Monday, April 06, 2009

"Red herring" of "Red China" in Bennett murder case


"Red herring" of "Red China" in Bennett murder case

On April 3, WMR reported, "When NBC-4 in Washington, DC was fed a story from an 'intelligence source' that CIA officer William Bennett's brutal bludgeoning murder on March 22 may have been linked to his work for the CIA that resulted in the U.S. bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, the station was being misled with a red herring. WMR's Chinese sources report that the U.S. bombing of the Chinese embassy on May 7, 1999, was no mistake and it was targeted as a result of a decision by then-director of the National Security Agency (NSA) General Michael Hayden to target the facility because its communications center was sending burst transmissions to Yugoslav army units in Kosovo from the Yugoslav military high command in Belgrade."

It appears that certain quarters are intent on trying to pin Bennett's murder on the Chinese in an act of retribution, even though such a move would be all but unthinkable a few weeks before President Barack Obama's first meeting with Chinese Presient Hu Jintao at the G20 Summit in London.

"The Cable," which is operated by the always-dubious neocon-owned and operated Washington Post is also running a piece suggesting Bennett was murdered in a Chinese retaliatory attack. The article states "In 1999, sources bring to our attention, Bennett was a retired Army lieutenant colonel working at the CIA on contract as a targeter during the 78-day NATO air war on Kosovo. He was one of the people, according to a former U.S. intelligence source, who was later found responsible by the Agency for feeding the target into the system that resulted in the May 7, 1999 NATO bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade . . . The former U.S. intelligence source says Bennett was fired as a consequence of the CIA investigation into how the Chinese embassy was targeted." The Cable also reported its source told them that Bennett was the only CIA officer fired as a result of the Chinese embassy bombing while sanctioning six others."

WMR's own intelligence sources report on the NSA and CIA mission that targeted the Chinese embassy not by mistake but on purpose.

On April 3, WMR's report stated: "The embassy was also transmitting television signals that were being used as part of a passive detection system used to track U.S. Air Force stealth aircraft over Yugoslavia. On March 27, 1999, the Yugoslav army, with the assistance of the Chinese long wavelength detection system, was able to spot a stealth F-117 and shoot it down. The Pentagon gave China an ultimatum to return the F-117's cloaking system that was recovered by Yugoslavian military units from the wreckage and turned it over to the Chinese. The Chinese Foreign Ministry, like the Clinton White House, was reportedly kept out of the loop on the serious military confrontation between the Pentagon and the Chinese People's Liberation Army and intelligence services. There was a leak to the media by a CIA officer or officers out of the NATO base in Vicenza, Italy concerning the targeting of the Chinese embassy and it just so happens that Bennett was stationed at the base during the Yugoslav campaign."

WMR can report the following further details on the attack on the Chinese embassy: The Chinese radar system that was used by the Serbs to bring down the F-117 used a form of passive pulse Doppler radar that operates in the long wave television broadcast band from 50 to 88 MHz on television channels 2 through 6. It used the synchronous pulses generated by a high power television transmitter for its timing source, usually synchronized by a global positioning system (GPS). The mobile radar station is merely a receiver and a directional antenna in receive-only mode. The signals are fed into a laptop computer with a GPS receiver for timing purposes. All stealth aircraft (F-117/F-22) with a wing span between 25 and 75 feet will self resonate and "light up" when exposed to high power radar signals in the TV band.

According to our intelligence sources, the system was used in Yugoslavia by the Chinese to demonstrate there anti-stealth technology to the United States. Algeria's radio-electronic combat troops were also testing the anti-stealth radar system in 1997 on behalf of the Russians.

A U.S. intelligence source who examined the Russian radar system while being tested in Algeria discovered the original software documents used by the anti-stealth system were written in Hebrew and were provided by the Israelis to the Russians. The Russians were using their partially Israeli-developed anti-stealth radar system to track the high altitude stealth Aurora testing that was going on in the skies above North Africa at the time.

The Israelis developed a highly-advanced and portable version of the radar that they sold to both the Russians and the Chinese. In addition, this system is part of the advance early warning radar system used by the Russian S-300 missile system, which Russia has agreed to provide to Iran. The system, according to U.S. intelligence sources, uses software copied from the Patriot missile system sold by the United States to Israel.

On April 7, 1992, the Toronto Star reported that Chinese military attaches in the Netherlands and Syria told American diplomats that Israel passed classified Patriot technology to China. The Chinese disclosures confirmed earlier CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) reports that Israel had passed on Patriot technology to China following the deployment of Patriot missile batteries to Israel during Operation Desert Storm.

Israelis operated two Patriot batteries at military installations along its coast -- one north of Tel Aviv and the other south of Haifa.

ABC News reported in 1992 that the Israelis tried to claim that it was the Saudis who passed Patriot missile secrets to China. It was Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney rejected the Israeli allegation about the Saudis, stating to ABC News that "I don't believe it has any credibility. All the Patriots that are in Saudi Arabia are manned by Americans. There are no Patriots manned by Saudis."

The George H. W. Bush administration dispatched a team of Defense and State Department and CIA inspectors to Israel on March 19, 1992, to check out the Israeli passing of Patriot secrets to China. The Israeli government condemned the move as an act of an "untrusting ally." The National Security Agency (NSA) and its Hebrew linguists conducted a full-scale signals intelligence operation targeting Israeli communications with Chinese parties. U.S. spy satellites ordered over the the Patriot missile battery areas provided detailed imagery that allowed analysts to check on suspicious activity and movement of vehicles prior to the arrival of the U.S. inspection team.

In 1997, the FBI raided the Southville, Michigan home of U.S. Army Tank, Automotive and Armaments Command (TAACOM) engineer David Tannenbaum. FBI agents confiscated documents, phone call records, and computer disks that reportedly included classified documents on the Patriot missile system. CNN reported that Tannenbaum, in an affidavit, said he "inadvertently provided" the information to Israel. The FBI suspected that Tannenbaum provided classified information to Israeli liaison officers over a ten year period. The FBI later dropped its investigation of Tannenbaum. The government of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu quickly denied any knowledge of the affair.

In 2008, Ben-Ami Kadish, a retired engineer for the U.S. Army's Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center at the Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey, was charged with passing Patriot missile technology, in addition to other military secrets, to Israel during his long stint as a spy for Mossad handlers in New York and Washington. It is believed by FBI investigators that computer components from the Patriot system were passed by Kadish to his Mossad handlers and that this technology was then passed to China.

One of Mossad's top foreign liaison officers was Uzi Arad, who not only spied abroad but collected sensitive military technology for the Israelis, including Patriot missile technology. He was one of the handlers involved in the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) espionage ring of Larry Franklin, Steve Rosen, and Keith Weissman. Arad is now the National Security Council chairman for the Israeli government but is denied a U.S. visa because of his past espionage activities in the United States.

WMR has been informed that a classified report on Israel's transfer of Patriot and other sensitive military technology to Russia and China, including that which was used against U.S. stealth aircraft during the Kosovo war, exists within the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

Since the S-300 is a Russian clone of the Patriot missile system, the Israelis are apoplectic over the notion that Iran could deploy it. The system's passive radar cannot be detected and destroyed by normal anti-radiation systems such as Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) or Wild Weasel Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) systems. . The anti-stealth S-300 technology is said to be so good that it forced the retirement of the SR-71 Blackbird from the U.S. stealth air reconnaissance fleet. Apparently, the U.S. Air Force hopes to retire the F-117 for the same reason. The F-22 Raptor has also been rendered useless because of widespread deployment of the anti-stealth radar system by the Russians and Chinese. The system is currently being tested in Syria and North Korea and has been sold to India.

Our sources claim the Israelis are simply engaged in covering up there illegal technology transfers and Bennett's knowledge of the Israeli operation earned him a death sentence, likely carried out by a Russian-Israeli "Kosher Nostra" mob cell from Florida. The perpetrators of Bennett's murder are not to be found in the Far East but the Middle East....

- Bush and Obama Administrations Both Broke Law By Refusing to Close Insolvent Banks

- Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

- Magic Thermite and the 9/11 Fairytale: You might want to also ask yourself if five dancing Afghanis; five dancing Iraqis or five dancing Iranians were discovered in the area of New York City on 9/11.

- The planned destruction of international law

- Procuring Academics for Empire: The Pentagon Minerva Research Initiative -


Sunday, April 05, 2009

Israel's MOSSAD, CIA and 9/11, the game is over....


Israel's MOSSAD, CIA and 9/11, the game is over....
911 Made by israel


Evidence of Thermite and active Thermite found in the WTC (microscropic electronic picture).


Proof of the Conspiracy: The Evidence of Thermite on 9-11
Christopher Bollyn,


http://www.bollyn.com/


April 4, 2009

This evidence is conclusive that Thermite was used to destroy the World Trade Center. This is the crucial evidence of demolition with Thermite. This is why Dr. Jones and Christopher Bollyn were attacked in August-September 2006 and removed from their positions. The game is over. This is the scientific proof that the towers were brought down with Thermite. The Truth will prevail.
Full evidence detailed in the latest article :

Is Henry Kissinger Setting Obama's Foreign Policy?


Most wanted war criminals on earth : Peres and Kissinger


Is Henry Kissinger Setting Obama's Foreign Policy?


http://www.bollyn.com/


Americans who voted for the change promised by Barack Obama would probably have been disturbed to see Henry Kissinger, an 85-year-old "warhorse" from the Nixon administration and the Vietnam War era meeting with the leaders of Russia during an "informal" summit on March 19-20. Kissinger's recent meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev was actually his third meeting, at least, since Medvedev was elected and his second since Obama was elected. So who's running U.S. foreign policy?

One might ask, "This is change?" Isn't Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in charge of U.S. foreign policy? What position does Henry Kissinger have in the Obama administration and why is he meeting with the Russian leadership before Clinton and Obama? Who does Henry Kissinger serve and why is he crafting U.S. foreign policy?

The best answer to these questions came directly from Obama's National Security Adviser, Jim Jones, when he spoke in Munich's Hotel Bayerischer Hof on February 8, 2009:

Thank you for that wonderful tribute to Henry Kissinger yesterday. Congratulations. As the most recent National Security Advisor of the United States, I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger, filtered down through General Brent Scowcroft and Sandy Berger, who is also here. We have a chain of command in the National Security Council that exists today.

Jim Jones, Obama's National Security Adviser, admitted that he takes his daily orders from Dr. Henry Kissinger. He was not joking. His speech can be read on the White House website.

This is how the Chicago Tribune and its sister paper the Los Angeles Times explained Kissinger's recent visit to Moscow:

To "reset" relations with Russia, an old diplomatic warhorse is back on the path. Henry Kissinger, the architect of Cold War detente with the Soviet Union, met informally with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to try to smooth over a new generation of animosities between the countries.

And:

The octogenarian Republican is an improbable emissary to push the diplomatic line of a young Democratic president. But here he was in Moscow on Friday [March 20]: Henry Kissinger, the architect of Cold War detente with the Soviet Union, meeting informally with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to try to smooth over a new generation of animosities between the two countries.

Interfax, the Russian news service, reported that the purpose of Kissinger's visit was to help organize a meeting between Obama and Medvedev and arrange Obama's visit to Moscow. The White House denied that Kissinger had been sent by President Barack Obama. "They're private citizens and not there at the behest of the White House," said an administration official, discussing the contacts on condition of anonymity. "But they did inform the White House beforehand."

Wait a minute. If the White House did not send Kissinger, but Kissinger is organizing a meeting between Presidents Obama and Medvedev, who is really running the White House and why is Kissinger discussing U.S. foreign policy with the leaders of Russia? This visit by Kissinger to Moscow is the clearest signal to that the Obama White House is controlled by Kissinger and his fellow Elders of Zion. Why else has the news of this visit been suppressed in the mainstream media.

Obama, it should be remembered, refused to comment on Israel's criminal assault on Gaza in January because he did not think it was proper, as president-elect, to voice his opinion while George W. Bush was still president. Obama said that he would "have plenty to say" about Gaza after January 20, yet he has not said anything meaningful about the situation and kept his envoy from even visiting the devastated Gaza Strip. Well, Mr. Obama, how proper is it for Henry Kissinger to speak for the United States government to the Russian leaders?

Kissinger, it should be noted, is very close to Maurice "Hank" Greenberg the former head of A.I.G./CIA, the corrupt insurance company which has funneled a large part of the incredible amount of $180 billion received from the U.S. government to private banks such as Goldman Sachs. Kissinger became chairman of A.I.G.'s International Advisory Board in 1987. Greenberg's name, like Kissinger's, is kept out of the media discussion of A.I.G./CIA, which is like talking about the development of Ford Motor Company without mentioning Henry Ford. Why is Kissinger's role in crafting U.S. policy and in the criminally corrupt A.I.G./CIA not discussed in the U.S. media as he discusses U.S. foreign policy with Russia's leaders?

Avec la complicité occidentale, la Syrie compte échapper au Tribunal international pour le Liban





Avec la complicité occidentale, la Syrie compte échapper au Tribunal international pour le Liban

Des officiers supérieurs syriens, ayant exécuté Hariri, auraient disparu à Damas

Une course est engagée entre le Tribunal international spécial pour le Liban, installé le 1er mars aux Pays-Bas pour juger les commanditaires et les exécutants de Rafic Hariri et responsables de plusieurs crimes terroristes au Liban, et le régime syrien qui cherche à échapper à la justice et à prolonger son immunité. Trois officiers syriens qui ont régné sur le Liban pendant l’occupation ont d’ores et déjà disparu.

Pour négocier son immunité, le régime syrien s’est littéralement couché devant les Américains après avoir berné les Européens. Il fait miroiter sa disponibilité à négocier avec Israël, tout en rappelant ses capacités de nuisance à Gaza. Il propose d’ouvrir ses frontières et son territoire aux Américains pour faciliter leur retrait d’Irak. Il propose de coopérer dans la lutte contre le terrorisme, tout en finançant et armant les terroristes de tous bords : les sunnites d’Al-Qaïda en Irak, les Chiites du Hezbollah au Liban, les laïcs des organisations palestiniennes... La Syrie tente aussi de réhabiliter le Hezbollah libanais en Occident. Londres vient d’accorder un visa à l’un des dirigeants du parti de Dieu, afin de négocier un échange de prisonniers en Irak. Le Hezbollah réclame la libération de l’un des chefs militaires détenu par les Britanniques (il entraînait les milices chiites à Bassorah), et propose sa médiation pour libérer un ressortissant anglais enlevé en Mésopotamie depuis plusieurs années...

Parallèlement, Bachar Al-Assad défend le président soudanais Omar Al-Bachir face à la Cour Pénale Internationale, pour se protéger lui-même de la justice. Il réclame en revanche le jugement des responsables israéliens et américains qui ont commis les crimes à Gaza et en Irak...

Par ces manœuvres complexes, que certains comparent à la « prostitution étatique », Damas cherche à gonfler artificiellement le torse et à montrer ses dents pour mieux négocier l’immunité de son régime. La Syrie sait que les Américains sont à deux doigts de capituler en Afghanistan, qu’ils appellent Téhéran au secours et que la nouvelle administration a déjà décrété la fin de la guerre contre le terrorisme dans sa forme actuelle. Les Syriens se félicitent également d’avoir vaincu les Européens, non pas grâce à leur propre puissance, mais juste en exploitant la lâcheté de ces derniers, leur désunion et leur masochisme...

Dans ce contexte qui lui est favorable, le régime syrien examine le meilleur scénario qui lui permettra d’échapper à la justice, en éliminant les témoins encombrants. Une promesse aurait été donnée par les Européens (des responsables onusiens et des conseillers de Nicolas Sarkozy, selon « Elaph.com ») selon laquelle ni le Président Assad ni ses proches (son frère Maher et son beau-frère Assef Chawkate) ne seront convoqués par le TPI dans le procès Hariri. Par contre, le TPI se contentera de convoquer les témoins de second rang. Or, « Elaph.com » affirme ce 1er avril (pas un poisson d’avril) que trois officiers ayant servi au Liban pendant l’occupation, et qui sont cités à comparaitre devant le TPI, ont récemment disparu en Syrie. Il s’agit du « véritable gouverneur syrien du Liban » Rustom Ghazalé, de son adjoint Jameh Jameh, et d’un officier des renseignements en poste à Beyrouth en 2005, le colonel Jamal Abou Jamal. Leur disparition est intervenue quelques jours seulement avant que le TPI ne réclame du Liban la remise de tous les dossiers relatifs à l’enquête sur l’assassinat de Hariri.

Les trois officiers syriens seraient, selon les mêmes sources, emprisonnés par le régime. Assad redoute en effet leur fuite à l’étranger. Sous la pression et se sentant sacrifiés, les officiers risquent de livrer tous leurs secrets, impliquant Assad et son entourage dans le terrorisme d’Etat au Liban. Aussi, en cas de convocation, Assad pourra les juger et les exécuter en Syrie, pour effacer toute trace de sa culpabilité. Enfin, le président syrien pourra simplement refuser de les livrer, prétextant leur disparition.

Synthèse de Khaled Asmar, d’après « Elaph.com »

(Pour des raisons encore indéterminées, « Elaph.com » a retiré son article peu de temps après sa publication. Mais l’ayant imprimé, nous le mettons à disposition en format PDF)

Saturday, April 04, 2009

AFPAK Proxy wars and dress rehearsal for horrors to come


AFPAK Proxy wars and dress rehearsal for horrors to come

Monday’s brazen assault on a police academy in Lahore, Pakistan’s second largest city and cultural capital, is a grim reminder that the “killing season” has begun in earnest across Central- and South Asia.

At least 13 police recruits were killed and another 100 wounded, according to Dawn.

The Lahore assault followed the horrific Jamrud mosque suicide bombing March 27 in the Khyber Agency that killed upwards of 80 people during Friday prayers.

The raid by as yet unknown gunmen is a stark demonstration to Lahore residents that last month’s attack on the Sri Lankan national cricket team, also carried out by heavily armed and well-trained commandos, was not a one-off affair but the opening round in a destabilization operation by any number of suspects.

Pakistani Taliban, the Afghan-Arab database of disposable Western intelligence assets also known as al-Qaeda, as well as militants “trained-up fierce” by Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI) and America’s CIA have all been named as the responsible parties. Fleshing out the rogues’ gallery one finds: Baitullah Mehsud’s Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET), Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LEJ), or, when all else fails, a “foreign hand,” e.g. India’s Research and Analysis Wing (RAW).

Given the modus operandi of the attack, one cannot preclude Lashkar-e-Jhangvi. LEJ is a virulently anti-Shia sectarian outfit that evolved from the neo-Wahabbi Sipah-e-Sahaba during the 1990s. With strong connections to Pakistan’s military intelligence agency, the group served as a training ground for notables such as the operational whiz-kid behind the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, Ramzi Yousef, and the reputed “mastermind” of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Like LET, the LEJ has aligned itself–and fought alongside–the Afghan Taliban and, according to some analysts, was involved in the 2002 kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Journal investigative reporter Daniel Pearl; a murder orchestrated by ISI asset and 9/11 bagman, former London School of Economics student Omar Saeed Sheikh.

Historically, LET and LEJ have been ISI proxies and have targeted leftist and secular opponents of the shadowy intelligence agency as well as serving as a cats’ paw for plausibly deniable attacks against Pakistan’s geopolitical rival India.

On Tuesday however, Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan chieftain Mehsud claimed it was the TTP that carried out the assault, according to The New York Times.

Mehsud told the BBC, that the raid was “in retaliation for the continued drone strikes by the US in collaboration with Pakistan on our people”. During a phone call, the TTP’s head honcho told Reuters, “We wholeheartedly take responsibility for this attack and will carry out more such attacks in future.”

But Mehsud went further and claimed that TTP-aligned militants will mount a terror operation in Washington, perhaps targeting the White House. The Wall Street Journal reported Mehsud told Pakistani journalists from–where else–an “undisclosed location (!) that “soon we will launch an attack in Washington that will amaze everyone in the world.”

As if on cue, CENTCOM commander General David Petraeus of Iraq “surge” fame told the Senate Armed Services Committee Wednesday, that the “government was doing a ‘deep dive’ investigation” into Mehsud’s claims, according to The New York Times. The “newspaper of record” failed however to inform readers whether the “threat level” had been raised in response!

Earlier this month, the U.S. State Department issued a $5 million bounty for Mehsud, a frequent target of CIA Predator and Reaper drone strikes that have killed scores of innocent civilians in Pakistan’s “lawless” borderlands.

The New York Times reported April 2, that missiles fired from a CIA drone struck an alleged “militant training camp,” killing at least 10 people. The raid, according to the Times targeted Hakimullah Mehsud, one of Baitullah’s top lieutenants.

According to Times, Hakimullah’s forces “have been held responsible by Pakistani officials for attacking NATO supply depots in Peshawar used to resupply international forces in Afghanistan. His influence is such that he has imposed Sharia Islamic law in the Orakzai region, residents said.”

However, according to Dawn, “at least 14 people, including 12 militants were killed and 13 injured.” The Karachi-based newspaper reported that “two women and several children were also among the victims of the strikes.”

To further muddy the waters, the Associated Press reported March 31 that Omar Farooq, the spokesman for the little-known jihadi outfit, Fedayeen al-Islami, also claimed responsibility for Monday’s attack.

Claiming the assault was a reprisal raid for U.S. drone strikes and Pakistani Army intervention in the tribal areas, Farooq also demanded the release of former Red Mosque chief cleric Maulana Abdul Aziz.

While Pakistani officials have blamed the TTP for a series of attacks, including the December 2007 assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, it is just as likely the police academy raid had been carried out by Punjabi-based militants such as LET or LEJ.

The overwhelming majority of Mehsud’s forces are Pashtun-speaking residents of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP). While Shahid Iqbal, the deputy inspector general for operations for the Lahore Police Department claimed the attackers were “Afghans,” many recruits described the attackers as Punjabis speaking a local dialect.

According to The New York Times, the militants, some dressed in police uniforms scaled the walls, fired automatic weapons and hurled grenades while shouting “‘Oh, Red Mosque attackers, we have come,’ a reference to the 2007 takeover by Pakistani authorities of a militant mosque in Islamabad, Pakistan’s capital.” Meanwhile, “according to militant contacts” Asia Times Online reports,

A group of militants once associated with the Harkat-e-Jihad-i-Islami and the Lashkar-e-Taiba–groups with strong roots to the struggle over divided Kashmir–a few days ago traveled to Lahore from a militant camp in the North Waziristan town of Razmak, a year-round hill station situated at the crossroads of North Waziristan and South Waziristan on the Afghanistan border. …

In light of statements made by some cadets, intelligence agencies maintain that some of the militants came from Pakistani Punjab and spoke three languages–Urdu, Punjabi and Seraiki. (Seraiki is spoken in southern Punjab.) (Syed Saleem Shahzad, “Pakistan braces for more attacks,” Asia Times Online, April 1, 2009)

The unmistakable message to the Zardari administration and the United States, according to the online publication is that Monday’s attack, “mark ominous muscle-flexing by Pakistan’s ‘original’ jihadis, mostly Punjabis trained by the military in the 1990s as the first line of defense for the country, especially in Kashmir.”

As I reported March 29, the corporate media’s belated “discovery” of linkages amongst ISI officers, the Taliban and al-Qaeda in the form of “money, military supplies and strategic planning guidance to Taliban commanders,” one cannot rule out the possibility that some ISI officers, still committed to Pakistan’s policy of seeking “strategic depth” against India may have been complicit in Monday’s attack.

However, it is U.S. imperialism which for decades nurtured, armed and financed such retrograde outfits to advance its own geopolitical agenda–military bases and resource extraction–that is fueling the far-right insurgency, and the justifiable rage felt by Pakistanis over the continued slaughter.

Cheekily, Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), the chairman of the powerful Senate Armed Services Committee, perhaps channeling the spirit of the British Raj, said that Pakistan “must prove” it is willing to take on the insurgency “before the U.S. delivers financial aid or weapons to the government there,” the Associated Press reported March 31.

Such comments by leading imperialist spokespersons are nothing new and are fully within the framework of American neocolonial arrogance. Calling for “benchmarks” and “metrics” by which Washington power brokers will measure “progress,” what are these if not so many flaming hoops through which sovereign nations must jump through like so many trained poodles to curry favor with the Global Godfather.

As if Pakistani workers and farmers, crushed beneath the iron heel of venal, ruling class elites fêted by Pentagon bureaucrats or IMF/World Bank thieves who tout Islamabad’s “responsible” policies that line the pockets of international debt merchants beholden to shady American and European banks have but one role, that of mute spectators!

As if to drive home the point, Daily Times reported that “Pakistan has suffered economic losses amounting to $6 billion during 2007-08 while supporting the global war on terror.”

Dr. Hafiz Pasha, heading a panel of Planning Commission economists, told the Pakistan Institute of Development Economists’ annual meeting,

“This loss to the economy, according to the government of Pakistan, is over $8 billion,” said Pasha, adding that the US should double the funds being given to Pakistan for its support to the war on terror in view of the massive losses. He said the prevailing economic situation was “not very positive”, as tax collection had fallen, imports were very high, real effecting exchange rate was functioning at the level of last year and the ministries’ expenses had increased by Rs 100 billion. (Sajid Chaudhry, “‘Pakistan suffered $6bn terror war losses in 2007-08′,” Daily Times, April 2, 2009)

Stating that the IMF’s role in Pakistan “focused on stability rather than growth,” I might add for corporate grifters and comprador elites, Pasha went on to comment that such program’s are “not good for Pakistan in the long run”. “Pakistan paid a heavy price for stability at the cost of growth during the previous regime’s tenure … and [Pakistan] should not repeat the same mistake.”

Committed to so-called “structural adjustment” policies that sacrifice the economic well-being of the Pakistani people so that huge debts incurred by previous military regimes are repaid to international banks, the IMF continues to urge the sell-off of state assets at fire-sale prices even as Western imperialist nations pump trillions of dollars into their failing economies to stave-off the capitalist melt-down.

Let it be said, once again: the entire drive by the United States to “secure” the “Afpak theatre” has very little to do with “fighting them there, so we don’t have to fight them here,” and everything to do with that most American of motives: greed and plunder.

As analyst Pepe Escobar points out in Asia Times, the “U.S. Empire of Bases” is “still in overdrive and in New Great Game mode–which implies very close surveillance over Russia and China via bases such as Bagram, and the drive to block Russia from establishing a commercial route to the Middle East via Pakistan.” Escobar goes on to comment:

Last but not least, the energy wars. And that involves that occult, almost supernatural entity, the $7.6 billion Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline, which would carry gas from eastern Turkmenistan through Afghanistan east of Herat and down Taliban-controlled Nimruz and Helmand provinces, down Balochistan in Pakistan and then to the Pakistani port of Gwadar in the Arabian Sea. No investor in his right mind will invest in a pipeline in a war zone, thus Afghanistan must be “stabilized” at all costs. (Pepe Escobar, “The secrets of Obama’s surge,” Asia Times Online, April 2, 2009)

A dozen dead police recruits? Fifty or a hundred or thousands more people transmogrified into corpses by CIA drones or suicide bombers? “So is AfPak the Pentagon’s AIG,” Escobar wonders. “We gotta bail them out, can’t let them fail?”

“Whatever it is, it’s not about ‘terrorists’. Not really. Follow the money. Follow the energy. Follow the map.” Indeed, but whatever we do, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

Friday, April 03, 2009

"Long War" cited as a source for the exaltation of militarism....


"Long War" cited as a source for the exaltation of militarism....

http://tinyurl.com/chwocx


The preface openly states the lens through which this garbage should be read...

This document explores how the “long war” might unfold in the
coming years. It looks out to about the year 2020 and reports on the
major trends, uncertainties, participants, and ways the long war might unfold through the use of eight specific trajectories.

This work will interest those involved in military training, force
structure, policy, and how the confluence of governance, terrorism, and ideology might affect the U.S. military forces.

This research was sponsored by the U.S. Army Training and
Doctrine Command, Army Capability Integration Center, and was
conducted within RAND Arroyo Center’s Force Development and
Technology Program. RAND Arroyo Center, part of the RAND Cor-
poration, is a federally funded ressored by the United States Army."

The summary is also rife with doozies...

The United States is currently engaged in what has been characterized as the “long war.” The long war has been described by some as an epic struggle against adversaries bent on forming a unified Islamic world to supplant Western dominance, while others characterize it more narrowly as an extension of the war on terror. But while policymakers, military leaders, and scholars have offered numerous definitions of the long war, no consensus has been reached about this term or its implications for the United States. To understand the effects that this long war will have on the U.S. Army and on U.S. forces in general, it is necessary to understand more precisely what the long war is and how it might unfold. To address this need, this study explores the concept of the long war and identifies potential ways in which it might unfold as well
as the implications for the Army and the U.S. military more generally.

Framework for Understanding the Long War

As seen in Figure S.1, one way to think about the potential threats the United States faces in the long war is to consider the confluence of three problems raised by the war: those related to the ideologies espoused by key adversaries in the conflict, those related to the use of terrorism, and those related to governance (i.e., its absence or presence, its quality, and the predisposition of specific governing bodies to the United States and its interests). The goal of this report is not to determine which of these areas is the key problem. Instead, we take the stance that to ensure that this long war follows a favorable course, the United States will need to
make a concerted effort across all three domains.

Core of Corrution : In the Shadows of the Siamese twins, CIA2/MOSSAD/MI6




Core of Corruption: In The Shadows - Official Trailer 1st of Five Films www.CoreOfCorruption.com

3 04 2009


Council on Foreign Relations Program for Global Governance

3 04 2009

The Rise of the Technocracy

3 04 2009

more about “The Rise of the Technocracy“,

more about “The Rise of the Technocracy“,
more about “The Rise of the Technocracy“,

CFR Unveils Global Governance Agenda

3 04 2009

The Council on Foreign Relations, often described as the “real state department”, has launched an initiative to promote and implement a system of effective world governance.

The program, titled “The International Institutions and Global Governance Program,” utilizes the resources of the “…David Rockefeller Studies Program to assess existing regional and global governance mechanisms…” The initial funding for the program came with a $6 million grant from the Robina Foundation, which claims that the grant is “…one of the largest operating grants ever received in Council history.”

The IIGG program, launched on May 1st, 2008, is the latest manifestation of an agenda that has existed since and before the founding of the Council on Foreign Relations. Former CFR member, Rear Admiral Chester Ward, stated regarding the group,

“The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common - they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the United States. A second clique of international members in the CFR comprises the Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily, they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in the control of global government.”

The International Institutions and Global Governance Program identifies several “global issues” that require a system of world governance. Environmental issues, terrorism, the global economy and energy are all mentioned. The project then states that a system of “universal membership” could be pursued, or alternatively a regional organization, such as the European Union model.

“In each of these spheres, the program will consider whether the most promising framework for governance is a formal organization with universal membership (e.g., the United Nations); a regional or sub-regional organization; a narrower, informal coalition of like-minded countries; or some combination of all three.”

The program calls for the “Re-conceptualizing” of national sovereignty, citing the European Union’s “pooling” of sovereignty as a model. The CFR project recognizes that historically, the United States has been resistant to the ideals of global governance. The project states, “Among the most important factors determining the future of global governance will be the attitude of the United States…”

The IIGG program continues, “…few countries have been as sensitive as the United States to restrictions on their freedom of action or as jealous in guarding their sovereign prerogatives.” The program then states that the separation of powers as stated in the Constitution, along with the U.S. Congress, stand in the way of the United States assuming “new international obligations.”

As stated,

“…the country’s longstanding tradition of liberal “exceptionalism” inspires U.S. vigilance in protecting the domestic sovereignty and institutions from the perceived incursions of international bodies. Finally, the separation of powers enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress a critical voice in the ratification of treaties and endorsement of global institutions, complicates U.S. assumptions of new international obligations.”

The actions of the Military Industrial Complex under the Bush Administration have served globalist interests well. “Global structures” are now presented as the mechanism to prevent such atrocities. America’s demonization is central to building a system of world governance. Patrick M. Stewart, who is currently the director of the CFR IIGG program, is anticipating the Obama administration “…to seek to turn the page on what many perceived to be ‘cowboy unilateralism’ of the Bush years, by embracing multilateral cooperation, re-kindling U.S. alliances and partnerships, and engaging in sustained diplomacy within the UN framework,” as reported by Xinhua. The IIGG project itself stated in May of 2008 that, “Regardless of whether the administration that takes office in January 2009 is Democratic or Republican, the thrust of U.S. foreign policy is likely to be multilateral to a significant degree.”

Globalist forces are hard at work in the economic and political realms in an attempt to shape the future of the world, furthering the dominance of the global elite. Calls for a global currency in response to the economic crisis are regularly occurring, drawing the tacit support of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, speaking to the CFR.

Henry Kissinger, a CFR member, anticipates that President Obama will, “…give new impetus to American foreign policy partly because the reception of him is so extraordinary around the world. I think his task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a new world order can be created. It’s a great opportunity, it isn’t just a crisis.”

The Council on Foreign Relations global governance program will undoubtedly be pursued under the Obama administration, which is filled with CFR members. President of the CFR, Richard Haass, is serving as a top adviser to the Obama administration. As the IIGG program admits, regardless of who sits in the White House, the globalist agenda moves forward full speed ahead.

Read the full IIGG project report here










The Siamese twins, CIA/MOSSAD, PNAC retooling and BIBI Netanyahu again...


POWER SHIFT -- Incoming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (L), President Shimon Peres and outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (R) attend a change of power ceremony at Peres' residence in Jerusalem on April 1. (....)
Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said shortly after the formation of his new 30-seat cabinet - the largest ever created in Israel - that he promises to remain "partners in peace with the Palestinians." The onus is now on Bibi to prove himself right.

Netanyahu's words are more than just sound bytes. He is talking about the future of the Palestinian people.

Bibi, as his friends like to call him, is in for a rough ride. His bloated new government, a hodgepodge of ultra-rightists and disingenuous leftists, is bound to splinter once it faces its first serious test, be it dealing with the crippled Israeli economy or what's left of the Mideast "peace process."

Throughout the election campaign the hawkish Israeli leader has adamantly refused to acknowledge that a final Palestinian-Israeli settlement would see the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, a point that is generally accepted worldwide although there are nowadays a growing number of Palestinians, Israelis and others who might prefer a one-state solution for the two people.

Netanyahu would only talk about an "economic plan" that supposedly would help the Palestinians who have endured a cruel Israeli occupation in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip since 1967. Even the Israeli pullout from the Gaza Strip in September 2005 has failed to improve life in the crowded coastal region because of the Israeli blockade on land, sea and air. The Hamas "coup d'etat" in the Gaza Strip which overthrew Mahmoud Abbas' Palestinian Authority did not help, either.

However, in recent days Bibi has seemingly changed his tune, vaguely promising "a viable peace with all of Israel's Arab neighbors." Here, he chose, for example, not to acknowledge the Arab Peace Initiative which has been offered seven years ago by all the Arab governments and supported by many Muslim states elsewhere. (At the just-concluded Arab summit conference in Qatar, the Arab leaders have indicated that their initiative will not remain much longer on the table.)

Netanyahu is due in Washington in May to meet with President Barack Obama. The Israeli prime minister will face a very different White House than his predecessor did when meeting with Obama's predecessor.

Obama will have just returned from his European tour where EU and Turkish leaders will most certainly share their growing concerns over the lack of progress in the Middle East and their reservations over Israel's new foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman. The leader of the ultra-nationalist Israel Beiteinu party wants to administer an unprecedented oath of loyalty for all citizens, particularly the Palestinian Arabs inside Israel.

A 17-page report prepared by a bipartisan group of prominent Americans who have dealt with the Middle East, and recently submitted to Obama, has highlighted the seriousness of the situation in its eye-catching title: "A last Chance for a Two-State Israel-Palestine Agreement."

A copy of the report, which has yet to be disseminated widely, has been delivered to Obama by one of the signatories, Paul Volcker, who has been lately named senior economic adviser to the president.

Among the other 10 signatories are former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, former Senator Chuck Hagel, former Congressman Lee Hamilton, National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, and former World Bank President James D. Wolfensohn. All serve as senior advisors of the U.S./Middle East Project, whose president is Henry Siegman, the sponsor of the report.

They suggested that Obama needs "to flesh out the outlines of a fair, viable and sustainable agreement, based on principles that both Israel and the Palestinians have previously accepted" by endorsing U.N. resolutions 242 and 338, the Oslo Accords, the Roadmap and the 2007 Annapolis understandings.

They noted that any "new U.S. effort to reach an Israeli-Palestinian agreement may anger certain domestic constituencies," an obvious reference to the Israeli lobby. We do not , however, believe it is beyond the capability of an American president to explain to the American people why this long-running dispute must at long last be ended and why it will take much diplomatic heavy lifting and public expenditure to make it work."

Otherwise, it added, "in the end the stakes are too high to pursue a hands-off or arm's-length approach."

To maximize the prospects for success, the report suggested four steps: Present a clear U.S. vision to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which would include two states based on the June 4, 1967 borders "with minor, reciprocal, and agreed upon modifications;" a solution to the refugee problem that does not entail a general right of return but addresses "the Palestinian refugees" sense of injustice and provides them with meaningful financial compensation as well as resettlement assistance"; and Jerusalem as home to both capitals.

They also underlined the need for "a more pragmatic approach toward Hamas and a Palestinian unity government." They conceded that "direct U.S. engagement with Hamas may not now be practical, but shutting out the movement and isolating Gaza has only made it stronger and Fatah weaker."

Consequently, the United States should "cease discouraging Palestinian national reconciliation and make clear that a [Palestinian] government ... that commits to abiding by the results of a national referendum on a future peace agreement would not be boycotted or sanctioned" - a position that Hamas has long favored.

Whether Obama will go along with these suggestions is too early to tell, but Netanyahu needs to realize quickly that he cannot continue to ignore the facts on the ground.

Bennett murder link to bombing of Chinese embassy in Belgrade is a red herring






Bennett murder link to bombing of Chinese embassy in Belgrade is a red herring

When NBC-4 in Washington, DC was fed a story from an "intelligence source" that CIA officer William Bennett's brutal bludgeoning murder on March 22 may have been linked to his work for the CIA that resulted in the U.S. bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, the station was being misled with a red herring. Our Chinese sources report that the U.S. bombing of the Chinese embassy on May 7, 1999, was no mistake and it was targeted as a result of a decision by then-director of the National Security Agency (NSA) General Michael Hayden to target the facility because its communications center was sending burst transmissions to Yugoslav army units in Kosovo from the Yugoslav military high command in Belgrade.

The use of the Chinese embassy's communications system by Yugoslavia was reported at the time by the United Kingdom's Observer and Denmark's Politiken newspapers.

The Chinese discovered that Hayden's decision to bomb their embassy was done without the prior approval of either President Bill Clinton or his National Security Adviser Sandy Berger.

Moreover, Hayden, an Air Force general, had another reason to strike the embassy. The embassy was also transmitting television signals that were being used as part of a passive detection system used to track U.S. Air Force stealth aircraft over Yugoslavia. On March 27, 1999, the Yugoslav army, with the assistance of the Chinese long wavelength detection system, was able to spot a stealth F-117 and shoot it down.

The Pentagon gave China an ultimatum to return the F-117's cloaking system that was recovered by Yugoslavian military units from the wreckage and turned it over to the Chinese. The Chinese Foreign Ministry, like the Clinton White House, was reportedly kept out of the loop on the serious military confrontation between the Pentagon and the Chinese People's Liberation Army and intelligence services.

There was a leak to the media by a CIA officer or officers out of the NATO base in Vicenza, Italy concerning the targeting of the Chinese embassy and it just so happens that Bennett was stationed at the base during the Yugoslav campaign. The leak stated that Hayden and his NSA conducted the military operation against the Chinese embassy in Belgrade using B2s from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri and a Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA)/British MI-6 spotter team in Belgrade that used lasers to guide the B-2 precision-guided bombs on to their target: the military communications office in the Chinese embassy compound. This operation was reportedly done without the knowledge of either the White House or the State Department.

According to Japanese intelligence sources, after the bombs hit their target, the KLA/MI-6 team was seen by witnesses combing through the rubble with powerful flashlights and a video camera. It was only after the team departed the embassy grounds that a fire broke out.

CIA and congressional intelligence oversight committee members insisted the attack on the Chinese embassy was a mistake and that story continues to this day as U.S. intelligence doctrine.

China today sees the entire Belgrade fiasco as the outcome of then-President Jiang Zemin's bravado and the Chinese have learned since that it is best to keep a low profile in such conflicts. President Hu Jintao, who met with President Barack Obama at the G20 summit in London, would rather forget the 1999 Belgrade embassy flap. For an "intelligence source" to contend that Bennett's murder was in some way linked to his work in Vicenza during the Kosovo war is a clear attempt at disinformation.

While there is likely an intelligence service involved with the brutal dispatch of Bennett and the attack on his wife, it is not Chinese. The heart of the radar system used by Yugoslavia against American stealth aircraft was a Czech system paid for by Beijing but procured from the Czech Republic by the Israeli Mossad. The intelligence road to Bennett's murder does not lead to China but to Israel, according to our sources in Beijing and Hong Kong.

The Chinese sources are corroborated by sources this editor spoke to in Tel Aviv in 1995. An Israeli government source told the editor that Israel had shared, in violation of an agreement between Israel and the United States, sensitive U.S. military technology with Yugoslavia in its war against Croatia. When the editor contacted a top-level Croatian security service official in Zagreb, he responded that Croatia was aware that the Israelis were providing Belgrade with U.S. weapons and technology banned by Washington from export to third parties. The technology transfer involved permitted Yugoslavia to accurately target with ground-to-ground missiles Croatian military and government facilities in Zagreb and its suburbs.

If Bennett possessed more detailed knowledge of Israeli transfer of sensitive U.S. military and intelligence technology to third parties, it would go a long way into explaining the "hit" on him while on his morning walk with his wife on an early Sunday morning.

من قتل سليمان . بشار وماهر ام اصف شوكت ؟؟





من قتل سليمان . بشار وماهر ام اصف شوكت ؟؟

ليست المرة الاولى التي تحصل فيها مثل هذه الجرائم بل كانت البداية في عهد بشار الاسد بقتل محمود الزعبي وغازي كنعان وتصفية عماد مغنية واليوم اغتيال العميد محمد سليمان.
محمد سليمان هذا الشخص الغامض والذي قيل ان بشار الاسد علم اثناء زيارته الى فرنسا باحتمال استدعاء هذا الشخص بقضية اغتيال الشهيد رفيق الحريري.
وبشار الاسد الذي توقع النصر في زيارته الى باريس وجد نفسه محاصراً في التحقيق بعملية الاغتيال التي استهدفت الشهيد الحريري .واتضح حينها للاسد ان المجتمع الدولي لم ولن يتهاون في مسألة المحكمة الدولية ولعله ايقن تماما ان العبث في امن لبنان ومهما طال لن يكون بديلا عن المحكمة
بشار الاسد وبعد عودته بدمشق اخبر اصف شوكت وماهر الاسد عن احتمال البدء في العميد محمد سليمان وظهر جلياً انزعاج النظام السوري من قضية المحكمة الدولية.
هذا التخبط الذي عاناه بشار الاسد بعد زيارته الى فرنسا انصدم بقنبلة ومفاجئة كبيرة وهي ازمة الرئيس السوداني عمر البشير وشعور بشار ان هذه الازمة هي رسالة له ولنظامه بان المحاسبة لم تعد فقط سياسية ولم تعد فقط من الشعب بل يمكن ان تمتد لتكون محاسبة دولية قانونية.
وتفيد مصادر الحركة السورية القومية الاجتماعية ان اصف شوكت وبعد اغتيال عماد مغنية قد وقع في قفص الاتهام والعميد محمد سليمان كان اول المطالبين بمحاسبة اصف شوكت على هذا العمل او المساهمة في الاغتيال على الاقل.ولم يكن ماهر الاسد ضد هذا النزاع بين الرجليين وخصوصا ان خلافاته مع اصف شوكت مستمرة.
وبالعودة الى تسلسل الاخبار والاحداث نجد ان اصف شوكت قد وقع في مأزق حقيقي امام بشار الاسد وشعر ان التضحية به قد تحدث وخصوصا ان بشرى الاسد بدأت تحضر للاستقلال في حياتها خارج سورية كما ذكرت وكالات الانباء في اثناء تنقلها بين الامارات وفرنسا.
ويبدو ان الخبر الذي نقله بشار الاسد عن احتمال استدعاء العميد محمد سليمان قد كان مفيداً جداً لاصف شوكت والذي بدأ بالترويج لفكرة التخلص منه وقطع الحلقة بين المحكمة الدولية والقاتل الحقيقي للشهيد رفيق الحريري.
فسر اغتيال عماد مغنية والذي اغلقت ملفه المخابرات السورية بيد اصف شوكت ولكن اسرار عماد غنية واتصالاته وعلاقاته بيد العميد محمد سليمان وتصفية سليمان تأتي في مصلحة اصف شوكت بالدرجة الاولى للانتهاء من اكثر من ازمة عالقة
وهذه الجريمة تضعنا امام عدة احتمالات :
اولا:اما ان يكون بشار الاسد قد اتفق مع اصف شوكت بعد ان اقنعه اصف شوكت بقتل سليمان اثناء غيابه في ايران والانتهاء من شخصية قد تورط بشار الاسد في المحكمة الدولية.
ثانياً: او ان اصف شوكت قد اتخذ قرار الاغتيال بنفسه خوفا من تفشي حقائق حول اغتيال عماد مغنية,والتخلص من سليمان والذي ينافس اصف شوكت في السيطرة على قرارات الحكم والتعيين
ثالثاً: او ان بشار الاسد وماهر الاسد قد اتفقا على قتل العميد محمد سليمان لغاية التخلص منه كمتورط مباشر في اغتيال الحريري.وبنفس الوقت فستكون اصابع الاتهام موجهة لاصف شوكت من قبل حزب الله وضباط القصر الجمهوري والمخابرات.
وباعتقادنا ان سر هذه الجريمة في يد حزب الله فهو الذي باشر بالتحقيق منفردا في قضية اغتيال عماد مغنية .وهو الذي يعرف تماماً اين وصلت تحقيقاته وما هو موقع العميد محمد سليمان من حادثة اغتيال عماد مغنية
انتظروا الايام القادمة فهي ستحمل الكثير من المفاجئات اما في منزل بشار الاسد او في مفرزة اصف شوكت
انه التاريخ يعيد نفسه

Zionism is the disease; up to now, there is no cure, only Resistance....



Zionism is the disease; up to now, there is no cure, only Resistance....

As long as Israel controls the United States government - and Jewish
CIA pigs control all telephones in USA ..... - trust no one...

http://newhk.blogspot.com/2009/03/george-h-w-bush-anticipated-john.html

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

The Mossad within the CIA I and 2.....

http://tbrnews.org/Archives/a2608.htm#005

No wonder CIA1 intelligence "failures" are always bad for America but a
windfall for Israel. Why don't we just hire Mexicans to guard our
southern border, Arabs for airport security, and Chinese to inspect
imported food ??

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

SP@@KS

Defilers of reality --CIA disinformation
Bane on the human race --world-wide kidnapping/torture/murder
Masters of Immorality --LSD trips for the unsuspecting
The friend without a face --the state within a state


S&M

They say they are just our ally --not my ally
They say that we are just good friends --not my friend
So why are the Spooks and Mossad --inbred crossbreeding
Connected like Siamese twins? --conjoined kike cops


The CIA is a Mossad front. The Mossad is a CIA front.
So who killed Kennedy? They both did: tag-team terror orgs.

More Evidence Mossad/CIA Killed JFK Over Israeli Nukes

The Missing Link In The JFK Assassination Conspiracy

http://www.rense.com/general42/enemies.htm