“MASKING”

In the slapping game Who will bleed first?

 

By Sir Charlattam

It was back in 2005 when an open-air market in Sadr City, Baghdad was targeted by a car bomb that the Western media blamed on the “Al Qaeda-Iraq” hoax. Almost simultaneously, but on the other side of the city, a Sunni mosque was shot at by alleged Shiite extremists, for US media such as CNN and FOX NEWS the preferred perpetrators were followers of Moqtadr Al Sadr, thus setting up the argument of terrorism and sectarian warfare.

All this was going on under the noses of the Anglo-American occupiers and the Iraqis themselves suspected that they were behind this sinister game. Time would prove them right.

The same strategy (with the complicity of the Saudis and Emiratis) would be replicated in Libya, then in Syria and with a complex plot, re-established in Iraq (with the participation of Turkey) with the pseudo-Islamic farce of the “Islamic State” in 2014. It was all part of a hybrid war ploy in which terrorism was the main tactic.

The terrorist actions of the CIA -called sabotage- and its partners inside Russia that Washington has tried to justify under the cover of the Russian Special Operation launched on 24 February 2022 were already planned in advance demonstrating the premeditation in generating such acts.

The alleged revelations of the investigator Jack Murphy, in which he claims to be the mastermind behind these acts, had overlooked the fact that these plans had been under consideration since before 2014 and were only authorised by President Barack Obama in 2017.

This gives another dimension to what the Anglo-American media call sabotage and highlights the immorality and inconsistency with which Washington manipulated not only its citizens but the whole world with its military interventions under the pretext of the so-called “fight against terrorism”.

Obviously the legal advisors of the State Department and the CIA, with the invaluable help of the Media Corporation try to disassociate these criminal actions with the term terrorism, but despite these attempts, the use of reasoning and common sense, no citizen anywhere in this world believes that there is any difference since the results are so obvious.

According to Murphy the agency's “agents” were not American and only since 2017 (after Obama's pre-emptive authorisation) started planting explosives in different buildings and industrial targets in Russia and Belarus. In doing so, it removes from the scene (and from criminal responsibility) the governments that passed through the White House, authorisers of the launch and execution of attacks that would not only destroy building infrastructure, but would cause the death of many people.

But if we look at the time span in which this entire network of attackers was assembled, their entry, cover and stay inside these countries was financed, the reception of the explosives, hiding them in secret hideouts and moving them to place them in the targets, the numbers do not add up.

It is also suspicious to claim that no US citizens have been involved. Perhaps the opposite is true.

As we well know, Russian troops launched the operations on 24 February last year, so the justification for the CIA's (US) implementation of terrorist actions against targets inside two sovereign nations like Russia and Belarus would not have existed up to that point. If we give any credence to Murphy's version and validate terrorism as another NATO tactic, the degree of American reaction was staggering. Still, why did the US mount such a network of attackers if it was not a party to the conflict? Don't forget that it was a guarantor of the Minsk agreements. A small detail that neither Washington nor Murphy could answer.

If Obama's 2017 “forecast” is to be believed, the numbers don't add up. The alleged Slavic associates who made up the attack network within the Russian Federation did not come out of the air or show up at a CIA recruiting office (like in those stupid Hollywood movies) or were recruited at European universities, especially in Britain, France or Germany. Suppose they did, how long did it take to recruit them?

Perhaps if, as Murphy says, the CIA used another agency in a regional country to infiltrate Russian society, i.e. professional manpower, the problems of how to get hold of the explosives, move them, access the designated sites to blow them up and mine them remain unexplained. If we buy that story for a minute and accept that how did they determine that the explosives they planted so far in advance would not be discovered by security or their mechanism jammed by the passage of time?

This tactic works if there is a well-determined and predicted time to set off the explosives. This was seen in the attack on the Dinamo stadium in Grozny in May 2004 where the then pro-Russian leader Aimad Kadyrov and several of his aides were killed by the explosion of a bomb placed in the concrete structure built earlier. Chechen separatists who were supported by MI6 had placed explosives inside the structure and then filled it with cement.

The intrigue-loving MI6 boys and their yellow loudspeakers on the MI5 payroll would have liked to put the rumour that they had infiltrators in the SVR and the FSB, but even the inventor of that story would not buy it. Cold War experiences of such exploits ended in terrible failures and a lot of headaches for the Foreign Office.

Playing dirty with Arabs and Islamists went on for a while. Today we see them trying to forget the “Islamic State” (Daesh) issue and the members who are now imprisoned. But to do so with the Russian Federation is quite another matter and that is playing with fire. As the RAND Corporation's reports to bureaucrats in Washington and, why not, in London have already warned, it is only a matter of time before they return kindnesses in their respective territories or even in Europe.