L’ancien responsable de l’Unité de traque de Ben Laden à la CIA estime que l’Islam radical est une menace imaginaire.

Jeudi 10 Novembre 2011
Michael Scheuer : l'islam radical est un ennemi imaginaire
Dans un entretien accordé à Gayane Chichakyan et diffusé le 9 novembre 2011 par Russia Today, l’ex-responsable de l’Unité de recherche d’Oussama Ben Laden à la CIA, Michael Scheuer déclare que l’ennemi des États-Unis, l’islam radical opposé à la démocratie et à l’égalité des sexes, n’existe pas et n’a jamais existé. Les attaques dont les États-Unis font l’objet ne répondent pas à son mode de vie, mais à sa politique proche-orientale et à son soutien à Israël et à l’Arabie saoudite.
Le célèbre analyste dénonce la croyance des élites US, héritée du trotskisme, en la supériorité d’un modèle politique et la possibilité de l’instaurer partout. À ce sujet, il observe que, jusqu’à ce que le gouvernement syrien le rappelle à l’ordre, l’ambassadeur US à Damas parcourait le pays pour encourager divers groupe à renverser le régime, ce qu’aucun autre ambassadeur se serait permis de faire.
Michael Scheuer est l’auteur anonyme de deux livres : Through Our Enemies’ Eyes : Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America et Imperial Hubris : Why the West is Losing the War on Terror. Il a récemment publié sous son nom : Marching Toward Hell : America and Islam After Iraq.
Après avoir été contraint à la démission pour manquement au devoir de réserve et avoir quitté la CIA, en 2004, il travailla comme analyste à la Jamestown Foundation (une agence de presse issue de l’Agence de renseignement). Il en fut licencié en 2008 pour avoir critiqué l’influence, selon lui démesurée, du lobby pro-israélien sur la politique états-unienne.

« Washington’s enemy ‘doesn’t exist’ », entretien de Michael Scheuer avec Gayane Chichakyan, Russia Today, 9 novembre 2011.


by Justin Raimondo
There’s always a Looming Danger, an Ominous Threat lurking somewhere – that’s the War Party’s bread-and-butter. Back in the day, it was the Germans, who were going to cross the Atlantic and meet their Japanese allies somewhere near the Mississippi. Then it was the Commies, who were not only in the process of swallowing Asia but supposedly had their Fifth Column right here in the US, ready willing and able to take the Capitol at a signal from the Kremlin. After that there was some hesitation in deciding just who or what would take the place of the Red Threat, but that was decided on September 11, 2001, when Osama bin Laden’s Global Caliphate emerged as the Bogeyman of the moment. It turned into quite a long moment, as we have seen, one that still lingers to this day, even after bin Laden’s death and the crushing of al-Qaeda: Americans, being sentimentalists, hang on to their villains long after their shelf life has expired.
That’s because these dark eminences are alluring, in their way: the narratives we construct tell us a story we can be proud of, a tale of derring-do in which the American people are made of Heroic Stuff, holding aloft the Torch of Freedom lest it be extinguished by rampaging hordes of Orcs, sacrificing their pelf, their liberty – and, often, their lives – in the name of Saving the World.
The Threat has great value to our rulers: they cling to this narrative because it justifies their power, and their insatiable desire for more. President Barack Obama started out his recent state of the union address by invoking the Threat and holding up the military’s response to it as a shining example:
“These achievements are a testament to the courage, selflessness, and teamwork of America’s armed forces. At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations. They’re not consumed with personal ambition. They don’t obsess over their differences. They focus on the mission at hand. They work together. Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example.”
Yes, just imagine if civil society was organized along military lines, with all of us taking orders from our commander-in-chief – what a glorious time it would be!
Our rulers invoke these militaristic metaphors as exhortations to get us in line: we hear much about “unity,” “unselfishness,” glorification of “the mission” (whose mission?). These are the bromides uttered by tyrants and would-be tyrants, who would love to turn society into a civilian army. Their vision of the future is of a collective marching in lockstep down the road to whatever hellish fate they have in store for us.
These days, however, they are having a harder time convincing us of the reality of the Threat. This is true for a number of reasons, but the main source of our skepticism is the overwhelming certainty that the Threat is coming not from without but from within. No, not in the presence of those Mooslims, in spite of the Israel Lobby‘s best efforts: no, not from the long-gone Commie Conspiracy or the “militias” that were the favored bogeyman of the Clinton era. Instead, the Threat springs from something deeper, a force connected to the way our society works and has been working since the inauguration of the modern era: it is the looming threat of national bankruptcy.
We look at Greece in default, at failing France, at Italy in arrears, and see our future: on the left and the right, the voices of panic are rising. Listen to what George Soros has to say:
“’At times like these, survival is the most important thing,’ he says, peering through his owlish glasses and brushing wisps of gray hair off his forehead. He doesn’t just mean it’s time to protect your assets. He means it’s time to stave off disaster. As he sees it, the world faces one of the most dangerous periods of modern history—a period of ‘evil.’ Europe is confronting a descent into chaos and conflict. In America he predicts riots on the streets that will lead to a brutal clampdown that will dramatically curtail civil liberties. The global economic system could even collapse altogether.”
“A period of ‘evil’” – that’s what’s in store for us, says the man who broke the Bank of England and is one of the richest men on earth, an apocalyptic vision that will sweep away all we have known, and loved:
“As anger rises, riots on the streets of American cities are inevitable. ‘Yes, yes, yes,’ he says, almost gleefully. The response to the unrest could be more damaging than the violence itself. ‘It will be an excuse for cracking down and using strong-arm tactics to maintain law and order, which, carried to an extreme, could bring about a repressive political system, a society where individual liberty is much more constrained, which would be a break with the tradition of the United States.’”
On the other side of the political spectrum, we hear similar prophecies of doom, although there is nothing gleeful about Rep. Ron Paul’s reaction to his own dark vision of the future:
“There’s going to be anger, and there’s going to be riots in the streets as well. But this is all a consequence of the fact that — why and how do governments spend like this? It’s because they don’t have sound money. When we run up deficits, we tax, but never enough. We can’t tax, it would ruin the economy. Then we borrow, and we get away with that for a long time. But we rely on the printing presses from the Federal Reserve to create the money, and that’s where the problem is.
The Pentagon agrees with the Soros-Paul scenario: the threat of an economic collapse has been in their sights since the crash of ’08. The most recent threat assessment points to “economic instability” as our rulers’ chief worry. The Army recently conducted a year-long war game dubbed “Unified Quest 2011,” centered around how to deal with a “large scale economic breakdownin this country.
The “threats” of the past sixty years have receded: America’s military might is unchallenged. Yet a new Threat is rising, not from without but from within – an economic cancer eating away at the very heart of our society. We had a taste of it in ’08, and in spite of the Obama-bots’ Pollyannaish predictions of “recovery,” ordinary people see nothing but trouble on the horizon. This is a real threat, unlike the others, one that cannot be fought by our matchless military, or even negotiated with – and it is coming.
American’s national security is in danger, but to listen to our politicians (Paul excepted), you’d think we had nothing to worry about: it’s business as usual. Yet as dark clouds gather on the horizon, and lightning splits the sky, we shiver in our homes and wonder when and how the storm will break.

Santorum warns of “Eurabia,” issues call to “evangelize and eradicate” Muslims

ed note–over the years, we at TUT have made plain our EXTREME disdain for Muslims haters, Islamophobes and as well–THOSE IN THE ‘MOVEMENT’ WHO PROMOTE THEM.

The reasons for this were several–first and foremost was that the entire Islamophobia industry is dishonest and by extension, inherently unfair. Moreover, it has resulted in REAL LIFE suffering for innocent people, including American Muslims who are subjected to a genuine campaign of terrorism, against both them as individuals and also against their families and communities, to say nothing of the present wars taking place in Muslim countries being waged by the West.

HOWEVER, THE MOST DANGEROUS ASPECT TO IT has been the fact that these lies are the FUEL for wars that WILL DESTROY THE PLANET IF NOT STOPPED. These lies serve as the kindling, fuel and oxygen for an inferno that threatens to destroy everything.

HOW? SIMPLE–Professional Islamophobes such as Pamela Geller, Wafa Sultan, Robert Spencer, Geert Wilders, Walid Phares and the rest have the ear of American and Western politicians. The story below concerning the lunatic Santorum is perfect proof of this. ‘Eurabia’ is a DISTINCTLY ISRAELI idea introduced and promoted by a professional Israeli Islamophobe Bat Ye’or who works closely with Israeli intelligence in providing additional fuel for this bonfire that benefits ONLY ONE entity–THE JEWISH STATE.

It is for this reason that we at TUT urge all people of reason and fairness to make a special point of exposing these agents of destruction for what they are–enemies not only of Muslims but of the entire planet.


For the past two weeks, the entire mainstream American media homed in on newsletters published by Republican Rep. Ron Paul, an anti-imperialist, conservative libertarian who finished third in last night’s Iowa caucuses. Mostly ghostwritten by libertarian activist Llewelyn “Lew” Rockwell and a committee of far-right cranks, the newsletters contained indisputably racist diatribes, including ominous warnings about the “coming race war.” At no point did Paul denounce the authors of the extreme manifestoes nor did he take responsibility for the content.

The disturbing content of Paul’s newsletters was a worthy campaign outrage, and one he should have been called to account for, but why did it gain mainstream traction when the reactionary views of the other candidates stayed under the radar? One reason is that Paul threatened the Republican establishment by attacking America’s neo-imperial foreign policy and demanding an end to the US-Israel special relationship.

Those who pushed the newsletters story the hardest were neoconservatives terrified by the prospect of Paul edging into the mainstream with his call for a total cut-off of US aid to Israel. In fact, the history of the newsletters was introduced to the American public back in early 2008 by Jamie Kirchick, a card-carrying neocon who has said that Muslims “act like savages” and once wrote that I possessed “a visceral hatred of my Jewish heritage.” Having declared former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney as their favorite wooden marionette, the neocons had a clear ideological interest in resuscitating the newsletters story once Paul emerged this year as a presidential frontrunner.

Though Romney won Iowa, he succeeded by a mere 8 votes over former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. The mainstream press is now fixated on Santorum, praising him for his “authenticity” and predicting he will continue to win over “gritty Catholics,” as MSNBC host Chris Matthews said today. But now that Santorum is in the limelight, he is also going to be thoroughly vetted. So the question is whether the media will devote anywhere near the same level of attention it gave to Ron Paul’s newsletters as it will to Santorum’s record of hysterically Islamophobic statements and anti-Muslim activism. So far, I have seen nothing to suggest that it will.

In 2007, a few months after Santorum was ousted from the Senate in a landslide defeat, he accepted an invitation from right-wing provocateur David Horowitz to speak at “Islamo-Fascism Campus Awareness Week.” As I documented in my video report on Horowitz’s appearance at Columbia University that year, “Islamo-Fascism” week was a naked ploy to generate publicity for the frenetically self-promoting Horowitz while demonizing Muslim-Americans as a dangerous fifth column who required constant government monitoring and possibly worse. The event was so extreme that even Jewish groups like Hillel known for promoting Zionism on campus rejected it.

There is no video documentation or transcript of Santorum’s speech at Horowitz’s “Islamo-Fascism Awareness” event. However, I was able to find a transcript of a speech Santorum delivered at Horowitz’s invitation in March 2007. During his address, the ex-Senator declared the need to “define the enemy,” but he made little effort to distinguish between the general population of Muslims and violent Islamic extremists. If anything, he seemed to conflate the two.

Here are a few of the remarkable statements Santorum made at Horowitz’s event:

“What must we do to win? We must educate, engage, evangelize and eradicate.”

“Look at Europe. Europe is on the way to losing. The most popular male name in Belgium — Mohammad. It’s the fifth most popular name in France among boys. They are losing because they are not having children, they have no faith, they have nothing to counteract it. They are balkanizing Islam, but that’s exactly what they want. And they’re creating an opportunity for the creation of Eurabia, or Euristan in the future…Europe will not be in this battle with us. Because there will be no Europe left to fight.”

We should “talk about how Islam treats homosexuals. Talk about how they treat anybody who is found to be a homosexual, and the answer to that is, they kill them.”

“…the Shia brand of Islamist extremists [is] even more dangerous than the Sunni [version]. Why? Because the ultimate goal of the Shia brand of Islamic Islam is to bring back the Mahdi. And do you know when the Mahdi returns? At the Apocalypse at the end of the world. You see, they are not interested in conquering the world; they are interested in destroying the world.”

“The other thing we need to do is eradicate, and that’s the final thing. As I said, this is going to be a long war.”

The Islamophobic rant Santorum delivered at an event organized by a known bigot was no less extreme than anything contained in Ron Paul’s newsletters. But don’t wait for the American mainstream press to discuss Santorum’s disturbing views on Muslims as anything other than proof of his “authenticity.”

Michael Collins Piper
Chapter Sixteen:
The Cold War and the Early Origins of
the Trotskyite “Neo-Conservatives”
As the Zionist Vanguard of The Enemy Within
It is no coincidence that what in effect was the FBI’s takeover of the Communist Party USA came at precisely the time when a group of “ex-communists”were taking control of the “conservative”movement in the United States.
The method by which Hoover and the FBI “turned” high-ranking Communist Party USA official Morris Childs into a secret agent for the FBI points toward the little-understood “family fight” between the anti-Zionist Stalinist elements in Soviet Russia and their Trotskyite foes,many of whom are now in control of the so-called “neo-conservative” movement in America.
In his book The Secret History of the FBI, Ronald Kessler reported that the FBI convinced Childs to turn informant by claiming that Soviet boss Josef Stalin (who had recently died) had abandoned Marxist ideals.
In fact, the FBI’s argument is one of the arguments used against Stalin by the political heirs and disciples of Stalin’s hated rival, Leon Trotsky, who was killed in exile in Mexico at Stalin’s direction in 1928.
That the FBI adopted Trotskyite rhetoric to influence Childs adds substance to long-held and growing suspicion that certain “anti-communist” elements in the American “conservative” movement were, in fact, effectively deep-cover Trotskyites working to “turn” the anti-communist conservative movement from within.
Although, in the period in question (the mid-1950s), the rising “anti-communist” leader was “former” CIA operative William F. Buckley, Jr., future elements rising within the Buckley sphere of influence came to prominence in U.S. policy-making circles.And, as we shall see later in this chapter, and in subsequent chapters, those in Buckley’s sphere of influence played a major part in ushering today’s so-called “neo-conservatives” into power.
Ultimately, the so-called neo-conservative elites solidified under the leadership of a ubiquitous father-and-son team, Irving and William Kristol, who have established a far-reaching and influential network in official Washington.The senior Kristol, an “ex-Trotskyite” and a veteran of the CIA-financed International Committee for Cultural Freedom, began to infiltrate and remake the “conservative”movement, first in the mid-1950s under the patronage of Buckley, Jr.and then more openly during the Ronald Reagan era of flourishing Republican conservatism.
In fact, many of the problems that America is facing today are a direct consequence of what happened during the era of Ronald Reagan’s presidency when the neo-conservatives became increasingly prominent and were placed in positions of influence in official Washington through the efforts of the Kristol-sponsored Zionist “neoconservative” syndicate.
A noteworthy example: The infamous Iran-Contra affair, in which the United States, allied with Israel, engaged in global arms trafficking and in the trade of illicit drugs in order to prop up its foreign policies in both Central America and the Middle East.
This Iran-contra matter—which critics said should have been more forthrightly described as the “Israel-Iran-contra”affair—established a network of corrupt businesses and bought-and-paid-for politicians (including Bill and Hillary Clinton in Arkansas), along with high-level intriguers in Washington (notably the much-heralded Lt. Col. Oliver North) in league with Israeli arms dealers and Latin American drug lords, all of whom conspired to enrich themselves at the same time they effectively advanced the foreign policy aims of the Zionist elite. One simply cannot examine Ronald Reagan’s “Iran-contra” legacy without acknowledging this central fact.
However, somehow, in most accounts, the role of Israel and its American enablers always seems to be ignored.And it was this Iran-contra network which, in many respects, laid the groundwork for the clique of “neo-conservative” conspirators who—during the years that followed—made their way into positions of influence with the Reagan Republican policy-making establishment in Washington and later solidified their influence in the administration of the figure who was hailed as “the new Ronald Reagan”: George W. Bush.
The same can be said about the other Reagan-era Republican scandal—less well known, but equally significant—often referred to as “Iraqgate,” the arming of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.The same Reagan-era cabal that helped arm Saddam, having likewise helped arm his enemy, Iran, added massive fuel to the fire of the Middle East, creating a framework upon which Israel was able to expand its influence at the cost of millions of lives and horrible destruction that laid the groundwork for future geopolitical tensions in that region.And an examination of “Iraqgate” also finds the same forces—and personalities (including the Clintons and, again, Oliver North)—very much in play.
Finally, of course, Ronald Reagan is remembered fondly by Americans, not so much because of his policies, but because of his cheerful personality and his patriotic image. But the operative word here is “image”—not reality.The ugly fact is that during the Reagan era, a clique of very real Judas Goats spread their influence felt and the consequences remain with us today, more damaging than ever, particularly during the era of George W. Bush.
It is William Kristol, the son of the aforementioned neo-conservative “godfather,”Irving Kristol who perhaps best personifies the evil face of the neo-conservatives today.A media darling who is a member of the powerful Bilderberg group, Kristol is publisher and editor of billionaire Rupert Murdoch’s Weekly Standard magazine, using that forum to call for imperialistic U.S. intervention abroad, particularly as a means to advance the interests of the state of Israel.
Kristol’s chief financial angel,Murdoch, is a long-time front man for the combined forces of the Rothschild, Bronfman and Oppenheimer families who, with Murdoch, are often described as “The Billionaire Gang of Four.”This clique of billionaires are tied together not only by a mutual association in international financial wheeling and dealing but also by ethnic ties and a devotion to promoting the interests of the state of Israel. They are also widening their control and influence over the American media with Murdoch’s operations being perhaps the most visible.
(Later in these pages we will examine Murdoch in further detail.)
Kristol-sponsored neo-conservative fellow-travelers have been represented in policy-making circles in the current George W. Bush administration by such figures as longtime Israeli loyalist Richard Perle, once chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Perle’s longtime ally, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz (now head of the World Bank), and Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby. All were among the key figures beating the drum for war against Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya and any other nation deemed dangerous to the survival of Israel.
Although Libby was criminally indicted for some of his misdeeds and the rest of the neo-conservatives have been exposed Hellish serial liars of the worst sort, these Zionist Trotskyites still hold great sway in Washington.In some respects,it might be said, the Trotskyites triumphed in America where, quite in contrast, they failed in Russia.
For the whole sordid history of the neo-conservatives—in far greater detail—see The High Priests of War, by the present author. It is not a pretty story, but one that needs to be told, for it helps explain the insidious nature of The Enemy Within.
However, long before the neo-conservatives came to the prominence and power that they hold today, during the 21st century, there arose an influential group of self-styled “responsible conservatives” who laid the groundwork for the rise of the neo-cons. These “responsible” conservatives moved within the sphere of a character named William F.Buckley, Jr.,who—along with his closest cronies—we will dissect in the pages that follow.

The True Story of Sharia in American Courts

King: Time to investigate Muslims, again

The Madness of Western Civilization
In the immediate hours and days after the September 11 attacks, propagandist chiefs Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Israeli Minister of Defense Ehud Barak, all appeared on television to put out their twisted narrative that Islamic extremists were responsible for the tragedy, without providing any evidence for their assertions.

Sur ce blog:

Les réseaux sionistes et leur campagne de propagande anti-Islam

La tragédie d’Oslo éclaire les liens entre les nationalistes européens et juifs unis dans la haine de l’Islam

La main des services secrets sionistes et occidentaux derrière les affrontements entre chrétiens et musulmans en Égypte

Analyse du rapport du FBI sur les « Israéliens dansants »

This entry was posted in Non classé. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.