Friday, September 21, 2012


"The morning after the Benghazi attack, on 12 September, the NATO puppets unwittingly admitted the truth about the 'Tahloob' (Green Resistance), and whined that NATO was not doing enough to help crush it.

"Libyan Deputy Interior Minister Wanis Al Sharif admitted this in a Benghazi news conference, which was later broadcast on Al Jazeera television.

"Libya’s Prime Minister Abdurrahim El-Keib also admitted it, as did Libya’s President Mohammed El-Megarif, as well as Ali Aujali, Libya’s Ambassador to Washington, plus Ibrahim Dabbashi, Libya’s ambassador to the UN.

"All of them said that Gaddafi loyalists had attacked the US site in Benghazi.

"They would quickly change their change tune under pressure from their NATO masters..."

Benghazi Attack. Libya’s Green Resistance Did It… And NATO Powers Are Covering UpBy Mark Robertson and Finian Cunningham,September 20, 2012


Anonymous said...

Aangirfan, thank you for making this a post.

The report puts many pieces together.

It was always hard for me to reconcile having the same el CIAda that lead the Libyan NATO coup also kill their 'pointman' and 'contact' with the NATO powers, Ambassador Stevens.

The report does not rely on 'inside' jobs or 'Mormon' CIA rogue elements.

This is the most illuminating paragraph:

"One bureaucrat who would not adopt the NATO spin [el CIAda did the attack] was Prime Minister Abdurrahim El-Keib, who continued to insist that Gaddafi loyalists were the perpetrators. Therefore, NATO dismissed him as Libya’s prime minister, and replaced him with Mustafa Abushagur, the day after the Benghazi incident. Abushagur had lived most of his life in the USA, and had always been an enemy of Gaddafi. Like so many other US-installed bureaucrats, he had returned to Benghazi in May 2011 during the NATO-instigated insurgency."

Why replace this man immediately if he was simply off-base?

On the other hand, if he was sticking to his claim - and it was true - but NATO didn't want that story to get traction in the media, the reason is obvious for his removal.

Also, this is evidence of Trilateralist versus neocon split in the Elites because there have been trilateralists pushing the idea Mossad and Saudi Arabia orchestated the murder angle:

Gordon Duff and Steve Pieczenik both have claimed the Mossad, Saudi angle.

Both are Trilateralists and Gordon Duff has been identified as a disinformation agent and Trilateralist. Pieczenik is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations.

Pieczenik is very good at disinformation, but when he claims Hillary Clinton is doing a good job as Sec. of State, that gives his game away. Also, Pieczenik has identified Trilateralist, President Jimmy Carter, as a good foreign policy president and praised George Bush, Sr. as a good president (Bush was a Globalist and Council of Foreign Relations type guy, calling for a "New World Order".

But Pieczenik doesn't talk about Reagan very much, why? Possibly because Reagan was a nationalist and not a Globalist.

Hillary Clinton is a Trilateralist and Council of Foreign Relations faction member.

In the alternative media, the game for Trilateralists is to blame Mossad and Israel -- don't get me wrong, Mossad is bad, bad, bad.

But, this whole "Arab Spring" was not a neocon idea, it was a Trilateralist idea, although many neocons jumped on it as the moving idea, those neocons are just 'bandwagon' followers.

Trilateralists are stealth, neocons are naked muscle, and they are rivals for power and influence.

But their objectives overlap to some extent, although Trilateralists don't see Israel as central to their plans of 'world governance' while neocons do.

Which are more dangerous, the neocon faction or the Trilateralist?

In the short-term, the neocons are the more dangerous because they rely on brute military power, while the Trilateralists are more cautious and don't depend on military power (in polite company they are refered to as 'realists'), but, perhaps, over the longer-term, the Trilateralists are more dangerous because their plans are more advanced and sophisticated.

In the end, both need to be exposed and stopped. First, the neocons because they are more likely to cause regional and possible world wars by their naked reliance on military power (although, in Libya and Syria both camps, Trilateralist and neocon, respectively, are relying on military power, in Syria by supplying weapons and mercenaries). The Trilateralists conception is still to have 'world governance' and minimized nation-state sovereignty.

Both are wrong.

By the way, the report in the link is the best account of the actual attack on the 'series of villas' (not a 'consulate' as widely reported) I have read in my opinion.

The link for this story is well worth the time to read.

Anonymous said...

Finally, people will understand that Gaddafi did 911.
He chose the date corresponding to Arabic numerology.
All his former friends admitted this before coming under pressure.
Chossudovsky is not a member of the tribe.

The Green Resistance is also going to launch OWS revolutions now.
The hidden truth is they get their energy from Mars.
Watch Debkafiles for further revelations.

Anonymous said...

And yet to real proof that man is dead. All we have is manipulated stuff....

Anonymous said...

How to assess this story?

United Nations False-Flag Terror Attack Planned For New York City?

Trilateral faction against neocon?
SWITZERLAND, Zurich — Just two days after the failed 2012 DNC Terror Plot, potentially the most high profile UN meeting ever was scheduled for September 26, 2012, in New York City. The meeting date also falls on Yom Kippur which completes the annual period known in Judaism as the Yamim Nora’im or “Days of Awe”. Historically, events involving U.S., Israeli and Iranian presidents are scheduled months in advance, but not this time.

The World Headquarters of the United Nations is scheduled to host the leaders of Israel and Iran and U.S. President Obama. In addition, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Francois Hollande and U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron are also scheduled to attend the U.N. forum. According to reports, Iranian President Ahmadinejad and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas have allegedly threatened to use the 2012 General Assembly to advance the campaign for Palestinian unilateral statehood.

Given the current geopolitical climate, there is a real possibility that the United Nations’ World Headquarters in New York City, which is currently “under construction”, may be the site of a major false-flag terror attack.

David Chase Taylor also writes:
Alex Jones links to STRATFOR.
Alex Jones Cancels Speaking Tour 3 Days After Exposure As Possible STRATFOR Double Agent

j said...


I think Webster Tarpley is probably right - it's the Romney-side: or "the" Mormons. Obama gets "Carterised".

I think this, because there is a lot wrong with the pictures we got of Stevens. And manipulation of pictures is a CIA-NSA-and-so-on thing. And not something Green freedom fighters would do.

Now to the photos. Here is a compilation .

1. The photo on top left is probably the only one, which is recent. Stevens is
older there, having only or mainly grey(!) hair. When he was young he was gold-blond.
The man of the picture top-left - supposed to show us Stevens (let's call it the "victim-pic") has
a. ... robust and black(!) hair. We don't see that grey hair of the elderly Chris Stevens and also not his gold-blond hair - if he still had that.
b) ... has a quiff: Long front hair being thrown back. The quiff is even stable in that turmoil. Stevens on the other side had his front hair either to the left or simply falling down ("pony").

2. There is another photo of the victim Stevens on (original page: ) .

Also this photo neither fits to the photo top-right on, nor fits it to the "victim-pic" (there top-left). No big quiff! And even a bald place on the left side of the head. A bald place Stevens has on no other picture.

I used my portable HdX-Monitor (freeware). Here the snapshot: .
And there you see "Ducky Adobe". That is the sign of the program "Photoshop", that belong to Adobe - see: .
So it's not an original photo, but it has been worked on!

3. And now back to the "victim-pic". The original photo is from .

And my HdX-Monitor sees this: .
And there you can clearly read "Photoshop"!

4. But there is even more wrong with the "victim-pic".
Upload the marked picture first: .

The light or flashlight must be on or very near to the camera (or cell phone with camera). This tells us the reflection on "Stevens'" forehead.
a. Compare the relatively small shadow of Stevens' chin ("A") with the much fatter shadow of the chin ("B") of the man, who drags him. But it should be the other way around, because Stevens has his chin much deeper to the light/camera. His(!) shadow should be fatter than that of the dragging man!

b. Viewing from the camera/light/flashlight the thumb ("C") of the big hand, at right, should have been thrown a shadow, that lays BEHIND the thumb itself. Instead the shadow has been pulled before(!) the thumb. But that is not possible and proves we see a faked photo.

c. While the index finger of that hand ("D") has no shadow at all (which it should have!) those shadows of the little finger and the thumb are much too fat ("E")! Compare this with those mini-shadows of the trousers ("E") and the black shirt of the dragging man ("F") (lighten up the picture in order to see the shadow of the black shirt)

d. The streaks of the blue jeans ("G") seem to prove a fabrication.

j said...


5. Strange also how Stevens is dressed on the "victim-pic". Let us be a bit like "Colombo" now: Because of my experience as an elderly man, I would bet, that Stevens would put greatest emphasis on his optical appearance. He would never have left the bathroom without taking a short or even longer look into the mirror.

a. This cheap short-leave shirt doesn't fit to an ambassador Stevens. Also this shirt has no collar! But Stevens has a green Jacket, we see below his left arm. And it is neither fashionable nor comfortable to have the collar of your jacket directly on the skin of your neck. Especially not in a hot summer night in Libya.

b. Also this jacket doesn't fit to an Ambassador Stevens. It is not directly ugly - but it is not 'reserved' enough for an elderly Ambassador.
And this is indeed a jacket and not the trousers of the dragging man: Prolong the little finger of the dragging man and you see the seam of the pocket of the jacket. No trousers have pockets there! Also wouldn't it make sense that the dragging man would hold his own knee. Of course he holds Stevens - and a piece of Stevens' jacket.

c. Also Stevens' trousers seem to have no crease. But Stevens didn't have to iron himself. He had staff for that - and every morning he could pick a fresh pair of trousers.

d. Also his trousers seem cheap. This shining in the camera light (or flash) indicates a lot of chemical yarn.
A Stevens, who was probably a little bit vain, as think, wouldn't buy trousers like that.

6. Strange that we hear nothing of Stevens' burial. I mean: The body is getting a bit old now. And to attend the burial of a "hero" could be just the right show for Obama, having an election campaign.

Anonymous said...

Nope. Not buying it. Just one point alone - the 'green revolution' did it so u.s. could put more troops on the ground ?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

John McCain. Yeah, he looks 'green' to me.

j said...

There is even more wrong. On you see the real Stevens on the left (from "" -see above) and the Stevens of the "victim-pic" ( ) on the right.

And we can clearly see it's not just the hair that doesn't fit.
Also the left ear shows clearly that the "victim-pic" doesn't show the real Ambassador Stevens.
1. The real Stevens left ear has a very fine bead ("H") - while the victim-Stevens has a fat and flat bead").

2. The ear of the victim-Stevens bends inward (to the beckhead) at the end - and so disappears from the camera ("I"). The ear of the real Stevens (left) doesn't bent backwards at all!

3. Also the many creases at the real Stevens' left ("J") eye cannot be found with the victim-Stevens.

Anonymous said...

"It was a mere coincidence that the Benghazi attack happened on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11"
'Mere coincidence' that 'Innocence' and all its associated shadowy organisation had been in the pipe-line for months ?
'Mere coincidence' that the organisation for the 'uprisings' was in place at least days before?
'Mere coincidence that, if one is to believe their line, the 'Green Resistance' somehow thought it was in their interests to be forever associated with all things 911?
I'm just gonna have to think that it's just 'mere coincidence' Robertson and Cunningham are painting the 'Green Resistance as some kind of morons.

arthur zbygniew said...

latest post: syria conflict map september 2012

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Noor al Haqiqa said...

Excellent article and commentary from your readers Aangirfan!

Anonymous said...

Anony 1:55. Er, I thought it was funny. Sarc, whacky humour or perhaps CNN spin. ??

Anonymous said...

Anon. 6:07 a. m. wrote: "Nope. Not buying it. Just one point alone - the 'green revolution' did it so u.s. could put more troops on the ground ?"

This statement is not logical.

By this logic the Green Movement wouldn't give any resistence to the NATO backed regime in Libya because the "u.s. could put more troops on the ground ?"

No, the Green Revolution would want to get revenge specifically against Stevens and make it known they can strike the imperial power's top man in Libya.

As for the timing, that is the most troubling aspect, but why not strike the symbolic head of the imperial power in your country on the same day as the anniversary of the biggest hit on the imperial power?

That reasoning is not hard to impute to the Green Movement's leadership or the cell responsible for the attack.

As for the simultaneous protests at Cairo, those were much more conventional. And, again, it doesn't take much to suggest the timing of the two events was serendipitous

Read the story, according to this account there wasn't a protest at the 'series of villas', but only a coordinated attack.

As for picture analysis of Stevens, that's over-analysis in my opinion.

Think about it:

What is the biggest threat to a fake popular uprising, which was in reality of small band of rebels backed by the biggest military power in the world?

Answer: A real popular uprising carried on by supporters of someone already dead, which means Gaddafi really did have deep and popular support.

That the rational to bomb, wreak, and takeover Libya, a "humanitarian" mission was a lie.

That realization in the American public would be a killer for this whole cynical policy of claiming the policy is based on humanitarianism.

I know people not from America might take issue with this, but the American People are (in my opinion) moral, they will not support a policy they know to be an immoral policy.

The unraveling of the Libyan policy and its exposure as a immoral failure could tip the balance against this whole Middle Eastern strategem.

The NATO powers will do anything they can to prevent the truth coming out that the POPULAR support was with Gaddafi the whole time.

Remember that Youtube of Gaddafi riding in the car with his upper body and head sticking up out of the car and people lining the streets?

That was the real Libya and NATO and their terrorists destroyed that -- the last thing they want Americans to know is the truth.

Do you (readers) want to stop this immoral and cynical policy?

Get the truth out about what happened in Libya and, MORE IMPORTANT, is still happening in Libya.

Libya is the 'soft under-belly' of the whole "Arab Spring" policy of the NATO powers.

Anonymous said...

Anon. 10:58 a.m. wrote: "John McCain. Yeah, he looks 'green' to me.

This story actually supports the Green Movement killed Ambassador Stevens analysis.


Because here we have a story that states (paraphrase) "no, the NATO regime has popular support, not those who killed Stevens."

And if the Green Movement killed Stevens and has popular support, they don't want that getting out so they set up a protest to give the impression NATO's regime has popular support.

Undoubtedly, there is support for the NATO regime in Bengahzi because that was were the most anti-Gaddafi sentiment existed.

But the CNN story begs you not to look behind the curtatin at the fact that there is active resistence by the Green Movement against the NATO regime.

Remember, that's what it is: The NATO regime.

Do you really think an imperial puppet regime actually has deep and popular support?

I don't think so, not when you consider the state of Libya before the invasion and bombing and killing.

Libya, for all Gaddafi's admitted failures and killings, yes, he was a dictator, was the most wealthy and advanced country on the continent of Africa.

Now, Libya is a bombed out wreak and in social choas, do you really think man on the street Libyans are happy and celebrating that outcome?

If you do I got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

j said...

@ j 11:00 AM

Like Ms. Marple and Mr. Springer we should learn from thrillers. Among those Columbo episodes there are several in which the murderer killed his victim long ago but has now - often with the gadgetry of the early '70s - faked successful, that the victim died later and in a different location (than the actual) and under completely different circumstances (than the actual). For this faked time, faked place and faked circumstances the killers had a super-airtight alibi .... until this old Peugeot of Columbo rolls before the house.

The same here: Stevens is certainly dead. But he died EARLY and ELSEWHERE and under completely DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCE.
The show of Stevens alleged death (with lots of "Alluh Akbar" roar) was produced only to cover the real killer.
Don't forget: If the art of choreography had a fatherland … it was certainly the USA!


If Webster Tarpley is right with his 'CIA-Mormon theory' everything comes out all right: Stevens (despised by the Mormons as a gay) was liquidated from reliable CIA assassins (who not only work through Obama's killing lists, but also through the lists of their own house). Much better than to leave this job to those sloppy Al Qaeda people!
To cover up real time / real place / real circumstances of the kill this roaring show was let loose.
Now no one is checking any more , where Stevens was i. e. 3 days before and as if he was then still alive.
Also it seem that e few bodyguards have died. Perhaps because they knew, that Stevens didn't show up day before this show.

The above is only speculation of course. While the fact, that those photos are faked, is not(!) a speculation - this is proved!

This show of the (alleged) death of Stevens in the hands of Al Kaida of course reminds us of the big show of the (alleged) death of Gaddafi.
Also there the images of the disgraced (alleged) body of Gaddafi did not match with the optical characteristics of the real Gaddafi.

That does not mean that I thought Gaddafi was still alive. Rather, I also think that that Gaddafi died EARLIER, ELSEWHERE and under completely DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES
Also there it appears that the real killer was protected. Need for such protection would have a murderer, who came from the inner circle of Gaddafi's confidants. Gaddafi was and is obviously very popular with the Libyans. A traitor and murderer of Gaddafi's inner circle would therefore constantly have to fear for his life - came his infamous treason known in public.
NATO had probably found a traitor, but had to promise to him cover up his crime successfully.

Anonymous said...

Was U.S. Ambassador Lynched?

October Surprise to Carterize Obama Webster Tarpley

Can we trust Tarpley, if

Alex Jones is CIA DISINFORMATION agent/asset of the continued Project Mockingbird and Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor and alternative Media Gatekeeper for the Vatican?

Tarpley, Cartalucci, Wayne Madsen seem to be worth of trust,
but after reaing posts about
Alex Jones being disinfo agen
I wonder why they are posting their articles on prisonplanet... ?

Anonymous said...

Is Alex Jones A STRATFOR Double Agent?

Stratfor Emails: US Government Contractor Was Involved In Gaddafi Killing; Now Aiding Syrian “Regime Change”

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ 9:31 PM,

Gee, thanks for those interesting revelations on Qadaffi, numerology. And especially on the Martians and stuff.

Good thing you're not distracting people from more important things like the truth or discrediting the truth with random idiocy.

Maybe you should instead spend your time reading the excellent article on

Man, you're not computer-generated cognitive infiltration, are you? You're a little too "Ludwig Plutonium" to be from this planet.

"Many important things have happened to my in my life. My graduation from Princeton. The day that Marsha said she would be my wife. The birth of our daughter, Taffy."

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, but those photos only prove an overactive imagination (that's as wrong as September Clues same as Gaddafi's death was fake talk).

Tarpley has done good work on Libya and Syria, but his "Mormon CIA" killed Ambassador Stevens thesis is a product of his hate for Romney, not even Romney, really, but "austerity" cuts, Tarpley did the same thing to Ron Paul.

Tarpley hates anybody who would reduce government size.

There are a number Mormons in the CIA, but Tarpley offers zero evidence, only supposition and speculation about Mormons in the CIA.

(I, myself, don't like Romney's foreign policy and his being surrounded by neocons. Those neocons are dangerous.)

The problem with Tarpley is when he has an agenda and in this case, attacking anybody (Ron Paul then Romney) who proposes, in Tarpley's words, "austerity cuts."

The idea of limited government does not exist in Tarpley's lexicon or mind.

J, you are wrong.

Tell me, why would all the Libyan officials initially blame the Green Movement, then suddenly change their minds and the one official who didn't "change his mind" get replaced the next day?

Read the actual Global Research story as opposed to spinning silly ideas about multiple pictures and even more silly ideas about different places and times for the murders.

It all cuts into your credibility.

j said...

Anonymous 3:19 AM

Citation: "J, you are wrong. Tell me, why would all the Libyan officials initially blame the Green Movement, then suddenly change their minds and the one official who didn't "change his mind" get replaced the next day?"

I was not talking about those "Libyan officials" or bothering whom they "blame". I only proved (rational!!!) that those photos of Chris Stevens beeing murdered were fabricated.
And I never said, that those fraudulent/manipulated pictures were produced by the "Libyan officials" (to me they are not "Libyan officials" but "Nato-offcials).

And, yes, I know "Global Reseach". But what article are You referring to???

Anonymous said...

J, the Global Research article I'm referring to is the basis for Aangirfan's post on and is linked in the post, itself:

Benghazi Attack. Libya’s Green Resistance Did It… And NATO Powers Are Covering Up

[sub headline]

US Ambassador’s Killing Had Nothing to Do With Al Qaeda, Islamist Blowback or Anti-Islamic Video

The fact you failed to even know (or falsely claimed not to know)the basis for my comment suggests you are either obtuse or a disinformation agent (hoping some folks wouldn't bother to read the link in the original post).

Your so-called "pictures proves the death didn't happen at the time or place reported" is nothing, but distraction malarkey designed as an irrevevant dead-end for the gullible.

Anonymous said...

Earlier in this comment section I stated: "Gordon Duff and Steve Pieczenik both have claimed the Mossad, Saudi angle.

Both are Trilateralists and Gordon Duff has been identified as a disinformation agent and Trilateralist [Libya NATO invasion & Syria overthrow good]. Pieczenik is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations."

A post over at Veterans Today by Gordon Duff attempts to reinforce the meme that a foreign assassination team murdered Ambassador Stevens:

Egyptian Film Promoter Complicit, Google/Youtube Suspect, Tea Party/GOP Involvement Key

Yes, please read the Duff article.

Duff's overall theme: The attack was too complicated & sophisticated for any domestic resistence movement to carry out (read between the lines, "the Green Movement couldn't have carried out the attack which killed Ambassador Stevens").

But is that really true, that the attack was too complicated & sophisticated for the Green Movement to carry out (implicitly, Duff acknowledges the claim that el CIAda would kill the NATO point man, Ambassador Stevens, to the el CIAda rebels NATO supported by arial bombardment is ludicrous)?

Duff makes a series of totally unsupported claims about the details of the attack on Stevens.

But does the attack need to be as complicated as Duff claims?

It is important to my analysis, here, that Duff has already been identified as a disinformation agent (Duff first cheerleaded and, then, defended the Libyan NATO invasion and claimed ANY alternative media which opposed the NATO invasion was "bought-off and paid for by the Zionists").

Duff, if you are reading this, know your Libyan bull crap was a millstone around your neck, you have NO credibility.

From the Global Reasearch article in the post:

"In an interview with McClatchy news service last Thursday (13 September 2012) the eyewitness said there were no protesters at all.

'The Americans would have left if there had been protesters, but there wasn’t a single ant. The area was totally quiet until about 9:35 pm, when as many as 125 men attacked with machine guns, grenades, RPGs, and anti-aircraft weapons. They threw grenades into the villas, wounding me and knocking me down. Then they stormed through the facility’s main gate, moving from villa to villa.'"

This whole debate over who did the Stevens attack is crucial to the overall Libyan NATO narrative and in my opinion is crucial to the whole so-called "Arab Spring".

The R2P (Responsibility to Protect), trilateralist figleaf for Western hegemony was THE MORAL BASIS for the NATO invasion in Libya and, now, Syria, and, here is where Tarpley is right: The "Arab Spring" was a NATO 'color revolution' strategem to destabilize and make Arabs and Muslims look bad, slash, have Islamists, who are secretly NATO puppets, placed in power.

But remember, these Islamisists have their own agendas, too, which likely is to betray their NATO masters for their own goals.

All told, it is a dangerous brew set to boil by an arrogant and dangerous crowd of Elites.

Whether Trilateralist or Neocon.

Anonymous said...

Excellent job, AAng, as usual.
Best political blog!
And fascinating discussion...

I'm still confused, why Tarpley is posting on infowars:

CIA Mormon Mafia, Romney Neocons Using Islamophobic Film To Prop Up Saudi, Other Gulf Monarchies

Webster G. Tarpley on Infowars

when there is already a lot of data
about Alex Jones being disinfo agent...

Tarpley used to be my guru, and still he is...
Why is he melting his name with Stratfor'disinfo 'Alex Jones'...?

Anon said...

Alex Jones gets it right on the big issues!

He has been under attack by the CIA.

- Aangirfan

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Aang.
Now all is little bit clear to me...

Among the mess with disinfo agents...
another disappointment for me
was the position of EIR (as well as Gordon Duff's) during the
bloody attack on Libya:

Lyndon H. LaRouche The Doom of Quadaffy-Duck

All the Best, Aang
Thanks for your work.

Anonymous said...

The speech of Dr. Hamza Touhami about the recents bombings in Tripoli and Benghazi

Dr. Hamza Touhami requested the Libyans to pay attention to who spoke on behalf of the Green Resistance. It represents only itself.

Dr. Hamza Touhami said the bombing attacks in Tripoli and Benghazi are not acts of Green Resistance.

These are terroristic attacks made ​​by the fundamentalist branches of the NATO/mercenaries and rats from Al Qaeda terrorists.

Dr. Hamza Touhami confirms that the Green Resistance fighters are noble Libyan people and they do not bomb and kills civilians, but just military and strategic targets between the gangs of mercenaries and traitors of the Green Jamahiriya.

Anonymous said...

Aangirfan, I'm curious about AJ being under attack by the CIA, any examples you could give?

Not that I disbelieve you, I'm just curious.

But your statement raises a question, could have Mr. Piecznik's open attack on Israel and Netanyahu (not that both don't deserve to be critisized extensively) and Saudi Arabia on AJ's show been a way to hurt Jones credibility?

That's not a conclusionary statement, but an open question.

Being accused of quote, "anti-semitism" unquote, is still a powerful way to discredit.

Would Piecznik throw dirt on himself in order to discredit Alex Jones?

I know this sounds convoluted, but I agree with you, generally, Jones gets it right on the big issues, yet, it's still true he shies away from discussion of Zionism.

But I tend to give him a break on that because being labelled an "anti-semite" is so powerful a weapon in mainstream corporate media.

And for the unawake, claims of "anti-semitism" will scare them away the alternative media.

That's really Jones' target audience, those who are uninitiated.

I know, at first, I was cautious about hard-core anti-Zionists, but now after careful research, I understand the arguments and generally agree with those who speak out against Zionism.

Anonymous said...

"Alex Jones [...] has been under attack by the CIA."
What happened ?

Anon said...

It looks as if the CIA, through its assets, has been presenting Jones as a disinformation agent. The CIA presents Jones as pro-Israel, although Jones has repeatedly criticised Israel. The main disinformation agents usually support Hitler and defend the Pentagon.

- Aangirfan

Site Meter