Monday, March 13, 2006

WHY WOULD SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC BE MURDERED?

Milosevic recently died in custody at The Hague. He had been defending himself against charges of genocide in a trial that had lasted five years. He was supposed to be checked every 30 minutes due to his ill health, but had not been checked for over three hours when he was found dead in his cell.

In the last month there had been traces of a drug used for the treatment of epilepsy. Milosevic was being treated for high blood pressure and heart problems, not epilepsy. The epilepsy drug found in his bloodstream can negate the benefits of the drugs he was taking for the treatment of his known ailments. The verdict reached from an autopsy was that he died of a heart attack. Could the epilepsy drug have negated the drugs Milosevic was taking for his high blood pressure?

Milosevic recently called Bill Clinton as a witness. Clinton had not responded to Milosevic's request. Why? What is it that Clinton could reveal were he to take the witness stand and swear under oath that he would tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

The Balkan wars of the 1990's were about oil. Specifically a pipeline that would be built across the region which would drastically reduce the pressure on the shipping from the Caspian. At the time the Caspian was relatively untapped. So how did the USA, UK, NATO etc know that there would come a time in the near future for a pipeline across the Balkans? Because they knew a plan was in the pipeline for a false flag terrorist attack on the USA which would give the USA reason to invade the Caspian and take the nataural resources.

If Clinton were to take the witness stand he could reveal all this. He could also lose his chance of becoming Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Thus, Milosevic may well have been murdered.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

None of what you say was needed to build the pipeline.
It was part of "normal trade" and would have been built whatever Power controlled the Region.
Milosovitch was at the Hague because he allowed severe military measures to be used against the Mudjhadeen (20,000) that had come to Kristina and Bosnia, to muder and behead the defenseless Chritian farmers of Serbian heritage.
In the early 1990's beheadings Iraq style were already the big fashion for the jihadists. It is coming to a street near you one day soon.
Clinton used NATO to bomb the only Christian- based Country resisting the Balkans jihad.
Clinton did the work of Al Quaeda for them, in between blow-jobs under the Whitehouse table.
That is why he would not go to the Hague.
Did you not see how the judges prevented the public seeing the photos of beheaded Serbian farmers that prompted Milosovitches' military actions? I will give you a link if you have not seen them.
Yes, Milosovitch's death was possibly hastened, but it had little to do with 9/11 conspiracies.
If Blair and Bush had plans to create tension with Islam to enable their "worldcontrol plan" why do they bend over backwards to use terms like "islamic extremism" instead of "islam?"
Any cursory examination of the tracts of islam will show you why it is incompatible with "freedom" that we enjoy. (Yes we do, you can fly around and do more or less anything you like, don't pretend otherwise, and don't forget YOU need oil as much as the next man, for just about every aspect of life, you got ot stop being in denial)
Why does Cherie Blair indulge in defending (at legal aid expense) girls (supposedly British) who want to wear burkhas at school against the schools rules, when the group behind the radicalisation of muslim children is Hisb ut-Tahrir, another jihadist islamic mafia?
It does not fit with your views of total control and why it is being implemented.
I agree with you on the dangers that we face in this regard, but I see the causes as very much different from the ones you propose.