In article <u2P7b.2532$WL7.942@news01.roc.ny>, Hugh says...
moderator of alt.alien.research wrote:
In the coming months a black spot will pop up everywhere . . .
on store windows and newspaper boxes, on gas pumps and supermarket
shelves. Open a magazine or newspaper - it's there. It's on TV.
It stains the logos and smears the nerve centers of the world's
biggest, dirtiest corporations.
This is the mark of the people who don't approve of Bush's plan to
control the world, who don't want countries "liberated" without UN
backing, who can't stand anymore neo-con bravado shoved down their
throats.
This is the mark of the people who want the Kyoto Protocol for the
environment, who want the International Criminal Court for greater
justice, who want a world where all nations, including the U.S.A.,
are free of weapons of mass destruction, and who pledge to take their
country back.
--
http://www.unbrandamerica.org
Haji Mhammed Quazi
Ziad! You'll measure exits. Gawd, I'll converse the pitcher.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<http://adbusters.org/home>
<http://adbusters.org/campaigns/> <http://adbusters.org/magazine/>
<http://adbusters.org/creativeresistance/>
<https://secure.adbusters.org/orders/> <http://adbusters.org/information/>
<http://www.unbrandamerica.org/poster/>
<http://www.unbrandamerica.org/tv/>
<http://www.unbrandamerica.org/poster/gallery.html>
<http://www.unbrandamerica.org/poster/gallery.html>
In the coming months a black spot will pop up everywhere . . . on store
windows and newspaper boxes, on gas pumps and supermarket shelves. Open
a magazine or newspaper - it's there. It's on TV. It stains the logos
and smears the nerve centers of the world's biggest, dirtiest
<http://www.unbrandamerica.org/dirty_dozen/> corporations.
This is the mark of the people who don't approve of Bush's plan to
control the world, who don't want countries "liberated" without UN
backing, who can't stand anymore neo-con bravado shoved down their throats.
This is the mark of the people who want the Kyoto Protocol for the
environment, who want the International Criminal Court for greater
justice, who want a world where all nations, including the U.S.A., are
free of weapons of mass destruction, and who pledge
<http://www.unbrandamerica.org/pledge/> to take their country back.
<http://www.unbrandamerica.org/tv/>
<http://www.unbrandamerica.org/nyt/>
<http://www.unbrandamerica.org/dirty_dozen/dirty_dozen.html>
<http://www.unbrandamerica.org/dirty_dozen/>
Eat me
Just go to the barn for that!
This War On Terrorism Is Bogus: The 9/11 Attacks Gave The US An Ideal Pretext To
Use Force To Secure Its Global Domination By Michael Meacher The Guardian Sep.
6, 2003
Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons why
Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on
why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too. The
conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation
against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a
global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US
and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be
extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The
truth may be a great deal murkier.
We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was
drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence
secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld�s deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush�s younger
brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney�s chief of staff). The document, entitled
Rebuilding America�s Defences, was written in September 2000 by the
neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
The plan shows Bush�s cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf
region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "while the unresolved
conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a
substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the
regime of Saddam Hussein."
The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to Wolfowitz and
Libby which said the US must "discourage advanced industrial nations from
challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global
role". It refers to key allies such as the UK as "the most effective and
efficient means of exercising American global leadership". It describes
peacekeeping missions as "demanding American political leadership rather than
that of the UN". It says "even should Saddam pass from the scene", US bases in
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently... as "Iran may well prove as
large a threat to US interests as Iraq has". It spotlights China for "regime
change", saying "it is time to increase the presence of American forces in SE
Asia".
The document also calls for the creation of "US space forces" to dominate space,
and the total control of cyberspace to prevent "enemies" using the internet
against the US. It also hints that the US may consider developing biological
weapons "that can target specific genotypes [and] may transform biological
warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool".
Finally - written a year before 9/11 - it pinpoints North Korea, Syria and Iran
as dangerous regimes, and says their existence justifies the creation of a
"worldwide command and control system". This is a blueprint for US world
domination. But before it is dismissed as an agenda for rightwing fantasists, it
is clear it provides a much better explanation of what actually happened before,
during and after 9/11 than the global war on terrorism thesis. This can be seen
in several ways.
First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the
events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning
to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington
in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be
preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they
provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was
arrested.
It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit Washington
targets with aeroplanes. Then in 1999 a US national intelligence council report
noted that "al-Qaida suicide bombers could crash-land an aircraft packed with
high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White
House".
Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia. Michael
Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, has stated
that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing visas to unqualified
applicants from the Middle East and bringing them to the US for training in
terrorism for the Afghan war in collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6
2001). It seems this operation continued after the Afghan war for other
purposes. It is also reported that five of the hijackers received training at
secure US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001).
Instructive leads prior to 9/11 were not followed up. French Moroccan flight
student Zacarias Moussaoui (now thought to be the 20th hijacker) was arrested in
August 2001 after an instructor reported he showed a suspicious interest in
learning how to steer large airliners. When US agents learned from French
intelligence he had radical Islamist ties, they sought a warrant to search his
computer, which contained clues to the September 11 mission (Times, November 3
2001). But they were turned down by the FBI. One agent wrote, a month before
9/11, that Moussaoui might be planning to crash into the Twin Towers (Newsweek,
May 20 2002).
All of this makes it all the more astonishing - on the war on terrorism
perspective - that there was such slow reaction on September 11 itself. The
first hijacking was suspected at not later than 8.20am, and the last hijacked
aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at 10.06am. Not a single fighter plane was
scrambled to investigate from the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from
Washington DC, until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why
not? There were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before
9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched fighter
aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, August 13 2002). It
is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft has moved significantly off its
flight plan, fighter planes are sent up to investigate.
Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or being
ignorant of, the evidence? Or could US air security operations have been
deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on whose authority? The
former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus, has said: "The information
provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that
it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of
incompetence."
Nor is the US response after 9/11 any better. No serious attempt has ever been
made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October 2001, leaders of
Pakistan�s two Islamist parties negotiated Bin Laden�s extradition to Pakistan
to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US official said, significantly, that
"casting our objectives too narrowly" risked "a premature collapse of the
international effort if by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured". The US
chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that
"the goal has never been to get Bin Laden" (AP, April 5 2002). The
whistleblowing FBI agent Robert Wright told ABC News (December 19 2002) that FBI
headquarters wanted no arrests. And in November 2001 the US airforce complained
it had had al-Qaida and Taliban leaders in its sights as many as 10 times over
the previous six weeks, but had been unable to attack because they did not
receive permission quickly enough (Time Magazine, May 13 2002). None of this
assembled evidence, all of which comes from sources already in the public
domain, is compatible with the idea of a real, determined war on terrorism.
The catalogue of evidence does, however, fall into place when set against the
PNAC blueprint. From this it seems that the so-called "war on terrorism" is
being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical
objectives. Indeed Tony Blair himself hinted at this when he said to the Commons
liaison committee: "To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got
the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for
what happened on September 11" (Times, July 17 2002). Similarly Rumsfeld was so
determined to obtain a rationale for an attack on Iraq that on 10 separate
occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to 9/11; the CIA
repeatedly came back empty-handed (Time Magazine, May 13 2002).
In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC plan into
action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans for military action against
Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before 9/11. A report prepared for the US
government from the Baker Institute of Public Policy stated in April 2001 that
"the US remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising
influence to... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East".
Submitted to Vice-President Cheney�s energy task group, the report recommended
that because this was an unacceptable risk to the US, "military intervention"
was necessary (Sunday Herald, October 6 2002).
Similar evidence exists in regard to Afghanistan. The BBC reported (September 18
2001) that Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan foreign secretary, was told by senior
American officials at a meeting in Berlin in mid-July 2001 that "military action
against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October". Until July 2001
the US government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central
Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from the oil
and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and
Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But, confronted with the Taliban�s refusal to
accept US conditions, the US representatives told them "either you accept our
offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs" (Inter Press
Service, November 15 2001).
Given this background, it is not surprising that some have seen the US failure
to avert the 9/11 attacks as creating an invaluable pretext for attacking
Afghanistan in a war that had clearly already been well planned in advance.
There is a possible precedent for this. The US national archives reveal that
President Roosevelt used exactly this approach in relation to Pearl Harbor on
December 7 1941. Some advance warning of the attacks was received, but the
information never reached the US fleet. The ensuing national outrage persuaded a
reluctant US public to join the second world war. Similarly the PNAC blueprint
of September 2000 states that the process of transforming the US into
"tomorrow�s dominant force" is likely to be a long one in the absence of "some
catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor". The 9/11 attacks
allowed the US to press the "go" button for a strategy in accordance with the
PNAC agenda which it would otherwise have been politically impossible to
implement.
The overriding motivation for this political smokescreen is that the US and the
UK are beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon energy supplies. By 2010 the
Muslim world will control as much as 60% of the world�s oil production and, even
more importantly, 95% of remaining global oil export capacity. As demand is
increasing, so supply is decreasing, continually since the 1960s.
This is leading to increasing dependence on foreign oil supplies for both the US
and the UK. The US, which in 1990 produced domestically 57% of its total energy
demand, is predicted to produce only 39% of its needs by 2010. A DTI minister
has admitted that the UK could be facing "severe" gas shortages by 2005. The UK
government has confirmed that 70% of our electricity will come from gas by 2020,
and 90% of that will be imported. In that context it should be noted that Iraq
has 110 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves in addition to its oil.
A report from the commission on America�s national interests in July 2000 noted
that the most promising new source of world supplies was the Caspian region, and
this would relieve US dependence on Saudi Arabia. To diversify supply routes
from the Caspian, one pipeline would run westward via Azerbaijan and Georgia to
the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Another would extend eastwards through Afghanistan
and Pakistan and terminate near the Indian border. This would rescue Enron�s
beleaguered power plant at Dabhol on India�s west coast, in which Enron had sunk
$3bn investment and whose economic survival was dependent on access to cheap
gas.
Nor has the UK been disinterested in this scramble for the remaining world
supplies of hydrocarbons, and this may partly explain British participation in
US military actions. Lord Browne, chief executive of BP, warned Washington not
to carve up Iraq for its own oil companies in the aftermath of war (Guardian,
October 30 2002). And when a British foreign minister met Gadaffi in his desert
tent in August 2002, it was said that "the UK does not want to lose out to other
European nations already jostling for advantage when it comes to potentially
lucrative oil contracts" with Libya (BBC Online, August 10 2002).
The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the "global war on
terrorism" has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for
a wholly different agenda - the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing
by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project. Is
collusion in this myth and junior participation in this project really a proper
aspiration for British foreign policy? If there was ever need to justify a more
objective British stance, driven by our own independent goals, this whole
depressing saga surely provides all the evidence needed for a radical change of
course.
Michael Meacher MP was environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003
meacherm@parliament.uk Guardian Unlimited � Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html
- - - - -
Bush Cries Help: Just Say No By Glen Yeadon
I have never believed the official Bush story on 9-11. Then one may ask which
one as the Bush administration has issued several contradictory versions of what
really happened. However, now a former member of the poodle�s cabinet Michael
Meacher has came forth charging Bush with outright treason in allowing 9-11 to
take place after receiving ample forewarning. Meacher continues with his charges
of Bush sabotaging the efforts to bring to justice those responsible.
I would like to say that I feel satisfied and vindicated by Meacher�s charges.
Nevertheless, I feel no comfort or satisfaction in being vindicated by someone
high on the inside. As Meacher details in his charges the Bush regime is
willingly to risk charges of treason in order to follow a right wing extremist
plan for America to dominate the world hereafter. A new world order based on
corporate fascism and enforced with great brutality by the United States
military. The spoils will go a few hundred of the world�s richest people while
the remainder of the world�s population suffers in abject poverty.
Getting straight to the point is the refusal by France, Germany and Russia to
approve of the Bush regime�s request to the UN�s Security Council to pass a
resolution ordering UN troops in Iraq. At the risk of being called cynical, I
wholeheartedly agree with those three nations. Its far better to keep the tyrant
bogged down in Iraq than to have other countries send their young men to Iraq
for cannon fodder. If other nations agree to send troops to Iraq this will free
up American troops. Troops that the Bush regime will use in another war
somewhere in the world.
Now before anyone calls me a traitor; I regard myself as patriotic as the next
person but I am not one of those god damn flag waving storm troopers you see
everyplace Bush visits. I am on the other side of the fence out of view of the
cameras protesting. Nor do I relish trading lives. However, when it comes to a
few hundred additional lives lost in Iraq or a few thousand more lives lost in
Korea or somewhere else, I will take the devil�s choice of the lower number.
There is no good choice here soldiers will die either way.
The document that Meacher was referring is entitled Rebuilding America�s
Defenses. The document was drawn up by the ultra conservative think tank;
Project for the New American Century chaired by William Kristol. The document
was drawn up for drawn up for Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb
Bush and Lewis Libby. All of which with the exception of brother Jeb are part of
the current regime. Briefly, the document called for large increases in defense
spending including nuclear weapons and the repositioning of America�s military
forces to respond to regions judged critical such as Southeast Asia and
Southeast Europe. The document specifically names North Korea, Iraq, Iran and
Libya as enemies of the United States.
Moreover, the document Meacher referred to was written in September 2000 over a
year before 9-11 indicating that the decision to invade Iraq was made at least a
year before 9-11. Documents from Cheney�s energy task force indicate that new
bids for Iraqi oil fields were asked for six months before 9-11 confirming that
the decision to invade Iraq was made before 9-11.
Perhaps the best summation of the type of thinking that went into this document
is the following quotation from the document.
"And advanced forms of biological warfare that can "target" specific genotypes
may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically
useful tool."
In other words, the authors of this document are stating for the whole world
that genocide is a useful political tool. Rather than employ nasty concentration
camps as Hitler these authors are urging the development of a pathogen that
would only attack the targeted race and that could be released from a distance.
Thus affording this group a plausible means of denial while allowing them to
keep their hand clean from the actual killings. If the reader is somewhat
shocked by that revelation, he should recall that the Bush family has had a long
history of being associated with eugenics. Prescott Bush was a leader in the
eugenic movement in America during the 1920s and 1930s. Moreover, Prescott lost
his first race for congress over his past views of eugenics. The reader is also
reminded that the Nuremberg Laws handed down by the Nazis setting the stage for
the Holocaust came from America. Additionally George Bush senior has worked hard
in the eugenics movement behind the scenes. He specifically targeted the third
world. Junior is now following in his grandfather�s and father�s footsteps.
What Meacher has seen rise out of the ashes of 9-11 like a giant Phoenix is the
birth of the Fourth Reich.
Meacher now sees that the document, Rebuilding America�s Defenses is a blueprint
for future military adventurism by the Bush regime just as Mein Kamf served as a
blueprint for the Nazi era.
If France, Germany and Russia should capitulate and send troops to Iraq then the
whole world has sat on its collective ass for the last 70 years and forgotten
the lesson of Munich. If the Bush regime is successful at securing UN troops to
use as canon folder in Iraq then there will be other wars. Wars in which the
death tolls will climb into the hundreds of thousands. Wars using nuclear
weapons. Wars that may spread into a global conflict that could end humanity, as
we know it.
This is the lesson of Munich---one cannot negotiate with a madman. If anyone
doubts that perhaps, they should ask an elderly Czech or Pole they have some
firsthand experience in the matter.
Up to this time, the Bush regime of mad dog extremists has done nothing to
indicate that they believe in democracy. This is the regime that stole the 2000
election confirming its contempt for the democratic process and of anyone
opposed to them.
This is the same regime that has unilaterally decided to violate every treaty
the country has signed in regards to the nuclear issue. They have openly called
for the development of new nuclear weapons such as bunker busters. They are hell
bent or resuming nuclear testing. Finally, they have funded the production of
plutonium for the production of more devices for bombs. Furthermore, in a
dangerous game of fool�s folly this regime has developed a new aggressive policy
towards North Korea. The policy is deliberately designed to provoke North Korea
into war. The mindset of this fascist regime towards negotiations is clearly
indicated in the case of North Korea.
The Bush junta appointed a mad dog extremist, John R. Bolton to head up talks
with the North Koreans.
Bolton�s appointment demonstrates clearly that this regime has no intention of
negotiating in good faith. The Koreans banned him from the talks. With North
Korea�s ability to launch and attack against the west coast, such a deliberate
provocative stance leaves west coast residents as mere pawns in a game of
nuclear brinkmanship.
There is no question that this junta is deliberately trying to provoke a war
with North Korea.
Considering Bush has little chance of gaining a single electoral vote from any
west coast state and that his popularity ratings are sinking faster than the
Titanic it is very probable given this regime�s past record that Bush would
deliberately provoke an attack on the west coast in an effort to declare martial
law and to cancel the upcoming election.
Nor is Korea the only example of the Bush regime lack of good faith in
negotiations. Before the Iraqi invasion the Bush junta sought support from the
United Nations.
Once it was clear that the United Nations� support was not forthcoming, the
administration started demonizing the UN. They called the UN irrelevant and
ineffectual. For France�s refusal to send troops to Iraq, acting like spoiled
three year old brats with a dirty diaper they demonized France and started
calling French Fries freedom fries. Germany�s refusal to send troops was met
with even more vindictive response---ordering the CIA to undermine the current
German government.
This is the same regime that opposed the world court and pressured Belgium to
reverse its war crimes legislation.
From Iraq, there are numerous reports of civilians being killed with no reports
being filed of the incidents. There are also reports from Iraq of reporters
being deliberately targeted and killed for what they know and have seen. There
are numerous reports on prisoners being mistreated.
Also from Iraq there is a report of a tank equipped with a plasma weapon that
can reduce a bus to a spot of molten metal in seconds. From Afghanistan, there
are reports of the wholesale murder of thousands of prisoners apparently with
the explicit approval of the US forces present at the slaughter. Camp X-Ray
violates all the standards of the Geneva Convention. Even England has protested
the treatment of their citizens held there.
Domestically more freedoms and liberties have been lost under this regime than
in the 200 plus years of the existence of the nation.
Our freedoms and liberties are not under attack by a foreign foe or terrorist
group, they are being brutally assaulted by the current regime of Bush. The
attorney general has violated a court ordered gag rule to prejudice a case in
their favor stemming from 9-11. Major union strikes have been met with threats
from this administration to curtail the strike and to use military personnel as
replacement workers.
Political opponents find themselves on the no fly list at airports. Even the
slightest refusal to go along with this regime is met with vindictive measures.
Such as the case of the former ambassador that revealed the Nigeria uranium
story was a hoax. The administration exposed his wife as a CIA agent. Reports
suggest this was the work of Carl Rove. A very recent report claims Rove holds a
dual citizenship and that his name really is Rover the grandson of Carl Rover, a
Nazi who believed that the Nazis were not brutal enough.
When the leaders of Europe and the UN meet to discuss sending troops to Iraq
they must remember that the hands of the clock have been turned back to Munich
1938.
It is understood that behind the scenes the leaders of Europe are facing extreme
pressure and are being offered incredible bribes to comply with the request.
However, they must realize they are dealing with a madman and a regime full of
lunatics that are willing to risk nuclear war for their own personal gain. As
long as the Bush junta stays bogged down in a Vietnam quagmire of its own
making, the safer the world will be. Domestic pressure is already mounting for
his removal. If Europe says yes to the troop request then Europe will soon face
a more agonizing decision and a new war. Just ask a Czech or Pole. Europe must
say no.