The mainstream media is reporting on the latest ‘big terror’ threat from al-Qaeda that is apparently the ‘most significant’ threat in years, yet they simultaneously fail to mention that the Obama administration is all the while funding al-Qaeda through arming and financing Syrian rebels that have major ties to the group.
Surely this essential point is at least worth mentioning when you consider the fact that Obama even initiated the large-scale arming of the al-Qaeda-linked Syrian rebels through a ‘secret order’, which was reported by mainstream news outlet Reuters back in 2012.
It was this ‘secret order’ that began the steady stream of arms and resources towards the Syrian rebels group that even the mainstream media admits goes around killing all Christians and innocents who fail to submit to their cause via public beheadings.
These barbaric rebels are truly a respectable group that Obama has chosen to fund with taxpayer dollars, equip with assault weapons (which he meanwhile attempts to ban in the United States), and is now pushing for yet another year of full-fledged funding despite the reports of beheadings and boundless bloodlust exhibited by the rebels.
But none of that matters to the mainstream media now, which is absolutely flailing around yelling about this new ‘big threat’ from al-Qaeda that apparently has around two dozen United States embassies closed within the Middle East and North Africa. Senator Saxy Chambliss, who actually was the first major politician to reveal key points regarding the Boston bombing intel, says the new threat is the ‘most serious’ he has seen ‘in years’. ABC News is now even reporting that it is a planned attack that is one of the biggest ever caught on record.
The ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, told ABC News:
“We received information that high level people from al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula are talking about a major attack… And these are people at a high level.”
It’s all coming from al-Qaeda, the same group Obama is funding through the Syrian rebels to overthrow Assad via chaos and bloodshed. So which is it, are al-Qaeda members the good guys or the bad guys? Well, it seems the mainstream media will flip and flop all day on this issue whenever convenient. Because just looking back at recent news, the argument wasn’t even about whether or not we should be funding the al-Qaeda-linked Syrian rebels, but whether or not we were giving them ‘enough‘ funding.
Watch as this story develops, and watch as they ignore this key factor I am addressing to you. Instead of discussing it, watch as al-Qaeda transitions to the bad guy once again in order to escalate ‘security’ measures within the United States for law-abiding citizens. Checkout this video I recorded exposing how Obama funds the Syrian rebels who kill Christians and other innocents who do not convert to their cause for a full breakdown, and be sure to share this information to combat the media madness.
Originally appeared at Story Leak.
Is the Government Exaggerating the Threat of Terror for Political Reasons?
The congressmen who take the most money from the military-industrial complex – I mean uber-hawks – like Lindsey Graham and Saxby Chambliss say that the new terror warning shows that NSA spying is needed, after all.
On the other hand, a variety of people – including former CIA agent Barry Eisler, and Guardian columnists Michael Cohen and Glenn Greenwald – say that the terror alerts are political theater to try to distract attention from the embarrassing leaks about out-of-control mass surveillance on Americans.
Initially, it doesn’t matter whether or not there is a real new terror threat because the government’s mass spying doesn’t keep us safe . In fact, it distracts energy and resources away from actual counter-terror measures which would actually help to protect us … and thus makes us more vulnerable to terror attacks.
Indeed, if the risk of terror is increasing again, it’s because the government has squandered its intelligence resources on political shenanigans – and on counter-productive anti-terror strategies – instead of focusing on keeping us safe.
(It may also have something to do with the fact that the U.S. government is directly supporting Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups in Syria and many other countries.)
Of course, terror warnings have long been used for political purposes. For example, admitted that he was pressured to raise terror alerts to help Bush win reelection.
The threat from Al Qaeda – while real – has been greatly exaggerated. Former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski – also a top foreign policy advisor to President Obama – told the Senate that the war on terror is a “a mythical historical narrative“. (And statistics arguably show that many terror attacks are actually carried out by non-Muslims.)
Is it entirely a coincidence that the current terror scare comes mere days after a new, widely-quoted Pew poll revealed that Americans are now more concerned about civil liberties than terrorism?
(And see this.)
And right after NSA boss Alexander was publicly booed and ridiculed?
It might be. But false threats have long been alleged to promote political agendas. For example, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld made false claims exaggerating the threat posed by Russia’s weapons in the 970s to justify huge increases in military spending.
And there is a mountain of evidence that government officials intentionally lied about Iraqi WMDs.
And most people don’t remember, but the government also tried to falsely blame the anthrax attacks on Iraq as a justification for war.
Other historical examples include:
- The U.S. Navy’s own historians now say that the sinking of the USS Maine — the justification for America’s entry into the Spanish-American War — was probably caused by an internal explosion of coal, rather than an attack by the Spanish.
- Two lies were used to justify the 1991 Gulf War: the statement that Iraqis murdered Kuwaiti babiesand the statement that a quarter of a million Iraqi troops were massed on the border with Saudi Arabia (see also this article)(technically, the statement about Kuwaiti babies did not come from the U.S. government, but from a public relations firm hired by the government).
(That is also why governments from around the world have used false flag incidents for thousands of years to sell their people on whatever wars they wish to launch.)
In any event, it might be smart to take the claim that the new terror warnings justify NSA spying with a wee grain of salt.