There's Something Rotten in Istanbul... and Pennsylvania

Why isn't ISIS claiming responsibility for the Istanbul airport attack?

Perhaps because they're not responsible.

I realise that's not an acceptable position to voice but considering the circumstances one must question the official narrative.

ISIS has not claimed responsibility. Why not? Usually they're quite eager to lay claim to attacks, even if (like in Orlando) they had nothing (operationally) to do with it.

ISIS is not a unified organisation. While there's some cohesion in Iraq and Syria, the larger network is only loosely affiliated and it is evident there are many autonomous sub-factions and cells. They term is used very loosely in the media.

The same has been true for many years with reference to al Qaeda.

The attackers are a Chechen and two Turkic people from Central Asia, an Uzbek and a Kyrgyz. That's very interesting as the US via the Gülen Network and Grey Wolves has been very involved in both the Chechen conflict and in stirring up Central Asian tensions via Islamic movements and Pan-Turkism. While Chechen expatriates in the Middle East have in some cases embraced ISIS, there aren't too many Central Asians involved in the movement. However it sounds like this crew was speaking Russian, which suggests they weren't based in Syria or Iraq. That's not definitive but possibly noteworthy.

Turkey has recently re-established ties with Israel and some have focused on this point but I think it's far more significant that Turkey has moved toward repairing the breach with Russia.

The fact that these attackers are connected with Russia and the former USSR will raise some difficult questions and possibly lead to tensions... tensions Washington would approve of.

As I've written elsewhere even the shoot-down of the Russian jet last year was suspicious. Turkmen associated with the Grey Wolves... the same crowd once again... were in the area and believed to be responsible for killing the ejected pilots. Ankara might have had little or no control over their actions and yet in the end it might have been even more embarrassing for Erdogan to admit that he doesn't fully control his military let alone all the paramilitary groups that fall under it. The initial reports suggested the plane was shot down from ground fire but later it came out that it was two Turkish F-16s that shot down the Russian Su-24.

Erdogan is placed in the awkward position of having to explain why the Turkish military was directly supporting al Nusra (al Qaeda) linked militias. The fact that the Grey Wolves were working with them is a story in itself. This NATO collaboration with and support of al Nusra is the huge story of the Syrian conflict that Western media doesn't want to talk about... that the US has basically allied itself with pro- al Qaeda factions. Petraeus suggested as much during his testimony with Congress. He was floating an idea that was already reality on the ground.

The media has tended to focus on the Russian violation of Turkish airspace and has tried to paint Russia as the aggressive troublemaker in the region. They have focused on the nature of the military mistake by the Turkish forces.

But what they refuse to focus on is the reality on the ground... that NATO forces were supporting the Grey Wolves operating alongside a larger al Qaeda linked fighting force in Northern Syria.

The question for me is.... does Erdogan support this or is the military (via the NATO command) operating outside of his control? Either way, he can't win. He can't look good.

There's a long history of tension between the Ankara government and the military... especially when the government is Islamist. The Turkish military is dedicated to Kemalism which is (to be blunt) exactly the type of Right-wing fascism has US liked to see from Spain to Italy to Latin America, Turkey and elsewhere. The Grey Wolves are the fascist paramilitaries associated with the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) and have long been associated with the military Deep State and the CIA. They are a large group operating throughout Eurasia. Some factions are probably loyal to Erdogan and some are not. Generally speaking they would not be favourable toward someone like him.

To take in the larger picture and add a little to the equation... US dominated NATO fears the Brexit is weakening European cohesion. A terrorist attack on a NATO member country proves somewhat convenient. This does not mean that the attack is necessarily connected. Yet, its timing can only help the NATO command.

The Pope's recent visit to Armenia is also interesting in that just as Turkey is lashing out against the West... the terror attack once more drives Ankara back into a necessarily pro-NATO and NATO-dependent posture.

The US has employed the Strategy of Tension for many years. In the 1990s stories broke out across Europe which were all but ignored in the United States. It involved US 'Stay-Behind' units... essentially secret armies that were ostensibly to provide guerilla resistance to a Soviet invasion. Instead they became underground armies the US utilised for terror operations. They were initially established by former Nazis like Reinhard Gehlen in collaboration with the leadership of the OSS/CIA. These operations were known by many different names, but the Italian branch has become the most famous and thus the whole of the European project is sometimes referred to by the Italian codename of Gladio.

The US established close ties with these fascist cells, forged ties with the Vatican, utilised the IOR/Vatican Bank to launder money and fund clandestine operations. The US all but dominated European politics through overt and covert control of political parties. In Italy the Christian Democrats, allied with the Vatican were closely controlled by the US for many decades. When the Christian Democrats collapsed a new conservative wing took over forged by the likes of Berlusconi who was tied in with all the old scandals involving the Vatican, the P2 lodge and figures like Licio Gelli. Berlusconi's Forza Italia was the new mechanism for the same old forces that had dominated Italy since the end of World War II.

It was revealed that many Left-wing movements like the Red Brigades were in fact infiltrated by these CIA controlled fascist groups. They terrorised Europe (especially Italy and Turkey) for decades and yet the attacks were often blamed on others, in particular the communists. The Strategy of Tension was to generate fear and angst in these societies and push the populations to embrace if not demand Right-wing 'security' based regimes that would support US policies, US bases, and work to aid NATO in subverting worldwide communism.

The news broke in the 1990s and many in the European Establishment were livid... but nothing was done. That in itself was instructive as well as the total lack of media coverage in the United States. It should have been one of the greatest scandals of modern times. Official mouthpieces discount it all as conspiracy or 'blown out of proportion', but if you look into it the story while murky is compelling and exposes the true and sinister nature of US power. Actually when considering the history of the United States and its allies, it's not really that surprising but the story goes places that many people don't want to venture as it will expose the United States for what it is... and what it isn't.

In the 1980s the US forged similar networks with Islamic groups to fight as proxies in places like Afghanistan and across Eurasia and the Middle East. These relationships continued into the 1990s and though few realise it, they have continued to this day. They US has funded Islamic terrorists for decades and this is certainly true in the Balkans, Chechnya and Central Asia. They are utilising some of these fighters today in places like Turkey, Syria, Libya, the Caucasus, Central Asia and Xinjiang.

It's an old story.

But it becomes confused because there are still those that believe groups like al Qaeda were/are directly controlled by the United States. There's great evidence to suggest the US was involved with the players that became al Qaeda and certainly data that suggests elements within the US government knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand but I don't believe the US perpetrated the attacks. That line gets a little blurry I'll admit. I don't believe that everything is orchestrated and controlled but the history is murky and sordid and thus suppressed.

When I heard of the origins of these attackers in Istanbul I immediately thought of the Poconos. In Eastern Pennsylvania lies a heavily secure compound from which Fethullah Gülen runs a paramilitary training camp and a massive network of schools, media and much more. Erdogan accuses Gülen of trying to overthrow Turkey's government and has requested extradition but Gülen is protected by Washington. Interestingly a verdict just came down the other day.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/30/fethullah-gulen-lawsuit-thrown-out-in-setback-for-turkeys-erdogan

He's patently a US asset and has been the primary agent for US interests along the southern periphery of Russia and within the Turkic world. Some like Sibel Edmonds have spoken of a 'Gladio B' project. This time instead of Fascists posing as Left-wing terrorists we have Fascists and Islamists conducting paramilitary and terror operations that are being pinned on al Qaeda and ISIS. The paramilitary Grey Wolves would represent an 'overlap' between the old and new versions of Gladio. The goal is the same... to manipulate governments into supporting US militarism and the Security State.

This isn't to say ISIS or al Qaeda aren't real. They most certainly are as were the Red Brigades. And again I don't subscribe to the idea that they are phony CIA creations controlled from Langley. I don't doubt that some of the wider network of cells are infiltrated and perhaps in some cases are indeed fake but the core groups are real and sincere.

The timing of this attack is suspicious as are the elements associated with it. Erdogan is staging a further crackdown and will turn more toward the US backed and heavily infiltrated Turkish military and NATO. The media (at least in the West) may push the Russian angle and suggest something to do with Putin, but this is absurd. The likely origin of these attacks goes back to Pennsylvania and ultimately Langley.

Turkish arrests are reported in the Western media but the details aren't given.

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/police-detain-28-in-raids-on-gulenists-in-turkey.aspx?pageID=238&nID=100901&NewsCatID=341

We already know that Washington has no qualms about attacking its own allies and utilising every form of terrorism and murder in order to accomplish its goals. There's a long history of this that frankly is beyond dispute. The question is... has Washington turned over a new leaf since 1991 or 2001, or is it still up to the same old sinister tricks?

Can we prove the Istanbul Airport attack was conducted by the Grey Wolves and/or the Gülen network? That's not likely though sometimes a lot of suggestive date comes forth. However the incident points to something, to elements beyond the officially reported story.

In the end all questions of this nature are in part dependent on circumstantial evidence rooted in inference. This is where our knowledge can make wrong turns but if ignored our knowledge can also be reductionist and continue to miss what is patently obvious. Even an inductive or scientific approach to these types of questions rests on looking at patterns of evidence and relies on inference.

This where context sets the stage. If one's presuppositions won't allow for all possibilities then the possible conclusions will certainly be limited. For example if it is simply unfathomable that the US could ever work with terrorists, do things that are illegal, if the US is always viewed as essentially good and moral and if most people are understood to honest, these presuppositions will discount many possible inferences from the data.

Likewise if someone views the US as the grand architect of all evil, then everything can also be read into and in some cases forced to cohere with that view. Either way you end up with distortions.

As Christians we can certainly grasp the nature of man's depravity, the corruptions of covetousness and power and man's desire to build Babel, a pseudo-kingdom of God. Reading history in theological terms we are not given a grand interpretive grid by which to read and shape and history. However we are given insight into the nature of man and the patterns of his behaviour. Wickedness should not surprise us. For many American Christians their blindness comes in that they have embraced the heresy of American Exceptionalism. They believe that America is different, holy and somehow relates in a different manner with God than other nations.

Once it is grasped that Sacralism is one of the great heresies of Church history then it's not surprising that this thinking has affected not only Christians but even Americans in general. In many cases they possess something of a god-complex, a belief that they are right and can do no wrong. As long as America gets its way, there is goodness in the world. This type of thinking is ultimately Satanic and has led to a great many evils in the world.

We cannot know the answers in terms of the details or motives that are within people's hearts. Man is complex as is the world. History doesn't provide absolutes but we can learn from it. Woe to those who refuse its lessons. Do you doubt man's depravity? The Bible reveals the truth of the matter but history (in this case) ought to be sufficient. Man's evil knows no bounds.