Obama Covering Up Saudi Link to Boston Bombing?
“Person of interest” to be deported after Obama had unscheduled meeting with Saudi Foreign Minister
Paul Joseph Watson
The Saudi “person of interest” suspected of being involved in the Boston Marathon bombings is being deported from the United States next week on “national security grounds,” according to a terrorism expert, who notes that the move is “very unusual,” especially given an unscheduled meeting yesterday between President Obama and Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal.
The attempt to cover up a possible Saudi connection to the Boston attack could explain why authorities are scrambling to get their official narrative straight after photos emerged yesterday on the Internet showing numerous suspects carrying large backpacks, some of them middle eastern in appearance and two of the individuals having been almost certainly identified as employees of private military/security firm Craft International.
The FBI had set a press conference for 5pm EST yesterday afternoon but the event was cancelled hours after the photos were seen by millions of people online. The federal agency blamed the media for erroneous reporting, stating, “these stories often have unintended consequences.”
CNN also had to backtrack after they announced that a suspect had been arrested, a report that was subsequently denied by authorities. Reports of a “dark skinned man” being arrested were later mothballed.
According to terrorism expert Steve Emerson, 20-year-old Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi, the Saudi national first suspected of being involved in Monday’s twin bomb attack, is being hastily deported. Alharbi was put under armed guard in hospital after the bombing, was visited by Saudi diplomat Azzam bin Abdel Karim, and later had his apartment raided by federal and state law enforcement agents.
“I just learned from my own sources that he is now going to be deported on national security grounds next Tuesday, which is very unusual,” Emerson told Fox News last night.
The news follows an unscheduled meeting between President Obama and Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal at the White House yesterday afternoon. “The meeting was not on Obama’s public schedule,” reports Reuters.
“That’s very interesting because this is the way things are done with Saudi Arabia. You don’t arrest their citizens. You deport them, because they don’t want them to be embarrassed and that’s the way we appease them,” Emerson told host Sean Hannity.
A scheduled 10 a.m. photo op between John Kerry and the Saudi Foreign Minister was also abruptly cancelled on Tuesday morning because Kerry was tired from his busy schedule, an explanation that journalists refused to swallow, with the Associated Press’ Matt Lee telling spokesman Patrick Ventrell, “I find it hard to believe that you expect us to believe that that’s the real reason for this.”
As World Net Daily’s Joe Kovacs documents, “Saudi student Alharbi shares the same last name as a major Saudi clan that includes scores of al-Qaida operatives.”
The Alharbi clan has long been active in al-Qaida. Khaled bin Ouda bin Mohammed al-Harbi, for example, is a Saudi national who joined Osama bin Laden’s mujahadeen group in the 1980s. He reportedly became an al-Qaida member in the mid-1990s. He turned himself in to Saudi authorities in 2004 as part of an amnesty deal.
The BBC reported Khaled Alharbi was married to the daughter of al-Qaida’s number two, Ayman al-Zawahri. He reportedly appeared with bin Laden in a video praising the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Another top al-Qaida operative is Adel Radi Saqr al-Wahabi al-Harbi, a Saudi national identified by the State Department as “a key member of an al-Qaida network operating in Iran.”
Given the fact that the Obama administration has sent more than half a billion dollars and the CIA is shipping weapons to FSA rebels in Syria who pledged allegiance to and are led by Al-Qaeda militants, the notion that one of these militants would carry out an attack on U.S. soil would be extremely damaging to the White House.
Radio host Michael Savage floated the theory yesterday that the Boston police were told to cancel the press conference by the Obama administration and the FBI, because the Saudi Foreign Minister demanded that the suspect be allowed to leave the country.
As Infowars first highlighted yesterday and as Anthony Gucciardi subsequently confirmed, two of the suspicious individuals identified on the scene of the Boston bombings wearing identical clothing and large black backpacks (one white, one darker skinned) are likely to be employees of Craft International, a Blackwater-style private military/security firm.
Given that the bombs used in the attack were housed in black backpacks, remnants of which were found yards from the explosion, why are private security firm employees carrying black backpacks and talking on cellphones pictured within 30 feet of the blast just moments after it occurred?
The men are certainly not marathon runners and they are not involved in rescue efforts. Who are these men? Did their identities being revealed yesterday cause the FBI to cancel its planned press conference? Were the men involved in the bomb drills before the actual bombings that were reported by eyewitnesses?
Should it emerge that the Obama administration is shielding accomplices in the Boston bombings for political reasons, the scandal would dwarf the Benghazi attacks and inevitably lead to impeachment proceedings.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-covering-up-saudi-link-to-boston-bombing.html
‘Boston bombing organizers clearly very serious professionals who know what they’re doing’
RT
There are no safety guarantees in settings like the Boston Marathon, especially with terrorism adapting to security protocols, Russian ‘Alpha’ Special Forces team-veteran and vice-president of its International Association Aleksey Filatov told RT.
And since this tragedy, the worst terror attack in the US since 9/11, has revealed major domestic security gaffes, and it would become hard for anyone to speak against whatever anti-terror initiative President Obama comes up with, Filatov also indicated.
RT: Can you give an overall expert assessment of what has happened, from a security standpoint? Could this terrorist act have been averted?
AF: I think what happened in Boston was definitely a terror act. And despite the fact that expert analyses showed the explosives to be of quite low yield, I think the terrorists have achieved their objectives. The American public, and world public as a whole were struck by the news and the pictures of what took place in Boston. So, in terms of the terrorists’ desire to strike panic into everyone’s hearts – they were successful. To discuss the negligence of the American special services in this situation would be unbecoming, unprofessional and, frankly, stupid. We know that the last serious terrorist attack on American soil had happened way back in 2001. Such a long stretch of time since, given the number of enemies and the attitude toward the US in many parts of the world, shows how effective US security services are at what they do. I’d just like to say that giving a 100 percent guarantee of safety in such a situation is virtually impossible. Terrorism changes, it adapts with time to the norms and security protocols of its targets. To secure a 1-2 kilometer track completely in this scenario is next to impossible.
RT: Could you comment on the standard operating procedures, or the preventive measures normally in place under the given circumstances?
AF: The most effective intelligence and security agencies are those that work to prevent such things from happening. This is normally done by inserting agents into the suspected terrorist group, which in the end normally leads to an operation to arrest multiple members of the group before an attack is carried out – usually on the very day. Such cases are commonplace, but they are not advertised much. Major resources are spent on preparations for such undercover missions. As far as events like the Marathon go, there is normally a human shield of officers, coupled with sniffer dogs. But despite the manpower, these measures may not always be effective: dogs may not pick up the scent from distance as well as they do up close. The technical arsenal here is quite primitive, and to evade these cordons and avoid being picked up by dogs or detectors, is not an impossible feat for a trained terrorist.
RT: Could you speak a bit more about the kind of terrorist preparation that goes into something like this?
Well, from the simple construction and low yield of the explosives, I can tell you that we should be looking out not for the skill of the person carrying out the attack, but at the intentions of its organizers. We shouldn’t take for granted the fact that no one claimed responsibility. These things were meant to detract attention from its true purpose and its real organizers. A very low quantity of explosive was used – but the political impact of the crime was absolutely huge. The entire world was watching. Thankfully, not many casualties emerged, but that was not the point. The explosion was planned to perfection; it happened at the exact time and place as was intended. The organizers are clearly very serious professionals who know what they’re doing.
RT: Could you personally speculate on who might have carried out the attack?
AF: Of course, the number one suspect, according to many experts, are radical Islamists, having been actively clamped down on worldwide by American forces. Many correctly point to North Africa and the Middle East. However, the chain of events gives credence to another hypothesis – one I think has its rightful place in the discussion. On the one hand, we hadn’t seen a terrorist attack on US soil for 12 years. This may have led to a relaxing of efforts on the part of the US agencies. On the other hand, however, American society has long been harboring a feeling that, while they live in relative peace, their soldiers are coming home in body bags. The people themselves feel discontented with the fact that they don’t come in contact with the much propagated threat of terrorism while that takes place. The White House has recently been countering this dilemma by announcing their withdrawal from direct military confrontations with terrorism on foreign land, instead opting for a less involved financial and training backing they now offer to foreign governments in their own fight against terrorism. All of a sudden, we get this terrorist attack for which no one claims responsibility… this begs the question,“what will happen next?” I think American society will eagerly change their mind again, choosing to view the last 12 years of peace and quiet as credit to the security services and agencies that protect them. The agencies come out as having shown that active involvement of US forces in the fight against terrorism abroad works, basically. So, I think that President Obama and the White House may need to go back on their promise of a lesser, direct foreign involvement, and instead revert to sending troops abroad once again, spending big sums on operational costs and so on. We know for a fact that Americans show this incredible potential for bonding in the face of adversity. I think you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who will be willing to disagree with anything the US president says or does next regarding terrorism.
RT: Do you think that what happened might then be beneficial to Obama, or only create more problems?
AF: I think the US government, the Democrats, will be able to pull out of this one successfully and relatively painlessly. Despite the agencies’ failure to prevent the attack, it will only serve to increase American presence and military involvement worldwide.
RT: Do you think this will raise or lower the tensions in the international arena? What might this entail?
AF: Well, I’ve never been a supporter of the Libyan strategy; we can also take a look at Syria and the arming of the opposition there, which is fueling a civil war…. All of these things have and will continue to be presented in such a way as to step up the so-called war on terror. It will effectively untie the US government’s hands and allow them more freedoms in military operations that only yesterday might have aroused major criticism from the American public. Unfortunately, American politicians will only gain from all this. We may see a new Libya, a new Syria, and so on. The pursuit of US national economic and financial interests on foreign territory will continue unhindered.
Link:
http://rt.com/op-edge/boston-marathon-attack-filatov-976/
Chaos engulfs Boston as mainstream media can’t get its cover story straight
Mike Adams
Boston is now in a state of near-chaos over the Boston marathon bombing investigation. Their story keeps changing, too: first there was a “controlled explosion” planned at the Kennedy Library on the same day as the bombing (Boston Globe), but that was later explained away as a “building fire” that had nothing to do with the bombing.
Then there’s CNN reporting a suspect has been arrested, after which the network was blasted by the FBI for fabricating news. CNN has since retracted its arrest claim.
Today, the Boston federal courthouse was suddenly evacuated over a “code red” bomb threat, causing chaos to reign over planned press conferences and announcements by the FBI.
CNN deeply engaged in total news fabrication
As part of its total fabrication of fake news surrounding the Boston marathon bombings, CNN has proclaimed an episode of “Family Guy” to somehow be a “hoax” even when the episode actually exists. According to CNN, Paul Joseph Watson’s highlighting of two scenes from the same episode of the Family Guy cartoon — which depicted cell-phone bomb detonations and a character winning the Boston marathon by murdering other runners — is somehow equivalent to a “hoax.”
In addition, the Boston police department claims there was no drill taking place on the day of the bombings, yet we have an interview with a credible eyewitness who describes in great detail the “drills” that were announced over loudspeakers.
The media has also reported there were no additional explosive devices found, yet this recording of police audio sharply contradicts that, revealing the apparent existence of other explosive devices.
Media refuses to acknowledge existence of private military contractors on the scene
But the real story — and perhaps the biggest story of all — has been blown wide open, first by researchers at 4chan.org, and then covered by Anthony Gucciardi, Paul Joseph Watson and Alex Jones. It reveals that there were private military contractors with backpacks operating at the scene.
Here’s an image of the private military operatives, snapped on the day of the marathon...
Read the rest here:
http://www.naturalnews.com/039961_Boston_mainstream_media_cover_story.html
Is the Boston pressure-cooker bomb a lie and a hoax?
Jon Rappoport
When the Trade Center was destroyed on September 11, 2001, I urged readers and researchers to focus on the explosions as the first order of business.
That was because I had researched and written about the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. I and others discovered that the official scenario about the bomb in the Ryder truck, parked at the curb outside the Murrah Federal Building, was grossly incomplete.
Such a device could not have produced the profile of damage sustained by the building. General Ben Partin and other bomb experts had seen that fact. They’d diagrammed it and explained it.
The obvious conclusion was: bombs wired into columns of the Murrah Building had done the significant damage.
So again, in the case of the Boston Marathon bombing, I urge people to examine the explosions closely.
I have questions. For example, as described in the YouTube video. “Boston Massacre False Flag Terrorism—Pressure Cooker,” Daniel Vincent Kelley points to a few simple facts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE480YxCtbo
A photo of a mangled pressure cooker, posted by press outlets all over the world, shows the pressure-cooker plug and, near it, one small round hole, machined apparently by the manufacturer. But…no other small holes. I see discolorations but not dozens or hundreds of holes.
Yet we are told that the Marathon bombs were placed inside pressure cookers and packed with nails and ball bearings. If that were true, the explosions would have created many, many small holes as the inserted shrapnel flew through the cooker and out in every direction.
In the official press photo, there are no such holes.
How is that possible?
In fact, since a large piece of the pressure cooker is missing, it appears that the explosive was a shaped charge of some kind. Part of the cooker is mangled but intact; another part is missing, presumably revealing in which direction the shock wave traveled.
Charges are shaped when they are put in place, because the maker wants the explosion to be vectored; otherwise, the explosion will exit its confined space spherically, equally, in all directions.
A shaped charge would strongly suggest a pro at work, not an amateur who built the device in his kitchen. In which case, we would be looking at a whole different scenario.
This is significant because, for example, media outlets are busy trying to make connections between home-made pressure-cooker bombs and “right-wing extremists.”
People might reply, “Well, if the pressure cookers show such gaping flaws in the official story, why would the real killers have done such a bad job of covering their tracks? They would be smarter than that.”
They weren’t smarter in 1995 in Oklahoma City, and they weren’t smarter in New York, in 2001, where it was claimed that both Towers fell because of plane collisions.
They weren’t smarter in Aurora, either, where two witnesses claimed there were at least two killers inside the theater. Nor were they smarter in Newtown, where so many questions and contradictions remained unanswered.
If we infer that the Boston pressure-cooker scenario is wrong, it is a very short step to conclude the scenario is a cover story, designed to obscure the truth. In that case, what is the truth? Who was really responsible for the death and destruction on April 15?
Pros pretending to be amateurs? Pros whose death-dealing work is being concealed by law-enforcement officials, with a concocted version of what happened?
At this stage of the investigation, and from now on, these questions must be asked seriously and probed seriously, regardless of the official line.
That’s what I’m doing here. Asking questions. If there is a reasonable explanation for the pressure-cooker contradictions, I want to hear them.
I’m going to try to get even more specific, to stimulate research. Examine the press photo of the pressure cooker yourself. Does it show a whole cooker, with all parts intact, but bent and distorted, or does it show only part of a cooker, with a major section missing?
And second, if the bomber packed only one side of the bomb with nails and ball bearings and BBs, could the piece that is missing in the photo have contained all the holes caused by the shrapnel exiting the pressure cooker?
If we are really looking at the whole cooker, then we should we also see many holes. We don’t.
If we are looking at only part of the cooker, then regardless of whether the bomber packed all the shrapnel to exit through the missing piece, the fact that it’s missing suggests a shaped charge, the work of a pro.
Either way, somebody is deceiving us.
Link:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/is-the-boston-pressure-cooker-bomb-a-lie-and-a-hoax.html
No comments:
Post a Comment