I'm not going to rant and rave this time, all I want to do is bring attention to this injustice to the American people, this helps to explain the great divide and why it's growing.
The Fiction of Government Debt
Daniel F. – May 9, 2006 openingmind.blogspot.com
Government debt is a fiction.
The government ought to have sovereignty which includes the right to print a currency. Yet in America and in the modern world with the exception of Singapore the right to create money has been given to the bankers. We have had three Presidents who supported the right of the government to issue Treasury Notes instead of Federal Reserve Notes. Unfortunately for us, all three were killed by "lone assassins." Let me begin by explaining what money is. Money is a commodity that measures the value of all other commodities and services. Prices are a ratio of money to all other goods for sale. If the ratio remains constant then there is no inflation. For example, if the money supply were one trillion dollars and production increased by 4%, then we could increase the money supply by 4% without fear of inflation. So, you ask, how do banks and governments differ in how they create money? Imagine it is in the early 19th century and we are shipwrecked on an island far from the shipping lanes with no immediate chance of rescue. I would open a bank. I would find an artist to help me create one thousand one dollar bills. I would spend these "Island Treasury Notes" into circulation by paying anyone who did community work, such as, building a clinic or a school. I would have a popular government as I would dispense more social services than I took from the people in taxation. Now imagine you are stranded on an island with a New York or London banker. He would set up a private bank and create money which he would loan to you. Notice he is not loaning you anyone's savings. He is functioning as a counterfeiter. He is using loan agreements to pass counterfeit money. And he is requiring you to pay interest on his forgeries. This form of banking is nothing more than a theft as it will eventually through monetary creation, interest payments, inflation and depression transfer all wealth from those who produce wealth to those who print the currency. Suppose our banker runs low on paper to print money. He can create checking account money. You go in for a loan and he gives you a check book in which he gives you the right to write checks up to the amount of the loan. Notice again he is not loaning you someone else's deposit. He is creating money out of thin air and obligating you to work to repay him both the amount he counterfeited and the interest. Now let us look at how the Treasury Department "borrows" money. Suppose the Secretary of the Treasury is short 100 billion dollars over the next three months. Under the Treasury Note System as advocated by martyrs Lincoln, McKinley and Kennedy, the central bank would be owned by the government. It would create 100 billion dollars in checking account money and cash. The Treasurer would then use this money to pay for government wages and programs. Remembering that prices are a ratio of the commodity called money to all goods and services for sale, we know that this 100 billion deficit will actually be good for the economy. Why? Because the money supply is currently 10 trillion dollars. And, if the economy grows 4% a year, we need to create 400 billion dollars a year and spend it into circulation. From the Keynesian economic perspective this spending money into circulation would protect us from a depresssion. And it would also prevent an inflation as the ratio of money in circulation to goods and services would be constant. Please note I am not endorsing Keynesianism. I am just saying there are economists who would agree that spending non-interest bearing money into circulation makes sense as it would reduce unemployment and not create inflation. Now let's look at what happens when we run a deficit under the Federal Reserve system which was copied by Max and Felix Warburg from the German Central bank. The Secretary of the Treasury calls up the Federal Reserve and begs them to create one hundred billion dollars. Suppose the Fed decides to print ten billion dollars in coins and cash and to create 90 billion dollars in checking account money. The Fed calls the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and asks them to print ten billion dollars. The Fed then writes out a check for 3 1/2% of the ten billion dollars which is what the Bureau charges on average. The Bureau delivers ten billion dollars in Federal Reserve Notes to the Fed. That check for 350 million dollars the Fed used to buy ten billion dollars was created out of nothing as an accounting entry. The Fed then creates 90 billion dollars in checking account money which they deliver to the Treasury along with the ten billion dollars in cash in exchange for 100 billion dollars in Treasury Notes. Those Notes obligate you to work and pay taxes to pay a debt and an interest on the debt which are fictions. Last year I calculated that the total amount of money we pay as taxpayers to pay the interest on our "ficticious debt" and the the money we could have spent into circulation as being 759 billion dollars a year. But 759 billion dollars a year is not the total cost of the subsidy you pay each year to the bankers. The banks launder 2.5 trillion dollars in drug money each year. That amount of money can only result in the unleashing of a tremendous wave of crime for addicts to buy drugs. That is another subsidy to the banks. And the spread of fatal sexually transmitted dieseases is another byproduct. The banks also launder 500 billion dollars in bribes each year and another 200 billion plus dollars in illegal weapons sales. Both of these do great harm to the average person. And then there is the matter of the theft of billions of dollars each week from unaudited government contracts. The total cost of the banking class is over a trillion dollars a year even if you assume that the bankers had nothing to do with all of our wars which is a rather dubious proposition! Of course a system such as the Federal Reserve was never intended to work if you mean by that you could work all your life, save money and rely upon a company pension to provide for yourself when you were too old to labor. What it was intended to do was transfer all wealth from those who work to those who do not. In the Great Depression of 1929-1939 the monetary contraction forced tens of millions into bankruptcy which transferred wealth as the system was designed to do. We are approaching a period of great inflation that will transfer all wealth to the banking class. On November 10th of last year the Federal Reserve bank said it would no longer tell us what the total money supply (M3)of the United States is. I believe they will be creating tens of trillions of dollars in M3 credits to cover the sale of an equal amount of assets held by the bankers and their friends so they can get out of soon to be bankrupt stocks and bonds. They will take this money overseas and invest it in hedge funds, foreign currencies, gold, silver and other commodities. When the dollar has collapsed, they will be able to buy America for pennies on the dollar and cut our wages to nothing. Our homes and our businesses will have all been confiscated by foreclosure. Fifty companies will own America. Their employers association will effectively eliminate all democracy. If their spies hear that you are a union organizer or a precinct worker for that token opposition candidate, you would lose your job at WalMart and wind up working as a day laborer taking the jobs the illegal aliens do not want. The level of inflation I am expecting is so enormous that pensions and savings will be cut by at least 90% and wages by more than half. And, I would expect all of this to happen before the end of 2009 if we do nothing. You might ask yourself which congressman or Senator, Democrat or Republican, has denounced the Federal Reserve's declaration that would no longer tell us what the money supply is? None have so far. How many congressmen and Senators have denounced the theft of billions of dollars each week in unaudited federal government contracts? None so far. There is a lot of Bush bashing (and deservedly so) but there is very little truth telling. For refernces I would suggest the following: On the theft of billions each week in unaudited government contracts go here: http://openingmind.blogspot.com/2005/10/financing-new-world-order-did-you-ever.html On the Federal Reserve's November 10th announcement saying they would detroy all pensions and savings go here: http://openingmind.blogspot.com/2005/11/conversation-with-catherine-on-m3this.html For an in depth perspective on the End Game strategy of the NWO as we approach the end of the world as we knew it go the next article in this blog here: http://openingmind.blogspot.com/2006/04/end-game.htm http://openingmind.blogspot.com/2006/05/fiction-of-government-debt-government.html
Monday, September 25, 2006
Sunday, September 24, 2006
When I was about to update my posting today I read something that was in itself just wrong, no if no but just wrong. How can the media turn a blind eye to this? how can all of us turn a blind eye? The sad part is people we look to for answers from our so called leaders but where are they leading us?
The Israeli politicians responsible for the murders of 37 Palestinian children over the past 8 weeks would dearly love for their names and short lives to be wiped from the pages of history, yet we cannot and will not allow that to happen. Below are the names of these children, their young and innocent lives brutally taken from them by the actions of men who are simply not human beings. They are animals.
Bara Nasser Habib, 3 (hit by shrapnel to the head and body, Gaza City, 26 July) Shahed Saleh Al-Sheikh Eid, 3 days old (bled to death after airstrike, Al-Shouka, 4 August)
Rajaa Salam Abu Shaban, 3 (died of fractured skull in air raid, Gaza City, 9 August)
Jihad Selmi Abu Snaima, 14 (killed by a shell, Al-Shoukha, 10 september)
Khaled Nidal Wahba, 15 months (died of wounds from an airstrike, 10 July)
Rawan Farid Hajjaj, 6 (killed with his mother and sister in an airstrike, Gaza City, 8 July)
Anwar Ismail Abdul Ghani Atallah, 12 (shot in the head, Erez, 5 July)
Shadi Yousef Omar 16 (shot in the chest by IDF, Beit Lahya, 7 July)
Mahfouth Farid Nuseir, 16 (killed by missile while playing football, Beit Hanoun, 11 July)
Ahmad Ghalib Abu Amsha, 16, (killed by missile while playing football, Beit Hanoun, 11 July)
Ahmad Fathi Shabat, 16 (killed by missile while playing football, Beit Hanoun, 11 July)
Walid Mahmoud El-Zeinati, 12 (died of shrapnel wounds, Gaza City, 11 July)
Basma Salmeya, 16 (killed in Israeli airstrike, 12 July, Jabalia)
Somaya Salmeya, 17 (killed in Israeli airstrike, 12 July, Jabalia) Aya Salmeya, 9 (killed in Israeli airstrike, Jabalia, 12 July)
Yehya Salmeya, 10 (killed in Israeli airstrike, Jabalia, 12 July)
Nasr Salmeya, 7 (killed in Israeli airstrike, Jabalia, 12 July) Huda Salmeya, 13 (killed in Israeli airstrike, Jabalia, 12 July)
Eman Salmeya, 12 (killed in Israeli airstrike, Jabalia, 12 July)
Raji Omar Jaber Daifallah, 16 (died of shrapnel wounds from missile, Gaza City, 13 July)
Ali Kamel Al-Najjar, 16 (killed by Israeli tank shell, Al-Maghazi refugee camp, 19 July)
Ahmed Ali Al-Na'ami, 16 (killed by Israeli tank shell, Al-Maghazi refugee camp, 19 July)
Ahmed Rawhi Abu Abdu, 14 (killed by drone missile, Al Nusairat refugee camp, 19 July)
Mohammed 'awad Muhra, 14 (killed by Israeli bullet to the chest, Al-Maghazi refugee camp, 20 July)
Fadwa Faisal Al-'arrouqi, 13 (died from shrapnel wounds, Gaza City, 20 July)
Saleh Ibrahim Nasser, 14 (killed by artillery fire, Beit Hanoun, 24 July)
Khitam Mohammed Rebhi Tayeh, 11 (killed by artillery fire, Beit Hanoun, 24 July) Ashraf 'abdullah 'awad Abu Zaher, 14 (shot in the back, Khan Younis, 25 July)
Nahid Mohammed Fawzi Al-Shanbari, 16 (killed by artillery fire, Beit Hanoun, 31 July)
'Aaref Ahmed Abu Qaida, 16 (killed by artillery fire, Beit Hanoun, 1 August)
Anis Salem Abu Awad, 12 (killed by airstike, Al-Shouka, 2 August)
Ammar Rajaa Al-Natour, 17 (killed by drone missile, Al Shouka, 5 August)
Kifah Rajaa Al-Natour, 15 (killed by drone missile, Al Shouka, 5 August)
Ibrahim Suleiman Al-Rumailat, 13 (killed by drone missile, Al Shouka, 5 August) Ahmed Yousef 'abed 'aashour, 13 (killed by missile fire, Beit Hanoun, 14 August) Mohammed 'abdullah Al-Ziq, 14 (killed by drone missile, Gaza City, 29 August)
Nidal 'abdul 'aziz Al-Dahdouh, 14 (killed by rifle fire, Gaza City, 30 August)
Jihad Selmi Abu Snaima, 14 (killed by artillery fire, Rafah, 10 September)
In the above list, you will notice one name, that of Aref Abu Qaida, is highlighted. Aref was 16 years old when on the 1st August 2006 he had just finished playing football with his friend. His friend, Sharif Harafin, 15, who was with him a the time, explains what happened: "We had been playing football and we had just finished. I was carrying the ball. I was going to my home, and [Aref] was going to his home. I heard a loud boom and then I saw him cut to pieces. His chest was torn out by the rocket. People were collecting parts of his body. I was crying a lot." Many of the other children, the youngest just 3 days old, were murdered in similar fashion by the Zionist state. Normal decent human beings must take a stand against the brutal and inhuman policies of the state of Israel. The slaughter of Palestinians, young and old alike, by Israel has been continuing for almost 100 years. If we do take a stand now and reject these acts of inhumanity in the name of the bigus war on terror that many Westerners tacitly support, in 10 year's time, there will be no Palestinans left alive, and you will have played a part in the genocide.
Notes:
UK Indpendent: Children Killed in a War the World Doesn't Want to Know About
Largest Swiss Newspaper Asks if Bush Was Behind 9-11?
By Elie Peter – Sept 15, 2006,
BLICK newspaper, Zurich, Switzerland
(translated from German into English, but not yet published online in English)
2,973 humans died with the attacks of 9/11. "Bin Laden" and "Al Qaeda", the Bush clan cried. The world believed him. In the meantime even scientists doubt the Bush version. Now, Swiss university professors Albert A. Stahel (63) and Daniele Ganser (34) raise hot new questions. "Something is not correct", says strategy expert Stahel in "World Week", and here he refers to the "incomplete" official US Government 9/11 Report of 2004. The university professor confirms his criticism in BLICK. "Osama Bin Laden cannot be 'the large godfather' behind the attacks. He did not have enough means of communication". Dr. Stahel doubts that a passenger airliner crashed into the Pentagon: "For trainee pilots it is actually impossible to crash into the building so exactly. Seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed, the World Trade Center Building 7 next to it also collapsed. The official version: It burned for a long time. Nothing at all is clear." Raising questions along with Stahel is historian Dr. Daniele Ganser, his colleague at the University of Zurich. Dr. Ganser also calls the official US version "a conspiracy theory". "There are three theories, which we should treat equally": 1. "Surprise theory" - Bin Laden and Al Qaeda implemented the attacks. 2. "Let it happen on purpose" - The US Government knew the Al Qaeda plans and did not react in order to legitimize a series of wars. 3. "Made it happen on purpose" - The attacks were actually planned and orchestrated by the Pentagon and/or US secret services. Ganser: "3,000 humans were sacrificed for strategic interests. The more we research, the more we doubt the Bush version. It is conceivable that the Bush government was responsible. Bush has lied so much already! And we already know that the US government planned an operation in 1962 [Operation Northwood] that was approved by the Pentagon that would have sacrificed innocent US citizens for the government's own interests." As far as Ganser and Stahel go: "We only ask questions." -ELIE PETER Read the Swiss/German version of this news story in BLICK: http://www.blick.ch/news/ausland/9-11/artikel45057 PLEASE ALSO READ SEVEN RELATED VIDEOS AND ARTICLES: [1] View the must-see video, "9/11: Press For Truth" [This is one of the best films for exposing the US government's "official" version of 9/11 as a cover-up. Even your grandpa from Texas will have doubts after he watches this one!]: http://www.911pressfortruth.com/ [2] Jerry Mazza's 9/18/06 Online Journal essay, "Taking To The Streets On 9/11" [Recounts the 9/11 Truth Movement's public activities in NYC on 9/11/06.]: http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1211.shtml [3] Joel Skousen's 9-16-06 Rense.com essay, "Attacks On 9/11 Researchers Growing: Academia Is Attacking The Messenger": http://www.rense.com/general73/atck.htm [4] Paul Craig Roberts' 9-11-06 TPV essay, "Five Years After And We Still Don’t Know": http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2006/09/11/five_years_after_and_we_still_don_t_know [5] Khalid Amayreh's 9-11-06 TPV essay, "Israel Will Be Responsible For The Next 9/11": http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2006/09/11/p10717 [6] Nashid Abdul Khaaliq's 9-12-06 ThePeoplesVoice.org essay, "Who Did 9/11: OBL, Bush Or Mossad? The Evidence": http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2006/09/12/p10722 [7] Larry Chin's 9/11/06 Online Journal essay, "The Anglo-American Empire’s 9/11 Atrocity: Criminality's Zenith" [Five years ago, on September 11, 2001, the George W. Bush administration and its allies and functionaries carried out the spectacular mass murder of 3,000 US citizens, establishing the pretext to unleash an unprecedented worldwide rampage of criminality, and a permanent war of conquest (the manufactured “war on terrorism”) that continues to escalate.]: http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1187.shtml
Last updated 21/09/2006
Iraqi Commander Swears he saw USAF fly Saddam out of Baghdad
Bill Dash - Alamo Christian Ministries Online 10/16/2003
Author's Note: This article first appeared on FarShores on 8/12/03. In the interest of accuracy, I have pulled that draft and replaced it with this updated version. Film will soon be made public of an Iraqi Army officer describing how he saw a US Air Force transport fly Saddam Hussein out of Baghdad. The explosive eyewitness testimony was shot by independent filmmaker Patrick Dillon, who recently returned from a risky one-man odyssey in Iraq. In the film, the officer, who told Dillon that he commanded a special combat unit during the battle for Baghdad airport and whose identity is temporarily being withheld, explains in detail how he watched as the Iraqi dictator and members of his inner circle were evacuated from Iraq's capital by what he emphatically insists were United States Air Force cargo planes. Presently, the only copies of the film (which I have not yet seen) are in New York City. People who have viewed it describe it to me as compelling. Dillon told me by phone that, prior to the final assault on the capital by American ground forces, the officer had been entrusted with the near impossible job of ensuring that one of Baghdad airport's runways would remain operational no matter what. In civilian life the officer is reportedly a highly trained civil engineer specializing in airport operations. He states he was selected to command this hazardous mission in part because of his expertise in concrete surface construction. He goes on to report that there was a ferocious battle at the airport, with losses on both sides far worse than the mainstream news services acknowledge. He deviates even further from officially sanctioned accounts, by unequivocally stating that the battle for control of the airport actually lasted several days longer than commonly believed, dragging on through April 8th and culminating around dawn on the morning of the 9th. Most news sources cite April 4th as the day when the airport fell. But many conventional accounts also acknowledge, if only in passing, uncertainty as to exactly when the airport was fully subdued,frequently offering the 5th and the 6th as other possibilities. Virtually everyone agrees on April 9th as the day that the battle for the entire city officially ended. In any event, the officer adamantly maintains that his combat/construction brigade, despite heavy casualties, managed to hold off US troops and preserve a useable length of runway right through the night of April the 8th. Then early on the morning of April 9th, as the remnants of his unit were close to being overrun, a general cease-fire was unexpectedly declared for 6 AM. Shortly after it went into effect, and in broad daylight, the officer claims a motorcade of 10 Mercedes stretch limos suddenly barreled onto the airfield, carrying Saddam and his entourage. Almost simultaneously, a flight of what the officer asserts were four USAF Hercules transports swooped down and landed on the lone stretch of intact runway. All four C-130s dropped their rear loading ramps and the limos drove up into the cargo bays of the waiting planes, which then took off. The officer insists he has no idea where Saddam or any of the other members of his party may have gone. Dillon says his film lends major support to what many have believed for years: that Saddam was little more than an american tool, a stage-managed "evildoer", just one in a long line of useful villains bought and paid for by the United States in order to better manipulate international politics and commerce. The gutsy New York based filmmaker, who risked his life amid the chaos of postwar Iraq, says that much of the Iraqi populace believes Saddam is not dead and they worry he could still exact revenge from afar. While many Iraqi civilians initially welcomed American forces, Dillon told me most Iraqis, having now had a bitter taste of American occupation, feel enraged with the US and its soldiers. Dillon said living conditions in Iraq are horrible and that little of significance is being done to relieve the situation. Based on what he saw during his travels, Dillon told me he's convinced the war and its sweeping devastation of the Iraqi nation is in reality a mind boggling charade. Rather than liberating Iraq, its actual purpose is to corral Iraq's huge oil reserves and to serve as a pretext for channelling tens of billions in largesse to favored American corporations like Haliburton and Bechtel. As an example, Dillon pointed to how US air strikes systematically obliterated every last Iraqi telecommunications facility from one end of the country to the other, a measure he maintains vastly exceeded all practical military necessity. Then, without even the pretense of a competitive bid, Washington gifted WorldCom, the near bankrupt US telecom giant responsible for the greatest fraud in financial history, with a huge multi-billion dollar contract to build Iraq a new nationwide state-of-the-art telephone system. Copyright ©2003 - Bill Dash Courtesy Herbert C. Savage See also: Yes, But Where Are the Saddam Look-Alikes http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=742 Saddam Hussein Given Safe Haven in Belarus? http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?id=729
Last updated 14/12/2003
The Israeli politicians responsible for the murders of 37 Palestinian children over the past 8 weeks would dearly love for their names and short lives to be wiped from the pages of history, yet we cannot and will not allow that to happen. Below are the names of these children, their young and innocent lives brutally taken from them by the actions of men who are simply not human beings. They are animals.
Bara Nasser Habib, 3 (hit by shrapnel to the head and body, Gaza City, 26 July) Shahed Saleh Al-Sheikh Eid, 3 days old (bled to death after airstrike, Al-Shouka, 4 August)
Rajaa Salam Abu Shaban, 3 (died of fractured skull in air raid, Gaza City, 9 August)
Jihad Selmi Abu Snaima, 14 (killed by a shell, Al-Shoukha, 10 september)
Khaled Nidal Wahba, 15 months (died of wounds from an airstrike, 10 July)
Rawan Farid Hajjaj, 6 (killed with his mother and sister in an airstrike, Gaza City, 8 July)
Anwar Ismail Abdul Ghani Atallah, 12 (shot in the head, Erez, 5 July)
Shadi Yousef Omar 16 (shot in the chest by IDF, Beit Lahya, 7 July)
Mahfouth Farid Nuseir, 16 (killed by missile while playing football, Beit Hanoun, 11 July)
Ahmad Ghalib Abu Amsha, 16, (killed by missile while playing football, Beit Hanoun, 11 July)
Ahmad Fathi Shabat, 16 (killed by missile while playing football, Beit Hanoun, 11 July)
Walid Mahmoud El-Zeinati, 12 (died of shrapnel wounds, Gaza City, 11 July)
Basma Salmeya, 16 (killed in Israeli airstrike, 12 July, Jabalia)
Somaya Salmeya, 17 (killed in Israeli airstrike, 12 July, Jabalia) Aya Salmeya, 9 (killed in Israeli airstrike, Jabalia, 12 July)
Yehya Salmeya, 10 (killed in Israeli airstrike, Jabalia, 12 July)
Nasr Salmeya, 7 (killed in Israeli airstrike, Jabalia, 12 July) Huda Salmeya, 13 (killed in Israeli airstrike, Jabalia, 12 July)
Eman Salmeya, 12 (killed in Israeli airstrike, Jabalia, 12 July)
Raji Omar Jaber Daifallah, 16 (died of shrapnel wounds from missile, Gaza City, 13 July)
Ali Kamel Al-Najjar, 16 (killed by Israeli tank shell, Al-Maghazi refugee camp, 19 July)
Ahmed Ali Al-Na'ami, 16 (killed by Israeli tank shell, Al-Maghazi refugee camp, 19 July)
Ahmed Rawhi Abu Abdu, 14 (killed by drone missile, Al Nusairat refugee camp, 19 July)
Mohammed 'awad Muhra, 14 (killed by Israeli bullet to the chest, Al-Maghazi refugee camp, 20 July)
Fadwa Faisal Al-'arrouqi, 13 (died from shrapnel wounds, Gaza City, 20 July)
Saleh Ibrahim Nasser, 14 (killed by artillery fire, Beit Hanoun, 24 July)
Khitam Mohammed Rebhi Tayeh, 11 (killed by artillery fire, Beit Hanoun, 24 July) Ashraf 'abdullah 'awad Abu Zaher, 14 (shot in the back, Khan Younis, 25 July)
Nahid Mohammed Fawzi Al-Shanbari, 16 (killed by artillery fire, Beit Hanoun, 31 July)
'Aaref Ahmed Abu Qaida, 16 (killed by artillery fire, Beit Hanoun, 1 August)
Anis Salem Abu Awad, 12 (killed by airstike, Al-Shouka, 2 August)
Ammar Rajaa Al-Natour, 17 (killed by drone missile, Al Shouka, 5 August)
Kifah Rajaa Al-Natour, 15 (killed by drone missile, Al Shouka, 5 August)
Ibrahim Suleiman Al-Rumailat, 13 (killed by drone missile, Al Shouka, 5 August) Ahmed Yousef 'abed 'aashour, 13 (killed by missile fire, Beit Hanoun, 14 August) Mohammed 'abdullah Al-Ziq, 14 (killed by drone missile, Gaza City, 29 August)
Nidal 'abdul 'aziz Al-Dahdouh, 14 (killed by rifle fire, Gaza City, 30 August)
Jihad Selmi Abu Snaima, 14 (killed by artillery fire, Rafah, 10 September)
In the above list, you will notice one name, that of Aref Abu Qaida, is highlighted. Aref was 16 years old when on the 1st August 2006 he had just finished playing football with his friend. His friend, Sharif Harafin, 15, who was with him a the time, explains what happened: "We had been playing football and we had just finished. I was carrying the ball. I was going to my home, and [Aref] was going to his home. I heard a loud boom and then I saw him cut to pieces. His chest was torn out by the rocket. People were collecting parts of his body. I was crying a lot." Many of the other children, the youngest just 3 days old, were murdered in similar fashion by the Zionist state. Normal decent human beings must take a stand against the brutal and inhuman policies of the state of Israel. The slaughter of Palestinians, young and old alike, by Israel has been continuing for almost 100 years. If we do take a stand now and reject these acts of inhumanity in the name of the bigus war on terror that many Westerners tacitly support, in 10 year's time, there will be no Palestinans left alive, and you will have played a part in the genocide.
Notes:
UK Indpendent: Children Killed in a War the World Doesn't Want to Know About
Largest Swiss Newspaper Asks if Bush Was Behind 9-11?
By Elie Peter – Sept 15, 2006,
BLICK newspaper, Zurich, Switzerland
(translated from German into English, but not yet published online in English)
2,973 humans died with the attacks of 9/11. "Bin Laden" and "Al Qaeda", the Bush clan cried. The world believed him. In the meantime even scientists doubt the Bush version. Now, Swiss university professors Albert A. Stahel (63) and Daniele Ganser (34) raise hot new questions. "Something is not correct", says strategy expert Stahel in "World Week", and here he refers to the "incomplete" official US Government 9/11 Report of 2004. The university professor confirms his criticism in BLICK. "Osama Bin Laden cannot be 'the large godfather' behind the attacks. He did not have enough means of communication". Dr. Stahel doubts that a passenger airliner crashed into the Pentagon: "For trainee pilots it is actually impossible to crash into the building so exactly. Seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed, the World Trade Center Building 7 next to it also collapsed. The official version: It burned for a long time. Nothing at all is clear." Raising questions along with Stahel is historian Dr. Daniele Ganser, his colleague at the University of Zurich. Dr. Ganser also calls the official US version "a conspiracy theory". "There are three theories, which we should treat equally": 1. "Surprise theory" - Bin Laden and Al Qaeda implemented the attacks. 2. "Let it happen on purpose" - The US Government knew the Al Qaeda plans and did not react in order to legitimize a series of wars. 3. "Made it happen on purpose" - The attacks were actually planned and orchestrated by the Pentagon and/or US secret services. Ganser: "3,000 humans were sacrificed for strategic interests. The more we research, the more we doubt the Bush version. It is conceivable that the Bush government was responsible. Bush has lied so much already! And we already know that the US government planned an operation in 1962 [Operation Northwood] that was approved by the Pentagon that would have sacrificed innocent US citizens for the government's own interests." As far as Ganser and Stahel go: "We only ask questions." -ELIE PETER Read the Swiss/German version of this news story in BLICK: http://www.blick.ch/news/ausland/9-11/artikel45057 PLEASE ALSO READ SEVEN RELATED VIDEOS AND ARTICLES: [1] View the must-see video, "9/11: Press For Truth" [This is one of the best films for exposing the US government's "official" version of 9/11 as a cover-up. Even your grandpa from Texas will have doubts after he watches this one!]: http://www.911pressfortruth.com/ [2] Jerry Mazza's 9/18/06 Online Journal essay, "Taking To The Streets On 9/11" [Recounts the 9/11 Truth Movement's public activities in NYC on 9/11/06.]: http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1211.shtml [3] Joel Skousen's 9-16-06 Rense.com essay, "Attacks On 9/11 Researchers Growing: Academia Is Attacking The Messenger": http://www.rense.com/general73/atck.htm [4] Paul Craig Roberts' 9-11-06 TPV essay, "Five Years After And We Still Don’t Know": http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2006/09/11/five_years_after_and_we_still_don_t_know [5] Khalid Amayreh's 9-11-06 TPV essay, "Israel Will Be Responsible For The Next 9/11": http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2006/09/11/p10717 [6] Nashid Abdul Khaaliq's 9-12-06 ThePeoplesVoice.org essay, "Who Did 9/11: OBL, Bush Or Mossad? The Evidence": http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2006/09/12/p10722 [7] Larry Chin's 9/11/06 Online Journal essay, "The Anglo-American Empire’s 9/11 Atrocity: Criminality's Zenith" [Five years ago, on September 11, 2001, the George W. Bush administration and its allies and functionaries carried out the spectacular mass murder of 3,000 US citizens, establishing the pretext to unleash an unprecedented worldwide rampage of criminality, and a permanent war of conquest (the manufactured “war on terrorism”) that continues to escalate.]: http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1187.shtml
Last updated 21/09/2006
Iraqi Commander Swears he saw USAF fly Saddam out of Baghdad
Bill Dash - Alamo Christian Ministries Online 10/16/2003
Author's Note: This article first appeared on FarShores on 8/12/03. In the interest of accuracy, I have pulled that draft and replaced it with this updated version. Film will soon be made public of an Iraqi Army officer describing how he saw a US Air Force transport fly Saddam Hussein out of Baghdad. The explosive eyewitness testimony was shot by independent filmmaker Patrick Dillon, who recently returned from a risky one-man odyssey in Iraq. In the film, the officer, who told Dillon that he commanded a special combat unit during the battle for Baghdad airport and whose identity is temporarily being withheld, explains in detail how he watched as the Iraqi dictator and members of his inner circle were evacuated from Iraq's capital by what he emphatically insists were United States Air Force cargo planes. Presently, the only copies of the film (which I have not yet seen) are in New York City. People who have viewed it describe it to me as compelling. Dillon told me by phone that, prior to the final assault on the capital by American ground forces, the officer had been entrusted with the near impossible job of ensuring that one of Baghdad airport's runways would remain operational no matter what. In civilian life the officer is reportedly a highly trained civil engineer specializing in airport operations. He states he was selected to command this hazardous mission in part because of his expertise in concrete surface construction. He goes on to report that there was a ferocious battle at the airport, with losses on both sides far worse than the mainstream news services acknowledge. He deviates even further from officially sanctioned accounts, by unequivocally stating that the battle for control of the airport actually lasted several days longer than commonly believed, dragging on through April 8th and culminating around dawn on the morning of the 9th. Most news sources cite April 4th as the day when the airport fell. But many conventional accounts also acknowledge, if only in passing, uncertainty as to exactly when the airport was fully subdued,frequently offering the 5th and the 6th as other possibilities. Virtually everyone agrees on April 9th as the day that the battle for the entire city officially ended. In any event, the officer adamantly maintains that his combat/construction brigade, despite heavy casualties, managed to hold off US troops and preserve a useable length of runway right through the night of April the 8th. Then early on the morning of April 9th, as the remnants of his unit were close to being overrun, a general cease-fire was unexpectedly declared for 6 AM. Shortly after it went into effect, and in broad daylight, the officer claims a motorcade of 10 Mercedes stretch limos suddenly barreled onto the airfield, carrying Saddam and his entourage. Almost simultaneously, a flight of what the officer asserts were four USAF Hercules transports swooped down and landed on the lone stretch of intact runway. All four C-130s dropped their rear loading ramps and the limos drove up into the cargo bays of the waiting planes, which then took off. The officer insists he has no idea where Saddam or any of the other members of his party may have gone. Dillon says his film lends major support to what many have believed for years: that Saddam was little more than an american tool, a stage-managed "evildoer", just one in a long line of useful villains bought and paid for by the United States in order to better manipulate international politics and commerce. The gutsy New York based filmmaker, who risked his life amid the chaos of postwar Iraq, says that much of the Iraqi populace believes Saddam is not dead and they worry he could still exact revenge from afar. While many Iraqi civilians initially welcomed American forces, Dillon told me most Iraqis, having now had a bitter taste of American occupation, feel enraged with the US and its soldiers. Dillon said living conditions in Iraq are horrible and that little of significance is being done to relieve the situation. Based on what he saw during his travels, Dillon told me he's convinced the war and its sweeping devastation of the Iraqi nation is in reality a mind boggling charade. Rather than liberating Iraq, its actual purpose is to corral Iraq's huge oil reserves and to serve as a pretext for channelling tens of billions in largesse to favored American corporations like Haliburton and Bechtel. As an example, Dillon pointed to how US air strikes systematically obliterated every last Iraqi telecommunications facility from one end of the country to the other, a measure he maintains vastly exceeded all practical military necessity. Then, without even the pretense of a competitive bid, Washington gifted WorldCom, the near bankrupt US telecom giant responsible for the greatest fraud in financial history, with a huge multi-billion dollar contract to build Iraq a new nationwide state-of-the-art telephone system. Copyright ©2003 - Bill Dash Courtesy Herbert C. Savage See also: Yes, But Where Are the Saddam Look-Alikes http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=742 Saddam Hussein Given Safe Haven in Belarus? http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?id=729
Last updated 14/12/2003
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
This could happen to you, don't think so I beg to differ. This man was not an American he was on his way home to Canada he had broken no laws here but out of no where appear the FBI and NY PD, and you think this could not be you well I hope you are right. They talk about the intelligence they get from the people that are taken away in secret and how it has put an end to all of these plots well you need to read on, this man tells it like it is, if you are beaten bad enough and long enough you will say just about anything to make it stop. Yea I know some will say I'll die first ( I know that's how I feel ) but until you are in another mans shoes, you know the rest.
Maher Arar:
Chronology of events September 26, 2002 to October 5, 2003
The following is a chronology of events as told by Maher Arar, beginning with his arrival at John F. Kennedy Airport in New York on September 26, 2002, and ending with his October 5, 2003 release from Syrian prison.
September 26, 2002 Arar boards an American Airlines flight from Zurich to JFK airport in New York, en route to Montreal. He arrives in New York at 2:00 p.m., and lines up at the immigration counter. When his name is entered into the computer he is pulled aside. Two hours later he is fingerprinted and photographed. He is told this is regular procedure. Airport police search his bag and wallet and photocopy his passport. They refuse to answer Arar’s questions, and will not let him make a phone call.Officials from the New York Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigations say they will question him and then let him catch his connecting flight to Montreal. Arar asks for a lawyer, and is told he has no right to a lawyer because he is not an American citizen. An intense interrogation continues until midnight. Arar is questioned about his work, his salary, his travel in the US, and about different people. He is questioned in particular about Abdullah Almalki. Arar tells them that he only knows him very casually, but that he worked with his brother Nazih at two high tech firms in Ottawa and Hull. He tells them that the Almalki family came from Syria about the same time as his, so the families know of each other. Arar does not know why they are questioning him so much about Abdullah. He tells them he has seen Abdullah a few times and he describes, in detail, the times he can remember. Arar is shocked when they show him the rental lease he signed when he moved to Ottawa in 1997. It was witnessed by Abdullah Almalki. Arar remembers this and explains he had asked Nazih to sign it, but that Nazih was busy and sent his brother instead. Arar describes the questioning as intense, and says he was pressured to answer all questions quickly. He says they were humiliating and rude. He tells them he has nothing to hide, and tells them everything he knows. He asks repeatedly for a lawyer, but the request is ignored. Arar’s wrists and ankles are chained and he is taken in a van to a nearby building where others are being held and put in a cell.
September 27, 2002At 9:00 a.m. Maher is taken for more questioning. He has not eaten or slept since he was on the flight from Zurich. He is interrogated for eight hours and is asked many questions including what he thinks about Bin Laden, Palestine and Iraq. He is also asked about the mosques he prays in, his bank accounts, his email addresses and his relatives. An INS official informs him they would like him to voluntarily return to Syria. Arar says no, he would like to return to Canada. He asks again for a lawyer, and is refused. Arar is asked to sign an immigration form, but they do not show him the contents. Arar, exhausted, signs the form. At about 8:00 p.m. he is shackled and put in a van and driven to the Metropolitan Detention Centre. Arar continues to ask why this is happening, and they continue to refuse to answer him or tell him where he is being taken. He is strip searched, and asked to sign more forms for a doctor, and vaccinated. He asks what the vaccine is, but they will not tell him. Arar continues to ask for a lawyer and a phone call, and is ignored.
September 28 to October 7, 2002 Arar is not able to sleep until early in the morning, and wakes up at 11:00 a.m. on September 28. This is the first time he has slept since leaving Zurich two days earlier. Arar notices he is being treated differently than other prisoners at the MDC – for example, guards will not give him toothpaste or a toothbrush or newspapers. On the second or third day at the MDC, Arar is given a document saying that he is inadmissible to the United States under Section 235C of the Immigration and Nationality Act, because he is not is not a citizen of the United States; he is a native of Syria and is a citizen of Syria and Canada; he arrived in the United States on September 26, 2002 and applied for admission as a non-immigrant in transit through the United States, destined to Canada; and he is a member of an organization that has been designated by the Secretary of State as a Foreign Terrorist organization, to with Al Qaeda aka Al Qa’ida. Arar continues to ask for a lawyer and phone call, and his requests are denied until October 2 when he is permitted to make a two minute telephone call to his mother-in-law in Ottawa. He tells her he is frightened and he might be deported to Syria, and asks her to get him a lawyer.
On October 3 or 4, Arar is asked to fill out a form asking where he would like to be deported to. He writes that he chooses to be sent to Canada, and that he has no concerns about going there. He signs the document. On October 4 Arar receives a visit from Canadian consul Maureen Girvan. Arar shows her the document he has been given, and she notes the contents. He tells her he is frightened of being deported to Syria, and she reassures him that this will not happen.
On October 5 Arar is visited by lawyer Amal Oummih. They talk for 30 minutes, and he relates his fears to her, and asks her to help. She advises him not to sign anything without her being present. October 6, 2002 At 9:00 p.m. on Sunday night, guards come to take Arar from his cell, saying that his attorney is there to see him. Arar is taken to a room where about seven officials are waiting. His attorney is not there. He is told that they contacted his attorney and that “he” refused to come (thisis strange because Arar’s lawyer is a woman). They ask why Arar does not want to go to Syria, and Arar tells them he is afraid he will be tortured there. He says he did not do his military service before leaving Syria, he is a Sunni Muslim, and his mother’s cousin was accused of being part of the Muslim Brotherhood and imprisoned. They ask him to sign a document, and he refuses. This session continues until 3:00 a.m., when he is taken back to his cell.
October 8, 2002 Arar is woken at 3:00 a.m. and is told he is leaving. He is given food, and then taken from his cell. A woman reads to him from a document, saying that based on classified information that they could not reveal to him, and because he knows a number of men, including – Abdullah Almalki, Nazih Almalki, and Ahmad Abou-el-Maati, the INS Director has decided to deport him to Syria. Arar protests, saying he will be tortured there. He is ignored. He is chained and taken to a waiting car, and driven to an airport in New Jersey.Arar is placed on a private jet. He is the only passenger. They fly to Washington, and the people with him disembark, and a new team gets on the plane. Arar overhears the men talking on the phone saying that Syria is refusing to take him directly, but Jordan will take him.They fly to Portland, to Rome, and then to Amman, Jordan. On the trip to Amman Arar is given a sweater and jeans to wear. He does not know then that he will wear these clothes until the end of December.
October 9, 2002 The jet lands in Amman, Jordan at 3:00 a.m. There are six or seven Jordanians waiting for him. Arar is blindfolded and chained and put into a van. He is forced to bend his head down in the back seat. He is beaten intensely every time he tries to move or talk. Thirty minutes later they arrive at a building where they remove his blindfold and ask him routine questions, before taking him to a cell. In the afternoon they take his fingerprints and photographs and he is blindfolded and put in another van. He is told he is going back to Montreal. About forty-five minutes later, they stop and he is put in a different car. He is forced to keep his head down, and he is beaten again. Over an hour later they arrive at what Arar believes was the Syrian border. He is handed over to a new team of men, and put in a new car which travels for another three hours to Damascus. At about 6:00 p.m. he is taken into a building which he later finds out is the “Far Falestin” or the Palestine Branch of the Syrian military intelligence. He is taken into a room for interrogation. There are three men in the room. Arar later learns that one of the men is a colonel. They put him on a chair, and the colonel begins the interrogation. Arar is asked about his family and why they left Syria. Arar answers the questions but is threatened with a metal chair in the corner. He later learns that this chair is used to torture people. Arar decides he will confess to anything they want in order to stop the torture. The interrogation lasts for four hours without any violence – only the threat of violence is used.
October 10, 2002 Early in the morning on October 10 Arar is taken downstairs to a basement. The guard opens the door and Arar sees for the first time the cell he will live in for the following ten months and ten days. Arar calls the cell a “grave.” It is three feet wide, six feet deep and seven feet high. It has a metal door, with a small opening which does not let in light because of a piece of metal on the outside for sliding things into the cell. There is a one by two foot opening in the ceiling with iron bars. This opening is below another ceiling and lets in just a tiny shaft of light. Cats urinate through the ceiling traps of these cells, often onto the prisoners. Rats wander there too. There is no light source in the cell. The only things in the cell are two blankets, two plastic bowls and two bottles. Arar later uses two small empty boxes – one as a toilet when he is not allowed to the washroom, and one for prayer water.
October 11 to 16, 2002 Early the next morning Arar is taken upstairs for intense interrogation. He is beaten on his palms, wrists, lower back and hips with a shredded black electrical cable which is about two inches in diameter. He is threatened with the metal chair, electric shocks, and with the tire, into which prisoners are stuffed, immobilized and beaten. The next day Arar is interrogated and beaten on and off for eighteen hours. Arar begs them to stop. He is asked if he received military training in Afghanistan, and he falsely confesses and says yes. This is the first time Arar is ever questioned about Afghanistan. They ask at which camp, and provide him with a list, and he picks one of the camps listed. Arar urinated on himself twice during the interrogation. Throughout this period of intense interrogation Arar was not taken back to his cell, but to a waiting room where he could hear other prisoners being tortured and screaming. One time, he heard them repeatedly slam a man’s head on a desk really hard.
October 17 to 22, 2002 During the second week of the interrogation, Arar is forced into a car tire so he is immobilized. This was used to scare him, but he is not beaten while in the tire, as with other prisoners. The intensity of the beating and interrogation subsides after October 17. Interrogators start using a new tactic, taking Arar into a room blindfolded so he can hear people talking about him, saying, ”He knows lots of people who are terrorists,” “We will get their numbers,” “He is a liar,” “He has been out of the country.” They occasionally slap him on the face.
October 23, 2002 Arar is taken from his cell and his beard is shaved. He is taken to another building where his interrogators and other investigators are waiting for him. They seem nervous. Arar is warned not to say he has been beaten, and is then taken into a room where he meets with a Canadian consul. He is accompanied by his interrogator, a colonel and two other Syrian officials at all times. The meeting lasts for ten minutes and Arar cries throughout. October 29, 2002 Arar receives his second visit from Canadian consul. He is again accompanied by Syrian officials and his interrogator throughout the meeting. Early November, 2002 In early November 2002, Arar is taken up from his cell to sign and place his thumbprint on every page of a hand-written document about seven pages long. He is not allowed to read it.He is shown another document about three pages long, with questions: Who are your friends? How long have you been out of the country? The last question is followed by empty lines. The first questions were already answered by his captors, but Arar is made to answer the last in his own handwriting as they dictate to him. He is told to write that he has been to Afghanistan. He is forced to sign and place his thumb print on the last page of that document.
November 12, 2002 Arar receives his third visit from Canadian consul. He is again accompanied by Syrian officials and his interrogator throughout the meeting. Arar asks for money so he can purchase clothing and supplies. After the meeting, his captors are angry that he made that request, but he is not beaten.
December 10, 2002 Arar receives his fourth visit from Canadian consul. He is again accompanied by Syrian officials and his interrogator throughout the meeting. The consul delivers money and two weeks after the meeting, Arar is able to get new clothes and change for the first time since the flight from the US.
December, 2002 Some time in December Arar experiences a nervous crisis. His mind is crowded with memories, and he loses control and starts screaming. This happens three times. The second time a guard notices and takes him to wash his face.
January 7, 2003 Arar receives his fifth visit from Canadian consul. He is again accompanied by Syrian officials and his interrogator throughout the meeting. February 8, 2003Arar receives his sixth visit from Canadian consul. He is again accompanied by Syrian officials and his interrogator throughout the meeting. During the visit the Syrian officials question why these visits are necessary, saying they will take care of Arar.
Early April, 2003 Arar is taken from his cell and placed in an outdoor court. This is the first time he has seen sunlight in six months.
April 23, 2003 Arar is taken from his cell and his beard is shaved. He is told to comb his hair and wash his face well. He is taken outside, put in a car, and driven to another building. He is taken into the building and given tea. The Syrian officials seem very agitated and nervous. Arar is taken into a room to meet with the Canadian Ambassador to Syria and MPs Marlene Catterall and Sarkis Assadourian. He is accompanied by his interrogator and other Syrian officials throughout the meeting. After he is taken from the room he overhears officials talking about media coverage of his case.
June, 2003 Arar is taken outside into the sunshine twice in June. He asks to meet with an investigator and his request is eventually granted. He asks to be moved to a cell fit for human beings. The Syrian official responds they are very busy because of the situation in Iraq and orders him back to his cell.
July, 2003 Arar asks again for a meeting with an investigator and his request is eventually granted. He tells him he has nothing to do with Al Qaeda. The Syrian official asks Arar why he is accused of this, why they sent a delegation, and why these people hate him so much. Arar says he does not know. Arar notices his skin is turning yellow, and feels he is at the brink of a nervous breakdown.
July, 2003 Arar is taken from his cell and questioned about William Sampson. He does not know who this is, and says he does not. After the questioning Arar wonders if this is a journalist. August 14, 2003 Arar receives his seventh visit from the Canadian consul. He is again accompanied by Syrian officials and his interrogator, and the head Syrian military intelligence is also there. Arar has decided he cannot survive living in these conditions anymore, and that it is worth risking more physical torture to stop the ongoing psychological torture of remaining in the “grave.” He bursts and tells the Canadian consul, in English, in front of the Syrian officials, about his cell and the conditions he is living in. The consul asks if he has been tortured, and Arar replies yes, of course – at the beginning. After the meeting, Arar can see that his captors are very angry, and he is terrified that he will be physically tortured again, but he is not.
August 19, 2003 Arar is taken upstairs and made to sit on the floor. He is given a piece of paper to write on. He is told to write, among other things, that he went to a training camp in Afghanistan. The official kicks him every time he objects. He also threatens to put Arar in the tire. Arar is forced to sign and put his thumb print on the last page. Arar is then taken to the Investigation Branch and placed in a collective cell, which is about six by four metres in size. There are about forty-six people crammed into the space – the door is difficult to open because of the crowding. The prisoners ask him who he is and where he has been and they are shocked to learn he has been in the “grave” for so long. Arar spends that night there.
August 20, 2003 Arar is blindfolded, put in a vehicle and driven to Sednaya prison. Once again Syrian officials will not tell him where he is going. He has heard from the other prisoners at the Investigation Branch that prisoners are tortured when they arrive there, so he tells officials there he had been recently visited by a Canadian consular official. This seems to have an impact – Arar is not tortured when he arrives at Sednaya prison. He is placed in a collective cell and is able to talk with other prisoners and move around. Arar says this was like heaven compared to where he was at the Palestine Branch.
September 19 or 20, 2003 Arar is teaching English to some other prisoners in his cell when he hears others saying that another Canadian has arrived. He looks up and sees a thin man with a shaved head looking very weak. After some time he realizes this is Abdullah Almalki. Almalki tells Arar he has also been at the Palestine Branch, and that he was in a cell like Arar’s for even longer. He tells Arar he has been severely tortured – with the tire and the cable. He says he was also hung upside down. Almalki also says he was tortured at Sednaya prison just weeks before. September 28 to October 4, 2003 Arar is called from his cell and told to collect his things. He is blindfolded, put in a van, and driven back to the Palestine Branch. He is put in one of the interrogation waiting rooms and kept there for seven days. The entire time he is there he hears prisoners being tortured and screaming. Arar is devastated and does not know what is happening to him. At 9:00 p.m. on Saturday, October 4 he is told that he will be going to Canada. Arar does not believe this.
October 5, 2003 On Sunday morning Arar is told by the colonel to wash his face. The colonel seems very unhappy. They put chains on his wrists and legs, and put him in a car. He is driven to a court. Arar still does not believe he is going to Canada. He is taken to meet with a prosecutor and asks again for a lawyer. He is told he will not need one. The prosecutor reads from Arar’s confession and Arar tries to protest, saying he was beaten and forced to say he went to Afghanistan. The prosecutor ignores him and tells him he must sign and put his finger print on the document. Arar does as he is told. Arar is not permitted to see the document. The prosecutor does not lay out any charges and tells him that he will be released. Arar is taken outside and put in a car and driven back to the Palestine Branch where he meets with the head of the Syrian Military Intelligence and officials from the Canadian embassy. Arar believes, at last, that he is being released. The colonel escorts them out of the building into a waiting embassy car. Arar is driven to the Canadian embassy, and later taken to the Canadian Consul’s home for a shower before taking his flight out of Syria.
Maher's statement to the media on November 4, 2003.
Maher Arar:
Chronology of events September 26, 2002 to October 5, 2003
The following is a chronology of events as told by Maher Arar, beginning with his arrival at John F. Kennedy Airport in New York on September 26, 2002, and ending with his October 5, 2003 release from Syrian prison.
September 26, 2002 Arar boards an American Airlines flight from Zurich to JFK airport in New York, en route to Montreal. He arrives in New York at 2:00 p.m., and lines up at the immigration counter. When his name is entered into the computer he is pulled aside. Two hours later he is fingerprinted and photographed. He is told this is regular procedure. Airport police search his bag and wallet and photocopy his passport. They refuse to answer Arar’s questions, and will not let him make a phone call.Officials from the New York Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigations say they will question him and then let him catch his connecting flight to Montreal. Arar asks for a lawyer, and is told he has no right to a lawyer because he is not an American citizen. An intense interrogation continues until midnight. Arar is questioned about his work, his salary, his travel in the US, and about different people. He is questioned in particular about Abdullah Almalki. Arar tells them that he only knows him very casually, but that he worked with his brother Nazih at two high tech firms in Ottawa and Hull. He tells them that the Almalki family came from Syria about the same time as his, so the families know of each other. Arar does not know why they are questioning him so much about Abdullah. He tells them he has seen Abdullah a few times and he describes, in detail, the times he can remember. Arar is shocked when they show him the rental lease he signed when he moved to Ottawa in 1997. It was witnessed by Abdullah Almalki. Arar remembers this and explains he had asked Nazih to sign it, but that Nazih was busy and sent his brother instead. Arar describes the questioning as intense, and says he was pressured to answer all questions quickly. He says they were humiliating and rude. He tells them he has nothing to hide, and tells them everything he knows. He asks repeatedly for a lawyer, but the request is ignored. Arar’s wrists and ankles are chained and he is taken in a van to a nearby building where others are being held and put in a cell.
September 27, 2002At 9:00 a.m. Maher is taken for more questioning. He has not eaten or slept since he was on the flight from Zurich. He is interrogated for eight hours and is asked many questions including what he thinks about Bin Laden, Palestine and Iraq. He is also asked about the mosques he prays in, his bank accounts, his email addresses and his relatives. An INS official informs him they would like him to voluntarily return to Syria. Arar says no, he would like to return to Canada. He asks again for a lawyer, and is refused. Arar is asked to sign an immigration form, but they do not show him the contents. Arar, exhausted, signs the form. At about 8:00 p.m. he is shackled and put in a van and driven to the Metropolitan Detention Centre. Arar continues to ask why this is happening, and they continue to refuse to answer him or tell him where he is being taken. He is strip searched, and asked to sign more forms for a doctor, and vaccinated. He asks what the vaccine is, but they will not tell him. Arar continues to ask for a lawyer and a phone call, and is ignored.
September 28 to October 7, 2002 Arar is not able to sleep until early in the morning, and wakes up at 11:00 a.m. on September 28. This is the first time he has slept since leaving Zurich two days earlier. Arar notices he is being treated differently than other prisoners at the MDC – for example, guards will not give him toothpaste or a toothbrush or newspapers. On the second or third day at the MDC, Arar is given a document saying that he is inadmissible to the United States under Section 235C of the Immigration and Nationality Act, because he is not is not a citizen of the United States; he is a native of Syria and is a citizen of Syria and Canada; he arrived in the United States on September 26, 2002 and applied for admission as a non-immigrant in transit through the United States, destined to Canada; and he is a member of an organization that has been designated by the Secretary of State as a Foreign Terrorist organization, to with Al Qaeda aka Al Qa’ida. Arar continues to ask for a lawyer and phone call, and his requests are denied until October 2 when he is permitted to make a two minute telephone call to his mother-in-law in Ottawa. He tells her he is frightened and he might be deported to Syria, and asks her to get him a lawyer.
On October 3 or 4, Arar is asked to fill out a form asking where he would like to be deported to. He writes that he chooses to be sent to Canada, and that he has no concerns about going there. He signs the document. On October 4 Arar receives a visit from Canadian consul Maureen Girvan. Arar shows her the document he has been given, and she notes the contents. He tells her he is frightened of being deported to Syria, and she reassures him that this will not happen.
On October 5 Arar is visited by lawyer Amal Oummih. They talk for 30 minutes, and he relates his fears to her, and asks her to help. She advises him not to sign anything without her being present. October 6, 2002 At 9:00 p.m. on Sunday night, guards come to take Arar from his cell, saying that his attorney is there to see him. Arar is taken to a room where about seven officials are waiting. His attorney is not there. He is told that they contacted his attorney and that “he” refused to come (thisis strange because Arar’s lawyer is a woman). They ask why Arar does not want to go to Syria, and Arar tells them he is afraid he will be tortured there. He says he did not do his military service before leaving Syria, he is a Sunni Muslim, and his mother’s cousin was accused of being part of the Muslim Brotherhood and imprisoned. They ask him to sign a document, and he refuses. This session continues until 3:00 a.m., when he is taken back to his cell.
October 8, 2002 Arar is woken at 3:00 a.m. and is told he is leaving. He is given food, and then taken from his cell. A woman reads to him from a document, saying that based on classified information that they could not reveal to him, and because he knows a number of men, including – Abdullah Almalki, Nazih Almalki, and Ahmad Abou-el-Maati, the INS Director has decided to deport him to Syria. Arar protests, saying he will be tortured there. He is ignored. He is chained and taken to a waiting car, and driven to an airport in New Jersey.Arar is placed on a private jet. He is the only passenger. They fly to Washington, and the people with him disembark, and a new team gets on the plane. Arar overhears the men talking on the phone saying that Syria is refusing to take him directly, but Jordan will take him.They fly to Portland, to Rome, and then to Amman, Jordan. On the trip to Amman Arar is given a sweater and jeans to wear. He does not know then that he will wear these clothes until the end of December.
October 9, 2002 The jet lands in Amman, Jordan at 3:00 a.m. There are six or seven Jordanians waiting for him. Arar is blindfolded and chained and put into a van. He is forced to bend his head down in the back seat. He is beaten intensely every time he tries to move or talk. Thirty minutes later they arrive at a building where they remove his blindfold and ask him routine questions, before taking him to a cell. In the afternoon they take his fingerprints and photographs and he is blindfolded and put in another van. He is told he is going back to Montreal. About forty-five minutes later, they stop and he is put in a different car. He is forced to keep his head down, and he is beaten again. Over an hour later they arrive at what Arar believes was the Syrian border. He is handed over to a new team of men, and put in a new car which travels for another three hours to Damascus. At about 6:00 p.m. he is taken into a building which he later finds out is the “Far Falestin” or the Palestine Branch of the Syrian military intelligence. He is taken into a room for interrogation. There are three men in the room. Arar later learns that one of the men is a colonel. They put him on a chair, and the colonel begins the interrogation. Arar is asked about his family and why they left Syria. Arar answers the questions but is threatened with a metal chair in the corner. He later learns that this chair is used to torture people. Arar decides he will confess to anything they want in order to stop the torture. The interrogation lasts for four hours without any violence – only the threat of violence is used.
October 10, 2002 Early in the morning on October 10 Arar is taken downstairs to a basement. The guard opens the door and Arar sees for the first time the cell he will live in for the following ten months and ten days. Arar calls the cell a “grave.” It is three feet wide, six feet deep and seven feet high. It has a metal door, with a small opening which does not let in light because of a piece of metal on the outside for sliding things into the cell. There is a one by two foot opening in the ceiling with iron bars. This opening is below another ceiling and lets in just a tiny shaft of light. Cats urinate through the ceiling traps of these cells, often onto the prisoners. Rats wander there too. There is no light source in the cell. The only things in the cell are two blankets, two plastic bowls and two bottles. Arar later uses two small empty boxes – one as a toilet when he is not allowed to the washroom, and one for prayer water.
October 11 to 16, 2002 Early the next morning Arar is taken upstairs for intense interrogation. He is beaten on his palms, wrists, lower back and hips with a shredded black electrical cable which is about two inches in diameter. He is threatened with the metal chair, electric shocks, and with the tire, into which prisoners are stuffed, immobilized and beaten. The next day Arar is interrogated and beaten on and off for eighteen hours. Arar begs them to stop. He is asked if he received military training in Afghanistan, and he falsely confesses and says yes. This is the first time Arar is ever questioned about Afghanistan. They ask at which camp, and provide him with a list, and he picks one of the camps listed. Arar urinated on himself twice during the interrogation. Throughout this period of intense interrogation Arar was not taken back to his cell, but to a waiting room where he could hear other prisoners being tortured and screaming. One time, he heard them repeatedly slam a man’s head on a desk really hard.
October 17 to 22, 2002 During the second week of the interrogation, Arar is forced into a car tire so he is immobilized. This was used to scare him, but he is not beaten while in the tire, as with other prisoners. The intensity of the beating and interrogation subsides after October 17. Interrogators start using a new tactic, taking Arar into a room blindfolded so he can hear people talking about him, saying, ”He knows lots of people who are terrorists,” “We will get their numbers,” “He is a liar,” “He has been out of the country.” They occasionally slap him on the face.
October 23, 2002 Arar is taken from his cell and his beard is shaved. He is taken to another building where his interrogators and other investigators are waiting for him. They seem nervous. Arar is warned not to say he has been beaten, and is then taken into a room where he meets with a Canadian consul. He is accompanied by his interrogator, a colonel and two other Syrian officials at all times. The meeting lasts for ten minutes and Arar cries throughout. October 29, 2002 Arar receives his second visit from Canadian consul. He is again accompanied by Syrian officials and his interrogator throughout the meeting. Early November, 2002 In early November 2002, Arar is taken up from his cell to sign and place his thumbprint on every page of a hand-written document about seven pages long. He is not allowed to read it.He is shown another document about three pages long, with questions: Who are your friends? How long have you been out of the country? The last question is followed by empty lines. The first questions were already answered by his captors, but Arar is made to answer the last in his own handwriting as they dictate to him. He is told to write that he has been to Afghanistan. He is forced to sign and place his thumb print on the last page of that document.
November 12, 2002 Arar receives his third visit from Canadian consul. He is again accompanied by Syrian officials and his interrogator throughout the meeting. Arar asks for money so he can purchase clothing and supplies. After the meeting, his captors are angry that he made that request, but he is not beaten.
December 10, 2002 Arar receives his fourth visit from Canadian consul. He is again accompanied by Syrian officials and his interrogator throughout the meeting. The consul delivers money and two weeks after the meeting, Arar is able to get new clothes and change for the first time since the flight from the US.
December, 2002 Some time in December Arar experiences a nervous crisis. His mind is crowded with memories, and he loses control and starts screaming. This happens three times. The second time a guard notices and takes him to wash his face.
January 7, 2003 Arar receives his fifth visit from Canadian consul. He is again accompanied by Syrian officials and his interrogator throughout the meeting. February 8, 2003Arar receives his sixth visit from Canadian consul. He is again accompanied by Syrian officials and his interrogator throughout the meeting. During the visit the Syrian officials question why these visits are necessary, saying they will take care of Arar.
Early April, 2003 Arar is taken from his cell and placed in an outdoor court. This is the first time he has seen sunlight in six months.
April 23, 2003 Arar is taken from his cell and his beard is shaved. He is told to comb his hair and wash his face well. He is taken outside, put in a car, and driven to another building. He is taken into the building and given tea. The Syrian officials seem very agitated and nervous. Arar is taken into a room to meet with the Canadian Ambassador to Syria and MPs Marlene Catterall and Sarkis Assadourian. He is accompanied by his interrogator and other Syrian officials throughout the meeting. After he is taken from the room he overhears officials talking about media coverage of his case.
June, 2003 Arar is taken outside into the sunshine twice in June. He asks to meet with an investigator and his request is eventually granted. He asks to be moved to a cell fit for human beings. The Syrian official responds they are very busy because of the situation in Iraq and orders him back to his cell.
July, 2003 Arar asks again for a meeting with an investigator and his request is eventually granted. He tells him he has nothing to do with Al Qaeda. The Syrian official asks Arar why he is accused of this, why they sent a delegation, and why these people hate him so much. Arar says he does not know. Arar notices his skin is turning yellow, and feels he is at the brink of a nervous breakdown.
July, 2003 Arar is taken from his cell and questioned about William Sampson. He does not know who this is, and says he does not. After the questioning Arar wonders if this is a journalist. August 14, 2003 Arar receives his seventh visit from the Canadian consul. He is again accompanied by Syrian officials and his interrogator, and the head Syrian military intelligence is also there. Arar has decided he cannot survive living in these conditions anymore, and that it is worth risking more physical torture to stop the ongoing psychological torture of remaining in the “grave.” He bursts and tells the Canadian consul, in English, in front of the Syrian officials, about his cell and the conditions he is living in. The consul asks if he has been tortured, and Arar replies yes, of course – at the beginning. After the meeting, Arar can see that his captors are very angry, and he is terrified that he will be physically tortured again, but he is not.
August 19, 2003 Arar is taken upstairs and made to sit on the floor. He is given a piece of paper to write on. He is told to write, among other things, that he went to a training camp in Afghanistan. The official kicks him every time he objects. He also threatens to put Arar in the tire. Arar is forced to sign and put his thumb print on the last page. Arar is then taken to the Investigation Branch and placed in a collective cell, which is about six by four metres in size. There are about forty-six people crammed into the space – the door is difficult to open because of the crowding. The prisoners ask him who he is and where he has been and they are shocked to learn he has been in the “grave” for so long. Arar spends that night there.
August 20, 2003 Arar is blindfolded, put in a vehicle and driven to Sednaya prison. Once again Syrian officials will not tell him where he is going. He has heard from the other prisoners at the Investigation Branch that prisoners are tortured when they arrive there, so he tells officials there he had been recently visited by a Canadian consular official. This seems to have an impact – Arar is not tortured when he arrives at Sednaya prison. He is placed in a collective cell and is able to talk with other prisoners and move around. Arar says this was like heaven compared to where he was at the Palestine Branch.
September 19 or 20, 2003 Arar is teaching English to some other prisoners in his cell when he hears others saying that another Canadian has arrived. He looks up and sees a thin man with a shaved head looking very weak. After some time he realizes this is Abdullah Almalki. Almalki tells Arar he has also been at the Palestine Branch, and that he was in a cell like Arar’s for even longer. He tells Arar he has been severely tortured – with the tire and the cable. He says he was also hung upside down. Almalki also says he was tortured at Sednaya prison just weeks before. September 28 to October 4, 2003 Arar is called from his cell and told to collect his things. He is blindfolded, put in a van, and driven back to the Palestine Branch. He is put in one of the interrogation waiting rooms and kept there for seven days. The entire time he is there he hears prisoners being tortured and screaming. Arar is devastated and does not know what is happening to him. At 9:00 p.m. on Saturday, October 4 he is told that he will be going to Canada. Arar does not believe this.
October 5, 2003 On Sunday morning Arar is told by the colonel to wash his face. The colonel seems very unhappy. They put chains on his wrists and legs, and put him in a car. He is driven to a court. Arar still does not believe he is going to Canada. He is taken to meet with a prosecutor and asks again for a lawyer. He is told he will not need one. The prosecutor reads from Arar’s confession and Arar tries to protest, saying he was beaten and forced to say he went to Afghanistan. The prosecutor ignores him and tells him he must sign and put his finger print on the document. Arar does as he is told. Arar is not permitted to see the document. The prosecutor does not lay out any charges and tells him that he will be released. Arar is taken outside and put in a car and driven back to the Palestine Branch where he meets with the head of the Syrian Military Intelligence and officials from the Canadian embassy. Arar believes, at last, that he is being released. The colonel escorts them out of the building into a waiting embassy car. Arar is driven to the Canadian embassy, and later taken to the Canadian Consul’s home for a shower before taking his flight out of Syria.
Maher's statement to the media on November 4, 2003.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Misinformation, false flags, flat out lies or whatever you wish to call them. We need to keep our eyes open and stop taking everything that comes out of Bush and Co.'s mouths as the truth, come on people the only thing that scares me is the fact that every time these guys want to get things to go the way they want out of the clear blue there's some plot that's spoiled. But look at the after, down the road, when the media lights go out that's what you need to be looking at, all I'm saying is pay attention, these guys are great at the old three card molly, bait and switch and they're making us look like cumps.
The mysterious case of the disappearing 'terror’ plots
By Norm Dixon – Green Left Weekly:
Sept 13, 2006
Readers of Britain’s newspapers are regularly accosted with blood-curdling banner headlines screaming of the “thwarting” of potentially catastrophic “terror plots”, of “Islamic fanatics” being apprehended in daring midnight raids. “Chilling” details, “revealed” by anonymous police and government “sources”, underline why “we” must accept a “trade-off” between civil liberties and “security”, the editorials assure an apprehensive populace. Months or even years later, however, news that many of the “plots” never actually existed is buried behind the latest sex scandal or exploitative “expose” — if reported at all. On August 10, deputy commissioner of London’s Metropolitan Police Paul Stephenson declared that a plan to “cause untold death and destruction” and “mass murder on an unimaginable scale” had been foiled with the arrest of 24 people. “We believe that the terrorists’ aim was to smuggle explosives onto planes in hand luggage to detonate them in flight”, Stephenson alleged. Britain’s and the world’s mass media trumpeted the claims. However, within days the dramatic case against the detainees as told to the media by anonymous US and British government and police “sources” began to unravel. The claim that an attack was “imminent” was false. No reservations had been made or airline tickets purchased by the 10 charged with serious terrorism offences; several did not even have passports. Apparently, just one had used the internet to check flight schedules recently. There were no bombs. The assertion that the detainees intended to destroy 10-12 aircraft was “speculative and exaggerated”, a British official admitted to the August 28 New York Times. Claims of a convoluted “Pakistani connection” between the plotters and al Qaeda have disappeared. The possibility of successfully concocting “liquid bombs” from household products in a plan’es toilet mid-air has been dismissed by chemical experts.
MisrepresentationGareth Pierce, defence lawyer for the 17-year-old in the case accused of possessing items “useful to a person preparing acts of terrorism”, told the August 31 Chicago Tribune how police had misrepresented what they had found at the boy’s mother’s home and twisted it to fit their grandiose claims. According to police, “suicide notes”, a map of Afghanistan and a bomb “manual” had been found. What was actually discovered, Pierce told the Tribune, were wills written by people who had fought in Bosnia more than 10 years earlier. The accused was just six when much of this material was placed in the box! “They’re not suicide notes at all. They’re really simple wills. To call these suicide notes was absolutely disgraceful”, Pierce said. The wills were found in a box that once belonged to the boy’s father — who has since divorced and moved out — when he ran a now-defunct charity that helped displaced Bosnian Muslims. The box also contained a crude map drawn by the boy’s younger brother when he was a child. There was also a book of drawings of electrical circuits, which even if it was of some use in building a bomb, it would be useless for the device that police allege the group was trying to construct. Associated Press on September 4 reported that prosecutors told a London court that the detainees will not face trial until March 2008. They will remain in prison and the key details of the prosecution’s case will be kept secret until then.
Lies and fabricationWill the British government and mass media’s accusations stand up in court? Not if the record of British police, government and media lying, exaggeration and fabrication in recent “terror” cases is anything to go by. As Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, pointed out in an August 14 article on his website (), “Of the over 1000 British Muslims arrested under anti-terrorist legislation, only 12% are ever charged with anything. That is simply harassment of Muslims on an appalling scale. Of those charged, 80% are acquitted. Most of the very few — just over 2% of arrests — who are convicted, are not convicted of anything to do with terrorism, but of some minor offence the police happened upon while trawling through the wreck of the lives they had shattered.” At 4am on June 2, around 250 police, some wearing chemical suits, stormed a house in Forest Gate, east London. Police claimed that a chemical bomb was in the house. Awoken by the sound of doors being broken down, the two families living there thought they were being attacked by robbers. Mohammed Abdul Kahar was shot in the chest by police, who failed to identify themselves or give a warning, narrowly missing his heart. Rupert Murdoch’s seedy Sun newspaper on June 3 ramped up the anti-Muslim panic, without a shred of evidence: “A CHEMICAL bomb held by Islamic terrorists is primed to go off at any time, police feared last night. The device is believed to have been designed to release a toxic cloud in a crowded space — killing hundreds. And senior officers are convinced it has been prepared for an 'imminent’ attack in the UK ... Last night a frantic hunt was on to find the bomb before it could be activated by fanatics. One senior security source said: 'We are absolutely certain this device exists and could be used either by a suicide bomber or in a remote-controlled explosion.’” Not to be outdone, Murdoch’s Times on June 3 reported the finding of a “poison suicide vest of death”. No chemical bombs or suicide vests ever existed. Kahar and his brother were detained for eight days without charge under the Terrorism Act (2000) before being released. “The only crime I have committed is being Asian and having a long beard”, Kahar told the BBC on June 13. “They haven’t had the decency to apologise.”
'Red mercury’In one of more bizarre examples of how the British government, police and the media work hand in glove to manufacture terror scares was provided when the notorious “fake sheikh” Mazher Mahmood, a journalist for Murdoch’s tacky News of the World who regularly dresses up in Arab robes to trick celebrities and others into compromising themselves, and an undercover police agent in 2004 attempted to entrap three people in a “virtual” terror plot. Mahmood offered to sell them an imaginary nuclear substance, “red mercury”, telling them it could be used to make a radioactive “dirty bomb”. However, the three seemed to be more interested in the claim that red mercury could also wash marked money. The undercover cop then offered to buy the fake substance from them for $300,000 a kilo. With the approval of the Labour government’s attorney-general, the three dupes were arrested by the Met’s anti-terrorist squad on September 24, 2004. They were charged with attempting to secure funding or property for terrorism and having “a highly dangerous mercury-based substance” for use in terrorism. The following day, the News of the World’s front page screamed, “Anti-terrorist cops move in after News of the World uncovers bid to buy radioactive material”. Red mercury, the News of the World lied to its unfortunate readers, is “a deadly substance developed by cold war Russian scientists for making briefcase nuclear bombs”. The three remained in jail until their acquittal almost two years later. During the trial, which cost more than £1 million, the government prosecutor declared that “the Crown’s position is that whether red mercury does or does not exist is irrelevant” and urged the jury not to get “hung up” on that point. Luckily, the jury did not agree.
Own goal in ManchesterBritain’s government-police-press team scored an own goal in April 2004, when 400 Greater Manchester police rounded up 10 Iraqi Kurds. Leading the lynch mob was the Sun, which ran an invented story that began: “A SUICIDE bomb plot to kill thousands of soccer fans at Saturday’s Manchester United-Liverpool match was dramatically foiled yesterday. Armed cops seized ten terror suspects in dawn raids. Intelligence chiefs believe al-Qaeda fanatics planned to blow themselves up amid 67,000 unsuspecting supporters. A source said: 'The target was Old Trafford.’ The Islamic fanatics planned to sit all around the ground to cause maximum carnage. They had already bought the tickets for various positions in the stadium, cops revealed last night.” The entire fantastic story, and the cops’ case against the Kurds, was improvised from leaked police information about the “discovery” of a couple of old ticket stubs from a Manchester United soccer match in a suspect’s flat. He was indeed guilty of being a fanatic — a fanatical supporter of Manchester United who had kept the stubs as a souvenir of the only game he and a friend had attended! They were bought from a scalper, which explained why the tickets were for different parts of the ground. The 10 people were released without charge.
Ricin refluxPerhaps the most cynically exploited of the British government’s series of fabricated “terror scares” was the police announcement in January 2003 that a “terrorist cell’s” plans to use ricin poison in an attack had been foiled. On January 7, British government ministers announced that “traces of ricin” had been found in a flat raided by police. Prime Minister Tony Blair seized on the “plot” to bolster the propaganda campaign to go to war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Blair made the ludicrous claim that the discovery of ricin, which can only kill if directly injected into a person’s bloodstream, proved that “this danger [of weapons of mass destruction] is present and real and with us now. Its potential is huge.” Then US Secretary of State Colin Powell also referred to the alleged “cell” during his speech to the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003, arguing for war against Iraq if Hussein did not abandon his non-existent WMD. Powell claimed it was proof of a “sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network”. The truth was that there was no al Qaeda cell and no ricin. On the same day that the government proclaimed the discovery of “traces of ricin” in the flat, tests by the government’s own research facility at Porton Down had found there was no ricin. That finding was kept secret by the government for more than two years. In April 2005, four people were acquitted on charges of conspiracy to commit terrorism, while charges against four others were dropped. One person, Kamel Bourgass, was convicted on a lesser charge of “conspiracy to cause a public nuisance by the use of poisons and/or explosives”, based on his possession of “recipes” to make ricin and evidence of attempts to do so. However, the April 20, 2005, Independent reported that “Professor Alistair Hay, one of Britain’s foremost authorities on toxins, said Bourgass’s attempts to construct toxic weapons from his small supplies of ingredients and ramshackle 'laboratory’ were 'incredibly amateurish and unlikely to succeed’.” k>www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/683/683p19.htmA>
The mysterious case of the disappearing 'terror’ plots
By Norm Dixon – Green Left Weekly:
Sept 13, 2006
Readers of Britain’s newspapers are regularly accosted with blood-curdling banner headlines screaming of the “thwarting” of potentially catastrophic “terror plots”, of “Islamic fanatics” being apprehended in daring midnight raids. “Chilling” details, “revealed” by anonymous police and government “sources”, underline why “we” must accept a “trade-off” between civil liberties and “security”, the editorials assure an apprehensive populace. Months or even years later, however, news that many of the “plots” never actually existed is buried behind the latest sex scandal or exploitative “expose” — if reported at all. On August 10, deputy commissioner of London’s Metropolitan Police Paul Stephenson declared that a plan to “cause untold death and destruction” and “mass murder on an unimaginable scale” had been foiled with the arrest of 24 people. “We believe that the terrorists’ aim was to smuggle explosives onto planes in hand luggage to detonate them in flight”, Stephenson alleged. Britain’s and the world’s mass media trumpeted the claims. However, within days the dramatic case against the detainees as told to the media by anonymous US and British government and police “sources” began to unravel. The claim that an attack was “imminent” was false. No reservations had been made or airline tickets purchased by the 10 charged with serious terrorism offences; several did not even have passports. Apparently, just one had used the internet to check flight schedules recently. There were no bombs. The assertion that the detainees intended to destroy 10-12 aircraft was “speculative and exaggerated”, a British official admitted to the August 28 New York Times. Claims of a convoluted “Pakistani connection” between the plotters and al Qaeda have disappeared. The possibility of successfully concocting “liquid bombs” from household products in a plan’es toilet mid-air has been dismissed by chemical experts.
MisrepresentationGareth Pierce, defence lawyer for the 17-year-old in the case accused of possessing items “useful to a person preparing acts of terrorism”, told the August 31 Chicago Tribune how police had misrepresented what they had found at the boy’s mother’s home and twisted it to fit their grandiose claims. According to police, “suicide notes”, a map of Afghanistan and a bomb “manual” had been found. What was actually discovered, Pierce told the Tribune, were wills written by people who had fought in Bosnia more than 10 years earlier. The accused was just six when much of this material was placed in the box! “They’re not suicide notes at all. They’re really simple wills. To call these suicide notes was absolutely disgraceful”, Pierce said. The wills were found in a box that once belonged to the boy’s father — who has since divorced and moved out — when he ran a now-defunct charity that helped displaced Bosnian Muslims. The box also contained a crude map drawn by the boy’s younger brother when he was a child. There was also a book of drawings of electrical circuits, which even if it was of some use in building a bomb, it would be useless for the device that police allege the group was trying to construct. Associated Press on September 4 reported that prosecutors told a London court that the detainees will not face trial until March 2008. They will remain in prison and the key details of the prosecution’s case will be kept secret until then.
Lies and fabricationWill the British government and mass media’s accusations stand up in court? Not if the record of British police, government and media lying, exaggeration and fabrication in recent “terror” cases is anything to go by. As Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, pointed out in an August 14 article on his website (), “Of the over 1000 British Muslims arrested under anti-terrorist legislation, only 12% are ever charged with anything. That is simply harassment of Muslims on an appalling scale. Of those charged, 80% are acquitted. Most of the very few — just over 2% of arrests — who are convicted, are not convicted of anything to do with terrorism, but of some minor offence the police happened upon while trawling through the wreck of the lives they had shattered.” At 4am on June 2, around 250 police, some wearing chemical suits, stormed a house in Forest Gate, east London. Police claimed that a chemical bomb was in the house. Awoken by the sound of doors being broken down, the two families living there thought they were being attacked by robbers. Mohammed Abdul Kahar was shot in the chest by police, who failed to identify themselves or give a warning, narrowly missing his heart. Rupert Murdoch’s seedy Sun newspaper on June 3 ramped up the anti-Muslim panic, without a shred of evidence: “A CHEMICAL bomb held by Islamic terrorists is primed to go off at any time, police feared last night. The device is believed to have been designed to release a toxic cloud in a crowded space — killing hundreds. And senior officers are convinced it has been prepared for an 'imminent’ attack in the UK ... Last night a frantic hunt was on to find the bomb before it could be activated by fanatics. One senior security source said: 'We are absolutely certain this device exists and could be used either by a suicide bomber or in a remote-controlled explosion.’” Not to be outdone, Murdoch’s Times on June 3 reported the finding of a “poison suicide vest of death”. No chemical bombs or suicide vests ever existed. Kahar and his brother were detained for eight days without charge under the Terrorism Act (2000) before being released. “The only crime I have committed is being Asian and having a long beard”, Kahar told the BBC on June 13. “They haven’t had the decency to apologise.”
'Red mercury’In one of more bizarre examples of how the British government, police and the media work hand in glove to manufacture terror scares was provided when the notorious “fake sheikh” Mazher Mahmood, a journalist for Murdoch’s tacky News of the World who regularly dresses up in Arab robes to trick celebrities and others into compromising themselves, and an undercover police agent in 2004 attempted to entrap three people in a “virtual” terror plot. Mahmood offered to sell them an imaginary nuclear substance, “red mercury”, telling them it could be used to make a radioactive “dirty bomb”. However, the three seemed to be more interested in the claim that red mercury could also wash marked money. The undercover cop then offered to buy the fake substance from them for $300,000 a kilo. With the approval of the Labour government’s attorney-general, the three dupes were arrested by the Met’s anti-terrorist squad on September 24, 2004. They were charged with attempting to secure funding or property for terrorism and having “a highly dangerous mercury-based substance” for use in terrorism. The following day, the News of the World’s front page screamed, “Anti-terrorist cops move in after News of the World uncovers bid to buy radioactive material”. Red mercury, the News of the World lied to its unfortunate readers, is “a deadly substance developed by cold war Russian scientists for making briefcase nuclear bombs”. The three remained in jail until their acquittal almost two years later. During the trial, which cost more than £1 million, the government prosecutor declared that “the Crown’s position is that whether red mercury does or does not exist is irrelevant” and urged the jury not to get “hung up” on that point. Luckily, the jury did not agree.
Own goal in ManchesterBritain’s government-police-press team scored an own goal in April 2004, when 400 Greater Manchester police rounded up 10 Iraqi Kurds. Leading the lynch mob was the Sun, which ran an invented story that began: “A SUICIDE bomb plot to kill thousands of soccer fans at Saturday’s Manchester United-Liverpool match was dramatically foiled yesterday. Armed cops seized ten terror suspects in dawn raids. Intelligence chiefs believe al-Qaeda fanatics planned to blow themselves up amid 67,000 unsuspecting supporters. A source said: 'The target was Old Trafford.’ The Islamic fanatics planned to sit all around the ground to cause maximum carnage. They had already bought the tickets for various positions in the stadium, cops revealed last night.” The entire fantastic story, and the cops’ case against the Kurds, was improvised from leaked police information about the “discovery” of a couple of old ticket stubs from a Manchester United soccer match in a suspect’s flat. He was indeed guilty of being a fanatic — a fanatical supporter of Manchester United who had kept the stubs as a souvenir of the only game he and a friend had attended! They were bought from a scalper, which explained why the tickets were for different parts of the ground. The 10 people were released without charge.
Ricin refluxPerhaps the most cynically exploited of the British government’s series of fabricated “terror scares” was the police announcement in January 2003 that a “terrorist cell’s” plans to use ricin poison in an attack had been foiled. On January 7, British government ministers announced that “traces of ricin” had been found in a flat raided by police. Prime Minister Tony Blair seized on the “plot” to bolster the propaganda campaign to go to war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Blair made the ludicrous claim that the discovery of ricin, which can only kill if directly injected into a person’s bloodstream, proved that “this danger [of weapons of mass destruction] is present and real and with us now. Its potential is huge.” Then US Secretary of State Colin Powell also referred to the alleged “cell” during his speech to the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003, arguing for war against Iraq if Hussein did not abandon his non-existent WMD. Powell claimed it was proof of a “sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network”. The truth was that there was no al Qaeda cell and no ricin. On the same day that the government proclaimed the discovery of “traces of ricin” in the flat, tests by the government’s own research facility at Porton Down had found there was no ricin. That finding was kept secret by the government for more than two years. In April 2005, four people were acquitted on charges of conspiracy to commit terrorism, while charges against four others were dropped. One person, Kamel Bourgass, was convicted on a lesser charge of “conspiracy to cause a public nuisance by the use of poisons and/or explosives”, based on his possession of “recipes” to make ricin and evidence of attempts to do so. However, the April 20, 2005, Independent reported that “Professor Alistair Hay, one of Britain’s foremost authorities on toxins, said Bourgass’s attempts to construct toxic weapons from his small supplies of ingredients and ramshackle 'laboratory’ were 'incredibly amateurish and unlikely to succeed’.” k>www.greenleft.org.au/back/2006/683/683p19.htmA>
Saturday, September 09, 2006
There seems to be so much going on behind our backs that it's impossible to focus on just how we are being lead into no mans land. How is it possible that this administration has not only been kicked out on its ass but locked up, come on people how do you impeach someone for a sex act while this SOB lied to go to war. I just don't get it, am I the only one? And the moe I read about the Federal Reserve the worst things look, PEOPLE WAKE THE HELL UP! America is NO has been stolen out from under us.
Transcript of Meeting Between Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie. - July 25, 1990
(Eight days before the August 2, 1990 Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait)
July 25, 1990 - Presidential Palace - Baghdad
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (pause) As you know, I lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. (pause) We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threat s against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship - not confrontation - regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?
Saddam Hussein - As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - What solutions would be acceptab le?
Saddam Hussein - If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)
On August 2, 1990, Saddam's massed troops invade and occupy Kuwait. _____
Baghdad, September 2, 1990, U.S. Embassy
One month later, British journalists obtain the the above tape and transcript of the Saddam - Glaspie meeting of July 29, 1990. Astounded, they confront Ms. Glaspie as she leaves the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.
Journalist 1 - Are the transcripts (holding them up) correct, Madam Ambassador?(Ambassador Glaspie does not respond)
Journalist 2 - You knew Saddam was going to invade (Kuwait ) but you didn't warn him not to. You didn't tell him America would defend Kuwait. You told him the opposite - that America was not associated with Kuwait.
Journalist 1 - You encouraged this aggression - his invasi on. What were you thinking?
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait.
Journalist 1 - You thought he was just going to take some of it? But, how could you? Saddam told you that, if negotiations failed , he would give up his Iran (Shatt al Arab waterway) goal for the Whole of Iraq, in the shape we wish it to be. You know that includes Kuwait, which the Iraqis have always viewed as an historic part of their country!
Journalist 1 - American green-lighted the invasion. At a minimum, you admit signaling Saddam that some aggression was okay - that the U.S. would not oppose a grab of the al-Rumeilah oil field, the disputed border strip and the Gulf Islands (including Bubiyan) - the territories claimed by Iraq?
(Ambassador Glaspie says nothing as a limousine door closed behind her and the car drives off.)
September 9, 2006
C.I.A. Said to Find No Hussein Link to Terror Chief
By MARK MAZZETTI
WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 — The Central Intelligence Agency last fall repudiated the claim that there were prewar ties between Saddam Hussein’s government and an operative of Al Qaeda, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, according to a report issued Friday by the Senate Intelligence Committee.
The disclosure undercuts continuing assertions by the Bush administration that such ties existed, and that they provided evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The Republican-controlled committee, in a second report, also sharply criticized the administration for its reliance on the Iraqi National Congress during the prelude to the war in Iraq.
The findings are part of a continuing inquiry by the committee into prewar intelligence about Iraq. The conclusions went beyond its earlier findings, issued in the summer of 2004, by including criticism not just of American intelligence agencies but also of the administration.
Several Republicans strongly dissented on the report with conclusions about the Iraqi National Congress, saying they overstated the role that the exile group had played in the prewar intelligence assessments about Iraq. But the committee overwhelmingly approved the other report, with only one Republican senator voting against it.
The reports did not address the politically divisive question of whether the Bush administration had exaggerated or misused intelligence as part of its effort to win support for the war. But one report did contradict the admiadministrations asertions, made before the war and since, that ties between Mr. Zarqawi and Mr. Hussein’s government provided evidence of a close relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. <BR>As recently as Aug. 21, President Bush said at a news conference that Mr. Hussein “had relations with Zarqawi.’’ But a C.I.A. report completed in October 2005 concluded instead that Mr. Hussein’s government “did not have a relationship, harbor or even turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates,” according to the new Senate findings.
The C.I.A. report also contradicted claims made in February 2003 by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who mentioned Mr. Zarqawi no fewer than 20 times during a speech to the United Nations Security Council that made the administration’s case for going to war. In that speech, Mr. Powell said that Iraq “today harbors a deadly terrorist network’’ headed by Mr. Zarqawi, and dismissed as “not credible’’ assertions by the Iraqi government that it had no knowledge of Mr. Zarqawi’s whereabouts.
The panel concluded that Mr. Hussein regarded Al Qaeda as a threat rather than a potential ally, and that the Iraqi intelligence service “actively attempted to locate and capture al-Zarqawi without success.’’
One of the reports by the committee criticized a decision by the National Security Council in 2002 to maintain a close relationship with the Iraqi National Congress, headed by the exile leader Ahmad Chalabi, even after the C.I.A. and the Defense Intelligence Agency had warned that “the I.N.C was penetrated by hostile intelligence services,” notably Iran.
The report concluded that the organization had provided a large volume of flawed intelligence to the United States about Iraq, and concluded that the group “attempted to influence United States policy on Iraq by providing false information through defectors directed at convincing the United States that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and had links to terrorists.”
The findings were released at an inopportune time for the Bush administration, which has spent the week trying to turn voters’ attention away from the missteps on Iraq and toward the more comfortable political territory of the continued terrorist threat. On Friday, the White House spokesman, Tony Snow, played down the reports, saying that they contained “nothing new” and were “re-litigating things that happened three years ago.”
“The important thing to do is to figure out what you’re doing tomorrow, and the day after, and the month after, and the year after to make sure that this war on terror is won,” Mr. Snow said.
The two reports released Friday were expected to be the least controversial aspects of what remains of the Senate committee’s investigation, which will eventually address whether the Bush administration’s assertions about Iraq accurately reflected the available intelligence. But unanticipated delays caused them to be released in the heat of the fall political campaign.
The reports were approved by the committee in August, but went through a monthlong declassification process. It was Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, the committee’s Republican chairman, who set early September as the release date. The committee’s report in 2004, which lambasted intelligence agencies for vastly overestimating the state of Iraq’s nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs, was issued with unanimous approval. But the reports released Friday provided evidence of how much the relationship between Republicans and Democrats on the committee had degenerated over the past two years.
A set of conclusions that included criticism of the administration’s ties with the Iraqi National Congress was opposed by several Republicans on the panel, including Mr. Roberts, but was approved with the support of two Republicans, Chuck Hagel, of Nebraska, and Olympia Snowe, of Maine, along with all seven Democrats. Senator Roberts even took the unusual step of disavowing the conclusions about the role played by the Iraqi National Congress, saying that they were “misleading and are not supported by the facts.”
The report about the group’s role concluded that faulty intelligence from the group made its way into several prewar intelligence reports, including the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that directly preceded the Senate vote on the Iraq war. It says that sources introduced to American intelligence by the group directly influenced two key judgments of that document: that Mr. Hussein possessed mobile biological weapons laboratories and that he was trying to reconstitute his nuclear program.
The report said there was insufficient evidence to determine whether one of the most notorious of the intelligence sources used by the United States before the Iraq war was tied to the Iraqi National Congress. The source, an Iraqi who was code-named Curveball, was a crucial source for the American view that Mr. Hussein had a mobile biological weapons program, but the information that he provided was later entirely discredited.
The report said other mistaken information about Iraq’s biological program had been provided by a source linked to the Iraqi National Congress, and it said the intelligence agencies’ use of the information had “constituted a serious error.’’
The dissenting opinion, signed by Mr. Roberts and four other Republican members of the committee, minimized the role played by Mr. Chalabi’s group. “Information from the I.N.C. and I.N.C.-affiliated defectors was not widely used in intelligence community products and played little role in the intelligence community’s judgments about Iraq’s W.M.D. programs,” the Republicans said.
Francis Brooke, a spokesman for the Iraqi National Congress, called the report “tendentious, partisan and misleading,” and said that the group had not played a central role as the Bush administration built the case for war.
At the same time, Mr. Brooke said his organization was surprised at how little the American government knew about Mr. Hussein’s government before the war, which may have forced the American officials to rely more heavily on the organization. “We did not realize the paucity of human intelligence that the administration had on Iraq,” he said.
There Is Fascism, Indeed
By Keith Olbermann MSNBC
Wednesday 30 August 2006
The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack.
Donald H. Rumsfeld is not a prophet.
Mr. Rumsfeld's remarkable speech to the American Legion yesterday demands the deep analysis-and the sober contemplation-of every American.
For it did not merely serve to impugn the morality or intelligence - indeed, the loyalty - of the majority of Americans who oppose the transient occupants of the highest offices in the land. Worse, still, it credits those same transient occupants - our employees - with a total omniscience; a total omniscience which neither common sense, nor this administration's track record at home or abroad, suggests they deserve.
Dissent and disagreement with government is the life's blood of human freedom; and not merely because it is the first roadblock against the kind of tyranny the men Mr. Rumsfeld likes to think of as "his" troops still fight, this very evening, in Iraq.
It is also essential. Because just every once in awhile it is right and the power to which it speaks, is wrong.
In a small irony, however, Mr. Rumsfeld's speechwriter was adroit in invoking the memory of the appeasement of the Nazis. For in their time, there was another government faced with true peril-with a growing evil-powerful and remorseless.
That government, like Mr. Rumsfeld's, had a monopoly on all the facts. It, too, had the "secret information." It alone had the true picture of the threat. It too dismissed and insulted its critics in terms like Mr. Rumsfeld's - questioning their intellect and their morality.
That government was England's, in the 1930's. >It knew Hitler posed no true threat to Europe, let alone England.
It knew Germany was not re-arming, in violation of all treaties and accords.
It knew that the hard evidence it received, which contradicted its own policies, its own conclusions - its own omniscience - needed to be dismissed.
The English government of Neville Chamberlain already knew the truth.
Most relevant of all - it "knew" that its staunchest critics needed to be marginalized and isolated. In fact, it portrayed the foremost of them as a blood-thirsty war-monger who was, if not truly senile, at best morally or intellectually confused.
That critic's name was Winston Churchill.
Sadly, we have no Winston Churchills evident among us this evening. We have only Donald Rumsfelds, demonizing disagreement, the way Neville Chamberlain demonized Winston Churchill.
History - and 163 million pounds of Luftwaffe bombs over England - have taught us that all Mr. Chamberlain had was his certainty - and his own confusion. A confusion that suggested that the office can not only make the man, but that the office can also make the facts.
Thus, did Mr. Rumsfeld make an apt historical analogy.
Excepting the fact, that he has the battery plugged in backwards. >His government, absolute - and exclusive - in its knowledge, is not the modern version of the one which stood up to the Nazis.
It is the modern version of the government of Neville Chamberlain.
But back to today's Omniscient ones.
That, about which Mr. Rumsfeld is confused is simply this: This is a Democracy. Still. Sometimes just barely.
And, as such, all voices count - not just his.
Had he or his president perhaps proven any of their prior claims of omniscience - about Osama Bin Laden's plans five years ago, about Saddam Hussein's weapons four years ago, about Hurricane Katrina's impact one year ago - we all might be able to swallow hard, and accept their "omniscience" as a bearable, even useful recipe, of fact, plus ego.
But, to date, this government has proved little besides its own arrogance, and its own hubris.
Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or intellectually, about his own standing in this matter. From Iraq to Katrina, to the entire "Fog of Fear" which continues to envelop this nation, he, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and their cronies have - inadvertently or intentionally - profited and benefited, both personally, and politically.
And yet he can stand up, in public, and question the morality and the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the Emporer's New Clothes?
In what country was Mr. Rumsfeld raised? As a child, of whose heroism did he read? On what side of the battle for freedom did he dream one day to fight? With what country has he confused the United States of America?
The confusion we - as its citizens- must now address, is stark and forbidding.
But variations of it have faced our forefathers, when men like Nixon and McCarthy and Curtis LeMay have darkened our skies and obscured our flag. Note - with hope in your heart - that those earlier Americans always found their way to the light, and we can, too.
The confusion is about whether this Secretary of Defense, and this administration, are in fact now accomplishing what they claim the terrorists seek: The destruction of our freedoms, the very ones for which the same veterans Mr. Rumsfeld addressed yesterday in Salt Lake City, so valiantly fought.
And about Mr. Rumsfeld's other main assertion, that this country faces a "new type of fascism."
As he was correct to remind us how a government that knew everything could get everything wrong, so too was he right when he said that - though probably not in the way he thought he meant it.
This country faces a new type of fascism - indeed.
Although I presumptuously use his sign-off each night, in feeble tribute, I have utterly no claim to the words of the exemplary journalist Edward R. Murrow.
But never in the trial of a thousand years of writing could I come close to matching how he phrased a warning to an earlier generation of us, at a time when other politicians thought they (and they alone) knew everything, and branded those who disagreed: "confused" or "immoral."
Thus, forgive me, for reading Murrow, in full:
"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty," he said, in 1954. "We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law.
"We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular."
This is something that evey American should read, so here is a taste follow the link to read the complete article.
THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK IS A PRIVATE COMPANY
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power to coin (create) money and regulate the value thereof. Today however, the FED, which is a privately owned company, controls and profits by printing money through the Treasury, and regulating its value. The FED began with approximately 300 people or banks that became owners (stockholders purchasing stock at $100 per share - the stock is not publicly traded) in the Federal Reserve Banking System. They make up an international banking cartel of wealth beyond comparison (Reference 1, 14). The FED banking system collects billions of dollars (Reference 8, 17) in interest annually and distributes the profits to its shareholders. The Congress illegally gave the FED the right to print money (through the Treasury) at no interest to the FED. The FED creates money from nothing, and loans it back to us through banks, and charges interest on our currency. The FED also buys Government debt with money printed on a printing press and charges U.S. taxpayers interest. Many Congressmen and Presidents say this is fraud (Reference 1,2,3,5,17). Who actually owns the Federal Reserve Central Banks? The ownership of the 12 Central banks, a very well kept secret, has been revealed: Rothschild Bank of London Warburg Bank of Hamburg Rothschild Bank of Berlin Lehman Brothers of New York Lazard Brothers of Paris Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy Goldman, Sachs of New York Warburg Bank of Amsterdam Chase Manhattan Bank of New York
THE SEARCH FOR TRUTHIS A DANGEROUS THING
by Harold Thomas
You are probably not aware and may find it hard to believe that: 1. There is no law which makes a citizen of the United States of America, working in the fifty states of the Union, liable for a tax on income or for the filing of a return. The entire code of laws purporting to impose income taxes on individuals and corporations should be and could easily be declared void for vagueness, but the vagueness is essential because the entire system is based on confusion and intimidation. Whether you believe this taxation should exist or not is not even relevant. Even if you think the government is great and taxation is necessary, you have a major problem if you are an honest individual. Your government is engaged in a major fraud and violation of many of the God-given rights of your fellow citizens, which rights are supposedly protected by the Constitution of the United States of America. I have communicated in great detail with "tax experts", attorneys, members of Congress, the Secretary of the United States Treasury, and the President of the United States, and the responses range from empty copouts to confused rationalization to the refusal to answer at all. Unless you are otherwise pleased to have made a gift of all that money to the IRS over the years, you have been financially raped! Perhaps you are, as I was for many years, grateful for the blessings of living in this great nation and fairly comfortable with paying to support the government which was protecting and helping to provide our way of life. Unfortunately, it is not that simple. Our "way of life" is, in a very real sense, merely the by-product and resource base of a hidden, powerful, international agenda belonging to people whose names and faces are largely anonymous and whose wealth, power, and position have been carefully guarded down through the centuries. This is just for openers. Read on. 2. There is virtually no money in circulation in the United States of America. There is only debt paper, Federal Reserve notes, backed by nothing and created out of thin air to be loaned AT INTEREST to the complicitly criminal United States government and the pathetically beguiled citizens of the fifty states. The Federal Reserve is not Federal at all. It is a private corporation (look it up in any encyclopedia) which is owned totally by member banks, the majority of which are FOREIGN owned! The Constitution provides and authorizes a reasonable and effective method for Congress to coin money and put it into circulation by paying for public works for the general welfare of the citizens. While the need to adapt the original Constitutional money system to a modern electronic era is certainly open to discussion, the results of the conspiracy of the Federal Reserve are apparent and about to come crashing down upon our heads. The idea of allowing a group of predominantly foreign bankers to create our money for us out of nothing and then charge us interest for the use of it should get your attention. If it doesn't, you have my permission to stop reading and go back to watching television or filling out the application for your next credit card. Volumes have been written on this subject and you should look into them, but let me summarize them as follows: a) The international bankers who own the Federal Reserve have become wealthy and powerful to a degree beyond anything the Emperor of Rome ever dreamed of and to a degree which, if you care about the future of your children and grandchildren, should scare you to death. b) The average American home is mortgaged to the hilt and declining in real market value. c) The average American family has multiple credit cards charged to the maximum, and as long as the minimum payment is made each month, new cards are gleefully provided by the banks. Americans are now charging groceries. d) The United States government is blatantly lying about its true levels of debt, the significance of that debt, most importantly, and who owns the debt. The federal government is, for all intents and purposes, insolvent, in that the true amount of federal debt, including so-called off-budget items and entitlements, is arguably close to $50,000.00 for each man, woman, and child in the U.S.A. I think we can safely agree that the average net worth of an American man, woman or child is well below $50,000.00. Hence, we are technically a bankrupt nation whose creditors are of the opinion that they own every piece of real property in the nation as well as the labor of its citizens far into the future. At the current rate of growth of the national debt, it will not be too many years before the combined gross income of all American taxpayers will not be enough to pay the interest on the national debt were every penny of it sent to the IRS. Probably long before this happens, our creditors (the international bankers) will have to put into action plans to take possession of that which they now believe they rightfully own (everything, including us). Now as you can imagine, they are not stupid enough to believe that process is going to go smoothly. Some of us have already been awakened, and many more will be as things begin to collapse. 3. Power in the world resides not in governments (much less citizens), but in the previously alluded to group of families and secret organizations who have seized and ruthlessly guarded their power down through many centuries. These people view the rest of humanity as so much cattle -- or "useless eaters". These families have wielded power over centuries by orchestrating wars, famines, civil unrest and the propping up and throwing down of governments to suit their interests. Sadly, these "elite" are quite right in some of their operative assumptions. The masses have, for various reasons including the deliberate manipulations of the "elite", come to be largely dependent, ignorant, soft and lazy. It can be argued that they deserve what is happening to them. Volumes are written on all sides of this subject, but the bottom line of it all for me is that the "elite" are uncaring, dishonest, utterly selfish and wicked. They represent all that is dark and evil in the creation, and they must be opposed and defeated. If even a portion of the material I have studied is correct, there is no other conclusion to be reached for those who would preserve an atmosphere of caring and liberty for the human family.
Transcript of Meeting Between Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie. - July 25, 1990
(Eight days before the August 2, 1990 Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait)
July 25, 1990 - Presidential Palace - Baghdad
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (pause) As you know, I lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. (pause) We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threat s against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship - not confrontation - regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?
Saddam Hussein - As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - What solutions would be acceptab le?
Saddam Hussein - If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)
On August 2, 1990, Saddam's massed troops invade and occupy Kuwait. _____
Baghdad, September 2, 1990, U.S. Embassy
One month later, British journalists obtain the the above tape and transcript of the Saddam - Glaspie meeting of July 29, 1990. Astounded, they confront Ms. Glaspie as she leaves the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.
Journalist 1 - Are the transcripts (holding them up) correct, Madam Ambassador?(Ambassador Glaspie does not respond)
Journalist 2 - You knew Saddam was going to invade (Kuwait ) but you didn't warn him not to. You didn't tell him America would defend Kuwait. You told him the opposite - that America was not associated with Kuwait.
Journalist 1 - You encouraged this aggression - his invasi on. What were you thinking?
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait.
Journalist 1 - You thought he was just going to take some of it? But, how could you? Saddam told you that, if negotiations failed , he would give up his Iran (Shatt al Arab waterway) goal for the Whole of Iraq, in the shape we wish it to be. You know that includes Kuwait, which the Iraqis have always viewed as an historic part of their country!
Journalist 1 - American green-lighted the invasion. At a minimum, you admit signaling Saddam that some aggression was okay - that the U.S. would not oppose a grab of the al-Rumeilah oil field, the disputed border strip and the Gulf Islands (including Bubiyan) - the territories claimed by Iraq?
(Ambassador Glaspie says nothing as a limousine door closed behind her and the car drives off.)
September 9, 2006
C.I.A. Said to Find No Hussein Link to Terror Chief
By MARK MAZZETTI
WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 — The Central Intelligence Agency last fall repudiated the claim that there were prewar ties between Saddam Hussein’s government and an operative of Al Qaeda, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, according to a report issued Friday by the Senate Intelligence Committee.
The disclosure undercuts continuing assertions by the Bush administration that such ties existed, and that they provided evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The Republican-controlled committee, in a second report, also sharply criticized the administration for its reliance on the Iraqi National Congress during the prelude to the war in Iraq.
The findings are part of a continuing inquiry by the committee into prewar intelligence about Iraq. The conclusions went beyond its earlier findings, issued in the summer of 2004, by including criticism not just of American intelligence agencies but also of the administration.
Several Republicans strongly dissented on the report with conclusions about the Iraqi National Congress, saying they overstated the role that the exile group had played in the prewar intelligence assessments about Iraq. But the committee overwhelmingly approved the other report, with only one Republican senator voting against it.
The reports did not address the politically divisive question of whether the Bush administration had exaggerated or misused intelligence as part of its effort to win support for the war. But one report did contradict the admiadministrations asertions, made before the war and since, that ties between Mr. Zarqawi and Mr. Hussein’s government provided evidence of a close relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. <BR>As recently as Aug. 21, President Bush said at a news conference that Mr. Hussein “had relations with Zarqawi.’’ But a C.I.A. report completed in October 2005 concluded instead that Mr. Hussein’s government “did not have a relationship, harbor or even turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates,” according to the new Senate findings.
The C.I.A. report also contradicted claims made in February 2003 by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who mentioned Mr. Zarqawi no fewer than 20 times during a speech to the United Nations Security Council that made the administration’s case for going to war. In that speech, Mr. Powell said that Iraq “today harbors a deadly terrorist network’’ headed by Mr. Zarqawi, and dismissed as “not credible’’ assertions by the Iraqi government that it had no knowledge of Mr. Zarqawi’s whereabouts.
The panel concluded that Mr. Hussein regarded Al Qaeda as a threat rather than a potential ally, and that the Iraqi intelligence service “actively attempted to locate and capture al-Zarqawi without success.’’
One of the reports by the committee criticized a decision by the National Security Council in 2002 to maintain a close relationship with the Iraqi National Congress, headed by the exile leader Ahmad Chalabi, even after the C.I.A. and the Defense Intelligence Agency had warned that “the I.N.C was penetrated by hostile intelligence services,” notably Iran.
The report concluded that the organization had provided a large volume of flawed intelligence to the United States about Iraq, and concluded that the group “attempted to influence United States policy on Iraq by providing false information through defectors directed at convincing the United States that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and had links to terrorists.”
The findings were released at an inopportune time for the Bush administration, which has spent the week trying to turn voters’ attention away from the missteps on Iraq and toward the more comfortable political territory of the continued terrorist threat. On Friday, the White House spokesman, Tony Snow, played down the reports, saying that they contained “nothing new” and were “re-litigating things that happened three years ago.”
“The important thing to do is to figure out what you’re doing tomorrow, and the day after, and the month after, and the year after to make sure that this war on terror is won,” Mr. Snow said.
The two reports released Friday were expected to be the least controversial aspects of what remains of the Senate committee’s investigation, which will eventually address whether the Bush administration’s assertions about Iraq accurately reflected the available intelligence. But unanticipated delays caused them to be released in the heat of the fall political campaign.
The reports were approved by the committee in August, but went through a monthlong declassification process. It was Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, the committee’s Republican chairman, who set early September as the release date. The committee’s report in 2004, which lambasted intelligence agencies for vastly overestimating the state of Iraq’s nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs, was issued with unanimous approval. But the reports released Friday provided evidence of how much the relationship between Republicans and Democrats on the committee had degenerated over the past two years.
A set of conclusions that included criticism of the administration’s ties with the Iraqi National Congress was opposed by several Republicans on the panel, including Mr. Roberts, but was approved with the support of two Republicans, Chuck Hagel, of Nebraska, and Olympia Snowe, of Maine, along with all seven Democrats. Senator Roberts even took the unusual step of disavowing the conclusions about the role played by the Iraqi National Congress, saying that they were “misleading and are not supported by the facts.”
The report about the group’s role concluded that faulty intelligence from the group made its way into several prewar intelligence reports, including the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that directly preceded the Senate vote on the Iraq war. It says that sources introduced to American intelligence by the group directly influenced two key judgments of that document: that Mr. Hussein possessed mobile biological weapons laboratories and that he was trying to reconstitute his nuclear program.
The report said there was insufficient evidence to determine whether one of the most notorious of the intelligence sources used by the United States before the Iraq war was tied to the Iraqi National Congress. The source, an Iraqi who was code-named Curveball, was a crucial source for the American view that Mr. Hussein had a mobile biological weapons program, but the information that he provided was later entirely discredited.
The report said other mistaken information about Iraq’s biological program had been provided by a source linked to the Iraqi National Congress, and it said the intelligence agencies’ use of the information had “constituted a serious error.’’
The dissenting opinion, signed by Mr. Roberts and four other Republican members of the committee, minimized the role played by Mr. Chalabi’s group. “Information from the I.N.C. and I.N.C.-affiliated defectors was not widely used in intelligence community products and played little role in the intelligence community’s judgments about Iraq’s W.M.D. programs,” the Republicans said.
Francis Brooke, a spokesman for the Iraqi National Congress, called the report “tendentious, partisan and misleading,” and said that the group had not played a central role as the Bush administration built the case for war.
At the same time, Mr. Brooke said his organization was surprised at how little the American government knew about Mr. Hussein’s government before the war, which may have forced the American officials to rely more heavily on the organization. “We did not realize the paucity of human intelligence that the administration had on Iraq,” he said.
There Is Fascism, Indeed
By Keith Olbermann MSNBC
Wednesday 30 August 2006
The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack.
Donald H. Rumsfeld is not a prophet.
Mr. Rumsfeld's remarkable speech to the American Legion yesterday demands the deep analysis-and the sober contemplation-of every American.
For it did not merely serve to impugn the morality or intelligence - indeed, the loyalty - of the majority of Americans who oppose the transient occupants of the highest offices in the land. Worse, still, it credits those same transient occupants - our employees - with a total omniscience; a total omniscience which neither common sense, nor this administration's track record at home or abroad, suggests they deserve.
Dissent and disagreement with government is the life's blood of human freedom; and not merely because it is the first roadblock against the kind of tyranny the men Mr. Rumsfeld likes to think of as "his" troops still fight, this very evening, in Iraq.
It is also essential. Because just every once in awhile it is right and the power to which it speaks, is wrong.
In a small irony, however, Mr. Rumsfeld's speechwriter was adroit in invoking the memory of the appeasement of the Nazis. For in their time, there was another government faced with true peril-with a growing evil-powerful and remorseless.
That government, like Mr. Rumsfeld's, had a monopoly on all the facts. It, too, had the "secret information." It alone had the true picture of the threat. It too dismissed and insulted its critics in terms like Mr. Rumsfeld's - questioning their intellect and their morality.
That government was England's, in the 1930's. >It knew Hitler posed no true threat to Europe, let alone England.
It knew Germany was not re-arming, in violation of all treaties and accords.
It knew that the hard evidence it received, which contradicted its own policies, its own conclusions - its own omniscience - needed to be dismissed.
The English government of Neville Chamberlain already knew the truth.
Most relevant of all - it "knew" that its staunchest critics needed to be marginalized and isolated. In fact, it portrayed the foremost of them as a blood-thirsty war-monger who was, if not truly senile, at best morally or intellectually confused.
That critic's name was Winston Churchill.
Sadly, we have no Winston Churchills evident among us this evening. We have only Donald Rumsfelds, demonizing disagreement, the way Neville Chamberlain demonized Winston Churchill.
History - and 163 million pounds of Luftwaffe bombs over England - have taught us that all Mr. Chamberlain had was his certainty - and his own confusion. A confusion that suggested that the office can not only make the man, but that the office can also make the facts.
Thus, did Mr. Rumsfeld make an apt historical analogy.
Excepting the fact, that he has the battery plugged in backwards. >His government, absolute - and exclusive - in its knowledge, is not the modern version of the one which stood up to the Nazis.
It is the modern version of the government of Neville Chamberlain.
But back to today's Omniscient ones.
That, about which Mr. Rumsfeld is confused is simply this: This is a Democracy. Still. Sometimes just barely.
And, as such, all voices count - not just his.
Had he or his president perhaps proven any of their prior claims of omniscience - about Osama Bin Laden's plans five years ago, about Saddam Hussein's weapons four years ago, about Hurricane Katrina's impact one year ago - we all might be able to swallow hard, and accept their "omniscience" as a bearable, even useful recipe, of fact, plus ego.
But, to date, this government has proved little besides its own arrogance, and its own hubris.
Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or intellectually, about his own standing in this matter. From Iraq to Katrina, to the entire "Fog of Fear" which continues to envelop this nation, he, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and their cronies have - inadvertently or intentionally - profited and benefited, both personally, and politically.
And yet he can stand up, in public, and question the morality and the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the Emporer's New Clothes?
In what country was Mr. Rumsfeld raised? As a child, of whose heroism did he read? On what side of the battle for freedom did he dream one day to fight? With what country has he confused the United States of America?
The confusion we - as its citizens- must now address, is stark and forbidding.
But variations of it have faced our forefathers, when men like Nixon and McCarthy and Curtis LeMay have darkened our skies and obscured our flag. Note - with hope in your heart - that those earlier Americans always found their way to the light, and we can, too.
The confusion is about whether this Secretary of Defense, and this administration, are in fact now accomplishing what they claim the terrorists seek: The destruction of our freedoms, the very ones for which the same veterans Mr. Rumsfeld addressed yesterday in Salt Lake City, so valiantly fought.
And about Mr. Rumsfeld's other main assertion, that this country faces a "new type of fascism."
As he was correct to remind us how a government that knew everything could get everything wrong, so too was he right when he said that - though probably not in the way he thought he meant it.
This country faces a new type of fascism - indeed.
Although I presumptuously use his sign-off each night, in feeble tribute, I have utterly no claim to the words of the exemplary journalist Edward R. Murrow.
But never in the trial of a thousand years of writing could I come close to matching how he phrased a warning to an earlier generation of us, at a time when other politicians thought they (and they alone) knew everything, and branded those who disagreed: "confused" or "immoral."
Thus, forgive me, for reading Murrow, in full:
"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty," he said, in 1954. "We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law.
"We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular."
This is something that evey American should read, so here is a taste follow the link to read the complete article.
THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK IS A PRIVATE COMPANY
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power to coin (create) money and regulate the value thereof. Today however, the FED, which is a privately owned company, controls and profits by printing money through the Treasury, and regulating its value. The FED began with approximately 300 people or banks that became owners (stockholders purchasing stock at $100 per share - the stock is not publicly traded) in the Federal Reserve Banking System. They make up an international banking cartel of wealth beyond comparison (Reference 1, 14). The FED banking system collects billions of dollars (Reference 8, 17) in interest annually and distributes the profits to its shareholders. The Congress illegally gave the FED the right to print money (through the Treasury) at no interest to the FED. The FED creates money from nothing, and loans it back to us through banks, and charges interest on our currency. The FED also buys Government debt with money printed on a printing press and charges U.S. taxpayers interest. Many Congressmen and Presidents say this is fraud (Reference 1,2,3,5,17). Who actually owns the Federal Reserve Central Banks? The ownership of the 12 Central banks, a very well kept secret, has been revealed: Rothschild Bank of London Warburg Bank of Hamburg Rothschild Bank of Berlin Lehman Brothers of New York Lazard Brothers of Paris Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy Goldman, Sachs of New York Warburg Bank of Amsterdam Chase Manhattan Bank of New York
THE SEARCH FOR TRUTHIS A DANGEROUS THING
by Harold Thomas
You are probably not aware and may find it hard to believe that: 1. There is no law which makes a citizen of the United States of America, working in the fifty states of the Union, liable for a tax on income or for the filing of a return. The entire code of laws purporting to impose income taxes on individuals and corporations should be and could easily be declared void for vagueness, but the vagueness is essential because the entire system is based on confusion and intimidation. Whether you believe this taxation should exist or not is not even relevant. Even if you think the government is great and taxation is necessary, you have a major problem if you are an honest individual. Your government is engaged in a major fraud and violation of many of the God-given rights of your fellow citizens, which rights are supposedly protected by the Constitution of the United States of America. I have communicated in great detail with "tax experts", attorneys, members of Congress, the Secretary of the United States Treasury, and the President of the United States, and the responses range from empty copouts to confused rationalization to the refusal to answer at all. Unless you are otherwise pleased to have made a gift of all that money to the IRS over the years, you have been financially raped! Perhaps you are, as I was for many years, grateful for the blessings of living in this great nation and fairly comfortable with paying to support the government which was protecting and helping to provide our way of life. Unfortunately, it is not that simple. Our "way of life" is, in a very real sense, merely the by-product and resource base of a hidden, powerful, international agenda belonging to people whose names and faces are largely anonymous and whose wealth, power, and position have been carefully guarded down through the centuries. This is just for openers. Read on. 2. There is virtually no money in circulation in the United States of America. There is only debt paper, Federal Reserve notes, backed by nothing and created out of thin air to be loaned AT INTEREST to the complicitly criminal United States government and the pathetically beguiled citizens of the fifty states. The Federal Reserve is not Federal at all. It is a private corporation (look it up in any encyclopedia) which is owned totally by member banks, the majority of which are FOREIGN owned! The Constitution provides and authorizes a reasonable and effective method for Congress to coin money and put it into circulation by paying for public works for the general welfare of the citizens. While the need to adapt the original Constitutional money system to a modern electronic era is certainly open to discussion, the results of the conspiracy of the Federal Reserve are apparent and about to come crashing down upon our heads. The idea of allowing a group of predominantly foreign bankers to create our money for us out of nothing and then charge us interest for the use of it should get your attention. If it doesn't, you have my permission to stop reading and go back to watching television or filling out the application for your next credit card. Volumes have been written on this subject and you should look into them, but let me summarize them as follows: a) The international bankers who own the Federal Reserve have become wealthy and powerful to a degree beyond anything the Emperor of Rome ever dreamed of and to a degree which, if you care about the future of your children and grandchildren, should scare you to death. b) The average American home is mortgaged to the hilt and declining in real market value. c) The average American family has multiple credit cards charged to the maximum, and as long as the minimum payment is made each month, new cards are gleefully provided by the banks. Americans are now charging groceries. d) The United States government is blatantly lying about its true levels of debt, the significance of that debt, most importantly, and who owns the debt. The federal government is, for all intents and purposes, insolvent, in that the true amount of federal debt, including so-called off-budget items and entitlements, is arguably close to $50,000.00 for each man, woman, and child in the U.S.A. I think we can safely agree that the average net worth of an American man, woman or child is well below $50,000.00. Hence, we are technically a bankrupt nation whose creditors are of the opinion that they own every piece of real property in the nation as well as the labor of its citizens far into the future. At the current rate of growth of the national debt, it will not be too many years before the combined gross income of all American taxpayers will not be enough to pay the interest on the national debt were every penny of it sent to the IRS. Probably long before this happens, our creditors (the international bankers) will have to put into action plans to take possession of that which they now believe they rightfully own (everything, including us). Now as you can imagine, they are not stupid enough to believe that process is going to go smoothly. Some of us have already been awakened, and many more will be as things begin to collapse. 3. Power in the world resides not in governments (much less citizens), but in the previously alluded to group of families and secret organizations who have seized and ruthlessly guarded their power down through many centuries. These people view the rest of humanity as so much cattle -- or "useless eaters". These families have wielded power over centuries by orchestrating wars, famines, civil unrest and the propping up and throwing down of governments to suit their interests. Sadly, these "elite" are quite right in some of their operative assumptions. The masses have, for various reasons including the deliberate manipulations of the "elite", come to be largely dependent, ignorant, soft and lazy. It can be argued that they deserve what is happening to them. Volumes are written on all sides of this subject, but the bottom line of it all for me is that the "elite" are uncaring, dishonest, utterly selfish and wicked. They represent all that is dark and evil in the creation, and they must be opposed and defeated. If even a portion of the material I have studied is correct, there is no other conclusion to be reached for those who would preserve an atmosphere of caring and liberty for the human family.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)