SHADOWS OVER AFRICA

What are the factors that are influencing the political events shaking the African continent?

 

By Sidney Hey

Just when it seemed that the African continent was taking a hopeful turn out of the basement of the international community and out of dependence on its old European colonisers, the coups and the sudden uprising as seen in Sudan, the reappearance of rebel groups and jihadists begin to make it clear that all this is no accident.

The political instability that has been witnessed in the African states that have emerged from French colonialism goes far beyond simple power struggles between nationalists and pro-French rulers. Nor is it the suspected (by the Anglo-Saxon media) Russian hand that has fomented coups in states such as Niger and Gabon.

There is a reality of social inequalities, poverty and political corruption that has been working for the EU and in particular for France, which for decades has benefited from the precious natural resources and raw materials obtained at ridiculous prices by the metropolis. The new generations of Africans grew up watching this and are now aware of this swindle and seem determined to put an end to it.

Obviously, will is not enough. To change governments requires resources and external support to give political and especially economic predictability to such an abrupt change. As for the latter, the arrival of PMC Wagner members in Niger after the coup d'état does not imply the involvement of the Russian government. As a private company, Wagner is contracted to attend to the most diverse security matters that private clients and governments may request.

In what has been happening in West Africa and which seems to be spreading in a curious way, revealing that there are much more complex implications that clearly go against French interests and clearly, in the government meetings between Macron and his ministers, especially with the defence minister Sébastien Lecornu and his Chief of Staff, they already know with certainty who the real instigators behind each of these coups are. In the light of these revelations, it remains to be seen what measures the government will take to confront these interests and try to curb their agenda.

It is the US that seems determined not to make the mistake of past administrations in forgetting the global south. That is why for Biden and Co. today “Africa matters too”... but not for altruistic purposes, let alone for the benefit of Africans.

It is Washington that has a strong geostrategic interest in reformatting the black continent, especially the entire north-central part of the continent, and to this end the establishment of an operations command under Pentagon control called AFRICOM, the US will seek to replicate the operations that CENTCOM carried out on the other side of the Red Sea in the Arabian Peninsula to create that geopolitical Frankenstein that was called the "Enlarged Middle East".

AFRICOM, despite being headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany, plans to soon extend its presence by installing bases for strategic purposes on African soil. In that plan, the Pentagon is preparing to set up a drone base at its 201st base in Niger, and is this by chance? The rationale for this command is to provide security and combat the jihadists of “Boko Haram”, an African extension of the Islamic State jihadist hoax run by Mukhabarat associates of some Gulf petromonarchy.

So it came as no surprise to Paris that several of the military personnel involved in the coups were trained by the US, with whom they still maintain close relations. Nor are the links of senior ECOWAS politicians and especially Nigerian President Bola Tinubu with the CIA. It is likely that the DGSE has more sensitive information on the extent of these plans and obviously because of the complex geopolitical implications this represents, Macron will have to manoeuvre carefully and feign control in the face of public opinion.

What is happening to France and what Macron must tolerate today, biting his tongue, is what the US has always done with its partners who, when their useful life is over, are treated as “expendable elements”. This is what the Biden administration seems to have decided after 22 years of French intervention, promoted by Washington under the guise of the fight against terrorism and especially after collaborating in the overthrow and assassination of Libyan leader Mohammed Gaddafi in 2010, who threatened to create the gold dinar as an alternative to the dollar.

It is definitely clear that the Americans no longer need their French employees. They were useful to play the “fight against terrorism” game of pseudo-Islamist organisations like “Al Qaeda” and “ISIS” created by the CIA as tactical pawns on Washington's geopolitical chessboard.

As can be seen, NATO is only useful when US interests are at risk. Now it is with bitterness that Macron, like all Europeans, is coming to realise this situation. As for the French, their services are dispensable not only because they have the military contacts within the new de facto governments but also because more units and troops directed from AFRICOM will soon be landing on the continent to establish effective command and control on the ground.

With these manoeuvres, Washington and its Anglo-Saxon partners are making explicit their terror of the BRICS' advance, which is replicating the consequences of the G-77 (plus China), especially with regard to Chinese investments in the continent, and from a more macro point of view, this is evidence of their loss of influence in the global south.

 

 

 

ESTRATEGIA CONTRA CHINA

¿Cuáles son las reales intensiones de EEUU sobre el Mar Meridional?

 

Por Charles H. Slim

La guerra en Ucrania ya puede decirse que ha pasado a un segundo plano para los intereses atlantistas en especial, para los estadounidenses que dan por perdida la oportunidad de dar un zarpazo sobre la Federación Rusa. Los instigadores de todo esto están presionando para que La Casa Blanca ponga su atención sobre China y en especial sobre todo el Mar Meridional para evitar que se siga expandiendo la influencia china sobre toda la región.

Desde el inicio de la Operación Militar Especial, los mandos militares atlantistas y en especial el almirantazgo norteamericano del Estado Mayor de la Armada han sido muy precavidos en no comprometer sus unidades navales dentro del Mar Negro. Los riesgos valorados al parecer son altos y la principal amenaza vendría de la Armada rusa que ya ha demostrado capacidades que no están a simple vista. Eso es lo que habrían determinado en un informe de la inteligencia naval dirigido al Jefe de Operaciones Navales (OPNAV) en el cual se puso en perspectiva una hipotética confrontación no convencional.

Por lo pronto en Washington parecen conformarse con un nuevo paquete de ayuda de 1000 millones de dólares y el pronto envío a Kiev de proyectiles para obuses de tanque con Uranio-enriquecido, es decir, un agente químico radiactivo que envenenará el territorio ucraniano con todas las consecuencias sobre el medio ambiente y su población (tal como se sigue viendo en la provincia de Al Anbar, Iraq).

Una vez más, la administración Biden va a la carga con su secretario de Estado Anthony Blinken quien como señalan varios, es más guerrero que diplomático y las pruebas de ello están a la vista. Es por ello que la prudencia de la armada en el Mar Negro tiene no surge de un interés de no escalar el conflicto.

Para estrechar el hostigamiento sobre el continente chino, preservar las fuerzas navales es una cuestión de necesidad estratégica para los atlantistas y en especial para los belicistas como Nuland, Blinken y Sullivan.

Pero como ya sabemos la política contra China que encabeza Washington no solo tiene una pata militar. La búsqueda de aliados para presionar en la región ha llevado en las últimas horas a que el mismo Biden haya realizado una visita relámpago por dos potenciales candidatos para esos planes como son Vietnam y la India.

Otra importante rama en la estrategia contra China es la comunicación. Como ha sucedido en casos anteriores y en particular con lo visto contra Rusia, la censura y la desinformación a la que se prestan los medios occidentales, demuestran su parte en la guerra psicológica que dirigen las agencias de inteligencia.

En ese plan seguimos oyendo en los medios del hemisferio, largas predicas y monsergas acusando a China de violar los derechos humanos en especial contra la minoría musulmana Uigur (obviando sus propios crímenes contra los musulmanes de Irak, Siria, Libia, Yemen etcetc), de querer invadir Taiwán y de buscar su expansión global por una ambición presumidamente imperialista. Bajo el falso antagonismo “democracia vs autocracia” sacado del libreto propagandista elaborado por el Departamento de Estado y que sus adeptos en el hemisferio sur repiten como loros, intentan asustar a potenciales socios comerciales (con aspiraciones al BRICS) y al mismo tiempo sermonear al mundo con ese gastado e infantil cliché de “nosotros somos los buenos y ellos son los malos” que tanto daño causó no hace tanto la administración de George W. Bush y Dick Cheney y que Barak Obama continuó.

Tampoco olvidemos como la administración de Donald Trump fue de frente contra China buscando desbancarla del comercio internacional, algo que Joe Biden continuó sin pausa con los intentos por varios medios de apoderarse del mercado de los microprocesadores. Aquel acuso muy ligera (o quizá convenientemente) a China de haber sido el responsable de la aparición del Covid-19, cuando a poco de rastrear precedentes previos a la declaración de la pandemia, se hallaron muchas inconsistencias en los informes y hechos que evidenciaban que ese “agente biológico” ya estaba mucho antes en suelo estadounidense y más precisamente en una instalación militar que casualmente albergaba los laboratorios de investigaciones y desarrollo de estas armas pestilentes.

Hasta la filtración y difusión de lo realmente ocurrido por mediado del mes de junio de 2019 en “Fort Detrick” en Meriland, los medios angloestadounidenses y sus lacayos hemisféricos solo hablaban del “murciélago”, de un “sucio mercado en Wuhan” y del “virus chino”.

Más cerca en el tiempo, los inconvenientes y no esperados descubrimientos de las tropas rusas en Ucrania, han reforzado con creces el real involucramiento de EEUU en la aparición de esta “pandemia”. El hallazgo de laboratorios de Bio-guerra para el desarrollo (entre otros agentes) del “SarS-CoV” (denominado vulgarmente Covid19) y que pese a los fundados pedidos de Moscú ante Naciones Unidas de que se realicen las correspondientes investigaciones, eso sigue siendo un tema pendiente de tratar.

Para la CIA se ha hecho muy difícil penetrar en los círculos políticos de Pekín e incluso de sus Fuerzas Armadas. Pese a que la agencia cuenta con el apoyo de agencias asiáticas y de recursos humanos de origen chino que hablan fluidamente el idioma (especialmente de Taiwán), articular programas subversivos para tratar de desestabilizar políticamente al gigante asiático o buscar su desintegración se vuelve algo muy complejo de lograr. Igualmente, ello no es obstáculo para que la CIA y sus socios detenga sus actividades en pos de lograrlo.

La producción de inteligencia electrónica y la obtenida de los satélites es con la que más cuentan los analistas en Washington aunque deben tomarla con mucho cuidado y detalle quedando siempre muchas dudas sobre si lo que informan algunas imágenes no son meros montajes escenificados. Una de las amenazas más temidas y en especial para la armada son los misiles hipersónicos contra portaaviones “DF-17”, que podrían evadir todas las contramedidas de un grupo de ataque norteamericano. Igualmente, los generales de Biden y sus asesores están apuntando a buscar a la brevedad un enfrentamiento con China bajo la excusa de “defender la democracia en Taiwán”, pero ¿Serán tan idiotas los taiwaneses de caer en la misma trampa en la que hoy se hallan los ucranianos?

No hay otro interés en La Casa Blanca que la de sostener la supremacía global, aún a costa de otra horrible guerra.

Por lo pronto Washington continuara con la propaganda y a pesar de todos los esfuerzos por dañar la imagen de China, tal como se ve con interesada intensidad en Sudamérica y muy particularmente en Argentina (por el control del Litio y el Cobre), los resultados benéficos del trabajo de la diplomacia china hablan por sí misma.    

Pero todos estos que participan de estos artificios argumentativos hace tiempo que han caído por debajo de una aceptable credibilidad y es por ello que con la generación de mayores infundios solo ayudan a hundirse aún más en esa incredulidad de la opinión pública que acostumbradamente han manipulado.

 

BLOOD COPY

The campaign of assassinations and attacks against Russian targets is evidencing apprehended methods of a foreign agency with interests in Ukraine Good pupils or does the teacher also help?

 

By Yossi Tevi

For decades until their successful occupation of historic Palestine, Zionist cells composed of professional gunmen and assassins eventually became part of the political and military organs of the state of Israel.

Regardless of the names of these groups, their operations were not isolated from the financing and intimate involvement of European and U.S. governments. Moreover, without that help, things would have been different.  “Haganah”, “Palmach” or the “Stern Gang” were only the nom de guerre and tools of the enforcement arm of Zionist policy to seize the Palestinian Arab territories by force.

Their success did not lie in any divine predilection for a self-proclaimed “chosen people” or outlandish arguments that the theologians of religious Zionism, who today control the government in Tel Aviv, like to spread. Behind these groups of murderers and thieves moved millions of dollars to finance the enterprise. They were also supported by other non-Jewish murderers who, out of sympathy and ethnic affinity (because of their aversion to Arabs based on their skin color), became enthusiastic supporters of the Zionist cause.

These structures in part became the Mossad, or state intelligence agency that has gained a reputation (especially through propaganda in the West) for its effectiveness and variety in the most imaginative methods of assassinating people.

Recently, the head of Ukrainian military intelligence Kyrylo Budanov boasted that his agency had a special unit similar to "Mossad", acknowledging that it was behind the assassinations and attacks carried out both in the Donetsk and Lugansk republics and inside Russia.

Beyond boasting, this is not surprising. Even murders by hanging, stabbing or by gunshot have also been seen in the homes of “dissidents” in the middle of Kiev, which have the signature style of Israeli practices. There have long been secret links between the Zionists and Slavic right-wing extremist groups. For the Mossad they are another source of recruitment for dirty operations in the region. Even at the time of the uprising in Maidan Square in February 2014, Israeli elements were identified among the “Pradvy Sektor” shock groups. Of course, the first thing the Western media did was to cover that up and when Netanyahu was questioned about these involvements he just smiled as a way of saying that it was “absurd”.

But the truth is that since 2015 around the pro-independence republics, the murders and disappearances of people began to be a very serious problem until the autonomous defenses were able to establish that there were infiltrations of teams of assassins -death squads- at the service of Kiev that among other unpleasant tasks kidnapped people as part of the extensive gear of organ trafficking, many of them destined for hospitals in Europe and Israel.

The fact that nothing is said in the Western media does not mean that it does not happen.

As we have said before, in Ukraine the close relations between the revisionist Zionists who control Israel and the ultranationalists who support the regime of Volodymyr Zelensky have been whitewashed, something that causes an undeniable animosity and increases the already existing rejection in an important part of the Jewish community that does not identify with Zionism. But these relations have nothing to do with the religious or the “divine” (as happened in Palestine). It is the geopolitical interests of Israel and its Zionist supporters in Washington and the EU that drive these counter-natural relationships. They are trying to create a similar enterprise or rather, apply those old Israeli dirty recipes to try to recapture the territories under Russian control.

Although Tel Aviv has been very cautious about its position on the war (because of what Russia represents), Zelensky has tried to exploit his Jewishness to generate empathy in Zionist circles and thereby involve Israel in the donor club. Telephone contacts between Zelensky Netanyahu have increased in recent weeks and many suspect that there would be Israeli military intelligence teams and "advisors" involved in some of the “Kidon”-style attack cells inside Russian territory.

Both in the forms and in the targets chosen by these death squads, they reveal the operational influence of the Israeli agency since, as it is already clear, the assassination of Russian journalists and officials from Donetsk and Lugansk respond to the policy of intimidation that Israel tries to impose on its enemies when they carry out one of its “wet operations” without caring if in the process they kill a whole family or third parties.

Let us hope that this madness does not spread not only to Europe but to the whole world.

 

 

¿HACIA LA GUERRA DIGITAL?

¿Puede el desarrollo de la IA dar un procedimiento que simule y reemplace la guerra convencional en una versión digitalizada?

 

Por Charles H. Slim

El imparable avance que está teniendo la tecnología informática y en especial en lo referente a la IA plantea la posibilidad de que en alguna medida pueda traer alguna ventaja entre tantos temores y reparos que ya se plantean en el mercado laboral por la suplantación de la mano de obra humana no solo para los trabajos manuales sino también, para un extenso catálogo de actividades profesionales que requieren del uso del razonamiento.

Pese a lo apocalíptico de esta visión, es posible hallarle a esta tecnología una finalidad altamente altruista en las relaciones conflictivas entre los estados y que podría llevar el concepto sentado Von Clausewitz a un nuevo nivel su definición de la guerra como el desarrollo de la política por otros medios.

El cruento escenario de la guerra en Ucrania que no es más que el resultado y continuación de insidiosas y persistentes políticas atlantistas que desde la caída de la URSS en 1990, vinieron horadando los cimientos de la estabilidad política en toda Eurasia principalmente ingresando a la OTAN países del este europeo, puede ser el mejor estímulo para buscar una alternativa resolutiva menos cruenta que la guerra tradicional.

Con mentiras y el malicioso incumplimiento de sus propias palabras, poco a poco EEUU usando a la UE como escudo, llegó al límite de la tolerancia de Rusia amenazando su seguridad estratégica con su penetración en Ucrania. Todo ello, aprovechando la debilidad en que se hallaba una naciente Federación Rusa.

Esta muy claro que EEUU y sus socios violaron la ley internacional y la falla se advierte en una Naciones Unidas que además de subsistir por los aportes monetarios de Washington, tiene su sede administrativa en su territorio. Los precedentes contemporáneos demuestran su ineficacia al momento de poner límites a este influyente miembro. Con ello no cumpliría con los requisitos mínimos para ser el ente administrador de este sistema. La imparcialidad es impracticable y sería tiempo de ir buscando una reconfiguración a semejante burla.

La guerra en sí, es una calamidad y no tiene nada de positivo aún para los triunfadores. También es el andamiaje que sostiene económicamente a ciertos sectores de la sociedad que viven de la guerra. Pero es sabido que es una continuación de aquellas contiendas políticas en las que han sobrado las palabras o se amenaza a la seguridad de una nación.

Si sacamos todos los negocios y las especulaciones que rodean a una guerra, y considerando el alto desarrollo de la tecnología ¿Podría ser resuelta una contienda bélica de forma virtual? Desde mi punto de vista claro que sería posible y se parecería mucho a los juegos en línea que millones de personas juegan en el internet. La gran diferencia pasaría por tener que, ante todo, el acuerdo de las naciones, el desarrollo de nuevos protocolos para un software especifico, destinado a regular un escenario o Teatro de Operaciones donde los contendientes ejecuten las batallas donde ya no se perderían vidas de combatientes ni se comprometería la de los civiles.

El desarrollo de la tecnología informática de la mano de las IA, ponen de manifiesto que ello es posible, incluso, con un grado de realismo como el que se observa con múltiples juegos en red, solo que aquí, estaría rodeado de una serie de especificaciones y efectos que conllevarían a consecuencias materiales sobre la nación que ha sido vencida; es decir en resumen de cuentas, las cosas se terminaron con solo apagar el ordenador.

En principio, el grado de resolución y animación existente en los poderosos software dedicados a elaborar simples juegos de guerra para uso recreativo o, los simuladores para uso militar, están poniendo en evidencia que la propuesta no es un delirio o una simple tontería.

Tampoco ello significaría desarmar a las naciones de sus FFAA o poner a jovencitos holgazanes de fin de semana en consolas como si se tratara de un simple juego de guerra. Por el contrario, cada nación deberá instruir (como una forma de decir) unas FFAA digitales, elaboradas en programas propios que replicarían al detalle cada unidad que comandan y que serán operadas obviamente, por el mismo personal que se avocara a cada una de las armas que pertenece, operando sus correspondientes unidades como si lo hicieran en el terreno real.

Así, desde el soldado de infantería hasta el piloto de avión, dispondrán de sus armamentos solamente que lo operaran virtualmente en una manera tan real y vivida que los comprometerá en las operaciones que estén desarrollando. Un ejemplo simple para ilustrar la idea es, la misma tripulación de un tanque será la que tripulará cada uno en su función, virtualmente su vehículo y de acuerdo al daño sufrido al ser tocados en la batalla quedarán eliminados.

De por sí, la modalidad reflejará un ahorro invalorable en costos materiales y ni hablemos en lo que hace a la vida e incluso, al impacto en medio ambiente que subsigue al uso de bombas con elementos químicos y la contaminación del aire y el agua por la polución que crean las batallas.

Incluso esta modalidad no suplantaría (en un inicio) a la guerra como la conocemos, con lo cual las industrias armamentísticas podrían respirar aliviadas. Obviamente no producirán en el volumen como les gustaría, pero seguirían existiendo. Un enfrentamiento digital podría ser un paso previo, una forma no cruenta de resolver asuntos que han estado trabados en el campo político-diplomático y que por ello terminarían en una escalada bélica con todas las consecuencias que actualmente ya conocemos.

De esta manera, el dicho de Von Clausewitz “toda guerra es la continuación de las relaciones políticas… por otros medios”, se pondría en aplicación de una manera más elástica y económica haciendo que esa “continuación en las relaciones políticas entre dos estados que han cerrado sus diálogos convencionales, puedan reabrirlo usando este novedoso medio que sería un escenario virtual sin las cruentas consecuencias ni los traumas que ellas representarían para todos los involucrados.

Esta muy claro que para ello tenga efecto, debería existir un organismo internacional verdaderamente imparcial para su aplicación (Que como vemos Naciones Unidas no entra en ese parámetro). Además deberá haber acuerdo entre las partes y el compromiso de acatar el resultado de esta contienda virtual, que determinara un efecto jurídico vinculante y obligatorio tal como lo que se firma en un papel. 

 ¿Acaso esto detendrá la guerra en el mundo? Claro que no. Pero al menos les dará a los mandatarios y gobiernos un paso previo de reflexión y una herramienta jurídica pre-bélica para esgrimir antes de que sea necesario matarse entre seres humanos.

 

 

 

 

 

GEOPOLITICS OF THE FARCE

22 years have passed since the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon in 9/11 and although the Establishment media have tried by all means to create a guilty party in the collective imagination, a good part of the public opinion does not believe this story. Will justice give a definitive answer to this?

 

By Danny Smith

We have been the privileged witnesses of the last three turbulent decades in which manipulations, lies and deceits have played a leading role from high governmental levels, not because it was the first time that governments made use of these opaque resources, but because they were actively questioned and exposed by a growing critical and civil rights-conscious citizenry.

It is no coincidence that this coincides with the period of the so-called New World Order that U.S. President George H. Bush declared on September 11, 1990 before a Congress exultant with triumphalism for what it represented. It would be the pinnacle of the supremacy that Washington had dreamed of since the end of the Second World War and which would come with the collapse of the USSR, endorsed in blood at the beginning of 1991 after the end of the Persian Gulf War.

It was precisely that war (which could have been avoided) that proclaimed the unilateral power of the US over the entire globe.

The arguments and facts that were aired by the media -and that were not censored-, especially by CNN were only part of a shell of what really mobilized the Republican Bush administration. Just a few months before the invasion of the emirate of Kuwait, the situation of cross accusations between Baghdad and Kuwait over the theft of oil from the fields in “Al Rumaillah”, the then head of the US Central Command General Norman Schwarzkopf who together with his Iraqi colleagues was overseeing joint military exercises a few kilometers from Baghdad. At the same time and under cover the CIA manipulated the parties and through false expectations conveyed by then Ambassador April Glaspie to Saddam Hussein, Washington sowed more suspicion and mistrust by causing the Jeddah summit to fail at the last minute.

In short, the war against Iraq was premeditated and fueled by geopolitical interests to an extent that was revealed over time.

From then on, the fabrication of the post-Cold War “enemy” began to be chiseled around Islam and in particular around the Arab-Islamic world, instigated by reports, journalistic articles and memos that justified that elaboration, created by Zionist militants close to Netanyahu with close connections in the governmental spheres in Washington and the influential pro-Israeli lobbies such as AIPAC. Paul Wolfowitz, who in the early 1990's worked in the Defense area, in 1992 was the author of the “Paper” where he argued an agenda of conquest that was made official in 1997 through the PNAC think tank integrated by other neoconservative colleagues and in which, coincidentally, he needed a "Pearl Harbor" or a traumatic event for “America” to set it in motion.

Coincidentally and conveniently, that event occurred on the morning of September 11, 2001 and from then on everything we already know. The planes crashing into the Twin Towers in New York and the unclarified explosion (since no trace of a plane was found) on one of the Pentagon's fronts, was only the beginning of a masterpiece of deception to justify the invasions of Arab-Islamic nations with the Islamic Republic of Iran as the strawberry.

Many were the clues that raised early suspicions about this and several of them were detected by simple American citizens fortuitously present at the scene of the events. One of those clues was the instant adjudication of a culprit with name and face pointed out with “evidence” that practically fell that very morning directly into the hands of George W. Bush himself. Not a couple of hours had passed before the government's media spokesmen pointed out a guy who, according to some intelligence sources, had already died of kidney problems in a clinic in a Gulf emirate and his body was buried in a tomb in the Caucasus.

Another inconsistency that was detected live that morning was the collapse of a building next to the towers that had not suffered any blow but that (and as pointed out by witnesses present) after hearing booms under their feet they saw how tower 7 collapsed. ¿What´s happened?

Another inconsistency was the explosion at the Pentagon. According to the official version a passenger plane (American Airlines Flight 77) was hijacked by “Al Qaeda jihadists” shortly after leaving Dulles Airport and crashed into the building. The problem in this story was the evidence on surveillance cameras in a nearby parking lot that revealed that there was no plane at all. Even later footage and photos capturing the work of the rescue teams did not show any fuselage or parts. This was not explained by the government either.

This scenario could not be more convenient. And who were the beneficiaries of this “aggression against America”? That's right, you got it right. The mafia of neoconservatives who were already entrenched in the power structure in Washington and who, capitalizing on the anger of the American people, would push forward the policy of “perpetual war” under the excuse of the “fight against terrorism”.

That procedure became a standard and today we see it reproduced with brazen continuity in Ukraine and by a desperate ultranationalist regime that -supported by the CIA and MI6 among others- invents false Russian attacks against neighboring countries to try to involve NATO.

As for the clues that could not have been available to the public opinion and that refer to the intergovernmental contretemps and suspicious coincidences of that day, explanations are still pending. Just to name a few are those involving, among others, the owner of the Towers, Larry Silverstein, who, coincidentally, benefited from the insurance claim for this unusual “incident”; the denunciation and arrest of a group of young Israelis who, from an apartment in New Jersey, were caught celebrating the collapse of the towers; or the inexplicable disconnection of the anti-aircraft system -which could only have been from inside- surrounding the Pentagon, which would not have allowed any plane or missile to approach without the risk of being shot down; or the strange lack of air security at the Pentagon, which would not have allowed any plane or missile to get close without the risk of being shot down; or the strange lack of air security that morning due to military exercises; the identity and nationality (Saudi nationals) of the alleged attackers who were still alive in their country; the meetings held by members of the US intelligence with the Taliban in August 2001; and finally, the very curious meeting at a breakfast on Capitol Hill between Senator Bob Graham and the representative of the House of Representatives of the U.S. House of Representatives in August 2001 and finally, the very curious breakfast meeting on Capitol Hill between Senator Bob Graham and House Representative Porter Goss with Pakistan's chief spymaster general (ISI), Mahmoud Ahmad (Osama Bin Laden's alleged supporter), a CIA collaborator who for years has been syndicated as the operational support of “Al Qaeda” in Afghanistan.

It is clear that this string of indications extends beyond those presented here. The question that remains to be answered is: Will there be a serious and impartial investigation of this?

Undoubtedly, the U.S. government and the corporate media that went along with the incredible official story owe an explanation not only to the victims of that morning and to the American people, but also to all those affected by the subsequent consequences of this very dark page in the history of mankind.