Nidal

“You know what I did? I left troops to take the oil. I took the oil. The only troops I have are taking the oil, they’re protecting the oil. I took over the oil.”

  • Au fait, il est toujours de bon ton de ricaner de Seymour Hersh, mais depuis son article The Redirection en 2007, il n’y a toujours aucune narrative officielle permettant d’expliquer comment et pourquoi les États-Unis livrent des armes au groupe même qui a fait sauter les deux tours du World Trade Center en 2001.

    Non seulement je ne trouve pas de telles tentatives d’explication générale, mais surtout, à chaque fois qu’un article évoque le fait que « nos alliés » ou « les modérés » collaborent systématiquement avec Al Qaeda, et/ou que les armes américaines finissent immanquablement entre les mains d’Al Qaeda, l’audace s’arrête là ; pourtant ce n’est pas rien, de livrer des tonnes d’armes et d’explosifs à un groupe dont on nous a répété pendant une décennie qu’il était l’ennemi number one des États-Unis. Et personne ne réclame une narrative un tout petit peu cohérente à ce sujet ?

    • BBC Protects U.K.’s Close Ally Saudi Arabia With Incredibly Dishonest and Biased Editing - Glenn Greenwald
      https://theintercept.com/2015/10/26/bbc-protects-uks-close-ally-saudi-arabia-with-incredibly-dishonest-and

      But what this does highlight is just how ludicrous — how beyond parody — the 14-year-old war on terror has become, how little it has to do with its original ostensible justification. The regime with the greatest plausible proximity to the 9/11 attack — Saudi Arabia — is the closest U.S. ally in the region next to Israel. The country that had absolutely nothing to do with that attack, and which is at least as threatened as the U.S. by the religious ideology that spurred it — Iran — is the U.S.’s greatest war-on-terror adversary. Now we have a virtual admission from the Saudis that they are arming a group that centrally includes al Qaeda, while the U.S. itself has at least indirectly done the same (just as was true in Libya). And we’re actually at the point where western media outlets are vehemently denouncing Russia for bombing al Qaeda elements, which those outlets are manipulatively referring to as “non-ISIS groups.”

      It’s not a stretch to say that the faction that provides the greatest material support to al Qaeda at this point is the U.S. and its closest allies. That is true even as al Qaeda continues to be paraded around as the prime need for the ongoing war.

    • Là aussi on avait ricané,
      http://www.unz.com/pcockburn/benghazi-hillary-clinton-is-guilty-but-not-as-charged

      In April 2013, the famed US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh published in the London Review of Books an account of what the CIA calls a “rat line” which was created in early 2012 “to funnel weapons and ammunition from Libya via southern Turkey and across the Syrian border to the opposition”. This was the result of an agreement between the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar to equip the armed Syrian rebels, and much of this weaponry ended up with jihadis affiliated to al-Qaeda. Hersh says that an account of what happened in setting up of the “rat line” is in a highly classified unpublished section of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report into the death of Mr Stevens in Benghazi which was issued in January 2013.

      Under the terms of a secret agreement between the US and Turkey, partly funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals were procured in Libya by retired US soldiers through Libyan front companies, with the operation overseen by the CIA and MI6. Normally, the CIA should have reported what it was doing to Congress, but an exception is made for liaison missions and “the involvement of MI6 enabled the CIA to evade the law by classifying the mission as a liaison mission”. Hersh cites a former intelligence officer as saying that the only purpose for the US to keep open a consulate in Benghazi “was to provide cover for the movement of arms”. After the murder of Mr Stevens, the CIA abruptly ended the operation which then came under Turkish control.

      The story would explain a relationship between the CIA and jihadis in Benghazi that might have led to the Americans being over-confident that they were safe from attack. Western governments have largely blamed Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the Gulf monarchies for arming the jihadi opposition in Syria, but the “rat line” shows the complicity of Western intelligence agencies.

      (Vrais et faux) #idiots_utiles