The terrorist state par excellence, the state that commits acts of
piracy by capturing ships in international waters, the state thatattacks embassies in foreign states, the state that illegally occupies
territories for decades, the state that has built a hundred atomic bombs
without the fact being recognized and therefore without having to be
subjected to controls, the state that practices the genocide of the
Palestinian population not only continues its criminal policy, supported
by Western "democracies", but has allowed itself to take a leap forward,
attacking Iran, the only nation in the Middle East (along with Yemen)
that supports the Palestinians.
How is this possible? In the Western world, involvement in a war
requires the development of an appropriate narrative that makes one's
population digest the war itself, that makes it seem fair (it is no
coincidence that since 2021 NATO has created an additional department
dedicated to cognitive warfare): the narrative is almost more important
than direct military action.
In the case of the war against Iraq, the invented existence of weapons
of mass destruction played the game. It is irrelevant that years later
it was "discovered" that it had been a gigantic lie ("fake news" in
modern parlance). It is enough that propaganda works at the time; in
hindsight, everything can be admitted under the assumption that the
world has improved in the meantime.
In the case of Ukraine, however, the narrative works the other way
around; non-existent facts are not invented, but NATO's multiple
provocations are hidden in order to accuse Russia of unjustified aggression.
And now, with Iran? The indiscriminate support of the terrorist state
was starting to show some cracks (let no governments ever criticize) due
to the demonstrations in some Western countries against the continued
murder of Palestinian civilians (yes, civilians, because with a few
exceptions, Hamas's military is still able to act, and state terrorists
are careful not to militarily occupy Gaza). It was becoming necessary to
update the narrative and here is the dusting off of the risk that Iran
is building the atomic bomb. It does not matter that Tulsi Gabbard, the
American head of security, a few months ago officially stated that the
Iranians have suspended the process of enriching uranium for military
purposes for years. When all the press and media are lying down like
never before, these "details" can easily be forgotten. It is good to
clarify that the nuclear risk is NOT and cannot be the real reason for
the terrorist attack: for the umpteenth time we are faced with the need
to hypnotize Western populations. The enrichment of uranium is NOT the
real reason, not only because it simply does not exist, but also because
the terrorists know well that the most advanced nuclear research
laboratories are located far underground, protected by hundreds of
meters of concrete and rock, certainly not attackable by the missiles
launched so far. We are faced with a macabre theater: the missiles
launched towards Tehran kill almost exclusively civilians in civilian
homes. Their function is to frighten the population, hoping that they
will turn their anger on the Ayatollahs' government, and knowing that
the press is always ready to sell the abominations as side effects that
save the free world from future nuclear attacks.
But even the idea that the Iranian people would blame the Ayatollahs and
try to overthrow the government seems shortsighted to say the least. It
is true that Iranian society is much more secular than the theocratic
regime that the Ayatollahs would like to impose, and probably, if left
to its own devices, the nation would more or less slowly veer toward a
different structure. But to think that an attack by a foreign terrorist
power would stimulate an uprising is an idea that only a fool could come
up with. A nation under attack will rally around its leadership, as is
happening in Russia with Putin, who has enormous percentages of popular
support.
So it's the same old story: in a few years, an article will appear in
the New York Times informing readers that the Iranians were not building
any bombs. The same New York Times that a couple of months ago informed
us in detail about how the Americans have set up an operations center in
Wiesbaden, Germany to manage the operations of the Ukrainian army since
2014, with specific tasks and information on the targets to hit. Now
that Trump is changing strategy, this information can be provided and
one can pretend to be a journalist - not before. But let's get back to
the state terrorists who are obviously not capable of invading Iran with
ground troops (the Americans failed in Afghanistan). As good terrorists,
they kill civilians, hoping that Iran will respond heavily, killing some
of them (better if civilians) and get two birds with one stone. On the
one hand, it allows the terrorists themselves to return to playing their
favorite role, that of victims and to be able to cry "genocide,
genocide" for some dead Jews. On the other hand, because, it offers a
pretext to the Americans to justify their intervention in defense of
their poor allies. The Americans have bases everywhere in the area to be
able to intervene, better than going to the supermarket: Turkey, Iraq (a
non-state never abandoned by the Americans who still manage the oil
trade), Qatar, Bahrain and so on (not to mention Jordan whose airspace
is more open to Americans and allied terrorists than the legs of a
peripatetic in the exercise of its functions.
Someone will argue that the Americans are not so bad: they were
negotiating. Ever heard of "plausible deniability"? A concept that
applies in the event of war and essentially means: excuse to pretend not
to be involved. In other words, a decoy. Do we want to refresh our
memory on how the USA and their terrorist ally are one and the same?
The "Liberty case"
These days mark the 58th anniversary (June 8, 1967, during the Six-Day
War), of an event that could not be more didactic. At the time, the
terrorist state tried - at the shelter from prying eyes - to sink an
American reconnaissance ship (the USS Liberty), which was operating in
the Mediterranean off the coast of Egypt, but in international waters.
The purpose of the operation was twofold: to accuse the Egyptians of the
sinking in order to make the US enter the war (remember a Mossad motto:
"wars are made through deception"). The other reason was to keep the
Americans themselves in the dark about the war crimes committed by Moshe
Dayan who was killing Egyptian prisoners of war (the USS Liberty was in
fact equipped with multiple antennas and transceivers on many frequencies).
The military operation was conducted following the war crimes manual:
using planes without livery to fire thousands of rounds on the deck of
the ship and the napalm bombs; launching three torpedoes (this is not a
war crime if you are at war, but the ship was not military); and, the
icing on the cake, shooting at the lifeboats that had been put into the sea.
Unfortunately for the terrorists, "only" about thirty American sailors
died because the USS Liberty did not sink. But the best part of the
story is yet to come: one of the sailors managed to get an antenna
working again and the USS Liberty was able to send out an SOS, which was
picked up by the American Sixth Fleet stationed in the Mediterranean.
The admiral of the aircraft carrier Saratoga scrambled about ten
Phantoms to go and save the ship, but was immediately forced to recall
the planes due to an order from the then Secretary of State Robert
McNamara. Since the Secretary of State does NOT have such power, the
admiral asked for confirmation that came directly from President Lyndon
Johnson who justified the order by stating that we cannot embarrass our
allies. The ship was eventually towed to some port and all the sailors
were instructed to NEVER speak about what happened, under penalty of
court martial (it's only been a few years since someone had the courage
to speak out also because some documents were declassified). At the
time, the state terrorists justified themselves by saying they did not
understand it was an American ship (which was later widely denied by
recorded communications).
Let's also add some more recent information to refresh our memory on the
type of actors we are dealing with. Prime Minister Benjamin Malikovsky
(this is Netanyahu's real name, who changed it, as many other
politicians of the terrorist state did to hide the colonial nature of
the state itself) is heavily involved in matters of smuggling (read
theft) of nuclear material and secrets from the USA, in cahoots with
Arnon Milchan: a businessman who began his career as a spy for the
terrorist state. Some will think that both characters are being chased
by arrest warrants. Milchan is not wanted either: in fact, he was the
(co)producer of many successful American films (among others, Once Upon
a Time in America, Pretty Woman, Brazil, but others are easily found).
Returning to real-time narrative, the only important narrative that
should be countered: nothing is overlooked by the directors. If the most
significant laboratories for uranium enrichment are likely safe, we
cannot exclude that some plant was significantly affected with
consequent losses of radioactive material. In a very vaguely decent
world, shouldn't this fact, alone, be a valid reason to condemn the
action perpetrated by state terrorists?
No way, the head of the agency for the control of nuclear energy (IAEA)
refused to condemn the terrorists. Not only that, the same IAEA a few
days ago released a communication regarding implosion tests carried out
by Iran. These tests are indirectly linked to the development of atomic
weapons (indirectly because they are tests with traditional explosives)
but the most significant fact is that these tests had been carried out
in 2003 (22 years ago); but the news was released only a few days ago.
Finally, some other considerations. The major and almost sole supporters
of Middle Eastern terrorists are Western democratic states, but we must
also remember that 30% of Israeli arms exports go to India, and that
South Africa, the state that had the merit of bringing Israel before the
international tribunal for war crimes, is also a state that supplies
energy to Israel in the form of coal.
When and who will be able to rein in these bandits?
Antonio Politi
https://www.ucadi.org/2025/06/22/terroristi-di-stato/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten