Steven Gaal

STEVIE WONDER SAW THE LIGHT AFTER ALL … PULLS OUT OF IDF SUPPORT CONCERT November 29, 2012 at 09:37 DESERTPEACE Wonder’s representatives will claim that he did not know the nature of the group, the Friends of the Israel Defense Forces, and that he believes such a performance would be incongruent with his status as a UN “Messenger of Peace,” according to a source who has read email exchanges between Wonder’s representatives and organizers of the event. * Stevie Wonder to pull out of IDF fundraiser Representatives for Wonder, who performed at a 1998 gala honoring Israel’s 50th anniversary, say the performance would be incongruent with his status as a UN ‘Messenger of Peace.’ Stevie Wonder Photo by AP Stevie Wonder is set to pull out of a performance at a fundraiser for the Israel Defense Forces, a source told JTA. Wonder’s representatives will claim that he did not know the nature of the group, the Friends of the Israel Defense Forces, and that he believes such a performance would be incongruent with his status as a UN “Messenger of Peace,” according to a source who has read email exchanges between Wonder’s representatives and organizers of the event. Wonder was scheduled to headline the Friends of the Israel Defense Forces annual gala in Los Angeles on Dec. 6. The event raises millions of dollars annually to support the Israeli military. An official of Friends of the IDF, reached at its Los Angeles office, had no comment. Wonder’s agent at Creative Artists Agency did not return a request for comment. The spokesman for the UN Secretary General also had no comment on the matter. The United Nations does not impose restrictions on its goodwill representatives. Wonder most recently performed at a UN concert commemoratiing its 67th anniversary. Elie Wiesel, the Nobele Peace Laureate and Holocaust memoirist who is also a staunch defender of Israel is also a UN Messenger of Peace. Wonder had come under intense social media pressure to pull out of the event. An online petition calling on him to cancel his performance had garnered more than 3,600 signatures. The petition was launched more than a day ago on the change.org website. “You were arrested in 1985 protesting South African Apartheid, now we ask you: please remember that apartheid is apartheid, whether it comes from White Afrikaaner settlers of South Africa or from Jewish Israelis in Israel,” the petition reads. “Desmond Tutu has recognized that Israel’s Apartheid is worse than South Africa’s — will you stand with us against apartheid and cancel your performance at the IDF fundraiser.” A second petition, launched by the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, calls on Wonder to “(p)lease continue your legacy of speaking out for the oppressed. Please be a ‘full-time lover’ of justice by standing on the right side of history and canceling your performance for the Israeli army.” Wonder performed at a 1998 gala honoring Israel’s 50th anniversary. * * Source * Palestinian Doctor and Artist, Dr. Jazz produced the following before Stevie Wonder changed his mind …. it’s worth viewing for future musician’s blunders. * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kR99M75T6A&feature=player_embedded

November 28, 2012 How Wall Street "Privatized" Money Creation Shadow Banking by MIKE WHITNEY Regulators are worried about the explosive growth of shadow banking, and they should be. Shadow banks were at the heart of the last financial crisis and they’ll be at the heart of the next financial crisis as well. There’s no doubt about it. It’s simply impossible to maintain a system where unregulated, non-bank financial institutions are able to create their own money (credit) without oversight or supervision. The money they create–via off-balance sheets operations, securitization, repo or other unmonitored mega-leveraging activities–feeds into the economy, creates artificial demand, lowers unemployment, and fuels growth. But when the cycle slams into reverse (and debts are no longer serviced on time), then thinly-capitalised shadow banks begin to default one-by-one, creating a daisy-chain of counterparty bankruptcies that push stocks into a nosedive while the economy slips into a long-term slump. Sound familiar? The reason the global economy is still in a shambles a full 5 years after Lehman Brothers collapsed, is because this deeply-flawed system –which had previously generated 40 percent of the credit in the US economy–was still in rebuilding-mode. But now, according to a new report by the Financial Stability Board, shadow banking has made a comeback and is bigger than ever. The FSB found that assets held by shadow banks have swollen to $67 trillion, a sum that’s nearly as large as global GDP ($69.97 trillion) and greater than the $62 trillion that was in the system prior to the Crash of ’08. The more shadow banking grows, the greater the probability of another financial crisis. So what is shadow banking and how does it work? Here’s how Investopedia defines the term: “The financial intermediaries involved in facilitating the creation of credit across the global financial system, but whose members are not subject to regulatory oversight. The shadow banking system also refers to unregulated activities by regulated institutions. Examples of intermediaries not subject to regulation include hedge funds, unlisted derivatives and other unlisted instruments. Examples of unregulated activities by regulated institutions include credit default swaps. The shadow banking system has escaped regulation primarily because it did not accept traditional bank deposits. As a result, many of the institutions and instruments were able to employ higher market, credit and liquidity risks, and did not have capital requirements commensurate with those risks. Subsequent to the subprime meltdown in 2008, the activities of the shadow banking system came under increasing scrutiny and regulations.” (Investopedia) Shadow banking may have “come under increasing scrutiny”, but not a damn thing has been done to fix the problems. The banks and their lobbyists have beaten back all the sensible reforms that would have made the system safer. Instead, we’re back at Square 1, where credit is expanding in leaps and bounds by–what Pimco’s Paul McCulley called–”a whole alphabet... Regulators are worried about the explosive growth of shadow banking, and they should be. Shadow banks were at the heart of the last financial crisis and they’ll be at the heart of the next financial crisis as well. There’s no doubt about it. It’s simply impossible to maintain a system where unregulated, non-bank financial institutions are able to create their own money (credit) without oversight or supervision. The money they create–via off-balance sheets operations, securitization, repo or other unmonitored mega-leveraging activities–feeds into the economy, creates artificial demand, lowers unemployment, and fuels growth. But when the cycle slams into reverse (and debts are no longer serviced on time), then thinly-capitalised shadow banks begin to default one-by-one, creating a daisy-chain of counterparty bankruptcies that push stocks into a nosedive while the economy slips into a long-term slump. Sound familiar? The reason the global economy is still in a shambles a full 5 years after Lehman Brothers collapsed, is because this deeply-flawed system –which had previously generated 40 percent of the credit in the US economy–was still in rebuilding-mode. But now, according to a new report by the Financial Stability Board, shadow banking has made a comeback and is bigger than ever. The FSB found that assets held by shadow banks have swollen to $67 trillion, a sum that’s nearly as large as global GDP ($69.97 trillion) and greater than the $62 trillion that was in the system prior to the Crash of ’08. The more shadow banking grows, the greater the probability of another financial crisis. So what is shadow banking and how does it work? Here’s how Investopedia defines the term: “The financial intermediaries involved in facilitating the creation of credit across the global financial system, but whose members are not subject to regulatory oversight. The shadow banking system also refers to unregulated activities by regulated institutions. Examples of intermediaries not subject to regulation include hedge funds, unlisted derivatives and other unlisted instruments. Examples of unregulated activities by regulated institutions include credit default swaps. The shadow banking system has escaped regulation primarily because it did not accept traditional bank deposits. As a result, many of the institutions and instruments were able to employ higher market, credit and liquidity risks, and did not have capital requirements commensurate with those risks. Subsequent to the subprime meltdown in 2008, the activities of the shadow banking system came under increasing scrutiny and regulations.” (Investopedia) Shadow banking may have “come under increasing scrutiny”, but not a damn thing has been done to fix the problems. The banks and their lobbyists have beaten back all the sensible reforms that would have made the system safer. Instead, we’re back at Square 1, where credit is expanding in leaps and bounds by–what Pimco’s Paul McCulley called–”a whole alphabet soup of levered up non-bank investment conduits, vehicles and structures”. What we are seeing, in essence, is the privatizing of money creation. Privately-owned financial institutions of every stripe are increasing the amount of credit in the system even though the underlying collateral they’re using may be dodgy and even though they may not have sufficient capital to honor claims if there’s a run on the system. Let’s explain: When a bank issues a mortgage, it is required to hold a certain amount of capital against the loan in case of default. But if the bank securitizes the mortgage, that is, it chops the mortgage up into tranches, pools it with other mortgages, and sells it as a bond (mortgage backed security), then the bank is no longer required to hold capital against the asset. In other words, the bank has created money (credit) out of thin air. This is the ultimate goal of banking, to maximize profits off zilch capital. So how is this different than counterfeiting? There’s no difference at all. The banks are creating “near money” or what Marx called “fictitious capital” without sufficient resources, without supervision, and without any regard for the damage they may inflict on the real economy when their ponzi-scam blows up. What matters is profits, everything else is secondary. We live in an economy where the Central Bank no longer controls the money supply. Interest rates only play small part in this new paradigm where risk-oriented speculators can boost broad money by many orders of magnitude by merely increasing their debt levels. This new phenom has intensified systemic instability and caused incalculable harm to the real economy. Keep in mind, that ground zero in the financial crisis was a shadow bank called The Reserve Primary Fund. That’s where the trouble really began. In 2008, the Reserve Primary Fund (which had lent Lehman $785 million and received short-term notes called commercial paper) was unable to keep up with the withdrawals of clients who were concerned about the fund’s financial health. The sudden erosion of trust triggered a run on the money markets which sent equities plunging. Here’s how Bloomberg sums it up: “On Tuesday, Sept. 16, the run on Reserve Primary continued. Between the time of Lehman’s Chapter 11 announcement and 3 p.m. on Tuesday, investors asked for $39.9 billion, more than half of the fund’s assets, according to Crane Data. “Reserve’s trustees instructed employees to sell the Lehman debt, according to the SEC. “They couldn’t find a buyer. “At 4 p.m., the trustees determined that the $785 million investment was worth nothing. With all the withdrawals from the fund, the value of a single share dipped to 97 cents. “Legg Mason, Janus Capital Group Inc., Northern Trust Corp., Evergreen and Bank of America Corp.’s Columbia Management investment unit were all able to inject cash into their funds to shore up losses or buy assets from them. Putnam closed its Prime Money Market Fund on Sept. 18 and later sold its assets to Pittsburgh-based Federated Investors. “At least 20 money fund managers were forced to seek financial support or sell holdings to maintain their $1 net asset value, according to documents on the SEC Web Site.” (“Sleep-At-Night-Money Lost in Lehman Lesson Missing $63 Billion”, Bloomberg) The news that Primary Reserve had “broken the buck” sparked a panic that quickly spread to markets across the world sending stocks into freefall. Primary Reserve was the proximate cause of the financial crisis and the global crash, not subprime mortgages and not Lehman Brothers. This fact is obfuscated by the media to conceal the inherent dangers of the shadow system, a system that is just as rickety and crisis-prone today as it was in September 2008. Although there are ways to make shadow banking safer, the banks and their lobbyists have resisted any change to the current system. Recently, the banks delivered a stunning defeat to Securities and Exchange Commission chairwoman Mary Schapiro who had been pushing for minor changes to money market accounts that would have made this critical area of the shadow system safer and less susceptible to bank runs. Schapiro’s drubbing at the hands of an all-powerful financial services industry sent shockwaves through Washington where even diehard friends of Wall Street –like Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner–sat up and took notice. They have since joined the fight to implement modest regulations on an out-of-control money market system which threatens to crash the financial system for the second time in less than a decade. Keep in mind, that the changes Geithner, Bernanke and Schapiro seek are meager by any standard. They would involve “a floating net asset value, or share price, instead of their current fixed price,” or more capital to back up the investments in the money market fund (just 3 percent) in case there’s a panic and investors want to withdraw their money quickly. That sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? Even so, the banks have rejected any change at all. They believe they have the right to decieve investors about the risks involved in keeping their money in uninsured money market accounts. They don’t think they should have to keep enough capital on hand to cover withdrawals in the event of a bank run. They’ve decided that profits outweigh social responsibility or systemic stability. So far, Wall Street has fended off all attempts at regulatory reform. The banks and their allies in Congress have made mincemeat of Dodd Frank, the reform bill that was supposed to prevent another financial crisis. Here’s how Matt Taibbi summed it up in a recent article in Rolling Stone: “At 2,300 pages, the new law ostensibly rewrote the rules for Wall Street. It was going to put an end to predatory lending in the mortgage markets, crack down on hidden fees and penalties in credit contracts, and create a powerful new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to safeguard ordinary consumers. Big banks would be banned from gambling with taxpayer money, and a new set of rules would limit speculators from making the kind of crazy-ass bets that cause wild spikes in the price of food and energy. There would be no more AIGs, and the world would never again face a financial apocalypse when a bank like Lehman Brothers went bankrupt. Most importantly, even if any of that fiendish crap ever did happen again, Dodd-Frank guaranteed we wouldn’t be expected to pay for it. “The American people will never again be asked to foot the bill for Wall Street’s mistakes,” Obama promised. “There will be no more taxpayer-funded bailouts. Period.” Two years later, Dodd-Frank is groaning on its deathbed. The giant reform bill turned out to be like the fish reeled in by Hemingway’s Old Man – no sooner caught than set upon by sharks that strip it to nothing long before it ever reaches the shore.” (“How Wall Street Killed Financial Reform”, Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone) Congress, the White House and the SEC are all responsible for fragile state of the financial system and for the fact that shadow banking has not been brought under regulatory oversight. This mess should have been cleaned up a long time ago, instead, shadow banking is experiencing a growth-spurt, adding trillions to money supply and pushing the system closer to disaster. It’s shocking. MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com.

Portuguese Join Europe's Chorus of Discontent Wednesday, 28 November 2012 12:15 By Raphael Minder, The New York Times News Service| Until a few months ago, Portugal was seen as a role model in the grinding euro zone crisis, adopting deep spending cuts and raising taxes to reduce its deficit without the outcry, protests and strikes that austerity policies have set off in other Southern European countries. International lenders praised the Portuguese government even as they arranged a 78 billion euro bailout for the country last year, following similar deals with Greece and Ireland. But the belt-tightening helped push Portugal deeper into one of Europe’s longest recessions — and the Portuguese have now joined the ranks of Europe’s discontented, even coordinating a general strike with workers in neighboring Spain earlier this month. The hard times have also created strains within the center-right coalition government of Prime Minister Pedro Passos Coelho. Still, the government managed to pass a stiff new austerity budget with steep tax increases on Tuesday, even as protesters demonstrated angrily outside the Parliament building. Such protests and work stoppages have become much more common over the past year, as daily life for many Portuguese families has become a struggle to stay afloat. Pay is being cut for government and private-sector workers alike, the unemployment has risen to nearly 16 percent, retirees face higher health costs and students will pay more for tuition without any assurance that their degrees will lead to jobs. In fact, many graduates are packing their bags to emigrate instead. POSTED IN FAIR USE

Online Forum on Cuban 5 Begins Relatives of the five Cuban antiterrorist fighters currently serving long sentences in the United States and members of groups in solidarity with their cause are participating today as panelists in an online discussion forum about the case. Convened by the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the forum was opened on Thursday, November 22, so that Internet users from around the world can post their questions or comments about Gerardo Hernandez, Rene Gonzalez, Antonio Guerrero, Fernando Gonzalez and Ramon Labañino, detained in 1998 for monitoring terrorist groups based in Miami . The forum will begin with a panel that will be broadcast live via Internet, which can be seen from the websites Cubaminrex, and Nation and Emigration. Previous similar actions dealt primarily with the denunciations about the actions of the U.S. government in the case, called unconstitutional by the defense team for the Cuban Five, as they are known internationally. U.S. jurists, including attorney Martin Garbus, have presented habeas corpus appeals in recent months on behalf of Gerardo Hernandez, proving Washington's involvement with more than a dozen reporters during the trial in order to taint the jury and stoke community prejudice against the antiterrorist fighters. Last modified on Tuesday, 27 November 2012 08:57 http://news.cubasi.cu/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=2488:online-forum-on-cuban-5-begins

LEFTY OBAMA ?? Will the FCC Give Rupert Murdoch the Powerful Gift of Media Consolidation? http://truth-out.org/news/item/12882-will-the-fcc-give-rupert-murdoch-the-powerful-gift-of-media-consolidation posted in fair use

LEFTY OBAMA ??? Humanitarian Coverup: Why is Obama Silent Over the New Congo War? By Shamus Cooke Global Research, November 26, 2012 The last Congo war that ended in 2003 killed 5.4 million people, the worst humanitarian disaster since World War II. The killing was directly enabled by international silence over the issue; the war was ignored and the causes obscured because governments were backing groups involved in the fighting. Now a new Congo war has begun and the silence is, again, deafening. President Obama seems not to have noticed a new war has broken out in the war-scarred Congo; he appears blind to the refugee crisis and the war crimes committed by the invading M23 militia against the democratically elected government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). But appearances can be deceiving. The U.S. government has their bloody hands all over this conflict, just as they did during the last Congo war when Bill Clinton was President. President Obama’s inaction is a conscious act of encouragement for the invaders, just as Clinton’s was. Instead of Obama denouncing the invasion and the approaching overthrow of a democratically elected government, silence becomes a very powerful action of intentional complicity on the side of the invaders. Why would Obama do this? The invaders are armed and financed by Rwanda, a “strong ally” and puppet of the United States. The United Nations released a report conclusively proving that the Rwandan government is backing the rebels, but the U.S. government and U.S. media cartoonishly pretend that the issue is debatable. The last Congo War that killed 5.4 million people was also the result of the U.S.-backed invading armies of Rwanda and Uganda, as explained in the excellently researched book “Africa’s World War,” by French journalist Gerard Prunier. In fact, many of the same Rwandan war criminals involved in the last Congo War, such as Bosco Ntaganda, are in charge of the M23 militia and wanted for war crimes by the U.N. international criminal court. The current Rwandan president, Paul Kagame, is a “good friend” of the U.S. government and one of the most notorious war criminals on the planet, due to his leading roles in the Rwandan genocide and consequent Congo War. A group of Congolese and Rwandan activists have been demanding that Kagame be tried for his key role in the Rwandan genocide. As Prunier’s book explains, the Rwandan genocide was sparked by Kagame’s invasion of Rwanda — from U.S. ally Uganda. After Kagame took power in post-genocide Rwanda, he then informed the U.S. — during a trip to Washington D.C. — that he would be invading the Congo. Prunier quotes Kagame in Africa’s World War: “I delivered a veiled warning [to the U.S.]: the failure of the international community to take action [against the Congo] would mean that Rwanda would take action… But their [the Clinton Administration’s] response was really no response at all” (pg 68). In international diplomacy speak, such a lack of response — to a threat of military invasion — acts as a glaring diplomatic green light.The same blinding green light is now being offered by Obama to the exact same war criminals as they again invade the Congo. But why again? The Democratic Republic of the Congo’s current President, Joseph Kabila, helped lead the military invasion during the last Congo war. As a good stooge, he delivered Congo’s immense mining and oil wealth to multi-national corporations. But then his puppet strings started to fray. Kabila later distanced himself from U.S. puppets Rwanda and Uganda, not to mention the U.S. dominated International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank. The IMF, for example, warned Kabila against a strategic infrastructural and development aid package with China, but Kabila shrugged them off. The Economist explains: “…[The Congo] appears to have gained the upper hand in a row with foreign donors over a mining and infrastructure package worth $9 billion that was agreed a year ago with China. The IMF objected to it, on the ground that it would saddle Congo with a massive new debt, so [the IMF] is delaying forgiveness of most of the $10 billion-plus that Congo already owes.” This act instantly transformed Kabila from an unreliable friend to an enemy. The U.S. and China have been madly scrambling for Africa’s immense wealth of raw materials, and Kabila’s new alliance with China was too much for the U.S. to bear. Kabila further inflamed his former allies by demanding that the international corporations exploiting the Congo’s precious metals have their super-profit contracts re-negotiated, so that the country might actually receive some benefit from its riches. The Democratic Republic of the Congo is home to 80 percent of the world’s cobalt, an extremely precious mineral needed to construct many modern technologies, including weaponry, cell phones, and computers. The DRC is possibly the most mineral/resource rich country in the world — overflowing with everything from diamonds to oil — though its people are among the world’s poorest, due to generations of corporate plunder of its wealth. Now, a new war is underway and the U.N. is literally sitting on their hands. There are 17,500 U.N. peacekeepers in the DRC, not to mention U.S. Special Forces. The invading M23 militia has 3,000 fighters. What was the U.N.’s response to the invasion? The New York Times reports: “United Nations officials have said that they did not have the numbers to beat back the rebels and that they were worried about collateral damage, but many Congolese have rendered their own verdict. On Wednesday, rioters in Bunia, north of Goma, ransacked the houses of United Nations’ personnel.” If Obama and/or the U.N. made one public statement about militarily defending the elected Congolese government against invasion, the M23 militia would have never acted. Human Rights Watch and other groups have correctly labeled the M23’s commanders as responsible for “ethnic massacres, recruitment of children, mass rape, killings, abductions and torture.” But at the U.N. the Obama administration has been actively protecting this group. The New York Times continues: “Some human rights groups say that Susan E. Rice, the American ambassador to the United Nations and a leading contender to be President Obama’s next secretary of state, has been far too soft on Rwanda, which is a close American ally and whose president, Paul Kagame, has known Ms. Rice for years. The activists have accused her of watering down language in a Security Council resolution that would have mentioned Rwanda’s links to the [M23] rebels and say she also tried to block the publication of part of a [u.N.] report that detailed Rwanda’s covert support for the M23.” It’s likely that the Obama administration will jump into action as soon as his M23 allies complete their military objective of regime change, and re-open the Congo’s military wealth to U.S. corporations to profit from. There are currently talks occurring in U.S.-puppet Uganda between the M23 and the Congo government. It is unlikely that these talks will produce much of a result unless Kabila stands down and allows the M23 and its Rwandan backers to take over the country. The M23 knows it’s in an excellent bargaining position, given the silence of the U.N. and the United States government. If the war drags on, expect more international silence. Expect more massacres and ethnic cleansing too, and expect the still-recovering people of the Congo to be re-tossed into massive refugee camps where they can again expect militia-sponsored killings, rape, starvation, and the various barbarisms that have accompanied this especially brutal war, a brutality that grows most viciously in environments of silence. Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org) He can be reached at shamuscooke@gmail.com Notes http://news.national...for-war-crimes/http://www.economist...f603b9fd9577f0e http://www.nytimes.c...-kinshasha.html

Dear Michael, I have no worry. You see in Colby's postings he said he "OWNEDGAAL". He did so by using the work of Miles Kara. Michael ..ah .. KARA ....he isnt a 911mythbuster (as Colby defines himself) or 911truther (as Colby defines me) but this fellow he uses is really part of the truth of 911....you see he is a aviation consultant of top security clearance that worked for the JCS in March of 2001 before 911 on Terrorism ....so you see Colby has outed himself using this man who is much much closer to 911 than a 911 Comission consultant (which he was) but part of .........911. Kara is a myth creator covering up for himself and Colby is his puppet. ============= Air Defense 911 Anomalies (see this thread) http://www.scribd.co...s-L-Kara-Sr-563 Miles Kara, a lifelong coverup man from the DOD.

http://whatreallyhap...com/node/203932 GREAT VIDEO Guerrilla/Freedom Fighter/Terrorist Sometimes people fight in military uniforms, sometimes they don’t. Creeping up alongside are illicit nukes possibly from Iran or elsewhere in the region. and finally… The Angel of Death The real hero of the Old Testament, and right now too.

http://whatreallyhap...com/node/203932 GREAT VIDEOEuropean Jew/Zionist Desperate and traumatized survivors of European pogroms and death camps, Jewish Zionist settlers were ready to fight to the death for a place to call home, but… PLO/Hamas/Hezbollah ….so were the people that lived there. Various militarized resistance movements arose in response to Israel: The Palestinian Liberation Organization, Hamas, and Hezbollah. State of Israel Backed by “the West,” especially the US, they got lots of weapons and the only sanctioned nukes in the region .

http://whatreallyhap...com/node/203932 GREAT VIDEOArab A gross generalization of a generic 19-century “Arab”. British The British formed alliances with Arabs, then occupied Palestine. This cartoon is an oversimplification, and uses this British caricature as a stand-in for Europeans in general. Palestinian The British occupied this guy’s land, only to leave it to a vast influx of….

http://whatreallyhap...com/node/203932 GREAT VIDEO Crusader After Crusaders went a-killin’ in the name of Jesus Christ, they established Crusader states, most notably the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Mamluk of Egypt Wikipedia sez, “Over time, mamluks became a powerful military caste in various Muslim societies…In places such as Egypt from the Ayyubid dynasty to the time of Muhammad Ali of Egypt, mamluks were considered to be “true lords”, with social status above freeborn Muslims.[7]” And apparently they controlled Palestine for a while. Ottoman Turk Did I mention this is a cartoon? Probably no one went to battle looking like this. But big turbans, rich clothing and jewelry seemed to be in vogue among Ottoman Turkish elites, according to paintings I found on the Internet.

Roman ….the Romans destroyed the Second Temple and absorbed the region into the Roman Empire… Byzantine ….which split into Eastern and Western Empires. The eastern part was called the Byzantine Empire. I don’t know if “Romans” ever fought “Byzantines” (Eastern Romans) but this is a cartoon. Arab Caliph Speaking of cartoon, what did an Arab Caliph look like? This was my best guess

http://whatreallyhap...com/node/203932 GREAT VIDEOSeleucid More Greek-Macedonian legacies of Alexander. Hebrew Priest This guy didn’t fight, he just ran the Second Temple re-established by Hebrews in Jerusalem after the Babylonian Exile. Maccabee Led by Judah “The Hammer” Maccabee, who fought the Seleucids, saved the Temple, and invented Channukah. Until…

http://whatreallyhap...com/node/203932 GREAT VIDEO Macedonian/Greek Here comes Alexander the Great, conquering everything! Greek/Macedonian No sooner did Alexander conquer everything, than his generals divided it up and fought with each other. Ptolemaic Greek descendants of Ptolemy, another of Alexander’s competing generals, ruled Egypt dressed like Egyptian god-kings. (The famous Cleopatra of western mythology and Hollywood was a Ptolemy.)

http://whatreallyhap...com/node/203932 GREAT VIDEO Assyrian ….Assyria controlled it other times. Israelite The “Children of Israel” conquered the xxxx out of the region, according to bloody and violent Old Testament accounts. Babylonian Then the Baylonians destroyed their temple and took the Hebrews into exile.

Its really all Gods land....... http://whatreallyhap...com/node/203932 GREAT VIDEO Who’s Killing Who? A Viewer’s Guide Because you can’t tell the players without a pogrom! Early Man This generic “cave man” represents the first human settlers in Israel/Canaan/the Levant. Whoever they were. Canaanite What did ancient Canaanites look like? I don’t know, so this is based on ancient Sumerian art. Egyptian Canaan was located between two huge empires. Egypt controlled it sometimes, and…

WND EXCLUSIVE TV to die for: Assisted-suicide comedy coming BBC program taking idea of helping-to-die to new level The BBC, which has advocated legalization of assisted suicide and last year televised a controversial documentary on the subject, is taking the issue to a new level with a sitcom focusing on the practice. According to a report from the U.K.’s Christian Institute, the “plot involves a group of friends who set up an assisted suicide business to help a terminally ill neighbor, and to pay off gambling debts.” The program, described as a “controversial comedy,” will be called “Way To Go” and will air next year. Radio Times writer Paul Jones commented that BBC Three is “clearly of the opinion that we should laugh in the face of death’ and assisted suicide ‘may be an unlikely subject for comedy.” The London Daily Mail reported last year the backlash against the BBC’s promotion of assisted suicide hit a peak when hundreds of complaints were filed over its airing of a documentary that showed the final moments of the life of millionaire Peter Smedley, who died by assisted suicide in a Swiss clinic. The report said four senior members of British nobility at the time accused the BBC of running an “orchestrated campaign” on assisted death, describing the documentary as “repugnant and disgraceful.” Those horrified by the video outnumbered those who endorsed it 10-1, the report said. At that time, the peers wrote: “Setting aside our repugnance that the death of a patient with motor neuron disease should be turned into a form of voyeuristic entertainment, the BBC has a duty to provide balanced debate. … It is not the job of the corporation to become a lobbying organization or a cheerleader for those who wish to change the law.” Read the controversial ideas in “Suicide of a Superpower” by Patrick Buchanan. The documentary was the fifth program created by the BBC in just the last few years that promoted assisted suicide, which parliament has rejected through multiple votes. The BBC’s response to the criticism was to air the new assisted suicide series, which is scheduled to include at least six episodes. A BBC promotion of the program says: “‘Way To Go’ follows brothers Scott and Joey and their friend Cozzo. After Scott is moved by a terminally ill neighbor’s request to die – and at the same time faced with a predatory female employer, a split from his girlfriend, and a desperate life or death need for cash to pay off his brother Joey’s gambling debts – he and his best mate Cozzo stumble towards (sic) what they think is their only solution: an assisted-suicide machine.” The BBC says that along the way, “the 20-something mates find love in the strangest ways, fall out with each other and are touched by some of the people they come across.” On the U.K.’s “Chortle” website, show creator Bob Kushell said having his program on the BBC was more important to him than the birth of his child or his wedding. He told the site: “As someone who was weaned on great British comedy, including Monty Python, Blackadder and Fawlty Towers, there has been no bigger thrill in my life than to have a show on the BBC – narrowly edging out the birth of my son and trouncing my wedding day by a landslide.” The Christian Institute reported that a physician, Dr. Peter Saunders of the Care Not Killing organization, has accused the BBC of “cheerleading” for legalized assisted suicide.

Why Mumbai? Diplomatic Games and Conspiracy Theories By Tom Secker Global Research, November 19, 2012 investigatingtheterror.com ======================================== It is now four years since the 2008 Mumbai massacre. In late November that year eleven members of a Lashkar-e-Taiba (LET) gang perpetrated a two-day bloodbath in Mumbai, comprising eleven co-ordinated shooting and bombing attacks. Ten of the perpetrators were killed by Indian security forces, only Ajmal Kasab survived. Fingers immediately pointed at Pakistan, and at the now widely-acknowledged connections between LET and the Pakistani security agency the ISI. The truth is perhaps even darker and murkier than that. Dozens of dossiers of information were exchanged between the Indian and Pakistani governments and while Indian authorities claim to have identified dozens of co-conspirators, to date not a single person has been extradited from Pakistan to India for charging, let alone interrogation and prosecution. Kasab was found guilty of an act of war and was sentenced to death, a judgment that was recently upheld by the Supreme Court of India. One other alleged co-conspirator, an Indian Muslim named Zabiuddin Ansari who is suspected in several cases, was recently deported to India from Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, the only man aside from Kasab to have been prosecuted in connection with the Mumbai attacks, Tahawwur Rana, is languishing in a US prison. Rana was a close friend of David Headley, the US-Pakistani mastermind of the Mumbai attacks. Headley and Rana were both arrested in October 2009 and accused of plotting a shooting and bombing attack against the Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that generated the 2005-6 Mohammed cartoons controversy. They were subsequently accused of being part of the conspiracy behind the Mumbai massacre. Headley co-operated quickly and fully, pleading guilty to all the allegations in March 2010. In 2011, Headley became the key prosecution witness against his lifelong friend Rana, who contested the allegations against him that he had knowingly used his travel business to provide cover for Headley’s trips to India and Denmark to carry out surveillance in preparation for the attacks. In June 2011, Rana was acquitted of involvement in the Mumbai attacks, but found guilty of involvement in the ‘Danish newspaper plot’ and of providing material support to LET. Rana maintains that he was Headley’s dupe. Rana is due to be sentenced by the end of the year, having failed in his attempted appeals. Headley, who has pleaded guilty to anything and everything, has not yet been sentenced. It is not certain whether he’ll become another Ali Mohamed and just disappear (neither man can be found via the US prison system’s prisoner locator) or another Junaid Babar and be given an extraordinary light sentence given his admitted involvement in international terrorism. As part of his plea agreement, Headley will not be extradited to India and will not face the death penalty in any country. Diplomatic games and conspiracy theories US Embassy cables made available via the Wikileaks cabledump show that in the immediate aftermath of the attacks the question of ISI complicity was being discussed in diplomatic circles. A December 2nd 2008 message shows that in a meeting between officials from the US, UK, Australia and New Zealand they took the notion of ISI involvement seriously. Indeed, the sophistication of the massacre – having 11 men carry out 11 separate but co-ordinated attacks, is very much reminiscent of special forces operations. It is hard to see how such sophisticated attacks could have happened without some kind of military involvement. A few weeks later on December 23rd another cable record comments made in the Indian parliament suggesting that the Mumbai attacks had been exploited to carry out the murder of Hemant Karkare, the chief of the Maharashtra Anti-Terror Squad, and his two colleagues Ashok Kamte and Vijay Salaskar. Karkare was investigating various attacks known or suspected to have been carried out by the Hindutva radicals, and the connections between the Hindutva and the Indian state. The cable notes how, ‘authorities recently arrested eleven Hindus, including an Indian Army Lieutenant Colonel’. The classified comment at the end of the cable does concede that, ‘the killing of three high level law enforcement officers during the Mumbai attacks is a remarkable coincidence’. These allegations have faded into the background of the public discussion about the Mumbai slaughter, though many suspect there was a Saffron aspect to what happened. A year later, following Headley’s arrest, another cable shows how the Indian authorities were playing a very careful game with the Americans. The ambassador to India, Timothy Roemer (formerly of the 9/11 Commission) met with Indian National Security Advisor M.K. Narayanan. Ambassador Roemer sought Narayanan’s commitment on behalf of the Indian government not request Headley’s extradition. He explained that ‘the threat of extradition to India could cause Headley’s cooperation to dry up, but that allowing the U.S. judicial process to unfold or securing a plea agreement that both reflects his overall culpability and ensures his continued cooperation would maximize our ability to obtain further information from Headley.’ Narayanan went along with this request, and responded saying, that it was “difficult not to be seen making the effort,” but that the government was not seeking extradition “at this time.” Narayanan added that the Indian government would be “in the hot seat” if it ‘were seen as pre-emptively relinquishing extradition’. A couple of months later, the Indians did make a firm request to be able to speak to the co-operating Headley, via a meeting between FBI Director Robert Mueller and Indian Home Minister P Chidambaram. The request was again a question more of public perception than intelligence and security, with Chidambaram saying that, ‘we must be able to say we had access, even if Headley did not speak’. A few weeks later, Headley formally changed his plea to guilty, and secured the deal that means he will never be extradited to India. Eventually the Indian National Investigation Agency (NIA) did file charges against Headley, on Christmas day 2011. Clearly public perception of an attempt to bring Headley to justice remains the priority, in the absence of any actual attempt to get near the man. The elephant in the room is that Headley was for several years in the 1990s an informant and asset of the US Drug Enforcement Administration. Despite repeated busts for international heroin smuggling, Headley received short sentences and was always quickly put to work spying on drugs gangs. By the late 1990s he was regularly travelling to Pakistan on DEA business. Shortly following 9/11, this high-functioning heroin-addicted spy had his ‘supervised release’ prematurely terminated. For no clear reason the restrictions on Headley that meant he could only travel round the world with prior approval, and only for limited periods, were lifted. The obvious explanation is that the CIA found out about Headley and decided, post-9/11, to put him to work spying on Pakistani terror gangs, them being hand-in-glove with the Pakistani drugs gangs that Headley had successfully infiltrated. However, the CIA deny ever employing Headley, and the DEA claim that some time in 2002 he stopped working for them. According to Headley, it was around this time that he first got involved with LET and the ISI. It is some coincidence, that (at least officially) just as he happened to drop off the US authorities’ radar he got involved with organisations the US authorities would be very interested in spying on and manipulating. For the next 7 years Headley moved around freely, without interference from the authorities. In early 2006 he changed his name, from Daood Gilani to David Headley. He says he did this to enable him to travel in India more easily, as a white-skinned man with an English name he would arouse little suspicion. The problem with this story is that Headley had every reason to suspect that the US authorities were still keeping tabs on him. They had been warned about him numerous times by several of Headley’s various wives and girlfriends, which Headley knew about. Unless he was working for them, why would he risk doing something as suspicious as changing his name (and keeping the same social security number)? At no stage in his court appearances or in the records of his interrogation has Headley suggested he was ever worried about being caught by the US authorities, and yet that’s exactly how he ended up. Even that was only after British intelligence told the US that he was planning an attack on the Danish newspaper. A Geostrategy of Tension? If Headley was working undercover for the US to infiltrate LET, and possibly as a triple agent to infiltrate the ISI’s relationship with LET, then that implicates people within the US government in the Mumbai attacks. This possibility was, of course, not discussed for one moment in the embassy cables. But why would the US want the Mumbai massacre to happen? Why Mumbai? There are several possible reasons. The November 2008 massacre was used as the inspiration for a new terror meme – the ‘Mumbai-style attack’. Ever since then the mainstream media has recycled this phrase over and over, particularly in Europe. Warnings of such an attack by the supposed vast network of Islamic militants across the continent were pronounced in the national and international press. It therefore must have come as no surprise when in summer 2011 a Mumbai-style semi-targeted bombing and shooting rampage was carried out in Norway. Curiously, when the perpetrator turned out to be Anders Breivik, a white Christian conservative radical, there was no mention of the obvious parallels with the Mumbai attacks. The Mumbai attacks also ‘christened’ the new Obama regime, acting as a horrifying totem to the new President. They also helped implement a new diplomatic strategy based around abandoning the long-held close relationship with Pakistan that had been forged in the 1970s. Pakistan became the focal point for speculations, allegations and suspicions about state-sponsored terrorism and the primary testing ground for the new ‘drone strike’ technology which has in four short years become the ‘new normal’. Mumbai presented an opportunity to realign priorities in the whole Middle Eastern and Central Asian region. While NATO countries have put some distance between themselves and Pakistan, the US-Indian relationship improved in the wake of the bloodshed, according to further US cables. At the same time, the relationship between India and Pakistan worsened. As noted by London School of Economics professor , ‘What [the Mumbai massacre] does throw into some jeopardy is the relative thaw in the India-Pakistan relationship that we have been experiencing in the region for the last four years or so. Now the thaw didnt really lead to a peace process between the two countries but it raised some hopes that relations could be normalised in a lasting way, and especially that progress could be made on sorting out the Kashmir dispute. Now that prospect looks rather distant.’ So are we seeing a geostrategy of tension in the region, heightening tensions between India and Pakistan, and by extension between India and China? By pitching India against Pakistan in a diplomatic battle over responsibility for Mumbai have the masters of the dark arts of terror spun a clever illusion, deflecting attention away from Headley, and therefore away from themselves? One CIA document on the Headley case does suggest this. Another Wikileaks document comes from the CIA’s Red Cell, responsible for ‘taking a pronounced “out-of-the-box”approach that will provoke thought and offer an alternative viewpoint on the full range of analytic issues.’ The memo is titled, ‘What If Foreigners See the United States as an Exporter of Terrorism?’ and is dated February 5th 2010. That is only a few weeks before the Indians requested access to Headley, regardless of whether he would actually tell them anything. The memo lists several examples of the US being an exporter of terrorists and terrorism, from David Headley to the funding of the IRA. While it does not explicitly discuss US state sponsorship of terrorism, the implications are much the same. The Red Cell highlight how, ‘If the US were seen as an exporter of terrorism, foreign partners may be less willing to cooperate with the United States on extrajudicial activities, including detention, transfer, and interrogation of suspects in third party countries.’ All of the sources from the Mumbai case that are cited in this article can be found in my recently published e-book, the David Headley Document Collection . Polarisation in our nations It is through the polarisation of diplomatic relations, the stirring of mutual suspicions, sowing the seeds of mistrust, that the geostrategy of tension operates, creating the vacuum which NATO’s claim to the moral high ground then fills. Domestically the strategy of tension is perhaps best described in the Aginter Press’s founding strategy document titled ‘Our Political Activity’ where it talked of causing chaos through terrorism, and that, ‘Popular opinion must be polarised in such a way, that we are being presented as the only instrument capable of saving the nation.’ In the Geostrategy of Tension the same principle applies, only instead of ‘Popular opinion’ read ‘Nation states’ and instead of ‘saving the nation’ read ‘saving the world’. Reading between the lines, if conclusive evidence showed that Headley was an asset of the CIA then this failure to cooperate might become outright distrust if not hostility. This would mean that NATO’s claim to the moral high ground in warfare, supposedly because NATO is the means of ‘bringing peace’ to a world wrought with polarisation and conflict, would come under serious threat. Instead, by reducing the question of ‘Why Mumbai?’ to just another chapter in the long history of tensions between India and Pakistan, many of the perpetrators (and their handlers) have got away with it. In a couple of weeks Tahawwur Rana will be sentenced in a Chicago courtroom and that will likely be the final chapter in the official story of the Mumbai attacks. However, the story already came full circle and reached a suitably unsatisfying denouement around the time of the verdict in Rana’s trial in June 2011. The verdict came only days after the death by ‘drone strike’ of Ilyas Kashmiri, one of the main alleged conspirators behind the Mumbai slaughter. Kashmiri was a major figure in the shadowy world of Pakistani Islamic militant groups as he was not only involved in LET he was also the reported leader of Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami (HUJI) and a liaison between these groups and Al Qaeda. It has also been reported that he was a former Pakistani Special Service Group soldier. The very policy that the Mumbai attacks helped to normalise caused the death of a man who could have shed light on exactly what happened there and who was truly responsible. David Headley Document Collection (click to open)

Confession: James Holmes Tells Inmate He Was Programmed To Kill Posted on November 24, 2012 by # 1 NWO Hatr Before It’s News – by Alton Parrish Colorado inmate Steven Unruh is having a hard time convincing anyone that he spent hours talking to Aurora theater shootings suspect James Holmes shortly after his arrest last July. Jail officials say there’s no way that Unruh could have had that kind of access. Yet certain elements of the story — which includes a description that resembles the headbanging routine that sent Holmes to the hospital last week — have been attracting attention from law enforcement and even families of the shooting victims. “They’re going to try to discredit my story,” Unruh told Westword in a recent interview at the jail. “But I was able to have a four-hour talk with him. I talked him out of suicide.” Unruh insists the sporadic conversation continued even after Holmes was moved to another cell in the area. He says that Holmes told him “he felt like he was in a video game” during the shooting, that “he wasn’t on his meds” and “nobody would help him.” He says Holmes also mentioned NLP — presumably, neuro-linguistic programming, a much-scorned and outmoded approach to psychotherapy — and claimed to have been “programmed” to kill by an evil therapist. “When he got out to his car, he wasn’t programmed no more,” Unruh says. “It sounded kind of crazy. He was trying to run it by me, basically.” See the complete Westword article by Alan Prendergast James Eagan Holmes (born December 13, 1987) is the suspected perpetrator of a mass shooting that occurred on July 20, 2012 at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. He had no known criminal record prior to the shooting. On May 22, 2012, Holmes purchased a Glock 22 pistol at a Gander Mountain shop in Aurora, and six days later bought a Remington Model 870 shotgun at a Bass Pro Shops in Denver. On June 7, just hours after failing his oral exam at the university, he purchased a Smith & Wesson M&P15 semi-automatic rifle, with a second Glock 22 pistol following on July 6. All the weapons were bought legally. In the four months prior to the shooting, Holmes also bought 3000 rounds of ammunition for the pistols, 3000 rounds for the M&P15, and 350 shells for the shotgun over the Internet. On July 2, he placed an order for a Blackhawk Urban Assault Vest, two magazine holders and a knife at an online retailer. On June 25, less than a month before the shooting, Holmes emailed an application to join a gun club in Byers, Colorado. The owner, Glenn Rotkovich, called him several times throughout the following days to invite him to a mandatory orientation, but could only reach his answering machine. Due to the nature of Holmes’ voice mail, which he described as “bizarre, freaky”, “guttural, spoken with a deep voice, incoherent and rambling,” Rotkovich instructed his staff to inform him if Holmes showed up, though Holmes neither appeared at the gun range nor called back. “In hindsight, looking back — and if I’d seen the movies — maybe I’d say it was like the Joker — I would have gotten the Joker out of it…It was like somebody was trying to be as weird as possible,” Rotkovich said On July 20, 2012, police arrested an unresisting Holmes next to his car behind the Century 16 theater, moments after the 2012 Aurora shooting, in which Holmes allegedly set off several gas or smoke canisters and then opened fire on the theater audience, killing 12 and wounding 58. The responding officers recovered several guns from inside the car and the theater. According to two federal authorities, Holmes had dyed his hair red and called himself “The Joker”. Century 16 theater, location of the shootings Once apprehended, Holmes told the police that he had booby-trapped his apartment with explosive devices before heading to the theater. Police later confirmed the presence of explosives in the apartment. Detention and court appearance Holmes was initially jailed at Arapahoe Detention Center, under suicide watch. He is being held in solitary confinement to protect him from other inmates, a routine precaution for high-profile cases. Holmes made his first court appearance in Centennial, Colorado on July 23, before Judge William B. Sylvester. He was read his rights and no bond was given. A mandatory protection order was issued by the judge. The judge appointed a public defender. Holmes said nothing and never looked at the judge. His appearance, which was described as “dazed” and “confused”[63] fueled speculation about his mental state. On July 30, Colorado prosecutors filed formal charges against Holmes that included 24 counts of first degree murder, 116 counts of attempted murder, possession of explosive devices, and inciting violence. The multiple charges expand the opportunities for prosecutors to obtain convictions. For each person killed in the shooting, Holmes is charged with one count of murder with deliberation and one count of murder with extreme indifference. Holmes agreed in court to waive his right to a preliminary hearing within 35 days. On August 9, Holmes’ attorneys said their client is mentally ill and that they need more time to assess the nature of his illness. The disclosure was made at a court hearing in Centennial where news media organizations were asking a judge to unseal court documents in the case. On September 19, the prosecution filed a motion to add 10 new charges against Holmes and asked to amend 17 others. The additional charges would bring the total counts Holmes faces to 152. Holmes appeared in the Arapahoe County Court house the following day for the first time without his dyed-red hair, but with cropped hair revealing his natural brown color. On September 28, court documents released by prosecutors say Holmes was revoked access to the University of Colorado campus because he threatened a professor. The university has said Holmes was denied access to non-public parts of the campus because he had withdrawn from school.[70] On October 11, 2012, Holmes’ attorneys asked Judge William Sylvester to postpone a preliminary hearing scheduled for November. On October 25, the preliminary hearing was set for the week of January 7. Holmes’ lawyers filed an emergency motion on November 14, 2012 to delay a pre-trial hearing, citing an unspecified condition that has left him unable to appear in court. “As a result of developments over the past 24 hours, Mr. Holmes is in a condition that renders him unable to be present in court for tomorrow’s hearing,” They requested to delay the hearing, which they received. It was rescheduled for December. Evidently, Holmes made various suicide attempts referred to as “half-hearted” in days before the scheduled hearing on November 15 http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2012/11/shocking-confession-james-holmes-tells-inmate-he-was-programmed-to-kill-2446130.html

Mr. Gorton PLEASE INCREASE YOUR FONT to #14 in post #2 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ My related post +++++++++++++++++ Blee helped early and late (just before 911) by hiding/delaying/disinforming on AQ/911 people. Blee part of a Secret Team ??? You see just after planning 911 the plotters had to be protected. Blee helps them flee. *******************************oooooooo******************************************* Link below shows numerous attempts by CIA to stop investigations. link http://www.historyco...malaysia_summit --------------------oooooooo------------------------------+ samples of link datum (1) January 12, 2000: CIA’s Bin Laden Unit Chief Falsely Claims Malaysia Surveillance Is Continuing Richard Blee, head of Alec Station, the CIA’s bin Laden unit, gives an incorrect briefing to his CIA superiors about surveillance of al-Qaeda operatives in Southeast Asia. He claims that Malaysian authorities and the CIA are continuing to monitor al-Qaeda operatives who gathered for a summit in Kuala Lumpur (see January 5-8, 2000). In actual fact, three of the summit’s attendees, Khalid Almihdhar, Nawaf Alhazmi, and Khallad bin Attash, have already left Kuala Lumpur for Bangkok and have disappeared there (see January 8, 2000). The 9/11 Commission will say that Blee is “unaware at first even that the Arabs had left Kuala Lumpur, let alone that their trail had been lost in Thailand” and that he “may not have known that in fact Almihdhar and his companions had dispersed and the tracking was falling apart.” These statements will be sourced to an interview with Blee in December 2003 and contemporary CIA documents. However, Alec Station is well aware of the departure of the three men, as it was notified of this and sent a follow-up cable on January 9 telling the CIA station in Bangkok to find them there (see January 9, 2000). It is unclear why Blee gives such an inaccurate briefing, but he gives a similar one two days later (see January 14, 2000), after Alec Station is again reminded that the three radicals are in Thailand, not Malaysia (see January 13, 2000). [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 181, 354, 502 ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo********ooooooooooooooooooooooooo+ (2) January 14, 2000: CIA’s Bin Laden Unit Chief Again Falsely Claims Malaysia Surveillance Is Continuing Richard Blee, head of Alec Station, the CIA’s bin Laden unit, again wrongly informs his CIA superiors about surveillance of al-Qaeda operatives in Southeast Asia. Repeating a claim made in a briefing two days previously (see January 12, 2000), he says that Malaysian authorities and the CIA are continuing to monitor al-Qaeda operatives who gathered for a summit in Kuala Lumpur (see January 5-8, 2000). In actual fact, three of the summit’s attendees, Khalid Almihdhar, Nawaf Alhazmi, and Khallad bin Attash, have already left Kuala Lumpur for Bangkok (see January 8, 2000). Alec Station is well aware of the departure of the three men, as it was notified of their departure and sent a follow-up cable on January 9 telling the CIA station in Bangkok to find them there (see January 9, 2000). In addition, one day before this briefing the CIA station in Bangkok sent Alec Station a cable saying it was unable to locate the men in Thailand (see January 13, 2000). The 9/11 Commission will also point out that “there is no evidence of any tracking efforts actually being undertaken by anyone after the Arabs disappeared into Bangkok.” It is unclear why Blee gives such an inaccurate briefing. [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 181, 354] Steven Gaal Biography My link Nine days before the assassination my Mom dropped me off at the Ambassador Hotel. I saw RFK speak and kick off his California Campaign. The night of the assassination I was home and heard RFK say,"..on to Chicago..", I turned off my small B&W TV. In the morning I knew the USA wasnt the greatest place on Earth. At the trial the right wing media (smaller then)started attacking coroner Noguchi. They said he had had sex with dead Hollywood starlets ?!? I was 15 and had already read Rush to Judgement and I smelled a rat !! Since then I have studied conspiracy on and off. I have worked with William Weston on a number of JFK matters. Ive had 13 years of college (science/medicine/pharmacy/electronics). Now I take care of people in their homes on ventilators. I have two grand kids. My interests are alternative energy/medicine/politics and protestant theology. I follow the Lord Christ. THANKS SG Back to top Quote MultiQuote Edit Report #2 Steven Gaal Steven Gaal Backing up Clarke/Clarke stated Blee hid AQ/911 info late,but Blee hid/helped AQ/911 early Posted 02 September 2011 - 09:41 PM To be complete here is another look at CLARKE. THANKS SG ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^++++++++^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^***** ######################oooooooo###################***** From: link http://digwithin.net...1/08/20/clarke/ LINK http://911blogger.co...og-uae-and-bcci Posted on August 20, 2011 by ultruth The author is indebted to the good people at History Commons for their “Complete 9/11 Timeline.” If a reference is not evident below, it can probably be found there. A recent interview with former “Counterterrorism Czar,” Richard Clarke, is making a splash in the alternative media.[1] In this interview, Clarke speculates about CIA malfeasance related to the pre-9/11 monitoring of two alleged September 11 hijackers. This interview is somewhat interesting due to Clarke’s vague suggestion that the CIA had courted 9/11 suspects as sources, but it is far more interesting for what was not said with regard to Clarke’s personal history and associations. The seeming point of these new statements from Clarke is that the CIA might have withheld information from him, the FBI, and the Department of Defense (DOD) in the twenty months leading up to the 9/11 attacks. Clarke is not suggesting that the CIA did this maliciously, but only that his good friend, George Tenet, and two others made a mistake in their approach. Clarke says of these CIA leaders — “They understood that al Qaeda was a big threat, they were motivated, and they were really trying hard.” The mild twist that Clarke now puts on the story is that the CIA’s diligent effort to secure much needed sources within the al Qaeda organization was pursued without any suspicion that these sources might turn out to be “double agents.” Clarke claims that if the CIA had simply told him, the FBI and the DOD, “even as late as September 4th, [2001]” they would have “conducted a massive sweep, we would have conducted it publicly, we would have found those assholes. There’s no doubt in my mind. Even with only a week left.” There are many obvious problems with these new claims from Clarke. For one thing, the evidence we have indicates that FBI headquarters did everything it could to protect the alleged 9/11 hijackers in the months leading up to 9/11. Another spectacularly obvious problem is that those “assholes” lived with an FBI asset for at least four months and there are reasons to believe the FBI knew that. More importantly, Richard Clarke personally thwarted two of the attempts the CIA made to capture Osama bin Laden (OBL) in the two years before 9/11. It seems disingenuous at best that Clarke would say he didn’t have enough information to capture two of OBL’s underlings in 2000 when he was responsible for preventing the capture of OBL just the year before. In an attempt to make sense of these matters, we should take a closer look at Richard Clarke. His own history might shed some light on why he is trying to confuse us today. Not just another COG Clarke began his government career in the Ford Administration’s DOD as a nuclear weapons analyst. At the time, several characters that were central to the events of 9/11 were in the highest positions of that administration. Toward the end of that era, White House chief of staff Dick Cheney and DOD secretary Donald Rumsfeld were fighting a war of public perception to preserve the increasingly unpopular aspects of the CIA. Nuclear policy was a big issue at the time as well, and at least one of Clarke’s closest colleagues in later years, Paul Wolfowitz, worked to present false “Team B” information. After getting his MA from MIT, Clarke went on to become President Reagan’s Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence. In this role, Clarke negotiated US military presence in Egypt, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. He asked these foreign governments for “access” agreements and the right to enhance existing facilities. As a result, the US moved large numbers of contractors into Saudi Arabia. One such contractor, Bernard Kerik, the New York City police commissioner and “9/11 hero” who had worked for Morrison-Knudsen’s Saudi group in the mid-seventies, went back for another three year tour as the “the chief investigator for the royal family of Saudi Arabia.”[2] During his half a dozen years in Reagan’s State department, Clarke called Morton Abramowitz, the Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research, his boss and mentor. Abramowitz, who was said to be influential in the career of Clarke, had worked as Assistant Secretary for Defense under Donald Rumsfeld in the seventies when Clarke worked in the DOD. Abramowitz left his position at State in 1989 to become the Ambassador to Turkey. The next person for whom Abramowitz was boss and mentor was his Deputy Ambassador, Marc Grossman, who is a 9/11 person of interest according to Sibel Edmonds. In 1984, Clarke was selected to take part in one of the most highly classified programs of the Reagan Administration. This was the highly secret Continuity of Government (COG) program run by the National Program Office that continued up to and after the attacks of September 11.[3] The members of the COG group included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Oliver North, George H.W. Bush, Kenneth Duberstein, James Woolsey, and Richard Clarke. Although Cheney and Rumsfeld were not government employees throughout the twenty years that Clarke participated in this official government program, they both continued to participate anyway. COG was developed to install a shadow “government in waiting” to replace the US Congress and the US Constitution in the event of a national emergency like a nuclear war. The first and only time that COG was put into action was when Richard Clarke activated it during the 9/11 attacks. Clarke had been the one, in 1998, to revise the COG plan to use it as a response to a terrorist attack on American soil. Apparently, COG and the shadow government these men created are still in play to this day. [4] In 1989, Clarke was appointed by George H.W. Bush to be the Assistant Secretary of State for Politico-Military Affairs, under James Baker. Clarke was in this position until 1992, and his role was to link the Department of Defense and the Department of State by providing policy in the areas of international security, security assistance, military operations, defense strategy, military use of space, and defense trade. One important aspect of his job during this time was that Clarke coordinated State Department support of Operation Desert Storm and led the efforts to design the international security structure after the Gulf War. Throughout the years of the George H.W. Bush Administration, Clarke worked intimately with many people who should be investigated with regard to the events of 9/11 and the crimes that followed. This included: James Baker, the Secretary of State who went on to join the Carlyle Group Donald Rumsfeld, the State Department “Foreign Policy Consultant” who was Chairman Emeritus of the Carlyle Group at that time, and Secretary of Defense on 9/11 Dick Cheney, the Reagan Secretary of Defense who, later as Vice President, coordinated the response to the 9/11 attacks Paul Wolfowitz, the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy who, in the week before 9/11, ran meetings with Pakistani ISI General Ahmed Duane Andrews, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence who left to run SAIC Robert Gates, the CIA Director who was implicated in the Iran-Contra crimes and later also worked with SAIC Senate Intelligence Committee representatives George Tenet and William Cohen, the latter of whom, in 1997, dramatically reduced the number of jet fighters protecting the US And Reagan advisor, Richard Armitage, who participated in the failed air defense teleconference on 9/11 According to his book, Clarke remembers that “Wolfowitz and I flew on to Bahrain, Abu Dhabi and Salaleh” to coordinate relations with the UAE, at Cheney’ request. Over the following decade, Clarke negotiated many deals with the Emirates, essentially becoming an agent of the UAE, and he was “particularly close to the UAE royal family.”[5] Not long after Clarke began going there, the royal family of Abu Dhabi took over full ownership of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). BCCI is significant relative to 9/11 because it was involved in funding terrorists in the late 1980s and was linked to the Pakistani intelligence network from which several alleged 9/11 conspirators came including Khalid Sheik Mohammed. In fact, Time magazine reported that, relative to BCCI — “You can’t draw a line separating the bank’s black operatives and Pakistan’s intelligence services.”[6] More importantly, there are strong suspicions that the CIA was involved in the founding of BCCI.[7] The CIA connection to the origins of the BCCI terrorist network is interesting in this context because the royal family of the UAE was also said to have played a primary role in the creation of BCCI. As the official US government report on the subject pointed out — “There was no relationship more central to BCCI’s existence from its inception than that between BCCI and Sheikh Zayed and the ruling family of Abu Dhabi.”[8] As stated before, Clarke’s friends in the UAE royal family not only created the BCCI terrorist network, they took it over when the Bank of England shut it down. “By July 5, 1991, when BCCI was closed globally, the Government of Abu Dhabi, its ruling family, and an investment company holding the assets of the ruling family, were the controlling, and official “majority” shareholders of BCCI — owning 77 percent of the bank. But since the remaining 23 percent was actually held by nominees and by BCCI’s alter-ego ICIC, Abu Dhabi was in fact BCCI’s sole owner.”[9] Not long after this, in 1992, Clarke was named to the National Security Council staff as Special Assistant to the President for Global Affairs and chairman of the Interagency Counterterrorism Committee. One might think that Richard Clarke’s close relationship to the royal family of the UAE, and this new role as the NSC head of counterterrorism, might have posed a slight conflict of interest. But no one seemed to notice. Similarly, few have noticed that the attacks attributed to al Qaeda began just before the first Bush Administration left office. It was in December, 1992, that al Qaeda (as such) is said to have first committed an act of terrorism by bombing US troops in Yemen. Attacks and plots in Somalia, Saudi Arabia, and many others places located near the production and transport routes of fossil fuels have been attributed to al Qaeda since that time.[10] Clarke was not interested in pursuing the BCCI terrorist network and, instead, he had a different approach to combating terrorism. In 1993, the United States began a practice known as “rendition.” Throughout the rest of the world, rendition is known as torture. Interestingly, the policy behind this program was proposed by Richard Clarke, who worked to get “snatch teams” in place to kidnap suspects for torture. The success of Clarke’s rendition proposal led to today’s US program of secret kidnappings and torture around the world. In September 1994, high-ranking UAE and Saudi government ministers, such as Saudi Intelligence Minister Prince Turki al-Faisal, began frequent bird hunting expeditions in Afghanistan. It was reported that — “They would go out and see Osama, spend some time with him, talk with him, you know, live out in the tents, eat the simple food, engage in falconing, some other pursuits, ride horses.” Two members of the UAE royal family that participated in these trips were Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum and Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, ruler of the UAE.[11] As these UAE meetings with OBL occurred, Clarke’s relationship with the UAE royals blossomed. At the same time, he engaged in apparent preparations for terrorist events on US soil. In 1998, he chaired a tabletop exercise in which a Learjet filled with explosives would be flown on a suicide mission into a target in Washington, DC. At a conference in October 1998, Clarke predicted that America’s enemies “will go after our Achilles’ heel” which is “in Washington. It is in New York.” That was quite a prediction. Clarke had updated the COG plans in early 1998, to ensure that the shadow government would be put in power in the event of a terrorist attack like the one he predicted that year (and that occurred in 2001). National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, who was later caught stealing documents that had been requested by the 9/11 Commission, was the one to suggest that Clinton create the new Counterterrorism Czar position that Clarke would fill at the time of his prediction. Berger was also the one to introduce Clarke’s COG partner, James Woolsey, to Clinton. Woolsey went on to become Clinton’s CIA director. In early February 1999, Clarke met with Al Maktoum, one of the UAE royals who was known to hunt with Bin Laden, in the UAE. Al Maktoum was a big supporter of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. And although people often forget, two of the 9-11 hijackers were citizens of the UAE and the vast majority of money supporting the attacks flowed through the UAE. The 9/11 Commission Report has six references to the UAE, most of which can be found on page 138. One of these suggests that “but for the cooperation of the UAE, we would have killed Bin Ladin two years in advance of September 11.” Therefore it is difficult to understand why the leading authority on counterterrorism in the US would be meeting, and maintaining close personal relationships, with the UAE friends of Bin Laden just two years before 9/11. This was three years after Bin Laden had first declared holy war against the United States,[12] and one year after his more recent such proclamation.[13] It is more difficult to understand why Clarke was personally behind the failure of two CIA attempts to kill or capture Bin Laden in 1999. The first of these occurred just a few days after Clarke’s visit to the UAE. The CIA obtained information that OBL was hunting with UAE royals in Afghanistan at the time, and President Clinton was asked for permission to attack the camp. Clarke voted down that plan, and others within the US government speculated that his ties to the UAE were behind his decision.[14] The next month, when the CIA had tracked Bin Laden’s whereabouts again and was prepared to take him out during another of the Afghanistan hunting trips, Richard Clarke took it upon himself to alert his UAE friends about the CIA monitoring their meetings with Bin Laden. Of course, the UAE royals tipped off Bin Laden and the US lost another opportunity to kill or capture its number one enemy.[15] Considering that CIA plans are top secret national security priorities, and that OBL was wanted for the bombings in East Africa, Clarke’s action should have been seen as treason. Somehow, Clarke’s two efforts to keep OBL from being captured or killed in 1999 slipped his mind when he testified to the 9/11 Commission. Apparently, these events were also not important enough for Clarke to mention when recently discussing the two “asshole” hijackers whose presence in the US he now says the CIA kept from him and the FBI. Who knew about Almihdar and Alhazmi? Interestingly, although only two of the alleged 9/11 terrorists were said to be from the UAE, those being Marwan al-Shehhi and Fayez Banihammad, others of the alleged hijackers, including Almihdar, Alhazmi, and Ziad Jarrah, spent time in the UAE. And as stated before, the vast majority of money that financed the attacks flowed through the UAE. The new interview with Clarke begins with discussion of the CIA’s monitoring of a January, 2000 meeting in Malaysia among top al Qaeda operatives. Khalid Almihdar and Nawaf Alhazmi attended the meeting, as did Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and several other al Qaeda leaders. Clarke claims in the interview that the CIA followed the alleged 9/11 hijackers out of the meeting in Malaysia but then lost them in Bangkok. Two months later, Almidhar and AlHazmi arrived in Los Angeles, according to the CIA, and Clarke says many CIA agents knew about this. Clarke claims that the CIA — “stopped [information about Almihdar and Alhazmi] from going to the FBI and the Defense Department.” He then cryptically states — “We therefore conclude that there was a high level decision, in the CIA, ordering people not to share that information” and “I would have to think it was made by the Director [Tenet]”. To clarify why he suddenly thinks this lack of information sharing was unusual, Clarke says — “You have to understand…we were close friends, he called me several times a day, and shared the most trivial of information.” But it was not only the CIA that knew about this meeting and the attendees. According to the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), Michael Hayden — “In early 2000, at the time of the meeting in Kuala Lumpur, we had the Alhazmi brothers, Nawaf and Salem, as well as Khalid Almihdar, in our sights. We knew of their association with al-Qaeda, and we shared this information with the [intelligence] community.” The NSA knew about these guys well before that, however, because an early 1999 NSA communications intercept referenced “Nawaf Alhazmi,” so it was clear that the NSA knew about him for more than two years before 9/11. Oddly enough, the Washington Post reported that Alhazmi, Almihdar and four of the other alleged hijackers were “living, working, planning and developing all their activities” near the entrance to NSA headquarters in Laurel, Maryland, in the months prior to the 9/11 attacks.[16] Alhazmi had been seen in San Diego as early as 1996 and he traveled extensively throughout the US, spending time in Cody, Wyoming and Phoenix, Arizona, and making a truck delivery to Canada. He and Alhazmi lived openly in the United States, using their real names and credit cards. They had season passes to Sea World and the San Diego Zoo and liked to hang out at a nude bar in San Diego. They went to a flight school there and said they wanted to learn how to fly Boeings. Instructor Rick Garza of Sorbi’s Flying Club turned down that request because he said they were “clueless”, didn’t even know how to draw an airplane and could not communicate in English. Alhazmi even worked at a Texaco gas station, although he didn’t need the money because someone in the UAE was regularly sending him thousands of dollars. The money Alhazmi received was said to come from a UAE citizen named Ali Abdul Aziz Ali (a.k.a. Ammar al Baluchi), who was the nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and cousin of Ramzi Yousef. Apparently, a majority of money that came to the hijackers was transferred through Ali Abdul Aziz Ali or another UAE citizen named Mustafa al-Hawsawi. The 9/11 Commission reported that Ali “helped them with plane tickets, traveler’s checks, and hotel reservations“, and “taught them about everyday aspects of life in the West, such as purchasing clothes and ordering food.“ Whether he was protecting his UAE friends or not, Clarke failed to act on information about al Qaeda operatives living in the US, just one month before the meeting in Malaysia. After an al Qaeda “millennium plot” was said to be broken up in Jordan, Clarke authorized an investigation of one of the plotters, Khalil Deek, who lived in Anaheim, CA for most of the 1990s. The investigative team reported to Clarke and the NSC directly in December, 1999, stating that Deek’s next door neighbor was operating an al Qaeda sleeper cell in Anaheim. No action was taken by Clarke or the NSC. A few months later, in April 2000, Clarke was quoted in the Washington Post as saying that terrorists – “will come after our weakness, our Achilles Heel, which is largely here in the United States.” Although this was a bold statement, it was unfortunate that Clarke did not have time to track down and capture the terrorists that he knew were living and plotting in the US. The bombing of the USS Cole, which took the lives of 17 American sailors, occurred in October, 2000. It was reported by the Washington Post that Almihdar had received training in Afghanistan in 1999 along with the operatives who were responsible for the Cole bombing. The Guardian reported that the Prime Minister of Yemen accused Almihdar of being “one of the Cole perpetrators.” At the time, Clarke was part of a high level meeting to discuss the response to the Cole bombing, which included William Cohen, George Tenet, the State Department coordinator for counterterrorism, Michael Sheehan, and several others. In this meeting, Clarke was the hawk, proposing attacks throughout Afghanistan in response. None of the voting attendees supported Clarke’s plan and, after the meeting, Sheehan told Clarke – “What’s it going to take to get them to hit al-Qaeda in Afghanistan? Does al-Qaeda have to hit the Pentagon?”[17] Once again, that was quite a prediction. In May 2001, the CIA gave its photos of the January 2000 Malaysian meeting to an intelligence operations specialist at FBI headquarters. One of the photos was of Almihdar, who FBI Director Mueller would later say was likely responsible for coordinating the movements of all the non-pilot hijackers. In June 2001, FBI and CIA officials discussed these photos and one FBI agent remembers that Almihdar was mentioned in these discussions. Phoenix FBI agent Ken Williams wrote a memo to FBI headquarters, in July 2001, saying that Bin Laden’s followers were going to flight schools to train for terrorist attacks. If the FBI had followed through on this, it would have found Alhazmi very easily, as he had been reported as staying in Phoenix with Hani Hanjour over a period of months from January to June 2001. The memo was reviewed by the agency’s Bin Laden and Islamic extremist counterterrorism units, but it has been reported that neither Attorney General John Ashcroft nor newly appointed FBI Director Robert Mueller briefed President Bush and his national security staff about these revelations. Of course, this was well before the September 4th date that Clarke now claims was the best chance for him and the FBI to have first found out. Zacarias Moussaoui visited Malaysia too, and stayed at the same condominium where the January 2000 meeting took place. The owner of the condo even signed letters that convinced the INS to allow Moussaoui into the US. Alhazmi and Almihdar were referenced in papers that the FBI confiscated, in August 2001, from Moussaoui when he was arrested. FBI headquarters refused multiple requests from the FBI agents pursuing the case to search Moussaoui ‘s possessions. Those confiscated possessions and papers would have immediately led the FBI agents to Atta, Almihdar, Alhazmi and the other alleged hijackers. But the FBI had to know about these alleged hijackers well before that, because Alhazmi and Almihdar lived with an FBI informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, for at least four months in late 2000. Shaikh was a “tested” asset working with the local FBI. Shaikh had regular visits from Mohammed Atta and Hani Hanjour as well, and even introduced Hanjour to a neighbor. [18] Newsweek reported that, once, when Shaikh was called by his FBI agent handler, Shaikh said he couldn’t talk because Almihdar was in the room. This suggests that the FBI knew full well that this future 9/11 hijacker was living with an FBI asset. But a more damning fact is that the FBI refused to allow the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry to interview either Shaikh or his FBI handler. The FBI absolutely knew about the movements of these alleged 9/11 hijackers. In January, 2001, it was the FBI that gave information to the CIA about how USS Cole bombing operatives had delivered money to al Qaeda planners at the time of the January 2000 Malaysia meeting. CNN reported, in 2002, that “At that point, the CIA – or the FBI for that matter – could have put Alhazmi and Almihdar and all the others who attended the meeting in Malaysia on a watch list.” In the new interview, Clarke further speculates that the reason that the CIA information was not shared with him, the DOD and the FBI was because CIA (i.e. Cofer Black as of June, 1999) was courting these two as sources within al Qaeda. Some might wonder why Clarke never thought of his good friends within the UAE royal family, who met with OBL regularly, as sources on al Qaeda. Surely people who met with OBL personally in the two years before 9/11, and were big supporters of al Qaeda like Clarke’s friend, Al Maktoum, might have some information to provide! In any case, Clarke goes on in the interview to suggest that Tenet and Black might have recruited Alhazmi and Almihdar (who had been accused of perpetrating the USS Cole bombing) as inside sources on al Qaeda. To the CIA’s chagrin, Clarke implies, they at some point became double agents. It is amazing that Clarke insinuates that Black and Tenet were too dim-witted to see that these two Saudis might also be working for the Saudis. Clarke appears to be making the absurd suggestion that a CIA director could not predict that the Saudi, who arranged housing for Alhazmi and Almihdar, arranged payments for them, and arranged to move them to San Diego, might have turned them into double agents. When Alhazmi and Almihdar arrived in Los Angeles in early 2000, they were met by a strange benefactor named Omar Al-Bayoumi who brought them to Parkwood Apartments in San Diego. It is Al-Bayoumi that Clarke is referring to when he suggests the — “Saudi has connections to the Saudi government, and some people believe that this guy was a Saudi intelligence officer. If we assume that this Saudi intelligence officer was the handler for these two, then presumably he would have been reporting to the CIA office in Los Angeles. There was a strong relationship between the CIA director and the minister of intelligence of Saudi Arabia [Prince Turki al Faisal].” Better questions about strong relationships Ignoring Clarke’s own strong relationship to the UAE, and therefore to the BCCI network, support for the Taliban and al Qaeda, and OBL, one interviewer then asked: “How long do you think it would take [the CIA] to decide — this isn’t working”? Clark replied: “I don’t know. I do know that in August of 2001 they decide they’re gonna tell the FBI.” This remark refers to the idea that it was not until August 21 that the FBI figured out that al Qaeda operatives were in the United States. This claim is transparently false as we know they were, at the very least, aware of Moussaoui and the Phoenix memo saying that terrorists were taking flight lessons in the US. But in August, it was said that an FBI analyst assigned to the CIA’s Counter-Terrorism Center suddenly determined that Alhazmi and Almidhar had entered the US in January 2000. Additionally, on August 23, 2001, the Israeli Mossad gave US officials an urgent warning in the form of a list of terrorists known to be living in the US and panning to carry out an attack in the near future. The list included the names of Alhazmi, Almihdra, Alshehhi and Atta. An “all points bulletin” was issued that same day, instructing the FBI and other agencies to put Alhazmi and Almihdar on the watch list. Doing so would have made certain that these two were caught before the attacks. The FBI did not do so, however. The FBI did not even use this information to check national databases of bank records, drivers license records or the records of the credit cards that were used to purchase the 9/11 tickets. These facts seem to render Clarke’s new, vague insinuations moot, because the FBI wasn’t going to act on such information no matter what it was told. In yet another example, on August 28, a report was received by the New York FBI office requesting that an investigation be conducted “to determine if Almihdar is still in the United States.” FBI headquarters immediately turned down the request. An FBI agent wrote an email in response, saying “someday someone will die [because of this]. Let’s hope the [FBI’s] National Security Law Unit will stand behind their decisions then, especially since UBL [Osama bin Laden] is now getting the most protection.” All this was before September 4th, the date that Clarke now says would have given plenty of time for him and the FBI to catch Alhazmi and Almihdar, if only they had known the two were in the US. But those of us who have been looking into the events of 9/11 and the history behind those events are not likely to put much credence in Mr. Clarke’s new tale. Clarke’s most recent interviewers didn’t seem too troubled by his statements though, and one of them finished off asking –“ Have you asked George Tenet, Cofer Black or Richard Blee about any of this after the fact?” Clarke responded: “No”. The second interviewer then asked –” Kind of the facts tripped out to you over time, right, over these investigations”? A smirking Clarke replied — “Took a while.” For the rest of us, it will still take a while to get to the bottom of all this and Mr. Clarke’s interview does not appear to help. In the meantime, here are a dozen questions for whoever conducts Clarke’s next interview: Is the COG plan that you and Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Oliver North, George H.W. Bush, Kenneth Duberstein, and James Woolsey created, and that you implemented on 9/11, still in effect? Do you have any information on how your friends in the UAE royal family used the terrorist network BCCI after they bought it? Do you have any explanation for how you could have predicted in 1998, at the same time that you updated the COG plan to be a response to a terrorist attack, that America’s enemies “will go after our Achilles’ heel” which is “in Washington. It is in New York.”? When you met with UAE Defense Minister Al Maktoum in February 1999, just days before the CIA planned to kill or capture Bin Laden as he was meeting with UAE royals, who else did you meet with? Why did you vote down the CIA plan to kill or capture Bin Laden while he was hunting with UAE royals in February 1999? Why did you expose the CIA’s secret plan, without approval from the CIA or the president, to kill or capture Bin Laden in March 1999 as he was meeting with UAE royals again? Don’t you think those two actions on your part were far more detrimental to the United States than any of your current, vague speculations? Did you ever communicate with NSA Director, Michael Hayden, between January 2000 and the attacks of 9/11? If so, why did you not, in your recent interview, accuse him of withholding information on Alhazmi and Almihdar? He has spoken openly of having known about their presence in the US and said that he did share it with the intelligence community. Why did you take no action in December 1999, as “Counterterrorism Czar”, when you and the NSC were given evidence that Khalil Deek’s next door neighbor was operating an al Qaeda sleeper cell in Anaheim, CA? You appear to be saying that neither you nor the FBI knew that Almihdar and Alhazmi lived with Abdussattar Shaikh, a tested FBI asset, for at least four months in the year 2000. Is that correct and, if so, don’t you think that contradicts your claim in this interview that – “I know how all this stuff works, I’ve been working it for 30 years. You can’t snowball me on this stuff.”? Do you know why the FBI would not allow Abdussattar Shaikh or his FBI handler to be interviewed as part of the 9/11 investigation? These days, when you’re talking with your UAE friends in your own offices in the UAE, do you ever discuss 9/11, the hijackers that spent their time there, and the UAE money that financed the 9/11 attacks? Clarke currently works with his COG partner and former CIA Director, James Woolsey, at Paladin Capital, which has offices in New York and the UAE. Clarke is also the chairman of Good Harbor Consulting, where he is in partnership with many people who are making a fortune off the war on terror. Good Harbor Consulting has had an office in Abu Dhabi since 2008, and Clarke is known to have a “big footprint” in the UAE.[19] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] Interview with Richard Clarke, SecrecyKills.com, http://secrecykills.com/ [2] NYPD Confidential, Charm school for top cops, May 6, 1996, http://nypdconfident...996/960506.html [3] Peter Dale Scott, Continuity of Government: Is the State of Emergency Superseding our Constitution?, GlobalResearch.ca, November 24, 2010, http://www.globalres...xt=va&aid=22089 [4] Peter Dale Scott, ‘Continuity of Government’ Planning: War, Terror and the Supplanting of the U.S. Constitution, Japan Focus, http://www.japanfocu...Dale-Scott/3362 [5] History Commons 9/11 Timeline, Profile: Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, http://www.historyco...tan_al_nahyan_1 [6] Jonathan Beaty and S.C. Gwynne, Scandals: Not Just a Bank, September 2, 1991, http://www.time.com/...73732-4,00.html [7] Peter Truell and Larry Gurwin, False Profits: The Inside Story of BCCI, The World’s Most Corrupt Financial Empire, Houghton Mifflin, 1992 [8] The BCCI Affair: A Report to the Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate, December 1992, Abu DhabiI: BCCI’S founding and majority shareholders, http://www.fas.org/i.../14abudhabi.htm [9] Ibid [10] Congressional Research Service, Terrorist Attacks by Al Qaeda, March 31, 2004, http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/033104.pdf [11] History Commons 9/11 Timeline, Profile: United Arab Emirates (UAE), http://www.historyco...d_arab_emirates [12] PBS News Hour, Bin Laden’s Fatwa, August, 1996, http://www.pbs.org/n...fatwa_1996.html [13] PBS News Hour, Al Qaeda’s Fatwa, February 23, 1998, http://www.pbs.org/n...fatwa_1998.html [14] Steve Coll, Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001, Penguin Books, 2004, pp 447-450 [15] The 9/11 Commission Report, 2004, p 138, http://www.9-11commi...t/911Report.pdf [16] History Commons 9/11 Timeline, Profile: United Arab Emirates (UAE), Context of ‘August 2001: Six 9/11 Hijackers Live Near Entrance to NSA’, http://www.historyco...0801nsaentrance [17] Richard Miniter, Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton’s Failures Unleashed Global Terror, Regnery Publishers, 2003 [18] History Commons 9/11 Timeline, Alhazmi and Almihdhar: The 9/11 Hijackers Who Should Have Been Caught, http://www.historyco...ykhalidandnawaf [19] Intelligence Online, Richard Clarke’s Big Footprint in United Arab Emirates

http://www.thestar.c...ed-records-show see http://educationforu...mp http://wn.com/ARRB_witnesses_verified_Cheramie_story#/videos

WILLIAM B. SCOTT Soooooooo many NSA conected people in the coverup. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ War Games Multiple War Games Were Being Conducted on 9/11/01 Several different war game exercises were in play on the day of the attack. The limited public information on these exercises shows that they simulated the following events: Hijackings Attacks on buildings using aircraft as missiles Attacks using toxic or infectious substances These events are all elements of the actual attack, which involved four alleged hijackings, three jetliner crashes into buildings, and the toxic calamity at Ground Zero in the wake of the World Trade Center's destruction. LINK Operation Northern Vigilance Conducted from September 9-11, this exercise redeployed jets that normally patrolled the northeast sector to northern Canada and Alaska. It echoed a Russian exercise scheduled from September 10-14 in which long-range bombers were dispatched to their northern territory. 1 LINK The Vigilant Warrior and Vigilant Guardian Training Exercises These were apparently a pair of war games (attacker versus defender) which involved live-fly simulations of hijackings. Both this pair of exercises and Northern Vigilance probably involved the use of "injects" into screens to simulate aircraft. These games apparently resembled the actual attack sufficiently to confuse military officers, as suggested by the following transcript. FAA Boston Center contacts NEADS, saying, "We need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out." “Is this real world or an exercise?” asked the military liaison officer? "No, this is not an exercise," responded the FAA official. "Not a test." 2 The only known source for the exercise named Vigilant Warrior is Richard Clarke's book, Against All Enemies. 3 It is possible that the exercise referred to by Clarke was actually Amalgam Warrior, a NORAD field training exercise involving life-fly air interception, held twice yearly, in the spring on the East Coast and the fall on the East Coast. 4 LINK The Global Guardian Exercise On the morning of the attack, a large-scale military training exercise called Global Guardian was "in full swing." Global Guardian is an annual exercise involving Stratcom (the US Strategic Command), the US Space Command, and NORAD. 5 There is evidence that the date of the 2001 Global Guardian exercise was changed to correspond with the the terrorist attack. NBC News military analyst William Arkin, in his book Code Names, gives the date of the exercise as October 22-31, 2001. 6 Also, a military newspaper, the Space Observer, reported in an article dated 3/23/01 that the exercise was scheduled for October of that year. Stratcon directed the exercise, which included all the US strategic forces, from Offutt Air Force Base. 7 LINK The National Reconnaissance Office Plane Crash Drill The National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) "provides our nation its eyes and ears in space." It operates a system of reconnaissance satellites to provide real-time monitoring of objects in the skies. On 9/11/01 the NRO headquarters in Chantilly, VA, were evacuated as part of a "plane into building" drill. The scenario involved a small corporate jet crashing into one of the campus' four towers. 8 LINK The Timely Alert II Terrorism Drill On the morning of the attack, personnel at the Fort Monmouth Army base in New Jersey were preparing to hold a drill, for the days of September 11 and 12, to test preparedness to respond to a chemical attack. The exercise was to involve law enforcement and emergency responders including the New Jersey State Police and Fort Monmouth Fire Department. 9 Just before the exercise was to commence, reports of the attack in New York City surfaced and "real world events overtook the exercise," in the words of Army spokesman Timothy L. Rider. 10 FEMA training manual cover LINK The Tripod II Biowarfare Exercise FEMA had deployed to New York City on September 10 to set up a command post at Pier 29, supposedly in preparation for a biowarfare exercise scheduled for September 12. 11 References 1. [cached] 2. [/url][cached] 3. [/url]Complete 911 Timeline: Military Exercises Up to 9/11, CooperativeResearch.org, 5. Complete 911 Timeline: Military Exercises Up to 9/11, CooperativeResearch.org, 5. Code Names, 2005 7. Stratcom commander: Mission is broadening in fight against terrorism, Associated Press, 2/21/02 [cached] 8. [cached] 9. [/url]Exercise tests force protection, monmouth.army.mil, [cached] 10. Training exercise quickly became reality, the Hub, [cached] 11. <a class="offsite" href="http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/060704_tripod_fema.html">Tripod II and FEMA: Lack of NORAD Response on 9/11 Explained, FromTheWilderness.com, 2004 [cached]

So posts #24 , #25 , #26 prove demolition.

Transubstantiation and Mary worship are unbiblical. Colby dosent believe in God or Heaven/Hell ,why is he worried about religion at all ?? http://www.bible.ca/ntx-communion-transubstantiation.htm

http://www.scribd.co...s-L-Kara-Sr-563 Miles Kara, a lifelong coverup man from the DOD. ################################################## "Prior to 9/11, the procedures for managing a traditional hijacked aircraft, as I said, were in place and pretty well tested.... The most frustrating after-the-fact scenario for me to understand is to explain is the communication link on that morning between the FAA operations center and the NMCC (National Military Command Center).... The hijacking net is an open communication net run by the FAA hijack coordinator, who is a senior person from the FAA security organization, for the purpose of getting the affected federal agencies together to hear information at the same time.... It was my assumption that morning, as it had been for my 30 years of experience with the FAA, that the NMCC was on that net and hearing everything real-time..... I can tell you I've lived through dozens of hijackings in my 30-year FAA career, as a very low entry-level inspector up through to the headquarters, and they (the military brass) were always there. They were always on the net, and were always listening in with everybody else..... from my perspective there is no doubt in my mind that the FAA security organization knew what to do. There is no doubt in my mind that the air traffic organization knew what to do. They are the two key players in that type of scenario.... this is very, very important, in response to your question.... the NMCC was called. They were added to this open communication net. In my 30 years of history, there was always somebody listening to that net..... I truly do not mean this to be defensive, but it is a fact -- there were military people on duty at the FAA Command Center on the morning of 9/11, as Mr. Sliney said. They were participating in what was going on. There were military people in the FAA's Air Traffic Organization in a situation room. They were participating in what was going on." - Monte Belger, FAA Acting Deputy Administrator on 911, 9/11 Commission, Twelfth Public Hearing, Oral Evidence. ++++++++++++++++++++++++ ######################## BLOGGER CARL BANK pilotsfor911truth Military Intercepts In its final effort to debunk the idea that on 9/11 a stand-down order had been issued (which was not rescinded until shortly before the downing of Flight 93), PM disputes the 9/11 truth movement’s claim that NORAD’s fighter jets routinely intercepted planes and usually did so in a matter of minutes. PM’s contrary “fact” is that, “In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart’s Learjet in October 1999.”[1] No “Routine” Interceptions: One impediment to their claim was a Boston Globe article, quoted in The New Pearl Harbor, in which the author, Glen Johnson, reported that NORAD spokesman Mike Snyder, speaking a few days after 9/11, said that NORAD’s fighters, in Johnson’s paraphrase, “routinely intercept aircraft.”[2] To rebut this claim, our authors do not cite any documentary evidence. They simply say: “When contacted by Popular Mechanics, spokesmen for NORAD and the FAA clarified their remarks by noting that scrambles were routine, but intercepts were not---especially over the continental United States.”[3] But these alleged “spokesmen” remain anonymous, a fact suggesting that PM could not find anyone in either NORAD or the FAA willing to have his or her name associated with this claim. PM has not really, therefore, undermined the statement made by NORAD spokesman Mike Snyder, a few days after 9/11, that NORAD makes interceptions routinely. The idea that interceptions occur regularly has not, of course, been based solely or even primarily on Snyder’s statement. It has also been based on reports that fighters have been scrambled about a hundred times a year. A 2001 story in the Calgary Herald reported that NORAD had scrambled fighters 129 times in 2000; an Associated Press story in 2002 referred to NORAD’s “67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001.”[4] By extrapolation, one can infer that NORAD had scrambled fighters about a thousand times in the decade prior to 9/11. This figure makes it very hard for Popular Mechanics, by claiming that most scrambles do not result in interceptions (a claim made by Benjamin Chertoff during a radio show debate with me when he was still a PM spokesperson), to claim that only one civilian plane had been intercepted in North America during the decade before 9/11. As I argued in print, this claim could be true “only if in all of these cases, except for the Payne incident, the fighters were called back to base before they actually intercepted the aircraft in question. . . , a most unlikely possibility.”[5] PM’s solution to this problem is to argue not only that interceptions are rare but also that scrambles are---at least scrambles within the continental United States. But this solution faced a problem: Major Douglas Martin, who on other issues has been quoted in support of PM’s position, was the person who had been quoted in the Associated Press story, mentioned above, about NORAD’s “67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001.” Martin himself had implied, in other words, that NORAD had been scrambling jets about 100 times a year. PM tries to neutralize this statement by saying: However, the Knight-Ridder/Tribune News Service produced a more complete account, which included an important qualification. Here’s how the Knight Ridder story appeared in the September 28, 2002, edition of the Colorado Springs Gazette: “From June 2000 to September 2001 [sic][6], NORAD scrambled fighters 67 times but not over the continental United States. . . . Before September 11, the only time officials recall scrambling jets over the United States was when golfer Payne Stewart’s plane veered off course and crashed in South Dakota in 1999.” Except for that lone, tragic anomaly, all NORAD interceptions from the end of the Cold war in 1989 until 9/11 took place in offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). . . . The planes intercepted in these zones were primarily being used for drug smuggling.[7] There are several problems with this response. Two of them involve inconsistencies in PM’s argument. For one thing, PM is supposed to be defending its claim that in the decade prior to 9/11 there had been only one interception “over North America,” but the qualification in this Knight-Ridder story speaks only of “the continental United States.” The PM authors have thereby ignored Canada, that other North American country that is protected by NORAD, and Alaska. A second inconsistency is that, after having emphasized the distinction between scrambles and interceptions, the PM authors then conflate them. We can, however, set aside these inconsistencies in order to focus on more serious problems. First, given the fact that the Knight-Ridder story not only appeared several months after the AP story but also appeared in a newspaper in Colorado Springs, near NORAD headquarters, it could be disinformation put out to provide the basis for exactly the case that PM is now making---that NORAD’s failure to intercept the airliners on 9/11 was not a failure to do something that it had been doing routinely. Second, given this possibility, PM’s description of the Knight-Ridder story as a “more complete account” begs the question, because of the possibility that it is a distortion, rather than simply a more complete account, of the truth. An indication that it does involve distortion, moreover, is provided by the fact that Martin, in illustrating the increased number of scrambles after 9/11, said: “In June [2002], Air Force jets scrambled three times to intercept small private planes that had wandered into restricted airspace around the White House and around Camp David.” These clearly were over the continental United States. If the Knight-Ridder qualification were true, we would expect Martin to have said: “After 9/11, not only have there been more interceptions, but now some of them are within the continental United States.” But there is no indication in the AP story that he made any such statement. Also, although PM interviewed Martin in 2004, it gives no sign that he endorsed the Knight-Ridder qualification. A third problem with PM’s defense is that, even if it were true that all the interceptions had been offshore instead of over American or Canadian soil, that would do little to defend the military against the charge that it had stood down on 9/11. The issue at hand is whether the military had regularly intercepted planes. It matters not whether these interceptions were over the land or over the water. A fourth problem is the existence of reports that fighter jets had indeed intercepted civilian planes quite regularly in the decades prior to 9/11. I had quoted, for example, a 1998 document warning pilots that any airplanes persisting in unusual behavior “will likely find two [jet fighters] on their tail within 10 or so minutes.”[8] Also, the above-cited story in the Calgary Herald, which reported that NORAD had scrambled fighter jets 129 times in 2000, also said: “Fighter jets are scrambled to babysit suspect aircraft or ‘unknowns’ three or four times a day. Before Sept. 11, that happened twice a week.”[9] Twice a week would be about 100 times per year, and “babysitting” is not what jets would do with planes suspected of smuggling drugs into the country. A fifth problem for PM’s claim---that in the decade before 9/11, all of NORAD’s interceptions except one were offshore and primarily involved drug smuggling---is a 1994 report from the General Accounting Office, which strongly contradicts this claim. It said: Overall, during the past 4 years, NORAD's alert fighters took off to intercept aircraft (referred to as scrambled) 1,518 times. . . . Of these incidents, the number of suspected drug smuggling aircraft averaged . . . less than 7 percent of all of the alert sites' total activity. The remaining activity generally involved visually inspecting unidentified aircraft and assisting aircraft in distress.[10] In the period from 1989 through 1992, according to this account, NORAD made an average of 379 interceptions per year, 354 of which “involved visually inspecting unidentified aircraft and assisting aircraft in distress,” not intercepting planes suspected of smuggling drugs. Besides the fact that 1992 was part of “the decade before 9/11,” it is doubtful that the pattern of interceptions would have changed radically after that. With regard to NEADS in particular, Colonel John K. Scott, the commander from March 1996 to June 1998, said: "We probably 'scramble' fighters once a week. When unknowns come up you have to make the decision to launch or not.”[11] PM has clearly not, therefore, debunked the idea that NORAD routinely intercepted planes over the continental United States. The question remains, therefore, why this routine activity did not occur on 9/11. No Interceptions “Within Minutes”: “Some conspiracy theorists,” the PM authors say, “mistakenly believe the Stewart case bolsters their argument that fighters can reach wayward passenger planes within minutes.”[12] In attempting to refute this belief, they argue that, because of a crossing of a time zone, Stewart’s plane was not really intercepted within 19 minutes, as widely believed, but an hour and 19 minutes. Be that as it may (I have elsewhere suggested that the documents are too confused to make a firm judgment[13]), the important issue is whether, prior to 9/11, scrambled fighters regularly intercepted aircraft within minutes. There is evidence that they did. Above, I quoted a 1998 document stating that fighters commonly intercept aircraft “within 10 or so minutes.” Also, in a 1999 story, a full-time alert pilot at Homestead Air Reserve Base (near Miami) was quoted as saying, “If needed, we could be killing things in five minutes or less.”[14] These reports suggest that unless there had been a stand-down order on 9/11, any hijacked airliners would have been intercepted within 10 minutes or so. This contention is supported by former Air Force Colonel Robert Bowman, who was an interceptor pilot before becoming head of the “Star Wars” program during the Ford and Carter administrations. He has said: If our government had merely done nothing---and I say that as an old interceptor pilot and I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how long it takes, I know what the procedures are . . . ---if our government had merely done nothing and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the twin towers would still be standing and thousands of Americans would still be alive.[15] No Armed Fighters on Alert: The PM authors argue at the end of their section on military intercepts---evidently intending this as their knockout punch---that between the end of the Cold War and 9/11, the US did not even keep armed fighters on alert. To support this astounding claim, our authors again cite no documentary evidence. They do not even quote anyone from the U.S. military. They rely entirely on a statement from former Senator Warren Rudman (Republican from New Hampshire), who was quoted in Glen Johnson’s 2001 Boston Globe article as saying: We don’t have capable fighter aircraft loaded with missiles sitting on runways in this country. We just don’t do that anymore. . . . [T]o expect American fighter aircraft to intercept commercial airliners . . . is totally unrealistic and makes no sense at all.[16] However, although this quotation concludes PM’s section on intercepts, it is far from the final word in Johnson’s article. Rather, the very next paragraphs say: Otis offers something close to that posture, however. Its 102d Fighter Wing is equipped with 18 F-15 Eagles, twin-engine, supersonic, air-to-air combat aircraft. . . . The planes, which can fly at more than twice the speed of sound, . . . [have] responsibility for protecting Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Washington . . . . To complete that mission, the unit has two armed and fueled aircraft ready to fly around the clock, each day of the year, a unit spokeswoman said.[17] (Emphasis added) So much for PM’s knockout punch. And so much, once again, for its reportorial honesty. The falsity of PM’s claim is also evident from other sources. For example, Major Steve Saari, an alert pilot at Tyndall Air Force Base, has been quoted as saying: “In practice, we fly with live missiles.”[18] Captain Tom “Pickle” Herring, an alert pilot at Homestead Air Reserve Base near Miami, has been quoted as saying: “[W]e have weapons on our jets. We need to be postured such that no one would dare threaten us.”[19] Failing with all its claims, Debunking 9/11 Myths has done nothing to debunk the idea that the 9/11 attacks succeeded because there had been a stand-down order. [1] Debunking 9/11 Myths, 22. [2] Glen Johnson, "Facing Terror Attack's Aftermath: Otis Fighter Jets Scrambled Too Late to Halt the Attacks," Boston Globe, September 15, 2001 (http://www.fromthewi...lobe091501.html). [3] Debunking 9/11 Myths, 24. [4]Linda Slobodian, “NORAD on Heightened Alert: Role of Air Defence Agency Rapidly Transformed in Wake of Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks,” Calgary Herald, October 13, 2001 (http://911research.w...1_scrables.html); Leslie Miller, “Military Now Notified Immediately of Unusual Air Traffic Events,” Associated Press, August 12, 2002 (http://911research.w...d/020812ap.html). [5] Griffin, “The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True.” This essay was first published in 2005 at 911Review.com (http://911review.com...iffin/nyc1.html). It was next published in Paul Zarembka, ed., The Hidden History of 9-11-2001 (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2006) and then in my Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11. The quoted statement is in note 35 of the first two versions and note 58 of the third one. [6] In the statement from Martin cited in the AP story referred to above, the 67 scrambles occurred from “September 2000 to June 2001,” which would be nine months; here the months are reversed, making the period in question sixteen months. Having been unable to locate the Colorado Springs Gazette story, I do not know if PM introduced the error or if it simply did not notice the error in the Gazette story. [7] Debunking 9/11 Myths, 24-25. [8]Air Traffic Control Center, “ATCC Controller’s Red Binder” (available at www.xavius.com/080198.htm), quoted in Ahmed, The War on Freedom, 148. [9] Slobodian, “NORAD on Heightened Alert.” [10] General Accounting Office, “Continental Air Defense: A Dedicated Force Is No Longer Needed,” May 3, 1994 (http://www.fas.org/man/gao/gao9476.htm). [11] Leslie Filson, Sovereign Skies: Air National Guard Takes Command of 1st Air Force (Tyndall, Fl.: First Air Force, 1999), 52. [12] Debunking 9/11 Myths, 23. [13] Griffin, 9/11CROD 323 n. 31. [14] “Fangs Bared: Florida’s Eagles Stand Sentry Over Southern Skies,” Airman, December 1999 (http://www.af.mil/ne...n/1299/home.htm). [15] “Retired Air Force Col: They Lied to Us About the War and About 9/11 Itself,” October 27, 2005 (http://www.benfrank....l_mafia_treason). [16] Debunking 9/11 Myths, 25. [17] Johnson, "Facing Terror Attack's Aftermath.” [18] Filson, Sovereign Skies, 96-97. [19] Airman, December, 1999 (http://www.af.mil/ne.../1299/home2.htm).