:These Are The Last Days: - for this blog on google!
Goodbye!
http://thesearethelastdays.wordpress.com/
The New Home.
Wednesday, 12 December 2007
Wednesday, 14 November 2007
7/7 Ripple Effect
Duration 57 minutes.
Release date: 05.11.07
Release date: 05.11.07
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8756795263359807776
Alternative Google Video link
Search for "7/7 Ripple Effect" on Google Video
Sometimes Google Video refuses to play these videos and gives a ""We're sorry, but this video may not be available." Why? Technical problems or censorship?
You can also try this copy on Livevideo.com or this one on Veoh.com.
Downloads:
700 Mb DivX Avi
Download using Bittorrent: 77 Ripple Effect.avi.torrent (info) [another torrent] (What is Bittorrent?)
Direct Download: 77 Ripple Effect.avi: [MIRROR 1 ] [MIRROR 2 ]
You can also watch the movie in high 640x480 quality on Stage6 here
(You will need to have installed the DivX video codec to play this file)
2.6 Gb Pal DVD
Download using Bittorrent: 77 Ripple Effect.iso.torrent (What is Bittorrent?)
TRANSCRIPT
version 0.5.3, last updated 04.11.07
01 - MOCK EXERCISES AND BOMB HOAXES IN THE RUN-UP TO 7/7/2005.
02 - PETER POWER: DUPE, OR ACCOMPLICE?
03 - FOREIGN SECURITY FIRMS - CAN THEY BE TRUSTED?
Dear Viewer,
I hope this finds you well, in good spirit and having a good day.
Regarding the 7/7/2005 terrorist attacks in London, let us look at the facts, and what we were told, and compare them. Then, using Ockham’s Razor and common-sense, let us see what conclusions are to be drawn, so we can all understand what most likely really did happen that day.
First Chapter Title: “MOCK EXERCISES AND BOMB HOAXES IN THE RUN-UP TO 7/7/2005.”
More than a year before the 7/7/2005 attacks, on the 16th of May 2004, an edition of the BBC ONE Panorama programme broadcasted a mock exercise, imagining what would happen if a terrorist-attack was executed in London, in the NEAR FUTURE, consisting of three explosions on tube-trains in the London Underground, and one explosion on a road vehicle.
The following excerpt from the BBC transcript of the programme, gives us a good idea of why this programme was made…
“PRICE: If there are now bombs going off above ground, in this case a lorry being attacked, it could happen anywhere, so the potential for mass panic across not just the capital, but the whole country, is very much with us. I think therefore we need to look at more serious measures. We do have reserve powers in effect to take over the BBC if we were to wish to, and to get them to broadcast whatever we wanted them to broadcast. Those powers are there in the Broadcasting Act. My advice to the Prime Minister would be not to use those, but I think we should be talking to the broadcasters about having the Prime Minister on the air very quickly.
GILBERTSON: You wouldn't disagree with that Michael at all?
PORTILLO: No, I entirely agree that the Prime Minister should be out there, and we shouldn't be using the powers to bring in the BBC, but we should certainly be talking to the broadcasters, about the way in which the coverage is going to be organised.” (end quote)
Please note well that he said, “the coverage is going to be ORGANISED.” In other words, he was saying that they would write the script for, then edit and control, the media coverage of an event in which there were three explosions on London tube-trains, and one on a road vehicle, if such an event were to take place in the near future. The question that begs to be asked is this: was that what they were actually in the process of planning, and precisely the reason for that programme?
Gavin Esler: This is the kind of terrorist attack the government repeatedly says is going to happen.
March 2004 David Blunkett, Home Secretary: "We've been absolutely clear we can't guarantee that there will never be an attack. It's quite likely that they're planning one now."
Michael Portillo says, “I am wondering about the purpose and effect of this very programme.”
This BBC Panorama programme appears to have been used by those behind the 7/7/2005 attack, as the means by which the media's response to the attack in the near future was studied, so it could be controlled and directed towards their own ends. Mr. Price plays the “bad cop” and issues the threat of taking over control of the BBC, and then Mr. Portillo plays the “good cop” and says that there is no need to do that, as long as the BBC behaves itself, and broadcasts whatever they want them to. The “good cop”, “bad cop” scenario is just theatre, to deceive the viewer. The reality is that the BBC is a government propaganda machine and is already, and always has been, controlled and used by the government.
Tues May 25, 2004, 09:00
TUBE EXPLOSIONS
3 blasts on London Underground
The headlines at 9 o'clock.
In the past hour there have been three major explosions on the London underground. The first occurred at 10 past 8 on the Piccadilly line between Knightsbridge and Hyde Park Corner. The second, at 16 minutes past 8, on the Central Line between Tottenham Court Road and Oxford Circus, and the third at 27 minutes past 8 as a train was arriving at Vauxhall Station from Stockwell on the Victoria line. Emergency services have been called to all three scenes. There are no reports available yet on the number of casualties, and the police have said that it's too early to identify a possible cause. London underground is now closed and the police are asking people not to travel.Peter Power clip from Panorama from 6:45 to 7:00 minutes:
Our research indicates that something like 350,000 people alone are making their way towards the city of London at this point, and if the access overload system has been triggered and they can't get onto their mobile telephones, this will have profound indications for them, the next of kin...Tues May 25, 2004, 10:41
LONDON ATTACKS
Chlorine tanker explodes
We can now confirm that a tanker carrying chlorine has exploded at the junction of Shoreditch High Street and Commercial Street. Chlorine is extremely toxic in this form and the police are issuing express warnings to people to stay indoors, close windows and remain there until the all clear is given. (end quote)
In the days leading up to 7/7/2005 there were hoax bomb-scares in Nottingham and Sheffield.
Were these false-alarm hoaxes meant not only to cause panic and confusion, but also to lull everyone into a false sense of security, and into thinking that the initial reports in London on 7/7/2005 would also be false-alarm hoaxes, so people would ignore them; until it was too late?
Second Chapter Title – “PETER POWER: DUPE, OR ACCOMPLICE?”
Then, on 7/7/2005, we were told on TV, by Peter Power of Visor Consultants, that they, and the private company employing them, who helped choose the scenario for it, were running a mock terrorist drill, in the London Underground, with practically the same scenario as what actually really happened on that day. In other words, the actual mock anti-terror drill that the BBC Panorama programme of May 2004 had outlined, had been chosen, by Visor’s client, to be carried out on the VERY same day that four Muslim suicide-bombers, ALSO chose the same scenarios that Visor’s client had chosen for the mock drill, causing real and devastating explosions on three London tube-trains and one road vehicle. Please think about that unbelievable set of coincidences for a few seconds, to let the implications of it sink in. Then, please ask yourself: what are the odds against all of that happening by chance?
In his TV video clip Peter Power states that their customer helped to choose the exact scenario. I repeat: Visor’s customer helped to choose the exact scenario. To this day Peter Power refuses to publicly identify the customer who chose the exact scenario. Why?
Third Chapter Title: “FOREIGN SECURITY FIRMS - CAN THEY BE TRUSTED?”
Verint Systems is the security firm that is responsible for the CCTV surveillance cameras, in the London Underground rail network, and it is an Israeli company, with approximately 1000 employees. No CCTV footage of the four Muslims boarding the tube-trains has been released by Verint; who claim that their cameras were not working. Why? Because the four Muslims were not on the tube-trains that blew up.
Fourth Chapter Title: “THE FOUR MUSLIMS: ACTORS, OR PATSIES?”
We were also told that the training exercise involved 1000 people, and, of course, amongst those 1000 people, would have to be the four people, who were recruited to play the parts of the mock terrorists.
Therefore, as part of the exercise, they would have recruited four young Muslim men to carry four backpacks, that were to contain mock explosive devices.
Who were their Muslim recruits?
These Muslim men would naturally buy return train tickets, and not one-way tickets, because they would be going home after playing their parts in the training exercise.
One of them, the oldest; who would be considered the ring-leader of the group, because of his age; would have been asked to make a “suicide video” prior to 7/7/2005, being told it would form part of the training mock-terrorist exercise; in order to make the exercise, and possibly a film to be made of it, look as realistic as possible. He would obviously not have been told the details of the whole plan, until later, probably when he and the others arrived in Luton on the 7th of July 2005, to make absolutely certain that the scenario of the drill which would take place that day, could not be talked about by, or to, anyone.
The second oldest would also be asked to make a similar video, as a back-up, for just in case anything went wrong, and/or the oldest pulled out of the drill before the 7th of July 2005.
It should be noted that neither Mohammed Sidique Khan, nor Shehzad Tanweer, specify what their targets were, in their videos. It is also interesting to note that no-one has ever claimed responsibility for the 7/7/2005 bombings, except for a message on a fake Al Quaeda website on the same day, that was traced to Texas in the USA.
Two years afterwards; because more and more people doubt the official story and are proving it to be lies and deception, and are rightfully demanding an independent investigation; the police have arrested, frightened, intimidated and harassed Mohammed Sidique Khan’s widow into publicly condemning her husband. She has a young daughter to protect, and has stated that she is now afraid of the police. They kept her in custody for 6 days, to intimidate her and then showed her what they claim is her husband’s Will and “suicide-note.” Obviously this was done to get her to condemn her husband publicly, in exchange for the authorities’ implied agreement to leave her alone, to which she will have agreed, in order to protect herself and her young daughter from further harassment. Where were these documents found, and why did it take two years for them to be shown to her? They are, after-all, her rightful property, if genuine. Two years is ample time to forge a short handwritten note, and signature on a Will.
In view of the amount of time this “suicide-note” has taken to be mentioned, the timing of it, and all the lies and evidence the authorities have told, fabricated and planted, it cannot be trusted and must be considered another forgery, along with any other new so-called evidence that they might come up with.
So, the scene is set for the training exercise to go ahead.
The fake terrorists have been recruited, the suicide videos have been made, and everyone has been given basic instructions, for the day that the exercise is to be put into operation – 7/7/2005.
The four mock-terrorist actors were to meet at Luton Train Station at 07:20 AM on the 7th of July 2005 and catch the 07:40 AM train from Luton to Kings’ Cross Thameslink Station, with their pretend-bomb backpacks, and then split up and catch three tube-trains and one bus, to pre-arranged destinations, where the fake explosions were to take place, as part of the training exercise.
Finally the big day arrived.
Everyone was ready. Everyone was either already where he was meant to be, or was heading there.
But first let us take a step backwards for a moment, to look at the bigger picture, and put this mock-terror exercise into context with what was happening in Britain at that time.
Tony Blair was in big trouble, because he had just been sent a very clear message from the British nation; via the May 2005 General Election, in which he was almost voted out of power; that the British people did not want British troops fighting in George Bush’s War of Terror in the Middle-East. So, to be able to keep the British troops fighting in the Middle-East, Tony Blair desperately needed something to happen, to change the nation’s mind.
Gleneagles = Tony Blair; George Bush; G8 Meeting; Agenda of addressing World Poverty forced on them by Live Eight concerts around the world, but not for long. Their lucrative, evil, phoney and very unpopular War on Terror (which is really a War OF Terror) will promptly return to the top of the agenda, with four big bangs. No time for the poor, the rich have lots more money to make, and people to murder.
Leeds = Where 3 of the Muslim actors lived and were recruited, and where the oldest, Mohammed Sidique Khan, was befriended by the local police, and was regularly called upon by them, to help them to sort out gang-rivalry problems. Mohammed was also taken on a tour of the House of Commons by a Leeds MP, who befriended him. The perfect patsy? Someone who was made to believe he could trust the authorities, and that they would therefore not deceive, or harm him? Someone who could, in turn, recruit 2 other Muslims for the drill, so they could all become famous and make a nice bit of clean and easy extra money, and show their patriotism by helping the authorities to protect Britain from terrorism?
Aylesbury = A fourth Muslim actor who has been recruited, Germaine Lindsey from Aylesbury, will also meet them in Luton.
Luton = Transport security firm ICTS, another Israeli company, has an office just a mile away from the Luton train station, which is suspected to be where the Muslim actors received their final instructions, before setting off for the train station - the details of which trains to board, which carriages to get into, where to sit, and which bus to catch, where to sit on it, and at what time.
London = Commissioner of Police Ian Blair; Rudy Giuliani (Mayor of New York on 9/11); Benjamin Netanyahu (who said 9-11 was good for Israel); Peter Power; and all those taking part in the mock-terrorism drill, are present in Central London, in or around London Underground locations where the explosions take place, and also Tavistock Square.
They can’t show them moving, because it has been faked, that’s why they show only one single frame still photo.
Why did the authorities have to fake this photo? They would have had to fake it, because three of the actors missed the tube-trains that they were supposed to catch, and which blew up without them being onboard, and so there was no video footage from Verint Systems of them boarding the three tube-trains, for the authorities to be able to use, as false evidence, to try to prove to the public that the Muslims were guilty. So they had to doctor and show us the fake photo instead.
Remember what Michael Portillo said on the May 2004 BBC Panorama programme: “the coverage is going to be ORGANISED.”
So far, they are apparently running according to the training exercise plan, and on schedule.
Fifth Chapter Title: “THE GHOST TRAINS.”
Unfortunately for the people who have organised the event, the train that the four Muslim actors are supposed to catch, the 07:40 AM train to Kings’ Cross Thameslink, has been cancelled and the next one too, so they cannot possibly make it in time to catch the tube-trains, that they were supposed to catch, as part of the training exercise.
The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry, as the Hand of God interferes.
In spite of official confirmation that the 07:40 AM train was cancelled, and the next one too, the Home Office report still contains the lie that the non-existent 07:40 AM train was the one that the four Muslims caught. The authorities have to keep lying about it, in order to continue to try to make the public believe, that three of the four Muslim men, who boarded a train from Luton to King’s Cross, arrived in time to catch the three tube-trains that blew up. In so doing, the authorities make it perfectly clear, that the truth of what happened that day is of no importance to them. It is obvious from their actions that the only thing that is important to the authorities, is to make us believe what they had already planned to make us believe, even when the facts prove it to be a lie.
The first available train the Muslim actors can catch, gets them to King’s Cross after the tube trains have already left without them. Hasib Hussain splits off from the other three at King’s Cross Thameslink station, because he still has time to catch the number 30 bus, as his part in the mock-terror exercise. When the tube-trains they were supposed to catch are blown up, the other three smell a rat and realise they have been duped, and are Muslim patsies who will be blamed for the attacks, and everyone knows what happened to Lee Harvey Oswald.
The Muslims are not from London. Their homes are many miles away, and so they are like fish out of water, and have no idea what to do, or where to go and hide. They realise that they can’t go home, and do not know anyone in London whom they can trust.
The phones are all not working, first of all because they were jammed, and then shut down by the authorities, so they cannot phone anyone to tell them what has happened. What can they do to prevent themselves from being wrongly blamed for the explosions? What would you do in that situation?
On one of the early TV news broadcasts that day, a newsreader announced that a report has come in, that three of the terrorists involved in the bombings have been shot and killed, by the anti-terrorist branch of the police, at Canary Wharf, in the Docklands area of London’s East-end. The announcement was made only once, and never repeated, for obvious reasons. How could suicide-bombers possibly have survived the tube-train bombings, and then been in the Docklands to be shot? In a New Zealand Herald newspaper article it says that two people were shot dead outside the HSBC building, and in Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper only one.
There is another newspaper report, that the police shot a suicide bomber outside the Credit Suisse First Boston Bank, which is approximately 1,400 feet, or 467 yards, away from the HSBC building, measured door to door. The two buildings are very different in both shape and size, and 467 yards apart, and thus they are not easily confused with each other.
That means that the police shot and killed at least three suicide-bombers in Canary Wharf, on 7/7/2005. How could suicide-bombers, who were supposed to have blown themselves up on the three tube-trains, have survived and been shot-dead at Canary Wharf?
If we have at least three of the four "suicide-bombers" shot dead at Canary Wharf, and we KNOW they weren't on the tube-trains that blew up, because the 07:40 AM train from Luton to King's Cross was cancelled that day, then we have overwhelming proof that they did not blow the tube-trains up, and that the blowing up of the three tube-trains was an inside-job.
At the Canary Wharf Docklands site there are media companies, for the Muslim patsies to have told their story to and cleared their names, if they could, and two possible escape routes, via air from the nearby London City Airport, that has flights to 34 destinations in the U.K. and Europe, and, if they couldn’t fly out, there was the possibility of getting a boat across the channel to France.
Sixth Chapter Title: “THE NUMBER 30 BUS.”
The fourth Muslim backpacker, Hasib Hussain, who has been blamed for the number 30 bus-bombing, is reported to have been seen wandering around London, going into McDonalds, and eating a beef-burger. He is reported to have tried unsuccessfully to contact the other three by phone, on Euston Road outside King’s Cross at 08.55 AM, but the phones were not working, because they were first of all jammed, and then shut down by the authorities.
What happened to him?
He was the youngest of the four, only eighteen years old, and described, by those who knew him, as a gentle giant. Therefore he was possibly the least worldly-wise, and he was also on his own, in a strange city, and a long way from home. He might not have realized he was in danger of being framed as a patsy, believed all the chaos around that part of London was just part of the mock-terrorism exercise that he was part of, and so just continued with his assigned role, which was to board a certain double-decker bus, at an appointed time, and sit at the back of the top deck. A double-decker, upon which a large advertisement for a play had been placed on one side, reading: “Outright Terror, Bold And Brilliant.”
Please think about that sign on the side of the bus, and the sick minds of the people who planned the attacks.
Now this is where it gets weird, because we are told that Hasib Hussain started from King’s Cross Thameslink station, and was seen on a number 91 bus travelling West along Euston Road to Euston Station, where he caught the number 30 bus, that would have then travelled East, back along Euston Road retracing his steps, back to where he started from at King’s Cross, if it had not been diverted into Tavistock Square. Why would someone carrying a large, heavy backpack do that, unless he was following a script, written by someone who knew, in advance, that that particular number 30 bus, registration LX03BUF, would be diverted into Tavistock Square, and that Hasib Hussain would therefore not be able to get on it at King’s Cross Thameslink, which is where he had arrived at, on the train from Luton? Only someone who is a stranger to London would do that without asking why, because it is a totally illogical thing to do, for someone who knows London, and knows that the number 30 bus goes past King’s Cross Thameslink station, so that they could have caught it there, instead. It would be a complete waste, of time, energy, money, and an unnecessary risk to take, and thus a totally illogical thing for a real terrorist to do.
It now gets unbelievably weird, because the number 91 bus, that Hasib Hussain is reported to have taken from King’s Cross, along Euston Road to Euston Station; to board the number 30 bus, registration LX03BUF, that got diverted into Tavistock Square; actually goes to Tavistock Square. So, if he wanted to get to Tavistock Square, he could just have stayed on the number 91 bus, and been sure of getting directly to Tavistock Square. The number 91 bus route goes from King’s Cross to Tavistock Square.
That is conclusive proof that that particular number 30 bus, registration LX03BUF, was part of Peter Power and his customer’s mock-terrorist drill, pre-rigged with explosives, like the three tube-trains, and was pre-planned to be diverted into, and blown up in, Tavistock Square, rather than blown up by a backpack bomb. Whoever planned this, obviously planned to kill Hasib Hussain with that bus explosion, so he could not tell anyone what had happened, just as they had planned to kill the other three Muslim actors with the explosions on the three tube-trains.
At 09.00 AM a number 30 bus, registration LX03BUF, left Marble Arch on its return journey to Hackney Wick. It arrived at Euston Bus Station at 09.35 AM, but was then diverted from its normal route, into Tavistock Square, and stopped outside the medical offices of the BMA, where it was blown up, at 09.47 AM, as part of the terrorist exercise gone live. This also fits with the BBC Panorama mock-terrorist programme of May 2004, where the explosion of a road vehicle was scheduled to take place AFTER the three tube-train explosions.
A white van from a demolition company called Kingstar is seen and photographed parked at the side of the bus, immediately after the explosion, and a mysterious “witness”, Richard Jones, gives an account of what he says happened to the bus, on camera; which is something that normally would not be allowed by the police, unless it was part of a filmed training-exercise. Then, after a spate of very contradictory TV and newspaper interviews, within a very short space of time; that make sure everyone now believes the explosion was caused by a suicide-bomber on the bus; Richard Jones disappears from view.
So, if Hasib Hussain was supposed to have been on that number 30 bus, registration LX03BUF, how would it be possible for him to get the exact bus, that would get him to one of the four locations where the mock-terrorist exercise would be taking place, when that bus was diverted from its normal route, to Tavistock Square, unless he had been recruited to play the part of a mock-terrorist and told exactly which bus to get, where and at what time, by the people who organised the mock-terrorism exercise, and who knew the bus would be diverted to Tavistock Square? The odds against that happening by coincidence are unbelievable, and thus it is not possible that it was a coincidence.
Another unbelievable coincidence is that all of the CCTV cameras, at all four of the blast sites, were not working that day.
The four CCTV cameras on the number 30 bus were; just like the Israeli Verint Systems’ ones on the underground; not working, and there are no reliable witnesses who can place Hasib Hussain on the number 30 bus. Richard Jones is an unreliable witness, whose physical description, of the man he says was the suicide-bomber, does not fit with Hasib Hussain’s appearance, or what he was wearing that day. So there is no proof that Hasib Hussain was either on that bus, or blew it up. Even so, he has been tried and wrongfully found guilty of blowing up the number 30 bus, by the government organized and controlled media machine, without a shred of real evidence.
They claim to have found Hasib Hussain’s ID in Tavistock Square. However, they also claim that ID from another of the four, Mohammed Sidique Khan, was found in at least two, some reports say three, separate blast locations. He cannot possibly have been in two or all three locations at the same time, proving that these items were planted after the blasts. How could their IDs have survived suicide bomb-blasts? Millions of people are aware of the magic fireproof Mohammed Atta passport, that was planted at the WTC on 9-11. In light of these incidents, if ID from Hasib Hussain was found at Tavistock Square, it does not necessarily mean that he was on the bus, and not somewhere else, or, if he was on the bus, that he blew the bus up.
What has happened to the presumption of innocence; and being considered innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a jury of your peers, in court; that has always been the mainstay of British justice?
The most likely case is that the number 30 bus had been pre-rigged with explosives during its previous service, when the CCTV cameras were disabled. The CCTV systems on Stagecoach buses are normally either the Israeli company Verint Systems RP12001, or Timespace X.200.
A witness, Richmal Marie Oates-Whitehead, aged 35, who worked at the BMA in Tavistock Square, and was hailed as a heroine for her actions during the London bombings, said she heard two explosions on the bus. The controlled media immediately went on the offensive, and did a character assassination of the heroine, because her testimony did not fit with the official story, and she died unexpectedly, shortly afterwards. However, other witnesses also reported a second explosion on the bus. Richmal’s and other witness’ testimonies would account for pre-planted explosives, and a bomb being planted later, on 7/7/2005.
What we can be certain about though, is that, either on the bus, or elsewhere, Hasib Hussain; like the other three Muslim patsies; was murdered.
Seventh Chapter Title: “PRE-PLANTED EXPLOSIVES.”
Witnesses of the tube-train explosions state that there were no Muslims with backpacks, and no backpacks, or bags, left unattended on the trains, in the carriages that blew up, and that the floors of the trains blew upwards from underneath, not downwards, as would be the case with explosives inside the trains.
Explosives underneath the train floors; powerful enough to rupture the carriage floors and bend them upwards; would also lift the carriages up off the rails and derail them, as did happen. Those explosives were not home-made, but military-grade high-explosives, that would not be available to Muslim suicide-bombers. The official story was that they used home-made explosives, which has later been proven to be a lie.
So we know, from reliable eye-witnesses, who can be traced, that there were no backpack home-made bombs or Muslim bombers inside the tube-train carriages that blew up, and that the floors blew upwards, so the bombs, which were made from military high-grade explosives, must have been fastened underneath the floors of the train carriages. Only people having access to the tube-trains, during the times that the trains were not running, would be able to plant those bombs, under the train floors.
Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Finance Minister, said that he was warned by Scotland Yard; not to leave his hotel-room, on the morning of 7/7/2005, before the first explosion was reported; implying that they had foreknowledge of the plan. Scotland Yard then quickly denied being the ones who provided the warning, but have not told us who did warn Netanyahu, if they did not. Why was Benjamin Netanyahu warned, but not the British people who pay their wages, and whom they are paid to protect? Was it because it would have spoiled their evil plan, to murder British people, to change the nation’s mind, about British troops fighting in the Middle-East?
Two weeks later the head of the Israeli Mossad, General Meir Dagan, said that he had warned Benjamin Netanyahu at 08.40 AM, on 7/7/2005, ten minutes before the first blast occurred. How did he know what was going to happen in London, if Scotland Yard did not warn him? Did he wait, to warn Benjamin Netanyahu, until it was too late to warn the British people, so as not to spoil their evil plan? Was the London bombing a covert MI5 operation, or an Israeli Mossad operation, or a joint operation by both of them? The British people have the right to know.
Tony Blair said on the day of the explosions, that, “We KNOW this was done in the name of Islam”, when there was no proof whatsoever of who had done it, therefore indicating he possibly had foreknowledge of the plan and who they intended to blame, and the reason why they were going to blame the Muslims.
As proof that this was a slip-up, and needed covering up, look at how the BBC later falsely reported his actual words, giving further proof that the BBC is a government propaganda machine and the coverage was “organised”, exactly as Michael Portillo said it would be, in the BBC Panorama programme in May 2004.
"In addition I welcome the statement that has been put out by the Muslim Council of Great Britain. We know that these people act in the name of Islam..."
Statement from the PM following COBR meeting"In addition, I welcome the statement put out by the Muslim Council who know that those people acted in the name of Islam..."
BBC: In full: Blair on bomb blasts
Later that same day, Efraim Halevi, a former head of the Israeli Mossad, wrote in an article published on the Jerusalem Post website, at 18:10 PM (London time), that the attacks had been carried out simultaneously with "near-perfect" execution. How did he know they had only been “near-perfect”? How could he have known what the "perfect" results should have been, in order to know that the actual results were not perfect, unless he was in on the plot? How many more people had they intended to murder, in order for it to be considered "perfect" execution? How did he know, at least two days before the London authorities released the information on the 9th of July, that the bombs were detonated simultaneously, unless he was in on the plot? As proof that this too was a slip-up, the Jerusalem Post article in question was completely removed from their website, after people began to ask similar questions.
The following day Police Commissioner Ian Blair also made a slip-up, on camera, and said that there were four miserable bombers, and then very quickly corrected himself, showing that he too possibly had foreknowledge of the plan to use four Muslims as patsies.
We are told that the first reports were of an electrical power-surge that occurred, and then later we were told that there were bombs that exploded on the tube-trains, and that it was an Al Quaeda terrorist attack, with Muslim suicide-bombers carrying backpack home-made explosive-devices onto the tube-trains.
A couple of weeks later, a Brazilian contract electrician is brutally and publicly murdered, on a tube-train, and again we are told lies by the police and media, about him.
He was a contract electrician. For whom had he been working, and what had he been working on, in the days leading up to the 7th of July 2005? Remember that the first reports from the media about 7/7/2005 were of an electrical power-surge, and Jean Charles de Menezes was a contract electrician.
Was he hired, as part of the terrorist exercise’s 1000 people, to wire up devices for mock-explosions, to be set off by a power-surge? Did he see the explosive-devices being fastened under the tube-train carriage floors, and later realise what had really happened, and was starting to talk about it?
Did THEY (The Hierarchy Enslaving You) publicly execute him, to shut him up, and as a warning to others to keep their mouths shut?
We have been unable to find out where he worked. We know about his cousins who live in London, and his family coming over from Brazil, but we do not know where he worked.
Why?
Who is the person calling himself Richard Jones, and claiming to have been next to the suicide-bomber on the bus, and a witness to the bus-bombing, and why did he tell so many lies? Why did Peter Power smirk, grin and giggle, when he spoke about the “coincidence”, that the exercise had turned out to be real, when lots of people had been killed and injured?
What is funny about that?
The probability of the 7/7/2005 Drill and Attack Coinciding, without being planned to coincide, in a 10 year period is: ONE chance in 3,715,592,613,265,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
|
Why are Peter Power, Verint Systems, Richard Jones, Commissioner Ian Blair, the anti-terrorist branch who shot and murdered these innocent people, the Israeli Mossad, Tony Blair and the government itself not under investigation for these horrendous crimes?
Eighth Chapter Title: “CONCLUSION.”
The times of the trains and tube-trains, on that day, have been carefully checked. The first train after 07:40 AM left Luton at 07:56 AM, and arrived at King’s Cross Thameslink Station at 08:42 AM. The three tube trains that blew up left Kings’ Cross underground station at:-
08:35 AM - the Eastbound Circle line train (204);
08:42 AM - the Westbound Circle line train (216);
08:48 AM - the Piccadilly Line train south.
It was therefore impossible for any of the four accused Muslims to have caught the tube trains that blew up.
If we have at least three of the four "suicide bombers" being shot-dead at Canary Wharf, and we KNOW they weren't on the tube-trains, because the 07:40 AM train from Luton to King's Cross was cancelled that day, and the photo of them outside Luton Station at 07:21:54 AM is a fake, and that Hasib Hussain was part of the mock-terrorism exercise, then we have overwhelming proof that the four accused Muslims were patsies, and are innocent, and that it was an inside-job, and that, like Lee Harvey Oswald, they too have been murdered, to silence them.
Whether the bombings were done by MI5, the Israeli Mossad, or both of them, and/or others has yet to be determined, but the one thing we can be sure of, is that it was NOT done by four young Muslims.
Ninth Chapter Title: “EPILOGUE.”
Hopefully, amongst the security-services, there must be at least some decent, honest people who know that the official story is a pack of lies, and are troubled by it. Unfortunately they are all keeping quiet about it. We need them to have the courage to come forward, and say what they know, and arrest their evil colleagues, and bring them to justice, if they don't want to be also condemned as accomplices of the government and media criminals who committed treason, and mass-murder that day, and helped to cover it up, enabling the Orwellian Big Brother Police State plans for Britain to pick up steam, and the real perpetrators, the New World Order government-terrorists, to plunge the world into World War 3, and Armageddon.
Why do you think THEY have made a Big Brother TV programme, to programme people’s minds and get them used to the idea of living under constant surveillance, and to like it, and volunteer to take part in it?
Why do you think they are called PROGRAMMES?
It is because they are used for mind-control, brainwashing, programming of the public’s minds, into obeying, and sleep-walking, whilst following their New World Order hidden agenda.
The sleeper must awaken. The sleeper must awaken.
The television is the greatest mind-control and propaganda weapon ever invented.
Do you think you should be paying for a TV license to fund all THEIR programming of YOUR mind and the lies and propaganda they are broadcasting to deceive, brainwash, control and enslave everyone, including you? Does the TV, and watching it, not already control most of your life and the way you think?
Do you think you should be paying for all those CCTV cameras and their operatives to spy on you, everywhere you go, so they can enslave you, and fine you, thereby stealing your money, for doing nothing wrong? Especially when they use your own money from those fines and taxes to pay for even more CCTV cameras, so you have even less privacy and freedom, and then they claim that the cameras do not work, when there is a real crime being committed, by the people who control the cameras?
Don’t you realize that, in paying fines and taxes, you are actually paying for the chains they are using to enslave you with? Wake up, look and see the reality, that you are actually paying for them to turn you into their slave.
The government is continually and illegally passing new legislation, to restrict your freedom and obtain more and more information about you, to control you, and yet, they themselves are becoming more and more secretive, and out of control. They have turned the relationship between the people and government, into the opposite of what it should be. It should be, public servants serving the people, not the people serving public government masters, or, more accurately, dictators.
Please, for your own sakes, make copies of this film for everyone you know, and for the media outlets in your area, to wake them up and let everyone know the truth, so that the public will give the decent, honest people in the security-services their support, and encouragement, to tell the truth, and arrest their evil colleagues.
Long live the Fighters,
Muad’Dib.
Tuesday, 6 November 2007
Quotations from Victor Ostrovsky's Book 'By Way of Deception'
| Written by Yggdrasil | |
| Tuesday, 06 November 2007 | |
| I dimly recall quite a fuss back in 1959 (I was quite young then) about Jack Kennedy and the question of "dual loyalty". The media declared loudly and publicly that many people questioned whether Kennedy owed his first allegiance to the United States, or to the Vatican. |
The Pope seemed a "lord spiritual" in every respect, lacking any of the normal appurtenances of a "lord temporal", such as a standing army. Indeed, if one listened to the Pope or any of his Bishops, it was awfully hard to discern any worldly objective which a president of that faith might entertain that conflict with the worldly interests of the United States.
After all, the Vatican did not receive $5 billions per year in aid from the U.S. Treasury.
Indeed, it was hard to understand why a Catholic should be treated differently from a Methodist or Presbyterian. Kennedy's religion (or lack thereof) seemed far more relevant to the question of his character and the kinds of moral values that might weigh in his decisions. The temporal interests of Rome seemed a bit distant.
Further, conspiracies cannot be concealed for long, and there was no hard evidence of any such thing by the Catholic Church.
Not so with the Jews!
There clearly is at least one international conspiracy, and it is run directly by the State of Israel.
Here is a short quote from the book "By Way of Deception" by Victor Ostrovsky (St. Martin's, 1990), formerly a Colonel in the Israeli intelligence service "Mossad."
Beginning on page 86:
"The next day Ran S. delivered a lecture on the sayanim, a unique and important part of the Mossad's operation. Sayanim - assistants - must be 100 percent Jewish. They live abroad, and though they are not lsraeli citizens, many are reached through their relatives in Israel. An Israeli with a relative in England, for example, might be asked to write a letter saying the person bearing the letter represents an organization whose main goal is to help save Jewish people in the diaspora. Could the British relative help in any way?
"There are thousands of sayanim around the world. In London alone, there are about 2,000 who are active, and another 5,000 on the list. They fulfill many different roles. A car sayan, for example, running a rental agency, could help the Mossad rent a car without having to complete the usual documentation. An apartment sayan would find accommodation without raising suspicions, a bank sayan could get you money if you needed it in the middle of the night, a doctor sayan would treat a bullet wound without reporting it to the police, and so on. The idea is to have a pool of people available when needed who can provide services but will keep quiet about them out of loyalty to the cause. They are paid only costs."
Continuing on page 87
"Suppose during an operation a katsa suddenly had to come up with an electronics store as a cover. A call to a sayan in that business could bring 50 television sets, 200 VCRs - whatever was needed - from his warehouse to your building, and in next to no time, you'd have a store with $3 or $4 million worth of stock in it."
"Since most Mossad activity is in Europe, it may be preferable to have a business address in North America. So, there are address sayanim and telephone sayanim. If a katsa has to give out an address or a phone number, he can use the sayan's. And if the sayan gets a letter or a phone call, he will know immediately how to proceed. Some business sayanim have a bank of 20 operators answering phones, typing letters, faxing messages, all a front for the Mossad."
And on page 88:
"Katsas in the stations are in charge of the sayanim, and most active sayanim will be visited by a katsa once every three months or so, which for the katsa usually means between two and four face-to-face meetings a day with sayanim, along with numerous telephone conversations. The system allows the Mossad to work with a skeleton staff. That's why, for example, a KGB station would employ about 100 people, while a comparable Mossad station would need only six or seven."
On page 221, Ostrovsky gives an example of what a Sayan can be expected to do for Israel's Mossad:
"The Mossad already had considerable information about the Exocet, thanks in part to a sayan who worked at Aerospatiale and had passed along details. They had also conducted a small operation, sending a team to break into the plant accompanied by a missile expert flown in from Israel for the occasion. He was taken into the plant "with handles," and materials brought to him for his expert opinion. His task was to determine what they should photograph. The team spent four and a half hours inside the plant before leaving without a trace."
It is a crime, a felony, for a civilian to participate in spying operations in this manner.
Israel's Mossad is exposing tens of thousands of Jews around the world to considerable legal risk, and the sayanim, being sophisticated business people, surely know this. If that is so, then why does this system work? Why is the risk acceptable?
Here is Ostrovsky's answer from Page 87:
"One thing you know for sure is that even if a Jewish person knows it is the Mossad, he might not agree to work with you-but he won't turn you in. You have at your disposal a non-risk recruitment system that actually gives you a pool of millions of Jewish people to tap from outside your own borders. It's much easier to operate with what is available on the spot, and sayanim offer incredible practical support everywhere."
Now one might suggest that, for example, Great Britain could use a similar system and recruit among WASPS around the world. But they don't, because they can't. It takes an extraordinary degree of racial solidarity and racial motivation for such a "non-risk recruitment system" to work properly. Remember, all of these activities are spying, with long prison terms if caught. Americans of English, Irish and Italian ancestry may have some residual loyalties to the old "mother country." But this residue is nothing like the racial solidarity of the Jews. Such racial feelings are so strong and so pervasive among Jews that the Mossad knew in advance that their recruitment system was "non-risk." Britain, Ireland, Italy and the Vatican know better than to try.
While it may be true that Americans of English, Irish and Italian ancestry have dual loyalties, these white gentile dual loyalties are nothing like the degree of race-based loyalty possessed by the overwhelming majority of Jews. You have it on the authority of Mossad!
Ostrovsky explains, beginning at the bottom of page 122:
"We took the Brits seriously, but everyone in the building used to say they were probably deluded because of "the Bitch." That's what they always called Margaret Thatcher inside the Mossad. They had her tagged as an anti-Semite. There was one simple question asked when anything happened: "Is it good for the Jews or not?" Forget about policies, or anything else. That was the only thing that counted, and depending on the answer, people were called anti-Semites, whether deservedly or not."
The problem is that Jews do not have dual loyalties!
90% of Jews have a single loyalty. The loyalty is not necessarily to Israel, but to the welfare and power of Jews generally. That is the only thing that matters. The only question that ever gets asked is; "How will this affect Jews?" No other interests are taken into account at all!
Indeed a corollary of "dual loyalty" is the goyish notion that if you sacrifice to help others, they will reciprocate. If someone helps Jews, there should be a reward.
European gentiles assume that comity and reciprocity are inherent in the psychological makeup of all humanity. Not so, according to Ostrovsky (page 231):
"The relationship between the Mossad and Danish intelligence is so intimate as to be indecent. But it's not the Mossad's virtue that is compromised by the arrangement; it's Denmark's. And that's because the Danish are under the mistaken impression that because they saved a lot of Jews in World War II, the Israelis are grateful and they can trust the Mossad."
No matter what you do for Jews and no matter how assiduously you toady to their interests, they will never respect yours.
That explains why destructive welfare state policies thrive despite 40 years of soaring black illegitimacy rates and the deepening destruction of the black family and community in America. Does the policy harm blacks! Of course! But that is irrelevant. Welfare dependence has created a block that votes 90% for candidates friendly to the welfare state and to Israel. Would blacks be better off as tradesmen and entrepreneurs with stable families? Of course, but then there would be no easy way to control their votes. The hopeless dependency of most blacks increases the political power of Jews. That is why the policy continues.
There is no comity, reciprocity or sense of obligation (dual loyalty) that causes Jews to moderate their attack on America's blacks. Now you might ask why Clinton, the "best friend Israel has ever had at the White House", would sign welfare reform. The answer is the same. The white illegitimacy rate has reached 25%. Millions of white girls in suburban and rural areas are going on AFDC while their skin-head boyfriends camp with them at night. There is no way our masters are going to use the tax dollars at their disposal to finance the creation of Dr. Pierce's 10 million man army 20 years from now!
It is one thing to fool 40% of Euro-Americans who have jobs and pay taxes into believing they can get something out of the system. It is quite another to subsidize the creation of a dangerous subculture with real dollars. Jews just don't make those kinds of mistakes. Ways can be found within the bureaucracy to continue welfare to blacks. Hence Hillary Clinton's campaign to "fix" welfare reform.
A classic illustration of this phenomenon comes from a book entitled "Special Tasks" (Little-Brown, 1994, 1995) written by Pavel Sudoplatov and his son Anatoly.
Lieutenant General Pavel Sudoplatov was Joseph Stalin's NKVD director in charge of stealing atomic secrets. He reported directly to Beria.
From page 172:
"The most vital information for developing the first Soviet atomic bomb came from scientists engaged in the Manhattan Project to build the American Atomic Bomb - Robert Oppenheimer, Enrico Fermi, and Leo Szilard."
Robert Oppenheimer was the director in charge of the Manhattan project.
From page 186-87:
"When it became clear that the atomic project was a heavily guarded, top-secret American priority, Eitingon and I suggested that we use our networks of illegals as couriers for our sources of information. Vassili Zarubin, our Washington rezident, instructed Kheifetz to divorce all intelligence operations from the American Communist party, which we knew would be closely watched by the FBI, and to have Oppenheimer sever all contacts with Communists and left-wingers."
On page 188:
"In 1943, a world-famous actor of the Moscow Yiddish State Art Theatre, Solomon Mikhoels, together with well -known yiddish poet Itzik Feffer, toured the United States on behalf of the Jewish Antifascist Committee. Before their departure, Beria instructed Mikhoels and Feffer to emphasize the great Jewish contribution to science and culture in the Soviet Union. Their assignment was to raise money and convince American public opinion that Soviet anti-semitism had been crushed as a result of Stalin's policies. Kheifetz made sure that the message they brought was conveyed to Oppenheimer. Kheifetz said that Oppenheimer, the son of a German-Jewish immigrant, was deeply moved by the information that a secure place for Jews in the Soviet Union was guaranteed. They discussed Stalin's plans to set up a Jewish autonomous republic in the Crimea after the war was won against facism."
Beria understood the psychology of unitary loyalty perfectly!
Continuing on page 189:
"In developing Oppenheimer as a source, Vassili Zarubin's wife, Elizabeth, was essential. She hardly appeared foreign in the United States. Her manner was so natural and sociable that she immediately made friends. Slim, with dark eyes, she had the classic Semitic beauty that attracted both men and women, and she was one of the most successful agent recruiters, establishing her own illegal network of Jewish refugees from Poland, and recruiting one of Szilard's secretaries, who provided technical data."
Oppenheimer's rationale was "fear that the Germans might produce the first atomic bomb." But all he had to do to beat the Germans to the punch was to build the bomb for America. And indeed, that would have been the natural result of "dual loyalties." He could have helped Jews and remained loyal to America at the same time.
But then helping America was not in the calculus at all. As Beria understood perfectly, he was concerned only with one unitary question; "How does this affect Jews?" And the answer was that just as organizing the blacks and browns to vote their antagonistic racial interests is critical to maintaining Jewish power over whites in the 1990's, giving the atomic secrets to Russia was the one way to reduce the power of whites in America in the 1940s and 50s. Oppenheimer's naive view (prior to the creation of the Israeli State) was that a nuclear armed Russia would provide one more possible haven for Jews with the power to protect them.
The goyim in our OSS (the forerunner of the CIA) would have assumed "dual loyalty" and concluded that Oppenheimer presented no security risk.
They were dead wrong, as Beria clearly understood.
So now the question becomes: - How many sayanim does it take to "occupy America"?
Is Madeline [Kerbel] Albright (nominee for Secretary of State) a Sayan?
Is William Cohen (nominee for Secretary of Defense) a Sayan?
Is William Berger (nominee for National Security Agency chief) a Sayan?
Is Anthony Lake (nominee to head CIA) a Sayan?
Is Robert Rubin (secretary of Treasury) a Sayan?
Is Alan Greenspan (chairman of the Federal Reserve) a Sayan?
Are these reasonable questions to ask?
In truth, of course, it is somewhat unlikely that these people, by far the most powerful group in the United States, would agree to spend their time schlepping TV sets for Mossad, or divulging secrets. They can do far more to serve Jewish interests by guiding U.S. economic, diplomatic and defense policies to serve Israel and Jewish interests than they ever could through risky behaviors like divulging classified data.
In fact, these people are in a far better position to put pressure on Israel than Israel is to put pressure them.
Are the people named above capable of articulating U.S. interests (as opposed to Jewish interests) on an intellectual level?
Of course! Quite skillfully, in fact!
Are they capable of acting upon those interests (our interests)?
That is a much tougher question. For a majority, it appears that the answer is clearly "no" if Jewish insterests might also be involved. The psychological and emotional ties within the group are so strong, and they are so powerfully alienated from the white gentile majority that their decisions and actions will never match their words. Just as Oppenheimer's actions failed to square with his words.
Clinton's cabinet and the media moguls who control him are likely to have their own strong views on the question "Is it good for Jews, or not?" And they are not likely to take orders from Israel. Does that mean there is no "conspiracy'?
Other than the publicly documented spying and extortion operations run by the State of Israel, there probably isn't one. Rather, what we have is an obsessive concern for the interests of Jews and a psychological inability to represent the interests of others that is shared by such an overwhelming majority of Jews, that their uncoordinated actions appear pre-planned.
Colonel Ostrovsky notes in "By way of Deception" that Israel and its supporters have a concept of the relation between media and government that is powerfully at odds with our own Anglo-Saxon tradition that inspired the First Amendment.
From page 290:
"As usual in these affairs, the journalism fraternity in Israel knew about the operation all along-or at least, they knew what the Mossad and the prime minister's office wanted them to know - but they agreed to withhold the story until they were given leave to print it. There is a committee of editors, called the Vaudat Orchim, of all the major media outlets in Israel that meets regularly with government officials for background briefing on current events. Israeli television is government controlled, as is all but one rogue radio station, so that broadcasting is never a problem to control."
The Jewish - SDS flirtation with "free speech" at Berkeley in the 1960's was a temporary romance of convenience. Culturally, they are more comfortable with a "Vaudat Orchim" and controlled news.
Is Laurence Tisch (CEO of CBS,) a Sayan? Vaudat Orchim?
Is Robert Sarnoff (RCA and NBC) a Sayan? Vaudat Orchim?
How about Jeff Zuker (executive producer of NBC Nightly news)?
Is Jeff Sagansky (head of CBS entertainment division) a Sayan? A member of a Vaudat Orchim?
Is Stuart Bloomberg (head of entertainment programming at ABC) a Sayan? How about Vaudat Orchim?
Is Brandon Tartikoff (Paramount Pictures) a Sayan? Vaudat Orchim?
Is Gerald Levin (Time Warner Communications) a Sayan? Perhaps part of a Vaudat Orchim?
Is Michael D. Eisner (Walt Disney Co.) a Sayan? Or a Vaudat Orchim member?
Is Martin S. Davis (Paramount Communications) a Sayan? Or a Vaudat Orchim, perhaps?
Is Peter Chernin (20th Century Fox Film Corp.) a Sayan? Vaudat Orchim?
How about Sandy Grushow (Fox Entertainment)? Sayan? Vaudat Orchim?
Is Peter Guber (Columbia Pictures Entertainment) a Sayan? Vaudat Orchim?
Is Sumner Redstone [Murray Rothstein] (Viacom, MTV, Nickelodeon) a Sayan? A Vaudat Orchim?
Is Lew Wasserman (MCA Inc.) a Sayan? Vaudat Orchim?
Is Ron Nessen (MBS radio news) a Sayan? - or a Vaudat Orchim?
How about Samuel and Donald Newhouse (31 newspapers, 12 broadcast stations, 87 cable systems, Parade, New Yorker, Vogue, Mademoiselle, Glamour, Vanity Fair, Bride's, Gentlemen's Quarterly, Self, House & Garden, etc.)?
Sayanim?
Is Arthur Ochs Sulzberger (New York Times, 33 additional papers, 7 radio and TV broadcasters a cable company and three book publishers) a Sayan? A Vaudat Orchim?
Is Katherine Meyer Graham (Washington Post, Newsweek) a Sayan? A Vaudat Orchim?
Is Peter Kann (Dow Jones & Co, Wall Street journal) a Sayan? A Vaudat Orchim?
How about Mortimer B. Zuckerman (New York Daily News, U.S. News &World Report, Atlantic Monthly)?
Sayan? Vaudat Orchim?
Do these people, and dozens more in similar positions meet to discuss how to manage the news? Again, the truth is probably not. Why?
Simple. They already know what messages must be censored and what events are newsworthy. They already know what to cover and what to leave on the cutting room floor. Except on rarest occasions, they do not need to be told what to do.
Each of these men will have his own passionately held convictions about what kinds of news and entertainment for goyim will best serve Jewish interests. These are not the type of men who would obediently follow instructions from Isreal. But then the deep racial paranoia and the intense loathing of Christianity that is taught to most Jews as children at the dinner table ensures that many Jews will pursue careers in media (such careers are "good for Jews") and will know what to do when they get to the top of a network. They generally do not need to be told!
And that, gentlemen, is the significance of "unitary racial loyalty" that exists among 90% of this world's Jews.
Pat Buchanan once referred to Capitol Hill as "Israeli Occupied Territory."
Can we justifiably say that we live in "Occupied America?"
No need to make up your minds yet. Might as well wait for parts two and three of the "Occupied America" series.
Then you can be the judge!
Source: ZioPedia.org
Boycotting campaign to resurface with Starbucks opening
| Written by Deena Douara | ||||
| Tuesday, 06 November 2007 | ||||
Starbucks, however, is not just any cup of coffee. Internationally the chain has been criticized by leftist activists for using globalization tactics, promoting consumerism, and stifling competition. Regionally, however, the debate is centering in on the chain’s ties to Israel. Egyptians and Arabs started circulating emails highly critical of Starbucks months before the opening. One of the more caustic email forwards includes a letter allegedly written by CEO Howard Schultz thanking customers, stating that "$5 billion per year from the US government are no way near enough to pay for all the weaponry, bulldozers and security fences needed to protect innocent Israeli citizens from anti-Semitic Muslim terrorism. Corporate sponsorships are essential." | ||||
The true author of the letter admits it was a hoax on www.ziopedia.org, but claims the essence of the letter is accurate.
Although Starbucks as an organization appears not to contribute funds to Israel, Schultz himself has been honored in Israel as someone "who [has] played key roles in promoting close alliance between the United States and Israel" during the Friends of Zion Theodor Herzl mission award ceremony.
Gideon Meir, an Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, complimented Schultz for helping American students to hear "Israeli presentations on the Middle East crisis" and in 1998 he was awarded the Israeli 50th Anniversary Tribute Award from the Jerusalem Fund of Aish Ha-Torah, which sponsors Israeli military arms fairs, insists that the occupied Palestinian territories be described only as "disputed," and aims to "strengthen the special connection between the American, European and Israeli defense industries" and "to showcase the newest Israeli innovations in defense," according to a Robert Fisk article published in The Independent newspaper, June 14, 2002.
Starbucks claims Schultz received the award for “making significant contributions toward improving the lives of people around the world.”
Egyptian-Lebanese film director Arab Lotfy says the campaign against Starbucks and similar American companies “is not just a limited movement. It’s not one organization or group, it’s a point of view that’s spreading.” The members come from across the political and religious spectrum but coordinate and cooperate together.
She says their immediate goal is “to make it a losing project,” as they did through demonstrations when Sainsbury’s opened in Egypt and was forced to shut down shortly thereafter. "Our money shouldn't go to support the Israeli army."
For Lotfy, a socialist who generally dislikes consumerism, the boycotting is also about "fighting the imperial position in our area," and supporting local products. She thinks Arabs should "get in control of their own destiny on political, economic, and social levels."
Lotfy says boycotting should not get violent, which it did in Sainsbury’s case. "You don’t need to break glass, that doesn't stop a project," she said, adding that police aggression often stimulates demonstrators' aggression.
Not all boycotting has to be loud even: "By just not doing it [buying American products] people start to ask why" and become informed.
Nada Kassas, a Nasserite, thinks every country should support their local products, pointing to the Japanese epitome of nationalism, whose citizens staunchly supported their own products until they became strong as we know them today.
She says the Egyptian Committee for Boycotting will campaign through emails, stickers, essays, pamphlets, and communication with people and patrons. In the past, the movement has even reached out to farmers and youth in schools.
Still, she adds that they will likely not protest while there is only one venue because a lot of people do not even know Starbucks and they would simply be attracting attention to it.
Kefaya member and head of the committee Ahmed Bahaa Eldeen Shaaban is quick to point out that the movement is "not against the American people, it's against American politics." He believes governments are most to blame as they are the purchasers of large items such as airplanes.
The Committee also includes members from the Muslim Brotherhood, students, and others committed to fighting pro-Israeli and American products. The movement started eight years ago and peaked during the intifada to support the Palestinians but weaned after, resurging during times of MidEast conflict. It operates in many cities and cooperates with other Arab groups trying to achieve similar goals.
Other targets for boycotting have included Coca-Cola, Marlboro, McDonald’s, Nokia, and Nestle, among others.
A Starbucks spokesperson told The Daily Star Egypt that “allegations that Howard Schultz is a Zionist are absolutely false and unacceptable … neither Chairman Howard Schultz nor Starbucks fund or support the Israeli Army.” They also specify that Starbucks, as a company, does not support any political agenda or cause.
They say that the wide circulation of charges against them are “created with the sole intent of damaging our image and success.”
Starbucks pointed to their Corporate Social Responsibility endeavors around the world, including work with 4OurKidz in Egypt, and aiming to introduce “Knowledge Corners” in schools in Cairo and Alexandria.
M.H. Alshaya is the Kuwaiti firm which holds the franchising rights to Starbucks in the Middle East as well as many other foreign brands.
In response to whether they had any sort of screening process with regards to acquisitions, based on political, environmental, or social values, they responded that the presence of the Alshaya group in many Arab countries was evidence of positive reception in the region, but did not respond that there was indeed a screening process or restrictions on acquisitions.
They added that Starbucks’ and Alshaya’s “shared values are about product quality, overall customer experience and employee satisfaction, community development, environmentally-friendly initiatives, and our commitment to the communities that we serve.
M.H. Alshaya have opened over 170 Starbucks in nine countries in the region, including Saudi Arabia, and in Cairo's City Center mall on Dec. 28 and will open in Alexandria's San Stefano Hotel.
Related Articles:
A Thankyou to all Starbucks customers
Source: Daily News Egypt
Crusades vs Jihad -- Bernard Lewis, Neocon Forefather
http://bookclub.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/11/16/12635/421
Until that September 11, 2001, the two men most responsible for popularizing the idea of a clash of civilizations, Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington, were regarded as curiosities by mainstream national security and foreign policy experts. Their Ivy League credentials and access to prestigious publications such as Foreign Affairs, and the edgy radicalism of their theories, guaranteed that they would generate controversy, and they did. But few took their ideas seriously, except for a scattered array of neoconservatives, who, in the 1990s, resided on the fringe themselves. The Lewis-Huntington thesis was hit by a withering salvo of counterattacks from many journalists, academics, and foreign policy gurus.
Samuel Huntington, whose controversial book The Clash of Civilizations amounted to a neoconservative declaration of war, wrote that the enemy was not the Islamic right, but the religion of the Koran itself:
The underlying problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power. The problem for Islam is not the CIA or the U.S. Department of Defense. It is the West, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the universality of their culture and believe that their superior, if declining power imposes on them the obligation to extend that culture throughout the world.
What followed from Huntington's manifesto, of course, was that the Judeo-Christian world and the Muslim world were locked in a state of permanent cultural war. The terrorists--such as Al Qaeda, which was still taking shape when Huntington's book came out--were not just a gang of fanatics with a political agenda, but the manifestation of a civilizational conflict. Like a modern oracle of Delphi, Huntington suggested that the gods had foreordained the collision, and mere humans could not stop it.
Huntington acknowledged--without mentioning the role of the United States--that Islam had been a potent force against the left during the Cold War. "At one time or another during the Cold War many governments, including those of Algeria, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt and Israel, encouraged and supported Islamists as a counter to communist or hostile nationalist movements," he wrote. "At least until the Gulf War, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states provided massive funding to the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamist groups in a variety of countries." But he had a neat explanation of how the alliance between the West and the Islamists unraveled. "The collapse of communism removed a common enemy of the West and Islam and left each the perceived major threat to the other," he wrote. "In the 1990s many saw a `civilizational cold war' again developing between Islam and the West." Huntington, who is not an expert on Islam, observed a "connection between Islam and militarism," and he asserted: "Islam has from the start been a religion of the sword and it glorifies military virtues." Just to make sure that no one could miss his point, he quoted an unnamed U.S. army officer who said, "The southern tier"--i.e., the border between Europe and the Middle East--"is rapidly becoming NATO's new front line."
Huntington quotes his guru on matters Islamic, Bernard Lewis, in order to prove that Islam presents an existential threat to the very survival of the West:
`For almost a thousand years,' Bernard Lewis observes, `from the first Moorish landing in Spain to the second Turkish siege of Vienna, Europe was under constant threat from Islam.' Islam is the only civilization which has put the survival of the West in doubt, and it has done that at least twice.
How exactly the weak, impoverished, and fragmented countries of the Middle East and south Asia could "put the survival of the West in doubt" was not explained. But it was a thesis that Bernard Lewis had been refining since the 1950s.
Lewis, a former British intelligence officer and long-time supporter of the Israeli right, has been a propagandist and apologist for imperialism and Israeli expansionism for more than half a century. He first used the term clash of civilizations in 1956, in an article that appeared in the Middle East Journal, in which he endeavored to explain "the present anti-Western mood of the Arab states." Lewis asserted then that Arab anger was not the result of the "Palestine problem," nor was it related to the "struggle against imperialism." Instead, he argued, it was "something deeper and vaster":
What we are seeing in our time is not less than a clash between civilizations -- more specifically, a revolt of the world of Islam against the shattering impact of Western civilization which, since the 18th century, has dislocated and disrupted the old order. ... The resulting anger and frustration are often generalized against Western civilization as a whole.
It was a theme he would return to again and again. By blaming anti-Western feeling in the Arab world on vast historical forces, Lewis absolved the West of its neo-colonial post-World War II oil grab, its support for the creation of a Zionist state on Arab territory, and its ruthless backing of corrupt monarchies in Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. In his classic 1964 book, The Middle East and the West, he repeated his nostrum: "We [must] view the present discontents of the Middle East not as a conflict between states or nations, but as a clash of civilizations." Lewis explicitly made the point that the United States must not seek to curry favor with the Arabs by pressuring Israel to make peace. "Some speak wistfully of how easy it would all be if only Arab wishes could be met--this being usually interpreted to mean those wishes that can be satisfied at the expense of other parties," i.e., Israel. Instead, he demanded, the United States should simply abandon the Arabs. "The West should ostentatiously disengage from Arab politics, and in particular, from inter-Arab politics," wrote Lewis. "It should seek to manufacture no further Arab allies." Why seek alliance with nations whose very culture and religion make them unalterably opposed to Western civilization?
Over several decades, Lewis played a critical role as professor, mentor and guru to two generations of Orientalists, academics, U.S. and British intelligence specialists, think tank denizens, and assorted neoconservatives, while earning the scorn of countless other academic specialists on Islam who considered Lewis hopelessly biased in favor of a Zionist, anti-Muslim point of view.
A British Jew born in 1916, Lewis spent five years during World War II as a Middle East operative for British intelligence, and then settled at the University of London. In 1974 he migrated from London to Princeton, where he developed ties to people who would later lead the fledgling neoconservative movement. "Lewis became [Senator Henry] Jackson's guru, more or less," said Richard Perle, a former top Pentagon official who, as chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, was the most prominent advocate for war with Iraq in 2003, and who is a long-time acolyte of Lewis's.
Lewis also became a regular visitor to the Moshe Dayan Center at Tel Aviv University, where he developed close links to Ariel Sharon.
By the 1980s, Lewis was hobnobbing with top Department of Defense officials. According to Pat Lang, the former DIA official, Bernard Lewis was frequently called down from Princeton to provide tutorials to Andrew Marshall, director of the Office of Net Assessments, an in-house Pentagon think tank. Another of Lewis' students was Harold Rhode, a polyglot Middle East expert who went to work in the Pentagon and stayed for more than two decades, serving as Marshall's deputy.
Over the past twenty years, Lewis has served as the in-house consultant on Islam and the Middle East to a host of neoconservatives, including Perle, Rhode, and Michael Ledeen. Asked who he drew on for expertise during his tenure as CIA director, James Woolsey says, "We had people come in and give seminars. I remember talking to Bernard Lewis."
Although Lewis maintained a veneer of academic objectivity, and though many scholars acknowledged Lewis' credentials as a primary-source historian on the history of the Ottoman empire, Lewis abandoned all pretense of academic detachment in the 1990s.
In 1998, he officially joined the neocon camp, signing a letter demanding regime change in Iraq from the ad hoc Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf, co-signed by Perle, Martin Peretz of The New Republic, and future Bush administration officials, including Paul Wolfowitz, David Wurmser, and Dov Zakheim. He continued to work closely with neoconservative think tanks, and in the period after September 11, 2001, Lewis was ubiquitous, propagating his view that Islam was unalterably opposed to the West.
Two weeks after 9/11, Perle invited Lewis and Ahmed Chalabi to speak before the influential Defense Policy Board, inaugurating a two-year effort by neoconservatives to prove a nonexistent link between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Chalabi, a friend of Perle's and Lewis's since the 1980s, led an exile Iraqi opposition group, the Iraqi National Congress, and Chalabi was responsible for feeding reams of misleading information to U.S. intelligence officers that helped the Bush administration exaggerate the extent of the threat posed to the United States by Iraq.
Less than a month after Lewis and Chalabi's appearance, the Pentagon created a secret, rump intelligence unit led by Wurmser, which later evolved into the Office of Special Plans (OSP). It was organized by Rhode and Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense for policy. "Rhode is kind of the Mikhail Suslov of the neocon movement," says Lang, referring to the late chief ideologue for the former Soviet Communist party. "He's the theoretician." It was Rhode and Feith's OSP, under neocon Abram Shulsky, which manufactured false intelligence that blamed Iraq for ties to Al Qaeda.
And it was the OSP which created talking-points papers for Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and other top Bush administration officials claiming that Iraq had extensive stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, long-range missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, and a well-developed nuclear program. Chalabi's falsified intelligence fed directly into the OSP, from whence it ended up in speeches by Cheney, Rumsfeld, and other top Bush administration officials.
On the eve of the Iraq war, Lewis, who was close to Cheney, had a private dinner with the vice president to discuss plans for the war in Iraq, and, in 2003, Lewis dedicated his book "The Crisis of Islam" "To Harold Rhode."
http://www.juancole.com/2004/08/pentagonisrael-spying-case-expands.html
[Israeli spy] Franklin was close to Harold Rhode, a long-time Middle East specialist in the Defense Department who has cultivated far right pro-Likud cronies for many years, more or less establishing a cell within the Department of Defense.
UPI via Dawn reports,' An UPI report said another under-investigation official Mr Rhode "practically lived out of (Ahmad) Chalabi's office". Intelligence sources said that CIA operatives observed Mr Rhode as being constantly on his cell phone to Israel, discussing US plans, military deployments, and Iraq's assets. '
"DIVIDE AND CONQUER"
The stimulation of ethnic unrest is (unfortunately) not a new idea. Specifically in case of Iran, the current US plans seem to resemble a much older agenda, which is known as the “Bernard Lewis Project”** . Bernard Lewis is one of the most influential scholars in the study of Islam and Middle East, whose views and expertise has been widely represented in public and political domain(1). From a scientific perspective, his views on Islam and Middle East, and their relation with the West can be considered as extremely orientalistic.
The Bernard Lewis Project was first presented in 1979. The core proposal of this project is to divide countries in the Middle East along ethnic and regional lines into smaller, rival states in order to weaken the power of existing governments. According to Lewis the West should provoke rebellion for national autonomy by certain minority groups that will, eventually, lead to the fragmentation of powerful states. In case of Iran, he formally proposed to target the Arabs of Khuzestan (the Al-Ahvaz Project), the Azeri’s (the Greater Azerbaijan Project), the Kurds (the Greater Kurdistan Project) and the Baluchi’s (the Pakhtunistan Project).
Now more than 25 years later, Iran is still too big for the region. This is especially problematic, as the country is perceived as a hostile state by the US. Undoubtably, Iran is a true (potential) threat to the US interests in the Middle East. Given the neoconservative agenda of the current US administration, it is not surprising that parts of Lewis’s proposition have been reconsidered in the context of recent developments, and already initiated in practice.
Moreover, the current situation in neighboring Iraq, where the country balances on the edge of a civil war, can facilitate further ethnic tensions in Iran, especially when an independent, self-governing Kurdistan emerges in Iraq. However, America’s first objective would be to target the oil producing Khuzestan region, as its separation will automatically paralyze the entire country, including the central government.
Apparently, the US aggressive policy towards Iran seems to be a component of the much broader “Project for the New American Century”, an old agenda that has also been revived by the neocons to ensure the American dominance as the world’s only superpower in the region.
------
(1) Dick Cheney remarked “I had the pleasure of first meeting Bernard [Lewis] more than 15 years ago, during my time as Secretary of Defense. It was not long after the dictator of Iraq had invaded Kuwait, and we brought in a large number of outside experts to speak about the history and the way forward in the Middle East. As you might imagine, I got a wide range of advice -- some of it very good and some of it terrible. No one offered sounder analysis or better insight than Bernard Lewis. He was an absolute standout, and I decided that day that this was a man I wanted to keep in touch with, and whose work I should follow carefully in the years ahead..... In this new century, his wisdom is sought daily by policymakers, diplomats, fellow academics, and the news media.” (1 may 2006).
The Bernard Lewis Project was first presented in 1979. The core proposal of this project is to divide countries in the Middle East along ethnic and regional lines into smaller, rival states in order to weaken the power of existing governments. According to Lewis the West should provoke rebellion for national autonomy by certain minority groups that will, eventually, lead to the fragmentation of powerful states. In case of Iran, he formally proposed to target the Arabs of Khuzestan (the Al-Ahvaz Project), the Azeri’s (the Greater Azerbaijan Project), the Kurds (the Greater Kurdistan Project) and the Baluchi’s (the Pakhtunistan Project).
Now more than 25 years later, Iran is still too big for the region. This is especially problematic, as the country is perceived as a hostile state by the US. Undoubtably, Iran is a true (potential) threat to the US interests in the Middle East. Given the neoconservative agenda of the current US administration, it is not surprising that parts of Lewis’s proposition have been reconsidered in the context of recent developments, and already initiated in practice.
Moreover, the current situation in neighboring Iraq, where the country balances on the edge of a civil war, can facilitate further ethnic tensions in Iran, especially when an independent, self-governing Kurdistan emerges in Iraq. However, America’s first objective would be to target the oil producing Khuzestan region, as its separation will automatically paralyze the entire country, including the central government.
Apparently, the US aggressive policy towards Iran seems to be a component of the much broader “Project for the New American Century”, an old agenda that has also been revived by the neocons to ensure the American dominance as the world’s only superpower in the region.
------
(1) Dick Cheney remarked “I had the pleasure of first meeting Bernard [Lewis] more than 15 years ago, during my time as Secretary of Defense. It was not long after the dictator of Iraq had invaded Kuwait, and we brought in a large number of outside experts to speak about the history and the way forward in the Middle East. As you might imagine, I got a wide range of advice -- some of it very good and some of it terrible. No one offered sounder analysis or better insight than Bernard Lewis. He was an absolute standout, and I decided that day that this was a man I wanted to keep in touch with, and whose work I should follow carefully in the years ahead..... In this new century, his wisdom is sought daily by policymakers, diplomats, fellow academics, and the news media.” (1 may 2006).
-----------------
http://www.rozanehmagazine.com/NoveDec05/AZPartVI.html [whole page worth reading]
**Professor Lewis first unveiled his project in the Bilderberg Meeting in Baden, Austria, on April 27-29, 1979. He formally proposed the fragmentation and balkanization of Iran along regional, ethnic and linguistic lines especially among the Arabs of Khuzestan (the Al-Ahwaz project), the Baluchis (the Pakhtunistan project), the Kurds (the Greater Kurdistan project) and the Azerbaijanis (the Greater Azerbaijan Project).
Dreyfus and LeMarc (see References, p. 157) provide a very succinct summary of the plan’s methodology:
“According to Lewis, the British should encourage rebellions for national autonomy by the minorities such as the Lebanese Druze, Baluchis, Azerbaiajni Turks, Syrian Alawites, the Copts of Ethiopia, Sudanese mystical sects, Arabian tribes … The goal is the break-up of the Middle East into a mosaic of competing mini-states and the weakening of the sovereignty of existing republics and kingdoms… spark a series of breakaway movements by Iran’s Kurds, Azeris, baluchis, and Arabs …these independence movements, in turn would represent dire threats to Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan and other neighbouring states.”
The report is almost too incredible to believe: this is indeed the dark side of Professor Lewis’ distinguished academic career. For the students of geopolitical and Petroleum Diplomacy however, there is nothing new regarding the “chop-up Iran” agenda (item 10).
Robert Olson (see References, esp. p.108-158) has provided a surprisingly candid and sober assessment of the Greater Azerbaijan Project. He has provided a detailed assessment of how the intelligence and military agencies of Turkey, USA and Israel have set up bases and networks in Northern Iraq, Eastern Turkey and the Republic of Azerbaijan (esp. Nakhchivan) to broadcast anti-Iran hate propaganda into Iranian Azerbaijan. There is in fact a foreign-funded anti-Iran separatist radio station known as the Voice of Southern Azerbaijan (VOSA).
The relationship between VOSA and the Rashet Bet radio station (see photo below) of Israel was first reported by independent reporter Nick Grace. The report is available on the Clandestine Radio Intel Website (see Web references). Excerpts from his report are as follows:
“…According to monitor Nikolai Pashkevich in Russia, "when I tuned in my receiver to this channel I found an open carrier with 'Reshet Bet... on the background and then VOSA signing on" (CDX 180). Rashet Bet is, of course, a news service of Israel Radio. The German Telecommunications department has also pinpointed VOSA's location to be somewhere around Israel, Jordan and Saudi Arabia (BCDX 351.)…VOSA is clearly supervised and arranged by Israel's intelligence agency: the Mossad…”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
