The Ottawa Shooter Episode of Oct. 22 and the Depiction of the Anti-ISIL War as Simultaneously a Domestic and International Anti-Terrorist Campaign
The sensationalized media coverage of the police and military responses to the violent actions of one or more shooters in the Canadian capital of Ottawa Canada on Oct. 22 was truly global in scope. Among the newspapers that used on their front pages dramatic photographs of the elaborate militarization on Canada’s Parliament Hill were the New York Times, New York’s Daily News, the New York Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, UK’s The Guardian, Madrid’s El Pais, France’s Sud Ouest, Belgium’s De Morgan, Netherland’s de Volkskrant, Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine, Kuwait’s Arab Times, the Kuwait Times, Lebanon’s Daily Star, and Pakistan’s Dawn.
The geographic outlines of this story’s dissemination correspond fairly well with the list of countries lining up to go to war with the non-state entity being regularly described to the world as “the Islamic State,” ISIL, or, in the Arab-speaking and Farsi-speaking countries, DAESH. The countries that have declared war on ISIL include United States, Canada, Great Britain, France, Australia, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, the Netherlands, Denmark, Czech Republic, Italy, and, in very qualified ways, Germany and Turkey. The government of Kuwait is allowing its military air bases to be used by the jet fighters, including those of Canada’s Armed Forces, that are at this moment converging on the Middle East to conduct anti-ISIL warfare.
Very significantly the government of Iran has joined forces with American forces in Iraq to oppose the incursions of the Sunni-based ISIL. Indeed, the Shia-oriented Islamic Republic of Iran has committed members of the Quds Force, an elite unit of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards, to the conflict under the direction of the “chief technician,” Commander Qasem Soleimani. A much-lionized military figure in his own county, Commander Soleimani helped advise Hezbollah on its military defences against the incursions of the Israeli Defense Force. He is also credited with helping in the defense of the forces of Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad against Western-backed al-Qaeda mercenaries, some of whom have recently joined ISIL.
Among countries who have declared some sort of moral support on ISIL are Israel, Bulgaria, Egypt, Finland, Georgia, Greece, Kosovo, Oman, Poland, Croatia and Ukraine. The Arab League has also aligned itself against ISIL. Among the countries whose governments and/or whose private citizens have been accused of helping to recruit, organize, train, arm and finance ISIL are the United States, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates. This would not be the first time in history where powerful interests back both sides in a conflict. Certainly the governments of most of these countries accused of being on both sides of the conflict with ISIL were backers of the campaign to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria. Ironically Syria’s Armed Forces right now are bearing a large part of the burden of the military campaign to fend off the territorial incursions of ISIL.
After 9/11 there was much discussion about the need to transform the international rules of war to facilitate military campaigns against non-state entities capable of operations across many international boundaries. In spite of this discussion the US-led response to 9/11 was characterized by attacks on sovereign states, namely Afghan and Iraq. New governments were imposed on both countries as an outcome of the US-led military invasions.
The international war on ISIL now formally ushers in the new type of conflict so much discussed since the transformative events of Sept. 2001. The multilateral invasion of what is essentially a club or an association of a transnational assembly of fighters raises many fundamental questions about what might, in the light of future history, be looked back upon as the formal end of an international order based on the concept of the juridical integrity of sovereign states. In this regard Russian President Vladimir Putin was seemingly far ahead of many other world leaders with his penetrating analysis at the Valdai Club of the unparalleled dangers engulfing humanity at this time when the whole notion of international law has seemingly been renounced by the coalition of governments taking their considerable direction from the US and Israeli governments.
Selling War; Selling the Loss of Civil Liberties; Selling the End of Habeas Corpus; Selling the Further Expansion of the Surveillance State
The huge coverage afforded the Ottawa shooter episode in the world press might be interpreted as a means of publicizing the launch of yet another US-led invasion of Iraqi territory.
The graphic photographs proliferating throughout the global media depicting the militarization of Ottawa’s Parliament Hill could be seen as a means of dramatizing the preferred story line of those with responsibility for guiding public opinion to support the War on ISIL. The effect of the pictures was to dramatize the anti-ISIL campaign as simultaneously a domestic anti-terror operation as well as an international anti-terror military operation.
Certainly Stephen Harper has tried to emphasize the dual character of the anti-ISIL campaign in a speech he presented in the Canadian House of Commons about three weeks before the Ottawa shooter incident. He described the ISIL’s intentions to target Canadian citizens and families, to create conditions where “Canadians should not feel comfortable in our own homes.”
ISIL. A Very Well Funded, Well Equipped Military Force. Who is Providing the Financing, the Arms, and Help with Using the Social Media? What Do Those Providing this Backing Expect to Gain in Return? What is the Backers’ Agenda? Why so Much Emphasis on Takfiri Politics? Who Stands to Gain? Who Stands to Lose? When War Wins, Truth Loses.
The Canadian prime minister accused ISIL of torturing and beheading children, raping women and selling them into slavery, and engaging in the wholesale slaughter of minorities. A month prior to his Oct. 3 speech Harper had already committed, without any parliamentary debate whatsoever, Canadian troops to conduct reconnaissance missions on ISIL. Just as the events of Oct. 22 unfolded Harper was engaged in expanding the police powers of his own executive branch to “monitor aspiring terrorists.”
Shortly after the events of Oct. 22 on Parliament Hill I was contacted by Manuel Ochsenreiter, a friend and colleague I met recently at the New Horizon conference in Tehran. One of the topics we addressed at the New Horizon conference in Tehran was the subject of the disproportionate influence of Israeli lobbies on many of the governments lining up to fight ISIL. For this the conference was condemned in predictable terms by the Anti-Defamation League and others as being “anti-Semitic.” It will be interesting if this kind of predictable knee-jerk anti-Iranian rhetoric continues now that the anti-ISIL campaign has been joined by some of the most elite fighting forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Questions and Answers
Manuel Ochsenreiter, chief editor of Zuerst magazineine in Germany, posed the following questions to me:
1. Ochsenreiter: Prof Hall, Canada had a reputation for being a peaceful, harmonic and – boring – country. Then came the shooting event on Parliament Hill that shattered old stereotypes around the world. What is going on in Canada? Before we get into the details of the outburst of gunfire on Oct. 22 in the formerly peaceful constitutional monarchy covering the northern half of North America, can you give us some context and historical background? Can you tell us something about what is behind the events that connect this violent outburst with the changing political culture in Canada?
Hall: In a nutshell, the tectonic transformations in Canada’s political landscape are being engineered by Stephen Harper and the political cabal he embodies, serves and represents. Harper is a neocon extremist who entered the political scene as the Canadian franchise holder of the US Republic Party led by the Bush-Cheney gang of operatives. In my view, Harper’s move from the margins of Canadian federal politics to his seizure in 2011 of a majority of seats in the Canadian House of Commons took place with the help of an array of dirty tricks, some of them administered from outside Canada. These dirty tricks include the wholesale importation into Canada of the US Republican Party’s comparative advantage in election fraud.
Here’s how it went. In 2003 the Liberal Party government of Jean Chretien had control of a firm majority of seats in the House of Commons. Although the Chretien government did join in NATO’s invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11, the Chretien Liberals refused to join the US-led invasion of Iraq. The then- Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, Stephen Harper, objected strongly. He went so far as to co-author an article in the New York Times indicating that the refusal of the Canadian government to join the US-led invasion of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was shameful and a betrayal of the underlying principles on which Western civilization is based.
Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien Receives a Standing Ovation from the Liberal Majority in the Canadian House of Commons in 2003 for Refusing to Join with the US-Led Invasion of the Iraq under President Saddam Hussein.
Now Harper is getting his wish. Under his leadership of the federal government, Canada is joining the United States and other polities in yet another US-led invasion of Iraq. This time around the agenda seems to be to include the objective of overthrowing the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad. Ironically Syria’s Armed Forces right now are shouldering the main military brunt of opposing the incursions of ISIL, the weird non-state entity that misrepresents itself to the world as the Islamic state.
The New York Daily News Includes on Its Front Cover a Photograph of the Fallen Soldier, Corporal Nathan Cirillo. Cpl Cirillo Was Alleged Shot by Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, Allegedly Pictured in the Upper Right-Hand Corner.
The violent events in Ottawa, including the death of Canadian soldier who was ceremonially protecting Canada’s main war memorial, are in my view deeply bound up with Harper’s very zealous efforts to follow the US example of putting Canadian Armed Forces primarily in the service of Israeli plans for expansion. I would say a very rapid Israelification of public discourse is taking place in Canada as those in Harper’s circle, including a large swath of the Canadian media, engage in increasingly broad and open-ended references to “terrorism” as the justification for a huge expansion of police powers of the federal executive branch.
There are reports circulating in recent days that by executive order a whole new system of command in control is being set up in Canada that mirrors the so-called Homeland Security regime in the United States that has arguably not returned since 9/11 from the state of emergency declared that day. This initiative is being informally dubbed Track B.
Without any parliamentary or judicial oversight whatsoever, and before any credible third-party investigation has taken place of the violent events in Ottawa on Oct. 22, Track B is reportedly being put in place. It would equip police and special para-military units with unlimited powers of arrest and detention. It would authorize the creation of Canadian secret prisons, the kind of black sites notorious for the sadism of their jailers and the stink of their torture chambers.
Track B would advance the issuing of open ended warrants to incarcerate anyone indefinitely without due process or Habeas Corpus. This apparent Israelification of the Canadian police state offers yet more proof that Vladimir Putin was completely justified in his recent Valdai address in pointing out that the old notions of the rule of law have been thrown aside both internationally and within the domestic realms of many governments.
2. Ochsenreiter: Before we get into the details of what did or did not happen in Ottawa on Oct. 22, are there other contextual comments you would like to make.
Hall: Yes. I think it instructive to do a fast history of the rapid-fire alterations in Canada’s political culture between 2003 and the most recent federal election of 2011 that gave Harper his majority of seats in the House of Commons. It should be underlined, however, that this win gave Harper a tainted mandate because of judicial findings that the election of 2011 involved fraud. Similarly a court in Canada ruled that the federal election of 2006, when the Harper’s party first replaced the Liberals in a minority government situation, involved accounting fraud and overspending.
About the relationship between the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Harper’s preoccupation with building up the Canadian police state a colleague of mine, Prof. John McMurtry, has emphasized what transpired in the federal election of 2006. Prof. McMurtry has written,
“Harper also owes his political life to the RCMP. After a non-confidence vote triggered the 2006 election, RCMP commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli instructed his staff to include former Liberal finance minister Ralph Goodale’s name in a news release announcing a criminal investigation. This reversed the stench of the Harper regime’s continuous scandals and corruption onto the Liberals by a false RCMP smear. As a former top insider of the Tory party advised me, “the RCMP won the election for Harper”. The elected Harper regime then surrounded the RCMP with blocks to silence all facts – the signature operation – so the truly deepest scandal of the era proceeded with impunity to the present day. So it is not surprising that CSIS, the RCMP and Harper are collaborating to get more secret powers for the police and spooks in return for serving Harper’s underlying agenda.”
In 2003 the Liberal Party, who in that era was sometimes referred to as Canada’s natural governing part, held 172 of 301 seats in the House of Commons. In 2011 the Liberal went down to 34 seats and the Conservatives took 166 seats. This fundamental reconfiguration of Canada’s political landscape didn’t happen without a lot of help from outside powers. As part of the process the centrist Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, an indigenous organization rooted in Tory opposition to the revolutionary secessionists who founded the United States, was basically eliminated. The Progressive Conservative Party was brought to an end to be replaced by a political operation which is best understood as a Canadian branch plant of the US Republican Party. The new entity significantly dropped the word “progressive” from its label, advertising itself simply as the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC)
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper Addressing the Israeli Parliament, the Knesset, in Jerusalem in January 2014.
In my view the deeper meaning of what transpired began to come into sharp focus early in 2014 when Stephen Harper addressed the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, the first time a Canadian prime minister has ever done so. Harper was accompanied in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv by an entourage of 200 supporters. This entourage was made of up leading representatives of his main political base composed primarily of Jewish and Christian Zionists. Harper was given a standing ovation led by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The politicians followed Netanyahu’s lead in rising to their feet when Harper took such a hard line on the issue of the Israeli settlements that two Palestinian members of the Knesset walked out in protest.
In the speech Harper promised that he would never criticize the Israeli government publicly, a promise whose meaning would not become fully clear until July when the Canadian government fully sanctioned the Israeli line that the murderous invasion of the Gazan concentration camp in Operation Protective Edge was an act of Israeli self-defense rather than a war crime. Harper condemned those that do criticize Israel for violating the human rights of the Palestinian people as purveyors of a sophisticated new form of virulent anti-Semitism.
Up until this past week, 2014 has not been a good year for Prime Minister Harper politically. He has been dogged by a scandal involving certain payments from his office to Senator Mike Duffy, formerly a famous TV commentator employed by CTV. The CTV’s Lead Reporter on Parliament Hill was Mike Duffy. CTV’s Mike Duffy unethically used his journalistic podium to help transform Harper’s political party into Canada’s governing party. Harper has been lagging in the polls behind the Liberals, now led by Justin Trudeau. Now in his mid-40s, Justin is the bright and very telegenic son of Canada’s former prime minister, Pierre Elliot Trudeau. Many see the elder Trudeau as the most dynamic personality ever to lead Canada, the very symbol of almost everything Harper entered politics to change.
The next Canadian election is scheduled for just under a year from now so the political season is upon us. There is a court case where Senator Duffy is being prosecuted for accepting a bribe from the prime minister’s office, a trial that seemed guaranteed to put Harper in even deeper political trouble. But of course its highly possible that Harper will be able to divert attention from the scandals engulfing him by changing the subject to war mania. The war agenda involves the Prime Minister granting his own executive branch greatly expanded police powers, the public aspect of which coincidentally came before Parliament just as the Ottawa shooter episode flashed into the headlines.
Senator Mike Duffy and Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Happier Times. As a CTV reporter, Duffy was Elevated to the Senate for Violating his Journalistic Objectivity by Openly Campaigning for the CPC while he was Still a Journalist. Now Duffy is Charged with Accepting a Bribe from the Prime Minister’s Office. The War on ISIL and the Ottawa Shooter Episode is Helping Harper Change the Subject of Political Discourse in Canada from the Political Scandal Engulfing Him to the Threat of Terrorism.
Predictably the mainstream media here immediately fell into line, eschewing all skepticism while peddling flag waving patriotism aimed supposedly at quelling “homegrown terror.” Meanwhile Canadian jets, military advisers and special forces join the international coalition of assault squads pointed against the weird ISIL concoction whose aim seems to be to express in real life every Islamophobic stereotype cultivated by Hollywood and, since 9/11, by almost every major media venue in the so-called Western world.
Harper is quite simply infatuated by the mystique of war and the added executive powers his office can claim domestically and internationally in a wartime environment. As I see it, Harper came to power in 2006 riding the wave of militaristic energy generated by a specious interpretation of what happened on 9/11. To this day this pivotal event has never been subjected to a credible, third-party investigation unconnected to partisan political agendas. On becoming Prime Minister Harper increased his Liberal predecessors commitment to NATO’s war mission in Afghanistan. He visited the Canadian contingent in the Eurasian country often and built up his warrior’s personae by having himself filmed frequently with Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.
As is being well reflected in the coverage of the lethal events at the Canadian War Memorial in Ottawa, Harper is trying to blank out the reputation of Canadian Armed Forces as peacekeepers rather than belligerents. This image of Canada as a peace keeping nation goes back to the term of Liberal Prime Minister, Lester Pearson. Pearson first suggested a UN peace keeping mission at the height of the Cold War to ease tensions in Egypt after the government of Gamal Abdul Nasser seized control of the Suez Canal in 1956.
Harper has been very much a war hawk when it comes to the conflict in Ukraine. His foreign minister, John Baird, is very aggressive in highlighting Canada’s unconditional support for Israel as the primary centrepiece of Canada’s orientation to the rest of the world. Harper himself seems to picture his role as a Canadian equivalent to that of the US president who derives enormous power from his or her dual role as US Commander-In-Chief. Harper’s immersion in the military aspects of his executive power translates into his awkward relationship with the unwritten constitution Canada inherited from Great Britain and the parliamentary democracy of the Westminster system.
In spite of the fact that citizens do not vote directly for a Canadian prime minister like they do for an American president, Harper’s self-conception as chief executive officer of a Canadian republic, but without the checks and balances, puts him at odds with the oldest strains of Canada’s constitutional heritage. Harper’s contempt for Parliament was reflected in his repeated shutting down of Canada’s Parliament under an element of the unwritten constitution known as prorogation. In Canada the decision to shut down a parliamentary session prematurely technically belongs exclusively to the Head of State, Queen Elizabeth II. Her Majesty the Queen delegates this power of prorogation to her regal representative in Ottawa, the Governor General of Canada.
The first prorogation took place in late 2008 under conditions where Harper’s Conservative Party was about to lose power through a coalition of three opposing political parties that collectively held more seats than the Conservative Party. Very clearly Harper imposed improper political pressure on the Queen’s representative to block a vote of no confidence in the Canadian House of Commons. Harper would have no longer been prime minister if such a vote had been allowed to go forward which it should have if Canada’s constitution had been respected. In 2008 and 2009 Harper again applied inappropriate political pressure on the Queen’s representative just as a parliamentary committee was turning up persuasive evidence that Canadian Armed Forces had been regularly handing over prisoners to Afghani forces for torture. If this line of disclosure had continued it is perfectly possible that Canadian officials right up to the prime minister would have faced criminal procedures at the International Court of Justice in the Hague for violating prohibitions on torture.
Thanks to Tigana for sharing this thought-provoking image helping alert us to the emergency Canada is facing right now under Stephen Harper’s reign of terror policing.
The current session of Parliament was just about to begin when the shooting episode at the war memorial and in the hallways of the Canadian parliament broke out. The late start of parliament deep into the autumn of 2014 came about because of yet another Crown decision to grant Stephen Harper his request for prorogation. The whole delicate structure of Canada’s parliamentary democracy depends on the capacity of the Queen’s representative to exercise a form of judicial and non-partisan independence distinct from the branch of the Canadian government devoted to partisan politics.
This political independence of the Governor General’s office has become a sad hoax ever since the practice developed of the Queen accepting automatically the advice of successive prime ministers in filling the job of Canadian Governor General. This appointment procedure has politicized the Office of Governor General. The Queen’s representative in the Dominion of Canada is meant to exist outside of political influence peddling. In Canada at this time the Governor General is His Excellency David Johnston. The current Queen’s representative won the current prime minister’s approval when Mr. Johnson, then a private citizen, drew up the terms of reference for an investigation into the role of former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in Air Canada’s purchase of a number of European Airbuses. The affect of Johnston’s intervention was to distance Stephen Harper from the scandal that developed after it was shown that Mulroney had accepted kickbacks from the European airplane manufacturers through the agency of Karlheinz Schreiber and Bavarian premier Franz Josef Strauss.
This background information I hope helps establish that Canada as we have known it is profoundly imperilled by an unscrupulous prime minister who, I am convinced, would have no qualms whatsoever to violate any rules or laws, domestically or internationally, if he deems that such action is necessary to retain the country’s top job or to expand his own prime ministerial powers. I hope this background information helps expose that conscientious citizens in Canada and international observers outside have every reason to be deeply skeptical of the explanations officialdom has given us concerning what happened on Oct. 22.
3.Ochsenreter: So explain for us please what you understand to have happened or not to have happened on Oct. 22 just as the Canadian government was about to open a new parliamentary session. We understand that the main agenda item was to put in place the complex of policies and laws surrounding the federal government’s commitment to invade Iraq and Syria in the name of fighting terrorism both internationally and domestically. Who was the shooter, what happened in the prelude to Oct. 22, and how credible or not is the government’s account of what happened?
Hall: As I awoke on the morning of Oct. 22 the regular hourly news broadcast by the Crown Corporation, the Canadian Broadcasting Company, featured a live report of the shooting at the War Memorial, the main War Cenotaph in Ottawa just a short distance to Parliament Hill. I know the site well. It is much less than a mile from Parliament Hill. When I heard the initial radio report there was no information about the subsequent drama about to break out in the main citadel of Canada’s diminishing democracy. Presumably the shooting in the Parliament Building had not yet happened.
Significantly the information on the alleged shooter’s identity initially came from unnamed US government authorities that are said to have fed the story to Reuters. Many reports also cite the American broadcaster CBS as the originating point of the widely reported story on the alleged shooter’s identity. In an early CBS News report the alleged shooter’s name was given as Michael Abdul Zehaf-Bibeau. His birth name was reported as Michael Joseph Hall. These same US sources described the alleged shooter as a “recent convert to Islam,” a person on a watch list of “high-risk travellers” deemed suspicious and dangerous by the FBI.
The family connections of the accused man deserve some careful and explicit attention. The accused individual is now supposedly dead, although as far as I know no body has been yet been produced to support the claim. No explanation has been produced to account for the transformation of Michael Joseph Hall into Michael Zehaf-Bibeau. His mother’s name is Susan Bibeau and the name of his father is Bulgasem Zehaf who was born in Libya. Michael’s parents divorced in 1999 when their son was 17. Where did the name “Hall” initially come from? Is the accused’s adoption of the name Michael Zehaf-Bibeau or, as initially reported, Michael Abdul Zehaf-Bibeau, somehow connected to his alleged recent conversion to Islam?
There have been many conflicting reports of the number of shooters involved with often conflict reports of what precisely took place over the course of Oct. 22.
Susan Bibeau is Director General of Canada’s federal Immigration Department. In other words, the alleged shooter’s mother is the top administrative official in Canada overseeing the issuing of all passports. She is thus a top ranking official in Stephen Harper’s government. Ms. Bibeau’s position might have implications for the claim that the alleged shooter was not able to get a Canadian passport. The US sources reported that Michael wanted a passport to go to Syria to join ISIL, a evocative story line that is immensely useful to those seeking to exploit the episode to connect the domestic and international sides of the US-led coalition’s anti-ISIL war. Susan Bibeau has explained that the real story is that her son wanted to travel to Saudi Arabia.
Michael’s father is reported to have left Libya for Canada because he was unhappy with the somewhat socialistic government of the late Muammar Gaddafi. It is reported that he returned to Libya in 2011 to join the actions of the NATO-backed so-called rebels who wanted to overthrow Gaddafi’s regime. Many of these anti-Gaddafi groups were at the time identified as being connected to al-Qaeda. In other words, the father of the alleged shooter was associated with the al-Qaeda-related groups of mercenaries that did overthrow Gaddafi. The rebel activities culminated in Gaddafi being sodomized and then murdered in cold blood to the applause of many governments including that of Stephen Harper in Canada. Some of the paid mercenary soldiers in Libya moved onto Syria where they received support from Turkey, Western governments, and the city state sheikhdoms of the Persian Gulf. Many of the foreign-backed fighters in Syria were also connected to al-Qaeda, the alleged culprits of 9/11. The rise of ISIL can be interpreted as a sort of rebranding of Islamic fighting forces previously associate with al-Qaeda.
Yet another conflicting account suggesting there were two masked figures, one who did not accompany the other when he entered the Centre Block. Thanks to Joshua Froze for this item.
It was reported in the Washington Times that Michael’s father, Bulgasem, spent time in a Libyan prison having been arrested in his native city of Zawiya. When he returned to Montreal after his ordeal it was reported that, “Mr. Zahaf said the main prison in the city was overflowing with inmates who were forced to live in subhuman conditions and were routinely tortured by their captors.”
The son of Bulgasem and Ms. Bibeau spent much of his own life committing criminal acts, some of which earned him criminal charges. Among the crimes he committed were credit card fraud, drunk driving, theft, possession of a deadly weapon, escaping custody (twice) and possession of marijuana and PCP. In late 2011 he was charged with robbery in Vancouver. He plea bargained, pleading guilty to the lesser charge of uttering threats. In spite of his very long record the Judge sentenced the convicted man to one day in jail. It was after this day in jail that the alleged shooter allegedly converted to Islam, apparently acting in a way that raised red flags about him at the mosques he attended.
The author of the blog from whom I have gleaned much of this biographical information asks, “Did they use him like our FBI uses various career criminals who are facing a shit-load of serious time, to run around trying to find Muslims to set-up in entrapment schemes so they could create a looming terrorist attack and then foil it at the last minute?”
Rather than stay with his mother while he was in the Ottawa area the alleged shooter is said to have stayed in a homeless shelter. Nevertheless it is said he was able to purchase a car the day before he allegedly shot Corporal Cirillo. Then it is alleged that Zahef-Bibeau was himself shot inside Canada’s core Parliament Building. The person credited with killing the alleged killer of Corporal Cirillo is the Sergeant-at-arms of the House of Commons, Kevin Vickers.
Because of his criminal record, the alleged shooter was prohibited from having firearms. Much debate has ensued about whether or not the alleged shooter was motivated by a clear political agenda of engagement in terrorism or whether he should be understood as a drug-addicted and very confused man whose crimes had more to do with his own personal crisis that some desire to join ISIL and take part in violent jihad.
4. Ochsenreiter: There are some reports of some major drill involving police and Armed Forces that were underway on Oct. 22. Some investigators associate staged violent events with drills approximating the course of violent events. Could you please enlighten us on this subject.
Hall: The fact that US sources were the originating site of the basic explanation of the violent acts in the Canadian capital may well be connected to the existence of a major Canada-US “Homeland Security” Drill codenamed Determined Dragon. This drill was underway when the shooting occurred. The period between Oct. 20 and Oct. 29 is described as the “execution phase” of the drill meant to improve the “interface” of emergency measures operations for “homeland defense and homeland security missions” in “defense of North America and global defence.”
The drill linked something known as the Canadian Joint Action Command with NORAD (North American Areospace Defense Command), the United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) and the United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM). Some observers of the events of Oct. 22 were fast to point out that the concurrence of military and police “drills” involving scenarios similar to actual acts of unexpected violence are often the hallmark of false flag events.
False flag events are those where individuals or groups are covertly manipulated to commit or seem to commit heinous acts in order to justify various actions including ramping up police powers, surveillance powers, and the initiation of aggressive warfare. In his volume Synthetic Terror, Webster Tarplay pointed to 46 drills that ran concurrently with the events of 9/11. Some of these drills approximated some of the scenarios that unfolded on 9/11 creating understandable confusion and chaos among, for instance, air traffic controllers.
One could easily imagine that four similarly dressed individuals were part of a drill when they assembled on Parliament Hill just before the alleged shooter arrived to carry out the second phase of his supposed jihadist mission. The widely reported story is that Zehaf-Bideau shot Corporal Nathan Cirillo at Canada’s War Cenotaph. He allegedly attempted to shoot and kill a second soldier but missed. Then he is said to have gotten back in his Toyota Corolla sedan, which he apparently purchased the day before.
These four individuals converge concurrently just before the alleged shooter’s car approaches Parliament Hill. When the car pulls up they all move toward the Corolla as if to greet it. What is going on here? The picture is at 5:08 of the You Tube
In any case it’s interesting that the alleged shooter had the means to purchase a used car even though he was reportedly staying at a homeless shelter. The official account would have the alleged shooter of Corporal Cirillo, whose death was reported upon almost immediately on national radio, get into his car and drive undetected, unchallenged and certainly unobstructed to Parliament Hill. The film above was released by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The footage is described as that from security cameras. In the You Tube above four young and very fit men, all similarly dressed in suits and brief cases, act at first as a greeting party seemingly waiting for the newly-purchased vehicle to arrive. When the car does pull up in front of the big park area outside of the Parliament Buildings the four men all approach the vehicle in unison. They then run away in unison when the individual subsequently identified as Zehaf-Bibeau gets out. Are these apparently related individuals so-called “crisis actors?”
The next scene shown by the RCMP pictures the alleged shooter running along the wall of one of the outlying Parliament structures. This area in front of the Parliament Buildings is heavily traveled by staff and by tourists. Many police are regularly assigned to watch this area. How was it possible for the alleged shooter, who is said to have been carrying a rifle, to be prancing around this very closely scrutinized public space without being noticed? Or was there some determination on high that he should not be noticed, that he should be allowed entry into the main entrance way of the main Parliament Building?
In the RCMP’s video presentation allegedly showing the sequence of events following the alleged shooter’s arrival on Parliament Hill, the subject is so far from the security camera filming him that he cannot be clearly identified. The subject is shown approaching a high-end car whose driver is said to be on call to transport a high-ranking government of Canada official. After commandeering the car, rifle openly in hand, the supposed jihadist then drives towards Parliament’s main entrance way. One might think in watching the RCMP’s video that the alleged shooter is getting a police escort in his short trip. Two police cruisers pull in behind the commandeered vehicle and drive slowly behind it. No sirens are blaring or police lights flashing. A bus, truck or large van pulls in behind the commandeered car in a way that seems almost designed to shield it from any disruption in its short trip. The alleged Shooter then parks the vehicle and enters the hallway separating the House of Commons Chamber from the Senate Chamber. At a leisurely pace police officers subsequently emerge from their own cars have followed the subject to his destination.
There is a lot of video tape giving various angles of what happened inside the central Parliament building although none of it that I have seen gets anywhere near the alleged killing of the alleged shooter of Corporal Cirillo. Many camera crews were on site and were not evacuated in whatever police procedures took place culminating in many shoots being fired allegedly somewhere in the area of the internal entrance way to the Parliamentary Library.
Many other facets of the government story of the events of Oct. 22 are far from having been proven conclusively. There are, for instance, many strange elements in the videos of the para-medical treatments meted out after the shooting on the site of the War Memorial after the alleged shooting took place. For instance Cpl. Branden Stevenson, the second soldier guarding the sacred monument, is not among those pictured in the group trying to save Cpl. Cirillo’s life. Where did he go?
The efforts to pump the victim’s chest cage seem demonstrably problematic. The video scenes of what happened after Zehaf-Bibeau entered Parliament also raise many questions. Like officialdom’s story of what happened on 9/11, almost every aspect the official account of what happened in the area of Parliament Hill on Oct. 22 seems to cry out for skeptical, evidence-based investigation.
5. Ochsenreiter: How did the media report the events?
Hall: In Canada there is a well-known deference to authority that tends to preclude the asking of awkward and possibly embarrassing questions of public officials especially in times of emergency and tragedy. That is certainly the case here. The night of the tragedy Rex Murphy did one of his frequent commentaries on the nightly national news report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Murphy made his mark at the CBC praising Stephen Harper when he travelled to Afghanistan to embrace Canada’s military role in combatting what were initially depicted as the Islamic terrorist forces said to be primarily responsible for the attack on the United States on 9/11. His role at the CBC has been the subject of considerable controversy after it was reported that he accepts significant sums of money from oil companies on whose activities he reports on the CBC.
Murphy depicted the alleged shooter as a psychotic monster whose depravity he contrasted with the heroic greatness of fallen Corporal Cirillo and the Sergeant-at-arms of the House of Commons, Kevin Vickers. Vickers is credited with shooting the interloper at point-blank range although some reports indicate that many individuals had a hand in killing the supposed jihadist. Murphy’s reporting epitomizes the diagnosis of many that the CBC is fast becoming a state broadcaster rather than an impartial public broadcaster devoted to balanced reporting. This diagnosis is similar to that often applied to the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
In another era the CBC might have been considered the progressive wing of Canada’s constellation of media outlets. That situation, however, is fast changing rapidly. The reporting of Sun News, which is in the process of amalgamating with PostMedia Corporation, has been predictably inspired by the war agenda. Its operatives are firmly behind Harper’s desire to amplify the terrorist threat as the key to his transformation of Canadian institutions into his own personal medium of unassailable authority. The Sun Media-Post Media print publications and TV outlets predictably push an Israeliocentric line of analysis that conforms quite consistently to the propaganda for aggressive warfare whose most iconographic expression is the media empire of Rupert Murdoch and especially Fox News in the United States.
excerpt from the Mitrovica article.
There has been some commentary putting in the forefront the fact that Zehaf-Bibeau is, or has been, addicted to crack-cocaine, and that he may suffer from mental illness. This line of analysis is leading some to question how the alleged actions of a troubled individual who seems to have fallen between the cracks of impoverished and radically downsized social services agencies in Canada can really be held up as the reason to further empower the Canadian police state in the name of the latest iteration of the so-called Global War on Terror. Linda McQuaig has gone beyond this discussion in her article, “For Stephen Harper Fear Works.” She writes, The real danger here is that we will be terrorized — not by terrorists or mentally ill killers, but by Stephen Harper — into accepting an aggressive ‘war on terror’ agenda. Those who don’t jump on board will soon get the message: ‘If you’re not fighting terrorism, you’re with the terrorists.’”
Andrew Mitrovica, who used to work at Canada’s Globe and Mail in the days before those directing this influential Canadian media outlet abandoned their journalistic integrity, did a significant commentary on how Canadians have been betrayed by a press corps that operates primarily as stenographers for officialdom’s press releases. In a fairly popular web publication entitled, iPolitics Mitrovica explained that “Canada’s so-called media and political ‘elites’ abandoned” any semblance of “history, context, perspective, understanding, skepticism and thoughtfulness…. In their stead, we got a week-long diet of chest-thumping patriotic clichés, cheap, meaningless hyperbole and tropes that, taken together, have already manufactured widespread consent for what will surely be another assault on our rights and freedoms engineered by a cynical Conservative government.”
6. Ochsenreiter: You seem very suspicious that the official story is misrepresenting the truth or holding back key elements of the truth.
Hall: Yes. I thinks that’s fair comment. I think this episode is quite probably yet another illustration of the type of massive abuse of power that will almost certainly continue to undermine what is left of our democracies in the post-9/11 world. This erosion will persist as long as we do not address collectively the fable of 9/11 as it was foisted on us to substantiate the image of the post-Cold War world as one bedeviled by a clash of civilizations. At the core of this very elaborate psychological operation is the image of “the West” as essentially a Judeo-Christian construct poised against the worldwide community of Islam. Benjamin Netanyahu laid out the master narrative of this way of viewing the world in an edited book of conference proceedings he put together in 1979. The key to the work is well expressed in its title: Terrorism: How the West Can Win.
The continuation of the Global War on Terror, now with ISIL being made to fill the role previously assigned to the all-purpose boogeyman of al-Qaeda after the events of 9/11, depends on producing a constant flow of international and domestic events like the one we saw in Ottawa on Oct. 22. I am not flatly denying that a recent convert to Islam really did go on a murderous rampage acting on what he thought was his own divinely-inspired mission. Similarly, I am not ruling out that the alleged shooter was a troubled and alienated man caught up in some internal crisis that is best understood as a manifestation of personal and/or social breakdown.
My main contention at this time, however, is that there is no persuasive evidentiary basis to accept at face value most aspects of the government’s interpretation of not only what happened, but especially why it happened. Indeed, the coincidence of the timing of the Ottawa shooting on the first day of this particular parliamentary session, whose centerpiece is bound to be the war on the non-state entity that calls itself the Islamic State, is simply too stupendous not to arouse suspicion.
Seeing the way this debacle was seized upon by the international media as a kind of precautionary tale to illustrate the linkage between the domestic and international facets of the War Against ISIL also makes me wonder what is going on with the PR campaign to harness public opinion to the politics of this many-faceted police and military campaign. In today’s world the promotion of war forms the most lucrative of all potential projects for the PR industry that came to maturity in the context of the Cold War.
A pioneer of Madison Avenue’s PR promotion of war is Edward Bernays. The nephew of Sigmund Freud, Bernays publicized a concocted fable in 1954 of indigenous freedom fighters rising up to oppose communism in Guatemala. Using various performance tricks and forgeries for the press a myth was created to cover over the reality of a US-backed coup aimed at overturning the land reforms of Guatemala’s elected leader, Jacobo Arbenz. Years later the world’s largest PR firm, Hill and Knowlton, was hired in 1990 to sell Americans on President George H.W. Bush’s plan to invade Iraq with the goal of preventing Iraq from taking control of contested Kuwaiti oil fields.
The giant PR Firm of Hill and Knowlton was retained by the White House of President George H.W. Bush in 1990 to sell the American people a war against the Iraqi government then led by Saddam Hussein. The company employed the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to Canada and the United States to defraud Congress and the US media with a fabricated story about Iraqi soldiers ripping Kuwaiti babies from incubators to kill them.
The scheme infamously led to Congressional hearings where the daughter of Kuwait’s ambassador to the USA and Canada presented a fictional story as fact. Feigning tears and trauma, the girl known solely as “Nayirah” alleged, falsely we now know, that the army of Saddam Hussein had taken Kuwaiti babies from incubators to smash them lethally to the floor. The scam worked. Public opinion was manufactured to support the invasion plans of the 41st president of the USA. Of course no one went to jail for this most consequential defrauding of the public.
Seen through the lens of prior PR campaigns aimed at selling war through fraud and disinformation it becomes more possible to imagine that police and soldiers in Ottawa on Oct. 22 were encouraged to put on a good show for the cameras. Their intensively photographed actions provided pictorial grist for the international media. Their performances sent the desired signals to whole populations that the world is embarking on a new and even more dangerous phase of the never ending 9/11 Wars. The PR message would be that average citizens have no choice but to embrace on an even larger scale the need to operate our societies according to martial values and principles. The events in Ottawa on Oct. 22 were spun purposely or inadvertently to edify a culture of fear connected to the dehumanizing demonization of those subjected to the most severe indignities of Islamophobia, a plague that is already reaching epidemic proportions. Ultimately these indignities corrode the humanity of both those on the delivering and receiving ends of this travesty.
The heavily publicized story about events in the Canadian capital released originally from anonymous government sources in the United States provided a powerful marketing spin to promote the goal of expanding the powers and budgets of the already formidable forces of state coercion. Harper wasted no time in addressing the Canadian nation by doing his best imitation of former US President George W. Bush in the days and weeks following 9/11. His over-the-top speech was immediately and magnificently spoofed in Great Britain by the great comic controversialist, Russell Brand. Stephen Colbert provided a mirror image to Brand with a comic twist that went along with and amplified the dominant narrative. One of Harper’s lead spin doctors, Rex Murphy, also took immediately to the CBC airwaves with his own propagandistic diatribe. Its calculated effect was to urge along the remaking of Canada as a warrior state modelled in the image of Israel.
More, much more, is at stake in this saga than the political future of a single country or of the current Canadian prime minister. The larger objective of the drill that may have been rendered real, or, in other words, switched “live” on Oct. 22, might well have been to clear aside perceptual obstacles to a major invasion by many of the world’s most heavily armed powers, including the United States. The immediate target of this invasion is some of the most strategic turf in the Middle East. The larger agenda would seem to be, for starters, the breakup of Syria and Iraq in ways that could fulfill the divide-and-conquer plans first articulated by the Israeli geopolitical strategist Oded Yinon in the mid-1980s.
The history of false flag terrorism, a subject almost never covered in the mainstream media, is rife with examples of patsies set up as murderers. Lee Harvey Oswald would be an example of one supposed “lone gunman,” the archetype for the “lone wolf” scenario now being advanced in the case of the Ottawa shooter. A key question to be addressed is the role of those police state observers said to be keeping a close eye on the former Michael Joseph Hall, the current Michael Abdul Zehaf-Bibeau. Did these supposed observers in our so-called national security services have any role in the alleged Ottawa shooter’s supposed conversion to Islam, in the process that police officials as well as the current Canadian Prime Minister are very anxious to identify as “radicalization?”
Were those security officials or their agents and informers involved with the alleged Ottawa shooter actually handlers who had identified the mental instabilities of a vulnerable individual? Might such handlers have viewed Zehaf-Bibeau as an asset to be exploited? Was the alleged killer of Corporal Cirillo, a Canadian soldier apparently taken down while nobly protecting Canada’s main shrine to our fallen soldiers, a person whose extensive criminal record made him vulnerable to manipulation? Did Zahef-Bibeau receive suggestive help in coming to the conclusion that he should commit acts that would not advance the cause of Islam but would advance dramatically the interests of Stephen Harper and his war cabinet? Who led Zahef-Bibeau through his recent conversion to Islam? What happened along the way to his allegedly committing acts that some would view as essential to the process of bringing public opinion to the service of a vast establishment that has been making so-called “national security” into a huge growth industry?
There is a large and many-faceted academic literature on the subject of so-called intelligence agencies like the CIA, Mossad, MI6, BND, and CSIS in the underground world where very real conspiracies are hatched and implemented in ways that remain hidden for years. Operation Gladio is one such example. Disclosures concerning Operation Gladio expose how acts initially depicted as terrorists’ violence were enacted at the behest of NATO operatives and other deep state operatives. The end game of this activity was to make sure that public opinion in countries like Greece and Italy remained hostile to communists or suspected communists.
Swiss academic Daniel Ganser has documented the Gladio story, suggesting it provides a possible lens through which to view what really transpired on 9/11. Richard Cottrell has added scope and depth to the disclosures with his comprehensive volume, Gladio: NATO’s Dagger at the Heart of Europe. The writings of Nafeez Ahmed are also very strong on this subject of the amazingly close and complex connections between intelligence services in the West and Islamic groups and individuals placed very high on many terrorist watch lists.
Berkeley Professor Peter Dale Scott, the son of a powerhouse of Canadian social democracy, F. R. Scott, has written prolifically on the subject of deep state intrigue involving intelligence agency assets who mix their activities in the terrorist trade with the drug trade and the nuclear trade. This whole complex of inter-related activities is bound up in a strange undercover world of oil and gas exploitation in the vast pipelinestan region of Eurasia. The large literature of the scandalous global operations of the Pakistani-and-Saudi-based Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), a favourite financial institution for the CIA, the Bushes, the bin Ladens and the Afghan mujahadeen, are very revealing when it comes to illuminating the vast distance between how officialdom tells us the world runs and how the world actually runs.
The list of cases where the FBI uses well-paid agents and informants in the effort to foment, facilitate and then apprehend acts of police-instigated, police-enabled violence – act of false flag terrorism – is becoming very long. As Guelph University’s Professor Michael Keefer has made very clear with his exemplary investigative reporting of the so-called Toronto 18, this form of entrapment exists in Canada as well as in the United States. The Toronto 18 case concerns a group of Muslim youth in the Toronto area who were encouraged by a highly-paid Islamic undercover agent working for the federal police to commit violent acts in 2006.
Then in 2010 Canada’s police and media establishment went into hysteria-generating overdrive publicizing “homegrown terrorism” as a huge problem for Canada. Without actual proof or any due process whatsoever the Globe and Mail proclaimed the police discovery of a terrorist plot stretching “from Ottawa across the globe to Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Dubai…The call of jihad rings far and wide. What terrifies in the terrorism arrests” the editorialists proclaimed, “is that individuals who seem to be, and may in fact be, well integrated into their communities succumb, nevertheless, to the call of jihad.” The case focused on a Dr. Khurran Sher, then a 28 year old recent graduate of McGill University’s medical school. Those profiling him in the media also emphasized that Dr. Sher was an avid ball hockey player as well as a former contestant on Canadian Idol. In recent months Dr. Sher was found in court to be not guilty on all charges. In its small news report describing the not-guilty outcome the Globe and Mail made no apology for years earlier convicting this man in the court of public opinion.
The Ottawa shooter story has been covered by Tony Cartalucci. In an article in the Land Destroyer Report Cartalucci compares the fate of Zahef-Bibeau to that of a Rochester man of Yemani background, Mufid A. Elfgeeh. Elfgeeh was charged with trying to deliver three individuals to ISIL. He was also charged with plotting to kill American soldiers returning from Iraq. All three individuals that Elfgeeh allegedly tried to recruit and send along to Syria were undercover FBI informants. Cartalucci compares the Zahet-Bibeau and Elfgeeh case. The FBI script to “entrap” Elfgeeh “would be followed almost to the letter in live attacks subsequently carried out in Canada.”
In both the Elfgeeh and Zahef-Bibeau cases both the Canadian and US governments had both men under surveillance. Both were listed as “high risk travellers” whose passports had been revoked. Cartalucci concludes “It is very likely that the recent attacks in Canada involved at least one “informant” working for the FBI. Because the FBI uses confidential informants to handle suspects, if a plot is switched “live,” the informant will be implicated as an accomplice and the FBI’s covert role will remain uncompromised…. With both suspects having been on both US and Canada watch lists, it is very likely undercover agencies were involved in either one or both cases. While many possibilities exist, Western security agencies should be among the first suspects considered as potential collaborators.”
7. Ochsenreiter: Do you have any other thoughts on this matter, Prof. Hall, reflections that might help round out your analysis of this matter.
Hall: It should be noted that on Oct. 20 another convert to Islam, Martin Couture-Rouleau, drove down two Canadian soldiers killing one of them in St. Jean-sur-Richelieu in Quebec. After a car chase Couture-Rouleau was shot and killed by police. This young man in his mid-20s was on a watch list and had already had his passport revoked. The same questions about the role of possible informants and agents in the Zahef-Bibeau case could also be posed concerning the sequence of events leading to the death of a Canadian soldier in this hit-and-run case.
Tony Cartalucci has speculated that the gruesome spectacle of ISIL’s beheadings, which may have been in whole or in part simulated for the cameras, did not arouse a sufficient level of public abhorrence to translate into a high level of public support for another open ended military intervention in the Middle East. This consideration may have been a factor in the sequence of events that culminated in rendering predictions real that ISIL’s hostilities would soon be visited on North American and European countries.
Another subject which I think deserves attention is the widely disseminated photograph depicting a gun wielding Zahef-Bibeau supposedly at the Canadian war memorial at the actual moment he allegedly killed Corporal Cirillo. The alleged assailant is masked in a scarf of the type frequently worn in the desert regions of the Middle East. Of course this photograph went viral. It provides a damning image that would seem to create the necessary “proof” that the murder took place in the way we were told; that Zehaf-Bibeau’s alleged lethal actions on Oct. 22 were somehow the product of “radicalization” caused by Islamic extremism rather than by mental illness or the malevolent handling of a security police asset.
I haven’t yet been able to find a credible account of the image’s source. There was some controversy about whether or not the picture first appeared on an Islamic State web site and whether or not an unnamed tourist just happened to catch the image that seemingly helps make the case for the veracity of the government story.
I for one am skeptical about the source and rapid dissemination of the shooter image to give pictoral support to a narrative whose key elements were introduced by national security officials in the United States. The role of this potent image in effectively convicting Zahef-Bibeau in the court of public opinion before any investigation let alone any trial has taken place reminds me of a similar phenomenon that unfolded in Canada last June.
On June 4 Justin Bourque emerged from his trailer park home heavily equipped with armaments. A professional photographer just happened to be there to snap his image from the front and then from the back in the hours before Bourque is reported to have confronted the police force in his hometown of Moncton New Brunswick. His case could well have beneath it many bizarre twists and turns I shall not recount here. What I want to get at in this assessment, however, is that an image of an armed and dangerous Justin Bourque was fortuitously snapped at just the right moment and then quickly disseminated to the media by the police. What was the sequence of events that allowed this to happen? Was it by accident or was it by premeditated design that this strategic picture was snapped before any shooting spree took. Like Zahef-Bibeau’s picture with a rifle and an Arab scarf, the effect of Bourque’s shooter image was to give mental credence to an account of reality that may cover over hidden elements that might, if known, prove inconvenient for those in power?
Justin Bourque’s image, caught just before his cop-killing shooting spree, was plastered across multiple venues in the Canadian media. His image was sometimes juxtaposed with those of other famous and notorious gunmen. What was the sequence of events from capturing his image before the debacle to using this image in the hours ahead to convict the man in the court of public opinion before any trial had taken place?
The CEO of a so-called independent security and intelligence monitoring group in Ottawa found an interesting way to spin the story circulating on social media that an ISIL-related web site had been the first to publish the image that was supposedly captured by an unnamed tourist at the moment when Zehaf-Bibeau allegedly shot Corporal Cirillo. This spin had the effect that it is ISIL agents, not informers or handlers for the FBI, the RCMP, or CSIS exploiting the fragility and mental illnesses of possible assets. The CEO explained to the hosts of the CBC radio show, As It Happens, “that the swift reaction to the Ottawa shootings by ISIL on social media is in keeping with its own strategy, which includes inspiring acts of violence among people who don’t subscribe to any ideological beliefs, but suffer from mental health problems” He continued. “The fact is that individuals who are already on the margins of society — suffering from mental illness in many cases — often can find inspiration from these kinds of material and carry out acts like we’ve seen over the past week.”
Mubin Shaih was an RCMP “informer” who received at least $300,000 as payment for his entrapment of young Muslims in the Greater Toronto Area in 2006. The young Canadians he helped victimize were served up to feed the effort of the new Prime Minister to help him exploit Islamophobia– the fear of so-called “homegrown terrorism”– for political gain.
The continuing escalation of military intervention by North American and European military powers in the Middle East and throughout Eurasia more generally is a tragic turn in history diverting humanity from giving priority to the most immediate crises we collectively face. Those crises are the deep and cataclysmic ecological catastrophes engulfing humanity, indeed, engulfing all life on Earth. Prominent in the list of accelerating disasters in our world is the rapid despoliation of healthy sea life in the oceans. Our air, our food, our drinking water are toxified, actually weaponized. The Fukushima nuclear debacle is a good example of a terrible blight on our posterity that is not being treated with anywhere near the level of international attentiveness it deserves. The biggest and most lethal polluters of all, however, are those that poison the mental environment to clear aside informed public opposition capable of blocking military invasions on imperial capital’s most lucrative frontiers.
When the Cold War ended in the 1990s, the dominant interests in our war-based political economy could not or would not change. Our societies did not adapt well to the prospects of global peace that accompanied the end of the Cold War. A new global enemy was needed and the replacement enemy was found in Islam, a religion that has long been cynically manipulated and exploited in the course of Orientalist colonization.
One example of this kind of manipulation is the CIA’sbuilding up of the Muslim Brotherhood as a hedge against Nasserism and socialist pan-Arabism in the 1950s. Again in the 1980s the CIA assembled an international mujahadeen made up of recruits of recruits from many countries. This mujahadeen was both a rebel force and a US proxy army aimed at overthrowing the Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan. The project succeeded. The Soviet Union and its orbit of influence was destabilized.
Ian Johnson’s A Mosque in Munich presents a kind of spies’ perspective on twentieth-century Cold War Orientalism. Johnson describes and documents the CIA’s adoption of Nazi tactics for manipulating Islamists in order to create problems for the Soviet Union. The growth of the Muslim Brotherhood led to the Israeli cultivation of one of its offshoots. The Israeli intention was to manipulate Hamas as a way of drawing support away from Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian Liberation Organization, the PLO.
The 9/11 cataclysm has set in motion a seemingly self-perpetuating cycle. The 9/11 fabrication has given rise to a corrupt and self-serving national security racket. The keepers of the national security state’s secrets are not hiding inert objects. In order to keep secrets alternative stories about how reality is constructed are required. These departures into pseudo-reality are invented, planted, disseminated and put into echo chambers of amplification and repetition. The proprietors of the national security state are basically empowered to kill and steal with impunity, all in the name of anti-terrorism. This national security racket tends to bring to power an especially dangerous breed of psychopath like those that are playing the ISIL War from sides.
It is very clear how the government version of the Ottawa shooter event conforms so tightly with Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s ambition to remake Canada in the image of the Israeli warrior state.
How did the very suggestive image come to be of a masked “recent convert” to Islam allegedly killing his prey in what has been portrayed as a murderous moment of jihadist extremism? The subsequent story unfolded in a way that Zahef-Bibeau and Couture-Rouleau are no longer with us to tell their side of the story. What would they tell us if they were still alive to do so?
~ End ~