THE ZIONIST CAMPAIGN FOR WAR
WITH IRAQ IN REVISIONIST PERSPECTIVE .... SEE
Gulf War ( 1990 / 1991 )
One of the goals of Historical revisionism is to bring to the public's attention the part played by low profile, shadowy forces in getting nations involved in wars. Only rarely will one ever see a discussion in the North American mainstream media of the role played by Zionist interests in getting the United States involved in the Persian Gulf War of 1991.
At the outset, it must be clearly seen that Jewish Zionists perceived Saddam Hussein's Iraq as one of Israel's most dangerous enemies. Hence, wouldn't it be nice, so this Zionist logic went, to goad America into utilizing all of its military might to destroy one of Israel's worst enemies? Simply put, many Jewish Zionists have long relished the thought of America doing Israel's "dirty work." This was revealed in an article that appeared in Cleveland, Ohio's main Jewish community paper, CLEVELAND JEWISH NEWS: "Some normally outspoken Jewish activists are deliberately muting their most fervent wish-that the [Bush] administration deal with the Iraqi military threat in a decisive way-out of fear of an anti-semitic backlash that could be a by-product of a costly and protracted Persian Gulf War." 1 GO The PLAIN DEALER (Cleveland, Ohio) pointed out that Israel's contemporaneous Prime Minister, Yitzhak Shamir, actively encouraged the U.S.-led alliance to continue the war effort until Iraq's military machine was destroyed and Saddam was removed from power. The article added: "In pursuing their [Israeli] interests, Israeli officials have sometimes played down the difficulties Allied forces face in fighting Iraq." 2 GO
The American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is one of the most powerful of all political lobbying organizations in the United States. In a rare but quite candid WALL STREET JOURNAL article, it was pointed out that AIPAC's efforts were crucial in gaining Congressional approval for President George H.W. Bush's war plans. But even more importantly, the article revealed this immensely powerful Zionist organization worked "behind-the-scenes" and consciously disguised its efforts to garner Congressional approval for the war. 3 GO
CLEVELAND JEWISH NEWS stated: "Most Jewish groups lined up behind the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations to support publicly the president's policy. How hard they actually worked is unclear. Many senators and representatives reported getting calls from Jewish leaders and constituents.The effort was kept low-profile largely out of sensitivity to possible accusations of turning the [pro-war] resolution into an 'Israel vote.'" 4 GO In politics, when a concerted effort is kept low profile, it means that an attempt is being made to hide the effort from public scrutiny. These pro-war efforts were kept low profile in order to hide from public scrutiny how certain Jewish-Zionists were pushing for a Gulf war.
This intense desire on the part of certain Jews to get the U.S. to destroy Iraq's military capability helps to explain why liberal, anti-war Jewish individuals and organizations suddenly switched into hard-line pro-war hawks. The Jewish Congressman, Rep. Gary Ackerman (D. N.Y.), typifies this element. He had a history of anti-war activism. He opposed the war in Vietnam and the military operation in Grenada. He has described himself as a "peacemonger." Yet, when it came to war against Israel's enemy, Iraq, he voted in favor or President Bush's war plans and called for firm resolve against Iraqi aggression. 5 GO
Michael Collins Piper, former columnist for the now defunct SPOTLIGHT, made this observation: "Who engineered congressional approval of the resolution that backed President George Bush's drive for war against Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein? None other than Rep. Stephen Solarz (D.N.Y.), the Israel lobby's chief legislative tactician on Capital Hill." 6 GO
Yes indeed, it was ardent Jewish-Zionist Stephen Solarz---liberal critic of the Vietnam war and U.S. military action abroad-who helped form a pro-war pressure group, the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf. 7 GO That Zionist interests had a decisive impact upon his pro-war behavior was revealed by a comment that he made on January 17, 1991 at Georgetown University, one day after U.S. air strikes against Iraqi targets began: "Enough Jews have been gassed in our century. For that reason alone our [military] strike last night was justified." 8 GO
At the 85th Annual Dinner of the American Jewish Committee, he again admitted that the "overwhelming thought of the six million Jews killed in the Holocaust" was the ideological driving force behind his pro-war activism. 9 GO As the Jewish critic of political Zionism, Dr. Alfred Lilienthal, has pointed out, this is a stock-in-trade Zionist tactic-using the Holocaust doctrine to "justify" military action against Israel's enemies. 10 GO
Certain sources have noted that the Jewish vote in Congress giving President Bush the authority to make war was split: about half of the Jewish legislators voted for it, and half voted against it. They then drew the erroneous conclusion that this in itself "proves that the interests of Israel had nothing to do with the Congressional war resolution." According to this line of reasoning, each Jewish member of Congress was "voting his conscience for what is best for the United States." 11 GO
These sources fail to take into account the complexity of the situation. There were in fact two conflicting forces operating upon these pro-Zionist Jewish legislators. Their Jewish identification with Israel was goading them to vote in favor of the war resolution. However, there was also another opposing force at work here. During the late 1980s and 1990s, there was a consistent, mounting criticism of the pervasive Zionist influence upon Congress and society in general. Indeed, political commentators like Patrick Buchanan were bold enough to publicly criticize Israel and "its amen corner in the U.S." who were beating the drums for war. These Jewish legislators were well aware of this criticism, and were also aware of the possibly fatal political consequences if all Jewish legislators voted in a bloc in favor of Bush's war plans; the public's attention may very well have focused upon the inordinate influence that alien Zionist interests have over Congress.
The Jewish legislators who voted against Bush's war plans may have said to themselves: "If all of the Jews in Congress vote in favor of Bush's war plans, and ultimately, this Gulf war turns into a disaster, the political backlash could be fatal. It could mean an end to our political careers and Zionist influence upon Congress. Therefore, I think it is in my own and Israel's best interests if a good portion of we Jewish legislators vote against Bush's war plans."
And yet, there may even be a better explanation as to why the Jewish vote in Congress was split-it may have been planned that way. As the now-defunct The Spotlight noted: ".legislative votes are frequently planned well in advance by both Republicans and the Democrats. This permits legislators with public relations problems to cast 'politically correct' votes, while at the same time being assured the outcome of the balloting will be exactly expected as expected." 12 GO The Wall Street Journal noted that there was quiet relief among Jewish groups when it became known that ".the vote showed no solid Jewish bloc in favor of a war so relevant to Israel." 13 GO One Jewish lawmaker commented that it wasn't such a bad idea that the Jewish vote in Congress was split. 14 GO By consciously splitting the Jewish vote, two objectives could be obtained. Not only could the war resolution get passed. But just as importantly, public opinion would remain largely unaware of the linkage between the pro-war resolution, the interests of Israel, and Zionist influence upon Congress. With a split in the Jewish vote in Congress, Zionist politicos could surreptitiously "discredit" the claims of the critics that Zionist interests wield too much influence upon Congress.
In this case, American Zionists faced a severe dilemma. On the one hand, they had to somehow satisfy their most fervent wish of getting America to destroy Iraq's military might. Yet, on the other hand, if the American people ever became aware of the fact that an alien Zionist element was working to have American soldiers sent to die for the state of Israel, the result could be politically fatal. This is why many Jewish efforts to get America involved in the Persian Gulf war of 1991 were kept low profile; this why AIPAC disguised its crucial role in gaining Congressional approval for the war; this is why that much of the pro-war propaganda issuing forth from many Jewish sources was couched in the rhetoric of "patriotism" and "the American national interest." According to many of these Jewish sources, Saddam Hussein was the "new Hitler" bent on destroying America. Hence, as the propaganda went, fighting Iraq was in the best interests of the US. Behind this "patriotic" propaganda and rhetoric lurked so many Zionist interests. As admitted in Cleveland Jewish News, it would have been severely threatening to Zionist interests if large numbers of Americans started asking the question: "Should Americans die for the interests of Israel?" 15 GO
Historically speaking, this clandestine method of promoting Jewish interests has been a standard stock-in-trade tactic of many Jews. For example, in 1936 Hollywood Jewish writers and executives had a meeting where they formulated plans for dealing with Nazi Germany. The Jewish producer, David Selznick, along with attorney Martin Gang were present. Gang recalled how Selznick wanted to deal collectively with the Hitler regime. "What stands out in my mind was David Selznick, who wanted to do it in the usual Jewish way of being on the fringes and not letting yourself appear as involved in it.Don't get too public. Do it quietly. Behind the scenes." 16 GO
Sometime after the end of the Persian Gulf war, the former Prime Minister of Canada, Brian Mulroney, admitted his country's reason for joining the war effort was to protect the state of Israel: "The ultimate ambition of Saddam Hussein was to launch an attack on Israel, which is why Canada took a stand to avoid this eventuality." 17 GO
In all fairness, there were some elements within the Jewish community that were very much against American involvement in the Persian Gulf war of 1991. And I would be quick to point out that Jewish elements were not the only ones pushing for war. There were very powerful WASP and Arab elements behind this push for US involvement in the war. But these admissions in no way nullify the historical fact that Jewish-Zionist elements were an integral part of a coalition of forces that drove America into the Persian Gulf war.
II. Political Zionism and the Probable US Attack Upon Iraq in 2003
It is now January 2003, and the United States is once again on the brink of war with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. As we shall soon see, once again, it is the Jewish-Zionist power elite and their Gentile allies that are a major driving force behind this push for war with Iraq. Although the evidence in support of this claim in abundant, it is rarely discussed in the mainstream US media-a tribute to the enormous power of the Jewish-Zionist power elite and their ability to censor the news. In fact, political pundits that work for Jewish-owned, pro-Zionist newspapers attempt to mislead the people by prodding them to believe that the Jewish-Zionist power elite is not a driving force behind US war plans against Iraq.
In regard to the probable US attack against Iraq, the Jewish-Zionist power elite has appeared to have changed their tactics. It makes no sense at all for them to deny that a US attack upon Iraq in 2003 would serve Israeli-Zionist interests. It would be both pathetic and pointless for Zionist representatives to spend time trying to "disprove" the claim that Israel would not benefit from an US attack upon Iraq. No matter what the outcome of a US attack upon Iraq, Israel is the nation that has the most to gain from the ouster of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Indeed, this was pointed out by panelists at a Bar-Ilan University (Israel) seminar entitled "The Regional Implications of a US attack on Iraq." 18 GO
Yes, Zionists admit, a US attack upon Iraq would serve Israeli-Zionist interests, but it would also serve the interests of everyone else--so we are told. This is why, so their tune goes, it is not Zionist forces that are pushing for a US attack upon Iraq, but rather "concerned patriots" who realize what a danger to world peace that Saddam Hussein really is. It is important to note that the Bush administration and its Zionist allies attempt to make people believe that, somehow, going to war with Hussein's Iraq is in the best interests of everyone. (As the psychologist Kevin MacDonald has pointed out, this is an age-old Jewish tactic-making sectarian Jewish interests appear to be congruent with the interests of the Gentile world. 19 GO And just as importantly, even those in the US media who argue against war with Iraq will go to great pains to cover up how Gentile and Jewish Zionists associated with the Jewish lobby are pushing the US into war with Iraq.
For example, consider the case of Elizabeth Sullivan, Foreign Affairs Correspondent for the pro-Zionist, Jewish-owned PLAIN DEALER (Cleveland), Ohio's most important newspaper. 20 GO Although Ms. Sullivan is on record as being opposed to a war with Iraq, she nevertheless goes to great lengths to hide Zionist involvement in promoting a US attack upon Iraq. Her rationalizations are typical of what one will find in mainstream US newspapers. I wrote her the following email: "Congratulations on your fine editorial in the Plain Dealer (9/9/02), which opposed a US attack on Iraq. I have only one criticism. You failed to mention (out of fear of the powerful Jewish-Zionist lobby) that one of the primary reasons that we have problems with dictators like Hussein is because of unbridled US support for Israel and political Zionism. If the US were fair and neutral in the Middle East, then a lot of our problems with the Arab-Muslim world would end. If we would stop giving Israel the supplies to oppress the Palestinians, then dictators like Hussein would lose much of their appeal among the Arab-Muslim masses." 21 GO
Ms. Sullivan responded with a line of political thinking that is probably representative of the Jewish-influenced, pro-Zionist media as a whole: "Thanks for your note. Of course I dispute part of the premise. We're not on the warpath because of Jewish lobbying pressure but because of a wider geostrategic view that has alighted on Saddam Hussein as a rogue dictator we have the capacity to subdue. Yes, the war on terrorism has blinded us to the downside of Israel's war on Palestinian terrorism and made us even less of an honest broker in the region than we were. But to suggest the Jewish lobby is driving the aircraft carrier would be a big mistake. I take issue with your wording, too. Broadened American sympathy for Israel of late stems from the murderous spree of suicide bombings, not from some nefarious 'lobby'." 22 GO
Her claims are flatly false. The distinguished British journalist, Robert Fisk, pointed out in the highly respected British newspaper, INDEPENDENT, that: "Only THE NATION among all of America's newspapers and magazines has dared to point out that a large number of former Israeli lobbyists are now working within the American administration, and the Bush plans for the Middle East-which could cause a massive political upheaval in the Arab world-fit perfectly into Israel's own dreams for the region. The magazine listed Vice-President Dick Cheney-the arch-hawk in the US administration-and John Bolton, now undersecretary of state for Arms Control, with Douglas Feith, the third most senior executive at the Pentagon, as members of the advisory board of the pro-Israeli Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (Jinsa) before joining the Bush government. Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, is still an adviser on the institute, as is the former CIA director James Woolsey."
Fisk continues: "Michael Ledeen, described by THE NATION as one of the most influential 'Jinsans' in Washington, has been calling for 'total war' against 'terror'-with 'regime change' for Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority. Mr. Perle advises the Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld-who refers to the West Bank and Gaza as 'the so-called occupied territories'-and arranged the anti-Saud 'kernal of evil' briefing by Laurent Murawiec that so outraged the Saudi royal family last month. The Saudi regime may itself be in great danger as the princes of the House of Saud attempt to seize more power for themselves in advance of the departure of the dying King Fahd."
Continuing with this line of thought, Fisk adds: "Jinsa's website says it exists to 'inform the American defense and foreign affairs community about the important role Israel can and does play in bolstering democratic interests in the Mediterranean and Middle East'. Next month, Michael Rubin of the right-wing and pro-Israeli American Enterprise Institute-who referred to the outgoing UN human rights commissioner Mary Robinson as an abettor of 'terrorism'-joins the US Defense Department as an Iran-Iraq 'expert.'"
Fisk then reveals the Jewish director of JINSA: "According to THE NATION, Irving Moskovitz, the California bingo magnate who has funded settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories, is a donor as well as director of Jinsa."
Finally, Fisk points out that President Bush will not reveal to the American public the influence Jinsa has on his foreign policy: "President Bush, of course, will not be talking about the influence of these pro-Israeli lobbyists when he presents his vision of the Middle East at the United Nations." 23 GO
Even THE NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE confirmed that Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a dedicated Jewish-Zionist, is the main Bush administration advocate for war on Iraq. Here is how the article describes this "Israel-centric" official: "Student deferments kept him out of the military draft during the Vietnam War.In the first days after Sept. 11, when Secretary of State Powell and others within the administration contended it was too early to put Iraq on the agenda-that there was a war to win in Afghanistan first and that there was no evidence Iraq was complicit in the attacks on the Pentagon and twin towers-Wolfowitz argued that Iraq was at the heart of the threat."
The article in the Jewish owned and pro-Zionist magazine continues: ".leaving aside the offensive suggestion of dual loyalty.you hear from some of Wolfowitz's critics, always off the record.that Israel exercises a powerful gravitational pull on the man.as a teenager he spent his father's sabbatical semester in Israel.his sister is married to an Israeli.he is friendly with Israel's generals and diplomats.he is something of a hero to the heavily Jewish neoconservative movement." 24 GO
Thus, contrary to what Foreign Affairs correspondent Sullivan claims, Jewish and Gentile Zionist functionaries and associates of the Jewish lobby are in fact "driving the aircraft" and they are in fact leading the US "on the warpath" with Iraq. Keep in mind that Sullivan is a Gentile that writes for a pro-Zionist, Jewish owned CLEVELAND PLAIN DEALER, and she would not dare expose the enormous role that the Jewish-Zionist lobby plays in foreign and domestic affairs. For if she did, her career in journalism would be in serious jeopardy.
Consider Sullivan's other claim: "Broadened sympathy for Israel of late stems from the murderous spree of suicide bombings, not from some nefarious 'lobby.'"
This is false and I think she knows it. The former Congressman Paul Findley wrote a classic study of the nefarious Jewish-Zionist lobby that does in fact exist in the United States. Titled THEY DARE TO SPEAK OUT: PEOPLE AND INSTITUTIONS CONFRONT THE ISRAELI LOBBY, it shows how the lobby funds pro-Israeli Congressmen, and how opponents of Israel and Zionism are targeted for attack and defeat. 25 GO
The July 2, 2002 issue of THE WASHINGTON TIMES carried a story on how Jewish-Zionist sources targeted for defeat Black American Congressmen who were critical of Israel and Zionism: they refused to vote for pro-Israel resolutions, so the Jewish-Zionist sources funded their opponents. In this way, they rid Congress of Black individuals who are critical of Zionism, and fill Congress with Black individuals who are pro-Israel. 26 GO
And of course there is more. Israel's ambassador to the US is on record as supporting a US strike against Iraq. Utilizing the age-old Jewish tactic of making sectarian Jewish interests appear to be in the interests of "all Gentiles," he claimed that "we would all benefit" by an attack upon Iraq, because a regime change in Iraq would supposedly cause the Palestinians and Iran to be "drawn toward democracy." 27 GO
The Israel correspondent for the New Republic, Yossi Klein Halevi, revealed that if "you ask almost any Israeli Jew-left, right or center-whether the United States should attack Hussein, and the answer is unequivocal: The evil must be uprooted."
Continuing with this vein of thought, he asserts: "True, we [the people of Israel] have an obvious interest in ridding the Middle East of a formidable enemy. But so does the rest of the world-and especially the Arab world-even if it does not realize it." (PD, 9/17/02, p.B9) 28 GO
We are told by the Bush administration that Hussein allegedly has weapons of mass destruction, and he may use them against the United States. Thus, in order to prevent this scenario from coming to pass, the US must act now. 29 GO Can President Bush and company be believed? Does Hussein's Iraq really have the willingness and capability to hit the United States?
There is expert opinion against Bush's claims. According to a Scripps Howard article, defense experts believe Iraq is capable of developing a nuclear weapon within three months to a year if it could smuggle in nuclear material, but it's unlikely to have a missile that could hit the United States. Nor is it likely to strike against the United States with any nuclear, biological or chemical weapon even if Iraq could, because of the certainty of swift and devastating retaliation, these same experts claim. 30 GO Senator Richard Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, said some information that could weaken the Bush administration's case against Iraq remains classified. 31 GO
If not the US, then who does Hussein's Iraq really threaten? Not Germany, France, Ireland, Italy, Indonesia, Angola, Nigeria, China, or Japan-they have nothing to fear from Iraq. The one country that has something to fear from Iraq is Israel.
General Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, acknowledged that President George W. Bush's war plans serve, first and foremost, Jewish-Zionist interests. "Those who favor this attack now tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel." 32 GO
Indeed, as far back as August 16, 2002, Israel was urging US officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Israeli officials claimed that their intelligence organizations gathered evidence to show that Iraq is speeding up efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons. 33 GO
There is no question that there are a host of different reasons as to why the United States may go to war with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Certainly, the desire to control and manage Iraq's oil reserves is a significant reason. But it cannot be denied that one of the most important reasons as to why the US will probably attack Iraq is because of Zionist-Israeli interests.
Why should the United States go to war to serve Israeli-Zionist interests? Why should mostly non-Jewish White, Black, and Hispanic Americans-who make up the vast majority of the US armed forces--have to risk their lives for the Jewish state of Israel? It is ironic that one of the major figures in the Bush administration pushing for an attack upon Iraq, Paul Wolfowitz, is an American Jew who acquired a student deferment to keep him out of the military draft during the Vietnam War. 34 GO
There is a far better way to deal with Iraqi dictators like Hussein. The US should be more fair and neutral in the Middle East. This may very well alleviate many of our problems with the Arab-Muslim world. If the US would stop giving Israel the supplies to oppress the Palestinians, then dictators like Hussein would lose much of their appeal among the Arab-Muslim masses.
By the mere fact that these issues and questions are almost never broached in the mainstream media is a tribute to the ability of the Jewish-Zionist establishment to skew the transmission of the news.
In Israel, Zionism created an Athenian democracy for Jews but second-class citizenship, even feudal servitude for non-Jews. Modern Israel is a racially segregated, apartheid state where Jews lord over non-Jews, especially Palestinian Arabs. 35 GO
As the Jewish scholars Ian Lustick and Uri Davis have shown, far from working for an integrated society in which Jews and Arabs functioned as social and political equals, the Jews who founded Israel created a society in which Israeli Jews dominate 'Israeli' Arabs, a separate and unequal society in which discrimination is part of the established social order. 36 GO For example, 93% of Israel's territory had been (until the Supreme Court decision of March 2000) legally defined as land which can be leased and cultivated only by Jews. Key institutions such as the kibbutz (collectivist Jewish settlements, mainly agricultural) are reserved exclusively for Jews, as Israeli scholar Uri Davis has reminded us in his thorough study, Israel: an apartheid state. 37 GO
Dr Lustick has pointed out that the Israeli military is by
and large a segregated institution. Most Muslim Arabs, who constitute the overwhelming
majority of Israeli Arab citizens, do not serve in the armed forces - they are
not conscripted nor are they permitted to volunteer for service. This has important
social consequences. In Israel, participation in the armed services is a prerequisite
to social advancement and mobility. Cut off from the military, they are cut
off from access to one of the main avenues of social advancement.
Consider the following facts about Israel, which by contemporary definitions of 'racism', make Israel a racist state. The Law of the Right of Return grants any Jew, but no-one else, automatic Israeli citizenship. The Nationality Law discriminates against non-Jews so stringently that many Palestinian residents of Israel (stuck there when Israel captured their land in 1948) were denied citizenship even though their families had lived in Palestine for many generations.40 GO
If the US goes to war with Iraq, we are going to war to defend a racially segregated, apartheid state. This is ironic and hypocritical. Our mass media and government condemn those who advocate segregation here in the US or anywhere else in the world. Yet, we are going to war to defend a racially segregated state in the Middle East-a tribute to how the Jewish-Zionist power elite has corrupted our value system.
Read more articles by Paul Grubach online at: http://www.davidduke.com/library/index.html
back CLEVELAND JEWISH NEWS, p.5, 1/4/91.
Q: Which country in
the Middle East refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and bars
Q: Which country in
the Middle East seized the sovereign territory of other nations by military
force and continues to occupy it in defiance of United Nations Security Council
Q: Which country in
the Middle East routinely violates the international borders of another sovereign
state with warplanes and artillery and naval gunfire?
Q: What American ally
in the Middle East has for years sent assassins into other countries to kill
its political enemies (a practice sometimes called exporting terrorism)?
Q: In which country
in the Middle East have high-ranking military officers admitted publicly that
unarmed prisoners of war were executed?
Q: What country in the
Middle East refuses to prosecute its soldiers who have acknowledged executing
prisoners of war?
Q: What country in the
Middle East created 762,000 refugees and refuses to allow them to return to
their homes, farms and businesses?
Q: What country in the
Middle East refuses to pay compensation to people whose land, bank accounts
and businesses it confiscated?
Q: In what country in
the Middle East was a high-ranking United Nations diplomat assassinated?
Q: In what country in
the Middle East did the man who ordered the assassination of a high-ranking
U.N. diplomat become prime minister?
Q: What country in the
Middle East employed a spy, Jonathan Pollard, to steal classified documents
and then gave some of them to the Soviet Union?
Q: What country at first
denied any official connection to Pollard, then voted to make him a citizen
and has continuously demanded that the American president grant Pollard a full
Q: What country on Planet
Earth has the second [ ? ]
most powerful lobby in the United States, according to a recent Fortune magazine
survey of Washington insiders?
Q: Which country in
the Middle East is in defiance of 69
[ SIXTY NINE ]
United Nations Security Council resolutions and has been protected from 29
[ TWENTY NINE ]
more by U.S. vetoes?
Q: What country is the
United States threatening to bomb because "U.N. Security Council resolutions
must be obeyed?"
1 - THAT, when the Palestine Problem was created by Britain in 1917, more than 90% of the population of Palestine were Arabs, and that there were at that time no more than 56,000 Jews in Palestine?
2 - THAT, more than half of the Jews living in Palestine at that time were recent immigrants, who had come to Palestine in the preceding decades in order to escape persecution in Europe?... And that less than 5% of the population of Palestine were native Palestinian Jews?
3 - THAT, the Arabs of Palestine at that time owned 97.5% of the land, while Jews (native Palestinians and recent immigrants together) owned only 2.5% of the land?
4 - THAT, during the thirty years of British occupation and rule, the Zionists were able to purchase only 3.5% of the land of Palestine, in spite of the encouragement of the British Government?... And that much of this land was transferred to Zionist bodies by the British Government directly, and was not sold by Arab owners?
5 - THAT, therefore, when British passed the Palestine Problem to the United Nations in 1947, Zionists owned no more than 6% of the total land area of Palestine?
6 - THAT, notwithstanding these facts, the General Assembly of the United Nations recommended that a "Jewish State" be established in Palestine?... And that the Assembly granted that proposed "State" about 54% of the total area of the country?
7 - THAT, Israel immediately occupied (and still occupies) 80.48% of the total land area of Palestine?
8 - THAT, this territorial expansion took place, for the most part, before 15 May 1948: i.e., before the formal end of the British forces from Palestine, before the entry of Arab armies to protect Palestinian Arabs, and before the Arab-Israeli war?
9 - THAT, the 1947 recommendation of the General Assembly in favor of the creation of a "Jewish State" was outside the competence of the Assembly under the Charter of the United Nations?
10 - THAT, all attempts by the Arab States and other Asian countries to have the Assembly submit 3the question of constitutionality" of its recommendation to the International Court of Justice for an "advisory opinion" by the Court were rejected or ignored by the Assembly?
11 - THAT, when the Assembly began to experience "second thoughts" over the matter and convened for its second special session in 1948, it failed to reaffirm the 1947 recommendation for the partition of Palestine-thus destroying whatever dubious legality that recommendation for the establishment of a "Jewish State" had had?
12 - THAT, that original 1947 recommendation to create a "Jewish State" in Palestine was approved, at the first vote, only by European, American and Australian States...for every Asian State, and every African State (with the exception of the Union of South Africa) voted against it?...And that, when the vote was cast in plenary session on 29 November 1947, urgent American pressures (which a member of the Truman cabinet described as "bordering onto scandal") had succeeded in prevailing only upon one African country (Liberia), both of which had special vulnerability to American pressures, to abandon their declared opposition?...And that, in other words, the "Jewish State" was planted at the point-of-intersection of Asia and Africa without the free approval of any Middle Eastern, Asian or African country except that Union of South Africa, itself ruled by an alien minority?
13 - THAT, Israel remained, ever since its inception, a total stranger in the emerging world of Afro-Asia; and that Israel has been refused admission to any inter-state conference of Asian, African, Afro-Asian, or Non-Aligned States ever held?
14 - THAT, since the General Armistice Agreements were signed in 1949, Israel has maintained an aggressive policy of waging military attacks across the Armistice Demarcation Lines, repeatedly invading the territories of the neighboring Arab States...And that Israel has been duly rebuked, censured, or condemned for these military attacks by the Security Council of the General Assembly of the United Nations on eleven occasions-five times by the Security Council and six times by the General Assembly?
15 - THAT, no other country in the world, whether member of the United Nations or non-member, has been so frequently condemned by the United Nations?
16 - THAT, no Arab State has ever been condemned by any organ of the United Nations for military attacks upon Israel?
17 - THAT, besides expelling the bulk of the Arab inhabitants of Palestine, and besides constantly attacking the neighboring Arab States, Israel has also consistently harassed the United Nations observers and other personnel stationed along the Armistice Demarcation Lines: It has assassinated the first United Nations Mediator and his military aide; it has detained some truce observers; it has militarily occupied and illegally searched the Headquarters of United Nations personnel; and it has boycotted meetings of the Mixed Armistice Commissions?...
18 - THAT, Israel has additionally imposed a system of apartheid upon the Arabs who stayed in their homeland? More than 90% of these Arabs live in "security zones;" they alone live under martial law, restricting their freedom to travel from village to village or from town to town; their children are denied equal opportunities for education; and they are denied decent opportunities for work, and the right to receive "equal pay for equal work?"
19 - THAT, notwithstanding the foregoing facts, Israel has always been, and still is, widely portrayed in the Western press as the "bastion of democracy" and the "champion of peace" in the Middle East?
20 - THAT, the Western Powers have persisted in declaring their determination to ensure a so-called "arms balance" in the area, as between Israel, on the one hand, and the one- hundred million inhabitants of the thirteen Arab States, on the other hand?... And this unilateral Western doctrine of so-called "arms balance" is no more reasonable than the suggestion that, in the Cuba-U.S.A conflict, there should be "arms balance" as between Cuba and the United States... or that the whole Continent of Africa should not be allowed to acquire more arms than South Africa... or that Mainland China should not be permitted to have more arms than Taiwan...or that the military allowed to acquire more arms than South Africa... and that only thus can peace be safeguarded in the Western Hemisphere, in Africa, in Asia, or in Europe?...
21 - THAT, Israel allots 85% of the water resources in the occupied territories for Jews and the remaining 15% is divided among all Palestinians in the territories? For example in Hebron, 85% of the water is given to about 500 settlers, while 15% must be divided among Hebron's 120,000 Palestinians?
22 - THAT, The United States awards Israel $3 billion in aid each year, more than to any other country in the world: US aid to Israel exceeds the aid the US grants to the whole sub-Sahara Africa?
23 - THAT, GDP, per capita, and consumption per capita in the Occupied Territories have dropped about 15 percent in the West Bank and Gaza since 1993 - that's even with large foreign assistance pouring in, from Europe, mostly?
24 - THAT, Up until 1993, the U.S. and Israel permitted humanitarian aid to come into the territories. UN humanitarian aid was permitted into the West Bank and Gaza. In 1993, that was restricted?
25 - THAT, Israel is the only country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons?
26 - THAT, Israel is the only country in the Middle East that refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and bars international inspections from its sites?
27 - THAT, Israel currently occupies territories of two sovereign nations (Lebanon and Syria) in defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions?
28 - THAT, High-ranking military officers in the Israeli Defense Forces have admitted publicly that unarmed prisoners of war were executed by the IDF?
29 - THAT, Israel refuses to prosecute its soldiers who have acknowledged executing prisoners of war?
30 - THAT, Israel routinely confiscates bank accounts, businesses, and land from Palestinians and refuses to pay compensation to those who suffer the confiscation?
31 - THAT, Israel stands in defiance of 69 United Nations Security Council Resolutions?
32 - THAT, Israel's current prime minister, Ariel Sharon, was found by an Israeli court to be "personally responsible" for the Sabra and Shatilla massacres in Lebanon in which thousands of unarmed Palestinian refugees were slaughtered in 1982?
33 - THAT, Today's Israel sits on the former sites of more than 400 destroyed Palestinian villages, and that the Israelis renamed almost every physical site in the country to cover up the traces?
34 - THAT, Ariel Sharon's coalition government includes a party -- Molodet -- which advocates expelling all [of the over two million] Palestinians from [their homes in] the occupied territories?
35 - THAT, Israel's illegal settlement-building in the Occupied Palestinian territories more than doubled in the eight years since the Oslo agreements?
36 - THAT, Illegal settlement building under Prime Minister Barak doubled compared to settlement building under Prime Minister Netanyahu?
37 - THAT, More illegal settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories were built under Prime Minister Barak than at any other time in the history of Israel's occupation of Palestinian land?
38 - THAT, Despite a ban on torture by Israel's High Court of Justice, torture has continued by Shin Bet interrogators on Palestinian prisoners?
39 - THAT, Palestinian refugees make up the largest refugee population in the world?
40 - THAT, Israeli military checkpoints surround every Palestinian population center in violation of the Oslo Accords?
41 - THAT, The right of self-determination is guaranteed to every human being under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (December, 1948), yet Palestinians were/are expected to negotiate for this right under the Oslo Accords?
42 - THAT, Palestinians have the highest ratio of PhDs per capita in the world?
The racist Zionist regime has been accused of murdering Palestinian infants, children, and youths and extricating their vital organs for transplants.
"They murder our children and use their organs as spare parts. Why is the whole world silent? Israel takes advantage of this silence to escalate its oppression and terror against our people," said President Arafat holding up photos of the mutilated bodies of children.
Israel admitted that its doctors at the L. Greenberg Institute of Forensic Medicine at Abu Kabir had pulled out the organs of three Palestinian youths murdered by the Israel army near Khan Younis. Attempting to cross the border between Palestine and Israel, the 15 and 17 year old boys were struck down by tank missiles of the Israeli militia.
Palestinians need to cross Israeli imposed barriers to find any menial work for pay to feed and support their families. The bodies of Khan Younis boys were not immediately returned for burial by the Israeli Occupation Forces. After 10 days the bodies were returned to their families for burial but with their organs and even their eyes cut out.
This is not a new act of terrorism inflicted on the Palestinian people. The illegal extraction of the internal organs of Palestinian soldiers and freedom fighters has been documented since before the 1990's.
Upon return of the soldiers' bodies to their mourning families, the pillage of body parts was discovered during the burial process. The empty cavities had been filled with garbage such as cotton wool, garden hose, and bits of wood, then sewn up as a result of a so-called " autopsy".
In an unusual and unpublicized event in 1998, a Scotsman, Alistair Sinclair, died under mysterious circumstances in the Ben-Gurion Airport lockup. Mr. Sinclair's parents sued the Israelis upon finding their son's heart and other organs missing. A replacement heart and organs were sent to his mother, who did not believe that these were those of her son.
The Israeli Health Ministry officials said, that they have
no intention of taking action against Professor Yehuda Hiss, Director of the
Institute of Forensic Medicine at Abu Kabir over the ghoulish and depraved plundering
of vital organs and body parts of murdered Palestinian children.
This comment about the above article, comes from another site.
I quite agree and of course when their
appalling behaviour backfires on them, as it very soon inevitably will, just
like it did the last time when they declared war on Hitler's Germany, it will
all be someone else's fault again and they will never stop blaming the entire
world for it again for the next sixty years at least.
Occupied Jerusalem: 7 November, 2002 (IAP News)
Israeli occupation soldiers manning armored personnel carriers on Thursday shot and killed a Palestinian child as he was playing in the street opposite his home.
Eyewitnesses said soldiers opened machinegun fire on 12-year-old Rashad al Didk, while playing in the street at the New Askar refugee camp near Nablus.
Two international civilian observers operating in the area pointed out that soldiers opened fire on the boy without any provocation.
I was right beside the father as he carried his son to a nearby taxi. Blood was trailing us. The boy was groaning and losing consciousness. I dont know how anybody can survive losing that much blood, said one observer named Alison.
The child was still alive as he was being rushed to hospital but died shortly afterwards.
The Israeli occupation army said its soldiers opened fire on the boy because he ventured out of his home in violation of a curfew order.
A prominent Israeli journalist has warned against widespread silence and inaction within the racist Zionist state and its big political parties toward their fascist and neo-Nazi voices demanding the expulsion of Palestinians from their ancestral homeland.
Earlier this week, the London-based human rights organization, Amnesty International, accused the Israeli army of committing war crimes against Palestinians and demanded that Israeli soldiers and officers involved in these crimes be tried as war criminals.
A response to the above posting on UKemail@example.com
"Interesting because amnesty international is largely
a Jewish concern, the war crimes must be very bad indeed for them to speak out.
We had enough problems ourselves with amnesty international in Northern Ireland,
can you emagine what would have been said if we had behaved like these morons?
From Stephen Farrell, Robert Thomson and Danielle Haas
ISRAELS Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has called on the
international community to target Iran as soon as the imminent conflict with
Iraq is complete.
He made clear that western Iraq would be one of the first areas targeted by the US in any invasion, saying that lessons had been learnt from strategic mistakes of the 1991 Gulf War when Iraq successfully fired 39 Scud missiles into Israel.
Mr Sharon, 74, was speaking as he conducted high-level negotiations to keep his Government afloat after the desertion of his centrist coalition partners. Last night he survived three no-confidence votes, giving him more time to forge a coalition with small right-wing parties. He rejected calls for early elections.
The Knesset also approved the appointment of Shaul Mofaz, the hawkish former Israeli Army chief, as Defence Minister.
But even as the Knesset voted, a Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up inside a shopping centre in central Israel, killing at least one other person and injuring 20.
In other significant changes of tone and policy, Mr Sharon told The Times that:
Yassir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, could have an ongoing role as a symbol, but could not have a role overseeing financial or security functions. This was a departure from previous statements that Mr Arafat was entirely irrelevant.
Mr Sharon himself would continue to lead the country, elections willing, for up to five years. There had been widespread speculation that he would retire within two years.
The Israeli Government is considering an unprecedented crackdown
on the Islamic movement within its own borders, fearing that a small minority
of Israeli Arabs are turning against the country.
I talked about these things with Vladimir Putin a few days ago and I have been to Washington and one of the things I talked about was what will be (sic) later, if Iraq is going to be disarmed.
One of the things I mentioned is that the free world
should take all the necessary steps to prevent irresponsible countries from
having weapons of mass destruction: Iran, Iraq of course, and Libya is working
on a nuclear weapon.
They are working now on a ballistic missile of 1,300km. They have almost reached this range already. They were talking in the past about 2,500km and even 5,000km.
Mr Sharon made it abundantly clear that he would not hold back from retaliating, as Israel did at Washingtons behest in 1991, if his nation came under serious attack. First, we understand the sensitivity. We are living here, we were born here. Israel will make every effort not to interfere, he said.
But he warned: If Israel, and I made it very clear, is attacked by weapons of mass destruction . . . Israel will react. Is it clear? I believe that they understand that Israel will not be able not to defend itself.
Mr Sharon reiterated that he was willing to work toward the
eventual creation of a Palestinian state, but demanded that progress toward
it be measured by concrete improvements in security on the ground.
US Plans to Ditch Industry Rivals
and Force end of OPEC
[The Observer - 3 November 2002]:
The leader of the London-based Iraqi National Congress, Ahmed Chalabi, has met executives of three US oil multinationals to negotiate the carve-up of Iraq's massive oil reserves post-Saddam.
Disclosure of the meetings in October in Washington - confirmed by an INC spokesman - comes as Lord Browne, the head of BP, has warned that British oil companies have been squeezed out of post-war Iraq even before the first shot has been fired in any US-led land invasion.
Confirming the meetings to US journalists, INC spokesman Zaab Sethna said: 'The oil people are naturally nervous. We've had discussions with them, but they're not in the habit of going around talking about them.'
Next month oil executives will gather at a country retreat near Sandringham to discuss Iraq and the future of the oil market. The conference, hosted by Sheikh Yamani, the former Oil Minister of Saudi Arabia, will feature a former Iraqi head of military intelligence, an ex-Minister and City financiers. Topics for discussion include the country's oil potential, whether it can become as big a supplier as Saudi Arabia, and whether a post-Saddam Iraq might destroy the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries.
Disclosure of talks between the oil executives and the INC - which enjoys the support of Bush administration officials - is bound to exacerbate friction on the UN Security Council between permanent members and veto-holders Russia, France and China, who fear they will be squeezed out of a post-Saddam oil industry in Iraq.
Although Russia, France and China have existing deals with Iraq, Chalabi has made clear that he would reward the US for removing Saddam with lucrative oil contracts, telling the Washington Post recently: 'American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil.'
Indeed, the issue of who gets their hands on the world's second largest oil reserves has been a major factor driving splits in the Security Council over a new resolution on Iraq.
If true, it is hardly surprising, given the size of the potential deals. As of last month, Iraq had reportedly signed several multi-billion-dollar deals with foreign oil companies, mainly from China, France and Russia.
Among these Russia, which is owed billions of dollars by Iraq for past arms deliveries, has the strongest interest in Iraqi oil development, including a $3.5 billion, 23-year deal to rehabilitate oilfields, particularly the 11-15 billion-barrel West Qurna field, located west of Basra near the Rumaila field.
Since the agreement was signed in March 1997, Russia's Lukoil has prepared a plan to install equipment with capacity to produce 100,000 barrels per day from West Qurna's Mishrif formation.
French interest is also intense. TotalFinaElf has been in negotiations with Iraq on development of the Nahr Umar field.
Planning for Iraq's post-Saddam oil industry is being driven by a coalition of neo-conservatives in Washington think-tanks with close links to the Bush administration, and with INC officials who have long enjoyed their support. Those hawks have long argued that US control of Iraq's oil would help deliver a second objective. That is the destruction of Opec, the oil producers' cartel, which they argue is 'evil' - that is, incompatible with American interests.
Larry Lindsey, President Bush's economic adviser, recently said that a successful war on Iraq would be good for business.
'When there is a regime change in Iraq, you could add three to five million barrels [per day] of production to world supply,' he said in September. 'The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy.'
Analysts believe that after five years Iraq could be pumping 10m barrels of oil per day. Opec is already starting to implode, with member nations breaking quotas in an attempt to grab market share before oil prices fall.
Russian concern over a future INC-inspired carve-up of Iraq's oil to the benefit of the US has become so intense that it recently sent a diplomat to hold talks with INC officials. At that meeting in Washington on 29 August the diplomat expressed concern that Russia would be kept out of the oil markets by the US.
A model for the carve-up of Iraq's oil industry was presented in September by Ariel Cohen of the right-wing Heritage Foundation, which has close links to the Bush administration.
In The Future of a Post-Saddam Iraq: A Blueprint for American Involvement, Cohen strikes a similar note to Chalabi, putting forward a road map for the privatisation of Iraq's nationalised oil industry, and warning that France, Russia and China were likely to find that a new INC-led government would not honour their oil contracts.
Cohen's proposal would see Iraq's oil industry split up into three large companies, along the areas of ethnic separation, with one company in the largely Shia south, another for the Sunni region around Baghdad, and the last in the Kurdish north.
Given all that Dubya has now said about "regime change", he cannot possibly present himself to the American people if the Butcher of Baghdad is still in office, waving his pearl-handled revolver and making insulting remarks about the Bush family. Never mind the oil, or the potential boost to the American economy, or the security issues: that is the paramount reason why there will be a war sometime between now and then.
It is also a brutal reality that Britain's global role is to do more or less what the Americans want, in order to achieve maximum "influence" in Washington. You can quibble with this cunningly supine approach, which the Foreign Office also uses in Brussels; but it has been followed by every British prime minister since Suez, and Blair is no exception.
If I am right that Bush's electoral fate is now inextricably linked to Saddam Hussein, and if Blair is unlikely to let a chink of daylight between London and Washington, then it follows that America and Britain will in the near-ish future launch a violent attack on Iraq.
If we know the Pentagon, there must be a very good chance that this will be an outstandingly successful and stress-free war, with computerised drones queueing up over Baghdad and Basra to pulverise the relevant silos and barracks.
There must also be a risk, however, that the war will not only involve the deaths of many innocents, but will also cost the British taxpayer considerable sums. The latest figures suggest our bill could be £5 billion, which is almost as much as Labour blew on foot and mouth. That is why it is so important to persuade the public to snap out of their current curmudgeonliness.
With 65 per cent currently opposed to military action, one can see why the Government goes to such lengths to pretend, for instance, that there is a link between Saddam Hussein and the al-Qa'eda network.
At every key moment in the Iraq drama, there is a little Whitehall-generated drum-roll of alarm about a terrorist threat in London. Last week, the Americans declared that Iraq was in material breach of UN resolution 1441. The war came closer! And offstage, as if by magic, government sources muttered about anthrax on the Tube, smallpox in the water supply, etc.
It is a cynical and ludicrous attempt at Pavlovian conditioning. War in Iraq! Terrorist threat! War in Iraq! Terrorist threat! On it will go until the poor mutton-headed public believes that only the first will obviate the threat of the second.
It is a belief for which, alas, there is no evidence whatever. Try as he may, Blair has been unable to link Saddam with September 11, and we have no good grounds for thinking a war on Saddam will make future al-Qa'eda attacks less likely.
Which brings us to the other grounds for war: the weapons of mass destruction, and the Keystone Kops of the UN fossicking around hopelessly in their search for evidence.
This week Blix and co continued their Cook's Tour of the Mesopotamian Rustbelt, sniffing around a milk factory that has already been blown up twice by allied forces, in 1991 and 1998. They confirmed that, as a producer of milk, the factory was pretty washed up. They did not, it seems, find any weapons of mass destruction.
That's not good enough, say the Americans. Washington, and London, want Baghdad to prove that it has no weapons of mass destruction, which is a singular demand. Suppose you accuse me of having an illegal weapon in my house. You may refuse to believe me. That is your right.
But how on earth am I supposed to prove that I don't? Produce a few non-certificates for my non-revolver? It is up to you to prove that I do have a revolver under the floorboards; and that is why it is utterly demented, now that Saddam has let the weapons inspectors back in, that Blix and co are blithering about, without any decent intelligence to back them up.
If Washington wants our support for military action against the possessor of these weapons, then the world needs to be convinced, as soon as possible, that they are there. That means assisting Blix in distinguishing anthrax from fermented goat's milk. And if America won't help, then the whole business starts to smell worse than one of these devastated desert dairies.
If we are really concerned about the weapons of mass destruction, then let the UN process work itself through, and if Blix finds something, and Saddam won't destroy it, then by all means let's send in the stealth bombers and the cruise missiles and the B52s, and let's do the job ourselves. If I had an illegal revolver in my house, I could hardly object if the police decided to burst in and put it beyond use.
I could hardly protest, especially if they had been waiting for months on my doorstep, in ever increasing numbers, and had given me ample warning of their intentions, and every opportunity to dispose of the thing myself.
But I think I might feel hard done by if the police decided that, in order to accomplish this end, it was necessary to blow up my house, and kill me and many of my relatives. That sense of injustice would be all the greater if they had no real proof that I had the wretched revolver in the first place.
It may be that there is a very good case for getting rid of Saddam without any of these tiresome pretexts about terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. The world would unquestionably be the better for his removal.
Perhaps America should be encouraged to go around making appropriate adjustments to the geopolitical scene. Many of us would be prepared to listen to such a case. But it would help if someone started to make it honestly.
The cabal of war fanatics advising the White House secretly planned a transformation of defense policy years ago, calling for war against Iraq and huge increases in military spending. A catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harborwas seen as necessary to bring this about.
Exclusive to American Free Press
By Christopher Bollyn
The huge increases in U.S. military spending that have occurred since the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were planned before President George W. Bush was elected by the same men who are pushing the administrations war on terrorism and the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Billions of dollars in additional defense spending are but the first step in the groups long-term plan to transform the U.S. military into a global army enforcing a terroristic and bloody Pax Americana around the world.
A neo-conservative Washington-based organization known as the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), funded by three foundations closely tied to Persian Gulf oil and weapons and defense industries, drafted the war plan for U.S. global domination through military power.
One of the organizations documents clearly shows that Bush and his most senior cabinet members had already planned an attack on Iraq before he took power in January 2001.
The PNAC was founded in the spring of 1997 by the well-known Zionist neo-conservatives Robert Kagan and William Kristol of The Weekly Standard.
The PNAC is part of the New Citizenship Project, whose chairman is also William Kristol, and is described as a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership.
Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz signed a Statement of Principles of the PNAC on June 3, 1997, along with many of the other current members of Bushs war cabinet.
Wolfowitz was one of the directors of PNAC until he joined the Bush administration.
The groups essential demand was for hefty increases in defense spending. We need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future, the statements first principle reads.
The increase in defense spending is to bring about two of the other principles: to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values and to accept responsibility for Americas unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
A subsequent PNAC plan entitled Rebuilding Americas Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century, reveals that the current members of Bushs cabinet had already planned, before the 2000 presidential election, to take military control of the Gulf region whether Saddam Hussein is in power or not.
The 90-page PNAC document from September 2000 says: The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.
Even should Saddam pass from the scene, the plan says U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain, despite domestic opposition in the Gulf states to the permanent stationing of U.S. troops. Iran, it says, may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests as Iraq has.
A core mission for the transformed U.S. military is to fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars, according to the PNAC.
The strategic transformation of the U.S. military into an imperialistic force of global domination would require a huge increase in defense spending to a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually, the PNAC plan said.
The process of transformation, the plan said, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing eventlike a new Pearl Harbor.
American Free Press asked Christopher Maletz, assistant director of the PNAC about what was meant by the need for a new Pearl Harbor.
They needed more money to up the defense budget for raises, new arms, and future capabilities, Maletz said. Without some disaster or catastrophic event neither the politicians nor the military would have approved, Maletz said.
The new Pearl Harbor, in the form of the terror attacks of Sept. 11, provided the necessary catalyst to put the global war plan into effect. Congress quickly allocated $40 billion to fund the war on terrorism shortly after 9-11.
A Pentagon spokesman told AFP that $17.5 billion of that initial allocation went to defense.
The U.S. defense budget for 2002, including a $14.5 billion supplement, came to $345.7 billion, a nearly 12 percent increase over the 2001 defense budget.
Similar significant increases in defense spending are planned for 2003 (to $365 billion) and 2004 (to at least $378 billion) in line with the PNAC plan.
Veteran journalist John Pilger recently wrote about one of PNACs founding members, Richard Perle: I interviewed Perle when he was advising Reagan, and when he spoke about total war, I mistakenly dismissed him as mad, Pilger wrote. He recently used the term again in describing Americas war on terror. No stages, he said. This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq . . . this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we dont try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war . . . our children will sing great songs about us years from now.
This is a blueprint for U.S. world dominationa new world order of their making, Tam Dalyell, British parliamentarian and critic of the war policy from the Labor Party said. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world.
This is garbage from think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks,
Dalyell said, men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love
with the idea of war.
It never mentions the victims: the young, the old and
I have been a reporter in too many places where public lies have disguised the culpability for great suffering, from Indochina to southern Africa, East Timor to Iraq, merely to turn the page or switch off the news-as-sermon, and accept that journalism has to be like this - "waiting outside closed doors to be lied to", as Russell Baker of the New York Times once put it. The honourable exceptions lift the spirits. One piece by Robert Fisk will do that, regardless of his subject. An eyewitness report from Palestine by Peter Beaumont in the Observer remains in the memory, as singular truth, along with Suzanne Goldenberg's brave work for the Guardian.
The pretenders, the voices of Murdochism and especially the liberal ciphers of rampant western power can rightly say that Pravda never published a Fisk. "How do you do it?" asked a Pravda editor, touring the US with other Soviet journalists at the height of the cold war. Having read all the papers and watched the TV, they were astonished to find that all the foreign news and opinions were more or less the same. "In our country, we put people in prison, we tear out their fingernails to achieve this result? What's your secret?"
The secret is the acceptance, often unconscious, of an imperial legacy: the unspoken rule of reporting whole societies in terms of their usefulness to western "interests" and of minimising and obfuscating the culpability of "our" crimes. "What are 'we' to do?" is the unerring media cry when it is rarely asked who "we" are and what "our" true agenda is, based on a history of conquest and violence. Liberal sensibilities may be offended, even shocked by modern imperial double standards, embodied in Blair; but the invisible boundaries of how they are reported are not in dispute. The trail of blood is seldom followed; the connections are not made; "our" criminals, who kill and collude in killing large numbers of human beings at a safe distance, are not named, apart from an occasional token, like Kissinger.
A long series of criminal operations by the American secret state, identified and documented, such as the conspiracy that oversaw the "forgotten" slaughter of up to a million people in Indonesia in 1965-66, amount to more deaths of innocent people than died in the Holocaust. But this is irrelevant to present-day reporting. The tutelage of hundreds of tyrants, murderers and torturers by "our" closest ally, including the training of Islamic jihad fanatics in CIA camps in Virginia and Pakistan, is of no consequence. The harbouring in the United States of more terrorists than probably anywhere on earth, including hijackers of aircraft and boats from Cuba, controllers of El Salvadorean death squads and politicians named by the United Nations as complicit in genocide, is clearly of no interest to those standing in front of the White House and reporting, with a straight face, "America's war on terrorism".
That George Bush Sr, former head of the CIA and president, is by any measure of international law one of the modern era's greatest prima facie war criminals, and his son's illegitimate administration a product of this dynastic mafia, is unmentionable.
The rest of the answer to the incredulous question raised by the Pravda editors in America is censorship by omission. Once vital information illuminates the true aims of the "national security state", the euphemism for the mafia state, it loses media "credibility" and is consigned to the margins, or oblivion. Thus, fake debates can be carried on in the British Sunday newspapers about whether "we" should attack Iraq. The debaters, often proud liberals with an equally proud record of supporting Washington's other invasions, guard the limits.
These "debates" are framed in such a way that Iraq is neither a country nor a community of 22 million human beings, but one man, Saddam Hussein. A picture of the fiendish tyrant almost always dominates the page. ("Should we go to war against this man?" asked last Sunday's Observer). To appreciate the power of this, replace the picture with a photograph of stricken Iraqi infants, and the headline with: "Should we go to war against these children?" Propaganda then becomes truth. Any attack on Iraq will be executed, we can rest assured, in the American way, with saturation cluster bombing and depleted uranium, and the victims will be the young, the old, the vulnerable, like the 5,000 civilians who are now reliably estimated to have been bombed to death in Afghanistan. As for the murderous Saddam Hussein, former friend of Bush Sr and Thatcher, his escape route is almost certainly assured.
The column inches now devoted to Iraq, often featuring unnamed manipulators and liars of the intelligence services, almost always omit one truth. This is the truth of the American- and British-driven embargo on Iraq, now in its 13th year. Hundreds of thousands of people, mostly children, have died as a consequence of this medieval siege. The worst, most tendentious journalism has sought to denigrate the scale of this crime, even calling the death of Iraqi infants a mere "statistical construct". The facts are documented in international study after study, from the United Nations to Harvard University.
( For a digest of the facts, see Dr Eric Herring's Bristol University paper "Power, Propaganda and Indifference: an explanation of the continued imposition of economic sanctions on Iraq despite their human cost", available from firstname.lastname@example.org )
Among those now debating whether the Iraqi people should be cluster-bombed or not, incinerated or not, you are unlikely to find the names of Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck, who have done the most to break through the propaganda. No one knows the potential human cost better than they. As assistant secretary general of the UN, Halliday started the oil-for-food programme in Iraq. Von Sponeck was his successor. Eminent in their field of caring for other human beings, they resigned their long UN careers, calling the embargo "genocide".
Their last appearance in the press was in the Guardian last November, when they wrote: "The most recent report ofthe UN secretary general, in October 2001, says that the US and UK governments' blocking of $4bn of humanitarian supplies is by far the greatest constraint on the implementation of the oil-for-food programme. The report says that, in contrast, the Iraqi government's distribution of humanitarian supplies is fully satisfactory...The death of some 5-6,000 children a month is mostly due to contaminated water, lack of medicines and malnutrition. The US and UK governments' delayed clearance of equipment and materials is responsible for this tragedy, not Baghdad."
They are in no doubt that if Saddam Hussein saw advantage in deliberately denying his people humanitarian supplies, he would do so; but the UN, from the secretary general himself down, says that, while the regime could do more, it has not withheld supplies. Indeed, without Iraq's own rationing and distribution system, says the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, there would have been famine. Halliday and von Sponeck point out that the US and Britain are able to fend off criticism of sanctions with unsubstantiated stories that the regime is "punishing" its own people. If these stories are true, they say, why does America and Britain further punish them by deliberately withholding humanitarian supplies, such as vaccines, painkillers and cancer diagnostic equipment? This wanton blocking of UN-approved shipments is rarely reported in the British press. The figure is now almost $5bn in humanitarian-related supplies. Once again, the UN executive director of the oil-for-food programme has broken diplomatic silence to express "grave concern at the unprecedented surge in volume of holds placed on contracts [by the US]".
By ignoring or suppressing these facts, together with the scale of a four-year bombing campaign by American and British aircraft (in 1999/2000, according to the Pentagon, the US flew 24,000 "combat missions" over Iraq), journalists have prepared the ground for an all-out attack on Iraq. The official premise for this - that Iraq still has weapons of mass destruction - has not been questioned. In fact, in 1998, the UN reported that Iraq had complied with 90 per cent of its inspectors' demands. That the UN inspectors were not "expelled", but pulled out after American spies were found among them in preparation for an attack on Iraq, is almost never reported. Since then, the world's most sophisticated surveillance equipment has produced no real evidence that the regime has renewed its capacity to build weapons of mass destruction. "The real goal of attacking Iraq now," says Eric Herring, "is to replace Saddam Hussein with another compliant thug."
The attempts by journalists in the US and Britain, acting as channels for American intelligence, to connect Iraq to 11 September have also failed. The "Iraq connection" with anthrax has been shown to be rubbish; the culprit is almost certainly American. The rumour that an Iraqi intelligence official met Mohammed Atta, the 11 September hijacker, in Prague was exposed by Czech police as false. Yet press "investigations" that hint, beckon, erect a straw man or two, then draw back, while giving the reader the overall impression that Iraq requires a pasting, have become a kind of currency. One reporter added his "personal view" that "the use of force is both right and sensible". Will he be there when the clusters spray their bomblets?
Those who dare speak against this propaganda are abused as apologists for the tyrant. Two years ago, on a now infamous Newsnight, the precocious apostate Peter Hain was allowed to smear Denis Halliday, a man whose integrity is internationally renowned. Although dissent has broken through recently, especially in the Guardian, to its credit, that low point in British broadcasting set the tone. If the media pages did their job, they would set aside promoting the careers of media managers and challenge the orthodoxy of reporting a fraudulent "war on terrorism"; they owe that, at least, to aspiring young journalists. I recommend a new website edited by the writer David Edwards, whose factual, inquiring analysis of the reporting of Iraq, Afghanistan and other issues has already drawn the kind of defensive spleen that shows how unused to challenge and accountability much of journalism, especially that calling itself liberal, has become. The address is http://www.medialens.org
It is time that three urgent issues became front-page
news. The first is restraining Bush and his collaborator Blair from killing
large numbers of people in Iraq. The second is an arms and military technology
embargo applied throughout the Gulf and the Middle East; an embargo on both
Iraq and Israel. The third is the ending of "our" siege of a people
held hostage to cynical events over which they have no control.
He excused Israel's violence, but lectured the Palestinians and the rest of the Middle East on the need for restraint and a lasting peace. "The storms of violence cannot go on," said Bush. "Enough is enough."
What he neglected to say was that he needs a lull in the present crisis to lay his own war plans; that while he talks of peace in the Middle East, he is secretly planning a massive attack on Iraq.
This historic display of hypocrisy by Bush will be on show at his ranch in Texas today, with Tony Blair, his collaborator, in admiring attendance.
Yes, enough is enough. It is time Tony Blair came clean with the British people on his part in the coming violence against a nation of innocent people.
AS THE crisis in Israeli-occupied Palestine deepens, Tony Blair will meet George W Bush today to plan an attack on another country, Iraq.
Their decision may condemn to death more than 10,000 civilians. That is the "medium case scenario" drawn up by the Pentagon. If the Americans implement their current strategy of "total war" and target Iraq's electricity and water, the consequences will be even more horrific.
There is no mandate in any United Nations resolution for this invasion. It will be as lawless as Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland, which triggered the Second World War. Indeed, it may well trigger a Third World War, drawing in nations of the region and beyond.
As Blair arrives at Bush's Texas ranch the question begs: Why does he condemn Iraq, but is silent on Israel's current bloody and illegal rampage through Palestine? Why has he not demanded that the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon comply with UN Security Council resolutions, to which Britain is a signatory, and withdraw from the Occupied Territories? Why has Blair said nothing as Sharon has sent tanks and gunships and snipers against civilians - a government targeting innocent people, like the deaf old lady shot by an Israeli sniper as she tried to get to hospital? Why has Blair not called at least for military sanctions against Israel, which has 200 nuclear weapons targeted at Arab capitals?
Blair's culpable silence is imposed by the most dangerous American administration for a generation. The Bush administration is determined to attack Iraq and take over a country that is the world's second largest source of oil. The aim is to get rid of America's and Britain's old friend, Saddam Hussein, whom they no longer control, and to install another compliant thug in Baghdad.
THAT is why Bush now tells Israel to withdraw from the Palestinian cities it recently occupied while continuing to replenish the Israeli war machine. The Americans want a rampant Israel guarding their flank as they attack Iraq and expand their control across the Middle East, whose oil is now more critical than ever to US military and economic dominance.
For almost two months, Downing Street, through the discredited system of unattributable briefings that are secret to the public, have spun two deceptions. The first is that the Prime Minister will play a vital role at today's meeting with Bush on his Texas ranch in "counselling caution." The second is that Blair has a "dossier of detailed evidence" that "proves" that Saddam Hussein has "a nuclear capability" and is "investigating a way to launch unsophisticated nuclear bombs" and is also building chemical and biological weapons.
The fiction of Blair as a steadying hand on his Texas buddy is to be read in Blair's unrelenting bellicose statements, and his attempts, against the wishes of his senior military advisers, to send thousands of British troops into the quagmire of Afghanistan, where his "cautionary influence" on Bush saw as many as 5,000 civilians bombed to death while the Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders got away.
While remaining silent on Israel, Blair is alone in Europe in his promotion of an attack on Iraq, a nation of 22 million people with whom the British have no quarrel. Mysteriously, the "dossier of proof" of the dangers posed by the Iraqi regime has now been "shelved." This is because no such proof exists and because, suddenly, more than 130 Labour Members of Parliament are in revolt, including Cabinet and former Cabinet members. It must be dawning on many of them that so much of this government's "spin" during the "war on terrorism" has been a farrago of lies and half-truths provided by an American intelligence apparatus seeking to cover its failure to provide warning of the attacks of September 11.
Lie Number One is the justification for an attack on Iraq - the threat of its "weapons of mass destruction." Few countries have had 93 per cent of their major weapons capability destroyed. This was reported by Rolf Ekeus, the chairman of the United Nations body authorised to inspect and destroy Iraq's arsenal following the Gulf War in 1991. UN inspectors certified that 817 out of the 819 Iraqi long-range missiles were destroyed. In 1999, a special panel of the Security Council recorded that Iraq's main biological weapons facilities (supplied originally by the US and Britain) "have been destroyed and rendered harmless."
As for Saddam Hussein's "nuclear threat," the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iraq's nuclear weapons programme had been eliminated "efficiently and effectively". The IAEA inspectors still travel to Iraq and in January reported full Iraqi compliance. Blair and Bush never mention this when they demand that "the weapons inspectors are allowed back". Nor do they remind us that the UN inspectors were never expelled by the Iraqis, but withdrawn only after it was revealed they had been infiltrated by US intelligence.
Lie Number Two is the connection between Iraq and the perpetrators of September 11. There was the rumour that Mohammed Atta, one of the September 11 hijackers, had met an Iraqi intelligence official in the Czech Republic last year. The Czech police say he was not even in the country last year. On February 5, a New York Times investigation concluded: "The Central Intelligence Agency has no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is convinced that Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to al-Qaeda or related terrorist groups."
Lie Number Three is that Saddam Hussein, not the US and Britain, "is blocking humanitarian supplies from reaching the people of Iraq." (Foreign Office minister Peter Hain). The opposite is true. The United States, with British compliance, is currently blocking a record $5billion worth of humanitarian supplies from the people of Iraq. These are shipments already approved by the UN Office of Iraq, which is authorised by the Security Council. They include life-saving drugs, painkillers, vaccines, cancer diagnostic equipment.
This wanton denial is rarely reported in Britain. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, mostly children, have died as a consequence of an American and British riven embargo on Iraq that resembles a medieval siege. The embargo allows Iraq less than £100 with which to feed and care for one person for a whole year. This a major factor, says the United Nations' Children's Fund, in the death of more than 600,000 infants.
I have seen the appalling state of the children of Iraq. I have sat next to an Iraqi doctor in a modern hospital while she has turned away parents with children suffering from cancers that are part of what they call a "Hiroshima epidemic" - caused, according to several studies, by the depleted uranium that was used by the US and Britain in the Gulf War and is now carried in the dust of the desert. Not only is Iraq denied equipment to clean up its contaminated battlefields, but also cancer drugs and hospital equipment.
I showed a list of barred drugs given to me by Iraqi doctors to Professor Karol Sikora, who as chief of the cancer programme of the World Health Organisation, wrote in the British Medical Journal: "Requested radiotherapy equipment, chemotherapy drugs and analgesics are consistently blocked by United States and British advisers (to the UN Sanctions Committee). There seems to be a rather ludicrous notion that such agents could be converted into chemical and other weapons." He told me: "Nearly all these drugs are available in every British hospital. It seems crazy they couldn't have morphine. When I was in Iraq, in one hospital they had a little bottle of aspirin pills to go around 200 patients in pain." No one doubts that if the murderous Saddam Hussein saw advantage in deliberately denying his people humanitarian supplies, he would do so; but the UN, from the Secretary General himself, has said that, while the regime could do more, it has not withheld supplies.
Denis Halliday, the assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, resigned in protest at the embargo which he described as "genocidal". Halliday was responsible for the UN's humanitarian programme in Iraq. His successor, Hans Von Sponeck, also resigned in disgust. Last November, they wrote: "The death of 5-6,000 children a month is mostly due to contaminated water, lack of medicines and malnutrition. The US and UK governments' delayed clearance of equipment and materials is responsible for this tragedy, not Baghdad."
Those who speak these facts are abused by Blair ministers as apologists for Saddam Hussein - so embroiled is the government with the Bush administration's exploitation of America's own tragedy on September 11. This has prevented public discussion of the crime of an embargo that has hurt only the most vulnerable Iraqis and which is to be compounded by the crime of attacking the stricken nation. Unknown to most of the British public, RAF and American aircraft have been bombing Iraq, week after week, for more than two years. The cost to the British taxpayer is £800million a year. The Wall Street Journal reported that the US and Britain faced a "dilemma" because "few targets remain". "We're down to the last outhouse," said a Pentagon official.
IN any attack on Iraq, Saddam Hussein's escape route is virtually assured - just as Osama bin Laden's was. The US and Britain have no wish to free the Iraqi people from a tyranny the CIA once described as its "greatest triumph". The last thing they want is a separate Kurdish state and another allied to the Shi'ite majority in neighbouring Iran. They want another Saddam Hussein: one who will do as he is told.
On March 13, the Foreign Office entertained Brigadier-General Najib Salihi, a former commander of Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard and chief of the dreaded military intelligence who took part in the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Now funded by the CIA, the general "denies any war crimes". Not that he would ever face arrest in the West. At the Foreign Office, he is known as a "rapidly rising star". He is their man, and Washington's man.
The British soldiers who take part in an invasion have every right to know the dirty secrets that will underpin their action, and extend the suffering of a people held hostage to a dictatorship and to international power games over which they have no control. Two weeks ago, the Americans made clear they were prepared to use "low yield" nuclear weapons, a threat echoed here by Defence Secretary Geoffrey Hoon.
When will Europe stand up? If the leaders of the European
Union fall silent, too, in the face of such danger, what is Europe for? In this
country, there is an honourable rallying cry: Not In Our Name. Bush and Blair
must be restrained from killing large numbers of innocents in our name - a view,
according to the polls, shared by a majority of the British people. An arms
and military equipment embargo must be enforced throughout the region, from
Saddam Hussein's Iraq to Ariel Sharon's Israel. Above all, the siege of both
the Iraqi and Palestinian peoples must end now.
The threat posed by US terrorism to the security of
nations and individuals was outlined in prophetic detail in a document written
more than two years ago and disclosed only recently. What was needed for America
to dominate much of humanity and the world's resources, it said, was "some
catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor".
The attacks of 11 September 2001 provided the "new Pearl Harbor", described as "the opportunity of ages". The extremists who have since exploited 11 September come from the era of Ronald Reagan, when far-right groups and "think-tanks" were established to avenge the American "defeat" in Vietnam. In the 1990s, there was an added agenda: to justify the denial of a "peace dividend" following the cold war. The Project for the New American Century was formed, along with the American Enterprise Institute, the Hudson Institute and others that have since merged the ambitions of the Reagan administration with those of the current Bush regime.
One of George W Bush's "thinkers" is Richard Perle. I interviewed Perle when he was advising Reagan; and when he spoke about "total war", I mistakenly dismissed him as mad. He recently used the term again in describing America's "war on terror". "No stages," he said. "This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq . . . this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war . . . our children will sing great songs about us years from now."
Perle is one of the founders of the Project for the New American Century, the PNAC. Other founders include Dick Cheney, now vice-president, Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defence secretary, I Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, William J Bennett, Reagan's education secretary, and Zalmay Khalilzad, Bush's ambassador to Afghanistan. These are the modern chartists of American terrorism.
The PNAC's seminal report, Rebuilding America's Defences: strategy, forces and resources for a new century, was a blueprint of American aims in all but name. Two years ago it recommended an increase in arms-spending by $48bn so that Washington could "fight and win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars". This has happened. It said the United States should develop "bunker-buster" nuclear weapons and make "star wars" a national priority. This is happening. It said that, in the event of Bush taking power, Iraq should be a target. And so it is.
As for Iraq's alleged "weapons of mass destruction", these were dismissed, in so many words, as a convenient excuse, which it is. "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification," it says, "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
How has this grand strategy been implemented?
A series of articles in the Washington Post, co-authored by Bob Woodward of Watergate fame and based on long interviews with senior members of the Bush administration, reveals how 11 September was manipulated.
On the morning of 12 September 2001, without any evidence of who the hijackers were, Rumsfeld demanded that the US attack Iraq. According to Woodward, Rumsfeld told a cabinet meeting that Iraq should be "a principal target of the first round in the war against terrorism". Iraq was temporarily spared only because Colin Powell, the secretary of state, persuaded Bush that "public opinion has to be prepared before a move against Iraq is possible". Afghanistan was chosen as the softer option.
If Jonathan Steele's estimate in the Guardian is correct, some 20,000 people in Afghanistan paid the price of this debate with their lives.
Time and again, 11 September is described as an "opportunity". In last April's New Yorker, the investigative reporter Nicholas Lemann wrote that Bush's most senior adviser, Condoleezza Rice, told him she had called together senior members of the National Security Council and asked them "to think about 'how do you capitalise on these opportunities'", which she compared with those of "1945 to 1947": the start of the cold war.
Since 11 September, America has established bases at the gateways to all the major sources of fossil fuels, especially central Asia. The Unocal oil company is to build a pipeline across Afghanistan. Bush has scrapped the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions, the war crimes provisions of the International Criminal Court and the anti-ballistic missile treaty. He has said he will use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states "if necessary". Under cover of propaganda about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, the Bush regime is developing new weapons of mass destruction that undermine international treaties on biological and chemical warfare.
In the Los Angeles Times, the military analyst William Arkin describes a secret army set up by Donald Rumsfeld, similar to those run by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger and which Congress outlawed. This "super-intelligence support activity" will bring together the "CIA and military covert action, information warfare, and deception". According to a classified document prepared for Rumsfeld, the new organisation, known by its Orwellian moniker as the Proactive Pre-emptive Operations Group, or P2OG, will provoke terrorist attacks which would then require "counter-attack" by the United States on countries "harbouring the terrorists".
In other words, innocent people will be killed by the United States. This is reminiscent of Operation Northwoods, the plan put to President Kennedy by his military chiefs for a phoney terrorist campaign - complete with bombings, hijackings, plane crashes and dead Americans - as justification for an invasion of Cuba. Kennedy rejected it. He was assassinated a few months later. Now Rumsfeld has resurrected Northwoods, but with resources undreamt of in 1963 and with no global rival to invite caution.
You have to keep reminding yourself this is not fantasy: that truly dangerous men, such as Perle and Rumsfeld and Cheney, have power. The thread running through their ruminations is the importance of the media: "the prioritised task of bringing on board journalists of repute to accept our position".
"Our position" is code for lying. Certainly, as a journalist, I have never known official lying to be more pervasive than today. We may laugh at the vacuities in Tony Blair's "Iraq dossier" and Jack Straw's inept lie that Iraq has developed a nuclear bomb (which his minions rushed to "explain"). But the more insidious lies, justifying an unprovoked attack on Iraq and linking it to would-be terrorists who are said to lurk in every Tube station, are routinely channelled as news. They are not news; they are black propaganda.
This corruption makes journalists and broadcasters mere ventriloquists' dummies. An attack on a nation of 22 million suffering people is discussed by liberal commentators as if it were a subject at an academic seminar, at which pieces can be pushed around a map, as the old imperialists used to do.
The issue for these humanitarians is not primarily
the brutality of modern imperial domination, but how "bad" Saddam
Hussein is. There is no admission that their decision to join the war party
further seals the fate of perhaps thousands of innocent Iraqis condemned to
wait on America's international death row. Their doublethink will not work.
You cannot support murderous piracy in the name of humanitarianism. Moreover,
the extremes of American fundamentalism that we now face have been staring at
us for too long for those of good heart and sense not to recognise them.
'Hate Speech' On The Net - Israeli Supporters Prowl The Internet
And The Media Shouting "Hate Speech"
Your Comments Are Always Welcome At Rense.com!
David Duke Online Radio Report 11-29-2002
It's not about the oil, stupid!
Representative David Duke at Al-Jazeera Satellite Network in Qatar
I just returned from Bahrain and Qatar. In Qatar I appeared on one of the most-watched television satellite channels in the world, Al-Jazeera. An audience of 70 million saw and listened to me expose the Jewish supremacist traitors in the U.S. Government who have sold out America to Israel. In violation of the United States Constitution, the Jewish-dominated U.S. State Department actually protested my appearance and tried to suppress my freedom of speech as an American citizen. More on that a little later, but first, I want to turn to one of the big lies about the coming war on Iraq, that lie is that Big Oil interests, rather than the Zionists, are behind the planned war.
The Zionists are masters at deception. Like the bait-and-switch sales tactics of American retail giants, some elements of the Jewish-dominated media in America have floated the idea that the coming war in Iraq is about oil. Sounding like a genuine dissident viewpoint, some patriots have unwittingly help spread this myth. One antiwar pundit adopted this theory and headlined, "It's about oil, stupid!"
These claims were originated simply to deflect the blame for the war from Israel and its fifth column in America. The warmongers anxiously want this war NOT to appear to be the result of the Israeli Fifth Column trying to strike down Israel's enemies one by one. By floating the idea that the war is about oil, a resource vital to America and Europe, the suggestion is that somehow it is in America's and Europe's economic interest to invade Iraq. The implication is that the war will somehow allow us to grab the oil, and so it will be good for the economy and the common man. Of course, the idea that we will just grab the oil is simply preposterous. Whatever new regime is in charge of Iraq will sell the oil at normal world spot prices!
A lot of good antiwar people have been deceived by this tactic, and are parroting the idea that it is big Oil that really behind this war. The Bush family ties to the oil industry are often cited in this scenario. And frankly, it is one thousand times easier in America to speak about conspiracies of the big bad Oil companies than to speak of the more open and more obvious Jewish conspiracies. Talk about big Oil conspiracies and some will call you wrong, but no one will accuse you of the great blasphemy of our age, the most evil of all heresies: so-called "anti-Semitism."
But really, does big Oil or America have a strong economic
motivation for this war? A few obvious facts coupled with plain, old-fashioned
reason will show you that the war against Iraq holds no real advantage for big
Oil, in fact it offers them much peril. As far as concerning American and European
economic interests at large, the war in Iraq will have devastating consequences,
to say nothing of causing anti-American political unrest and horrendous terrorism.
And let me make this very clear, Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. Giving Iraqi oil easier access to the world's markets will, after the flurry of wartime higher oil prices, eventually depress the price of oil. What does this mean to the big American and European oil companies who have the great bulk of their oil investments in the United States (such as in Texas, Louisiana and Alaska), in the North Sea, in Russia and in South America? Opening up the Iraqi market (and Iraq will need to sell huge quantities of oil after the war devastation) will ultimately mean, bottom line, depressed prices for oil reserves that Big Oil actually owns! The war will not help their profits but in the long run only hurt them. That is why Russia, a nation with large oil reserves but less Jewish influence, rightly opposes the war, knowing it will ultimately hurt their own oil business.
So, in the final analysis, Big Oil has no long-term interest
in the overthrow of Saddam. And it must be admitted that Big Oil has no strong
interest in normalizing relations with Iraq either. For if America normalizes
relations with the current Iraqi regime, the oil will flow freely, just as it
would if sanctions lifted after a so-called regime change. Either way, regime
change or normalized relations would not necessarily be good for the Big Oil
Imagine if we offered to end the war and sanctions against Saddam and normalize relations in exchange for special lower oil prices for the next decade. Obviously, Saddam would jump at that opportunity
So, if Europe and America wants Iraqi oil and wants it at good prices, we can easily get it by ending sanctions against Iraq and returning to the quite cozy relationship we had before the Gulf War. And, if we demanded UN inspections and disarmament of BOTH Iraq and Israel for their weapons of mass destruction, suddenly the Israeli fifth column would quiet their demands against Iraq, because Israel is far more committed to their illegal weapons of mass destruction than is Iraq. Iraq has now ok'd inspections. I can't even imagine Israel ever doing that!
On the other hand, a regime change would also certainly open up the oil pipelines, but after the change there would not be the motivation to negotiate as good an oil price as with the Saddam government. Iraq has a tremendous incentive to make a very good oil deal for us right now. Once the regime changes, the incentive is gone. Look at recent history. We certainly cannot and will not force a new regime to give us bargain prices for oil. As always, in normal times oil will be bought and sold on the international oil market. But now, of course, we a very special case, America has a lot of leverage to make a deal with Saddam Hussein: a deal he couldn't refuse!
In terms of the European and American economy, the Iraqi War can be catastrophic. Right now our economies are weak and struggling. The temporary spike in oil prices and the enormous expenditures of such a war can destroy our fragile economy and push us into a terrible world depression. Perhaps even more importantly, an American invasion would be throwing gasoline on the already glowing fires of terrorism throughout the Mideast. We already have learned the lesson that terrorism can have a terrible impact not only on lives, but also on our economy. Look what it has done to transportation and tourist industry and the ripple effect across the entire economic spectrum.
One more note, if Western economies and businesses suffer, then the biggest consumers of oil and oil related energy also suffer. Thus, the demands of our economy for oil falls, and if less oil is consumed, prices fall further and again -- the Big Oil companies are harmed. And don't forget that most of the Big Oil companies are now quite diversified. They have huge investments in all kinds of businesses in Europe and America. They also will be devastated by a suffering economy.
Before parroting the canard that Big Oil wants this war,
think about all the facts at hand. If our attack on Iraq causes fundamentalist
revolutions across the Arab world, what happens to the billions of dollars of
Big Oil's current investments in the Mideast, such as in Saudi Arabia where
Western oil companies have enormous investment? Is it in their advantage to
have those businesses possibly taken over by new and radically anti-American
It's the traitors in the United States government and in the media who will sacrifice American lives, security and economic well-being in order to support the criminal activities of Israel and its mass-murderer, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
As I have repeatedly documented in the Duke Report, Israel has even committed terrorism against America. Even the Israeli government had to admit this in the Lavon Affair! Of course, the Jewish media doesn't talk about Israeli terrorism against America, doesn't allow Americans to get angry about it, and it doesn't even oppose the flow of American money to Israel after it attacked the USS Liberty and killed and maimed American sailors by the score. Even our secretary of state said the attack on the USS Liberty was clearly a deliberate act against the United States!
After Israeli terrorist attacks against America and after Israel spies such as Jonathan Pollard devastated our spy network in Eastern Europe, billions of American dollars just kept flowing to Israel!
Our Jewish-controlled government and media won't even address the copious evidence showing Israeli complicity in the 911 attack. The WTC had an Israeli co-owner and was at the center of world Jewish finance and trade, but inexplicably did not have even a single Israeli casualty. This amazing fact flies in the face of the fact that the Jerusalem Post stated on the next day after September 11 that about 4000 Israelis citizens were believed to be in the area of the World Trade Center. We are supposed to believe in a modern Jewish miracle equal to the parting of the Red Sea. We are supposed to believe that not one Israeli casuality is possible without advanced warning to at least some of the Israelis. Anyone who thinks seriously about the matter and reviews the evidence will learn of the Israeli treachery in 911. But, again, the Jewish-controlled media and government never let the public focus on these things.
Newsweek magazine dated November 25th in the Periscope section decried my recent lecture tour in Bahrain and my appearance on the Arab Al-Jazeera satellite network. Here is an excerpt from its Jewish journalist:
First, the article implies I wasn't a GOP official. Of course, I amindeed an ex-GOP official. After I served in the House of Representatives, I was elected to the executive committee of the largest Republican district in Louisiana and then unanimously chosen by the other members of the elected Republican committee as Chairman for St. Tammany Parish from 1996 to 2000.
Next, the article acknowledges the incredible fact that the U.S. Government protested my appearing on the Arab satellite network. My question is: who gave the U.S. State Department authority to officially protest against an American citizen criticizing Israel on a international television talk show. Since when does the American government have the authority or the right to infringe upon the free speech of an American citizen? Isn't such an attempt bythe American government to suppress my freedom of speech a clear and obvious violation of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights?
If they can attempt to infringe on my free speech, they can do it to any American citizen. They can do it to anyone who dares to expose the crimes of Israel. Of course, what the Jewish supremacists really fear is my exposing the anti-American treason going on inside the United States government itself! When the American people learn the truth about this naked treason there will be hell to pay.
Newsweek also said that my facts exposing Israeli treachery in 911 is quote, "an anti-Semitic canard," unquote. Of course, Jewish supremacists in the American press suggest official Saudi involvement in 911, that's no problem. In fact, there is now a wholesale attack by the Jewish press in America on Saudi Arabia because a Saudi Princess helped pay for the medical expenses of an injured Arab woman. It turned out she was the wife of a Saudi man who is alleged to have been later involved in the hijacking. Even though this not even remotely proves official Saudi involvement in 911, no media personalities refer to allegations of Saudi government involvement in 911 as an "anti-Arab" or as an "anti-Semitic canard" (Arabs are, of course, a Semitic people). But if you dare to lay out the clear and copious evidence of past Israeli terrorism against America and Israel's obvious foreknowledge of the attacks of 911, then you are automatically labeled "anti-Semitic," probably the most hateful and onerous title that can be conferred on a human being.
The Jewish supremacist's power is unique, and it is enormous. Its fifth column of traitors in America ultimately caused the attack on the World Trade Center by leading America to blindly support the criminal and murderous regime of Ariel Sharon and Israel. Then, in 911, after warning a number of Israeli citizens of the impending attack, Israeli agents treacherously let this horrendous attack go on to serve their own murderous ends in the Mideast. Israeli Mossad agents were even caught and arrested shortly after filming and cheering during the actual attacks on the WTC!
And now these traitors sponsor and push for a massive escalation of the war on Iraq. It is a war that can only hurt America in every conceivable way. It will devastate our economy, our security, our freedoms. The war in Iraq is not in America's interest, it is not even in the interests of Big Bad Oil. It's not the oil, stupid!!!! It's the Jews! The only ones who have a true interest in this war are the Jewish supremacists and their well-rewarded servants, such as George Bush!
We must continue to educate our people on this vital point. The most important issue of our time is the Jewish supremacy over our media, our government, our economy, our culture, our future. They are leading us to utter ruin. It is not just Palestine that is occupied by Jewish supremacists; it is New York and Washington D.C. It is not just the West Bank of the river Jordan they occupy; it is the East Bank of the Potomac! I told Arab television that the main difference between the West Bank Palestinians and the Average American, is that the average American does know that his nation is occupied.
If you truly believe in freedom and justice, you will join me in opposing their power. I will continue to tell the truth about this no matter how much the government tries to discredit and silence me. I, as much as anyone, realize that there is a great risk to opposing their power, but I will not rest until I do my small part stop this naked treason against the American people. And, as a truly patriotic American, I will not agree to my country being immorally used to support the criminal and murderous policies of Israel. While we still can: let's prevent this anti-American war, a war that can only hurt America, this Jewish-supremacist war against Iraq.
Won't you stand up with me for truth and justice? Won't you stand up with me for America!
Sincerely, David Duke
Visit the David Duke and EURO online catalog at www.davidduke.net
Read past articles by David Duke about terrorism and Sept
Massive Israeli Spy Operaton
Carl Cameron Investigates
BRIT HUME, HOST: It has been more than 16 years since a civilian
working for the Navy was charged with passing secrets to Israel. Jonathan Pollard
pled guilty to conspiracy to commit espionage and is serving a life sentence.
At first, Israeli leaders claimed Pollard was part of a rogue operation, but
later took responsibility for his work.
Fox News has learned that one group of Israelis, spotted in North Carolina recently, is suspected of keeping an apartment in California to spy on a group of Arabs who the United States is also investigating for links to terrorism. Numerous classified documents obtained by Fox News indicate that even prior to Sept. 11, as many as 140 other Israelis had been detained or arrested in a secretive and sprawling investigation into suspected espionage by Israelis in the United States.
Investigators from numerous government agencies are part of a working group that's been compiling evidence since the mid '90s. These documents detail hundreds of incidents in cities and towns across the country that investigators say, "may well be an organized intelligence gathering activity."
The first part of the investigation focuses on Israelis who say they are art students from the University of Jerusalem and Bazala Academy. They repeatedly made contact with U.S. government personnel, the report says, by saying they wanted to sell cheap art or handiwork.
Documents say they, "targeted and penetrated military bases." The DEA, FBI and dozens of government facilities, and even secret offices and unlisted private homes of law enforcement and intelligence personnel. The majority of those questioned, "stated they served in military intelligence, electronic surveillance intercept and or explosive ordinance units."
Another part of the investigation has resulted in the detention and arrests of dozens of Israelis at American mall kiosks, where they've been selling toys called Puzzle Car and Zoom Copter. Investigators suspect a front.
Shortly after The New York Times and Washington Post reported the Israeli detentions last months, the carts began vanishing. Zoom Copter's Web page says, "We are aware of the situation caused by thousands of mall carts being closed at the last minute. This in no way reflects the quality of the toy or its salability. The problem lies in the operators' business policies."
Why would Israelis spy in and on the U.S.? A general accounting office investigation referred to Israel as country A and said, "According to a U.S. intelligence agency, the government of country A conducts the most aggressive espionage operations against the U.S. of any U.S. ally."
A defense intelligence report said Israel has a voracious appetite for information and said, "the Israelis are motivated by strong survival instincts which dictate every possible facet of their political and economical policies. It aggressively collects military and industrial technology and the U.S. is a high priority target."
The document concludes: "Israel possesses the resources and technical capability to achieve its collection objectives."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
A spokesman for the Israeli embassy here in Washington issued a denial saying that any suggestion that Israelis are spying in or on the U.S. is "simply not true." There are other things to consider. And in the days ahead, we'll take a look at the U.S. phone system and law enforcement's methods for wiretaps. And an investigation that both have been compromised by our friends overseas.
HUME: Carl, what about this question of advanced knowledge of what was going to happen on 9/11? How clear are investigators that some Israeli agents may have known something?
CAMERON: It's very explosive information, obviously, and there's a great deal of evidence that they say they have collected ó none of it necessarily conclusive. It's more when they put it all together. A bigger question, they say, is how could they not have know? Almost a direct quote.
HUME: Going into the fact that they were spying on some Arabs, right?
All US Phone Call Records
Carl Cameron Investigates
BRIT HUME, HOST: Last time we reported on the approximately
60 Israelis who had been detained in connection with the Sept. 11 terrorism
investigation. Carl Cameron reported that U.S. investigators suspect that some
of these Israelis were spying on Arabs in this country, and may have turned
up information on the planned terrorist attacks back in September that was not
Wiretaps Through Israeli
New York Daily News
BRIT HUME, HOST: Last time we reported on an Israeli-based company called Amdocs Ltd. that generates the computerized records and billing data for nearly every phone call made in America. As Carl Cameron reported, U.S. investigators digging into the 9/11 terrorist attacks fear that suspects may have been tipped off to what they were doing by information leaking out of Amdocs.
In tonight's report, we learn that the concern about phone security extends to another company, founded in Israel, that provides the technology that the U.S. government uses for electronic eavesdropping. Here is Carl Cameron's third report.
CARL CAMERON, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The company is Comverse Infosys, a subsidiary of an Israeli-run private telecommunications firm, with offices throughout the U.S. It provides wiretapping equipment for law enforcement. Here's how wiretapping works in the U.S.
Every time you make a call, it passes through the nation's elaborate network of switchers and routers run by the phone companies. Custom computers and software, made by companies like Comverse, are tied into that network to intercept, record and store the wiretapped calls, and at the same time transmit them to investigators.
The manufacturers have continuing access to the computers so they can service them and keep them free of glitches. This process was authorized by the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, or CALEA. Senior government officials have now told Fox News that while CALEA made wiretapping easier, it has led to a system that is seriously vulnerable to compromise, and may have undermined the whole wiretapping system.
Indeed, Fox News has learned that Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller were both warned Oct. 18 in a hand-delivered letter from 15 local, state and federal law enforcement officials, who complained that "law enforcement's current electronic surveillance capabilities are less effective today than they were at the time CALEA was enacted."
Congress insists the equipment it installs is secure. But the complaint about this system is that the wiretap computer programs made by Comverse have, in effect, a back door through which wiretaps themselves can be intercepted by unauthorized parties.
Adding to the suspicions is the fact that in Israel, Comverse works closely with the Israeli government, and under special programs, gets reimbursed for up to 50 percent of its research and development costs by the Israeli Ministry of Industry and Trade. But investigators within the DEA, INS and FBI have all told Fox News that to pursue or even suggest Israeli spying through Comverse is considered career suicide.
And sources say that while various F.B.I. inquiries into Comverse have been conducted over the years, they've been halted before the actual equipment has ever been thoroughly tested for leaks. A 1999 F.C.C. document indicates several government agencies expressed deep concerns that too many unauthorized non-law enforcement personnel can access the wiretap system. And the FBI's own nondescript office in Chantilly, Virginia that actually oversees the CALEA wiretapping program, is among the most agitated about the threat.
But there is a bitter turf war internally at F.B.I. It is the FBI's office in Quantico, Virginia, that has jurisdiction over awarding contracts and buying intercept equipment. And for years, they've thrown much of the business to Comverse. A handful of former U.S. law enforcement officials involved in awarding Comverse government contracts over the years now work for the company.
Numerous sources say some of those individuals were asked to leave government service under what knowledgeable sources call "troublesome circumstances" that remain under administrative review within the Justice Department.
And what troubles investigators most, particularly in New York, in the counter terrorism investigation of the World Trade Center attack, is that on a number of cases, suspects that they had sought to wiretap and survey immediately changed their telecommunications processes. They started acting much differently as soon as those supposedly secret wiretaps went into place ¬ñ Brit.
HUME: Carl, is there any reason to suspect in this instance that the Israeli government is involved?
CAMERON: No, there's not. But there are growing instincts in an awful lot of law enforcement officials in a variety of agencies who suspect that it had begun compiling evidence, and a highly classified investigation into that possibility ¬ñ Brit.
HUME: All right, Carl. Thanks very much.
Fox News Pulls Its Four-Part Israeli US Phone Spying
This has become absurd.
Was 911 A Mossad 'False Flag' Operation?
Note - As with all commentaries on this site, the views
of Mr. Eastman are his own and do not necessarily represent those of this site
or its sponsors. -ed
911 Was a Mossad False Flag Operation
(McBride is a discussant in newsgroups investigating
CIA drug-trade involvement.)
I've been strongly resisting coming to the best guess
that 911 was a classic Mossad false flag operation, conducted with the full
complicity of a Zionist political network loyal to Israel at the highest levels
of the U.S. government, but some recent events have made it almost impossible
to ignore the obvious.
By Hal Turner
Elsewhere on this website, I have collected many articles by Western journalists,
Jews and Israelis, and human rights organizations all of whom condemn Israel's
policies in Palestine. I have also provided evidence that Israel is an apartheid
state. I believe that all of this should be sufficient reason for America
to stop supporting Israel - we should stand up for justice. But even if you
don't find this a compelling argument, we can look at whether Israel has really
been a loyal ally to the U.S., or whether the U.S.-Israeli relationship is
costing America. Is Israel really America's friend? Examine the evidence below.
A friend wouldn't: * spy on America * sell American military secrets to America's
enemies * pirate America's technology * stockpile weapons of mass destruction
* attack an American naval vessel in international waters * stand by and let
Americans be killed
Allies and Espionage, by Jane's Intelligence Digest
Art, Espionage and Cover Ups, by Alan Simpson
Art Students or Intelligece Agents? by Paul Rodriguez
Damage Caused by 'Friendly' Spies, by Stephen Green, and
Israel's 40-Year History of Espionage Against the United States, by Stephen Green
Despite Coverup, Israel Caught Spying in Washington Again, by Richard H. Curtiss
An Enigma: Vast Israeli Spy Network Dismantled in the U.S., by Sylvain Cypel
FBI Probes Espionage at Clinton White House, by J. Michael Waller and Paul M. Rodriguez
Is Israel Spying on the U.S.?
A Fox News Report by Carl Cameron (note: this story was removed from the Fox website, but all four parts were mirrored at the link above)
The Israeli "Art Student" Mystery, by Christopher Ketcham
The Israeli Art Student Papers by Justin Raimondo and
Suspicious Activities Involving Israeli Art Students at DEA Facilities
by the DEA
Israeli Spy-Ring Uncovered in U.S., by Iason Athanasiadis
A New Pollard Affair? by Jeffrey Steinberg
Report of Israeli Eavesdropping on White House Telephones Gets Varying Media Treatment,
by Richard H. Curtiss
Spies, Or Students? by Nathan Guttman (from the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz!)
The Spies Who Came in from the Art Sale, by John Sugg
Spy Rumors Fly on Gusts of Truth: Americans Probing Reports of Israeli Espionage,
By Marc Perelman (note: this is a report from a Jewish magazine!)
Spying on America, by Charles R. Smith
Urban Myth, My A**, by John Sugg
U.S. Arrests 200 Young Israelis in Spying Investigation, by Ben Fenton
U.S. Busts Huge Israeli Spy Ring, Says French Paper, from Reuters newswire
U.S. Deports Israelis Amid Warnings of Espionage Activities, by Ted Bridis
U.S. Police and Intelligence Hit by Israeli Spy Network, by Charles R. Smith
Was Israel Involved in Los Alamos Espionage? by Carl Limbacher
Another Look into the Murky Depths of the Pollard Affair, by Amir Oren
In the Pollard Case, Israel Dishonors Its Mother and Father, by Andrew I. Killgore
Israel Finally Admits Pollard was Its Agent, by David Makovsky
Israel Should Admit Its Responsibility to Jonathan Pollard, by Victor Ostrovsky
Israeli Make-Believe: Jonathan Jay Pollard Did Not Damage the United States, by Andrew I. Killgore
Jonathan Pollard Was No Jewish Patriot, by Eric Margolis
Pollard and Beyond, by Richard H. Curtiss
Pollard in Perspective, by Michael Saba
Pollard is Only the Tip of the Iceberg, by Joseph Sobran
Pollard Should Not Go Free, by Joseph E. diGenova
Report: Pollard stole 10-volume intelligence 'Bible', by Batsheva Tsur
CIA Asserts Israel Sold Arms Programs To Chinese Military, by Michael R. Gordon
Defense Relations Between Israel and India Have Grown So Strong That Some Say Israel is Replacing Russia As India's Main Arms Supplier,
by Amnon Barzilai
Israel Denies China Planes Have U.S. Technology, But Do They? by Amnon Barzilai
Israel Selling U.S. Weapons to China, by Duncan L. Clarke
Israel Transferring Laser Technology, from IsraelWire
Israeli Defense Contract Illustrates How U.S. Aid Harms American Industries, by Shawn L. Twing
Israel's Unauthorized Retransfer of U.S. Technology Exposed, by Shawn L. Twing
Look Who's Arming Beijing, by Patrick Buchanan
Pentagon, GAO Report Israeli Espionage And Illegal Technology Retransfer, by Shawn L. Twing
Report: Israel Won't Stop Selling Arms To India, by Arieh O'Sullivan
Report: U.S. Slams Israel for Selling Arrow Know-how to India, by Douglas Davis
Strange Bedfellows: China And Israel, by Eric S. Margolis
U.S. Anger at Israeli Arms Sales, a BBC News report
U.S. Arms Sales to Israel End Up In China, Iraq, by Jonathan Reingold
U.S. Defense Sec'y Rebukes Israelis Bluntly on Sale of Radar Systems to China, by William A Orme Jr.
U.S. Informs Israel of Missile Violation, from IsraelWire
U.S. Upset By Israeli Arms Sales To India, by Arieh O'Sullivan
What the Cox Report Does and Does Not Say About Israeli Technology Transfer to China, by Shawn L. Twing
Israel Among the Leaders in Pirated Computer Software, from IsraelWire
Israel Faces US Sanctions Over Software, by Judy Dempsey
Israel to be Fined $150 Million for Software Piracy, by Avi Blizovsky
US Industry Says Israel Major Source of CD Piracy, from IsraelWire
Crash of Cargo Plane in Holland Revealed Existence of Israeli Chemical and Biological Weapons Plant, by Victor Ostrovsky
Does Israel Have the Neutron Bomb? from the Center for Non-Proliferation Studies
Does Israel Have Smart Germs? by Eric Margolis
Fears of New Arms Race As Israel Tests Cruise Missiles, by Uzi Mahnaimi and Peter Conradi
Hide and Seek: Israel's Nuclear Game, by Dr. Edna Homa Hunt
Israel Reveals Secrets of How It Gained Bomb, by Inigo Gilmore
Israeli Nuclear Stockpile Undercuts U.S. Credibility at NPT Conference, by Frank Collins
Israel's Covert Nuclear Program, by Eric Margolis
Israel's Nuclear Friends, from the Center for Non-Proliferation Studies
Israel's Nuclear Weapons, by Warner D. Farr, LTC, U.S. Army
Israel's Weapons of Mass Destruction: A Summary, from the Center for Non-Proliferation Studies
Israeli Weapons of Mass Destruction: A Threat to Peace, by John Steinbach
President Johnson Suppressed Reports that Israel Smuggled Nuclear Technologies from U.S., by Joseph Sobran
Special focus on the ongoing case of nuclear technology smuggled to Israel from the U.S.:
Background: What is a Krytron? from the University of Alberta's Dept of Electrical Engineering
Israel-Hollywood Nuclear Connection, by Robert Windrem
Nuclear Trigger Dealer Arrested, by Sam Kiley and Michael Evans
U.S. Man Admits Nuke-Linked Sale to Israel, by Hil Anderson
U.S. Nuclear Technology Smuggled to Israel, by Julian Borger
See also: The Great Krytron Caper, by Najwa Sa'd
America's Most Shameful Secret, by Eric Margolis
The Assault on the U.S.S. Liberty Still Covered Up After 26 Years, by James M. Ennes Jr.
Book Says Israel Intended 1967 Attack on U.S. Ship, by James Risen, and Israel's 1967 attack on U.S. ship deliberate, book says, by David Ensor
Even as U.S.S. Liberty's Heroic Captain Receives New Honor, Coverup of Israeli Attack on His Ship Continues, by Paul Findley
Israel: America's Deadliest Ally, by Jeff Elkins
Israel Attacks the United States, by David Paul
The Israeli Attack on the U.S.S. Liberty, June 8, 1967, And the 32-Year Cover-up That Has Followed, by James E. Akins
The Liberty Cover-Up, by Charley Reese
The U.S.S. Liberty: A Demon That Won't Go Away, by James M. Ennes, Jr.
U.S.S. Liberty: The Cover-Up, by James Bamford
U.S.S. Liberty: Periscope Photography May Finally Reveal Truth, by James M. Ennes, Jr.
U.S.S. Liberty and Qana Massacre Compared, by Mark Genrich
U.S.S. Liberty: Questions Persist, by Thomas H. Moorer
The U.S.S. Liberty: Still Covered Up After 35 Years, by James Ennes
Israel Spying on U.S.?
- A Fox News report by Carl Cameron with Brit Hume. Cameron looks into evidence of Israeli espionage against the U.S.
(see links above) and indications that the alleged spies may have known in advance about the WTC attacks.
Israel and 9/11
- An article by American commentator Justin Raimondo (Raimondo is a member of the Center for Libertarian Studies). Raimondo discusses other trouble Israel is causing the U.S. then comes to the question of whether or not Israeli spies could have known in advance about the WTC attacks. Note that Raimondo wrote this before the Fox News report was released.
Et Tu, Israel?
- Another article by Justin Raimondo. Raimondo now reacts to the Fox News report and hopes that this will finally cause the U.S. to re-evaluate its special relationship with Israel.
9/11 What Was Israel's Role?
- A third article by Justin Raimondo. Raimondo examines further implications of possible Israeli involvement.
The 9/11 Enigma
- Justin Raimondo continues to look at the question of Israeli involvement in 9/11, drawing together several other threads in the investigation, ones pointing to a very ominous conclusion.
The Secret War -
Justin Raimondo looks further at the depth of the Israeli involvement and what context it gives the 9/11 attacks.
9/11: The Truth Comes Out
- Justin Raimondo returns to the story in the wake of the news that Israeli spies have been deported.
The 'Urban Myth' Gambit: Apologists 'Spin' Israel's Spy Operation in the U.S.
- Justin Raimondo examines responses to the Israeli spy ring story and analyzes the evidence.
Israel Versus America: The Secret War is Now Out in the Open
- Justin Raimondo continues to explore the implications of this story.
The Truth, At Last: Leaked Gov't Report Exposes Israeli Spy Ring
- Justin Raimondo asks some tough questions about the true extent of Israel's involvement in 9/11.
The Story of the Century
- Justin Raimondo looks at the coverage of this story and again at its implications.
Spinning a Spy Scandal
- Justin Raimondo examines attempts by pro-Israel commentators to minimize the story, and whether they are right to
- Justin Raimondo examines the recent stories that the Bush Administration knew in advance, and continues to ask why Israeli foreknowledge is not being looked into further
- Justin Raimondo calls for a real investigation into what was going on leading up to 9/11 including the Israeli espionage angle
Unsolved Mysteries of 9/11
- Justin Raimondo looks at various strange news stories surrounding 9/11 and who knew what when
Treason is the Reason
- Justin Raimondo alleges that Israeli intelligence was working within the FBI to sabotage its investigations of terrorist cases, including 9/11. As he says, this goes beyond foreknowledge of 9/11 to active facilitation of it
9/11 Revised Edition
- Justin Raimondo looks at the penetration of the FBI by Israeli intelligence and what role this played in 9/11
I Have in My Hands a List
- Although Justin Raimondo's article is largely about the malevolence of the Israeli government, it continues to follow up on the Israeli spies story and evidence that the Israeli spy ring is directly connected to the 9/11 attacks
9/11: What Did Israel Know?
- Justin Raimondo returns to the Israeli spies story yet again as the story appears in the BBC.
Not convinced? American commentator Joseph Sobran alleges that it's happened
Also: Lyndon LaRouche and his colleagues have been discussing the Israeli spy ring and its possible connections to September 11. You may or may not consider Lyndon LaRouche to be a reliable source; many people consider him a crackpot and/or an anti-Semite. I have provided links to these articles as an additional resource, so that people may see the different approaches that can be made to the same facts. The first article on the Israeli spy ring appeared in August with some novel speculations:
Israeli Spies, and Who (or What?) is 'Mega'?
by Jeffrey Steinberg. Subsequently, the theory of Israeli foreknowledge (and possibly a greater role) was explored in
Israeli Spying in U.S.: Exposť Cracks Coverup of Sept. 11, by Edward Spannaus and Jeffrey Steinberg,
and EIR Blows Israeli Spies' Cover in Sept. 11 Case, by Jeffrey Steinberg and Edward Spannaus. If you want to see LaRouche venture into some speculations into the "greater role", read Zbigniew Brzezinski and September 11.
This essay actually covers a lot more ground than just September 11; LaRouche seems to be setting out his entire worldview. One thing is clear: LaRouche is not presenting this theory out of some love for Islam or desire to defend Muslims. Interesting reading, whether you believe him or not...
In the days immediately following the September 11 terrorist attacks, there was some speculation that Israeli intelligence (i.e., the Mossad) was behind it, rather than Osama Bin Laden. There does not appear to be any evidence of this (although the evidence cited by Raimondo is a cause in itself for speculation). Nonetheless, it is very interesting to read the following reports about past Mossad activities. Both articles are by Richard H. Curtiss, a retired U.S. foreign service officer who was chief inspector of the U.S. Information Agency. His primary source on the Mossad is Victor Ostrovsky, a former Mossad caseworker and author of several books on the Mossad.
See The Israeli Deception That Led to the Bombing of Pan American Flight 103 Over Lockerbie, Scotland
and Is It Possible that Israeli Intelligence May be Framing Arabs for Terrorism?.
PRO-ISRAEL MEDIA HIDES BARBARIC CRIMES OF ISRAEL
Previous message: [Ngo-list]
National Water Parliament in Delhi on 22nd March (fwd)
INFORMATION TIMES: http://www.informationtimes.com/
America's Daily Internet Newspaper - Washington DC, USA
InfoTimes News-Info Network
1. PRO-ISRAEL MEDIA HIDES BARBARIC CRIMES OF ISRAEL
'What Tiger?' Espionage? What Espionage?
2. UN Chief Annan Calls on Israel to End 'illegal Occupation'
3. Intelligence Agents Or Art Students? Insight Investigative Report
4. Israeli 'Art' Deportees Were IDF Intel, Intercept, Explosives Experts
5. Each and Every American Must Investigate the 9-11 Attacks
6. Bombing Iraq to Protect Israel
7. Israeli Assassination of a Palestinian Youth: A Murder in Cold Blood
8. U.S. Aid to Israel -- The Lifeblood of illegal Occupation
9. Palestinian Statehood -- A Matter of Law
10. Israel illegally Spies on American Citizens and U.S. Government
Publisher: Al-Ahram Weekly Online - http://www.ahram.org.eg/
24-30 January 2002 - Issue No.570 - Cairo, Egypt
For years, Israel has been busy collecting sensitive information about the U.S. Why has it been above suspicion, wonders Mohamed Hakki in Washington.
by MOHAMED HAKKI
There is an old Russian joke about Russia's frustration in its negotiations with China. Former Prime Minister Nikita Krushchev goes hunting with Chinese leader Mao Tse-Tung during his visit to China. Both see a tiger. Mao takes aim at the tiger, but misses. Krushchev then shoots and kills the tiger. The two leaders' aides then carry the tiger back to the guest house. When the party arrives back in Beijing, Krushchev turns to Mao and asks: "Where's the tiger?" Mao says: "What tiger?" Frustrated, Krushchev recaps the day's events. "You remember we went out hunting?" Yes. "And you shot at the tiger we saw, and missed?"Yes. "And I took a shot and got him?" Yes. "Then, where's the tiger?" To which the same answer came back: "What tiger?"Something very similar is happening between Israel and its benefactor,the United States. In December, several reports on the Fox news network covered the sensitive issue of Israel spying on America. One question loomed large: Did Israel know anything about 11 September that it didnot share with the US?
More than 60 Israelis have reportedly been arrested or detained in the US, either under the new anti-terrorism law or for immigration violations. Some were active Israeli military; some failed polygraph questions when asked about surveillance activities in the US. It may bethat there is no reason to believe that Israel was involved in the 11 September attacks, but investigators are leaving open the possibility that Israeli Intelligence might have gathered information about the attacks that was not shared with the US. A highly-placed investigator said there are "tie-ins", but refused to elaborate, saying that evidence linking detained Israelis to 11 September is classified.
Numerous classified documents obtained by Fox news indicate that evenprior to 11 September, more than 140 Israelis had been arrested in a secret and extensive investigation into suspected espionage by Israelis in the US. The documents reveal that investigators from numerous government agencies are part of a working group that has been compiling evidence on Israeli espionage since the mid-1990s. These documents detail hundreds of incidents in cities and towns across the country that investigators say, "may well be an organised intelligence gathering activity."
Part of these investigations focus on a group of Israeli art students from the University of Jerusalem and Bazala Academy. The documents obtained by Fox news indicate that these students are thought to have"targeted and penetrated military bases." The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and dozens of government facilities may also have been breached, as well as "secret offices" and the unlisted private homes of law enforcement and intelligence personnel. The documents show that the majority of suspects questioned stated they had served in military intelligence and were familiar with electronic surveillance intercepts and explosive ordinance units.
Another part of the investigation has resulted in the detention and arrests of dozens of Israelis selling toys at American mall kiosks. The detentions were reported in The New York Times and The Washington Post last month and the carts vanished.
Yet another report focuses on the Israeli-based private communications company, Amdocs, where a number of those 60 detained suspects worked.Most directory assistance calls and virtually all call records and billing in the US are done for the telephone companies by Amdocs Ltd.,which has contracts with the 25 largest phone companies in the US -- and more worldwide. It is virtually impossible to make a call on a land line without generating an Amdocs record. Through Amdocs, it would bepossible to keep ahead of investigators by knowing who they are calling.In 1999, the Maryland-headquartered National Security Agency (NSA) issued a top-secret report warning that records of calls in the United States were ending up in foreign hands -- Israel, in particular. Investigators do not believe calls are being bugged, but the data about who is calling whom and when is very valuable in itself.
One well-known spy scandal centered on foreign intelligence penetrating the Clinton White House in early 1997. The story re-emerged in late1998, when the Monica Lewinsky tapes indicated that President Clinton had told her that their private telephone conversations are "monitored" by a foreign embassy [of Israel]. It is stunning that the President of the only superpower knows that he is being spied on without taking any measures either to declare it or stop it. This in itself speaks volumes about the nature of Clinton's relationship with Israel. The story returned yet again in May 2000, when it was claimed that Israeli telecommunications companies had penetrated the White House communications system. The companies named were the leading Israeli telecommunications company, Telrad, and -- you guessed it -- Amdocs. Perhaps the more interesting thing about all of these Israeli espionage cases is the reaction of the media, which seems to be complicit in the suppression of this information. Stories run on Fox about Israeli espionage have even been taken off the network's Web site. Carl Cameron, the investigative reporter who broke the story, is nearly losing his mind. On a C-Span television programme, he lamented: "The biggest storyof our time, of Israel spying on all branches of the government, on all our intelligence agencies -- in the CIA [Central Intelligence Agency],the DEA and the White House itself, is not picked up by the leading newspapers like The New York Times and The Washington Post." Buried.Gone.
But this is not the first time that stories of Israeli spying on the US have been buried. In her excellent, brief and unparalleled study entitled "Spy, Steal and Smuggle," Claudia Wright detailed an unnerving record of Israel's spying on the US for years. This was in 1986, after the whole affair about Jonathan Pollard had erupted. Pollard, an American-Jew, was convicted of spying for Israel.
In her report, Wright names names, incidents, history and contacts, in the most detailed and damning study of this subject so far. She also puts her finger on an important point: "To government investigators, who have been ordered by their superiors to drop or close cases involving Israel, the lesson of the Pollard case seemed to be that if thetelevision cameras were invited to photograph the arrest, then there would have been a chance -- a slim one perhaps -- that a public prosecution and trial might result."
People forget that the whole essence of the Pollard case is that the guilty pleas ended any prospect of a trial and public exposure of the extent of the damage incurred by Pollard's espionage. Without a trial,Pollard's contacts in Israel and the high-ranking Americans who may have been involved in recruiting him -- and protecting him in his job at Navy intelligence -- remain unknown. A trial and subsequent media focus might even have led to the identification of "Mr. X", an administration insider who is said to have given Pollard crucial information on whereand how to find the ultra-secret information he provided the Israelis with.
Claudia Wright's words 16 years ago are even more relevant today: "Eight weeks after Pollard's arrest, the US media was preoccupied with Arab terrorism, not Israeli espionage, against America. The investigative reporters of The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Boston Globe and other newspapers were reassigned, their stories unwritten or unpublished."
Espionage? What espionage?
[Copyright © 2002 Al-Ahram Weekly]
mission of writing and publishing the whole truth to expose
dictators, tyrants, tyrannies, terrorists, terrorism, imperialists, imperialism,
extremists, extremism, state oppression, human rights, abuses, violations of
civil liberties/civil rights, torture, rape, violence against women &
children, crimes, corruption, bribery, frauds, injustices, racism, discrimination,
xenophobia, bigotry, hypocrisy, slavery, illegal military occupation, scams
behind wars, top secret deals, hidden conspiracies, overt/covert operations,
malicious propaganda, government waste, causes of poverty/unemployment, repressive
laws and all other evils.
Previous message: [Ngo-list]
National Water Parliament in Delhi on 22nd March (fwd)
The Big Lie
The true reason behind the attack of September 11 See also Persian Gulf War ( 1991 )
Updated on October 3, 2001
by David Duke http://www.davidduke.com
The mass media has told the American people a Big Lie about the attack on September 11. They have purposely lied about why it happened so as to cover up the true reasons for the attack. Not understanding the real reasons why we were attacked will cost America the loss of more lives, our prosperity and our freedom.
No American will ever forget seeing on television the almost unbelievable carnage this past September 11. The horror at first seemed as if it were scenes a movie, not real life. Then as I as accepted the fact that it was real, emotion swept over me, Like so many other Americans, I struggled to keep back the tears for our people and our country. Almost immediately, I also realized that this terrorism could cost us even more than the terrible loss of lives and property suffered on that single day. I knew it would initiate a series of events that could threaten the very foundations of America.
Not only do Americans now face the specter of increasing terrorism, the horror of September 11 could well trigger a devastating economic depression.
It also might end up costing us our freedoms. And, as you know, the blood had not yet dried in the rubble before government leaders began to call for destruction of our most sacred constitutional rights.
The most important question we must ask ourselves about the terrorism is why. For without knowing why, we cannot hope to prevent these kinds of acts in the future.
Knowing who did the act is important, but why they did it is even more important. Dont get me wrong, we should certainly identify and obliterate all those directly responsible for these attacks, I am all for that.
However, it is essential that we understand the true motivations behind these men. Why are millions around the world growing to hate America so much? Why are growing numbers of men willing to sacrifice their lives to get at us? Even if we hunt down and kill all those remotely responsible for the terror of September, unless we find ways to lessen the growing world-wide hatred against us, more kamikazes will rise to take their place. America will sink into an increasing cycle of violence and fear.
Many Americans suffer from a dangerous delusion, and this includes the leading politicians, that we can militarily protect ourselves from terrorism.
They dont realize that the events of September 11 moved us into a new era of world history.
In this new era, sheer military might is no protection. No longer can strong nations attack weak ones with impunity. The tiniest nation or political entity can easily revenge itself with mass terror. No nation is invulnerable from terrorism, not even the strongest on earth.
Because of increased scientific knowledge, the next terror could be far more deadly than what happened on September 11. The next horrific occurrence might not even entail an explosion of any kind, but the silent mass death of a biological, toxic or radiation attack.
It takes only a small number of people, little money, and only a high school level of scientific knowledge to create weapons of mass destruction. They can be manufactured in anybodys basement. The most important factor is the amount of motivation people have to commit such acts.
The terrorists of September 11 have proven that fear of punishment will not stop terrorism in the same way it lessens street crime. What good does the threat of punishment do to men who expect to sacrifice their lives?
The threat of the death penalty was certainly no deterrent for the terrorists of September 11.
The bad news is that no matter how many billions of dollars the government spends or how many thousands of bombs it drops, it is impossible to completely protect ourselves terrorism. In fact, the more bomb-dropping and devastation we do, the more likely we will suffer a future terrorist response. That is because every bomb we drop spawns more hatred against us and more motivation to strike back at us.
Unfortunately, the carnage of September 11 will embolden those growing millions who do hate us, for they now know they can strike spectacularly at even the most sacrosanct symbols of America.
For many years I, along with Patrick Buchanan, Ramsey Clark, and a few other political untouchables, have tried to prevent this kind of tragedy. We have warned against recklessly involving America in the many wars and blood feuds around the world. We beseeched the American people to follow the advice of the father our country. In his farewell address, George Washington warned us against foreign entanglements.
We warned that if America sheds blood overseas, that eventually blood would be shed in our own country. I feel no satisfaction in saying that we were right. Being right is no solace for my anguish at this great loss of American life.
I will be brutally honest in this letter, and my frankness may offend some people, but this crisis demands only the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Nothing less than the whole truth can help us build a secure and prosperous future for our nation.
We Americans have every right to be bitterly angry against the terrorists. But we also must go one step beyond our anger, for when something goes terribly wrong in an individuals life or even in the life of a nation; it is time for introspection. We must courageously ask ourselves what we might have done that has made us vulnerable to such ferocious attacks. That kind of thinking sometimes takes courage.
The world moves by a simple principal: cause and effect. In this instance, les us examine the possible causes for the motivation of these men to strike at America?
Any nation that bombs another naturally creates millions of angry enemies against it. America has repeatedly done that in recent times. We have taken sides in foreign conflicts, offered military assistance and weapons, and even bombed other nations. Our actions have caused the loss of many thousands of lives, including the lives of thousands of civilians. Many of the nations we bombed had never harmed a single American or acted in any way against the interests the United States.
For instance, we now partially blame Afghanistan for what happened on September 11. Have we conveniently forgotten that we bombed Afghanistan (and killed many innocent civilians) three years ago when we tried to kill Osama Bin Laden. Afghanistan is led by the same people we previously helped against the Soviets. At that time, we actually supported the terroristic activities of Osama Bin Laden against the Soviets and their collaborators. When Bin Laden later turned against us, we attempted to kill him by bombing Afghanistan.
We have seen the intense reaction of Americans to the attack on the Trade Centers. What would be the reaction of Americans to any nation who fired Cruise missiles and dropped thousands of bombs on America? After Clintons bombing of Afghanistan, the Taliban promised revenge against America. September 11 may be that revenge.
Bush says we must strike down terrorists wherever they are in the whole world, but he has shared tea and crumpets with Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, one of the worlds leading most brutal and bloodthirsty terrorists. Sharon committed a number of crimes against humanity, among them the massacre of 2,000 men, women and children in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon. Mr. Bush did not strike Mr. Sharon, instead he toasted him.
America supplied weapons and bombs to Muslim separatist terrorists in Kosovo against the Yugoslav Christians, and then we bombed Yugoslavian cities full of civilians, when that country militarily attempted to suppress the revolt that we encouraged.
Please understand, I dont believe these American acts of war were the will of the American people. On the contrary, most Americans, at least up until September 11, have opposed almost every American involvement in foreign wars. For instance, a solid majority of Americans opposed the recent military intervention in Yugoslavia. But America is firmly in the grip of the New World Order crowd, and they use America to enforce their world hegemony.
I think most Americans would be appalled if they were fully aware of the suffering caused by American policy. For instance, most Americans no nothing about the effect of our embargo of food and medicine to Iraq. We caused the death of at least half a million children. Thats right; I repeat: we are directly responsible for the death of 500,000 kids. Some of you might not believe what I am telling you. Well, for those who dont believe it, here is an excerpt of an interview between Leslie Stahl of CBS and Madeline Albright when she was US Secretary of State. The segment was called PUNISHING Saddam and Stahl was asking if the death of 500,000 children was worth it to punish this one man.
Leslie Stahl, speaking of US sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And -- and you know, is the price worth it?"
Madeline Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it."
How would you view anyone who is willing to cause the death of 500,000 children to punish one man?
How can we not understand why so many people hate the United States when our own Secretary of State says murdering 500,000 children is quote, worth it?
Knowing who did the terrorism of September 11 is important, but why they did it is even more important to us.
Yet, strangely, there has been little discussion in the mass media on why the attack occurred. Politicians and media personalities have given us completely inadequate explanations why a couple of dozen young men would blow themselves up to get at us. In fact, they have told us absurd lies to keep Americans from understanding the real reason for the attacks.
We have been told that the attackers were simply crazy, cowardly men who committed a quote unprovoked attack. Media and government spokesmen repeatedly assured us that these attacks had nothing to do with Americas support of Israel. The official view, as expressed by the President to the U.S. Congress was that the terrorists attacked us because they hate our freedom! Here is an excerpt of his remarks before Congress
They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms
I am not trying to be disrespectful, but what he said is so ridiculous that even this intellectually-challenged President cannot really believe it. Does Bush really think that a bunch of young men would give up their families, their homes, and immolate themselves in a huge ball of fire simply because they hate our democracy! Right on Mr. President! Next week, will we will hear about Islamic kamikazes crashing planes into Iceland, the oldest enduring democracy on earth.
Mr. Bush is asking America to support a massive war over the next ten years. We are being asked to support a huge conflict whose huge costs could well bankrupt America and cause the loss of great numbers of American lives. Before we can make such a crucial decision, we deserve to have the whole truth concerning this cataclysmic event.
Of course, Mr. Bush did not tell us the truth; he simply repeated the Big Lie put out by the American mass media.
Saying that these acts were born out of hatred for freedom is a calculated lie to divert us from associating this disaster with our support for Israel.
You see, associating the attack with our Israeli policy would be bad public relations for Israel and the Jewish Lobby. The last thing they want is for the American people to realize that our unconditional support of Israel has directly led to this disaster.
If the American people clearly understand that fact, people might begin to ask a similar question to the one asked by Leslie Stahl, Is our support of Israel really worth it?
To keep people from asking that obvious question, the media made up the Big Lie that the men of October 11 were simply crazy, cowardly people who hated freedom and democracy!
Even the date the terrorists chose for this attack shows their true motivation.
The attack occurred on September 11. That is the anniversary of the League of Nations proclaiming in Palestine the British Mandate in 1922. The date represents the first physical step toward the implementation of the Balfour Declaration and the establishment of Israel.
Why has the mass media kept this important fact from the American people?
Frankly, this fact has been suppressed because the American media are thoroughly dominated by Jews. Many Americans suspect that Jews have disproportionate influence in the press, but their actual power is more than most people imagine. If you want documented proof of their enormous media power, just go to my webpage, www.davidduke.com and read the Who Runs the Media chapter from my book, My Awakening.
Just as Jewish Israel-Firsters dominate the mass media, so Congress and the President are afflicted by the Israeli Lobby. It should anger every American to think that the most powerful lobby in Congress is in the service of a foreign nation. Yet, the immense power of the Jewish Lobby is a proven fact, and nobody on capital hill will dare defy this all-powerful lobby. Even one of the most powerful U.S. Senators in American history, William Fulbright, bluntly said on CBSs Face the Nation, that, Israel controls the U.S. Senate.
Recently, a Hebrew Israeli radio station, Kol Yisrael, on October 3rd reported that during an argument in an Israeli cabinet meeting, Shimon Peres warned Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that unless he would heed American requests for a cease fire with the Palestinians, he could cause America to turn against Israel. In a fit of anger, Sharon responded to Peres:
"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."
The media bosses and the Israeli bought politicians know the real reasons behind this terrorism. They have read the interviews of Osama Bin Laden. He and almost every other Islamic opponent of America has put support for Israel at the top of their top ten reasons for hating America. Laden and countless millions in the Muslim world blame the attacks on Lebanon, on Iraq, on Libya, on Iran, on Afghanistan and on Sudan as a direct result of Israels control over America.
They point out that the many Israeli massacres of Palestinians, the ongoing torture of thousands of prisoners, the use of assassination of political enemies, the bombing of refugee camps, and the expansive wars launched by Israeli against their Arab neighbors; that all these Israeli crimes are completely dependent on unconditional American aid. They also see the deaths of the 500,000 Iraqi children, as admitted by our former Jewish Secretary of State, as a direct result of Jewish control over America.
The American people who are under the bombardment of a biased multimedia, might not realize the Jewish control of American foreign policy, but the Palestinians and their allies such as Bin Laden, they all understand it, and they hate us for it.
In fact, the same mass media that are giving out the Big Lie that the terrorist motivation is hate for freedom, are clearly aware of Ladens real motivations.
I can easily prove the true motivation of Bin Laden and I can prove the media has known the truth all along. In May of 1998 Bin Laden was interviewed by reporter John Miller of ABC. Bin Laden talks about why he seeks to attack America. You can find it on the ABC and the PBS websites. Here are excerpts of Bin Ladens own words.
For over half a century, Muslims in Palestine have been slaughtered and assaulted and robbed of their honor and of their property. Their houses have been blasted, their crops destroyed
This is my message to the American people: to look for a serious government that looks out for their interests and does not attack other peoples lands, or other peoples honor. And my word to American journalists is not to ask why we did that but ask what their government has done that forced us to defend ourselves "
"So we tell the Americans as people, and we tell the mothers of soldiers and American mothers in general that if they value their lives and the lives of their children, to find a patriotic government that will look after their interests and not the interests of the Jews
I say to them that they have put themselves at the mercy of a disloyal government, and this is most evident in Clinton's administration We believe that this administration represents Israel inside America. Take the sensitive ministries such as the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense and the CIA, you will find that the Jews have the upper hand in them. They make use of America to further their plans for the world
In the interview, Laden never said one word about opposing democratic principles, nor has he ever done so in his lifetime. So, now we know Ladens true motivation. He attacked us not because he hates democracy, but because he thinks Israel controls and uses America to attack his people.
If Laden turns out to be the one behind the terrorism, there is no defense of what he did. As far as I am concerned, he deserves to be blown to hell for killing so many Americans.
But why must the media and government create this huge, absurd lie about why we were attacked on September 11.
This Big Lie is, of course, meant to hide an obvious truth. Its purpose is to keep Americans from associating this attack with our Israeli policy.
If that happens people might begin to wonder if it is in our true interest to having given Israel countless billions of our dollars.
They might begin to wonder if it is good for America to serve as the Israelis shock troops and techno killers in attacks on Israels enemies such as Iraq.
So, the unvarnished truth is that we suffered the terror of September 11 because of our support of the criminal policies of Israel. We have let our country be controlled by a foreign lobby that has worked against the best interests of the American people.
Israel has time and again proven it is not really our friend. It has conducted covert terrorist activities against America such as the Lavon affair in Egypt. It has deliberately attacked the USS Liberty with unmarked fighters and torpedo boats causing 174 American casualties in an attempt to blame Egypt and garner American support during the war of 1967. It has spied on us and stolen our greatest secrets, such as in the Jonathan Pollard affair. It has sold secret American technologies to the Communist Chinese. It has stolen nucleur materials from the United States. It has tricked America into bombing other nations such as in the attack on Libya in 1986. I could go on and on about Israels treachery against the America.
And now, under guidance of the Israel Lobby and the Jewish controlled media, the Zionists are preparing America to strike a massive blow against all of Israels mortal enemies in a global war. They are already talking about not only bombing, but invading and occupying whole nations such as Libya, Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Such would spawn a huge wave of hatred and retribution against America from all over the planet. The costs of such a war would cost the American people untold billions of dollars and could well cause the deaths of thousands of Americans. Finally, such a war would not end terrorism, but only spawn more acts of terror against us.
The first great cost of this new war is already being implemented: an outright attack on our American constitutional rights.
The Big Lie is that the terrorists attacked freedom. The truth is simply that they committed the terrible deed of blowing up the Trade Center as well as part of the Pentagon and taking 7,000 American lives. That action took away lives and property, but it did not take away our freedoms. Only our own leaders can do that.
Americas media and government leaders now tell us that we must fight to defend freedom. But, pray tell, how do they plan to fight for freedom? In the ultimate oxymoron, they plan to do it by taking freedoms away from the American people.
We are told not to worry, though, it will only be temporary. Yet, has any government, once it has taken away the rights of the people, ever voluntarily given them back? Once a government takes away individual rights, expecting it to give them back is the same thing as expecting a dog to meow.
My fellow Americans, please open your eyes! Bushs first action after September 11 was to fund the creation of the biggest Secret Police apparatus in the history of the world. If you ever wondered what a police state looks like, you had better look quickly, for its coming straight at you like a runaway locomotive.
When the billions of appropriated monies work its way, the size of our secret police will make the former soviet KGB look like a kite next to a Jumbo Jet. Americans will have about as much privacy as one would have in a glass outhouse.
And how about the war against terrorism, after we spend countless billions, and spend unknown numbers of American and foreign lives, what are chances that terrorism will be lessened?
The Jewish media are already whipping up as much hatred as it can. News programs no longer report the many newsworthy things that happen in America and abroad, they are one long commercial for a massive, drawn out, bloody war.
This propagandizing has already had an effect. When CBS and CNN polled the American people and asked them if we should attack the suspected enemies of America even if it will, quote: cost the lives of thousands of innocent people. Almost 70 percent said yes.
It hurts my heart to think that a vast majority of the American people now take exactly the same view toward innocent human life as did the terrorists of September 11.
How do you think the rest of the world views America when they hear the results of those polls?
So far, I have heard no one, not even one of the great moral media pontificators, the President of the United States, our church leaders, or anyone else of prominence -- courageous enough to point out this blatant moral hypocrisy.
So, we are now going to fight terrorism in a global war. And what happens when America goes out and bombs the hell out of countries and indiscriminately kills thousands of innocent people? Will we really end the threat of terrorism? America has done the same thing before. Lets take a look at how it has protected us from terrorism.
In 1986, the Israelis gave America false evidence against Libya and induced us to bomb the hell out of the country. We bombed a nation to fight terrorism for a crime it did not even commit. A year later, a couple of members of a radical group in Libya were alleged to have bombed Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, causing one of the worst air disasters of all time, killing 270.
We exact our revenge with B-1 bombers; they do it through suicide bombers.
There is no way to completely protect ourselves from those kinds of acts. Even one fanatic person, if he is willing to commit suicide, can easily, with a small amount (non-detectible) plastic explosives, crash a plane with 400 people on it. We live in an era in which deadly biological agents of mass destruction can be made in anyones basement.
America must take heed; the next terroristic act can be committed by just one person and kill hundreds of thousands of people. The exercise of brute military force can no longer protect any nation.
Let me repeat, we send our B1 bombers and they send their suicide bombers. And now, unless cooler head prevail, we are ready to embark on another war on terrorism that may kill thousands of innocent people and escalate the cycle of violence.
The world changed forever on September 11.
If anything, it proved that a handful of men, with little money and no weapons save some box openers, could wreck major destruction and havoc on the most powerful nation on earth. It showed how every nation is vulnerable to terrorism, even ours.
How then do we then protect ourselves from terror in the future?
Unless we remedy the underlying motivation of the terrorism and give America a better course, every new missile and bomb we send will come back to us again. Every drop of blood we spill in foreign lands will result in more American blood lost here and abroad. America will sink more and more into uncertainty and fear.
After the events of September 11, a father who lost his daughter in the Lockerbie plane crash, John Mosey, wrote to British Prime Minister Tony Blair. He pointed out that the 270 who died in the 1988 bombing were killed in reprisal for aggressive US policies in the Arab world. He went on to caution, "The utmost care must be taken that whatever path is eventually pursued is successful and does not harm innocent people, thus producing another batch of terrorists."[i]
We must have cool heads now and break this cycle of violence.
Let us pray for the American victims of these events and for their suffering families. Let us go after the perpetrators of these dastardly acts with absolute precision.
But, even more importantly, let us understand why these events occurred and how we can heal the hatred against our nation.
Many traitors in our government have supported Zionisms criminal activities rather than the true interests of the American people. They have spawned the hatred against America that drove on these terrible acts. They are as much responsible for the carnage of September 11 as if they themselves piloted these planes that were turned into bombs.
This event happened because the American government and media are ruled by those who put Israels interests over Americas. Unless that foreign power over us is broken, Americans will be haunted by an increasing specter of terrorism.
Perhaps one positive thing that came out of the sad events of September 11 is the increased patriotism in America. That is good, for if Americans had been more patriotic in the past few years, and not allowed a foreign power to control us, we would not be facing such an uncertain future.
By understanding the reason why we now face the specter of terrorism, we can develop a plan to prevent such terroristic acts in the future. Here are five steps America must take to end the immediate and long term threat of terrorism.
First, we must recognize that the Americas Israel-first foreign policy has been morally wrong as well as immensely damaging to the United States of America. It has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars in direct aid over the years and it has cost trillions of dollars in economic damage such as incurred by higher petroleum costs. A direct consequence of Americas Israel-first policy is the terror we faced on September 11 and the likelihood of increasing terror against the American people.
Second, we must first seek diplomatic and economic pressures to extradite and legally try and execute those responsible for terror upon Americans. If that fails, we should use surgical operations to apprehend and punish those responsible for terrorism. But, we must not let the Jewish Lobby maneuver us into a wider war and an increasing cycle of violence that would cost billions of American dollars and untold numbers of innocent lives. Such an action can only result in increased terrorism in America.
Third, we must absolutely protect the Constitutional Rights of the American people. Erosion of Constitutional rights exposes us to greater danger than any individual acts of terrorism. Taking away Constitutional rights in the fight against terrorism is like burning your coat to protect yourself against the cold. Benjamin Franklin said it right. People who give up freedom for security achieve neither.
Fourth, we must never allow any foreign power to have any monetary or other influence on internal American politics. All political lobbies on behalf of foreign nations must be absolutely prohibited.
Fifth, we must break the Jewish power over the American mass media. Americans must be entitled to an honest and unbiased media that serves only the true interests of the American people and not the agenda of a Jewish-Supremacist minority.
The solution to ending this current threat of terrorism is very obvious; it is as clear as the true reasons for the terrorist attacks.
America must heed the farewell address of the Father of our Country and avoid foreign entanglements.
We would not now be in this mess if the American government would have always put the interests of America first. The only way to work America out of the present danger is to rigidly apply this principle.
The hour is late, but it is not too late to save our country.
We must now embark on the only sure path to Americas security and freedom. Let us always put the interests of America First.
May God Bless America!
Now is the time to make use of the great power of the internet to inform, to get the truth out, change opinions and change the world!
There is no more important moment in history to do this, than right now!
I do want to hear from you soon. Contact me at my website: www.davidduke.com
At this time of great peril, your
immediate action is absolutely vital! -- D Duke
THE American and British attack on Iraq has already begun. While the Blair government continues to claim in Parliament that "no final decision has been taken", Royal Air Force and US fighter bombers have secretly changed tactics and escalated their "patrols" over Iraq to an all-out assault on both military and civilian targets.
American and British bombing of Iraq has increased by 300 per cent. Between March and November, according to Ministry of Defence replies to MPs, the RAF dropped more than 124 tonnes of bombs.
From August to December, there were 62 attacks by American F-16 aircraft and RAF Tornadoes - an average of one bombing raid every two days. These are said to have been aimed at Iraqi "air defences", but many have fallen on mostly populated areas, where civilian deaths are unavoidable.
Under the United Nations Charter and the conventions of war and international law, the attacks amount to acts of piracy: no different, in principle, from the German Luftwaffe's bombing in Spain in the 1930s as precursor to its invasion of Europe.
The bombing is a "secret war" that has seldom been news. Since 1991, and especially in the last four years, it has been unrelenting and is now deemed the longest Anglo-American campaign of aerial bombardment since World War Two.
The US and British governments justify it by claiming they have a UN mandate to police so-called "no-fly zones" which they declared following the Gulf War. They say these "zones", which give them control of most of Iraq's airspace, are legal and supported by UN Security Council Resolution 688.
This is false. There are no references to no fly zones in any Security Council resolution. To be sure about this, I asked Dr Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who was Secretary General of the United Nations in 1992 when Resolution 688 was passed. "The issue of no fly zones was not raised and therefore not debated: not a word," he said. "They offer no legitimacy to countries sending their aircraft to attack Iraq."
In 1999, Tony Blair claimed the no fly zones allowed the US and Britain to perform "a vital humanitarian task" in protecting the Kurds in the north of Iraq and the ethnic Marsh Arabs in the south. In fact, British and American aircraft have actually provided cover for neighbouring Turkey's repeated invasions of northern, Kurdish Iraq.
TURKEY is critical to the American "world order". Overseeing the oilfields of the Middle East and Central Asia, it is a member of Nato and the recipient of billion of dollars' worth of American weapons and military equipment. It is also where British and American bombers are based.
A long-running insurrection by Turkey's Kurdish population is regarded by Washington as a threat to the "stability" of Turkey's "democracy" that is a front for its military which is among the world's worst violators of human rights. Hundreds of thousands of Turkish Kurds have been displaced and an estimated 30,000 killed. Turkey, unlike Iraq, is "our friend".
In 1995 and 1997, as many as 50,000 Turkish troops, backed by tanks and fighter aircraft, occupied what the West called "Kurdish safe havens". They terrorised Kurdish villages and murdered civilians. In December 2000, they were back, committing the atrocities that the Turkish military commits with immunity against its own Kurdish population.
For joining the US "coalition" against Iraq, the Turkish regime is to be rewarded with a bribe worth $6billion. Turkey's invasions are rarely reported in Britain. So great is the collusion of the Blair government that, virtually unknown to Parliament and the British public, the RAF and the Americans have, from time to time, deliberately suspended their "humanitarian" patrols to allow the Turks to get on with killing Kurds in Iraq.
In March last year, RAF pilots patrolling the "no fly zone" in Kurdish Iraq publicly protested for the first time about their enforced complicity in the Turkish campaign. The pilots complained that they were frequently ordered to return to their base in Turkey to allow the Turkish air force to bomb the very people they were meant to be "protecting".
Speaking on a non-attributable basis to Dr Eric Herring, a senior lecturer in politics at Bristol University and a specialist on Iraqi sanctions, the pilots said whenever the Turks wanted to attack the Kurds in Iraq, RAF patrols were recalled to base and ground crews were told to switch off their radar - so that the Turks' targets would not be visible. One British pilot reported seeing the devastation in Kurdish villages caused by the attacks once he had resumed his patrol.
AMERICAN pilots who fly in tandem with the British, are also ordered to turn their planes around and turn back to Turkey to allow the Turks to devastate the Kurdish "safe havens".
You'd see Turkish F-14s and F-16s inbound, loaded to the gills with munitions," one pilot told the Washington Post. "Then they'd come out half an hour later with their munitions expended." When the Americans returned to Iraqi air space, he said, they would see "burning villages, lots of smoke and fire."
The Turks do no more than American and British aircraft in their humanitarian guise. The sheer scale of the Anglo-American bombing is astonishing, with Britain a very junior partner. During the 18 months to January 1999 (the last time I was able to confirm official US figures) American aircraft flew 36,000 sorties over Iraq, including 24,000 combat missions.
The term "combat" is highly deceptive. Iraq has virtually no air force and no modern air defences. Thus, "combat" means dropping bombs or firing missiles at infrastructure that has been laid to waste by a 12-year-old embargo.
The Wall Street Journal, the authentic voice of the American establishment, described this eloquently when it reported that the US faced "a genuine dilemma" in Iraq. After eight years of enforcing a no fly zone in northern (and southern) Iraq, few targets remain. "We're down to the last outhouse," one US official protested.
I have seen the result of these attacks. When I drove from the northern city of Mosul three years ago, I saw the remains of an agricultural water tanker and truck, riddled with bullet holes, shrapnel from a missile, a shoe and the wool and skeletons of about 150 sheep.
A family of six, a shepherd, his father and his wife and four children, were blown to pieces here. It was treeless, open country: a moonscape. The shepherd, his family and his sheep would have been clearly visible from the air.
The shepherd's brother, Hussain Jarsis, agreed to meet me at the cemetery where the family is buried. He arrived in an old Toyota van with the widow, who was hunched with grief, her face covered. She held the hand of her one remaining child, and they sat beside the mounds of earth that are the four children's graves. "I want to see the pilot who killed my children," she shouted across to us.
The shepherd's brother told me, "I heard explosions, and when I arrived to look for my brother and family, the planes were circling overhead. I hadn't reached the causeway when the fourth bombardment took place. The last two rockets hit them.
"At the time I couldn't grasp what was going on. The truck was burning. It was a big truck, but it was ripped to pieces. Nothing remained except the tyres and the numberplate.
"We saw three corpses, but the rest were just body parts. With the last rocket, I could see the sheep blasted into the air."
It was not known if American or British aircraft had done this. When details of the attack were put to the Ministry of Defence in London, an official said, "We reserve the right to take robust action when threatened." This attack was significant, because it was investigated and verified by the senior United Nations official in Iraq at the time, Hans Von Sponeck, who drove there specially from Baghdad.
He confirmed that nothing nearby resembled a military installation.
Von Sponeck recorded his finding in a confidential internal document entitled, "Air Strikes in Iraq", prepared by the UN Security Section (UNOHCI).
HE also confirmed dozens of similar attacks and these are documented - attacks on villages, a fishermen's wharf, nearby a UN food warehouse. So regular were the attacks that Von Sponeck ordered UN relief convoys suspended every afternoon.
FOR this, Von Sponeck, a senior United Nations civil servant with a distinguished career all over the world, made powerful enemies in Washington and London.
The Americans demanded that Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General, sack him and were surprised when Annan stood by his chief representative in Iraq.
However, within a few months, Von Sponeck felt he could no longer run a humanitarian programme in Iraq that was threatened both by the illegal bombing and by a deliberate American policy of blocking humanitarian supplies.
He resigned in protest, just as his predecessor, Denis Halliday, a Deputy Under Secretary of the UN, had done. Halliday called the US and British-driven embargo "genocidal".
It is now clear from official documents that the United States is preparing for a possible slaughter in Iraq. The Pentagon's "Doctrine for Joint Urban Operations" says that unless Baghdad falls quickly it has to be the target of "overwhelming firepower". The resistance of Stalingrad in World War Two is given as a "lesson".
Cluster bombs, deep penetration "bunker" bombs and depleted uranium will almost certainly be used. Depleted uranium is a weapon of mass destruction. Coated on missiles, and tank shells, its explosive force spreads radiation over a wide area, especially in the desert dust.
Professor Doug Rokke, the US army physicist in charge of cleaning up depleted uranium in Kuwait told me, "I am like most -people in southern Iraq. I have 5,000 times the recommended level of radiation in my body. What we're seeing now, respiratory problems, kidney problems, cancers are the direct result.
"The controversy over whether or not it's the cause of these problems is a manufactured one. My own ill-health is a testament to that."
THE most devastating weapon of mass destruction was briefly in the news last week when Unicef, the United Nations children's Fund, released its annual State of the World's Children report.
The human cost of the American-driven embargo of Iraq is spelt out in statistics that require no comment.
"Iraq's child mortality rate has nearly tripled since 1990 to levels found in some of the world's least-developed countries, " said the report.
"The country's regression over the past decade is by far the most severe of the 193 countries surveyed. Unicef said that a quarter of Iraqi babies were now underweight and that more than a fifth were stunted from malnutrition."
Under the rules of the embargo, Iraqis are allowed less than £100 per person with which to sustain life for an entire year.
To date, the cost of the current, "secret"
and illegal British bombing of Iraq is a billion
BNP Website, 28 December 2002
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has sparked controversy today (27th) by telling Europe that Britain is taking more than its fair share of refugees and asylum seekers. This is something that the BNP has been reporting for years and backs up our position on the asylum issue.
Ruud Lubbers told the BBC that Europe should "share the burden". While this is a welcome suggestion to ease the colossal economic and social burden on British taxpayers the suggestion itself will do little to ease the overall crisis. Britons living as far apart as Kent and Glasgow are seeing their localities change rapidly due to large numbers of migrants pouring into those areas. Equally the Dutch, Danes and French who voted in large numbers for parties standing on a anti-immigration platform will be less than pleased at the prospect of taking more migrants. The answer must initially be a "Fortress Europe" strategy, stopping all migration from every source outside Europe coupled with a comprehensive examination of the global issues that cause such large scale economic migration. One of the most obvious and pressing issues to be addressed is the forthcoming war between the US and Iraq. This will undoubtedly lead to a major refugee crisis, just as the US destruction of Afghanistan led to hundreds of thousands of Afghans flooding into neighbouring countries and on to Europe. The UN are predicting nearly a million Iraqi refugees will start fleeing the country when Washington attacks Baghdad.
Quite simply Britain does not need any more economic migrants, it cannot afford those that are here, mainly of them illegally and it cannot fund or tolerate an influx of even more asylum seekers.
Home Office figures show that there were 92,000 applications for asylum in 2001. The Government admit that there are many thousands who fall outside the system and have simply been "lost". The real figure may be in excess of 100,000 for the year. The current year, 2002 is likely to see a sharp increase on this number.
£1Billion bill picked up by taxpayers
Despite widespread opposition by British taxpayers who have to cough up for the cost reported to be in excess of £1 Billion to house, feed and clothe the 92,000 (known) migrants and despite today's claim by the UNHCR, there are some who suggest that Britain isn't doing enough. Acting out of muddle headedness, political mischief or just sheer stupidity some individuals want the UK to take in more migrants and expect British taxpayers to fund this!
Keith Best is head of the Immigration Advisory Service, a "charity" which also receives Home Office (taxpayers) funding yet continually attacks the British way of life by assisting "refugees" in the legal process of seeking domicile in the UK. This former Tory MP wants an even more liberal immigration policy. He suggested today that if the UK couldn't handle 100,000 migrants each year then we are "pretty pathetic". A term we could equally apply to Mr. Best's suggestion. When the failed economic policies of Blair & Co. force the Government to increase borrowing by £20Billion over the next 2 years, when we have trouble funding a national health service, when we cannot afford to fund students through tertiary education and when we cannot afford a decent environmentally friendly and integrated transportation system we simply cannot afford a single penny to be squandered on looking after migrants who have never contributed a penny to our national Treasury. "Charity begins at home" and Mr. Best should be strongly reminded of this.
Spearhead, December 2002
Hoist on their own petard
The Blair Government seemed to be at pains last month to warn the British public to be prepared for terrorist attacks. This warning was given some semblance of credence by the arrest of six North Africans in connection with an alleged plot to release poison gas in the London Underground network during the rush hour, and the Home Office sounded an alert over the poison gas threat shortly afterwards. Later, this announcement of a possible poison gas attack was withdrawn - which all seemed rather strange.
Of the six men arrested, three were charged under the Prevention of Terrorism Act with possession of articles for terrorist purposes. All three were reported to be unemployed and were picked up as a result of police raids on various addresses in North London known to be used as drop-ins by Algerian, Moroccan and Tunisian immigrants. Some press reports hinted that the prosecutions of the three could fail, which prompts the thought that the evidence of their alleged intentions could not be very firm. Again, all rather strange.
It is early to jump to conclusions about all this, but because we have a prime minister and a government who simply cannot be trusted to tell the truth we should be very much on our guard - and not just against terrorists. Are Tony & Co. uneasy about the British public's enthusiasm (or lack of it) for the pending war against Iraq? Have they been seized by the itch to say something or do something which they hope will generate the desired war hysteria? With these people, anything is possible. Of course, such terrorist threats as they are now highlighting would most probably come from Al-Qaida, whereas the war they are trying to whip everyone up to support would be against Saddam Hussein. Maybe, though, our lords and masters have so low an estimate of the public's intelligence that they think the difference will not be noticed. The important thing, from their point of view, would be to stoke up a state of anti-terrorist fever in the country calculated to reduce the people to a state of such alarm and paranoia that they will back just about anything the Government proposes - including, of course, an attack on Iraq. After all, it's all about Muslims and the Middle East, innit?
Thinking Britons, however, will notice two things that Blair and his cohorts would prefer they ignore. They involve the 'Why' and the 'How' - or what in crime-detection circles are classified as Motive and Opportunity.
Just why would Islamic militants put themselves at risk in bringing terror to Britain? The very simple answer is that Britain is supporting President Bush's drive for war against Iraq and his total, unreserved and uncritical backing for Israel. In that respect, this country differs from its European neighbours like France and Germany, who are not quite so ready to act as America's lackeys and go for ever where it leads. Consequence: Britain could be threatened by terror while they are not.
And what of the 'How' - the opportunity? Simple again! The United Kingdom is just teeming with Muslims from every part of the world and of every type. Officially, there are known to be a million here; in reality there are probably many more. They provide a huge pool of potential terrorists and, what with their numbers on the streets and everywhere else, the terrorists among them are all the harder to detect. In the days when this country was blessed with some degree of national sanity and our population was overwhelmingly white, the sight of men of Middle Eastern or Asian appearance in the vicinity of an airport, a railway or tube station or some other large and busy public place would, in the present situation, immediately attract suspicion and thus make apprehension and prevention comparatively easy. Now such people could be up to anything, legal or illegal. They could be shop retailers going to see their suppliers. They could be asylum-seekers on their way to the nearest social security office. They could be folk proceeding to work for some business or organisation run by one of the growing legions of 'equal-opportunity' employers. They're bloody everywhere! Who is to know who among them is a terrorist?
For both these things - motive and opportunity, the 'Why' and the 'How' - we have to thank the present Government and its predecessors, who have been responsible for the policies that have made us an enemy of the billion-plus people of the Islamic world and who have enabled a portion of that billion plus to encamp here and multiply.
Remember this when Tony next starts sounding the alarm about Islamic terror!
is a few selected articles that will reach your e-mail box weekly. Our aim is
not to bombard you with email messages, but to keep you better informed about
what takes place in Palestine.