The Pentagon’s Fake Jihadists

[bobbyw24]

By Tom Engelhardt | August 17, 2011

Put what follows in the category of paragraphs no one noticed that should have made the nation’s hair stand on end. This particular paragraph should also have sent chills through the body politic, launched warning flares, and left the people’s representatives in Congress shouting about something other than the debt crisis.

Last weekend, two reliable New York Times reporters, Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker, had a piece in that paper’s Sunday Review entitled “After 9/11, an Era of Tinker, Tailor, Jihadist, Spy.” Its focus was the latest counterterrorism thinking at the Pentagon: deterrence theory. (Evidently an amalgam of the old Cold War ideas of “containment” and nuclear deterrence wackily reimagined by the boys in the five-sided building for the age of the jihadi.) Schmitt and Shanker’s article was, a note informed the reader, based on research for their forthcoming book, Counterstrike: The Untold Story of America’s Secret Campaign Against Al Qaeda.

And here’s the paragraph, buried in the middle of their piece, that should have stopped readers in their tracks:

http://www.amconmag.com/blog/the-pentagons-fake-jihadists/

[Krugerrand]

For those not looking to click link:

“Or consider what American computer specialists are doing on the Internet, perhaps terrorist leaders’ greatest safe haven, where they recruit, raise money, and plot future attacks on a global scale. American specialists have become especially proficient at forging the onscreen cyber-trademarks used by Al Qaeda to certify its Web statements, and are posting confusing and contradictory orders, some so virulent that young Muslims dabbling in jihadist philosophy, but on the fence about it, might be driven away.”

[oyarde]

What kind of "orders" ??

[iamse7en]

For those not looking to click link:

Wait, so perhaps some of these AlQ reports/messages can be created by Americans and look authentic? Why in the world would the powerful elite want to scare us like this, keeping the bogeyman alive and relevant? lol

[jmdrake]

What kind of "orders" ??

Orders to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings perhaps? And folks have the nerve to say truthers are crazy.

[oyarde]

Orders to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings perhaps? And folks have the nerve to say truthers are crazy.

I would most definately like to see a list of these " orders " .

[oyarde]

If you are giving instuctions to potential jihadists , I somehow think you are no longer a "fake jihadist " , but a real one....

[dannno]

If you are giving instuctions to potential jihadists , I somehow think you are no longer a "fake jihadist " , but a real one....

Hence Alex Jones' prolific use of the term Al-CIA-Duh

[oyarde]

Orders to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings perhaps? And folks have the nerve to say truthers are crazy.

Well , if you did not come out the day before and announce you mis placed a few trillion and then the next day the evidence was destroyed , there may not be so much suspicion ...... If there was anything weird going on , the guy making the announcement did not know , no need for the announcement .

[dannno]

If there was anything weird going on , the guy making the announcement did not know , no need for the announcement .

No, here are three REALLY good reasons why that's wrong.

1. The money is gone, that part never disappears and would eventually need to be addressed. Addressing it before the evidence is destroyed makes for more plausible deniability than if somebody else brought it up later and asked them to explain it then.

2. The next day the world had such a traumatic experience, that they forgot all the news from the day before because it seemed like there couldn't possibly be anything nearly as important than what was going on at the time.

3. If they did it too far before 9/11, then it would have blown up and become a big story and people would have wanted a real investigation. Even 2 days before would have been enough time for everybody to hear about it, but because it happened the DAY before, it never had the time to gain traction.

[oyarde]

No, here are three REALLY good reasons why that's wrong.

1. The money is gone, that part never disappears and would eventually need to be addressed. Addressing it before the evidence is destroyed makes for more plausible deniability than if somebody else brought it up later and asked them to explain it then.

2. The next day the world had such a traumatic experience, that they forgot all the news from the day before because it seemed like there couldn't possibly be anything nearly as important than what was going on at the time.

3. If they did it too far before 9/11, then it would have blown up and become a big story and people would have wanted a real investigation. Even 2 days before would have been enough time for everybody to hear about it, but because it happened the DAY before, it never had the time to gain traction.

I thought about that too , I dunno , I do want to know where the money is ...