To add a link like this one:
Click on the “link” button above the box you type your comment into. A window will appear in front of the page. In this window, paste your link into the top box labelled “URL”. Type the text you want to call your link (in this case “Example”) into the box beneath labelled “Link Text”. Click the button “Add Link” at the bottom right. The window will close, and you will see that some technical-looking text has been added to your comment – this is called an HTML “a” tag. When you post your comment it will appear as a clickable link.
If you learn the format the “a” tag can be typed in manually, but there’s less chance of mistake when using the button.
– – – – – – – – – –
I haven’t looked into the hijackers, but according to Sibel Edmonds Gladio B uses jihadists, so I expect it’s roughly right. Yeah, yeah, always the most fantastical story, remote controlled aircraft, I know. That’s harder than you might think – ever heard of latency? Much cheaper and more reliable to use jihadists, which as you mentioned (Mujahideen) is actually a Standing Operating Procedure for the US/UK/Saudi/Israeli alliance. It’s so bloody obvious that I’m surprised that more people don’t notice – The CIA-manipulated Mujahideen in Afghanistan, the “imminent massacre (actually of rampant jihadists) in Benghazi”, the “moderate rebels” (actually jihadists) infesting Syria; they use it over and over again, yet still the majority blame generic “Muslims”. Sigh.
Osama bin Laden initially denied any involvement and claimed that the attacks were probably personally motivated; if he had orchestrated it he would have claimed victory.
Osama bin Laden remained true to his faith, but his faith was Wahhabism, and being the Saudi state religion it is less a religion and more a type of religious fascism – it teaches that any non-Wahabbists are “infidels” and may be killed. But he saw that the Saudi monarchy was corrupt so he turned against it and became the enemy of Saudi Arabia and the USA; that’s why he and his organisation were chosen as the fall guys.
See, there are jihadists and jihadists. When they invade Syria on behalf of the Gulf monarchies, Western media depict them as “rebels against the dictator Assad”, or “White Helmets”. When they run amok in Benghazi, Western media depict them as justified rebels against Gaddafi, who is planning a “massacre” which demands a no-fly zone. But when they shoot a load of geriatric cartoonists in Paris, they’re “terrorists”.
It’s a “strategy of tension”, see? You encourage the Gulf Monarchies to indoctrinate their own kids into religious extremists, and as they grow up they just go off like firecrackers, bouncing around almost randomly. If they do something the Western alliance want, they’re “freedom fighters”, and NATO supports them with logistics and intelligence eg. Syria. But if they do something that’s unpopular with the public, label them “terrorists” instead, and use it as an excuse to increase security, abolish civil liberties, and spy on the entire population. It’s win/win, so what’s not to like?