by Scott Creighton
The information war is well underway as the Pakistani population and the rest of the world begin to question the ever changing official story of the staged Malala psyop. Establishment media sources and controlled opposition sites alike are doing their level best to curtail criticism of the obvious propaganda. But as long as the internet is still relatively free and open, reality is hard to remake as the spin doctors are finding out every day.
Today the New York Times tries the tired but effective method of labeling those of us with legitimate questions as simply “conspiracy theorists”. This is pretty much the only argument they have to make on their own behalf. Notice how they work in the melding of the terms “Islamists’ and “nationalists” as if anyone who stands up for the sovereignty of Pakistan against the brutal tactics of the CIA and MI6 are automatically some kind of radicalized terrorist.
“In addition to Elton John’s tribute to Princess Diana, Ms. Qazi appeared to be referring to a conspiracy theory promoted in recent days by Islamist politicians and nationalists who claim that Malala was shot by American intelligence agents in order to deflect criticism of drone strikes or build public support for Pakistan’s Army to move against militants in the tribal area of North Waziristan.” New York Times
(Notice they avoid any mention of her becoming the spokesperson for the new global for-profit charter school system?)
Not surprisingly you find almost the exact same kind of marginalization of criticism coming from a well known controlled opposition/disinformation site, Veterans Today. They also relegate those who question the validity of the story to the “extremists” and “terrorists” while attempting to do so under the guise of still questioning the official story of the event. It’s called “controlled opposition” and the idea is to appear to remain an alternative voice in the information dissemination arena while still maintaining enough of the official story that it continues to serve it’s intended purpose.
“These same TTP elements circulated Malala’s pictures out of context on Facebook primarily and then on their forums trying to gain sympathy and support from Pakistan’s emotional lot who will label anyone as ‘CIA’ if they meet any white man. In this way, the TTP is fulfilling the CIA’s psychological game-plan. Confusion, confusion and utter confusion.
My humble request is: We should abstain from unfounded speculation and spreading tell-tale rumors. In the end, what needs to be noted is that Malala Yusufzai and her class fellows were attacked, their blood was spilt. They were not spared.” Veterans Today
Both of these articles focus on a photo that has recently emerged showing Malala and her father meeting with globalist U.S. Special Envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke in 2010.
While the New York Times article tries to portray this meeting as some kind of publicity stunt which involved many grass roots activists in Pakistan, the Veteran’s Today piece almost suggests that the photo is manufactured, claiming only that they can’t determine where the meeting took place.
That’s kind of hard to understand since the image came directly from a documentary made about Malala by Adam Ellick and all Veteran’s Today would have to do to answer that question would be to watch the documentary.
Turns out, according to Ellick, she was there that day “pleading’ with the U.S. special envoy to “intervene” in Pakistan to keep the Taliban from closing her school.
What is clear is the fact that neither of these two publications comes close to exposing the deep level of CIA and CFR involvement in the creation of the Malala Psyop.
My next article is going to do just that.
(Help keep independent journalism alive. Please consider DONATING to American Everyman. Your donations will help spread real investigative journalism to more people across the world.)