“FINANCIAL

REALPOLITIK”

In the shadow of the 9/11 attacks, who and how benefited from the war in Afghanistan?

By Dany Smith

The experience of Afghanistan is a demonstration of how the border of political power and international legality is crossed to achieve unilateral geopolitical objectives. What happened last August 15 reflects not only the military and political failure of another powerful invader but also the dark background that dragged the US and its Atlantic partners into a situation that still has no clear resolution.

The flight that could be seen in the media was the end, the death of a geopolitical process led by Washington and supported by its NATO allies that buried the hegemonist expectations of the United States that were sealed with the words of President Joe Biden himself who saying “Our mission in Afghanistan was never aimed at building a nation. He never aimed to create a unified and centralized democracy”. He put a political epitaph on the already peeling image and political credibility of American democracy.

With this, it is clear that Washington is neglecting what in the last twenty years it had argued to support the invasion in 2001 and that later it continued to be sustained with the administration of Barak Obama in which Biden was an official. Trump denounced these inconsistencies and the futility of this war, focusing on the unacceptable economic costs, claiming that it was a bottomless hole for the treasury's finances. Certainly Trump was telling the truth and the proof of this is the 85,000 million dollars invested in assembling and equipping a paper army. Biden tried to detach himself from both extremes and chose to go off on a tangent by making a reckless decision (although not a rash one) that undoubtedly hides a trap.

Now in light of this US speech, it is clear to the whole world that Washington never sought freedom and democracy for Afghans, something that in the face of the facts (and as was also evidenced in Iraq) was quite little credible due to the visible consequences they caused on humanity (not excluding women) from Afghans.

Was the US seeking to win this war? Although the question seems puzzling and even illogical, it is important to answer to explain what has been pursued in this occupation. This forces us to ask another question and she is Why is a war unleashed? As Carl Von Clausewitz said “War is not simply a political act, but a true political instrument, a continuation of political relations, a management of them by other means.” Pentagon strategists may have considered this classic definition at the time, but most likely politicians in Washington did not. In a sense they did not need to consider it since this German author's conception of war was already non-existent and anachronistic. That concept was adapted to the needs of the realpolitik conceived by the advisers of the second half of the 20th century such as Henry Kissinger and George Kennan and much less for sinister minds of the circle of the Republican administration of Bush-Cheney such as those of the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Under Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and the entire circle of schemers of American neoconservatism and Zionism.

Considering these actors and the real objectives pursued by the interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, the answer has a variety of nuances but that can be encompassed in a single definition: Profits in chaos. Here in the US no one can be surprised by this answer since the evidence of what it financially represented for a handful of political gangsters -including contractor companies-, the Pentagon and the CIA with their inevitable derivations to Wall Street, leaves far below the tearful propaganda that today from the media tries to move public opinion by an imposition of concern for the freedom of Afghan women.

And it is that when did they say something about those same women who were murdered or raped by members of the ISAF or their henchmen of the "Afghan Special Groups"? Unless your concern only goes through a group of those women, those who voluntarily were part of the apparatus and benefited from the collaborationist system. It is known that in the same American embassy in Kabul and in the Bagram military complex, a few nights before the fall, the Americans had large sex and drug orgies in which prostitutes and members of local LGTB groups participated that -and it is worth the It is worth underlining- they are financially and politically supported by the US as a cultural disintegration tactic in the Islamic world (part of the Transhumanist Globalist plan of Biden and Harris).

It is not only a question of mere accommodating hypocrisy, but also of cooperating with the desperate efforts of the US State Department not to lose the little trust that remains in its collaborators who are still trapped in Kabul. So blatant is the propaganda that even when the Taliban was a proven creature of the CIA, the Anglo-Saxon media tries to dissociate the comparisons that have been made of the flight from Afghanistan with the analogy to South Vietnam in 1975 with questions such as How can Are you comparing the two situations? As some articles in the neo-conservative “Think Tanks” admonish, trying to make the reader believe that in addition to being wrong, the North Vietnamese were not as bad as the Taliban.

Precisely these Think Tanks and the media conglomerate are making an effort to wash the face of this political and military catastrophe to Washington's ambitions.

This failure in turn has revealed an internal tugging between the CIA and the Department of Defense that is as or more damaging than the Taliban. Look if not, how for two decades Washington and the Western media have tried to convince public opinion that "Islamist terrorism" was the cause of all the misfortunes in America and the world, but shortly after walking down that path, they began to notice the dirty folds of American politics. There is still nothing clear in the days of 9/11, despite the fact that at all times from the power and through the media the story is retouched trying to patch up the incongruities of the official account.

Unexpectedly, that served to reveal the true face of American democracy and its interrelationship with other partners in the design and construction of transnational enemies such as "Al Qaeda" and "Islamic State" that would fulfill a long-term strategic purpose in planning that " New American Century ”and that was, to install perpetual chaos in the Middle East and Central Asia that would also benefit the state of Israel.

So who created and fed the terrorists or the "moderate rebels"? When the Department of Defense did not approve an arms consignment or the assistance of personnel for training clandestine groups, the CIA was there to cover the requirement. When something was too dirty for the politicians in the White House, there were guys like Tenet, Brenan or Mrs. Haspel who with that proven and particular contempt for Muslims, would not hesitate to carry out the orders entrusted to them.

What we saw in Afghanistan, those thousands of tanks and weapons "abandoned" at the bases and airfields for the Taliban to seize, was already seen in Iraq in 2014 without the Iraqis realizing that this was part of a larger hoax. On both sides, these intelligence agencies of the same US state competed to see who was better at their tasks while the Iraqis and Afghans brought the blood.

In the shadow of this, the invaders gave birth to a new caste that today we know as the "collaborationists" who live in opulence and under the tutelage of the invader until he is expelled or flees as happened with the servants of the capital. These are the same ones we saw running after US planes in August to flee Kabul. But the most interesting members of this infamous caste are the politicians who like Jamil Karsai and his lieutenants laid a red carpet for the occupiers while the CIA and its Drones massacred civilian settlers in remote northern villages or a few kilometers from Kabul, tortured The prisoners.

Of course, the silence and cooperation of characters like Karsai and Ghani earned him the reward of a comfortable life free from the controls of a law that was dictated by the occupant. From there on, bribery and corruption reigned in all the institutions set up by Anglo-Americans. In this universe of corruption and money with no known origin, local and US political and military officials benefited who, taking advantage of the circumstances, turned the war into a profitable business.

The case of Generals Standley Mc Chrystal and Mike Flynt is one of them. Mc Chrystal after being fired, after amassing a fortune difficult to explain with a salary as a public servant, jumped into business life contributing his military knowledge for private corporations. Then his pupil, General Flynt as head of counterterrorism (Delta Force and Seals) for Afghanistan and Iraq in the Obama era - whom he personally despised - and sheltered by Donald Trump, put into practice his recalcitrant Islamophobia on the humanity of Muslims with the heinous consequences very well documented. Along with these dirty tasks, he would have enriched himself so treacherously that, after the bank where he maintains his accounts and credit cards was made public, he decided to suspend them. It is assumed that part of that money came from the funds destined for the reconstruction of the country which, as also happened in Iraq, were never invested for those purposes and ended up in the hands of corrupt civilian and military officials.

On the other hand, that would not be the only source of the funds that enriched the former general since it is well known that the momentum of these wars moved and continues to move flows of black money from arms trafficking, drugs and all kinds of merchandise for smuggling. Within this dirty scheme, the equipment and weapons that the US and other European countries provided to the police and the regular Afghan army were involved, which later, due to the mysteries of life, ended up in the hands of the Taliban or other groups. Managing black money funds is one of the prerogatives of this murky universe. This is where military intelligence and their CIA civilian colleagues meet.

As you can see, morale does not exist in the usual display of these actors and their Afghan collaborators were not going to be better. It was for this reason that when the US announced its withdrawal, the Afghan regular army was rapidly disbanding. In addition to not being made up of the supposed 300,000 men who appeared on the payroll (only half were real), the troops of the collaborationist army did not have the spirit or the moral to face an adversary highly motivated and convinced of their objectives. Where did millions of dollars go, the equipment and weapons for those ghost soldiers? To the pockets of collaborationist commanders and political officials.

But Afghan officials weren't the only ones benefiting from this futile war. As in Iraq, the Pentagon and other US agencies were implicated in lavish scams. The cases of retired general Joseph F. Dunford Jr and retired general John R. Allen are another example of how, after leaving public service, state officials were absorbed by private arms companies such as “Gruman”, “Lockeed Martin Co” and others that closed bulky defense contracts to supply the troops deployed in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

In light of these antecedents, we can conclude that what prevails in this warmongering adventure is a nihilistic realism or rather, a stark and racist realism aimed at obtaining (apart from geopolitical objectives) in each stratum of those involved (government, companies and agencies) , economic gains according to their positions in power.

 

 

 

“UN ESTADO INERME”

El avance de Chile sobre aguas territoriales argentinas ha hecho emerger las inconsistencias políticas y la desidia de los gobiernos argentinos ¿Cuáles son las causas y cuáles serán las consecuencias?

 

Por Charles H. Slim

Si hay algo que es dañino y peligroso para los intereses de una nación es el falso discurso de pacifismo que pregonan ciertos sectores de la política argentina. Durante treinta y siete años este mantra de un pacifismo lelo y pernicioso ha calado hasta los huesos de la estructura de un estado nación como la Argentina que hoy, ante las circunstancias de un nuevo desafío a su soberanía acusa un estado desprovisto de herramientas que denota el total abandono de sus intereses estratégicos.

La ampliación de la plataforma marítima chilena que traspasa los 67º 16´por un decreto del presidente Sebastián Piñera ha puesto en evidencia el oportunismo chileno aprovechando el famélico estado de las capacidades materiales y políticas del estado argentino. No hay doctrina ni planificaciones y mucho menos personal adiestrado con los elementos necesarios para afrontar este desafío, Pero ¿Quiénes han sido los artífices para llegar a esta situación?  Ello queda evidente en los últimos veinte años de sistemático desmantelamiento y abandono de la defensa, promovido por sectores de la partidocracia quienes en la mayoría de los casos -salvo los liberales y los sionistas locales- no se daban cuenta que le hacían el juego al Foreign Office quien a su vez presionó a que los gobiernos de turno llevaran adelante. Aún queda como testimonio de esta situación la impune situación del submarino “ARA San Juan” que estuvo rodeada de toda clase de irregularidades tanto en las investigaciones judiciales como las tareas de búsqueda (desplazando a Rusia), que con la intervención de Londres y el Comando Sur, fueron enterradas bajo un manto de un encubrimiento con alcances internacionales.

“En 1978 ambos países estuvieron a punto de entrar en guerra por el Canal de Beagle y en ese momento el movimiento de tropas fue masivo. En aquellas circunstancias de bipolaridad entre el Este y el Oeste a la OTAN no le convenía un enfrentamiento entre dos socios hemisféricos y fue por ello que Washington gestionó en secreto la presurosa intervención del Vaticano”

Si la determinación política chilena ha sido una medida arbitraria o contraria a la ley internacional marítima y a los tratados que ambas partes habían sido firmados en 1984 tras el diferendo por el “Canal del Beagle”, es meramente anecdótico y no hace a la cuestión principal. Chile se ha apropiado de una porción de la superficie marítima y de su plataforma atlántica (algo que tiene consecuencias económicas, políticas y geopolíticas) y la Argentina no tiene cómo y con qué para responder.

A la par de esto, la actual administración política en Buenos Aires como todas sus predecesoras trata de barrer bajo la alfombra la posición geopolítica y estratégica de la Argentina en el cono sur enmarcada en una situación que se halla comprometida por una ocupación británica en las islas del atlántico sur que a su vez tiene una histórica y estrecha relación de interés y estrategia común con Chile (que cabe recordar apoyó a Gran Bretaña en la guerra de 1982).

En una mezcla de insidia política, candidez y amateurismo la clase política desactivo todos sus programas de defensa que ponían a raya no solo a las ambiciones de un vecino como Chile sino a las residuales preocupaciones de Londres por un posible roce con Buenos Aires que pudiera darles problemas en el Atlántico sur. No solo Alfonsín comenzó con el desmantelamiento de los cuadros de las Fuerzas Armadas y perjudico la imagen política de las mismas y de la causa Malvinas ante la opinión pública, la llegada del neoliberalismo-peronista de Carlos Menem fue sensiblemente más perjudicial ya que fue en su gestión que además de continuar aquella tarea, en 1992 entregó a EEUU (y a los británicos) sus proyectos aeronáuticos y el desarrollo del misil Cóndor I y II que estaban listos para su uso. Estos últimos eran una de las preocupaciones más serias para Chile ya que estaban al tanto de las capacidades y alcance que esos misiles tenían.  

El actual estado de indefensión del país es producto de una conjunción de factores que confluyen a que ello se vuelva irreversible. Desde la época inquistorial anti militarista del gobierno de Alfonsín pasando por la era de la banalidad y corrupción menemista hasta la desidia apoyada en ideologismos pretéritos (del setentismo) promovidos por el kirchnerismo y una etapa descaradamente anglo-sionista del gobierno de Macri, llegamos a que hoy por hoy no exista una razonable operatividad de las Fuerzas Armadas con una capacidad suficiente y acorde para disuadir las amenazas externas como lo es la apropiación de una porción del territorio.

"El desarrollo del Misil Cóndor fue uno de los programas más ambiciosos y desarrollados de la industria aeronáutica nacional que lo hacía único y de punta en todo el Cono sur. Tan excepcional era que las expectativas de su desempeño en teatros de operaciones reales se confirmaron durante la guerra entre Irán e Iraq (1980-1988)" 

Incluso más. En el actual contexto internacional en el que las intervenciones político-militares son una realidad constante, la desestabilización por agentes y organizaciones trasnacionales que persiguen fines geopolíticos y económicos juegan como máscaras para gobiernos que se ocultan detrás de ellos, el abandono del área de la defensa inteligente es un error estratégico imperdonable que incluso le cabría a sus responsables políticos y militares el cargo de traición a la patria que prevé el artículo 29 de la Constitución argentina.  

Sumado a esto, las tratativas y discusiones que se han iniciado en el senado argentino no están ajenas a controversias y discusiones baladí que poco ayudan a resolver un tema tan sensible. Aquí también se reflejan las divisiones partidarias en política exterior entre quienes buscan una condena firme a las acciones trasandinas y aquellos que minimizan el avance sobre sus aguas territoriales. Una cosa en la que ambos coinciden es en la de “no hacer nada”. Más allá de quienes son unos y otros queda en claro la falta de una política exterior coherente y unificada que deja entrever un estado nación sin poder real para proteger sus intereses estratégicos y que con el paso del tiempo le reportaran mayores pérdidas en su economía.

Pero más allá de las palabras y los discursos políticos la realidad en el terreno, los hechos son lapidarios. A la ya de por sí apropiada de hecho de una zona económica austral argentina se verá también de hecho la ampliación de la jurisdicción marítima chilena que estará cargo de la Quinta Zona Naval de la Armada de guerra chilena con base en Puerto Montt y ello a su vez significará el dominio y control de dicho espacio marítimo a cargo de navíos de guerra. En este contexto y cuando los buques argentinos pretendan ejercer su soberanía sobre estas aguas ¿Quién protegerá a las embarcaciones argentinas ante el hostigamiento de navíos chilenos?

La pregunta hace tiempo que tiene una respuesta y ello se ve en la imposibilidad de que Argentina pueda ejercer su soberanía para controlar sus espacios acuáticos del atlántico de la pesca foránea y del tránsito naval con diversos propósitos incluyendo claro, el militar. A la falta de vocación política (condicionada por los Tratados de Madrid de 1989 y 1990 que el actual gobierno no se atreverá a revocar) se suma la falta de material para afrontar las tareas de vigilancia y seguridad aeronaval que requiere el extenso litoral marítimo que tiene el país, Buques obsoletos (muchos de origen británico) sin reparar, falta de aviones y helicópteros navales modernos de interdicción temprana (con capacidad antibuque), de aviones para inteligencia electrónica (tipo AWACS) y la carencia de un desarrollo de un sistema integral de defensa en el área naval da como resultado y consecuencia el aprovechamiento de un vecino con históricas pretensiones territoriales.

"La adquisición de unidades navales australianas Clase Adelaide por sus características y los objetivos tácticos representan una amenaza palpable para la soberanía de los mares argentinos" 

Por el contrario, Chile ha venido reforzando y mejorando sus adquisiciones navales que superan en calidad y cantidad a las que actualmente pudiera reunir la Armada Argentina. En 2020 Santiago adquirió a Australia dos fragatas clase “Adelaide” HMAS “Newcastle” y HMAS “Melbourne” que reemplazaran sus unidades antiguas unidades “Clase L” adquiridas a Holanda. Sumado a esto, la adquisición de misiles antibuque y Drones espía de fabricación israelí pone en consideración las implicancias de Tel Aviv en los asuntos de la región. Incluso en lo referente a la composición de sus fuerzas de tareas, el equipamiento convencional, armamento y transporte adoptado, revelan que se han adaptado a las nuevas tácticas de la guerra naval contemporánea en la que la infantería de marina toma -tanto en el equipamiento como en la composición de la tropa- un papel importantísimo para cumplir con objetivos estratégicos en teatros de operaciones como los islotes y los archipiélagos del sur.

En este sentido el estado chileno se ha embarcado en negociaciones y contrataciones con empresas europeas y canadienses para la adquisición de nuevas unidades anfibias equipadas para las actuales necesidades de la guerra electrónica moderna. Una de estas contrataciones involucra a la empresa canadiense VARD MARINE que proporcionará unidades de transporte de tropas de asalto, con capacidad de albergar una tripulación a bordo de 21 oficiales y hasta 80 efectivos de tropa con capacidad de autonomía suficiente para misiones en puntos aislados.

A contracara de esto, la Argentina no tiene una sola inversión con entidad suficiente como para poder hacer frente a las mejoras tecnológicas y de equipamiento de su vecino.

El punto solo refleja la indefensión de un estado que en las últimas décadas ha dilapidado sus recursos en costear la burocracia partidista y clientelista que ha convertido al país en un estado del que vive la casta política administrando un territorio habitado por simples sujetos que viven del asistencialismo y las subvenciones del estado. Obviamente que a ello han contribuido los medios de información y varios de sus periodistas insignes quienes a lo largo de estas décadas han trabajado a dos bandas acomodándose convenientemente al poder y las circunstancias de turno.  

Ciertamente y más allá de que hay un estado de indefensión crónico al cual han contribuido los mismos que hoy ocupan la Casa Rosada, las consecuencias de ello de seguir así, irán más allá de esta franja marítima y dejará a las próximas generaciones un problema de cual no tendrá ninguna solución negociable.

 

 

“THE SNAKE'S EGG”

Why is it very convenient for Washington for the Taliban to take power in Afghanistan? who else would benefit from this?

 

Por Yossi Tevi

Last week's bomb attacks at the Kabul airport left many questions hanging in the air. Were they rivals of the Taliban or a CIA operation? This last question in turn raises another crucial question. What would be the purpose of those brutal attacks that even killed US Marines?

To try to shed light on these events and understand the logic (twisted by the way), we must start from the idea that what the media today talk about as “ISIS-Khorasan” is an extension of ISIS (or Daesh) that of that group that appeared out of nowhere. on Iraq in June 2014. That in turn was the continuation of a lie inserted in Iraq in 2006 after the planned elimination of the head of “Al Qaeda-Iraq” Abu Muzab Al Zarqawi, who for Washington had ceased to be functional in in the midst of a complex and dynamic scenario that required a renewed counterinsurgency strategy. From there, a new group called "Islamic State of Iraq" (ISI) made its appearance, which, formed with foreign mercenaries, varied in the number of members and was temporarily led by ghostly characters such as “Abu Omar Al Baghdadi”, Abu Ayub Al Masri and the last these characters (the one who had the greatest role behind) Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi, an archetype invented by US intelligence and its Israeli partners.

The black flag with the inscription of the “Shahada” that identifies “ISIS” has been taken from the interpretations of eschatology. Here you see a group of supposedly Arab men brandishing the black cloth but in reality they are impostors performing in a montage produced by the Israeli Mossad.

When intelligence agencies build a hoax, they do so on the basis of accurate and circumstantial information on the objective they are pursuing. As an example of this, we saw it when Israel in the mid-sixties wanted to counteract the nationalist militancy of the PLO, they fostered and even financed religious militancy in the occupied territories that would later transform into radical groups such as “Islamic Jihad” and “Hamas”.

With regard to the new franchise called “ISIS-Khorasan”, the image, symbolism and of course its ideology has clearly been taken from the theology more precisely from Islamic eschatology but as expected, adulterating and manipulating the interpretations of the Muslim scholars.

The trick lies in artificially recreating the symbology and forms that this part of the Semitic religion describes that will impact the minds of the most aroused and superstitious in the community. It also targets populations mired in despair and misery who will be easy to manipulate with this type of falsehood. With this manipulation of the texts they pursue a psychological nature that seeks to take advantage of the behaviors and multiple idiosyncrasies of the millions of faithful that make up the UMMA (Islamic Community) that extends around the world, especially in the extremist sectors that exist in all religions, but unlike Islam, they are not the target of a systematic scheme extensively and persistently promoted, financed and directed from well-determined Western countries.

It goes without saying that this is a scandal and an affront to the Islamic faith and to the Muslims themselves (which has been spreading over three decades) who then become the target of stigmatization and the scapegoat through of the media product of these murky governmental elaborations in which, in addition to the Western media conglomerates, several Arab-Islamic governments unfortunately collaborate directly or indirectly.

These plans, implemented in Iraq, Yemen and Syria, would have failed in Afghanistan without clearly highlighting that in the attempt they have caused enormous damage among the civilian population and among their own men. Beyond the fact that the Taliban is a Sunni Islamic branch under an interpretation adjusted to its locality and tribal customs of the Pashtun majority, with dogmatic and ideological roots in the Pakistani Madrasahs financed and encouraged by the CIA since the late 1970s (1978 ) and with the intentional extension in Afghanistan, they do not adhere to the twisted interpretation that ISIS makes of Islam.

Although for some those fiery admonitions of the self-proclaimed caliph “Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi” made in the Great Mosque of Mosul back in July 2014 border on appearances with the “Wahabi” vision of Saudi Islam, the truth is that the Saudis themselves unconsciously listening to him they frowned as a sign of misunderstanding or disagreement with it. In addition to showing the artificiality of their ideology, the absence of that alleged analogy that the Western media continually tries to argue and warned the Taliban about this artificiality, they fight them without quarter.

There is a problem that persists in the West and especially in the Anglo-Saxon world that comes from its colonial times and it is based on the belief that the natives of the countries involved are still ignorant, easy to co-opt and deceive. When the United States and Great Britain invaded Iraq and strange attacks against civilians began to occur, no one believed that there were characters like Abu Muzab Al Zarqawi or Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi, much less that the perpetrators were Iraqis expressing many that they were the illusion of the invaders themselves.

In Iraq, when the first “ISI” cell appeared in 2006, its actions were so indiscriminate against civilians that the Iraqi resistance fought them without quarter. By the time it reappeared as the firepower that we saw in 2014 focused its attacks and sophisticated digital propaganda against the Shiites, being incisive in this objective, leaving aside the Americans and even the Israelis. So evident was their selectivity that in Israel many Israelis made jokes and parodies about who "Daesh" really worked for.

With this in view and transferred to what is happening in Afghanistan, we see that "ISIS" will become the antagonist of the Taliban on the ground, obviously alongside other local groups such as the Tashikos and lies with which Washington will use to maintain instability in the region as part of a strategy of controlled chaos that aims in the medium term to compromise strategically important spaces for both China and Russia. Let us not forget that during the disintegration of the USSR in the 1990s, British MI-6 and other NATO agencies supported the Chechen Muslim pro-independence activists in a variety of ways with the aim of controlling the Caucasus.

But there is also another interested party with another objective as or more important than the one set out here. We know that Israel is extremely concerned about the nuclear developments of the Arab-Islamic countries and in that sense, it has done everything it could to cut off aspirations for this type of development. This is how in June 1981 he bombed the “Osirak” complex in Iraq, since 2009 he has been assassinating several Iranian nuclear scientists -the last Mohsen Fakhrizadeh- and in recent times he has carried out cyberattacks against the Iranian facilities in Natanz. Pakistan was not going to be the exception.

The Pakistani nuclear program has been one of the issues that for decades has taken away the sleep of the Zionist elite in and outside of Israel who, through their transnational organizations such as AIPAC and their lobbyists in the US Congress, from the Democratic administration of Jimmy Carter has so far tried to argue the danger to regional stability if Pakistan had its own nuclear development. Even to sow greater discord and mistrust, they try to influence this discourse in India, taking advantage of the border conflicts that still exist in the Kashmir region.

But the circumstantiality of the cold war and the Iranian revolution in 1979 cooled the expectations of the Zionists to agitate in Washington an early path for the sabotage and destruction of the Pakistani nuclear program, these intentions being totally blocked during the Reagan administration that needed Pakistan to destabilize the pro-Soviet government of Afghanistan.

Undoubtedly, the "ISIS-Khorasan" fits into this planning and that is why in the support and everything related to the formation of this impossibly Islamist group, it will seek to destabilize Afghanistan and the entire region as long as the Taliban does not eliminate them first.

 

 

 

“GOLPE NUCLEAR EN NYC”

A veinte años del comienzo del origen y el caos que hoy vemos en Afganistán y las preguntas que siguen sin una respuesta ¿Cómo y por qué pudieron colapsar las Torres Gemelas y la Torre 7?

 

Por Charles H. Slim

El 11 de septiembre de 2001 cambió al mundo y no solo por las consecuencias inmediatas de aquellos ataques contra las Torres Gemelas en la ciudad de New York y contra el Pentágono sino por lo que vino a posterior. Para muchos en EEUU esto fue una “Operación de falsa bandera”, un “inside job”, un trabajo interno ingeniado por una facción de neoconservadores en el gobierno y ejecutado con la complicidad de una vasta red de funcionarios del mismo estado federal.

En apariencias, los hechos estaban claros. Aviones “kamikaze” llevaron adelante ataques terroristas contra “América”. Eso en apariencias ya que al mirar en los detalles de ese evento salieron a relucir cuestiones archi sospechosas y nunca aclaradas que cuestionan la simplicidad de cómo ocurrieron esos hechos. Ello abrió la puerta a que se pusiera a rodar la doctrina “Rumsfeld-Cebrowski”[1] preconcebida con notable anticipación y ajustada a los propósitos políticos que Washington pretendía justificar[2] de cara al público.

Pero más allá de los objetivos perseguidos por estos ataques, se hicieron muchos cuestionamientos e investigaciones técnico-científicas para determinar cómo dos torres con sólidos esqueletos de acero (con 47 columnas de acero sólido revestidas de concreto) pudieron colapsar con tanta rapidez y por qué horas después y sin acusar ningún impacto visible, colapsó la “Torre 7” contigua al evento central. La tesis del efecto calorífico del combustible de los aviones nunca fue creíble y mucho menos comprobable.

Todos vimos lo que la televisión estadounidense trasmitía desde lejos y desde el exterior acompañado del dramatismo inherente a semejante evento, levantado y retrasmitido sin cuestionamientos ni análisis críticos por los medios argentinos. Pero la Tv y mucho menos las radios que cubrían esto trasmitieron los detalles y mucho menos los más extraños sucesos que la versión oficial nunca quiso explicar.

Muchos testigos de aquella mañana, tiempo después de los impactos y mucho antes del colapso de las torres, testimoniaron que escucharon y sintieron bajo sus pies un fuerte estruendo como el de una explosión. Otros dijeron que escucharon más de una explosión bajo sus pies para luego ver caer a una de las torres. En igual sentido con el colapso de la Torre 7 que pese a no estar conectada con el complejo de las Gemelas y no haber sido impactada se desplomo horas después muy prolijamente (como una explosión controlada). En este caso también se sintieron previamente fuertes detonaciones bajo el suelo, entonces ¿Qué explicaciones dio el gobierno federal de ese entonces a estas percepciones de los testigos?

En un interesante artículo del sitio “VeteransToday.com”[3]  se plantea los resultados de una investigación que ya había sido publicada en 2014 que esbozaba una hipotesis tenebrosa pero técnicamente viable que se relaciona con el submundo de las agencias de inteligencia y el tráfico de armas nucleares robadas en otros países que explica por qué nunca salió a la luz de los medios convencionales. La explicación del desplome de las torres en aquella mañana se centra en la demolición controlada no usando explosivos convencionales sino, dispositivos nucleares portátiles (con Plutonio) diseñados para crear una fuerza plasmática que derritió como manteca las bases estructurales de las torres. Con esto queda claro que los perpetradores debieron ser sujetos muy bien preparados, con la financiación y con acceso irrestricto al material utilizado.

Como se explica en este artículo, los investigadores tras una entrevista con un alto cargo militar de los EEUU/OTAN quien había comandado las Fuerzas nucleares en Europa, les dijo que lo ocurrido el 11/S claramente había sido un evento nuclear sin darle más detalles ¿Pudo ser posible semejante suceso? Y de haber sido posible ¿Por qué nunca se hizo pública esta información? Los eventos que vinieron a posterior de estos crímenes lo dejaron muy en claro. Para probar esto, se requería de fuentes informativas altamente clasificadas y especializadas y ponerse a investigar a la misma administración federal en un momento en que discutir la veracidad de lo que ellos planteaban como la verdad les habría cabido (a la sombra de la Patriotic Act) el calificativo de traidores o incluso, terroristas con las consiguientes consecuencias.

Debió pasar un poco de tiempo para que todo se enfriara. Pero algo estaba claro, quienes concibieron esto, estaban conectados con el gobierno y la cooperación de algún otro cómplice externo ya que ninguna organización privada puede conseguir material radiactivo y mucho menos una bomba nuclear en el mercado negro sin que lo sepa la “Comunidad de inteligencia”. Es por ello que los investigadores tomaron el riesgo de meter las narices en un avispero y escudriñar para encontrar la verdad.

A partir de allí se pidieron informes a los laboratorios de armas nucleares de EEUU los cuales les proporcionaron información clasificada que a la luz de otras evidencias referidas a rastros radiactivos medidos en la “zona cero” poco tiempo después de los colapsos, deja en el suelo las explicaciones del informe gubernamental sobre las reales causas que demolieron a los edificios.

Al parecer los informes contestan a las preguntas de cuáles y cuántos fueron los dispositivos nucleares que pudieron usarse para concretar esas demoliciones mencionando cantidad y su denominación. Allí afirman que se habrían usado dos tipos de dispositivos nucleares tácticos, uno micro estándar denominado (diseño de pozo W-54) de tres kilotones y otra que podría haber variado entre 1 a 3 kilotones. Queda claro que estaríamos ante una operación altamente compleja diseñada con mucha antelación y con la necesaria cooperación de los propietarios y/o administradores de las Torres quienes facilitarían el acceso a la información estructural y al mismo complejo sin ningún tipo de sospechas. Sobre ello no hay que olvidar que en aquella mañana muchas de las oficinas de ciertas empresas casualmente habían mudado su mobiliario una semana antes, otras no habían abierto y aquellas que tenían abiertas sus puertas, sus gerentes no concurrieron a sus puestos. Sin contar con el fabuloso negocio el cobro del seguro por este siniestro ¿Casualidad?

El diseño de aquellos micro explosivos con material nuclear que no cualquier gobierno tiene a su mano y mucho menos una supuesta organización como “Al Qaeda” (creada por la CIA de Jimmy Carter), pone aún más en dudas las versiones oficiales.

Según el informe cada una de las cargas explosivas de los dispositivos fue calculado sobre la masa concreta de cada una de las torres por lo cual se confirma la planificación detallada de los perpetradores (que requirió inteligencia previa) y el encubrimiento para que pudieran realizarla, prepararla, montar los dispositivos dentro del complejo y ejecutarla. Las circunstancias en que se llevó a cabo (que involucraron ejercicios militares, la liberación del espacio aéreo y la desconexión del sistema de defensa del Pentágono) le dan mayor asidero a esta hipotesis.

Lo cierto es que más allá de que quienes apoyan la versión oficial del gobierno estadounidense y constantemente ridiculizaron la posibilidad de que existieran dispositivos como los aquí mencionados, las evidencias de que no solo existen sino que -como se han ventilado evidencias- se han usado en escenarios como Iraq, Siria, Yemen y posiblemente en Afganistán, a veinte años de aquellos hechos criminales que sirvieron para perpetrar muchos otros, se viene haciendo necesario un debate internacional que ponga sobre la mesa las responsabilidades de quienes al amparo del gobierno y de una gran cobertura de engaños orquestaron estas criminalidades.

 

 

---

[1] Así denominada por sus autores intelectuales el entonces Secretario de Defensa Donald Rumsfeld y el Almirante Arthur Cebrowski establecieron esta estrategia de una guerra sin término.

[2] Crear la inestabilidad en el exterior, especialmente en Medio Oriente es uno de los puntos de la estrategia de la “Guerra sin fin” propuesta por el Coronel Ralph Peters en su libro “Stability. America’s ennemy” publicado en 2001, https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA82064202&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=00311723&p=AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=anon%7Ed70ea8ee

[3] VeteransToday.com. “Sorprendente: la historia de la ruptura del 11 de septiembre, aunque eso lo resolvió todo y desacreditó a los 'verdaderos' para siempre”, 27 de agosto de 2021. https://www.veteranstoday.com/2021/08/27/vt-nuclear-education-most-classified-9-11-revealed/; Jim Fetzer & others,  America Nuked on 9/11: Compliments of the CIA, the Neocons in the DoD & the Moss, https://www.amazon.com/-/es/Jim-Fetzer/dp/0692756108

 

“THE GATES OF BABYLON”

Will the Americans also withdraw from Iraq? The fear that haunts Iraqi collaborators seems founded

By Dany Smith

Although the White House and its officials try to show that the US has not lost credibility after what happened in Afghanistan, the images that were turned around the globe in just minutes showing how the Air Force planes fled while hundreds of collaborators tried hang from their fuselages, few are who accept that point of view.

The column that supports the American story tries to support the idea that the departure of its troops is a guarantee of instability when in reality it has been the opposite, unless the Americans try to change the negative meaning of actions such as aggression, invasion and occupation. To pretend that would mean changing the very epistemology of each of those words, which in itself is foolish.

Articles and reports from Anglo-American media and sites in the past week seem to reflect that twisted logic; But what is behind such a delusional speech? Despair at the fall of his already terrible image and (after the perceived inconsistency about the origin of the “Taliban”, “Al Qaeda” and the role of agent Bin Ladem) of his credibility within the “international concert”. That is why to cushion the impact of such a political-military and strategic catastrophe they resort to a reinterpretation or rather a deformation of what the images report with a view to manipulating public opinion.

The truth is that the relatives of the thousands of US soldiers and other nationalities (NATO) who lost their lives or have returned with amputations or injuries for life, the official story does not matter since their lives have been wasted in the service of planning far from the official account that were drawn up by bureaucrats who are no longer in this world and have left without being judged. There never was "a good war" as some have tried to argue. Guys like Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz who devised these wars (which appear in the “Snowflakes” Memorandums) along with a host of schemers as part of a strategic plan to perpetuate US hegemony for a century (PNAC), are only the visible face of the dark interests that they represented and that benefited from those catastrophes.

Nor do they matter the thousands of Afghans who were killed by the ISAF in their incursions against villages in the interior, or those caused by their aerial bombardments in which even such destructive devices were used as the “BLU-1186” thermobaric bomb or in the famous actions of the CIA drones (directed from computer rooms in the US and the EU -Germany-) causing inexcusable massacres on concentrations of people celebrating weddings or funerals where there were only civilians. In the skewed and even childish view of Washington (replicated by its Western media employees) the only culprits are the Afghans and the Taliban.

The same thing can happen in Iraq and they know it in Washington. Like Afghanistan, this Arab country was devastated by a bloody occupation that despite attempts to mask it as part of this ruse of the so-called “fight against terrorism” and “search for freedom”, today all Iraqis are aware that the Americans and their British allies did to try to break down the resistance that still survives today in political institutions with parliamentary and, of course, military representation.

As in Afghanistan, the Americans harvested their own collaborators and it is they (and their families) who have the real concern of what it would be like to see their masters abandon them to their fate as seen in those gruesome scenes at the Kabul airport. That same sensation could be experienced in April 2016 when protesters led by the Shiite cleric Moqtadar Al Sadr entered the "Green Zone" and took over parliament, causing many of these collaborators to flee in terror to hide in the building's bathrooms.

As much as the editorials of the US media that supported and continue to support these situations (of military intervention and occupation), with the publication of alleged testimonies of Iraqis who are concerned that the Americans leave Iraq as they have done with Afghanistan, more true It is that the common of the new generation of Iraqis, be they Sunnis, Shiites or Christians, the overwhelming majority do not want the Americans on their soil for another minute.

Even today's Iraqis themselves are aware that since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein they have only had as “rulers”, gangs of criminals and subjects with extensive criminal records who, far away, proved to be interested in representing the interests and needs of all people. Iraqis. On the contrary, they have been functional to all the plans that Washington deployed in the region and that has become clear, they ended up establishing chaos, corruption, misery and greater insecurity for the benefit of another enemy such as the state of Israel. (which overlapped under these circumstances), take advantage to operate so that said Status Quo is permanent.

They are also aware that those administrators, beyond the electoral pantomime (to show that democracy had been established), were placed by the invaders themselves, so there was no alternative outside the "democratic" framework that Washington had imposed by the strength. Currently, Prime Minister Mustafa Al Khadimi is the most graphic representation of these officials who function for the US to such a degree that he is willing to try to dissolve the “Moqawama” (resistance) forces as long as the US State Department does not take away the sympathy, much less the money they deposit in your personal bank account.

Nor should we forget that the appearance of ISIS in 2014 was not a surprise to the US. That lie came onto the scene at a time when, together with their French, Turkish and Saudi colleagues, they were trying to overthrow the Syrian government of Bashar Al Assad, something for which the US intelligence agencies and Pentagon advisers provided valuable cooperation to the groups “rebels” and even jihadists like “Jabbat Al Nusra” himself, an affiliate of "Al Qaeda" in Syria. In this sense, do not forget the visit of Republican Senator John Mc Cain to Syria in May 2013 where he met with the heads of the various armed gangs, among which was the one who would later present himself as Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi, leader of ISIS. , a postcard that beyond wanting to deny the late senator could never be explained by Washington.

Even the assembly and preparation of ISIS was managed in training camps on the Syrian-Iraqi border with Caucasian trainers of western origin that the Pentagon could never explain. In those days, the appearance of columns of hundreds of "Toyota Hilux" trucks flying the black flag with the "Shahada" crossing from Jordan never had a reasonable explanation of its origin and the implications of the kingdom with these movements.

Nor have they given explanations on how US contractors, in addition to the crimes committed against civilians, became millionaires at the cost of the occupation. Much less, what was the degree of involvement they had in the assembly and participation in the ISIS cadres.

Despite the efforts to enforce the story that ISIS sprouted spontaneously, the evidence that was found in the Syrian and Iraqi terrain after the efforts to dismantle their Caliphate, the Iraqis realized what that was and is For this reason, for a long time there has been a growing critical mass among its population - especially young people - who want them outside their territory. That is why in the event that the US abruptly withdrew from Baghdad, the caste of collaborators implanted 17 years ago that for a handful of dollars a month they handed over to their own citizens would be at the mercy of thousands of citizens who lost their family and friends.