Breaking News

Toronto Load More

OntarioLoad More

CanadaLoad More



Monday, January 28, 2013

“Zero Dark Thirty”: The deeper, darker truths



By Jim Fetzer-PRESS TV


A film that may even take the 
Academy Award for “Best 
Picture of 2012” raises serious 
moral issues; glorifies a 
political stunt and is based on 
an historical fiction. It is the 
latest in Obama propaganda.

Osama bin Laden was not killed on 2 May 2011 during the raid 

on a compound in Pakistan. He actually died in Afghanistan on 

or about 15 December 2001 — and he was buried there in an 

unmarked grave.

Local obituaries reported Osama’s death at the time. Even 
FOX News subsequently confirmed it. He was buried in an 
unmarked grave in accord with Muslim traditions. He did not 
die in Pakistan.
Nick Kollerstrom has published about it, “Osama bin Laden: 
1957-2001″. David Ray Griffin has a book about it, Osama bin 
Laden: Dead or Alive. And Scholars for 9/11 Truth has written 
The film suggests that torture produces actionable intelligence, 
when virtually every military and intelligence expert will 
confirm that you are told what those being tortured think you 
want to hear to stop the pain.
As TIME and The Huffington Post have reported, the film’s 
depiction of torture has created a controversy that may affect 
its chances for an Oscar. Among the most notable commentaries 
is one by Matt Tiabbi.
A columnist for Rolling Stone, he has raised serious questions:
“[I]f it would have been dishonest to leave torture outof the film entirely, how is it not dishonest to leave out how generally ineffective it was, how morally corrupting, how totally it enraged the entire Arab world, how often we used it on people we knew little to nothing about, how often it resulted in deaths, or a hundred other facts? Bigelow put it in, which was “honest,” but it seems an eerie coincidence that she was “honest” about torture in pretty much exactly the way a CIA interrogator would have told the story, without including much else.”
Osama was “our man in Afghanistan”
Even more importantly, the political context has been all but 
lost to history. Obama was on the hot seat for an apparently 
fake birth certificate, having troops in Pakistan and not closing 
Guantanamo.
By alleging that the tip had come from a prisoner held there 
and using troops stationed in Pakistan, in a brilliant political 
stroke, he took his birth certificate off the front page, 
positioning himself for re-election.
Osama was “our man in Afghanistan.” During the uprising 
against its occupation by Soviet forces, he was instrumental in 
securing Stinger missiles, which were used to shoot down their 
helicopters and planes.
In an earlier film about Afghanistan, “Charlie Wilson’s War”
Osama’s role was conveniently omitted. It would have been 
embarrassing to have acknowledged “the man behind 9/11” had 
been working for us.
The demise of the Soviet Union in 1991 left the 
military/industrial complex scrambling for some new “boogie 
man” to justify massive expenditures on military weapons and 
curtail any “peace dividend.”
Nothing could be more useful than a shadowy “terrorist” threat 
that has no geographical boundaries, where you can commit a 
terrorist act any time it’s most politically convenient, as with 
the Bali bombing.
Australia had been reticent about joining the “war on terror.” 
What could be a greater inducement than to slaughter many 
Australians by means of a fabricated attack to motivate its 
enthusiasm for that war.
Analogously, what could have been more beneficial to Obama 
than to “take out” a man who was already dead by executing a 
political stunt that most Americans would not be in a suitable 
position to contest?
Problems with the “Official Account”

But there were problems. Local residents had never seen 
Osama. They identified the man in the photo as the compound’s 
owner, who was not bin Laden. The SEALs performed their 
task and were gone.
A photograph of the President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of State was widely circulated as engrossed in watching it go down in real time. But the photo itself would turn out to have been
staged.
Leon Panetta, Director of the CIA, let the cat out of the bag by noting that there had been no visual footage of the raid during its first 20-25 minutes, which was more than the lapsed time for the whole event.
The body was allegedly identified by DNA comparisons in less 
time than scientifically possible — and was then dumped into 
the sea “in accordance with Islamic practice,” which was a 
ridiculous contention.
Burial at sea is disrespectful of the body, which can be 
consumed by sharks, fish and crustaceans. That is not a Muslim 
tradition, but it conveniently disposed of the most powerful 
proof of fakery and fraud.
When most of the SEAL team involved in the raid were killed 
when their helicopter was shot down in Afghanistan a few 
months later, it was not implausible to suppose that they might 
have been silenced.
Osama and al-Qaeda, which was the name given to “our base” 
in Afghanistan, had nothing to do with 9/11. Osama denied that 
he was involved in 9/11, implicating a “government within the 
government.”
Another prominent figure who has acknowledged the existence 
of a “government within the government” is William Jefferson 
Clinton, who admitted that this is an entity over which he 
exercised no control.
Research by experts at The Vancouver Hearings (15-17 June 2012) has vindicated his claim, where US neo-cons — with assistance from the Mossad and the complicity of the Pentagon — orchestrated 9/11.
There are many articles about this, including “Peeling the 9/11 
Onion: Layers of Plots within Plots” (with Preston James) and 
“9/11: Have we been bamboozed?” The second death of Osama 
does not stand alone.
JF/HSN
Via PRESS TV

Share This
Blogger
Facebook
Disqus

comments powered by Disqus

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe
Stay Connected
Featured

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

© The Toronto Post All rights reserved