Monday, May 18, 2015

Sy Hersh’s Limited Hangout: Framing Saudi Arabia for Destruction/Destabilization

I've wanted to get this post up since I left the comment below here:
I put this comment at MoA
Not sure if it posted- that place is funny sometimes- funny as in strange
re: the Sy Hersh piece.

"Is someone trying to apply pressure on him."
Him being Salman and Saudi Arabia
Or...has this story been created to further demonize Saudi Arabia- for when the tide turns. And Saudi Arabia becomes a less favoured nation.
Along the same line of what we have seen the last little while with Turkey-

The death of Bin Laden was necessary for the creation of ISIS
It's pretty obvious in hindsight, isn't it?
Let me get the Bin Laden death and intro of ISIS out of the way first:

Bin Laden killed 4 years ago- ISIS introduced to us as the new global terror threat about two years ago. ISIS being an affilliate allegedly of AQ,with a new figure head Al Baghadadi, who has died or not on at least two occasions already- Rebrand.
An obvious rebrand. OBL and AQ: tired and stale
Rebrand: ISIS (easy to recall, fresh, associated with a goddess/deity making the feminists quite happy) and a new 'leader' Al Baghdadi: Mythopoeia- Abu Bakr al Baghdadi 
He who has as many lives as OBL- In other words only the names have changed- Everything else is the same.

There is a post here on the alleged death of OBL:
 Osama Bin Laden dead: Cui Bono? Convenient timing. Potential groomed replacement?

I didn't believe the narrative then and don't care about the rewrite now! There is, however, something else in Sy Hersh's article that is much more relevant to present day. And is the reason, in my opinion, for the appearance/promotion/attention being given to this new narrative.
"Or...has this story been created to further demonize Saudi Arabia- for when the tide turns. And Saudi Arabia becomes a less favoured nation.
Along the same line of what we have seen the last little while with Turkey-"

Sy Hersh: The Killing of Osama Bin Laden

The changed narrative presented in the linked Sy Hersh article does not dispute or disagree with the official narrative “We (US) got OBL in Pakistan”. The reinforcement of that lie is right in the headline "The Killing of Osama Bin Laden" What Sy Hersh’s article feels & reads like is the creation or shifting of a narrative, for the next chapter of a very long and ugly work of fiction, that passes for our reality.

I will quote the paragraphs that relate directly to the plot redirection- Framing Saudi Arabia, prepping the audience for the imminent destabilization of Saudi Arabia. Which has already begun with Yemen. If you’ve been paying attention here, you know this has previously been mentioned.

Quoting relevant paragraphs from Sy Hersh’s supposedly startling/shocking article:

“A worrying factor at this early point, according to the retired official, was Saudi Arabia, which had been financing bin Laden’s upkeep since his seizure by the Pakistanis. ‘The Saudis didn’t want bin Laden’s presence revealed to us because he was a Saudi, and so they told the Pakistanis to keep him out of the picture. The Saudis feared if we knew we would pressure the Pakistanis to let bin Laden start talking to us about what the Saudis had been doing with al-Qaida. And they were dropping money – lots of it. The Pakistanis, in turn, were concerned that the Saudis might spill the beans about their control of bin Laden. The fear was that if the US found out about bin Laden from Riyadh, all hell would break out. The Americans learning about bin Laden’s imprisonment from a walk-in was not the worst thing.”

“Adding to the tension was the Pakistani nuclear arsenal, often depicted in the Western press as an ‘Islamic bomb’ that might be transferred by Pakistan to an embattled nation in the Middle East in the event of a crisis with Israel”
Debunking nonsense

“Saudi Arabia financing Bin Laden’s upkeep”

Bin Laden the multimillionaire? Bin Laden the son of a billionaire?  
Requiring Saudi upkeep? I don't think so

“The Saudis feared if we knew we would pressure the Pakistanis to let bin Laden start talking to us about what the Saudis had been doing with al-Qaida. And they were dropping money – lots of it.”

Why would the Saudis fear Pakistan talking about AQ? Seriously? The US was always fully aware of the Bin Laden/Saudi/Pakistan/AQ connection because they fully participated in employed and benefited from  that entire operation. That cooperation loomed very large in Afghanistan, Kosovo and 9/11 amongst other times and places.

Recall this?
Interview from 1998: Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser: Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998
 Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

I simply do NOT  believe the claim that the Saudi’s were in fear of the US being made aware of their connection to AQ. The US KNEW and were complicit, as was Pakistan- I ask what is the purpose of that bit of baloney being included other then to portray Saudi Arabia as a terror supporting state?
"Adding to the tension was the Pakistani nuclear arsenal, often depicted in the Western press as an ‘Islamic bomb’ that might be transferred by Pakistan to an embattled nation in the Middle East in the event of a crisis with Israel”
Since the only Middle east nation mentioned in this article is Saudi Arabia, is the implication being made that Pakistan could or would transfer a bomb or nuclear material to Saudi Arabia?
Just something to keep in mind.
Let’s see if this narrative - Pakistani nuke to Saudi Arabia- appears or is reinforced any time soon?

That's what I had written last week. Actually, I had more about Turkey also. But we're getting long here....
Well, well, well!!!! That sure didn't take long.........
I didn't think it would. Not after the Sy Hersh treatment. Lookie here, lookie here!
This one could be seen coming from miles away!
S. Arabia calls in off-the-shelf nuke option with Pakistan – report
Or Saudis ‘to get nuclear weapons’

The story originates with an unnamed former defense official from the US. 
Exactly like Sy Hersh's unnamed source in his alleged expose!

King Salman with his son Prince Mohammad. Saudi Arabia has long been suspected of bankrolling Pakistan’s nuclear programme
The Saudis
SAUDI ARABIA has taken the “strategic decision” to acquire “off-the-shelf” atomic weapons from Pakistan, risking a new arms race in the Middle East, according to senior American officials.
 Saudi Arabia has reportedly taken a decision to call in an old favor from Pakistan and get some of its nuclear weapons.
Saudi Arabia is widely believed to have bankrolled the Pakistani nuclear weapons program. In exchange, Riyadh reportedly expects Islamabad to provide missiles in times of trouble to defend the kingdom.
“For the Saudis the moment has come,” a former American defense official told The Sunday Times newspaper. “There has been a longstanding agreement in place with the Pakistanis, and the House of Saud has now made the strategic decision to move forward.”
According to the report, no actual transfer of weapons has taken place yet, but “the Saudis mean what they say and they will do what they say,” the source reportedly said.
Very interesting from earlier today!

Greece Under Siege: The EU Trap?


  1. Pakistan caught between the silk road (SCO) and the Incense Route

    Iran may become SCO per Lavrov

    That Pak border attack in wake of denying Saudi deployments a little to perfect timing

    April 7: "Pakistani militants have killed eight Iranian border guards in the deadliest attack on the border since October 2013"

    April 8 (Wapo): Why Pakistan is still undecided about sending troops to fight in Yemen

    Then the sectarian Karachi bus attack and the diplo helicopter go down

    Saudi topped up Pak reserves secretly over a year ago.

    Salman as deputy first trip to Pak month before loan

    Wapo 2011 on the unmarked cars around the time of those Pak base overruns - close by nuke storage - when the Orions burned.

    September of last year first aq ? ISIS ? naval attack in Pakistan

    "The announcement steps up the philosophical battle between al Qaeda and ISIS about how the dream of the caliphate, to which Muslims the world over would owe allegiance, is achieved."

    Also outed in Pak per recent report:

    Last month: CIA's Notorious Father of Drone Strikes Strategy Removed From Post

    1. thanks for all the links :)
      I'm behind on my reading and have much catching up to do over the past few days, but I will get there

  2. Saudi Arabia is being set-up to take the blame for 9/11. Those 14 'hijackers' that came from SA, as the official line of BS goes, have barely been mentioned since 9/11, but they'll start playing a role now that Israel is starting to feel the heat from the truth getting out that 9/11 was masterminded by Israel, with help from traitors in the WH, the Pentagon, the CIA, FBI and NSA.

    Notice how the stories about the SA beheadings are getting more traction in the MSM?

    I'm no fan of SA, but as the past 'interventions' into Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Iraq, etc show, the neocon and Zionist cure is much worse than whatever it was they were trying to fix.

    1. Idunno about that but then again, we've seen a lot of effective 'Counter Terrorism' distort the original message al-Qaeda once tried to bring to light. The Counter Terrorists have got everybody believing that it's all just 'crazy Wahhabi Islam' that motivated Bin Laden and the terrorist to do something you and I probably understand didn't happen but most people might think did happen.

      Otherwise, we should remember that back in the late 90s, Bin Laden was no friend of the House of Saud.

  3. Ah c'mon now, we'd have to be naïve to not by now understand that this narrative was created with an unlimited number of potential 'Limited Hangouts' in mind BEFORE it was even released in May of 2011. This is the CIA we're talking about people, and they most certainly are not incompetent albeit they intentionally present themselves to the American public as being incompetent so as to cause designed 'Limited Hangouts' to appear as instead being plausible ineptitude and subsequent covering-up for incompetence....Instead, they are very well versed in psychology and fully understand that the easiest of all lies to tell are the ones those being lied to WANT to hear. The Public WANTS to believe 'Obama got Osama' for 9/11. And the public doesn't want to pay any mind to the fact, that in order for us to accept that premise by any logical means, and regardless of how spectacular the story of Bin Laden's demise, it would still require that Osama Bin Laden ACTUALLY DID 9/11 for that to at all possibly BE a logical understanding of events on our part. But as I say, WE WANT to believe 'Obama got Osama for 9/11'. Never mind that until the May 2011 raid, neither the Pentagon nor FBI nor DOJ nor the US Attorney in New York claimed to be in possession of any tangible evidence implicating Bin Laden in 9/11.

    So as a whole series of 'Limited Hangouts' have been released ever since this story first broke, we have, per the CIA's initial design, focused our attention on these hangouts in hopes of clarification of details which the CIA itself wants us to focus on rather than putting scrutiny on other aspects of the story. Not only does this distract us from possibly uncovering still unknown details, it gives the illusion that other known facts do not require scrutiny or that other known facts have instead already been subjected to scrutiny and have passed scrutiny when in fact they have not.
    The very assertion that Bin Laden is even dead pales in significance to another claim made in this narrative. The fact that the government now considers Bin Laden to be official dead is not important. The fact that this President, like the two before him, ordered the military to kill Bin Laden should hardly be considered sensational in light of another entirely sensational claim associated with this narrative which seemingly is going without any scrutiny placed on it nor even much notice at all....Yet it is the KEYSTONE in bridging logical reality to what is otherwise pure fantasy in the minds of the public.

    So why no scrutiny on the so-called proof the Seals found and which is said to implicate Bin Laden in a crime that occurred over 14 years ago and for which it is said virtually all other presumed accomplices are either captured or dead?

    Will that evidence be the final 'Limited Hangout' we see?