Paul Rigby

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nDMVUKPDZw4

The aftermath & consequences of the Georgian war crime: http://bolshoyforum.org/forum/index.php?topic=18120.0 Calling the attack on Gori a “Georgian War Crime” is ridiculous. I didn't. Your point is ridiculous. Malign, quite possibly bonkers, but ridiculous. The South Ossetian capital and surrounding towns/villages weren't attacked by the Georgian war criminals, backed by NATO and the US? Really? Is this truly the best you could come up with? Paul

The aftermath & consequences of the Georgian war crime: http://bolshoyforum.org/forum/index.php?topic=18120.0

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200808..._election_ploy/ Georgia War a Neocon Election Ploy? Posted on Aug 12, 2008 By Robert Scheer http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121...2192729075.html McCain Adviser Was Lobbyist for Georgia By Mary Jacoby August 11, 2008; Page A5 Write to Mary Jacoby at mary.jacoby@wsj.com

Then a) you're education is shamefully limited, as the Soviet period of Russian history lasted a mere 70+ years; and you've a very selective memory - not recall what he had to say about the US? Georgia, with obvious US approval, attacked a province of the former USSR which made the same decision to divorce as Georgia did - only the South Ossitians chose to remain with Moscow. Your inability to comment on the obvious fact of Georgian aggression represents precisely the kind of divorce from observable reality that characterises the Bush White House. Paul Paul- Why don't you tell us about your vast education, since you believe that mine is "shamefully limited"? If you want to compare sheepskins, I will be happy to do so, but I think that would be a little silly. Whatever your education is, you obviously missed the day that your professors taught manners and reasoned discourse. You don't have to denigrate me to disagree with my positions. I will debate issues with you in an adult manner anytime. I also don't know what in my post led you to conclude that I thought the Soviet period began many centuries ago. But the USSR period, quite obviously, comprises most of the modern history of Russia, and it is a history of oppression and subjugation of its various "states". I don't see a lot of its former states or Soviet block countries wanting to go back to the days of the USSR and its brand of communism. I'm delighted to see, Chris, that you don't have to denigrate me to debate the issues with me: "Whatever your education is, you obviously missed the day that your professors taught manners and reasoned discourse." Can we say "hypocrite"? I think we can. Much more serious is all that irrelevant guff about the Soviet Union, Stalin and Solzhenitsyn. What precisely does any of this have to do with the fact that Georgian forces, armed, trained, financed and advised by both US and Israeli personnel, launched a murderous barrage on an overwhelmingly civilian population which the country's leader proclaims members of its own nation? As Thomas de Waal, no great lover of Putin, modern Russia etc, put it in today's Observer: In fact, this is all about oil, and has nothing whatever to do with freem, moxy, or any other of the voodoo incantations so beloved of the Anglo-American elites and their mouthpieces in the commentariat. Saakashvili has committed a war crime and should be brought to book as a matter of urgency. Your inability to recognise and admit this very obvious fact is both staggering and contemptible. Let's hope the Kremlin shows a degree of restraint long since lost by the exterminators in Washington. Paul

I agree, Maggie - look out for explosions severing the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline. The US intention is plainly to portray the Russian retaliation as nothing less than a bid to control this route. By this means will reluctant European states be swung behind the incorporation of Georgia into NATO. Paul

You are right Paul. But I think Russia might not be left all alone. I wonder if the Chinese will call in some treasury bonds? It would make economic sense. South Ossetia and Abkhazia are needed by Georgia, US or the Nordic, Aryan, Tutonic Order (all the same really) for control of the pipeline from the Caspian sea project. And as your previous excellent post on the Turkmenistan Russian oil deal clearly illustrates the US is out in the cold and Europe will have to deal with Russia on their terms to receive gas and oil supplies. This is a desperate attempt by the US and those who've hung their wagon to that star to change the game in their favor. Before Georgia can join NATO they were told to fix their 'frozen conflicts' and get their minorities under control so annex and repress them. The opposite for Yugoslavia where they want another pipeline to go. It was dismembered. Divide and rule. It works so well. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...georgia.russia1 Plucky little Georgia? No, the cold war reading won't wash It is crudely simplistic to cast Russia as the sole villain in the clashes over South Ossetia. The west would be wise to stay out By Mark Almond The Guardian, Saturday, August 9, 2008, p.29 • Mark Almond is a history lecturer at Oriel College, Oxford mpalmond@aol.com http://www.amleft.blogspot.com/ Saturday, August 09, 2008 lenin: The "New Cold War" Escalates One of his implicit themes is the tragedy of the peoples of Russia and Georgia caught up in a great game beyond their control, a great game of violence and political manipulation worsened by the cynical involvement of the US and Europe. His summary of US involvement in the removal of the previous regime in Georgia, and the subsequent implementation of neoliberal IMF policies of fiscal austerity and deregulation, provides essential background context. Labels: American Empire, Georgia, IMF, Neoliberalism, Russia ### posted by Richard Comments A Dirty Adventure (Part 4) UPDATE: Doesn't look like things are going well on the ground for the Georgians. A day after invading South Ossetia, they now want a cease fire. No doubt the US and the Europeans will fall into line. Or, is just more pretense? Meanwhile, there are some indications that the Russians may be targeting facilities involved in the transport of oil and natural gas, such as the oil export terminal at the port of Pori. INITIAL POST: The US, France and Britain support Georgia in the United Nations: But one phrase calling on all parties to “renounce the use of force” met with opposition, particularly from the United States, France and Britain. The three countries argued that the statement was unbalanced, one European diplomat said, because that language would have undermined Georgia’s ability to defend itself. Belgium, which holds the rotating presidency of the Security Council this month, circulated a revised draft calling for an immediate cessation of hostility and for “all parties” to return to the negotiating table. By dropping the specific reference to Georgia and South Ossetia, the compromise statement would also encompass Russia. Go back and read it carefully. How does a statement to renounce the us of force prevent Georgia from defending itself? I obviously doesn't, but it would put pressure on Georgia to stop offensive military operations in South Ossetia. We've seen this movie before. It is, as I predicted late last night, a repeat of the situation in the summer of 2006, when Israel conducted a campaign of air strikes in Lebanon, and the US and Britain rejected proposed UN resolutions that called for a cease fire. Expect the US, France and Britain to reject the new Belgium draft as well, as they will oppose any draft that does not place blame on the Russians, and responsibility for making concessions on them, in the hope that the war will go in favor of the Georgians. Again, as with the Israeli assault upon Lebanon, it is probably a forlorn hope, because there will be strong nativist popular Russian support for this conflict, as they perceive it as necessary to defend the people of South Ossetia against not just Georgia, but US and European sponsored aggression. The situation is really quite shocking. The US and two of the dominant countries in the European Union are facilitating violent policies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Lebanon and, now, Georgia. They are making demands upon Iran that increase the chances of war there as well. Germany is supportive in all instances, except this new Georgian adventure, probably because of its closer ties with the Russian Federation. Few seem to understand that a red line has been crossed in South Ossetia. The US and the EU, with the assistance of Israel, is now openly using military force is in their political and economic competition with the Russians in the Caucasus and Central Asia. I try to avoid millenialist sensibilities, but, for the first time, I have become fearful that there is a horrifically destructive global conflict looming over the horizon. As US, Europe and Israel methodically go about increasing the number of tinder boxes, we can only hope that these conflicts somehow resolve themselves nonviolently. It is increasingly difficult to imagine that might happen. Labels: American Empire, Europe, Georgia, Israel, Lebanon, Russia, United Nations ### posted by Richard Comments A Dirty Adventure (Part 3) A good column on the situation by Mark Ames, posted on The Nation website, if one has the patience to sift through the obligatory The Nation requirement that about half of it serve the purpose of implicitly promoting Obama by attacking McCain on the subject: Today, Georgian forces from that same Senaki base are part of the invasion force into South Ossetia, an invasion that has left scores--perhaps hundreds--of dead locals, at least ten dead Russian peacekeepers, and 140 million pissed-off Russians calling for blood. Lost in all of this is not only the question of why America would risk an apocalypse to help a petty dictator like Saakashvili get control of a region that doesn't want any part of him. But no one's bothering to ask what the Ossetians themselves think about it, or why they're fighting for their independence in the first place. That's because the Georgians--with help from lobbyists like Scheunemann--have been pushing the line that South Ossetia is a fiction, a construct of evil Kremlin neo-Stalinists, rather than a people with a genuine grievance. A few years ago, I had an Ossetian working as the sales director for my now-defunct newspaper, The eXile. After listening to me rave about how much I always (and still do) like the Georgians, he finally lost it and told me another side to Georgian history, explaining how the Georgians had always mistreated the Ossetians, and how the South Ossetians wanted to reunite with North Ossetia in order to avoid being swallowed up, and how this conflict goes way back, long before the Soviet Union days. It was clear that the Ossetian-Georgian hatred was old and deep, like many ethnic conflicts in this region. Indeed, a number of Caucasian ethnic groups still harbor deep resentment towards Georgia, accusing them of imperialism, chauvinism and arrogance. One example of this can be found in historian Bruce Lincoln's book, Red Victory, in which he writes about the period of Georgia's brief independence from 1917 to 1921, a time when Georgia was backed by Britain: the Georgian leaders quickly moved to widen their borders at the expense of their Armenian and Azerbaijani neighbors, and their territorial greed astounded foreign observers. 'The free and independent socialist democratic state of Georgia will always remain in my memory as a classic example of an imperialist small nation," one British journalist wrote.... "Both in territory snatching outside and bureaucratic tyranny inside, its chauvinism was beyond all bounds." On Thursday, following intense Georgian shelling and katyusha rocketing into Tskhinvali, refugees streamed out of South Ossetia telling reporters that the Georgians had completely leveled entire villages and most of Tskhinvali, leaving "piles of corpses" in the streets, over 1,000 by some counts. Among the dead are at least ten Russian peacekeepers, who fell after their base was attacked by Georgian forces. Reports also say that Georgian forces destroyed a hotel where Russian journalists were staying. In response, Russian jets bombed Georgian positions both inside South Ossetia and into Georgia proper, attacking one base where American military instructors are quartered (no Americans were reported hurt). By mid-afternoon Moscow time, as local television showed burning homes and Ossetian women and children huddling in bomb shelters, armored Russian columns were crossing into Georgian territory, and Georgia's President called for a total mobilization of military-aged men for war with Russia. The invasion was backed up by a PR offensive so layered and sophisticated that I even got an hysterical call today from a hedge fund manager in New York, screaming about an "investor call" that Georgian Prime Minister Lado Gurgenidze made this morning with some fifty leading Western investment bank managers and analysts. I've since seen a J.P. Morgan summary of the conference call, which pretty much reflects the talking points later picked up by the US media. These kinds of conference calls are generally conducted by the heads of companies in order to give banking analysts guidance. But as the hedge fund manager told me today, "The reason Lado did this is because he knew the enormous PR value that Georgia would gain by going to the money people and analysts, particularly since Georgia is clearly the aggressor this time." As a former investment banker who worked in London and who used to head the Bank of Georgia, Gurgenidze knew what he was doing. "Lado is a former banker himself, so he knew that by framing the conflict for the most influential bankers and analysts in New York, that these power bankers would then write up reports and go on CNBC and argue Lado Gurgenidze's talking points. It was brilliant, and now you're starting to see the American media shift its coverage from calling it Georgia invading Ossetian territory, to the new spin, that it's Russian imperial aggression against tiny little Georgia." The really scary thing about this investor conference call is that it suggests real planning. As the hedge fund manager told me, "These things aren't set up on an hour's notice." Are Wall Street fund managers and investors stupid enough to believe that a new Cold War is a good idea? Evidently so. Because that's the objective of the Georgian leadership and their American and Israeli supporters in the defense and intelligence services. As for the rest of us, they could care less. Why should they? We haven't done anything for a quite awhile to compel them to do so. We can, however, be certain that we will hear very little of the fact that the Georgian military has been trained by the US (so far, only in the context of allying fears that some US officers may have been killed or wounded during a Russian air attack), and nothing about the sales of Israeli weapons to Georgia. One gets the troubling sense that the US, France and Britain, among others, are going to adopt the same response that they did after the Israel conducted a campaign of air strikes upon Lebanon around this same time in the summer of 2006: use the United Nations to pressure the side subject to the attack to make concessions to the aggressor. The Lebanese victims of Israeli airstrikes, over 1,300 people, plus the prospect of subsequent deaths and injuries as a result of cluster bombs, meant nothing to them in the face of more cynical, abstract, geopolitical concerns of the imperialist kind, and the lives of South Ossetians will be equally irrelevant. Labels: American Empire, Georgia, Israel, Lebanon, Mainstream Media, Russia ### posted by Richard Comments Friday, August 08, 2008 A Dirty Adventure (Part 2) Turns out the that Israelis have been supplying the US trained Georgian army with weapons. It was reported that they stopped such sales a few days ago: Israel has decided to halt all sales of military equipment to Georgia because of objections from Russia, which is locked in a feud with its tiny Caucasus neighbor, defense officials said Tuesday. The officials said the freeze was partially intended to give Israel leverage with Moscow in its attempts to persuade Russia not to ship arms and equipment to Iran. They spoke on condition of anonymity as Israel does not officially publish details of its arms sales. Russia has repeatedly refused to comment on reports its is selling S-300 air defense missiles to Iran. Among the items Israel has been selling to Tbilisi are pilotless drone aircraft. Russian fighters shot one down in May, according to UN observers. Other types of weaponry include the following: . . . . Israel has also been supplying Georgia with infantry weapons and electronics for artillery systems, and has helped upgrade Soviet-designed Su-25 ground attack jets assembled in Georgia, according to Koba Liklikadze, an independent military expert based in Tbilisi. Former Israeli generals also serve as advisers to the Georgian military. Interesting. Israeli arms sales to Georgia are purportedly halted, and the Georgians invade South Ossetia in less than a week. There are also reports today that the Georgians have shot down Russian aircraft, which brings this story from April to the top of the queue: Russia asked Israel last week whether it had supplied Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) to Georgia, for it to use in military operations against secessionists from Abkhazia. An Israeli security source confirmed that the UAVs being used by Georgia are manufactured by Israeli firm Elbit. A diplomatic source in Jerusalem said that the Russians did not have proof of this, however, and that the request for clarifications was based on suspicions. He added that Israel does not sell any attack weapons to countries that border with Russia and only sells them defensive equipment. Georgia accused Russia of using a MiG-29 to shoot down one of its UAVs over Abkhazia and produced a video to back up its claim. The video was shot by the UAV seconds before it was shot down, and it shows a MiG-29. Georgia's president said he spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin and demanded an end to the "unjustified aggression against Georgia's sovereign territory." Of course, the subject that keeps intruding into this saga is Iran. Is the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia meant to pressure the Russians into severing economic and military ties with the Iranians? The Israelis supposedly halted arms sales to Georgia in an effort to persuade the Russians to refuse to supply Iran with a new air defense system. Did that effort fail, or was it merely a pretense before the launching of the Georgian invasion? Perhaps, the invasion has also been prompted by competition between the US, Russia and Europe over access to hydrocarbons in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Along these lines, consider this July 30th article by former Indian diplomat M K Bhadrakumar: From the details coming out of Ashgabat in Turkmenistan and Moscow over the weekend, it is apparent that the great game over Caspian energy has taken a dramatic turn. In the geopolitics of energy security, nothing like this has happened before. The United States has suffered a huge defeat in the race for Caspian gas. The question now is how much longer Washington could afford to keep Iran out of the energy market. Gazprom, Russia's energy leviathan, signed two major agreements in Ashgabat on Friday outlining a new scheme for purchase of Turkmen gas. The first one elaborates the price formation principles that will be guiding the Russian gas purchase from Turkmenistan during the next 20-year period. The second agreement is a unique one, making Gazprom the donor for local Turkmen energy projects. In essence, the two agreements ensure that Russia will keep control over Turkmen gas exports. The consequences for the US are reportedly significant: Until fairly recently Moscow was sensitive about the European Union's opposition to the idea of a gas cartel. (Washington has openly warned that it would legislate against countries that lined up behind a gas cartel). But high gas prices have weakened the European Union's negotiating position. The agreements with Turkmenistan further consolidate Russia's control of Central Asia's gas exports. Gazprom recently offered to buy all of Azerbaijan's gas at European prices. (Medvedev visited Baku on July 3-4.) Baku will study with keen interest the agreements signed in Ashgabat on Friday. The overall implications of these Russian moves are very serious for the US and EU campaign to get the Nabucco gas pipeline project going. Nabucco, which would run from Turkey to Austria via Bulgaria, Rumania and Hungary, was hoping to tap Turkmen gas by linking Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan via a pipeline across the Caspian Sea that would be connected to the pipeline networks through the Caucasus to Turkey already existing, such as the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. But with access denied to Turkmen gas, Nabucco's viability becomes doubtful. And, without Nabucco, the entire US strategy of reducing Europe's dependence on Russian energy supplies makes no sense. Therefore, Washington is faced with Hobson's choice. Friday's agreements in Ashgabat mean that Nabucco's realization will now critically depend on gas supplies from the Middle East - Iran, in particular. Turkey is pursuing the idea of Iran supplying gas to Europe and has offered to mediate in the US-Iran standoff. The geopolitics of energy makes strange bedfellows. Russia will be watching with anxiety the Turkish-Iranian-US tango. An understanding with Iran on gas pricing, production and market-sharing is vital for the success of Russia's overall gas export strategy. But Tehran visualizes the Nabucco as its passport for integration with Europe. Again, Russia's control of Turkmen gas cannot be to Tehran's liking. Tehran had keenly pursed with Ashgabat the idea of evacuation of Turkmen gas to the world market via Iranian territory. Bhadrakumar skillfully exposes the Russians and the Iranians as commercial competitors even as they remain involuntary geopolitical allies. For our purposes, however, the essential thread that emerges from his analysis is the urgency for the US (and the Israelis) to act quickly to disrupt Russia's ability to bring natural gas from Turkmenistan to the European market. Otherwise, the US will be forced, to the great dismay of Israel, to broker a deal with Iran so as obtain access to Iranian natural gas to break the Russian monopoly. Hence, we now see a Georgian invasion of South Ossetia about a week after the Russian announcement of its natural gas agreements with Turkmenistan. If one accepts this reasoning, the invasion of South Ossetia is a strong signal that the US prefers confrontation with the Russians over negotiating a new commercial relationship with the Iranians. In other words, it suggests that the US still sees war as the ultimate solution of its disagreements with them. The invasion also suggests that the US is incapable of choosing an ally in the region, and persists in the hope that it can economically and militarily dominate both the Russians and the Iranians, and through them, just about every country in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Such arrogance is likely to be ruinous for all involved. A dirty adventure, indeed. (Hat tip to Big Bopper for pointing out the Israeli connection.) Labels: American Empire, Central Asia, Georgia, Israel, Russia, War with Iran ### posted by Richard Comment (1) A Dirty Adventure (Part 1) Georgia invades South Ossetia: Georgia launched a major military offensive Friday to retake the breakaway province of South Ossetia, prompting Moscow to send tanks into the region in a furious response that threatens to engulf Georgia, a staunch U.S. ally, and Russia in all-out war. Hundreds were reported dead in the worst outbreak of hostilities since the province won defacto independence in a war against Georgia that ended in 1992. Witnesses said the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali was devastated. "I saw bodies lying on the streets, around ruined buildings, in cars," said Lyudmila Ostayeva, 50, who had fled with her family to Dzhava, a village near the border with Russia. "It's impossible to count them now. There is hardly a single building left undamaged." And the Russians respond: The Russian Defense Ministry said Friday afternoon that it would protect Russian citizens in the territory and Russian peacekeepers who came under fire in Tskhinvali. “The Georgian leadership has unleashed a dirty adventure,” the ministry said in a statement, posted on its Web site. “The blood shed in South Ossetia will remain on the conscience of these people and their entourage. We will not allow anyone to do harm to our peacekeepers and citizens of the Russian Federation.” But are Georgians solely responsible for this dirty adventure? One wonders, especially in light of this passage from the Associated Press article, a fact conveniently omitted from New York Times coverage: More than 1,000 U.S. Marines and soldiers were at the base last month to teach combat skills to Georgian troops. Georgia has about 2,000 troops in Iraq, making it the third-largest contributor to coalition forces after the U.S. and Britain. The White House on Friday urged Russia and Georgia to peacefully resolve their dispute over South Ossetia. "We urge restraint on all sides — that violence would be curtailed and that direct dialogue could ensue in order to help resolve their differences," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters. Curiously, the US is not capable of condemning a Georgian invasion and Guernica like air attack upon Tskhinvali, but then, that would be expecting a lot after US Marines just got done training Georgian forces. Instead, the White House just urges restraint, which is what it usually does when an ally has launched an attack and the other side moves to defend itself. The Russians have been angry for quite awhile about proposals to admit Georgia into NATO. Now, Georgian troops have attacked South Ossetia after having been trained by the US. The Russians no doubt believe, with good reason, that the US greenlighted the invasion. If I were Georgian, I'd be very concerned, because it is probable that the Russians are about to teach them a terrible lesson about the consequences of hubris. Labels: American Empire, Georgia, NATO, Occupation of Iraq, Russia ### posted by Richard Comments (2)

The asylums are full of these people. Is there nothing we can do to help them? I believe there is. Send large sums of money - preferably your own, but let's not nitpick - to: The P. Rigby Foundation (for the Care of Unhinged and Delusional Republicans) Please remember to omit the definite article, the word "Foundation," the brackets and, indeed, the writing in between, when making out your much-needed cheques. Hurry - we can give them the help and peace of mind they so badly need, but only from tax exile.

You are right Paul. But I think Russia might not be left all alone. I wonder if the Chinese will call in some treasury bonds? It would make economic sense. South Ossetia and Abkhazia are needed by Georgia, US or the Nordic, Aryan, Tutonic Order (all the same really) for control of the pipeline from the Caspian sea project. And as your previous excellent post on the Turkmenistan Russian oil deal clearly illustrates the US is out in the cold and Europe will have to deal with Russia on their terms to receive gas and oil supplies. This is a desperate attempt by the US and those who've hung their wagon to that star to change the game in their favor. Before Georgia can join NATO they were told to fix their 'frozen conflicts' and get their minorities under control so annex and repress them. The opposite for Yugoslavia where they want another pipeline to go. It was dismembered. Divide and rule. It works so well. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...georgia.russia1 Plucky little Georgia? No, the cold war reading won't wash It is crudely simplistic to cast Russia as the sole villain in the clashes over South Ossetia. The west would be wise to stay out By Mark Almond The Guardian, Saturday, August 9, 2008, p.29 • Mark Almond is a history lecturer at Oriel College, Oxford mpalmond@aol.com

No idea. You? Let me know if you find it. Paul

Then a) you're education is shamefully limited, as the Soviet period of Russian history lasted a mere 70+ years; and you've a very selective memory - not recall what he had to say about the US? Georgia, with obvious US approval, attacked a province of the former USSR which made the same decision to divorce as Georgia did - only the South Ossitians chose to remain with Moscow. Your inability to comment on the obvious fact of Georgian aggression represents precisely the kind of divorce from observable reality that characterises the Bush White House. Paul

For a very different view: Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams. Murder From Within (Santa Barbara, California: 1974): Extract from Chapter 3, “Execution”: Footnotes: (88) Zapruder frame number 330. (89) Charles Roberts, op. cit., p. 17. (90) Ellis, loc. cit. (91) Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, “Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 26. ‘FBI report, dated July 17, 1964, concerning investigation into curb mark on Main Street in Dallas,’” in Hearings, v. 21, pp. 472-474. Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, “Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 27. ‘Letter from the FBI to the Commission, dated August 12, 1964, concerning investigation into curb mark on Main Street in Dallas,’” in Hearings, v. 21, pp. 475-477. Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, “Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 29-30. ‘Charts prepared by Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt showing locations of curb mark on Main Street in Dallas,’” in Hearings, v. 21, pp. 478-480. Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, “’Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 34. ‘Piece of curb containing lead markings removed from Main Street in Dallas,’” in Hearings, v. 21, p. 482. According to Shaneyfelt, “These metal smears [on the curb] were spectographically determined to be essentially lead with a trace of antimony. No copper was found. The absence of copper precludes the possibility that the mark on the curbing section was made by an unmutilated military full metal-jacketed bullet such as the bullet from Governor Connally’s stretcher.” [Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, “Testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt [dated Sept. 1, 1964],” in Hearings, v. 15, p. 700.

Revealing timing, Maggie, with the US and its Georgian puppets seeking to use the imminent Olympics as a wedge to be driven between Russia and China, the two key components of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). The thinking seems to be as follows: Chinese fears that their great showpiece will be ruined is calculated to induce caution or paralysis in Peking, thus depriving Russia of support in its response to the US-sponsored invasion of South Ossetia. Russia, Washington appears to be gambling, will thus be left on its lonesome to deal with this attack. The US game plan would appear to be, first, to provoke Russian military intervention, then permit a brief truce, followed by a massive escalation – almost certainly a false flag attack of considerable cost in human life - calculated to force reluctant and opposed European states into backing Georgia’s full integration into NATO. The US, we can now be certain, will launch a comprehensive assault on the SCO elsewhere, too, from Tibet to Xinjiang and beyond, not excluding SCO allies in Africa and the Americas – and Iran. In short, the last, desperate, throw of US military-imperialism has begun. Paul

Anyone desirous of checking the source of this piece should click on the following link and follow the instructions beneath it: http://www.kennedyassassinationarchive.com/Home.aspx Click on “Advanced Search” tab In the “exact phrase” search box, type “exclusive film” (without the quotes) Under “Publication Date,” select “exact date” & specify “1963, November, 26” Up should pop the example I’ve cited in this thread. Oh – and these additional copies, albeit with slightly different titles: 1. “Exclusive Films Show Shooting of Kennedy in Dallas,” Logansport Pharos-Tribune, (Logansport, Indiana), Tuesday, November 26, 1963, Page 2 2. “UPI Newsfilm First On Air With Exclusive,” Great Bend Daily Tribune, (Great Bend, Kansas), Tuesday, November 26, 1963, Page 9 3. “UPI Newsfilm Has Shooting On Film,” Humboldt Standard, (Eureka, California), Tuesday, November 26, 1963, p.2 Paul

Fascinating piece, Maggie, to which I add the following: http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9750 On the Brink of War: The Caucasian conflict in the context of world politics By Fyodor Lukyanov Global Research, August 5, 2008 RIA Novosti

http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/St...ent=strParentID US accused of backing terrorism in Pakistan Indo-Asian News Service Islamabad, August 05, 2008

http://lukery.blogspot.com/2008/07/court-d...ght-on-cia.html From the blog: Against All Enemies Thursday, July 10, 2008 Court Documents Shed Light on CIA Illegal Operations in Central Asia Using Islam & Madrassas Sibel Edmonds State Secrets Gallery Connects Pipeline Politics, Madrassas & the Turkish Proxies

A direct quote from Putin?

A self-described "Conservative Republican's" take on the same subject: http://www.rense.com/general82/dite.htm Phew! Bush Dirty Diapers! By Karl Schwarz 8-2-8 The American elite has repeated the same cardinal errors the its British forbears did. In the latter case, the strategic geniuses of the Foreign Office and what Veblen called "the clubs" destroyed their own empire at vast expense - and at the cost of tens of millions of lives in the process. Because Britain was (is) not a democracy, no one was held accountable, and no lessons were learned.

"Same old responses"? Go on then, Bill, tell me where you've seen the UPI despatch in question before? Let me guess - in a box at the Sixth Form Museum? The one marked "Not to be released under any circumstances," perhaps? Paul

The truth must first be sought to even begin to find it. Bill Miller Still time to start, Bill - better late than never. Paul

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/The_critics/L...l_Guardian.html

Entirely True! Not too many years back I was discussing with Barbara various events which actually transpired in Vietnam in early 68. In my "mind" for many a year, events of two seperate and different encounters with NVA forces, had been combined into a single encounter/firefight. Barbara, who had received letters from me, stated that I was incorrect and that it was two separate events, to which I protested. She then showed me the letters written on the subject, which, as she had stated, was two distiinct and seperate events. Being the "doubting Thomas", I thereafter dug out my diary which was written at the time of the events, and it too stated that this was too separate events with totally seperate dates. To this day, my "memory" still has these events combined into a single combat event, yet I know beyond any doubt that the memory is incorrect as the letters and diary were written at the time of occurence. Therefore, when one places their faith in "memory" alone, then they are on quite shaky ground. And the older one gets, the worse it also appears to be. Guess one should be thankful that they can remember anything! Jack, Tom, I sympathise with – and share – the proclivity to conflate memories. So let us thank the lucky stars that Mark Lane committed his (television viewing) to paper, just as Tom did in his diary, so contemporaneously: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...rt=#entry148026 The following extract is from the expanded – eight-page pamphlet version – of Mark Lane’s original article on the case, “Lane’s Defense Brief for Oswald,” published by the National Guardian, 19 December 1963: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/The_critics/L...l_Guardian.html Note the order: Lane first saw the film was on television, then a few stills from it in Life’s first post-assassination issue of November 29. Paul Lane was telling the truth in his original defense brief (aka the newspaper despatch from UPI which Gary Mack doesn't want you to read): Will the truth set us free? Probably not, but it's always a very useful place to begin.

I disagree with all sorts of particulars in the essay below. Yet I regard it as one of the most important contributions to an adult understanding of the case. It goes a deal of the way to answering your question. Paul The Design of the Warren Report - to Fall to Pieces by Vincent J. Salandria Introduction – 1999 After re-reading this twenty-two year old piece, I would not change much. My current judgment is that events seem to bear out that the military did in fact join with the Eastern establishment and the U.S. intelligence services in the conspiracy to kill and to obfuscate the reasons for the killing of President John F. Kennedy. The bloated U.S. military budget, in the absence of credible enemies, convincingly speaks to the rich benefits derived by the military and to the military-industrial complex for their role in the assassination of JFK. The killing of President Kennedy and the layers of transparent conspiratorial contradictory explanations for this killing disseminated by our Eastern establishment and its mainstream media enabled the national security state to increase its hold over political power and the economy domestically and globally. This power structure used the killing of President Kennedy and the false debate over it to extend its capacity to frame and to shape the current thinking of our citizens. By achieving an understanding of the true reasons for the killing of President Kennedy we will be able to free ourselves from the Orwellian paralysis of thinking which grips our people. The Design of the Warren Report - to Fall to Pieces Reprinted with permission from People and the PURSUIT of Truth, April 1977. Copyright © 1977 by and published by Berkeley Enterprises Inc., 515 Washington St., Newtonville, Massachusetts 02160. fp.htmlfp.html Return to Main Page

Mugabe’s Biggest Sin: Anglo-American and Chinese interests clash over Zimbabwe’s strategic mineral wealth by F. William Engdahl July 30, 2008 F. William Engdahl is author of A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order (Pluto Press), and Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation (www.globalresearch.ca). He may be contacted through his website, www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net . :: Article nr. 46093 sent on 31-jul-2008 08:05 ECT www.uruknet.info?p=46093 Link: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9707