A HINT

This is General Wesley Clark, on two separate occasions, relating how he was told shortly after the inside job 9/11 about the plan for war and/or regime change in seven nations in five years.





In this second interview Clark suggests that Africa is not of any concern. He is wrong. Africom was created to regain control or impose further control on that mineral rich continent.

But note the nations named to Clark; Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.

Iraq was invaded in 2003 based on absolute pure and total bullshit.

Lebanon was bombed in 2006 after Israel contrived a war by sending troops into areas where Hezbollah was known to be and then declared war after the soldiers were taken knowing that the soldiers were dead already (as admitted by Olmert recently).

Libya was bombed and bombed and bombed after UN SCR 1973 was passed (when both Russia and China mysteriously abstained) but then the resolution was ignored and Gaddafi was assassinated.

Somalia and Sudan are beginning to show signs of trouble, with increased skirmishes in Somalia involving a European force after the UK declared it considered Somalia, not Afghanistan, as the new focus of anti-terrorism operations (and this came after it was recently discovered that Somalia had the world's seventh largest oil reserves just off its coast).

The meddling in Syria, by the Friends of Syria financing, arming, training, advising and protecting the Syrian al Qaeda rebs in order to create conditions to invoke the R2P, is clear for all to see.

And Iran has been the target for the Anglo-American Empire for centuries, but specifically in Operation Ajax, the Iranian Revolution and the Green Revolution, as well as the unfounded accusations of Iran developing a military nuclear program having been given civil nuclear power technology in the Atoms for Peace Program.

But in the videos of Clark above, Clark mentions Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld. These two rogues were instrumental in creating the warmongering PNAC who wrote in their Rebuilding America's Defenses published in September 2000 that in order to go on a global warmongering spree to clean up all those old Soviet client regimes, Iraq, Iran and Syria, "a new Pearl Harbor" would be required. A year later on 11th September 2001 that new Pearl Harbor occured, when the USAF was mysteriously AWOL at a time when Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were in control of The Pentagon and another PNAC member Dick Cheney was in control of Washington DC while President Bush was in Florida. Other PNAC members were in other very infuential positions to guide the response to the attacks.

Before publishing Rebuilding America's Defenses the same cabal of Zionists wrote another warmongering document entitled A Clean Break for Benjamin Netanyahu. On 9/11 Netanyahu said live on air that the 9/11 attacks were very good, but then quickly corrected himself. He later began to admit that the 9/11 attacks had been good for Israel (see http://infowars.net/articles/april2008/160408Netanyahu.htm).

Osama bin Laden was accused of 9/11 without evidence, despite some being promised but never shown. But he died from Marfan Syndrome years ago. The Taliban in Afghanistan had destroyed all the opium there, and they were also holding up the development of a series of pipelines.

So all the wars after Afghanistan have been part of that war-on-seven-nations-in-five-years.

But this is 2012. The war on Iraq began in 2003. In other words NINE years later and the plan is only half executed. The plan was seriously stalled in Iraq. So to speed it up a Faustian pact was agreed between Saudi Arabia, Israel and the USA that Sunni terrorists would be unleashed to enable regime change. This worked well in Libya when Sunni al Qaeda caused enough trouble (with the help of NATO special forces and Gulf states) to invoke R2P. This is now happening in Syria. And if successful will be implemented in Iran.

But note this; the 9/11 attacks on the USA were alleged to have been committed by Saudis, but as Netanyahu admits the resulting series of wars benefit Israel because the targets of those wars were named in Zionist documents as targets for aggression and Netanyhau even admits it! In Libya last year and Syria this year Saudi Arabia funded Sunni terrorists to topple anti-Israel governments. In other words there is an obvious axis-of-evil consisting of the USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia that is creating terrorism for the benefit of the USA and UK.

Anyone who supports war on Syria, or allows regime change in Syria, is complicit in the plan for war-on-seven-nation-in-five-years, and is thus an accomplice in the crime of 9/11 that has enabled the wars.

ISRAEL'S INVISIBLE NUKES

John Kerry, Presidential candidate in 2004 and member of Skull and Bones and the CFR, today writes in the FT on the topic of Iran and its nuclear program. And not surprisingly Kerry does not mention Israel once, not even to remind us that Israel, though having the only known unknown nuclear arsenal in the Middle East, is apparently prepared for a unilateral attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

How can Israel's nukes be so invisible?

If Iran is developing nukes then it has at least two obvious reasons to do so;
1. to protect itself from Zionist nuclear aggression
2. to threaten Israel to stop its murder, bullying and land-grabbing

The US Military knows this and has even suggested that Israel should de-nuke to stop the nuclear arms race. But for whatever reason (though secretly we all know why) US politicians ignore this most sensible suggestion.

But at least Kerry isn't demanding an immediate attack on Israel, unlike Gideon Rachman (1st class degree History (Cantab)).



======================================

From http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0fbd6c88-ae0a-11de-87e7-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

Time for diplomacy to end the stand-off with Iran

By John Kerry

Published: September 30 2009 22:50 | Last updated: September 30 2009 22:50

Today the Obama administration begins the most important American diplomatic engagement with Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The public revelation of the Qom enrichment facility and Iran’s provocative ballistic missile test on Monday demonstrate what is at stake. Iran has increased its low-enriched uranium 20-fold since 2007, enough to produce, eventually, at least one nuclear weapon after further enrichment.

These are ominous developments. But after years of policy drift and transatlantic disagreement, the US and its allies will enter the talks in a position of relative strength and unity.

Consider the view from Tehran. It is on the defensive – caught red-handed in another nuclear deception. In contrast to the rancorous run-up to the war in Iraq, America and Europe are increasingly reading from the same script and Russia is signalling an openness to further sanctions.

The walkout of dozens of delegates during Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad’s anti-Semitic speech at the UN last week highlights Iran’s diplomatic isolation. Deciding the reputational and political risks are too great, many international banks and oil-trading companies have withdrawn voluntarily from Iran, which must import a third of its refined petroleum.

Domestically, Iran’s economy has been devastated by mismanagement, corruption, lower oil prices and fallout from the world financial crisis. Banks and foreign currency reserves are in rapid decline. Iran’s oil trust fund, which should hold tens of billions of dollars, has run dry. The bloody repression in Iran’s streets since June has compounded the damage. Iran’s ruling elite is divided, and the regime’s legitimacy is openly challenged – internally – as never before.

For years, the regime counted on bombastic language from Washington to distract its public from problems at home. No longer. Today there is no obscuring the fact that Iran is choosing repression over democracy.

For our diplomacy to have any success, two things are vital.

First, if Iran is not willing to negotiate in good faith, it must understand the consequences. Pressure is not an alternative to engagement; the two strategies complement each other.

UN Security Council sanctions are the most potent pressure, but there are also other levers. Insurance companies could be prohibited from insuring the Iranian tanker fleet. Export credit guarantees for Iran could be ended. Travel bans on human rights abusers could be enacted, Iranian assets seized, arms sales curtailed and investment bans enacted. Neighbours could cancel plans for natural gas pipelines linking Iran to the region’s energy distribution architecture. Some have proposed unilateral sanctions against foreign companies. While the prospect of such sanctions may goad other countries to action, we need to ensure unilateral efforts do not undermine the prospects of tougher international action.

Second, we must be willing to take yes for an answer. An important lesson of Iraq is that intrusive inspections can work. Our ability to detect and monitor the Qom enrichment facility for years before publicly revealing it is encouraging. One objective should be a more expansive inspections and monitoring regime to prevent Iran from diverting nuclear material to a “break-out” military programme.

While diplomacy with Iran was never going to be easy, the summer’s unrest has only increased the difficulty. In agreeing to talks, Iran has expressed an unexpected interest in discussing democracy and human rights. This is a conversation America should welcome, and an opportunity to demonstrate to the Iranian people that progress on the nuclear issue will not come at their expense.

Engagement may well fail. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s deep distrust of the US is no secret. The abuses of this summer may be the regime’s curt answer to US president Barack Obama’s outstretched hand. Given the turmoil, Iran may not even be capable of undertaking a sustained, strategic dialogue with the outside world.

And yet, it remains vital to seek a diplomatic solution to the stand-off. The international community is finally in a position to force Iran to choose either pariah status or a more constructive relationship with America and the world. Certainly the real possibility of either military conflict or a nuclear-armed Iran compels us to give diplomacy a chance.

The writer is chairman of the US Senate foreign relations committee

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.