My scepticism of the lack of warning and foreknowledge has been vilified, as is my belief that the knighthood awarded to Rushdie was a blatant provocation.
=================================
From http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23402430-details/Were+car+bombs+revenge+for+Rushdie%27s+knighthood/article.do
Police say there was no prior indication of a possible terrorist threat - yet it has emerged that a message appeared on a popular jihadist website on Thursday night seemingly predicting an attack.
Hours before police dismantled the first car bomb, a posting on the Al Hesbah chat forum pointed to an imminent Al Qaeda bombing in London.
The message, posted under the name Abu Osama al-Hazeen, gave the invasion of Iraq and the recent knighthood for Salman Rushdie as justification for a fresh terrorist attack on Britain.
================================
Point 1: a message stating London was to be bombed was posted on a popular Jihadist website, giving the exact day.
Q1 : Who should be constantly monitoring these sites every second of every day considering we are constantly under threat, allegedly?
Q2 : who should know who the posters are? (they know who I am and I use a nome de plume).
Point 2: Iraq and Rushdie were cited as reasons
Q3: Who is in charge of the Arts & Media subcommittee of the Honours Committee which recently recommended Rushdie's knighthood (even though I think Rushdie has lived in the USA for several years)?
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Friday, June 29, 2007
IMMACULATE TIMING OF "FAILED" TERROR ATTACK
The perfect way to scare the living sh&t out of the new cabinet, particularly the testosterone-fuelled new Home Secretary, and put terror at the top of the agenda. Certain other testosterone-fuelled persons want a 90 day detention, ID Cards, DNA samples of everyone, increased stop-and-search powers and even torture (hence Blair's opt-out of the new EU treaty). This incident is guaranteed to make these suggestions look attractive solutions.
It sounds like a car laden with basic fuel and nails was either parked or clumsily crashed near Piccadilly Circus early this morning. The intention may well have been to explode a bomb in a busy area of nighttime London.
But once again, as with 7/7, the "attackers" are unknown and there was zero intelligence on the "attack", allegedly.
If you wanted a police state and you wanted to influence a testosterone-fuelled Home Secretary on her first full day, really scare the shit out of her, besides detonating a dirty bomb, this attack, if it had succeeded, may have caused a lot of horrible deaths and injuries.
It sounds like a car laden with basic fuel and nails was either parked or clumsily crashed near Piccadilly Circus early this morning. The intention may well have been to explode a bomb in a busy area of nighttime London.
But once again, as with 7/7, the "attackers" are unknown and there was zero intelligence on the "attack", allegedly.
If you wanted a police state and you wanted to influence a testosterone-fuelled Home Secretary on her first full day, really scare the shit out of her, besides detonating a dirty bomb, this attack, if it had succeeded, may have caused a lot of horrible deaths and injuries.
NEW HOME SECRETARY IS STRONGLY IN FAVOUR OF ID CARDS
According to TheyWorkForYou.com the new Home Secretary Jacqui Smith is "very strongly" in favour of introducing ID Cards.
===================================
From http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/jacqui_smith/redditch
How Jacqui Smith voted on key issues since 2001:
* Moderately against a transparent Parliament. votes, speeches
* Moderately for introducing a smoking ban. votes, speeches
* Very strongly for introducing ID cards. votes, speeches
* Strongly for introducing foundation hospitals. votes, speeches
* Strongly for introducing student top-up fees. votes, speeches
* Strongly for Labour's anti-terrorism laws. votes, speeches
* Very strongly for the Iraq war. votes, speeches
* Very strongly against investigating the Iraq war. votes, speeches
* Very strongly for replacing Trident. votes, speeches
* Very strongly for the fox hunting ban. votes, speeches
* Very strongly for equal gay rights. votes, speeches
==================================================
So she is strongly for anti-terrorism laws, very strongly for the Iraq War and very strongly against investigating it, and is very strongly for wasting billions and billions of hard-earned taxpayers money which should be spent on schools and hospitals on a brand, new, shiny set of missiles with which to kill millions of people ie replacing Trident.
I am not impressed at all. In this appointment the agenda rolls on. The way this appointment has been presented was possibly the reason for hiding this voting record. She is reportedly the first woman to hold this post, but her opinions are highly testosterone-fuelled.
===================================
From http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/jacqui_smith/redditch
How Jacqui Smith voted on key issues since 2001:
* Moderately against a transparent Parliament. votes, speeches
* Moderately for introducing a smoking ban. votes, speeches
* Very strongly for introducing ID cards. votes, speeches
* Strongly for introducing foundation hospitals. votes, speeches
* Strongly for introducing student top-up fees. votes, speeches
* Strongly for Labour's anti-terrorism laws. votes, speeches
* Very strongly for the Iraq war. votes, speeches
* Very strongly against investigating the Iraq war. votes, speeches
* Very strongly for replacing Trident. votes, speeches
* Very strongly for the fox hunting ban. votes, speeches
* Very strongly for equal gay rights. votes, speeches
==================================================
So she is strongly for anti-terrorism laws, very strongly for the Iraq War and very strongly against investigating it, and is very strongly for wasting billions and billions of hard-earned taxpayers money which should be spent on schools and hospitals on a brand, new, shiny set of missiles with which to kill millions of people ie replacing Trident.
I am not impressed at all. In this appointment the agenda rolls on. The way this appointment has been presented was possibly the reason for hiding this voting record. She is reportedly the first woman to hold this post, but her opinions are highly testosterone-fuelled.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
MILIBAND AS FOREIGN SECRETARY
Apparently Miliband was one of just a couple of ministers who opposed Blair's stand on the Israel/Lebanon war last year. So we'll see what happens on the Iran front.
ANOTHER SURVEY SUGGESTS MORE FAITH IN THE UN
The Guardian is reporting on another survey which suggests more people are favouring the UN and see the environment as a major threat to the planet.
Hmm. I wonder where the people are getting their ideas from?
======================================
From http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2113064,00.html
Growing numbers of people worldwide view environmental problems, pollution, infectious diseases, nuclear proliferation and the widening gap between rich and poor as the most menacing threats facing the planet, according to a 47-nation survey published yesterday by the US-based Pew Global Attitudes Project.
The survey, which conducted more than 45,000 interviews, finds that global opinion is increasingly wary of the world's dominant countries but also unimpressed by aspiring leaders in Iran and Venezuela who challenge the international status quo. In contrast, the UN receives strong support.
...Rising powers such as China and Russia get mixed reviews. Russia's Vladimir Putin scores worse than George Bush in terms of confidence that he will "do the right thing" in world affairs - 30% believe he will, against 45% for Mr Bush.
China's expanding military and economic power is also viewed with suspicion, except in Africa, where it has launched trade and aid initiatives.
Huge majorities in most countries, notably in the Arab Middle East, say they do not trust Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Venezuela's Hugo Chávez inspires similar suspicion, even in Latin America.
======================================================
The Pew Global Attitudes Project has Madeleine Albright and ex US Ambassador to the UN John Danforth as Co-Chairs on its International Advisory Board. The Pew Research Center has Karlyn Bowman of the American Enterprise Institute and Patrick Butler, Vice President of The Washington Post Company on its board.
But a look at the Pew website shows the kind of spin they are putting on the results.
Take a look at
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/524/global-unease-with-major-world-powers-and-leaders
and in particular the results for the Bush v Putin global leadership contest (see below). The page looks at some of the results from ALL countries. For example for the environment and attitudes to US foreign policy all countries surveyed are listed. However for the Bush v Putin global leadership contest only 8 countries are listed, two of whom are the USA and Russia, while the rest consist of NATO countries, who are
controlled by Bilderbegers and its general popoulation heavily influenced by Bilderberg-controlled media.
Take a read of the full report, and it basically states what the NWO want;
decreasing trust in America
growing trust in the UN, EU
fear of the environment and the planet
scepticism of Putin, Chavez, Ahmedinejad (all none Bilderberg and wanting to use their countries natural resources to benefit their own people)
confidence in Merkel (Bilderberg)
Hmm. I wonder where the people are getting their ideas from?
======================================
From http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2113064,00.html
Growing numbers of people worldwide view environmental problems, pollution, infectious diseases, nuclear proliferation and the widening gap between rich and poor as the most menacing threats facing the planet, according to a 47-nation survey published yesterday by the US-based Pew Global Attitudes Project.
The survey, which conducted more than 45,000 interviews, finds that global opinion is increasingly wary of the world's dominant countries but also unimpressed by aspiring leaders in Iran and Venezuela who challenge the international status quo. In contrast, the UN receives strong support.
...Rising powers such as China and Russia get mixed reviews. Russia's Vladimir Putin scores worse than George Bush in terms of confidence that he will "do the right thing" in world affairs - 30% believe he will, against 45% for Mr Bush.
China's expanding military and economic power is also viewed with suspicion, except in Africa, where it has launched trade and aid initiatives.
Huge majorities in most countries, notably in the Arab Middle East, say they do not trust Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Venezuela's Hugo Chávez inspires similar suspicion, even in Latin America.
======================================================
The Pew Global Attitudes Project has Madeleine Albright and ex US Ambassador to the UN John Danforth as Co-Chairs on its International Advisory Board. The Pew Research Center has Karlyn Bowman of the American Enterprise Institute and Patrick Butler, Vice President of The Washington Post Company on its board.
But a look at the Pew website shows the kind of spin they are putting on the results.
Take a look at
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/524/global-unease-with-major-world-powers-and-leaders
and in particular the results for the Bush v Putin global leadership contest (see below). The page looks at some of the results from ALL countries. For example for the environment and attitudes to US foreign policy all countries surveyed are listed. However for the Bush v Putin global leadership contest only 8 countries are listed, two of whom are the USA and Russia, while the rest consist of NATO countries, who are
controlled by Bilderbegers and its general popoulation heavily influenced by Bilderberg-controlled media.
Take a read of the full report, and it basically states what the NWO want;
decreasing trust in America
growing trust in the UN, EU
fear of the environment and the planet
scepticism of Putin, Chavez, Ahmedinejad (all none Bilderberg and wanting to use their countries natural resources to benefit their own people)
confidence in Merkel (Bilderberg)
THE SCOUNDREL BEREZOVSKY GETS EVEN MORE BBC AIR TIME
A few weeks ago he took centre stage on a Question Time which for the first half of the programme focused on Berezovsky and Russia.
This morning I saw the Terry Venables look-a-like on HardTalk interviewed by lightweight Stephen Sackur. This interview was later reported on in the BBC Morning News and is to be repeated on BBC News 24 several times today.
In it Berezovsky was asked why it is that if he wants Luguovoi to stand trial over here then he doesn't return to his motherland of Russia and defend his name there. His answer was that he thinks he will be killed.
Why does he think he will be killed? What has he done to the Russian people that makes him think his life is in danger? Berezovsky tried to claim that he made his money by playing the market legally. Today Russia is trying Berezovsky in his absence for embezzlement.
Berezovsky was almost caught out by Sackur when Sackur began questioning Berezovsky on demcocray. Berezovsky had earlier claimed to The Guardian that he was financing revolution in Russia while at the same time wanting a democracy in Russia, which does sound contradictory but is completely logical in the London/Washington school of thought in which democracy is imposed to allow foreign corporations to rape a "new deomcratic" country of its natural resources.
This morning I saw the Terry Venables look-a-like on HardTalk interviewed by lightweight Stephen Sackur. This interview was later reported on in the BBC Morning News and is to be repeated on BBC News 24 several times today.
In it Berezovsky was asked why it is that if he wants Luguovoi to stand trial over here then he doesn't return to his motherland of Russia and defend his name there. His answer was that he thinks he will be killed.
Why does he think he will be killed? What has he done to the Russian people that makes him think his life is in danger? Berezovsky tried to claim that he made his money by playing the market legally. Today Russia is trying Berezovsky in his absence for embezzlement.
Berezovsky was almost caught out by Sackur when Sackur began questioning Berezovsky on demcocray. Berezovsky had earlier claimed to The Guardian that he was financing revolution in Russia while at the same time wanting a democracy in Russia, which does sound contradictory but is completely logical in the London/Washington school of thought in which democracy is imposed to allow foreign corporations to rape a "new deomcratic" country of its natural resources.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
CLASSIC! BLAIR'S SON JOINS MORGAN STANLEY!
As MPs applauded Blair as he finished his last PMQs Blair's son Euan was beginning work for one of the world's most evil banks, Morgan Stanley.
Morgan Stanley is a product of the Morgan's, Rothchild's American agent. "The Money Masters" state that although when JP Morgan died he was considered to be one of America's wealthiest people it was discovered that almost everything he owned belonged to the Rothchilds.
During WW1 Morgan dominated Wall Street.
During WW1 he was the largest single consumer of goods for war supplies as the sole agent for the Allies.
Agents of Morgan and Rockefeller created the greatest hoax ever foisted upon mankind, The Federal Reserve. Upon the creation of The Federal Reserve Morgan agents played significant parts in its governance, and in events of enormous significance in history, such as the Bolshevik Revolution.
This is classic. Idiotic Labour MPs applauding warmonger Blair as his son begins work for Morgan.
I'm gobsmacked.
===============================================
From The Daily Telegraph
Blair Junior banks on Morgan Stanley
By James Quinn
Last Updated: 12:52am BST 27/06/2007
Euan Blair, the eldest son of Tony Blair, who steps down as prime minister today, has begun an internship with investment bank Morgan Stanley.
He is understood to be spending 10 weeks in the global capital markets (GCM) division of the investment bank’s Canary Wharf offices.
Morgan Stanley is a product of the Morgan's, Rothchild's American agent. "The Money Masters" state that although when JP Morgan died he was considered to be one of America's wealthiest people it was discovered that almost everything he owned belonged to the Rothchilds.
During WW1 Morgan dominated Wall Street.
During WW1 he was the largest single consumer of goods for war supplies as the sole agent for the Allies.
Agents of Morgan and Rockefeller created the greatest hoax ever foisted upon mankind, The Federal Reserve. Upon the creation of The Federal Reserve Morgan agents played significant parts in its governance, and in events of enormous significance in history, such as the Bolshevik Revolution.
This is classic. Idiotic Labour MPs applauding warmonger Blair as his son begins work for Morgan.
I'm gobsmacked.
===============================================
From The Daily Telegraph
Blair Junior banks on Morgan Stanley
By James Quinn
Last Updated: 12:52am BST 27/06/2007
Euan Blair, the eldest son of Tony Blair, who steps down as prime minister today, has begun an internship with investment bank Morgan Stanley.
He is understood to be spending 10 weeks in the global capital markets (GCM) division of the investment bank’s Canary Wharf offices.
DEAR PRIME MINISTER, CHANGE MONETARY POLICY IMMEDIATELY.
"At all times I will be strong in purpose, steadfast in will, resolute in action in the service of what matters to the British people, meeting the concerns and aspirations of our whole country,".
These are the words spoken this afternoon by our new Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
99% of the people don't war.
1% of the people do.
99% of the people just want a quiet, simple life to relax and enjoy watching their children grow up.
1% of the people want terror, microchip implants, social breakdowns, yobbish, loutish behaviour in the youth of today so the UK becomes the warmongering bully of the world tomorrow.
Unfortunately that 1% consists of those who control our money supply. And with that comes the power to direct the course of society.
"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce." - James Garfield.
"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws." - Mayer Amschel Rothschild.
It is absolutely essential that control of money be restored to government immediately and not left in the hands of proven warmongers who have engineered, financed and greatly profited from two world wars and are about to make a literal killing from a WW3. Failure to do this will undoubtedly and ultimately result in the failure of those well-intentioned words above spoken this afternoon.
These are the words spoken this afternoon by our new Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
99% of the people don't war.
1% of the people do.
99% of the people just want a quiet, simple life to relax and enjoy watching their children grow up.
1% of the people want terror, microchip implants, social breakdowns, yobbish, loutish behaviour in the youth of today so the UK becomes the warmongering bully of the world tomorrow.
Unfortunately that 1% consists of those who control our money supply. And with that comes the power to direct the course of society.
"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce." - James Garfield.
"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws." - Mayer Amschel Rothschild.
It is absolutely essential that control of money be restored to government immediately and not left in the hands of proven warmongers who have engineered, financed and greatly profited from two world wars and are about to make a literal killing from a WW3. Failure to do this will undoubtedly and ultimately result in the failure of those well-intentioned words above spoken this afternoon.
GOOD RIDDANCE
Blair has
1. made the UK a tax haven for the super-rich
2. increased the wealth gap between rich and poor
3. lied to Parliament several times (and from today's PMQ they loved it)
4. used the UK military to enrich an already wealthy elite even further
5. destabilised the whole world on a bunch of blatant lies and has continued to press for further wars against Iran and aided Israel's DU war in Lebanon 2006
6. refused to investigate the largest terrorist attack on british soil, an attack which he was warned about but ignored in order to execute point 5.
7. kept the biggest secret by allowing world warmongers to control money supply.
I quote a line from Oliver Stone's "JFK";
"One may smile and smile and still be a villain."
I expect Brown to be not much better.
1. made the UK a tax haven for the super-rich
2. increased the wealth gap between rich and poor
3. lied to Parliament several times (and from today's PMQ they loved it)
4. used the UK military to enrich an already wealthy elite even further
5. destabilised the whole world on a bunch of blatant lies and has continued to press for further wars against Iran and aided Israel's DU war in Lebanon 2006
6. refused to investigate the largest terrorist attack on british soil, an attack which he was warned about but ignored in order to execute point 5.
7. kept the biggest secret by allowing world warmongers to control money supply.
I quote a line from Oliver Stone's "JFK";
"One may smile and smile and still be a villain."
I expect Brown to be not much better.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
TOM CRUISE BANNED FROM FILMING THE STAUFFENBERG PLOT IN GERMANY
This is a very, very curious piece of news.
Tom Cruise has been cast as Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg who planted the bomb that almost killed Hitler, an event that led to Hitler exacting bloody revenge on anyone and anything connected to the plot with mass executions and imprisonments.
But why would Germany ban him from filming on a German military site? Indeed, why would Cruise, a producer of the film, want to make a film of this plot and want to film it on a German military site?
The film, called Valkyrie, is based on the plot to blow up Hitler in 1944. It would be interesting to see how far and deep the script goes into why von Stauffenberg and his co-conspirators were forced into such actions following several suggestions from Admiral Canaris which were refused by FDR and Churchill to hand Hitler over to the Allies because they wanted "the utter destruction of Germany".
=========================================
From http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2111637,00.html
Germany has barred the makers of a movie about a plot to kill Adolf Hitler from filming at German military site because its star Tom Cruise is a Scientologist, the defence ministry has said.
Cruise, one of the film's producers, is a well known member of the Church of Scientology, which the German government does not recognise as a church and says is against the country's constitution. Berlin says it masquerades as a religion to make money, a charge Scientologist leaders reject.
Tom Cruise has been cast as Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg who planted the bomb that almost killed Hitler, an event that led to Hitler exacting bloody revenge on anyone and anything connected to the plot with mass executions and imprisonments.
But why would Germany ban him from filming on a German military site? Indeed, why would Cruise, a producer of the film, want to make a film of this plot and want to film it on a German military site?
The film, called Valkyrie, is based on the plot to blow up Hitler in 1944. It would be interesting to see how far and deep the script goes into why von Stauffenberg and his co-conspirators were forced into such actions following several suggestions from Admiral Canaris which were refused by FDR and Churchill to hand Hitler over to the Allies because they wanted "the utter destruction of Germany".
=========================================
From http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2111637,00.html
Germany has barred the makers of a movie about a plot to kill Adolf Hitler from filming at German military site because its star Tom Cruise is a Scientologist, the defence ministry has said.
Cruise, one of the film's producers, is a well known member of the Church of Scientology, which the German government does not recognise as a church and says is against the country's constitution. Berlin says it masquerades as a religion to make money, a charge Scientologist leaders reject.
HOW COULD YOU TAKE TOTAL CONTROL OF THIS PLANET?
How could you take total control over the planet pictured below?
Answers on a postcard please to:
The Boss
The Illuminati Corporation
The City of London/Wall Street/The Vatican
Planet Earth
The Solar System
etc
Closing date for plans is 1700 GMT Thursday 28th June 2007.
The best plan will be revealed here on this blog at the end of this week.
Answers on a postcard please to:
The Boss
The Illuminati Corporation
The City of London/Wall Street/The Vatican
Planet Earth
The Solar System
etc
Closing date for plans is 1700 GMT Thursday 28th June 2007.
The best plan will be revealed here on this blog at the end of this week.
GADDAFI WANTS PAN-AFRICAN GOVERNMENT
He was demonised as the personification of evil.
We allowed our air bases to be used by the USA to bomb his country.
We accused him of PanAm103.
And he was on the fringe of the Axis-of-evil.
But that all changed when he allowed Anglo-American oil corporations to dig for oil in Libya.
And now he proposes that Africa needs a pan-African government.
====================================
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6239656.stm
Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi has described the African Union as a failure and vowed to press ahead with plans for a single African government.
Speaking in the Guinean capital Conakry Mr Gaddafi said there was no future for individual African nation states.
=====================================
Let's see;
pan-European government : nearly there.
North American Union (USA, Canada, Mexico) : well on its way.
pan-African government : failed and now idea being pushed again.
Seeing a picture emerging?
Small international governments are being formed before your very eyes, and generally without the people (a) knowing, or (b) caring.
Once an African governnment, a full European government, a full North American government, a full South Amercian government, a full Asian government, and a full Pacific government have been achieved, we are just one step away from total global governance.
And what could trigger that transfer of power?
An ugly, horrible war with many, many millions of deaths.
And what could trigger that?
Nuclear war between USA, China, Russia, no doubt over events in the Middle East, all planned by that sick bastard 33+rd Degree Freemason Albert Pike.
The idea of global governance is being proclaimed in a study by World Public Opinion.
=============================================
From http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/372.php?nid=&id=&pnt=372&lb=hmpg1
WorldPublicOpinion.org and The Chicago Council on Global Affairs have released an in-depth study of world-wide opinion on key international issues, including climate change, globalization, the future of the United Nations, US leadership and the rise of China.
Based on a survey conducted in 18 countries, the 95-page report seeks to understand how the perspectives of people around the globe differ or converge on issues of global importance. The publics polled represent about 56 percent of the world’s population.
“This study is breaking new ground in the effort to gain understanding and discover commonalities in public opinion around the world,” said Steven Kull, editor of WorldPublicOpinion.org.
Christopher Whitney, executive director for studies at The Chicago Council pointed out that the study “revealed important convergences in thinking among many of the surveyed publics.”
“In general, there was recognition that many problems now transcend borders and require strengthened multilateral institutions and approaches to dealing with them,” Whitney said.
Participating research centers interviewed nearly 22,000 people in China, India, the United States, Russia, Indonesia, France, Thailand, Ukraine, Poland, Iran, Mexico, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, Argentina, Peru, Armenia and Israel, plus the Palestinian territories.
In addition to a global overview of opinion on key issues, including some newly released results, the report provides detailed country-by-country analyses and a discussion of how attitudes change depending on variables such as education, income and the amount of attention paid to news.
Among the key findings:
On Globalization:
• Majorities around the world have a largely positive view of globalization and believe that international trade benefits national economies, companies, and consumers.
On Climate Change:
• There is widespread agreement that climate change is a pressing problem that poses a significant threat, though views differ on whether urgent, costly measures are needed.
On the United Nations
• Large majorities approve of strengthening the United Nations by giving it the power to have its own standing peacekeeping force, regulate the international arms trade and investigate human rights abuses.
On US Leadership
• Publics around the world reject the idea that the United States should continue to be the preeminent world leader and prefer that it play a more cooperative role.
On China
• Majorities around the world believe that the Chinese economy will someday grow to be as large as the US economy but only a minority thinks this would be negative.
=============================================================
The survey results imply that most people want UN powers expanded, and even for it to have a standing army. The results must be taken lightly because the sponsors of the survey are 100% pure globalist traitors to the human race.
But where did this entity, the United Nations, come from?
The first attempt at world government after WW1 The League of Nations failed because the USA voted out of it. Rockefeller financed the League.
The second attempt after WW2 The United Nations survived after the USA government had been corrupted and voted for it. Again Rockefeller financed the UN.
And Rockefeller continues to fund the UN.
And Rockefeller has siginificant influence over the sponsors of the above survey, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs via Citigroup, Federal Reserve, along with JP Morgan.
And Rockefeller met Blair at least once at secretive Bilderberg meetings.
And Blair just transferred control of large areas of British policy to the EU, which is another stepping stone to total global governance.
How much more do you need to see before you realise what is happening?
Control over the world is slowly and secretly being centralised into the hands of the people who brought us WW1, WW2 and the stalled WW3 in the Middle East (Blair has been sent in as "envoy" to kill any hope of peace because the people there don't trust him after Iraq and Lebanon and his warmongering against Iran).
We allowed our air bases to be used by the USA to bomb his country.
We accused him of PanAm103.
And he was on the fringe of the Axis-of-evil.
But that all changed when he allowed Anglo-American oil corporations to dig for oil in Libya.
And now he proposes that Africa needs a pan-African government.
====================================
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6239656.stm
Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi has described the African Union as a failure and vowed to press ahead with plans for a single African government.
Speaking in the Guinean capital Conakry Mr Gaddafi said there was no future for individual African nation states.
=====================================
Let's see;
pan-European government : nearly there.
North American Union (USA, Canada, Mexico) : well on its way.
pan-African government : failed and now idea being pushed again.
Seeing a picture emerging?
Small international governments are being formed before your very eyes, and generally without the people (a) knowing, or (b) caring.
Once an African governnment, a full European government, a full North American government, a full South Amercian government, a full Asian government, and a full Pacific government have been achieved, we are just one step away from total global governance.
And what could trigger that transfer of power?
An ugly, horrible war with many, many millions of deaths.
And what could trigger that?
Nuclear war between USA, China, Russia, no doubt over events in the Middle East, all planned by that sick bastard 33+rd Degree Freemason Albert Pike.
The idea of global governance is being proclaimed in a study by World Public Opinion.
=============================================
From http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/372.php?nid=&id=&pnt=372&lb=hmpg1
WorldPublicOpinion.org and The Chicago Council on Global Affairs have released an in-depth study of world-wide opinion on key international issues, including climate change, globalization, the future of the United Nations, US leadership and the rise of China.
Based on a survey conducted in 18 countries, the 95-page report seeks to understand how the perspectives of people around the globe differ or converge on issues of global importance. The publics polled represent about 56 percent of the world’s population.
“This study is breaking new ground in the effort to gain understanding and discover commonalities in public opinion around the world,” said Steven Kull, editor of WorldPublicOpinion.org.
Christopher Whitney, executive director for studies at The Chicago Council pointed out that the study “revealed important convergences in thinking among many of the surveyed publics.”
“In general, there was recognition that many problems now transcend borders and require strengthened multilateral institutions and approaches to dealing with them,” Whitney said.
Participating research centers interviewed nearly 22,000 people in China, India, the United States, Russia, Indonesia, France, Thailand, Ukraine, Poland, Iran, Mexico, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, Argentina, Peru, Armenia and Israel, plus the Palestinian territories.
In addition to a global overview of opinion on key issues, including some newly released results, the report provides detailed country-by-country analyses and a discussion of how attitudes change depending on variables such as education, income and the amount of attention paid to news.
Among the key findings:
On Globalization:
• Majorities around the world have a largely positive view of globalization and believe that international trade benefits national economies, companies, and consumers.
On Climate Change:
• There is widespread agreement that climate change is a pressing problem that poses a significant threat, though views differ on whether urgent, costly measures are needed.
On the United Nations
• Large majorities approve of strengthening the United Nations by giving it the power to have its own standing peacekeeping force, regulate the international arms trade and investigate human rights abuses.
On US Leadership
• Publics around the world reject the idea that the United States should continue to be the preeminent world leader and prefer that it play a more cooperative role.
On China
• Majorities around the world believe that the Chinese economy will someday grow to be as large as the US economy but only a minority thinks this would be negative.
=============================================================
The survey results imply that most people want UN powers expanded, and even for it to have a standing army. The results must be taken lightly because the sponsors of the survey are 100% pure globalist traitors to the human race.
But where did this entity, the United Nations, come from?
The first attempt at world government after WW1 The League of Nations failed because the USA voted out of it. Rockefeller financed the League.
The second attempt after WW2 The United Nations survived after the USA government had been corrupted and voted for it. Again Rockefeller financed the UN.
And Rockefeller continues to fund the UN.
And Rockefeller has siginificant influence over the sponsors of the above survey, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs via Citigroup, Federal Reserve, along with JP Morgan.
And Rockefeller met Blair at least once at secretive Bilderberg meetings.
And Blair just transferred control of large areas of British policy to the EU, which is another stepping stone to total global governance.
How much more do you need to see before you realise what is happening?
Control over the world is slowly and secretly being centralised into the hands of the people who brought us WW1, WW2 and the stalled WW3 in the Middle East (Blair has been sent in as "envoy" to kill any hope of peace because the people there don't trust him after Iraq and Lebanon and his warmongering against Iran).
Sunday, June 24, 2007
AN INTERESTING ATTENDEE TO BILDERBERG 2007
Professor Paul Taggart, Professor of Politics in the Department of Politics and Contemporary European Studies at the University of Sussex. His subject appears to be Euro-scepticism and how to overcome it? No doubt some words of his were passed down to fellow Bilderbergers Blair, Merkel and the rest of the traitors to humanity in Brussels last week when they were agreeing a constitution by the backdoor.
===================================
From http://www.sussex.ac.uk/polces/profile2609.html
Paul Taggart is Professor of Politics in the Sussex European Institute, former Editor of the journal Politics, co-Convenor (with Prof. Aleks Szczerbiak) of the European Referendums, Elections and Parties Network (EPERN). He has been a visiting scholar at the Universities of Gothenberg and Sarajevo and is a visiting scholar at the Center for German and European Studies at Georgetown University.
Research
European political parties; Euroscepticism; the domestic politics of European integration; populism
Teaching
* Research Skills and Methods
* Professional and Analytical Research Methods
* Comparative Politics of Western Europe
* Comparative Political Parties and Party Systems
* Comparative Method
* Politics of Governance: USA
* Foundations of Politics
Publications
'Europeanisation, Euroscepticism and Party Systems: Party-Based Euroscepticism in the Candidate States of Central and Eastern Europe' Perspectives on European Politics and Society 2002 Vol.3, No.1, pp.23-41. (with Aleks Szczerbiak)
'Populism and the Pathology of Representative Politics' in Yves Meny and Yves Surel (eds.) Democracies and the Populist Challenge Palgrave, 2002.
'The Party Politics of Euroscepticism in EU Member and Candidate States' OERN Working Paper No 6, April 2002(with Aleks Szczerbiak).
¿Parties, Positions and Europe: Euroscepticism in the EU Candidate States of Central and Eastern Europe¿ OERN Working Paper No 2, May 2001.(with Aleks Szczerbiak)
'Opposing Europe: Party Systems and Opposition to the Union, the Euro and Europeanisation' Sussex European Institute Working Paper No.36. 2000
Populism Open University Press, 2000
'A Touchstone of Dissent: Euroscepticism in Contemporary Western European Party Systems' European Journal of Political Research 1998 Vol.33: 363-388
The New Populism and the New Politics : new protest parties in Sweden in a comparative perspective. Macmillan, London. 1996
"New populist parties in Western Europe." West European Politics. 18:1 1995.
Forthcoming
Paul Taggart and Aleks Szczerbiak ¿Contemporary Euroscepticism in the Party Systems of the EU Candidate States of Central and Eastern Europe ¿ European Journal of Political Research forthcoming 2004
Paul Taggart and Aleks Szczerbiak (eds.) Opposing Europe? The Comparative Party Politics of Euroscepticism: Volume 1: Case Studies and Country Surveys (Oxford University Press, forthcoming 2004)
Paul Taggart and Aleks Szczerbiak (eds.) Opposing Europe? The Comparative Party Politics of Euroscepticism: Volume 2: Comparative and Theoretical Perspectives (Oxford University Press, forthcoming 2004)
Paul Taggart and Aleks Szczerbiak ¿Supporting the Union? Euroscepticism and Domestic Politics of European Integration¿ in Maria Green Cowles and Desmond Dinan (ed.) Developments in the European Union 2 (Palgrave, forthcoming, 2004)
===================================
From http://www.sussex.ac.uk/polces/profile2609.html
Paul Taggart is Professor of Politics in the Sussex European Institute, former Editor of the journal Politics, co-Convenor (with Prof. Aleks Szczerbiak) of the European Referendums, Elections and Parties Network (EPERN). He has been a visiting scholar at the Universities of Gothenberg and Sarajevo and is a visiting scholar at the Center for German and European Studies at Georgetown University.
Research
European political parties; Euroscepticism; the domestic politics of European integration; populism
Teaching
* Research Skills and Methods
* Professional and Analytical Research Methods
* Comparative Politics of Western Europe
* Comparative Political Parties and Party Systems
* Comparative Method
* Politics of Governance: USA
* Foundations of Politics
Publications
'Europeanisation, Euroscepticism and Party Systems: Party-Based Euroscepticism in the Candidate States of Central and Eastern Europe' Perspectives on European Politics and Society 2002 Vol.3, No.1, pp.23-41. (with Aleks Szczerbiak)
'Populism and the Pathology of Representative Politics' in Yves Meny and Yves Surel (eds.) Democracies and the Populist Challenge Palgrave, 2002.
'The Party Politics of Euroscepticism in EU Member and Candidate States' OERN Working Paper No 6, April 2002(with Aleks Szczerbiak).
¿Parties, Positions and Europe: Euroscepticism in the EU Candidate States of Central and Eastern Europe¿ OERN Working Paper No 2, May 2001.(with Aleks Szczerbiak)
'Opposing Europe: Party Systems and Opposition to the Union, the Euro and Europeanisation' Sussex European Institute Working Paper No.36. 2000
Populism Open University Press, 2000
'A Touchstone of Dissent: Euroscepticism in Contemporary Western European Party Systems' European Journal of Political Research 1998 Vol.33: 363-388
The New Populism and the New Politics : new protest parties in Sweden in a comparative perspective. Macmillan, London. 1996
"New populist parties in Western Europe." West European Politics. 18:1 1995.
Forthcoming
Paul Taggart and Aleks Szczerbiak ¿Contemporary Euroscepticism in the Party Systems of the EU Candidate States of Central and Eastern Europe ¿ European Journal of Political Research forthcoming 2004
Paul Taggart and Aleks Szczerbiak (eds.) Opposing Europe? The Comparative Party Politics of Euroscepticism: Volume 1: Case Studies and Country Surveys (Oxford University Press, forthcoming 2004)
Paul Taggart and Aleks Szczerbiak (eds.) Opposing Europe? The Comparative Party Politics of Euroscepticism: Volume 2: Comparative and Theoretical Perspectives (Oxford University Press, forthcoming 2004)
Paul Taggart and Aleks Szczerbiak ¿Supporting the Union? Euroscepticism and Domestic Politics of European Integration¿ in Maria Green Cowles and Desmond Dinan (ed.) Developments in the European Union 2 (Palgrave, forthcoming, 2004)
Friday, June 22, 2007
IRAN HAD ATTEMPTED TO ENGAGE OZZIES BEFORE BRITS
This is absolutely ridiculous!
Before siezing 15 Brits Iran had earlier tried the same trick but on Australian forces.
So what do we do? Send 15 of our military to board and search a boat in disputed waters without air protection, without any protection whatsoever, miles away from their ship and out of view, and then throw our hands up in the air and blame Iran!
As with the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers last year on the border with Lebanon, this siezure by Iran of 15 Brits in disputed waters also looks like a contrived event. The Israel/Lebanon contrived event did lead to war. Thankfully, despite Blair's stubbornness the contrived event in March did not.
==============================================================
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6228342.stm
Iran 'unable to take Australians'
By Frank Gardner
BBC News security correspondent
Northern Gulf
Iranian naval forces in the Gulf tried to capture an Australian Navy boarding team but were vigorously repelled, the BBC has learned.
The incident took place before Iran successfully seized 15 British sailors and Marines in March.
The lessons from the earlier attempt do not appear to have been applied in time by British maritime patrols.
Before siezing 15 Brits Iran had earlier tried the same trick but on Australian forces.
So what do we do? Send 15 of our military to board and search a boat in disputed waters without air protection, without any protection whatsoever, miles away from their ship and out of view, and then throw our hands up in the air and blame Iran!
As with the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers last year on the border with Lebanon, this siezure by Iran of 15 Brits in disputed waters also looks like a contrived event. The Israel/Lebanon contrived event did lead to war. Thankfully, despite Blair's stubbornness the contrived event in March did not.
==============================================================
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6228342.stm
Iran 'unable to take Australians'
By Frank Gardner
BBC News security correspondent
Northern Gulf
Iranian naval forces in the Gulf tried to capture an Australian Navy boarding team but were vigorously repelled, the BBC has learned.
The incident took place before Iran successfully seized 15 British sailors and Marines in March.
The lessons from the earlier attempt do not appear to have been applied in time by British maritime patrols.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
A CLEAN BREAK
In June 1996 The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies published a study called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm". The IASPS has addresses in Jerusalem and Washington DC. The authors of "A Clean Break" include Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and Meyrav and David Wurmser.
What does "A Clean Break" Propose? I understand it proposes pre-emptive war against Syria, Iraq and Iran, using Lebanon as a proxy.
I quote;
"Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions."
Where is Saddam now?
I quote;
"Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by:
* striking Syria’s drug-money and counterfeiting infrastructure in Lebanon, all of which focuses on Razi Qanan.
* paralleling Syria’s behavior by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces.
* striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper.
...Given the nature of the regime in Damascus, it is both natural and moral that Israel abandon the slogan "comprehensive peace" and move to contain Syria, drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction program, and rejecting "land for peace" deals on the Golan Heights."
Shortly after the invasion of Iraq, certain articles and websites pushed the idea that Saddam had somehow sneaked his massive WMD arsenal into Syria evading the prying eyes of the powerful and watchful US spy satellite system. And now Iran is the subject of the WMD allegation.
Read this document very carefully, and then research the bizarre activities and the story surrounding "the dancing Israelis", or "the high fivers" as they alertnatively called, of 9/11. The "A Clean Break" document was aimed at influencing Benjamin Netanyahu. On 9/11 Netanyahu was asked what 9/11 meant for American-Israeli relations. Netanyahu's first response was "very good", then he quickly added, "it will generate immediate sympathy for Israel".
A Clean Break proposes
1. removal of Saddam Hussein (2003)
2. war on Syria and Iran via Lebanon (nearly in 2006)
3. accusations of WMD programmes (still ongoing, despite Israel having a large nuclear arsenal itself and not having signed up to the NNPT).
Sound familiar?
And to show I am not anti-Jew I shall post links to several Jewish anti-Zionist websites, who have some very interesting things to say.
http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/
http://www.nkusa.org/
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/
===============================================================
From http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm
Following is a report prepared by The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’ "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000." The main substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a discussion in which prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated. The report, entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," is the framework for a series of follow-up reports on strategy.
Israel has a large problem. Labor Zionism, which for 70 years has dominated the Zionist movement, has generated a stalled and shackled economy. Efforts to salvage Israel’s socialist institutions—which include pursuing supranational over national sovereignty and pursuing a peace process that embraces the slogan, "New Middle East"—undermine the legitimacy of the nation and lead Israel into strategic paralysis and the previous government’s "peace process." That peace process obscured the evidence of eroding national critical mass— including a palpable sense of national exhaustion—and forfeited strategic initiative. The loss of national critical mass was illustrated best by Israel’s efforts to draw in the United States to sell unpopular policies domestically, to agree to negotiate sovereignty over its capital, and to respond with resignation to a spate of terror so intense and tragic that it deterred Israelis from engaging in normal daily functions, such as commuting to work in buses.
Benjamin Netanyahu’s government comes in with a new set of ideas. While there are those who will counsel continuity, Israel has the opportunity to make a clean break; it can forge a peace process and strategy based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism, the starting point of which must be economic reform. To secure the nation’s streets and borders in the immediate future, Israel can:
* Work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and roll-back some of its most dangerous threats. This implies clean break from the slogan, "comprehensive peace" to a traditional concept of strategy based on balance of power.
* Change the nature of its relations with the Palestinians, including upholding the right of hot pursuit for self defense into all Palestinian areas and nurturing alternatives to Arafat’s exclusive grip on Palestinian society.
* Forge a new basis for relations with the United States—stressing self-reliance, maturity, strategic cooperation on areas of mutual concern, and furthering values inherent to the West. This can only be done if Israel takes serious steps to terminate aid, which prevents economic reform.
This report is written with key passages of a possible speech marked TEXT, that highlight the clean break which the new government has an opportunity to make. The body of the report is the commentary explaining the purpose and laying out the strategic context of the passages.
A New Approach to Peace
Early adoption of a bold, new perspective on peace and security is imperative for the new prime minister. While the previous government, and many abroad, may emphasize "land for peace"— which placed Israel in the position of cultural, economic, political, diplomatic, and military retreat — the new government can promote Western values and traditions. Such an approach, which will be well received in the United States, includes "peace for peace," "peace through strength" and self reliance: the balance of power.
A new strategy to seize the initiative can be introduced:
TEXT:
We have for four years pursued peace based on a New Middle East. We in Israel cannot play innocents abroad in a world that is not innocent. Peace depends on the character and behavior of our foes. We live in a dangerous neighborhood, with fragile states and bitter rivalries. Displaying moral ambivalence between the effort to build a Jewish state and the desire to annihilate it by trading "land for peace" will not secure "peace now." Our claim to the land —to which we have clung for hope for 2000 years--is legitimate and noble. It is not within our own power, no matter how much we concede, to make peace unilaterally. Only the unconditional acceptance by Arabs of our rights, especially in their territorial dimension, "peace for peace," is a solid basis for the future.
Israel’s quest for peace emerges from, and does not replace, the pursuit of its ideals. The Jewish people’s hunger for human rights — burned into their identity by a 2000-year old dream to live free in their own land — informs the concept of peace and reflects continuity of values with Western and Jewish tradition. Israel can now embrace negotiations, but as means, not ends, to pursue those ideals and demonstrate national steadfastness. It can challenge police states; enforce compliance of agreements; and insist on minimal standards of accountability.
Securing the Northern Border
Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by:
* striking Syria’s drug-money and counterfeiting infrastructure in Lebanon, all of which focuses on Razi Qanan.
* paralleling Syria’s behavior by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces.
* striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper.
Israel also can take this opportunity to remind the world of the nature of the Syrian regime. Syria repeatedly breaks its word. It violated numerous agreements with the Turks, and has betrayed the United States by continuing to occupy Lebanon in violation of the Taef agreement in 1989. Instead, Syria staged a sham election, installed a quisling regime, and forced Lebanon to sign a "Brotherhood Agreement" in 1991, that terminated Lebanese sovereignty. And Syria has begun colonizing Lebanon with hundreds of thousands of Syrians, while killing tens of thousands of its own citizens at a time, as it did in only three days in 1983 in Hama.
Under Syrian tutelage, the Lebanese drug trade, for which local Syrian military officers receive protection payments, flourishes. Syria’s regime supports the terrorist groups operationally and financially in Lebanon and on its soil. Indeed, the Syrian-controlled Bekaa Valley in Lebanon has become for terror what the Silicon Valley has become for computers. The Bekaa Valley has become one of the main distribution sources, if not production points, of the "supernote" — counterfeit US currency so well done that it is impossible to detect.
Text:
Negotiations with repressive regimes like Syria’s require cautious realism. One cannot sensibly assume the other side’s good faith. It is dangerous for Israel to deal naively with a regime murderous of its own people, openly aggressive toward its neighbors, criminally involved with international drug traffickers and counterfeiters, and supportive of the most deadly terrorist organizations.
Given the nature of the regime in Damascus, it is both natural and moral that Israel abandon the slogan "comprehensive peace" and move to contain Syria, drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction program, and rejecting "land for peace" deals on the Golan Heights.
Moving to a Traditional Balance of Power Strategy
TEXT:
We must distinguish soberly and clearly friend from foe. We must make sure that our friends across the Middle East never doubt the solidity or value of our friendship.
Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria's regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq. This has triggered a Jordanian-Syrian rivalry to which Asad has responded by stepping up efforts to destabilize the Hashemite Kingdom, including using infiltrations. Syria recently signaled that it and Iran might prefer a weak, but barely surviving Saddam, if only to undermine and humiliate Jordan in its efforts to remove Saddam.
But Syria enters this conflict with potential weaknesses: Damascus is too preoccupied with dealing with the threatened new regional equation to permit distractions of the Lebanese flank. And Damascus fears that the 'natural axis' with Israel on one side, central Iraq and Turkey on the other, and Jordan, in the center would squeeze and detach Syria from the Saudi Peninsula. For Syria, this could be the prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East which would threaten Syria's territorial integrity.
Since Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq, including such measures as: visiting Jordan as the first official state visit, even before a visit to the United States, of the new Netanyahu government; supporting King Hussein by providing him with some tangible security measures to protect his regime against Syrian subversion; encouraging — through influence in the U.S. business community — investment in Jordan to structurally shift Jordan’s economy away from dependence on Iraq; and diverting Syria’s attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon.
Most important, it is understandable that Israel has an interest supporting diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey’s and Jordan’s actions against Syria, such as securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite.
King Hussein may have ideas for Israel in bringing its Lebanon problem under control. The predominantly Shia population of southern Lebanon has been tied for centuries to the Shia leadership in Najf, Iraq rather than Iran. Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria. Shia retain strong ties to the Hashemites: the Shia venerate foremost the Prophet’s family, the direct descendants of which — and in whose veins the blood of the Prophet flows — is King Hussein.
Changing the Nature of Relations with the Palestinians
Israel has a chance to forge a new relationship between itself and the Palestinians. First and foremost, Israel’s efforts to secure its streets may require hot pursuit into Palestinian-controlled areas, a justifiable practice with which Americans can sympathize.
A key element of peace is compliance with agreements already signed. Therefore, Israel has the right to insist on compliance, including closing Orient House and disbanding Jibril Rujoub’s operatives in Jerusalem. Moreover, Israel and the United States can establish a Joint Compliance Monitoring Committee to study periodically whether the PLO meets minimum standards of compliance, authority and responsibility, human rights, and judicial and fiduciary accountability.
TEXT:
We believe that the Palestinian Authority must be held to the same minimal standards of accountability as other recipients of U.S. foreign aid. A firm peace cannot tolerate repression and injustice. A regime that cannot fulfill the most rudimentary obligations to its own people cannot be counted upon to fulfill its obligations to its neighbors.
Israel has no obligations under the Oslo agreements if the PLO does not fulfill its obligations. If the PLO cannot comply with these minimal standards, then it can be neither a hope for the future nor a proper interlocutor for present. To prepare for this, Israel may want to cultivate alternatives to Arafat’s base of power. Jordan has ideas on this.
To emphasize the point that Israel regards the actions of the PLO problematic, but not the Arab people, Israel might want to consider making a special effort to reward friends and advance human rights among Arabs. Many Arabs are willing to work with Israel; identifying and helping them are important. Israel may also find that many of her neighbors, such as Jordan, have problems with Arafat and may want to cooperate. Israel may also want to better integrate its own Arabs.
Forging A New U.S.-Israeli Relationship
In recent years, Israel invited active U.S. intervention in Israel’s domestic and foreign policy for two reasons: to overcome domestic opposition to "land for peace" concessions the Israeli public could not digest, and to lure Arabs — through money, forgiveness of past sins, and access to U.S. weapons — to negotiate. This strategy, which required funneling American money to repressive and aggressive regimes, was risky, expensive, and very costly for both the U.S. and Israel, and placed the United States in roles is should neither have nor want.
Israel can make a clean break from the past and establish a new vision for the U.S.-Israeli partnership based on self-reliance, maturity and mutuality — not one focused narrowly on territorial disputes. Israel’s new strategy — based on a shared philosophy of peace through strength — reflects continuity with Western values by stressing that Israel is self-reliant, does not need U.S. troops in any capacity to defend it, including on the Golan Heights, and can manage its own affairs. Such self-reliance will grant Israel greater freedom of action and remove a significant lever of pressure used against it in the past.
To reinforce this point, the Prime Minister can use his forthcoming visit to announce that Israel is now mature enough to cut itself free immediately from at least U.S. economic aid and loan guarantees at least, which prevent economic reform. [Military aid is separated for the moment until adequate arrangements can be made to ensure that Israel will not encounter supply problems in the means to defend itself]. As outlined in another Institute report, Israel can become self-reliant only by, in a bold stroke rather than in increments, liberalizing its economy, cutting taxes, relegislating a free-processing zone, and selling-off public lands and enterprises — moves which will electrify and find support from a broad bipartisan spectrum of key pro-Israeli Congressional leaders, including Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.
Israel can under these conditions better cooperate with the U.S. to counter real threats to the region and the West’s security. Mr. Netanyahu can highlight his desire to cooperate more closely with the United States on anti-missile defense in order to remove the threat of blackmail which even a weak and distant army can pose to either state. Not only would such cooperation on missile defense counter a tangible physical threat to Israel’s survival, but it would broaden Israel’s base of support among many in the United States Congress who may know little about Israel, but care very much about missile defense. Such broad support could be helpful in the effort to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.
To anticipate U.S. reactions and plan ways to manage and constrain those reactions, Prime Minister Netanyahu can formulate the policies and stress themes he favors in language familiar to the Americans by tapping into themes of American administrations during the Cold War which apply well to Israel. If Israel wants to test certain propositions that require a benign American reaction, then the best time to do so is before November, 1996.
Conclusions: Transcending the Arab-Israeli Conflict
TEXT: Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them.
Notable Arab intellectuals have written extensively on their perception of Israel’s floundering and loss of national identity. This perception has invited attack, blocked Israel from achieving true peace, and offered hope for those who would destroy Israel. The previous strategy, therefore, was leading the Middle East toward another Arab-Israeli war. Israel’s new agenda can signal a clean break by abandoning a policy which assumed exhaustion and allowed strategic retreat by reestablishing the principle of preemption, rather than retaliation alone and by ceasing to absorb blows to the nation without response.
Israel’s new strategic agenda can shape the regional environment in ways that grant Israel the room to refocus its energies back to where they are most needed: to rejuvenate its national idea, which can only come through replacing Israel’s socialist foundations with a more sound footing; and to overcome its "exhaustion," which threatens the survival of the nation.
Ultimately, Israel can do more than simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict though war. No amount of weapons or victories will grant Israel the peace its seeks. When Israel is on a sound economic footing, and is free, powerful, and healthy internally, it will no longer simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict; it will transcend it. As a senior Iraqi opposition leader said recently: "Israel must rejuvenate and revitalize its moral and intellectual leadership. It is an important — if not the most important--element in the history of the Middle East." Israel — proud, wealthy, solid, and strong — would be the basis of a truly new and peaceful Middle East.
Participants in the Study Group on "A New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000:"
Richard Perle, American Enterprise Institute, Study Group Leader
James Colbert, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Johns Hopkins University/SAIS
Douglas Feith, Feith and Zell Associates
Robert Loewenberg, President, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Jonathan Torop, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
David Wurmser, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Meyrav Wurmser, Johns Hopkins University
What does "A Clean Break" Propose? I understand it proposes pre-emptive war against Syria, Iraq and Iran, using Lebanon as a proxy.
I quote;
"Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions."
Where is Saddam now?
I quote;
"Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by:
* striking Syria’s drug-money and counterfeiting infrastructure in Lebanon, all of which focuses on Razi Qanan.
* paralleling Syria’s behavior by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces.
* striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper.
...Given the nature of the regime in Damascus, it is both natural and moral that Israel abandon the slogan "comprehensive peace" and move to contain Syria, drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction program, and rejecting "land for peace" deals on the Golan Heights."
Shortly after the invasion of Iraq, certain articles and websites pushed the idea that Saddam had somehow sneaked his massive WMD arsenal into Syria evading the prying eyes of the powerful and watchful US spy satellite system. And now Iran is the subject of the WMD allegation.
Read this document very carefully, and then research the bizarre activities and the story surrounding "the dancing Israelis", or "the high fivers" as they alertnatively called, of 9/11. The "A Clean Break" document was aimed at influencing Benjamin Netanyahu. On 9/11 Netanyahu was asked what 9/11 meant for American-Israeli relations. Netanyahu's first response was "very good", then he quickly added, "it will generate immediate sympathy for Israel".
A Clean Break proposes
1. removal of Saddam Hussein (2003)
2. war on Syria and Iran via Lebanon (nearly in 2006)
3. accusations of WMD programmes (still ongoing, despite Israel having a large nuclear arsenal itself and not having signed up to the NNPT).
Sound familiar?
And to show I am not anti-Jew I shall post links to several Jewish anti-Zionist websites, who have some very interesting things to say.
http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/
http://www.nkusa.org/
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/
===============================================================
From http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm
Following is a report prepared by The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’ "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000." The main substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a discussion in which prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated. The report, entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," is the framework for a series of follow-up reports on strategy.
Israel has a large problem. Labor Zionism, which for 70 years has dominated the Zionist movement, has generated a stalled and shackled economy. Efforts to salvage Israel’s socialist institutions—which include pursuing supranational over national sovereignty and pursuing a peace process that embraces the slogan, "New Middle East"—undermine the legitimacy of the nation and lead Israel into strategic paralysis and the previous government’s "peace process." That peace process obscured the evidence of eroding national critical mass— including a palpable sense of national exhaustion—and forfeited strategic initiative. The loss of national critical mass was illustrated best by Israel’s efforts to draw in the United States to sell unpopular policies domestically, to agree to negotiate sovereignty over its capital, and to respond with resignation to a spate of terror so intense and tragic that it deterred Israelis from engaging in normal daily functions, such as commuting to work in buses.
Benjamin Netanyahu’s government comes in with a new set of ideas. While there are those who will counsel continuity, Israel has the opportunity to make a clean break; it can forge a peace process and strategy based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism, the starting point of which must be economic reform. To secure the nation’s streets and borders in the immediate future, Israel can:
* Work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and roll-back some of its most dangerous threats. This implies clean break from the slogan, "comprehensive peace" to a traditional concept of strategy based on balance of power.
* Change the nature of its relations with the Palestinians, including upholding the right of hot pursuit for self defense into all Palestinian areas and nurturing alternatives to Arafat’s exclusive grip on Palestinian society.
* Forge a new basis for relations with the United States—stressing self-reliance, maturity, strategic cooperation on areas of mutual concern, and furthering values inherent to the West. This can only be done if Israel takes serious steps to terminate aid, which prevents economic reform.
This report is written with key passages of a possible speech marked TEXT, that highlight the clean break which the new government has an opportunity to make. The body of the report is the commentary explaining the purpose and laying out the strategic context of the passages.
A New Approach to Peace
Early adoption of a bold, new perspective on peace and security is imperative for the new prime minister. While the previous government, and many abroad, may emphasize "land for peace"— which placed Israel in the position of cultural, economic, political, diplomatic, and military retreat — the new government can promote Western values and traditions. Such an approach, which will be well received in the United States, includes "peace for peace," "peace through strength" and self reliance: the balance of power.
A new strategy to seize the initiative can be introduced:
TEXT:
We have for four years pursued peace based on a New Middle East. We in Israel cannot play innocents abroad in a world that is not innocent. Peace depends on the character and behavior of our foes. We live in a dangerous neighborhood, with fragile states and bitter rivalries. Displaying moral ambivalence between the effort to build a Jewish state and the desire to annihilate it by trading "land for peace" will not secure "peace now." Our claim to the land —to which we have clung for hope for 2000 years--is legitimate and noble. It is not within our own power, no matter how much we concede, to make peace unilaterally. Only the unconditional acceptance by Arabs of our rights, especially in their territorial dimension, "peace for peace," is a solid basis for the future.
Israel’s quest for peace emerges from, and does not replace, the pursuit of its ideals. The Jewish people’s hunger for human rights — burned into their identity by a 2000-year old dream to live free in their own land — informs the concept of peace and reflects continuity of values with Western and Jewish tradition. Israel can now embrace negotiations, but as means, not ends, to pursue those ideals and demonstrate national steadfastness. It can challenge police states; enforce compliance of agreements; and insist on minimal standards of accountability.
Securing the Northern Border
Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by:
* striking Syria’s drug-money and counterfeiting infrastructure in Lebanon, all of which focuses on Razi Qanan.
* paralleling Syria’s behavior by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces.
* striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper.
Israel also can take this opportunity to remind the world of the nature of the Syrian regime. Syria repeatedly breaks its word. It violated numerous agreements with the Turks, and has betrayed the United States by continuing to occupy Lebanon in violation of the Taef agreement in 1989. Instead, Syria staged a sham election, installed a quisling regime, and forced Lebanon to sign a "Brotherhood Agreement" in 1991, that terminated Lebanese sovereignty. And Syria has begun colonizing Lebanon with hundreds of thousands of Syrians, while killing tens of thousands of its own citizens at a time, as it did in only three days in 1983 in Hama.
Under Syrian tutelage, the Lebanese drug trade, for which local Syrian military officers receive protection payments, flourishes. Syria’s regime supports the terrorist groups operationally and financially in Lebanon and on its soil. Indeed, the Syrian-controlled Bekaa Valley in Lebanon has become for terror what the Silicon Valley has become for computers. The Bekaa Valley has become one of the main distribution sources, if not production points, of the "supernote" — counterfeit US currency so well done that it is impossible to detect.
Text:
Negotiations with repressive regimes like Syria’s require cautious realism. One cannot sensibly assume the other side’s good faith. It is dangerous for Israel to deal naively with a regime murderous of its own people, openly aggressive toward its neighbors, criminally involved with international drug traffickers and counterfeiters, and supportive of the most deadly terrorist organizations.
Given the nature of the regime in Damascus, it is both natural and moral that Israel abandon the slogan "comprehensive peace" and move to contain Syria, drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction program, and rejecting "land for peace" deals on the Golan Heights.
Moving to a Traditional Balance of Power Strategy
TEXT:
We must distinguish soberly and clearly friend from foe. We must make sure that our friends across the Middle East never doubt the solidity or value of our friendship.
Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria's regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq. This has triggered a Jordanian-Syrian rivalry to which Asad has responded by stepping up efforts to destabilize the Hashemite Kingdom, including using infiltrations. Syria recently signaled that it and Iran might prefer a weak, but barely surviving Saddam, if only to undermine and humiliate Jordan in its efforts to remove Saddam.
But Syria enters this conflict with potential weaknesses: Damascus is too preoccupied with dealing with the threatened new regional equation to permit distractions of the Lebanese flank. And Damascus fears that the 'natural axis' with Israel on one side, central Iraq and Turkey on the other, and Jordan, in the center would squeeze and detach Syria from the Saudi Peninsula. For Syria, this could be the prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East which would threaten Syria's territorial integrity.
Since Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq, including such measures as: visiting Jordan as the first official state visit, even before a visit to the United States, of the new Netanyahu government; supporting King Hussein by providing him with some tangible security measures to protect his regime against Syrian subversion; encouraging — through influence in the U.S. business community — investment in Jordan to structurally shift Jordan’s economy away from dependence on Iraq; and diverting Syria’s attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon.
Most important, it is understandable that Israel has an interest supporting diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey’s and Jordan’s actions against Syria, such as securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite.
King Hussein may have ideas for Israel in bringing its Lebanon problem under control. The predominantly Shia population of southern Lebanon has been tied for centuries to the Shia leadership in Najf, Iraq rather than Iran. Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria. Shia retain strong ties to the Hashemites: the Shia venerate foremost the Prophet’s family, the direct descendants of which — and in whose veins the blood of the Prophet flows — is King Hussein.
Changing the Nature of Relations with the Palestinians
Israel has a chance to forge a new relationship between itself and the Palestinians. First and foremost, Israel’s efforts to secure its streets may require hot pursuit into Palestinian-controlled areas, a justifiable practice with which Americans can sympathize.
A key element of peace is compliance with agreements already signed. Therefore, Israel has the right to insist on compliance, including closing Orient House and disbanding Jibril Rujoub’s operatives in Jerusalem. Moreover, Israel and the United States can establish a Joint Compliance Monitoring Committee to study periodically whether the PLO meets minimum standards of compliance, authority and responsibility, human rights, and judicial and fiduciary accountability.
TEXT:
We believe that the Palestinian Authority must be held to the same minimal standards of accountability as other recipients of U.S. foreign aid. A firm peace cannot tolerate repression and injustice. A regime that cannot fulfill the most rudimentary obligations to its own people cannot be counted upon to fulfill its obligations to its neighbors.
Israel has no obligations under the Oslo agreements if the PLO does not fulfill its obligations. If the PLO cannot comply with these minimal standards, then it can be neither a hope for the future nor a proper interlocutor for present. To prepare for this, Israel may want to cultivate alternatives to Arafat’s base of power. Jordan has ideas on this.
To emphasize the point that Israel regards the actions of the PLO problematic, but not the Arab people, Israel might want to consider making a special effort to reward friends and advance human rights among Arabs. Many Arabs are willing to work with Israel; identifying and helping them are important. Israel may also find that many of her neighbors, such as Jordan, have problems with Arafat and may want to cooperate. Israel may also want to better integrate its own Arabs.
Forging A New U.S.-Israeli Relationship
In recent years, Israel invited active U.S. intervention in Israel’s domestic and foreign policy for two reasons: to overcome domestic opposition to "land for peace" concessions the Israeli public could not digest, and to lure Arabs — through money, forgiveness of past sins, and access to U.S. weapons — to negotiate. This strategy, which required funneling American money to repressive and aggressive regimes, was risky, expensive, and very costly for both the U.S. and Israel, and placed the United States in roles is should neither have nor want.
Israel can make a clean break from the past and establish a new vision for the U.S.-Israeli partnership based on self-reliance, maturity and mutuality — not one focused narrowly on territorial disputes. Israel’s new strategy — based on a shared philosophy of peace through strength — reflects continuity with Western values by stressing that Israel is self-reliant, does not need U.S. troops in any capacity to defend it, including on the Golan Heights, and can manage its own affairs. Such self-reliance will grant Israel greater freedom of action and remove a significant lever of pressure used against it in the past.
To reinforce this point, the Prime Minister can use his forthcoming visit to announce that Israel is now mature enough to cut itself free immediately from at least U.S. economic aid and loan guarantees at least, which prevent economic reform. [Military aid is separated for the moment until adequate arrangements can be made to ensure that Israel will not encounter supply problems in the means to defend itself]. As outlined in another Institute report, Israel can become self-reliant only by, in a bold stroke rather than in increments, liberalizing its economy, cutting taxes, relegislating a free-processing zone, and selling-off public lands and enterprises — moves which will electrify and find support from a broad bipartisan spectrum of key pro-Israeli Congressional leaders, including Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.
Israel can under these conditions better cooperate with the U.S. to counter real threats to the region and the West’s security. Mr. Netanyahu can highlight his desire to cooperate more closely with the United States on anti-missile defense in order to remove the threat of blackmail which even a weak and distant army can pose to either state. Not only would such cooperation on missile defense counter a tangible physical threat to Israel’s survival, but it would broaden Israel’s base of support among many in the United States Congress who may know little about Israel, but care very much about missile defense. Such broad support could be helpful in the effort to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.
To anticipate U.S. reactions and plan ways to manage and constrain those reactions, Prime Minister Netanyahu can formulate the policies and stress themes he favors in language familiar to the Americans by tapping into themes of American administrations during the Cold War which apply well to Israel. If Israel wants to test certain propositions that require a benign American reaction, then the best time to do so is before November, 1996.
Conclusions: Transcending the Arab-Israeli Conflict
TEXT: Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them.
Notable Arab intellectuals have written extensively on their perception of Israel’s floundering and loss of national identity. This perception has invited attack, blocked Israel from achieving true peace, and offered hope for those who would destroy Israel. The previous strategy, therefore, was leading the Middle East toward another Arab-Israeli war. Israel’s new agenda can signal a clean break by abandoning a policy which assumed exhaustion and allowed strategic retreat by reestablishing the principle of preemption, rather than retaliation alone and by ceasing to absorb blows to the nation without response.
Israel’s new strategic agenda can shape the regional environment in ways that grant Israel the room to refocus its energies back to where they are most needed: to rejuvenate its national idea, which can only come through replacing Israel’s socialist foundations with a more sound footing; and to overcome its "exhaustion," which threatens the survival of the nation.
Ultimately, Israel can do more than simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict though war. No amount of weapons or victories will grant Israel the peace its seeks. When Israel is on a sound economic footing, and is free, powerful, and healthy internally, it will no longer simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict; it will transcend it. As a senior Iraqi opposition leader said recently: "Israel must rejuvenate and revitalize its moral and intellectual leadership. It is an important — if not the most important--element in the history of the Middle East." Israel — proud, wealthy, solid, and strong — would be the basis of a truly new and peaceful Middle East.
Participants in the Study Group on "A New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000:"
Richard Perle, American Enterprise Institute, Study Group Leader
James Colbert, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Johns Hopkins University/SAIS
Douglas Feith, Feith and Zell Associates
Robert Loewenberg, President, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Jonathan Torop, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
David Wurmser, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Meyrav Wurmser, Johns Hopkins University
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
VICTORY HAS A HUNDRED FATHERS
while defeat is an orphan.
And defeat is what we could call the outcome over the 15 British military personnel arrested by Iran earlier this year. Blair wouldn't back down from his initial claim that they were arrested in Iraqi waters when no such boundaries have been agreed between Iraq and Iran, and despite Chris Air being interviewed by Sky and stating he was gathering "int". Blair was humiliated.
Isn't it amazing how two investgations into that farce can find nobody to blame, not even Blair, for anything?
======================================
From http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1957778.ece
Fifteen sailors were seized by Iran, but no one was to blame, MoD says
Michael Evans, Defence Editor
No one has been blamed for a series of misjudgments in which fifteen sailors and marines were seized by Iran in the Gulf in March and were later freed to tell, and in two cases sell, their stories to the media.
The affair that became known as the Iran sailor fiasco, exposed a number of serious “shortcomings” in military judgments that led to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard taking 14 men and one woman hostage, according to a brief published summary of a classified report drawn up by a former Commandant General of the Royal Marines.
And defeat is what we could call the outcome over the 15 British military personnel arrested by Iran earlier this year. Blair wouldn't back down from his initial claim that they were arrested in Iraqi waters when no such boundaries have been agreed between Iraq and Iran, and despite Chris Air being interviewed by Sky and stating he was gathering "int". Blair was humiliated.
Isn't it amazing how two investgations into that farce can find nobody to blame, not even Blair, for anything?
======================================
From http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1957778.ece
Fifteen sailors were seized by Iran, but no one was to blame, MoD says
Michael Evans, Defence Editor
No one has been blamed for a series of misjudgments in which fifteen sailors and marines were seized by Iran in the Gulf in March and were later freed to tell, and in two cases sell, their stories to the media.
The affair that became known as the Iran sailor fiasco, exposed a number of serious “shortcomings” in military judgments that led to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard taking 14 men and one woman hostage, according to a brief published summary of a classified report drawn up by a former Commandant General of the Royal Marines.
WELL LOOK WHO IS CHAIRMAN OF THE ARTS & MEDIA SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HONOURS COMMITTEE
ROTHSCHILD!
I suggested Rushdie's knighthood was a "fuck you" to Islam. The response from Iran and Pakistan was predictable (by some, anyway).
============================
From http://www.honours.gov.uk/nominate/committees.aspx
Specialist Sub-Committees
Arts and Media
* Independent Chair: Lord Rothschild OM GBE, Chairman J Rothschild Group
* Non-civil service members: Jenny Abramsky CBE, Director of Radio and Music for the BBC; John Gross, author and former theatre critic of The Sunday Telegraph; Ben Okri OBE, novelist and poet; Andreas Whittam Smith CBE, journalist and former Editor of the Independent
* Permanent Secretary (Department for Culture, Media and Sport): Jonathan Stephens
* Permanent Secretary (Scottish Executive): Sir John Elvidge KCB
==============================
Michael White proposed the mechanism for the nomination of Rushdie to receive a knighthood.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2106901,00.htm
step 1. nomination from English PEN
A look at English PEN will show how that was started, and its presidents, from authors in the 1920's to Sir this, that and the other, to no one without an OBE or CBE or other honour.
step 2. consideration by the Arts & Media Sub-committee, where Rothschild comes in.
Just when tensions between Islam and the West need increasing along comes Rothschild.
'Ruddy marvellous!
I suggested Rushdie's knighthood was a "fuck you" to Islam. The response from Iran and Pakistan was predictable (by some, anyway).
============================
From http://www.honours.gov.uk/nominate/committees.aspx
Specialist Sub-Committees
Arts and Media
* Independent Chair: Lord Rothschild OM GBE, Chairman J Rothschild Group
* Non-civil service members: Jenny Abramsky CBE, Director of Radio and Music for the BBC; John Gross, author and former theatre critic of The Sunday Telegraph; Ben Okri OBE, novelist and poet; Andreas Whittam Smith CBE, journalist and former Editor of the Independent
* Permanent Secretary (Department for Culture, Media and Sport): Jonathan Stephens
* Permanent Secretary (Scottish Executive): Sir John Elvidge KCB
==============================
Michael White proposed the mechanism for the nomination of Rushdie to receive a knighthood.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2106901,00.htm
step 1. nomination from English PEN
A look at English PEN will show how that was started, and its presidents, from authors in the 1920's to Sir this, that and the other, to no one without an OBE or CBE or other honour.
step 2. consideration by the Arts & Media Sub-committee, where Rothschild comes in.
Just when tensions between Islam and the West need increasing along comes Rothschild.
'Ruddy marvellous!
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
THE GOOD BONESMAN
"The Good Shepherd" was released on DVD yesterday and I watched it for the first time. No wonder it received the criticism it did. It shows the influence of and bond between the members of Skull and Bones. The main character, played by Matt Damon, was "tapped" and he accepted. During his initiation he had to lie naked in an open coffin and tell a secret that he had never told anyone else to those present so that they had some "dirt" which could be used against him if he turned against them. The initiates then wrestled naked in mud while one of the senior Bonesman pissed on them. The film reveals the positions of power that Bonesmen occupy. Damon's character was intimately involved in the development of the OSS and CIA.
I would recommend it.
I would recommend it.
THE SWINDLE OF THE CENTURY?
The Bandar/BAE scandal just got murkier.
================================================================
From http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2007/3425scandal_of_cntry.html
Scandal of the Century Rocks British Crown and the City
by Jeffrey Steinberg
Lyndon LaRouche will comment in depth on the significance and coming impact of this world-changing scandal, in a webcast address from Washington, D.C. on Thursday, June 21 at 1:00 EDT. (Read release by Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee).
On June 6, the British Broadcasting Corporation aired a sensational story, revealing that the British arms manufacturer BAE Systems, had paid more than $2 billion in bribes to Saudi Arabia's national security chief and longtime Ambassador in Washington, Prince Bandar bin-Sultan, over a 22 year period. The BBC revelations were further detailed on June 11, in a one-hour Panorama TV documentary, provocatively titled "Princes, Planes and Pay-offs," which detailed a more than decade-long probe by the Guardian, BBC, and the British Serious Fraud Office (SFO), into the al-Yamamah arms contract, a nearly $80 billion, 22-year long deal between BAE Systems and the Saudi government, in which British-made fighter jets and support services were provided to the Saudi Kingdom, beginning in 1985.
Every British government, from Margaret Thatcher, through John Major, to Tony Blair, has been thoroughly implicated in the BAE-Saudi scandal. In December 2006, Britain's Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, ordered the SFO probe shut down, declaring that any further investigation would gravely jeopardize British national security. Prime Minister Blair fully backed his Attorney General, and is now scrambling to complete the fourth phase of the al-Yamamah deal before he leaves office next month.
The furor that followed the Goldsmith announcement triggered a number of international investigations into the BAE Systems scandal, including by the Swiss government and the OECD (Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, the so-called "rich nations" club). More recently, the U.S. Department of Justice has reportedly opened a probe into money laundering and possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, on the part of the British and the Saudis. The estimated $2 billion in cumulative payoffs to Prince Bandar, for his role in brokering the al-Yamamah deal, went through the Saudi government accounts at Riggs Bank in Washington, D.C., thus opening the U.S. jurisdiction.
While the various British investigations into the al-Yamamah (Arabic for "the dove") arms deal did unearth a vast network of front companies, offshore shells, and corrupt politicians, who benefitted richly from the deal, EIR's own preliminary investigation into the scandal has uncovered a far more significant story, one that will send shock waves through the City of London financial circles, as well as top figures within the British monarchy, who are all implicated in a far bigger scheme that goes to the very heart of the Venetian-modeled Anglo-Dutch Liberal system of global finance, which is now on its last legs.
Al-Yamamah
In 1985, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in part frightened by the ongoing war between its neighbors Iran and Iraq, which had reached a highly destructive phase known as the "war of the cities," sought to purchase large numbers of advanced fighter jets to build up their Royal Air Force. Initially, the Saudis sought approval from the Reagan Administration to purchase American-made F-15 fighters. The Saudi F-15 deal required Congressional approval, and the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) waged a massive effort to kill the sale. According to several well-informed Washington sources, Howard Teicher, a senior official on the Reagan National Security Council (director of Near East and South Asia, 1982-1985; senior director, Politico-Military Affairs, 1986-1987), also played a pivotal role in the AIPAC effort, which ultimately succeeded in killing the deal. Teicher, according to the sources, withheld information from Reagan, stalling a Congressional vote until AIPAC had fully mobilized, and then convinced the President to withdraw the request, rather than face an embarrassing defeat in the Congress.
Other sources have offered a slightly different version of the failure of the F-15 deal, claiming that intelligence community estimates, since the mid-1970s, had warned of instability in the Persian Gulf, and that there were, therefore, other reasons to question the advisability of the sales of advanced U.S. military technology to Saudi Arabia, particularly after the Khomeini Revolution in Iran.
Whatever the reason, the F-15 deal failed. The very next day, after the Reagan Administration threw in the towel, Prince Bandar, the Kingdom's de facto chief diplomat to Britain, the Soviet Union, and China, as well as the U.S.A., flew to London to meet with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. British arms sales did not require parliamentary approval, and the British government, in 1966, had created an agency, the Defence Export Services Organization (DESO), to hawk British arms around the globe. BAE Systems had been created in 1981, when Thatcher privatized the British arms manufacturing industry, which had, only four years earlier, been nationalized under the Labour government. And BAE Systems, the largest arms manufacturer in Europe, dominates the British defense sector.
The Bandar trip to London to confer with Thatcher had been in the works for months. A Ministry of Defence briefing paper, prepared for the Thatcher-Bandar sessions, stated, "Since early 1984, intensive efforts have been made to sell Tornado and Hawk to the Saudis. When, in the Autumn of 1984, they seemed to be leaning towards French Mirage fighters, Mr. Heseltine paid an urgent visit to Saudi Arabia, carrying a letter from the Prime Minister to King Fahd. In December 1984, the Prime Minister started a series of important negotiations by meeting Prince Bandar, the son of Prince Sultan.... The Prime Minister met the King in Riyadh in April this year and in August the King wrote to her stating his decision to buy 48 Tornado IDS and 30 Hawk."
Thatcher also had every reason to feel confident that Bandar would be the perfect interlocutor between Saudi Arabia and Great Britain in the deal of the century. At age 16, several years after his father, Prince Sultan, had been named Minister of Defense of the Kingdom, the Prince was sent to England to study at the Royal Air Force College Cranwell, the elite officer's training school for future RAF pilots. At least one senior American intelligence official has reported widespread rumors that Bandar was recruited by MI6, the British Secret Intelligence Service, before he finished his RAF training. Other sources, intimately familiar with the goings-on at BAE Systems, report that the "private" aerospace giant has a sales force made up almost exclusively of "lads" recruited to MI6 before their hires.
Whether or not these reports are accurate, Bandar certainly is a serious Anglophile. The best accounts of his adventures in England appear in the 2006 book, The Prince—The Secret Story of the World's Most Intriguing Royal (HarperCollins, New York), by William Simpson, a Cranwell classmate, and still-intimate pal of the Prince. Simpson, who wrote the book with the full cooperation of Bandar, recounted his friend's intimate ties with every occupant of 10 Downing Street.
"In London," Simpson reported, "Bandar would breeze into Number Ten with uninhibited panache. From Margaret Thatcher to John Major to Tony Blair, Bandar's access was extraordinary." By Prince Bandar's own account to Simpson about al-Yamamah, "When we first made the agreement, we had no contract. It was a handshake between me and Mrs. Thatcher in Ten Downing Street." It was months before the final details of the al-Yamamah deal were finalized, and the contracts signed. But even before the ink had dried, Britain had provided the initial delivery of Tornado jets—from the inventory of the RAF.
By the time the formal Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the British and Saudi defense ministers on Sept. 25, 1985, the original order had been expanded to 72 Tornado fighter jets and 30 Hawk training aircraft, along with other equipment and services. There have been two subsequent deals, al-Yamamah II and III, and al-Yamamah IV, worth as much as $40 billion in additional arms deliveries, is in the final stages.
Oil-For-Aircraft
The al-Yamamah deal was structured as a barter arrangement. While the Saudis did agree to pay cash for certain services and infrastructure construction under separate sub-contracts—and those cash payments went, in part, to "consulting fees" or bribes, including the $2 billion to Prince Bandar's accounts at Riggs Bank, and similar reported payments to the Chilean dictator Gen. Augusto Pinochet and the Dutch Royal Consort, Prince Bernhard—the essential contract involved the Saudi delivery of oil to Britain, in return for the fighter jets.
And here is where the story gets really interesting.
Saudi Arabia agreed to provide Britain with one tanker of oil per day, for the entire life of the al-Yamamah contracts. An oil tanker holds approximately 600,000 barrels of oil. BAE Systems began "official" delivery of the Tornado and Hawk planes to Saudi Arabia in 1989. BAE Systems now has approximately 5,000 employees inside Saudi Arabia, servicing the contract.
Is it possible to place a cash value on the oil deliveries to BAE Systems? According to sources familiar with the inner workings of al-Yamamah, much of the Saudi oil was sold on the international spot market at market value, through British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell.
EIR economist John Hoefle has done an in-depth charting of the financial features of the oil transactions, based on BP's own daily tracking of world oil prices on the open market. Using BP's average annual cost of a barrel of Saudi crude oil, Hoefle concluded that the total value of the oil sales, based on the value of the dollar at the time of delivery, was $125 billion. In current U.S. dollar terms, that total soars to $160 billion (see accompanying charts).
Based on the best available public records, the total sticker price on the military equipment and services provided by BAE Systems to Saudi Arabia, over the 22-year period to date, was approximately $80 billion. And those figures are inflated by billions of dollars in slush fund payouts. Indeed, the latest limited-damage scandal around al-Yamamah erupted in November 2006, when a Ministry of Defence document leaked out, providing the actual sticker price on the fighter jets. The figure confirmed the long-held suspicion that the prices of the jets had been jacked up by at least 40%.
BAE Systems, a crown jewel in the City of London financial/industrial structure, secured somewhere in the range of $80 billion in net profit from the arrangement—in league with BP and Royal Dutch Shell! Where did that money go, and what kinds of activities were financed with it? The answer to those questions, sources emphasize, holds the key to the power of Anglo-Dutch finance in the world today.
Prince Bandar's biographer and friend William Simpson certainly provided an insight into the inner workings of the al-Yamamah project: "Although al-Yamamah constitutes a highly unconventional way of doing business, its lucrative spin-offs are the by-product of a wholly political objective: a Saudi political objective and a British political objective. Al-Yamamah is, first and foremost, a political contract. Negotiated at the height of the Cold War, its unique structure has enabled the Saudis to purchase weapons from around the globe to fund the fight against Communism. Al-Yamamah money can be found in the clandestine purchase of Russian ordnance used in the expulsion of Qaddafi's troops from Chad. It can also be traced to arms bought from Egypt and other countries, and sent to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan fighting the Soviet occupying forces."
In effect, Prince Bandar's biographer confirms that al-Yamamah is the biggest pool of clandestine cash in history—protected by Her Majesty's Official Secrets Act and the even more impenetrable finances of the City of London and the offshore, unregulated financial havens under British dominion.
The Saudi Side of the Street
For its part, the Saudi Royal Family did not exactly get ripped off in the al-Yamamah deal. When the contract was signed in 1985, according to sources familiar with the arrangement, Saudi Arabia got an exemption from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). The barter deal with BAE Systems did not come under their OPEC production quota. In other words, Saudi Arabia got OPEC approval to produce 600,000 barrels a day, above the OPEC ceiling, to make the arms purchases.
According to the Energy Information Administration, a branch of the U.S. Department of Energy, over the life of the al-Yamamah program, the average cost of a Saudi barrel of crude oil, delivered to tankers, was under $5 a barrel. At that price, the annual cost to the Saudis for the 600,000 barrels per day was $1.1 billion. Over the duration of the contract to date, the cost to the Saudis of the daily oil shipments was approximately $24.6 billion. The commercial value, in current dollars, as noted above, was $160 billion.
The Saudis have forged a crucial partnership with the Anglo-Dutch financial oligarchy, headquartered in the City of London, and protected by the British Crown. They have, in league with BAE Systems, Royal Dutch Shell, British Petroleum, and other City giants, established a private, offshore, hidden financial concentration that would have made the British East India Company managers of an earlier heyday of the British Empire, drool with envy.
At this moment, there is no way of calculating how much of that slush fund has been devoted to the clandestine wars and Anglo-American covert operations of the past two decades. Nor is it possible to estimate the multiplier effect of portions of those undisclosed, and unregulated funds having passed through the hedge funds of the Cayman Island, the Isle of Man, Gibraltar, Panama, and Switzerland.
What is clear, is that the BAE Systems scandal goes far beyond the $2 billion that allegedly found its way into the pockets of Prince Bandar. It is a scandal that goes to the heart of the power of Anglo-Dutch finance.
There is much, much more to unearth, now that the door has been slightly opened into what already appears to be the swindle of the century.
================================================================
From http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2007/3425scandal_of_cntry.html
Scandal of the Century Rocks British Crown and the City
by Jeffrey Steinberg
Lyndon LaRouche will comment in depth on the significance and coming impact of this world-changing scandal, in a webcast address from Washington, D.C. on Thursday, June 21 at 1:00 EDT. (Read release by Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee).
On June 6, the British Broadcasting Corporation aired a sensational story, revealing that the British arms manufacturer BAE Systems, had paid more than $2 billion in bribes to Saudi Arabia's national security chief and longtime Ambassador in Washington, Prince Bandar bin-Sultan, over a 22 year period. The BBC revelations were further detailed on June 11, in a one-hour Panorama TV documentary, provocatively titled "Princes, Planes and Pay-offs," which detailed a more than decade-long probe by the Guardian, BBC, and the British Serious Fraud Office (SFO), into the al-Yamamah arms contract, a nearly $80 billion, 22-year long deal between BAE Systems and the Saudi government, in which British-made fighter jets and support services were provided to the Saudi Kingdom, beginning in 1985.
Every British government, from Margaret Thatcher, through John Major, to Tony Blair, has been thoroughly implicated in the BAE-Saudi scandal. In December 2006, Britain's Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, ordered the SFO probe shut down, declaring that any further investigation would gravely jeopardize British national security. Prime Minister Blair fully backed his Attorney General, and is now scrambling to complete the fourth phase of the al-Yamamah deal before he leaves office next month.
The furor that followed the Goldsmith announcement triggered a number of international investigations into the BAE Systems scandal, including by the Swiss government and the OECD (Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, the so-called "rich nations" club). More recently, the U.S. Department of Justice has reportedly opened a probe into money laundering and possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, on the part of the British and the Saudis. The estimated $2 billion in cumulative payoffs to Prince Bandar, for his role in brokering the al-Yamamah deal, went through the Saudi government accounts at Riggs Bank in Washington, D.C., thus opening the U.S. jurisdiction.
While the various British investigations into the al-Yamamah (Arabic for "the dove") arms deal did unearth a vast network of front companies, offshore shells, and corrupt politicians, who benefitted richly from the deal, EIR's own preliminary investigation into the scandal has uncovered a far more significant story, one that will send shock waves through the City of London financial circles, as well as top figures within the British monarchy, who are all implicated in a far bigger scheme that goes to the very heart of the Venetian-modeled Anglo-Dutch Liberal system of global finance, which is now on its last legs.
Al-Yamamah
In 1985, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in part frightened by the ongoing war between its neighbors Iran and Iraq, which had reached a highly destructive phase known as the "war of the cities," sought to purchase large numbers of advanced fighter jets to build up their Royal Air Force. Initially, the Saudis sought approval from the Reagan Administration to purchase American-made F-15 fighters. The Saudi F-15 deal required Congressional approval, and the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) waged a massive effort to kill the sale. According to several well-informed Washington sources, Howard Teicher, a senior official on the Reagan National Security Council (director of Near East and South Asia, 1982-1985; senior director, Politico-Military Affairs, 1986-1987), also played a pivotal role in the AIPAC effort, which ultimately succeeded in killing the deal. Teicher, according to the sources, withheld information from Reagan, stalling a Congressional vote until AIPAC had fully mobilized, and then convinced the President to withdraw the request, rather than face an embarrassing defeat in the Congress.
Other sources have offered a slightly different version of the failure of the F-15 deal, claiming that intelligence community estimates, since the mid-1970s, had warned of instability in the Persian Gulf, and that there were, therefore, other reasons to question the advisability of the sales of advanced U.S. military technology to Saudi Arabia, particularly after the Khomeini Revolution in Iran.
Whatever the reason, the F-15 deal failed. The very next day, after the Reagan Administration threw in the towel, Prince Bandar, the Kingdom's de facto chief diplomat to Britain, the Soviet Union, and China, as well as the U.S.A., flew to London to meet with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. British arms sales did not require parliamentary approval, and the British government, in 1966, had created an agency, the Defence Export Services Organization (DESO), to hawk British arms around the globe. BAE Systems had been created in 1981, when Thatcher privatized the British arms manufacturing industry, which had, only four years earlier, been nationalized under the Labour government. And BAE Systems, the largest arms manufacturer in Europe, dominates the British defense sector.
The Bandar trip to London to confer with Thatcher had been in the works for months. A Ministry of Defence briefing paper, prepared for the Thatcher-Bandar sessions, stated, "Since early 1984, intensive efforts have been made to sell Tornado and Hawk to the Saudis. When, in the Autumn of 1984, they seemed to be leaning towards French Mirage fighters, Mr. Heseltine paid an urgent visit to Saudi Arabia, carrying a letter from the Prime Minister to King Fahd. In December 1984, the Prime Minister started a series of important negotiations by meeting Prince Bandar, the son of Prince Sultan.... The Prime Minister met the King in Riyadh in April this year and in August the King wrote to her stating his decision to buy 48 Tornado IDS and 30 Hawk."
Thatcher also had every reason to feel confident that Bandar would be the perfect interlocutor between Saudi Arabia and Great Britain in the deal of the century. At age 16, several years after his father, Prince Sultan, had been named Minister of Defense of the Kingdom, the Prince was sent to England to study at the Royal Air Force College Cranwell, the elite officer's training school for future RAF pilots. At least one senior American intelligence official has reported widespread rumors that Bandar was recruited by MI6, the British Secret Intelligence Service, before he finished his RAF training. Other sources, intimately familiar with the goings-on at BAE Systems, report that the "private" aerospace giant has a sales force made up almost exclusively of "lads" recruited to MI6 before their hires.
Whether or not these reports are accurate, Bandar certainly is a serious Anglophile. The best accounts of his adventures in England appear in the 2006 book, The Prince—The Secret Story of the World's Most Intriguing Royal (HarperCollins, New York), by William Simpson, a Cranwell classmate, and still-intimate pal of the Prince. Simpson, who wrote the book with the full cooperation of Bandar, recounted his friend's intimate ties with every occupant of 10 Downing Street.
"In London," Simpson reported, "Bandar would breeze into Number Ten with uninhibited panache. From Margaret Thatcher to John Major to Tony Blair, Bandar's access was extraordinary." By Prince Bandar's own account to Simpson about al-Yamamah, "When we first made the agreement, we had no contract. It was a handshake between me and Mrs. Thatcher in Ten Downing Street." It was months before the final details of the al-Yamamah deal were finalized, and the contracts signed. But even before the ink had dried, Britain had provided the initial delivery of Tornado jets—from the inventory of the RAF.
By the time the formal Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the British and Saudi defense ministers on Sept. 25, 1985, the original order had been expanded to 72 Tornado fighter jets and 30 Hawk training aircraft, along with other equipment and services. There have been two subsequent deals, al-Yamamah II and III, and al-Yamamah IV, worth as much as $40 billion in additional arms deliveries, is in the final stages.
Oil-For-Aircraft
The al-Yamamah deal was structured as a barter arrangement. While the Saudis did agree to pay cash for certain services and infrastructure construction under separate sub-contracts—and those cash payments went, in part, to "consulting fees" or bribes, including the $2 billion to Prince Bandar's accounts at Riggs Bank, and similar reported payments to the Chilean dictator Gen. Augusto Pinochet and the Dutch Royal Consort, Prince Bernhard—the essential contract involved the Saudi delivery of oil to Britain, in return for the fighter jets.
And here is where the story gets really interesting.
Saudi Arabia agreed to provide Britain with one tanker of oil per day, for the entire life of the al-Yamamah contracts. An oil tanker holds approximately 600,000 barrels of oil. BAE Systems began "official" delivery of the Tornado and Hawk planes to Saudi Arabia in 1989. BAE Systems now has approximately 5,000 employees inside Saudi Arabia, servicing the contract.
Is it possible to place a cash value on the oil deliveries to BAE Systems? According to sources familiar with the inner workings of al-Yamamah, much of the Saudi oil was sold on the international spot market at market value, through British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell.
EIR economist John Hoefle has done an in-depth charting of the financial features of the oil transactions, based on BP's own daily tracking of world oil prices on the open market. Using BP's average annual cost of a barrel of Saudi crude oil, Hoefle concluded that the total value of the oil sales, based on the value of the dollar at the time of delivery, was $125 billion. In current U.S. dollar terms, that total soars to $160 billion (see accompanying charts).
Based on the best available public records, the total sticker price on the military equipment and services provided by BAE Systems to Saudi Arabia, over the 22-year period to date, was approximately $80 billion. And those figures are inflated by billions of dollars in slush fund payouts. Indeed, the latest limited-damage scandal around al-Yamamah erupted in November 2006, when a Ministry of Defence document leaked out, providing the actual sticker price on the fighter jets. The figure confirmed the long-held suspicion that the prices of the jets had been jacked up by at least 40%.
BAE Systems, a crown jewel in the City of London financial/industrial structure, secured somewhere in the range of $80 billion in net profit from the arrangement—in league with BP and Royal Dutch Shell! Where did that money go, and what kinds of activities were financed with it? The answer to those questions, sources emphasize, holds the key to the power of Anglo-Dutch finance in the world today.
Prince Bandar's biographer and friend William Simpson certainly provided an insight into the inner workings of the al-Yamamah project: "Although al-Yamamah constitutes a highly unconventional way of doing business, its lucrative spin-offs are the by-product of a wholly political objective: a Saudi political objective and a British political objective. Al-Yamamah is, first and foremost, a political contract. Negotiated at the height of the Cold War, its unique structure has enabled the Saudis to purchase weapons from around the globe to fund the fight against Communism. Al-Yamamah money can be found in the clandestine purchase of Russian ordnance used in the expulsion of Qaddafi's troops from Chad. It can also be traced to arms bought from Egypt and other countries, and sent to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan fighting the Soviet occupying forces."
In effect, Prince Bandar's biographer confirms that al-Yamamah is the biggest pool of clandestine cash in history—protected by Her Majesty's Official Secrets Act and the even more impenetrable finances of the City of London and the offshore, unregulated financial havens under British dominion.
The Saudi Side of the Street
For its part, the Saudi Royal Family did not exactly get ripped off in the al-Yamamah deal. When the contract was signed in 1985, according to sources familiar with the arrangement, Saudi Arabia got an exemption from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). The barter deal with BAE Systems did not come under their OPEC production quota. In other words, Saudi Arabia got OPEC approval to produce 600,000 barrels a day, above the OPEC ceiling, to make the arms purchases.
According to the Energy Information Administration, a branch of the U.S. Department of Energy, over the life of the al-Yamamah program, the average cost of a Saudi barrel of crude oil, delivered to tankers, was under $5 a barrel. At that price, the annual cost to the Saudis for the 600,000 barrels per day was $1.1 billion. Over the duration of the contract to date, the cost to the Saudis of the daily oil shipments was approximately $24.6 billion. The commercial value, in current dollars, as noted above, was $160 billion.
The Saudis have forged a crucial partnership with the Anglo-Dutch financial oligarchy, headquartered in the City of London, and protected by the British Crown. They have, in league with BAE Systems, Royal Dutch Shell, British Petroleum, and other City giants, established a private, offshore, hidden financial concentration that would have made the British East India Company managers of an earlier heyday of the British Empire, drool with envy.
At this moment, there is no way of calculating how much of that slush fund has been devoted to the clandestine wars and Anglo-American covert operations of the past two decades. Nor is it possible to estimate the multiplier effect of portions of those undisclosed, and unregulated funds having passed through the hedge funds of the Cayman Island, the Isle of Man, Gibraltar, Panama, and Switzerland.
What is clear, is that the BAE Systems scandal goes far beyond the $2 billion that allegedly found its way into the pockets of Prince Bandar. It is a scandal that goes to the heart of the power of Anglo-Dutch finance.
There is much, much more to unearth, now that the door has been slightly opened into what already appears to be the swindle of the century.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
SO BLAIR KNEW THERE WAS NO POST-WAR PLAN FOR IRAQ?
What a shocker!
===================================
From http://politics.guardian.co.uk/tonyblair/story/0,,2104989,00.html
Blair knew US had no post-war plan for Iraq
· PM committed troops despite chaos fears
· Bush 'offered to fight without UK'
Nicholas Watt, political editor
Sunday June 17, 2007
The Observer
Tony Blair agreed to commit British troops to battle in Iraq in the full knowledge that Washington had failed to make adequate preparations for the postwar reconstruction of the country.
In a devastating account of the chaotic preparations for the war, which comes as Blair enters his final full week in Downing Street, key No 10 aides and friends of Blair have revealed the Prime Minister repeatedly and unsuccessfully raised his concerns with the White House.
==================================
What sort of person
1. lies to take us into war, with promises of WMD and "Iraqi oil for the Iraqis"
2. then goes to war when he knows there is no post-war plan, which results in civil war and the deaths of well over half a million civilians
3. then claims it was justified because a madman has been removed from power
4. and then uses the resulting civil war as a pretext for yet another contrived war on Iran?
Eh???
Surely there is a clinical definition for this?
Unless he is following an agenda...
===================================
From http://politics.guardian.co.uk/tonyblair/story/0,,2104989,00.html
Blair knew US had no post-war plan for Iraq
· PM committed troops despite chaos fears
· Bush 'offered to fight without UK'
Nicholas Watt, political editor
Sunday June 17, 2007
The Observer
Tony Blair agreed to commit British troops to battle in Iraq in the full knowledge that Washington had failed to make adequate preparations for the postwar reconstruction of the country.
In a devastating account of the chaotic preparations for the war, which comes as Blair enters his final full week in Downing Street, key No 10 aides and friends of Blair have revealed the Prime Minister repeatedly and unsuccessfully raised his concerns with the White House.
==================================
What sort of person
1. lies to take us into war, with promises of WMD and "Iraqi oil for the Iraqis"
2. then goes to war when he knows there is no post-war plan, which results in civil war and the deaths of well over half a million civilians
3. then claims it was justified because a madman has been removed from power
4. and then uses the resulting civil war as a pretext for yet another contrived war on Iran?
Eh???
Surely there is a clinical definition for this?
Unless he is following an agenda...
ISRAEL TO INVADE GAZA
From http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1942918.ece
Israel plans attack on Gaza
Uzi Mahnaimi
ISRAEL’s new defence minister Ehud Barak is planning an attack on Gaza within weeks to crush the Hamas militants who have seized power there.
According to senior Israeli military sources, the plan calls for 20,000 troops to destroy much of Hamas’s military capability in days.
The raid would be triggered by Hamas rocket attacks against Israel or a resumption of suicide bombings.
Barak, who is expected to become defence minister tomorrow, has already demanded detailed plans to deploy two armoured divisions and an infantry division, accompanied by assault drones and F-16 jets, against Hamas.
The Israeli forces would expect to be confronted by about 12,000 Hamas fighters with arms confiscated from the Fatah faction that they defeated in last week’s three-day civil war in Gaza.
Details of the plan emerged as Fatah forces in the West Bank stormed Hamas-run buildings, including the parliament in Ramallah, where they tried to seize the deputy speaker.
===================================================
I told the Intelligence and Security Committee this would happen shortly after 7/7. It links into the three-world-war plan.
When Israel pulled out of Gaza a few years ago I thought there was an ulterior motive.
I thought, why would the brutal, racist Zionist state intent on expansion pull out of Gaza. And then it came to me; total invasion and war.
It took a while. The illegal withholding of tax by the occupying force, Israel, did it. That more than anything has driven many Palestinians to Hamas. And with Hamas' early finance from Israel we cannot discount that certain elements within Israel do still have an influence on Hamas (where do they all get their weapons from?).
The Daily Israeligraph ran a comment by Con Coughlin a few days ago immediately blaming Iran.
John Bolton, who is not the only one, appeared on Thursday on Hannity & Colmes in repsonse to the recent events in Gaza, and said we need to wage war on Iran and also asked if Iran was financing and arming Hamas, but did not provide evidence (and he like Coughlin made no mention of Israel's financing of Hamas).
And in Foreign Affairs, the publication of the Council on Foreign Relations, the lead article in the May/June 2007 edition is entitled "Al-Qaeda Strikes Back"
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070501faessay86304/bruce-riedel/al-qaeda-strikes-back.html
It begins with the ominous paragraph;
"By rushing into Iraq instead of finishing off the hunt for Osama bin Laden, Washington has unwittingly helped its enemies: al Qaeda has more bases, more partners, and more followers today than it did on the eve of 9/11. Now the group is working to set up networks in the Middle East and Africa -- and may even try to lure the United States into a war with Iran. Washington must focus on attacking al Qaeda's leaders and ideas and altering the local conditions in which they thrive."
Say what? al-Qaeda is trying to lure the United States into a war with Iran?
al-Qaeda ("the database") was created by the USA.
Hamas was created by Israel.
Both are now being used by their creators for war, and both are being carefully and quietly linked to Iran without any proof provided.
Israel plans attack on Gaza
Uzi Mahnaimi
ISRAEL’s new defence minister Ehud Barak is planning an attack on Gaza within weeks to crush the Hamas militants who have seized power there.
According to senior Israeli military sources, the plan calls for 20,000 troops to destroy much of Hamas’s military capability in days.
The raid would be triggered by Hamas rocket attacks against Israel or a resumption of suicide bombings.
Barak, who is expected to become defence minister tomorrow, has already demanded detailed plans to deploy two armoured divisions and an infantry division, accompanied by assault drones and F-16 jets, against Hamas.
The Israeli forces would expect to be confronted by about 12,000 Hamas fighters with arms confiscated from the Fatah faction that they defeated in last week’s three-day civil war in Gaza.
Details of the plan emerged as Fatah forces in the West Bank stormed Hamas-run buildings, including the parliament in Ramallah, where they tried to seize the deputy speaker.
===================================================
I told the Intelligence and Security Committee this would happen shortly after 7/7. It links into the three-world-war plan.
When Israel pulled out of Gaza a few years ago I thought there was an ulterior motive.
I thought, why would the brutal, racist Zionist state intent on expansion pull out of Gaza. And then it came to me; total invasion and war.
It took a while. The illegal withholding of tax by the occupying force, Israel, did it. That more than anything has driven many Palestinians to Hamas. And with Hamas' early finance from Israel we cannot discount that certain elements within Israel do still have an influence on Hamas (where do they all get their weapons from?).
The Daily Israeligraph ran a comment by Con Coughlin a few days ago immediately blaming Iran.
John Bolton, who is not the only one, appeared on Thursday on Hannity & Colmes in repsonse to the recent events in Gaza, and said we need to wage war on Iran and also asked if Iran was financing and arming Hamas, but did not provide evidence (and he like Coughlin made no mention of Israel's financing of Hamas).
And in Foreign Affairs, the publication of the Council on Foreign Relations, the lead article in the May/June 2007 edition is entitled "Al-Qaeda Strikes Back"
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070501faessay86304/bruce-riedel/al-qaeda-strikes-back.html
It begins with the ominous paragraph;
"By rushing into Iraq instead of finishing off the hunt for Osama bin Laden, Washington has unwittingly helped its enemies: al Qaeda has more bases, more partners, and more followers today than it did on the eve of 9/11. Now the group is working to set up networks in the Middle East and Africa -- and may even try to lure the United States into a war with Iran. Washington must focus on attacking al Qaeda's leaders and ideas and altering the local conditions in which they thrive."
Say what? al-Qaeda is trying to lure the United States into a war with Iran?
al-Qaeda ("the database") was created by the USA.
Hamas was created by Israel.
Both are now being used by their creators for war, and both are being carefully and quietly linked to Iran without any proof provided.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
THE HONOURS LIST : WHY DIDN'T I GET AN OBE?
For services to history?
Oh, yeah, I offer a conspiraloon alternative version that explains
1. where our money comes from and who controls the money supply
2. how that money has been used to send our ancestors into wars to fight each other so that power becomes more centralised and controlled by the same people who control money supply
3. British interference in both Russian and American affairs since the early 19th Century, including the US Civil War and terrorism and revolution in Russia
4. how World War 1 was a production of the British elite, and World War 2 was a production of the British and American elite in the City of London and Wall Street
5. why events such as The Lusitania and Pearl Harbour were provoked and allowed to happen
6. how and why Israel was created for a horrific World War 3 that will give total global control for the megalomaniac mass murderers in The City of London and Wall Street and who they front for
7. the role of Freemasonry in all of this
and on and on...
Chakrabati should throw her CBE on the floor and spit on it. I would. The Queen is slowly transferring power to the ever-expanding police state called the EU.
As for Rushdie and Gordievsky? A blatant "fuck you" to Iran and Russia.
I have no idea who the rest are, but would say the departmental list should be banned. Some are doing some good stuff. But a lot of them are simply doing their job. Take Athan Anderson. Who is he? Never heard of him. His job?
Project Manager for Construction, British Embassy, Baghdad!!!!!!!!!
WTF?
It's all a load of bollocks. When you sit down with your cup of tea and KitKat or McVities Digestive and give it a good dunk, think what it's all about. What is it all about? War, centralisation of power, money. What is it all about? Then sigh, look your children in the eye, and say to them, "Ah well, it's all a load of bollocks, innit?".
Can you really say that to them?
Oh, yeah, I offer a conspiraloon alternative version that explains
1. where our money comes from and who controls the money supply
2. how that money has been used to send our ancestors into wars to fight each other so that power becomes more centralised and controlled by the same people who control money supply
3. British interference in both Russian and American affairs since the early 19th Century, including the US Civil War and terrorism and revolution in Russia
4. how World War 1 was a production of the British elite, and World War 2 was a production of the British and American elite in the City of London and Wall Street
5. why events such as The Lusitania and Pearl Harbour were provoked and allowed to happen
6. how and why Israel was created for a horrific World War 3 that will give total global control for the megalomaniac mass murderers in The City of London and Wall Street and who they front for
7. the role of Freemasonry in all of this
and on and on...
Chakrabati should throw her CBE on the floor and spit on it. I would. The Queen is slowly transferring power to the ever-expanding police state called the EU.
As for Rushdie and Gordievsky? A blatant "fuck you" to Iran and Russia.
I have no idea who the rest are, but would say the departmental list should be banned. Some are doing some good stuff. But a lot of them are simply doing their job. Take Athan Anderson. Who is he? Never heard of him. His job?
Project Manager for Construction, British Embassy, Baghdad!!!!!!!!!
WTF?
It's all a load of bollocks. When you sit down with your cup of tea and KitKat or McVities Digestive and give it a good dunk, think what it's all about. What is it all about? War, centralisation of power, money. What is it all about? Then sigh, look your children in the eye, and say to them, "Ah well, it's all a load of bollocks, innit?".
Can you really say that to them?
Friday, June 15, 2007
THERE IS SUCH A THING AS A FREE LUNCH
1. own a bank
2. simply create money from that bank with a flick of a pen, or type a few numbers into a computer
3. spend that money on a lunch
Why not go further?
There is such a thing as a free world war, to implement terror and police state laws and persuade the world it needs a world government.
There is such a thing as a free violent revolution to overthrow a troublesome government.
There is such a thing as a free corrupt government, sold as of the people, for the people and by the people when in fact it is a self-serving, fascist pseudo-dictatorship using its military to enrich a self-appointed oligarchy.
The list goes on and on and on and on...
2. simply create money from that bank with a flick of a pen, or type a few numbers into a computer
3. spend that money on a lunch
Why not go further?
There is such a thing as a free world war, to implement terror and police state laws and persuade the world it needs a world government.
There is such a thing as a free violent revolution to overthrow a troublesome government.
There is such a thing as a free corrupt government, sold as of the people, for the people and by the people when in fact it is a self-serving, fascist pseudo-dictatorship using its military to enrich a self-appointed oligarchy.
The list goes on and on and on and on...
Thursday, June 14, 2007
ON A WASHINGTON POST OPINION PIECE
A bomb killed an anti-Syrian Lebanese MP on Wednesday. Without any sort of investigation yet held and no official conclusions reached The Washington Post has published an opinion piece by a writer for the Daily Star of Lebanon, Hussain Abdul-Hussain.
"Standing Up to Killers : Syria Must Answer for Its Murders in Lebanon" at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/13/AR2007061301982.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
He writes;
"I should wait for the results of an investigation into the explosion to learn who killed Khaled and his dad. But I will not wait. I am tired of the murders in Lebanon. I accuse the Syrian regime, headed by President Bashar al-Assad, of killing Khaled. As a friend of the family, I want to press charges against Assad and his Syrian and Lebanese associates. Enough is enough with the Syrian regime and its Lebanese puppets."
Let's think this through.
In 1998 in a land far, far away an honourable bunch of ordinary guys united to form The Project for a New American Century. Their mission was to bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East (particularly those with lots and lots of oil). After 2000 they occupied some of the most powerful positions in the US governent, and some still do. Some also have strong links to Israel and its A Clean Break policy, which called for war on its neighbours for, as Hitler would put it, Lebensraum.
Among the countries named for targetting were,
Iraq - since invaded and occupied, and its oil to go to Anglo-American corporations. It was accused of involvement in 9/11 and of developing WMD, two claims which have so far not been proven.
Iran - now the subject of covert operations and overt military threats for its alleged development of WMD. There have also been attempts to link Iran with al-Qaeda, and accusations it is fometing civil war in Iraq and has allied with the Taliban in Afghanistan. (starting to see a picture yet?)
Syria/Lebanon - Syria is accused of running Hizb'Allah in Lebanon. Last year the contrived kidnapping of two soldiers on the Israel/Lebanon border was used by Israel to bomb Lebanon into dust, DU dust.
Recently there have been several reports that Syria and Israel have been communicating not by normal channels to come to an agreement regarding disputed territory eg Golan Heights, and it appeared these talks were bearing some fruit.
So would Syria threaten this peaceful approach of resolving disputes, and risk war with the USA and Israel, by blowing up one anti-Syrian MP and 9 others including his son?
Or would someone intent on disrupting the detente between Syria and Israel want to blow up an anti-Syrian MP and then have opinion pieces published in the likes of The Washington Post accusing Syria?
I think the latter, because the people in power in the USA have openly stated their intention for war on Iraq, Iran, Syria and Lebanon.
But I don't have access to a The Washington Post opinion piece.
Hussain Abdul-Hussain mentions Rafiq al-Hariri. The investigation into his assassination is corrupt and has been proven so.
"Standing Up to Killers : Syria Must Answer for Its Murders in Lebanon" at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/13/AR2007061301982.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
He writes;
"I should wait for the results of an investigation into the explosion to learn who killed Khaled and his dad. But I will not wait. I am tired of the murders in Lebanon. I accuse the Syrian regime, headed by President Bashar al-Assad, of killing Khaled. As a friend of the family, I want to press charges against Assad and his Syrian and Lebanese associates. Enough is enough with the Syrian regime and its Lebanese puppets."
Let's think this through.
In 1998 in a land far, far away an honourable bunch of ordinary guys united to form The Project for a New American Century. Their mission was to bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East (particularly those with lots and lots of oil). After 2000 they occupied some of the most powerful positions in the US governent, and some still do. Some also have strong links to Israel and its A Clean Break policy, which called for war on its neighbours for, as Hitler would put it, Lebensraum.
Among the countries named for targetting were,
Iraq - since invaded and occupied, and its oil to go to Anglo-American corporations. It was accused of involvement in 9/11 and of developing WMD, two claims which have so far not been proven.
Iran - now the subject of covert operations and overt military threats for its alleged development of WMD. There have also been attempts to link Iran with al-Qaeda, and accusations it is fometing civil war in Iraq and has allied with the Taliban in Afghanistan. (starting to see a picture yet?)
Syria/Lebanon - Syria is accused of running Hizb'Allah in Lebanon. Last year the contrived kidnapping of two soldiers on the Israel/Lebanon border was used by Israel to bomb Lebanon into dust, DU dust.
Recently there have been several reports that Syria and Israel have been communicating not by normal channels to come to an agreement regarding disputed territory eg Golan Heights, and it appeared these talks were bearing some fruit.
So would Syria threaten this peaceful approach of resolving disputes, and risk war with the USA and Israel, by blowing up one anti-Syrian MP and 9 others including his son?
Or would someone intent on disrupting the detente between Syria and Israel want to blow up an anti-Syrian MP and then have opinion pieces published in the likes of The Washington Post accusing Syria?
I think the latter, because the people in power in the USA have openly stated their intention for war on Iraq, Iran, Syria and Lebanon.
But I don't have access to a The Washington Post opinion piece.
Hussain Abdul-Hussain mentions Rafiq al-Hariri. The investigation into his assassination is corrupt and has been proven so.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
BLAIR v THE MEDIA
He used 'em.
He abused 'em.
They loved it.
And now he wants to clamp down on the internet citing bad, untrustworthy, gutter-press journalism.
The man never ceases to amaze me.
Do not be surprised if this was an attempt to hide some bad or revealing news elsewhere, that's how much cynicism I have.
Or an attempt to censor the content of certain newspaper comment sections in which members of the public can express their strongly held views.
He abused 'em.
They loved it.
And now he wants to clamp down on the internet citing bad, untrustworthy, gutter-press journalism.
The man never ceases to amaze me.
Do not be surprised if this was an attempt to hide some bad or revealing news elsewhere, that's how much cynicism I have.
Or an attempt to censor the content of certain newspaper comment sections in which members of the public can express their strongly held views.
NO ONE WILL EVER KNOW
These are the words of princes William and Harry as spoken during an interview with NBC to be shown next Monday 18th June.
Those of us who believe the death of Princess Diana was not an accident can take some sense of victory in those words. Despite living under the influence of the Royal machine for the ten years since Diana's death, the princes are still unsure as to what really happened, and do not appear to have much confidence in finding out what really happened in the future.
Whose fault is that?
The Queen signs laws and treaties and passes control of this nation to Europe.
Yet for some reason her grandsons are unsure how their mother died?
I consider these words to be an indictment on "The Establishment" that they are attempting to suppress the truth. A young woman Banaz Mahmod was murdered by her father and uncle and there is an inquiry into her death. Ten years after Diana's death the heir to the throne is still not sure how his mother died.
Those of us who believe the death of Princess Diana was not an accident can take some sense of victory in those words. Despite living under the influence of the Royal machine for the ten years since Diana's death, the princes are still unsure as to what really happened, and do not appear to have much confidence in finding out what really happened in the future.
Whose fault is that?
The Queen signs laws and treaties and passes control of this nation to Europe.
Yet for some reason her grandsons are unsure how their mother died?
I consider these words to be an indictment on "The Establishment" that they are attempting to suppress the truth. A young woman Banaz Mahmod was murdered by her father and uncle and there is an inquiry into her death. Ten years after Diana's death the heir to the throne is still not sure how his mother died.
Monday, June 11, 2007
AT LEAST 1600 CHILD SEX OFFENDERS LET OFF WITH A CAUTION?
The BBC has obtained, via FOI Act requests to Police forces, the results of 8000 sex offences.
At least 1600 offences involving children resulted in cautions!!
1600 offenders allowed to prowl the streets and terrify parents in to microchipping their kids. 1600 offenders allowed to scour the internet for kiddie porn to demonise the internet, the only media offering alternative news and views to the sycophantic mainstream media spewing forth the war-and-police-state agenda.
Meanwhile OAPs are jailed for not paying their Council Tax.
Has this country gone down the drain?
====================================
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6717997.stm
Cautions for 8,000 sex offenders
Figures for each police force
Almost 8,000 sex offenders have been cautioned across England in the past five years, rather than being charged.
Offences involving children accounted for more than 1,600 of the cautions, while more than 230 were for rape.
The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) said a caution would be given only if it was the most appropriate course of action.
The government said there were very few cases where cautions were appropriate for rape or offences against children.
'Very careful thought'
Acpo said a caution did not mean the offender was being "let off" as it still brought a criminal record and a caution for a sex crime would also see the offender placed on the sex offenders register.
The results were revealed after inquiries to every police force in England by the BBC News website, many of them made using the Freedom of Information Act.
At least 1600 offences involving children resulted in cautions!!
1600 offenders allowed to prowl the streets and terrify parents in to microchipping their kids. 1600 offenders allowed to scour the internet for kiddie porn to demonise the internet, the only media offering alternative news and views to the sycophantic mainstream media spewing forth the war-and-police-state agenda.
Meanwhile OAPs are jailed for not paying their Council Tax.
Has this country gone down the drain?
====================================
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6717997.stm
Cautions for 8,000 sex offenders
Figures for each police force
Almost 8,000 sex offenders have been cautioned across England in the past five years, rather than being charged.
Offences involving children accounted for more than 1,600 of the cautions, while more than 230 were for rape.
The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) said a caution would be given only if it was the most appropriate course of action.
The government said there were very few cases where cautions were appropriate for rape or offences against children.
'Very careful thought'
Acpo said a caution did not mean the offender was being "let off" as it still brought a criminal record and a caution for a sex crime would also see the offender placed on the sex offenders register.
The results were revealed after inquiries to every police force in England by the BBC News website, many of them made using the Freedom of Information Act.
Saturday, June 09, 2007
THE SCOUNDREL BEREZOVSKY ON GEORGE SOROS
The widow of Alexander Litvinenko has recently published a book with Alex Goldfarb, "Death of a Dissident". In the chapter The Robber Baron we catch a glimpse of the psyche of Berezovsky, and his attitude to Great Britain.
I quote from P46,47;
========================================
I tried to respond politely to Berezovsky's quip. El Mirador, Soros' summer home, is a lovely Mexican-style hacienda in Southampton on Long Island. The best I could manage was, "There is some resemblance, although the building is in a different style."
"Well, as soon as we are done with the elections, we'll deal with real estate", Berezovsky replied. "I'd like to invite Mr. Soros to my dacha when he is next in Moscow. We need to learn from him. The way he shorted the pound, what an outrageous guy, top-notch!" [TTS: read that bit again, several times]
Berezovsky was referring to September 16, 1992, a.k.a. Black Wednesday, when Soros played against the British government on currency markets around the world, forced the British to devaluate the pound, and made a billion dollars in a day. This earned him the sobriquet "the man who broke the Bank of England".
===================================
Here we see Berezovsky expressing his admiration for someone who financially attacked our country, devalued our currency, and made a billion dollars at the same time. The man has no loyalty to anyone or anything except money.
WTF is this man doing in our country, taking centre stage on QT and verbally and financially attacking a well-armed nuclear country from London?
And more importantly, WHO IS ALLOWING HIM?
Perhaps Berezovsky is MI6.
I quote from P46,47;
========================================
I tried to respond politely to Berezovsky's quip. El Mirador, Soros' summer home, is a lovely Mexican-style hacienda in Southampton on Long Island. The best I could manage was, "There is some resemblance, although the building is in a different style."
"Well, as soon as we are done with the elections, we'll deal with real estate", Berezovsky replied. "I'd like to invite Mr. Soros to my dacha when he is next in Moscow. We need to learn from him. The way he shorted the pound, what an outrageous guy, top-notch!" [TTS: read that bit again, several times]
Berezovsky was referring to September 16, 1992, a.k.a. Black Wednesday, when Soros played against the British government on currency markets around the world, forced the British to devaluate the pound, and made a billion dollars in a day. This earned him the sobriquet "the man who broke the Bank of England".
===================================
Here we see Berezovsky expressing his admiration for someone who financially attacked our country, devalued our currency, and made a billion dollars at the same time. The man has no loyalty to anyone or anything except money.
WTF is this man doing in our country, taking centre stage on QT and verbally and financially attacking a well-armed nuclear country from London?
And more importantly, WHO IS ALLOWING HIM?
Perhaps Berezovsky is MI6.
Friday, June 08, 2007
MORGAN STANLEY TELLS IT CUSTOMERS TO GET OUT OF THE STOCK MARKET
This does not look good. Do they know something, like the Wall Streeters who managed to get out of Wall Street just in time in 1929 before they pulled the plug themselves?
===================================
From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/06/06/cnmorgan106.xml
Morgan Stanley issues triple sell warning on equities
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Last Updated: 12:19am BST 07/06/2007
Morgan Stanley has advised clients to slash exposure to the stock market after its three key warning indicators began flashing a "Full House" sell signal for the first time since the dotcom bust.
Morgan Stanley has advised clients to slash exposure to the stock market after its three key warning indicators began flashing a sell signal
Teun Draaisma, chief of European equities strategist for the US investment bank, said the triple warning was a "very powerful" signal that had been triggered just five times since 1980.
"Interest rates are rising and reaching critical levels. This matters more than growth for equities, so we think the mid-cycle rally is over. Our model is forecasting a 14pc correction over the next six months, but it could be more serious," he said. Mr Draaisma said the MSCI index of 600 European and British equities had dropped by an average of 15.2pc over six months after each "Full House" signal, with falls of 25.2pc after September 1987 and 26.2pc after April 2002. "We prefer to be on the right side of these odds," he said.
===================================
From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/06/06/cnmorgan106.xml
Morgan Stanley issues triple sell warning on equities
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Last Updated: 12:19am BST 07/06/2007
Morgan Stanley has advised clients to slash exposure to the stock market after its three key warning indicators began flashing a "Full House" sell signal for the first time since the dotcom bust.
Morgan Stanley has advised clients to slash exposure to the stock market after its three key warning indicators began flashing a sell signal
Teun Draaisma, chief of European equities strategist for the US investment bank, said the triple warning was a "very powerful" signal that had been triggered just five times since 1980.
"Interest rates are rising and reaching critical levels. This matters more than growth for equities, so we think the mid-cycle rally is over. Our model is forecasting a 14pc correction over the next six months, but it could be more serious," he said. Mr Draaisma said the MSCI index of 600 European and British equities had dropped by an average of 15.2pc over six months after each "Full House" signal, with falls of 25.2pc after September 1987 and 26.2pc after April 2002. "We prefer to be on the right side of these odds," he said.
BEREZOVSKY GIVEN HALF OF QUESTION TIME
WTF?
Last night's BBC1 Question Time was lower than today's The Sun. Yesterday I was shocked to discover that the scoundrel Boris Berezovsky was to guest on Question Time. He was given prime spot next to Dimbleby in the middle of the panel with Tony Benn on the end. But I was even more shocked when the first half of the show was dedicated to slandering Russia, and Putin in particular.
How can a man permitted to stay here allegedly for politcal asylum be allowed to take the prime spot and express his strong and inflammatory opinions on arguably one of our best interactive political TV shows (although some of the questions and panelists are very lame)?
Are the BBC intending to allow any other persons seeking political asylum to have a half hour to express their opinions on Question Time? I seriously doubt it.
So what is so special about Berezovsky? Who does he employ? Where are his billions stashed?
The first question was inevitably on Russia,
"Who is the greater threat to peace and security in Europe; Putin or Bush?"
Tony Benn spoke first and said that he was not a fan of either Putin or Bush, and suggested that the missile rhetoric should stop. Fair comments.
But then Berezovsky took over the show, labelling Russia as dangerous and Putin a tryant etc. Melanie Phillips followed and said virtually the same thing. It then became a Russia-bashing session, but some sense was brought to the proceedings when it was pointed out that Putin is no Stalin by murdering millions in death camps, and had not invaded Iraq to install a false democracy by killing hundreds of thousands of civilians for oil. Guantanamo was mentioned once, but discussion was quickly moved on.
Inevitably Litvinenko was brought up, and Berezovsky then spoke at length on that, with the rest of the panel agreeing that Lugovoi should stand trial here, but when the prospect of a swap for Berezovsky or Berezovsky going over there to defend his name the "I won't receive a fair trial" argument was brought up, as if that didn't apply to Lugovoi. Say the name Luguvoi to anyone in the street and they will reply, "he poisoned Litvinenko". Good 'ol British justice will guarantee a fair trial?
No one asked Berezovsky for a detailed explanation on how he came to be so wealthy, or why he was wanted for fraud in Russia.
No one asked Berezovsky why it is that Putin has 80% ratings and many wanting him to stay on for a third term.
It was "Putin is a bad man and a tyrant. Russia needs a revolution." type stuff, and mainly from Berezovsky, with Benn trying to inject some sense into the Berzovsky ranting.
Half the programme was over before Dimbleby realised that one question on Russia had taken a half hour to answer, with an exiled Russian billionaire oligarch wanted for fraud dominating the answering and discussion.
Can I have a half hour on Question Time? I doubt it.
Absolutely unbelievable!!
Last night's BBC1 Question Time was lower than today's The Sun. Yesterday I was shocked to discover that the scoundrel Boris Berezovsky was to guest on Question Time. He was given prime spot next to Dimbleby in the middle of the panel with Tony Benn on the end. But I was even more shocked when the first half of the show was dedicated to slandering Russia, and Putin in particular.
How can a man permitted to stay here allegedly for politcal asylum be allowed to take the prime spot and express his strong and inflammatory opinions on arguably one of our best interactive political TV shows (although some of the questions and panelists are very lame)?
Are the BBC intending to allow any other persons seeking political asylum to have a half hour to express their opinions on Question Time? I seriously doubt it.
So what is so special about Berezovsky? Who does he employ? Where are his billions stashed?
The first question was inevitably on Russia,
"Who is the greater threat to peace and security in Europe; Putin or Bush?"
Tony Benn spoke first and said that he was not a fan of either Putin or Bush, and suggested that the missile rhetoric should stop. Fair comments.
But then Berezovsky took over the show, labelling Russia as dangerous and Putin a tryant etc. Melanie Phillips followed and said virtually the same thing. It then became a Russia-bashing session, but some sense was brought to the proceedings when it was pointed out that Putin is no Stalin by murdering millions in death camps, and had not invaded Iraq to install a false democracy by killing hundreds of thousands of civilians for oil. Guantanamo was mentioned once, but discussion was quickly moved on.
Inevitably Litvinenko was brought up, and Berezovsky then spoke at length on that, with the rest of the panel agreeing that Lugovoi should stand trial here, but when the prospect of a swap for Berezovsky or Berezovsky going over there to defend his name the "I won't receive a fair trial" argument was brought up, as if that didn't apply to Lugovoi. Say the name Luguvoi to anyone in the street and they will reply, "he poisoned Litvinenko". Good 'ol British justice will guarantee a fair trial?
No one asked Berezovsky for a detailed explanation on how he came to be so wealthy, or why he was wanted for fraud in Russia.
No one asked Berezovsky why it is that Putin has 80% ratings and many wanting him to stay on for a third term.
It was "Putin is a bad man and a tyrant. Russia needs a revolution." type stuff, and mainly from Berezovsky, with Benn trying to inject some sense into the Berzovsky ranting.
Half the programme was over before Dimbleby realised that one question on Russia had taken a half hour to answer, with an exiled Russian billionaire oligarch wanted for fraud dominating the answering and discussion.
Can I have a half hour on Question Time? I doubt it.
Absolutely unbelievable!!
FLING VIRTUAL BOTTLES OF VODKA AT PUTIN?
The Sun has really scraped the barrel today.
One headline for a story reads; Brit gets her nippers out. What is the story? Britney Spears is taking her sons on holiday to Hawaii.
But the tacky virtual bottle throwing "game" is beyond that.
Fling vodka at Vladi no mates
at http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2007260469,00.html
What is Putin doing to be the recipient if this?
One headline for a story reads; Brit gets her nippers out. What is the story? Britney Spears is taking her sons on holiday to Hawaii.
But the tacky virtual bottle throwing "game" is beyond that.
Fling vodka at Vladi no mates
at http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2007260469,00.html
What is Putin doing to be the recipient if this?
Thursday, June 07, 2007
WHY DOESN'T BUSH 'MELVIN' CHENEY?
In the most excellent film "Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey" Bill and Ted 'melvin' the character 'death', and say "I can't believe we just 'melvin'd death".
Wouldn't it be great to see Bush, during one of those press conferences in which the dynamic duo stand hand in hand and talk more bollocks, to stand behind Cheney, shout "MELVIN", and then 'melvin' Cheney?
Then Bush could say, "I can't believe I just 'melvin'd death".
Wouldn't it be great to see Bush, during one of those press conferences in which the dynamic duo stand hand in hand and talk more bollocks, to stand behind Cheney, shout "MELVIN", and then 'melvin' Cheney?
Then Bush could say, "I can't believe I just 'melvin'd death".
CHANNEL 4 WAS CORRECT TO SHOW "DIANA : THE WITNESSES IN THE TUNNEL"
Many people believed that the paparazzi were the cause of Diana's death. Last night you saw the outrage of the public towards any one with a camera shortly after her death.
So why were the photographers immediately blamed? And by whom?
It is classic diversion, to allow whoever really killed her to escape. Blame someone you know who is totally innocent, put them through the ordeal of a trial over a period of time while the shock of the incident dissipates, and then find the initial suspects innocent.
It took two years to clear those photographers who were arrested and charged. TWO YEARS.
My thesis on the Diana murder? I think there was a plot to destroy the relationship between Diana and Dodi. If that had blossomed into something stronger, maybe marriage, maybe even children, then the Islam v Zionism WW3 as planned would be seriously derailed. Something had to happen. Whether it was intended both Diana and Dodi die I am not sure, but I am convinced something had to happen to destroy that relationship between Dodi and Diana. And the Royal Family's immediate reaction to the death says a hell of a lot to me.
You saw last night, and I can't remember his name, that someone shortly after the crash had been "targeted" was the phrase they used, in which "someone" had entered their house with a key and searched their files but without threat to life. Someone was keen to find out if there were any photos that could show anything compromising. Who would have the power and skill to enter someone's house with a key and rummage through files to find potentially compromising photographs?
In the latest cover-up Lord Stevens had his computer containing his report stolen from his office. Other photographers had their houses and offices broken into too. I believe it was a cover-up because the Stevens report stated that Diana and Dodi had not bought an engagement ring yet the vendor of that ring provided a sales record and CCTV footage of the purchase! The vendor also claims he was threatened by the "investigators". Of course, details like this were ignored because on the day of the release of the Stevens report Bliar was questioned by the Police about the Cash-for-peerages scandal, which became more important for whatever reason, so that all the media had to report was that Stevens found no conspiracy.
So what sort of evidence could have been photographed?
Several witnesses speak of a very bright flash coming from the tunnel a second or two before they heard the crash. This would be consistent with a plot that was hatched to kill Milosevic, in which a bright flash would temporarily blind the driver of a vehicle travelling at high speed. There were also witnesses who say they saw a man run towards the tunnel immediately after the crash, take a quick scan of the scene and then run off.
There is something that really stinks about Dians's death. Really, really stinks. As with 9/11, significant witnesses and evidence are ignored. And as with 9/11 some of the "suicide" hijackers are still alive, while with Diana the paparazzi were charged but found not guilty.
Last night's documentary was useful in that we now saw in photographs that despite the initial allegations the paparazzi had nothing to do with the death of Diana, and that "someone" was keen to suppress photographs of the death and crash scene from reaching the public eye by blaming them.
We have to ask: why?
So why were the photographers immediately blamed? And by whom?
It is classic diversion, to allow whoever really killed her to escape. Blame someone you know who is totally innocent, put them through the ordeal of a trial over a period of time while the shock of the incident dissipates, and then find the initial suspects innocent.
It took two years to clear those photographers who were arrested and charged. TWO YEARS.
My thesis on the Diana murder? I think there was a plot to destroy the relationship between Diana and Dodi. If that had blossomed into something stronger, maybe marriage, maybe even children, then the Islam v Zionism WW3 as planned would be seriously derailed. Something had to happen. Whether it was intended both Diana and Dodi die I am not sure, but I am convinced something had to happen to destroy that relationship between Dodi and Diana. And the Royal Family's immediate reaction to the death says a hell of a lot to me.
You saw last night, and I can't remember his name, that someone shortly after the crash had been "targeted" was the phrase they used, in which "someone" had entered their house with a key and searched their files but without threat to life. Someone was keen to find out if there were any photos that could show anything compromising. Who would have the power and skill to enter someone's house with a key and rummage through files to find potentially compromising photographs?
In the latest cover-up Lord Stevens had his computer containing his report stolen from his office. Other photographers had their houses and offices broken into too. I believe it was a cover-up because the Stevens report stated that Diana and Dodi had not bought an engagement ring yet the vendor of that ring provided a sales record and CCTV footage of the purchase! The vendor also claims he was threatened by the "investigators". Of course, details like this were ignored because on the day of the release of the Stevens report Bliar was questioned by the Police about the Cash-for-peerages scandal, which became more important for whatever reason, so that all the media had to report was that Stevens found no conspiracy.
So what sort of evidence could have been photographed?
Several witnesses speak of a very bright flash coming from the tunnel a second or two before they heard the crash. This would be consistent with a plot that was hatched to kill Milosevic, in which a bright flash would temporarily blind the driver of a vehicle travelling at high speed. There were also witnesses who say they saw a man run towards the tunnel immediately after the crash, take a quick scan of the scene and then run off.
There is something that really stinks about Dians's death. Really, really stinks. As with 9/11, significant witnesses and evidence are ignored. And as with 9/11 some of the "suicide" hijackers are still alive, while with Diana the paparazzi were charged but found not guilty.
Last night's documentary was useful in that we now saw in photographs that despite the initial allegations the paparazzi had nothing to do with the death of Diana, and that "someone" was keen to suppress photographs of the death and crash scene from reaching the public eye by blaming them.
We have to ask: why?
Monday, June 04, 2007
THE JFK AIRPORT TERRORIST PLOT
Over the weekend a handful of people were arrested for plotting to blow up JFK airport. It was, we were told, going to be bigger than 9/11, with more death and destruction.
However, most media are reporting the basic sensationalist scaremongering news with the implication the attack was imminent.
What very few news outlets are reporting is that the plot, using the loosest definition, had hardly got started. The informant had been convicted of a crime and was awaiting sentencing, and had been told that his sentence could be diminshed if he became an informant and his infilitration was successful. Immediately there is the possibility of entrapment, for the informant had a motive to encourage the plot to develop so that the plot could be busted and his sentence could be reduced. The alleged ringleader DeFreitas believed the informant so much from the informant's enthusiasm that he thought the informant had been sent by Allah. Experts also say the attack could have caused some damage and fires but not on the scale the plotters wanted.
But if the plot had hardly got off the ground and was impractical, why bust it now in such a sensationalist manner, and not wait for it to develop for more evidence to secure a conviction?
Over the weekend was Bilderberg 2007 in Istanbul.
Just the week before there was a terrorist attack in Ankara.
And around the time the Bilderbergers were arriving in Istanbul the Turkish press announced the arrest of 11 suspected al-Qaeda members suspected of plotting to attack Istanbul, though few details were given.
Gotta keep 'em terrified! They're more controllable then.
However, most media are reporting the basic sensationalist scaremongering news with the implication the attack was imminent.
What very few news outlets are reporting is that the plot, using the loosest definition, had hardly got started. The informant had been convicted of a crime and was awaiting sentencing, and had been told that his sentence could be diminshed if he became an informant and his infilitration was successful. Immediately there is the possibility of entrapment, for the informant had a motive to encourage the plot to develop so that the plot could be busted and his sentence could be reduced. The alleged ringleader DeFreitas believed the informant so much from the informant's enthusiasm that he thought the informant had been sent by Allah. Experts also say the attack could have caused some damage and fires but not on the scale the plotters wanted.
But if the plot had hardly got off the ground and was impractical, why bust it now in such a sensationalist manner, and not wait for it to develop for more evidence to secure a conviction?
Over the weekend was Bilderberg 2007 in Istanbul.
Just the week before there was a terrorist attack in Ankara.
And around the time the Bilderbergers were arriving in Istanbul the Turkish press announced the arrest of 11 suspected al-Qaeda members suspected of plotting to attack Istanbul, though few details were given.
Gotta keep 'em terrified! They're more controllable then.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
LUGOVOI PHOTGRAPHED HOLDING HANDS WITH HIS SON JUST HOURS AFTER ALLEGEDLY POISONING LITVINENKO
An interesting photograph has been published in The Mail on Sunday which shows Andrei Lugovoi with his family, holding hands with his nine year old son Yegor, just hours after it is alleged he poisoned Litvinenko by sprinkling Polonium-210 into his tea.
Is Lugovoi that stone-hearted, that he would hold the hand of his son with the same hands he allegedly sprinkled Pol-210 to murder his business partner just hours before?
Is Lugovoi a trained assassin, skilled in the lethal administration of toxic and/or radioactive material?
Does Lugovoi have any history of assassination? Or is he simply a trained bodyguard turned businessman?
Would he risk the lives of his family so? Or is that what British Intelligence would do in revenge for him refusing to cooperate?
Lugovoi told us he also lost a major contract worth millions due to the allegations made against him. Is that the kind of revenge British Intelligence would like to gain for Lugovoi refusing to cooperate with them? They stitched up Jamil el-Banna and sent him to Guantanamo Bay.
If it is possible to determine when the Pol-210 traces were laid and they coincide with the EXACT times that Lugovoi was there then that would be strong evidence against him.
=====================================================
From http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=459474&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=
Holding the hand of his nine-year-old son, and surrounded by family and friends, this is Andrei Lugovoi hours after he allegedly poisoned Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko.
The picture was taken by Lugovoi's wife Svetlana at a London restaurant on November 1 last year - the day he is accused of slipping deadly nuclear material into Litvinenko's tea.
The picture, published for the first time, shows Lugovoi, his son Yegor, daughter Galina, 19, and friends before they set off to watch a football match between Arsenal and CSKA Moscow at the Emirates Stadium.
According to British detectives, Lugovoi laced his former KGB colleague's tea with a radioactive isotope during a meeting at an hotel earlier that day.
The investigators later found radiation at the restaurant and the group's seats at the stadium.
Lugovoi now faces an extradition request to face a murder trial but his friends say he is innocent.
Yesterday, Lugovoi's business partner Vyacheslav Sokolenko, 38, who is also in the photograph, said: "When this picture was taken, we had grabbed a couple of drinks before the game. Andrei was there with his wife and kids.
"He's innocent. What man in his right mind would put his family at risk of poisoning in this way?"
All Lugovoi's family members later tested positive for traces of polonium.
Before his death on November 23, Litvinenko claimed his murder was ordered by President Putin.
Is Lugovoi that stone-hearted, that he would hold the hand of his son with the same hands he allegedly sprinkled Pol-210 to murder his business partner just hours before?
Is Lugovoi a trained assassin, skilled in the lethal administration of toxic and/or radioactive material?
Does Lugovoi have any history of assassination? Or is he simply a trained bodyguard turned businessman?
Would he risk the lives of his family so? Or is that what British Intelligence would do in revenge for him refusing to cooperate?
Lugovoi told us he also lost a major contract worth millions due to the allegations made against him. Is that the kind of revenge British Intelligence would like to gain for Lugovoi refusing to cooperate with them? They stitched up Jamil el-Banna and sent him to Guantanamo Bay.
If it is possible to determine when the Pol-210 traces were laid and they coincide with the EXACT times that Lugovoi was there then that would be strong evidence against him.
=====================================================
From http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=459474&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=
Holding the hand of his nine-year-old son, and surrounded by family and friends, this is Andrei Lugovoi hours after he allegedly poisoned Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko.
The picture was taken by Lugovoi's wife Svetlana at a London restaurant on November 1 last year - the day he is accused of slipping deadly nuclear material into Litvinenko's tea.
The picture, published for the first time, shows Lugovoi, his son Yegor, daughter Galina, 19, and friends before they set off to watch a football match between Arsenal and CSKA Moscow at the Emirates Stadium.
According to British detectives, Lugovoi laced his former KGB colleague's tea with a radioactive isotope during a meeting at an hotel earlier that day.
The investigators later found radiation at the restaurant and the group's seats at the stadium.
Lugovoi now faces an extradition request to face a murder trial but his friends say he is innocent.
Yesterday, Lugovoi's business partner Vyacheslav Sokolenko, 38, who is also in the photograph, said: "When this picture was taken, we had grabbed a couple of drinks before the game. Andrei was there with his wife and kids.
"He's innocent. What man in his right mind would put his family at risk of poisoning in this way?"
All Lugovoi's family members later tested positive for traces of polonium.
Before his death on November 23, Litvinenko claimed his murder was ordered by President Putin.
Saturday, June 02, 2007
QUOTES
"We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent." -- Statement made before the United States Senate on Feb. 7, 1950 by James Paul Warburg
"From the days of Sparticus, Weishaupt, Karl Marx, Trotski, belacoon, Rosa Luxenberg and Ema Goldman, this world conspiracy has been steadily growing. This conspiracy played a definite recognizable role in the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century. And now at last, this band of extraordinary personalities from the under-world of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their head and have become the undisputed masters of that enormous empire."--Winston Churchill, 1922.
"For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."--David Rockefeller, Memoirs
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National autodetermination practiced in past centuries"--David Rockefeller to The Trilateral Commission, June 1991
"The high office of President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the Americans' freedom, and before I leave office I must inform the citizens of this plight."--President John F. Kennedy to a Columbia University audience, Nov. 13, 1963, just over a week prior to his assassination.
"It is well enough that the people of this nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."--Henry Ford
And my personal favourite;
"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits."--Lord Josiah Stamp
The list of quotes in which powerful people openly discuss world government and the conspiracy in motion to achieve it is endless.
But how could you achieve global governance?
1. secure control of money supply so that you can create virtually unlimited amounts of money for your plan, and keep that power as secret as possible
2. use that power to finance agents to engineer major wars, then finance all sides of those wars thus making handsome profits, and convince the world it needs global governance to stop the major wars you are engineering and financing!
3. create religious myths to persuade the people to be good and that someone upon high is always watching and looking out for them, while you allow your animal greed instinct to invade and kill in the name of whatever religion
4. occupy the masses with pathetic TV and soap operas, films, gardening etc, pornography, violent games, social movements with drink and drugs, and anything else that will occupy the docile masses so they haven't a clue, and more importantly don't want to have a clue.
5. control and pollute the food and water supply via GM and flouride
There. It sounds dead easy. Except it's not turned out that way. Some have managed to postpone the progress of this plan, and have openly opposed it.
These conspirators don't give a FCUK!! It's that simple. They'll pat you on the back with their right hand and then stab you in the back with their left. They'll send your kids off to war for a pack of lies and then treat them like shit if they survive and return home. They'll finance genocidal dictators like Hitler and Stalin, and impose brutal, racist regimes such as Israel to create anger and terror which can be easily manipulated into a very dangerous war, particularly with Israel being given the nuke by us.
Do you want these ruthless murderers ruling the planet, doing whatever they want with your kids? They discuss mass depopulation, they finance the pervert Kinsey and his "work", and they ultimately control the drug and slave trade that they say they oppose.
It's upto you.
"From the days of Sparticus, Weishaupt, Karl Marx, Trotski, belacoon, Rosa Luxenberg and Ema Goldman, this world conspiracy has been steadily growing. This conspiracy played a definite recognizable role in the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century. And now at last, this band of extraordinary personalities from the under-world of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their head and have become the undisputed masters of that enormous empire."--Winston Churchill, 1922.
"For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."--David Rockefeller, Memoirs
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National autodetermination practiced in past centuries"--David Rockefeller to The Trilateral Commission, June 1991
"The high office of President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the Americans' freedom, and before I leave office I must inform the citizens of this plight."--President John F. Kennedy to a Columbia University audience, Nov. 13, 1963, just over a week prior to his assassination.
"It is well enough that the people of this nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."--Henry Ford
And my personal favourite;
"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits."--Lord Josiah Stamp
The list of quotes in which powerful people openly discuss world government and the conspiracy in motion to achieve it is endless.
But how could you achieve global governance?
1. secure control of money supply so that you can create virtually unlimited amounts of money for your plan, and keep that power as secret as possible
2. use that power to finance agents to engineer major wars, then finance all sides of those wars thus making handsome profits, and convince the world it needs global governance to stop the major wars you are engineering and financing!
3. create religious myths to persuade the people to be good and that someone upon high is always watching and looking out for them, while you allow your animal greed instinct to invade and kill in the name of whatever religion
4. occupy the masses with pathetic TV and soap operas, films, gardening etc, pornography, violent games, social movements with drink and drugs, and anything else that will occupy the docile masses so they haven't a clue, and more importantly don't want to have a clue.
5. control and pollute the food and water supply via GM and flouride
There. It sounds dead easy. Except it's not turned out that way. Some have managed to postpone the progress of this plan, and have openly opposed it.
These conspirators don't give a FCUK!! It's that simple. They'll pat you on the back with their right hand and then stab you in the back with their left. They'll send your kids off to war for a pack of lies and then treat them like shit if they survive and return home. They'll finance genocidal dictators like Hitler and Stalin, and impose brutal, racist regimes such as Israel to create anger and terror which can be easily manipulated into a very dangerous war, particularly with Israel being given the nuke by us.
Do you want these ruthless murderers ruling the planet, doing whatever they want with your kids? They discuss mass depopulation, they finance the pervert Kinsey and his "work", and they ultimately control the drug and slave trade that they say they oppose.
It's upto you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)