Gold im Zeitalter des Fake-Terrors!!! - 500 Beiträge pro Seite

[goldenbear2]

Leben wir in Zeiten des ständigen Fake-Terrors zur Vorbereitung eines sehr sehr großen Angriffs- und ROhstofferoberungskrieges? Wie wird sich hier wohl Gold entwickeln, wenn eine zunehmende Menge an Menschen zu der Schlussfolgerung gelangt, hier wird das schmutzigste Spiel seit Jahrzehnten gespielt, und diesmal als Premiere sogar weltweit?


http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steveseymour/wecontrolamerica/m…

Mossad Bombs Paradise Hotel in Mombasa
The precise anatomy of an attack that only "looked like" it was targeted on Jews

Copyright Joe Vialls, 30 November 2002

On 28 November it was reported that “al Qaeda” had blown up the Israeli Paradise Hotel at Kikambala Beach near Mombasa, and synchronously launched a missile attack on an Arkia Airlines Boeing 757, taking off from Mombasa Airport en-route for Tel Aviv with 264 Israeli passengers on board. There was wild media talk of outstanding Israeli bravery in the face of these horrifying Muslim atrocities, but in reality the entire “dual attack” was a lookalike invented by the Mossad, designed to deflect attention away growing anger in Indonesia about direct CIA and Mossad involvement in the 12 October bombing of Kuta Beach in Bali. More about this motive later in the report, but first let us use real-time and photographic evidence to prove this deliberate Israeli illusion.
The first proof that the Kikambala Beach operation was a covert Israeli sting, came less than an hour after the massive bomb blast, with a tame television anchorman in New York repeatedly asking a reporter at the Paradise hotel about “the other attack on the Israeli airliner taking off from Mombasa.” The timing of these questions was impossible, because the pilots aboard the Arkia Airlines Boeing 757 had not reported any incident. Serving as proof of this critical omission, there is no record of any “Mayday” or “Pan” call on the Kenyan air traffic control tapes at any time on 28 November 2002. So now we know the New York media was deliberately telling us about a mid-air incident which never occurred.
Simultaneously at the Paradise Hotel, hordes of Israeli tourists were filmed sitting on top of their heavy suitcases more than 200 meters away from the building. Nearly every reader is conversant with hotel evacuation drills. You are told repeatedly that “human life is important, possessions are not”. This priority never changes, with standard emergency instructions worldwide urging patrons to “Stay calm, check the room to ensure no-one is left, leave your belongings where they are, and walk briskly to your assembly point – do not run.” Nowhere in the rules is there any instruction to risk the lives of your children and yourself, by slowly and laboriously dragging a fifty-pound suitcase more than two hundred meters towards the beach.
The tourists sitting calmly on their suitcases at the beach, is explained by the fact that the Paradise Hotel is a “turnkey” operation, one-hundred-percent owned by the Israelis and thus under their complete control. You cannot walk in off the street and book a room, because the entire hotel is reserved strictly for Israeli tourists, including a sizeable number of Mossad operatives on “Rest and Recuperation”. This was a controlled operation from the start, with nearly all of the Israeli guests cleared away from the buildings before the charges were detonated.


Next, Mossad agents led the compliant Kenyan media to a spot just outside the Mombasa Airport perimeter fence, and showed journalists the “discarded launch tubes” of two shoulder-launched surface-to-air heat seeking missiles, allegedly fired at the Arkia Boeing 757 as it passed overhead at 500 feet. They were real launch tubes complete with pistol grips designed to fire the SA-7b “Strela” missile, but minus the heavy battery packs which the “Arab terrorists” inexplicably decided to run away with. Believe me, there is no way you can fire the Strela without its heavy battery pack. The launch tubes had also been resprayed brilliant sky-blue, a color which provides excellent contrast for media location and recording on Betamax video, but is absurd for operational use. The only colors the Strela is issued in from the factory, are camouflage khaki or olive drab.
The SA-7b Strela is an infra red heat seeker that locks onto hot engine exhaust gases, and will rush off at Mach 1.75 to kill any aircraft [without active magnesium flare protection] that flies within its slant range of 3 miles. Immediately after launch the equipment operator becomes irrelevant, with the missile doing the rest all by itself. Sure it sometimes has a bit of a problem with helicopters which deflect their hot engine gases up through the rotor blades, but the huge gaping red-hot engine orifices of a Boeing 757 at point blank range, are the Strela’s ultimate wet dream.
If one of these rather phallic missiles had actually been fired at the Arkia 757 from the Mombasa runway overrun area, it would have automatically and immediately streaked inside one of the 757’s irresistible orifices, and blown the entire engine pod off the wing with its powerful HE warhead. Two missiles would have blown off two engine pods, making the Boeing extremely difficult to control, to say the very least of it.


The sky-blue Strela launch tube "discarded" by Mossad near Mombasa Airport. Note total lack of residue in pictures left and right. Centre pic shows a real Strela with wide array of ancillary guidance equipment and power packs needed for launch.

Fortunately you do not have to take my word for this. Look very closely at the Strela launch tube photographs shown on this page. The launch and propellant charges of the Strela are very messy, and always leave a lot of dirty residue on the muzzle and exhaust pipe of the launcher after a missile has been fired. There is not the slightest trace of residue on either Strela launcher at Mombasa, proving conclusively that they were never used for live launches, and were thus placed in the grass solely as stage props to reinforce the Israeli myth.
No doubt a few avid television viewers might retort, “What about the Israeli captain of the Boeing? He said he saw two smoke trails from the missiles”. Really? It would be more productive to focus on exactly what the captain told the media, and whether his statement could be even remotely correct. The captain’s exact words were, “We saw two white stripes coming up from behind the airplane on the left side a bit above us.” As you will see from the photo of the Arkia Boeing 757 on this page, the aircraft is not fitted with rear view mirrors or a tail warning radar. No pilot sitting on the flight deck of a Boeing 757 can see “behind” the aircraft because rearward vision is severely restricted. With the “stretched” version of the Boeing 757 they were flying, the Arkia pilots would consider themselves lucky if they could twist around far enough to see their own wings. Nor would they have done so at this entirely critical point in the flight.
The aircraft had just rotated off the hot runway at Mombasa with a full load of fuel and passengers, and was at its most vulnerable. Lose an engine at this point, which means half your total thrust on a twin-engine Boeing 757, and you need to be a very slick pilot to get the airplane back on the ground in one piece at all. So beyond question, both pilots had their eyes glued firmly to the instrument panel at the precise time the captain subsequently claimed, “We saw two white stripes coming up from behind the aircraft…” You decide whether or not the captain was telling the truth, bearing in mind that he also claimed he “felt a bump”, inferring one of the “phantom” missiles had glanced off the airplane. On arrival at Ben Gurion airport in Palestine the airplane was checked for damage by television media, and not a single scratch or blemish was found on its immaculate paint work.
As previously stated, and apart from gratuitously trying to establish a direct link between Palestinians and the fictional “al Qaeda” in the form of CIA/MI6/Mossad “suspect” Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah, the motive for this staged Mossad “attack” was almost certainly to combat increasing dissent over the Bali bombing, with the intent of getting suspicious westerners back on side. The very nature of the covert operation provides several strong clues, as do the various stage props provided by the Mossad for local and international media networks

Imaginative computer graphics issued to the media by Mossad in the wake of the scam, to help viewers "understand" how this impossible attack was [not] launched. Note the two "al Qaeda terrorists" without guidance systems or battery packs!

At the basic subliminal level, you were supposed to acknowledge this “cowardly” attack by “al Qaeda” on “Israeli civilians” who were simply on holiday having a good time at “Kikambala Beach”, where the blasts were caused by a “suicide bomber” and a “car bomb”. You were repeatedly shown hundreds of feet of video film reinforcing this myth, with lots of waving palm trees, and distraught Jewish survivors sitting on the beach.
Surely the covert Kikambala operation subliminally reminds you of another “cowardly” attack by “al Qaeda” on “Australian civilians”, who were simply on holiday having a good time at “Kuta Beach” in Bali on 12 October? It is remarkably similar in many ways, right down to the fine details of a “suicide bomber” and “car bomb” The entire operation was designed to [hopefully] prove that poor Israelis on holiday suffer as much as poor Australians do, at the “ruthless” hands of “al Qaeda” and/or the interchangeable “Jemaah Islamiyah”.
Well, perhaps not exactly. More than one hundred Australians died at Kuta Beach, but only three Israelis died at Kikambala Beach. As if to make up for this inferior body count, you were told that “al Qaeda” had also fired two SA-7b “Strela” heat seeking missiles at an unarmed Israeli airliner. Poor brave Israelis, huh?
I am not callously ingoring the loss of life where local residents are concerned, it is simply a matter of not having accurate figures to use. To the best of my knowledge, approximately 100 Indonesians perished at Kuta Beach, while at least 15 Kenyans were killed at Kikambala Beach. Sadly perhaps, this heavy death toll will be regarded by the CIA and Mossad as irrelevant "collateral damage."


During the ten days immediately preceding the Kikambala operation, things had gone from bad to worse for American and Australian investigators trying to prove that “al Qaeda” and “Jemaah Islamiyah” were responsible for the Kuta Beach atrocity. On Monday 18 November, Indonesian Parliamentary Speaker Amien Rais said he questioned the validity of the police conclusion that "Amrozi" was the main perpetrator of the Bali bombings. Rais was supported by Deputy House Speaker A.M. Fatwa, who stated, "`My conscience says that he is not a key actor. I don’t believe that Amrozi has the capability to make all kinds of the preparations for the bombings, like setting off a kind of micro nuclear bomb in Bali."
These pointed observations by two of the most powerful politicians in Indonesia caused a storm of discontent across the entire nation, with most Indonesians justifiably claiming that the CIA and Mossad were responsible for the outrage in Bali. Then events accelerated rapidly, with politicians from Jakarta personally visiting Kuta Beach. This was followed by the sudden recall of the police general in Bali, who for weeks prior to this had managed to produce endless “Muslim suspects” for the Americans and Australians, at the same staggering speed a conjurer might pull rabbits out of a hat. But just like the rabbits, the Muslim suspects were just clever illusions. And so it was that quite suddenly, with their tame police general removed from the island and escorted back to Jakarta, the CIA and Mossad knew the game was up.
The risks involved in Bali finally being exposed as a joint CIA-Mossad operation are awesome, and far more dangerous in their own way than the multiple allegations about 9/11. Though many investigators including myself have proved with ease that nearly half the named 9/11 “hijackers” are still alive and well today, and that forged evidence was deliberately planted at the crime scene in New York, none individually or severally have sufficient hard evidence to prove that 9/11 was a premeditated scam launched by Judeo-Christian crusaders, rather than by fictional Muslim “al Qaeda terrorists”.
Bali is quite different. Because it is known that the only possible source for the weapon named by Deputy Speaker A. M. Fatwa is Dimona in Israel’s Negev Desert, this single atrocity has the easy ability to unravel the entire carefully-constructed post- 9/11 “War on Terror”, and its more recent oil-rich cousin, the “War on Iraq”. If you successfully unravel the Bali atrocity, and correctly pin the blame on the CIA and Mossad, you automatically expose both “al Qaeda” and “Jemaah Islamiyah” as organizations deliberately invented by these two related western intelligence agencies. Indeed, using this process you prove that the CIA and Mossad ARE THEMSELVES “al Qaeda” and “Jemaah Islamiyah”. Then, and only then, can you use modus operandi and due legal process to prove beyond doubt that the same two agencies were also responsible for 9/11.
This frightening possibility was a risk the agencies were not prepared to take, and the Kikambala operation was swiftly arranged to deflect attention away from the increasing anger in Indonesia. Unfortunately, there is a remote but worrying possibility that the lookalike Israeli attack on Kikambala, might have been designed to deliberately include propaganda enabling future “more sophisticated” attacks on the west.
So far as I know, this is the first time that either the CIA or the Mossad has actually brought you real television footage of an [unfired] surface-to-air missile launcher, with the obvious intent of convincing you that the fictional “al Qaeda” and “Jemaah Islamiyah” not only have access to such equipment, but are also willing and able to use it against unarmed civilian airplanes. The big problem, of course, is that this decoy missile equipment was deliberately placed in position by the Mossad, rather than any “Muslim terrorist” group.
Though I normally go out of my way to avoid causing public panic of any kind, now might be a good time to reevaluate just how necessary it might be for your wife, children or yourself to fly on commercial airplanes. If the CIA or Mossad feel the need to reinforce hatred and fear of “al Qaeda” or “Jemaah Islamiyah” at some time in the indeterminate future, there is now an odds-on chance that at least one of the future “terrorist atrocities” will involve a pair of [live] Israeli SA-7b Strela missiles hurtling up from the ground to join with your airliner in a deadly embrace, immediately after take off from New York, London or Sydney.



http://homepage.ntlworld.com/steveseymour/wecontrolamerica/m…

Israel Tries To Steal Mombasa "Evidence"
The anatomy of an attack that only "looked like" it was targeted on Jews, Part 2

Copyright Joe Vialls, 3 December 2002



Collateral damage Israeli style. Mossad deliberately left these welcoming dancers in the lobby of the
hotel to take the full force of the blast. All twelve members of the dance troupe were killed instantly.

Perhaps realizing that they had left fatally flawed evidence lying around Mombasa airport, more than a hundred heavily armed Israeli soldiers landed at the East Coast port on December 1, and demanded that the Kenyan Police hand over the "evidence". By all accounts they were particularly anxious to get their hands of the unfired sky-blue "Strela" missile launching tubes left near the end of Runway 21. To their astonishment and considerable anger, the Israeli demand was met with a point-blank "NO".
The Kenyan police had already worked out for themselves that the Strela launchers had not been fired, and were still trying to establish exactly why the crew of Arkia Airlines Flight 582 had ignored standard airport procedures on November 28, and taken off from the wrong runway. Instead of using Runway 03 [heading 030 degrees] where the overrun is the Indian Ocean, Flight 582 had deliberately ignored instructions and taken off in the opposite direction, i.e. from Runway 21 [heading 210 degrees], which rather conveniently took them directly overhead the decoy Strela launchers hidden in the long grass.
Think about it people, think about it. How did the agents who planted the Strela launchers know in advance that the crew of Arkia Flight 582 would be the first to violate standard procedures in three years? Put another way, how did they know exactly where to leave the dummy launchers for the media to find? Clearly they had exceptional extra sensory perception, or they must have spoken to the aircrew before Flight 582 taxied out to the runway. You choose which is most likely to be the truth.
Of course, it helps if you know that the overrun of Runway 03 is located in ten-feet-deep water, and therefore a very difficult place to expect even the most compliant of media crews to locate and film the sky-blue decoy launch tubes. No, for the Mossad scam to work properly they had to break the rules, and with typical Israeli arrogance, assumed no one would notice the "minor" deception.
But the deception was noticed, as was the fact that the launch tubes had not been fired. Anticipating a few problems with their initial cover story, the Israelis starting leaking another ingenious tale to the media, which discreetly hinted that the Arkia Boeing 757 "might have been fitted with top secret missile warning equipment", which had somehow miraculously prevented the airplane from being hit by two deadly heat seekers, allegedly fired at point-blank range. As you will see from the pictures below, this was a complete lie.


Arkia Flight 582 immediately after landing at Ben Gurion airport in Palestine on November 28. Note the
total absence of missile warning aerials or magnesium flare dispensers on the tail, wings and belly.

In the last few days, the media has started repeating "grave" Israeli warnings that "al Qaeda" will probably use one of these weapons against you or your family when you take off from New York, London or Sydney, so now might me a good time for a mercifully short lesson in shoulder-launched missile capabilities. Of course, the Mombasa scam was almost certainly contrived to prepare you for CIA or Mossad "false flag" heat seekers, which they can then blame on the naughty "al Qaeda", but the lesson might still be useful at the personal level. After all, it doesn`t really matter exactly who fires the heat seeker, if one of these nasties homes in on the engine or engines of your holiday flight to Florida, Mallorca or Fiji, it could ruin your whole day.
The main part of the lesson is that there is no such thing as a "secret warning radar" that can protect you from a heat seeker at very low speed and very low altitude, as was [theoretically] the case with Arkia Airlines Flight 582. There are missile warning devices which operate quite well against radar-guided and infra-red missiles at medium and high altitudes, but we won`t waste time with these here. The CIA and Mossad can only credibly fire a false flag missile at you that "al Qaeda" might reasonably have access to as well, which limits the field to shoulder-launched heat seekers like the Strela, Stinger, or a handful of others. There are minor differences, but they all work in the same general way.

The decoy Strela launch tubes positioned in the overrun area of Runway 21. Note the total lack of blowback residue on the sky-blue launchers. The small "finned" objects in the center and right pics are not "five inch missiles" as someone suggested. These are coolant catridges [one per shot], used to chill the infra-red seeker lens in the missile, allowing sufficient thermal contrast to acquire the target aircraft`s jet exhaust.

In basic terms the shoulder launched heat seeker is strictly short range, with its overall slant range limited to about three miles. This means that it only has three miles TOTAL in which to kill you, from the point at which it first leaves the launch tube to the point at which it flies up your hot jetpipe and blows the engine pod off your wing. In turn this means that shoulder launched heat seekers can really only kill your aircraft very close to the airport, either immediately after take off, or immediately before landing.
There is literally only one defence against such a weapon at close range, which is to actively fire very hot magnesium flares from your own airplane. Because magnesium burns much hotter than your jet engine exhaust, the heat seeker [normally] considers the magnesium flare a sexier target, instantly falls in love with it, and is thus [hopefully] decoyed away from you. This does not always work.
Military aircraft in combat zones pop flares all the time on take off and approach, because they know full well that there is no "top secret radar" in service that can warn them quickly enough to save their hides. Please note that military aircraft normally do this in someone else`s country [Afghanistan for example], and therefore don`t give a damn what the magnesuim flares might set fire to. A sizeable number of them normally hit the ground still burning.
Now the trick here, before you allow your local government to squander $5 million [each] fitting flare dispensers to every airliner in your national fleet, is to remember that what you can do with impunity at Bagram airport in Afghnistan, you most certainly cannot do at John F. Kennedy, London Heathrow or Sydney Mascot. Start firing multiple flares on the take off run at one of these prestigious establishments, and you will very likely set fire to everything from the control tower to the sleek passenger bus taking you and your family to the transit lounge. Put bluntly, counter measures like these are useless for a civil airliner in a civil environment, which is why the CIA and Mossad know they can drop your airplane, yes, YOUR airplane, whenever they feel the need to drive a bit more hatred towards "al Qaeda" or whoever. .

Two Hercules transport planes "popping" magnesium flares. Ask yourself, do you really want one of these bouncing off the roof of your automobile in the airport car park, or landing in little Johnny`s stroller?


Because Israel started this whole thing with the decoy operation in Mombasa, it seems suitable that I should leave you with the recent words of a bona fide Israeli spokesman:-
Boaz Ganor, head of Israel`s International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism, said the appearance of missiles, while not entirely new, pointed to a new approach in the "evolution of terrorism."
In the 1960s and early 1970s, terror groups hijacked planes, which led to the introduction of metal detectors and sky marshals. The 1980s and 1990s saw terrorists sneak bombs onto planes, but that has become more difficult with sophisticated detection equipment, Ganor said.
"Now I think you`ll see these groups use missiles to try to shoot down planes from the ground," he said.

NOW ASK YOURSELF: "Do I really, really, need to fly this month?

[keepitshort]

wohin der fake-Terror führt

zu erhöhten Militärausgaben
erhöhte Militärausgaben in Deutschland
erhöhte Militärausgaben in den USA

wohin da führen kann

ich behaupte mal Israel ist das beste Beispiel
durch erhöhte Militärausgaben in Israel
dürfte die Inflationsrate in Israel etwas höher sein
als in Deutschland.


Es gibt aber auch Interessensgruppen die
ein sehr starkes Interesse an Militärausgaben hat

der Deutsche Bundeswehrverband
die Deutsche Waffenindustrie (Dornier, Heckler Koch,...)
die US-Waffenindustrie

und die Deutsche Polizei dürfte
den fake-Terror begrüssen

denn fake-Terror bring neue Stellen

ich sehe in Deutschland keine Terror-Gefahr
es gab bisher keinen Anschlag weder
in Hamburg noch in Berlin noch in Frankfurt
noch in Köln

fake-Terror sichert Arbeitsplätze so einfach ist das
zumindest in Deutschland.

Dieser erhöhte fake-Terror-Personalbedarf
dürfte weltweit die Inflation anheizen
was dem Goldpreis auftrieb gibt.

Das alles sind Behauptungen die eine Disskussion
anregen sollen.
Ob diese Behauptungen der Wahrheit entsprechen
kann ihnen jeder Innenminister im Detail erläutern
wir brauch auf jeden Fall mehr Personal bei der
Polizei.

[goldenbear2]

Newspaper of the year: Mirror.co.uk

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12422…

LIES, DAMNED LIES AND TERROR WARNINGS
John Pilger on the evil art of black propoganda

By John Pilger


ON November 7, the day before the United Nations Security Council voted on a resolution that made an American and British attack on Iraq more than likely, Downing Street began issuing warnings of imminent terrorist threats against the United Kingdom.

Cross-Channel ferries, the London Underground and major public events were all said to be "targeted".

The anonymous Government sources described "emergency security measures" that included a "rapid reaction force of army reservists" and a squadron of fighter jets "on constant standby". Plans were being drawn up to "evacuate major cities and deal with large numbers of contaminated corpses". Police snipers were being trained "to kill suicide bombers" and anti-radiation pills were being distributed to hospitals. By November 11, Tony Blair himself was telling the British public to be "on guard" against an attack that could lead to "maximum carnage".

Curiously, the national state of alert for a likely attack, colour-coded amber, which such a grave warning would require, was never activated. It remains on "black special", which is just above normal. Why?

That was more than two weeks ago, and urgent questions remain unanswered. Now health service teams are to have smallpox vaccinations to "meet the threat of a germ warfare attack"; and the Foreign Office has produced a remarkable video suggesting that Britain is about to attack Iraq because of its concern for that country`s human rights record. (This must mean Britain will soon attack other countries because of their human rights records, such as China, Russia and the United States).

The absurdity of all this is becoming grotesque, and the British public needs to ask urgent questions of its Government.

Where is the evidence, any evidence, for a national "alert" that borders on such orchestrated hysteria? And what explains its uncanny timing with the latest American and British machinations at the UN on Iraq?

Lying as government strategy is known as black propaganda. The British invented its modern form. Josef Goebbels, the Nazis` propaganda chief, was full of admiration for the British model. Since September 11, 2001, every attempt by black propagandists in Whitehall and Washington to justify an unprovoked attack on Iraq by linking the regime in Baghdad with al-Qaeda terrorism has failed.

FIRST, there was the charge that Iraq was responsible for last year`s anthrax scare in the United States, then it was claimed that Mohamed Atta, one of the alleged September 11 hijackers, had made contact with Iraqi intelligence in Prague. Both claims have been proven false, along with stories planted in newspapers by American intelligence that Iraq has been training al-Qaeda terrorists at a secret base.

Surmounting the truth that the secular Iraqi regime actually fears and loathes Osama bin Laden and his Islamic militants has always been difficult for American and British propagandists - even though George W Bush currently babbles nonsense about "exporting this evil al-Qaeda threat to the world".

Blair is more careful; but his implied message is the same: that the "scourge" of world-wide terrorism is linked to Saddam Hussein, whose demonology must now rival that of the "baby-eating Boche" during the First World War, an early triumph of black propaganda.

These deceptions and outright lies are aimed at the great majority of the British people who, as the polls show, are opposed to attacking Iraq, a country that offers them no threat. However, if you frighten the public with apocalyptic warnings about evacuating cities and incessantly link Iraq, September 11 and the Bali bombing, then people may change their minds and be ready for war - or so the propagandists bargain. "It`s a softening up process," says a former intelligence officer familiar with the black art, "a lying game on a huge scale".

It is also an indication of the Blair government`s desperation. Blair knows that, however successful his enfeeblement of parliamentary democracy, public opinion matters and, at times, has unforeseen power.

So as an antidote to the "softening up" of public opinion, I offer this pocket guide to the current lying game:

What Bush and Blair want us to forget...

THE LOVE AFFAIR

THE present Iraqi regime is a product of the Ba`athist Party, which the CIA helped bring to power. The CIA officer in charge of the operation described it as "my favourite coup". During the 1980s, America and Britain supplied Saddam Hussein with every weapon he wanted, often secretly and illegally. The relationship was known cynically in Washington as "the love affair".

When Blair and Bush incessantly refer to Saddam "using chemical weapons against his own people", specifically the Kurdish village of Halabja in 1988, they never explain that Britain and America were accomplices.

Not only did both governments secretly and illegally approve the sale of chemical weapons` agents, officials in Washington and Whitehall tried to cover up the Halabja atrocity, with the Americans even faking a story that Iran was responsible.

And while the gassing was going on, Saddam Hussein was being congratulated on his wise leadership by David Mellor, a Foreign Office minister, whose turn it was to sit at the feet of the dictator. Almost as a reward, the Thatcher governments gave Saddam £340million of British taxpayers` money in export credits. When Bush and Blair call Saddam "a threat to his neighbours", they never mention that George Bush Senior, as head of the CIA and later President, pushed Iraq to attack Iran and supplied crucial intelligence to the Iraqi military that ensured the war went on for eight years. The result was millions of dollars in profits for American and British arms firms, and a million young men dead on both sides. A congressional investigation, long forgotten, described this as a "great crime".

HYPOCRISY UNLIMITED

ON September 12, George W Bush appeared before the UN General Assembly and asked dramatically: "Are Security Council resolutions to be honoured or cast aside?"

The answer came a few weeks later when the Security Council passed Resolution 1435, which demanded that "Israel immediately cease measures in and around Ramallah including the destruction of Palestinian civilian and security infrastructure" and withdraw its "occupying forces from Palestinian cities towards the positions held prior to September 2000".

The resolution was passed 14-0 with one abstention, the United States. Israel dismissed it; and nothing happened. This was no surprise. The Israelis have defied at least 40 Security Council resolutions and scores of General Assembly resolutions: a record of dishonouring and "casting aside" the law (to quote Bush) unequalled by any nation since the UN was founded.

Like Saddam Hussein`s Iraq in the 1980s, Israel`s defiance is rewarded with all the weapons and fighter aircraft it wants. Just as Britain used to supply Saddam with the means of making chemical bombs, so the Blair government currently supplies the Israeli regime of Ariel Sharon with chemical warfare technology. This includes "PCPs" which can easily be turned into lethal sarin nerve gas which, next to nuclear weapons, is the most feared weapon of mass destruction.

THE REAL REASON FOR ATTACKING IRAQ

AMERICA burns a quarter of all the oil consumed by humanity. A study sponsored by the US Council on Foreign Relations says that "the American people continue to demand plentiful and cheap energy without sacrifice or inconvenience". Transport in the United States alone burns 66 per cent of America`s petroleum.

One estimate is that the world`s oil reserves will begin to decline within five to 10 years at the rate of about two million barrels a day. In the Middle East, the only country capable of significantly increasing its production is Iraq, once described by Vice President Cheney as "the great prize".

At present, America depends on Iraq`s neighbour Saudi Arabia, not just for oil but for keeping the price of oil down. However, Saudi Arabia is the home of al-Qaeda, and Osama bin Laden and 15 of the alleged September 11 hijackers.

THE grievance against the Americans for their imperial interventions in the Middle East is said to be deepest in the country that was invented by British imperialism and has since been maintained by the US as an oil colony.

If America installs a colonial regime in Baghdad, certainly its dependence on Saudi Arabia will be dramatically eased, and its grip on the world`s greatest oil market will be tightened. The price, for the people of the region, for Americans and the rest of us, will be an enduring turmoil similar to that of Palestine, exemplified by last week`s terror bombing of an Israeli hotel in Kenya.

This is the hidden agenda of the "war on terrorism" - a term that is no more than a euphemism for the Bush administration`s exploitation of the September 11 attacks and America`s accelerating imperial ambitions. In the past 14 months, on the pretext of "fighting terror", US military bases have been established at the gateways to the greatest oil and gas fields on earth, especially in Central Asia, which is also coveted as a "great prize".

In Afghanistan, the president, Hamid Karzai, guarded by 46 American special forces troops, was employed by a subsidiary of Unocal, the American oil company. The post-Taliban US ambassador is a senior executive of Unocal, and a pipeline to carry lucrative oil and gas across the country from the Caspian Sea will be built by Unocal.

The majority of Bush`s cabinet are from the oil industry, which has made them extremely rich. Bush`s father is still a consultant for the huge oil services company, the Carlyle Group, and his personal clients include the family of Osama bin Laden. One of the reasons the Americans attacked Afghanistan was not to liberate women but to liberate the pipeline deal. As the BBC reported on September 18, 2001: "Niaz Niak, a former Pakistani foreign minister, was told by senior American officials in mid-July (2001) that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October. It was Naik`s view that Washington would not drop its war against Afghanistan even if bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taliban. Remember, he said this before the attacks of September 11 had happened.

Only a pittance of the millions of dollars pledged to rebuild Afghanistan has arrived. As many as 20,000 people, estimates the Guardian, if you count those bombed to death and who starved during the bombing, died so that the West could reconquer Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden was no where to be seen.

SECRETS AND

CONSEQUENCES

WHILE Saddam Hussein`s crimes against his own people are well known, those of the West in Iraq are generally suppressed. The suffering of ordinary Iraqi people is never mentioned by Bush and Blair, and only rarely by the media. This is not surprising. Under a United Nations blockade that resembles a medieval siege, devised and controlled by the United States and Britain, Iraq is allowed to spend little more than £100 per person on sustaining the life of each of its citizens for one year. This is less than half the annual per capita income of Haiti, the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. It is less than the amount the UN spends on food for dogs used in Iraqi de-mining operations.

A recent comprehensive investigation by an American academic, Professor Joy Gordon, has revealed that the United States has placed "on hold" more than $5billion worth of humanitarian goods that should have gone to Iraq. All the goods were approved by the UN and financed from the sale of Iraqi oil. They include flour, medicines, medical equipment, milk production equipment, fire-fighting equipment, water tankers.

"Over the last three years," wrote Professor Gordon, "I have acquired many of the key confidential UN documents concerning the administration of Iraqi sanctions. What they show is that the United States has fought aggressively throughout the last decade to purposefully minimise the humanitarian goods that enter the country. And it has done so in the face of enormous human suffering, including massive increases in child mortality and widespread epidemics."

These are the people, more than half of them children, whom Bush and Blair are planning to attack once the UN`s weapons inspectors have outlived their usefulness. (In the last three years, the Blair Government alone has spent £1billion illegally bombing Iraq - with America. Shepherds, fishermen, truck drivers are blown to bits with rarely a word in the media. Neither country has a UN mandate to do this; under international law, it is simply an act of piracy.

THE one connection between international terrorism and Iraq will be the undoubted consequence of an Anglo-American attack. Nothing will do more to convert al-Qaeda from a relatively small gang to a fanatical international jihad, or network. Nothing will do more to create a generation of anti-Western bitterness and recruits for terrorism.

When Blair warns about the threat of terrorist "carnage" in Britain, the terrible irony of his predictions is that they are likely to be self-fulfilling if he involves the British people in a criminal foreign adventure.

For this irresponsible act, he will place at risk every British citizen at home and abroad. It will spread fear and foster ethnic division. Such is the true measure of his fawning devotion to great power. The people of Britain should not allow it.

[xxTornado]

terrorgefahr ist nun wirklich nicht zu unterschätzen,
ihr kennt doch das sprichwort, Hunger macht Böse!

[goldenbear2]

Und was will er uns mit diesem netten Briefchen sagen?
Kann hier keiner lesen, nehm ich an.
Ist´s das Gebet zum Ende des Ramadan?
Oder die Rede Saddams, die doch erst am Samstag erwartet wird?
Und wer hat´s nachweislich verfasst? Ein "Terrorist"?
Und wenn ja: Ein "echter" oder ein "gefakter"?
Bleiben Fragen über Fragen, denn was soll uns das nur sagen ... ;-)

[goldenbear2]

Fake Terror: The Road To Dictatorship
by Jim Robinson, Free Republic
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/index.html

September 11, 2001

It`s the oldest trick in the book, dating back to Roman times; creating
the
enemies you need.

In 70 BC, an ambitious minor politician and extremely wealthy man,
Marcus Licineus Crassus, wanted to rule Rome. Just to give you an idea
of
what sort of man Crassus really was, he is credited with invention of
the
fire brigade. But in Crassus` version, his fire- fighting slaves would
race
to the scene of a burning building whereupon Crassus would offer to
buy it
on the spot for a tiny fraction of it`s worth. If the owner sold,
Crassus`
slaves would put out the fire. If the owner refused to sell, Crassus
allowed the building to burn to the ground. By means of this device,
Crassus eventually came to be the largest single private landholder in
Rome, and used some of his wealth to help back Julius Caesar against
Cicero.

In 70 BC Rome was still a Republic, which placed very strict limits
on
what Rulers could do, and more importantly NOT do. But Crassus had no
intentions of enduring such limits to his personal power, and contrived
a
plan.

Crassus seized upon the slave revolt led by Sparticus in order to
strike terror into the hearts of Rome, whose garrison Sparticus had
already
defeated in battle. But Sparticus had no intention of marching on Rome
itself, a move he knew to be suicidal. Sparticus and his band wanted
nothing to do with the Roman empire and had planned from the start
merely
to loot enough money from their former owners in the Italian
countryside to
hire a mercenary fleet in which to sail to freedom.

Sailing away was the last thing Crassus wanted Sparticus to do. He
needed
a convenient enemy with which to terrorize Rome itself for his personal
political gain. So Crassus bribed the mercenary fleet to sail without
Sparticus, then positioned two Roman legions in such a way that
Sparticus
had no choice but to march on Rome.

Terrified of the impending arrival of the much-feared army of
gladiators, Rome declared Crassus Praetor. Crassus then crushed
Sparticus`
army and even though Pompeii took the credit, Crassus was elected
Consul of
Rome the following year.

With this maneuver, the Romans surrendered their Republican form of
government. Soon would follow the first Triumvirate, consisting of
Crassus,
Pompeii, and Julius Caesar, followed by the reign of the god-like
Emperors
of Rome. The Romans were hoaxed into surrendering their Republic, and
accepting the rule of Emperors.

Julius Caesar`s political opponent, Cicero, for all his literary
accomplishments, played the same games in his campaign against Julius
Caesar, claiming that Rome was falling victim to an internal "vast
right
wing" conspiracy in which any expressed desire for legislative limits
on
government was treated as suspicious behavior. Cicero, in order to
demonstrate to the Romans just how unsafe Rome has become hired thugs
to
cause as much disturbance as possible, and campaigned on a promise to
end
the internal strife if elected and granted extraordinary powers.

What Cicero only dreamed of, Adolph Hitler succeeded in doing.
Elected
Chancellor of Germany, Hitler, like Crassus, had no intention of living
with the strict limits to his power imposed by German law. Unlike
Cicero,
Hitler`s thugs were easy to recognize; they all wore the same brown
shirts.

But their actions were no different than those of their Roman
predecessors. They staged beatings, set fires, caused as much trouble
as
they could, while Hitler made speeches promising that he could end the
crime wave of subversives and terrorism if he was granted extraordinary
powers.

The Germans were hoaxed into surrendering their Republic, and
accepting
the rule of Der Fuhrer.

The state-sponsored schools will never tell you this, but
governments
routinely rely on hoaxes to sell their agendas to an otherwise
reluctant
public. The Romans accepted the Emperors and the Germans accepted
Hitler
not because they wanted to, but because the carefully crafted illusions
of
threat appeared to leave no other choice.

Our government too uses hoaxes to create the illusion that We The
People have no choice but the direction the government wishes us to go
in.


In 1898, Joseph Pulitzer`s New York World and William Randolph
Hearst`s
New York Journal were arguing for American intervention in Cuba. Hearst
is
reported to have dispatched a photographer to Cuba to photograph the
coming
war with Spain. When the photographer asked just what war that might
be,
Hearst is reported to have replied, "You take the photographs, and I
will
provide the war". Hearst was true to his word, as his newspaper
published
stories of great atrocities being committed against the Cuban people,
most
of which turned out to be complete fabrications.

On the night of February 15, 1898, the USS Maine, lying in Havana
harbor in a show of US resolve to protect her interests, exploded
violently. Captain Sigsbee, the commander of the Maine, urged that no
assumptions of enemy attack be made until there was a full
investigation of
the cause of the explosion. For this, Captain Sigsbee was excoriated in
the
press for "refusing to see the obvious". The Atlantic Monthly declared
flat
out that to suppose the explosion to be anything other than a
deliberate
act by Spain
was "completely at defiance of the laws of probability".

Under the slogan "Remember the Maine", Americans went to war with
Spain, eventually winning the Phillipines (and annexing Hawaii along
the
way).

In 1975, an investigation led by Admiral Hyman Rickover examined
the
data
recovered from a 1911 examination of the wreck and concluded that
there
had been no evidence of an external explosion. The most likely cause of
the
sinking was a coal dust explosion in a coal bunker imprudently located
next
to the ship`s magazines. Captain Sigsbee`s caution had been well
founded.


President Franklin Delano Roosevelt needed a war. He needed the
fever
of a major war to mask the symptoms of a still deathly ill economy
struggling back from the Great Depression (and mutating towards
Socialism
at the same time). Roosevelt wanted a war with Germany to stop Hitler,
but
despite several provocations in the Atlantic, the American people,
still
struggling with that troublesome economy, were opposed to any wars.
Roosevelt violated neutrality with lend lease, and even ordered the
sinking
of several German ships in the Atlantic, but HItler refused to be
provoked.

Roosevelt needed an enemy, and if America would not willingly
attack
that enemy, then one would have to be maneuvered into attacking
America,
much as Marcus Licinius Crassus had maneuvered Sparticus into attacking
Rome.

The way open to war was created when Japan signed the tripartite
agreement with Italy and Germany, with all parties pledging mutual
defense
to each other. Whereas Hitler would never declare war on the United
States
no matter the provocation, the means to force Japan to do so were
readily
at hand.

The first step was to place oil and steel embargoes on Japan, using
Japan`s wars on the Asian mainland as a reason. This forced Japan to
consider seizing the oil and mineral rich regions in Indonesia. With
the
European powers militarily exhausted by the war in Europe, the United
States was the only power in the Pacific able to stop Japan from
invading
the Dutch East Indies, and by moving the Pacific fleet from San Diego
to
Pearl
Harbor, Hawaii, Roosevelt made a pre-emptive strike on that fleet the
mandatory first step in any Japanese plan to extend it`s empire into
the
"southern resource area".

Roosevelt boxed in Japan just as completely as Crassus had boxed in
Sparticus. Japan needed oil. They had to invade Indonesia to get it,
and to
do that they first had to remove the threat of the American fleet at
Pearl
Harbor. There never really was any other course open to them.

To enrage the American people as much as possible, Roosevelt needed
the
first overt attack by Japan to be as bloody as possible, appearing as a
sneak attack much as the Japanese had done to the Russians. From that
moment up until the attack on Pearl Harbor itself, Roosevelt and his
associates made sure that the commanders in Hawaii, General Short and
Admiral Kimmel, were kept in the dark as much as possible about the
location of the Japanese fleet and it`s intentions, then later
scapegoated
for the attack. (Congress
recently exonerated both Short and Kimmel, posthumously restoring them
to
their former ranks).

But as the Army board had concluded at the time, and subsequent
de-classified documents confirmed, Washington DC knew the attack was
coming, knew exactly where the Japanese fleet was, and knew where it
was
headed.

On November 29th, Secretary of State Hull showed United Press
reporter
Joe
Leib a message with the time and place of the attack, and the New
York
Times
in it`s special 12/8/41 Pearl Harbor edition, on page 13, reported
that
the
time and place of the attack had been known in advance!

The much repeated claim that the Japanese fleet maintained radio
silence
on it`s way to Hawaii was a lie. Among other intercepts still held in
the
Archives of the NSA is the UNCODED message sent by the Japanese
tanker
Shirya stating, "proceeding to a position 30.00 N, 154.20 E. Expect
to
arrive at that point on 3 December." (near HI)

President Lyndon Johnson wanted a war in Vietnam. He wanted it to
help
his friends who owned defense companies to do a little business. He
needed
it to get the Pentagon and CIA to quit trying to invade Cuba. And most
of
all, he needed a provocation to convince the American people that there
was
really "no other choice".

On August 5, 1964, newspapers across America reported "renewed
attacks"
against American destroyers operating in Vietnamese waters,
specifically
the Gulf of Tonkin. The official story was that North Vietnamese
torpedo
boats launched an "unprovoked attack" on the USS Maddox while it was on
"routine patrol".

The truth is that USS Maddox was involved in aggressive
intelligence
gathering in coordination with actual attacks by South Vietnam and the
Laotian Air Force against targets in North Vietnam. The truth is also
that
there was no attack by torpedo boats against the USS Maddox. Captain
John
J. Herrick, the task force commander in the Gulf, cabled Washington DC
that
the report was the result of an "over-eager" sonarman who had picked up
the
sounds of his own ship`s screws and panicked. But even with this
knowledge
that the report was false, Lyndon Johnson went on national TV that
night
to announce the commencement of air strikes against North Vietnam,
"retaliation" for an attack that had never occurred.

President George Bush wanted a war in Iraq. Like Crassus, George
Bush
is motivated by money. Specifically oil money. But with the OPEC
alliance
failing to keep limits on oil production in the Mideast, the market was
being glutted with oil pumped from underneath Iraq, which sat over
roughly
1/3 of the oil reserves of the entire region.

George wanted a war to stop that flow of oil, to keep prices (and
profits) from falling any further than they already had. But like
Roosevelt, he needed the "other side" to make the first move.

Iraq had long been trying to acquire greater access to the Persian
Gulf, and felt limited confined a narrow strip of land along Kuwait`s
northern border, which placed Iraqi interests in close proximity with
hostile Iran. George Bush, who had been covertly arming Iraq during
its
war with Iran, sent word via April Glaspie that the United States would
not
intervene if Saddam Hussein grabbed a larger part of Kuwait. Saddam
fell
for the bait and invaded.

Of course, Americans were not about to send their sons and
daughters to
risk their lives for petroleum products. So George Bush arranged a
hoax,
using public relations firm Hill & Knowlton, which has grown rich on
taxpayer money by being most industrious and creative liars! Hill &
Knowlton concocted a monumental fraud in which the daughter of the
Kuwaiti
Ambassador to the United States, went on TV pretending to be a nurse,
and
related a horror story in which Iraqi troops looted the incubators from
a
Kuwaiti hospital, leaving the premature babies on the cold floor to
die.
The media, part of the swindle from the start, never bothered asking
why
the "nurse" didn`t just pick the babies up and wrap them in blankets
or
something.

Enraged by the incubator story, Americans supported operation
Desert
Storm, which never removed Saddam Hussein from power but which did take
Kuwait`s oil off of the market for almost 2 years and limited Iraq`s
oil
exports to this very day. That our sons and daughters came home with
serious and lingering medical illnesses was apparently not too great a
price to pay for increased oil profits.

Following the victory in Iraq, yet another war appeared to be in
the
offering in the mineral rich regions of Bosnia. Yet again, a hoax was
used
to create support for military action.

The above photo of Fikret Alic, a Muslim, staring through a barbed
wire
fence, was used to "prove" that the Bosnians were running modern day
"Concentration Camps". As the headline of "Belsen 92" indicates, all
possible associations with the Nazi horrors were made to sell the
necessity
of sending yet more American troops into someone else`s nation.

But when German Journalists went to Trnopolje, the site of the
supposed
Bosnian Concentration Camp. to film a documentary, they discovered that
the
photo was a fake! The camp at Trnopolje was not a concentration camp
but a
refugee center. Nor was it surrounded by barbed wire. Careful
examination
of the original photo revealed that the photographer had shot the photo
through a broken section of fence surrounding a tool shed. It was the
photographer who was on the inside, shooting out at the refugees.

Once again, Americans had been hoaxed into support of actions they
might otherwise not have agreed with.

While several American Presidents have willingly started wars for
personal
purposes, perhaps no President has ever carried it to the extreme
that
Bill Clinton has.

Coincident with the expected public statement of Monica Lewinsky
following her testimony, Bill Clinton ordered a cruise missile attack
on
Sudan and Afghanistan, claiming to have had irrefutable proof that
bogeyman
extraordinaire (and former Afghani ally) Osama Bin Ladin was creating
terrorist chemical weapons there.

Examination of the photos of the debris revealed none of the
expected
structures one would find in a laboratory that handled lethal
weapons-grade
materials. Assurances from the CIA that they had a positive soil test
for
biological weapons fell on their face when it was revealed that there
had
been no open soil anywhere near the pre-bombed facility. Sudan
requested
that international observers come test the remains of the factory for
any
signs of the nerve gas Clinton had insisted was there. None was found.
The
Sudanese plant was a harmless aspirin factory, and the owner has sued
for
damages.

Later examination of the site hit in Afghanistan revealed it to be
a
mosque.

Meanwhile, back in Kosovo, stories about genocide and atrocities
were
flooding the media (in time to distract from the Sudanese
embarrassments),
just as lurid and sensational and as it turns out often just as
fictional
as most of William Randolph Hearst`s stories of atrocities against the
Cubans.

Again, the government and the media were hoaxing Americans. The
above
photo was shown on all the American networks, claiming to be one of
Slobodan Milosovic`s Migs, shot down while attacking civilians. Closer
examination shows it to be stenciled in English!

Like Germany under Chancellor Hitler, there have been events in our
nation which strike fear into the hearts of the citizens, such as the
New
York World Trade Tower bombing, the OK City Federal Building, and the
Olympic Park bomb (nicely timed to divert the media from witnesses to
the
TWA 800 shoot down). The media has been very quick to blame such events
on
radicals", "subversives", "vast right wing conspiracies", and other
"enemies in our midst", no different than the lies used by Cicero and
Hitler.

But on closer examination, such "domestic terrorist" events do not
appear to be what they are made out to be. The FBI had an informant
inside
the World Trade Tower bombers, Emad Salam, who offered to sabotage the
bomb. The FBI told him "no". The so-called "hot bed" of white
separatism
at Elohim City, occasional home to Tim McVeigh in the weeks prior to
the OK
City bombing, was founded and is being run by an FBI informant!

And nobody has ever really explained what this second Ryder truck
was
doing in a secret camp half way from Elohim City to Oklahoma City two
weeks
before the bombing.

So, here we are today. Like the Romans of Crassus` and Cicero`s
time,
or the Germans under a newly elected Hitler, we are being warned that a
dangerous enemy threatens us, implacable, invisible, omnipresent, and
invulnerable as long as our government is hamstrung by that silly old
Bill
of Rights. Already there have appeared articles debating whether or not
"extraordinary measures" (i.e. torture) are not fully justified under
certain circumstances such as those we are purported to face.

As was the case in Rome and Germany, the government continues to
plead
with the public for an expansion of its power and authority, to "deal
with
the crisis".

However, as Casio watch timers are paraded before the cameras, to
the
stentorian tones of the talking heads` constant dire warnings, it is
legitimate to question just how real the crises is, and how much is the
result of political machinations by our own leaders.

Are the terrorists really a threat, or just hired actors with bombs
and
Casio watches, paid for by Cicero and given brown shirts to wear by
Hitler?

Is terrorism inside the United States really from outside, or is it
a
stage managed production, designed to cause Americans to believe they
have
no choice but to surrender the Republic and accept the totalitarian
rule of
a new emperor, or a new Fuhrer?

Once lost, the Romans never got their Republic back. Once lost, the
Germans never got their Republic back. In both cases, the nation had to
totally collapse before freedom was restored to the people.

Remember that when Crassus tells you that Sparticus approaches.
Remember that when thugs in the streets act in a manner clearly
designed
to provoke the public fear.
Remember that when the Reichstagg burns down.

* * *
"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a
conspiracy
so monstrous he cannot believe it exists".
-- J. Edgar Hoover, former head of the FBI

[goldenbear2]

Fake-Terror hat für die USA eine lange Tradition, um die Bevölkerung pro Krieg zu stimmen. Was in Pearl Harbor geschehen würde, war vorab bekannt. So wie 60 Jahre später (zumindest) bekannt war, was am 11.09.01 geschehen würde. Und wir hatten unseren Reichstagsbrand zur Festigung der faschistischen Diktatur nach Innen, bevor sie sich kriegerisch nach außen wandte. Schon Spartakus durfte gen das alten Rom ziehen, damit der terrorisierten Senatoren bereit waren, dikatatorische Vollmachten in wenige Hände zu geben. Es gibt nichts Neues unter der Sonne. Alles sehr ähnlich schon mal dagewesen. Für all diese Regime ist gemeinsam, dass sie vernichtet wurden, ihren Zenit schon oder fast schon überschritten hatten. Und das ist gut so!
g-b

SATURDAY REFLECTIONS: December 7, 1941 - A Setup From The Beginning
Dec 07, 2002
By Robert B. Stinnett

As Americans honor those 2403 men, women, and children killed and 1178 wounded in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on December 7, 1941, recently released government documents concerning that "surprise" raid compel us to revisit some troubling questions.

At issue is American foreknowledge of Japanese military plans to attack Hawaii by a submarine and carrier force 59 years ago. There are two questions at the top of the foreknowledge list: (1) whether President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his top military chieftains provoked Japan into an "overt act of war" directed at Hawaii, and (2) whether Japan’s military plans were obtained in advance by the United States but concealed from the Hawaiian military commanders, Admiral Husband E. Kimmel and Lieutenant General Walter Short so they would not interfere with the overt act.

The latter question was answered in the affirmative on October 30, 2000, when President Bill Clinton signed into law, with the support of a bipartisan Congress, the National Defense Authorization Act. Amidst its omnibus provisions, the Act reverses the findings of nine previous Pearl Harbor investigations and finds that both Kimmel and Short were denied crucial military intelligence that tracked the Japanese forces toward Hawaii and obtained by the Roosevelt Administration in the weeks before the attack.

Congress was specific in its finding against the 1941 White House: Kimmel and Short were cut off from the intelligence pipeline that located Japanese forces advancing on Hawaii. Then, after the successful Japanese raid, both commanders were relieved of their commands, blamed for failing to ward off the attack, and demoted in rank.

President Clinton must now decide whether to grant the request by Congress to restore the commanders to their 1941 ranks. Regardless of what the Commander-in-Chief does in the remaining months of his term, these congressional findings should be widely seen as an exoneration of 59 years of blame assigned to Kimmel and Short. But one important question remains: Does the blame for the Pearl Harbor disaster revert to President Roosevelt?

A major motion picture based on the attack is currently under production by Walt Disney Studios and scheduled for release in May 2001. The producer, Jerry Bruckheimer, refuses to include America’s foreknowledge in the script. When Bruckheimer commented on FDR’s foreknowledge in an interview published earlier this year, he said "That’s all b___s___."

Yet, Roosevelt believed that provoking Japan into an attack on Hawaii was the only option he had in 1941 to overcome the powerful America First non-interventionist movement led by aviation hero Charles Lindbergh. These anti-war views were shared by 80 percent of the American public from 1940 to 1941. Though Germany had conquered most of Europe, and her U-Boats were sinking American ships in the Atlantic Ocean – including warships – Americans wanted nothing to do with "Europe’s War."

However, Germany made a strategic error. She, along with her Axis partner, Italy, signed the mutual assistance treaty with Japan, the Tripartite Pact, on September 27, 1940. Ten days later, Lieutenant Commander Arthur McCollum, a U.S. Naval officer in the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), saw an opportunity to counter the U.S. isolationist movement by provoking Japan into a state of war with the U.S., triggering the mutual assistance provisions of the Tripartite Pact, and bringing America into World War II.

Memorialized in McCollum’s secret memo dated October 7, 1940, and recently obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, the ONI proposal called for eight provocations aimed at Japan. Its centerpiece was keeping the might of the U.S. Fleet based in the Territory of Hawaii as a lure for a Japanese attack.

President Roosevelt acted swiftly. The very next day, October 8, 1940, the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Fleet, Admiral James O. Richardson, was summoned to the Oval Office and told of the provocative plan by the President. In a heated argument with FDR, the admiral objected to placing his sailors and ships in harm’s way. Richardson was then fired and in his place FDR selected an obscure naval officer, Rear Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, to command the fleet in Hawaii. Kimmel was promoted to a four-star admiral and took command on February 1, 1941. In a related appointment, Walter Short was promoted from Major General to a three-star Lieutenant General and given command of U.S. Army troops in Hawaii.

Throughout 1941, FDR implemented the remaining seven provocations. He then gauged Japanese reaction through intercepted and decoded communications intelligence originated by Japan’s diplomatic and military leaders.

The island nation’s militarists used the provocations to seize control of Japan and organized their military forces for war against the U.S., Great Britain, and the Netherlands. The centerpiece – the Pearl Harbor attack – was leaked to the U.S. in January 1941. During the next 11 months, the White House followed the Japanese war plans through the intercepted and decoded diplomatic and military communications intelligence.

Japanese leaders failed in basic security precautions. At least 1,000 Japanese military and diplomatic radio messages per day were intercepted by monitoring stations operated by the U.S. and her Allies, and the message contents were summarized for the White House. The intercept summaries were clear: Pearl Harbor would be attacked on December 7, 1941, by Japanese forces advancing through the Central and North Pacific Oceans. On November 27 and 28, 1941, Admiral Kimmel and General Short were ordered to remain in a defensive posture for "the United States desires that Japan commit the first overt act." The order came directly from President Roosevelt.

As I explained to a policy forum audience at The Independent Institute in Oakland, California, which was videotaped and telecast nationwide over the Fourth of July holiday earlier this year, my research of U.S. naval records shows that not only were Kimmel and Short cut off from the Japanese communications intelligence pipeline, so were the American people. It is a coverup that has lasted for nearly 59 years.

Immediately after December 7, 1941, military communications documents that disclose American foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor disaster were locked in U.S. Navy vaults away from the prying eyes of congressional investigators, historians, and authors. Though the Freedom of Information Act freed the foreknowledge documents from the secretive vaults to the sunlight of the National Archives in 1995, a cottage industry continues to cover up America’s foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor.


Robert B. Stinnett has worked as a journalist for the Oakland Tribune and the BBC, and is the author of the book, Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor (Free Press, 2000). This article is adapted from his presentation before the Independent Policy Forum held earlier this year at The Independent Institute in Oakland, California.

[ChristianWode]

Eine Fake-Terror Geschichte, die z.Zt. in Deutschland kursiert ist die von dem arabisch aussehenden Menschen, der seine Geldbörse verliert und dem Finder der Geldbörse dankbar rät, er solle nicht auf den Weihnachtsmarkt seiner Heimatstadt gehen.

[goldenbear2]

!

Dieser Beitrag wurde vom System automatisch gesperrt. Bei Fragen wenden Sie sich bitte an [e-mail]

[ursusaureus]

!

Dieser Beitrag wurde vom System automatisch gesperrt. Bei Fragen wenden Sie sich bitte an [e-mail]

[ursusaureus]

Bush verspricht friedlich zu bleiben, und die US-Wirtschaft sei widerstandsfähig (blablabla).
In Bezug auf beides meinte er jedoch weiter: Es sei denn, Saddam attackiert die USA in den USA !
Was hat der denn zu Silvester für ein Kraut geraucht?
Bzw.: Was für ein Fake-Terror wird´s denn diesmal werden?

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=MBFF21ZG…

Bush Vows to End Iraq, N.Korea Crises Peacefully
Wed January 1, 2003 12:15 AM ET
By Patricia Wilson

CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - Confronted with a nuclear challenge from North Korea and the possibility of war with Iraq, President Bush resolved on Tuesday to try to find peaceful solutions to both in 2003.

His New Year`s eve vow came even as the United States built up its military presence in the Gulf region and the communist regime in Pyongyang added a fresh twist to the Asian nuclear crisis by hinting it might pull out of a global non-proliferation treaty because of Washington`s threats.

"We hope to resolve all the situations in which we find ourselves in a peaceful way," Bush told reporters at a coffee shop in the tiny town of Crawford near his family ranch. "And so that`s my commitment, to try to do so peacefully."

But Bush drew distinctions between the two international threats. He expressed confidence that diplomacy could head off North Korea`s nuclear ambitions while reminding Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that the growing U.S. military presence in the Gulf was designed to make sure he "heard the message."

Asked about the potential cost of a war against Iraq, Bush countered: "An attack from Saddam Hussein or a surrogate of Saddam Hussein would cripple our economy."

White House budget officials say they have not put a price tag on a possible war with Iraq and that the only baseline for budget planners was the 1991 Persian Gulf conflict, which cost more than $60 billion.

U.S. officials have argued that Saddam could go after U.S. interests or supply weapons to extremist groups like al Qaeda, which the United States accuses of masterminding the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

DISCOURAGED BY IRAQI RESPONSE

"Our economy is strong, it`s resilient, we`ve got to continue to make it strong and resilient," Bush said. But he added: "This economy cannot afford to stand an attack."

A unanimous U.N. Security Council resolution passed last month gave Baghdad a final chance to reveal all details of its weapons programs, as required by resolutions stemming back to the 1991 Gulf War -- or face U.S.-led military action.

Bush said Iraq`s response so far had been "discouraging." Washington has accused Baghdad of withholding information about its weapons programs in its arms declaration. Saddam has denied possessing any weapons of mass destruction.

"His declaration was short, and the international community recognized that, that he wasn`t forthcoming," Bush said. He added that the choice was Saddam`s to make and said he hoped "this can be done peacefully."

By comparison, the U.S. president played down the dispute with North Korea over its pursuit of a nuclear arsenal, saying Washington and Pyongyang were engaged in a "diplomatic showdown ... not a military showdown."

In his first public remarks on the North Korean threat in two weeks, Bush said "all options are always on the table for any president," but he suggested that, unlike Iraq, force was not under consideration.

"I view the North Korean situation as one that can be resolved peacefully through diplomacy," he said, stressing that the United States was working with its allies to help convince North Korea to scrap its nuclear weapons program.

WORK WITH ALLIES

"There`s strong consensus not only among the nations in the neighborhood and our friends, but also at the international organizations, such as the IAEA, that North Korea ought to comply with international regulations," he said. "I believe this can be done peacefully through diplomacy, and we will continue to work that way."

But a senior North Korean envoy added a new dimension to the crisis on Tuesday when he said Pyongyang was unable to meet its obligations under the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that it signed in 1985.

U.S. officials are pushing what they called a "tailored containment" strategy that calls for increasing diplomatic and economic pressure on North Korea. They have refused direct talks with Pyongyang, saying that would reward bad behavior.

Tensions have escalated since North Korea expelled U.N. nuclear arms inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency and announced it would reopen a mothballed nuclear reactor at Yongbyon that had been frozen since 1994 under a separate U.S.-North Korean agreement.

Washington has said it will not launch a pre-emptive attack on North Korea, which -- along with Iran and Iraq -- Bush has designated part of an "axis of evil" for trying to develop weapons of mass destruction.

Bush praised South Korea`s president-elect, Roh Moo-hyun, for calling on Pyongyang to back down and abide by its international obligations. He said the incoming South Korean leader was sending officials to Washington to discuss the issue and hoped to visit the United States himself soon after his inauguration in February.

But current South Korean President Kim Dae-jung said on Monday that pressuring and isolating the already impoverished communist state would not work. Russia has urged Washington to tone down its "aggressive rhetoric" toward Pyongyang.

Writing in Tuesday`s New York Times, former secretary of state Warren Christopher said the Bush administration`s focus on Iraq had obscured the far greater danger posed by North Korea.

[ursusaureus]

!

Dieser Beitrag wurde vom System automatisch gesperrt. Bei Fragen wenden Sie sich bitte an [e-mail]

[ursusaureus]

Nachtrag zu Punkt 1 in meinem Beitrag #12:

Offensichtlich hat das FBI verspätet doch Namen nachgereicht. Zunächst gab´s nämlich keine! Doch laut dem vorhin geposteten Artikel ja dann doch. Allerdings vermutlich völlig erfundene. Der Name der Juweliers war jedenfalls nicht aufgeführt. Wozu auch, der hockte ja in seiner Heimat...
Wenn er es nicht bemerkt und sich an die Öffentlichkeit gewandt hätte, wäre er vielleicht demnächst entführt worden, und dann tot in den USA aufgefunden worden.
NACHDEM dort von ganz anderen Leuten (na von wem jetzt wohl?) der nächste Fake-Terrorangriff ausgeführt worden wäre.

[ursusaureus]

Und ein zweiter der fünf vom FBI Gesuchten wurde bereits VOR dem Fahndungsaufruf verhaftet!
Klingt unglaublich?
Sicherlich, aber es ist dennoch wahr.
Es ist einfach nur noch zum Kotzen.
Hier der Beweis:
http://www.seattleinsider.com/partners/kirotv/news/2002/12/3…

[ursusaureus]

!

Dieser Beitrag wurde vom System automatisch gesperrt. Bei Fragen wenden Sie sich bitte an [e-mail]

[ursusaureus]

!

Dieser Beitrag wurde vom System automatisch gesperrt. Bei Fragen wenden Sie sich bitte an [e-mail]