PATRICK COCKBURN IS AT IT AGAIN

Last weekend The Independent made an attempt to blame all the world's ills on Saudi Arabia. I covered this in A HALF DECENT EDITORIAL, BUT... This was due to a series of articles by one of their star reporters Patrick Cockburn, who looked at the rise and rise of al Qaeda and our inept ability to conquer them.

Yet Cockburn did not once:
1. question whether 9/11 was an inside job;
2. question why there was a simultaneous Arab Spring and subsequent war and proposals of war to defend Jihadis labeled as 'freedom fighters';
3. mention Israel.

I proposed that Cockburn's marriage into the very wealthy and Jewish Zionist Montefiore family may be having some influence, shall we say, on his one-eyed reporting.

In his latest article for The Independent Cockburn continues to blame Saudi Arabia for all the trouble in the Middle East, not once questioning why it is that the wars in The Middle East all seem to be on countries named in a document entitled A Clean Break which was written by rabid Zionists in 1996 for a demented Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, who has confessed several times that 9/11 was good for Israel.

The Saudi government is showing signs of nervousness. It has backed a counter-revolutionary wave across the Middle East that, in many places, has succeeded. Democratic protesters in Bahrain were crushed in a Saudi-backed clampdown in 2011. In Egypt, it is financially supporting the military regime that overthrew the democratically elected President Morsi in 2013. In Syria, it has ensured that the political opposition is dominated by Islamists and is funded and largely directed by itself.

[source : Patrick Cockburn, The US is paying the cost of supporting the House of Saud as cracks begin to appear, The Independent, http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/the-us-is-paying-the-cost-of-supporting-the-house-of-saud-as-cracks-begin-to-appear-9223659.html, 29th March 2014]

Let's look at 9/11 and the subsequent wars in a different way.

Suppose there was a convicted violent criminal living in your area, and that he had drawn up a list of people he wanted destroying, but he did not have a large enough gang or an excuse to pull it off. But then there is an arson attack on the house of someone he knows can be persuaded to join him in his little scheme. That someone goes berserk because his family was killed and he launches attacks on all those he thinks might be responsible for the arson attack that killed his family. Curiously, the people he attacks are those the convicted violent criminal wanted destroying, and the evidence used to apportion blame was provided by the convicted violent criminal who stood to benefit.

Essentially, that is 9/11.

In the above:
1. the convicted violent criminal is Israel;
2. the arson attack is 9/11;
3. the list of people the convicted violent criminal wanted destroying was A Clean Break;
4. the someone whose house was firebombed was the USA.

There is a bit more to it, in that Saudi Arabia supplied the terrorists/arsonists, but perhaps the convicted violent criminal wanted to use people who didn't look like him and were not in his gang so that there was no obvious connection between himself and the arsonists.

Since 9/11 there has been a series of wars that was revealed to General Wesley Clark. Iraq, Lebanon, Libya were all named to Clark and all have been attacked.

Another nation is Syria, which is currently under a covert attack by cutthroat Jihadis sponsored by Saudi Arabia, but Israel is giving a helping hand, coordinating attacks on Syrian Arab Army HQs with the Jihadis. The Jihadis are in Syria because of an agreement reached between the USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia in 2007 which was reported by Seymour Hersh in an article published by New Yorker Magazine entitled The Redirection.

Clark is on Youtube in several different speeches and interviews stating that he was told this war plan, and also stating that after 9/11 the USA suffered a foreign policy coup, accusing Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld of running that coup.

Now, the last time I looked Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld were very influential in Zionist organisations such as PNAC, and had no allegiance or connection to Saudi Arabia.

So why is Cockburn still ignoring this astronomical Zionist elephant in the living room?

And why is The Independent still employing him?

And why am I getting bored of writing about this time after time after time...?

Particularly when all I get is ostracised?