals. Posted by: somebody | Oct 5, 2013 1:06:40 PM | 80
You do seem to have a gift for offensiveness. I suppose we all have, and it comes out the moment we get annoyed or even excited. A gift for offensiveness. What a charming species acquisition. Talking of which, here is the simplest possible answer to your 'argument', after which I shall not return to this exchange again because I'm sure it bores everybody else stiff, like all the verbal ping-pong tournaments that keep developing here.
Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please
From this, in your comment #70, "History is the outcome of the actions of something like 7 billion people," and in your #75, you simplify your view to "history is made by the people." neither of these statements has anything to do with the point Marx is making. I shall summarise the plot:
Why did the Paris proletariat not rise in revolt after Dec 2? On the pretext of founding a benevolent society, the lumpen proletariat of Paris had been organized into secret sections, each section led by Bonapartist agents, with a Bonapartist general at the head of the whole. Alongside decayed roués with dubious means of subsistence and of dubious origin, alongside ruined and adventurous offshoots of the bourgeoisie, were vagabonds, discharged soldiers, discharged jailbirds, escaped galley slaves, swindlers, mountebanks, lazzaroni, pickpockets, tricksters, gamblers, pimps, brothel keepers, porters, literati, organ grinders, ragpickers, knife grinders, tinkers, beggars — in short, the whole indefinite, disintegrated mass, thrown hither and thither, which the French call la bohème; from this kindred element Bonaparte formed the core of the Society of Dec 10. Bonaparte sought his model not in the annals of world history but in the annals of the Society of Dec 10, in the annals of the criminal courts. He robs the Bank of France of twenty-five million francs, buys General Magnan with a million, the soldiers with fifteen francs apiece and liquor, comes together with his accomplices secretly like a thief in the night, has the houses of the most dangerous parliamentary leaders broken into, and Cavaignac, Lamoricière, Le Flô, Changarnier, Charras, Thiers, Baze, etc., dragged from their beds and put in prison, the chief squares of Paris and the parliamentary building occupied by troops, and cheapjack placards posted early in the morning on all the walls, proclaiming the dissolution of the National Assembly and the Council of State, the restoration of universal suffrage, and the placing of the Seine Department in a state of siege. In like manner he inserted a little later in the Moniteur a false document which asserted that influential parliamentarians had grouped themselves around him and formed a state consulta. The rump parliament, assembled in the mairie building of the Tenth Arrondissement and consisting mainly of Legitimists and Orleanists, votes the deposition of Bonaparte amid repeated cries of "Long live the Republic," unfailingly harangues the gaping crowds before the building, and is finally led off in the custody of African sharpshooters, first to the d'Orsay barracks, and later packed into prison vans and transported to the prisons of Mazas, Ham, and Vincennes. Thus ended the party of Order, the Legislative Assembly, and the February Revolution. By a coup de main the night of Dec 1-2, Bonaparte had robbed the Paris proletariat of its leaders, the barricade commanders. An army without officers, it left to its vanguard, the secret societies, the task of saving the insurrectionary honor of Paris.
So much for "There is no way a Marxist can be a conspiracy theorist."
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Oct 5, 2013 2:21:39 PM | 81
81) Marx is making the point that history is defined by economic class struggle which will inevitably have economic equality as final result. Conspiracy has no role in it.
Posted by: somebody | Oct 5, 2013 3:25:48 PM | 82
"I'm sure it bores everybody else stiff....."
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Oct 5, 2013 4:44:12 PM | 83
Yes, I do see 9/11 as the mother of all false flags, the starting point for the GWOT, at least in terms of its official roll-out, but it also can be seen as a continuation of Operation Gladio, as per Sibel Edmonds/James Corbett, I believe it was you Rowan who pointed out Boiling Frogs on another post- must have seen that, no? Not that Gladio is THE starting point, but a good place to start as any for understanding the current state of affairs, how we got here to this awful place in history.
As for that, I no longer subscribe to the accidental view of history, that events just spontaneously, organically occur as the combined effort of x-many people on earth at any given time. Illuminati alien demons control every event on the planet, totally, Oh wait ZIONIST illuminati alien demons! Psycho ones, at that. I do believe world events are engineered in the cause of a furture one world government, honestly. To put it bluntly and simply- I do have a much more sophisticated and nuanced theory, and that's not the be-all-end-all, but it boils down to that, for the most part. Always refining, always learning, always trying to keep an open mind, and I do have much to learn. Always.
If you don't believe 9/11 was a false flag, you haven't examined all the evidence. As for Afghanistan, you need to see it in terms of what purposes it serves for US/NATO to be there, perpetually, not as a war to be won or lost as one would traditionally view a war. Besides, we can just hang a Mission Accomplished banner and call it a win, right? And domestic tyranny/police state... part part of the plan, part mission creep, part runaway gravy train, part fear of the people, all total fascist bullsh*t!
Posted by: Colinjames | Oct 5, 2013 4:47:37 PM | 84
84) "I do believe" "If you don't believe" being the key phrases in what you say. It seems to be religious.
Posted by: somebody | Oct 6, 2013 12:45:21 AM | 85
Marx is making the point that history is defined by economic class struggle which will inevitably have economic equality as final result. Conspiracy has no role in it. Posted by: somebody | Oct 5, 2013 3:25:48 PM | 82
This statement is the grossest example of vulgar, mechanical marxism imaginable, even on a bad day.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Oct 6, 2013 5:33:47 AM | 86
86) Whatever you can do in a short sentence. You don't seem to be able to contradict the veracity. So you spreading conspiracy theories about all powerful hidden hands is the very opposite of being left wing or marxist, as the very essence of marxism or socialism is the conviction that people make their own history.
The intent of conspiracy theories is to make people feel powerless.
Posted by: somebody | Oct 6, 2013 6:06:02 AM | 87
"The intent of conspiracy theories is to make people feel powerless"
No. The "intent" of the phrase "conspiracy theory" (ist,ies), in many cases, is to sully the credibility of scenarios that differ from the "official" story behind events and policies. It is a term cast with desision, seeking to paint common sense as figment of the imagination suffered by lunatics and fringe wackos.
Anyone that swallows the absolute HORSESHIT we have been fed about 9/11 is an idiot. And the fact that our government had to plant absurd "evidence" into the alleged beliefs of the doubters, (such as the "pod" idiocy), demonstrates how far they will go to ostracize non-believers in the bullshit we were were fed.
The term "9/11 truther", cast with derision by the media and these fucking maggots in DC, is another tool used to cull those of us with basic common sense from the head-bobbing herd of self-obsessed assholes that make up 3/4's of the population of the United States. Doubt it??? All you have to do is ask yourself how Fox News, and these despicable drooling mouthpieces like Hannity or Limbaugh have managed to obtain huge followings and obscene wealth. All you have to do is listen to twenty seconds of Limbaugh to loose faith in the average intelligence of the American citizenry.
Truth is, if we weren't so fucking dangerous to the planet as whole, by rights we should be the laughing stock of the world. For so many to be buffaloed by so few, swallowing fantasies that are as poorly produced as a third grade attempt to stage Romeo and Juliet.......
Well, someone, I guess if you want to engage in your mental masturbation over this kind of thing, trying to apply pseudo intellectualism were simple basic common sense is the only requirement....
Like I said to hmm a few weeks back....
You, ("You" being used figuratively, of course), don't have to bray for an hour to convince the barnyard you're a jackass. A simple single hee-haw is more than adequate.
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Oct 6, 2013 10:57:13 AM | 88
*The kidnappings were clearly a well orchestrated prelude to the invasion. Later, the Guardian reported on 8 November 2011:
…The Kenyan intervention plan was discussed and decided in 2010, then finalized with input from western partners, including the US and to a lesser extent France”, with Nairobi using the kidnappings “as an excuse to launch an operation ready and waiting
I investigated further, in both Dadaab refugee camps and around the city of Lamu on the coast, coming to conclusions that there was absolutely no proof that Al-Shabaab was involved in any of the above-mentioned kidnappings.
Its leaders strongly denied any participation. Several international workers at Dadaab camps went as far as claiming that the kidnappings were done by the Kenyan government itself, a belief widely shared by people living in coastal communities
could this latest atrocity at the kenyan mall another false flag perpetrated by the *cunning one* [we know who dont we ?]
right after the mall attack, the murikkans were talking about *necessity* to ramp up the *war on terror* in somalia.....*to stem further terrorists attacks from that quarter* ! [sic]
Posted by: denk | Oct 10, 2013 11:57:32 PM | 89