|
Writers Articles And Opinions |
|
|
|
11 December 2009 By
Jeff Gates
“It’s very good….Well, it’s not good, but it will
generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)”.
Response of former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu when asked on September 11, 2001 what the
attacks meant for U.S.-Israeli relations
Game theory war-planners rely on mathematical
models to anticipate and shape outcomes with staged
provocations. For the agent provocateur, the
reactions to a provocation—as well as the reactions to
those reactions—thereby become predictable within
an acceptable range of probabilities.
With ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan poised to
expand to Iran and Pakistan, it is time to take a
closer look at how conflicts are catalyzed—by way of
deception.
When Israeli game theorist Robert J. Aumann
received the 2005 Nobel Prize in economic science, he
conceded from Jerusalem, “the entire school of thought
that we have developed here in Israel” has turned
“Israel into the leading authority in this field.” A
professor at the Center for the Study of Rationality
at Hebrew University, Aumann’s Nobel lecture, titled
“War and Peace,” expounded on the rationality of war.
With a well-modeled provocation, a target’s
anticipated reaction can even become a weapon in the
aggressor’s arsenal. In response to the provocation of
9-11, how difficult was it to foresee that the U.S.
would deploy its military to avenge that attack? With
U.S. intelligence “fixed” by well-placed insiders
around a predetermined goal, how difficult was it to
anticipate that the reaction to 9-11 could be
redirected to wage war in Iraq?
The emotional component of a provocation plays a
key role in game theory warfare. With the nationally
televised mass murder of 3,000 people, a state of
shock, grief and outrage made it easier for Americans
to believe that a known Evil Doer in Iraq was
responsible—regardless of the facts.
For false beliefs to displace real facts requires
mental preconditioning so that a targeted population
can be persuaded to put their faith in fictions. That
conditioning enhances the probability of a successful
deception. Those who deceived the U.S. to invade Iraq
in March 2003 began a decade beforehand to lay the
“mental threads” and make the requisite mental
associations to advance that agenda.
Notable among those threads was the 1993
publication in Foreign Affairs of a
theme-setting article by Harvard University professor
Samuel Huntington. By the time his analysis appeared
in book-length form in 1996 as The Clash of
Civilizations, more than 100 think tanks were
prepared to promote it. The result created a widely
touted narrative—a thematic storyline—supporting a
“clash consensus” five years before 9-11 provided a
plausible rationale for war.
Also published in 1996 under the guidance of
Richard Perle was A Clean Break: A New Strategy
for Securing the Realm (i.e., Israel). A member
since 1987 of the U.S. Defense Policy Board, this
self-professed Zionist became its chairman in 2001.
As an adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu, Perle’s Pentagon advisory post provided a
powerful insider position to shape the national
security mindset around the removal of Saddam Hussein,
a key theme of A Clean Break—released five
years before 9-11. That same year Netanyahu addressed
a joint session of Congress at the invitation of Newt
Gingrich, the Christian Zionist Speaker of the House.
Murders, books, articles, think tanks and
well-placed insiders are common components in a
“probabilistic” model deployed by war-planning game
theorists. Lawmakers are also a customary ingredient.
They provide credibility and a facade of legitimacy—a
critical element when inducing a nation to war with
phony intelligence fixed around a preset agenda.
That role was eagerly filled by Senators John
McCain, Joe Lieberman, a Jewish Zionist from
Connecticut, and Jon Kyl, a Christian Zionist from
Arizona, when they co-sponsored the Iraq Liberation
Act of 1998. By promoting Israel’s 1996 agenda for
Securing the Realm, their legislation laid yet
another mental thread in the public mindset by calling
for the ouster of Saddam Hussein—three years before
9-11.
The legislation also appropriated $97 million to
promote their agenda. Distracted by mid-term
Congressional elections and impeachment proceedings
catalyzed by a well-timed presidential affair with
White House intern Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton
signed that Zionist agenda into law in October
1998—4-1/2 years before a U.S.-led invasion removed
the Iraqi leader.
After 9-11, McCain and Lieberman became inseparable
travel companions and irrepressible advocates for the
invasion of Iraq. Striking a presidential pose aboard
the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt in January
2002, McCain—a son and grandson of admirals—laid
another mental thread when he waved an admiral’s cap
and proclaimed, alongside Lieberman, “On to Baghdad.”
By Way of Deception
The confidence with which this game theory strategy
progressed in plain sight could be seen in the
behavior of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz,
another Zionist insider. Four days after 9-11 while in
a principals’ meeting at Camp David, he proposed that
the U.S. invade Iraq. At that time, the intelligence
did not point to Iraqi involvement and Osama bin Laden
was thought to be hiding in a remote region of
Afghanistan.
On that same day, San Diego FBI Special Agent
Stephen Butler interrogated Iraqi Munther Ghazal at
his home near San Diego to determine if he was funding
Mel Rockefeller, an American with whom Ghazal traveled
to Baghdad in early 1997. After meeting for several
days with a top nuclear physicist with oversight of
Iraq’s mothballed nuclear weapons program, Rockefeller
returned to the U.S. with a practical proposal for
removing Saddam Hussein without this war and without
triggering an insurgency.
When regional specialists at the U.S. Department of
State would not meet with him, he traveled to Ottawa
in April 1997 where he met with Middle East
specialists in the Canadian government to ensure a
written record was made to confirm there was an
alternative to war in Iraq—six years before the
invasion. Instead of debriefing him, FBI agents sought
to discredit him. Though FBI agents interviewed Ghazal
many times, they have yet to meet with Mel
Rockefeller.
Agent Butler cashed checks and paid rent for the
two San Diego-based hijackers who piloted planes into
the World Trade Center towers. The same Iman
counseling Major Nidal Hasan (with FBI knowledge)
before he was transferred to Fort Hood also counseled
the San Diego-based hijackers—with FBI knowledge. As
of December 1, 2009, no one from the FBI or national
security had debriefed Mel Rockefeller—eight years
after 9-11.
See: Ft. Hood: “Death By Political Correctness”?
and Ft. Hood Tragedy: The Real Story of the Terrorist
“Mad Doctor Hasan”
When President George H.W. Bush declined to invade
Baghdad and remove Saddam Hussein during the 1991 Gulf
War, Pentagon Under Secretary for Policy Paul
Wolfowitz imposed a No-Fly Zone in northern Iraq. By
the invasion of March 2003, the Israeli Mossad had
agents deployed for a decade in the northern Iraqi
city of Mosul.
Intelligence reports of Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda were
also traced to Mosul—reports that proved false. Mosul
again emerged in November 2004 as a center of the
insurgency that destabilized Iraq. That reaction
precluded the speedy exit of coalition forces promised
in Congressional testimony by senior war-planner
Wolfowitz in the lead-up to the invasion.
An Inside Job?
The common pro-Israeli source of the phony
intelligence that induced war in Iraq has yet to be
acknowledged even though intelligence experts agree
that deception on such a scale required a decade to
plan, staff, pre-stage, orchestrate and—until
now—cover up. The leaders of the 9-11 Commission
conceded they were thwarted by Commission members
adamantly opposed to hearing testimony on the
hijackers’ motivation for 9-11: the U.S.-Israeli
relationship.
The fictions reported as facts by mainstream media
included Iraqi WMD, Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, Iraqi
meetings with Al Qaeda in Prague, Iraqi mobile
biological weapons laboratories and Iraqi purchases of
“yellowcake” uranium from Niger. Only the last claim
was conceded as bogus prior to the invasion.
Only after the war began were the balance of the
claims disclosed as false, flawed or outright
fabricated. An attempt to punish former U.S.
Ambassador to Iraq Joe Wilson for his exposure of the
phony yellowcake account led to a federal conviction
of vice-presidential chief of staff Lewis Libby,
another well-placed Zionist insider.
The multi-decade consistency of
agent-provocateur fact patterns suggests that
this game theory-modeled warfare includes the Israeli
provocation that catalyzed the Second Intifada. An
intifada is an uprising or, literally, a “shaking off”
of an oppressor. The Second Intifada dates from
September 2000 when Israeli Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon led an armed march to Jerusalem’s Temple
Mount—one year before 9-11.
After a year of calm during which Palestinians
believed that Israel was sincere about peace,
suicide bombings recommenced. As Sharon conceded, his
march was meant to demonstrate Israeli control over a
site considered holy by Muslims worldwide. In response
to this second failed attempt at “shaking off” Israeli
domination, Sharon and Netanyahu observed that only
when Americans “feel our pain” would they understand
the plight of the victimized Israelis.
These Likud Party leaders commented that the
requisite empathy (“feel our pain”) would require a
weighted body count of 4,500 to 5,000 Americans lost
to terrorism—the initial estimate of those who died in
the twin towers of the World Trade Center—one year
later.
In other words, only with pain could we identify
with the Israelis. Does that mean that only with a
mass murder could we be induced to respond with
our military to advance their agenda?
Was the U.S. response mathematically modeled at the
Center for the Study of Rationality? Seven months
after 9-11, Benjamin Netanyahu gave a speech in a U.S.
Senate office building where he was introduced by
Senators Jon Kyl and Joe Liebermn
American Valkyrie?
When successful, game theory warfare strengthens
the agent provocateur while leaving the
target discredited and depleted by the anticipated
reaction. By game theory standards, 9-11 was a
strategic success because the U.S.—by its response—was
widely criticized for waging war on false pretenses.
Only in hindsight did a deceived public realize that
Iraq had nothing to do with that mass murder. However,
that invasion had everything to do with “securing the
realm.”
Our response (predictably) triggered a deadly
insurgency with devastating consequences for Iraqis,
the U.S. and a “coalition of the willing” led to war
by a successfully duped U.S. From a game theory
perspective, that insurgency was a predictable
reaction in a nation populated by three long-feuding
sects: Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. A violent invasion
led by a nation closely allied with Jewish
nationalists only further fueled the flames of
violence and extremism—another foreseeable outcome.
Until the U.S.-led invasion, peace was maintained
by an unsavory dictator and former U.S. ally who was
rebranded an Evil Doer in the lead-up to war. As the
cost in blood and treasure from our “liberation” of
Iraq expanded, the U.S. became overextended
militarily, financially and diplomatically.
The sectarian violence unleashed in Iraq is
precisely what Messrs. Rockefeller and Ghazal were
cautioned against in early 1997 should Saddam Hussein
be removed suddenly and violently. The 1.3 million
Iraqi deaths from war-related causes exceeds the worst
of Saddam Hussein’s atrocities. As any competent game
theory war-planner knew, the strategic winner in this
war was certain to be Tehran as the U.S. neutralized
its key foe—and is now urged by Israel to wage war on
Iran.
As the U.S.—the primary target of this
deception—emerged in the foreground, the agent
provocateur faded into the background. But only
after catalyzing dynamics that steadily drained the
U.S. of credibility, resources and resolve. This
“probabilistic” Israeli victory also ensured
widespread cynicism, insecurity, distrust and
disillusionment along with a steadily declining
capacity to defend our real interests.
Meanwhile the American public came under a system
of oversight and surveillance packaged and sold as
“homeland security.” This ominously titled operation
includes rhetorical echoes of a WWII-era “fatherland”
featuring a domestic security force completely alien
to U.S. traditions. It is not yet clear whether this
new agency was established to protect Americans. Or
whether it is meant to shield from Americans
those responsible for deceiving us to wage their
wars.
In January 2003, Secret Service Agent Richard
Sierze interrogated Mel Rockefeller at his home in
Fresno, California after he sent an email to Florida
Governor Jeb Bush. The email said, in effect, that if
the governor’s brother (President George Bush) did not
interview him on a public record prior to invading
Iraq, he would do his best to ensure that lawful
means were deployed to see the president executed for
treason by a firing squad.
When questioned by Sierze, Rockefeller offered to
have the agent speak with Dr. Glenn Olds, an adviser
to four presidents, his senior adviser since 1994 and
a former U.N. Ambassador who assisted him in entering
Iraq through Jordon at a time when Americans were
prohibited from traveling there. Sierze declined.
He also repeated his intent to see the president
executed for treason and insisted that he be charged
and taken before a federal magistrate to present
evidence that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction
and that an alternative to war had been available
since early 1997. Agent Sierze declined his demand to
be arraigned in a U.S. Federal District Court—seven
weeks before the invasion.
Agent Sierze should be interviewed to see if, in
retrospect, he agrees that—had this advice been
followed—the war in Iraq may well have been prevented.
To date, no one with line responsibility has
interviewed Mel Rockefeller on a public record. Why?
The answer to that question would reveal those
responsible for this ongoing deception.
The victims of these serial deceptions, including
the families of those murdered in November at Fort
Hood, may have a wrongful death cause of action
against those with line responsibility who aided these
operations by failing to engage the Rockefeller record
in a timely fashion.
Foreseeable Futures
By manipulating the shared mindset, skilled game
theory war-planners can wage wars on multiple fronts
with minimal resources. One proven strategy: Pose as
an ally of a well-armed nation predisposed to deploy
its military in response to a mass murder.
In this case, the result destabilized Iraq while
creating (predictable) crises that could be exploited
to greater strategic advantage by expanding the
conflict to Iran, another Israeli goal announced in
A Clean Break—seven years before the invasion
of Iraq.
Today’s mathematically model-able outcomes
undermined U.S. national security by discrediting our
leadership, degrading our financial condition and
disabling our political will. In game theory terms,
this devastation was perfectly predictable—within
an acceptable range of probabilities.
Pakistan is primed to emerge as the next
battleground for game theory war-planners. When India,
an ally of Israel, became the nation honored by the
Obama administration’s first state dinner, that
occasion gave reason for concern due to the dynamics
already at work in the background.
See “What Is Israel’s Role in the Destabilization
of Pakistan?”
In the asymmetry that typifies modern warfare,
those who are few in number have no alternative when
pursuing an expansionist agenda but to wage their wars
by way of deception. To maintain its
perceived status as a perennial victim, Israeli
aggression must proceed non-transparently. Its only
option is to operate with duplicitous means, including
leveraging the power of its insider influence to
advance an agenda from the shadows.
Thus the strategic necessity that this extremist
enclave befriend the U.S.—with the intent to betray
that friendship to advance its geopolitical goals.
Thus the strategic need to create a relationship of
trust with a post-WWII super power—in order to defraud
us. How else could Colonial Zionists wage their wars
except with our military? How else could
Jewish nationalists induce our aggression absent the
widely shared belief that Israel is not an aggressor
but a victim?
Winning Wars from the Inside
Out
Game theory war-planners manipulate the shared
mental environment by shaping the perceptions and
impressions that become consensus opinions. With a
combination of well-timed crises, fixed intelligence
and a complicit media, policy-makers can be induced to
support a predetermined agenda—not because lawmakers
are Evil Doers but because the public mindset has been
pre-conditioned to respond to manipulated thoughts,
emotions and beliefs.
Without the mass murder of 9-11, would America’s
credibility be in tatters and its creditworthiness in
jeopardy? By steadily displacing facts with false
beliefs, those duplicitous few-within-the-few amplify
the impact of their deceit. By their steady focus on
the mental environment, game theory war-planners can
defeat an opponent with vastly superior resources.
Today’s intelligence wars are waged in plain sight
and under the cover of shared beliefs. By manipulating
consensus opinion, psy-ops wars can be won from
the inside out by inducing a targeted populace to
freely choose the very forces that imperil their
freedom.
Thus in the Information Age the disproportionate
power wielded by those with outsized influence in
media, popular culture, think tanks, academia and
politics—domains where Zionist influence is pervasive
not only in the U.S. but also in other nations induced
to war on false pretenses.
Germany offers a case study in manipulation of the
public mindset in plain sight and under the banner of
a free press. In 2003, Zionist media mogul Haim Saban
acquired the second largest media conglomerate in
Germany. Why? As Saban investment banker Steve Rattner
explained his client’s motivation: “Because Germany is
important to Israel.” Or, as Saban concedes: “I have
only one issue and that issue is Israel.”
By 2005, Saban had succeeded in electing Angela
Merkel as German Chancellor. She quickly became the
European Union’s most reliable and forceful advocate
for Israel. By November 2009, she was prepared to
sponsor in Berlin an unprecedented joint session of
the German and Israeli governments. Following his
political success in Germany, Saban acquired in 2007 a
controlling interest in Univision, a Latino-focused
network serving the fastest-growing voting bloc in the
U.S.
Media manipulation serves as an essential
force-multiplier to wage intelligence wars from the
periphery or, as with Haim Saban, in plain sight. At
the operational core of such psy-ops are game theory
war-planners skilled at personality profiling and
masterful at anticipating responses to staged
provocations and then incorporating those responses
into their arsenal.
In the case of Iraq, our (mathematically)
foreseeable response to 9-11 led, in practical effect,
to Israel’s deployment of our military to
invade Iraq. For aggressors adept at psy-ops warfare,
facts are only an inconvenience to be overcome when
waging war by way of deception. Thus the key role
played by consensus-shapers featured in mainstream
media outlets who focus not on informing the public
but on mental conditioning.
For targeted populations dependent on facts and
informed consent to protect their freedom and preserve
the rule of law, such treachery poses the greatest
possible threat. Yet even now many Americans
believe that Israel is not an aggressor but a
victim and even an ally despite facts confirming a
multi-decade pattern of expansionist nationalism and
geopolitical deception.
Adhering to an Enemy
The U.S. is far less secure than before 9-11. Tel
Aviv clearly intends to continue its serial
provocations as evidenced by its ongoing expansion of
settlements and its continuing blockade of Gaza.
Israel has shown no willingness to negotiate in good
faith. With few exceptions, Barack Obama has named as
senior advisers either Zionists are those known to be
strongly pro-Israeli.
The greatest threat to world peace is not Islam.
The most fundamental threat that underlies all others
is our “special relationship” with a skilled agent
provocateur. Without U.S. support for an enclave
of nuclear-armed religious extremists, the common
source of this threat could long ago have been
identified and steps taken to ensure its containment.
In the same way that lengthy pre-staging was
required to induce the U.S. to invade Iraq, a similar
strategy is now underway to persuade the U.S. to
invade Iran or support an attack by Israel. Pakistan
is also now on the agenda of those marketing The
Clash narrative with its vision of a perpetual
war against “militant Islam.” Similar mental
conditioning is again at work, including the high
profile branding of the requisite Evil Doer: Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinajad.
From its outset, the Zionist enterprise sought
supremacy in the Middle East. To date, its alliance
with the U.S. has enabled the deployment of American
military might in pursuit of goals set by Jewish
nationalists more than a half-century before a
Christian Zionist U.S. president was induced to extend
nation-state recognition. Harry Truman made that
fateful decision despite his fears that Israel would
become what Zionist lobbyists assured him it would not
become—and what it immediately became: a racist and
theocratic state.
Only one nation had the means, motive, opportunity
and stable nation state intelligence required to take
the U.S. to war in the Middle East while making it
appear that Islam—not Israel—is the problem. When a
long-deceived American public—especially the U.S.
military—grasps the common source of this devastating
duplicity, the response will shift the geopolitical
landscape. The facts suggest that “sympathy for
Israel” is not among the probable reactions.
If Barack Obama continues to cater to these
extremists, this Nobel peace laureate can rightly be
blamed when the next attack features the usual orgy of
evidence pointing to a pre-staged Evil Doer. Should
another mass murder occur, that incident may well be
traceable to the U.S.-Israeli relationship and to the
failure of our policy-makers to protect America—and
world peace—from this enemy within.
See also:
How Israel Took Control of U.S. Foreign Policy
How Israel Wages War in Plain Sight
Appeasing Israel—At What Cost?
American Intifada—Shaking Off Six Decades of Deceit
First published December 1, 2009
EsinIslam.Com
|
Save
Add Comments To This Story