Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Who Wants this American Dead?
Imam Da'i Sheykh Anwar Al-Awlaki (new target of the american zionist jews who are trying to send new NATO , US-UK, Indian troops, in Pakistan, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon to die for Israel in the Middle East, South East Asia)
By Jeff Gates,
www.criminalstate.com
Why kill Anwar al-Awlaki, an American who inspired the Times Square Fizzler
and advised the Crotch Bomb Sizzler?
and advised the Crotch Bomb Sizzler?
This Islamic preacher is “out there.” No doubt about it. So is Christian preacher John Hagee.
Hagee promises his flock a Rapture that will beam them up to Heaven. But not just yet. First God’s Chosen People must recover Jerusalem.
Remind me: isn’t the status of Jerusalem THE most contentious and volatile issue in the entire Middle East?
Hagee is much loved by the Likud Party wing nuts that have never shown any desire for peace with an indigenous population that has been ethnically cleansed, imprisoned and provoked with impunity for six-plus decades.
Isn’t Hagee’s preaching an incitement to violence? Yet members of his flock can claim a tax deduction to support his inspired preaching. We call this freedom of religion
If the recovery of Jerusalem for The Chosen requires an Armageddon, so be it. That too is part of God’s plan. Hagee should know. He claims a direct line to Yahweh. Just ask him.
Even a nuclear holocaust would fit God’s Plan. Why? An Apocalypse would assure the reappearance of a long-dead prophet.
This End Days prophecy is routinely foretold on the public airwaves by this tax-subsidized televangelist. For The Faithful, he offers an inspiration that has a twisted logic behind it.
When The Chosen recover their God-Given real estate, God will smite all those who refuse to join Hagee’s flock. Or some Christian affiliate thereof.
And, yes, that includes The Chosen. Convert or die. That’s the Hagee-inspired, tax-subsidized version of Christianity.
Such smiting does not qualify as a Holocaust. Why? Because those smitten are only The Chosen who refuse to choose a conversion to this version of a Loving God.
By then Hagee’s True Believers will be safely enfolded in the post-Rapture embrace of a God that prefers Christians Above All.
What about The Smitten? It was their Choice as The Chosen not to Choose. That’s their problem in this Biblical version of Blue State vs. Red State politics in a post-Apocalypse world.
Democracy-meets-theocracy supported by freedom-of-religion tax subsidies that inspire both The Saved and The Smitten.
Light Unto the Darkness
This blend of Star Trek and the Old Testament lacks any basis in either fact or faith. But Never Mind. That’s the burden that befalls those inspired by such a vision.
Just keep on keeping on, faithfully secure that you will be on the side of The Chosen in the post-Apocalyptic era. Provided, of course, that you choose wisely.
For that, consult Reverend Hagee. And keep those tax-deductible donations flowing.
Why do U.S. taxpayers subsidize such preaching? Why are we now using our tax dollars to hunt down and kill Muslim preachers in faraway lands?
Were there not a consensus that Hagee’s preaching merits protectiion as religion, he would be consigned to a padded cell. Or described as a terrorist and a Christian Evil Doer.
But the immediate issue here is neither about sanity nor the freedom to inspire.
The issue is what conduct you inspire. Yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is a no-no. Unless, of course, there’s a fire. Yell “Apocalypse” and you may find yourself in one of those cells.
What about taxpayer subsidies for televangelists who preach a nuclear Apocalypse? Why subsidize such “inspiration” in the world’s most volatile region?
Is Hagee’s inspiration subsidized because it fits into a “Judeo-Christian” narrative? What if he were calling for an Apocalypse here instead of the faraway Middle East?
What is it about a U.S.-born Islamic cleric living in Yemen, the poorest Arab nation, that makes him such a danger to Americans’ interests in the Middle East?
Who benefits from his death? Why is he so problematic?
Why now?
A Contract on the New Mexican
Barack Obama, a political product of the Chicago Outfit, reportedly approved this hit.
, reportedly approved this hit.
Who persuaded this former professor of Constitutional law that this was a good idea?
What is the rationale for this contract? All we know is what’s been reported to date.
But we also know this: FBI agents were actively monitoring at least three “incidents” by Muslim Evil Doers with whom this New Mexico native was in contact:
* The two San Diego hijackers who flew jets into the World Trade Center on 911.
who flew jets into the World Trade Center on 911.
* The Fort Hood shooter. See: Make the Real Terrorists Accountable, and
, and
And now we discover that he also “inspired” The Times Square Fizzler. Who knew?
. Who knew?
Akin to an online Billy Graham for evangelical Muslims offering inspirational DVDs to his faithful flock, Mr. Awlaki appears uniquely capable of inspiring serial acts of “terrorism.”
Or to reframe these events in game theory terminology, perhaps he was uniquely well qualified to inspire uniquely well-timed “incidents”?
, perhaps he was uniquely well qualified to inspire uniquely well-timed “incidents”?
But wait a minute. The facts confirm he advised and/or “inspired” four such incidents, including at least three incidents undertaken during FBI oversight of Awlaki.
How did the Times Square Fizzler make 16 trips to and from Pakistan with impunity? How did he show up in Manhattan to launch a high profile “incident” just as the United Nations began debate on a treaty to create a Middle East free of nuclear weapons? See: Israel Defense Official Defends Nuclear Ambiguity.
.
Well-Timed Sparkle?
Imagine yourself seated in a darkened theater focused on a mystery thriller featuring a complex plot with several intricate subplots.
Then someone in your peripheral vision lights a fireworks sparkler. What happens to your attention? Then someone lights another. What then happens to your focus?
That’s why, in national security parlance, well-timed incidents are called “sparkle.”
Is it coincidence that Awlaki is found on the periphery of so many well-timed incidents? Why are federal law enforcement agents also found on the periphery?
Who benefits from having a Muslim cleric killed in a Muslim country by U.S. forces instead of apprehending him for questioning?
Kill him and watch this evidentiary trail vanish like the “dancing Israelis” who were spotted filming and celebrating the mass murder of 911.
For game theory war planners, a provocation is only the appetizer. The main course is the cascade of reactions that advance a narrative in support of a geopolitical agenda.
, a provocation is only the appetizer. The main course is the cascade of reactions that advance a narrative in support of a geopolitical agenda.
Provoked by 911, prodded by phony intelligence and duped yet again by a trusted ally, the U.S. reacted by invading Iraq, a nation now known to have no hand in that event. At last count, 1.3 million Iraqis are reportedly dead of war-related causes.
Rather than a nuclear-free Middle East, we’re now urged to invade Iran, the latest nuclear Evil Doer. Or is the next target now the Evil Doer Pakistan? How about Syria?
What’s been the reaction to our reaction to 911 among Muslims worldwide? Was our reaction modeled by game theory war planners? Are we that easily profiled? How much of the ongoing cascade of reactions-on-reactions-on-reactions could be modeled such that today’s outcomes became foreseeable—in the sense of being probable?
As Israeli war planners aptly say: “When the orchestra starts to play, we just hum along.”
What if the anticipated reactions fail to emerge on a timely basis? Are these Awlaki-inspired incidents “sparkle?”
Were they meant to distract attention and diffuse the focus required to press for an end to Israeli occupation of Palestine—including Jerusalem? Did the Times Square Fizzler further delay U.N. treaty—first proposed in 1995—that would force Israel to abandon its nuclear arsenal?
further delay U.N. treaty—first proposed in 1995—that would force Israel to abandon its nuclear arsenal?
If we experience a nuclear “incident,” does it now appear more “plausibly” the work of Muslim Evil Doers? Iranians? Pakistanis? Syrians?
Or will it be the work of Israeli provocateurs?
Advancing the Narrative
Anwar al-Awlaki has the gift of gab. There’s no dispute about that. Raised in New Mexico and steeped in the Koran, his fiery rhetoric combines fluency in both pop culture and theology.
What radicalized him? What personal experiences transformed him from a glib Islamic cleric to a U.S.-bashing Muslim Evil Doer?
How about 18 months in a Yemeni prison, most of that sentence served in solitary confinement?
That alone might not suffice to turn him against his native country—unless his confinement was traceable to an American official.
Remember John Negroponte? He first emerged on the global scene as an overseer of death squads in Central America during the mid-1980s as part of the Reagan administration.
Regarded as a mass murderer by those knowledgeable in that volatile region, he reemerged in February 2005 when Secretary of State Colin Powell was dispatched to the United Nations. With Negroponte seated behind him, Powell’s credibility as a former general was associated with intelligence falsely alleging Iraq’s possession of mobile biological weapons.
Such “associative” psy-ops are business-as-usual for those skilled at displacing facts with what a targeted populace can be deceived to believe. Displacement is an essential component when waging Information Age warfare. See: Guilt By Association.
.
When watching Powell’s performance (he now concedes he was duped), television viewers saw over his right shoulder CIA Director George Tenet. The intelligence operative that no one could see behind Tenet was Paul Joyal, his chief of staff who boasts of being a Khazar.
Over Powell’s other shoulder peered John Negroponte, then director of national intelligence with oversight of the nation’s 16 intelligence agencies. None of those agencies now support Powell’s Power Point presentation of “facts” proving those biological weapons.
Negroponte was the U.S. official who did not object when Yemen imprisoned a U.S. citizen and held him in solitary confinement—where Awlaki immersed himself in the Koran for 18 months.
was the U.S. official who did not object when Yemen imprisoned a U.S. citizen and held him in solitary confinement—where Awlaki immersed himself in the Koran for 18 months.
The U.S. approval of his release in 2007 suggests that he could have been released much earlier.
Try to imagine a better formula for radicalization. Who better than an outraged articulate American cleric to inspire Muslim-American Evil Doers? Or Pakistani-American patsies such as the Times Square Fizzler.
Why was Awlaki imprisoned? Equally important, why was he released? Capture him alive and we may find out. Kill him and the trail goes cold. Could that be the point?
Why has his death been ordered by a U.S. commander-in-chief? Why do Barack Obama’s advisers not want him brought in alive?
When unwinding the multi-layered forces at work behind game theory warfare, what distinguishes the agent provocateur from those profiled to react to those provocations?
, what distinguishes the agent provocateur from those profiled to react to those provocations?
Who is the real enemy in this hall of mirrors? Faced with yet another well-timed “incident,” how do we sort out the source of this evil doing?
Faced with yet another well-timed “incident,” how do we sort out the source of this evil doing?
Do we protect U.S. national security by killing a U.S. citizen?
Think about it.http://criminalstate.com/2010/05/who-wants-this-american-dead/
Labels: ISRAELI FALSE FLAG TERRORISM
Two years ago, Nasser al-Awlaki wrote a letter to President Obama. His request was simple: Please do not kill my son.
He never got a response. Last September, his son, Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born al Qaeda leader, was killed by a U.S. drone in a remote area of Northern Yemen. Two weeks later, his 16-year-old grandson, Anwar’s son, was also killed, in a separate U.S. strike hundreds of miles away.
“Anwar, it was expected, because he was … targeted,” Nasser al-Awlaki told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour in an exclusive interview on Wednesday. “But how in the world they will go and kill Abdulrahman, a small boy, a U.S. citizen, from Denver, Colorado?”
Nasser’s son, Anwar, was born in New Mexico in 1971 while he was studying for his master’s degree. The family moved back to Yemen, but Anwar returned to the U.S. for college, and became an imam in California.
For years, his father said, he gave sermons “like any other preacher.” But slowly, Anwar’s rhetoric became more and more radical. Eventually, he would become a leading figure in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Anwar’s online videos because an inspiration to a generation of Jihadists, including the so-called Christmas Day underwear bomber.
Nasser’s chief concern, however, his is grandson, Adulrahman.
“I took care of him,” al-Awlaki said. “I want to know why Abdulrahman was killed. He is only a small boy. I wanted to send him to America to study like his father, like myself, like my other son.”
Al-Awlaki is suing four U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Former CIA Director David Petraeus over his son and grandson’s deaths.
He alleges that the government did not follow due process in killing American-born Anwar and Adulrahman.
“I am not looking for compensation, I am not looking for money,” he said. “What I am looking is justice from the U.S. court system, because I feel my son and my grandson Abdulrahman were killed for no reason.”
What he is looking for is a clear accounting of why his son and grandson were killed.
Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, Anwar’s son and Nasser’s grandson, had no-known ties to terrorism. He was born in Colorado and spent the first half of his life in the United States.
“After two years absence from his father, he decided to go to our governorate in Yemen to seek information about his father. That was the only reason he went,” al-Awlaki said.
Abdulrahman snuck out the Sana’a house where he lived with his grandfather, left a note to his mother apologizing, and set out into the Yemeni desert.
“[Abdulrahman] wanted to come back, but then after two days he was also killed,” al-Awlaki said. “You know, he is not a militant. He is a nice boy. He has a Facebook page, and he had a lot of friends. He is a decent boy, small boy. You know he wore glasses since he was seven years old. He’s very gentle, soft boy. How can people say he’s a militant?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSwoRP-Y3a8
Grandfather grieves teenage grandson killed by U.S. drone
December 5th, 2012
05:29 PM ET
By Mick Krever, CNN
He never got a response. Last September, his son, Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born al Qaeda leader, was killed by a U.S. drone in a remote area of Northern Yemen. Two weeks later, his 16-year-old grandson, Anwar’s son, was also killed, in a separate U.S. strike hundreds of miles away.
“Anwar, it was expected, because he was … targeted,” Nasser al-Awlaki told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour in an exclusive interview on Wednesday. “But how in the world they will go and kill Abdulrahman, a small boy, a U.S. citizen, from Denver, Colorado?”
Nasser’s son, Anwar, was born in New Mexico in 1971 while he was studying for his master’s degree. The family moved back to Yemen, but Anwar returned to the U.S. for college, and became an imam in California.
For years, his father said, he gave sermons “like any other preacher.” But slowly, Anwar’s rhetoric became more and more radical. Eventually, he would become a leading figure in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Anwar’s online videos because an inspiration to a generation of Jihadists, including the so-called Christmas Day underwear bomber.
Nasser’s chief concern, however, his is grandson, Adulrahman.
“I took care of him,” al-Awlaki said. “I want to know why Abdulrahman was killed. He is only a small boy. I wanted to send him to America to study like his father, like myself, like my other son.”
Al-Awlaki is suing four U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Former CIA Director David Petraeus over his son and grandson’s deaths.
He alleges that the government did not follow due process in killing American-born Anwar and Adulrahman.
“I am not looking for compensation, I am not looking for money,” he said. “What I am looking is justice from the U.S. court system, because I feel my son and my grandson Abdulrahman were killed for no reason.”
What he is looking for is a clear accounting of why his son and grandson were killed.
Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, Anwar’s son and Nasser’s grandson, had no-known ties to terrorism. He was born in Colorado and spent the first half of his life in the United States.
“After two years absence from his father, he decided to go to our governorate in Yemen to seek information about his father. That was the only reason he went,” al-Awlaki said.
Abdulrahman snuck out the Sana’a house where he lived with his grandfather, left a note to his mother apologizing, and set out into the Yemeni desert.
“[Abdulrahman] wanted to come back, but then after two days he was also killed,” al-Awlaki said. “You know, he is not a militant. He is a nice boy. He has a Facebook page, and he had a lot of friends. He is a decent boy, small boy. You know he wore glasses since he was seven years old. He’s very gentle, soft boy. How can people say he’s a militant?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSwoRP-Y3a8
Published on 18 Jul 2012
The ACLU and CCR have filed a
lawsuit challenging the government's targeted killing of three U.S.
citizens in drone strikes far from any armed conflict zone.
In Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta (Al-Awlaki v. Panetta) the groups charge that the U.S. government's killings of U.S. citizens Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and 16-year-old Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi in Yemen last year violated the Constitution's fundamental guarantee against the deprivation of life without due process of law.
The killings were part of a broader program of "targeted killing" by the United States outside the context of armed conflict and based on vague legal standards, a closed executive process, and evidence never presented to the courts.
www.aclu.org/targetkillings
In Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta (Al-Awlaki v. Panetta) the groups charge that the U.S. government's killings of U.S. citizens Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and 16-year-old Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi in Yemen last year violated the Constitution's fundamental guarantee against the deprivation of life without due process of law.
The killings were part of a broader program of "targeted killing" by the United States outside the context of armed conflict and based on vague legal standards, a closed executive process, and evidence never presented to the courts.
www.aclu.org/targetkillings
No comments:
Post a Comment