Friday, 17 August 2018

Rogue states


In this world there are many rogue states. The most dangerous rogue states are those which accept the Billions of Dollars of Dictators from the third world. These money are responsible to the kill of millions of innocent victims and deserting nations of billions of inhabitants.  

Thursday, 9 August 2018

About the book


What happened in Syria can easily be replicated in any other part of this world. The war became a product which is being reproduced and replicated. It is urgent that humanity understands what has really happened.  It is also must understand how it happened and why so that we can stop this from consuming from our planet.  It is like the flames of a dragon burning up one nation after another.


Reflecting on the essays in this book, the reader may begin to understand not only what has happened in Syria, but also what is currently happening in Yemen, Libya and soon in many other parts of this world.




When the word “war” is used, some glorious scenes might come to mind. Wars could be those historical battles, where strong young men meet to demonstrate their youth and strength, and where the leaders strive to show their intelligence. We all go to cinemas to watch films about such wars. We tell children stories about them. Thus, I find “war” far too romantic when I try to describe what happens in Syria. In this tragedy, no skills were demonstrated but turning hospitals, children, and civilians into piles of limbs and blood. The leaders of the fighter parties have barely met and hardly lost at all. They came back home at the end of the war, all safe, all winners, with enlarged pockets and full bank accounts, while millions of civilians were displaced. Unlimited stories of torture, unlimited limbs were cut, unlimited eyes were gouged out and heads were cut off. The war was not designed to fight for something. No land, raw material or strategic position was gained. It was not for fighting or winning. It was designed just to create the most tragic story in human history.

It is not only the number of victims that made this tragedy one of the ugliest wars in history[1]. What defines the Syrian war is that it happened at a time when the world was supposed to be “mature,” with apparent sophisticated international law systems implemented by nations and organizations who assumed that such a war was no longer possible on this planet. The massacres in Rwanda or Kosovo happened before – while humanity was taking a “nap”. Times had changed and the international community “came of age” and its ethics became clear enough to make such cases exist only in history books. At least, that is what the Syrians thought (or were led to believe).

The millions of demonstrators who headed out to the streets had enough reason to act against such corrupt and murderous regimes. However, they had enough reason before that as well and refrained from such steps for decades. They were not ignorant of their regime’s ethics (or lack thereof) and its unlimited brutality. Actually, they have been aware of this regime and its allies’ amoral standards since 1982, or even earlier. Neither were they so stupid that they miscalculated their arsenal versus their country’s[2]. They took these steps relying mainly on the supposed “maturity” of the world’s nations and organizations, including many outsider events which were completely out of the Syrians’ influence[3]. However, and this is very important, this reliance didn’t come spontaneously, rather it was carefully planned, and this point is critical to understanding exactly what happened.

Declarations and promises by presidents like Obama, Erdogan, and European leaders[i] were systematic and clear. They were accompanied by serious work on the ground. Tracking these declarations across the years of crises leaves no doubt that they were not accidental, mistaken, or innocent[4].

Was it then a “conspiracy” against the Syrian regime?

Here is the mysterious part of the story: the regime of Assad was a part of this “conspiracy” not a bystander or a contradicting force. All of his acts and reactions supported the mission of this conspiracy and aided it. The media coverage explained the unjustified violence by Assad’s regime as a sort of fascism, sadism or political stupidity. As you read further you will understand why this explanation is not sufficient nor logical. Assad is not the only player in this game nor a dictator disconnected from any other power. He is connected to the most powerful and well-established intelligence organizations in the world. His regime is an international business. None of the owners of this business are going to leave the security of this empire up to the stupidity of a dumb dictator. So, every action taken was studied and deliberately chosen. But for what purpose?

That is what I will try to explain throughout the following pages of this book.





[2] A hunting gun is the most used killing weapon an individual could own before 2011 against a regime that was prepared to face Israel, backed unlimitedly by Russia, Iran, and many other countries and semi-countries (like Hezbollah and plenty of radical sectarian and mercenary militias).
[3] Events like huge waves of weapons and foreigner inflows, besides financial and media factors, which I will describe thoroughly throughout the pages of this book.
See Reuters’ Article on 22.11.2011 “Turkish PM calls on Syria's Assad to quit. While Turkey is opposed to outside intervention, it has met with Syrian opposition groups and allows them to meet in Turkish cities. It has also given refuge to Syrian army defectors but denies it is supporting an armed resistance. Turkish newspapers quoted officials at the weekend saying Turkey could set up a no-fly or buffer zone in Syrian territory to protect people from Assad’s security forces, in order to head off a potential mass exodus of refugees from Syria.
Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan called on Tuesday for Syria’s president to step down and likened Damascus’s crackdown on protesters to the tactics of Nazi Germany.




[i] 10 June 2011 Erdogan, Speaking on Turkey's ATV channel, said: “The situation in Syria for Turkey is not like that one in Libya, Syria is almost like an internal affair (for Turkey). We have an 800- to 900-kilometer border. We have relatives there. Turkey can’t accept repeating Hama massacre. http://archive.arabic.cnn.com/2011/syria.2011/6/10/turkey.syria/

Two years later, Erdogan would appear again repeating the same Monologue. At that time, the Syrian victims of this play exceeded triple the number of Hama massacre. Though, Erdogan didn’t seem to be regretful or excusing. He rather looked like an actor who keep his performance as it was written for him.
This play continued in the same momentum till the moment of writing these lines. The propaganda channels, which are financed mainly by Qatar, didn’t stop praising him as “the leader who didn’t let the Syrians down”. This continued non-stop during the 8 years of the Syrian tragedy, even after 600,000 killed, 10 million were displaced and unknown amount of damage and lost.

19 Aug 2011,  Obama said “Assad must resign”
“U.S., Europe call for Syrian leader al-Assad to step down”
“Secretary Clinton Says Syrian President Assad 'Must Go'”

May 16, 2013, “Obama and Erdogan: Syria's Assad Must Go”

The speech was just after Obama’s so called “red line” was crossed, in which Assad reportedly used the chemical weapons as the American investigations have proved.

“I have, at this point, not ordered military engagement in the situation.  But the point that you made about chemical and biological weapons is critical.  That’s an issue that doesn’t just concern Syria; it concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel.  It concerns us.  We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people.
“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.  That would change my calculus.  That would change my equation.”

“In April, in a letter sent to lawmakers saying there was evidence that chemical weapons had been used in Syria, White House legislative affairs director Miguel E. Rodriguez asserted”

Till the moment of writing this lines, the play is just going on in its same momentum. 







Excerpted from The Jimmy Dore Show
MSNBC Panel On Syria with Jeffrey Sachs, professor of sustainable development and health policy at Columbia University,
The original video can be watched here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O2TRzA2ezk&feature=youtu.be

Homicidal Frankensteins: The Role of the Intelligence Agencies in the Syrian Crisis


Introduction: 


In the Iran-Contra Affair "the National Security Council (NSC) became involved in secret weapons transactions and other activities that either were prohibited by the U.S. Congress or violated the stated public policy of the government."  

”It was planned that Israel would ship weapons to Iran, and then the United States would resupply Israel and receive the Israeli payment.”  

The president at the time, Ronald Reagan, “gave the impression of knowing little of what was going on.” Several investigations were conducted. Neither found any evidence that President Reagan himself was aware of the multiple programs’ details.

“The funds were first sent to Saudi Arabia” . The Saudi businessman “Khashoggi was an important middleman in the arms deals behind the Iran-contra scandal”  .

When we reflect upon this issue , we come to notice a few interesting details:

The relations between the main players of this scandal were severely complicated. Iranian officials and citizens called the United States at the time “The Great Satan” and Israel “the Small Satan”. It was not unusual to hear declarations like “Israel should be annihilated”. The percentage of Iranian citizens who shared this view with Iranian officials was not small. The feelings that the Israelis and Americans harboured against the Iranians were not much different.

When we talk about Saudi-Israeli or Saudi-Iranian relations, the landscape looks similarly messy.

How can these countries meet and sign sensitive agreements when they are sunk in such grudge oceans?

When we try to describe the relations between countries, we have to differentiate four different levels of power:

1. The ordinary citizens who are not directly involved in political decision-making.

2. The officials, i.e. the technocrats, ministers, government officers and so on. This level is supposed to care about the interests of the whole nation. However, the views and values of this level are not necessarily the same as that of most citizens.

3. The military complexes and intelligence service agencies .

4. A small circle of leaders and key persons who direct the military complexes and intelligence service agencies.

  

Of course, the four levels described above are not completely disconnected from each other. Important to remember here is: the relations between the countries at each level don’t necessarily reflect the relations at other levels.

Just because the individuals of two countries have peaceful feelings towards each other, that doesn’t necessarily hold true for other levels. Vice versa, when war is declared between some countries, that doesn’t mean that the relationship between these countries’ top level power centers are in the same state of conflict.

 

What we need to keep in mind is: the interests, values and views of each level are not the same. Thus, we shouldn’t talk about them collectively. Otherwise we would end up misunderstanding a lot of political issues today. It is too easy to be manipulated and fooled.

When we say “the Americans invaded Iraq” we are committing a paradigm mistake, one which led to huge misconceptions. What happened was: the top level of decision-makers in the United States made the decision to invade Iraq. This means that the majority of Americans were not invading but were rather victims of this invasion. Furthermore, the US decision-makers responsible for this invasion conspired with figures from Iraq itself. These Iraqis were not among the invaded, but were in fact part of the invasion.

Thus, the contradiction in international politics is not always between nations, i.e. Americans against Iraqis. Rather, the contradiction in many cases lies between, on the one hand, the politicians of all nations, and on the other, the general citizenry of those nations. Correcting this misconception is the first step towards understanding modern political events, and to finding solutions for the soaring wave of wars.








How and when did these organizations get to their unique position?


The acquisition of power by these bodies was not accidental. It happened gradually throughout history. It was an evolutionary process with roots going back to the middle ages and ancient times. However, this process witnessed its most dramatic leap during the world wars of the twentieth century[1].
Until World War II history was still based upon the sole decisions of dictators, kings and princes. World War II itself was driven by the unique perspectives and actions of one person, like Hitler, and developed out through the reactions of persons like Stalin, Churchill and others[i].
However, these dictators and rulers invested heavily in improving security services during World War II. There was no other option at that time. They were interested in defeating the enemy at any price. They handed to these services all nations’ resources and possibilities.  They also assigned many tasks to these organizations. These entities became not only espionage and military organizations, rather they expanded their work to include propaganda, media control, and crowd observation.

Since the World War II, these bodies have gained exceptional tools to retain their position as independent decision makers. These services gained organizational capabilities and structures that made them independent from the technocrat rulers. Their structure allowed them to maintain their power even after the wars ended.

These mechanisms are a mix of legal, political, and financial tools.  There also exist loopholes along with media “tricks.” Most important they have a wealth of studies, unlimited historical case studies and experience. In a phrase, there is a wealth of information.  

Mechanisms which were created at that time guaranteed them these exceptional privileges to the present. They have now their own view which doesn’t necessarily comply with the view of the majority of individuals or even with the technocrat politicians. Presently they are not now mere administrators for their countries’ leaders. They have an organic independent life on their own apart from their creators.


Later the intelligence organizations in the superpower countries developed similar structured organizations in the third world. The superpowers’ security services transmitted, conditionally and partially, part of their wealth of knowledge, experience and organizational capabilities to their counterparts in the third world. This way, the services in the developed world kept their domination over the third world. They own the knowledge which controls the crowds of these nations and they transmit it to specific groups which comply with their policies and goals.  

Where do the superior capabilities of these entities come from?



Historically, the human groups who were one step further in owning specific knowledge could dominate and control those who were one step behind.
Some nations who owned the knowledge about gunpowder, though they were far fewer, controlled other continents.

What knowledge can justify the superior position of these organizations over a nation?
Perhaps the long term accumulated and intensified knowledge over the short life-long divided ones.
The power sources of these organizations come mainly from focused information and  a profound experience accumulated in key fields.  These fields include propaganda, control of the media and public perception.

If this is true, why don’t the common people of a nation gain the same knowledge?
Here is the first tricky part in the story. When the nations were controlled by people using gunpowder, the people of the controlled nations actually knew that they were controlled. They strived to learn the nature of the control in order to restore their freedom. Those who are controlled by subtle weapons like manipulation, media or mind control don’t know that they are being controlled or manipulated. That is why they don’t have any motivation to learn about the nature of modern control.
Individuals can’t build airplanes or operations systems. Only huge organizations can. These organizations use the knowledge and experience of thousands of scientists accumulated across decades or even centuries, focus them in one project, then it could be done.

However what kind of products do such organizations deal with?
Here is the second tricky part of the story. While companies like Apple or Tesla rush to tell us about their products even before they produce them, the intelligence forces invest in products that they are keen not to talk about.  These products, if they would ever have names, they would be training programs called something like: “how to control minds” or a book called “how to influence nations’ opinions and direct them”, or software called “how to divide a nation, create a war and profit from it.”

 




The Science of Creating a War


“If the newspapers begin to publish stories about wars, and the people begin to think and talk of war in their daily conversations, they soon find themselves at war. People get that which their minds dwell upon, and this applies to a group or community or a nation of people, the same as to an individual.” Andrew Carnegie, circa 1908

The Prince” was written in the early 16th century. In this book, Niccolò Machiavelli explained a series of “tips and tricks” to contemporary leaders in order to teach them how to control nations and dominate crowds.
The title came from the principal person that Machiavelli wrote to, hoping for some favoritism. It could also be titled, “How the prince should behave to stay prince”.
However, if such book was written in our time in the United States, a completely different title would be chosen for it. It could be called something like, “How to dominate nations and control the crowds,” or “Controlling nations for dummies” or something similar.
The author would become a consultant and start big consultancy firm. He would start to target the wealthy governments who are thinking day and night how to maintain their superior position. The book could be taught in training programs. If the writer lived in Silicon Valley, he might consider developing an app called “how to control crowds.” 
If billions of dollars were invested to develop apps like Tinder or video games, how much money would you expect to be invested in such an app?
The business related to such products is not estimated in the billions of dollars, rather in trillions of dollars[2].
But who might be the users of such an app? Who might be the students of such a program or the readers of such books?
Here is how Anthony Robbins described his experience when he worked with the U. S. Army and the CIA:
 “Years ago, I had the unique opportunity of working with the U. S. Army, with whom I negotiated a contract to reduce certain training times for specialized areas. My work was so successful that I also went through  top-secret clearance and had a chance to model one of the top officials in the CIA, a man who'd worked his way up from the bottom of the organization. Let me tell you that the skills that he and others like him have developed for shaking another person's convictions and changing their beliefs are absolutely astounding. They create an environment that causes people to doubt what they've always believed, and then give them new ideas and experiences to support the adoption of new beliefs. Watching the speed at which they can change someone's belief is almost scary”[3]

The more artificial intelligence (AI) technology gets better, the gap between these Frankensteins and the common masses get bigger. Here is how Alon Ben David, defense reporter describes this view
“How Israel Rules The World Of Cyber Security” “We're talking about here is a total revolution of the whole concept of war it changes everything we thought about war and how it's been conducted and what are the rules and who is the enemy and can you recognize the enemy at all many countries have very dangerous cyber tools some are using it viciously like the Russians like the Chinese and are not shy of using them against other countries we all understand the vulnerabilities of critical infrastructure and we all understand the vulnerabilities of privacy but what troubles me is the ability to affect the mindset of masses the mindset of Republic the Russians were manipulating American public mindset that's scary and that I suspect would eventually undermine most of Western democracies in the coming decade I fear that the good 70 years post World War two of prospering democracies in the Western world and prosperity economic prosperity are over!”[4]




[1] “Following the outbreak of war with Germany in 1914, the Foreign Section worked more closely with Military Intelligence. […] This was a period of dramatic growth and change for the Service, but its work had a major influence on the eventual victory.” Retrieved on 09.06.2018 from the British Intelligence Service, MI6’s official website: https://www.sis.gov.uk/our-history.html
[2] The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict, by Linda J. Bilmes and Joseph E. Stiglitz. ISBN: 978-0393334173.
[3] “Awaken the Giant Within” by Anthony Robbins, 2001. ISBN-13: 978-0743409384





[i] Dictators improved the work of the intelligence organizations to meet the complicated challenges of modern international political realities. However, many facts played a role in helping these organizations reach this ultra-unique position:
-          The democratic changes in almost the entire world, which reduced the powers of presidents and kings[i][i].
-          The complicated work of decision making on an international scale. Modern technology made it necessary that decisions are be made based on long-term studies and experience, rather than the view of dictators.
-          This profits achieved because of this business proved to be the most important work, which achieved more than any other sector.
-          The huge and dramatic leap in the business size and concept. This leap was parallel to revolutionizing changes in science capabilities and scale.

Tuesday, 7 August 2018

The Role of the Media in Creating the Syrian Crisis


The telling of the story of Syria remains incomplete without going through the role of the media and international organizations.  This means primarily the intelligence agencies, the military complexes, and some NGOs which are influenced and directed by the latter.

In this chapter I will describe some behaviors of these entities.

The role that these organizations played in the Syrian tragedy is not small. In one way or another, the behavior of these organizations is responsible for the massacre. It is the deadly part of the story. All other things which the media focused on were either distraction or the result of the behavior of these bodies. Without these organizations, the amount of Syrian bloodshed would not have reached such a horrible level.


But do I believe in the conspiracy or not?[1]

Well, here is how I see it: It is not most important to decide whether there is a conspiracy or not. No matter if events are part of a conspiracy or not, humanity urgently needs to be aware of the behavior of these organizations.
Most important, the Syrian tragedy is not the last episode of this bloody series. It was not the first one either. The behavior of these organizations keeps multiplying the tragedy into unlimited copies. It is like a complicated product which needs a long time to be designed and manufactured. However once it starts to function, it quickly produces thousands of similar pieces in rapid succession. This is how it appears to me when I watch these organizations multiply what happened in Syria.  It spreads to other countries like Yemen, Venezuela, Jordan, etc. The Syrian tragedy itself was an updated version of the Iraq war and before that the Afghan war.


The Behavior of Syrian and Arabic Speaking Media


The Arabic speaking media polarized the Syrian nation telling completely different stories about the nature of the conflict. The opposition media talked about freedom, revolution, democracy, or the right of the Sunni majority to govern Syria. Meanwhile the media of  Assad’s regime was talking about the global conspiracy against the regime. Each party got tremendous support from its allies. The regime’s media was backed by the media sources of Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. There were unlimited mercenary writers.  These journalists were reporting to the Arabic speaking and international media. The landscape on the other side was not different. Media channels like Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, and others played a big role in preparing the Syrian crowds for the revolution. This role continued throughout the years of the revolution. These media channels chose the representatives of the Syrian opposition and their speakers.
Again, I am not going to go through the question as to whether these channels acted as a part of a previous plan or if their acts were just a normal response to the events and circumstances. However, I might mention that the story of a polarizing media didn’t start in 2011, but instead many years before that. 
The British Broadcasting Corporation BBC[2] produced a documentary covering the phenomena of the spread of sectarian TV channels. The documentary concluded that most of these TV channels were supported and financed by unknown or ambiguous founders and contributors. These TV channels are responsible for the bloodshed in Syria and many other Muslim countries.
The report stated that: “The most provoking channels produce not only from Arabic countries, rather from Great Britain […]. We observed the existence of tens of Islamic TV Channels […] Their content can’t be broadcasted, it is provoking […]
The BBC team could find 120 religious TV Channels, 20 of them which broadcast provoking content. The report investigated a couple of them which are:
-          Alanwar 2 TV channel, a Shiite TV Channel. It invites the Shiite to fight in Syria against the Sunnis. The offices of this channel exist somewhere in an unknown location in Baghdad. An Alanwar executive refused to name the contributors or the financier.  [Al Anwar TV is a Shiite TV Channel which was founded 2004 and broadcast from London, its headquarters is in Kuwait and has offices in Syria, the United States, Lebanon and Iran).
-          Ahl Al Bait TV Channel. This also is a Shiite TV Channel which collects money from Iraq and broadcasts from United States. Its founder is Hasan Allah Yari, an Afghani Shiite cleric who resides in San Diego, California.  He is accused of  having connections with the C.I.A[3].
-          Safa TV. A Sunni TV Channel that broadcasts from Egypt. The BBC journalist met one of Safa’s moderators and accompanied him in his “Jeep Cherokee” car to the Channel headquarters. Safa is considered one of the best equipped channels. The Safa moderator considers the Shiite doctrine a fake ideology created and financed throughout the history by Jews. The finance of Safa TV –according to the BBC journalist- is covered with the utmost secrecy. However, the BBC’s investigations led to that the director and financier of the channel is actually a Kuwaiti businessman called Khaled Al Osaimi. He refused to meet the BBC team.
-          Fadak TV Channel is located in very a luxurious neighborhood in the UK. The director of the Channel, the Shiite cleric Yasser Al Habib, bought an ex-church building for one million English pounds. He changed it into a mosque/TV channel studio which broadcasts 24 hours.
-          Wesal is a Saudi TV Channel founded in 2009. It also has a branch in the UK. However, it broadcasts in the Persian language, targeting the Iranian masses. It is financed by Saudi and Kuwaiti money. It encourages the Iranians to revolt against their regime and topple it.
The documentary skipped reporting about one of the most influential preachers in the Syrian playground, Adnan al-Arour:
“whose fiery blasts beam across two Saudi-owned Salafist satellite channels, as a bigoted ghoul. Especially damning was footage in which the sheikh rose, shook a warning finger at the camera and vowed to “grind the flesh” of pro-regime Alawites and ‘feed it to the dogs’ […]
The channels where Mr Arour has appeared devote most of their airtime to attacking Shia Islam. His dismissal of Kurdish claims for greater autonomy risked alienating a valuable component of the anti-regime front.” [4].
Al-Arour didn’t stop at preaching and splitting the Syrian community. His role went even further.  He supervised the military operations and the financing of the opposition extremist factions.
“he starred at a rare gathering of commanders from rebel military councils, showed how popular he is among the fighters. Yet it is not just the surge in religiosity among Syrian Sunnis that gives him his cachet. Mr Arour has been a vociferous and effective fund-raiser in the Gulf.”[5]



Thanks to the role of these media channels, Syrians who lived together for decades ended up as complete strangers. In a few months the anti and pro-Assad Syrians became enemies and couldn’t trust or believe each another anymore. This plan was applied again in the opposition areas based on ethnic, ideological or sectarian factors. This was how the extremist areas were made to be so different from the moderate ones. The ultra-extremists started to defect from the less extremist ones and attack them. The Kurdish opposition didn’t want to stay in sync with the Arab Opposition. The media worked on splitting these groups into smaller ones based on tribal, regional and other bases.



The Behavior of the Western Media



Throughout the years of the Syrian crisis, the mainstream media explained the western failure as just a series of accidental mistakes, mere confusion and a lack of experience. This sounds to me simply not convincing. The western intelligence agencies have demonstrated a high performance level in many other events. It reached a very sophisticated level of organization and knowledge decades ago. Further, unintentional confusion can’t continue for many years like it did in the Syrian case and other similar cases like in Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan and others. The bill of each of these failures is estimated to be millions of victims. It is mysterious when these intelligence agencies become suddenly helpless and amateur.

Sibel Edmonds, the Ex-FBI agent illustrated this phenomenon when she described a similar case while she was employed by the FBI:   
“Yassin Al Kadi was one of our guys, CIA guys, with the Turkish Network together, having these terrorist related operations going on. But every time FBI wanted to go and snatch the guy, the State Department and the CIA would step in and they wouldn't let it happen. Then we had 9/11 taking place, and this was when we had Robert Wright coming out talking about it and saying: “they stopped the investigation”, the United States government. We had one of the financers. Okay? And they didn't let us pursue him. They didn't let us capture him. So, by this time Al Kadi was actually declared, even by the United States, that yes, he was in fact the financier. But, even after he was declared they gave him, the United States government, enough time to pack his stuff and go to Albania. It was like “oops” too late we can't catch Al- Kadi he's gone. So he continued his operation. Again, This is the operation Gladio B, with the Turkish operatives in Central Asia, in Caucasus out of Albania. Then, of course they dragged their foot. This is the United States State Department worldwide declared him as the financier of 9/11 and a wanted man. And they said oh he's in Albania and we are going to request Albanians to turn him over. We have his address everything right? Well they made sure it took about two weeks between the time they asked requested Albania until he actually went to Turkey. And again in Albania he had Albanian passport. In Turkey he was already a Turkish, resident there. So he left Albania and U.S. said “oops” we couldn't catch him in Albania. He is not there any longer. He is in Turkey. So the United States told Turkey, they said (you know, knock knock, wink wink): “we want you to give this guy's back. We want him here. He is one of the top financers of 9/11.  And we know that the in Turkey you don't even take a piss without the green light and permission from the United States. Turkey, for the first time ever, told the United States: “we don't have extradition treaty with you, and he hasn't violated any Turkish laws. We are tough. We are a very tough nation and we're not gonna hand him over to you.” and the United States said: "oh okay" and the case ended. Now Al Kadi, actually he has ownership in several banks in Turkey including in Cyprus. And meanwhile he's going to Azerbaijan and again we covered the stuff at Zawahiri. You're looking at the same operation team, you're looking at. And he stayed there for years okay? and meanwhile he's also travelling globally not only to Azerbaijan. He's going to London for his business matters.
And he got some top attorneys and basically told the United Nation: “you need to undeclared me as a terrorist”. So the United Nations took him off the list and U.S. basically covered up this whole thing. How could this guy in Turkey running this operation which is for United States for the CIA operations in Central Asia and Caucasus and the issue was completely covered up? As you know, the media here in U.S. never really covered Al Kadi. You won't find more than handful of articles. And suddenly, lo’ and behold with Erdogan they leaked the fact that, here are the pictures of Erdogan’s sons getting into this ten or 20 million dollar deal with Al Kadi, the al Qaeda top financier. Here is the partnership between this member of our own family and Al Kadi who is Al Qadea's top financier. And that's exactly what we are seeing."[6]

During the Syrian crisis years, the mainstream media overwhelmed their followers with daily reports and explanations similar to the above story narrated by Sibel Edmond. I would call this kind of narrative “the oops” effect. It is a modern generation of manipulation and one of the most dangerous tools used by the media to distract the crowds from what is really going on. 

Doubting such a narrative might lead to thinking about a conspiracy. A conspiracy theory seems sometimes very stupid. However, insisting to believe all these “oops” and abstaining from posing any question about them seem to me even more stupid than thinking of the conspiracy theory way.

The “oops” way of manipulation is the exact inversion of “Aha effect”. Only when we reject believing these frequent “oops”, we might get to the “Aha” effect and start to understand what is going on.




[1] In this section I will try to get free of the fear of being accused of being a conspiracy theorist or a fan of some conspiracy theory. I will tell my interpretation freely. For the readers who suffer a severe allergy in regard to any conspiratorial thinking: You have got a full explanation and facts in the first half of the book. This part I will devote for my own interpretations of these facts.
During my journey of writing this book, some friends criticized me because I skipped mentioning the “family who controls the world.” Others doubted the credibility of the book because I deliberately avoided mentioning the “one organization that controls the whole world” or the role of the “small religious country which controls the world.” Other critics were on the opposite side. They criticized that I write in such a way that gives the impression that I am a conspiracy theorist and advised me to change my style.
Throughout many discussions about the Syrian issue I kept coming to the same conclusion.  A “conspiracy theory” is an issue which can neither be proved nor denied. It is like the question: “Does God exist or not?” I will not overload my small book going into such a question and I will leave to the reader read to interpret my observations in the way that fits their “beliefs.”

The reader can explain these observations as “accidental” or that “events happened according to the nature of things.” I would also never mind if any conspiracy theorist took my observations to prove their theories and complete the missing part of the story (according to them), telling the readers about the one family/organization/country who rules the world. All I want to say is that this book is devoted to the events that I experienced and were in my research area. I mentioned to the reader in the beginning of the book that the book wouldn’t tell the Syrian story from A-Z. I don’t think that any one book can do that. Let's say that this book only tells the story from O to P.  Any work that tells the story before O or after P would be great.

[5] ibid
[6] https://youtu.be/q32-2sMzrWw
[7] Read the Guardian article “How the US sent $12bn in cash to Iraq. And watched it vanish:
The US flew nearly $12bn in shrink-wrapped $100 bills into Iraq, then distributed the cash with no proper control over who was receiving it and how it was being spent.”
Refer also to the book: “Pay Any Price: Greed, Power, and Endless War” by James Risen, pp 2015 ISBN: 978-0544570351