When two separate events occur simultaneously pertaining to the same object in inquiry we must always pay strict attention.
US DOJ FBI SA Dale Bartholomew Cooper
The link at the end of this entry will open in a separate window & begin playing automatically. It is the audio file of the first part of an extensive interview that Sibel Edmonds gave very recently regarding what she claims is the continuation of Operation Gladio, which is one of the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" geo-pol strategies that began to fester in Europe and Asia during the Cold War.
I employ the quotation marks in the previous sentence in three ways: to quote conventional wisdom as it's often dictated; to quote the ironic folly of the very idea itself as it is just as often dictated; and to point out that the folly itself is ostensible because the stated strategy is avowed by habitual liars and therefore dubious.
This last point is important; it relates directly to the most instructive thing about the interview: Again & again, everything the creeps say is taken at face value, even when not a word of it is believed. I blame Hitler. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Or making a joke. Sort of.
You may recall Sibel Edmonds as the translator contracted by the FBI in September of 2001, who subsequently blew whistles the organization couldn't or wouldn't, but certainly didn't, deal with in any manner other than to fired her.
Stand by your man and deliver
If you'll indulge me for a moment, I'd like to exorcise a pet peeve: Sibel Edmonds, is not entirely unlike Cindy Sheehan, in that she was lioness'd by certain Democrats when what she had to say implicated the Republican malfeasance of Dick Cheney and his ilk, but quickly forgotten when she kept complaining about the exact same things as it pertains to the Democrats themselves. Nobody fucks, tosses out of a bus & drives over, and forgets better than the Party of Jefferson, not to mention the party of William Jefferson with or without all its coke. They're all about grandstanding about women's rights right up until you start to criticize their boyfriend, then you're fucked & forgot. If you're lucky.
What I like about Edmonds is that she does not speculate. Too many outside-the-mainstream investigative journalists fall into that trap and, indeed, you can often tell a snake-oiler by how they come to conclusions and frame their presentations. Indeed-indeed, "the story" trumps the facts in the mainstream press as well.
Whether you believe what she presents or not, it is pretty straightforward and simple, which brings me back to that most instructive thing about the interview: It is not the deepness of the proverbial rabbit hole that keeps people out of it; frankly it's not that deep, anyway, but we all know that as soon as you climb into one, you get dirty. It's easier to walk around on land with the humans. The ostensible humans with all their ostensible humanity. Whatever that is.
Inside job? Who can't afford to outsource & subcontract?
In a nutshell, the interview is about how Operation Gladio, like the Cold War, never ended. While there is a lot of information to digest, the deepest it gets is reminding us who all NATO had cosied up to, and continues to cosy up with. And the conclusion I would think is most logical - not drawn only from this interview, but from what could be gleaned from history taught in school - is if you sleep with your known enemy, you are your own enemy; if someone else you trust is sleeping with your known enemy, they are an enemy you choose to trust.
The benefit of the doubt is always given to the habitual liars of authority to such an extent that those who choose to place their trust in authority will always take their professed good intentions at face value. So in a sense the rabbit hole is no deeper than where you'd bury your shit in the woods, but there is no limit to the depth of convoluted reasoning one will employ so as to mitigate why authority lied to them.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" can be easily digested as an always redeployed strategy that leads to nothing but unwanted results, but that your avowed friend might be your enemy is an unacceptable notion.
So, as we know from record, NATO member nations were in tight with Nazi ideologues every-fucking-where. Whether or not this was because of the Red Menace is immaterial, though I choose to believe that anyone who would choose to believe that particular stated purpose is either naive, or a bit of a simpleton. One might not subscribe to the remotest fascist beliefs, but if one has a job with an organization of people who actively recruit and employ Nazis, then you are working for a Nazi organization, regardless of how the post in Washington frames it.
Since Gladio is derived from the Roman word for short-sword, might Operation Gladio be the equivalent of A Century of the Long Knives?
Torturing and imprisoning and terrorizing and killing people in the name of a stated purpose is apparently no vice, therefore the stated purpose can go unexamined as long as the stated purpose is anti-somebody else's tyranny.
I remind the reader that the anti-communists were not just some American Republican senator, the CIA, and an FBI pope, and that Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't surveilled at the behest of Richard M. Nixon, though I'm sure he would've done. But I'm also sure that saying he was murdered "on LBJ's watch" would be language objected to, even by those who use the same twist of phrase to describe George W. Bush's tenure vis à vis something which has come to be known in bipartisan circles as "9/11".
Additionally, it doesn't stop them from making the claim that the current president has "kept us safe". That is his stated purpose, after all.
The reason why I even noticed and bothered to take notice of Sibel Edmonds' Gladio interview is because of something else I stumbled upon. This link is to a German programme, which was in part about an Italian named Giuseppe Gulotta, who at 18 years of age was tortured into the confession of a murder he did not commit and spent twenty-two years in prison - thirty-six if you count the length of the legal ordeal, the progression of which would only seem to make the injustice more absurd. If you believe the claim to absurdity. That itself is absurd.
Virtually the only thing I can find in English about this case is this BBC puff piece, which doesn't go into any of the details of the why - not even the ostensible why - he was allowed to age so long in prison when everybody knew he was innocent.
In the two minute German clip, the journalist makes clear that a NATO commando murdered the two Italian military police officers because they were witness to an underground delivery of NATO weapons as part of Operation Gladio. The only difference between my summary and the journalist's is that he didn't call the commando a NATO commando. Why not? Probably because they might have just been hired to do the job by some friends of NATO. Hell, maybe the weapons delivery itself was only done by someone that some friends of NATO happen to know of. Or some enemies of enemies of informers of other adversaries, none of whom are friends, of course.
Bottom line is the stated purpose of NATO's secrecy was and continues to be above reproach by some, reproachable by others, but the stated purpose is believed in either case. The harshest mainstream criticism regarding ostensible mistakes made amounts to the "it was the times" argument.
Which brings us back to Sibel Edmonds' assertion of the obvious, which includes the extension of the Gladio-handers & handlers into this, the Twenty-First Century and its avowed War on Terror, with the stated motivations of keeping the world free, while simultaneously locking up and/or killing more of the world's population than their publicly professed enemies.
The following interview reminds me that as long as the stated purpose is a war on some fictionally created & named group and their associates, those in friendlier political circles will only refer to the war itself as terrorism insofar as it terrorizes the populations of the regions where it is secretly and ostensibly secretly waged. And that's only if they are willing to criticize their current O-boyfriend.
But it is most definitely (never never never) because the ostensible terrorists and ostensible war on terror warriors might by default be one and the same.
Any bureaucracy that functions in secret inevitably lends itself to corruption.
USAF Major Garland Briggsfictional role model