Tuesday 30th of April 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

the real terrorist(s)....

 

Within just 24 hours of the horrific mass shooting in Moscow’s Crocus City Hall on March 22nd, which left at least 137 innocent people dead and 60 more critically wounded, US officials blamed the slaughter on ISIS-K, Daesh’s South-Central Asian branch. For many, the attribution’s celerity raised suspicions Washington was seeking to decisively shift Western public and Russian government focus away from the actual culprits - be that Ukraine, and/or Britain, Kiev’s foremost proxy sponsor.

 

How CIA and MI6 Created ISIS
by Kit Klarenberg

 

Full details of how the four shooters were recruited, directed, armed, and financed, and who by, are yet to emerge. The savage interrogation methods to which they have been, and no doubt continue to be subjected are concerned with prising this and other vital information from them. The killers may end up making false confessions as a result. In any event, they themselves likely have no clue who or what truly sponsored their monstrous actions.

Contrary to their mainstream portrayal, as inspired purely by religious fundamentalism, Daesh are primarily guns for hire. At any given time, they act at the behest of an array of international donors, bound by common interests. Funding, weapons, and orders reach its fighters circuitously, and opaquely. There is almost invariably layer upon layer of cutouts between the perpetrators of an attack claimed by the group, and its ultimate orchestrators and financiers.

Given ISIS-K is currently arrayed against China, Iran, and Russia - in other words, the US Empire’s primary adversaries - it is incumbent to revisit Daesh’s origins. Emerging seemingly out of nowhere just over a decade ago, before dominating mainstream media headlines and Western public consciousness for several years before vanishing, at one stage the group occupied vast swaths of Iraqi and Syrian territory, declaring an “Islamic State”, which issued its own currency, passports, and vehicle registration plates.

Devastating military interventions independently launched by the US and Russia wiped out that demonic construct in 2017. The CIA and MI6 were no doubt immensely relieved. After all, extremely awkward questions about how Daesh were comprehensively extinguished. As we shall see, the terror group and its caliphate did not emerge in the manner of lightning on a dark night, but due to dedicated, determined policy hatched in London and Washington, implemented by their spying agencies.

‘Continuingly Hostile’

RAND is a highly influential, Washington DC-headquartered “think tank”. Bankrolled to the tune of almost $100 million annually by the Pentagon and other US government entities, it regularly disseminates recommendations on national security, foreign affairs, military strategy, and covert and overt actions overseas. These pronouncements are more often than not subsequently adopted as policy. 

For example, a July 2016 RAND paper on the prospect of “war with China” forecast a need to fill Eastern Europe with US soldiers in advance of a “hot” conflict with Beijing, as Russia would undoubtedly side with its neighbour and ally in such a dispute. It was therefore necessary to tie down Moscow’s forces at its borders. Six months later, scores of NATO troops duly arrived in the region, ostensibly to counter “Russian aggression”. 

 

Similarly, in April 2019 RAND published Extending Russia. It set out “a range of possible means” to “bait Russia into overextending itself,” so as to “undermine the regime’s stability.” These methods included; providing lethal aid to Ukraine; increasing US support for the Syrian rebels; promoting “regime change in Belarus”; exploiting “tensions” in the Caucasus; neutralising “Russian influence in Central Asia” and Moldova. Most of that came to pass thereafter.

In this context, RAND’s November 2008 Unfolding The Long War makes for disquieting reading. It explored ways the US Global War on Terror could be prosecuted once coalition forces formally left Iraq, under the terms of a withdrawal agreement inked by Baghdad and Washington that same month. This development by definition threatened Anglo dominion over Persian Gulf oil and gas resources, which would remain “a strategic priority” when the occupation was officially over. 

“This priority will interact strongly with that of prosecuting the long war,” RAND declared. The think tank went on to propose a “divide and rule” strategy to maintain US hegemony in Iraq, despite the power vacuum created by withdrawal. Under its auspices, Washington would exploit “fault lines between [Iraq’s] various Salafi-jihadist groups to turn them against each other and dissipate their energy on internal conflicts”, while “supporting authoritative Sunni governments against a continuingly hostile Iran”:

“This strategy relies heavily on covert action, information operations, unconventional warfare, and support to indigenous security forces…The US and its local allies could use nationalist jihadists to launch proxy campaigns to discredit transnational jihadists in the eyes of the local populace…This would be an inexpensive way of buying time…until the US can return its full attention to the [region]. US leaders could also choose to capitalize on the sustained Shia-Sunni Conflict…by taking the side of conservative Sunni regimes against Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world.”

‘Great Danger’

So it was that the CIA and MI6 began supporting “nationalist jihadists” throughout West Asia. The next year, Bashar Assad rejected a Qatari proposal to route Doha’s vast gas reserves directly to Europe, via a $10 billion, 1,500 kilometre-long pipeline spanning Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey. As extensively documented by WikiLeaks-released diplomatic cables, US, Israeli and Saudi intelligence immediately decided to overthrow Assad by fomenting a local rebellion, and started financingopposition groups for the purpose.

This effort became turbocharged in October 2011, with MI6 redirecting weapons and extremist fighters from Libya to Syria, in the wake of Muammar Gaddafi’s televised murder. The CIA oversaw that operation, using the British as an arm’s length cutout to avoid notifying Congress of its machinations. Only in June 2013, with then-President Barack Obama’s official authorisation, did the Agency’s cloak-and-dagger connivances in Damascus become formalised - and later admitted - under the title “Timber Sycamore”.

At this time, Western officials universally referred to their Syrian proxies as “moderate rebels”. Yet, Washington was well-aware its surrogates were dangerous extremists, seeking to carve a fundamentalist caliphate out of the territory they occupied. An August 2012 US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report released under Freedom of Information laws observes that events in Baghdad were “taking a clear sectarian direction,” with radical Salafist groups “the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria.”

These factions included Al Qaeda’s Iraqi wing (AQI), and its umbrella offshoot, Islamic State of Iraq (ISI). The pair went on to form Daesh, a prospect the DIA report not only predicted, but seemingly endorsed:

“If the situation unravels, there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria…This is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want in order to isolate the Syrian regime…ISI could also declare an Islamic state through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create great danger.”

Despite such grave concerns, the CIA inexorably dispatched unaccountably vast shipments of weapons and money to Syria’s “moderate rebels”, well-knowing this “aid” would almost inevitably end up in Daesh’s hands. Moreover, Britain concurrently ran secret programs costing millions to train opposition paramilitaries in the art of killing, while providing medical assistance to wounded jihadists. London also donated multiple ambulances, purchased from Qatar, to armed groups in the country.

Leaked documents indicate the risk of equipment and trained personnel from these efforts being lost to Al-Nusra, Daesh, and other extremist groups in West Asia was judged unavoidably “high” by British intelligence. Yet, there was no concomitant strategy for countering this hazard at all, and the illicit programs continued apace. Almost as if training and arming Daesh was precisely the desired outcome.

https://english.almayadeen.net/articles/analysis/how-cia-and-mi6-created-isis

 

it's time for being earnest.....

debonair wars....

 

Propaganda techniques and opinion manipulation    by Eliane Perret

 

Anyone who looks at the newspapers today, listens to reports on radio and television or hears speeches by politicians often wonders what to believe. Because so much has become common knowledge today: Published opinion is less and less in line with public opinion, and we are aware of the attempts to use propaganda methods – euphemistically renamed public relations PR – to control the formation of opinion. It has therefore become increasingly important to obtain a broad range of information and often resort to media portals that do not belong to the “quality media”. Not only are the methods used interesting, but it is also worth taking a look at the history.

Glitter that doesn’t glitter

There are timeless and cross-cultural terms that we spontaneously associate with positive content. Examples include freedom, democracy, security, the rule of law, neutrality when it comes to government affairs, but also tolerance, colourfulness, change, science, solidarity, diversity and sustainability. They are often inserted into speeches and media products aimed at gaining acceptance for ideologies and Zeitgeist phenomena.
  Or the power strategies behind wars are legitimised by euphemistic terms such as war of liberation, democratisation, humanitarian interventions with heroes, saviours or freedom fighters who are unquestioningly regarded as trustworthy. The terms radiate good intentions supported by human commitment and ethics, intelligent considerations, confidence and sacrifice and are intended to trigger approval and even gratitude in the other party. Today, political power apparatuses and their advisors “play” with them when they want to influence the opinion of their target audience and win them over to their side. In the technical language of propaganda, we speak of glittering generality. You could also say: it’s about a word or a vague phrase that is filled with different content depending on the situation. However, they are timeless and cross-cultural words that are so vague that everyone agrees on their accuracy and value, even if it later becomes clear that their own interpretation of the term did not match the intended one. They are not right or wrong because they do not actually convey any information and leave the interpretation up to the recipient. In any case, it is a rhetorical device with strong positive emotional appeal. It is used to get us to accept and approve of something without examining the evidence. These words or phrases are therefore often used in speeches or media reports.

Dirty things
that are not dirty

In turn, Name-Calling uses the power of swear words to impose a judgement on certain events and people through constant repetition in press releases, speeches, social media posts, etc., and to accept conclusions without really knowing the facts. Well-known terms that are reinterpreted or neologisms such as “do-gooders”, “climate deniers”, “Putinversteher” [a German neologism and a political buzzword, which literally translates “Putin understander”, i.e., “one who understands Putin”], “diehards” or even terms taken from the animal kingdom such as “sewer rat”, “lapdog” etc. are also used to portray the opponent as naive, mendacious or incompetent and to underpin one’s own position.

Early roots

Glittering generality and Name-Calling: the roots of these terms used to describe propaganda techniques go back almost 100 years to the 1930s. A group of American journalists, educators and business leaders wanted to raise public awareness of the propaganda strategies used to manipulate them. People were aware of the power of radio, which was also very widespread among young people at the time and was an emerging new technology that was free for everyone. The contents transmitted over the airwaves were often the source of dreams, ideals and illusions and the reshaping of cultural values. They led young people away from the reality of life – and this in times of economic crisis! Education was seen as an effective means of countering propaganda.
  In 1937, the Institute for Propaganda-Analysis IPA was founded in New York, whose legacy is a list of the seven common propaganda techniques published in 1936 (see box). Glittering Generality and Name-Calling are two of them. Knowledge of these techniques should enable people to recognise and analyse propaganda. They were modelled on classical rhetoric – the study of how language is used to address an audience – and presented the knowledge that can be used to avoid falling victim to manipulation. The know-ledge gained from the propaganda methods used during the First World War made the scientists at the IPA aware of the need for appropriate educational programmes at schools and universities and the need to educate the American population in order to protect them from being targeted by manipulative methods. Flyers and book publications were to be made available to them.

Committed founders

The IPA was founded by Edward Filene (1860–1937), a business leader and philanthropist who owned Filene’s Department Store in Boston. In 1937, Filene1 collaborated with journalist and educator Clyde Miller. He wanted to support the IPA financially to enable the creation and distribution of teaching materials that teachers could use to guide their students in critically analysing propaganda.
  Clyde Miller, who directed the editorial work of the IPA and helped to publish the first five issues of Propaganda Analysis, was a journalist and professor at Teachers College, Columbia University, where he taught a course entitled “Public Opinion and Education” and worked as a publicist for the university.

Propaganda analysis in the classroom

To help teachers, the IPA developed short informational articles in magazine format with titles such as “How to Detect Propaganda”, “How to Analyze Newspapers” and “The Public Relations Counsel and Propaganda” to name a few. Thanks to the generous financial support of Edward Filene, these publications were sent to thousands of high schools, colleges and public libraries across the United States. The material was later supplemented by the “ABC of Propaganda Analysis”, which provides practical advice on how to analyse current examples of propaganda in the classroom. It anticipates much of what is now conceptualised as a modern form of media literacy.2 In October 1937, the IPA distributed 3,000 copies of an announcement issue of the Propaganda-Analyse-Bulletin and advertised for subscriptions. In the first year, 2,500 subscribers were gained. The publications were well received by many teachers and were used in the classroom.

Comprehend the propaganda –
become a fellow human being

While the list of propaganda techniques is still known today, the ABC of propaganda techniques has been forgotten. Perhaps it did not fit in with the spirit of the times; for as Clyde Miller wrote in 1942, one of its aims was to combat the ideological theories of racism “which Hitler and Goebbels have used so effectively to create mass hatred”, and he recorded in the common usage of the time: “No student who has once gone through the recommended educational programme of the Institute is likely to succumb to propaganda which makes him hate Jews as Jews and Negroes as Negroes. This approach immunises pupils against propaganda that incites hatred on the basis of racial and religious differences.”3 A call for equal human solidarity!
  The work of the IPA was viewed very critically by the American government. The necessary financial support was withdrawn from the institute and it was forced to close its doors in 1942, shortly after the USA entered the war.  •

https://www.zeit-fragen.ch/en/archives/2024/nr-6-19-maerz-2024/propagandatechniken-und-meinungsmanipulation

 

 

SINCE THEN, MANY NEW "THINK TANKS" HAVE FLOURISHED TO DO "PROPAGANDA"... THE RAND THINK TANK IS ONE OF THEM — ALWAYS ON THE HUSTLE TO CREATE TROUBLE FOR ANYONE WHO ISN'T ANGLO-SAXON...

MUCH OF THE MODERN AMERICAN GOVERNMENT'S "THINKING" (THEY DON'T THINK, THEY PLOT NEWS WAYS TO ANNOY THE WORLD) IS BASED ON THE DESTROY RUSSIA PREMISE (1917) TO WHICH DESTROY CHINA HAS BEEN TACKED ON... WE SHOULD BE HORRIFIED, BUT THE PROPAGANDA IS MAKING THESE DREADFUL CONCEPTS SOUND AS "NECESSARY" AND UNAVOIDABLE IN A DEBONAIR MANNER....

THE AUSTRALIAN IPA IS A FULL-BLOWN FASCIST CONSERVATIVE PROPAGANDA MACHINE....

 

READ FROM TOP

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....