The terror this week haunts me, but not in the usual way. Having studied the global conspiracy and interacted with underground information sources for many years, I believe I see a larger dimension to this whole story than many people do. Having seen some things I believed would happen come to pass, having even written what I thought were fictional things in my books that later happened, I've had to realize that for some reason the Lord has given me eyes to see what others often refused to consider until it's almost too late.

Let me assure you, I'm not always right. Thank God I was wrong about the potential devastation of Y2K. However, I've been right enough about some other things to cause me to be profoundly concerned with the events that are now unfolding. Let me tell you how I see things.

First of all, I expected terrorist strikes in the US, but not on the massive scale we saw this week. Why did I expect them? Because the forces behind the global conspiracy have openly shared their agenda. "Order from chaos" is their motto, their stated modus operandi. It's how the always said they would achieve their goals of taking control of this planet.

This is precisely how they furthered the agenda they developed in 1776 when a secret Satanic society of the elite called the Illuminati concocted a strategic plan to subdue the entire world to Satan's dominion. That plan included the fomenting of three revolutions and three world wars. The reasoned that if the created enough chaos people will willingly relinquish their freedoms. Then once they restore order they can easily seize powers.

This worked remarkably well in the first of their three revolutions, the French Revolution. The plan was next refined by the Bolshevik's who they used to subdue Russia. (Stalin and Lenin were both financed by western capital.) It was perfected when they similarly conquered the Chinese for communist domination.

Bringing this closer to home, on a manner uniquely similar to our current situation, it's exactly how they took control of Germany to further their goals in WW II of creating the United Nations to become a vehicle through which they could control the world. In Germany they used financial unrest, followed by the torching of the Reichstag, their own government building, followed by the demonization of those who would resist them. In our case it will be religious fundamentalists, first in the Muslim world, then eventually in Christians who will resist their efforts in the US. In Nazi Germany this was followed by civil unrest, the seizure of guns and finally a war to conquer their enemies. It was a war built on rabid patriotism, a war designed to return Germany to her former greatness. Anything sound familiar?

By the way, the original agenda outlined by the Illuminati's Adam Weishaupt to advance the ruling elite to the position of absolute power, included control of education and the media. This enabled them to dumb down and the children, and "brain dirty" the adults to assure their manipulation, to turn them into sheeple. Ask yourself this: were you taught to think in school or were you taught to regurgitate force fed information? Can you remember when there was more than one newspaper in your city and they sometimes disagreed? When I was a kid I delivered the Cleveland Press. Our competition was the News and Plain Dealer and they often disagreed with each other. Only the PD remains today.

Do you ever see much difference in the stories or slants on the nightly news or weekly magazines? TV, magazines and newspapers are all controlled by media conglomerates beholden to the elite. The same elite also controls the colleges and universities that teach the teachers who teach our kids how to define what's politically correct. Education, the media, politics and huge corporations largely do the bidding of the Council on Foreign Relations, through which the elite exercise their will. But I digress.

In the last decade the reign of terror in the US has rapidly been ratcheted up, from Waco to Ruby Ridge, from school killings (which have mysteriously stopped now that gun control is our national mantra) and Flight 800 where my first girlfriend died, to Oklahoma City, from the first bomb in the World Trade Center to it's ultimate devastation. Each increment has caused us to willingly relinquish more of our freedoms, given the government more control over our financial privacy, personal communications, travel and every facet of daily lives. And it's caused us to be even more anxious and hence more malleable.

What's even more diabolical is that in each of these fearsome events there has been a filthy trail of credible evidence for those who have eyes to see. In each instance, as also with the Kennedy assassinations, the deaths of Vince Foster, Ron Brown and many others during Clinton's reign, someone in our own government planned and orchestrated them all. Furthermore, each death and terrorist event helps to advance the stated goals of the elite to eventually control the US. For until the entire US is thoroughly subordinated to do their bidding, they cannot run the world.

I've been called paranoid and worse by those who have never probed the events that have rocked our world. I honestly wish I were. I give anything to be a deluded wacko conspiracy theorist. Sadly, I know I'm not. Countless hours over almost a decade of research on conspiracy facts have led me to these conclusions. Thousands upon thousands of pages of heavily documented books, magazines, E Zines and websites have taught me to trust what I'm telling you more than I trust the mainstream media or most politicians. Write me off if what I'm saying is too hard to bear, but I hope, for the sake of us all and the nation we so dearly love, that my words will haunt you. And before it's too late, I pray that they will eventually force you to do your own study and see if history doesn't make more sense when viewed through alternative sources.

So why am I really disturbed by what's happened recently? Because I believe the Bible, first and foremost. With astonishing clarity it foretells an astounding future for our generation. Secondly, I believe we can have no real idea what the near future will be like unless we are rudely awakened.

What will our future be like? We will no doubt attempt to hunt down those responsible for the terror. We will succeed in bringing some to justice. But those we miss, and we will miss some, will viciously retaliate. I believe it is entirely possible that huge numbers of our people will die from chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. I'm told that a very small amount of anthrax or some similar chemical or germ can be released in a heavily populated area and wreak almost unstoppable havoc. Once it is breathed in each person who does so becomes a carrier, his breath spreading it silently to others, who all contract a sickness, then the disease, then die agonizing deaths over a matter of days, infecting all who breathe the same air. Imagine such a virulent vial released in a busy airport terminal like LAX, then invisibly transported across the country and around the globe, infecting millions.

Imagine a nuclear weapon carried in a suitcase and detonated near Hoover Dam or a nuclear power plant near a large city. Imagine radiation bombs which take out our communications infrastructure for our military. Far fetched? Someone recently tried to tell me that the Chinese are our allies and I laughed. They now have strategic plans to defeat us in a nuclear war using the technology we sold them in precisely the manner I've just described. They always said we'd sell them the rope they would use to lynch us.

During the ramp up to the Gulf War in 1991 I was still a pastor. I decided once and for all to study the book of Revelations (Catholics know this as the Apocalypse) and teach my congregation what to expect if indeed we were in the last days. It was a sobering exercise. I concluded that the many-headed beast was not the reconstituted Roman Empire as Hal Lindsay predicted years ago. Rather it was probably a Muslim confederation made up of the existing Arab nations and the Muslim territiories that were then controlled by the USSR. I further concluded that they, in orchestration with China, would eventually confront the rest of the free world in the ultimate Armageddon over Jerusalem.

All of that is much closer now than you may want to imagine. It is entirely possible that the terrorist attacks could set off exactly that: the third world war which the Illuminati wants; the true final conflict between good and evil.

A little research reveals that the Zionist movement was fathered by the Rothschilds. When the first World War failed to produce the League of Nations, World War II was necessary to create the United Nations. It also spun out the nation of Israel. And by the end of the 1967 was we finally had a united Jerusalem from which the elite hope to rule the world through their offspring, rule it for Satan. The events that unfolded last week could quickly escalate into the scenario that would make all this possible in our lifetimes, in fact, in the next few years. If so, the chaotic clash of conflicting cultures and allegiances will indeed be the worst that the world has ever seen, spreading misery and suffering on such a vast scale as to make last week seem like a playground fist fight. Furthermore, the destiny of every person on the earth will be profoundly affected by it - forever.

If you are interested in a free subscription to The Konformist Newswire, please visit:

http://www.eGroups.com/list/konformist

San Francisco Chronicle, 12 Sept 2001 Willie Brown got low-key early warning about air travel

For Mayor Willie Brown, the first signs that something was amiss came late Monday when he got a call from what he described as his airport security - - a full eight hours before yesterday's string of terrorist attacks -- advising him that Americans should be cautious about their air travel. The mayor, who was booked to fly to New York yesterday morning from San Francisco International Airport, said the call "didn't come in any alarming fashion, which is why I'm hesitant to make an alarming statement." In fact, at the time, he didn't pay it much mind. "It was not an abnormal call. I'm always concerned if my flight is going to be on time, and they always alert me when I ought to be careful." Exactly where the call came from is a bit of a mystery. The mayor would say only that it came from "my security people at the airport." Mike McCarron, assistant deputy director at SFO, said the Federal Aviation Administration "routinely" issues security notices about possible threats. He said two or three such notices have been received in the past couple of months, but none in recent days. Whatever the case, Brown didn't think about it again until he was up, dressed and waiting for his ride to the airport for an 8 a.m. flight to New York, where he was to attend a state retirement board meeting. That was when he turned on the TV, and like millions of other Americans, saw the twin towers of the World Trade Center crumble and the Pentagon go up in smoke. Before the mayor was even out the door, District Attorney Terence Hallinan - - the man Brown said just last week should be recalled -- was checking in and offering help. What followed was a conversation made up of equal parts gravity and formality. "You know, you're the first call I've gotten on this," Brown said to Hallinan, as they were signing off. With that, the mayor hung up and headed for City Hall. Along the way, he made the call to close all city buildings for the day and city schools as well. He also talked with representatives of the Bank of America building and the Transamerica Pyramid, who agreed that because the structures were such high- profile symbols they too should be closed for the day. Once Brown arrived at City Hall, calls were made in quick order to Municipal Railway director Michael Burns: "I want a complete backup in case anything happens to the subway tunnels," Brown said. The Coast Guard: "To make sure the bridges were being protected." And to the health, police and fire departments to make sure they were staffed for the emergency. The last call went to Tom Ammiano, the mayor's longtime political nemesis and president of the Board of Supervisors. "We may have to declare a state of emergency, although it's not something I want to do at this point because it kicks in all sorts of things -- but we may have to be ready," the mayor said. Ammiano apparently agreed, because an hour or so later -- when the two sat next to each other at a city department heads meeting at the command center -- the call was made for only a "limited" state of emergency. One that would allow the courts, city offices and schools to close, but still keep the city pretty much in working order. "What I want," the mayor said, "is for things to be to run as normally as possible, but sagely." And for the most part they did. As for what comes next? "With any luck, we'll be back to normal by tomorrow -- but with a heightened sense of awareness," Brown said as he sipped coffee with reporters at Citizen Cake on Grove Street. But as for long-term safety? "We can only do what we can," the mayor said, adding, "Hell, if they can't protect the Pentagon from attack, what can they protect?" BART BLOCKS: Don't go looking for a rest room on BART -- they're all locked. According to BART information officer Ron Rodriguez, a memorandum went out yesterday ordering all station rest rooms to be locked until further notice. They've also put out the word to watch for suspicious packages. THE OTHER BROWN: Over in Oakland, Mayor Jerry Brown was trying his best to keep things normal as well. "We're carrying on," Brown said. "I think the most important thing is for people to stay calm and understand that the power of terrorism is psychological. "The goal is to sow disunity and to undermine our faith in the leadership of the country." A few blocks away, Democratic pollster Paul Maslin sat in his office high- rise and wondered about the long-term effect of the attacks. "It's like one part Pearl Harbor, one part Northern Ireland and one part I don't know what," was how Maslin summed it up. Maslin -- who does polling for Gov. Gray Davis, among others -- said the strangest call he got yesterday was from one of the biggest Democratic consultants in Washington, D.C., who had just bolted his apartment. "This was a grown man in his 50s, and he was scared out of his wits because he'd heard that a second plane was headed for the Pentagon," Maslin said. "We can't even begin to gauge the long-term effects of this yet, but I will say, I don't think we'll ever be the same." http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/12/MN229389.DTL

http://www.konformist.com/911/93.htm Ian@Goddard.net (Ian Goddard)

WAS UNITED AIRLINES FLIGHT 93 SHOT DOWN BY U.S. FIGHTER?

(c) 9/14/01 Ian Williams Goddard

Yesterday (9/13/01) a Reuters report stated that the FBI cannot rule out that hijacked Flight 93 was shot down by a US fighter jet before it crashed in Pennsylvania. [1] Citing indications of a shoot down, the report states:

"Pennsylvania state police officials said on Thursday debris from the plane had been foundm up to 8 miles away [from the crash site] in a residential community where local media have quoted residents as speaking of a second plane in the area and burning debris falling from the sky."

Finding debris miles from the crash site indicates that the aircraft was disintegrating well before it hit the ground, as would be the case if the other plane witnesses saw shot it down. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that the debris found miles from the crash site included "clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains." [2] The secretary of defense says Flight 93 was not shot down.[3]

While major media have widely reported that a frantic 911 call was made from Flight 93 stating "We are being hijacked, We are being hijacked," a local Pennsylvania paper reports that the passenger also reported hearing an explosion and seeing smoke coming from the plane, consistent with a shoot down. As the Somerest, PA paper The Daily American states:

"[A] passenger locked in a bathroom aboard United Flight 93 called the 911 ... 'We are being hijacked, we are being hijacked!' dispatch supervisor Glenn Cramer from Westmoreland County quoted the man from a transcript of the call. The man told dispatchers the plane 'was going down. He heard some sort of explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane and we lost contact with him,' Cramer said." [4]

So we have (1) witness accounts of a second plane in the area, (2) burning debris falling, (3) debris falling up to 8 miles from the crash site, (4) human remains falling miles from the crash site, and (5) reports from a passenger that an explosion was heard near the plane and white smoke was coming from the plane. Do these facts support early reports that Flight 93 was shot down by a US fighter jet? Could the the terrorists have smuggled in and detonated a bomb? At the least these facts appear to be inconsistent with the leading scenario being played in the media that the plane crashed as a result of a struggle for control on board the doomed flight.

Assuming the aircraft was shot down, under the circumstances -- other hijackers reasonably connected to the hijackers on Flight 93 using other jets to cause massive casualties on the ground -- it would be difficult to define the act unethical. Indeed, it would have arguably been an heroic act. However, the wrong would be lying to the public about what happened.

___________________________________________________________

[1] Reuters: FBI Cannot Rule Out Shootdown of Penn. Plane. By David Morgan. September 13, 2001. http://us.news2.yimg.com/f/42/31/7m/dailynews.yahoo.com

/h/nm/20010913/ts/attack_pennsylvania_dc_4.html

[2] Pittsburg Post-Gazette: Investigators locate 'black box' from Flight 93; widen search area in Somerset crash. By T. Gibb, J. O'Toole, C. Lash. September 13, 2001. http://post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp

[3] Pittsburg Post-Gazette: Somerset crash scene searched; 'hero' may have aborted terror mission. By T. Gibb, C. Lash J. O'Toole. September 12, 2001. Can't reaquire URL via search.

[4] Daily American: International terror touches Somerset County. By Sandra Lepley. http://www.dailyamerican.com/disaster.html

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

COMING SOON TO AN INTERNET NEAR YOU: http://www.IanGoddard.Net ==============================================================

Unless that one also disappears. Network Solutions "lost" my domain "IanGoddard.com" that I registered first and paid for. Shortly after NS lost it someone else came and registered it. I've sent NS my record of transaction and credit-card receipt, yet they refuse to respond to my requests for an explanation. I'll bet they would never lose the domains for CNN or CBSNews.

If you are interested in a free subscription to The Konformist Newswire, please visit:

http://www.eGroups.com/list/konformist

America as Mystery Babylon
Thirty Six Symbolic Proofs

Brett Daniel Wills
EVentHorizonZine@aol.com

e-Venthorizon.net

"The testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy"
- Revelation 19:10

Revelation 12, 17-19

1. "A woman" - America, effeminate title
2. "fallen, fallen" - Twin Towers collapse
3. "in one our comes to ruin" - Towers collapsed in little over an
hour
3. "a city" - New York, New York
4. "world sees smoker of her burning" - media show towers burning to
entire globe
5. "makes nations drunk with her trade" - Center of World Trade
6. "she held a cup in her hand" - Statue of Liberty, torch painted
gold in 1980s
7. The woman is like Israel - America, Israel are inextricably bound
together
8. "has two horns like a lamb" - Christian nation, constitutionally
conservative
9. "speaks like a dragon" - Satanic nation, verbally and socially
liberal
10. referred to as "great" - described as "great Satan" by Eastern
Islamists
11. "glorified herself" - self-worship by worship of individuality,
image
12. "lived luxuriously", "filled with riches" - America is the riches
nation on earth
13. "clothed with the sun" - is armed with the greatest nuclear might
14. "with the moon under feet" - Apollo landing, only nation to
conquer the moon
15. "rules over the nations of the earth" - single superpower
16. "the earth came to her aid" - international support
17. "given the wings of an eagle" - the eagle is a U.S. symbol
18. drunk with the blood of the saints" - spiritually apostate
19. "boasts, 'I am not a widow'" - brags of its goodness, yet is
unrepentant
20. "in the cup that she mixed" - worship of God with worship of money
21. Three references to "a woman" - apostate church, paganism,
imitates Israel
22. "has a crown of 12 stars" - alliance with and control over EU/NATO
23 God uses her enemies to burn her - international terrorism
24. seven nations, and an eighth against her - seven Islamic nations
and Russia
25. "her sins reached to heaven" - leader in pornography, drugs,
violence, greed
26. world mourns for her "from afar off" - nations distanced by
Pacific and Atlantic oceans
27. Tower of Babel, symbol of multiethnicity - U.S., most
democratized, ethnically integrated
28. Tower of Babel, symbol of one language - U.S. only multiethnic
nation w/universal English
29. "come out of her, lest you share in her sins - allure of American
lifestyle, difficult to resist
30. "strong is the God who judges her" - a new era in warfare against
a faceless enemy
31. "they will plunder her" - Terrorists call for the "plundering" of
the U.S.
32. fifth bowl of God's wrath poured out - retaliation by U.S.
employs nuclear option
33. God conveys it is Himself fighting her - Terrorists call the
fight a "Holy War"
34. "the light of a lamp shall shine no more in you" - The Gospel
hypocritically promoted ends
35. "music" of every kind "shall be heard no more - The U.S. is the
center of all modern music
36. "the merchants of the earth mourn for her" - Stock markets and
trade halt and decline

Explanation of the Evidence
The Book of Revelation claims that there will be a nation in the end
times which sits over the nations of the earth. It's symbol is a
woman who holds up a golden cup in her hand, which she uses to make
the nations drunk with the wine of her financial trading fornication.
The statue of liberty comes immediately to mind. The original bronze
color of the statue has turn a sickly pale green due to soot, and the
torch was painted "gold" in the eighties.
On the very same page where mention of this woman, who is referred to
as a spiritual harlot, is shown, just a few paragraphs further on,
the same page reveals that this woman is "fallen, fallen" and goes on
to mention that she is the center of world trade, and that she is
also referred to "great". She is the mother of harlots, mystery
Babylon. The word "mystery" implies a truth to be revealed in the
latter times, "sealed up till the time of the end," and therefore
cannot be interpreted in historical, traditional texts.
Go back to the book of Genesis, where Babylon is first mentioned, and
we find that a "Tower" was built based on multiethnic pride, and that
God struck it down. "As in the days of Noah, so shall the end be."
Cut back to the present situation. We are a nation that leads the
world toward global trade in preparation for a world system of
democratic governance ("of one mind") and capitalism (love of money,
idolatry) under multiple religions (paganism), as the leader of this
trade, with the Twin Towers being the greatest symbols of that trade.
The bible says that the very beginning of the judgement of this
harlot woman nation is that she is struck in one hour with fire,
causing her "towers" to be "fallen, fallen," which begins the
outpouring of the 5th bowl of God's wrath, leading to nations
being "burned with the sun". Remember also that we are referred to in
the East as the "great" Satan. The social virtues of community and
non-materialism, as well as a deep fear of God, albeit a false God,
is a profound condemnation against the West, which promotes
Christianity yet is socially and morally bankrupt, apostate, corrupt.
It is a gross hypocrisy, without equal.
The European Union, though it has expanded from 12 to 15 nations and
is about to add more nations, yet has chosen to keep its unification
symbol of a crown of 12 stars. Thus Europe is our crowning
achievement of power, our allies, etc. The bible goes on to say that
this woman has "the moon under feet". The sun is symbolic of nuclear
arms, which are hydrogen explosions, the same as the processes of the
sun, reaching the same measure of heat. Also, "the stars will fall
from heaven." As a means of astronomical physics, that is impossible.
But as a source of symbolism, it refers to nuclear war.
Lastly, God calls on Christians to come out America spiritually, lest
we be corrupted by her worship of money and self. Today, Christians
suffer severely from this. And God may well have to rapture us out of
here in order to judge America in full. As long as we remain in it,
God promises not to judge it in full, because "for the sake of ten"
and even one, his "wrath is withheld" as well see in the Old
Testament when prophet stood in the gap between God's anger and the
apostate cities and nations.
So, we may indeed retaliate against terrorism and crush the nations
that sponsor them. But until we overcome our own gross hypocritical
religious nature on a national level, on a par that matches or
exceeds the social virtues of the false theocracies, God has no
choice but to judge us, lest he be otherwise be mocked by us and
accused by the nations we endeavor to evangelize.

If you are interested in a free subscription to The
Konformist Newswire, please visit:

http://www.eGroups.com/list/konformist

The Loyal Opposition
ECHOES OF EXTREMISM
These Are Not Days of Understanding or Reflection

David Corn is the Washington editor of the Nation. His first novel, Deep Background, a political thriller, was published recently by St. Martin's Press.

Extremism in response to extremism is no vice. That seemed to be the reigning principle as American officialdom, and its media cheerleaders, absorbed and processed the awful events of September 11. Much of the rhetoric, analyses, and calls for actions that emanated from television sets and op-ed pages was untethered from reality. And this phenomenon -- which recognized no party lines -- flowed from the top down.

The President was extreme in simplicity. In his Oval Office address to the country, George W. Bush explained the horrendous assault this way: "America was targeted for attack because we’re the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world." Let us hope he does not actually believe this superficial, fairy-tale-ish view. It would be delusional to think that the evildoers who orchestrated and conducted this nightmare operation looked around the globe and decided that the United States must be destroyed because of its devotion to freedom and opportunity. The attack is a consequence of history and policy. The perpetuators were motivated by political, cultural, and ideological concerns forged over years.

To state that, of course, is not to justify this foulest of deeds. But in the wake of such a tragedy, it is incumbent upon responsible leaders and citizens to grapple for a full understanding of the event and what led to it. Miami Herald columnist Carl Hiaasen wrote, "Kids, don’t waste your time trying to understand such lunacy." He could not be any more wrong. Understand we must. In an email, author Micah Sifry, a longtime follower of the Middle East conflicts, observed, "Does anybody think that we can send the USS New Jersey to lob Volkswagon-sized shells into Lebanese villages -- Reagan, 1983 -- or loose ‘smart bombs’ on civilians seeking shelter in a Baghdad bunker -- Bush, 1991 -- or fire cruise missiles on a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory -- Clinton, 1999 -- and not receive, someday, our share in kind?"

History did not begin on September 11. Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982 resulted in the deaths of 17,000 or so civilians. In recent years, the sanctions against Iraq may have destroyed the lives of perhaps half a million children. To establish context is not to excuse the murderers or to suggest such destruction was deserved. (Only Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson believe the latter; see below.) And reaching an understanding does not guarantee the appropriate response and actions will follow. But failing to seek that understanding does increase the odds mistakes will be made and the tragedy compounded.

Consider a post-attack article in Pakistan’s Daily Jang, which reported that "Islamic militant groups say they are having trouble coping with a rush of young Palestinians volunteering for suicide bombings against Israel." One Muslim fundamentalist leader noted "suicide operations have become a means for Palestinians to vent their disgust at several decades of occupation." And a member of the Muslim fundamentalist movement Hamas told the paper, "Our movement cannot cope with all the candidates for martyrdom."

These extremists are not acting because they despise freedom and opportunity in Israel or the United States. The suicide attacks in Israel -- and now in the United States -- are reactions to specific actions and policies. Unjustifiable reactions, indeed -- but not mindless or senseless conduct born of impulse or jealousy. Bush claims this terrorism arises from resentment rather than the conflicts to which the United States has often been a party. He does a disservice to the nation by peddling such a willfully naive line.

The more obvious -- and predictable -- form of extremism was best represented by Senator Zell Miller. The day after the assault, this conservative Democrat from Georgia, declared, "I say bomb the hell out of them.’" On the Senate floor, he added, "If there’s collateral damage, so be it. They certainly found our civilians to be expendable." Meaning that the United States should be willing to kill innocents and head in the moral direction of its enemies. Indeed, retribution against the authors of the attack may entail the loss of civilian life (and this may have even occurred by the time you read this). But the ugly reality of so-called collateral damage should not be diminished, let alone celebrated. A counterstrike should be a sad and somber event, not one of glee and blood-lust. One of the few reasonable voices on this point belonged to former Defense Secretary William Cohen, who told CBS News, "We will be descending into the lower depths of humanity" if the country decides to "engage in a wholesale slaughter of innocent people."

Many talking heads were not heeding Cohen. Before the identity of the guilty parties was established, a claque of pundits and hawks were demanding war. And talk of war is not normally an exercise of subtlety and reflection. Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger said, "There is only one way to begin to deal with people like this, and that is you have to kill some of them, even if they are not immediately directly involved in this thing." Was that his version of the old slogan, "kill them all, and let God sort them out"? Rich Lowry, the editor of the conservative National Review, complained to Howard Kurtz, the Washington Post media reporter, that "It’s not necessarily an easy course to say let’s go to war. It takes some righteous anger and conviction to say that." Nor is it easy, he added, to call for attacks on "states that have been supporting if not Osama bin Laden, people like him. Those states need to feel pain. If we flatten part of Damascus or Tehran or whatever it takes, that is part of the solution."

Not easy to call for war? When thousands of Americans lie dead? When flags are flying everywhere? When hundreds of Americans have threatened Arab-Americans? Does Lowry expect congratulations for assuming this difficult burden?

This is a period of black-and-white pronouncements. Presumably, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta expected to be believed when he professed that aviation "safety is always of paramount importance." Always? Anyone who flies through London or Amsterdam -- let alone Tel Aviv -- knows that the U.S. government has taken a much less vigilant view toward safety than its European counterparts. In many European nations, airline and airport safety is the duty of the government. In the United States, it is often relegated to private contractors who pay their employees low wages. Efforts to raise these wages have been opposed by the companies. And when there was a move to submit these employees to FBI background checks -- which would take time and entail some cost -- the aviation industry successfully lobbied against it.

Extremism also took hold in the statements of national security experts who claimed that critics of the US intelligence community and restrictions placed on the spies were partially responsible for the death and mayhem in New York and Washington. Former Secretary of State James Baker wagged his finger at the Church Committee, the Senate panel that investigated CIA improbity in the 1970s: "We went on a real witch hunt with our CIA.... We unilaterally disarmed in terms of intelligence." Baker, however, raised no dramatic criticisms of this unilateral disarmament when he was chief of staff for President Ronald Reagan or Secretary of State for President George Bush the first. Did he, too, let America down?

Former CIA director James Woolsey repeatedly charged that the CIA has been unduly hampered by regulations imposed in the mid-1990s that curtailed -- but did not eliminate -- the Agency’s ability to recruit human-rights violators and terrorists. These limits came about after it was discovered that a Guatemalan military official, who had killed the husband of American citizen Jennifer Harbury, had been on the CIA payroll. But placing thugs of this sort (and terrorists) on the Agency dole can embolden them and cause them to feel as if they possess made-in-Langley protection. Remember Manuel Noriega, that prized asset of the CIA? By the way, Osama bin Laden once was a significant member of the Afghanistan mujaheddin resistance, which fought the Soviet Union in the 1980s -- and which was trained by the CIA. It is disingenuous to suggest that these restrictions prevent the CIA from gathering information on terrorists. Woolsey acknowledged in one interview that such recruitments can still occur. And in June 2000, CIA spokesman Bill Harlow said, "The notion that our human rights guidelines are an impediment to fighting terrorism is simply wrong." He noted that the CIA has "never, ever turned down a request to use someone, even someone with a record of human rights abuses, if we thought that person could be valuable in our overall counterterrorism program." Moreover, in the years before these restrictions, the CIA had a pathetic record in infiltrating closed governments and tightly-knit targets, such as the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Vietnam, and the Viet Cong.

Other hawks have used the occasion to urge the undoing of the rules that prevent CIA spies from posing as journalists or clergy. The point of this regulation was to not put American reporters and clergy who travel overseas in the crosshairs. Again, when the CIA was free to deploy such methods, it failed miserably in penetrating Castro’s Cuba or the Viet Cong. Will permitting a CIA man to pretend to be a journalist help the agency learn of the intentions of, say, bin Laden, who already does occasionally speak to bona fide reporters? The national security cadre have also called for lifting the prohibition on government-sponsored assassination of foreign leaders -- as if that could provide a magic bullet. Once more, history shows that CIA assassination efforts have never succeeded or contributed to U.S . security.

The day after the attack, the Secrecy News newsletter quoted an administration official who remarked, "Tragic events almost inevitably result in the promulgation of legislation/executive action that reacts to the moment. Most often, these ‘solutions’ turn out to be short-sighted." Expect a slew of such initiatives to be sold to the public as necessary steps in the war against terrorism. And that will include a tremendous boost -- more than 10 percent -- in the Pentagon budget.

One of the most extreme reactions to the horrific assault came -- not too surprisingly -- from Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. "The ACLU’s got to take a lot of blame for this," Falwell said when he appeared on Robertson’s television show. How so? Because, Falwell explained, the civil libertarians have opposed prayer in school. Robertson agreed. "God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve," Falwell remarked. (Talk about blaming America first.) Furthermore, Falwell noted that "the abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad."

September 11 apparently was God’s revenge. If so, the United States should forget about beefing up the CIA, increasing the Pentagon budget, building Star Wars, or even improving airline security. Surely, a nation cannot defend against an act of God. But Falwell failed to explain why God has not similarly punished other nations where abortion occurs. Or why God, if He/She/It were truly angry, didn’t merely smite those who piss Him/Her/It off?

But the Reverend was on a tear: "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say, ‘You helped this happen.’" Robertson chimed in: "I totally concur." Here was one set of fundamentalists crassly taking political advantage of the murderous acts of another set of fundamentalists.

These are not days of understanding or reflection. They are days of horror, tremendous sadness, and, unfortunately, exploitation.

Originally published at:

http://www.tompaine.com/opinion/2001/09/15/1.html

© 1999-2001 The Florence Fund

Reproduced From Tom Paine.com.

Robert Sterling Editor, The Konformist http://www.konformist.com

http://www.konformist.com/911/911.htm http://www.konformist.com/911/who-had-most-to-gain.htm

Who had the most to gain?

All of us who has ever seen a rerun of Columbo, read an Agatha Christie novel, or seen any TV crime drama has heard that question when trying to figure out the most likely suspect of a murder.

Well it looks like five thousand people were just murdered. So ask the question. Well? For starters it's certainly not the hijackers. They lost their lives. What about the people that are supposedly behind them, like Osama bin Laden? It would seem not.

Some terrorist acts may give the perpetrator some street cred: blowing up a mid-air flight like the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie Scotland which was linked back to Libya, blowing a hole in the USS Cole, blowing up a couple of US embassies in some backwater country like Tanzania. You can make a name for yourself in your little region of the world and know that the US will definitely try to catch you, but it's only going to try so hard.

But anyone would have to realize that committing an act so horrifying in size and audacity is sure to commit the US to not rest until it has your head on a stick. It's like a gang member who will try to improve his gangsta rep by shooting a local cop, but knows better than to try to assassinate the president.

Decide for yourself what it means or doesn't mean but the ones who benefit the most from this incident are those in the Bush administration.

Fact: The economy was likely to enter recession. Rightly or wrongly the public tends to place blame for economic downturns on whichever president is in office at the time. Well now if the economy heads south, it's not their fault! It's this horrible tragedy of course that's shaken people's confidence!

Fact: The Bush administration had "nothing to do". No cause. The President was reading to school children when the planes hit. (He couldn't have been too busy with affairs of state). Bush himself has said that this has now become "the focus of (his) administration" They have found their issue, their cause to rally around, and their issue to campaign for reelection on in 3 years.

Fact: Declaring a "war on terrorism" is like declaring a war on vice. It is endless and can be used indefinitely as an excuse to push through whatever agendas they may have like the missile defense shield, increased defense spending, or whatever.

Fact: The label "terrorist" is a very easy one to apply. Especially so the label "harboring" a terrorist. And we now are finding out the "enemy is among us" (here in the US). This sounds an awful lot like the Red Scare of the 50's where the excuse of routing out the invisible communists was used to abuse people's civil rights and intimidate anyone and everyone opposed to the administration or US policy. Today we look back and condemn that as "McCarthyism" but are we so clear sighted about what's right in front of us now?

Fact: Congress just approved a FORTY BILLION "relief aid package" with little to no oversights on how Bush gets to spend it. That's Billion with a "B". And this is not just for disaster clean up and aid to the victims. It's also for the "ongoing" war Bush has told us to expect and "increasing our intelligence capability". Well what does that include exactly? Reading all emails? Eavesdropping on our phone calls? Who knows because they don't have to say. Congress has given the money in the heat of emotion with little or no conditions.

Fact: Congress will have to go along with just about anything the President's administration wants that can be tied in to this disaster. Any representative or senator that dissents will look "unpatriotic" if they say no. This is very dangerous. The founders created three branches of government so that no one branch would have too much power. One of those is the judicial branch and we saw what the Supreme Court did this most recent election. Many legal experts say it was unprecedented that they ruled to hand the election results to Bush rather than say they had no business deciding it and were unduly influenced by the fact that many of the justices were appointed by Bush Sr. So that's one branch that seems not to be performing its role of providing checks and balances. And now the other branch, Congress, is cow towed too.

Fact: This sudden disaster sure seems to have taken many people's attention off the fact that this President won the election under very fishy circumstances in Florida (where his brother is governor). Boy that sure is a big help.

Does this prospect seem horrendous? Too incredible to imagine? Well it's happened before. A great fire destroyed a huge part of Rome. The emperor Nero blamed it on the Christians and used it as an excuse to persecute them and this cause helped the unpopular emperor consolidate his political power and rally patriotic Rome around him. Historians generally feel that Nero himself probably had the fire set. In the 1930's the Reichstag (the German building where their representatives met...like our Capitol building) burned down. Hitler blamed it on the "communists among them" and used it to rally a patriotic Germany around him, consolidating his political power and to persecute his political enemies. People generally agree there is enough evidence to believe the Nazis themselves set fire to the building for just this purpose.

It's very likely the Roman citizens could never imagine their own Emperor setting fire to their own city, and the same with the Germans. And that is exactly why it worked.

After the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, people who suggested people in the government were behind it looked like conspiracy nuts. Even today there seems little motivation to that idea. Unless it was a test. A smaller scale test to see how the public would react. And to extrapolate how they might react to something much bigger in the future.

Back to the suspects: Shortly after the attacks a rental car was found in the parking lot of Boston's Logan airport. Inside was the Koran and an instructional video tape on how to fly airliners. Even some of the news anchors reporting this live seemed to say what an obvious plant this seemed like! It's just not plausible that the perpetrators would be watching a video the day before the attack. It seems they'd have learned how to fly the plane well before then. If they didn't have it down by the day before something's wrong.

And it also doesn't make sense to leave such obvious evidence behind. It might if the attackers/backers planned on taking credit for it. But they haven't. Just the opposite. Everyone is denying it. So if they didn't want to get blamed for it, wouldn't they be a little more careful about leaving behind such obvious evidence?

On Saturday, just days after the attack, they announced that in the rubble of the trade center they found one of the terrorist's passports. We all saw that fireball! The fire was so hot it turned the steel of the building into hot liquid molten metal. But his passport survived? And it was found even though they had only gone through 20,000 tons of debris out of a total of 1.4 million tons? In other words they only scratched the surface of the ruins and there it was? It's like reaching out and taking a pinch from the haystack and lo and behold! There's the needle!

Something about all of this just doesn't smell right. Does that seem unpatriotic? Un-American? Well this country has a long tradition of healthy Yankee skepticism and asking about what might really be going on, what we're not being told rather than falling lockstep behind whatever slogans and rhetoric government leaders are feeding the public like the masses do in totalitarian countries.

So now might be the time to use our heads and try to look beyond the superficial.

Real Americans are not afraid of debate, of different ideas, of free thought. So pass this email along and let people discuss it. If millions of people passed along the email hoax of that phony Nostradamus "prediction" then we owe it to ourselves to share with each other something that is actually relevant.

If you are interested in a free subscription to The Konformist Newswire, please visit:

http://www.eGroups.com/list/konformist

"WAR IS A RACKET" SMEDLEY BUTLER

Smedley Butler on Interventionism -- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC. --

War is just a racket.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket. There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher- ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

If you are interested in a free subscription to The Konformist Newswire, please visit:

http://www.eGroups.com/list/konformist

OSAMA BIN LADEN - A CIA CREATION AND ITS "BLOWBACK"

"TERRORIST" IS CONNECTED TO CIA, DRUGS AND WE MAY HAVE DELIBERATELY PROVOKED HIM TO ATTACK

WE MAY NOT WANT TO CATCH HIM EITHER

[Reprinted from the September, 1998 issue of From The Wilderness]

Michael C. Ruppert

On August 20 [1998] the United States launched a series of cruise missile attacks against alleged terrorist camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, both of which were said to be under the control of a rabid Islamic fundamentalist leader and arch terrorist named Osama bin-Laden. I did some checking on bin-Laden and what I found out leads me to suspect that the CIA and the U.S. government would rather have this evil terrorist hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan than answering questions which might embarrass them.

Shortly after the Russians invaded Afghanistan, the young and wealthy Saudi Arabian named bin-Laden rushed to Afghani mountains to fight a Muslim holy war against Godless Communism. Having inherited more than thirty million dollars from his father's construction business he was in a position to lend immediate help to the struggling Afghani freedom fighters. He formed quick alliances among the half dozen or so major factions of the Mujahedeen led by Afghani Sheik Hekmatyar.

US records indicate that we spent nearly $3 billion dollars over the next eight years to train and equip the Afghan rebels. We even supplied them with Stinger missiles, which caused great concern in later years as we began to fear they would be turned against us. The U.S. Congress appropriated ransom money to buy them back in the early 90s. Few were recovered. In addition the CIA, under Bill Casey, sponsored an explosion in the heroin trade to finance the war. This was nothing new.

In 1979, when the Soviet invasion occurred, virtually none of the heroin entering the US came from the so-called Golden Crescent in Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. At the time it was coming from Mexico and Southeast Asia. By 1982 the region was producing exportable opium base equivalent to 20-30 tons of heroin a year. Of that, at least 4.5 tons reached the U.S. By 1988 those numbers had increased to 70 to 80 tons of heroin of which 15 to 20 tons reached the US.

According to Alfred McCoy, in his outstanding book The Politics of Heroin (Lawrence Hill Books, 1972, 1991), Hekmatyar controlled no less than six heroin refineries in the Khyber District of Pakistan alone. At his side was Osama bin-Laden.

Around the time that Osama bin-Laden moved to Afghanistan in 1980 he was also curiously able to found a series of investment companies under the umbrella SICO which he headquartered in Geneva. Sources formerly in the intelligence community have confirmed to me that, as bin-Laden established branches in the Cayman islands and the Bahamas, he employed law firms and consultants connected to Langley, Virginia and the CIA.

Throughout the Afghan war bin-Laden grew in reputation as a fearless leader and devout Muslim. His wealth also increased rapidly. I wonder why? By the end of the war and the Soviet withdrawal he was known throughout Africa and the Middle East as a radical fundamentalist leader who had turned his sights against the U.S. But this was not without creating enemies both in Afghanistan and his home country of Saudi Arabia, which drew ever more securely into the U.S. sphere - especially during and after the Gulf War.

In the early 1990s bin-Laden took up sanctuary in the Sudan and was afforded a kind of safe haven. He threw himself into massive construction projects including road building. The Sudanese government has admitted that it had an agreement with the U.S. to monitor bin-Laden and to curtail his terrorist activities. In exchange for this Sudan received unspecified rewards. It is, therefore, mystifying as to why, with bin-Laden under scrutiny in the reasonably accessible and penetrable Sudan, the U.S. government forced the Sudanese government to expel him in 1995. This drove him back into the arms of the increasingly hostile Taliban militia in Afghanistan. There, he re-established relations with Afghani drug lords in the towns of Jhost and Jalalabad.

When the U.S. cruise missiles struck the El-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, a host of conflicting stories appeared as to who owned the plant and when it was built. The British turned up a man named Tom Carnaffin who claimed to have helped build the plant and manage it from 1992 through 1996. Other records and sources indicated, however, that the plant was not built until 1996. Carnaffin claimed that he was intimately familiar with the plant and that it could not have produced nerve agents as the U.S. claimed. Later the U.S. backed down and said that it didn't have proof that bin-Laden owned the plant. In the meantime about four other people were named who reportedly did. Some of them didn't know each other.

What really got my attention was the fact that the French Internet publication, Indigo, reported that bin-Laden had been a London guest of British Intelligence as recently as 1996 and his treasurer, last year, defected to the Saudis as different factions shifted alliances for new campaigns in the Middle East. If the guy travels to London and has businesses in the Caymans and Geneva, how difficult can he be to find? Why did the British stand so resolutely behind the American attacks?

Murky? You bet. Fishy? Absolutely. It may be entirely possible that the plant in the Sudan was storing databases for Iraqi chem and biowar agents. It may well be that the plant even had silent investors connected to Sadam Hussein and thence, back here in the States.

Maybe when I have a couple of thousand subscribers and a staff I'll be able to spend the time digging into stories like this one. But one thing's for sure, Osama bin-Laden is in a place where CIA can't reach him right now and I bet they want it that way. Like so many other terrorists, from the World Trade Center, to Pan Am 103, he is one of their own creations.

As my good friend, Producer Marc Levin, points out, the CIA has a term for it when one of their operations goes awry and turns ugly, "It's called 'Blowback'." Levin produced an outstanding 1997 six hour documentary on CIA for PBS entitled, "CIA - America's Secret Warriors."If you haven't seen it I highly recommend it as not only basic reference but great entertainment.

[Special thanks to Ralph McGehee's CIA BASE Program, Alfred McCoy's, The Politics of Heroin and various unnamed sources who prefer it that-a-way.]

Anita Sands Hernandez astrology@earthlink.net

China Strengthens Ties With Taleban by Signing Economic Deal

John Pomfret Washington Post Service Thursday, September 13, 2001

BEIJING. In a sign of Beijing's increasingly close ties with the Taleban regime in Afghanistan, China has signed a memorandum of understanding for economic and technical cooperation with Kabul, press reports from Afghanistan and Pakistan said.

The agreement was reported _Tuesday_, the same day terrorists hijacked four planes in the United States and drove them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. A Chinese delegation signed the deal in Kabul with the Taleban's minister of mining, Mullah Mohammed Ishaq, the news reports said.

China's agreement with the Taleban is the most substantial part of a series of contacts that Beijing has had with Afghanistan over the last two years. Of all non-Muslim countries, Beijing now has the best relationship with the isolated regime in Kabul in the world, a senior Western diplomat said.

While Beijing is not believed to be violating any United Nations- imposed sanctions in its dealings with the Taleban, the contacts have disturbed high-ranking officials from the West and some of China's central Asian neighbors. Several senior officials in Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan, in recent interviews, said they worried that Beijing was trying to curry favor with Kabul at the same time it made a public show of opposing terrorism which seemed to be supported by Afghanistan.

China has helped form the Shanghai Cooperative Organization that joins Russia and three central Asian nations in a loose grouping. One of its main purposes is to combat cross-border terrorism and it is specifically aimed at Afghanistan.

At the same time, China is quietly dealing with the Taleban as part of an effort to convince its officials to close Afghan-based camps that are used to train Muslim separatists from China's restive Xinjiang region. Those separatists on occasion re-enter China and launch attacks on China's security services or on civilian targets.

As part of a sweetener, Asian diplomats say, China has dangled the prospect of providing Afghanistan with much needed help on its infrastructure and economic development.

In 2000, two Chinese telecommunications firms, Huawei Technologies and ZTE, signed contracts to provide limited phone service for Kabul and Kandahar, near where the suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden is supposedly based, regional press reports and diplomatic sources said. Asian and Western diplomats earlier this year identified Huawei as one Chinese firm that was involved in helping Iraq bolster its air defenses by selling it communications equipment.

Chinese engineers have also held negotiations with Taleban officials about renovating an American-built power station, according to an Asian diplomat. Meanwhile, a Taleban-led business delegation came to Beijing earlier this year.

In addition, political contacts between China and the Taleban government have grown. In November 2000, a delegation from the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations, an influential think-tank run by the Ministry of State Security, visited Kabul and Kandahar. China's ambassador to Pakistan has also made at least one recent trip to Kabul and met with Taleban officials in Pakistan's capital Islamabad, Asian diplomatic sources said.

"China has got to make a decision and a decisive one on Afghanistan," said one senior diplomat. "It can play both sides against the middle and anger the West and other countries, or it can really work multilaterally to resolve the terrorism problem. Who knows which course it will take."

NOTE: The fact terrorists sprang, same day as KABUL AND PEKING linked arms means someone upstairs was politically waiting for this NEW AXIS POWERS to emerge in synergy. It's all they needed to create WWIII.

Of course, China will back out, now. Right? RIGHT? NO?

(on knees) DEAR GOD, make CHINA BACK OUT!

Remembering With Astonishment Woodrow Wilson’s Reign of Terror in Defense of "Freedom"

by Joseph R. Stromberg

Wilson’s New Freedom Replaces the Old Ones

Any standard US history text will at least mention, in passing, the suppression of American antiwar dissent in World War I. The great conservative sociologist, the late Robert Nisbet, wrote in 1988 that:

"The blunt fact is that when [under Wilson] America was introduced to the War State in 1917, it was introduced also to what would later be known as the total, or totalitarian, state."

A bit harsh, what? American historians really hate coming to grips with what happened in America, starting in April 1917. They so fail because a fair reading would entail some responsibility for St. Woodrow, who oversaw the whole sorry show. Instead, his worshippers like to quote his little, operationally meaningless expressions of regret about it. But as Nisbet notes, Wilson "was an ardent prophet of the state, the state indeed as it was known to European scholars and statesmen…. He preached it…. From him supremely comes the politicization, the centralization, and the commitment to bureaucracy of American society during the past seventy-five years."

No, historians don’t dwell on Woodrow’s reign of terror. They imagine that "reactionary" subordinates and local bullies did it all, while Woodrow was busy running the war effort and planning the better world to come. Such a kindly fellow was our Woodrow. Historians, in short, would rather devote whole chapters to "McCarthyism," which inconvenienced a few Stalinists for a time, than deal with a real saga of repression and embarrassingly stupid violence.

The Hysterical Cretins Take Charge

To read the story of American official and popular attitudes toward our allegedly highly valued freedoms during World War I is to conclude that the country was overrun with vicious morons. Some of the morons were judges, legislators, and bureaucrats. Others arose from the masses, so to speak, to demand that the people make political war on themselves, the better to fight those terrible Germans. On any fair reading of the period, there was probably more real freedom of speech in Germany and in the German Reichstag in the same years than in the "home of the free" or the World’s Greatest (and Least) Deliberative Body.

The repression drew on pre-existing conflicts. Cases are so numerous that only a few can be mentioned here. The pre-war numskull state-level sedition laws did service during Wilson’s crusade. Some politicians and businessmen used the crisis to crush their trade union antagonists, in a continuation of pre-war labor struggles. The administration suppressed its critics to the Left, while warring on the whole German-American population. This raises an interesting question: if you have allowed immigrants from a particular society to settle among you for almost a century, is it really great statesmanship to find yourselves a war with their country of origin? Conversely, if you anticipate a future war or "war" with a particular society or state, it is great statesmanship to allow members of that society or state to settle among you, now, as motor voters? Perhaps the morons who run this country can look into it.

The Anglophile Willies Find Us A War

The Anglophile Wilson administration’s decided lack of genuine neutrality toward the European war had produced a series of crises. By late February 1917, the President asked Congress for power to outfit American merchant ships with arms – a perfect way to insure an incident which would lead to war between the US and Germany. Senator Robert M. LaFollette of Wisconsin, Progressive Republican, led a filibuster – along with the few remaining antiwar Senators – against the bill. It was known during the debate that at least one Senator on the pro-war side had a loaded revolver on him. Tempers were strained, and Senator Lane of Oregon stood near LaFollette with a sharpened rat-tail file in his pocket, in case the latter needed defending from the ardent patriots in the world’s greatest deliberative body.

The bill failed, but Wilson asserted a new-found "presidential power" to arm the ships on his own motion. In April, he asked for, and received, a declaration of war. During the rather tense, even hysterical debate, pro-war speakers began handing out accusations of "treason" to their fellow members of the great deliberative body. LaFollette and a few others voted No. On his way out of the chamber, a "patriot" handed LaFollette a coil of rope, underscoring, one supposes, the refined good manners to which warmongers adhere, especially when they have gotten their way.

LaFollette later commented that "the espionage bills, the conscription bills, and other forcible military measures… being ground out by the war machine in this country" demonstrated the war party’s "fear that it has no popular support." Certainly, the administration acted as if it thought so. A sedition bill so insanely broad that it would have embarrassed the Federalist Party was quickly passed. It was now a federal crime entailing draconian penalties to question the war, its conduct, its costs, or anything. A great steel door shut down on the American mind, such as it was.

Defending Freedom via the Abolition Thereof

All free communication came to an end. People were arrested and indicted for casual remarks made in private conversation. It was not the New Left of the 1960s that actually invented the claim that the personal is the political – it was the United States government.

A great wave of repression came down on "the freest people in the world," as Americans liked to call themselves. Government gumshoes, federal, state, and local, delighted in following up idle charges of "disloyalty," "treason," "pro-Germanism," and "slacking." Legislatures outlawed the teaching of the German language and the public performance of music by such dangerous Teutons as Beethoven. Wilson and the administration – in charge of the enlarged federal apparatus of repression – encouraged, aided, and abetted local efforts, including those of self-appointed, hyperthyroid "patriotic" snoops and bullies. Tarring and feathering came back in style for those accused of the "crimes" mentioned above. Here and there, a local Barney Fife, or an Army officer who hadn’t quite made it over to Northern France, would shoot a "traitor" for saying the wrong thing in a public place. The hero would then be tried for it, acquitted, and finally, lionized in the moronic press.

Not fully satisfied with their good works so far, many hotheads and morons in positions of public authority demanded redoubled efforts to ferret out "traitors" and "slackers." They called for military courts to try domestic dissenters. Firing squads, they said, should be kept busy, full time. I am leaving out the names of these authentically American Robespierres to spare the feelings of their descendants, who might perhaps agree that these fellows were vicious idiots.

When not satisfied with forcing supposed "traitors" to kiss the flag or sing the praises of the Archangel Woodrow, mobs of patriotic fellows would occasionally hang someone. Meanwhile, Congress, deliberating again, strengthened the Espionage Act to criminalize whatever microscopic bit of free discussion might accidentally still remain. Congress even considered outlawing all discussion of the origins of the war or how America entered, which would have effectively ended all work by historians. Fortunately, however, many of the historians were otherwise employed – in producing propaganda for the cause. For a good discussion of these matters, see H. C. Peterson and Gilbert C. Fite, Opponents of War, 1917-1918 (University of Wisconsin Press, 1957).

Cultural Faux Pas Hardly Noticed At Home

Busy saving and improving the world, high administration officials, including the President, said next to nothing the whole time, only pausing to chide the patriots when their excesses were bad for business or began to look bad in the eyes of the world. Appearances matter, you know, old chap. Mustn’t embarrass the British. US leaders did not really ask anyone to stop.

If France and Britain had ever been embarrassed about crusading for high values alongside the autocratic Czar of Russia, they must have felt some discomfort with the under-civilized Americans coming to their aid. For civilized people everywhere, including in North America, the combined outburst of state repression and popular mob violence made the United States the laughing stock of the world. Violent morons did indeed appear to be having their day in the "freest land on earth." Conservative historian John Lukacs once wrote that the problem with the United States has been, not barbarism, but savagery. Surveying Woodrow’s home front, one begins to understand.

The judges and courts were utterly useless for spotting American freedoms allegedly "protected" by ten amendments. They were indeed part of the problem. They were about as judicious as Judge Jeffreys or Judge Freissler. The celebrated Justice Holmes was on the wrong side of every case that came before him, his celebrated dissents notwithstanding.

I suppose that the unbounded moronism and cretinhood of the patriotic forces in World War might be written off as one of the necessary costs of state-building. Some, like Albert Jay Nock, Randolph Bourne, and Oswald Garrison Villard – who lived through the period – came to question the state building project itself. H. L. Mencken, a German-American, was – as such – a target of the marching morons, and his observation of the wartime debasement of American life formed the context for his low opinion of American politics and civilization.

The people’s participation in suppressing their own rights, so to speak, calls to mind the radical phase of the French Revolution. There, everyone who was not a republican zealot was thought of as an "enemy" to be guillotined. In the American variation, the Rousseauian form of republicanism, in which the people force particular individuals "to be free," held hands with Americans’ notion of their natural goodness as "natural men" produced by the frontier experience. A decaying Protestantism kept watch over the whole sideshow. The constant attack on evil German Kultur suggests that many of the participants doubted, down deep, that America had any sort of culture at all. Perhaps much of this reflected the absence of genuine natural social authority in the United States, the lack of which drove people – screaming bloody murder – into the arms of state power.

It is the most remarkable thing imaginable: a "war," effectively, against the American people and their rights, waged with the support of the above-mentioned moronic sections of the people, allegedly in service of defeating the German enemies of freedom. What utter rubbish. Thanks, Woodrow.

Everywhere, loyalty oaths were demanded. The flag salute became institutionalized, so long ago that "conservatives" now defend it as a timeless national institution. No one asked Why, in a free society, anyone should be under any obligation to salute anyone or anything? No one asked whether or not hounding, harassing, and brutalizing people was really the best means for winning them over to the lovely government and society based upon freedom.

In 1917-1918, it was largely the Left that resisted, and insisted on discussing the war and its causes. Their failure of analysis – i.e., that "capitalism" as such caused the war – must not blind us to their heroism. The I.W.W. (Wobblies) were especially tough to take down. For their resistance to Woodrow, one can almost forgive them their crazy ideology.

By contrast, the public seems to have accepted World War II with complete resignation. A clear majority had opposed entry into the Second Global Bloodbath. Pearl Harbor ended all discussion – though its origins held a certain interest for some – and people did what they had to do. Perhaps some of them didn’t mind being dragooned into being the now topical "Greatest Generation." My own feeling is that popular resignation in World War II rested partly on the fact that, having seen Woodrow’s minions at work in 1917-1918, would-be critics knew what to expect and chose not to be martyrs.

Perpetual War for Perpetual War

Are there any parallels to the present situation, since Tuesday? There may be, but this is not the time for them. My main interest is in whether or not the geniuses who helped bring about the latest crisis will feel a need to suppress all possible criticism. I suppose we could get used to being silenced. It will be very difficult, however, if they cross the line and demand that we agree with them. If they do that, all bets are off, the Van Creveld thesis about legitimacy comes into play, and we’ll all be regretting any number of past historical turning points and wondering which one of them was most important in bringing about the final unraveling of the American story.

When I first composed this piece, I thought that I had perhaps used the word "moron" too many times. Now comes word that some cretin has managed to murder a Sikh, and another fool has disposed of a Pakistani. Looking for an unarmed, inoffensive Arab to kill, the bozos can't even get that right. Morons.

September 18, 2001

Joseph R. Stromberg [send him mail] is the JoAnn B. Rothbard Historian in Residence at the Ludwig von Mises Institute and a columnist for Antiwar.com.

The War Prayer Mark Twain

It was a time of great and exalting excitement. The country was up in arms, the war was on, in every breast burned the holy fire of patriotism; the drums were beating, the bands playing, the toy pistols popping, the bunched firecrackers hissing and spluttering; on every hand and far down the receding and fading spread of roofs and balconies a fluttering wilderness of flags flashed in the sun; daily the young volunteers marched down the wide avenue gay and fine in their new uniforms, the proud fathers and mothers and sisters and sweethearts cheering them with voices choked with happy emotion as they swung by; nightly the packed mass meetings listened, panting, to patriot oratory which stirred the deepest deeps of their hearts, and which they interrupted at briefest intervals with cyclones of applause, the tears running down their cheeks the while; in the churches the pastors preached devotion to flag and country, and invoked the God of Battles beseeching His aid in our good cause in outpourings of fervid eloquence which moved every listener. It was indeed a glad and gracious time, and the half dozen rash spirits that ventured to disapprove of the war and cast a doubt upon its righteousness straightway got such a stern and angry warning that for their personal safety's sake they quickly shrank out of sight and offended no more in that way.

Sunday morning came--next day the battalions would leave for the front; the church was filled; the volunteers were there, their young faces alight with martial dreams--visions of the stern advance, the gathering momentum, the rushing charge, the flashing sabers, the flight of the foe, the tumult, the enveloping smoke, the fierce pursuit, the surrender! Then home from the war, bronzed heroes, welcomed, adored, submerged in golden seas of glory! With the volunteers sat their dear ones, proud, happy, and envied by the neighbors and fiends who had no sons and brothers to send forth to the field of honor, there to win for the flag, or , failing, die the noblest of noble deaths. The service proceeded; a war chapter from the Old Testament was read; the first prayer was said; it was followed by an organ burst that shook the building, and with one impulse the house rose, with glowing eyes and beating hearts, and poured out that tremendous invocation

*God the all-terrible! Thou who ordainest! Thunder they clarion and lightning thy sword!*

Then came the "long" prayer. None could remember the like of it for passionate pleading and moving and beautiful language. The burden of its supplication was, that an ever-merciful and benignant Father of us all would watch over our noble young soldiers, and aid, comfort, and encourage them in their patriotic work; bless them, shield them in the day of battle and the hour of peril, bear them in His mighty hand, make them strong and confident, invincible in the bloody onset; help them to crush the foe, grant to them and to their flag and country imperishable honor and glory--

An aged stranger entered and moved with slow and noiseless step up the main aisle, his eyes fixed upon the minister, his long body clothed in a robe that reached to his feet, his head bare, his white hair descending in a frothy cataract to his shoulders, his seamy face unnaturally pale, pale even to ghastliness. With all eyes following him and wondering, he made his silent way; without pausing, he ascended to the preacher's side and stood there waiting. With shut lids the preacher, unconscious of his presence, continued with his moving prayer, and at last finished it with the words, uttered in fervent appeal, "Bless our arms, grant us the victory, O Lord our God, Father and Protector of our land and flag!"

The stranger touched his arm, motioned him to step aside--which the startled minister did--and took his place. During some moments he surveyed the spellbound audience with solemn eyes, in which burned an uncanny light; then in a deep voice he said:

"I come from the Throne--bearing a message from Almighty God!" The words smote the house with a shock; if the stranger perceived it he gave no attention. "He has heard the prayer of His servant your shepherd, and will grant it if such shall be your desire after I, His messenger, shall have explained to you its import--that is to say, its full import. For it is like unto many of the prayers of men, in that it asks for more than he who utters it is aware of--except he pause and think.

"God's servant and yours has prayed his prayer. Has he paused and taken thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two--one uttered, the other not. Both have reached the ear of Him Who heareth all supplications, the spoken and the unspoken. Ponder this--keep it in mind. If you would beseech a blessing upon yourself, beware! lest without intent you invoke a curse upon a neighbor at the same time. If you pray for the blessing of rain upon your crop which needs it, by that act you are possibly praying for a curse upon some neighbor's crop which may not need rain and can be injured by it.

"You have heard your servant's prayer--the uttered part of it. I am commissioned of God to put into words the other part of it--that part which the pastor--and also you in your hearts- -fervently prayed silently. And ignorantly and unthinkingly? God grant that it was so! You heard these words: 'Grant us the victory, O Lord our God!' That is sufficient. the *whole* of the uttered prayer is compact into those pregnant words. Elaborations were not necessary. When you have prayed for victory you have prayed for many unmentioned results which follow victory--*must* follow it, cannot help but follow it. Upon the listening spirit of God fell also the unspoken part of the prayer. He commandeth me to put it into words. Listen!

"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle--be Thou near them! With them--in spirit--we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it--for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.

(*After a pause.*) "Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! The messenger of the Most High waits!"

It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.

Let’s Trade War Criminals

by Bob Wallace

Here’s an idea to avert the coming war – let’s trade war criminals! We want the war criminal Osama bin Laden. Okay, fine. Let’s trade him for one of our war criminals.

How about Bill Clinton? Clinton spent eight years bombing the hell out of Iraq. Along with our sanctions against that country, the death toll has been estimated to be 750,00 to 1.4 million, many of them children and babies. As an added bonus, we can throw in his attack on Serbia, which was only to draw attention away from Monica Lewinsky. If that doesn’t make him a mass murderer, then what does? What does he have to do? Make it 12 million, like the Nazis?

Besides, we should be happy to get rid of him. We should be embarrassed that we actually elected a psychopathic white trash serial rapist as President. Twice.

We can even sweeten the deal. Let’s make it two for one. They give us bin Laden – we give them Clinton and the grotesque and possibly non-human Madeleine Albright. After all, she did say all those deaths in Iraq were "worth it." Besides, she makes Ayn Rand look like Cindy Crawford. Then, once we have bin Laden, we can put him on trial for terrorism and killing a little over 5,000 people. Once Aghanistan has Clinton and Albright, they can put both on trial for the genocide of over a million people.. (I guess Clinton, in his defense, can say, "It depends on what you mean by the word, ‘kill.’")

Oh, hell, while we’re at it, let’s give them Janet Reno (Maybe she and Albright can share a cell). While terrorists were busy spending years planning on flying airplanes into skyscrapers, Reno was busy sending an innocent boy back to Cuba at gunpoint, shooting teenage boys in the back and women in the head at Ruby Ridge, and immolating men, women, children and babies at Waco. (And oddly, all were Christians...)

Hmmm...anyone else we can send over there? Hey, how about Robert McNamara? One of the architects of Vietnam. It shouldn’t be too hard to find him: just follow the stink of Brylcreem. And, of course, we have to include Henry Kissinger.

Too bad we don’t have a time machine. We could go back, pluck all our war criminals, and have them tried. How about Richard Nixon, LBJ, JFK, Truman, FDR, Woodrow Wilson, and Abe Lincoln?

It’s fun fantasizing, so let’s stick with the present. Clinton and Albright for bin Laden. Let’s sweeten the deal even more. We could throw in some of our military commanders. I wonder what defense they could offer? "We were only following orders"? Some Germans and Japanese dangled from a rope for that one.

I think maybe we could easily cough up a dozen or so modern-day American war criminals.

If we could at least have them put on trial, then maybe those countries in the world who hate us for our arrogance and blindness might have some of their bloodlust assuaged.

After all, everyone wants justice. Don’t we?

September 19, 2001

Bob Wallace [send him mail] is a free-lance writer living in St. Louis.

Reproduced From: Lew Rockwell.com

Hamburg Delenda Est

by John Galvin

It’s time for the Lew Rockwell website and it’s traitorous commentators to get with the program.

Let me explain to you the most fundamental principle of American foreign policy: Any country where the people have unpronounceable names can be bombed by the US with impunity. For you Rockwell readers who are a little slow on the uptake, "impunity" means they aren’t allowed to bomb us back. "We called no tag-backs." It hardly qualifies as impunity when they blow up our biggest buildings, now does it? They aren’t playing by the rules.

There’s only one appropriate response to the destruction of the World Trade Centers: massive bombing of someone, anyone. Let’s not quibble about whom; it’s more important that the bombing commence, and the sooner the better. Ann Coulter represents the feelings of the American people when she says:

"This is no time to be precious about locating the exact individuals directly involved in this particular terrorist attack. … We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

Ms. Coulter has concisely summed up the situation: our bombing needs to be massive, indiscriminate and unrelenting. Forget limp-wristed namby-pamby concepts like "targeted strikes"; no, we want "carpet bombing." Only one motto can adequately describe our policy towards the Arab world: "Kill them all, and let Allah sort out his own." If murdering innocent civilians in order to dramatize internal rage was a good enough policy for the hijackers of the four airliners, then it’s good enough for the USA.

This country cannot afford to tolerate nay-sayers who doubt the effectiveness of indiscriminate bombing inflicted on countries located on the other side of the world. Didn’t it work in Vietnam and Iraq? But we needn’t go back that far in history. Look how well Russia is handling a Muslim insurgency (led by ex-Mujihadeen) in Chechnya. True, they have the advantage of fighting these rebels in their own country, so it’s no wonder they’re succeeding. But the fact that Afghanistan is a mountainous, land-locked country 10,000 miles from the US and virtually surrounded by fellow Muslim nations should not deter us from our resolve to exercise our righteous indignation.

President Bush, however, has pointed out a potential drawback to this policy, "When I take action I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive." As President Bush implies, Afghanistan doesn’t even have any targets worth demolishing. After twenty years of unremitting warfare and devastation, today there’s hardly one stone left standing upon another in the entire country. Afghanis are preoccupied with concerns such as locating their next meal. That’s why they’re living in "$10 tents."

Fortunately, Ms. Coulter’s article suggests a more appropriate target for carpet-bombing: Germany. As she says, "We did it before, why not do it again?" As far as "harboring terrorists," the credentials of the Germans are much better than the Taleban. Where did this terrorist cell originate before it came to the US to do its evil work? Hamburg! If we’re going to start carpet-bombing countries that harbor terrorists, here is our obvious first target. To make things easier on us, most of the Germans even have funny names like "Gunter" and "Helmut," practically as strange as "Osama." And while we’re sending in the heavy bombers, we can wipe out Dresden again, just for old times sakes.

Once we’ve "bombed back to the stone age" those harborers of terrorism in Germany, let us not forget the stirring words of Sen. Lieberman: "In this struggle, vengeance is not victory. Retaliation for yesterday's atrocities is only the end of the beginning of what should be our response, not the beginning of the end of that response." Vengeance upon Germany should be only a start, but where should we strike next? The answer is obvious: Egypt and Saudi Arabia!

None of the 19 terrorists were Afghanis; they weren’t even Iraqis, Iranians or Palestinians. But the FBI is indicating that most, if not all, are connected to either Egypt or Saudi Arabia. Will we withhold from these countries the "hammer of Thor" merely because they are our most reliable allies in the Middle East? No! Let us never again make the mistake of distinguishing between terrorists and those who harbor them. These countries must be wiped off the map. Let the bombing of Cairo commence. And while we’re at it, we can buy a few one-way tickets to Canada for any yellow-bellied pacifists who complain about unavoidable "collateral damage" to civilians.

Now I’m not saying that we shouldn’t drop a few bombs here and there on some other targets. After all, back in July our Department of Defense proclaimed, "The United States reserves the right to strike targets at a time and a place and a manner of our choosing." In other words, we can bomb anyone, anywhere, anyway we damn well please. In February President Bush ordered attacks on five locations around Baghdad "to get Saddam Hussein’s attention." That policy obviously succeeded beyond our wildest expectations. No reason we shouldn’t try it again. Nor will I be the kind of party-pooper who complains whenever the military has a little harmless fun rattling Moammar Qadhafi’s cage. Libya would be insulted if they were left out of the "network of terror." But doesn’t it make more sense to go after the bigger – and more obviously guilty – parties first? Only when Hamburg’s soil has been sown with salt will true-blue red-blooded Americans be able to sleep soundly at night.

September 20, 2001

John Galvin is a businessman living in Cincinnati. His most recent publication is "Humanae Vitae: A Critical Re-evaluation."

Reproduced From: LewRockwell.com

A Yiddishe Medina

by Israel Shamir*

The great slaughter of innocents is imminent. Very soon, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of our brothers by Adam and Eve will be strafed, napalmed, and nuked. Boys and girls, unborn babes and old men will be brought to the altar of Vengeance and ritually slaughtered by the High Priest of that God, President George W. Bush. The time is aptly chosen, and it is hardly a coincidence. The ten days after Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, are called the Days of Trepidation, all the way to the tenth day, Yom HaDin, the Doomsday.

President Bush called his enterprise, Crusade. This title invokes in our memory the dour knights of Aquitaine and pious Frankish warriors, who took Cross and with the name of Our Lady on their lips ventured into a long and hard pilgrimage. Reality was worse. The Crusade was a Western Jihad and it caused a lot of bloodshed. The Crusaders were wild and unruly, they sacked the most beautiful Christian city on earth, Constantinople, and they drenched in blood the holy ground of Jerusalem. A Crusader chronicler Radulf of Caen, wrote of his comrades-at-arms, in the Syrian city of Maarra, ‘they impaled babies on spits, grilled and devoured them’. They were rough folk, and still I would like to save the name of these killers and cannibals from being besmirched by association with G.W. Bush’ Crusade. They never went after revenge, this most un-Christian, even anti-Christian feeling.

The very essence of Christ’s Gospel was the rejection of revenge. That was the great difference between the Church and the Synagogue, these two sisters born two thousand years ago. This difference is built in, it is the inherent most prominent feature of the gap between the two faiths: while Christians are called to pray for their enemies, Jews dream of vengeance.

In the intended ideological confusion of last century, Christians are taught to think that the Jews wait for Messiah who is Christ. Christianity teaches that He came and will come again, while Judaism considers the Messiah did not come yet, that is all the difference according to the teaching of Judeo-Christianity. But reality is vastly different: Christ came to save, while Messiah comes to take revenge. It was proven by the brilliant Israeli scholar, Prof. Israel Jacob Yuval of Hebrew University in his new book, Two Nations In Your Womb[i]. ‘Vengeful salvation’, as Yuval called it, was adopted by the European Jews from the old Pharisee sources and became the prevailing doctrine of the Synagogue.

When Dr Israel Yuval published his insightful book on theology of vengeance in Judaism, it was accepted with great enthusiasm by his Israeli colleagues, but the American Jewish scholars hated it. Dr Ezra Fleischer wrote a vehement critique, concluding it with the words: ‘it would be better if such a book would not be printed, but if it was printed, it should be sentenced to oblivion’.

Prof. Yuval quotes many ancient Jewish texts proving this point. “In the End of the days (when the Messiah comes) God will destroy, kill and exterminate all the nations but the sons of Israel”, written in the Sefer Nitzahon Yashan, written by a German Jew in 13^th c. A liturgical poet Klonimus b. Judah had a vision of ‘God’s hands full of Goys’ corpses’. Even more dreadful dreams of blood and destruction precede the first attacks on Jews in the end of 11^th century. A hundred years before the Crusaders’ onslaught on Jews, R. Simon b. Yitzhak calls on God ‘to take His sword and slaughter the Gentiles’. In order to hasten the destruction of Gentiles, the sages of Europe adopted curses against Christians and Christ, and introduced them into liturgy of Passover, Doomsday and even the daily prayer.

That is why the decision of President Bush to embark of the campaign of revenge is not a Christian act. One could argue that the President and his administration are manipulated by the Jews, who dream of vengeance. Not in vain, immediately after Wall Street was hit by kamikaze, Bibi Nataniyahu said ‘it is very good for us’[ii]. Not in vain, Ariel Sharon tried to compare Palestinians to Osama b. Laden. Not in vain, Israelis demand destruction of Baghdad and Teheran, of Korea and Sudan, of everybody who is not taking orders from Tel Aviv or Washington.

A mystic would not call it ‘manipulation’, but would accept for its face value the arrival of Messiah of Vengeance in the unlikely figure of G.W. Bush. The Messiah of Vengeance has actually a different name in Christian theology. He is called Antichrist.

The Christian theologians tried to delve in the qualities of this apocalyptic figure. St John of Damascus prophesied, ‘Antichrist will come to Jews and for Jews, against Christ and Christians’. (John the Damascene was a friend of Islam and he explained Muslim dogma of eternal Koran as a form of the Christian teaching of Logos). Church Fathers considered the Rise of Antichrist as the rise and temporary triumph of Judaism. In 10 c., St Andrew the Byzantine prophesied, ‘The kingdom of Israel will be restored and it will become the launching pad of Antichrist’.

This proximity of Israel to Apocalypse is felt by millions of devout Christians in the United States. They learned that the rise of Antichrist is the stage on the way to the Second Coming. But, being misled by their pastors, they draw a paradoxical conclusion and decided to side with Antichrist. They forgot the words, ‘the Son of Man will go as it has been decreed, but woe to that man’ who sides with Antichrist.

There are two days of the Jewish calendar especially suitable for the vengeance. One of them is Purim, the day, when according to Esther, the Jews slaughtered 75,000 Gentiles in Persia. On Purim, Dr Baruch Goldstein of Brooklyn and Hebron massacred the devout Muslims on the Tomb of Abraham. On Purim, the ministers of Germany were executed in Nuremberg. On Purim, two hundred thousand Iraqis were immolated by the US Air Force in 1991. Purim is auspicious, but Doomsday is even more appropriate for the vengeance on the grand scale, for the massacre of Messianic proportions. Soon afterwards, there is the feast of Succoth, when the Messiah could be revealed.

Just one minute before we declare Bush as the Antichrist and/or Messiah, there is one circumstance that calls for investigation. We know now of some inside trading in insurance and airline shares that imply a previous knowledge of the forthcoming attack. We know of some advance warnings in the Jewish-owned investment banking system. I can not imagine a Muslim terrorist who would try and fit the schedule of the Jewish High Holidays. Even less I could imagine the apocalyptic Antichrist and his Jewish Cabbalist advisers buy futures on the stock exchange. It is easier to seek some bad guys, not necessarily diabolic. Prudence demands we should account for mundane factors before going to the celestial ones. That was the preferred method of Father Brown, the hero of G.K. Chesterton: before applying for a miracle, check material sources.

Indeed, there is no certainty that President Bush is manipulated by the Jews. Such presumption is based on idea that there is a non-Jewish United States, ‘America stand-alone’, manipulated and subverted by Jews. If it would be the case, by miraculously excluding the Jews from public discourse, this original America would be regained. Actually, the recent post-terror discourse in the US is a hesitant proof to the contrary.

Many American public figures, Jews and non-Jews alike, called for revenge. “There is only one way to begin to deal with people like this, and that is you have to kill some of them even if they are not immediately directly involved in this thing”, said the former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger[iii], who heads the Jewish organisation for claims to Germany, at USD 300,000 per annum.

‘The response to this unimaginable 21st-century Pearl Harbor should be as simple as it is swift - kill the bastards. A gunshot between the eyes, blow them to smithereens, poison them if you have to. As for cities or countries that host these worms, bomb them into basketball courts’ said Steve Dunleavy in New York Post[iv]. In Washington Post, Rich Lowry proposed, ‘If we flatten part of Damascus or Tehran or whatever it takes, that is part of the solution[v]

The best quote goes to Ann Coulter, ‘This is no time to be precious about locating the exact individuals directly involved in this particular terrorist attack.... We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity (!?). We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war’. She wrote it in New York Daily News[vi], the newspaper of Mortimer Zuckerman, the current Head of the Presidents’ Conference of American Jewish Organizations.

This vengeful spirit of the American press is an aberration of the Western discourse. If you sift the world literature of the Christian and Muslim lands, you would discover that revenge appears rarely as the main subject of an important book. Nikolai Gogol wrote a Gothic short story called The Terrible Revenge, Prosper Mérimée wrote a novelette Colomba on Corsican vendetta. C’est tout. Brits always considered revenge a very un-English trend, certainly not cricket. ‘Vengeful’ is a negative word in every Christian and Muslim culture. The Jewish culture, au contraire, is saturated with the idea of vengeance, as it draws straight from the Old Testament, without the redeeming filter of the New Testament or Koran.

We Jews know it better than anybody. A brilliant American Jewish journalist, John Sack noticed it in his Eye for Eye, a chilling book about horrible revenge exacted by Jews from the German civilians after WWII. This book tells of tortures, ‘extra-judicial killings’, mass poison and other horrors. You are not likely to get this book, as the Jewish establishment succeeded to suppress it and keep it out of bookshops.

Not surprisingly, Israel promoted vengeance into its daily policy. Its attacks on Palestinians were called peulot tagmul, the acts of vengeance. One of these acts was perpetrated by the Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 14 of October, 1953, when he and his soldiers murdered some sixty peasants, women and children in the village of Qibya. The invasion of Lebanon in 1982 with its 20,000 murdered Lebanese and Palestinians, Christians and Muslims, was an act of revenge for the attempt to assassinate Israeli ambassador in London. During last intifada, every act of Israeli terror is called ‘retribution’ or ‘retaliation’ by Israelis and by American Jewish-owned media.

This Jewish infatuation with vengeance survived the hazardous crossing of the Atlantic. The American Jews created Hollywood, and Hollywood made vengeance its main subject. In a way, American cinema is an expression of the Jewish collective subconscious, and it was the main factor in creation of the American psyche. From Hollywood, vengefulness flew all over the earth, and certainly helped to create the world we inhabit. In other words, there was no need for a conspiracy. Rather immature America could not withstand the impact of Jewish mentality, and she became a Jewish State, the big sister of Israel. A grandson of Trier Rabbi, who grew in the Church, Karl Marx actually prophesied in the 1840s (!) that America will become a Jewish state, and will embrace the Jewish ideology of greed and alienation. It explains successes of Jews: it is just natural that in the Jewish state, Jews succeed more.

This explanation allows us to answer the question we posted previously, does America support Israel because of the Jewish lobby or because of the ‘true interest of American corporations’. The answer is, the Jewish lobby is a superfluous body supportive of Israeli right-wing, while America as a whole is a grander Jewish state with interests outside the Middle East as well.

This presumption explains away a lot of queries. It explains incredible 99 per cent vote for support of Israel. It explains endless Holocaust museums, Holocaust studies and Holocaust films. It explains centrality of Jews in American life, as now America views world events from a traditional Jewish position, ‘whether it is good for Jews?’

It explains the US walkout at Durban. JW Bush did not mind to quarrel with Europe and Japan and went back on Kyoto treaty. He did not give a damn to annoy Russia and China with his unilateral decision to drop Strategic Arms Treaty. But here he heard His Master’s Voice. This haughty rejection of Africa and Asia, this insulting dismissal of the Afro-American community, this rejection of the great cause of struggle against racism was an additional proof that the US became a sister state to Israel.

Recently, President Vladimir Putin tried to justify his onslaught on Chechens in an interview to Newsweek[vii]. He said, the Chechen leaders ‘publicly called for the extermination of Jews’, relegating critics of his war to the ranks of anti-Semites. Now, Chechnya has no Jews, and Chechen leaders’ opinion on Jews would be irrelevant, if anti-Semitism would still preserve its original meaning, i.e. anti-Jewish prejudice or racism. In this form, it does not exist anymore, as we proved elsewhere[viii], but the word received a new meaning. It became an equivalent of anti-Americanism in the days of McCarthy, or as anti-Sovietism in Brezhnev’s Soviet Union.

Whoever rejects new American paradigm, in America or elsewhere, is an anti-Semite by definition. That is why good persons of Jewish origin, whether Noam Chomsky or Woody Allen, St Paul or Karl Marx are called ‘anti-Semites’. They are usually rejected by the Jewish community, but their names are used to defend the structure they attacked.

An offence to the Jewish community is not considered a form of racism, as ordinary racism is tolerated with great ease, especially if it is directed towards Arabs (new enemies of Jews) or Blacks (old enemies of Jews). It is treated as a ‘lese majesté’ (in the years of Jewish ascendancy in the Soviet Union (1917 – 1937), people were shot for an anti-Jewish remark). Manfred Stricker of Strasbourg campaigned to name the local university after Dr Schweitzer, while the Jewish community preferred the name of a Jewish scholar with a loose connection to the city. As the result, Manfred Stricker was sentenced to six months of jail.

While speaking to students in Harvard, Emory and other Ivy League universities, I noticed that they do not know the name of Arnold Toynbee. The greatest British philosopher of history in 20^th century made an error: he spoke of the tragedy of Palestinians. He also mentioned the African slavery as a tragedy on a par with the Jewish holocaust. As a result, he was erased and disappeared from American conscience. This totality of control over public discourse explains obedience of American (and European) intellectuals. For an intellectual, it is better to be called a paedophile, but not an anti-Semite.

In the Jewish American state, the Jews form its ‘Church’, its ideological establishment. I feel about this ‘church’ as Voltaire, who said, “Destroy the infamy” of the Catholic Church he was born into.

In the Jewish American state, the Jews are the most successful group of society. This sudden rise to glory and riches should not be a cause for vertigo and self adulation. Other way around. Following the line of thought of this great American philosopher, Immanuel Wallerstein, I shall say: material success in our days is a sign of moral failure. ‘Success’ and riches is not a sign of God’s benevolence. Anyway, not of God who blessed the poor. A man who succeeds in the robbers’ gang, fails in the eyes of God. Our world with its starving millions and over-prosperous minority is immoral and anti-Christian, as anti-Christian as the ‘Crusade’ of President Bush.

[i]Publisher: Alma/Am Oved, Tel Aviv, 2000, ISBN 965-13-1428-1

[ii] NY Times, 12.9.01

[iii] CNN, 9/11/01

[iv] 9/12/01

[v] --Rich Lowry, National Review editor, to Howard Kurtz (Washington Post, 9/13/01)

[vi] 9/12/01

[vii] 2.7.01

[viii] The Third Dove

Find this article at:
http://shamir.mediamonitors.net/september202001.html

Reproduced From: mediamonitors.net

* Israel Shamir is a leading Russian-Israeli intellectual, writer, translator and journalist.

Shamir was born in Novosibirsk, Siberia, a grandson of a professor of mathematics and a descendant of a Rabbi from Tiberias, Palestine. He studied at the prestigious School of the Academy of Sciences, and read Math and Law at Novosibirsk University. In 1969, He moved to Israel, served as paratrooper in the army and fought in the 1973 war. After the army, he resumed his study of Law at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, but abandoned the legal profession in pursuit of a career as a journalist and writer.

He got his first taste of journalism with Israel Radio. As a freelance, his varied assignments included covering Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in the last stages of the war in South East Asia. In 1975, Shamir joined the BBC and moved to London. In 1977-79 he wrote for Maariv and other papers from Japan. While in Tokyo, he wrote 'Travels With My Son', his first novel. He also managed to find time to translate a number of Japanese classics.

After returning to Israel in 1980, Shamir wrote for the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz and Al Hamishmar newspapers and worked in the Knesset as the spokesman for the Israel Socialist Party (Mapam). He translated the works of SY Agnon, the only Hebrew Nobel Prize winning writer, from the original Hebrew to Russian. His work was published and reprinted many times in both Israel and in Russia. He also translated selected chapters of Joyce's Ulysses, which were well received by publishers in Moscow, Tel Aviv, New York and Austin, Texas. Another of his translations, the Israeli-Arab Wars by President Herzog, was published in London.

His most popular work, the Pine and the Olive, the story of Palestine/Israel, was published in 1988. Its cover carried a painting by the Ramallah painter, Nabil Anani. As the first Palestinian Intifada began, Shamir had left Israel for Russia, where he covered the eventful years 1989-1993. While in Moscow, he reported for Haaretz, but was sacked for publishing an article calling to the return the Palestinian refugees and the rebuilding of their ruined villages. He wrote for various Russian newspapers and magazines, including Pravda and Zavtra weekly. In 1993, he returned to Israel and settled in Jaffa. He wrote for Russian newspapers both in Israel and Russia and contributed to various literary magazines. During this period, he also worked on a new translation of the Odyssey, which was published in 2000 in St. Petersburg, Russia. His next big project was translating a Hebrew medieval Talmudic manuscript into Russian.

In response to the second Palestinian uprising in thirteen years, Shamir has temporarily abandoned his literary occupation and resumed his work as a journalist. In the midst of all the endless talk of a "Two State solution", Shamir, along with Edward Said, has become a leading champion of the 'One Man, One Vote, One State' solution in all of Palestine/Israel. His most recent essays have been circulating widely on the Internet and are now posted on many prominent media sites. With every new article, Shamir is establishing himself as a journalist whose work speaks to the aspirations of both the Israelis and the Palestinians. His most recent works include Acid Test, Rape of Dulcinea, Galilee Flowers, Joseph Revisited and Kid Sister.

Shamir (50) lives in Jaffa, he is father of two sons.

New Dawn Magazine, Join our News and Announcement List GPO Box 3126FF,

To join, send email with the word Melbourne, VIC 3001 Subscribe in the subject line AUSTRALIA http://www.newdawnmagazine.com

EIGHTEEN GUYS WHO SHOOK THE WORLD By Ted Rall

America Unmasked as a Paper Tiger

NEW YORK -- "Power is an illusion," columnist Jimmy Breslin wrote during Watergate. At no time in our lives has that truism been more evident.

The demise of the Soviet Union, we know as surely as we can know anything nowadays, left us Americans in charge of the planet. What we never considered was how little it took to bring down our rival superpower: the CIA dumping dollars on the floors of Moscow lavatories to destabilize the ruble. A nuclear meltdown at Chernobyl.

Afghanistan.

It happened to them. Now it's happening to us.

Integral to the shaking fists and the flag-waving hysteria and the funerals -- thousands and thousands more of those to come, by the way -- is a rage born of impotence. Conservatives applaud and liberals deplore our expensive governmental monitoring systems -- what would we have argued about had we known that neither the CIA nor the NSA knew what was going to go down Sept. 11? For what does it profit a country to starve its schools if its fattened Pentagon can't even protect its own headquarters from a terrorist attack?

The United States has finally been unmasked as the greatest Potemkin ever conceived -- "great magnificent shapes, castles and kingdoms," in Breslin's words. Or to paraphrase Edward G. Robinson's classic diss of Fred MacMurray in "Double Indemnity": We thought we were smart, but we were wrong. We're just a little bigger.

Air-traffic controllers realized fairly quickly that those four jets had been hijacked. American Flight 11, out of Boston, took 46 minutes to hit Tower One of the World Trade Center. United Flight 175 struck Tower Two 65 minutes after leaving Boston.

Most damning, American Flight 77 was aloft a total of 88 minutes -- nearly an hour and a half -- making it from Washington/Dulles to southern Ohio en route to Los Angeles before turning around. Math: The flight did a 180-degree turn at least 44 minutes away from the Pentagon. Why weren't our F-16s on top of that plane within 10 minutes? Why wasn't it shot down during the next 34 minutes after that? The answer, sheepishly admitted and buried deep amid the assorted tales of horror, was that there is no policy for forcing down a civilian airliner.

Unless, of course, there was. The Air Force denies shooting down United Flight 93, which crashed and burned in Shanksville, Pa., the government's silence certifying called-in media stories of heroic passengers rebelling against their captors. Those accounts, however, are cast into doubt by the government's refusal to release the plane's voice cockpit recorder tapes to the public. It's a safe bet, after all, that a bold struggle for control would at least make it out in transcript form. So it's possible that Bush or other officials made a terrible, yet courageous, decision to act; if so, the need to keep it secret provides ample testimony to the aftermath of last year's election-that-never-was: If Bush is the perfect president for this time, he's the empty-headed embodiment of our national cluelessness.

America's embarrassment of embarrassments continues apace. CIA superspooks admit that their posse of white Mormons from Utah never learned Pashto or Tajik, Afghanistan's two principal languages. The loss of four planes and a few days of airport closures decimate the biggest airline industry in the world, resonating through the economy in the form of the biggest stock-market crash ever. Half a dozen buildings accounting for less than 1 percent of New York City's office space vanish; the national economy plunges decidedly into recession and beyond.

What would we do if we really were at war? How can the richest superpower in the history of mankind have been brought so low by 18 guys?

The United States, it turns out, entered the 21st century atop a crumbling house of cards. When the Soviet Union went away, we lost the ideological and economic competition that had kept us sharp after World War II. We became complacent, smug and arrogant. History, Francis Fukuyama told us in 1993, had ended. Global free-market capitalism, epitomized and led by U.S. corporations, represented the pinnacle of achievement of historical evolution.

A power vacuum opened in Central Asia. Afghanistan disintegrated into civil war, anarchy and religious madness. Surrounding republics -- Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Pakistan -- were sucked into a vortex of instability and anti-Western sentiment fueled by clumsy U.S. attempts to suck all the oil out of the region without paying off any of the locals. This, and America's blank check to Israel, inspired tens of thousands of militant Muslims to their facile conclusion: Sometimes the bull in the china shop won't leave voluntarily. That's when you kill it.

Osama and his jihad boys sized us up fairly well. Behind the high-tech metal detectors in our airports were underpaid incompetents. Manning our tactical defenses were dimwitted dolts devoid of imagination. Bolstering our outsized economy was a mountain of debt and an easily spooked securities market. And behind the boast that the World Trade Center could withstand a collision with a jumbo jet was the horrible, awful truth: No amount of bluster can cancel out basic physics. As the cliche goes, we believed our own hype and now we're paying the price.

Our close-to-the-bone brand of capitalism turned out to be our economic Achilles' heel. Corporations that fill metal tubes with highly combustible fuel and upper-middle-class citizens and propel them eight miles over the surface of the Earth at high speeds ought to be prepared for an occasional mishap, but they're not -- and neither are insurers who are, after all, in the business of risk appraisal. A week of reduced productivity has ruined crops (no crop dusters during the flight ban) and trashed the economies of states dependent on tourism.

This, since George W. Bush and his tax-cutting maniacs have forgotten, is why governments and companies both need savings and surpluses. "It's my money," Republicans like to say, "and I can use it better than the government can." Worst of all, decades of increasing disparity of wealth have made it impossible for ordinary people to help out the only way they really could, by spending discretionary income. Now that we've let them steal all of our money, where are all the jobs rich people are supposed to create? This is the way empires end, with a bang and a whine.

(Ted Rall, a syndicated cartoonist for Universal Press Syndicate, is author of the new books "2024" and "Search and Destroy.")

Who Is Osama Bin Laden?

by Michel Chossudovsky Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa

Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), Montréal Posted at globalresearch.ca 12 September 2001

A few hours after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, the Bush administration concluded without supporting evidence, that "Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organisation were prime suspects". CIA Director George Tenet stated that bin Laden has the capacity to plan ``multiple attacks with little or no warning.'' Secretary of State Colin Powell called the attacks "an act of war" and President Bush confirmed in an evening televised address to the Nation that he would "make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them". Former CIA Director James Woolsey pointed his finger at "state sponsorship," implying the complicity of one or more foreign governments. In the words of former National Security Adviser, Lawrence Eagleburger, "I think we will show when we get attacked like this, we are terrible in our strength and in our retribution."

Meanwhile, parroting official statements, the Western media mantra has approved the launching of "punitive actions" directed against civilian targets in the Middle East. In the words of William Saffire writing in the New York Times: "When we reasonably determine our attackers' bases and camps, we must pulverize them -- minimizing but accepting the risk of collateral damage" -- and act overtly or covertly to destabilize terror's national hosts".

The following text outlines the history of Osama Bin Laden and the links of the Islamic "Jihad" to the formulation of US foreign policy during the Cold War and its aftermath.

Prime suspect in the New York and Washington terrorists attacks, branded by the FBI as an "international terrorist" for his role in the African US embassy bombings, Saudi born Osama bin Laden was recruited during the Soviet-Afghan war "ironically under the auspices of the CIA, to fight Soviet invaders". 1

In 1979 "the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA" was launched in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in support of the pro-Communist government of Babrak Kamal.2:

With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan's ISI [Inter Services Intelligence], who wanted to turn the Afghan jihad into a global war waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan's fight between 1982 and 1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad.3 The Islamic "jihad" was supported by the United States and Saudi Arabia with a significant part of the funding generated from the Golden Crescent drug trade:

In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166,...[which] authorize[d] stepped-up covert military aid to the mujahideen, and it made clear that the secret Afghan war had a new goal: to defeat Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a Soviet withdrawal. The new covert U.S. assistance began with a dramatic increase in arms supplies -- a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987, ... as well as a "ceaseless stream" of CIA and Pentagon specialists who traveled to the secret headquarters of Pakistan's ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. There the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers to help plan operations for the Afghan rebels.4 The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) using Pakistan's military Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) played a key role in training the Mujahideen. In turn, the CIA sponsored guerrilla training was integrated with the teachings of Islam:

Predominant themes were that Islam was a complete socio-political ideology, that holy Islam was being violated by the atheistic Soviet troops, and that the Islamic people of Afghanistan should reassert their independence by overthrowing the leftist Afghan regime propped up by Moscow.5 Pakistan's Intelligence Apparatus Pakistan's ISI was used as a "go-between". The CIA covert support to the "jihad" operated indirectly through the Pakistani ISI, --i.e. the CIA did not channel its support directly to the Mujahideen. In other words, for these covert operations to be "successful", Washington was careful not to reveal the ultimate objective of the "jihad", which consisted in destroying the Soviet Union.

In the words of CIA's Milton Beardman "We didn't train Arabs". Yet according to Abdel Monam Saidali, of the Al-aram Center for Strategic Studies in Cairo, bin Laden and the "Afghan Arabs" had been imparted "with very sophisticated types of training that was allowed to them by the CIA" 6

CIA's Beardman confirmed, in this regard, that Osama bin Laden was not aware of the role he was playing on behalf of Washington. In the words of bin Laden (quoted by Beardman): "neither I, nor my brothers saw evidence of American help". 7

Motivated by nationalism and religious fervor, the Islamic warriors were unaware that they were fighting the Soviet Army on behalf of Uncle Sam. While there were contacts at the upper levels of the intelligence hierarchy, Islamic rebel leaders in theatre had no contacts with Washington or the CIA.

With CIA backing and the funneling of massive amounts of US military aid, the Pakistani ISI had developed into a "parallel structure wielding enormous power over all aspects of government". 8 The ISI had a staff composed of military and intelligence officers, bureaucrats, undercover agents and informers, estimated at 150,000. 9

Meanwhile, CIA operations had also reinforced the Pakistani military regime led by General Zia Ul Haq:

'Relations between the CIA and the ISI [Pakistan's military intelligence] had grown increasingly warm following [General] Zia's ouster of Bhutto and the advent of the military regime,'... During most of the Afghan war, Pakistan was more aggressively anti-Soviet than even the United States. Soon after the Soviet military invaded Afghanistan in 1980, Zia [ul Haq] sent his ISI chief to destabilize the Soviet Central Asian states. The CIA only agreed to this plan in October 1984.... `the CIA was more cautious than the Pakistanis.' Both Pakistan and the United States took the line of deception on Afghanistan with a public posture of negotiating a settlement while privately agreeing that military escalation was the best course.10 The Golden Crescent Drug Triangle The history of the drug trade in Central Asia is intimately related to the CIA's covert operations. Prior to the Soviet-Afghan war, opium production in Afghanistan and Pakistan was directed to small regional markets. There was no local production of heroin. 11 In this regard, Alfred McCoy's study confirms that within two years of the onslaught of the CIA operation in Afghanistan, "the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderlands became the world's top heroin producer, supplying 60 percent of U.S. demand. In Pakistan, the heroin-addict population went from near zero in 1979... to 1.2 million by 1985 -- a much steeper rise than in any other nation":12

CIA assets again controlled this heroin trade. As the Mujahideen guerrillas seized territory inside Afghanistan, they ordered peasants to plant opium as a revolutionary tax. Across the border in Pakistan, Afghan leaders and local syndicates under the protection of Pakistan Intelligence operated hundreds of heroin laboratories. During this decade of wide-open drug-dealing, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency in Islamabad failed to instigate major seizures or arrests ... U.S. officials had refused to investigate charges of heroin dealing by its Afghan allies `because U.S. narcotics policy in Afghanistan has been subordinated to the war against Soviet influence there.' In 1995, the former CIA director of the Afghan operation, Charles Cogan, admitted the CIA had indeed sacrificed the drug war to fight the Cold War. `Our main mission was to do as much damage as possible to the Soviets. We didn't really have the resources or the time to devote to an investigation of the drug trade,'... `I don't think that we need to apologize for this. Every situation has its fallout.... There was fallout in terms of drugs, yes. But the main objective was accomplished. The Soviets left Afghanistan.'13 In the Wake of the Cold War In the wake of the Cold War, the Central Asian region is not only strategic for its extensive oil reserves, it also produces three quarters of the World's opium representing multibillion dollar revenues to business syndicates, financial institutions, intelligence agencies and organized crime. The annual proceeds of the Golden Crescent drug trade (between 100 and 200 billion dollars) represents approximately one third of the Worldwide annual turnover of narcotics, estimated by the United Nations to be of the order of $500 billion.14

With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, a new surge in opium production has unfolded. (According to UN estimates, the production of opium in Afghanistan in 1998-99 -- coinciding with the build up of armed insurgencies in the former Soviet republics-- reached a record high of 4600 metric tons.15 Powerful business syndicates in the former Soviet Union allied with organized crime are competing for the strategic control over the heroin routes.

The ISI's extensive intelligence military-network was not dismantled in the wake of the Cold War. The CIA continued to support the Islamic "jihad" out of Pakistan. New undercover initiatives were set in motion in Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Balkans. Pakistan's military and intelligence apparatus essentially "served as a catalyst for the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the emergence of six new Muslim republics in Central Asia." 16.

Meanwhile, Islamic missionaries of the Wahhabi sect from Saudi Arabia had established themselves in the Muslim republics as well as within the Russian federation encroaching upon the institutions of the secular State. Despite its anti-American ideology, Islamic fundamentalism was largely serving Washington's strategic interests in the former Soviet Union.

Following the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1989, the civil war in Afghanistan continued unabated. The Taliban were being supported by the Pakistani Deobandis and their political party the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Islam (JUI). In 1993, JUI entered the government coalition of Prime Minister Benazzir Bhutto. Ties between JUI, the Army and ISI were established. In 1995, with the downfall of the Hezb-I-Islami Hektmatyar government in Kabul, the Taliban not only instated a hardline Islamic government, they also "handed control of training camps in Afghanistan over to JUI factions..." 17

And the JUI with the support of the Saudi Wahhabi movements played a key role in recruiting volunteers to fight in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union.

Jane Defense Weekly confirms in this regard that "half of Taliban manpower and equipment originate[d] in Pakistan under the ISI" 18

In fact, it would appear that following the Soviet withdrawal both sides in the Afghan civil war continued to receive covert support through Pakistan's ISI. 19

In other words, backed by Pakistan's military intelligence (ISI) which in turn was controlled by the CIA, the Taliban Islamic State was largely serving American geopolitical interests. The Golden Crescent drug trade was also being used to finance and equip the Bosnian Muslim Army (starting in the early 1990s) and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). In last few months there is evidence that Mujahideen mercenaries are fighting in the ranks of KLA-NLA terrorists in their assaults into Macedonia.

No doubt, this explains why Washington has closed its eyes on the reign of terror imposed by the Taliban including the blatant derogation of women's rights, the closing down of schools for girls, the dismissal of women employees from government offices and the enforcement of "the Sharia laws of punishment".20

The War in Chechnya

With regard to Chechnya, the main rebel leaders Shamil Basayev and Al Khattab were trained and indoctrinated in CIA sponsored camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan. According to Yossef Bodansky, director of the U.S. Congress's Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, the war in Chechnya had been planned during a secret summit of HizbAllah International held in 1996 in Mogadishu, Somalia. 21 The summit, was attended by Osama bin Laden and high-ranking Iranian and Pakistani intelligence officers. In this regard, the involvement of Pakistan's ISI in Chechnya "goes far beyond supplying the Chechens with weapons and expertise: the ISI and its radical Islamic proxies are actually calling the shots in this war". 22

Russia's main pipeline route transits through Chechnya and Dagestan. Despite Washington's perfunctory condemnation of Islamic terrorism, the indirect beneficiaries of the Chechen war are the Anglo-American oil conglomerates which are vying for control over oil resources and pipeline corridors out of the Caspian Sea basin.

The two main Chechen rebel armies (respectively led by Commander Shamil Basayev and Emir Khattab) estimated at 35,000 strong were supported by Pakistan's ISI, which also played a key role in organizing and training the Chechen rebel army:

[In 1994] the Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence arranged for Basayev and his trusted lieutenants to undergo intensive Islamic indoctrination and training in guerrilla warfare in the Khost province of Afghanistan at Amir Muawia camp, set up in the early 1980s by the CIA and ISI and run by famous Afghani warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. In July 1994, upon graduating from Amir Muawia, Basayev was transferred to Markaz-i-Dawar camp in Pakistan to undergo training in advanced guerrilla tactics. In Pakistan, Basayev met the highest ranking Pakistani military and intelligence officers: Minister of Defense General Aftab Shahban Mirani, Minister of Interior General Naserullah Babar, and the head of the ISI branch in charge of supporting Islamic causes, General Javed Ashraf, (all now retired). High-level connections soon proved very useful to Basayev.23 Following his training and indoctrination stint, Basayev was assigned to lead the assault against Russian federal troops in the first Chechen war in 1995. His organization had also developed extensive links to criminal syndicates in Moscow as well as ties to Albanian organized crime and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). In 1997-98, according to Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB) "Chechen warlords started buying up real estate in Kosovo... through several real estate firms registered as a cover in Yugoslavia" 24

Basayev's organisation has also been involved in a number of rackets including narcotics, illegal tapping and sabotage of Russia's oil pipelines, kidnapping, prostitution, trade in counterfeit dollars and the smuggling of nuclear materials (See Mafia linked to Albania's collapsed pyramids, 25 Alongside the extensive laundering of drug money, the proceeds of various illicit activities have been funneled towards the recruitment of mercenaries and the purchase of weapons.

During his training in Afghanistan, Shamil Basayev linked up with Saudi born veteran Mujahideen Commander "Al Khattab" who had fought as a volunteer in Afghanistan. Barely a few months after Basayev's return to Grozny, Khattab was invited (early 1995) to set up an army base in Chechnya for the training of Mujahideen fighters. According to the BBC, Khattab's posting to Chechnya had been "arranged through the Saudi-Arabian based [International] Islamic Relief Organisation, a militant religious organisation, funded by mosques and rich individuals which channeled funds into Chechnya".26

Concluding Remarks Since the Cold War era, Washington has consciously supported Osama bin Laden, while at same time placing him on the FBI's "most wanted list" as the World's foremost terrorist.

While the Mujahideen are busy fighting America's war in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union, the FBI --operating as a US based Police Force- is waging a domestic war against terrorism, operating in some respects independently of the CIA which has --since the Soviet-Afghan war-- supported international terrorism through its covert operations.

In a cruel irony, while the Islamic jihad --featured by the Bush Adminstration as "a threat to America"-- is blamed for the terrorist assaults on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, these same Islamic organisations constitute a key instrument of US military-intelligence operations in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union.

In the wake of the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, the truth must prevail to prevent the Bush Adminstration together with its NATO partners from embarking upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity.

Endnotes

Hugh Davies, International: `Informers' point the finger at bin Laden; Washington on alert for suicide bombers, The Daily Telegraph, London, 24 August 1998. See Fred Halliday, "The Un-great game: the Country that lost the Cold War, Afghanistan, New Republic, 25 March 1996): Ahmed Rashid, The Taliban: Exporting Extremism, Foreign Affairs, November-December 1999. Steve Coll, Washington Post, July 19, 1992. Dilip Hiro, Fallout from the Afghan Jihad, Inter Press Services, 21 November 1995. Weekend Sunday (NPR); Eric Weiner, Ted Clark; 16 August 1998. Ibid. Dipankar Banerjee; Possible Connection of ISI With Drug Industry, India Abroad, 2 December 1994. Ibid See Diego Cordovez and Selig Harrison, Out of Afghanistan: The Inside Story of the Soviet Withdrawal, Oxford university Press, New York, 1995. See also the review of Cordovez and Harrison in International Press Services, 22 August 1995. Alfred McCoy, Drug fallout: the CIA's Forty Year Complicity in the Narcotics Trade. The Progressive; 1 August 1997. Ibid Ibid. Douglas Keh, Drug Money in a changing World, Technical document no 4, 1998, Vienna UNDCP, p. 4. See also Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 1999, E/INCB/1999/1 United Nations Publication, Vienna 1999, p 49-51, And Richard Lapper, UN Fears Growth of Heroin Trade, Financial Times, 24 February 2000. Report of the International Narcotics Control Board, op cit, p 49-51, see also Richard Lapper, op. cit. International Press Services, 22 August 1995. Ahmed Rashid, The Taliban: Exporting Extremism, Foreign Affairs, November- December, 1999, p. 22. Quoted in the Christian Science Monitor, 3 September 1998) Tim McGirk, Kabul learns to live with its bearded conquerors, The Independent, London, 6 November1996. See K. Subrahmanyam, Pakistan is Pursuing Asian Goals, India Abroad, 3 November 1995. Levon Sevunts, Who's calling the shots?: Chechen conflict finds Islamic roots in Afghanistan and Pakistan, 23 The Gazette, Montreal, 26 October 1999.. Ibid Ibid. See Vitaly Romanov and Viktor Yadukha, Chechen Front Moves To Kosovo Segodnia, Moscow, 23 Feb 2000. The European, 13 February 1997, See also Itar-Tass, 4-5 January 2000. BBC, 29 September 1999).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html

Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Montreal, September 2001. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to post this text on non-commercial community internet sites, provided the source and the URL are indicated, the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To publish this text in printed and/or other forms, including commercial internet sites and excerpts, contact the author at chossudovsky@videotron.ca , fax: 1-514-4256224.

Reproduced From globalresearch

LAROUCHE: "THIS IS A COVERT STRATEGIC OPERATION AGAINST THE U.S."

- LYNDON LAROUCHE INTERVIEWED ON WGIR-AM RADIO, NEW HAMPSHIRE -

-----Original Message----- From: Brian Lantz <blantz@wt.net> To: Linda Minor <lminor@vvm.com> Date: Thursday, September 13, 2001 8:37 PM Subject: Political destabilization

>See attached transcripts or radio interviews. Regards, Brian > > > >

September 13,2001

Note: To hear LaRouche's September 11 morning interview, go to <www.larouchepub.com>

LAROUCHE: "THIS IS A COVERT STRATEGIC OPERATION AGAINST THE U.S."

- LYNDON LAROUCHE INTERVIEWED ON WGIR-AM RADIO, NEW HAMPSHIRE -

- Sept. 12, 2001 -

WOODY WOODLAND, HOST: Now, we were scheduled to have Lyndon LaRouche, long-time Presdential candidate, on with us today, to talk economics, but we're going to talk something else. Mr. LaRouche, thanks for being with us for a few minutes here.

LAROUCHE: Good to be with you.

WOODLAND: Tell me: You are a man who has travelled over the entire world, and spent lots of time overseas. What can you tell us about the possible people behind this terrorism activity? We're all hearing this Osama bin Laden, I think, mostly because we don't know any other names. What do you think about this?

LAROUCHE: That's right. This is not a terrorist operation. This is a covert, strategic, special-operations operation, which has characteristic similiarities to the militia operation against the Oklahoma City center some years ago.

WOODLAND: Are you saying that this might have been some people within our own country?

LAROUCHE: In part, it had to be people within our own country. Look at some of the facts of the matter: I got on this case, of course, just about quarter after nine, yesterday morning, when I was on with Jack Stockwell....

WOODLAND: Out in Salt Lake City, right?

LAROUCHE: Right. And we put this on the website, so people can see exactly, more or less, a transcription-degree of accuracy, what Jack and I discussed, with others.

WOODLAND: What is that website?

LAROUCHE: That is, my website is, we put it on larouchepub.com, that is [spells it]; I think it has also gone on my campaign website, and, if it has not gone there yet, it will be there soon.

WOODLAND: Okay.

LAROUCHE: So, we had this discussion, and I must say, that looking back on it, a little more than a day later, that I didn't say anything wrong, I didn't get anything wrong. I was taken by surprise, in a sense, but not surprised by the fact of this, nor was I surprised by the fact that it was primarily a domestic, covert, special operation, by people with very high-grade military special-operations backgrounds. It could not have happened otherwise.

WOODLAND: Now, what would be the goal of such people, if that's the case, as opposed to Mideastern terrorists?

LAROUCHE: To create a simulated Pearl Harbor effect to get the United States to go to war against nations in the Middle East.

WOODLAND: Well, my judgment is, I think this was an act of war against the United States by somebody, but it doesn't seem to be by a specific nation. I mean, there may be some nations -- if it is Mideastern terrorists, there may be some nations that have sheltered these folks....

LAROUCHE: No....

WOODLAND: You don't believe that.

LAROUCHE: Take Osama bin Laden: [He] was created by the U.S., British, and Israeli intelligence services, as a part of the so-called Afghan operations. He still is a controlled asset of those interests, which are largely buried in the special covert operations section. Now, of course, obviously, our military, top military, had nothing to do with this. But there are people who are "off the reservation," as we saw reflected in the Oklahoma City bombing, and there are people off the reservations who are used, who are deniable....

WOODLAND: Well now, who are the people though, that would, I mean, are you saying these people are domestic terrorists in the United States?

LAROUCHE: No, they're not terrorists. These are not terrorists. They may terrify people, but they are not terrorists. That is, the idea that this is an international terrorist operation, is utter nonsense, and it's very dangerous to go looking for the wrong adversary, and ignore the right one. The point is, there are certain people, very powerful people, behind the scenes in various governments: the British government, the U.S. government, the Israeli government -- not Sharon, I don't think Sharon would have had anything to do with this -- but, who are determined to have the United States take the nature of the conflict between certain people in Israel and the surrounding neighbors, and use that to involve the United States in a geopolitical conflict in the Middle East. And some of the reaction of the suckers, including the President of the United States, who doesn't really know too much, who was pushed in that direction yesterday.

WOODLAND: So, you're not buying the conventional wisdom here, as to this being Osama bin Laden, or anyone else?

LAROUCHE: I doubt that there's any wisdom behind the people who think so. I think the point is, anybody who understands -- Look, there were certain features of these developments yesterday, which immediately attracted all of our attention. I had over the, since then, since yesterday morning, I've been reaching out to old, high-level military and intelligence people around the world, including Russia, as well as Western Europe and elsewhere, and we put together, from the U.S. side, and from these areas, a very good cross-check picture of what happened. It could not happen -- Look, the United States could not have done that to the Soviet Union during the high point of the conflict of the Cold War. We didn't have the capability to do to the Soviet Union {then}, what was done to us yesterday.

WOODLAND: I'm sorry we have to run, but I appreciate hearing from you. Maybe we'll talk at a longer time soon. So, thank you, sir.

LAROUCHE: Okay, good.

WOODLAND: All right. That's Lyndon LaRouche. That's a different view, but he usually does. -30-30-30-

LYNDON H. LAROUCHE INTERVIEW WITH CFRB RADIO, TORONTO, 9/12.

(Tape begins in mid-sentence)

LaRouche (mid-sentence): -- and contacts I have around the world, as well as in the United States. You know, years ago, I was on anti-terrorism activities, and the SDI, and similar things. So I have a lot of old friends who are very well-placed, and very good judgment. What the picture that has come through, is this, is that what happened to the United States yesterday, was not an act of terrorism in the conventional sense of terrorism, but was a covert strategic operation, with a strategic purpose, which was principally based, as a statement by John Ashcroft, the Attorney General, has tended to confirm, by personnel inside the United States. In other words, we're looking at something which has some aspects of the Oklahoma City bombing some years ago. That there were people inside the United States, including people who were willing to go to suicide, who were willing to fly planes in the way they flew them, with a high degree of military skill. You don't pick this up by practicing with Lear jets in a private airport. And the thing was done very meticulously, very precisely. Four planes were involved. There's an indicated targetting of the White House, which has been referred to. My information coincides with that, that the Pentagon blow was originally aimed at the White House. So, what we have here, is somebody is playing strategic games with this so-called special warfare, special operations capabilities, which uses primarily U.S. nationals, but may have international collaboration and various kinds of sheep-dipping. So, this is -- and furthermore, when I go through the whole list of things that happened, as I said earlier today, what happened to the United States yesterday, is something that the United States, with all its power, could not have done to the Soviet Union during the period of the Cold War. So there's no little country off there in East Podunk, which has done this. The responsibility lies with a very capable machine inside the United States itself. There might be other factors, but that's the thing we have to worry about. And this is not necessarily the end of the problem.

Oakley: Let's work backwards, then, as they do -- again, criminal investigations always wonder, well, who benefits? Who's got the motive and the methodology or the resources to pull this off? If we were to work from that perspective, whose bidding could this possibly have been, and to what end?

LaRouche: Well, you get in a situation, in history, when you have major crises, or you're on the edge of a war -- major financial crises, a financial breakdown crisis, where people with great power, or some of them, lose their nerve. And they get the idea of setting up a dictatorship. Now, we had a case of that in Germany in 1933, where Hermann Goering used a dupe, this von der Lubbe (phonetic), to set fire to the Reichstag. And Goering and company moved on the basis of the burning of the Reichstag, to set up a dictatorship immediately under Hitler. And Hitler was not nominally in a secure position at that point. So, when you get to a point of crisis, you have to watch out that somebody will pull a coup, or start a conflict, or something else, as a power manipulatoin. Now the international financial system right now, is in the process of collapse, and this is what all this stuff means. There are solutions. But some people, rather than consider the solutions, would rather take desperate actions. And they have to be very powerful people to do something like this. In other words, you can have a rogue operation, operating inside countries or across national borders. But to pull something like this, this is not something that could be pulled by some small country. This is something -- you'd have to say almost, you'd have to tap into some of the most sophisticated GPS and other capabilities of the United States to do what happened yesterday.

Oakley: So, there are agents perhaps acting at the interests that are not necessarily of a sovereign state, or an identifiable terrorist organization, who have manipulated or perpetrated these acts yesterday. Is this what you're suggesting, even based on American soil?

LaRouche: Absolutely. With this -- this is what's called a coup d'etat in some countries.

Oakley: Now, a coup d'etat, not for political purposes, if I'm understanding you. You see this as a de facto attack on capitalism, then.

LaRouche: No, I don't think so. No, because we're trying to save the system. The people -- the thing that's closest to this -- most motivation -- of this particular operation, is something that was scheduled to occur in Washington at the end of this month, which is this planned riot, which started in Seattle, went by way of a conference in Porto Alegre, Brazil, and then turned up in Genoa. Really violent. And something much more serious was being built up around Washington, D.C. over the past two months. We've tracked some of it. We've seen some of it. It's really deadly. So that there is a -- from people associated, who are behind the use of these groups, and they're big -- is an actual terrorist-type capability, which is aimed at pulling a coup, a global coup. So you have some global interests, like the famous James Bond kinds of things. Somebody's got this kind of idea of making a coup.

Oakley: Well, Lyndon LaRouche is our guest on the line from Leesburg, Virginia. The publisher of the Executive Intelligence Review. Would you care to speculate or name names? I mean, when you talk about groups that are big, it's obviously then just not some disaffected Middle Eastern cell. You're talking about maybe a quasi-type governmental agency here.

LaRouche: Absolutely. We've created these things. We've created it in the Iran-Contra operation. We've created it in other ways. Now, look. Take the case of the Oklahoma City bombing. What do you have? You have a thing which comes under the headline of "militia." Now, militia is a broad category of organization. But you have people in the military, young fanatics who probably think like SS Hitler people. They think they're on a mission. And they're willing to die to carry out the mission -- suicide. So, you don't have to go to the Middle East to get a suicide bomber. We had them, in fact, in the case of Oklahoma. We never got to the bottom of that. People rushed to close the thing off and clean the mess up. Make a blanket statement. But they never got into the fact that that operation in Oklahoma City could not have been pulled off by one or two men.

Oakley: Right. Maybe the best evidence, sir, of what this -- or who's behind this, and what their motives are, are still to be seen in the aftermath, and how things transpire from here.

LaRouche: Well, what I've done, is first of all, insist, as I did yesterday, and again today, the first thing is don't panic. Don't go into flight forward. Don't go out and threaten to kill everybody. Don't say I'm going to bomb somebody tomorrow. Government has to show restraint, like a commander in the worst situation of warfare.

Oakley: I'm going to ask you about your response had you been President, and how we guard against any such further attacks or future attacks. And if you're up to it as well, take some calls. There's people chomping at the bit to have their say as well. Are you good for that?

LaRouche: Good for that.

Oakley: Lyndon LaRouche with us on the line from Leesburg, Virginia, the publisher of the Executive Intelligence Review. We'll come back. He's saying some rather provocative things.

(Break)

Oakley: Welcome back. The John Oakley Show continues with the aftermath of the horrific attack on America yesterday. Our guest on the line from Leesburg, Virginia, is the publisher of the Executive Intelligence Review, and a Democratic Presidential candidate several times over, Lyndon LaRouche, a name known to many amidst of course controversial standing in the eyes of some. We're talking about what this all means, how to sort of disseminate the information. I notice that of course the likes of Osama bin Laden has been demonized, certain states. It seems almost like textbook staging. There's a consensus here, the public spoiling for a fight. Is that all sort of a canard, a smokescreen, maybe a red herring? And you're saying, you know, look elsewhere, there may be bigger fish to fry.

LaRouche: Well, Osama bin Laden, by no stretch of the imagination, has any of the capabilities to do or to organize anything like what happened yesterday. So therefore, he also -- he was a creation of the Anglo-American-Israeli operations, which we came to know in the United States as Iran-Contra at a certain point. So, he is their creation. He's still kept in place. They curse him. They may kill him some day. But he's still there. And they do have a lot of controls over him. He's not capable of doing that.

Oakley: Are we talking about somebody then to point the finger where you are, akin to a military-industrial complex, or a powerful economic interests?

LaRouche: Powerful probably international interests. But basically, this thing was done very sensitive. So most of the people who were collaborating in setting it up, didn't know what they were involved in. If you started to track this thing, you'll get false trails all over the place. Because the people who did this -- look, they really knew what they were doing. They were using the GPS in a military fashion, not in a way that the average person can get at it. They were running very sophisticated operations. The training of the guys who were willing to commit suicide as pilots, who took over these planes -- this was a very sophisticated operation. How do you get a highly skilled, highly trained pilot to train to kill himself as a suicide bomber from among an American population? Remember, this guy had to go through security screens, which may not have been perfect in places like Boston and elsewhere. And what they pulled off, as an immediate, coordinated takeover of an aircraft after it had taken off, indicates they were able to get through all the screens just like that, probably with things like plastic knives. I mean, those kinds of fellows who have that kind of training. Take over the thing, kill the pilot, sit in the pilot's seat, and take over. And run the whole operation, which involved some very JTURN (ph) kinds of operations, especially when it came to the Twin Towers in New York. That was a very tricky operation.

Oakley: And not coincidentally, just within the half-hour, the U.S. Attoreny General, John Ashcroft, did admit that these pilots had been trained domestically, in America. Let's take a call or two with Lyndon LaRouche, our guest from Leesburg, Virginia. Kevin, you're on CFRB. What do you make of this?

Q: Well, I was listening very intently. Everybody likes a good conspiracy. Until I started to look at some of the comments, like GPS -- I mean, I know for example that I can go to Radio Shack and buy a GPS receiver. I can go to an airport, I can punch an away point. I can go to another location, punch an away point. While I'm in the airplane, I can punch in a button that will take me right back to that location that I programmed. What is so difficult that these people did, that someone armed with an aircraft schedule, a flight schedule, with common sense -- when I want to blow something up, I want to have enough fuel in it to do the job. Why -- I just don't see where any substance has been put to this argument, (inaudible) realities.

LaRouche: First of all, to use the GPS the way it was used, you can't do it by going to --

Q: Well, how was it used?

LaRouche, Well, a military system was put in to prevent people from doing just exactly that.

Q: I use the GPS all the time. I use a GPS every week when I go --

LaRouche: You don't get a kind of GPS information which does exist in the system, which you couldn't --

Q: The GPS is a programmable compass. I can tell a GPS that I want to go --

LaRouche: You're misinformed. You can't do that any more. You could do that when the thing was first put in, but you can't do it any more.

Q: I'm sorry, sir, but you're wrong. And you're un-credible in my eyes.

LaRouche: Fine. That's your problem.

Oakley: Let's continue on with calls, questions, and/or comments concerning what Mr. LaRouche has said. If you are the President, what would your response be at the time or how to forestall this, you know, from happening ever again?

LaRouche: I think the best thing is what I did yesterday. I was on this radio show with Salt Lake City. And the question came up, and I said what I would do. I said, the first thing, of course, is don't panic. No flight forward. No wild screaming, no threats, no nothiing. The first thing you have to do is realize that the population of the world, and especially the United States, is in a state of denial. They're in a state of denial about the financial crisis, they're in a state of fear. Now, you don't take a population which is in a state of fear, like people in a crowded theater that's got a fire started, you don't scream and say, "Panic!" What you do, is say, "Let's march slowly to the door, get out of here in good order.' Now, that's the first thing you have to do. Now, I know a lot about this. And I would have immediately said, as I said then, the president should not declare martial law. The President should immediately, quietly but effectively do certain things in terms of security, beefing up security, take certain precautions, and go in certain directions. But don't run to the door. The first thing you have to do in a crisis, is act like a commanding general whose forces have suddenly been hit by a surprise attack. Don't lose your nerve. Take the actions calmly, and lead people, with confidence, into a significant plan of action.

Oakley: Is it your feeling, Mr. LaRouche, that this is a manufactured crisis, so that the cure that would be effected stands to somebody's benefit?

LaRouche: Absolutely. Somebody who wants a war in the Middle East, wants the United States to go into the Middle East and start pounding the Middle East and other places. Because the effect of doing that, the way it's programmed now, would be to unleash what Brzezinski and his friend Huntington have proposed as a geopolitical clash of civilizations. That is, to start a chain-reaction fire of violence throughout the one billion Muslims in the world, that is not always a unified force, but even among -- against each other, as we see in the Taliban case in Afghanistan. To get that as a chain reaction, which makes Eurasia generally -- plunges it into a state of chaos, where nobody's going to start anything which would unify Eurasia, in economic cooperation. That appears to be the target. That's what Brzezinski has insisted upon. It's what he's committed to. And you have a lot of people in the United States, and somewhere else, who agree with that. You have people in Israel, who agree with it, and some who disagree with it. So you do have a geopolitical nightmare being cooked up by some desperado types like Brzezinski, who personally is a nut. You give nuts like that some power, you give them secret organizations to control, you build up military groups which run covert operations, ever since particuarly the Vietnam War, and you've got lying around there the capability of trying to pull a coup.

Oakley: Certainly provocative. As I said earlier, Lyndon LaRouche, our guest from Leesburg, Virginia, the publisher of the Executive Intelligence Review. Do you have a website for those who wanted to follow up more thoroughly?

LaRouche: Yes, we do. You have first of all, there's -- let me just get this thing right. We have larouchepub.com. Larouche, name, pub.com. We also have a campaign telephone number, an 800 number, 800-929-7566. And we also have another one, which is LaRouchein2004, all one word, .com.

Oakley: Fair enough. I thank you for your time this afternoon, and your rather provocative statements.

LaRouche: Good.

Oakley: Have a good afternoon.

LaRouche: Thank you.

Why are we despised? Boulder examines the conscience of a country

http://www.boulderweekly.com/coverstory.html

(2,856 words)

by Pamela White ( Editorial@boulderweekly.com )

As the dust settled on Tuesday's shocking terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, D.C., President George Bush vowed the United States would find and punish those responsible for the devastation.

His words resonated with stunned Americans across the country, who gathered in front of television sets and spoke out on TV programs and radio shows, some demanding a swift and brutal U.S. response.

Anger fueled by images of Palestinians celebrating the attacks in the street prompted one local caller to say it was time to "kill all the towel heads."

But scattered among the grief-stricken and angry voices were a small number of Americans asking whether the United States has done anything to provoke such violence.

It's a question many people didn't appreciate.

"I'm appalled at the lack of patriotism," said one caller, who spoke out on KGNU radio. Still, it's a question worth trying to answer.

Why is the United States despised?

John Wayne politics

Local U.S. policy experts and activists grappled with grief and shock Tuesday along with the rest of the country. While they took pains to explain that they in no way excuse or condone Tuesday's violence, some were willing to offer their insights into the reasons so many people hate America.

Understanding the motives behind terrorist attacks against the United States is hampered by the assumptions many Americans hold, said Ira Chernus, a professor of religious studies at CU.

One of those assumptions is that U.S. intentions the world over are good, even when the government or military makes mistakes. The belief that we're only trying to help makes it hard for us to understand why anyone would do something like this to us, Chernus said.

Related to that assumption is the belief that the United States is both innocent and invulnerable, which prevents Americans from listening to the message behind such events.

"The important thing is to be able to listen insofar as we can to the people who carried out this thing," Chernus said. "We start out with the assumption that there's no point in listening to what they have to say. The general assumption is that if you listen to what they say, that endorses (the attack)."

Chernus points out that the message of terrorists on trial for other acts of violence around the world has been left out of court coverage. People never get a clear picture of what's bothering these people and why they were driven to such extremes.

While some critics claim that U.S. policy is motivated by greed or aggression, Chernus believes foreign policy since World War II has been focused on defending the country against perceived threats like communism and the Soviet Union. Those efforts to protect and defend often extend far beyond U.S. borders, however, forcing the United States into conflict with other peoples.

"We believe the only way to defend the United States is to organize the world. We step on other people's toes every day in ways we can't understand," Chernus said. "It's a stupid way to defend yourself because in the end you experience more risk."

According to David Barsamian, host of the nationally broadcast program Alternative Radio, risk to American lives comes as a result of rage generated by U.S. foreign policy and economic and cultural hegemony.

"It's directly related to its foreign policy and its perception as the primary agent and enforcer of the status quo of the global capitalist system," said Barsamian.

Barsamian sat in his Boulder home Tuesday watching coverage of the "very shocking" attacks on television.

"What's extraordinary about these attacks is the level of sophistication," Barsamian said. "Where is the CIA? Where is the FBI? Where are the tens of billions of dollars being spent?

"Starbucks closes all stores internationally. This is huge. Look at the level of panic here."

Speculation since the attacks has centered on various Islamic fundamentalist groups, particularly Saudi Arabian exile Osama Bin Laden and his followers. While pointing out that we don't know who is responsible for the attacks, Barsamian stressed there is a great deal of rage toward the United States in the Middle East.

"U.S. foreign policy is seen by many Middle Eastern people as being overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of Israel," he said. "There's tremendous anger toward the United States, and there's a tremendous irony in this. If it is traced to Bin Laden, he's a product of U.S. foreign policy."

In an effort to drive the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan, the U.S. swallowed its repugnance toward Bin Laden and men like him, who were trained and funded by the CIA in a bit of Cold War strategy that has had devastating consequences as the students turn their weapons against their teachers.

"This is an example of blowback," Barsamian said, adding, "if it can be traced to this particular group, which is not farfetched."

Joel Edelstein, professor of political science at CU-Denver and producer of programs at KGNU radio, acknowledged that Israel has legitimate concerns about its safety. Still, the struggle in the Middle East has been over land, with the United States supporting a policy that is devastating to Palestinians, he said.

"You have this ongoing degradation of Palestinians," Edelstein said. "They really were forced out of their houses. Their houses really were bulldozed."

The United States spends $3.5 billion annually on aid to Israel, which goes to support these actions and to defend Israel's continued settlement on the West Bank.

"Americans would not sit quiet if they were treated like the Palestinians are treated by the Israelis," Edelstein said.

Barsamian said Israel's policies build desperation in Palestinian people.

"If you lose your land, if you cannot feed your family, if you've been culturally humiliated, if you've been denigrated on all sides - this creates a reaction, and that reaction can take extreme forms," he said.

Terrorism, Barsamian said, is the "poor man's B-52."

But it's not just U.S. policy in the Middle East that makes the United States a target, experts agree. Nor is dissatisfaction with the United States limited to Muslims. U.S. indifference toward World Court rulings, its refusal to fulfill its financial obligations to the United Nations, and its global military presence also inspire antipathy in people around the world, including America's allies.

"To Americans it seems perfectly normal that we have military bases in scores of countries, but imagine if Thailand had bases in Canada," Barsamian said, conjuring up images of Thai fighters enforcing no-fly zones over parts of the United States.

The U.S. military presence is offensive to people around the world, he said. This is particularly true in the Middle East, which has become a sort of "floating military base," with U.S. warships continually stationed in waters surrounding the Persian Gulf.

"This is arrogance. This is imperial behavior," Barsamian said.

The "American imperial swagger" that accompanies the U.S. military only makes matters worse, Barsamian said. This swagger reveals itself in the U.S. tendency to act unilaterally, rejecting international opinion and even U.N. authority on issues like sanctions against Cuba, the Kyoto Accord, and nuclear weapons treaties.

"International treaties are not us," he said. "Bush has never met an international treaty he liked. This is John Wayne politics."

Resentment toward the United States extends to Europe, as well.

"Any top dog faces resentment, but some of it is rooted in quite strong political feeling," Barsamian said.

Europeans are mystified and outraged by American use of capital punishment and the opposition of some Americans toward abortion. And while European nations have tried to voice their opinions on U.S. decisions and actions abroad, the U.S. government has not welcomed the feedback, ignoring resolutions made by the European Parliament.

"We're a rogue nation," said Edelstein. "The European nations are looking at us in terms of putting missiles in space, refusing to sign Kyoto. Europe thinks we're crazy."

Allies that used to vote with us or abstain from voting on controversial issues of importance to the United States are now voting against us as our isolation grows, Edelstein said.

While Americans tend to view the United States as a force for freedom, justice and democracy in the world, many other peoples see the United States as an oppressor, he said.

"We are the sole hegemon. We're returning to the concept of Manifest Destiny."

A world in poverty

"Not only does the United States export foreign policy. It also exports its culture," Barsamian said. "There's not sensitivity to local culture and local traditions, particularly in the Islamic world where tradition is stronger than it is in Europe."

This culture takes the form of Hollywood movies, Starbucks, and Burger Kings on street corners in places like Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, where American culture is considered suspect at best.

"We tend to view the United States as the universal culture to which all others aspire," said Edelstein.

This is based, in part, on misconceptions Americans have of their own country, he said.

"We think we have the highest wages, which is not true," Edelstein said. "We think we are the freest country, which is debatable. We tend to think we have the best democracy, which is absurd."

Such blind faith in our own culture creates the mistaken belief that it is welcome everywhere.

In the United States, culture is intimately tied to economy, and the U.S. government promotes the latter with a vengeance. Barsamian said U.S. diplomatic policy could be summed up this way: "We're going to do what we want."

Barsamian recalls a story Vandana Shiva shared with him during an interview. Shiva, a human-rights activist from India, quoted a U.S. trade representative speaking with Indian officials as saying, "'If you don't open up your markets, we're going to break them open with a crowbar.'"

"This is how the Mafia don speaks," Barsamian said. "I often say if you want to understand U.S. policy, watch 'The Godfather.'"

Despite the effort put into the economy, global capitalism has not delivered to many people around the globe, Barsamian said.

"It has not delivered the kind of benefits that are meaningful to segments of the population. Having a Burger King around the corner is not meaningful."

Edelstein agrees.

"The U.S. government represents the wealthy in our own country," he said. "And our friends are the wealthy in other countries. You can see it in the development model we support through the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and World Bank."

This model ensures that a small percentage of people in developing countries move up financially but leaves the vast majority behind, he said.

Intense protests against the IMF, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization over the past two years indicate that some Americans are concerned about the connection between poverty and global development, Edelstein said.

Carolyn Bninski, a local activist who was arrested in April 2000 during the IMF protests in Washington, D.C., said the current model of development accounts for about six million deaths worldwide each year.

"We use economic power to impose policies on countries that benefit wealthy corporations in the United States but harm local people," Bninski said. "A lot of people die - slow deaths perhaps - as a result of those policies. I am in no way downplaying the horror (of the terrorist attacks). I think it's a horrible tragedy. But I think we need to start seeing our relationship to every life and everybody on this planet."

Scott Silber, a local community organizer who has also participated in protests against the IMF, World Bank and World Trade Organization, said people from all segments of U.S. society have become concerned about these economic policies.

"People have been able to link the symptoms they're fighting to global corporate power," Silber said.

Those symptoms include violations of human rights, workers' rights, the rights of women and indigenous people, as well as the destruction of the environment and the blind pursuit of capital, he said.

"People are suffering," Silber said. "The vast majority of the world is in poverty, and the United States is on the benefiting end of that."

A call for empathy

Bninski said she and other members of the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center fear the United States will retaliate blindly in a fury over Tuesday's attack, resulting in the deaths of more innocent people.

"The United States needs to go through legitimate international channels and to try people in a court of law that's legitimate," Bninski said. "It's really important to reserve judgment and not to retaliate against people or groups of people."

She's not the only one who's concerned. Muslim students, many of whom are American citizens by birth, braced for an onslaught of hate mail, threats, and confrontations. Muslim organizations across the country reported death threats and hate mail, many pulling their Web sites to stem the tide of violent words. But at CU, where police have stepped up security and are prepared to protect Islamic students, incidents have been minor.

"We're all just holding each other," said Amina Nawaz, an American citizen and president of CU's Muslim Student Association.

Nawaz said some Muslims experienced heightened tensions in classes Tuesday. One woman, wearing the traditional hijab covering, walked into her classroom where students were talking only to have the room fall silent when people saw her.

"She could just feel everyone's hatred boring into her," Nawaz said.

But Nawaz said members of her organization are grief-stricken over the attacks.

"We're a part of the American community, and we feel it just as strongly as anybody else," she said.

Those who engineered the attacks don't reflect the values of Islam, Nawaz said.

"Shameless acts are not part of our religion," she said.

Bninski said it's time for Americans to learn to empathize with people who are suffering around the world. While they connect to the suffering of other Americans, they seem blind to the suffering of non-Americans.

"I think we have to think about every human life as being of equal value, not just Americans," Bninski said. "We need to start thinking of global citizens and think of the impact of U.S. decisions on other people."

On Bninski's mind are the deaths of an estimated six million Iraqi children since 1990 due to U.S.-imposed sanctions and the destruction in Yugoslavia brought on by 68 days of bombing.

"I think of the images of Burmese workers on (American-owned) pipelines with chains around their ankles," said Silber. "I think of the workers I see every day all around me who are working 16-hour days to survive and feed their families. I think of the little children who are born into war-torn areas of the world where it seems like their lives are hopeless. If only war weren't profitable, these kids wouldn't have to grow up in fear and suffering."

But most Americans don't make an effort to learn about the ways in which their nation contributes to tragedies in the world around them, Chernus said.

"It's willed ignorance," he said. "There's a cultural divide in the United States. There's a segment of our population that is able to - perhaps imperfectly - empathize with suffering in the world. And there are those Americans who simply can't seem to relate."

Chernus fears Tuesday's horror will be written off as the work of "unprovoked crazies," and America will lose a chance to benefit from what could be a wake-up call.

"If things were going right, we would ask ourselves what role we may have played in the chain of events that led to this disaster. If we were doing the right thing, we would think of ourselves as part of a network of relationships," Chernus said. "It's not a question of 'our fault' or 'their fault,' but of how that network of relationships has gotten us to where we are today."

Barsamian said that discussions of U.S. foreign policy will be kept out of the response to the attacks.

"No one's going to go to the root causes, not with corporate media acting as stenographers to power," Barsamian said. "(The media will say) 'These are just genetically crazy people. They were having bad hair days.'"

The media will focus selectively on Islamic fundamentalists, leaving out mention of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, two very strict Muslim nations with which the United States has close political ties, he predicted.

A constructive response, Barsamian said, would look more like this: "Start obeying international law. Show respect for sensitivity for other cultures. Stop bullying the world. Stop acting like a Mafia don. Work with difference. Accept criticism. Radically relook at our behavior in the Middle East."

Edelstein would like to see the United States respond by turning its effort inward.

"For the American government to respond in a way that I would consider constructive would include the establishment of democracy in the United States."

And if the United States continues on its current path?

"U.S. foreign policy has not given people hope. If you rob people of their dignity and self-respect, they have nothing," Barsamian said. "That's how you can become a suicide bomber."

"Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just"

- Thomas Jefferson Notes from Virginia

By Eric J Ross

US Foreign Interventions and Invasions since Vietnam

Cuba 1963 - today - US blockades island for 39 years. Numerous assassination attempts against leader. Continued actions condemned by Human Rights Groups and the United Nations General Assembly.

Australia 1973-75 - CIA interferes and manipulates free election process.

Chile 1973 - CIA backed coup ousts elected president, installs military Gen. Pinochet. Decades of human rights abuses follow.

Portugal 1974 - CIA funnels millions to destabilize and sabotage NATO ally.

Angola 1976-92 - CIA assists South Africa-backed rebels.

Afghanistan 1979-82 - US supports, arms, trains Mujahadeen rebels including rebel leader Osama Bin Laden.

El Salvador 1980-92 - US aids government condemned for gross human rights violations.

Nicaragua 1981-92 - US directs and illegally supports contra war, mines harbor. Allows open flow of narcotics into US. US actions condemned by the United Nations World Court.

Chad 1982 - US supports overthrow of government. CIA supported secret police kill and torture tens of thousands.

Libya 1982 - USA shoots down 2 Libyan jets.

Honduras 1982 -90 - US builds bases near borders, supports government that uses Death Squads against it's citizens.

Lebanon 1982-84 - US bombs and shells Muslim positions, expels PLO from territory.

Grenada 1983-84 - US military invades tiny island. 400 Grenadians killed. "Gross violation" of international law condemned by United Nations.

Iraq 1987-88 - US supports and arms Saddam Hussein's Iraq in war against Iran.

Iran 1988 - US shoots down Iranian passenger airliner, killing 290 civilians. Claims it was an "accident".

Libya 1989 - US bombs capitol Tripoli killing 55 civilians. Calls it "collateral damage".

Philippines 1989 - US supports corrupt govt of Ferdinand Marcos against citizen uprising.

Panama 1989 - US invades with 27,000 soldiers. Kills 3000+ Panamanians, kidnaps it's own installed drug-dealing leader and CIA asset. Illegal US actions condemned by nearly unanimous United Nations and Organization of American States.

Kuwait 1991 - US invades Middle East, contradicting its position by intervening in inter-Arab affairs. Returns Kuwaiti Monarchy accused of human right abuses to throne.

Iraq 1990 - today - US randomly bombs civilian areas. Blockades Iraqi ports, allows no humanitarian or medical aid. est. 10,000 Iraqi's starve/die monthly as result.

Bulgaria 1991 - CIA funnels millions to destabilize one of the first freely elected governments.

Somalia 1992-94 - US sends in humanitarian aid. Becomes involved in Civil war, takes sides attacking one Mogadishu faction. Kills 500+ Somalis.

Peru 1992 - 01 - US provides military support, millions of dollars to corrupt Fujimori government. Drug kingpin Vladimir Montesino on CIA payroll while serving as Intelligence Chief. Involved directly in shooting down missionary aircraft, killing American woman and her infant child.

Colombia 1992 - present - US supports Colombian military, heavily involved in drug trafficking. 1,640 pounds of cocaine lands in Ft. Lauderdale Florida hidden inside Colombian Air Force cargo plane. Nearly 20,000 people killed by US supported military and para-military so far.

Bosnia 1993 - US naval blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.

Haiti 1994 - US blockades island government, CIA supports military coup to remove elected President Aristide, then forcibly re-installs Aristide as President after he agrees to US conditions of rule.

Sudan 1998 - US bombs Aspirin Factory in Khartoum killing civilians.

Afghanistan 1998 - US missiles kill 28 civilians

Yugoslavia 1999 - US laser-guided bombs destroy Chinese Embassy in Belgrade killing three Chinese journalists.

Afghanistan 2001 - ?

US involvement in Foreign assassinations or attempts

-- prohibited by Presidential decree since 1976 --

1960 - General Abdul Karim Kassem, leader of Iraq

1961 - Francois Duvalier, leader of Haiti

1961 - Patrice Lumumba, Prime Minister of the Congo

1961 - General Rafael Trujillo, leader of Dominican Republic

1963 - Ngo Dinh Diem, President of South Vietnam

1960s - Fidel Castro, President of Cuba , numerous attempts

1960s - Raul Castro, brother of Fidel.

1965 - Francisco Caamano, Opposition leader, Dominican Republic

1965-6 - Charles de Gaulle, President of France

1967 - Ernesto Che Guevara, Cuban leader

1970 - Salvador Allende, President of Chile

1970 - General Rene Schneider, Commander of Chilean Army

1970s, 81 - General Omar Torrijos, leader of Panama

1972 - General Manuel Noriega, chief of Panama Intelligence

1975 - Mobutu Sese Seko, President of Zaire

1976 - Michael Manley, Prime Minister of Jamaica

1980-86 - Moammar Qaddafi, leader of Libya, numerous attempts

1982 - Ayatollah Khomeine, leader of Iran

1983 - General Ahmed Dlimi, Army commander of Morocco

1983 - Miguel d'Escoto, Foreign Minister of Nicaragua

1984 - All nine leaders of the Nicaraguan National Directorate

1985 - Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, Lebanon Shiite leader

1991 - Saddam Hussein, leader of Iraq

1998 - Osama bin Laden, former US trained "freedom fighter". 1999 - Slobodan Mlosevic, President of Yugoslavia

Return to top of page

Go to: Recent News of Great Interest - Page I

Go to: Recent News of Great Interest - Page II

Go to: Recent News of Great Interest - Page III

Go to: Recent News of Great Interest - Page IV

Go to: Recent News of Great Interest - Page V

Go to: Recent News of Great Interest - Page VI

Pages With Articles On 9-11:

Cocaine, Money Laundering, Oil, Afghanistan And Bush Family Links Page

Page VI Page VII Page VIII Page IX Page X

Page XI Page XII Page XIII Page XIV Page XV Page XVI

Want to Know What The World Thinks? Sick of Our Corporate Press?

All International Newspaper Reports !!!

Revised: January 03, 2010 . Communication: discoverer73(at symbol)hotmail.com Go to Home Page Go to Index of All Articles Pages
Read the Disclaimer
Last modified: January 03, 2010 Copyright © 1999 - 2008 All rights reserved. [Gnostic Liberation Front]. www.gnosticliberationfront.com