Israel is pushing Jewish Al Saud against Iran in 2010
ANOTHER MAJOR SIGN OF THE END OF ISRAEL, FAMILY RULERS IN THE KHALEEJ KILLING EACH OTHER TO STAY IN POWER. IS 2010 A TURNING POINT AGAINST ISRAEL IN THE MIDDLE EAST ? THE FALL OF MUBARAK AND THE SEFARAD SAUDIS WILL BREAK ISRAEL INTO SHRED PIECES....
Zionist Rulers of Arabia
Brief synopsis about the leading Saudi figures
King Abdel Aziz:
also known as Ibn Saud. King Abdul Aziz is the father of King Fahd and 44 other sons. Abdul Aziz united Saudi Arabia with the sword. A savage bedouin whose self gratification, war after war, was to taste the blood of those he killed. During the early twentieth century, he offered his services to the Ottoman empire and was rejected by the Turks as unreliable and uncivilized. The British, during the same period, were looking to increase their sphere of influence in Arabia, and saw in Ibn Saud the unruly, savage warrior they were looking for to control Arabia for them. They financed him and protected him to deliver Arabia to them. Among the many of the ruling families during that period : The Hashemites (King Hussein of Jordan), the Rasheeds (trading respected family from Saudi Arabia) and the Idrisses were all unwilling to deal with the British empire after World War I on the British terms. The British found in Abdul Aziz a willing bandit they could rely on to conquer and preserve their interests. Since Abdul Aziz was a Wahhabi, he encouraged Fundamentalism to create fear in the various tribes he was trying to unite. Little did he and King Fahd after him know that fundamentalism has grown to become more than a politically oriented idealogy but a way of life.
King Fahd bin Abdel Aziz:
The corrupt members of Al-Saud Family are many. It is not easy to assemble facts on all of them with total accuracy, however, the most corrupt of them all and master of all masters is none other than the King himself. King Fahd bin Abdul Aziz. Absolute power over Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the Saudi government. He is the judge, jury, prosecutor, defense attorney, and executioner. Having total power, he has, with other members of his family, emptied the coffers of the government. Today, Saudi Arabia is bankrupt and has a very grim economic future because of his policies and lack of vision.
More about this king and his dark history of corruption and waste in future articles to come...
Prince Sultan bin Abdel Aziz:
Third in command of the country but no less corrupt than King Fahd is Sultan bin Abdul Aziz who has four titles all with the intent to retain power and to rob the country. He is the Deputy Crown Prince, Minister of Defense, Chairman of Saudia Airlines, and the Inspector General of the country of Saudi Arabia. Imagine being the fox watching over the chicken hen !! Minister of Defense and Inspector General. This is like having the head of the largest chemical company head also the Environmental Protection Agency. What a joke. Sultan is known for his sexual deviation including penophily. He maintains several bordellos for his own pleasures in Saudi Arabia and abroad.
Prince Muhammed bin Fahd:
Eldest son of King Fahd, Mohammad bin Fahd was exposed to corruption early on. With the blessings of his father, Mohammad has stolen government funds through large telecommunications projects. Telephone deals, cellular deals, equipment, etc... His wealth is valued at close to $5 billion mostly amassed during the heydays of the late seventies and early eighties. His father assigned a government post after he pilfered through business deals. Today, he is the governor of the Eastern Province in Saudi Arabia where 25% of the oil world reserves lie. His father wants him to become the Crown Prince and Bandar bin Sultan the new Defense Minister.
Prince Faisal bin Fahd:
If a classroom had to write a thesis on al-Saud Family, Faisal bin Fahd would win the award for the imbecile of the family. Stupidly stubborn and unmistakably foolish, Faisal has spent his life in pursuit of two things : drugs and women. He gets his drugs from Lebanon through his business associates and his women from Europe following the same trail of contacts. This is a man who has never done anything right, good, or useful in his life. His father, King Fahd, appointed him as the head of all youth sports programs. One must be sick to appoint a well known drug addict to be head of all youth programs. This is like hiring a child molester as your Kindergarten teacher.
Prince Abdel Aziz bin Fahd:
The youngest son of King Fahd, Abdul Aziz is a 24 year old child who is the most protected child on earth. Born to an astute mother, King Fahd was duped into believing that if he took his son everywhere, he will never be assassinated (like King Faisal). So Abdul Aziz was born with a golden spoon in his mouth. This is a kid who is so spoiled and so protected that he has never known pain, physical, moral or emotional. People that are close to him say that he is unremarkable and vain. When his father had a heart attack in November of 1995, he bequested him $10 billion of his personal fortune. The money was transferred to Abdul Aziz accounts at Credit Suisse and Union de Banques Suisses in Geneva and Zurich with the help of Khaled al-Ibrahim, his uncle.
Prince Bandar bin Sultan:
The most ignorant and dangerous of the newcomers to the scene of politics. Bandar is the unofficial son of Sultan (See the full story below). For those who do not know him, Bandar is a murderer (he financed and approved the planting of a bomb in Beirut that killed 80 innocent women and children), a liar (Washington and his fellow Ambassadors know him well), a thief (ask Mrrs. Saeed Karma and Wafic Saeed in London), and a back stabber all in one. He also happens to be the Ambassador of Saudi Arabia to the United States since 1984, a side job considering that he spends his time plotting and stealing. His friends are few and his enemies are many. His dream is to return to power in Saudi Arabia jumping over Princes Naef and Salman. His uncle King Fahd is helping him achieve that goal. Once King Fahd dies, Bandar will lose all his powers. Bandar despises anyone who has more money than he does or is more respected than he is, mainly Prince Saud bin Faisal, Minister of Foreign Affairs who is highly respected, Prince Mohammad bin Fahd who is richer than he is, and lately Prince Walid bin Talal, the businessman wiz who has, unlike any of the al-Saud House members, made money rather than steal it.
Prince Khalid bin Sultan:
If one had to describe this big ugly huggable bear, the best description will have to be the quote provided anonymousely by General Schwarzkopf staff during the Gulf war : "When it comes to military knowhow, he gets a C minus.When it comes to bravery, he gets a D. When it comes to intelligence, he gets a D minus. Other than that, he is OK". This is the man who provided water and food to the Desert Storm troops through a contractual agreement with the government of Saudi Arabia. This contract alone made him $2 billion in commissions. After the war, he claimed that he was behind the victory of Desert Storm. Needless to say that he has been exiled to London where he has written a self-promoting book that exuded his intelligence and understanding of military operations. Even Prince Sultan wishes he never had that son. Today, he spends his time trying to impress Europeans and Americans alike through social activities. He is totally ignored except for those who benefit directly and indirectly from the crums of his money.
Prince Naef bin Abdel Aziz:
Minister of Interior and head of internal security, he is known for his cowardice. During the Mecca uprising by Jumaiha al-Otaibi, Naef fleed the Ministry to hide underground. It took a long time for him to recover. Naef oversees a large budget of which 40% a year goes to pay for bribes, kickbacks, and fixed contracts for himself and his sons. His weakness helped extremist elements in Saudi Arabia plant a bomb in Riyadh that killed five Americans. He spends most of his time overlooking a bloated bureaucracy that blocks his vision when it comes to the security of the country. His incompetency is never questioned as he is another Sudeiri. His younger brother Salman has made it clear that he will jump Naef to the throne when the right time comes.
Prince Saud bin Naef:
is the son of the Interior Minister. Here we have the typical son of a Sudeiri who steels from the government and then looses it all through rsiky businesses and pure stupidty. In fact, he is so financially overstretched that he is unable to maintain payments and obligations which means very little for him since he does not admit any obligations or knowledge of debts. A typical true business deal for Saud bin Naef is when he invested millions to build car inspection stations all over Saudi Arabia. After he built them, he went to his father seeking a royal decree that all 5 million plus cars in Saudi Arabia must be inspected annually by a certified inspection station. And the company that got immediate certification is none other than the one he put together prior to the decree. Saud bin Naef is a small government within a government charging people hundreds of Riyals a year to have their car inspected and then loosing it all somewhere else. How did the government of Saudi Arabia go bankrupt ?
Prince Salman bin Abdel Aziz:
As Governor of Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia, Salman bin Abdul Aziz wears many hats. He is the strongman of Saudi Arabia and heading fast to the throne. In the last year, Salman has met with major Jewish organizations in the US to dispel the rumors that he is anti-semitic and supports Israel in its push for peace. His message was met with skeptisism according to people who have arranged the meetings to take place. Salman is as corrupt as any of his brothers and has amassed his fortunes by appropriating vast lands from the government and then selling it back to the government for whatever he needed to cover the expensive lifestyle he maintains. Salman has been instrumental in advising Fahd on procedural issues regarding the future of the seven brothers in light of Prince Abdullah taking over the throne upon the imminent death of King Fahd. But lately, King Fahd has been ignoring him totally by advancing his son Mohammad and Bandar bin Sultan to the throne.
Mohammad bin Fahd Bin Abdel Aziz
Fifty-year-old Prince Mohammad is the second son of King Fahd. He is the governor of the oil-rich eastern province, the most visible of his brothers and a secret pretender to the Saudi throne. Simultaneously, he has been involved in more shady business pay-offs at home, moral and business scandals abroad and political negligence than the younger princes of his generation.
Mohammad's qualifications are vague; a high school degree from California. His ascendancy over his older brother Faisal owes more to the latter's lack of character than to Mohammad's talents. Faisal has been disqualified from fatherly attention for indulging in drink and drugs and the writer Peler Theroux (Sandstorm) has accused him to murdering his male lover. Mohammad stepped into the number one spot by default. Pay-offs at home take place through Mohammad's Al Bilad and United Arab Helicopter companies, but Mohammad's business interests were never limited to them. In fact, as we will see, companies were created to deal with huge individual contracts and dissolved after the illegal deal was concluded.
The biggest scandal conducted under the cover of a company of convenience was exposed by the Guardian and Wall Street Journal newspapers in November 1980. A Japanese company called Petrmonde was buying 140.000 barrels of oil a day from ARAMCO at $32 a berrel. However, close examination revealed the following: the company was paying $34.63 a barrel and the differential amounted to $368.000 a day ($135 million a year), the company was not Japanese but London-based and headquartered at the Al Bilad offices and the difference in price was pocketed by Mohammad. Occurring as it did during the Iran-Iraq War, a period of tight oil supplies, the deal infuriated the American oil companies which put pressure on ARAMCO and brought the arrangement to an end. But Mohammad walked away wealthier and though Petromonde disappeared.
A second deal involving Mohammad and Saudi Telecom was an open contract but no less horrific in its scale of corruption. In 1979 international firms were invited to undertake the tripling of the number of Saudi telephone lines from 200.000 to 600.000. The project was so huge, some of the companies transported their offers in pick up trucks, and the value was estimated at somewhere between 6 and 10 billion dollars. The contract was won by a consortium of Philips of Holland, Bell of Canada and Sweden's Erikson and the agent was the Mohammad-owned and operated Al Bilad company. Other contenders for the contract, ITT, Western Electric, Thompson of France and Hitachi, smelt a rat and demanded an investigation. They claimed that their offers were lower and better than those of the winning consortium and tried to reach Mohammad to lodge a protest, but he was not available.
Nor were King Khalid and crown Prince Fahd available to receive American Ambassador William Porter who too tried to protest on behalf of his county's multinationals. Eventually the noise died down, estimates of the Mohammad-Al Bilad commission run as high as 20 per cent or $1.3 billion of the $6.7 billion winning tender. To this day, the maintenance contract for this project, because other contractors have disqualified themselves knowing that they can't win, is with Mohammad and its carries a hefty commission much greater than is acceptable in normal circumstances.
Mohammad's colossal home contracts didn't stop him from misbehaving abroad. Among others, he had established connections with British MP and one time Under Secretary of Defence Jonathan Aitken. The British politician appears to have used Mohammed's Al Bilad London offices free of charge and there have been allegations, so far unrefuted, that Mohammad and Aitken have conspired to sell arms to Singapore which eventually found their way to Iran at a time when such sales were prohibited.
Moreover, in 1981, the News of The World newspaper reported an incident involving Mohammad and a London girl for hire. His Highness appears to have roughed up the girl and escaped to America after she threatened disclosure. This aspect of Mohammad's character is reported to have more to it and a recent television programme has accused Aitken of procuring for Royals and implied that Mohammad was involved.
Most recently, during the Gulf War, Mohammad was accused of realizing hundreds of millions of dollars in profit from housing and feeding American troops sent to Saudi Arabia to protect it against Saddam Hussein. Housing these troops meant building temporary accommodations on public land confiscated by Mohammad specifically for that purpose. Feeding them, ordinarily a simple operation, found some of Mohammad's open or de facto companies charging exorbitant rates to provide them with everyday provision. It is estimated that Mohammad's profits out of this were $28 per soldier, per day, If the number of soldiers was 500.000 then it adds up per diem $14.000.000. If Mohammad's business deals make corrupt financial sense then his political qualifications are totally absent. His first appointment to an official position was as assistant to the Minister of Interior, and there is very little to report about that. Later, in 1985, he was appointed Deputy Governor of the Eastern Province and once again it is impossible to judge a performance by its non-existence. Yet later, in 1989, he was appointed to the important post of governor of the same province.
Perhaps the best way to judge his governance is to review his action in 1995. He spent five months away from his post, in Arizona in the United States with his ailing mother. During that period nothing was done, no one dared make any decisions because everything is in Mohammad's hands. Upon his return, he was confronted with the problem of what to do to implement promises made to the Shias of this province in return for making peace with the house of Saud.
The Situations in the Eastern Province continues to deteriorate, Mohammad shows no interest in the affairs of the state, his business activities continue unabated despite the overall reduction in the oil income of the country and his personal behavior is as abominable as ever. Yet, this is the star among Fahd's sons, the one his father is thinking of making King, supposedly the symbol of a new generation to replace the old discredited one.
Nayef bin Abd-al-Aziz
63 years old, Minister of the Interior. Since taking over the Ministry of Interior in 1975, Prince Nayef has been subjected to national and international attention owing to occurrences of repression and scandals. More recently he has been in the limelight for his heavy-handed clampdown against the alleged authors of the two anti-American bombings which took place in November 1995 in Riyadh and June 1996 in al-Khubar. Unfortunately, his harsh repressive stance has been closely linked to corruption and murky dealings, like most of the members of the House of Saud. Yet, initially the man was not, to use an understatement, as irresponsible as he is today. Who is Nayef bin Abd-al-Aziz? Born in 1933, Nayef is the third son of Hussa bint Ahmad al-Sudeiri, one of the seven Sudeiri brothers. He obtained his first degree in the Kingdom, but is not particularly bright intellectually, nor is he considered to be well educated. However, an honorary doctorate was conferred upon him by South Korea in 1979.
Good man turned evil:
Nayef is one of those strange human beings that mankind has known throughout the centuries. He was a calm man, who always avoided making hasty decisions in matters which committed the reputation of his ministry and himself. He used to comport himself with good manners and deference, earning himself respect and consideration amongst important personalities in society, amongst politicians and even diplomats. He maintained particularly good relations with the ulama and the religious institutions. But one day, in 1991, there was a certain Gulf War and the man turned evil almost overnight. He is known to have spoken in a way which does not befit an ordinary man, let alone his office as Minister of the Interior.
The appointment and promotion:
In 1951 he was given his first ever appointment as Deputy Governor of Riyadh from which he became Governor in 1953 only to cede it to Prince Fawaz a year later. From then on he did not assume any responsibility in public service until 1971 when his elder brother (Interior Minister Fahd) appointed him as his Deputy. Four years later, after the assassination of King Faisal in 1975, he eventually became Interior Minister himself. Twenty one years later, he is still head of this ministry and his record is indeed impressive.
Sudeiris tighten grip on power:
The Sudeiris reached the highest positions of the State when Faisal took over as King in 1962. Fahd was given the Interior, Sultan the Defence and Salman the Governorate of Riyadh. The appointment of Nayef as Deputy Interior Minister in 1971 was seen as a move which reinforced the grip of the Sudeiris on the State machinery. When he took full charge of the Ministry in 1975, Nayef, in turn, appointed his younger brother Ahmad as his deputy with whom he has since planned and executed the ministry's policies.
Importance of the Interior Ministry:
As Interior Minister, Nayef was granted important prerogatives following the demise of King Faisal. These were to gradually increase year by year, thereby emphasising the importance of the Interior Ministry in the strategy of the House of Saud of holding onto power.
The Interior Ministry has usually been seen as the bridge to the supreme office, as the cases of King Faisal and King Fahd demonstrate. Since its inception, the post has respectively been held by Prince Faisal before he became King, Musa id bin Abd-al-Rahman Al-Saud, Abd-al-Muhsin bin Abd-al-Aziz, Faisal bin Turki bin Abd-al-Aziz, Fahd and finally Nayef. Moreover, a great many lesser princes have been employed by the ministry throughout the Arabian provinces and emirates, which indicate yet again the extent of the House of Saud's grip on the country. The Interior Ministry's importance comes from the fact that it controls the policing of the population through the security services; the borders and coasts through the Borders and Coast Guards and the tribes through the so-called Mujahidin Forces. Under Nayef, and among its prominent services are the Special Police Forces, who have became notorious of late and the Anti-terrorist Squad.
One of the features of Nayef's authority, is that all civilian services within the country's provinces report directly to his ministry even if they are attached to other ministries. This is another strategic method by which the House of Saud foils possible unrest and uncovers any activity deemed suspicious. This prerogative has enabled Nayef to infringe upon the authority of the Minister of Justice as Nayef is able to control the proceedings of scores of courts, especially those dealing with political activity.
Another aspect of Nayef s prerogatives is his overall control of the media. The Supreme Information Council, set up in 1977, paradoxically comes under his authority instead of that of the Ministry of Information, which once more underlines the repressive character of the regime. Even the Foreign Ministry's Information Department was integrated into this council which has become the initiator of both internal and external information policy. In the wake of the 1979 revolt inside the Sacred Mosque in Makka, Prince Nayef was given unlimited power over the audio-visual and written press. Under the notorious March 1980 Decree no. 78, Nayef appointed a representative of his Ministry to monitor the activities of newsmen whom he forced to practice self-censorship.
In the field of human rights Nayef has always ignored the requests of human rights organizations regarding the rights of political prisoners for fair trials, and has even undertaken media campaigns against them in an attempt to belittle their importance. In the recent trials of defendants charged in connection with the Riyadh and al-Khobar anti-American bombings, Nayef himself oversaw the proceedings and is reported to have personally interrogated the accused, while circulating rumours that they were ShiÕa dissidents rather than an armed opposition to the Saud oligarchy. As a prince belonging to the family of King Abd-al-Aziz, Nayef is annually entitled to a remuneration of $100 million.
He also has a quota of oil which accounts for hundreds of millions of dollars, in addition to a quota of royal lands which he resells. He is also known to have confiscated land for his own benefit claiming that it was for security reasons. Meanwhile he is rumoured to be involved in the sale of drugs and alcohol for which he receives a commission.
In the meantime, one of his wives, Maha Sudeiri, is known to dominate him and actually makes decisions in his place at the Interior Ministry, which has led to persistent abuses of power. The victims are the ordinary people. Also, her misbehaviour abroad was such that an American television stations in Florida broadcast a film about her. Her attitude caused great embarrassment to the House of Saud who kept urging Nayef to divorce her, but in vain.
As the fourth key personality of the regime (after the King, the Heir Apparent and the Defence Minister), Nayef has an eye on the highest office, but so has his elder brother, Sultan and younger brother, Salman. This situation has created a rift between the Sudeiris, although this has so far been kept under control. But for how long? And would this diminish Crown Prince Abdallah's chances of succeeding the ailing King Fahd?
Sultan bin Abdel Aziz
SULTAN, the Defence Minister and son of King Abdul Aziz, was born in 1924. He is one the Sudeiri Seven, the full brothers of King Fahd. He is second in line to the Saudi throne.
Ambitions of a would-be Dictator:
Sultan rose to fame when he was appointed Governor of Riyadh, the capital city. But he became more powerful when he was appointed Defence Minister in 1964, a post which he still holds. Worse than this, within the Sudeiri family's relentless endeavour to secure monopoly of power, Sultan gradually acquired many other important posts in addition to the defence ministry. He is now the Deputy chairman of the Council of Ministers, the Government's General Inspector, Head of the Higher Education Council, Head of the Higher Council for Islamic Affairs and, last but not least, Head of the Higher Labour Council. These were only his most important responsibilities.
Sultan has nurtured his ambition to succeed King Fahd and this ambition has become even more apparent since Fahd's health has degenerated irremediably over the last year. But his half-brother, heir apparent Prince Abdullah, is next to succeed King Fahd under Saudi succession law which reserves the right to succession to the most senior prince. The fact that the dejure successor is Crown Prince Abdullah, is for Sultan and his six Sudeiri brothers, a great obstacle.
Low IQ blamed for violent behaviour:
Sultan is known for his manichean classification of people as masters and slaves. The best example is his long-standing, irrational determination to disown his own son Bandar, son of a slave woman, for fear that he might become a slave. He refrained from doing so only after King Faisal's intervention. But fate decreed that Bandar became an educated person, and is the Kingdom's Ambassador to Washington, while Sultan's other sons have inherited their father's undesirable traits. His class mentality expresses itself in his attitude towards the respected men of the nation and its scholars on whom he bestows derogatory nicknames.
Among the members of the House of Saud, Sultan shines with ignorance. He had little formal education and acquired his present fame only on account of his family name. Those who know him testify that his knowledge and experience does not exceed the fields of repression, wealth plundering and moral perversion. Despite his oratory style he is known to make regular blunders in speeches. For example, when addressing the inhabitants of Jizan (a part of the Kingdom) he began by conveying to them the regards of the people of Arabia, a statement that made him the laughing-stock of the whole country.
Such behaviour stems from his inferiority complex which partly explains why he is the most zealous opponent of education. But at another level, Sultan believes that educating people paves the way for awareness and thus the questioning of the House of Saud's dictatorship. In the past he took a strong stand against educational development projects. When the Islamic reformist movement inaugurated its period of political questioning in the nineties, through the scholars memoranda for reform, Sultan felt a malicious pleasure to tell his ruling brothers you did this yourselves when you allowed them to get educated.
The man is not renowned for his capability to deal with problems using hindsight, calmness, wisdom, argument and dialogue worthy of any respectful political leader. Lacking all of these qualities has given him an inferiority complex which impels him to resort to force and violence in order to deal with any political opposition.
A threat to the Kingdom:
The 1994 clampdown against reformist scholars took place too late as far as he was concerned. If it had been up to him, and if King Fahd had not feared social unrest, he would have led the crackdown years earlier. In any case, reliable sources within the regime told MIRA that Sultan was the one urging the Sudeiris which led the last two years campaigns against the reformist opposition; he is reported to have personally signed the arrest warrant against Sheikh Safar al-Hawali and Salman al-Awdah. He is also said to have taken steps with the judicial authorities to obtain a series of immediate executions against the Muslim reformists and only backed down after being advised of the untold social unrest that such executions would entail.
His violent attitude and disrespect is unwisely directed even at people whose loyalty is important to him. He is known to be deeply unpopular in the armed forces that he heads. On the advice of foreign powers, he retires officers early and rotates them frequently for security reasons. Meanwhile, he is known to be very abusive to the high-ranking officers he commands and to whom he is supposed to be a role model. In this respect he does not refrain from insulting, hitting and spitting at officers in front of their colleagues. He reportedly humiliated them this way even in the presence of foreign delegations just as a master would do with his slaves.
Psychologists would surely find Sultan very interesting. He has married many times and into different tribes. He allegedly does not even know how many children he has. Dangerous claims have been said about his personal life. Indeed, it has come to the knowledge of the opposition (and unfortunately interested parties outside the Kingdom) that Sultan may have something to hide. Furthermore, according to reports, his psychological condition has been blamed for dubious decisions relating to army promotions, relationships and so on. Also, MIRA has learned that a number of foreign countries and other parties have blackmailed Sultan and the Kingdom through the procurement of material evidence depicting his immoral behaviour. This may explain some of the policies that the Kingdom has adopted in order to suit the political and strategic interests of such countries.
Obviously, from the Islamic point of view this is scandalous as Sultan is the Defence Minister of the country in which there exist the holy shrines of Islam. Furthermore what is striking is not so much his absence of devotion to Islam but his intolerance of practising Muslims. He is reported to have severely beaten one of his new employees. The unfortunate man had ventured to call for prayer at one of his residences (the call being a regular practice, officially enjoyed all over the Kingdom).
As far as corruption is concerned, the Defence Minister is one of the richest multi-billionaires in the world. He has used the defence ministry to amass an untold amount of wealth in the 32 year period he has been at its head. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent on the armed forces over this period. Yet it arose that of the total amount spent only 5% was effectively used for the purchase of military hardware and training. It will not be difficult to imagine where the remaining 95% went. Meanwhile the Arabian armed forces humiliated by Sultan himself, ill-equipped and lacking obvious military training were caught unprepared in 1991 by the invading Iraqi army. That the whole episode was a foreign conspiracy is self-evident as far as we are concerned, it remains though that Sultan and his brothers turned the US military assistance into a glorious episode through the manipulation of their subservient media.
Bandar bin Sultan
For those who know him, Bandar has grown up unhappy and deprived of any real fatherly love. His mother was a slave girl of Sudanese origin, which caused his father to steer clear of him. Because of the status of his mother, his father, Defence Minister Sultan has for a long time denied that Bandar was his son. So intense was Sultan's irrational behaviour that he thought that Bandar would grow up with a slave mentality. Sultan only refrained from disowning Bandar as a result of King Faisal's intervention.
Bandar was born in 1950 and, owing to his father's rejection spent most of his childhood with his uncles. He would only meet other members of his family on special occasions such as at gatherings at his aunt Hissa al-Sudeiriyah. He also made good childhood relationships with the Sudeiri children, such as his half brothers Fahd bin Sultan (born in 1953) and Khalid bin Sultan (1949) and also with his cousins Mohammed bin Fahd (1948), Sultan bin Fahd (1951) and Su'ud bin Nayef (1955).
At the insistence of, his now mature child and Bandar's uncles, Sultan eventually agreed to meet Bandar and patched up his relationship with him. To Sultan's surprise, the unwanted child showed a high level of intelligence, which he had developed in the company of the Sudanese in whose company he grew up after being rejected by his other brothers.
Bandar was then sent to attend American schools along with the other Sudeiri children. In 1967, he joined the British Air Force Academy in Cornwall. After his graduation he was sent for further training in American air bases in Texas and in Carolina. At the end of his air force training, Bandar joined John Hopkins University in the United States where he graduated four years later in International Relations and Politics.
Bandar's relations with the United States started under the Presidency of Jimmy Carter where he built up strong ties with Carter's collaborators, Hamilton Jordan and Robert Strauss. He thus, gradually eased himself into the position of intermediary between his country and the American Administration by conveying messages and views between the two sides.
In 1979, during a trip to the United States, Bandar paid a visit to President Jimmy Carter who stressed his country's strong relationship with Saudi Arabia and promised assistance to Riyadh if the Iran-Iraq war threatened the Saudi Kingdom.
Following Iran's initial victories over Iraq and the occupation of part of the Basra area by Iranian troops, the United States sent on 28th September 1981 a delegation to Arabia headed by General David Jones, joint Chief of Staff, to convey to them that the turn of the war was worrying Washington who feared the fall of the House of Saud. The American delegation was welcomed at Dahran Airport by Prince Fahd bin Abdallah and Prince Bandar who was then promoted to the position of commander of a squadron of jet fighters.
The House of Saud, which was already alarmed by Iranian victories over Iraq, enabled Bandar to play a key role in acquiring AWACS radar planes. Requested by Bandar, General David Jones conveyed to the Carter Administration the Saudi need for the AWACS, but the pro-Zionist lobby in Congress opposed the sale of AWACS to an Arab country on the grounds that it this would constitute a threat to Israel.
But months later, the Saudi's felt an even greater need for the AWACS. They needed someone who could convince Washington of such an urgent need and give assurances that the radar planes would not be a threat to the Zionist State. The House of Saud agreed that the man tailor-made for this mission was Bandar, who indeed succeeded and thus, Arabia obtained the American-manned AWACS.
His success earned him the promotion of Ambassador to Washington. Bandar soon became very friendly with the Head of Operations at the CIA who was in charge of contacting foreign diplomatic missions in Washington. He reportedly involved himself in CIA activities and surprised diplomats with lavish parties parties organised by his wife Fiha, daughter of Faisal bin Abdelaziz in defiance to the Kingdom's traditions and moral code.
One of the missions entrusted to Bandar was to find a solution to the Palestinian issue and the recognition of Israel by the Arab States. Being involved with the CIA, Bandar also played a role in the Western Sahara in favour of Morocco in its dispute with Spain. Similarly, he played a role in the Lebanese conflict and was in charge of supplying the Phalangist movement with Saudi arms and armoured vehicles through Port Said and via Malta, but his plan was frustrated when the Maltese authorities intercepted the ship.
In the Lebanon hostage crisis he stated to Al-Sharq al-Awsat (25/02/85) that he was making every effort to obtain the release of the hostages. In Sudan, he intervened on the side of the separatists of the South and provided them with financial and medical assistance. His relationship with the CIA led him to becoming entrusted with a mission to assassinate Sheikh Fadlallah of the Lebanese Hisbullah but the bomb intended to kill the man missed its target. Bandar also involved himself in many other murky affairs such as with the Nicaraguan Contras.
Arms Deal
Is the Defence Minister Prince Sultan fond of arms deals because of the cash rewards they bring ? or, has the House of Saud been pressurised into buying American arms for other reasons? At the end of January, there was extensive Press coverage in the United States concerning an accord which stipulated that the Saudi rulers, had in principle, agreed to buy up to one hundred F16 jet fighters for an estimated value of $25 billion - $30 billion. According to an anonymous official who spoke to the press the deal will be signed during a future, but unspecified, visit to Washington by the Saudi Defence Minister.
According to expert sources in the arms trade, the total cost of the fighter planes is just $2.5 billion, whilst the outstanding balance is alleged to cover spare parts and maintenance for the jets and the training of the flight crews !
This deal comes as a surprise for several reasons. To begin with, the Saudi army does not need a new air defence system nor does it even need reinforcement. The Yamama deal with Britain (in the mid-1980's) and the earlier American-bought AWACS and F15 planes more than cover the needs of Arabia's air defence. In addition, none of these planes have ever been used.
What is even more surprising is that the deal comes at a time of dire economic crisis in the Kingdom: The Government's total debt has spiralled to more than $100 billion and if one includes unemployment (already at a staggering 25% of the active population), rising inflation, the rapidly decreasing income level per capita and poor social services, one cannot find any justification for new, very costly and otherwise unwarranted military spending.
It is equally interesting, and curious to say the least, that the deal has come at a time when the Saudi rulers are basically at the mercy of America, with the latter literally occupying Arabia and looting its resources against a background of anti-American guerrilla operations. So, is the deal a mere deal, or does Washington have a few cards up its sleeves which enables it to put a knife to the House of Saud's throats? Moreover, why would Riyadh enter into such a new deal when it has already passed deals with the United States totalling $25 billion and whose payment facility spreads to the year 2,000.
This deal also comes at a critical time in the bitter dispute between the different members of the House of Saud over the succession to King Fahd. However, if, as it appears, such a deal does not worry the Americans it is possible that they are already certain of who the eventual victor in the succession conflict will be.
Another reason to be vigilant remains that the leaks concerning the arms deal follow shortly after the FBI's Director Louis Freeh's angry outburst about the Saudi rulers' secretive approach to the inquiry over the anti-American bomb attack at al-Khobar on 25th June last year. At a meeting with Washington Post staff, he expressed his frustration about the lack of Saudi cooperation. The Attorney General, Janet Renois, also made a similar statement on the same day. Was this a coincidence, or did these two officials have the green light to do so for other reasons ? What is clear is that not only will this arms deal cause even further financial hardship for the Arabian people, but that it may also have serious consequences for America too.
So what are the possible motives behind this deal. Could it possibly be that the Saudi rulers are trying to placate the Americans after having lied to, and embarrassed the Americans about the authors of the Khobar attack ? Or, on the contrary, is the US Administration raising the stakes by using the FBI's Director's angry remarks to strategically secure more leverage over the House of Saud by forcing the deal through?
In our view, the deal is not being used to boost the Kingdom's air defence, nor is it an attempt by Riyadh to placate the Americans in the Khobar bombing affair. Simple though the explanation may be, it appears as if the Defence Minister Prince Sultan believes that he will again make a huge commission on the deal as he did on the Yamama deal with Britain which was revealed by the British press at the time. Clearly his highness has not learnt his lesson.
As mentioned, experts in the Arm's trade have calculated that out of the total amount of $25 - $30 billion spent on the deal, only $2.5 billion is for the actual purchase of the F16 fighter jets. It is, therefore, totally inconceivable that the remaining $22.5 - $27.5 billion is for spare parts, training and maintenance. The reality, (which is now common knowledge) is to be paid in commission to the Sultan himself, his son Bandar and other close advisors and intermediaries such as arms dealers.
This deal will further strain the Kingdom's economy, and thereby generate not only more hardship for the Saudi population but further anti-government and anti-American feeling. Undoubtedly, it could lead to increased anti-American violence.
US press comments, however, gave numerous reasons as to why the deal should not go through. It was argued that if such enormous funds were available to the Saudis, then they would do better to alleviate the population's suffering by spending the amount on much needed social services. The US Press underlined the point that the Saudi economy could not support such expenditure, and noted that America would, by agreeing to this deal, undermine, and thus jeopardise the very stability of the pro-American Kingdom.
Such comments do point to a new awareness in America concerning the dangerous policy Washington is following towards Arabia. But this awareness does not stem from a novel, altruistic notion following on from the Vietnamese, Lebanese and Somali experiences, as unfortunately, it has needed two bomb attacks targeting US military installations in Arabia to drive home to the Americans that perhaps their country is easing itself into yet another quagmire. But still, some decision-makers in the Clinton Administration stubbornly seek to mortgage Arabia's oil for generations to come; so that if any political shift occurs in Arabia which questions the US domination of the Kingdom's oil resources, then the United States could invoke international law in order to justify a military intervention. In other words, it looks as if Washington is paving the way for the law of the jungle in Arabia, thus inaugurating what Chomsky called the new world disorder.
Khalid bin Sultan Bin Abdel Aziz
Lineage:
Prince Khalid bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz. Must be known to many people. During the second Gulf war, he came on the news repeatedly due to his involvement in the war and because of the many gaffes he made. The Americans fought the anti-Iraqi war, but Khalid alleged that he won it He is the son of Defence Minister Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz and of Laila bint Ahmad Abdallah bin Uthman, sister of the late King Fasals wife Iffat al Thaniyan. He was born on 23rd September 1949 in Makkah and studied at the King Saud School for princes in Riyadh. Unlike his half brother Bandar, whose mother was a slave girl, Khalid was the subject of much attention from his father who saw in him his successor at the head of the Defence Ministry.
Education:
At a very young age, he was sent to train at Sandhursts military academy in Britain from where he graduated in 1967. He was then sent to Fort Pills in Texas for advanced training in air defence. He is said to have completed an MA in military Sciences at Fort Lefnort military Academy (Kansas City) in 1979. Meanwhile, he is alleged to have joined the Maxwell Air Warfare Academy in Alabama in 1980 and, strange though it may seem, he is officially reported to have carried, at the same time, yet another MA in Administrative and Political Sciences at Montgomery University, Alabama, only one year after the previous MA. Some people do have an extraordinary IQ and time.
In any case, back in Arabia, he was promoted very swiftly. He successively occupied the positions of Air Squadron Chief, Training Officer/ Assistant Staff Officer for Operations, Army Inspectorate Chief. Director of the Administration of Air Defence Projects, Deputy Chief of the Air Force, Chief of Air Defence and, to crown it all, Chief of the Strategic Missiles Force.
Quest of Notoriety:
Prince Khalid was in the shadow during his studies and while in the various offices he occupied. His urge to become known nationally and to be heard of internationally led him to do what the other Gulf princes normally do, that is to give an astonishing donation to save a westerner in danger of death. Khalid did just that when he offered a huge amount of money to an American child who needed a heart and kidneys transplant. He announced this sensational news in front of an American television crew during a holiday in the Bermudas.
But Khalid came to notoriety through his dealings with the London-based arms merchant Mohammad Wafiq al-Said. Arms deals involving Defence Minister Sultan and his sons made Wafiq al-Said a billionaire and Khalid the same. The first deal in which Khalid was involved alongside al-Said appears to have been the purchase of administrative equipment for an air defence system, bought from France in January 1984a deal which was, at that time, the biggest arms deal the French had ever made.
The commissions made on the it were to the tune of $750 million, with $300 million taken by Prince Khalid alone. Khalid also shared with his father, his brother Bandar, al-Said and others, a two billion dollar deal for the purchase of 10 Boeing transport planes and their spare parts for Saudia Airlines in 1984 (Sunday Times 5/8/84). During the scandal over the £20 billion Yamama deal with Britain in 1984, Khalid was mentioned in the international press as being involved in the commissions which reportedly reached half the total of the cost of only the Tornado jets side of the Yamama deal. Witnessing before an American civil court, a former head of the British Arms Company, Gerald James said that each Tornado was sold to the Saudis for £40 million whereas the standard price is only £20-22 million.
Another nine billion dollar deal with American for the supply of F15 fighter jets was reported in the international press as having a real value of four billion dollars. Khalid was again quoted as having pocketed a share of the remaining five billion dollar commission alongside his father, brothers, King Fahd and the usual sharks around them.
The air surveillance AWACS radar planes deal of 1980, organized by Bandar bin Sultan, also involved a hefty commission for Khalid whose name was mentioned in this connection in the Dooley Papers. The usual partners in the deal got their share of commission through Global Enterprise Group, a company set up for this particular purpose.
Khalid Enters the Media World:
After the 1979 Sacred Mosque incident, the Iran-Iraq war and some other scandals involving their royal highnesses, the House of Saud, and the Sudeiris in particular, realized the importance of a media network under their control. So, from 1984 on, they embarked on building a veritable media network which has come to include many Arabic dailies and weeklies as well as radio and television stationsmost of international coverage. Once the network was in place, Prince Khalid was pushed to the fore mainly to project the Sudeiri familys views to the world.
Khalids first appearance in the media world was his attempt to buy the British daily The Observer. He offered a very attractive price but, however moderate an Arab he was in the eyes of the West, he remained after all an Arab and, in the view of some shadowy political lobbies, the Arab must not be given the opportunity to own media of international coverage. Hence, his offer to buy the British daily was turned down.
Continuing in his attempts, he bought off the Lebanese newspaper El-Hayat in 1988 and started its daily publication from London under the editorship of a former Lebanese Maronite, Jihad al-Khazen. Meanwhile, he bought actions in the Bahraini daily Al-Ayyam and later founded the weekly Al-Wasat in London. About a year ago, he set up the Arab-American Television station in the United States.
Even though all the Saudi-controlled media are in the hands of the Sudeiris, conflict between them erupted over many petty issues, which led them to a lot of bickering in public. This is how Al-Sharq al-Awsatfounded by Khalids uncle Salman! published the photo of Prince Khalids mistress Brigitte Nelson, while Khalids El-Hayat published King Fahds mistress Leila Alawi.
Desert Storm Blows Khalid Away:
Khalids career declined sharply with the second Gulf war. King Fahd entrusted him with the catering service of the anti-Iraqi coalition of forces under the leadership of American General Schwartzkopff. Misleadingly named by the Saudi monarch Chief of the joint forces. He was, in fact, simply a collaborator of the Americans against his own people because of assisting the friendly forces over sensitive issues likely to cause anti-American unrest among the Arabian people. His being constantly present alongside General Schartzkopff in the Operations Room got him some media coverage both nationally and internationally. So, he soon became too big for his boots. Apart from diverting an important part of the catering budget, which aggravated Washington, he dared criticize General Schwartzkopff, who had returned to America. Later Khaled wrote in his book Desert Warrior that the success of the Gulf war was due to his own planning.
Even more compromizing was his statement shortly after the war over the necessity of rearming the Arabian army (under the command of his father Sultan) and the National Guard (under the command of Crown Prince Abdallah, Sultans rival), and the need to make compulsory conscription, all of which are sensitive issue within the House of Sauds carefully maintained balance of forces. Other revelations made in his book, and which had been concealed by the Americans, regarding the role of the joint Arab troops during the Gulf war caused some friction between Washington and Riyadh which was the last straw and caused his downfall. Ironically King Fahad sacked him in humiliating circumstances for the same reason. Khaled went too far in his own imagination of being the Commander of the Forces. King Fahad was extremely furious when Khaled took several decisions without consulting him.
Khalid has ever since been ignored by the regime and the Saudi media. He has gradually slumped into oblivion. Neither his father, nor his estimated wealth of $10 billion have been of any assistance to remember him to the world. Perhaps another $50 billion donation to help control AIDS in America might do the trick
Prince Faisal bin Fahd Bin Abdel Aziz
Prince Faisal, son of King Fahd bin Abdulaziz, was born in 1945. He did most of his studies in the Kingdom and obtained a BA in Political Sciences from abroad.
His first job was in 1971 as Head of the Youth Department with ministerial rank. The Labour Ministry was also attached to his Department. Since then, he has had many positions, all within the youth and sport areas. He was successively President of the Arab Football Union, Arabian Football Union, Arabian Olympic Committee, Arab Sports Union and Head of the National Committee on Drugs Control. At the international and regional level, Faisal bin Fahd was nominated Honorary President of the International Swimming Federation. In 1974 he became Chairman of the Arab Ministers’ Council on Youth and of member of the Supreme Council of Youth which was set up that very year. Finally, he acquired the position of President of the Basket Ball Federation. During his term in these positions, he naturally attended a great many sports events including the conferences of the International Football Federation in Munich between 1972 and 1974.
Faisal has been kept in the same position since he was appointed to it in 1971 at the time of King Faisal, when his own father was Interior Minister. In the meantime, his brothers and cousins in the Sudeiri family had been raised to higher offices. In fact, were it not for the present system of succession to the throne, which was established by his grand father King Abdulaziz, Faisal would have had the chance to become king himself, especially as he is well educated. So, why is it that he has been kept in the same position when he is not less eager than his relatives to wield power? Faisal bin Fahd was connected with the Youth Department at an early age, when the situation of sport in the kingdom was dismal with almost inexistent sport facilities. His appointment at the head of this Department coincided with the oil boom.
The plan was to make sport popular among the youth. But the ultimate objective of the Sudeiris was a long term strategic one. The point was to keep young people busy in order to protect the grip on power by the House of Saud. Many countries, like the former Soviet bloc, used sport as a means to keep their youth away from any political or intellectual activity. Various studies exist which show that the use of sport for such ends put state budgets for games second only to military expenditure in such countries.
As a by-product of this objective, another not less devious goal was sought: the creation of a feeling of national, ‘Saudi’ belonging which would supersede and even marginalize the Arabian youth’s sense of belonging to the wider Arab and Islamic Ummah. For this purpose Saudi Arabia had to fix the ways and means to train a sport-oriented youth which would enable the Kingdom to have access to International events and Olympic games to eventually instil this sense in an ever greater number of youths.
The House of Saud gave Faisal all the prerogatives to attain this goal. With an annual budget of $20 billion for the Youth Department, Faisal embarked on a programme of impressive sport facilities and training and visits to various world-famous clubs were regularly undertaken and Western coaches recruited at great costs. With the assistance of his brother Sultan bin Fahd, Faisal undertook the construction of sport villages, centres and stadia, clubs and fully staffed training facilities of all kinds at a cost considered enough to be meet the nations needs until the year 2000. One particular sports complex occupies an area of 80,000 m2 and cost xxxxxxx1,280 Saudi Riyals.
It accommodates swimming pools, Olympic-standard activity areas, restaurants for 1,000 people and a purpose-made building for the House of Saud and their guests. Faisal had similar complexes built in the other major cities like Riyadh, Jeddah and Dammam. Alongside these facilities, separate Olympic-grade swimming pools, youth hostels as well as unions and clubs for all sorts of games were set up. At the same time, Faisal undertook to have the Saudi national team and clubs join international federations. It was in this context that, in 1976, he hired the British football coach Jimmy Hill. Hill was given a special budget with prerogatives to train young people of all ages, everywhere in the kingdom. In a move to boost the country’s chance of winning matches and get promoted to higher divisions, Faisal hired several western players at prohibitive costs.
Therefore, the cost of hanging on to power is double: on the one hand, billions of pounds have been spent out of the country’s wealth; on the other hand, through sport the youth is being alienated from its Islamic values and traditions, and is being made redundant intellectually. Not that sport as such is the "opium of the people," but the very policy which underlies it is intentionally devious and harmful. Whereas the Sudeiri brothers— morally and financially corrupt—are banking on time to instil in the youth the a sense of narrow nationalism and regionalism, the late Al-Saud kings can be credited with keeping away from these concepts for religious reasons and because of the kingdom’s religious weight in the Muslim world. Apart from heading the Sudeiri family’s policy of alienating Saudi youth, Prince Faisal is no exception in the world of financial corruption. His commissions are reported to be 30% of the budget of his Youth Department. This classic way of obtaining commissions is no different from that of his father, uncles, brothers and cousins: a percentage is taken on each project, service and equipment supplies. Another percentage is taken annually on the earnings of each of the facilities. Yet a further source of illegal income comes from the budget devoted to sports events both at home and abroad.
Faisal’s embezzlement was not limited to the sports world and his Department. According to two authors, Nacer Said (History of the House of Saud, Arabic p. 773) and AbderRahman Al-Shamrani (The Scandal Kingdom, Arabic, vol. 2, p. 287), Faisal obtained a commission of $40 million from the European company Philips which was entrusted with the modernization of the country’s telephone system in the seventies. Meanwhile Faisal was involved in the confiscation of poor people’s lands. He is known to have taken 4 million m2 of land along the Jeddah sea shore, while he confiscated the Dammam Project no. 92 which included 92,000 allotments distributed to impoverished people. Property licences were suddenly withdrawn from the beneficiaries overnight without any valid explanation and the lands were given to Prince Faisal. The latter’s embezzlement from real estates is reported to be much higher than the commissions he acquired through his office at the head of the Youth Department.
King Fahd who used to prepare his sons for high offices became desperate about Faisal’s disastrous behaviour. This explains why the King, his father, has decided not to promote him. Indeed Faisal is known to be both a homosexual and a chronic drug addict. For all this, King Fahd reportedly continued to test him. In the hope of getting him to improve, he gave him several sensitive missions to Gorbatchev’s Soviet Union and to communist China under cover of sporting events. But this was to no avail as Faisal continued his drug addition and went even as far as having a drug wing under his control, which led to complaints from various foreign diplomatic and intelligence services to the Saudi authorities, according to a journalist close to the royal family. As a remedy, Faisal was sent to the West for drug addiction treatment. It was at that time that he was appointed president of the Drug Control Committee, a move meant to encourage him to give up taking drugs but, again, to no avail.
In view of his son’s hopelessness, King Fahd decided to groom his other two sons, Muhammed and Abdulaziz bin Fahd, for high positions. Muhammed was then dropped and the King concentrated his attention on Abdulaziz. The latter received $300 million from the state’s budget while his father transferred to him another all his fortune both in real estates and in money—a total estimated to be to the tune of $40 billion. Needless to say that all this aggravated Faisal who saw his chances of promotion gone, perhaps for ever.
Yet, Faisal is not poor: the wealth he stole or was given from the people’s stolen wealth is estimated to be between seven and ten billion dollars. He is still relatively young, so he still may have a lot of time to plunder and become richer.
http://just-another-inside-job.blogspot.com/2008/12/zionist-rulers-of-arabia.html
Translated from Arabic
From Page 1Click to enlarge
From the last page
4 comments:
what you call wahabism is a call to pure twaheed .subhana allah.
the people that uses that word are the westerns, the arabic seculars and the extremist shias and soufis who make shirk.i didnt expect that from you.
you see thinks from only a plitical point of vue where is the islamic one?
Links to this post
Senior BBC Mideast Correspondent: "Here's what may have REALLY happened on 9/11"!
McFarland, WI 5/26/2010
Breaking his self-imposed rule against talking about 9/11, former Senior BBC Mideast Correspondent and author Alan Hart described what he thinks may have really happened on that fateful day on yesterday's Kevin Barrett show.
Hart, who got to know Yasser Arafat and Golda Meir while serving as a Security Council-briefed Mideast peace negotiator, said that he has been assured by a top-level demolitions/engineering expert who wishes to remain anonymous that the three World Trade Center skyscrapers were destroyed by controlled demolitions, not plane crashes and fires. (For the names of more than 1000 experts willing to go on the record with the same opinion, see http://www.ae911truth.org).
During the hour-long interview, Hart discussed Israel's record of engaging in outrageous attacks on friend and foe alike, and spreading even more outrageous lies to cover them up. (Around the midpoint of the show he explained the real reason Israel attacked the U.S.S. Liberty in 1967.)
Regarding 9/11, Hart suggested that while there may have been some original terrorist plot conceived by fellow-travelers of Osama Bin Laden, the Israeli Mossad, with its near-total penetration of Middle Eastern governments and terrorist groups alike, would have quickly detected and hijacked the operation to its own ends, orchestrating a spectacularly successful attack on America designed to be blamed on its Arab and Muslim enemies. Hart added that the Mossad operation that became 9/11 would have been aided and abetted by certain corrupt American leaders.
Sounding a chilling note, Hart added that the U.S. is in grave danger of an Israeli-instigated false-flag nuclear attack, perhaps using an American nuclear weapon stolen from Minot Air Force Base during the "loose nukes" rogue operation of August, 2007. The motive would be to trigger a U.S. war with Iran, and perhaps to finish the ethnic cleansing of Palestine under cover of war--which Hart is convinced the Zionists are planning to do as soon as the opportunity presents itself.
When a warning this serious is delivered by a messenger with the stature of Alan Hart, the American people had better find a way around the news blackout imposed by the Zionist-dominated corporate and pseudo-alternative media. The only thing standing in the way of an Israeli false-flag nuclear attack on America, a disastrous US war on Iran, and a horrendous acceleration of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, is the awareness of the American people. Please copy, post, and mass-email this story.
Kevin Barrett
http://www.truthjihad.com
Author, Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters: http://www.questioningthewaronterror.com
After failing to isolate Iran, Israel wants to kill puppet Obama as their agenda is totaly ruined in the Middle East
Caught In The Act! Is The Murder Of President Obama Being Planned?
Call for Elections to be Halted, Government Seized
Publication Demands “Interim Military Dictatorship” for America
Obama Risks a Domestic Military Intervention
Quand l'agent israelien Sarkozy dicte la composition de l'equipe de France a un Domenech completement soumis a la pression des medias sionistes
'Sarkozy vu des vestiaires'. Un livre publié pour redorer l'image de l'agent israelien completement a la ramasse. Trois evenements sonnent faux depuis janvier 2010 et des elements de ce livre viennent confirmer nos debut de preuves qu'une operation barbouze se prepare.
L'affaire Ribery, l'exclusion des joueurs originaires d'Afrique du Nord, Nasri, Benzema, Ben Arfa, Rami et le fait que Sarkozy fasse la 'compo' de l'equipe sur le terrain, grace a une mise sous pression de Domenech par media interposés depuis 2008.
Le fait que les algeriens aient recuperés des joueurs qui ne pouvaient plus jouer en equipe de France le cas de Meghni est le plus parlant, les faux problemes relationnelles avec leurs harkis a Alger, mais ils ne sauraient expliquer la main mise de Sarkozy sur la gestion et le management de l'equipe de France depuis justement 2009, comme revele dans le livre des journalistes de l'Express...
Selon des indiscretions, il y aurait eu des problemes avec un noyau dur se formant au sein de l'equipe, noyau decrit par les rapports de police francaise chargée de la surveillance et la securite de l'equipe de France, comme 'islamiste', 'sarkophobe' voir 'antisemite'. Apres les 'revelations de l'affaire Ribery' ca a du en faire rire quelques uns.
Mais tout de meme, un risque pour l'image de la France, surtout si Israel demarre une guerre pendant la coupe du monde ! Un autre pour Sarkozy qui souhaite utiliser comme le font tous les politiques, l'image d'une equipe de France qui puisse coller a son image personnelle et ses plans de diabolisation de la population originaire d'afrique du nord pour siphonner l'extreme droite! Discours officiel !
L'affaire se serait arrangée apres l'affaire dite 'Ribery', destinée a 'humilier' et 'casser' ce 'noyau' d'impetueux, arrogants... Si nous n'avions pas eu vent de contacts entre barbouzes francais et mercenaires africains 'd'operations speciales' pendant la coupe du monde.
Les iraquiens chargeant les saoudiens en premier lieu avec l'arrestation de 'terroristes' prets a frapper en Afrique du Sud, mais une interception de l'ambassade de France quelque part en Afrique venant confirmer que l'Elysée avait 'nettoyé le terrain' sonna comme anormale. Pour qui et pourquoi tu nettoyes le terrain Sarkozy?
La DNAT avait deja organisé de faux attentats du GIA en 1998, alors sous controle de la DST, avec l'arrestation de pauvres gens manipulés.
De deux choses l'une, souvenez-vous qu'apres avoir vote la loi sur le hidjab, en 2004, les israeliens de France avaient voulu capitaliser en organisant l'enlevement de Chenot et Malbrunot en Iraq a la fin des vacances d'ete... Ce fut un fiasco, l'affaire etant revelée, et les agents israeliens tres rapidement pris la main dans le sac... Ce fut jouissif d'avoir humilie les services francais aux ordres de Tel Aviv... Sarkozy l'ecrira peut etre un jour dans ses memoires d'agent !
Abu Suleyman
Quand les israeliens d'Europe demantelent les pays et les soumettent aux banksters sionistes de Washington, Londres, Berlin, Tel Aviv
Comment fait-on pour pousser en premiere place les extremes droites europeenes alors que pendant trente ans elles ont ete l'objet de toutes les foudres. On utilise l'islamophobie et le 'peril vert' vehiculee par les gouvernements europeens de droite comme de gauche. Rien de neuf, ca fait 1000 ans que les europeens 's'unissent' en faisant des croisades contre 'l'enemi exterieur', avant les communistes, maintenant les musulmans, qui en l'occurence est devenu 'interieur'.
D'une pierre deux coups, sous les budgets de rigueur, qui sont en eux-memes des declarations de guerre contre leurs propres peuples, comme en Grece, les gouvernants sionistes fabriquent des soldats pour leur futures croisades tout en donnant l'impression a leurs goys-esclaves que les pays dans lesquels ils vivent sont souverains, or c'est le retour au moyen age que les israeliens d'europe travaillent a retablir. De la meme facon qu'ils procedent au Moyen Orient pour mieux le dominer... Combien de temps faudra-t-il aux goys souchiens europeens pour comprendre que leurs veritables ennemis sont les Zemmours , Sarkozy, Attali, Balladur et leurs maitres fabriquant de haine, de terrorisme dont ils font le commerce au bazar du Likoud... Attali et consorts affirment tout haut ce qu'ils veulent, une monnaie unique, le siege de l'ONU a Jerusalem, une europe et une amerique du nord soumise fournissant chaire a canon et esclaves pour payer les dettes et les croisades des banksters createurs et financiers d'Israel, confiants et surs d'eux-memes nous disait l'autre...
Abu-Suleyman
Lorsque Schäuble et Attali font encore pire que Balladur
Rapport "Israël" défit-elle 50 pays venant à Gaza ?
Time Square Operation Linked To The American Kosher Nostra
Is the “Times Square Terrorist” an Asset of Organized Crime?
Israel is preparing a war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, Kuweit, UAE, Yemen, Egypt and Jordan
Bin Sultan is a MI6 operative, MI6 is controlled by Tel Aviv... Sheykh mate! Jewish Al Saud family fears to lose his chair, that's why they'll push for sabotages in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen with Israel to provoke Iran. They are using ISI puppets in Pakistan to do the same in Afghanistan, dismantling Pakistan in the mean time.
These are clearly not the objectives of an independant and genuine resistance on the ground... Egypt blocked the Rafah crossing to help Israel in their genocide in Palestine, on the other hand, Israel blocked sources of Nile water in Ouganda, South of Soudan, Erythrea, Kenya... Understand that Israel does not need anymore these puppets ... They are failing in starting a direct war with Iran everywhere, even in Yemen where they control the whole country...
Israel sunked the Cheonan war boat in South Korea, to push once again their american slaves to use nuclear weapons and establish their nuclear pre-emptive strikes doctrine, as they know that they are loosing it. This would allow her to use it in the Middle East and South East Asia.
Israel fears now a direct conflict, Muslim-Jews, but this is what is going to happen worldwide. Our time is near.
Wa Allah swt 'alam
Abu-Suleyman
Islamic-intelligence
Saudi King slams intelligence leak
According to a report by Iraq's Buratha news agency on Friday, King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz ordered a special committee to investigate the intelligence leak and inform him about those liable in the case.
Some 37 members of Saudi's intelligence service, accused of being behind the leakage of the confidential document, were also reported to have been arrested.
The condemnation by the Saudi monarch comes as the Iraqi news agency disclosed the amount of money transferred by Saudi government officials to al-Qaeda in Iraq.
Saudi officials are also reported to send explosives and weapons to the terrorist groups.
Meanwhile, Secretary General of the Saudi National Security Council Prince Bandar Bin Sultan Bin Abdul Aziz is said to be the main guilty behind the case.
The report came as earlier last week, Saudi army officer Abdullah al-Qahtani was arrested in Iraq over charges of planning a terrorist attack during the upcoming FIFA World Cup in South Africa.
The Saudi national entered Iraq in 2004 and was involved in militant operations carried out by al-Qaeda.
AGB/CS/MMA
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=127334§ionid=351020205
Iran acquired the KH-55, long-range cruise missile. Israel, the Zionist Arab states have no defense against it ...
Officials said the intelligence community has been examining Iran's efforts to develop and produce a long-range cruise missile. They said the missile could fly under the radar of most regional states and change the balance of power in the Middle East.
"This is an extremely serious danger," Israel Aerospace Industries chairman Yair Shamir said.
Shamir, head of Israel's largest defense contractor, identified the Iranian program as the KH-55 cruise missile. The missile, supplied to Teheran by Ukraine around 2006, was being enhanced by Iran's Defense Ministry.
In an address to Israel's first multi-national ballistic missile defense conference on May 5, Shamir said Iran sought to extend the range of the missile beyond 2,500 kilometers. He said Iran also was developing an air-launched version of KH-55.
"The pace of missile development is much faster than those of solutions," Shamir said. "The new element is that Iran is already in space."
Tal Inbar, a director at the Fisher Institute for Air and Space Strategic Studies, said Iran received at least 12 K-55s from Ukraine. Inbar, who works closely with the Israel Air Force, said Iran has already displayed a cruise missile that resembled that of the U.S.-origin Tomahawk.
"It's purpose remains unclear," Inbar said.
Officials said KH-55 represents a growing Iranian capability to significantly enhance foreign missile systems. They cited Teheran's success in extending the range of the North Korean No Dong missile from 1,300 kilometers to that of at least 2,100 kilometers under the Shihab-3ER program.
"There have been significant developments on the part of Iran," said Arieh Herzog, director of the Defense Ministry's Israel Missile Defense Organization.
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2010/me_iran0382_05_06.asp
Iran is NOT increasing the range as claimed by IsraHell to scare the European, BUT in fact decreasing it to what's needed to hit the Zionist territory with an INCREASED PAYLOAD of high explosive!...
http://72.233.92.162/showthread.php?p=147836
La « Flotte de la liberté » a entamé son voyage vers Gaza
Ridwane : l’espoir d'un retour proche; la force de l’occupant recule
www.palestine-info.info
Gaza – CPI
Il confirme : « Nous sommes plus certains que nous nous rapprochons du moment où ce rêve du retour se réalisera, car nous avons maintenant une jeune génération qui croit en son Seigneur, qui travaille pour sa patrie, qui ne fait aucune concession sur nos principes. Nous possédons un patrimoine historique arabe et islamique. L’occupation est en recul face à notre résistance, surtout après avoir été chassée de la bande de Gaza dans le combat Al-Forqane. »
Une diffamation
CPI : Pour commencer, quelle est la nature de votre relation avec toutes les factions palestiniennes, surtout avec la gauche qui incite les gens contre la politique du gouvernement (de Gaza) ?
Dr. Ismaël Ridwane : Le Hamas est désireux de voir des relations bonnes et équilibrées continuer avec toutes les factions palestiniennes, dans l’intérêt supérieur (palestinien). Le mouvement travaille de façon positive avec toutes les factions palestiniennes dont celles de gauche. Le problème, c’est que ces dernières prennent des positions souvent confuses et qui vont à l’encontre de l’intérêt palestinien. Nous les blâmons pour cela, au moment où en Cisjordanie, on essaie de déraciner la résistance et où la coopération sécuritaire (avec les occupants israéliens) continue. Le Hamas donne une large marge de liberté à tout le monde. Le respect est nécessaire, et non la diffamation. Nous sommes avec la critique constructive, tout en étant contre toute affaire qui dérange le calme de la bande de Gaza.
L’union des factions palestiniennes
CPI : Les derniers jours ont connu plusieurs réunions entre les factions palestiniennes. Quels en sont les objectifs ? Pourront-elles donner des résultats probants ? Travaillent-elles pour un front refusant les négociations, la coopération sécuritaire et d’autres affaires ?
Dr. Ismaël Ridwane : L’objet de ces réunions est de renforcer le travail commun, l’union. On travaille pour effacer toutes raisons de se diviser. Durant les réunions, toutes les factions palestiniennes sont d’accord sur les principes et sur le danger de la politique suivie par Abbas et par Fayyad. Nous tentons de conserver l’unité de ces factions autour des principes. Cependant, les factions de l’OLP, surtout celles recevant d’elle leurs budgets, ne peuvent pas trop s’éloigner des positions d’Abbas. Cela dit, les factions peuvent être de deux sortes.
Des factions qui veulent résister (contre l’occupation israélienne)… Et des factions avec lesquelles on peut être d’accord dans le cadre populaire, mais il est extrêmement difficile d’être d’accord avec elles sur le sujet de la résistance et sur le refus de la politique d’Oslo.
Capturer des soldats
CPI : Vous avez appelé la résistance à kidnapper des soldats israéliens. Le Hamas, lui-même, est-il capable d’en capturer pour les échanger contre des captifs palestiniens, surtout dans cet état actuel de calme ?
Dr. Ismaël Ridwane : Sans aucun doute, la résistance pourra tout faire. Elle a pu mettre Shalit en captivité alors que le blocus et la conspiration nous frappaient de plein fouet. La résistance a pu le garder à Gaza, en dépit de tous les moyens technologiques modernes que l’ennemi possède. Elle est donc capable de trouver des moyens de qualité pour mettre la main sur plus de soldats, malgré toutes les difficultés.
Agression israélienne
CPI : Au cas où le Hamas mettrait des soldats sionistes en captivité, vous attendriez-vous à ce que les occupants israéliens mènent une nouvelle agression contre la bande de Gaza pour se venger ?
Dr. Ismaël Ridwane : Avec les sionistes, tout est possible, ils attaqueront Gaza, qu’il y ait un enlèvement de soldats ou pas. Les guerre contre Gaza s’est poursuivi avant comme après l’enlèvement de Shalit. Mais toutes leurs guerres ne font fléchir ni le Hamas ni le peuple palestinien. Ils n’ont qu’à fléchir, eux.
Avant et après la guerre
CPI : La résistance est-elle affaiblie par la guerre et le blocus renforcé ?
Dr. Ismaël Ridwane : La résistance palestinienne est beaucoup plus forte qu’avant la guerre agressive israélienne menée contre Gaza. Les résistants ont plus d’expérience. Ils sont prêts à répliquer à toute agression.
La réconciliation
CPI : Où sont arrivés les efforts pour une réconciliation interne, sachant qu’Az-Zahhar a déclaré qu’il y a des contacts avec le Fatah et l’Egypte destinés à trouver de nouveaux moyens pour mettre fin à la division ? Y a-t-il vraiment des efforts arabes dans ce cas de figure ?
Dr. Ismaël Ridwane : Les efforts palestiniens et arabes de réconciliation intérieure sont nombreux. Az-Zahar parle d’un groupe de remarques présentées par le Hamas. Si le Fatah les accepte, la réconciliation se réalisera. Malheureusement, l’entente nationale est actuellement dans l’attente. Bien que le Hamas montre toujours sa volonté de réaliser cette réconciliation et de l’encourager.
Les négociations avec les occupants israéliens
CPI : Le représentant de l’autorité a reporté le vote sur l’UNESCO. Que veut dire ce report ? Et affectera-t-il la réconciliation ?
Dr. Ismaël Ridwane : Le Hamas condamne la position de l’ambassadeur de l’autorité qui a reporté le vote. Cela représente un encouragement en direction de l’occupant dans son effort à judaïser la ville d'Al-Quds. Cela dit, les négociations incitent à plus de coopération sécuritaire et plus de concessions au profit de l’ennemi. L’autorité de Ramallah se montre prête à faire des concessions au profit de l’occupant, mais non au profit des leurs frères palestiniens et au profit de l’intérêt palestinien. Cela a été le cas ave le rapport Goldstone. Cela affectera la réconciliation et aggravera la division.
Le piratage israélien
CPI : Des bateaux viendront pour briser le blocus. L’occupant menace de les frapper. Qu’en dites-vous ?
Dr. Ismaël Ridwane : Ces menaces sionistes contre ces bateaux représentent une sorte de piratage et des crimes de guerre, une preuve claire de l’irrespect de toutes les lois internationales. Nous sommes cependant sûrs que les bateaux viendront et nous implorons Allah (le Tout Puissant) de les protéger.
La rencontre Mechaal Medvedev
CPI : Quel regard portez-vous sur la rencontre Mechaal-Medvedev ? Et comment allez-vous exploiter cette rencontre dans votre ouverture sur l’Occident ? Cette rencontre représente-t-elle un intérêt politique ?
Dr. Ismaël Ridwane : Bien évidemment, la rencontre représente un profit politique. C’est un pas vers l’ouverture du Hamas sur la scène internationale. C’est une reconnaissance indiquant que le mouvement du Hamas ne pourra être marginalisé et isolé.
C’est une réponse à tous ceux qui veulent mettre à genoux le Hamas. Cela dit, quiconque voudra s’occuper de la cause palestinienne devra traiter avec le Hamas ; le Hamas est une force électorale, politique et combattante sur la terre de Gaza.
Le droit au retour
CPI : 62 ans après la Nakba (la catastrophe de 1948), y a t-il un espoir pour le retour ? Si oui, comment ce rêve peut-il se réaliser ?
Dr. Ismaël Ridwane : Tout d’abord, le retour est un droit sacré, individuel comme collectif, un droit qui ne tombe jamais sous le coup d'une prescription. Néanmoins, 62 ans après la Nakba (la catastrophe de 1948) dont notre peuple a été la victime, nous sommes plus sûrs que nous nous rapprochons du moment où ce rêve du retour va se réaliser, car nous avons maintenant une jeune génération qui croit en son Seigneur, qui travaille pour sa patrie, qui ne fait aucune concession sur nos principes. Nous possédons un patrimoine historique arabe et islamique. L’occupation est en recul face à notre résistance, surtout après avoir été chassée de la bande de Gaza dans le combat Al-Forqane.
South Korean Corvette Sunk By Israeli Dolphin Class Submarine
During the recent skirmish between North and South Korea, the South Korean Corvette was sunk, as it has been revealed by a torpedo.
Consider the South Korean ship's specifications:
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
Speed: Maximum 32 knots (59 km/h)
Cruising 15 knots (28 km/h)[2]
Armament: 4 × Harpoon missiles,
2 × OTO Melara(76mm)/62 compact cannons
2 × Breda 40mm/70 cannons,
6 × Mark 46 torpedoes,
12 × Mark 9 depth charges [3][2]
This was a fast ship, and in combat would presumably be:
moving at full speed,
and maneuvering to avoid enemy fire AND possible torpedos.
The Cheonan was sunk by a torpedo.
Consider that the North Korean ship could not have been the source of the torpedo.
The North Korean Captain would have to calculate where the Cheosan would be at the precise moment the torpedos hit.
The Cheosan was capable of almost 60 km/hr, and maneuverable.
Unless the South Korean Captain was suicidal, a torpedo hit from several thousand yards off would be the wildest stroke of luck.
A submarine had to be BETWEEN the fighting ships.
It was close enough to fire the tropedo, have it arm and strike the Cheosan.
Israel operates the Dolphin Class submarine, reparation gifts to Israel from Germany (for the Holocaust).
They fire 2 types of torpedos:
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
Armament: 6 × 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes,
4 x 25.5 inch (650 mm) diameter torpedo tubes
The Israelis are based out of Cam Ranh Bay Vietnam. They are there to train Vietnamese crews who are purchasing 6 Soviet submarines.
The Vietnamese use Communist equipment.
Here are the types used and available for sale from China:
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
324mm Yu-7 · ET-52
350mm APR-3E
450mm Yu-2
533mm Yu-8 · Yu-6 · C43 · Yu-5 · Yu-4 · Yu-3 · Yu-1 · ET32 · ET34 · ET36 · Type 53-65 · VA-111 Shkval
650mm Type 65
Rocket-propelled CY-1 · CY-2 · CY-3 · CJ-1
Note that they also use the same diameter of torpedo as the Israeli Dolphin Class.
So theoretically, the Dolphin Class can fire Chinese torpedos.
North Korea also uses Chinese Torpedos.
Israel has recently accused North Korea of giving Syria WMD's.
It is entirely possible that the Cheonan was cut in two by a VA-111 Shkval - a very fast torpedo/missile:
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
"Launched from 533 mm torpedo tubes, the VA-111 exits the tube at 50 knots (93 km/h). Shortly afterwards, its liquid-fuel rocket ignites and propels it to speeds of up to 200 knots (370 km/h). Some reports indicate that speeds of 250+ knots may be achieved, and that work on a 300-knot (560 km/h) version was underway.[2] The rocket engine uses the combination of high test peroxide and kerosene; the propellant tanks contain about 1.5 tons of hydrogen peroxide and 500 kg of kerosene.[3]
Guidance was nonexistent in initial designs, as the missile was intended for nuclear warhead delivery. Later designs reportedly include terminal guidance and conventional warheads of 210 kg (460 lb).[4]"
Normal torpedos would be expected to knock a hole in the hull of a ship and cause fires and blast damage.
As you can see, the Cheosan was cut in two:
[link to www.guardian.co.uk]
Israel has set up North Korea in hopes of dragging Obama kicking and screaming into a war.
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1064332/pg1
Accord entre l’Iran, la Turquie et le Brésil
L’accord intervenu ce 17 mai entre l’Iran, le Brésil et la Turquie revêt une importance considérable qui va bien au-delà des manœuvres diplomatiques habituelles. Il s’agit d’un accord signé par les ministres des affaires étrangères des trois pays concernés, en présence des Présidents iranien Mahmoud Ahmadinejad et brésilien Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, et du Ministre turc Recep Tayyip Erdogan, réunis en sommet à Téhéran. Cet accord porte sur l’envoi en Turquie par l’Iran de 1200 kilos d’uranium faiblement enrichi (3.5%) pour y être échangé contre un combustible hautement enrichi (20%). Cela sera fait sous le contrôle de l’Iran et de l’AIEA, a précisé le Ministre iranien des Affaires Etrangères. Enfin, cette proposition sera communiquée à l’AIEA dans un délai d’une semaine.
Quelles sont les conséquences politiques que l’on peut d’ores et déjà tirer de cet accord ?
L’USraël et ses alliés ont échoué dans leur tentative d’isoler l’Iran sur la scène internationale. Malgré l’embargo, les sanctions, la diabolisation et les tentatives de renversement du gouvernement, la République Islamique d’Iran a maintenu et étendu son influence et son prestige dans le monde. Que ce soit en Afrique (la médiation du Président du Sénégal et ses critiques adressées à la France dans le traitement de l’affaire Clotilde Reiss), en Asie (intensification des relations entre l’Iran et la Chine), ou en Amérique latine avec le soutien de Cuba , du Venezuela , de la Bolivie et du Brésil entre autres , l’Iran a su vaincre les tentatives d’isolement. Son influence et son prestige ont grandi également parmi tous les musulmans en lutte contre le sionisme et lassés d’être trahis et humiliés. Aujourd’hui, la Résistance au sionisme dans cette région (la Syrie, le Hezbollah, le Hamas) a le soutien total de l’Iran, tant par ses positions de principe (refus de l’arme nucléaire fondé sur les principes islamiques), que par sa dénonciation sans concession de l’entité sioniste et de son emprise sur de nombreux gouvernements. L’Iran a permis à de nombreuses nations de commencer à s’émanciper de la mainmise de l’USraël et de ses alliés, c’est-à-dire des puissances impérialistes et arrogantes issues des conquêtes européennes.
Avec ce traité signé par l’Iran, la Turquie et le Brésil, l’initiative politique a changé de camp. Ce ne sont plus les Etats-Unis qui, à la demande du lobby sioniste américain, dictent leur agenda aux autres. Les nations que l’on appelle émergentes ont pris conscience de leur force et des intérêts de leur peuple. Elles refusent de se soumettre aux diktats des Etats-Unis et de l’Union européenne agissant pour le compte d’Israël.
Recevant le Président brésilien Lula, le Guide Suprême Seyyed Khamenei a dénoncé la politique américaine qui cherche à diviser les États libres pour mieux exercer son hégémonie. Il a notamment encouragé les pays indépendants à renforcer leurs liens et leur coopération pour changer cette situation. De son côté, le Président Lula a fait remarquer qu’il y a un changement de climat dans la politique internationale, et que ce changement devra entraîner des réformes au sein des Nations Unies. Le Président Ahmadinejad, pour sa part, a déclaré que les quelques pays qui contrôlent les centres politiques, économiques et médiatiques du monde, ne veulent pas que d’autres pays fassent des progrès. Enfin, le Ministre turc des Affaires Étrangères considère qu’aujourd’hui il n’y a plus besoin de sanctions dans l’affaire du nucléaire iranien.
Face au Conseil de Sécurité (5 membres permanents possédant tous l’arme nucléaire, l’un de ses membres - les USA - l’ayant utilisée à deux reprises), les Nations qui veulent être libres et se développer constituent déjà une unité qui pourrait très prochainement devenir un pôle alternatif. Il s’agit de la majorité de la population mondiale et de pays possédant d’immenses réserves en matières premières. C’est sans doute dans cet esprit que le Président Lula a parlé de réformes au sein des Nations Unies. Que sont en effet aujourd’hui ces Nations Unies ? Son exécutif, le Conseil de Sécurité, est toujours à la merci d’un de ses membres usant de son droit de veto. C’est ainsi que l’entité sioniste a toujours bénéficié du droit de veto nord-américain pour continuer sa politique d’usurpation et d’agression. Par ailleurs, l’agression de l’USraël contre l’Irak, malgré le veto de la France de M. Chirac et M. de Villepin, a ôté toute crédibilité à cette institution prétendant agir au nom de la « conscience universelle », du « droit international » et autres phrases ronflantes qu’ont toujours utilisées les oppresseurs.
Aujourd’hui, c’est sous la pression d’Israël, État nucléaire non membre du Traité de Non-Prolifération (TNP), que le Conseil de Sécurité étudie l’aggravation des sanctions à l’encontre de l’Iran, signataire du TNP et soumis à des inspections de l’AIEA qui n’ont jamais rien donné. C’est toujours sous l’influence du lobby sioniste que la nouvelle doctrine Obama en matière nucléaire menace les pays qui n’acceptent pas la domination de l’USraël, tels l’Iran et la Corée du Nord (l’usage de frappes nucléaires par l’Usraël étant clairement mentionné). Par conséquent on ne peut que se réjouir de voir des nations telles que l’Iran, la Turquie et le Brésil, rejointes demain par d’autres nations, chercher entre elles dans un esprit de respect et de justice les solutions diplomatiques qu’un Conseil de Sécurité largement sionisé ne souhaite pas.
La France, par son passé et par toute une symbolique qui constitue encore en partie son héritage, aurait pu être le pont entre ces puissances émergentes et l’Europe. Mais, dirigée par MM. Sarkozy et Kouchner, notre diplomatie a préféré être à la remorque de Tel-Aviv, adoptant souvent des positions bellicistes plus dures que celles d’Obama. Une telle attitude fait courir à notre pays le risque d’une guerre qui n’est pas la sienne, mais celle du lobby sioniste international et d’Israël. C’est pourquoi l’accord survenu entre l’Iran, le Brésil et la Turquie, est aussi une gifle à la diplomatie de MM. Sarkozy et Kouchner.
A présent, c’est aux Français eux-mêmes de décider ce qu’ils veulent : continuer à exécuter servilement les ordres de Tel-Aviv, ou rejoindre toutes ces Nations qui sont déjà le monde de demain. Cela est encore possible, encore faudrait-il que la politique étrangère de la France se décide à Paris et non plus à Tel-Aviv.
Yahia Gouasmi.
Jews are eight times over-represented in UK parliament
At that rate Muslims would have 200 seats
21 May 2010
Stuart Littlewood considers the phenomenal over-representation of Jews and non-Jewish Zionists in the UK parliament which, in terms of support for Israel, is magnified even further when viewed alongside the Conservative and Labour party leaders’ umbilical ties to the Israel lobby.
“Proportional Representation” is a big buzz-word in the UK these days. It implies fairer voting and fairer government. It is claimed to give minorities a better chance of being heard and therefore, they say, it should be incorporated into the “new politics” our shiny new coalition government has promised us.
But one minority group needs no help in that direction.
The Jewish Chronicle has published a list of Jewish MPs in Britain's parliament. It names 24 – Conservatives 12, Labour 10 and Liberal Democrats two.
I thought it was more. But let us for the sake of argument accept the Jewish Chronicle’s figures.
The Jewish population in the UK is 280,000 or 0.46 per cent. There are 650 seats in the House of Commons so, as a proportion, Jewish entitlement is only three seats.
With 24 seats they are eight times over-represented. Which means, of course, that other groups must be under-represented, including Muslims.
Yes sir, in the name of fairness there’s plenty of work here for proportional representation. Bring it on!
Meanwhile two Jews – the Miliband brothers – are battling for the leadership of the beaten Labour Party. Ed Miliband (former energy secretary) is 40 and David Miliband (former foreign secretary) 44, both far too young to lead this country, especially when neither has achieved anything worthwhile in the real world outside politics.
It’s a reflection of the generally poor calibre of MP talent when such people, although academically gifted, can rise to the top. And indulging the young has had disastrous results. Think of Blair and the cult of arrogant youth he brought onto the political scene. Men of 40, especially politicians, think they know everything. They know nothing, as David Miliband (who backed the Iraq war) demonstrated in his blundering approach to the Middle East in Gordon Brown's government.
Jewish over-representation is only part of our problem. An even bigger worry is the huge number of non-Jew Zionists that have stealthily infiltrated every level of political and institutional life. They swell the pro-Israel lobby to such a phenomenal extent that it accounts for an enormous 80 per cent of the Conservative Party, which is now in power with the Liberal Democrats in tow as their junior coalition partner.
William Hague, who has been a member of Conservative Friends of Israel since he was 15, is the new foreign secretary. Alistair Burt, an officer of the Parliamentary group of Conservative Friends of Israel, has been appointed Foreign Office minister for the Middle East, and David Lidington is now the Foreign Office minister for Europe. He has spoken of being a “staunch defender” of the State of Israel. So the stooges are safely installed and activated.
Nick Clegg, Cameron’s Liberal Democrat coalition partner, is also 43. He at least had a useful career before becoming an MP, as did his right-hand man Vince Cable, a person of more mature years and far greater stature than the two coalition leaders put together.
In their “programme for government” our new coalition has precious little to say about the stolen Holy Land except “We will push for peace in the Middle East, with a secure and universally recognized Israel living alongside a sovereign and viable Palestinian state”. Note it’s a secure Israel and only a viable Palestinian state, not the other way round or even equal status. And there’s no mention of action to end the Gaza blockade which Clegg called for in the Guardian last December.
So, stooging for Israel has made the transition from Labour to the Conservative-led coalition with seamless smoothness. It is business as usual between Britain and the rogue state’s amoral thugs, as Sir Gerald Kaufman calls them.
Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. For further information please visit www.radiofreepalestine.co.uk.
http://www.redress.cc/global/slittlewood20100521
The Israeli Role in the Plundering of Iceland
9/11 - THE TRUTH IS OUT
Although it may come as an unpleasant surprise to some, it is a proven fact that the same network of Zionist Jews is behind the false-flag terrorism of 9-11 and the huge financial crimes of the past few years. Maurice "Hank" Greenberg, for example, the disgraced former CEO of the fraudulent A.I.G., is a member of this criminal network. The first airplane flew directly into the secure computer room of Marsh McClennan (MMC), a Greenberg-owned company (headed by his son Jeffrey) on 9-11. Another Greenberg-owned company, Kroll Security, was responsible for security at the World Trade Center.
Maurice Greenberg is involved in both 9-11 and the A.I.G. bail-out.
I have pointed out these connections in "The Architecture of Terror: Mapping the Network Behind 9-11", a key chapter of my book, Solving 9-11 – The Deception that Changed the World:
Kroll Associates was responsible for "revamping security at the World Trade Center after the 1993 terrorist bombing," Douglas Frantz of the New York Times reported in 1994. This is a crucial point because those who controlled security at the WTC are prime suspects in the demolition of the Twin Towers. It was directly into the computer room of Marsh (Kroll) USA in the North Tower that the first plane struck, or was precision-guided, on 9-11. The light orange flame and whitish smoke that exploded out of burning computer room of Marsh USA are indicative of a Thermite reaction. Burning jet fuel produces darker orange flames and blackish smoke.
John O'Neill, the former chief of counterterrorism with the FBI, who had investigated Al Qaida, was the head of security for the World Trade Center complex, and was reportedly killed on his first day of work - on 9-11. O'Neill had been appointed to this position by the managing director of the Kroll security company, Jerome M. Hauer. Evidently, Kroll continued to manage security for the WTC complex from 1993 until 9-11.
The first plane flew directly into the secure computer room of Greenberg's Marsh McClennan Company. The explosions and white smoke that accompanied the crash are indicative of Thermite having been preplaced in the computer room.
Later, Maurice Greenberg's fraudulent insurance company A.I.G. was the key player in the Bush-Obama bail-out of 2008-2009, receiving more than $180 billion in U.S. taxpayer funds. Much of the taxpayer money paid out to A.I.G. was then distributed to equally criminal private investment banks like Goldman Sachs, whose profits from dodgy financial schemes/instruments had been insured by A.I.G. Fear tactics were employed as the U.S. taxpayer was robbed while being told that the bail-out of the network of financial criminals was for the public good.
We then find the same Zionist criminal network behind the Bernard Madoff scam in which tens of billions of dollars disappeared into thin air. The fact that Madoff's business partner Sy Syms was also a director of a private Israeli bank called Israel Discount Bank (New York), a bank with a documented history of money laundering and a branch in Switzerland, did not seem to interest Lev Dassin, the Zionist prosecutor. Most remarkably, Dassin, the prosecutor of Madoff, failed to even file charges of conspiracy in a financial criminal case in which more than $26 billion is reported to have disappeared.
Behind all of these mega-crimes we find one common denominator: a network of individuals connected to Israeli intelligence, the Mossad. The Israelis are well known to have a penchant for audacity. Seemingly immune from prosecution, the Mossad's crimes have only become more audacious. The evidence of Israeli involvement in these crimes is clear and indisputable. The only reason the Israelis get away with their outrageous crimes is because there is no political will to prosecute them.
PLUNDERING ICELAND
The looting of much of the wealth of Iceland is one such mega-crime in which we find Israelis involved at the highest level. The First Lady of Iceland, Dorrit Moussaieff, is an Israeli Jew, which adds a significant wrinkle to the whole plot.
The Israeli Dorrit Moussaieff is the "fabulously wealthy socialite wife of the President of Iceland." So why did a "fabulously wealthy" Israeli Jew marry the president of a small Nordic nation in the North Atlantic?
Iceland recently arrested several former executives of the former Kaupthing bank, the largest Icelandic bank involved in the collapse of the Icelandic economy in the fall of 2008. Kaupthing and a couple other banks were responsible for the looting of much of the wealth of Iceland (and other nations). Two of the former executives of the bank were recently held in solitary confinement to facilitate the Icelandic investigation.
Iceland's special prosecutor is investigating a number of former Kaupthing executives for alleged market manipulation and forgery. Before its collapse, Kaupthing lent more than $12 billion in shady deals that were "if not illegal, completely unethical," Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir said. When Kaupthing, Glitnir Bank, and Landsbanki Islands collapsed in October 2008 they had amassed debts equivalent to 12 times Island’s gross domestic product. After taking control of the three banks, the government was forced to seek a $4.6 billion International Monetary Fund-led loan to stay afloat. If an intelligence agency of a foreign government were involved in bankrupting Iceland, a member of NATO, it should be considered an act of war.
Kaupthing's loan book (leaked on the Internet) shows that around one third of its $20 billion in corporate loans went to a small elite connected to the bank's owners and management. One of Kaupthing's owners and the bank's largest debtor when it collapsed is an Iraqi-Iranian Jew named Robert Tchenguiz (pronounced like Genghis, as in Khan). The bank's leaked loan book shows that Tchenguiz borrowed some $3 billion from the bank to finance his private investments. Tchenguiz and his brother Vincent are London-based business tycoons. Robert was an owner of Kaupthing as one of the largest shareholders in Exista, a company that was the largest shareholder of the bank.
Robert Tchenguiz - "I can't comment on what Hrediar did or didn't do. It is very difficult for me to discuss this. I don't know why he was arrested. I don't know anything about the case."
Tchenguiz siblings Vincent and Lisa
Tchenguiz claims that he lost everything with the bank's collapse. "I lost all my money with the collapse of Kaupthing and I am suing the bank so I have to watch what I say," he said recently. High-profile "losers" like the Tchenguiz brothers, who lose billions of dollars, are typical of Mossad financial scams. Like Bernard Madoff, the Tchenguiz brothers claim to have lost billions of dollars, but where did the money really go?
As I pointed out in the Madoff scam, the missing billions probably went to secret Zionist-controlled bank accounts, for example at the Swiss branch of Israel Discount Bank where Madoff's friend and business partner Sy Syms (a.k.a. Seymour Merinsky) was a long-time director. In the Tchenguiz case, the Israeli partner-in-crime was probably his father, Victor, whose original surname is reported to be Kedourie Molaaem, and who has lived in Israel since at least 2003.
Victor Tchenguiz, an Iraqi Jew from Baghdad, has evidently worked with the Israeli Mossad for decades, and was reported in the British press in 2003 to be "the brains" behind the Tchenguiz business empire: "One reason that Victor Tchenguiz was long supposed to be the brains behind Rotch was that his Ferrari-driving sons didn't seem to spend much time at their desks," Conal Walsh wrote in the Observer of May 25, 2003.
The Tchenguiz kids, Vincent, Lisa, and Robert are well known for living high on other people's money. As the Observer noted in 2003: "The [Iranian Jewish] community is also legendary when it comes to shopping and partying. One reason that Victor Tchenguiz was long supposed to be the brains behind Rotch was that his Ferrari-driving sons didn't seem to spend much time at their desks."
About the Israeli connection with the Tchenguiz family, Walsh wrote:
Victor Tchenguiz, 80 and now living in Israel, is a larger-than-life figure who apparently traded in his original surname of Kedorie for Tchenguiz, Persian for 'Genghis', in honour of the great Mongol warlord.
An Iraqi-born Jew, he reportedly fled Baghdad to avoid persecution in 1948, landing in Iran and swiftly becoming a favourite of the Shah. How Victor did this is unclear - Robert has hinted that he married well - but by the Seventies he was jeweller to Iran's royal family and, it has been reported, in charge of the royal mint. When the Shah was deposed in 1979, Victor fled to London, with his fortune seemingly intact.
The British press seems to be quite clueless about Victor Tchenguiz's high-level connections to the Shah of Iran and how he got there, as Chris Blackhurst wrote in his MT interview with Robert Tchenguiz:
Somehow, despite being a foreigner, Victor became a member of the Shah's inner circle, becoming the royal jeweller and also head of the country's mint. The family were in the elite of Iranian society - the children were pupils at the International School in Tehran and the sons went to university abroad - Robert to Pepperdine in California.
Then the Shah fell. Victor moved the family to London, again displaying enormous dexterity by managing to bring their money over as well.
While the press reports are quite sketchy, the name suggests that the Tchenguiz family may originally be Iranian Jews, perhaps named Molayem (i.e. soft), which would fit the unusual "Molaaem" spelling of the family name. Although Victor and Violet met in Baghdad, they were married in Iran after a very short courtship, apparently in 1955 according to a 2009 interview with their daughter Lisa. There would be no reason for Iraqi Jews to be married in Iran if they did not have family there:
Lisa's own parents, who are both Iraqi Jews by origin, had a semi-arranged marriage. Her father spotted her mother walking beside the canal in Baghdad, and introduced himself to her father at a café. Several coffees later, the deal was done. 'My mother was at home when her mother came in and told her that she was having an engagement party the following week.' The couple 'dated' for five days, heavily chaperoned, then married in Iran.
Fifty-four years later, they are still together and, says Lisa, happily so.
It is well known that the Mossad, Israel's intelligence agency, played a key role in supporting the Shah of Iran and his secret police, the SAVAK, as the Wikipedia article on the Mossad notes:
As the Jew who headed the Iranian mint and served as court jeweller for the Shah, Victor Tchenguiz would have worked closely with the Mossad. The Mossad connection would explain why Victor lives in Israel while his "billionaire" children and grandchildren all live in Britain. Why would Victor leave his family and home to retire in a country where he has never lived? The evidence suggests that Victor is indeed "the brains" behind the looting of Iceland and probably needed to be in Israel - close to his Israeli partners-in-crime - to pull off the mega-heist.
Sources and Recommended Reading:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2003/may/25/theobserver.observerbusiness6
"The Tchenguiz sister", by Lydia Slater, London Evening Standard (U.K.), May 15, 2009
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/lifestyle/article-23691957-the-tchenguiz-sister.do
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossad
1 comment:
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?267492
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/117057/Sports/lalit-modi-bid-to-be-iceland-envoy-nixed.html
Links to this post
End of Israel: Israel's fated bleak future
President Barack Obama has finally coaxed Israel and the Palestinians back to the negotiating table. He and most Americans hope that the talks will lead to the creation of a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank. Regrettably, that is not going to happen. Instead, those territories are almost certain to be incorporated into a "Greater Israel," which will then be an apartheid state bearing a marked resemblance to white-ruled South Africa.
There are four possible futures regarding Israel and the occupied territories. The outcome that gets the most attention is the two-state solution, where a Palestinian state would control 95 percent or more of the West Bank and all of Gaza, and territorial swaps would compensate the Palestinians for those small pieces of the West Bank that Israel would keep. East Jerusalem would be its capital.
The alternatives to a two-state solution all involve creating a Greater Israel — an Israel that effectively controls Gaza and the West Bank. In the first scenario, it would become a democratic binational state in which Palestinians and Jews enjoy equal political rights. This solution would mean abandoning the original Zionist vision of a Jewish state, since Palestinians would eventually outnumber Jews.
Israel could also expel most of the Palestinians from Greater Israel, preserving its Jewish character through ethnic cleansing. Something similar happened in 1948, when the Zionists drove 700,000 Palestinians out of the territory that became Israel. The final alternative is some form of apartheid, whereby Israel increases its control over the occupied territories, but allows the Palestinians to exercise limited autonomy in a set of disconnected and economically crippled enclaves.
The two-state solution is the best of these alternatives, but most Israelis are opposed to making the sacrifices that would be necessary to create a viable Palestinian state. There are about 480,000 settlers in the occupied territories and an extensive infrastructure of connector and bypass roads, not to mention the settlements themselves. A Hebrew University Truman Institute poll in March of West Bank settlers found that 21 percent believe that "all means must be employed to resist the evacuation of most West Bank settlements, including the use of arms." They needn't worry, however, because Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is committed to expanding the settlements throughout the occupied territories.
Of course, there are prominent Israelis like former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert who do favor a two-state solution. But that does not mean that they would be willing or able to make the concessions necessary to create a legitimate Palestinian state. Olmert did not do so when he was prime minister, and it is unlikely that he or Livni could get enough of their fellow citizens to back a genuine two-state solution. The political center of gravity in Israel has shifted sharply to the right over the past decade, and there is no sizable pro-peace political party or movement they could turn to for help.
Some advocates of a two-state solution believe the Obama administration can compel Israel to accept a two-state outcome. The United States, after all, is the most powerful country in the world and should have great leverage over Israel, because it gives the Jewish state so much diplomatic and material support.
But no American president can pressure Israel to change its policies toward the Palestinians. The main reason is the Israel lobby, a powerful coalition of American Jews and Christian evangelicals that has a profound influence on U.S. Middle East policy. Alan Dershowitz was spot on when he said, "My generation of Jews … became part of what is perhaps the most effective lobbying and fundraising effort in the history of democracy."
Consider that every American president since 1967 has opposed settlement building, yet none has been able to get Israel to stop building them. There is little evidence that Obama is different from his predecessors. Shortly after taking office, he demanded that Israel stop all settlement building in the occupied territories. Netanyahu refused and Obama caved in to him. The president recently made it clear that he wants Israel to stop building in East Jerusalem. In response, Netanyahu said that Israel would never stop building there, because it is an integral part of the Jewish state. Obama, under pressure from the lobby, has remained silent and certainly has not threatened to punish Israel.
The best Obama can hope for is to push forward the so-called peace process, but most people understand that these negotiations are a charade. The two sides will engage in endless talks while Israel continues to colonize Palestinian lands. The likely result, therefore, will be a Greater Israel between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
But who will live there and what kind of political system will it have?
It will not be a democratic binational state, at least not in the near future. The vast majority of Israel's Jews have no interest in living in a state dominated by Palestinians. Ethnic cleansing would guarantee that Greater Israel retains a Jewish majority, but that murderous strategy would do enormous damage to Israel's moral fabric, to its relationship with Jews in the Diaspora, and to its international standing. No genuine friend of Israel could support this crime against humanity.
The most likely outcome is that Greater Israel will become a full-fledged apartheid state. There are already separate laws, separate roads and separate housing in the occupied territories, and the Palestinians are essentially confined to impoverished enclaves. Indeed, two former Israeli prime ministers — Ehud Barak and Olmert — have made just this point. Olmert said that if the two-state solution collapses, Israel will face a "South African-style struggle." He went so far as to argue, "as soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished."
Olmert is correct. A Jewish apartheid state is not sustainable over the long term. The discrimination and repression that underpin apartheid are antithetical to core Western values. How could anyone make a moral case for it in the United States, where democracy is venerated and segregation and racism are routinely condemned? It is equally hard to imagine the United States having a "special relationship" with an apartheid state. It is much easier to imagine Americans strongly opposing that racist state's political system and working hard to change it. An apartheid Israel would also be a strategic liability for the United States.
This is why, in the end, Greater Israel will become a democratic binational state, whose politics will be dominated by its Palestinian citizens. This will mean the end of the Zionist dream.
What is truly remarkable about this situation is that the lobby is effectively helping Israel destroy its own future as a Jewish state. On top of that, there is an alternative outcome that would be relatively easy to achieve and is clearly in Israel's best interests: the two-state solution. It is hard to understand why Israel and its American supporters are not working overtime to create a viable Palestinian state and why instead they are moving full-speed ahead to build an apartheid state. It makes no sense from either a moral or a strategic perspective.
John J. Mearsheimer teaches political science at the University of Chicago and is the co-author of "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy."
http://www.effedieffe.com/content/view/10251/183/
PRÉFACE : La crise économique mondiale, la Grande Dépression du XXIe siècle
Dans toutes les grandes régions du monde, la récession économique est profonde et entraîne le chômage de masse, l’effondrement de programmes sociaux étatiques et l’appauvrissement de millions de personnes. La crise économique s’accompagne d’un processus mondial de militarisation, d’une « guerre sans frontières » menée par les États-Unis d’Amérique et ses alliés de l’OTAN. La conduite de la « longue guerre » du Pentagone est intimement liée à la restructuration de l’économie mondiale.
Michel Chossudovsky et Andrew Gavin Marshall, Montréal et Vancouver, mai 2010Texte original en anglais : http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19025
Traduction : Julie Lévesque pour Mondialisation.ca.
Le Hamas n’a qu’une seule stratégie
Traduit par le CPI,
www.palestine-info.info
Traduit et résumé par le CPI
Who Wants this American Dead?
U.S. intelligence turns up surveillance ears on Turkey and Brazil
As the UN Security Council debates applying new sanctions on Iran, Turkey and Brazil, which are opposed to new sanctions, are quietly negotiating between Tehran and Russia and China to ensure that there will be at least one permanent member Security Council veto of a sanctions resolution.
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva is due to visit Tehran next week for the G15 Summit, with the nuclear fuel for uranium deal seen as high on his agendas in talks with Iranian officials. Iranian parliament speaker Ali Larijani, the nation's former chief nuclear negotiator, recently met with Turkish President Abdullah Gul in Istanbul. The nuclear swap deal was also high on the talk's agenda.
The independent initiatives of Turkey and Brazil has rankled the Obama administration and frequent dictator of its Iran foreign policy, Israel, which favor strong crippling sanctions on Iran.
The National Security Agency's (NSA) Regional Targets Section has applied a tactic on Turkey and Brazil used on the eve of the UN Security Council vote on authorizing military action on Iraq -- "surge" surveillance of the telephones and e-mail of the Turkish and Brazilian UN delegations conducted in January 2003. The surge surveillance is also being directed against key Turkish and Brazilian ministries and the nation's respective embassies in Moscow and Beijing. Turkey and Brazil are current non-permanent members of the Security Council.
Concerning the 2003 surge surveillance by NSA, on September 25, 2008, WMR reported: " . . . it has been discovered that the United States and United Kingdom wanted to intercept the office and home communications of the UN ambassadors of Pakistan, Chile, Angola, Guinea, Cameroon, and Mexico, six non-permanent members of the Security Council, to gather information that could be used to blackmail the ambassadors into voting for the US/UK Iraq war resolution. Ultimately, the Security Council refused to back the resolution."
Similar to the 2003 action by the Bush administration, the Obama administration is also turning up surveillance on other UN Security Council members' UN missions to ascertain their vote on Iranian sanctions. These include Japan, Uganda, Lebanon, Mexico, Nigeria, Gabon, Austria, and Bosnia-Herzegovina.
There are strong indications that Uganda and Lebanon will vote no on sanctions with a possibility that Japan and Austria will join them in opposition or abstain. Turkey is suspected of using its influence in Bosnia and its new diplomatic forays into Gabon and Nigeria to press for no votes on sanctions. These activities are all of interest to NSA's Turkish communications interception personnel.
WMR has learned from State Department sources that the Obama administration is also pushing for secondary sanctions against nations that would continue to trade with Iran after the U.S. gets UN authorization for strong sanctions against Tehran. Such sanctions would be applied by the United States Treasury Department against companies in second countries that refuse to abide by sanctions with the primary targets being companies in Sweden, Austria, Cyprus, and Turkey.
The proposed UN Security Council text on sanctions being crafted by the United States, United Kingdom, and France is not being shared with the governments of Turkey and Brazil, the fear being that Ankara and Brasilia will share the text with Iranian officials. One Turkish official said, "The Americans are asking us to vote for a UN Security Council resolution we have not seen." Turkey and Brazil are not alone. Because of Uganda's and Lebanon's close ties with Iran, the UN delegations of both countries are not being shown the draft text of the Security Council sanctions resolution.
Previously published in the Wayne Madsen Report.
Copyright © 2010 WayneMadenReport.com
Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist and nationally-distributed columnist. He is the editor and publisher of the Wayne Madsen Report (subscription required).
Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor
Netanyahu does not believe in new UN sanctions at the end of the Month : Israel launchs massive drill the 26th May 2010
IDF Prepares Public for Nationwide Home Front Exercise
Une marche massive à Al Qods pour commémorer la 62 année de la Nakba
www.palestine-info.info
La marche a démarré du boulevard de Naplouse vers le quartier de Cheikh Jarrah, où les manifestants ont prononcé des discours, dont la parole d'Awad Abdel Fattah, le député Jamal Zahalka, Hatem Abdel Kader, Cheikh Abbas Zakour, la député Hanine Zoubi qui ont tous souligné que ce qui se passe aujourd'hui, à Jérusalem «Al Qods occupée», est une deuxième Nakba, et que la ville sainte est le titre de la souveraineté des Palestiniens, et que sans cette ville, il n’y aura pas de souveraineté", tout en insistant sur le droit au retour des réfugiés palestiniens à leurs maisons confisquées par l’occupation.
Israel wants a full EU membership, Sarkozy is preparing a civil war in France to help Israel 's integration wars
France. Ban on Muslim Burka: A Cynical Ploy to Stoke Islamophobia
By Finian Cunningham
Global Research, May 13, 2010
French President Nicolas Sarkozy is playing with fire after his country’s parliament voted to ban Muslim women from wearing the Islamic veil in public places.
Last month, Sarkozy ordered the French parliament to debate introducing a ban on Muslim women donning in public the garment known as the burka or nijab, which covers the face except for the eyes.
This week, 11 May, the French parliament voted unanimously – after 30 communist deputies walked out in protest – to condemn the practice of Muslim women wearing the burka publicly. The ban is expected to become law later this year. France will be the second European country after Belgium to introduce such legislation that in effect criminalises Muslims over their choice of dress, which is seen as a symbol of religious devotion.
Under the French ban, a woman wearing the burka can be stopped on the street by police and ordered to a police station where she will be compelled to remove the veil and identify herself. The “offender” will also face a heavy financial fine. Muslim men who are deemed to have “forced” their wives or daughters to wear the burka will also be fined.
The parliamentary move has provoked an outcry among France’s five million Muslims who say that the ban is an unwarranted stigmatisation of their community. The French Muslim community mainly comes or descends from France’s former colonies in North Africa – Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia. At 12 per cent of the total population, France has the largest Muslim community in Europe.
Five years ago, long-held grievances of alienation, poverty and police harassment exploded into three weeks of riots in Muslim ghettoes in Paris, Lyon, Lille and Marseilles. Thousands of cars and other properties were torched on a nightly basis in what French police described as “war zones”.
France’s national debate over the burka has fuelled lingering tensions, with rhetoric that has at times bordered on gratuitously reckless. French politicians calling for the ban have described such women as “walking coffins” and “phantoms” in public places.
President Sarkozy himself has said that the burka “is not welcome” in his country. He claims that it is “oppressive” to women and reduces them to “servitude”.
Advocates of the ban accuse members of the Arab community of not conforming to French national identity. They claim that at issue is the defence of women’s rights and the promotion of the Fifth Republic’s values of secularism and “liberty, equality, fraternity”.
The narrative about women’s rights has echoes of one of the most tenuous justifications used by the US and its NATO allies to invade Afghanistan – the “liberation of women oppressed by the Muslim fundamentalist Taliban”.
In other words, there would appear to be something “faux” – as the French might say – about the motives for why their political class is driving the issue of the burka.
Official figures would tend to bear out the contention that the “problem” is being inflated out of all proportion.
From the rhetoric wielded one could be forgiven for thinking that French society was being destabilised by an army of women clad from head to toe in black gowns. However, figures from the French interior ministry put the number of women who wear the burka at 1,900. That’s less than 0.04 per cent of the total Muslim population. (French intelligence services estimate the number to be even lower, and it is disquieting that they should be even keeping a score on such a matter.)
Contrary to common misunderstanding, Islam does not compel women to cover their faces. Wearing the burka, nijab and hijab (head scarf) is optional. The minority of women who chose to dress with the burka do so of their own volition for personal religious/cultural reasons. In Arab culture, women themselves place a high value on modesty in public appearance.
So what is going on here?
Firstly, there is a lot of French political vanity involved. By presenting the country as a bastion of equal rights and a knight in shining armour “defending women against oppression” – the advocates of the burka ban no doubt can puff their chests with pride that La France is standing tall and courageous on the world stage.
Secondly, the spurious debate and disproportionate national concern distracts, ironically, from the real world fact that French society is far from a bastion of equal rights, with its impoverished Muslim ghettoes as a glaring case in point.
Thirdly, and more seriously, the agenda serves as a way of stirring up “Islamophobia” – to disseminate the notion that there is “an enemy within” in the form of the Muslim community. When French politicians talk about “phantoms in public places” that is sending an insidious message to the wider population that there is something abnormal, un-human, even dangerous about these women and by extension their wider community. As in the US, Britain and other NATO countries, this Islamophobia is less about Muslim women covering up their faces and more about governments covering up their criminal wars in Muslim countries. It is yet another way of trying to bolster public support for the “war on terror”.
But Sarkozy and his parliament’s latest gambit could backfire with dangerous consequences for French society and beyond.
One Muslim woman, originally from North Africa now living in France, said: “Liberty, equality, fraternity – it’s all a big lie” and she compared the situation with 1939-45. “They are now doing to Muslims what they did to Jews.”
Given the French political establishment’s heinous collaboration with Nazi Germany in the persecution of Jews, communists and other “undesirables”, Sarkozy in this latest French move to ban the burka is indeed playing with fire.
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19143
Who is bombing in Iraq, Are the bombers Al-Qaeda, the CIA or Israel?
Christopher King argues that it is likely that the American CIA – or Israel acting on its behalf – is responsible for recent atrocities in Iraq, in order to extend and consolidate the occupation, just as it is probable that the Times Square bomber was, wittingly or otherwise, acting for the CIA or Israel, to justify the US military intervention in South Asia.
As these attacks are providing the US with an excuse for delaying even its token withdrawal however, we need to think about who is behind them.
This latest series of attacks on top of a long series of lesser but still deadly attacks is not the work of a small group. It’s a large, well disciplined, well financed group with substantial support.
The usual unnamed officials of unspecified nationality say that Al-Qaeda is doing the attacks. Well they would, wouldn’t they? Am I mistaken in recalling that General David Petraeus’s great success in Iraq was the elimination of Al-Qaeda? Or was that only while he was paying the Awakening Councils to go after them – if indeed Al-Qaeda was ever in Iraq at all. Since the Iraq invasion itself was based on a pack of lies there is no reason to believe anything that we are subsequently told about what is happening there or anywhere else where the US is involved.
Actually, even people on the ground in Iraq often don’t know who is doing what and allegiances are constantly changing. It’s suggested that Al-Qaeda doesn’t want the Americans to leave because the cost of the occupation is damaging America. There are also Iraqi groups who have done well out of the occupation and would like to see the Americans stay. Whether any of these groups would be capable of attacks on this scale, or would be willing to carry them out, is doubtful. I don’t buy Al-Qaeda. That’s the standard US scare story and it’s worn out, like the dozens of accusations that Iran was behind the Iraqi resistance and supplying arms and bomb technology without a scrap of evidence. All propaganda and rubbish – like Saddam’s nuclear programme, his weapons of mass destruction, his collaboration with Al-Qaeda, his mobile chemical laboratories. All now officially certified lies.
This is certain: the US invasion caused extraordinary devastation in Iraq and its continued presence is the problem for Iraqis. It’s most likely that because they have no intention of leaving, it’s the US itself that is behind the attacks. Or maybe the Israelis on their behalf, using locally organized groups.
The Israelis, CIA, US and UK military all regularly assassinate suspected militants along with innocent men, women and children. They consider no-one to be innocent. Nor would false-flag provocations be beyond the US-Israeli axis. On 8 June 1967 the Israelis attempted to sink the USS Liberty in an attack that left 34 American sailors dead and 173 wounded. The American Department of Defence colluded with Israel. It recalled fighter aircraft that had been launched from a nearby carrier to give assistance and probably co-planned the incident. The crew was threatened and warned not to talk about the attack.
This was clearly a false flag attack that was bungled, the probable intention to blame the Syrians or Egyptians with willingness of the US to sacrifice its own ship and crew. For the story, visit the Liberty Veterans’ Association website or read their report. The US-Israeli axis operates deeper than Americans or Europeans realize and we must be prepared to follow their thinking.
Why should we believe that the Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad, was briefed by the Pakistani Taliban – even if he believes it himself? Did they show him their membership cards, perhaps? Perhaps his Pakistani handlers were Taliban-certified by someone of reliable reputation and good character? I prefer a group backed by the CIA which is now publicly known to be active in Pakistan and who would like to supply evidence of the Taliban’s wish to attack the US itself. It justifies their atrocities and keeps the war going.
Faisal Shahzad’s crude construct didn’t explode and it wasn’t going to. It wasn’t even a bomb – just some petrol cans, propane cylinders, fireworks and fertilizer of the wrong sort for bomb-making. A nuisance but harmless. He had never been trained by a real bomb-maker or if he was, the crude construct was intended to merely burn. Remember the USS Liberty when you read these accounts.
We are getting a constant stream of conflicting messages from the Americans and our own war criminals whom they have suborned: they’re leaving Iraq and Afghanistan soon but at the same time are in it for the long haul of 10 years or so. The purpose of this apparent nonsense is to give everyone something that they can hear and believe in while shutting out what they don’t want to hear. These messages have collaborating psychologists’ fingerprints on them.
This is a critical time when we need men of honesty and goodwill who will act for the good of the UK and Europe. That means leaving the Middle East and detaching from America and its crimes. Some countries are finding out how leech-like this parasitic country holds on. The Japanese in Okinawa are finding that the US won’t remove its bases on request. Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium have called for the removal of US nuclear weapons from Europe. The US says that this is an issue for NATO to decide and an unnamed official says: “Single countries shouldn’t be coming forward with decisions or unilateral reviews.” So there you have it.
With the NATO First Act of the United States, getting the US, its bases and its nuclear weapons out of Europe will be found to be impossible when Europeans realize that it is necessary. This extraordinary Act has it that either the US Congress or host countries can have US bases closed or redeploy nuclear weapons. Well, already it seems that individual countries can’t ask for nuclear weapons to be removed from their soil. Once on the statute books, it’s a small step to make either into both – and that seems to be the case already.
You might think that the present economic crisis and Middle Eastern war situation is bad. It’s actually much worse than that. Do you think that the US wouldn’t do in Europe what it’s doing in the Middle East? What it has done in Guantanamo? The crimes it has Europe’s politicians collaborating in? And who got the money from the worthless derivatives that our banks bought and European taxpayers are paying for? Europe’s politicians are either paralyzed in a state of wilful blindness and denial or they can view with equinamity the Wikileaks Collateral Murder video and think that they and their families will be looked after no matter what the crimes – like Anthony Blair.
With America under economic and geopolitical pressures of its own making, the future for Europe is every bit as bad as it is for other countries that the US occupies. We should recall the crimes of Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, among which was the torture and murder of about 7,000 persons in the Santiago Stadium in 1973, outlined in this Washington Post obituary. What the newspaper neglects to mention is that the United States was Pinochet’s backer.
Christopher King is a retired consultant and lecturer in management and marketing. He lives in London, UK.
http://www.redress.cc/iraq/cking20100514
Turkish Air Defense System Deployed to "Defend Syria, Iran against Israel Raids"
Abu Suleyman
Islamic-Intelligence
The Turkish daily Hurriyet meanwhile, quoted a military source as saying that “this move aims at repelling a US or Israeli attack against Iran or Syria.”
The Israeli Foreign Ministry sources noted that if the news published in the Turkish media were true, then Ankara would be taking a side with Damascus and Tehran, instead of preventing the nuclearization of Iran.
In a phone call with Al-Manar TV on Wednesday, Mustafa Ozcan, a Turkish political analyst, said “The news in Hurriyet daily is true. The air defense system was moved from Istanbul to Iskenderun to counter any surprise Israeli air raid, because in 2007 Israeli warplanes used the Turkish airspace to carry out air raids on Syrian targets. Thus Turkey took this precautionary measure so that what happened in 2007 would not happen again.”
Asked whether the cooperation between Israel and Turkey gives the Zionist entity the freedom to use Turkey’s air space, Ozcan replied, “Of course not. Israel cannot do this without prior notice to Ankara because Syria is Turkey’s neighbor and ties between the two countries are developing day after day.”
http://www.almanar.com.lb/NewsSite/NewsDetails.aspx?id=137326&language=en
« Israël est derrière le 11 septembre », selon le professeur Sabrosky (audio)
France-Israel-Afrique : La difficile fin de regne de Sarkozy a l'Elysée et la preparation de la guerre civile en France
Nicolas Sarkozy, l'impossible rupture avec la Françafrique
Querelle des anciens et des modernes
Les nouveaux rôles des hommes de la Françafrique
Très cher pré-carré français
ANOTHER MAJOR SIGN OF THE END OF ISRAEL AND THE ARRIVAL OF THEIR FALSE MESSIAH ANTICHRIST-DAJJAL
Jordan River 'to run dry next year'
By Orly Halpern
May 9, 2010
Normally on bus tours the guide will make numerous pit stops for the sightseers. But as we drove from Jerusalem out of the Judea Mountains and into the open space of the Jordan Valley, our Jordan River tour guide asked the participants to use the bathroom at the gas station where we first stopped, because we would be avoiding all other toilet facilities until we reached the Sea of Galilee.
"All the sewage of the communities along the Jordan River goes right into it and we want to avoid adding ours," Gidon Bromberg said with a wry smile.
Bromberg is the Israeli co-director of Friends of Earth Middle East (FoEME), an Israeli-Palestinian-Jordanian environmental NGO that is making surprising headway into the most critical environmental crisis facing Israel, Palestine and Jordan: water.FoEME organised the tour to teach journalists about what is killing the renowned Jordan River and to share the results of two groundbreaking studies it released that identify for the first time how to save the river - both in terms of how much water is needed and where the water would come from.
The studies reveal that with cooperation between Israel, Jordan and Palestine, the river can be saved - and FoEME itself offers an example of such cooperation.
Abandoned and neglected
We travelled up the western side of the Jordan River along Road 90, which goes through both the Palestinian and Israeli parts of the Jordan Valley.
Our first stop was Qasr El-Yahud, which translates from Arabic to Castle of the Jews.
The name is misleading. It is actually a very holy Christian site where a cluster of ancient churches are set near the banks of the Lower Jordan River, just north of the Dead Sea. In Arabic it is called al-Maghtas (Baptism Site).
Many believe that it was here that Jesus was baptised.
Until the 1967 war, pilgrims visited daily, but since then Israel has closed the site to the public for security reasons.
The military opened a gate and our bus passed two barbed wire fences that run the length of the border.
We then drove through low barren desert hills towards the river.
As we approached we saw ancient churches on either side. They looked as they were: abandoned and neglected for over 40 years.
Fetid stream
One look at the river and we understood why we came on the trip. It was pitiful.
The Jordan River, for all its fame, was a narrow foul brownish stream that gurgled its way south.
On the opposite side, just a few metres away from us in Jordan, was a similar wooden deck where tourists came and went.
One Russian-speaking pilgrim put on a white cloth and calmly entered the water.
Bromberg, who had been explaining to us how and why the river turned from gushing rapids into a fetid stream, stopped mid-sentence as we all watched in horror.
Once 1.3 billion metric cubes flowed annually through the Jordan River. It was 25 metres wide, flanked by willow trees and poplars and filled with fish that could be eaten.
As we would see later on our bus trip, the water of the Jordan River is no longer coming from the Sea of Galilee but from the sewage, the contaminated agricultural run-off and saline water that was dumped into it.
Saving the river
The FoEME studies are the first to show just how much the Jordan River requires to be rehabilitated.
According to a water quality study released by the NGO on May 3, the river could return to life with 400 million cubic metres (mcm) of fresh water annually.
But who would provide the water and where would it come from?
According to FoEME, 220 mcm should be provided by Israel, 100 by Syria and 90 by Jordan.
"That's based on historically who has taken what," Bromberg explained as we sat in front of the river.
"Israel has taken 46 per cent of the historical flow. So it can at least return that much and because of its [strong] economic situation it can return more."
A second FoEME study - prepared jointly by an Israeli, a Jordanian and a Palestinian economist - measured the amounts of water that could be saved through various means and their cost-effectiveness.
It concluded that over one billion cubic metres of water could be saved from the fresh waters used by Israel, Jordan and Palestine. Israel could conserve 800 million mcm, Jordan could save over 300 million and Palestine over 100 million - all at an economically viable cost.
The economic analysis listed a number of ways to increase supply and reduce demand in the most cost-effective way and FoEME has been working with Israelis, Palestinians and Jordanians to encourage cooperation in order the save the river that is dear to them all.
Holy water?
into a fetid stream [EPA]
Our next destination was the beginning of the Lower Jordan River at the Sea of Galilee.
To our great surprise, we quickly discovered that the river ends almost as soon as it starts.
The bus turned into a dirt road and stopped in front of the Alumot Dam, a simple mound of dirt only two kilometres from where the river began.
On the northern side of the dam heavy machinery pumped fresh river water into Israel's national carrier, which supplies Israelis with one-quarter to one-third of their fresh water.
On the southern side of the dam a large pipe spewed brownish-yellow sewage water which bubbled and foamed and ran into the bed of the river. The smell was overpowering.
This was the point where the fresh water from the Sea of Galilee ended and the sewage of 15,000 Israelis living around the sea began.
Over the length of the river, the sewage from an additional 15,000 Israelis living in the upper Jordan Valley, 6,000 Israeli settlers, 60,000 Palestinians and 250,000 Jordanians provides the Lower Jordan River with most of its water.
"No one can say this is holy water," said Bromberg in a foreboding tone.
"The Jordan River has become holy shit ... and Qasr Al-Yahud [the site where Jesus is thought to have been baptised] is only 100 kilometres away."
Political will
But FOEME is confident that this will change. Now with the recently released studies, Israel, Jordan and Palestine have the information they need to save the river.
They just need a great deal of political will.
FoEME has proven that persistence, cooperation between all sides and public awareness through the media, can help to generate change.
The work FOEME has done with local councils and the media has created a public outcry which in turn has convinced the local authorities near the Sea of Galilee to finally build a sewage treatment plant, which will treat the waste and then use that water for other purposes.
Paradoxically, the plant, which is due to be completed soon, will bring the demise of the river.
Bromberg warns: "In 2011 the sewage plant will be finished and no more water will be going from here to the Jordan River - and this is its main source of water. Time is running out."
IRAQ GENOCIDE AND MORE…..
See also: U.S. Jews ‘proud’ of Obama Supreme Court nomineehttp://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/u-s-jews-proud-of-obama-supreme-court-nominee-1.289494
When confirmed, there will be three Jewish Zionists and three right-wing Christian Zionists on the Supreme court (total two-thirds) when the US public is mostly opposed to unfettered bias and support to Israeli policies of destruction and discrimination. Kagan said she loved the Federalist Society and supported holding people without trial. The center for constitutional rights and other groups in the US voiced concern about nominating someone who supports the premises and unconstitutional actions accompanying the misnamed ‘war on terror’. But then again it fits the agenda of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians to advance fictions and notions associated with an endless war on terror.
http://www.counterpunch.org/heller05102010.html
http://www.newhavenregister.com/articles/2010/05/09/opinion/doc4be4df9f99932692991250.txt
General ‘Tried to Cover Up Truth About Death of Rachel Corrie’
Israeli war hero accused of suppressing testimony that could reveal what really happened to Gaza activist
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/05/07-1
Two relevant articles as we commemorate the Nakba (the ethnic cleansing of Palestine):
A Tale of Lies, Deceit, and Terrorism: the Birth of Israel by William A. Cook
http://mwcnews.net/focus/editorial/2424-william-a-cook.html
The Ongoing Erasure of Palestine By Naseer Aruri
http://www.zcommunications.org/the-ongoing-erasure-of-palestine-by-naseer-aruri
Enfants de l’immigration : les nouveaux déracinés
Par Nadjib Achour,
Abou Zouhri: L'invasion sioniste dans les esplanades d'al-Aqsa est le fruit des négociations
Gaza/Ramallah – CPI
www.palestine-info.info
Notons que des dizaines de grands rabbins sionistes d'extrême droite avaient envahi ce matin les esplanades de la sainte mosquée d'al-Aqsa, en humiliant les sentiments des millions musulmans au monde entier.
NARCO NEXUS MAY BE MANAGING TERROR WAR
By Gordon Duff,
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/05/10/gordon-duff-rats-in-wolves-clothing/
Réflexions sur le témoignage de l’agent « K.M. » du DRS
Dans ce cas là, je parle plutôt de tous ceux qui mènent le combat contre l’arbitraire de cette cabale et de ce pouvoir totalitaire, et qui savent que « l’Etat = DRS », et ne sont pas ignorants de la manière dont opère cette gangrène qui constitue le pouvoir effectif, à tout niveau, ceux qui savent qu’une fois cette excroissance envahissante et paralysante extirpée, le pays pourra alors souffler et se libérer pour gérer sa propre destinée.
Ce témoignage n’est pas tant important de par les vérités qu’il contient, qui sont quasi connues de tout un chacun. Evidement, cela impose un travail de recherche sur la personne qui témoigne, et le degré de sa crédibilité. Il important surtout de par la masse de données : noms, adresses, dates, événements facilement reconnaissables, et principalement le mode opératoire de ce dispositif, ce qui donne de la teneur au témoignage, et qui ne diffère pas, qu’ils s’agisse d’agents tels ceux cités par cette personne, ou bien ceux de la haute hiérarchie, les Mediène et consorts, que dans la mesure de l’importance, d’une part des cibles visées, et d’autre part du niveau auquel appartient celui qui mène le bal au sein de cette cabale.
Une attention particulière à ce témoignage pourrait constituer un véritable dossier à exploiter tous azimuts : media (chercher par exemple les supports potentiels qui peuvent diffuser ces témoignages), saisine de la justice internationale dans le cadre de crimes imprescriptibles de torture, crimes de guerre et de crimes contre l’humanité, etc.
A cet effet, je pense qu’il serait judicieux de :
1― Ne pas refaire la même bêtise, à savoir sous-estimer de pareils témoignages, comme ce fut le cas de la « sale guerre » et des « moines trappistes », qui malgré la pertinence et le « smoking gun » incriminant cette cabale, sont passés relativement inaperçus, car sous-exploités.
Je ne parle pas des efforts titanesques déployés par les parties concernées, visant à les discréditer, que ce soit à l’intérieur du pays, parce que parties prenantes de ce système et toute atteinte à ce système leur porte atteinte à eux également. Peut-on d’ailleurs oublier que ce ne sont rien d’autres que des appendices de ce DRS, nommés et dégommés par lui, comme le montre bien ce témoignage ?
Je ne parle pas non plus des parties qui bénéficient de ce système, acceptant de jouer le rôle qui leur est attribué : partis politiques, presse dite fallacieusement indépendante, organisations, associations, etc. Ceci explique d’ailleurs d’une manière criarde cette levée de bouclier à l’unisson, de salves de condamnations « plus royalistes que le roi » à chaque fois que la thèse du « qui tue qui ? » refait surface, et la criminalisation de toute initiative politique globale, indépendante des officines lugubres du même DRS.
Enfin, je ne parle pas de certains gouvernements étrangers (France, USA, principalement) qui par intérêts malsains et cupidité, profitent de l’état de fait et de la nature de ce système, plus prompt à exhausser leurs vœux et intérêts, du fait que sa légitimité dépend de leur « silence », et bien plus d’ailleurs.
Le dernier documentaire de Canal+, sur les moines trappistes, et surtout la déclaration du député Marceaux à cet effet, qui pointe l’index incriminant le gouvernement français d’alors, qui sous couvert de raison d’Etat, évite de trop bousculer les responsables du DRS, et de trop pousser les investigations sur les responsabilités réelles dans, aussi bien l’assassinat des moines, que dans l’affaire de l’Airbus Alger-Marseille et des attentats du Métro de Paris.
En parlant de défaillance de communication, je parle plutôt de la nôtre, qui devrait consister à mettre tout en œuvre pour suivre une contre-stratégie, et mettre en échec la stratégie de désinformation et d’intox du DRS, et ne pas aller à la facilité, celle de hausser l’épaule se disant que cet énième témoignage sera sans lendemain, ou bien pire encore « en douter » par peur d’un genre de « bleuïte ». Un minimum d’investigation s’impose assurément.
2― Ce n’est jamais trop d’en parler et de dévoiler la sale besogne et décortiquer le mode opératoire de cette gangrène pluri-tentaculaire, et mettre le parallèle entre elle et ses consœurs : Stasi, Securitate, gestapo et autres excroissances morbides qui paralysent les sociétés, en montrant que partout où elles sévissent, c’est la mort et la désolation qui s’installent, avec leurs lots de terreur, d’arbitraire et de disparitions.
Ceci est utile pour contrecarrer ceux qui, dans l’exercice de la mission qui leur est assignée, vous les connaissez bien, tentent de ridiculiser ce qu’ils appellent « la thèse du complot », en fustigeant toute personne qui ose pointer l’index accusateur à cette cabale. On garde en mémoire comment ces derniers se sont levés comme un seul homme pour « faire la peau » aux signataires du Contrat de Rome, ainsi que ceux qui incriminaient le DRS dans l’affaire des moines trappistes malgré les révélations successives, et ceux qui parlaient de l’infiltration, voire la fabrication des principaux GIA.
En fait ces « nommés » par le DRS, ne trompent personne. Ils ne font que défendre leur peau, lorsqu’ils nous ressassent que l’Algérie, pays des institutions, ne pourrait être gérée par le DRS, qui selon eux ne fait rien de plus que s’acquitter de sa responsabilité conformément à ses prérogatives légitimes. Partant de là, on comprend aisément pourquoi le DRS ne se sent même pas obligé de se défendre face à tous ceux qui l’incriminent dans les différents crimes qui lui sont imputés, tant il trouve ceux qui, nommé par lui, le font à sa place, notamment la presse « indépendante ».
3― Ce n’est pas par hasard, que partout où un mouvement de changement s’opère, c’est en étêtant cette abomination que les peuples qui se soulèvent arrivent à se libérer. C’est la bête immonde à abattre, par les moyens qu’il serait impossible à cette cabale dimploser, loin de toute violence (son alibi-sérum). Où sont passés ces Stasi, Savak et autres Securitate, et comment se sont dévoilées leurs têtes, de lâches, ces pontes qui ont révélé au moment crucial, leur vrai visage poltron et pitoyable, après avoir prétendu faire la pluie et le beau temps.
4― Ce témoignage fort et qui devrait être mis en valeur, par différents supports médiatiques, de par sa richesse en « indices », contribuera sans doute à encourager son auteur et sûrement d’autres qui vont lui emboîter le pas, pour peu qu’il reçoit l’écho qu’il mérite, en détruisant la barrière de la peur, qu’essaie de pérenniser cette bête immonde.
Je ne doute pas un seul instant qu’il y a des gens encore propres qui vivent ce drame dans leur âme et qui doivent vivre l’enfer, impuissants devant ces crimes, pour ne pas se dévoiler, et qui attendent l’occasion de s’acquitter de la lourde tache qui leur incombe, pour contribuer à mettre cette oligarchie hors d’état de nuire et permettre au peuple agonisant de retrouver sa vie.
Nous nous devons, chacun à sa manière, de leur préparer le terrain, pour qu’ils puissent assumer leur responsabilité, surtout que s’ils se sont, pour la plupart, initialement enrôlés dans le but de sauver leur patrie, maintenant qu’ils ont l’expérience du terrain et qu’ils savent que c’est le contraire qu’ils sont obligés d’exécuter, ils doivent sentir le devoir de se racheter, et il n’ont plus d’alibi, car c’est en leur nom, et parfois de leur propres « sales » mains, que des milliers de personnes sont tuées, disparues, humiliées, dépossédées.
J’ai relevé dans le récit du témoin quelques « ingrédients » du mode opératoire, utilisé par le DRS, et qui, en passant d’un agent à un degré supérieur, ne devait changer qu’en amplitude, tout en signalant que ces ingrédients sont connus de nous tous, mais comme je l’ai déjà mentionné, il puisent leur importance dans la somme de « données » qui devraient être vérifiables, en plus du fait que leur auteur affirme être en possession de documents étayant et prouvant ses dires :
― Les nominations (directeurs d’instituts, d’hôpitaux, de sociétés, etc.) se font non sur la base de la compétence, mais sur la base de l’aliénation et de la servitude au système qui les nomme et dégomme ;
― Constitution d’un dossier (points névralgiques) sur la cible, avant de la recruter (nommé à un poste de responsabilité), puis le mouiller de différentes manières de telle sorte qu’il ne puisse plus faire marche arrière, sous la menace. C’est le cas des nombreux journalistes, recteurs d’université, etc. qu’il nomme ;
― Les liaisons par le biais de mariages arrangés, comme moyens d’espionnage ;
― L’utilisation des universités comme endroits privilégiés pour « contrôler » faits et gestes des étudiants et des enseignants (Bab Ezzouar, Ben Aknoun, etc.) ;
― Les kidnappings qui existaient même avant les événements d’après le putsch de janvier 1992 (fille de l’ambassadeur Roumain) ;
― Obliger les agents (journalistes, enseignants, etc.) à continuer leur « mission » sans possibilité de retraite, sous la menace, allant jusqu’à l’élimination pure et simple ;
― Le commerce des diplômes et des attestations de succès, délivrés vierge et signés ;
― Filature de la personne ciblée, kidnapping, puis constitution de preuves fabriquées (Saïd Moulay, professeur de mathématiques à Bab Ezzouar, accusation dans l’assassinat de Jbaili) ;
― Elimination de toute personne gênante au nom de l’intérêt national, puis en accuser les opposants (Belkaïd, Liabès, Hadidi) ;
― Infiltration et confection des moudjahiddines pacotilles (Smaïn Lamari ne s’est-il pas vanté d’avoir « créé Zitouni » ? ;
― Utilisation de l’arme sexuelle ;
― Extorsion de sommes d’argents, sous le chantage et d’accusation d’appartenance aux groupes terroristes ;
― Faux barrages pour soutirer l’argent et les femmes à bord, puis incriminer les terroristes ;
― Commerce des armes (fils de généraux, entre autres) ;
― Kidnapping d’étrangers et rançons, tout en accusant les terroristes ;
― Scandales des sujets du baccalauréat au lycée Bouaamma (ex Descartes, Alger) ; avec l’implication des fils de Ouyahia et Attaf, dans la divulgation des sujets, avec témoignage de la directrice du lycée ;
― Abus de pouvoir dans la distribution de bien de l’Etat : appartements, terrains en centaines d’hectares (Griffou et ses sœurs, bénéficiaires à Alger et Timimoun) ;
― Assassinats à l’étranger (celle de Cheikh Sahraoui et la tentative contre l’un des fils de Abassi, entre autres).
Ces quelques exemples, secrets de polichinelle me dira-t-on, sont importants car ils sont inventoriés avec preuves et témoin potentiel. Je pense que nous devrions orienter une partie de nos efforts dans notre lutte, à intensifier la guerre médiatique contre l’ennemi de l’Algérie, le DRS. Le reste tombera de lui-même.
Rachid Ziani-Cherif
8 mai 2010
(1) http://www.algeriachannel.net/?p=2349
http://www.hoggar.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1038&Itemid=64
Further details on command and control system used to coordinate 9/11 incident
Email Online Journal Editor
Pakistan the Evil Doer and the Times Square Fizzler
Genocide francais en Algerie : Sarkozy entend perpetuer la colonisation du maghreb quitte a renouveller d'autres genocides
8 Mai 1945 : Massacre de Sétif !
Jour de liesse ? Fête de la libération ? Pas pour tout le monde…
Le 8 mai 1945 signifie la fin du nazisme. Il correspond aussi à l’un des moments les plus sanglants de l’histoire nationale. La répression colonialiste venait d’y faire ses premiers accrocs face à une population farouchement déterminée à se promouvoir aux nobles idéaux de paix et d’indépendance.Faim, famine, chômage et misère semblaient résumer la condition sociale de la population musulmane algérienne colonisée par la France, population surtout agricole souvent déplacée car les colons s’étaient saisis des meilleures terres, et de plus dans une période de guerre, de sécheresse et de récoltes décimées par les acarides. « Des hommes souffrent de la faim et demandent la justice… Leur faim est injuste. » écrivait Albert Camus début 1945 dans Combat.
Le 8 mai 1945 fut un mardi pas comme les autres en Algérie. Les gens massacrés ne l’étaient pas pour diversité d’avis, mais à cause d’un idéal. La liberté. Ailleurs, il fut célébré dans les interstices de la capitulation de l’état-major allemand. La fin de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, où pourtant 150.000 Algériens s’étaient engagés dans l’armée aux côtés de de Gaulle. Ce fut la fin d’une guerre. Cela pour les Européens. Mais pour d’autres, en Algérie, à Sétif, Guelma, Kherrata, Constantine et un peu partout, ce fut la fête dans l’atrocité d’une colonisation et d’un impérialisme qui ne venait en ce 8 mai qu’annoncer le plan de redressement des volontés farouches et éprises de ce saut libertaire.
Sétif, mardi 8 mai 1945
Dès 8 heures du matin, une foule estimée aux environs de 10.000 personnes était rassemblée devant la mosquée de la gare. Puis elle entamait son élan rue des Etats-Unis pour se diriger vers le centre-ville, rue Georges Clémenceau… Pacifiques, dépités et désarmés, les paisibles manifestants scandaient des slogans de paix et de liberté. « Indépendance », « Libérez Messali Hadj », « L’Algérie est à nous ». Ils s’étaient donnés pour consigne de faire sortir pour la première fois le drapeau algérien. La riposte fut sanglante.Pourtant, profitant du jour du marché hebdomadaire, ce 8 mai 1945, les organisateurs avaient rappelé aux paysans venus des villages de déposer tout ce qui pouvait être une arme (couteau, hâche, faux…). Derrière les drapeaux des alliés, c’étaient les écoliers et les jeunes scouts qui étaient au premier rang suivis des porteurs de la gerbe de fleurs, et les militants suivaient juste derrière pour éviter tout débordement de la masse paysanne.
A la vue d’un drapeau algérien vert et blanc, qui avait été déployé en cours de route, les policiers avaient jailli du barrage et avaient attaqué la foule pour s’emparer du drapeau. Un militant avait expliqué que le drapeau étant sacré, il est impossible de le remiser une fois sorti. Le maire socialiste de la ville supplie de ne pas tirer. Mais c’est à ce moment que tout dérape quand un inspecteur tire, tue celui qui portait ce drapeau à ce moment-là et deux coups de feu en soutien de la part d’Européens partent du café de France. Dans la panique provoquée par les premiers coups de feu, à d’autres fenêtres des Européens tirent à leur tour sur la foule.
« On a tiré sur un jeune scout » ! Ce jeune « scout » fut le premier martyr de ces incidents : Saâl Bouzid, 22 ans, venait par son souffle d’indiquer sur la voie du sacrifice la voie de la liberté. K. Z., âgé alors de 16 ans, affirme non sans amertume à ce propos : « Il gisait mourant par-devant le terrain qui sert actuellement d’assiette foncière au siège de la wilaya. Nous l’avons transporté jusqu’au docteur Mostefaï… et puis… » L’ émotion l’étouffe et l’empêche de continuer…
Bien que la panique ait gagné l’ensemble des manifestants, un militant avait sonné le clairon pour que la gerbe de fleurs soit déposée. Cela se passait à 10 heures du matin. Le car de la gendarmerie ayant eu du retard était arrivé en fonçant en direction des manifestants fauchant les présents.
Surgit alors la préparation du massacre des Algériens. Une milice d’Européens est formée à qui on donne des armes ; l’armée, la police et la gendarmerie sont déployées… C’est une véritable chasse à toutes personnes musulmanes.
Le 9 mai, à Sétif, ce sont 35 Algériens qui ont été abattus parce qu’ils ne savaient pas qu’un couvre feu avait été établi. Le rapport du commissaire divisionnaire, M. Bergé, expliquait que chaque mouvement jugé suspect provoquait le tir : « les musulmans ne peuvent circuler sauf s’ils portent un brassard blanc délivré par les autorités et justifications d’un emploi dans un service public. »
Guelma, mardi 8 mai 1945
A Guelma, à 16 heures, un rassemblement s’était organisé hors de la ville. Les militants des Amis du Manifeste et de la Liberté (AML) attendaient, en fait, les instructions venant de Annaba. A 17 heures le cortège s’était ébranlé avec les pancartes célébrant la victoire des alliés ainsi que leurs drapeaux entourant un drapeau algérien. Arrivé à l’actuelle rue du 8 mai, le cortège avait été arrêté par le sous préfet Achiary. Il ne restait plus que 500 mètres pour atteindre le monument aux morts.Le sous préfet, Achiary - futur chef de l’OAS créé à Madrid en 1961 -, hors de lui avait intimé l’ordre de jeter les pancartes, drapeaux et banderoles. Un socialiste nommé Fauqueux avait râlé auprès du sous préfet : « Monsieur le sous préfet est ce qu’il y a ici la France ou pas ? ». C’est alors, comme un coup de fouet, Achiary saisit le revolver dont il s’est armé, entre dans la foule droit sur le porte drapeau et tire. Son escorte ouvre le feu sur le cortège qui s’enfuit, découvrant dans son reflux le corps du jeune Boumaza. A Guelma ce jour-là il y a déjà 4 Algériens tués, mais aucun Européen.
Le 9 mai, à Guelma, la milice dirigée par Achiary avait tenu sa première séance au cours de laquelle l’adjoint Garrivet proposait : « Nous allons étudier la liste des personnes à juger. Commençons par nos anciens élèves ». Une perquisition au local des AML a permis de saisir les listes nominatives des responsables et militants, tous considérés comme suspects, qui seront incarcérés, souvent torturés, et exécutés par fournées entières.
Kherrata, mardi 8 mai 1945
C’est aussi mardi jour de marché, et il n’y a pas de défilé prévu pour la fin de la deuxième guerre mondiale, ce 8 mai, dans ce gros village tranquille, situé au pied d’une chaîne montagneuse, à quelques dizaines de kilomètres de la Méditerranée. En fin de matinée on y apprend les tueries policières de Sétif. Les nouvelles se répandent vite parmi la population de Kherrata. Les Européens prennent peur, l’administrateur colonial leur distribue des armes et ils se planquent dans une forteresse. Tandis qu’on donne l’ordre au crieur public d’annoncer le couvre-feu, celui-ci au contraire parcourt tous les villages à l’entour en appelant la population musulmane à se rassembler à Kherrata.Ce sont 10.000 personnes qui vont arriver durant la nuit à Kherrata. Dès l’aube du 9 mai, une grande agitation règne au centre de Kherrata grouillant de monde. Les Musulmans sachant que les Européens étaient armés, et prêts à les tuer, se sont rassemblés pour envisager comment se défendre. Certains ont coupé les lignes téléphoniques, et d’autres ont cherché des armes au tribunal et dans trois maisons, qui furent incendiées. L’administrateur colonial et le juge de paix furent tués. Les 500 Européens qui étaient dans la forteresse tirèrent alors sur la foule déchaînée qui traversait le village avec des drapeaux algériens, tandis qu’on entendait les "you-you" des femmes.
Même s’ils avaient une grande conscience révolutionnaire, beaucoup parmi les insurgés algériens ne savaient pas quoi faire. Pour savoir comment réagir, ils se sont alors rassemblés dans la montagne à Bouhoukal, mais l’armée française était déjà en marche. Le peu de monde qui avait des fusils se mit en groupes dans les gorges et à l’entrée de Kherrata pour retarder l’arrivée des gendarmes et des troupes. Mais dans cette révolte, qui allait vite être étouffée par l’armée, il n’y eu en tout et pour tout sur ce secteur que 10 morts et 4 blessés parmi les militaires et les Européens.
Vers midi, les automitrailleuses de l’armée française se mettent à tirer de loin sur les populations de Kherrata et des villages avoisinants, suivi de près par les tirs impressionnants du bateau-croiseur Duguay-Trouin sur les crêtes des monts de Babor, et l’après-midi c’est l’aviation qui bombardait les environs. Bombardements, tirs nourris et fusillades firent que plusieurs milliers d’Algériens furent massacrés. Vers 10 heures du soir, la légion étrangère franchissait les gorges et arrivait au village complètement vidé de ses habitants musulmans.
Un des plus atroces massacres coloniaux de la part de la France
Suite aux assassinats d’Algériens à Sétif et à Guelma, des groupes d’indigènes avaient, dans leur repli, riposté en tuant des Européens. S’en suit une répression extrêmement violente dans les rues et les quartiers de ces deux villes importantes, alors que la presse française parle abusivement de terrorisme algérien. Pendant une semaine, l’armée française, renforcée par des avions et des chars, se déchaîne sur les populations de la région et tue sans distinction. À la colère légitime des Algériens, la réponse du gouvernement français, dans lequel se trouve, mais oui, le PS et le PC, aux côtés de de Gaulle, ne s’est, en tout cas, pas fait attendre en mobilisant toutes les forces de police, de gendarmerie, de l’armée, en envoyant des renforts de CRS et de parchuttistes, et même en recrutant des miliciens, qui ne se gênent pas de fusiller des Algériens de tous âges et sans défense.De Sétif, la répression sanglante s’est généralisée. Elle allait toucher tout le pays durant tout le mois de mai. L’Algérie s’embrasait sous les feux brûlants du printemps 1945. Le général Weiss, chef de la cinquième région aérienne, avait ordonné le 13 mai le bombardement de tous rassemblements des indigènes sur les routes et à proximité des villages.
Kateb Yacine, écrivain algérien, alors lycéen à Sétif, écrit : « C’est en 1945 que mon humanitarisme fut confronté pour la première fois au plus atroce des spectacles. J’avais vingt ans. Le choc que je ressentis devant l’impitoyable boucherie qui provoqua la mort de plusieurs milliers de musulmans, je ne l’ai jamais oublié. Là se cimente mon nationalisme. »
« Je témoigne que la manifestation du 8 mai était pacifique. En organisant une manifestation qui se voulait pacifique, on a été pris par surprise. Les dirigeants n’avaient pas prévu de réactions. Cela s’est terminé par des dizaines de milliers de victimes. À Guelma, ma mère a perdu la mémoire… On voyait des cadavres partout, dans toutes les rues. La répression était aveugle ; c’était un grand massacre. »
Dans les localités environnantes à Sétif, Ras El Ma, Beni Azziz, El Eulma, des douars entiers furent décimés, des villages incendiés, des dechras et des familles furent brûlées vives. On raconte le martyre de la famille Kacem. Korrichi, son fils Mohamed et son frère Nouari furent torturés et tués à bout portant… Les légionnaires prenaient les nourrissons par les pieds, les faisaient tournoyer et les jetaient contre les parois de pierre où leurs chairs s’éparpillaient sur les rochers…
L’armée française avait planifié l’extermination de milliers d’Algériens. Pour mettre à exécution leur dessein les soldats français avaient procédé au regroupement de toutes les populations avoisinant les côtes-est de Béjaïa à Bordj Mira en passant par Darguina, Souk El-Tenine et Aokas. Toutes les populations de ces régions étaient forcées de se regrouper sur les plages de Melbou. L’occupant n’avait en tête que la liquidation physique de tout ce beau monde. Des soldats armés faisaient le porte-à-porte à travers la ville de Sétif et certaines régions environnantes, et obligeaient hommes, femmes et enfants à sortir pour monter dans des camions.
Dès lors, des camions de type GMC continuaient à charger toute personne qui se trouvait sur leur passage. Le convoi prenait la direction de Kherrata. Les habitants de cette autre ville historique n’allaient pas échapper à l’embarquement qui les menait avec leurs autres concitoyens de Sétif, vers le camion de la mort. Les milliers d’Algériens furent déchargés depuis les bennes des camions au fond des gorges de Kherrata. L’horreur n’était pas terminée pour ces pauvres « bougnouls » comme aimaient les surnommer les colons français. Des hélicoptères dénommés « Bananes » survolaient les lieux du massacre pour achever les blessés. Une véritable boucherie humaine allait permettre, plus tard, aux oiseaux charognards d’investir les lieux.
Avec la venue de l’été, la chaleur monte… et l’odeur de la mort. Vers Guelma, faute de les avoir tous enterrés assez profond ou brûlés, trop de cadavres ont été jetés dans un fossé, à peine recouverts d’une pelletée de terre. Les débris humains sont transportés par camion. Le transport est effectué avec l’aide de la gendarmerie de Guelma pendant la nuit. C’est ainsi que les restes des 500 musulmans ont été amenés au lieu dit "fontaine chaude" et brûlés dans un four à chaux avec des branches d’oliviers.
Alors que l’on sait que ce sont en tout 102 Européens ou militaires qui ont été tués, et 110 blessés, à ce moment-là, en riposte aux tueries des autorités françaises, malgré un minutieux travail de recherches, il est aujourd’hui absolument impossible de savoir le nombre exact d’assassinats perpétrés par la France parmi les Algériens. Tout a été fait pour que cet énorme massacre soit le plus possible dissimulé à l’opinion publique. On peut estimer cependant qu’il y a eu à ce moment-là plusieurs dizaines de milliers de blessés algériens, pas loin de cent mille. Selon l’armée américaine cet énorme massacre de la France de de Gaulle, par l’armée française, la police et les miliciens, aurait fait 45.000 morts. C’est le chiffre, qui peut sembler peut-être vraisemblable, retenu officiellement désormais par les Algériens.
Dans la matinée du fatidique 8 mai, en guise de riposte à cette manifestation pacifique, la police ouvrit le feu… Plusieurs d’entre acteurs et témoins encore en vie sont ainsi soumis à la souffrance du souvenir et le devoir de dire ce qu’ils ont vécu, vu, entendu dire et se dire. Ils craignent pour la postérité, l’amnésie.
Parler à Sétif du 8 mai 1945 rend obligatoire la citation de noms-phares : Abdelkader Yalla, Lakhdar Taârabit, Laouamen dit Baâyou, Bouguessa Askouri, Gharzouli, Rabah Harbouche, Saâd Saâdna, Miloud Begag, Saâdi Bouras, Benattia, le Dr Hanous, le Dr Saâdane, Bachir Ibrahimi, et beaucoup d’autres que seul un travail sérieux institutionnel pourrait les lister et en faire un fronton mémorial.
Omar Mazri : Gaza La Bataille du Forqane (discernement) (livre)
Juste après le discours d’Obama au Caire, j’ai relu sans trop corriger mes écrits. Ce discours je l’ai analysé en profondeur dans un article intitulé « l'Antéchrist Obama, l'Amérique et les mondes musulmans ». Le temps n’a pas changé aux paramètres de l’équation palestinienne. Il n’y a que les Arabes vassaux de l’Amérique qui courent derrière un mirage qui nuit à la dignité de leurs peuples…
A la mémoire des Chouhadas, des victimes et de tous ceux qui continuent de résister avec les moyens que le temps, le sol et les circonstances offrent avec une alternance de générosité et de parcimonie…
The Next 9/11-Made in Israel?
Of course, President Obama may not even be aware of the egregious failure of the United States to secure its nuclear materials and know-how from the predation of its alleged "closest ally." But since Obama is unwilling to even "speculate" about which country in the Middle East has nuclear weapons, he could hardly be expected to acknowledge how it got them.
In a recent Antiwar.com article aptly titled "America's Loose Nukes in Israel," Grant F. Smith, director of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy (IRMEP) and author of Spy Trade: How Israel's Lobby Undermines America's Economy, shows how "the U.S is a sieve for Israeli nuclear espionage."
The massive arms smuggling network set up by David Ben-Gurion in the United States in the 1940s had acquired a nuclear branch within a decade, according to Smith. The 1955 purchase of the Apollo Steel Company plant in Pennsylvania was financed by David Lowenthal, a close friend of Israel's first prime minister and a former member of the Haganah, the precursor to the Israeli army. The following year, Dr. Zalman Shapiro, head of a local Zionist Organization of America chapter, incorporated the Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation (NUMEC) at Apollo. Before long, NUMEC was receiving large quantities of highly enriched uranium and plutonium from Westinghouse and the U.S. Navy for nuclear reprocessing.
By the 1960s, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) became suspicious of security lapses at NUMEC, and even considered suspending its "classified weapons work." A 1965 AEC audit discovered that 220 pounds of highly enriched uranium were unaccounted for. The following year, the FBI launched its own investigation, codenamed Project Divert, to monitor NUMEC's management and its frequent Israeli visitors. Nevertheless, the diversion of nuclear material to Israel continued unabated. After a September 10, 1968 visit by four Israelis, including Mossad agent Rafi Eitan, a further 587 pounds of highly enriched uranium went missing.
Israel's nuclear espionage against the United States didn't end with its accession to the nuclear club in the late 1960s, however. As former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds revealed, its smuggling network received crucial assistance from three high-ranking officials in the George W. Bush administration. All three have close ties to Israel's military-industrial complex.
According to the FBI whistleblower, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith provided Marc Grossman, the third highest-ranking official in the State Department, with a list of Department of Defense employees with access to sensitive data, including nuclear technology. The list also included highly sensitive personal details, such as sexual preference, problems with gambling or alcoholism, and how much they owed on their mortgages. Grossman then passed on the information to Israeli and Turkish agents, who used it to "hook" those Pentagon officials. In addition, as Edmonds testified in an Ohio court case, the foreign operatives had recruited people "on almost every major nuclear facility in the United States."
After Israel and Turkey took what they wanted from the pilfered secrets, their agents offered what was left to the highest bidder. As Edmonds has told the Sunday Times, American Conservative and Military.com, nuclear information was sold on the black market, where anyone-even al-Qaeda-could buy it.
So then, it would seem that those who shout loudest about the threat of terrorists-namely, neoconservatives like Perle, Feith and Grossman and their Israeli counterparts-are the very ones who are aiding them, at least indirectly, to acquire those much touted weapons of mass destruction.
But why, one might reasonably ask, would Israeli agents help their supposed enemies get hold of the bomb?
Well, what would be the likely outcome if Obama's worst fears of a nuclear attack on the United States-or one of its allies-are realized?
Regardless of the facts, some Islamic country- most likely, Iran or Pakistan-would be blamed for aiding the terrorists. And it doesn't require an advanced degree in game theory to predict what America's reaction would be. The retaliation would be so swift and devastating that the designated evildoers might envy the fate of post-invasion Iraqis-also victims of an Israeli misdirection.
If, as Benjamin Netanyahu admitted, 9/11 was "very good" for Israel, a nuclear 9/11 might be even better. As the spellbinding effects of that traumatic event nine years ago have begun to wear off, and with Americans increasingly questioning the costs of a one-sided alliance, it may even be considered necessary.
* Maidhc Ó Cathail is a widely published writer based in Japan.
Source: Islam Times.
Judge Hellerstein's Connection to Israeli 9-11 Defendant
It is very crass and it probably will come back to be critical of me, but there is an expression that is sometimes very useful, 'Money is the universal lubricant.' It makes it easier to go on with one's life.- Alvin K. Hellerstein
This bastard judicial system is so corrupt.
- 9/11 widow Ellen Mariani
- Mike Low, father of Sara, a flight attendant on American Airlines Flight 11
Joseph Z. Hellerstein
Boaz Harel of ICTS is a partner at Cukierman & Co.
Both Alvin Hellerstein and his son Joseph worked for the well known Jewish law firm of Stroock, Stroock & Lavan before moving to the positions they now hold. President Bill Clinton appointed Alvin Hellerstein to the U.S. District Court in New York in 1998 and Joseph moved to Israel in 2001. They both know that the conflict of interest exists, which is why they don't want to be interviewed by the media. Stroock, Stroock & Lavan played a key role in the setting up of 9-11. They represented Silverstein Properties when Larry Silverstein acquired the lease for the World Trade Center in July 2001. They also represented Goldman Sachs, A.I.G., and Cerberus Capital Management, three of the key fraudulent companies involved in the trillion dollar bail-out of George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
Bollyn, Christopher, "The Murderous Mossad and 9-11", March 23, 2010
http://www.bollyn.com/mossad-madness-and-9-11
Bollyn, Christopher, "Is 9-11 Judge Hellerstein Working for Israel?" October 23, 2007
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=111821
Bollyn, Christopher, "The Judicial Hijacking of the 9-11 Victim Lawsuits", April 14, 2006
http://www.bollyn.com/the-judicial-hijacking-of-the-9-11-victim-lawsuits
Bollyn, Christopher, "9-11 Judge Hellerstein 'Slams' 9-11 Widow Ellen Mariani", December 6, 2007
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=114654
Bollyn, Christopher, "Judge Forces Families to Settle Out of Court", September 9, 2007
http://www.bollyn.com/judge-forces-families-to-settle-out-of-court
Bollyn, Christopher, "Elbit - The Hellerstein Connection to 9-11", August 3, 2009
http://www.bollyn.com/elbit-the-hellerstein-connection-to-9-11
Bollyn, Christopher, "Michael Chertoff's Childhood in Israel", October 26, 2007
http://www.bollyn.com/michael-chertoffs-childhood-in-israel
"Empathetic Judge in 9/11 Suits Seen by Some as Interfering", By Mireya Navarro, New York Times, May 2, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/03/nyregion/03judge.html
Guide to Judiciary Policies & Procedures, Chapter 2, especially on Conflicts of Interest
http://www.uscourts.gov/guide/vol2/ch2a.html
"NY man sentenced in terrorism financing case", By Colleen Long, Associated Press, April 19, 2010
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iYB6tT4cqRZDhGZAS86TkTtfhw_AD9F6FTA81
"Silverstein Seeks Unsealing of Property Damage Deal", by Mark Hamblett, New York Law Journal, April 16, 2010
http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/PubArticleNY.jsp?id=1202448140032&Silverstein_Seeks_Unsealing_of_Property_Damage_Deal&hbxlogin=1
Website of Amit, Pollak, Matalon & Co. on Joseph Z. Hellerstein
http://www.apm-law.com/3attorneys/joe_hellerstein.htm
Website of Catalyst Fund on Boaz Harel and Cyalume
http://www.catalyst-fund.com/index.php?page_id=24
http://www.catalyst-fund.com/index.php?page_id=77
Website of Cukierman & Company on Roger Cukierman and Boaz Harel
http://www.cukierman.co.il/content.php?id=140
http://www.cukierman.co.il/content.php?id=128
Website of Stroock, Stroock & Lavan
http://www.stroock.com/index.cfm
China in the catbird seat on Iran
By Peter Lee
The Barack Obama administration was highly gratified that Chinese President Hu Jintao attended the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington. But China also sent an assistant foreign minister to the Tehran International Conference on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, where he pleased his hosts by reiterating a call for continued negotiation and diplomacy to resolve the Iran nuclear crisis.
After months of anxiety and uncertainty China finds itself in the catbird seat - and in a position to profit if President Obama's nuclear diplomacy succeeds or, as appears more likely, it fails. To a certain extent, both China and Israel have a shared interest in forestalling a win-win resolution of the Iran nuclear crisis.
If the 30-year-old enmity between Washington and Tehran persists, Israel gets to preserve its special relationship as America's embattled and indispensable ally in the Middle East - and China can continue to enjoy its privileged position as Iran's only genuine superpower friend.
All China needs to do is balance its endorsement of Obama's ambitions for a world free of nuclear weapons with nuanced support of Iran's interests and the principle of multilateralism. China's current position on Iran comes close to recapitulating its strategy to establish itself as the key intermediary with an isolated North Korea, albeit on a bigger, more remote, and much riskier stage.
China has been able to accomplish this with considerable subtlety, even as the Obama administration has seen its bold outreach to the Muslim world deteriorate into an Israel-driven exercise in geopolitical kabuki. In late May, the Chinese leadership decided it did not want to exacerbate its fraught relations with the United States - already frayed over climate change, currency, and Google - for the dubious cause of the Iranian nuclear program.
In exchange for a public US reaffirmation of the one-China policy, which Beijing will find useful as it confronts a new generation of opponents in Tibet and Taiwan (and a private undertaking not to designate China as a currency manipulator for the time being), China agreed to participate in the Nuclear Security Summit and join the current round of Iranian sanction-writing at the UN Security Council.
An Iranian emissary immediately jetted to Beijing for discussions.
Judging from subsequent developments, the upshot was that Iran got the message that it would have to rely on its good works and not just the shield of a Chinese veto threat to avoid UN sanctions. In a subsequent charm offensive, Iranian representatives reasserted their allegiance to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), emphasized their willingness to negotiate, and attempted to resuscitate the moribund project to fuel the Tehran research reactor with Western assistance.
Complicating efforts to present him as a defiant pariah, Iran's President Mahmud Ahmadinejad spoke at the 2010 NPT Revision Conference in New York on May 3, calling for the fulfillment of the NPT's largely unmet promise of disarmament by the main nuclear powers.
Beyond the core group of anti-Iran hardliners, these efforts may have had more impact than the Obama administration is willing to admit.
Faced with Tehran's continual offers to negotiate the terms of the exchange of its low-enriched-uranium for fuel plates fabricated in France for the Tehran Research Reactor, the Western declaration that the Iranians have offered "nothing new" is starting to sound a little threadbare. 1
The hardliners may be forced to invoke the dreaded Western "impatience" - that dishonest emotion most famously deployed to short-circuit the unproductive inspections inside Iraq and jump-start the disastrous 2003 invasion - in order to rush sanctions through the UN Security Council and enable the harsher follow-on national sanctions that will permanently preempt the negotiation track.
Little wonder that French President Nicolas Sarkozy - the most enthusiastic member of the anti-Iran axis - used his trip to China to declare that the time for sanctions was, basically, now.
"The whole question is to examine at what point the absence of constructive dialogue must lead to sanctions in order to enhance constructive dialogue. Everyone is convinced that moment is approaching," said Sarkozy. 2
Until now, Iran's most effective tactic has been to attack the Obama policy at its most vulnerable point: Israel.
Israel's sizable undeclared arsenal of nuclear warheads has always been an irritant in America's Middle Eastern diplomacy and its efforts to block Iran's nuclear program. The double standards dilemma has been most acute for President Obama, who designed his geopolitical strategy (and collected a Nobel Peace Prize) around the idea of reducing the threat of nuclear weapons through a combination of enhanced nuclear security, vigorous non-proliferation, and great-power nuclear disarmament under US leadership - anchored by universal adherence to the NPT.
From an NPT perspective, Israel doesn't compare favorably to Iran.
Iran is a signatory to the NPT and an active, if unhappy and not particularly candid, participant in the IAEA safeguards program. Its current inventory of nuclear material amounts to less than 2 tons of radioactive dirt, 11 pounds (4.99 kilograms) of uranium enriched to just below the 20% threshold (equivalent to less than three pounds of highly enriched uranium if fully enriched), and 0 pounds of bomb-grade material.
Israel is not a signatory to the NPT. It joined the IAEA, but does not participate in any safeguards program, apparently regarding its membership primarily as a useful opportunity to pitch negative intelligence concerning Islamic nuclear ambitions over the Intelligence Directorate's transom. It maintains an undeclared arsenal of at least 100 warheads - perhaps as many as 400. 3
To build this arsenal, Israel evaded export controls, allegedly diverting heavy water supplied by Norway for peaceful uses to its weapons program and illegally obtaining hundreds of US krytons (high speed switches). 4
And Israel has proliferated. It provided technical assistance to the apartheid regime of South Africa that resulted in the construction of six nuclear warheads that could be dropped on South Africa's many regional antagonists. It was alleged but never officially confirmed that the Israeli government had also agreed to supply six specially fitted ballistic missiles to carry the warheads, and that South Africa's sole nuclear test was a joint South African/Israeli affair. 5
Perhaps recalling its own experience, as late as May 2009 Israel contemptuously asserted that the NPT "has failed to prevent any country that wanted to from obtaining nuclear weapons". 6
In 2009, Obama apparently hoped to square the circle by managing rapprochement with Iran through public and secret outreach and progress on fueling the Tehran research reactor, and subsequently placing pressure on Israel to enter into the global non-proliferation regime.
Israel received its public wake-up call in May 2009, when Assistant US Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller called on Israel by name to join the NPT while neglecting the obligatory condemnation of Iran. In September 2009, the waning days of Mohamed ElBaradei's tenure as IAEA director general, Israel's critics at the IAEA were finally able to push through a resolution calling on Israel to join the NPT and enter into a safeguards agreement.
Thanks to a fortuitous combination of Iran's domestic political and leadership crisis, US paranoia, and its own assiduous lobbying, the Tehran research reactor deal foundered and Israel was able to reverse the political tide by early 2010.
Obama was forced to divert his attention from Iran diplomacy to appease pro-Israel critics in the public sphere, congress, his own party, and even his own administration by repeatedly affirming the special character of the US-Israeli relationship while absorbing high profile insults such as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's refusal to attend the Nuclear Security Summit.
At present, the promise of meaningful outreach to the Islamic world mediated by reliable allies such as Egypt seems unlikely to be honored in the breach. Egypt is expected to insist at the May 2010 NPT conference that negotiations including Israel begin to make the Middle East into a nuclear-weapons free zone. As Haaretz reports, the Western powers are willing to support the conference - as long as there are no negotiations and nothing happens:
One Western envoy said Egypt's insistence on a conference with a negotiating mandate was the main "sticking point," while another expressed the hope that Egypt would compromise during intensive negotiations on the issue in the coming weeks. One Western diplomat said the Israelis were "understandably reluctant" to take part, even if the conference's outcome would be merely symbolic. 7
A measure of Obama's difficulties can also be seen in the release of the long-gestating Nuclear Posture Review on April 10. Intended to serve as the blueprint for the president's post-nuclear weapons world, the document bullet-pointed US doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons, with this new and memorable addition:
The United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear nonproliferation obligations. 8
The anonymous author of this clause - which reads suspiciously as it was tacked on at the last minute - wins no points for style or logic.
Since the overall doctrine permits use of nuclear weapons "only ... in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners", the final clause - with the bizarre permissive for "threatening" - looks like a carve-out, reserving the right to mete out additional nuclear punishment to nations that don't meet US standards of NPT good citizenship.
Elsewhere in the document Iran and North Korea are specifically called out as targets under this policy. But not Israel, Pakistan, or India, three nations that have nuclear weapons today but are not members of the NPT. This leaves the perhaps inadvertent impression that the safest course for a prospective nuclear weapons state is to run away from the NPT as fast as its proliferating legs will carry it.
China was quick to pounce.
On April 22, Xu Guangyu, a retired PLA general who frequently presents the modern, rational face of the Chinese military to the Western media, published a description of China's nuclear doctrine in Liberation Daily entitled "Deterrence Not Threats". 9
As Xu spun the article in a follow-up phone call with Reuters 10, the piece was intended to reassure the United States, India, and Japan that China's relatively modest nuclear arsenal was designed purely to serve as a deterrent, to be used only in a second strike in the event of a nuclear attack against China.
All well and good, but the title of the article itself indicated that China was also needling the United States on the contradictions inherent in its pursuit of a universal NPT regime but selective sanctions against Iran and North Korea only.
In contrast to the US NPR, Xu described China's nuclear posture as no-first-use under any circumstances and, instead of a carve-out, added a reaffirmation that stood in marked contrast to the US declaration of its right to threaten refractory non-nuclear NPT states:
"China ... unconditionally promises that it will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear state or region."
Meanwhile, barely a day goes by without China calling for continued negotiations and diplomacy to resolve the Iran crisis, thereby burnishing its credentials as the champion protecting the developing world against selective US nuclear enforcement and making the sanctions job more difficult.
It remains to be seen if Iran's fractured leadership can summon the political will to make the concessions at this critical time that could defang the sanctions drive: suspend enrichment and accept the one year lag between shipping out its uranium and receiving the fuel plates for the Tehran research reactor back from France.
Even if they do, it is an open question as to whether the Obama administration could summon the political will to accept Iranian concessions, instead of pursuing the policy apparently supported by Israel and France: going ahead with sanctions that can only be removed after the satisfactory completion of unlimited adversarial inspections.
On one level, the arguments are about very little.
Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have no appetite for a third land war in Asia. There is also little advantage for Iran in defying the West and occupying the center of the US nuclear bull's eye for the sake of its nascent nuclear weapons capability. As for Israel, as the Indian precedent demonstrates, the United States and its allies are perfectly happy to negotiate and impose exceptions for friendly nuclear powers on the non-proliferation regime.
Presumably Israel would find little to be ashamed of and much to be proud of if portions of its nuclear industry were revealed to the gaze of the IAEA. One suspects that Israel is less concerned with the privacy of its nukes than the unwelcome possibility that it might have to treat Iran as a legitimate rival in the competition for America's attention and support in the Middle East.
Nevertheless, to date Israel has been successful in its adamant refusal to smooth the way for Obama's Iran diplomacy by publicly entertaining the possibility of Israeli participation in the non-proliferation regime. Defense Minister Ehud Barak marked the conclusion of the Nuclear Security Summit - at which Israel was represented only by a minor government functionary instead of a head of state - by declaring, "To our friends and our allies we say 'there is no room to pressure Israel into signing the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty'." 11
Indeed, the sequence originally envisioned by the Obama administration appears to have been reversed.
It looks as if the price for Israel's participation in the non-proliferation regime - perhaps signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty or joining the Fissile Material Cut Off initiative, if not immediately adhering to the NPT/IAEA safeguards regime - is "crippling sanctions" against Iran up front. Perhaps the sanctions should be properly understood as "crippling" because they would cripple US-Iran rapprochement rather than the Iranian nuclear program.
If the sanctions process rolls on to its logical conclusion of unproductive confrontation, China can look forward to serving as Iran's primary superpower ally - and benefit as Obama's attempt to provide renewed American leadership in the Middle East dissolves into the old division and rancor instead.
At the same time Beijing can present itself to Washington as a supporter of the new US nuclear security doctrine and mediator in the festering Iran mess - with the threat that it can abate its enthusiasm if US China-bashing gets out of hand.
That's called being in the catbird seat.
Notes
1. Iran wants to reopen talks about a nuclear fuel swap, Guardian, April 20, 2010.
2. Sarkozy stresses Iran sanctions, Aljazeera.net, April 28, 2010.
3. Nuclear Weapons, Federation of American Scientists.
4. Nuclear Weapons Program, Federation of American Scientists.
5. Nuclear Weapons Program, Federation of American Scientists.
6. 'Making Israel sign nuclear treaty won't be miracle cure for world ills', Haaretz.com, May 7, 2009.
7. Egypt seeks UN pressure on Israel over nuclear arms, Haaretz.com, April 20, 2010.
8. Nuclear Posture Review Report, US Department of Defense, April 2010
9. http://news.mod.gov.cn/headlines/2010-04/20/content_4148091.htm (in Chinese)
10. China military paper spells out nuclear arms stance, Reuters, April 22, 2010.
11. Israel Still Not Prepared to Join NPT, Global Security Newswire, April 15, 2010.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/LE06Ad02.html
France-Israel : Preparation psychologique a la guerre civile, apres le mitraillage de mosquée, Hortefeux prepare une vague d'attentats ?
MISE A JOUR (6 Mai 2010): Decidement, Squarcini Ben Mossad ne supporte pas la pression, et fait meme dans son pantalon, les israeliens de France annoncent l'arrestation d'un franco-marocain, qui tenez-vous bien, aurait laissé sur son portable un message d'Oussama Ben Laden, caché a Teheran en Iran, selon les israeliens de la Direction Centralisée de la Racaille Israelienne (DCRI). Quand on vous dit que Sarkozy est un mossadnik... C'est a mourrir de rire ! Demissionne ou suicide toi Squarcini, tu fais de la peine a voir !
Apres le mitraillage de mosquées, Hortefeux et ses barbouzes preparent des attentats ! Pour ceux qui ne connaissent pas la numerologie franc-maconne secrete, Omega, nom de l'exercice, refere au Messi, le Messi des israeliens de France (franc-macons et autres sectes et organisations politiques pro-israeliennes) n'est pas le vrai Messi, Jesus, paix d'Allah swt sur lui, mais bien l'antechrist (grand architecte), ou Dajjal en Arabe ? Est-ce que les operations israeliennes a 'la bombe sale' sont dans leurs dernieres phases de preparatifs en Europe, aux Etat-Unis et a Jerusalem ou la construction du temple de l'antechrist a debuté? Ca en a tout l'air !
Hortefeux la barbouze raciste sioniste est pret a se faire sauter au bas de la Tour Eiffel pour son maitre ! Notez que c'est une société israelienne qui est chargée de la sécurité de la Tour Eiffel, et du complexe du stade de France, de l'aeroport Charles De Gaulle !
Bizarre, vous avez dit bizarre ! Pas si bizarre a la fin !
Ils montrent les crocs les israeliens de France. Le seul et unique moyen pour Sarkozy et Netanyahu de se maintenir en 2012, en France est d'organiser une vague d'islamophobie genéralisée qui menera a des émeutes comme en 2005 et des attentats... Mais le disque est rayé maintenant.
Tu fais dans ton pantalon ! Rira bien qui rira le dernier l'israelien !
Abu-Suleyman
Islamic-Intelligence
Brice HORTEFEUX : « Le combat contre le terrorisme doit être permanent »
Après avoir souligné que « la surveillance, la prévention et la répression » constituent les principaux axes de la lutte contre le terrorisme, Brice HORTEFEUX a rappelé que « le plan Vigipirate est plus que jamais en vigueur, au niveau rouge ». Il a également mis en avant la mobilisation quotidienne de 3 400 policiers et 980 militaires contre la menace terroriste, en précisant que « sur les premiers mois de 2010, 19 interpellations ont déjà été comptabilisées » et que le 27 avril, la section antiterroriste de Marseille a interpellé 5 islamistes radicaux, dont « 4 ont été déférés et mis en examen pour association de malfaiteurs en relation avec une entreprise terroriste ».
Brice HORTEFEUX est, ensuite, revenu sur le volet prévention de la lutte anti-terroriste. Indiquant que « la France teste régulièrement ses capacités de réaction à la perpétration d’un ou plusieurs attentats, comme aujourd’hui, au Stade de France, à la Tour Eiffel et au centre commercial de Carré Sénart de Melun avec l’exercice Omega 2010 », le ministre a rappelé les deux objectifs de cet exercice : « accroître l’efficacité opérationnelle des premiers secours » et « améliorer notre capacité à faire face à trois attentats conventionnels quasi-simultanés ».
Il a également salué l’action du préfet de police et des forces de l’ordre placées sous son commandement et a souligné « l’apport déterminant de la brigade des sapeurs-pompiers de Paris lors de l’exercice ».
Enfin, Brice HORTEFEUX a indiqué qu’il ne s’était pas déplacé sur le site du Stade de France par hasard. Rappelant que l’UEFA désignera, le 28 mai prochain, le pays hôte de l’Euro 2016 et soulignant que « la sécurité constituera un critère déterminant au moment du choix final », le ministre tenait à envoyer aux instances européennes du football « un signal de confiance ».
Insistant sur la grande expérience de l’État français en matière de lutte anti-terroriste comme de sécurisation des grands événements sportifs, le ministre a déclaré : « Nous l’avons déjà fait avec succès lors de la Coupe du monde de football en 1998, lors des Mondiaux d’athlétisme en 2003 et, plus récemment, lors du Mondial de rugby en 2007. Et j’en suis convaincu : nous le referons encore en 2016 si nous sommes choisis pour organiser la 15e édition du championnat d’Europe des Nations de football ».
http://www.interieur.gouv.fr/sections/a_la_une/toute_l_actualite/securite-interieure/omega-2010
Derriere les minarets suisses et la burqua franco-belge, il y a le demantelement des pays, une regionalisation de l'Europe !
A qui profite réellement la regionalisation ? Il faudrait demander a Marine Le Pen qui se fait passer pour une nationaliste alors qu'elle sert les memes interets que le Vlaams ou l'UDC. Voila que papy Le Pen fait de 'l'etat-nation' une structure politique, sociale, economique a proteger absolument, lors de son discours du 1er Mai 2010. Aurait-il compris le jeu des elites sionistes et leur 'troisieme phase' ? Il n'est jamais trop tard pour bien faire. Le FN de la Marine, aux ordres du Sarkozysme-Netanyahisme servira-t-il a mettre en piece la France issue de Napoleon ? De détonateur de la guerre civile ? Les reponses sont claires !
Abu-Suleyman
Islamic-intelligence
La Belgique doit fermer son petit bazar BHV
Par Karel Vereycken
Pour approfondir le sujet :
http://www.solidariteetprogres.org/article6593.html
UK general election: Shhh... don’t mention the Israeli occupation
5 May 2010
Stuart Littlewood views the conspicuous absence of any mention of the Israeli occupation in the British general election campaign, against the background of the paralysing influence of the Israel lobby on the three main political parties and the silent complicity of the mainstream media, including the BBC, and the Church in Israeli crimes.
In the run-up to Britain’s general election we’ve heard next to nothing about Middle East policy from the three main party leaders in their much-publicized debates on TV.
They have studiously avoided all mention of the outrage in the Holy Land and the way it impacts so directly on world peace.
The plight of the Palestinian people ever since Britain abandoned its mandate responsibility, and their endless struggle for freedom from Israel's military occupation, threatens our safety but word of it never passes their lips. And the programme bosses appear to block questions on the subject.
Early in the campaign I received a message from a local Liberal Democrat MP saying: "I urge everyone to get to Norwich and help elect our fantastic candidate Simon W."
But hang on, before rushing to volunteer I wanted to know just one thing. What was Mr W's personal stance on Middle East policy and especially Israel's 43-year illegal occupation of the Holy Land?
It's an important question for the simple reason that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has such a vice-like grip on the private parts of US congressional representatives that Israel’s interests are put ahead of America's. And due to the influence of the Israel lobby here in the UK we too are so embroiled in their perpetual strife with the Islamic world that we’ve been sucked into the same stinking swamp.
The Liberal Democrats allow a similar lobby group to flourish within their party. Its main aim is to "maximize support for the State of Israel within the Liberal Democrats and Parliament". And I note that when the MP who contacted me visited Israel and the occupied West Bank he went with a Friends of Israel delegation.
I emailed the candidate Simon W twice with my question but he didn’t reply. Needless to say, he got no help from me.
All our political parties, strangely, have little to say in their manifestos about action (rather than meaningless words) to end the ethnic cleansing and blockading of the Holy Land and the terrorizing of its residents, including the Christian communities. I have seen not so much as a hint of sanctions like those they are eager to apply against Iran for much less reason.
It has been reported that powerful Christian businessmen are now bankrolling the Conservatives. This is the party that backed the Iraq war, has a majority of Israel flag-wavers among its MPs and whose leader, David Cameron, is a self-proclaimed Zionist.
Cameron says: “If I become prime minister, Israel has a friend who will never turn his back on her... Israel is a democracy – Hamas want to create a theocracy. Israel strives to protect innocent life – Hamas target innocent life…” Side-splitting stuff. But what’s truly scary is that if the Conservatives get elected it'll be business as usual – full steam ahead - with the loons and psychopaths in Washington and Tel Aviv.
The party also has the support of a Christian organization, the Conservative Christian Fellowship (CCF), which claims to include in its ranks a large number of election candidates. The group says it "contributes to the life and thinking of the Conservative Party". When its chairman, David Burrowes, visited the Holy Land the trip was paid for by Conservative Friends of Israel and the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and judging from his remarks in Parliament it is clear that his sympathies lie with the lawless entity that blitzed, vaporized and shredded the jam-packed citizens of Gaza and a year later still has them on the torture rack, allowing a paltry 81 items only to be imported for the starving and homeless among the tiny enclave’s ruins. The huge range of forbidden goods includes jam, chocolate, wood for furniture, fruit juice, tinned fruit, textiles and plastic toys.
Israel, with typical bloody-mindedness, has made life for humanitarian groups exceedingly difficult by refusing to actually publish a list of banned items. They make it up as they go along to create a permanent state of confusion and deprivation. Is this the sort of thing real Christians endorse and defend? I don’t thinks so.
Christian Conservatives are put to shame by the Israeli human rights group Gisha, who have been trying for more than a year to squeeze information from the Zionist regime about what exactly they allow and forbid to cross into Gaza, and why.
Gisha has even taken the Israeli authorities to court to force them to come clean. Gisha's director, Sari Bashi, says: "Preventing children from receiving toys, preventing manufacturers from getting raw materials – I don't see how that's responsive to Israeli security needs."
http://www.redress.cc/global/slittlewood20100505
1960 - 2010 : 50 ans de souverainisme vaniteux dans une Afrique soumise et humiliée.
Des années de luttes du peuple africain du territoire togolais - il en est ainsi pour presque tous les autres pays africains - ont été couronnées par la victoire électorale de 1958, qui deux ans plus tard, s’est transformée en indépendance. Le 27 avril 1960, Sylvanus Olympio, au nom du « droit inaliénable des peuples à disposer d’eux-mêmes », proclama l’accession du Togo à la souveraineté internationale.
Cette nouvelle donne devrait conduire le peuple africain du Togo à décider des orientations qui lui conviennent dans tous les domaines. Trois ans à peine plus tard, Olympio est assassiné. Le rêve est ainsi brisé et le chaos généré est tellement immense que la suite ne sera qu’une succession de victoires volées, de mensonges, de viols et de supplice de Tantale ; le tout accompagné de bains de sang répétés en toute impunité. La Nouvelle Marche[1] était une marche à reculons qui a fini par nous ramener au point de départ si bien que tout est à refaire si nous voulons rendre hommage à nos prédécesseurs patriotes et tracer aux générations à venir les sentiers du progrès et de la réussite.
Cet anniversaire qui, sans doute, est un moment symbolique, nécessite, au lieu des réjouissances, des danses, des cérémonies religieuses et de prières, réflexions afin que les lumières du passé éclairent notre avenir commun en cette période où nous traversons un trou d’aiguille dans notre vie socio-économique et politique. A la veille de la proclamation de l’indépendance, le peuple du territoire togolais s’était débarrassé du fardeau de la dette de 800 millions de Francs que la France lui réclamait. Ce qui signifie que ce peuple avait fait le choix de la dignité et veut s’assumer pleinement. A travers ce geste – en réalité une escroquerie de la France – le territoire du Togo voulait s’occuper de ses problèmes par ses propres moyens avant tout et ne plus avoir dans ses pattes les entraves de la puissance tutélaire. 50 ans plus tard, c’est exactement le contraire de l’indépendance que nous avons. Plus qu’hier, notre peuple au Togo est privé de souveraineté et a le regard exclusivement tourné vers l’extérieur qui utilise la propagande de l’aide, de la démocratie et des droits de l’homme pour coloniser les peuples et les piller allègrement. En un mot, nous sommes soumis dans tous les domaines. Et l’indépendance qui est louangée dans les cercles africains les plus aliénés est une chimère. Car, les trois idées qui sont consubstantielles à la notion de l’indépendance – souveraineté politique, souveraineté économique et autonomie de défense – sont introuvables aujourd’hui dans les pays africains.
Politiquement, depuis les élections de 1958 qui ont consacré la victoire des indépendantistes, le territoire du Togo n’a jamais connu d’élections démocratiques. Le peuple africain du territoire togolais n’a jamais pu choisir ses dirigeants qui, lui sont plutôt imposés par coups d’état puis par fraudes électorales ininterrompues. Alors que la première implication du droit des peuples à disposer d’eux-mêmes, est le pouvoir de ces peuples de se doter des élus à leur convenance, nos dirigeants nous sont imposés de l’extérieur. De Grunitzky à Faure Gnassingbé en passant par Kléber Dadjo, Eyadéma Gnassingbé et Abass Bonfo, le peuple togolais n’a joué aucun rôle dans leur érection, maintien ou éviction du pouvoir. Ainsi, les orientations politiques jusqu’alors n’ont jamais été le fait du peuple pourtant officiellement souverain. Autrement dit, le Togo jusqu’à présent, n’est pas l’oeuvre des Togolais.
En 50 ans, 05 élections présidentielles et 06 législatives ont été organisées. Il en est ainsi un peu partout en Afrique. Cependant ces consultations ne sont que des occasions pour le système vassal en place de pratiquer le démocratisme : simulacre d’élections destiné à revêtir le régime tyrannique des apparences d’une démocratie. De plus, ce sont des occasions pour faire couler le sang du peuple du territoire togolais qui demande le respect de son choix. Ce peuple n’a jamais donc eu la possibilité de jouir de son indépendance. Autant dire qu’il n’est pas indépendant. Pour preuve, voici une petite révélation : en novembre 2004, si notre mémoire est bonne, nous étions allés personnellement en compagnie de l’ex-président de la LTDH à une audience à la délégation de l’Union Européenne pour discuter de la libération de Jean-Paul Oumolou, détenu à la prison civile de Lomé pour avoir provoqué des incidents à l’université de Lomé. Nous étions reçus par le chargé du développement, Antonio Logreco qui après nous avoir écoutés sur la campagne que nous menions pour la libération du détenu, nous pose cette question : que pensez-vous de Faure Gnassingbé ? M. Adoté Ghandi a donné son point de vue. Quant à nous, éberlué et choqué, nous avions dit :
« si la question était de savoir si Faure Gnassingbé pouvait diriger le Togo après son papa, le problème ne se pose pas puisque nous sommes dans une république avec une Constitution et non en monarchie héréditaire ». Le responsable s’est levé de son fauteuil et nous a serré la main en disant :
vous êtes courageux et vous avez raison ! Quelques mois plus tard, Gnassingbé-père mourut et son fils lui succéda. Cela signifie que bien avant la mort d’Eyadéma Gnassingbé, son successeur était tout désigné à l’insu du peuple africain au Togo. Le reste ne relèvera que des formalités d’usage.
Même si d’autres preuves existent, cette anecdote suffit à elle seule, pour démontrer que ceux qui nous dirigent sont des élus des puissances néocoloniales (Etats, regroupement d’Etats et entreprises transnationales) pour leurs intérêts. C’est pour cela que faire appel à ces instances pour nous aider à régler nos problèmes, est une invitation adressée aux sorciers et aux vampires. Nous ne sommes en rien indépendants si nous ne pouvons nous-mêmes choisir ni nos gouvernants ni notre modèle de société. La nouveau vol du suffrage démocratique opéré par Faure Gnassingbe et ses alliés en est la preuve concrète.
Économiquement, le Togo est très endetté et continue de s’endetter pour le grand bonheur de l’Occident, de la Chine et de bien d’autres dominations.
Un Etat endetté n’est pas libre. Notre pays est au bon vouloir des créanciers qui, en réalité, sont nos débiteurs pour nous avoir pillés, volés, exploités, massacrés, soumis des siècles durant. Le Togo a eu droit aux Programmes d’ajustements structurels qui ont complètement ruiné son économie avec des impacts sociaux indélébiles. Aujourd’hui, pour satisfaire l’étranger, le territoire du Togo, comme tous les autres proto-Etat africains, suit le libéralisme fondé sur le Consensus de Washington dont le credo est la suppression des barrières douanières, la libéralisation du mouvement des capitaux, l’augmentation des taxes et impôts, la privatisation des secteurs publics de l’eau, de l’électricité, la réduction des dépenses de santé, de l’éducation et de tous frais affectés au bien-être de notre peuple. Ce modèle vient de s’effondrer dans son berceau originel.
Malgré les dégâts qu’il a occasionnés dans les pays occidentaux qui découvrent ainsi ce que les Africains vivent depuis des lustres, les vassaux d’Afrique continuent de transposer mécaniquement le modèle libéral en Afrique, détruisant ipso facto la vision africaine de la vie en communauté.
L’eau et l’électricité sont des éléments très importants dans la vie humaine. Or, à ce jour avoir l’eau potable et l’électricité sont un luxe que ne peut payer qu’une infime partie du peuple. En plus, nous dépendons pour une large part de l’électricité importée. Notre industrialisation et notre production sont donc entre les mains de l’extérieur qui peut décider de nous priver de l’électricité quand il veut surtout que cet extérieur a ses propres besoins.
Sur tous les plans, nous sommes assistés. Or cette assistance ou aide est un mécanisme pour nous appauvrir davantage. Où est notre indépendance lorsque pour nous nourrir nous tendons la main vers l’extérieur colonial qui n’attend que ce moment ? Où est notre indépendance lorsque pour équilibrer le « budget national », on se tourne vers les puissances néocoloniales ? De plus, on a prêté pour des projets qui ne sont pas rentables permettant de payer les prêts. Mieux, les dictateurs ont prêté pour acheter des armes contre notre peuple. Plus grave encore, s’est établi un système de détournement des prêts au profit des prêteurs et des dirigeants togolais.
Ainsi, se retrouve-t-on avec une dette qu’il faut s’endetter pour payer. La boucle est alors bouclée. Et la paupérisation se généralisant, ira en croissant avec pour effet la main continuellement tendue vers l’extérieur.
D’où la contradiction totale avec le message de l’indépendance qui proclamait l’ère de « Nous-mêmes » avant tout. Notre situation, demain, sera probablement plus dramatique avec une agriculture de plus en plus hypothéquée par les aléas pluviométriques et l’élargissement des cultures (café, cacao, arachide, banane, coton...) destinées à nourrir les autres alors que nous-mêmes nous avons faim.
Preuve supplémentaire que ce qui compte in fine - c’est la sauvegarde des intérêts des pays occidentaux importateurs - le réseau ferroviaire construit sous les coups de bottes et de chicotes est complètement enfoui dans le sol au moment où nous franchissons le cinquantenaire. Les rails sont coupés et utilisés ou vendus par des individus affamés et ignorant l’histoire du chemin de fer au Togo. Réserver un pareil sort au « réseau ferroviaire », c’est insulter la mémoire de nos pères et mères qui sous le régime du travail forcé allemand, en ont bavé pour le construire. Que le fruit de leur sang versé ne puisse pas servir à transporter leurs descendants que nous sommes, est l’injure la plus grave que le régime togolais et ses alliés aient pu leur adresser. Ce n’est pour rien d’ailleurs que les seules lignes qui sont encore en service, sont celles qui mènent aux mines de phosphate et de calcaire. Est-ce donc être indépendant que de passer tout son temps à servir les autres gratuitement ? Si ce n’est pas de l’esclavage, alors cela y ressemble fort !
Socialement aussi, nous sommes en crise. Nous n’avons plus d’identité et le mimétisme a élu domicile dans la société togolaise à l’instar des autres pays africains. Notre société est beaucoup plus corrompue que celui d’avant le déluge. Et nous avons mis les valeurs africaines au placard.
Malgré « l’indépendance », nous n’arrêtons pas suivre les modèles étrangers. L’administration est « tuberculosée » par la corruption. Des vieux devenus des jeunes « yéyé », sont restés silencieux sur les dérives culturelles auxquelles ils participent parfois eux-mêmes. Ils sont prêts à brader leur dignité et le patrimoine ancestral contre du tabac, de la cola, un kilo de riz et une calebasse de Toucoutou² ou un verre de sodabi[2]. Les quelques personnes âgées restées attachées aux valeurs traditionnelles sont complètement ignorées et ringardisées. Les chefs coutumiers, gardiens de nos valeurs ont trahi leur rôle et leur mission historique en s’aliénant publiquement au parti au pouvoir. Quant aux chefs religieux, leurs actes n’ont rien à avoir avec les prescriptions. Ainsi, conduisent-ils leurs adeptes à la perdition. Les jeunes quant à eux, sont devenus de vieux cyniques et idiots qui ne veulent pas entendre parler des valeurs ancestrales et endogènes. Ils aiment la débrouillardise et se battent pour leur bourreau. Les hommes politiques eux, ne pensent qu’à la « communauté internationale » qui pourtant n’a jamais existé. Ils sont devenus des acteurs au sens théâtral du terme, ne pouvant faire la moindre action sans se référer à leurs metteurs en scène nichés à des milliers de kilomètres. C’est alors qu’ils peuvent commettre des actes et signer des accords bidons, truffés d’imprécisions, pénalisant et hypothéquant ainsi l’avenir du peuple parce que la « communauté internationale » le leur a demandé.
Les femmes, quant à elles, courent derrière l’argent pour avoir des pagnes et des produits décapants et de maquillage. Les enseignants de leur côté, sont dégoûtés de leur profession compte tenu de leurs conditions de travail.
L’éducation est complètement extravertie et ne porte aucune finalité.
C’est le démantèlement complet de la société. Personne ne veut s’occuper de son voisin. L’individualisme est en train de prendre dangereusement le pas sur la solidarité. En copiant les autres, nous nous privons de nos capacités créatrices les plus importantes. Et cela plaît aux pouvoirs publics qui manipulent le désordre et en tirent profit. A cette allure, il n’y a guère de doute que les portes de l’enfer s’ouvriront davantage devant nous dans la décennie à venir : les morts d’aujourd’hui seront bien plus heureux que les vivants de demain !
Pour jouir de la liberté, il faut être soi-même libre. Or il est clair que nous ne sommes pas libres parce que nous ne nous sommes pas encore libérés.
Parce que la libération précède la liberté, nous devons analyser froidement notre situation et mettre les moyens en œuvre autour d’une plate-forme réaliste pour nous libérer. Cette libération ne peut se faire que dans un cadre continental où la jeunesse doit jouer un rôle central avec l’idée que mieux vaut pour chaque Etat être une partie dans un tout qui marche que de se satisfaire d’un souverainisme vaniteux dans une Afrique soumise et humiliée.
La renaissance a commencé en Côte d’Ivoire où les jeunes patriotes ont triomphé, ne serait-ce que momentanément des forces néocoloniales. Le temps est arrivé pour nous de nous lever pour briser les chaînes des indépendances irréelles. Les dirigeants actuels au pouvoir en Afrique, cela signifie que nous ne sommes pas encore indépendants. Toute leur philosophie est de faire de nos pays d’éternels PPTE3 et PMA4 pour avoir de l’argent de l’extérieur pour leurs propres besoins en bradant le patrimoine africain en échange. Ces vassaux aussi longtemps qu’ils détiendront le pouvoir poursuivront en toute quiétude, l’entreprise coloniale de démolition de la société africaine. Le maintien du Franc CFA, des bases militaires françaises et américaines et leurs coopérants sont aussi des preuves que notre indépendance est un mensonge et une illusion. Si nous étions réellement indépendants, Sarkozy ne pouvait pas, en 2007, déclarer en terre africaine et sur la tombe des « tirailleurs sénégalais » que la colonisation a fait du bien à notre peuple et que « l’homme africain n’est pas assez entré dans l’histoire ». C’est parce que ce fou du pouvoir est conscient du pouvoir de la France dans les soi-disant Etats africains qu’il peut se permettre du haut de ses 165 centimètres -talonnettes comprises- de nous dire que nous Africains n’avons pas la notion du temps en dehors des saisons. Et après avoir insulté l’Afrique, voici que le nano-président invite les satrapes africains à fouler le sol français pour célébrer ce qu’ils appellent le jubilé d’or des indépendances. C’est une seconde injure faite à notre peuple.
En définitive, ces manifestations ne peuvent qu’être la célébration de l’indépendance de drapeau, de timbre voire d’hymne national et de devise.
Elles ne sont que des gesticulations confinant à une résonance historique et sentimentale. Pas plus ! La vraie indépendance est devant nous et après d’âpres luttes qui à terme devront consacrer notre droit à l’autodétermination avec les richesses africaines au service de notre peuple.
Nous deviendrons indépendants lorsque nous serons respectés dans notre dignité où que notre peuple aille. Nous deviendrons indépendants quand notre peuple aura acquis le droit d’élire ses dirigeants et de choisir en toute liberté le modèle de société et d’économie qui lui conviennent. Cela veut dire que nous devons revenir à la bifurcation où la colonisation nous a fait dévier de nos valeurs africaines intrinsèques pour reprendre notre processus de développement fondé indissociablement sur la liberté individuelle et la solidarité qui caractérisent notre société. Nous devons donc revenir à nos racines, à notre histoire en nous écartant de la version écrite et institutionnalisée par les Occidentaux et «les progressistes africains». Nous devons planifier ce qui doit être fait sur le court, moyen et long termes.
Le cinquantenaire qui est célébré aujourd’hui est le cinquantenaire de tous les mensonges. Certes, il faut reconnaître à nos prédécesseurs leur courage et leur abnégation pour les combats qu’ils ont livré contre la colonisation. Il faut les célébrer bien sûr : les Olympio, Lumumba, Ouezzin Coulibaly, Nkrumah, Sekou Touré, Modibo Keita, Steve Biko, Felix Moumié, Anta Diop, Thomas Sankara, Tavio Amorin... Ils doivent même nous inspirer dans nos initiatives. Cependant, leur combat n’a pas abouti, il n’est pas achevé.
Ils nous ont passé le flambeau. A nous de nous montrer dignes de marcher dans leur sillage pour que leur mort ne soit pas vaine et ainsi rompre avec les indépendances fictives. Il ne faut surtout pas que ces célébrations occultent le chemin qui nous reste à faire. Sinon après avoir bu, mangé et dansé, le retour à la réalité sera synonyme d’immenses désillusions.
[1] Politique initiée par le Rassemblement du peuple Togolais d’Eyadema Gnassingbé après l’assassinat de Sylvanus Olympio.
[2] Boissons locales respectivement à base de mil et de vin de palme.
3 Pays Pauvres Très endettés
4 Pays Moins Avancés
Web. http://lajuda.blogspot.com
TIMES SQUARE BOMB HOAX, ISRAELI INTEL GROUP SHOWS IT’S HAND
By Gordon Duff,
This is the same group that has come up with numerous bin Laden “audio” tapes, seemingly, though tiny and nearly totally unstaffed, whenever it is convenient for Israel to point a finger at someone, magically Site Intelligence, run by former IDF soldier Rita Katz, whose father was executed as a spy by Saddam Hussein, makes another “unbelievable” intelligence find.
Site Intelligence finds are not only timely for Israel, when the world is focused on claims they have been planning a ‘dirty bomb’ attack to send the US to war against Iran, but always tend to support mysterious organizations run from the caves of the Afghanistan/Pakistan border region.
SMOKING GUN?
After the demise of Iraq, victim of falsified intelligence, now eliminated as an Israeli competitor, all eyes turned to Pakistan, Islam’s only nuclear state. To establish footholds to destabilize Pakistan, a pro-Indian/Israeli government under President Karzai was installed in Kabul.
After 9 years, no evidence of any terrorist activity involved in 9/11 has been found in Afghanistan. The great “net” meant to catch Osama bin Laden and armies of Al Qaeda terrorists came up empty. Instead, we are told from reliable sources that Arab nations friendly to the US released criminals, transporting them to Afghanistan.
These “foreign fighters” actually little more than “extras” in a massive global theatre, kept the small US forces engaged for years, all without any purpose other than to establish that a terrorist organization must have been in Afghanistan because there certainly was one after 2002.
SURROGATE WARFARE ON PAKISTAN
In addition to installing a government that would work directly with Israel and India to organize terrorist attacks on Pakistan, funding to destabilize the oil and gas rich republics of the former Soviet Union had to be raised.
Opium production under the Taliban had been eliminated. The new government quickly began a resurgence of opium production and heroin processing. Aided by agents of the Indian RAW and Israeli Mossad, the governments of Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan quickly fell under the influence of the 65 billion dollar a year Afghanistan drug empire.
Though the drugs may have been from Afghanistan, multiple intelligence agencies from Israel, India, Turkey and others, aided by military contracting firms contracted to the CIA, carried this plan forward.
Continual news stories tying Pakistan to failures to suppress terrorism or rumoring involvement in terrorism themselves flowed onto the world scene through western mainstream media, providing a clear footprint of a classic Mossad operation.
NO SO “UNEXPECTED”
With the demise of Al Qaeda, an unnamed Taliban organization with a website only visible to one person on earth has now declared a mysterious and shadowy war against the United States, in New York City, a city under tight security but one with a very large Israeli/Mossad presence.
This was the same city where the “dancing Israeli’s,” celebrated 9/11 after filming the attacks. Their advance knowledge of the attacks has been one of the many puzzle pieces tying Israel to 9/11.
However, it wasn’t until the “crotch bomber” of last Christmas that the breadth of Israel’s penetration of US security was demonstrated with Abdulmohammed’s attack tying directly to Tel Aviv.
Anyone who visits New York is aware that security there, especially in Time Square is the highest of anywhere in the world. The intelligence organizations protecting New York, including the world’s best police force, leave only one organization as capable of this kind of effort, an organization with massive resources in the area, numerous Israeli/American assets and many residual relationships with Gulliani/Kerik/Bush era friends, friends conveniently “asleep at the switch” on 9/11.
TIMING
Recent intelligence leaks from several agencies have warned of an impending “9/11 style” attack on a high value target in the US or Europe. Reports indicated that a conventional bomb enhanced with nuclear material would be used. Such a weapon would indicate sufficient “WMD” credentials in whipping up the necessary war frenzy to get the American public to overlook the history of falsified intelligence that drove them to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
However, a quickly thrown together “prank” terror attack taking advantage of the environmental disaster in the gulf and the president’s presence there, when coordinated with the press campaign already in motion attempting to smear the Obama administration with the Katrina failures during the Bush presidency, is just too convenient.
With Iranian president Ahmadinejad and Secretary of State Clinton both scheduled to be in New York in the next 24 hours, and recent stories out of Israel trying to tie Iran to the Taliban, the issue of “timing” is a critical one.
The “managed press” aspect of this attack, the phony “web based” confession, the “keeping you safe” scare tactics and the continual drumming of Islamophobia is unmistakable.
ISREAL TIES TO PAKISTAN TALIBAN WELL ESTABLISHED
The group blamed in the Site Intelligence/Israeli report, the Pakistani Taliban has been responsible for hundreds of attacks in Pakistan, killing thousands of citizens. However, reliable sources have tied this group directly to Mossad/RAW training camps inside Afghanistan and Balochistan. The Pakistani Taliban have long been allies of Israel and India with 2000 terrorist trainers inside Afghanistan arming Pakistani Taliban terrorist group.
This has been confirmed, not only in direct briefings with the Pakistani ISPR and ISI but US military intelligence sources as well, who dispute the number of terrorist trainers, not their presence.
Terrorist groups inside Balochistan, the remote Pakistan province said to be a haven for Mossad attacks against Iran, claim to be headquartered in Israel. These groups work directly with the Pakistan Taliban and are another indication of this current “stunt” turning back on non-Islamic planners.
ALWAYS THE SAME, “WHO GAINS?”
With Iran taking the propaganda offensive to the United States, a nation increasingly distancing itself from, not only the idea of supporting an Israeli attack on Iran, but Israel herself. Israel is under pressure to reestablish itself as America’s partner in a long discredited “war on terror” that has been a huge embarrassment to the US.
A “very public” attack like his is a message to President Obama. “We can go where we want and our control of the press will put the blame on anything we do, on you.”
With over 90% of America’s terror arrests turning out to be innocent bystanders, some tortured for years, untold numbers “disappeared,” Bush era failures have soured public support for hunting terrorist leaders who have increasingly been either captured by Pakistan or have been found to be negotiating with US forces. The “war on terror” had become an “Israeli franchise,” making billions in increased military aid, some covertly transferred to Israel through “weapons replenishing” and fat military contracts taken from American firms.
The Marines in Afghanistan are using MRAP vehicles built in Israel, a country with nearly one million guest workers while America has over 30 million unemployed and an unused technology and industrial base better equipped for such production.
With the signature of this bombing being so close to that of the “crotch bombing,” an attack with Israeli fingerprints from Nigeria to Yemen to Amsterdam, the “superfast” accusation against a Pakistani group was no surprise.
ONGOING INVESTIGATION/FOX “ISRAELI ASSET” NEWS ATTACKS OBAMA
With New York police discounting the Pakistan connection to the bombing immediately, Fox News has unleashed an attack on the Obama administration in a well orchestrated manner, accusing democrats of “failing to protect the American people.”
With both Site Intelligence and Fox News tied directly to Israel and the signature and timing of this attack showing clear Israeli fingerprints, Fox may be right.
America may be unable to protect itself from a nation still seen by most Americans as a close ally. No other nation has the capability of such an attack or the influence to orchestrate the news, an act already in motion.
If any finger is pointing anywhere, Fox News is telling us “Israel did it.”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/05/02/gordon-duff-time-square-bomb-hoax-israeli-intel-group-shows-its-hand/
Terrorisme d'Etats France-Algérie : qui a tué les moines français ?
Sheykh Ussama Ibn Awad Ibn Laden explicitly said the 12th September 2001: '9/11, it was jews'
In my book – in which I was assuming, for the sake of argument, the US view that bin Laden had been aware of the camera – I argued that he would have been most unlikely to confess responsibility to the 9/11 attacks. Even if he had been involved in planning the attacks, he would not have admitted this while the camera was running, given the fact that, until then, he had always publicly denied any involvement. For example, having been asked on September 28 whether he had been involved, bin Laden replied:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GRI20100430&articleId=18923
Tue, 29 Jun 2010
The bungled assault on the Mavi Marmara, the lead ship in the flotilla, shows once again that Israel is addicted to using military force yet unable to do so effectively. One would think that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) would improve over time from all the practice. Instead, it has become the gang that cannot shoot straight.
The IDF last scored a clear-cut victory in the Six Day War in 1967; the record since then is a litany of unsuccessful campaigns. The War of Attrition (1969-70) was at best a draw, and Israel fell victim to one of the great surprise attacks in military history in the October War of 1973. In 1982, the IDF invaded Lebanon and ended up in a protracted and bloody fight with Hezbollah. Eighteen years later, Israel conceded defeat and pulled out of the Lebanese quagmire. Israel tried to quell the First Intifada by force in the late 1980s, with Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin telling his troops to break the bones of the Palestinian demonstrators. But that strategy failed and Israel was forced to join the Oslo Peace Process instead, which was another failed endeavor.
The IDF has not become more competent in recent years. By almost all accounts - including the Israeli government's own commission of inquiry - it performed abysmally in the 2006 Lebanon war. The IDF then launched a new campaign against the people of Gaza in December 2008, in part to "restore Israel's deterrence" but also to weaken or topple Hamas. Although the mighty IDF was free to pummel Gaza at will, Hamas survived and Israel was widely condemned for the destruction and killing it wrought on Gaza's civilian population. Indeed, the Goldstone Report, written under UN auspices, accused Israel of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity. Earlier this year, the Mossad murdered a Hamas leader in Dubai, but the assassins were seen on multiple security cameras and were found to have used forged passports from Australia and a handful of European countries. The result was an embarrassing diplomatic row, with Australia, Ireland, and Britain each expelling an Israeli diplomat.
Given this history, it is not surprising that the IDF mishandled the operation against the Gaza flotilla, despite having weeks to plan it. The assault forces that landed on the Mavi Marmara were unprepared for serious resistance and responded by shooting nine activists, some at point-blank range. None of the activists had their own guns. The bloody operation was condemned around the world - except in the United States, of course. Even within Israel, the IDF was roundly criticized for this latest failure.
These ill-conceived operations have harmful consequences for Israel. Failures leave adversaries intact and make Israeli leaders worry that their deterrent reputation is being undermined. To rectify that, the IDF is turned loose again, but the result is usually another misadventure, which gives Israel new incentives to do it again, and so on. This spiral logic, coupled with Israel's intoxication with military force, helps explain why the Israeli press routinely carries articles predicting where Israel's next war will be.
Israel's recent debacles have also damaged its international reputation. Respondents to a 2010 worldwide opinion poll done for the BBC said that Israel, Iran, and Pakistan had the most negative influence in the world; even North Korea ranked better. More worrying for Israel is that its once close strategic relationship with Turkey has been badly damaged by the 2008-09 Gaza war and especially by the assault on the Mavi Marmara, a Turkish ship filled with Turkish nationals. But surely the most troubling development for Israel is the growing chorus of voices in the United States who say that Israel's behavior is threatening American interests around the world, to include endangering its soldiers. If that sentiment grows, it could seriously harm Israel's relationship with the United States.
Life as an Apartheid State
The flotilla tragedy highlights another way in which Israel is in deep trouble. Israel's response makes it obvious that its leaders are not interested in allowing the Palestinians to have a viable state in Gaza and the West Bank, but instead are bent on creating a "Greater Israel" in which the Palestinians are confined to a handful of impoverished enclaves.
Israel insists that its blockade is solely intended to keep weapons out of Gaza. Hardly anyone would criticize Israel if this were true, but it is not. The real aim of the blockade is to punish the people of Gaza for supporting Hamas and resisting Israel's efforts to maintain Gaza as a giant open-air prison. Of course, there was much evidence that this was the case before the debacle on the Mavi Marmara. When the blockade began in 2006, Dov Weisglass, a close aide to Prime Ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, said, "The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger." And the Gaza onslaught 18 months ago was designed to punish the Gazans, not enforce a weapons embargo. The ships in the flotilla were transporting humanitarian aid, not weapons for Hamas, and Israel's willingness to use deadly force to prevent a humanitarian aid convoy from reaching Gaza makes it abundantly clear that Israel wants to humiliate and subdue the Palestinians, not live side-by-side with them in separate states.
Collective punishment of the Palestinians in Gaza is unlikely to end anytime soon. Israel's leaders have shown little interest in lifting the blockade or negotiating sincerely. The sad truth is that Israel has been brutalizing the Palestinians for so long that it is almost impossible to break the habit. It is hardly surprising that Jimmy Carter said last year, "the citizens of Palestine are treated more like animals than human beings." They are, and they will be for the foreseeable future.
Consequently, there is not going to be a two-state solution. Instead, Gaza and the West Bank will become part of a Greater Israel, which will be an apartheid state bearing a marked resemblance to white-ruled South Africa. Israelis and their American supporters invariably bristle at this comparison, but that is their future if they create a Greater Israel while denying full political rights to an Arab population that will soon outnumber the Jewish population in the entirety of the land. In fact, two former Israeli prime ministers - Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak - have made this very point. Olmert went so far as to argue, "as soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished."
He's right, because Israel will not be able to maintain itself as an apartheid state. Like racist South Africa, it will eventually evolve into a democratic bi-national state whose politics will be dominated by the more numerous Palestinians. But that process will take many years, and during that time, Israel will continue to oppress the Palestinians. Its actions will be seen and condemned by growing numbers of people and more and more governments around the world. Israel is unwittingly destroying its own future as a Jewish state, and doing so with tacit U.S. support.
America's Albatross
The combination of Israel's strategic incompetence and its gradual transformation into an apartheid state creates significant problems for the United States. There is growing recognition in both countries that their interests are diverging; indeed this perspective is even garnering attention inside the American Jewish community. Jewish Week, for example, recently published an article entitled "The Gaza Blockade: What Do You Do When U.S. and Israeli Interests Aren't in Synch?" Leaders in both countries are now saying that Israeli policy toward the Palestinians is undermining U.S. security. Vice President Biden and Gen. David Petraeus, the head of Central Command, both made this point recently, and the head of the Mossad, Meir Dagan, told the Knesset in June, "Israel is gradually turning from an asset to the United States to a burden."
It is easy to see why. Because the United States gives Israel so much support and U.S. politicians routinely laud the "special relationship" in the most lavish terms, people around the globe naturally associate the United States with Israel's actions. Unfortunately, this makes huge numbers of people in the Arab and Islamic world furious with the United States for supporting Israel's cruel treatment of the Palestinians. That anger in turn helps fuel terrorism against America. Remember that the 9/11 Commission Report, which describes Khalid Sheik Muhammad as the "principal architect of the 9/11 attacks," concludes that his "animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel." Osama bin Laden's hostility toward the United States was fuelled in part by this same concern.
Popular anger toward the United States also threatens the rulers of Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, key U.S. allies who are frequently seen as America's lackeys. The collapse of any of these regimes would be a big blow to the U.S. position in the region; however, Washington's unyielding support for Israel makes these governments weaker, not stronger. More importantly, the rupture in Israel's relationship with Turkey will surely damage America's otherwise close relationship with Turkey, a NATO member and a key U.S. ally in Europe and the Middle East.
Finally, there is the danger that Israel might attack Iran's nuclear facilities, which could have terrible consequences for the United States. The last thing America needs is another war with an Islamic country, especially one that could easily interfere in its ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is why the Pentagon opposes striking Iran, whether with Israeli or U.S. forces. But Netanyahu might do it anyway if he thinks it would be good for Israel, even if it were bad for the United States.
Dark Days Ahead for the Lobby
Israel's troubled trajectory is also causing major headaches for its American supporters. First, there is the matter of choosing between Israel and the United States. This is sometimes referred to as the issue of dual loyalty, but that term is a misnomer. Americans are allowed to have dual citizenship - and in effect, dual loyalty - and this is no problem as long as the interests of the other country are in synch with America's interests. For decades, Israel's supporters have striven to shape public discourse in the United States so that most Americans believe the two countries' interests are identical. That situation is changing, however. Not only is there now open talk about clashing interests, but knowledgeable people are openly asking whether Israel's actions are detrimental to U.S. security.
The lobby has been scrambling to discredit this new discourse, either by reasserting the standard argument that Israel's interests are synonymous with America's or by claiming that Israel - to quote a recent statement by Mortimer Zuckerman, a key figure in the lobby - "has been an ally that has paid dividends exceeding its costs." A more sophisticated approach, which is reflected in an AIPAC-sponsored letter that 337 congresspersons sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in March, acknowledges that there will be differences between the two countries, but argues that "such differences are best resolved quietly, in trust and confidence." In other words, keep the differences behind closed doors and away from the American public. It is too late, however, to quell the public debate about whether Israel's actions are damaging U.S. interests. In fact, it is likely to grow louder and more contentious with time.
This changing discourse creates a daunting problem for Israel's supporters, because they will have to side either with Israel or the United States when the two countries' interests clash. Thus far, most of the key individuals and institutions in the lobby have sided with Israel when there was a dispute. For example, President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu have had two big public fights over settlements. Both times the lobby sided with Netanyahu and helped him thwart Obama. It seems clear that individuals like Abraham Foxman, who heads the Anti-Defamation League, and organizations like AIPAC are primarily concerned about Israel's interests, not America's.
This situation is very dangerous for the lobby. The real problem is not dual loyalty but choosing between the two loyalties and ultimately putting the interests of Israel ahead of those of America. The lobby's unstinting commitment to defending Israel, which sometimes means shortchanging U.S. interests, is likely to become more apparent to more Americans in the future, and that could lead to a wicked backlash against Israel's supporters as well as Israel.
The lobby faces yet another challenge: defending an apartheid state in the liberal West is not going to be easy. Once it is widely recognized that the two-state solution is dead and Israel has become like white-ruled South Africa - and that day is not far off - support for Israel inside the American Jewish community is likely to diminish significantly. The main reason is that apartheid is a despicable political system that is fundamentally at odds with basic American values as well as core Jewish values. For sure there will be some Jews who will defend Israel no matter what kind of political system it has. But their numbers will shrink over time, in large part because survey data shows that younger American Jews feel less attachment to Israel than their elders, which makes them less inclined to defend Israel blindly.
The bottom line is that Israel will not be able to maintain itself as an apartheid state over the long term because it will not be able to depend on the American Jewish community to defend such a reprehensible political order.
Assisted Suicide
Israel is facing a bleak future, yet there is no reason to think that it will change course anytime soon. The political center of gravity in Israel has shifted sharply to the right and there is no sizable pro-peace political party or movement. Moreover, it remains firmly committed to the belief that what cannot be solved by force can be solved with greater force, and many Israelis view the Palestinians with contempt if not hatred. Neither the Palestinians nor any of Israel's immediate neighbors are powerful enough to deter it, and the lobby will remain influential enough over the next decade to protect Israel from meaningful U.S. pressure.
Remarkably, the lobby is helping Israel commit national suicide while also doing serious damage to American security interests. Voices challenging this tragic situation have grown slightly more numerous in recent years, but the majority of political commentators and virtually all U.S. politicians seem blissfully ignorant of where this is headed, or unwilling to risk their careers by speaking out.
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/211256-Israel-A-Suicidal-Apartheid-State