CIA’s Bin Laden forgery is a psyop: three articles


In the context of the offensive of the Trump regime against Iran and for domination of West Asia (Middle East), the CIA released on November 1 a never-before-seen 19-page document, as well as a 228-page “journal” ostensibly written by Osama Bin Laden as all U.S. and Canadian media (as directed by the U.S. government) are promoting.

Within just two days, the CIA psyops (psychological operation) began to fall apart at the seams, showing the quality of U.S. intelligence.

It was revealed that this so-called “journal” was written not by Bin Laden but by a family member. It is not a journal: it is allegedly a transcript of meetings in which the round up of news about Arab uprisings was discussed.  All in all, the CIA, at the direction of director Mike Pompeo, released 321 gigabytes of images, audio, text, and video gathered at Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. Further, Associated Press reported that the CIA “then took down the files, saying they were ‘temporarily unavailable pending resolution of a technical issue.’” The data is said to have been acquired by U.S. forces in May, 2011 following a sensationalized raid on the compound that was triumphantly ballyhooed by the Obama regime to have resulted in the death of Bin Laden. Yet it is only now – six years and six months later – that the CIA, which has spent the past six years rebranding and arming al-Qaeda as “moderate rebels” to destroy Syria, is releasing this material. All this “intelligence” seems to be either concocted, inaccurate or simply self-serving. In that regard, how can these agencies and those they work for be trusted to provide the people with security?

Significantly, the conduit selected by the CIA for the release of the fabricated and other documents is the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), a warmongering U.S. national security think tank and political action centre, especially on the question of Iraq, Iran, Syria and Lebanon – established two days after 9/11. This document constitutes the sole evidence in the gigabytes that the FDD is now using to insinuate cooperation between Iran and al-Qaeda, while it also attempts to implicate Hezbollah, the national liberation organization in Lebanon as an Iranian proxy.

FDD is intertwined with U.S. intelligence. Former CIA Director James Woolsey is chairman of its leadership council. Woolsey has been one of Washington’s most outspoken promoters of U.S. war and aggression in Iraq and the Middle East. He was one of the architects of the Iraq war, a pro-Israel lobbyist, a member of the right-wing Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, a friend of Ahmed Chalabi and infamous for the quote: “only fear will re-establish Arab respect for us.” Woolsely was a former policy advisor to Sen. John McCain during the 2008 presidential election and a senior advisor to Donald Trump from September 2016 to January 2017.

Woolsey has also been a regular attendee at the U.S.-organized and Washingon-based Halifax International Security Forum (HISF), initially organized in 2009 by the German Marshal Fund, whose board included his ex-wife, and which is funded by the Canadian Department of National Defence. HISF has been in the news as a “back channel” venue for the organizing of the “RussiaGate” operation (the 35-page “dossier” prepared by a former MI-6 agent which he handed over to Sen. McCain, who then delivered it to then FBI director James Comey). It was even given status by the Trudeau Liberals as a “stakeholder” in the recent Defence Review of Canada, which calls for a 70 per cent increase in military spending over the next 10 years.

In parallel, FDD has been operating since 2012 within Canada (Conservative Sen. Linda Frum – her brother David Frum is infamous for writing U.S. president George Bush’s “axis of evil” speech –  is one of three directors of its branch plant) with an office located at 160 Elgin Street in Ottawa. (This 5th column agency will be dealt with in a separate article.)

Woolsey and his cronies have put themselves in a position to profit personally from the wars and insecurity they were and are now promoting.

Woolsey is a member of the Strategic Advisory Board of Genie Energy, a New Jersey-based monopoly whose Israeli subsidiary Afek Oil & Gas announced on October 8, 2015 that it found a huge oil reservoir on the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, which belongs to Syria. The Genie board also includes Dick Cheney, Vice President of the United States during the George W. Bush administration, and CEO of the world’s largest oilfield services company, Halliburton, before becoming Bush’s “shadow president” in 2001. [1] Cheney’s clique was a principal promoter of the disinformation that al Qaeda was linked to Iraq – claiming in 2001 that Prague was the site of a nonexistent meeting between Iraqi officials and 9/11 hijackers. This was used to justify the Anglo-American invasion and occupation of both Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003; it contributed to 70 per cent of Americans believing, as late as the fall of 2003, that Saddam Hussein personally planned the 9/11 attack. The ruling elite is trying to pull the same stunt today. With the “War on Syria” seemingly coming to its end, the U.S. hand in glove with Israel and the Saudis are targeting Iran as so-called “state sponsor of terrorism” as well as Lebanon to hide their own hand and prepare new disasters in the region.

What’s more, weeks before the release of the new Bin Laden documents, current CIA Director Pompeo himself spoke at the FDD on Iran and other matters. The FDD had a post entitled the Long War Journal, ready to go upon release to provide some early context. The Long War Journal’s analysis notably highlighted what the newly released information alleged about Al Qaeda’s relationship with Iran under Bin Laden’s leadership and is a weapon in the U.S. attack on the Iranian nuclear agreement.

The CIA operation comes in the wake of the US administration’s decision not to certify Iran’s compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal (also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — JCPOA) reached after several years of intensive diplomatic work to reach the agreement. Other signatories of the international agreement, compromising the P5+1 group, however, have confirmed their intention to stick to the arrangement, with the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) acknowledging Iran’s adherence to the obligations under the agreement. Even though the JCPOA is an international treaty that the US cannot unilaterally change, instead Trump has unilaterally opened the door for the U.S. Congress to make new demands on Iran and to impose sanctions on Iran. In parallel, a similar maneouvre is being pulled off in Canada: the Senate Bill S-219 “An Act to Deter Iran sponsored terrorism,” if passed, would impose some of the most restrictive sanctions on Iran, and potentially stall the prospect of re-establishing diplomatic relations between Canada and Iran, coveted as a market for the Bombardier C Series aircraft.

The self-serving conclusion pushed by all the agencies and private firms and “think tanks” is to peddle their wares and strengthen their hold over the institutions of the state. However, despite their enormous power, the intelligence agencies are suffering the humiliation of one intelligence failure after another, especially their failure to convince the people to entrust their security to them. They continue to pose a grave danger to the cause of peace and democracy on the world scale. The Bin Laden example shows how deep is the crisis in which the U.S. ruling circles and their institutions are mired.

For information of readers, I am posting two articles on this black op by the U.S. intelligence agencies, and another on the murky death of Bin Laden himself. – TS 


1.Genie Energy shares a director in common with the Anglo-Turkish company Genel Energy PLC, which works in Iraqi Kurdistan and Malta, banking dynasty scion Nathaniel (“Nat”) Rothschild.

Genel bases its headquarters in the English Channel’s Crown Dependency of the Bailiwick of Jersey, which is an offshore tax haven governed by Britain’s monarchy as a separate entity from the United Kingdom and its overseas territories. Other interlocked directorships link it to Shell and Heritage Oil and Gas, another English Channel-based offshore company founded by mercenaries connected to the British military.

In December 2015 analyst Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya wrote of Genel: “Were escalated war and the plunder of Syrian oil foreseen and part of the equation? It is worth mentioning that the Anglo-Turkish energy company has been involved in the illegal export of Iraqi oil to Israel, appears to be working to integrate the energy infrastructure of the Eastern Mediterranean with Israel and Turkey, and was planning on announcing a deal to work with a ‘consortium responsible for oil and gas explorations in Lebanon’ in 2012. The latter two objectives would all only be feasible if regime change in Damascus took place and compliant regimes were established in Syria and Lebanon.”

It is no coincidence that in November 2015, the U.S.-organized Halifax International Security Forum brought on board a monopoly of the Erdogan family as a corporate sponsor: Ahmet Taçyildiz,
of Gap Insaat, a subsidiary of Çalık Holding AŞ, a Turkish conglomerate based in Istanbul, active in the sectors of textiles, energy, construction, finance, logistics and media in a region extending from Central Asia to North Africa and from Middle East to the Balkans.

The CEO of Çalık Holding, Berat Albayrak, is the son-in-law of Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. At the time, it was exposed that ISIL’s smuggled oil stolen from Iraq and Syria was being exported to Turkey by BMZ, a shipping company controlled by none other than Bilal Erdogan, son of “Sultan” Erdogan, and then re-exported through the Port of Ceyhan to Israel.

1. The Bin Laden documents: do I smell a US propaganda scheme?

By Prof.  As’ad AbuKhalil*

(NOVEMBER 2) – Of the Bin Laden documents, I read yesterday and today 1) the Bin Laden “journal”; 2) and the document pertaining to the relations between Al-Qa`idah and Iran. Here are my conclusions:

We should treat all these “documents” released very belatedly by the US government as suspect – until their authenticity is proven beyond a doubt. But the US government sat on them and only released its version of their spin for years and now suddenly they are released. I am most skeptical especially that I see lies surrounding the release.

1.Regarding the Ben Laden “Journal”. It is not a journal. I don’t know why the US government is insisting (along with the obedient media) on calling it a “journal”. It has none of the features of a “journal’ or diary. In fact, it is more like a transcript of a regular session in which the Arab uprisings – or more accurately – Al-Jazeera coverage of them – are discussed in the presence presumably of Ben Laden. They don’t seem to be written by the same person and sometimes (see above) there is more than one handwriting on the same page. And sometimes different pens on the same page. The language of the journal is not consistent: sometimes it is less religious and seems secular in tone. This also raises suspicions. Sometimes Ben Laden is talked about in the first person and other times in the 3rd person. What makes me more suspicious is the leaks by the US government (and the complaint media), in that they wanted only their spin. It is true that Aljazeera is approvingly mentioned but there are also references to New York Times (but why would Bin Laden, who knows English, refer to the New York Times as “New York Time”? Also, did Bin Laden have a satellite dish in Pakistan? I thought he did not. How is he managing to follow the TV coverage so closely and cite various experts who appear on Aljazeera or on Western media?

Also, there is a reference at least three times in the notebook to a vision Bin Laden have about Prince Nayif in military uniform and how they were fighting the communists. Why did this not make it into the convenient leak by the US government? And the references to Prince Nayif were rather respectful. I did not see that one in the Western media references (they were all recipient of what the US government wanted to stress).

But the language of the notebook does not resemble the language of Bin Laden. Those transcripts were more like note taking of a session in which people discussed a roundup of developments in the Arab uprisings. On another page, there is a reference to Iran and how they support protesters in Bahrain to pressure “the kingdom”. And there is a sentence in which it is said: “Aljazeera with God’s praise is the carrier of the banner of the revolutions”.

The second reference to Prince Nayif and the vision appears and its said that he appeared yet again in military uniform and that he did not appear as a hostile party. On another page, there is a reference to the development of Yemen and its transition from “one age to another” by none other than Abdul-Nasser. How odd is it for an Islamist of any kind to make a favourable reference to Nasser?

2.Then there is that 19-page document (unsigned) and it is ostensibly is a document showing ties between Iran and Al-Qa`idah. This one is the hardest to believe.

The document does not make sense: at several points it talks about the Iranian regime being very pragmatic and another point it talks that the enmity between US and Iran is very real and not fake. But this last contention is totally against all the beliefs of Islamists (of the various kind) who are convinced that the US and Iran are allies under the table.

The paper also alleges that Iran offered to send Al-Qa`idah members to train at Hizbullah camps in Lebanon. This is clearly a fabrication and shows a clumsy effort to implicate Iran in relations with Al-Qa`idah. But why would Iran need to send Al-Qa`dish fighters who are allegedly in Iran already to Lebanon to train? Why not train them there in Iran? Also, the document itself then says: that Iranian governments arrested all of them and they had to go into hiding.

This document in particular clearly is fabricated – I venture – and I don’t know who wrote it. It also struck me as less religious in tone than what we normally read form those quarters. And as for the porn collection that Bin Laden had: I also don’t believe it. The US never explained what it was and where it was (remember that Bin Laden did not have internet in his house).  I believe that Bin Laden is a sincere fanatical kook, unlike say other of this type, and for that I discount the story of the porn cache. Do you remember when US dropped fliers into Afghanistan showing a manufactured “picture” of a clean shaven Bin Laden in a suit and tie allegedly to tell the people that he fled and left his fighters behind?

Source: Angry Arab News Service

*Dr As’ad AbuKhalil is a Lebanese-American professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus and the author of Historical Dictionary of Lebanon (1998), Bin Laden, Islam & America’s New “War on Terrorism” (2002), and The Battle for Saudi Arabia (2004).

* * *

2. Neocons push dubious paper to allege Iran–Al-Qaeda connection

Moon of Alabama

(November 2) – The anti-Iran powers in the U.S. again try to smear Iran as allied with al-Qaeda. The accusations will be used to justify further hostilities against the country.

Suddenly an anonymous, and likely fake, document appears and is prominently launched into the public circulation. To provide plausibility for the publishing the new CIA director Mike Pompeo ordered his staff to release additional data allegedly found in Osama Bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad in Pakistan.

These “new” papers were first released to the neoconservative anti-Iran lobby Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Among the “hundred thousands” of pages a mysterious 19-page document is claimed to prove Iranian collaboration with al-Qaeda. The way the release was handled and the prominence put on this one specific paper indicates that the now released stash was “spiked” with this document to initiate hostilities against Iran.

We have been here before. Fake documents produced by the CIA and neo-conservative think-tanks were used to allege that Saddam Hussein was buying Uranium in Niger (copy below). False claims were made that Saddam had contacts with the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack in New York.

Former CIA Career Analyst Ned Price explains the politics behind the new release:

Ned Price‏ @nedprice – 6:30 PM – 1 Nov 2017

  • @CIA released what it claims are the final public files from Bin Laden’s lair. I’m all for transparency, but this isn’t about that.
  • In Jan, DNI, which led the declassification effort, released what it said was the final tranche of Bin Laden files. Link
  • The DNI-led review was overseen by career intel officials, who concluded that, w the Jan files, all those of public interest were released.
  • But a funny thing happened when CIA Director Pompeo came into office. I’m told he re-launched a review of the files.
  • In doing so, he took officers away from important missions to pore – and re-pore – over the millions of documents.
  • How can we be sure this was a CIA effort? Unlike previous releases, today’s files are hosted on, not the DNI site.
  • He said as much at the gathering of a conservative group, @FDD, opposed to the Iran deal in September. Link
  • As luck would have it, CIA provided an advance copy of today’s files to @LongWarJournal, this group’s publication. Link
  • The ploy is transparent despite the fact that the newly-released documents don’t tell us anything we didn’t already know.
  • What’s not as transparent are the motives of Pompeo, the administration’s leading and most influential Iran hawk.
  • Remember Cheney on @MeetThePress, pointing to Atta’s supposed Prague meeting w Iraqi officials? It was a key element of the march to war.
  • History doesn’t repeat itself but
  • it does rhyme. Need to remain vigilant to ensure Pompeo isn’t able to write it.

The CIA’s outlet for these papers, the FDD, writes about the cache:

The CIA is releasing hundreds of thousands of documents, images, and computer files recovered during the May 2011 raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

The CIA provided FDD’s Long War Journal with an advance copy of many of the files. It will take years for experts and researchers to comb through this treasure trove of information. However, we offer some preliminary observations below.

It is astonishing, and quite suspicious, that the FDD immediately “found” one very specific document out of “hundreds of thousands which will take years to comb through”. This one specific document allegedly “proves” that Iran is in cahoots with al-Qaeda:

The files provide new details concerning al Qaeda’s relationship with Iran.

One never-before-seen 19-page document contains a senior jihadist’s assessment of the group’s relationship with Iran. The author explains that Iran offered some “Saudi brothers” in al Qaeda “everything they needed,” including “money, arms” and “training in Hezbollah camps in Lebanon, in exchange for striking American interests in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf.” Iranian intelligence facilitated the travel of some operatives with visas, while sheltering others. Abu Hafs al-Mauritani, an influential ideologue prior to 9/11, helped negotiate a safe haven for his jihadi comrades inside Iran. But the author of the file, who is clearly well-connected, indicates that al Qaeda’s men violated the terms of the agreement and Iran eventually cracked down on the Sunni jihadists’ network, detaining some personnel. Still, the author explains that al Qaeda is not at war with Iran and some of their “interests intersect,” especially when it comes to being an “enemy of America.”

This very document is the sole one in the stash FDD now uses to insinuate cooperation between Iran and al-Qaeda. Other Bin Laden documents that were included in earlier releases provided the exact opposite. In 2012 Reuters headlined: Documents show tense al Qaeda-Iran relationship:

Al Qaeda’s relationship with Iran’s government has been fractious at best and openly antagonistic at worst, according to documents confiscated from Osama bin Laden’s hideout in Pakistan and made public on Thursday.

The one new document that now changes the old assessment by 180 degree is of course the one the right-wing Telegraph and other outlets immediately point out: Trove of Bin Laden documents reveal Iran’s secret dealings with al-Qaeda.

But how come that an assessment from a “senior jihadist” received by Bin Laden is anonymous? How does FDD know that the author is “senior”? Why doesn’t he have a name?

The alleged “senior jihadist” paper wants us to believe that Iran offered al-Qaeda “training in Hezbollah camps in Lebanon”? That is ludicrous. Al-Qaeda always had an anti-Shia ideology and agenda. It is not plausible that the Shia majority Iran would ask the Shia organization Hizbullah to train the anti-Shia killer gangs of al-Qaeda.

Al-Qaeda is an enemy of Iran. After the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in 2001 some al-Qaeda members and their families fled towards Iran. They had no other place to go. All of them were immediately detained or put under house arrest. A deal was likely made in which al-Qaeda promised to refrain from attacking Iran while Iran would keep these hostages unharmed. The al-Qaeda members were not “guests” in Iran. In its yearly Country Reports on Terrorism the U.S. State Department notes:

Iran remained unwilling to bring to justice senior al-Qa’ida (AQ) members it continued to detain, and refused to publicly identify those senior members in its custody.

In 2015 Iran released some al-Qaeda members in exchange for an Iranian diplomat al-Qaeda had taken hostage in Yemen. That is not the record of a friendly relation.

The 19-pages document is not plausible. It was obviously produced and prominently launched for a specific political purpose. It contradicts earlier released papers as well as the historic record.

Professor Max Abrams notes:

Max Abrahms @MaxAbrahms – 4:05 AM – 2 Nov 2017

  • The regime change playbook plays on American fears of Salafist terrorists by claiming the target-leadership supports them.
  • For Saddam it was that he supported Al Qaeda. For Assad it was that he supported ISIS. For Iran it will increasingly stress Al Qaeda ties.

Add to that the equally implausible claims that Russia is supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan. (With what? Rusty AK-47s?)

It seems likely that the “never-before-seen 19-page document” with “a senior jihadist’s assessment” was written up in Langley or Tel Aviv. It was then put into the stash of the now released Bin Laden files to give it a somewhat plausible origin. FDD was specifically pointed to that very document to bring it into public circulation.

This is clearly reminiscent of the Bush/Cheney regime’s campaign against Iraq in which faked documents claimed that Saddam was buying Uranium from Niger and that he had contacts with the perpetrators of 9/11. The release of this document is primitive warmongering propaganda.

So primitive indeed that many will fall for it.


Others are equally suspicious of this release. Ankit Panda at The Diplomat asks: Was the bulk release of Osama Bin Laden’s Abbottabad data trove an act of transparency or something else?

Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif jumps in:

Javad Zarif‏ @JZarif – 7:29 PM – 2 Nov 2017A record low for the reach of petrodollars: CIA & FDD fake news w/ selective AlQaeda docs re: Iran can’t whitewash role of US allies in 9/11

U.S. threats no longer intimidate smaller nations – particularly nations that have been targeted for so long, like Iran, Cuba and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Commenting on US President Donald Trump’s recent statement, in which he labeled Iran a “terrorist nation,” Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stated, “The United States is truly the major malignant enemy… I say this not based on prejudice or pessimism, but based on experience, correct analysis of situations, and observation of the realities within the field,…

“These immature remarks prove that the Americans are not only the enemies of the Iranian government and its leadership, but they also reveal their hatred and hostility towards the Iranian nation, a nation that has bravely stood up to them.”

* * *

Bin Laden remembered: the rise of the Jihadi Spring


(September 5) – Political analysis is often based on speculations in an attempt to explain the news; past, present and future.

Future analyses are not meant to be predictive per se, but sometimes indicative of a worst case scenario, certain plausible and even far-fetched agendas. Likewise, digging into the past does not provide answers, but it rather enables us to look at the past with different binoculars.

The “killing” of Bin Laden was a mysterious event; not only in the manner that Americans told the story and a total lack of footage to support it, but also in its timing.

Many, including Pakistan’s former PM Benazir Bhutto have argued that Bin Laden was actually killed in 2005. Many other speculators, conspiracy theorists and cynics have doubted largely the American version and asked for documented proof. After all Bin Laden was a huge bounty to hunt, and the fact that the Americans did not boast his dead photos is highly suspicious; especially that they paraded captured Saddam before him, and before Saddam was captured, the gory photos of his dead sons Udai and Kusai were all over the media; with the courtesy of the American occupier. Let us also not forget the shocking scenes of the capture and killing of Gaddafi and the gloating of Hillary Clinton that followed. So why was Bin Laden saved this humiliation? One has to wonder.

Moreover, rumour has it that Bin Laden was on dialysis. If true, no one is in a position to really know how effective was the medical attention he was receiving.

It is then quite possible that Bin Laden died or was killed earlier, and not formally declared dead until May 2011.

In any event, irrespective of when Bin Laden was killed, and even if he died of natural causes, the world accepted that his death happened on that day. Not even Al-Zawahiri, his Al-Qaeda heir successor, denied it.

Again, even if September 11 was an inside job, as some insist, Bin Laden was seen as the man responsible. He even stated in an Al-Jazeera interview that it was indeed him who gave the orders for the operation. But again and again, even if he jumped on the band wagon of fame, or infamy for that matter, and claimed responsibility for something he did not do in order to glue stars and stripes on his shoulder, beyond any doubt, he was the man seen by the world as the architect of September 11 by both his adversaries and followers.

Love him or hate him therefore, he was a big fish; or at least perceived to be one. The most “serious” aspect of this perception perhaps is the fact that in the minds of young Jihadi recruits, Bin Laden came to symbolize Jihad; and whence seen as the ultimate spiritual leader; albeit he did not have a title, stature or “office” .

To understand what is the real formal story of announcing Bin Laden’s death, we need to rewind the clock and try to understand this very mysterious man.

To compare Bin Laden to ISIS leader Abou Bakir Al-Baghdadi is not exactly like comparing apples to apples; but it is not like comparing apples to oranges either.

Bin Laden rose to prominence when Saudi Prince Bandar Bin Sultan – the then Saudi Ambassador in Washington – introduced him to the Americans as a very dedicated anti-Soviet devotee who would go to ends to fight the USSR in Afghanistan.

Bin Laden’s mandate in Afghanistan was to get the Russians out. His comradery of convenience with the Americans came to an end when the Saudis allowed the Americans (also “infidels” in Bin Laden’s eyes) to lay foot on the Holy Land itself. If Afghanistan was a redline for the atheist Communists, Saudi Arabia that houses the holiest of holy Muslims sites of Mecca and Medina were a much bigger redline for the “Western Crusaders”; as Bin Laden often reiterated.

When Bin Laden eventually declared divorce with his American and Saudi partners, the world ended up in the position outlaid above; the man who orchestrated Sep 11, the most wanted man on earth, and the man who represented and led the Jihadi mentality.

What is most interesting is what the rest of the world, the West specifically, missed out by not listening to Bin Laden’s speeches between his rise to infamy following Sep 11 and his eventual disappearance.

Soon after September 11, on an interview on Al-Jazeera, Bin Laden stated that the West will not know the bliss of peace until the bliss of peace becomes a reality in Palestine.

In all of his later speeches, he said again and again that for Al-Qaeda to stop its attacks on the West, the West will first have to stop its attacks on the Muslim World.

In March 2004, a series of explosions rocked train stations in Madrid killing nearly 200 innocent civilians. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility. Almost a year later, Spain had an election and the newly elected Prime Minister Zapatero withdrew Spanish troops from Iraq. Bin Laden was quick to respond. In an interview on Al-Jazeera, he declared that because Spain was leaving Iraq, it is no longer an enemy of Islam and should not be targeted any more.

None of those statements reached the West in their entirety. All the Western viewers saw on their TV screens were edited snippets of long speeches that were cherry-picked to portray that Bin Laden was a determined indiscriminate enemy of the West.

In retrospect, the West created in the minds of Westerners a character out of Bin Laden that was much more akin to Al-Baghdadi than Bin Laden himself. If this was of any consequence at all, it helped create Al-Baghdadi, both directly and inadvertently.

Bin Laden spoke with the most profound mastery of Arabic language; something that very few people in the Arab-speaking world master. He had the specific objective to get the “infidels” out of Muslim lands. He never once advocated ramping up troops to go and kill Westerners indiscriminately. His story with Spain speaks volumes.

In early 2011 there was a new change in the air; the infamous Arab Spring that was destined to soon turn into a “Jihadi Spring”.

For the architects of the “Jihadi Spring” to give their plan to come to fruition, they needed a shift.

Sen John McCain and Libyan terrorist military leader Abdel-Fattah Younis (R) of the Transitional National Council tour their headquarters in the city of Benghazi on April 22, 2011. McCain praised Libya’s rebels as his “heroes” in a visit to their de facto capital, one day after the United States started flying armed Predator drones to bolster NATO firepower and try to break a battlefield stalemate with Libyan forces. The overthrow of that country’s government by NATO and Gulf Arab powers has now led to a collapse in human rights and social conditions. Libya became a principal conduit of sending arms and recruits through Turkey to Syria to carry out US regime change in that country | UPI\Tarek Alhuony

Major architect Bandar Bin Sultan thought he had all of his aspirations under control. With succession to the Saudi Throne in mind (given that his father Sultan Bin-Abdul Aziz was the then Crown Prince), he planned a swift victory in Syria to help him bolster his position as not only as the rightful heir to the throne, but also as a tactical, strategic and regional ally of America.

The so-called Arab Spring used Libya as a ground for practice; getting rid of Gaddafi along the way; but the big fish to fry was Syria. The fall of Gaddafi gave all of the enemies of Syria the green light they wanted to see in order to go full steam ahead to destroy Syria; and Bandar was the master planner.

Bandar had a bottomless pocket and endless funds. And just like Israel runs on the myth that if a certain amount of force does not solve a problem then more force will, the Saudis believe that if a certain amount of money does not solve a problem, then more money will. And given that Saudi financial resources were virtually endless, they felt that their plan was fool-proof.

But there was an obstacle in the way of Bandar’s plan in his attempts to rise to Muslim leadership, and that obstacle was Bin Laden. This is how the Arab-Spring-turned-Jihadi-Spring brings us back to Bin Laden.

Bandar knew well two prominent facts about Bin Laden. He knew that Bin Laden was the undisputed leader and inspirer of all acts of Jihad, and most prominently he also knew that Bin Laden would not endorse a Jihad war version that was not aimed at ousting “infidels” from Muslim soil.

For Bandar’s plan to work and succeed, Jihadism had to be decapitated. Bin Laden had to be removed from the scene.

In retrospect, it is highly unlikely that Bin Laden would have “authorized” the Jihadi war on Syria.

Is it therefore an accident that his official death was announced virtually on the eve of that infamous war on Syria?

One has to wonder.

Source: Vineyard of the Saker

*Ghassan Kadi, a native of Beirut, is an analyst of Middle East affairs and the author of An Epic of Integrity: The Chronicles of the War on Syria (June 2016). Visit Intibah and Ghassan Kadi’s website.


Filed under Journalism & Disinformation, United States

5 responses to “CIA’s Bin Laden forgery is a psyop: three articles

  1. Hello Tony,

    How are you. Being that we like to stay around 50 blogs in “WordPress Blogs I Follow” to avoid “information overload” 🙂 , for whatever reason we discontinued following yours a while back. Our best recollection for doing so was a drop or cessation of posts over a number of weeks, although that recollection may be inaccurate (damn Alzheimer’s !).

    At any rate, we noticed this post in WP reader alongside another in one of those intermittent “More on WordPress” suggestion sections of reader, clicked the link and found your powerful combined 3-article post here.

    Would you be interested in an interview? At this point (7) fellow WordPress bloggers’ responses have been published, and another 4-5 (remember the black General before Congress discussing the “4 or 5” anti-Assad “moderate” forces produced after spending $500 million?).Good Lord …

    The great thing about this interview series is it’s free – in other words costing nothing close to $500 million, and most importantly complete and free expression. If not, do you know anyone who might be interested in our interview series? Kick it around … Here’s your “official” invitation:

    Let us extend an offer to you and/or your readers to participate in an interview by answering the (5) questions posed to Alfred, Santosh, Joe and others recently in posts at The Oneness of Humanity. Future posts will carry the same title: “An Interview Of (Your name here)”.
    Question 1.) What was your primary motivation for entering the world of blogging on the worldwide web?
    Question 2.) How would you describe yourself with regard to spirituality?
    Question 3.) What were some of the most memorable transforming points across the years (reactions to world events, books, personal contacts, mystical experiences, etc.) in the developing of your current spiritual perspective?
    Question 4.) What is your greatest wish for readers as a consequence after reading/considering your writings?
    Question 5.) Can you offer any advice to people having a difficult time dealing with government and media lies, especially as it pertains to so many average citizens who hold erroneous perceptions on important events and situations around the Earth?
    If you (or anyone who passes this way – this proposal is open to all) would like to share your (their) thoughts take as many words and as much time as necessary to accurately convey your responses, then – when completely satisfied – email them (please refrain from email formatting as it makes it more difficult to copy/paste/edit into a WordPress post) to jerryalatalo (at), whereupon I will publish each individual’s response as a stand-alone post, with the ultimate goal of inclusion/compiling in a book.

    The potential book’s title has yet to become decided upon. There are no rules besides the obvious (no profanity, etc.), no word-count limits (1,000/10,000 words might suffice as a suggested lower/upper limit) or time deadlines (hoping to self-publish soon – Kindle, Smashwords (eBook), Amazon (softcover/paperback)) – but only honest observations.

    Thank you and best regards,
    Jerry Alatalo


    • Long time Jerry. I wonder time to time how you are. But I do not understand your comment about “around 50 blogs…”


      • In contrast to those at WordPress who disingenuously “follow” hundreds or even thousands of others to gain views, revealed in their “about” page comments areas by endless “thanks for following my blog” etc., we actually read the posts of all WP blogs we click/choose to stay up with. You’ll understand that as a time-consuming process, and so explains why we try to stay at around (50).

        We feel your unique perspectives if agreeable to take part in the interview series will become appreciated by readers, and potentially raise the level of discussion to a more positive, higher level. Peace.


      • Thanks kindly Jerry!


  2. Sorry for my belated response. I am honoured that you have included this modest effort as one of your 50. Yes, the number of posts declined in 2017 as I was in the Philippines. It may take a while, but I will gladly respond to your questions. All the best with your work in 2018.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s