Saudi Arabia Supported Al Qaeda Before and After But Not On 9/11?

May 6, 2016 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - The BBC in its 2004 article, "Al-Qaeda's origins and links," would frankly admit that (emphasis added):
Al-Qaeda, meaning "the base", was created in 1989 as Soviet forces withdrew from Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden and his colleagues began looking for new jihads. 

The organisation grew out of the network of Arab volunteers who had gone to Afghanistan in the 1980s to fight under the banner of Islam against Soviet Communism. 

During the anti-Soviet jihad Bin Laden and his fighters received American and Saudi funding. Some analysts believe Bin Laden himself had security training from the CIA.
The BBC's article merely reports what is accepted as common knowledge and documented fact regarding the inception of this now enduring, notorious and shape-shifting terrorist organization... that it was the initial creation of joint US-Saudi interests.

This fact would carry with it an ironic sting in 2001 when Al Qaeda, allegedly led by Bin Laden, struck the Pentagon in Washington and the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, killing nearly 3,000 people and precipitating now over 15 years of global war.

Without doubt, the US and Saudi Arabia created Al Qaeda, and many believe still control the terrorist organization citing that the immense material support it and its subsidiaries require along with the virtual impunity they enjoy as they operate worldwide could only be due to substantial and influential state sponsorship.

Many have postulated that because the 15 years of war following September 11, 2001 have benefited only a handful of special interests both in the US and Europe, as well as in the Persian Gulf, that it cannot be ruled out that these interests were also somehow involved in the attacks that justified this enduring war to begin with.

At least one center of power involved in Al Qaeda's creation, has been called out by members of the United States government as having continued to support the terrorist organization, including on September 11, 2001. Riyadh.

Before, After, and During 9/11... 

Recently making headlines, the US Congress is attempting to make it possible for victims of the September 11 attacks to sue Riyadh over its role in supporting the terrorists allegedly behind them.


15 of the 19 alleged hijackers were Saudis, 2 were from Saudi Arabia's close ally, the United Arab Emirates, another from Egypt (a Muslim Brotherhood member) and the last from Lebanon. Despite the identities of the hijackers and the obvious ties to both Persian Gulf despots and terrorist organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood they openly back, the United States opted to first invade Afghanistan, then inexplicably Iraq in the wake of the attacks.

US Meddling in Thailand Boosts Bangkok-Moscow Ties

May 4, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The so-called "Pivot to Asia" serving as the current underpinning of American foreign policy in Asia has been repeatedly exposed as a continuation of a decades-old cynical region-wide US gambit to encircle and contain China while establishing military, sociopolitical, and economic hegemony over China's neighbors, particularly those in East and Southeast Asia.


US proxies have long held power in the Philippines and Japan, while Myanmar has recently found itself under direct Western influence through US-British proxy Aung San Suu Kyi and her army of US-British funded political fronts and faux-nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).

Other nations, including Malaysia and Indonesia have encountered increasing hostility from the "pivoting" United States as they choose closer ties to China in exchange for infrastructure and meaningful economic relations versus the West's non-negotiable "free trade agreements" and one-sided military "partnerships."

Thailand finds itself geographically, historically, and geopolitically at the center of this "pivot." Historically, Thailand remains the only Southeast Asian state to avoid European or American colonization. It has accomplished this by striking a delicate balancing act between various opposing hegemonic forces in the region.

More recently, it has weathered over 10 years of political instability brought about by US-proxy Thaksin Shinawatra who served as prime minister from 2001-2006, with his brother-in-law and sister served as nepotist stand-ins up to 2014 when finally he and his political party were completely removed from power by a peaceful military coup.

During Shinawatra's time in power, he would serve Western interests well - sending Thai troops to participate in the unpopular and illegal US invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, hosting the CIA's atrocious rendition program on Thai soil, and attempting to ramrod through a US-Thai free trade agreement without parliamentary approval.

Since Shinawatra's initial removal from power in 2006 and up to and including today, he has received unswerving support from some of the largest lobbying firms in Washington including his former Carlyle Group associate James Baker,  Barbour Griffith & Rogers, Robert Amsterdam, and notorious Neo-Conservative Kenneth Adelman. It is clear that the US seeks to put Shinawatra back into power, or at the very least, use his political front to divide and weaken Thailand as much as possible to gain additional regional leverage.

Thailand now finds itself at the end of a US-European campaign to isolate and shame the nation for dismantling the foreign-backed political networks of Thaksin Shinawatra. Western headlines portray Thailand as an international pariah, when in reality, its increasingly closer relations with Bejing alone equates to the support of a nation that - by itself - represents more people than the US and EU combined. But Beijing is not Thailand's only potential ally. There is another.

Southeast Asia Must Not "Compromise" With Terrorists and Traitors

May 2, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) -  So-called Thai "academic" Thitinana Pongsudhirak of Chulalongkorn University in a Bangkok Post op-ed titled, "Thailand lags as Myanmar gains ground," attempts to convince readers that Myanmar is an example for Southeast Asia to follow, while Thailand is in reverse.


Thitinan's simplistic analysis is based on the most superficial metrics one can observe. Myanmar had "elections," so therefore Thitinan concludes functioning and fair "democracy" must exist. The US and Europe hailed the ascension of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi to power, therefore it must be "good." And Myanmar's military leadership made concessions to allow all of this to take place, therefore "so should Thailand and the rest of Southeast Asia."

Thitinan condemns Thailand for what he calls, "fits and starts from military-authoritarianism to popular rule only to revert to dictatorship, enabled by two military coups in 2006 and 2014."

He fails to mention the "popular rule" removed from power by "two military coups" was led by Thaksin Shinawatra, a man who literally mass murdered nearly 3,000 innocent people in 2003, another 85 protesters in a single day in 2004, and carried out a systematic campaign of murder, assassinations, kidnappings, and physical and legal intimidation to silence his critics and political opponents all while illegally and very openly consolidating his power.

In the wake of the 2006 coup, twice Shinawatra brought mobs to Bangkok, and in 2010 those mobs included 300 heavily armed terrorists who tipped off street battles that killed nearly 100 protesters, by-standers, soldiers, and police. That was before Shinawatra's political subordinates openly called for nationwide arson upon protest stages before dutifully and destructively carrying it out.



Image: The people responsible for doing this to Thailand, never get to run the country again. Period. Not only is Thitinan's omission of these various episodes of mass murder and mayhem dishonest, it is dishonest p precisely in the same manner known-Shinawatra lobbyists are leading many to suspect this so-called "academic" is himself just another lobbyist. 

Thitinan, like many pro-Shinawatra lobbyists impersonating academics, intentionally leaves all of this out, as well as any feasible alternative that could have been used to remove a "popular ruler" from power who was openly trampling both the rule of law, and the lives and livelihoods of the people of Thailand.


The Lingering Danger of Google & Facebook

How two tech-giants helped destabilize the entire MENA region, and how they are far from finished.

April 30, 2016 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - During the 2011 Arab Spring, it was clear to those who bothered to look, that the US State Department and the various arms of soft power attached to it were directly responsible for what was otherwise initially passed off as a spontaneous, region-wide uprising.


Eventually, what was dismissed as "conspiracy theory" regarding the US-backed nature of the uprising, was finally admitted to by the New York Times in an April 2011 article titled, "U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings," which admitted that:
A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington, according to interviews in recent weeks and American diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks.
 The New York Times would go on to admit direct ties between the above-mentioned organizations and both the US Congress and the US State Department.

The article would also admit:
Some Egyptian youth leaders attended a 2008 technology meeting in New York, where they were taught to use social networking and mobile technologies to promote democracy. Among those sponsoring the meeting were Facebook, Google, MTV, Columbia Law School and the State Department.
The 2008 meeting wasn't the only one. And, as it would turn out, Facebook and Google's role in preparing the ground for the Arab Spring, quite literally years before the "spontaneous" protests erupted, was much more complicated than merely being sponsors of a single event in New York.

Hillary Clinton was serving as US Secretary of State both during and in the lead up to the Arab Spring. She even attended via teleconference one of these "technology meetings" briefly mentioned by the New York Times.

Image: Hillary Clinton appears before an audience of recruited agitators the US would use to help implement the Arab Spring just a few years later. 
Also attending the meetings were actually staff from the US State Department and various staff from both Google and Facebook. Also in attendance were members of the US media. In other words, the event was not sponsored by the US government and these two tech-giants, it was organized and conducted by them as well. Their event program (PDF) makes this abundantly clear.

The purpose was clearly to create a unified network combining the US State Department's direction, the tech-giant's technical capabilities, and influence of the US media together to overwhelm the information space when finally the time came for the Arab Spring to unfold. And overwhelm it did. The governments of Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, and Libya fell, with violence and even war breaking out in the latter three, while Syria to this day remains engulfed in violence that began in the wake of the 2011 operation.

More recently, e-mails leaked from then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, reveal further details on just how close the tech-giants work with the government. Some could even say they are an extension of the government.

A CBS article titled, "Clinton Emails Show State Department’s Close Relationship With Google," reveled that:
The latest release of emails sent to and from Hillary Clinton’s private email server reveals a close relationship between Google and the State Department. 

A 2012 email recently uploaded onto Wikileaks’ searchable archive came from Google Ideas director Jared Cohen, who formerly worked as an advisor to Secretary Clinton, indicates that Google wanted to help bolster support for those who defected from Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s military. 

It also showed that before launching a “defection tracker” Cohen wanted the State Department to weigh in on the idea and potentially provide feedback.
Not only does the leak expose what appears to be a revolving door between the tech-giant and the US State Department, but it exposes the fact that regardless of who is working where, Google was working in tandem with the State Department. Cohen was actually listed in the above cited event program as Policy Planning Staff of the Office of the Secretary of State meaning that before moving to Google he was working with Google to undermine various foreign governments, and continued to do so after he moved from government to the private sector.

Just Warming Up 

Google and Facebook are still very much engaged in information warfare for the US government and the special interests that it serves. Likewise, the US State Department is still very much in the business of subverting foreign nations by recruiting, training, equipping and directing collaborators from targeted nations.

Facebook, for example, has expressed plans to get everyone on the planet on the Internet. The seemingly humanitarian mission is in all actuality an attempt to get the world on Facebook, which through its algorithms and ability to censor, ban and delete accounts at will, would virtually control what the world saw and didn't see.

More forward-thinking states like Russia and China have noted this reality of the 21st century battlefield and have responded by creating their own domestic versions of Google and Facebook. An arms race of sorts has begun between these competing services both in terms of reach and capabilities for everything from artificial intelligence deep learning algorithms to the ability to control and influence the flow of information over and within borders.

Tech-centric US-funded nongovernmental organizations have begun to spring up alongside their traditional US-funded collaborators in nations around the world, specializing in doing many of the sort of workshops initially conducted by the US State Department, Google and Facebook before the Arab Spring. For nations either not aware of this or incapable of responding to this threat, it could be comparable to a new weapon of war taking to the battlefield one has no defense to or anything which which to strike back with.

This threat will only increase, with the "information war" becoming more and more literal as advances are made in information technology. The US is openly using information technology to augment its hegmonic ambitions around the world, with e-mail leaks confirming what many have already suspected all along. What is more worrisome is the collaborations and technologies being used now that are not being disclosed or "leaked."

For nations around the world, raising literacy in terms of information technology and the threat it poses can help inoculate their populations from the overwhelming nature of foreign-backed operations like the Arab Spring. By creating and cultivating a domestic information technology sector and recruiting talent before the US does, creating competitive services like Russia's VK and China's Baidu not only serves as a means of improving and diversifying one's economy, but can also serve as an important pillar of national security in the 21st century.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

New Armenia Protests, Same US-Backed Mobs

April 27, 2016 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Another day, another protest in Armenia. And if we were to simply believe the Western media regarding this 'other protest,' we might get the impression that the Armenian people are upset with Russian policy and "Putinism." In reality, the protests are led by the same verified US-proxies exposed at the height of the "Electric Yerevan" protests mid-2015 which sought to undermine and overthrow the current government of Armenia in favor of a pro-Western political front more to Wall Street, London, and Brussels' liking.

Image: Davit Sanasaryan (sometimes spelled "David" and "Sanasarian") hasn't found a US-engineered protest he hasn't felt compelled to join. He eagerly takes US cash to undermine the stability of his native Armenia, just like US proxies do worldwide. 
The International Business Times in their article, "Armenia-Russia Ties Under Question Amid Fighting, Anti-Moscow Protests," would report regarding the recent protests that:

At a recent thousand-strong demonstration in the capital of Armenia, Davit Sanasaryan took out a couple of eggs and threw them at the Russian Embassy. 

The gesture provoked both ridicule and approval in this small landlocked country that traditionally values very close ties with its large northern neighbor. “Our protests are not against Russia but against Russian policy and Putinism,” activist and politician Sanasaryan said in an interview with International Business Times last week.
Davit Sanasaryan (also spelled "David Sanasaryan"), among other things, is an opposition politician with the Heritage Party who helped lead the previous US-backed "Electric Yerevan protests in mid-2015. He is also an associate of the Armenian-based National Citizens' Initiative (NCI), revealed in the NCI's own news bulletin titled, "NCI Focuses on Armenia’s Mining Sector," which reports (emphasis added):
NCI associate Davit Sanasarian welcomed the audience with opening remarks. “The exploitation of the Teghut mine is an actual matter and it calls for serious discussions and proper suggestions prior to the undertaking of this project,” he said.
This bulletin alone seems innocuous enough, however, another NCI bulletin would reveal itself to be coordinating with and receiving aid from the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED). The bulletin titled, "NCI Partakes in a Civil Society Meeting," states (emphasis added):
The National Citizens’ Initiative (NCI) representatives attended, between 14 and 15 April 2011, the conference entitled “Assisting Armenia’s Civil Society Organizations.” This event was an initiative of the European Partnership for Democracy (EPD) organization and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Yerevan Office, and it was organized with the assistance of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). 

The objective of the conference was to contribute in developing the capacity of Armenia’s civil society organizations by way of cooperation and exchange of know-how with Central and Eastern European civil society associations.
Of course, considering that the US NED is chaired by pro-war corporate-financier representatives, "developing the capacity of civil society organizations" in Armenia was not actually on the agenda. Instead, creating a proxy front with which to control Armenia on behalf of foreign interests was, merely couched behind "civil society." Sanasarian's "association" with the NCI in this context, is troubling to say the least.