It is almost required watching, all four parts of Sibel Edmond’s interview with James Corbett. If you are unfamiliar with Edmond’s background, she’s a former FBI translator and whistleblower. She testified to the 9/11 Commission but her testimony is still classified. She is considered the “most gagged woman in history” and 13 years after 9/11, is still under various court orders to not discuss certain things.
The main controversial aspect of her known story is that, as an FBI translator, she translated wiretaps of phone conversations between top levels of the US State Department (Marc Grossman is mentioned often) and the top leaders of “Al Qaeda” both before, and after, 9/11. She describes these State Department officials as “giving orders” to Al Qaeda.
In a sense, it’s a complicated story, but it’s not all that complicated. The focus of the interview is the NATO operation known as “Gladio B.” The original “Operation Gladio” – which was revealed in Europe back in the late 80s and early 90s – were NATO funded terrorist cells that would pose as communists and commit terrorism. While these cells exist all over Europe, Edmonds concentrates on Turkey, where these cells were made up of supposed “ultra-nationalists” but seemingly actually simply various criminals and mafioso, in some case, let out of jail by NATO for the specific purpose of committing terrorism.
Gladio B represents a change in NATO strategy – in Turkey, they began to eliminate the “ultra-nationalists” of Gladio A and replace them with “radical Muslims” – “Al Qaeda” – who now commit false flag terrorism under the banner of Islam, as opposed to communism.
While much is historical, the current “Al Qaeda” offshoot, ISIS or Islamic State, seems to be pretty much just a continuation of Gladio B.
What is so great about Edmonds is her analysis is not only backed up by the facts and evidence, but that it also has more explanatory power than the official narratives. Once you listen to Edmonds and understand the story, it’s impossible to go back to the superficial, shallow understanding of history promoted by the likes of, well, you know who, and the religious style “statements of fait”.
“Foley murder video ‘may have been staged’: Analysts believe the British jihadi in the video may not have been James Foley’s killer, although it is accepted that the journalist was murdered.”
It’s a sign of emotional immaturity and cognitive weakness to throw a tantrum when evidence that films you see on TV may not, in fact, be “real.” If an author cannot even be trusted to look at war propaganda with a critical eye, what parts of his analysis can be trusted at all? Anything?
(Videos in links below have been removed by YouTube)