By Philip Giraldi
August 16, 2022:
Information Clearing House
-I
often complain that Washington’s heavily
lopsided relationship with Israel is an
arrangement that brings absolutely no
benefit to the American people, and even
less to our national security as it has
involved the US in an endless series of
completely avoidable conflicts. But there is
one exception to that generalization, though
one hesitates to call it a benefit,
consisting of the White House’s adoption of
the Israel practice of referring to
opponents as “terrorists.” Israel uses it as
a generic cover designation to denigrate and
humiliate the Palestinians while also
delegitimizing their resistance, permitting
them to torture and kill Arabs at will,
destroy their homes, and bomb them
mercilessly. Washington, which claims to be
the font of a “rules based international
order” as well as the defender of global
“democracy” and “freedom,” has developed
since 9/11 an unfortunate tendency to do the
same thing as the Israelis to justify its
attacks on civilians and its brutal
assassination policies.
In fact,
the US and Israel are generally speaking
the only two countries that openly use
“targeted assassination” as a political tool
without even bothering to fall back on
“plausible denial” to conceal their actions.
Israel only last week, initiated a
politically motivated bombing attack on
Gaza, which killed 45 civilians, including
seventeen children and destroyed numerous
homes. No Israelis were killed or even
injured when the Gazans struck back with
their home-made rockets. Both the White
House and leaders in the US Congress
congratulated the Israelis for “exercising
their right to defend themselves.”
The
principal targets of the Israeli
onslaught were two Islamic Jihad leaders
whom both Israel and the international media
have described as “terrorists” and
“militants.” The Israeli Prime Minister Yair
Lapid described the operation as successful
as the two men were reported killed. A
retired Israeli general went so far as
to describe the massacre as “really
clean, very nice” and an “exceptional
achievement.”
The Israeli action
recalls
the recent assassination of Dr. Ayman
al-Zawahiri by the US Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA). The media coverage described
how the Agency relentlessly stalked al-Zawahiri,
described as the mastermind of 9/11,
eventually learning that the 71-year-old was
living in a house in an upscale Kabul
neighborhood. It was also determined that he
spent most days sitting on a terrace at the
top of the house. The hellfire drone that
killed him targeted the terrace at the time
of day when he was normally sitting outside.
Taliban sources report that his body was
torn apart and incinerated by the two
missiles that apparently struck him.
The White House is,
of course, framing the assassination as a
great success, a major blow in the war
against terror. Joe Biden is hoping that it
will improve the administration’s dismal
approval ratings in the lead-up to the
November elections, but the information
given to the media regarding the incident
praising the CIA’s tenacity and professional
expertise is perhaps a bit over the top.
Alternative reports from Afghanistan suggest
that al-Zawahiri was living quite openly in
Kabul and that he has not been active in any
presumably radical activities for many, many
years
beyond making a number of “conspiracy
theory” videos. Both al-Zawahiri and
al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden were, at
the times when they were assassinated by the
US, leading quiet lives with little
protection even though they allegedly
continued to be nominal leaders of al-Qaeda,
an organization that had lost its raison
d’etre years before.
Al-Zawahiri’s record
as a terrorist comes largely from US and UK
intelligence sources as well as media
innuendo, which should be automatically
considered unreliable. Recall for a moment
the lying that the George W. Bush
administration engaged in to go to war with
Iraq, with folks like Condoleezza Rice
speaking of mushroom clouds spewing
radiation over the US and a shop in the
Pentagon run by a group of neocons producing
fabricated intelligence reports. What has
been confirmed from independent sources is
that al-Zawahiri, an Egyptian medical
doctor, was savagely tortured by the secret
police during a crackdown on political
dissidents initiated by US puppet President
Hosni Mubarak. The torture reportedly
radicalized him, and he joined Osama bin
Laden’s underground group, later apparently
becoming its nominal leader after bin Laden
was himself killed in May 2011 by US Navy
Seals. Much of the rest of al-Zawahiri’s
presumed biography relies on little in the
way of actual evidence.
What actually
happened on 9/11 and who was behind it
remains somewhat a mystery as all the
apparent perpetrators of which might have
occurred are dead. Consider for a moment
that Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri
never actually admitted that their group
al-Qaeda was the perpetrator of the attack.
In fact they denied it, sometimes
attributing it to other radicalized Saudi
Arabian underground groups. Nor is there any
actual evidence that they planned the
attack. They were accused because they had
the claimed track record, resources, motive
and possible access to carry out the
incident, not because there was any real
evidence that they had done the deed. When
the US approached the Taliban government of
Afghanistan in late 2001 and demanded that
bin Laden be turned over to American law
enforcement, the Afghans responded that bin
Laden was a guest in their country, but they
would surrender him if Washington could
demonstrate that he had organized and
ordered the attacks. George W. Bush’s
Pentagon and the CIA apparently could not
make that case based on actual evidence,
leading to the decision to go to war
instead.
Also, of all the
hundreds of “terrorist” prisoners that have
been recycled through
the US military prison at Guantanamo
only five have ever been charged with any
involvement in 9/11. They are still being
held but have never been tried and it is
quite possible the case against them can
never be made. They might even be completely
innocent.
And there is more to
the story. Bin Laden could have been
arrested and tried but the Barack Obama
administration decided to kill him and dump
his body at sea, presumably to avoid a
courtroom drama that would reveal government
malfeasance. And then there are Anwar Nasser
al-Awlaki and his son Abdulrahman, both of
whom were American citizens killed by CIA
drones in Yemen, where their family
originated. The al-Awlakis may or may not
have been actual members of al-Qaeda, but
the elder al-Awlaki’s sermons and writings
certainly inspired groups that opposed US
foreign policy’s hostility towards Muslims.
It is widely believed that Anwar al-Awlaki
could have been captured and tried in the US
if an attempt to do so had been pursued, but
instead the Obama Administration again
decided that he should be killed.
Finally, there is the
death by drone of Iranian General Qassem
Soleimani in January 2000 under President
Donald Trump. In a recent book, Trump’s
Defense Chief Mark Esper
claims that Trump lied after the
assassination was criticized by saying that
Soleimani was actively preparing “terror”
attacks on four American Embassies in the
Mideast region. Esper confirms that there
was no intelligence to back up that claim,
but interestingly goes beyond that to make
clear that there was no specific
intelligence at all suggesting that such an
attack was imminent or even being planned.
There were only generic regional security
threats that many embassies in the world
respond to and make preparations to defend
against.
The Esper claim is
supported by the Iraqi government itself,
which declared that Soleimani, widely
regarded as the second most powerful
official in Iran after the Ayatollah, was in
Baghdad to discuss peace arrangements and
that the US Embassy had been informed of his
planned trip and had raised no objection to
it. Instead, the US used the opportunity to
launch an armed drone to kill him and nine
Iraqi militia members that were accompanying
him from the airport. In other words, there
was no imminent threat, nor even a plausible
threat, and the US went ahead anyway and
killed a senior Iranian government official
in a targeted assassination.
So, the United States
and Israel have a formula down pat whereby
they can kill anyone anywhere without any
due process or rule of law, even if they
don’t know who you are as in the cases of
the “signature” or “profile” executions by
drone in Afghanistan. And all the presidents
and senior officials know that no matter
what they do there will be no
accountability. All one has to do is call it
terrorism prevention, which might include
citing terrorist attacks that can in no way
be linked by way of actual evidence to the
person being killed. Once a terrorist,
always a terrorist, repeat as needed, and
the public and media will swoon with
pleasure at being so well-protected. And, as
the Israeli general described it, the end
result will be “really clean, very nice” an
“exceptional achievement.”
Philip M. Giraldi,
Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council
for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax
deductible educational foundation (Federal
ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more
interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the
Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA
20134 and its email is
inform@cnionline.org.