Is Muhammad Movie a Contrived Fraud?

Revealed: inside story of US envoy's assassination

Who benefits? That's the question. Who benefits?

The killings of the US ambassador to Libya and three of his staff were likely to have been the result of a serious and continuing security breach, The Independent can reveal.

American officials believe the attack was planned, but Chris Stevens had been back in the country only a short while and the details of his visit to Benghazi, where he and his staff died, were meant to be confidential.

The US administration is now facing a crisis in Libya. Sensitive documents have gone missing from the consulate in Benghazi and the supposedly secret location of the "safe house" in the city, where the staff had retreated, came under sustained mortar attack. Other such refuges across the country are no longer deemed "safe".

Some of the missing papers from the consulate are said to list names of Libyans who are working with Americans, putting them potentially at risk from extremist groups, while some of the other documents are said to relate to oil contracts.

CONTINUE . . .

Who benefits? Tony Cartalucci has some ideas about who might benefit.

US Ambassador's Death: Fruits of US Foreign Policy

September 13, 2012 - The US has sworn to "make pay" those responsible for the death of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens. In reality, those responsible for Stevens' death are fully armed, funded, trained, and coordinating with NATO special forces in Libya, across North Africa, and in Syria.

No one will "pay" beyond perhaps a wedding party attacked by US drones, or a limited liquidation of select terrorist groups the US created and armed during 2011's violent overthrow of the Libyan government. Meanwhile, US warships and Marines will swarm around Libya simply to fulfill Western public expectations that "something" will be done.

The embassy attacks were tacitly supported by the respective client-regimes recently installed by US political and military destabilization, and were designed to reestablish an adversarial narrative to counter growing public awareness of the US' use of terrorist proxies, and specifically, Al Qaeda in nations like Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. We are now expected to believe that Egypt's new dictator Mohamed Morsi, and the terrorists of Libya whom the US is right now arming and supporting in Syria, are once again our implacable enemies.

In all likelihood, those behind the attacks on the embassies intended the violence to be limited in scope, and without any high-profile deaths - designed simply to lend sorely lacking legitimacy to America's growing list of client-states. Ambassador Stevens apparently was caught in smoke while escaping from the US consulate in Benghazi, and died of asphyxiation - a victim of unforeseen circumstances, not the victim of a targeted assassination. However, with a high ranking US diplomat dead in Libya, in Benghazi, the very den of Al Qaeda, leaves the United States and its foreign policy, especially in regards to Syria, in tatters.

READ ON . . .

There may be no anti-Islamic movie at all

As I finished this post, I came across an interview with an actress who appears in some of the footage given to Gawker. It goes a long way to clearing up some of the mystery, though not entirely.

MORE . . .

The US administration is facing an even bigger crisis. The whole make believe narrative of the "war on terror" is falling apart.

 

Maybe so but it did show us one thing. How much better this long time foreign policy of using radical extremists as proxy fighters is than what Ron Paul had to suggest.

 

Let's look at the game plan and see where we are.

Ok, I hear somebody saying game plan what game plan?

You know the game plan. Which Path To Persia.

Regime change and perhaps even military operations against Iran are talked about as a foregone conclusion, with Brookings using the pretext of sanctions as merely a means of incremental escalation to tip-toe the world into backing regime change, including war with the nation if need be. This is exactly what has been done in regards to Libya, with disingenuous humanitarian concerns translated into a no-fly zone, which incrementally transitioned into attacks on Qaddafi's ground forces, targeted assassinations against Qaddafi himself, and now talk of destroying civilian infrastructure and a full-out ground invasion.

A repeat scenario is playing out in Syria where foreign-fueled violence is being used as a means to engage in broader intervention. While Western governments feigns inaction and hesitation in the face of a bloodbath they themselves instigated, in reality they are creating the same sense of "bringing it upon themselves" for Syria as Brookings talks about in regards to Iran.

Justifying Invasion, page 65 (page 78 of the PDF): "If the United States were to decide that to garner greater international support, galvanize U.S. domestic support, and/or provide a legal justification for an invasion, it would be best to wait for an Iranian provocation, then the time frame for an invasion might stretch out indefinitely. With only one real exception, since the 1978 revolution, the Islamic Republic has never willingly provoked an American military response, although it certainly has taken actions that could have done so if Washington had been looking for a fight.

This is nothing less than US policy makers openly talking about purposefully provoking a nation in order to justify a full-scale invasion that would otherwise be untenable.

< snip >

An Iranian Sponsored 9/11 & a change of leadership throughout the Middle East, page 66 (page 79 of the PDF): "Most European, Asian, and Middle Eastern publics are dead set against any American military action against Iran derived from the current differences between Iran and the international community—let alone Iran and the United States. Other than a Tehran-sponsored 9/11, it is hard to imagine what would change their minds. For many democracies and some fragile autocracies to which Washington would be looking for support, this public antipathy is likely to prove decisive. For instance, Saudi Arabia is positively apoplectic about the Iranians’ nuclear program, as well as about their mischief making in Lebanon, Iraq, and the Palestinian territories. Yet, so far, Riyadh has made clear that it will not support military operations of any kind against Iran. Certainly that could change, but it is hard to imagine what it would take.

CONTINUE . . .

I noticed something strange when I was reading "Which Path To Persia". Maybe it's just me but I noticed that if I relaxed and closed my eyes I could almost see these "policy planners" frothing at the mouth just thinking about invading Iran.

But anyway where are we in the game plan?

Obviously all the corporate propaganda pumped through the mass media in recent years is having an effect. People are primed to accept an invasion of Iran. Which of you would be against it at this point?

Got some reservations? I understand. Let me ask you this then, what would it take to change your mind and get you 100% behind the president as he prepares to take over Iran by military force?

Would it as the "policy planners" are saying in "Which Path To Persia" take another 9/11? Or to put it in the earlier PNAC neocon vernacular . . . "some catastrophic catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."? (PNAC, Rebuilding America’s Defenses (1997), p.51)

What would it take for you support an outright military attack on Iran?

It would take another 9/11 or something worse probably right?

Now ask yourself this if, God forbid something terrible did happen to change your mind and get you rallying to the flag and behind the president.

Who stands to gain the most from such an event and the bloodshed and misery that will surely follow. The Iranians? Or the corporate funded policy planners and all their corporate sponsors?

Who would benefit? Who stands to gain the most?

It is inconceivable that one could read the pages of "Which Path to Persia?" and not understand the current "international community" as anything less than absolutely illegitimate. They contrive a myriad of laws with which to restrain and eliminate their competition with while they remain entirely uninhibited themselves in their own overt criminality. We also understand that the United States is not engaged in diplomatic relations with the world's nations as envisioned by America's Founding Fathers, but rather engaged in extorting and coercing the world to conform to it's "interests."

This report represents a full array of options not only for use in Iran, but throughout the world. In hindsight of the US-funded "Arab Spring" it is quite obvious that the methodology laid out in the report has been drawn on to destabilize and depose regimes as well as instigate wars of aggression. Upon studying this report, its implications for Iran and the surrounding region, we can understand better conflicts yet to unfold beyond North Africa and the Gulf. It is essential that reports like this are made public, their methodology exposed, and the true architects behind Western foreign policy revealed. As the report itself states numerous times, the vast majority of their gambits require secrecy, "plausible deniability," and that their dark deeds be done "without the rest of the world recognizing this game." SOURCE

 

I know divide and conquer when I see it LE. Look at you all here. Arguing about which of the globalists running for office is going to employ the neocon's foreign policy best.

How many here are ready to run out and nuke whole nations for revenge now? Don't be shy, raise your hands if you are ready to kill millions of people because our long time terrorist allies turned on us again.

Don't you guys ever get tired of being manipulated?

 

I take it the answer is no then.

Of course Romney and his team of neocon advisers are better suited in our minds to employ the neocon's foreign policy of world domination. They'll give you all what you really want.

The death of millions more people. Most of whom have never been a threat to us.

Nevermind this policy of global domination has continued through several administrations now. Nevermind it goes against every principle we ever held dear on so many different levels. Nevermind that we've been using terrorists to fight our battles since 1953. It's all Obama's fault.

In the struggle for global empire sometimes those who pretend to be leaders have to fall on their sword for the agenda to continue. Obama is an easy scapegoat, manufactured by the corporations and their mass media outlets. A front man put in power so he could lead us to this point in history. Looks like his time is nearing an end so let's begin a new chapter in the world domination book. Shall we?

Let's all look to Romney and his team of neocon advisers because Obama and his team of neocon advisers screwed up.

Sheesh, but you guys are so easily manipulated. I guess you really do never tire of it.

Well, on with the game then.

 

Gerald Celente: Criminal Banksters Launching New World War

Celente connects the dots between the financial implosion and a huge new war.

Who benefits?

 

In the wake of anti-American protests across the Middle East, there has been much finger-pointing but little analysis as to why Muslims are so angry at the United States. [Hint: it isn't about the film, which was made by a U.S. government informant according to the website The Smoking Gun]. The protests have more to do with the grievances of Muslims than with anything else.


The best analysts who are asking the hard questions about the effects of U.S. policy in the Middle East and trying to find solutions to end the violence against the U.S. are Tony Cartalucci, Glenn Greenwald,Webster Tarpley, Nile Bowie, and Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett. These are the voices of reason in a world that is submerged in craziness.
Flynt Leverett, a former member of the National Security Council, explained in an interview on Al Jazeera that U.S. policy is the source of Muslim anger at America, saying:

“If it hadn’t been this film, it would have been something else that triggered an outburst—a manifestation of very, very deep-seated, longstanding resentment in Arab and Muslim societies about many important aspects of American foreign policy toward the region. When Americans think about this, they will tend to want to say that this a cultural issue—that there is something about Islam or that Arabs are insufficiently modernized to be able to keep something like this film in proper perspective. I think that it’s Americans who are having a cultural problem here, and who aren’t really able to keep things like this film in proper perspective. The proper perspective, at least from the vantage of the Muslim world, is that the United States has been, for many years now, an aggressive and a repressive force in the region. That’s the way the United States is perceived; every serious public opinion poll in the region would show that. And until the United States is prepared to come to terms with that reality, its own strategic position in this region is going to continue to decline precipitously.” [Source: Race for Iran, "Flynt Leverett on the Real Drivers of Anti-American Protests in the Arab and Muslim Worlds," Sept. 16, 2012. Also, Flynt Leverett makes the same argument in this video].
​

For those of us who live in reality it is a no-brainer that the actions of the U.S. government in the Middle East are what make people hate the United States. It is rational (and long overdue) for Muslims to protest against the United States government in several cities. People who don’t live in reality, such as President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, are irrationally arguing that the protests against the U.S. has to do solely with an anti-Islam film. Are they serious?


CONTINUE . . .