samt deutschsprachigen
Aspekten zue Rolle von IntelCenter, Al Jazeera usw.
Assassination of prominent political leaders,
presumably protected by the best security, is no easy thing. It requires
agencies of professional intelligence training to insure that the job is
done and that no person is caught alive who can lead to those behind. Typically,
from the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand in Sarajevo
in July 1914 to JFK, the person pulling the trigger is just an instrument
of a far deeper conspiracy. So too in the assassination on December 27th,
of Pakistani former Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto. Cui bono?.
What was behind the murder of Bhutto at the moment her PPP party appeared about to win a resounding election victory in the planned January 8 elections, thereby posing a mass-based challenge to the dictatorial rule of President Musharraf? Musharraf’s government was indecently quick to blame “Al-Qaeda,” the dubious entity allegedly the organization of Osama bin Laden, whom Washington accused for masterminding the September 11 2001 attacks. Musharraf just days after, declared he was “sure” Al Qaeda was the author, even though, on US pressure, he has asked Scotland Yard to come and investigate. "I want to say it with certainty, that these people (Al Qaeda) martyred ... Benazir Bhutto," Musharraf said in a Jan. 3 televised address. He named Baitullah Mehsud, a militant tribal chief fighting the Pakistani Army, who has alleged ties to al-Qaeda and the Afghan Taleban. Mehsud denied the charge. Had he been behind such a dramatic event, the desired propaganda impact among militant islamists would require taking open responsibility instead. By linking the Bhutto killing to Al Qaeda, Musharraf conveniently gains several goals. First he reinforces the myth of Al Qaeda, something very useful to Washington at this time of growing global skepticism over the real intent of its War on Terrorism, making Musharraf more valuable to Washington. Second it gives Musharraf a plausible scapegoat to blame for the convenient elimination of a serious political rival to his consolidation of one-man rule. Notable also is the fact that the Musharraf regime has rejected making a routine autoposy on Bhutto’s body. Bhutto publicly charged that the Government had refused to make followup inquiry after the October bombing which nearly killed her and did 134 followers near her auto. Bhutto accused Pakistani authorities of not providing her with sufficient security, and hinted that they may have been complicit in the Karachi attack. She also made clear in a UK television interview shortly before her death that she would clean out the Pakistan military and security services of corrupt and islamist elements. In the same David Frost interview, Bhutto also dropped the explosive news that Afghan Taleban leader Sheikh Omah had killed bin Laden some while back. That fact would make the alleged Bin Laden terror videos periodically delivered to western media clear as forgeries. Days after the Bhutto killing, Pakistani authorities published a photo alleged to be of the severed head of the suicide bomber who killed Bhutto. Severed heads, like Lee Harvey Oswald don’t talk or say embarrassing things. It has been known for months that the Bush-Cheney administration has been maneuvering to strengthen their political control of Pakistan, paving the way for the expansion and deepening of the “war on terrorism” across the region. Who was Bhutto? The Bhutto family was itself hardly democratic, drawing its core from feudal landowning families, but opposed to the commanding role of the army and ISI intelligence. Succeeding her father as head of the PPP, Benazir declared herself "chairperson for life" — a position she held until her death. Bhutto’s husband, Ali Zardari, “Mr. 10%,” is known in Pakistan for his demanding a 10% cut from letting major government contracts when Benazir was PM. In 2003, Benazir and her husband were convicted in Switzerland of money laundering and taking bribes from Swiss companies as PM. The family is allegedly worth several billions as a result. As prime minister from 1993 to 1996, she advocated a conciliatory policy toward Islamists, especially the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Harvard educated Benazir had close ties to US and UK intelligence as well. She used the offices of neo-conservative US Congressman Tom Lantos when she was in Washington according to our informed reports, one reason Vice President Cheney backed her as a “safe” way to save his Pakistan strategic alliance in face of growing popular protest against Musharraf’s declaring martial law last year. The ploy was to have Bhutto make a face-saving deal with Musharraf to put a democratic face on the dictatorship, while Washington maintained its strategic control. According to the Washington Post of 28 Dec., “For Benazir Bhutto, the decision to return to Pakistan was sealed during a telephone call from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice just a week before Bhutto flew home in October. The call culminated more than a year of secret diplomacy -- and came only when it became clear that the heir to Pakistan's most powerful political dynasty was the only one who could bail out Washington's key ally in the battle against terrorism. . . .As President Pervez Musharraf's political future began to unravel this year, Bhutto became the only politician who might help keep him in power.” In November, John Negroponte, former Bush Administration Intelligence Czar and now Deputy Secretary of State was deployed to Islamabad to pressure Musharraf to ease the situation by holding elections and forming a power-sharing with Bhutto. But once in Pakistan, where her supporters were mobilized, Bhutto made clear she would seek an election coalition to openly oppose Musharraf and military rule in the planned elections. A cynical US-Musharraf deal? Informed intelligence sources say there was a cynical deal cut behind the scenes between Washington and Musharraf. Musharraf is known to be Cheney’s preferred partner and Cheney we are told is the sole person running US-Pakistan policy today. Were Musharraf to agree to stationing of US Special Forces inside Pakistan, “Plan B”, the democratic farce with Bhutto could be put aside, in favor of the continued Musharraf sole rule. Washington would “turn a blind eye.” On Dec. 28, one day after the Bhutto assassination, the Washington Post reported that in early 2008, “US Special Forces are expected to vastly expand their presence in Pakistan as part of an effort to train and support indigenous counter-insurgency forces and clandestine counterterrorism units,” under the US Central Command and US Special Operations Command, a major shift in US Pakistani ties. Until now Musharraf and his military have refused such direct US control, aside from the agreement after September 11, extracted from Musharraf under extreme pressure of possible US bombing, to give the US military direct control of the Pakistan nuclear weapons. The elimination of Bhutto leaves an opposition vacuum. The country lacks a credible political leader who can command national support, which leaves the military enhanced as an institution, with its willingness to defend Musharraf on the streets. This gives the Pentagon and Washington a chance to consolidate a military opposition to future Chinese economic hegemony—the real geopolitical goal of Washington. |
deutschsprachige Infos und Aspekte
Die Firma, die die binLaden Videos produziert, heißt IntelCenter Eine schöne, runde Begründung, weshalb Al-Jazeerasowohl ein binLaden-Video nach dem anderen veröffentlicht, unabhängig davon, ob bin Laden tot ist (lt. Aussage von Bhutto). Schölzel von JW und die Rosa-Luxemburgisten merken wie immer nichts.... Es ist zum Verzweifeln. Im Übrigen gilt: die Linke wird sich mit dem 11.September beschäftigen müssen . Die BBC-Fassung des Bhutto-Interviews ist mittlerweile von der Zensur befreit - die Passage mit der Ermordung Osamas wird in der Minute 05:10 gesendet. Somit steht weiterhin die frage: weiß/wußte
Bhutto in ihrem Land nicht Bescheid ? Lügt sie, warum denn dann nur?
Oder sagt sie die Wahrheit ? Wer aber ist dan der Produzent
der Selbstbezichtigungsvideos mit bin Laden?
Osama
und die Wale - sie dürfen nicht sterben
Osama tot ...
Die Zensur wurde
bemerkt, sie wird diskutiert.
"****
During the interview Ms Bhutto made an allegation that Osama Bin Ladenhad been murdered by Omar Sheikh. A claim which was unchallenged and so unexpected that it seemed most likely that she had mis-spoken. Under time pressure the item producer responsible for publishing thevideo edited out the comment with the intention of avoiding confusion. On reflection this was clearly a mistake and should not have happened.There was no intention on our part to distort the meaning of the interview, and we will endeavour to replace the edited version currently available via the BBC News website with the original interview asbroadcast by Al-Jazeera. I would like to take the opportunity
to apologise for what was an error of judgement and the confusion that
this has caused.
Das verstehen wir. BBC wollte Konfusion
vermeiden. Das tun auch alle deutschen medien. Sie alle vermeiden Konfusion
indem sie über die behauptung Bhuttos einfach nicht berichten. Gewiß,
man könnte Frau Bhutto Irrtum unterstellen, mangelnde Informiertheit,
Verwirrtheit und Komplizenschaft, alles Mögliche. Aber das würde
ja nur verwirren.
Zensur
der BBC
Osama tot - berichtet Bhutto ganz beiläufig in diesem Video In einem ihrer letzten Interviews spricht
Frau Bhutto von der Ermordung Osama bin Ladens.
Hier
nochmal seitens eines britischen Zuschauers der Beweis für
die Zensur.
Das ist der NAME des Spiels. Das ist nicht
das Spiel selbst .
"The
Pakistani foreign minister, Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri, angrily warned against
U.S. attacks in his country, saying attacks in the sensitive border area
could cause civilian deaths and enrage public opinion. He said Pakistani
forces were capable of policing the area and of destroying Qaeda targets
with less chance of killing civilians."
Hotzenplotz-Osama in Wasiristan hat Freunde
im ganzen Land - ein nicht unwesentlicher Faktor für das
Lamento der pakistanischen Regierung.
Many jihadist Web sites hosted in U.S. - ja und die Inhalte ? Werden die etwa nicht auch dort fabriziert ? Dieser frage geht UPI leider nicht nach ... Obwohl es die Logik gebietet, so rational zu arbeiten. Afghanische oder irakische Web-Hoster sind selten, haben immer mal wieder Stromprobleme und könnten durch einen übereifrigen Soldaten leicht auch mal bombardiert weden. Und dann die Finanzierung: Auslandsüberweisungen kosten Geld - und wenn die CIA einen Web-Anbieter mit Dollars bedenkt oder gar ein Lastschriftverfahren einrichtet - das könt doch zu Komplikationen führen. Der unabhängige, neutrale Drittstaat ist auch keine rechte Alternative in Zeiten des GWOT: wie leicht fängt man sich als arabischer Staat Sanktionen oder einen Krieg ein . Und so paßt eben zusammen, was zusammengehört: der Aufruf zum Terror, der terror, die terrorbekämpfung: alles in einer Hand. Das ist es was einen guten Systemanbieter ausmacht
Wie die CIA-Abteilung Identitätswesen nie bekanntgab, ist eine gleichmäßige Verteilung der terroristen über den erdball noch immer nicht geglückt. Manche Terroristen (wie die des 11. September) gibt es gleich doppelt und dreifach an verschiedenen Stelen der Welt, manche existieren gar nicht. Nun ist auch das ehNaMag auf einen solchen der letzteren Sorte gestoßen - die Stimme von einem Schauspieler, aber viel Medienpräsenz. Natürlich arbeitet die CIA wie immer
("fieberhaft", heißt es)daran, den verlust zu ersetzen. Wie wäre
es mit den Überhangmandaten für Mohammed Atta - einen davon als
irakischer Präsident zu inthronisieren, wäre geschickt, Das Volk
muß sich nicht an all diese immer neuen namen gewöhnen, der
Mann ist ordentlich böse, und es gäbe wieder gutn Grund, Irak
zu bombardieren
.
|
c) Andreas Hauß, März 2008
http://www.medienanalyse-international.de/ueberblick.html
Im Übrigen bewundere ich Frau Klarsfeld.