JPEG - 27.9 kb
Le 5 février 2003, le secrétaire d’État des États-Unis, Colin Powell, se livrait à un grand show au Conseil de sécurité de l’Onu, retransmis en mondovision. Il accusait, preuves à l’appui, l’Irak de Saddam Hussein de détenir un gigantesque arsenal d’armes interdites (à la fois biologiques, nucléaires et chimiques), d’entretenir des relations avec les auteurs des attentats du 11-Septembre et de les protéger. Au cours de son exposé, il frappa les esprits en brandissant une fiole qu’il présenta comme un échantillon d’anthrax irakien. Par la suite, il avoua que toutes les preuves —photographies satellitaires, interceptions téléphoniques, rapports de Renseignement et témoignages — étaient truquées et qu’il avait menti sciemment devant la communauté internationale. Cependant les États-Unis détruisirent l’Irak, tuant plus d’un million d’Irakiens, sans que jamais Washington ait à répondre de ses mensonges et de son crime.

“The obscure enemy hidden in the dark corners of the land” (as President Bush defined it in 2001) continues to claim its victims, the latest in Brussels. We are talking about terrorism, an “enemy so different from any we have faced up till now.” On 11 September, Terrorism shows its face as the entire world watched the apolyptical image of the collapsing towers.

In order to eliminate it, “the colossal fight of Good against Evil” (to use the words of President Bush) is still underway. But each time terror drives us to cut off one of Hydra’s head, more form. What do we have to do? First: pay no attention to believe what has been reported to us for almost 15 years. First, discard the official version of September 11th that has been completely torn apart by the weight of the technical-scientific evidence against it. As Washington is unable to discredit such evidence, it rubbishes it as “conspiracy”.

The biggest terrorist attacks in the West have three implications:
• First, the timing: the 11 September attack happens at the same time the US had already taken the decision (reported by the New York Times on 31 August 2001) to shift to Asia the central focus of their strategy to oppose closer relations between Russia and China. Not even a month later, on 7 October 2001, on the justification of hunting down Osama bin Laden the instigator of 11 September, the US begins the war in Afghanistan, the first of a new escalation of warfare. The terrorist attack in Brussels occurs when the US and Nato are preparing to occupy Libya on the justification of eliminating Isis which is threatening Europe.
• Second, the terror impact: the massacres, whose images flash repeatedly before our eyes, create a vast public opinion in favour of armed intervention to eliminate the threat. On the other hand, worse terrorist massacres, as in Damascus two years ago, are barely observed.
• Third, the signature: paradoxally “the dark enemy” always signs his terrorist attacks. In 2001, when New York was still immersed in the smoke of the fallen Towers, photos and biographies of the 19 hijackers, all members of Al-Qaeda were released, several already noted by the CIA and the FBI. The same at Brussels in 2016: before identifying all the victims, the attackers, already known to the secret services, were identified.

Is it possible that the secret services, spawned from the tentacled US “intelligence community” comprising 17 federal organizations with agents all over the world, are so inefficient? Or is it the case that they are instead extremely efficient vehicles for producing strategies to induce terror? There is no shortage of labour: you have Islamic terrorist movements, armed and trained by the Cia and financed by Saudi Arabia, to destroy the Libyan state and to fragment the Syrian state with Turkey’s backing and 5,000 European foreign fighters that swarmed into Syria with the complicity of their governments.

From this vast pool, can be recruited both the suicide attacker, convinced that he will become a martyr for a divine cause, and the mercenary warrior or the petty criminal that will act out “suicide”, allowing his identity card to be found (as in the Charlie-Hebdo attack) or making a bomb explode, before fleeing the scene. The formation of terrorist cells may also be facilitated, which independently feed the strategy of terror: they create a climate of a state under siege, typically found today in European countries that are members of Nato. And this justifies new US-led wars.

One may resort to lies, such as the “evidence” that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that Colin Powell brought before the UN Security Council on 5 February 2003. Evidence that then turned out to be false, having been manufactured by the CIA to justify a “pre-emptive war” against Iraq.

Anoosha Boralessa
Il Manifesto (Italy)