39 Comments

"Israel" also literally invented modern terrorism in practice. The Zionists of the early 20th century pioneered violence against civilians and third party governments, often using false flag tactics, for political purposes.

Expand full comment

Indeed, plantong bombs on Iraq synagogues to create fear in Arab-Jews and persuade them to move to the newly established state of Terror known as Israel. See interview of historian Avi Shliam on The Thinking Muslim and also his book, Three Worlds.

Expand full comment

You might be interested in my (free) post that is a select bibliography that almost accuses the Zionists of murdering the Jews WWII, I leave the thinking to the reader. https://shonaduncan.substack.com/p/zionism-vs-judaism-the-holocaust

Expand full comment

What I read about such was that the Zionist Jews abandoned their Brethren from the Ghettos of the EU and then of course, Hitler obliged them, and what was his bitch about Jews? The Zionists wanted only the creme of their crop. While these Zionist/Ashkenazi Jews had no semitic DNA blood and why Netanyahu in his ugly genociding campaign, will not allow blood testing for DNA that would actually prove he and his cabinet are the most anti-Semitic people in the world waging war/genocide on people with the DNA that says they are the people of their land going way back before the imperialist and colonialist Zionists got to land that did not belong to them. They lived before the Balfour Agreement, among a culture of tolerance of the many. See Avi Shlaim's book, Three Worlds. He and his family lived the very and privileged life they had in Iraq prior to the Zionists taking of Palestinian lands. It changed their lives from better to worse when the Mossad bomb their synagogues in false flag operations and their Arab neighbors felt like jews could no longer be trusted. Read his book; last chapter is exceptional.

Expand full comment

Read 1666 Redemption Through Sin (even the blurb on Amazon provides a lot of information), it explains that what we think of as a "Jew" is not universal, they are not homogenous, many practice Satanism. In my Substack I have links to Rabbi Moshe Schonfeld's book accusing the Zionists of Nazi war crimes. I've put screenshots of different books, including 51 Documents and I think also Avi Shlaim's book, and a link to an interview with him. I became interested in the subject of genocides when researching who and why was behind Covid. Two books came out last week, The Pfizer Papers by Naomi Wolf, that details the most tragic deliberate assault in the recorded history of this world. Also a book called Transhuman by Dr Ana M____ she gives photos of the nano technology etc inside the Covid shots. Both books can be given to lawyers. How this relates to Zionism is their incessant hatred, their eugenics/white supremacist believes and the CEO of Pfizer was honored by Israel (he's a dual national I am told).

Expand full comment

Thank you, Kit, for this research. It is amazing how in this era of widely available information people forget and even deny history on a regular basis. Seems that the more information there is on the internet, the less people remember or retain it and they are more likely to believe the recent distortions and lies about the past.

"How does it feel, in the light of all that's going on, to be the father of terrorism in the Middle East?" "In the Middle East?" he [Begin] bellowed, in his thick, cartoon accent. "In all the world!" - Russell Warren Howe interview with Menachem Begin, January 1974

In other words, Zionist terrorism is feared and submitted to, because it is white and extremely murderous, with modern WMD, modern torture technics and nukes. It is forbidden to call Zionist terrorism "terrorism".

In the 80's, Zionists switched the narrative and started using the term "terrorism" in mirror propaganda against their targets.

Today, the term "terrorism" means the struggle of the oppressed people for liberation. And terrorism on the industrial, highly automatized and computerized scale is called "war".

This here is a forgotten Mondoweiss article:

"The June 24-27, 1984 conference was organized by the Jonathan Institute, named after Benjamin Netanyahu’s older brother, a member of the Israeli Special Forces killed in 1976 during the famous raid at Entebbe.

The participants represented a veritable who’s who of Israeli and American politicians, academics and commentators, making the conference (later published into an extremely successful book by Netanyahu) a landmark event in the history of the Israeli and American discourses on “terrorism.”

The purpose of the Institute, through such conferences (the first took place in Jerusalem in 1979), was to convince the governments of the “free world” that the “battle against terrorism” Israel had been waging for years was in fact “part of a much larger struggle, one between the forces of civilization and the forces of barbarism.”

“Terrorism” was said to be intimately linked to “totalitarianism” as well as to Islam. Moscow, along with the PLO and its Arab allies, were repeatedly described as the central actors in a veritable “international terrorist network.”

https://mondoweiss.net/2014/08/israels-terrorism-ideological/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR17rxgsmAglGS2WlQK8edg5A4gHzKjFurXQqNfW0IIob9t5GrjBuDdji_0_aem_2Loi-rTQaYNgLPfL12L6Ow

Expand full comment

Terrorism started with Zionist gangs in Palestine, this exact word.

This is how they called themselves and were called by the British.

Here is Yitzhak Shamir, a former Israeli Prime Minister, a member of the Jewish pre-state militia Lehi (Stern Gang), designated by the British as a "terrorist gang," and the reputed assassin of Count Bernadotte, the UN representative in the Middle East.

"Neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat.

"We are very far from having any moral qualms as far as our national war goes. We have before us the command of the Torah, whose morality surpasses that of any other body of laws in the world: 'Ye shall blot them out to the last man.' We are particularly far from having any qualms with regard to the enemy, whose moral degradation is universally admitted here.

"But first and foremost, terrorism is for us a part of the political battle being conducted under the present circumstances, and it has a great part to play: Speaking in a clear voice to the whole world, as well as to our wretched brethren outside this land, it proclaims our war against the occupier. The real terrorist hides behind his stacks of papers and of laws he himself legislated. [Our terrorism] is not aimed at persons [Lehi & the Irgun, another Jewish terrorist group headed by another future PM, Menachem Begin, killed 232 men, women and children and wounded another 370 from the end of 1937 until the middle of 1939], but rather at representatives, and therefore it is effective. If, in addition, it shakes the Jewish population out of its complacency, so much the better. Thus, and only thus, will the battle for liberation commence."

Published in the Lehi paper HeHazit (The Front), 1943

Expand full comment

Israel learned from the best teacher, Britain. I believe Menachem Begin credited Britain for all of his tactics which we still see today when the IDF uses Arab prisoners as human shields. Orde Wingate did that exact same thing in 1936.

Expand full comment

As Gogs points out, Israel's obsession with 'terrorism' is pure projection- the state of Israel was born of the most systematic terrorist campaign in modern history. Its victims including Count Bernadotte of the UN and Lord Moyne.

Its tactics were founded on the training settler colonists received from the likes of Orde Wingate seconded to Palestine from the Higher Institutes in native popular repression found in India and elsewhere across the empire

Expand full comment

And never mind that Zionist terrorism was already a devastating reality in the years leading up to the Nakba. Begin, Shamir among the leading terrorist thugs. The Zionists are masters in terrorism! Britain lost many who were based in Palestine during the mandate to those bastards, and today stupid old Blighty supports, essentially, the same terrorists.

Expand full comment

It is worth noting that “Israel” was the 1st to hijack a civilian airliner.

https://www.wrmea.org/1994-november-december/israel-was-first-nation-to-skyjack-a-civilian-airliner.html

Expand full comment

This all sounds eerily reminiscent of the dirty tricks Britain's ruling class spent over a century perfecting in their first modern colony of their developed imperialist epoch - Ireland. Especially in the 1960s-90s with how 'The Troubles' played out in their media. Aside from the actual national liberation struggle taking place on the ground, there were always four or five fictional versions of it being sensationalized, promoted, and mystified in mass media. The atmosphere surrounding something otherwise relatively straightforward and understandable became so nonsensical that any average outsider passively consuming British/European media would be the least informed on the subject. Instead of asking uncomfortably awkward questions about foreign military occupation and imperialism, they'd convince people their own eyes and ears were wrong and fill their heads with a bunch of psychobabble about 'sectarianism' or 'extremism' or 'terrorism' - reasons for which must have begun so long ago, for reasons long since forgotten so don't worry about who's doing what to whom - instead of the truth staring you right in the face. They really did figure out the most effective use of public misdirection.

Expand full comment

I believe that monster who created Bibi was quoted here in 1991. But this doctrine was actually developed in the years leading up to the Zionist State. They clearly feel that terror is justified and they have rightful monopoly to this.

Expand full comment

“Palestinians are the canaries in the coal mine of humanity.” Absolutely and horrifyingly!

Expand full comment

Max Blumenthal's 'The Management of Savagery' is a great book, recounting US complicity with the 9/11 hijackers. Like your piece here, though, he doesn't engage with the physics of the 9/11 attacks. It's good to see some, like Piers Robinson, gradually calling out this era-defining abomination for what it was - a false flag. If you haven't already, Kit, it would be good to see you report - or interview - some of those highly qualified researchers who've concluded that the official account is not credible. https://www.ae911truth.org

Expand full comment

I know what you mean, but I don't think Kit can afford to be associated with all that. The bad guys would use it against him.

Expand full comment

It's difficult, isn't it. I've weighed this for a long time and come to the conclusion that we have to be able to have honest conversations about it without fear of being branded conspiracy theorists. There's too much at stake. If the official conspiracy theory is wrong - and I think it irrefutably is - then the way we narrate current history has to be reshaped. As things stand, contemporary history is framed by "terrorism" conducted by "rabid Islamists". Accepting that is to cede territory of legitimation.

Expand full comment

I think I would actually agree with you there - especially about rejecting the fear of being labelled with a term intentionally loaded with negative connotations. I actually enthusiastically embrace the term 'conspiracy theorist' and essentially take back ownership of it. For me, though, as I'm not a prominent journalist one bad move away from the real terrorists bursting into my house at 4 in the morning, it's a little easier.

But it is true that we should all be hammering home certain truths and messages and attempting to wake as many people up as possible. On the other paw, I am fairly certain Kit is aware that the vast majority of his readership already know all these truths. So I think maybe it's about 'delegating roles' or something. I'm sure Kit also knows that many of his readers with less to lose will take care of the education of the people with regards to the basic concept of a false flag and the fact that buildings don't collapse like that without assistance. Laws of physics etc. That way, he can concentrate on these wonderful history explainer articles. Because these articles are essentially 'the big picture' which form the backdrop to all these false flags and hypocritical use of the word 'terrorism' by the real terrorists themselves (psychological projection etc.).

He can be quite clever about it though - notice how in this article he put the word 'blowback' in parentheses, and also linked to a 911 blogger article. Doing it that way means he retains that old chestnut known as 'plausible deniability'.

Expand full comment

Great observations.

Expand full comment

Actually I dont think that is what Kit is doing. I suspect he is referencing a seminal article about this, that was published several decades ago in the UK newspaper the Independent:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/terror-blowback-burns-cia-1182087.html

published Sunday 01 November 1998 00:02 GMT

by Andrew Marshall

"Terror 'blowback' burns CIA

"America's spies paid and trained their nation's worst enemies, reveals Andrew Marshall in Washington"

The point of the referenced article is that the US policy of sponsoring islamic-motivated guerrilla forces in Afghanistan, later on resulted in those very forces turning on the US in reaction to what they saw as the defilement of their holy land with US-bases (in effect US military occupation).

Further more "9/11" was not actually the start of the blowback. These forces, dubbed Al Qaida" by the US, had already in the early 1990s bombed US embassies in Kenya and Sudan, along with the USS Cole off Yemen. And "9/'11" was not the first bombing of the World Trade Center in New York. The same forces were linked to a previous attempt in 1993 in which a truck filled with explosives was set off in the parking garage of the building, placed near support structures where where apparently it was possible to bring the entire building down.

Unfortunately aready back in 2001 we lived in a media landscape devoid of any kind of grasp on history or ability to maintain and connect the dots, so 99.9% of the public were not even aware back then that "9/11" wasnt actually the first attack on the WTC attributed to the same group. And today the social media and mainstream media landscape is even MORE devoid of historical knowledge and insight. Its just one giant ball of momentary noise, with little or no perspective over time.

Anyway all these attacks on US buildings and military assets, by a group formerly known to be on the CIA payroll (via the Pakistani ISS and the Saudi security services) is what was and is considered to be "blockback".

Expand full comment

Sure, I know what you're getting at. 'Blowback', however, was essentially the official cover story to hide the fact that the CIA never stopped arming, funding, training and supporting their manufactured Al Qaeda proxies. Once you understand that this use of proxies never stopped, then the idea that 9-11 was the one blip on an otherwise continuous involvement with 'terrorists' becomes obviously absurd. During the early 90s, for example, these same Al Qaeda terrorists - sorry, CIA proxy mercenaries, were sent into to destabilise the Balkans and carry out atrocities to be blamed on 'the enemy' (i.e. the Serbs). I believe Kit has also written about that extensively.

The same reasoning applies to the likes of Operation Gladio, which is now on its third (or fourth, one loses count) iteration with support for neo-Nazis in Ukraine. This is the way the Empire does things.

I would also venture that the likes of the '93 WTC bombing (for which innocent people were framed and convicted) were also false flags. Same thing for those Embassy bombings. It would fit the pattern, and it would be strange if one of these events did not fit that pattern.

As I say, 'Blowback' is the official cover story - it's a kind of limited hangout where they can admit that they funded and created Al Qaeda in Operation Cyclone but then claim they parted company around 1988. This was then magnified in the mainstream media with the likes of the article you reference.

This also means we can project forwards to events after 9-11 and apply the same logic.

Unfortunately, the implications of this are not psychologically tolerable for most people to accept. They can just about accept blowback, but not complicity.

Expand full comment

Actually the article doesnt "amplify" anything, and isnt sourced from government mouthpeices. It lays out what we know, connecting the dots, and actually does not rule out whether the blowback is intentional. It lays out the possibilities and makes it clear it could be anything from recklessness, to incompetence or even more sinister such as deliverate sabotage.

Also your last sentence goes off on a tangent.

Becse in fact ts actually more than enough that its clearly established that US-sponsored forces have committed attacks on the US: Whether it is false flag or recklessness or incompetence, is actually not relevant to being able to see that these are rogue operations, incompatible with the principles of any democracy, hugely armful to the taxpayers footing the bill - and should have been shut down long ago.

Expand full comment

Just to complete the point, the full text is:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/terror-blowback-burns-cia-1182087.html

News

Andrew Marshall Sunday 1 November 1998 00:02 BST

Terror 'blowback' burns CIA: America's spies paid and trained their nation's worst enemies, reveals Andrew Marshall in Washington

THE CENTRAL Intelligence Agency has its own argot for describing the hallucinatory world within which its employees move. None of its esoteric terms are more euphemistic than "blowback", the term coined to describe operations which end up rebounding against their creators.

But as the Americans slowly unravel the international network surrounding Osama bin Laden, the man they blame for the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, "blowback" is exactly what they are finding.

Last week, it was revealed that one of those under arrest is a former Egyptian soldier named Ali Mohamed, who is alleged to have provided training and assistance to Mr bin Laden's operatives. Yet Mr Mohamed, it is clear from his record, was working for the US government at the time he provided the training: he was a Green Beret, part of America's Special Forces.

Mr Mohamed's arrest seems to be part of a pattern, as the US slowly moves towards the realisation that many of those now arrayed against it with Mr bin Laden were once its allies in the war in Afghanistan. The two sides turned against each other as the war in Afghanistan unwound, and America, not Russia, came to be seen as the enemy.

The US poured cash into Afghanistan throughout the 1980s in an effort to defeat - or at least tie down - the Russians. Its principal ally was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a ferociously anti-communist and militant Islamist leader. The US and Saudi Arabia both sent about $500m (pounds 300m) annually between 1986 and 1989 to fund the mujahedin, and other rich individuals from the Gulf - including Mr bin Laden - spent an extra $20m every month. The US funded the construction of the camps at Khost which it attacked two months ago in response to the embassy bombs.

It had already been known that in those days, the US and Mr bin Laden were on the same side, but it now appears that America may actually have aided Mr bin Laden's organisation and even trained some of those who it now contends are "terrorists". Mr Ali may be the missing link.

It had already been known that in 1989, Mr Ali came to the New York area to train mujahedin on their way to Afghanistan. Those visits have put him in the spotlight once before: among those he trained was El Sayyid Nosair, who was jailed in 1995 for killing Rabbi Meir Kahane, leader of the Jewish Defence League, and, along with several others, with plotting to blow up several New York landmarks. At his trial, Mr Nosair claimed that the reason he had military manuals was that he was being trained by the US, not because he was intent on terrorism. It is uncertain whether Mr Mohamed came to New York on official business, but for some of the trips, he was a serving US Special Forces' sergeant.

Mr Mohamed met the men at the Al-Kifah Refugee Centre in Brooklyn's Atlantic Avenue, a place of pivotal importance to Operation Cyclone, the American effort to support the mujahedin. The Al-Kifah Centre and the associated Afghan Refugee Services Inc were raising funds and, crucially, providing recruits for the struggle, with active American assistance.

The other end of the pipeline was in Peshawar, where the Services Office co-ordinated the transit of people, equipment and cash to the mujahedin, and to Mr Hekmatyar in particular. The Services Office was run by Abdulla Azzam, a colleague of, and influence on, Osama bin Laden, and was part of Mr bin Laden's effort to back the mujahedin. Both the Services office and Al-Kifah were also linked to Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, an Egyptian religious leader later jailed for the planned New York bombings.

The US took a benign view of this at the time. The operation was, after all, assisting in the fight against Communism. As Mr Mohamed's presence showed, those associated with the US military were providing assistance to Al-Kifah. The recruits received brief paramilitary training and weapons instruction in the New York area, according to evidence in earlier trials, before being sent to fight with Mr Hekmatyar. Even Sheikh Abdel-Rahman had, apparently, entered the US with the full knowledge of the CIA in 1990.

But by the mid-1990s, America's view of Al-Kifah had changed. It discovered that several of those charged with the World Trade Centre bombing and the New York landmarks bombings were former Afghan veterans, recruited through the Brooklyn-based organisation. Many of those the US had trained and recruited for a war were still fighting: but now it was against America. A confidential CIA internal survey concluded that it was "partly culpable" for the World Trade Centre bomb, according to reports at the time. There had been blowback.

How and why did the people behind Al-Kifah turn against America? The US cut off funding in 1991 to Mr Hekmatyar, both because the Russians had withdrawn from Afghanistan and because it had at last started to realise that backing Islamic fundamentalism was perhaps not the brightest idea the CIA had ever hatched. America had also gone to war against Iraq in 1991, and stationed troops in Saudi Arabia, outraging Mr bin Laden and other devout Muslims.

There also seems to have been a huge disagreement over Bosnia. In December 1992, a US army official met one of the Afghan veterans from Al-Kifah and offered help with a covert operation to support the Muslims in Bosnia, funded with Saudi money, according to one of those jailed for assisting with the New York bombings. But that effort quickly disintegrated, leaving a great deal of bad feeling.

There are probably only three people outside the US government who ever knew exactly what role the Al-Kifah refugee centre really played, and how far the US helped to build up Mr bin Laden's organisation. One was Mr Azzam, the charismatic Palestinian who ran the Peshawar operation. He was killed by a car bomb in 1989. The second was Mustafa Shalabi, who ran Al-Kifah. He was murdered in 1991. The third is Osama bin Laden, and he is not telling.

And the US government is certainly not about to explain whether it helped create what it now refers to as Public Enemy Number One.

Expand full comment

Has it not long been written that "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"?

The career of the Taliban is most instructive. When they were useful against the Soviets, the people who went on to form the Taliban were invited to the White House and none other than Ronald Regan lauded his guests as "the moral equivalent of the Founding Fathers". Once their usefulness ended, the Taliban were consigned to being retrograde oppressors of Muh Afghan Women and Girls.

For that matter, we may recall the South African and Rhodesian governments labeling anyone that they didn't like a "terrorist". This landed none other than Nelson Mandela on the UK terrorism watchlist - until 2003.

Expand full comment

The source & driving force of today's & greatest STANIC Evil are the jewish Zionists (organizers) together with the goyimic Globalists (like-minded collaborators/ associates). Their imminent & eternal End will be much more painful & tragic than the End of their race in Sodom and Gomorrah.

The satanic Talmud, The Book of the Kahal & The Protocols of the Elders of Zion - In brief (The main features of the ancient jewish-satanic plan to enslave all goyim, i.e. the whole world, and their inner organization are summarized in these books, and the nature of their being as well) https://mile7bar.substack.com/p/the-protocols-of-the-elders-of-zion

Expand full comment

Guess I lost how much I appreciate you and the book you wrote that I own. I would love for you to something on the BRICs since they are including a funding organization that was heavily involved in ripping off other and peoples who dare to go against the BIS, the spelled out, the Bank for International Settlements, which never seemed in favor of those who need justice and equity most. Please do a podcast on BRICS and the BIS. Do take care of yourself. You are so important to the world of people who are trying to create a more peaceful world. Witness the recent UN vote for lifting the genocidal sanctions against CUBA. It does look like the World Against USA and ISRAEL is real.

Expand full comment