Steven Gaal

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10730470

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Hissyspit/9272 another acciside or is that coincicide or fortuicide ??

The bit about distilled water reminds me of the mad airforce general in Dr Strangelove who only drank rainwater because there was a commie plot to corrupt American vital bodily fluids. Could Mr Gaal be related? #######################+++++))))0000))))+++++ ###################### Thats Dr. Truthlove LINK ***#####*** http://www.fluoridation.com/c-country.htm Fluoridation status of some countries Despite dental pressure, 99% of western continental Europe has rejected, banned, or stopped fluoridation due to environmental, health, legal, or ethical concerns Only about 5% of the world population is fluoridated and more than 50% of these people live in North America. The Danish Minister of Environment recommended against fluoridation in 1977 because "no adequate studies had been carried out on its long-term effects on human organ systems other than teeth and because not enough studies had been done on the effects of fluoride discharges on freshwater ecosystems." "In 1978, the West German Association of Gas & Water Experts rejected fluoridation for legal reasons and because 'the so-called optimal fluoride concentration of 1 mg per L is close to the dose at which long-term damage [to the human body] is to be expected.' " Quotes from: Hilleman B, "FLUORIDATION: Contention won't go away," Chemical and Engineering News, 1988 Aug, 66:31 (The [ ] brackets were in the original article) to see original letter from a country, click in left column Country Fluoridation Status China BANNED: "not allowed" Austria REJECTED: "toxic fluorides" NOT added Belgium REJECTED: encourages self-determination – those who want fluoride should get it themselves. Finland STOPPED: "...do not favor or recommend fluoridation of drinking water. There are better ways of providing the fluoride our teeth need." A recent study found ..."no indication of an increasing trend of caries...." Germany STOPPED: A recent study found no evidence of an increasing trend of caries Denmark REJECTED: "...toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies in Denmark." Norway REJECTED: "...drinking water should not be fluoridated" Sweden BANNED: "not allowed". No safety data available! The Netherlands Inevitably, whenever there is a court decision against fluoridation, the dental lobby pushes to have the judgement overturned on a technicality or they try to get the laws changed to legalize it. Their tactics didn't work in the vast majority of Europe. Hungary STOPPED: for technical reasons in the '60s. However, despite technological advances, Hungary remains unfluoridated. Japan REJECTED: "...may cause health problems...." The 0.8 -1.5 mg regulated level is for calcium-fluoride, not the hazardous waste by-product which is added with artificial fluoridation.

####################################++=))))0000))))=++############################ The Stone JFK FILM got funding from Canal Plus headed by Andre Rousslet. Rousslet came from Havas. Havas has been under Rothschild influence/control since the year 1835.With a screenplay ambitious enough for two movies and a budget that doubled what Stone initially proposed at $40 million, producer Arnon Milchan came on board with financial support from investors based in France (Le Studio Canal+) and Germany (Alcor Films). JFK film producer Mr. Michan BTW seems to have been MOSSAD asset. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/hollywood-producer-was-an-israeli-nuclear-agent-1.373867 Canal Plus was the creation of André Rousselet, president of the French media and advertising giant Havas. While some observers were surprised that the top publicity group in France would become involved in a medium that needed no outside publicity, Havas hoped that the innovative move would open up a potentially profitable market. Rousselet decided to launch a subscription television channel in November 1984 to offer the French public an alternative to the comedies and variety shows typically featured on the three government-owned channels then in existence. Contending that no one would pay for television programming, critics dubbed the company “Canal Minus.” In fact, subscriptions were extremely low at the onset, and the company announced first year losses of FFr 330 million. Moreover, some politicians, including Laurent Fabius, France’s prime minister, were not in favor of commercial television and petitioned for a retraction of the Canal Plus broadcasting license. Rousselet, however, was a personal friend, golf partner, and former chief of staff of President François Mitterand; he was able to acquire a government concession that gave Canal Plus an all but official monopoly on subscription television.

LEFTY OBAMA ??? ONLY FOR THOSE WHO CANT THINK ####))))0000)))################################################))))0000))))##################### DOJ casts serious doubt on its own claims about the anthrax attack Submitted by Orangutan. on Tue, 07/19/2011 - 10:27am anthrax Dr. Bruce Ivins Glenn Greenwald salon Tuesday, Jul 19, 2011 By Glenn Greenwald "President Obama... actually threatened to veto the entire intelligence authorization bill if it included a proposed bipartisan amendment (passed by the House) that would have mandated an independent inquiry into the FBI's anthrax investigation." Ever since the FBI claimed (for a second time) that it had discovered in 2008 the identity of the anthrax attacker -- the recently-deceased-by-suicide Army researcher Bruce Ivins -- it was glaringly obvious, as I documented many times, that the case against him was exceedingly weak, unpersuasive and full of gaping logical, scientific, and evidentiary holes. So dubious are the FBI's claims that serious doubt has been raised and independent investigations demanded not by marginalized websites devoted to questioning all government claims, but rather, by the nation's most mainstream, establishment venues, ones that instinctively believe and defend such claims -- including the editorial pages of the nation's largest newspapers, leading scientific journals, the nation's preeminent science officials, and key politicians from both parties (led by those whose districts, or offices, were most affected by the attacks). To get a sense for the breadth and depth of the establishment skepticism about Ivins' guilt, just click on some of those links. Since that initial wave of doubt, the FBI's case against Ivins has continuously deteriorated even further. In February of this year, a panel of the National Academy of Sciences released its findings solely regarding the bureau's alleged scientific evidence (independent investigations of the full case against Ivins have been successfully blocked by the Obama administration), and found -- as The New York Times put it -- that "the bureau overstated the strength of genetic analysis linking the mailed anthrax to a supply kept by" Ivins; the Washington Post headline summarized the impact of those findings: "Anthrax report casts doubt on scientific evidence in FBI case against Bruce Ivins." But the biggest blow yet to the FBI's case has just occurred as the result of an amazing discovery by PBS' Frontline, which is working on a documentary about the case with McClatchy and ProPublica: The Justice Department has called into question a key pillar of the FBI's case against Bruce Ivins. . . . On July 15 [], Justice Department lawyers acknowledged in court papers that the sealed area in Ivins' lab -- the so-called hot suite -- did not contain the equipment needed to turn liquid anthrax into the refined powder that floated through congressional buildings and post offices in the fall of 2001. The government said it continues to believe that Ivins was "more likely than not" the killer. But the filing in a Florida court did not explain where or how Ivins could have made the powder, saying only that the lab "did not have the specialized equipment’" in Ivins' secure lab "that would be required to prepare the dried spore preparations that were used in the letters." The government's statements deepen the questions about the case against Ivins, who killed himself before he was charged with a crime. Searches of his car and home in 2007 found no anthrax spores, and the FBI's eight-year, $100 million investigation never proved he mailed the letters or identified another location where he might have secretly dried the anthrax into an easily inhaled powder. . . . In excerpts from one of more than a dozen depositions made public in the case last week, the current chief of of the Bacteriology Division at the Army laboratory, Patricia Worsham, said it lacked the facilities in 2001 to make the kind of spores in the letters. Two of the five letters, those sent to Democratic U.S. Sens. Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Thomas Daschle of South Dakota, were especially deadly, because they were so buoyant as to float with the slightest wisp of air. Worsham said that the lab's equipment for drying the spores, a machine the size of a refrigerator, was not in containment. "If someone had used that to dry down that preparation, I would have expected that area to be very, very contaminated, and we had non-immunized personnel in that area, and I would have expected some of them to become ill," she said. In its statement of facts, the government lawyers also said that producing the volume of anthrax in the letters would have required 2.8 to 53 liters of the solution used to grow the spores or 463 to 1,250 Petri dishes. Colleagues of Ivins at the lab have asserted that he couldn't have grown all that anthrax without their noticing it. That Ivins lacked the means, ability and equipment to produce the sophisticated strain of anthrax used in the attacks -- especially to do so without detection and leaving ample traces -- has long been one of the many arguments as to why it is so unlikely that he was the culprit (or at least the sole culprit). That the DOJ itself -- in order to defend against a lawsuit brought by an anthrax victim alleging that Fort Detrick was negligent -- would admit that Ivins lacked the means to commit this crime in his lab, particularly without detection, is extraordinary. Just like the NAS findings that cast doubt on the FBI's genetic analysis (once deemed to be the strongest part of the case even by skeptics), this admission further guts the government's claim to have solved this case. It should be unnecessary to explain why the anthrax attack was so significant, and why discovering the perpetrators with confidence is so vital. As I've argued before, the anthrax attack was at least as important as (if not more important than) the 9/11 attack in creating a climate of fear in the U.S. that spawned the next decade's War on Civil Liberties and Terror and posture of Endless War; multiple government officials used ABC News' Brian Ross to convince the nation that Saddam was likely behind those attacks (as but one example, The Washington Post's Richard Cohen, in 2008, cited the anthrax attacks as his primary reason for supporting the attack on Iraq; in October, 2001, John McCain said on David Letterman's program that there is evidence linking Iraq to the anthrax attack). Even if one believes the FBI's case, it means that one of the most significant Terrorist attacks in American history was launched from within the U.S. military. As Alan Pearson -- Director of the Biological and Chemical Weapons Control Program at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation -- put it: If Ivins was indeed responsible for the attacks, did he have any assistance? Did anyone else at the Army lab or elsewhere have any knowledge of his activities prior to, during, or shortly after the anthrax attacks? . . . It appears increasingly likely that the only significant bioterrorism attack in history may have originated from right within the biodefense program of our own country. The implications for our understanding of the bioterrorism threat and for our entire biodefense strategy and enterprise are potentially profound. Indeed, Cohen claimed that "a high government official" told him shortly after the 9/11 attack to carry cipro as an antidote against anthrax. The Editors of Nature added: "This case is too important to be brushed under the carpet. The anthrax attacks killed five people, infected several others, paralysed the United States with fear and shaped the nation's bioterrorism policy." But, of course, in the U.S., the nation's most powerful political and financial factions -- especially those who control the National Security State -- are immune from meaningful scrutiny and investigation. As a result, President Obama -- in what I think is one his most indefensible acts -- actually threatened to veto the entire intelligence authorization bill if it included a proposed bipartisan amendment (passed by the House) that would have mandated an independent inquiry into the FBI's anthrax investigation. Democratic Rep. Rush Holt, whose New Jersey district was the site where the letters were allegedly mailed and one of the bill's sponsors, said at the time he was appalled that "an Administration that has pledged to be transparent and accountable would seek to block any review of the investigation in this matter." Indeed, the veto threat issued by the Obama White House was refreshingly (albeit unintentionally) candid about why it was so eager to block any independent inquiry: "The commencement of a fresh investigation would undermine public confidence in the criminal investigation and unfairly cast doubt on its conclusions." That would happen only if the FBI's claims could not withstanding independent, critical scrutiny. But -- as is even more apparent now than ever -- the White House is fully aware that it cannot. In a rational, non-corrupt environment, that would be a reason to insist upon -- not take extraordinary steps to block -- an independent investigation into one of the most consequential crimes ever committed on U.S. soil. But that, manifestly, is not the world in which we live, and thus -- despite continuously mounting evidence that we do not know anywhere close to the full story of who perpetrated this attack -- the country's political leadership continues to stonewall any efforts to find out. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/07/19/anthrax/ind... ###+++++)0)#################))))0000))))#########+++++)0)###################### Thom Hartmann & Jeremy Scahill: The CIA's Secret Sites in Somalia BREAKING INTERNATIONAL LAW,JUST LIKE BUSH ####))0000))######################+++++########################################))0000))##################################################### Obama edges closer to political cliff with support for 3 NAFTA-like trade deals http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2011/06/obama-ed... June 28, 2011 Obama Edges Closer to Political Cliff With Deal to Combine Program to Aid Workers Losing Jobs to Trade With Three Bush-Era NAFTA-Style Trade Pacts Projected to Cause More Job Loss Statement of Lori Wallach, Director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch snip For most Americans, what’s newsworthy is not that the administration is pushing Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), which effectively is a job burial insurance program, but that pushing a deal on TAA is being used as political cover to move more NAFTA-style trade agreements that will kill more American jobs in the first place, especially given our high unemployment rates. Poll after poll shows that the vast majority of the American public – across stunningly diverse demographics – is opposed to NAFTA-style trade deals and that members of Congress vote for them at their peril. Earlier this month, White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley, whose job is to sell these trade deals and who helped former President Bill Clinton sell NAFTA to a skeptical Congress, recognized that workers “lose from these agreements” and implied that campaigning against FTAs could even be an electoral advantage. (The Washington Post, “White House’s Daley seeks balance in outreach meeting with manufacturers,” June 16, 2011.) The point that’s gotten lost in all this wrangling over TAA is that the three leftover Bush trade deals are bad in and of themselves. Even an official government study finds that the Korea deal will increase our trade deficit, and we know up front that it will kill jobs and undermine our national security. The Colombia deal will eliminate any leverage the U.S. has to combat the forced displacements and murders of unionists, Afro-Colombians, human rights defenders and others – problems that have gotten worse since this deal was signed in 2007. The Panama deal will make it harder for the U.S. government to penalize tax-dodging multinational corporations. The supplemental deal on autos for Korea, the labor “Action Plan” for Colombia, and the tax information exchange agreement for Panama are all toothless and do nothing to alleviate the aforementioned problems, as Public Citizen has extensively documented. They were all part of a political-cover kabuki dance. Moreover, the fact remains that all three deals have the same damaging provisions we all remember from NAFTA: limits on financial services regulation, foreign investor privileges that promote offshoring, weak labor standards, limits on imported food safety and inspection, and the ridiculous private investor-state enforcement system that empowers multinational corporations to go around our domestic courts and directly challenge our state and federal laws before foreign tribunals and demand compensation from our tax dollars for claimed violations of the trade deal. As the New York Times has reported, TAA has proven to be almost useless for today's laid-off American workers, a fig-leaf to sell job-sucking trade deals to the public.

******************^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^****************** ########################################################## http://destroythesystem.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/study-exposure-to-fluoride-can-reduce-the-intelligence-of-children/ I drink distilled water that is free of Fluoride.Colby....not so lucky.......(BTW CARBON FILTERS do not remove Fluoride) ###################))))))))00000000))))))))########################### Fluoride is added to 70% of public drinking water supplies in the U.S.. In Brazil, data from the National Information System on Sanitation 2003 indicate that 75% of the volume of water produced by the providers is fluoridated and an estimated 100 million Brazilians drink fluoridated water.

Gaddafi ....... LOCKERBIE and German disco incidents? ... No Bill, neither of these were done by Gaddafi. Thats the establisment/MSM BS. I have pages on 1969 coup that I dont need to post. Here is a bottom line + proWEST dictator there is silence on crimes and antiWest dictator crimes, hysteria and disinfo. ## "The discovery of oil in 1959 only tightened the American, British and Italian domination of Libya, the hostility toward which created the conditions for Colonel Gaddafi’s military coup in 1969. One of Gaddafi’s first actions was to demand the closure of the Wheelus base, which—like his nationalisation of Libya's oil industry—initially gave the colonel anti-imperialist credentials and a base of popular support", "carried out without bloodshed in 1969 by just 50 officers, ..." ## This was a real popular uprising Bill !! ##############################################OOOOOOOO#############################################++++ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHWP0NE4EA0 ## please see video till end.## ##################OOOOOOOO################++++///#########O+ Russ Baker: Did Qaddafi Really Order Mass Rapes? Or is the West Falling Victim to a Viagra-Strength Scam? June 14, 2011 o-------------------oo----------------------oo------------ The story of Qadaffi's “mass rapes” might be too crazy to be true. By Russ Baker By arrangement with WhoWhatWhy.Com. Is Muammar Qaddafi trying to save his government—and his life—by encouraging mass rape? Does that make sense? Personally speaking, if I had the world already against me, and was hoping to retain whatever support I could among my own people, that would not be my preferred course of action. It seems too crazy. Nevertheless, that’s the infamy of the day against Qaddafi. As we reported in a lengthy analysis of the true purposes behind the NATO bombing campaign, efforts to rally world opinion behind removing Qaddafi from power have already included promotion of claims that Qaddafi personally ordered the Pan Am 103 bombing (no evidence has been made public), and that a woman was raped by militia backing Qaddafi (no evidence was made public—nor was there any claim that Qaddafi had been connected to it, yet the story was big news around the world.) Now, things are being ratcheted up, with the following claim that it’s not just one woman but hundreds—and that Qaddafi is personally behind this. If true, this would of course make Qaddafi out to be even more of a monster than he is already perceived to be. It would likely play a tremendous role in persuading otherwise opposed members of the international public to support the NATO bombing campaign. And maybe even an overt expansion into what it actually is—a thinly disguised invasion/coup. So, what are the particulars on the latest claims? The Washington Post’s blog: In March, a Libyan woman named Iman Al-Obeidi burst into a Tripoli hotel to tell journalists she had been raped at the hands of the militia of Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi. At that time, Blogpost reported that Libyan doctors who treated female rape survivors said they had found Viagra and condoms in the pockets of dead pro-Gaddafi fighters. Quick question: why are “doctors” who are treating rape survivors going through the pockets of fighters? Who are these doctors? Are the dead soldiers processed by the same doctors who see rape victims? There was evidence the Libyan authorities bought “Viagra-type” medicines and gave them to troops as part of the official rape policy Let’s continue with the Washington Post: Amnesty International released a statement that said Libyan authorities must “immediately launch an independent and impartial investigation." Libyan officials did little to investigate, but the International Criminal Court did, and investigators now say they have evidence that Gaddafi ordered mass rapes and bought containers of sex drugs to encourage troops to attack women, pan-Arab news site Al-Arabiya reported. By the way, how readily available are large quantities of Viagra in Libya? Has anyone looked into this—or bulk purchases? Back to the Post: Chief ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo said he may ask for a new charge of mass rape to be made against Gaddafi, his intelligence chief, and one of his sons following the new evidence. …“Now we are getting some information that Gaddafi himself decided to rape, and this is new,” Moreno-Ocampo told reporters. Moreno-Ocampo said hundreds of women had been raped and confirmed the doctor’s statements about Viagra-type medicines. “The rape is a new aspect of the repression,” the prosecutor said. “It was very bad—beyond the limits, I would say.” Based on this, I went to look up the original Al Arabiyah report, which as you can see was actually not an Al Arabiyah report but from the following wire service: By AGENCE-FRANCE-PRESSE
UNITED NATIONS Investigators have evidence that Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi ordered mass rapes and bought containers of sex drugs to encourage troops to attack women, the chief ICC prosecutor said. Luis Moreno-Ocampo said he may ask for a new charge of mass rape to be made against the Libyan strongman following the new evidence. The International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor is expecting a decision from judges within days on his request for charges of crimes against humanity to be laid against the Libyan leader, one of his sons and his intelligence chief. “Now we are getting some information that Qaddafi himself decided to rape and this is new,” Mr. Moreno-Ocampo told reporters. He said there were reports of hundreds of women attacked in some areas of Libya, which is in the grip of a months-long internal rebellion. There was evidence the Libyan authorities bought “Viagra-type” medicines and gave them to troops as part of the official rape policy, Mr. Moreno-Ocampo said. “They were buying containers to enhance the possibility to rape women,” he said. “It was never the pattern he used to control the population. The rape is a new aspect of the repression. That is why we had doubts at the beginning, but now we are more convinced that he decided to punish using rape,” the prosecutor said. “It was very bad—beyond the limits, I would say." Mr. Qaddafi’s regime had not previously been known for using rape as a weapon against political opponents and Mr. Moreno-Ocampo said he had to find evidence that the Libyan leader had given the order. In March, a Libyan woman made international headlines when she entered a Tripoli hotel and said she had been raped by Qaddafi troops. Iman al-Obeidi was detained but managed to escape from Libya. She ended up in Qatar but was deported back from there to rebel-held Libya. She is now resting at a refugee center in Romania. Mr. Moreno-Ocampo issued arrest warrants last month against Mr. Qaddafi, his son Seif al-Islam and intelligence chief Abdullah al-Sanussi. ICC judges are to announce in days whether they agree to the charges.

The Libyan government does not recognize the international court’s jurisdiction. Ok, so it’s not, as the Washington Post made it seem to its readers, an original report from an Arabic language publication. It’s simply them carrying a report from the European wire service Agence France-Press (France being one of the leading members of the coalition seeking to drive Qaddafi out), which in turn was just dutifully reporting what Moreno-Ocampo said at his press conference at the UN. No indication that anyone expressed any healthy skepticism. But look. Here’s the very same news service Agence France-Press, as published in the Australian paper the Herald-Sun, the next day: A UN human rights investigator has cast doubts over claims by the chief ICC prosecutor of evidence that Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi had ordered mass rapes. The International Criminal Court’s Luis Moreno-Ocampo had said today that there was evidence the Libyan authorities bought “Viagra-type” medicines and gave them to troops as part of the official rape policy. But Cherif Bassiouni, who is leading a UN rights inquiry into the situation in Libya, suggested that the claim was part of a “massive hysteria.”

Mr Bassiouni told journalists that he had heard those claims when he visited rebel-held eastern Libya. But when he went to Tripoli, “the same story comes up.” “This time it’s the government people telling us, ’you know what? The opponents have a policy of rape, we have discovered that they are giving out contraceptives and Viagra pills,’” he recounted. …The investigator also cited the case of a woman who claimed to have sent out 70,000 questionnaires and received 60,000 responses, of which 259 reported sexual abuse. The perennial failures of the Western media to do proper checking before spreading such stories (or after, even) helps explain why the public remains forever in the dark. However, when the investigators asked for these questionnaires, they never received them. “But she’s going around the world telling everybody about it …so now she got that information to Ocampo and Ocampo is convinced that here we have a potential 259 women who have responded to the fact that they have been sexually abused,” Mr Bassiouni said. He also pointed out that it did not appear to be credible that the woman was able to send out 70,000 questionnaires in March when the postal service was not functioning. Nevertheless, the investigator said his team will examine the claims.

 “We’re going to go back and we’re going to look at it,” he said. For the moment, the team has only heard of three cases.

…“For the moment the numbers are very limited, but they’ve had a tremendous socio-psychological impact on society. Everybody’s talking about it. That’s where we’re at,” said the investigator. The original allegation got a lot of play. Not the doubts. Even though they came via the exact same news organization. How ’bout that! Control of information, including psychological operations and propaganda, has always been a central tool in war. The perennial failures of the Western media to do proper checking before spreading such stories (or after, even) helps explain why the public remains forever in the dark______________________________________ #######################################################OOOOOOOO#############++++ Going Rogue: NATO War Crimes in Libya by Susan Lindauer / June 7th, 2011 -----------------oo--------------- It’s a story CNN won’t report. Late at night there’s a pounding on the door in Misurata. Armed soldiers force young Libyan women out of their beds at gun-point. Hustling the women and teenagers into trucks, the soldiers rush the women to gang bang parties for NATO rebels or else rape them in front of their husbands or fathers. When NATO rebels finish their rape sport, the soldiers cut the women’s throats. Rapes are now ongoing acts of war in rebel-held cities, like an organized military strategy, according to refugees. Joanna Moriarty, who’s part of a global fact-finding delegation visiting Tripoli this week, also reports that NATO rebels have gone house to house through Misurata, asking families if they support NATO. If the families say no, they are killed on the spot. If families say they want to stay out of the fighting, NATO rebels take a different approach to scare other families. The doors of “neutral homes” are welded shut, Moriarty says, trapping families inside. In Libyan homes, windows are typically barred. So when the doors to a family compound get welded shut, Libyans are entombed in their own houses, where NATO forces can be sure large families will slowly starve to death. These are daily occurrences, not isolated events. And Gaddafi’s soldiers are not responsible. In fact, pro-Gaddafi and “neutral” families are targeted as the victims of the attacks. Some of the NATO tactics may have occurred in hopes of laying blame on Gaddafi’s door. However the attacks are back firing. Flashback to Serbia The events are eerily reminiscent of Serbia’s conflict in the Balkans with its notorious rape camps — except today NATO itself is perpetrating these War Crimes — as if they have learned the worst terror tactics from their enemies. Their actions would be categorized as War Crimes, just like Serb leader, Slobadon Milosevic—except that NATO won’t allow itself to face prosecution. According to NATO, International Law is for the other guy. NATO is wrong. So long as NATO governments provide the funding, assault rifles, military training, ground advisers, support vehicles and air power, they are fully responsible for the actions of their soldiers in the war zone. Libya’s rebels are not a rag tag fighting force, either. Thanks to NATO’s largesse, financed by U.S. and British taxpayers, they’re fully decked out in military uniforms, parading through the streets with military vehicles for all the people to see. And they do see. In Washington, Congress likes to pretend that America has not become involved in the day to day actualities of military planning. However refugees have observed U.S, British, French and Israeli soldiers standing by as rebel soldiers attack civilians. “Rape parties” are the most graphic examples of NATO’s loss of moral control. One weeping father told the fact-finding delegation how a couple of weeks ago NATO rebels targeted seven separate households, kidnapping a virgin daughter from each pro-Gaddafi family. The rebels were paid for each kidnapped girl, just as they are paid for each Libyan soldier they kill — like mercenary soldiers. They hustled the girls into trucks, and took them to a building where the girls were locked in separate rooms. NATO soldiers proceeded to drink alcohol, until they got very drunk. Then the leader told them to rape the virgin daughters in gang bang style. When they’d finished raping the girls, the NATO leader told them to cut the breasts off the living girls and bring the breasts to him. They did this while the girls were alive and screaming. All the girls died hideous deaths. Then their severed breasts were taken to a local square and arranged to spell the word “whore.” The grieving father spoke to a convention of workers, attended by the global fact-finding delegation. He was openly weeping, as all of us should. NATO’s offenses in Libya are as terrible and unforgivable as Syria’s castration and mutilation of the 13 year old boy that shocked the world. Yet so long as NATO’s the guilty party, the western media has looked the other way in distaste. Some of us are paying attention. We can see that NATO has gone rogue in Libya. And the Libyan people themselves consider it unforgivable. Last week, 2000 Tribal Leaders gathered in Tripoli to draft a Constitution for the country, as demanded by the British government. Notoriously, British warships and U.S. drones pounded the streets of Tripoli with bunker bombs and missiles for days and nights close to where the Tribal Leaders were meeting. From Tripoli, it felt awfully like the British were trying to stop the Libyan people from bringing this Constitution to life. Tribal Leaders Condemn British Aggression Here’s what those 2,000 Tribal Leaders had to say about British aggression, in a statement approved unanimously on June 3. Sheikh Ali, head of the Tribal Leaders, delivered it to Joanna Moriarty and other members of the global fact finding mission: The Libyan people have the right to govern themselves. Constant attacks from the skies, at all hours of the day have completely disrupted the lives of the families of Libya. There has never been any fighting in Tripoli, yet we are bombed every day. We are civilians and we are being killed by the British and NATO. Civilians are people without guns, yet the British and NATO protect only the armed crusaders from the East by acting as their attack army. We have read the UN resolutions and there is no mention of bombing innocent civilians. There is no mention of assassinating the legitimate authorities in all of Libya. The Libyan People have the right to select their own leaders. We have suffered occupation by foreign countries for thousands of years. Only in the last 41 years have we Libyans enjoyed property ownership. Only in the last 41 years have we seen our country develop. Only in the last 41 years have we seen all of the Libyans enjoy a better life, and know that our children will have a better life then we have had. But now with the British and NATO bombings of our country, we see the destruction of our new and developed infrastructure. We leaders see the destruction of our culture. We leaders see tears in the eyes of our children because of the constant fear from the “rain of terror” in the skies of Libya from the British and NATO bombings. Our old people suffer from heart problems, increased diabetes and loss of vigor. Our young mothers are losing their babies every day because of the stress of the British and NATO bombings. These lost babies are the future of Libya. They can never be replaced. Our armies have been destroyed by the British and NATO bombings. We cannot defend ourselves from attacks from anyone. As Tribal Leaders of Libya, we must ask why have the British and NATO decided to wage this war against the Libyan people? There are a small percentage of dissidents in the east of Libya that started an armed insurrection against our legitimate authority. Every country has the right to defend itself against armed insurrection. So why cannot Libya defend itself? The Tribal Leaders of Libya demand that all acts of aggression, by the British and NATO, against the Libyan People stop immediately. June 3, 2011 Does that sound like NATO’s got a winning strategy? If so, they should think again. Even if Gaddafi falls, NATO has no hope of eliminating the entire tribal structure of the Libya, which embraces all families and clans. Instead NATO is losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the people with every missile that smashes into another building. Tribal Backlash The Libyan people are fighting back. This report arrived from Tripoli today. It is not edited, and describes a backlash in tribal warfare from the City of Darna in the East, where the rebellion is supposed to be strongest: People found the body of Martyr Hamdi Jumaa Al-Shalwi in Darna city eastern Libya. His head was cut off and then placed in front of the headquarters of the Internal Security Dernah. That was after being kidnapped from a checkpoint complex Herich. In response to this Al-Shalwi family erected a funeral tent to receive condolences in which the green flag [of Libya] was raised. After the funeral the whole city of Darna rose up with all its tribes which include:- the Abu Jazia family, Al-Shalwi family, The Quba families, Ain Marra families. After that, Al-Shalwi family and Bojazia tribe attacked the headquarters of the Transitional Council and shot all the rats (rebels) and green flags were raised. Furthermore, the son of Sofian Qamom was killed, also two members of Al- Qaeda got killed by residents of the city of Darna. The flag of the Libyan Jamahiriya was raised above Darna after the clashes. CNN has reported none of this. The corporate media continues to lull Americans into false confidence in the progress of the Libyan War. Americans are way out of the loop as to the failures of the War effort. As a result, Libyans are losing trust in the potential for friendships with the West. An unlikely champion might restore that faith. Right now a team of international attorneys is preparing an emergency grievance on behalf of the Tribal Leaders and the Libyan people. The International Peace Community could contribute substantially to restoring Libya’s faith in the West by supporting this human rights action. Indeed, the Libyan people and Tribal Leaders deserve our support. Together we must demand that NATO face prosecution for War Crimes, citing these examples and others. NATO governments must be required to pay financial damages to Libyan families, on par with what the U.S. and Britain would demand for their own citizens under identical circumstances. The world cannot tolerate double standards, whereby powerful nations abuse helpless citizens. The International Geneva Conventions of War must be enforced, and equal force of the law must be applied. The Fight for Misurata Though attacks are widespread, some of the worst abuses are occurring in Misurata. The City has the only mega port in Libya, and handles transportation for the country, including the largest oil and gas depots. NATO will stop at nothing to take the City. Refugees report that the Israeli Star of David flag was draped over the largest Mosque in Misurata on the second day of fighting, actions guaranteed to humiliate and antagonize the local population. NATO forces have cut off food and medical supplies throughout Libya. But the seas are plentiful with fish in Mediterranean waters. Brave fishermen have taken their boats out of port, trying to harvest fish for the hungry population. To break their perseverance, American drones and British war planes steadily fire missiles on the fishing boats, deliberately targeting non-military vessels to chase them out of the waters. Yet for all of its superior fire power and tactical advantages, NATO still appears to be losing. According to the fact-finding delegation, reporting today, many rebels have left Misurata and have taken boats back to Benghazi. The big central part of Misurata is now free and under central military control. The Libyan people shot down two helicopter gunships near the town of Zlitan. And although Al Jazeera played a grand story about a major uprising against Gaddafi in Tripoli, one of the Tribal leaders’ wives lives on the street that claims to be the center of the demonstration, and declared that she saw no crowds out of her window. Buses pictured in Al Jazeera video do not run in Tripoli. One has to ask: What kind of society does NATO think it’s creating, if in fact Gaddafi can be deposed — which looks very unlikely? Have Washington and London learned nothing from their failure in Iraq? The cruelty and debasement of NATO’s forces is already fueling profound hatreds that will continue for the next generation. Who could be proud of such “allies?” Not the Libyan people, surely. NATO soldiers are no better than thugs. Anyone else would be labeled terrorists. Most worrisome, NATO’s actions are guaranteed to have serious consequences for long term political stability in Libya. Vendettas are forming between tribes and family clans that will carry over for decades. It is extremely short-sighted and self destructive. NATO should take this warning to heart: Its soldiers are not legal-proof. The International Peace Community is already taking action to uphold Libya’s natural rights at the United Nations. Many of us in the International Peace Community shall defend Libya’s women. And we shall demand War Crimes prosecution and major financial damages against NATO governments, on behalf of the people. Nobody’s fooled by NATO’s story that Gaddafi’s the guilty party. We know that Washington, Britain, France, Italy — and Israel are the real culprits. The murdered women of Misurata shall have justice. NATO can count on it. UPDATE from Joanna Moriarty in Tripoli today (9 June): We have so much documentation that it make your head spin. We spoke with 250 rebels who were released by the Tribal Leaders with the blessings of Ghadafi, the stories they tell of the atrocities that they did are horrifying we have them on tape. We also have many rebels that are documented admitting all the atrocities that they themselves committed. But, here is one truth that is irrefutable – the 2000 tribes of Libya are the actual government here, if anyone does not know this then they do not know Libya. These tribal leaders released 150 rebel prisoners 3 weeks ago, 10 days later another 250 were released. There were about 20 foreigners that witnessed this magnificent show of forgiveness, we have this on tape. There is another release of 200 prisoners in these coming days. Go to Benghazi and you will not find one single prisoner because they have all been killed. This is a hard fact. Anyone that says they interviewed prisoners in Misurata is a xxxx. The Misurata prisoners that were released said that they were paid 2500 dinar for every soldier they killed and another 1000 dinar for burning the bodies. This is why there are no prisoners, so who is believable 250 prisoners on tape or someone who will not even give his name and makes statements that are unbelievable and unverifiable. Here in Tripoli, the people say, please tell them to come to Tripoli and speak to us but they will not come because they don’t want the truth. They would like to ask these liars to PROVE what they say, they say none of their lies can be proved. Yesterday was Ghadafi’s birthday, they bombed the H*** out of this place yesterday, many many people crying and big damage, but they are not breaking the back of these people. They had parties and shot off fireworks for 3 hours, we were invited to a wedding because they wanted to show us how life continues here and they celebrate life every day. NATO is not bombing the rebels in the East. NATO is working for the rebels. People don’t dare complain about the rebels. They are scared for their lives and their family lives. We have met many people who have escaped these place with their lives, but most don’t want their names out because they have family left there and if they show their face or publicly speak about the rebel atrocities then the members of their families that are left will be killed. We know this from first hand, one of our group had this exact problem and could not be filmed, his father called him and said the rebels saw him on TV and if he spoke out one more time against them they would kill his brother one by one and then begin with his other family members. Today we went to the Roxis hotel. There was a large group of women and children holding signs up that said “tell the TRUTH”, “thank you Qatar for killing our people”, “thank you NATO for destroying our country”. WE love the leader of our revolution, M. Ghadafi. I stopped and took photos and the women came up to me instantly, they thought I was a reporter as all the reporters stay in the Roxis Hotel. They were quite angry and said, TELL THE TRUTH, we want to see the TRUTH outside of Libya we are sick of the lies. One lady had a very small boy with her (maybe 3 years old) he was dressed in a military outfit, he was black, she said you see my son, even our children will fight against this terror, we will never accept NATO or the rebel RATs. [Note: the Libyan people call the rebels "rats."] This is literally everywhere in Tripoli, tonight thousands were on First of September street in support of their revolutionary leader. In all the time (5.5 years) we have come here we have never heard of oppression by Ghadafi, the people have great respect and love for him. They all wear green and wear photos of him around their necks, believe me the Western news is so far from the truth they are on another planet. We have never seen anybody beaten, harassed, in prison, in fact we have been days and never even seen a policeman unlike our trips to Cairo where armed guards are on every corner, with tanks around Mosques on Fridays. Believe us, before this mess, it was safer in Tripoli than in Houston. This is not the Libyan way, they don’t pass out Viagra, this is from the Western mind – I may explode before long, cannot suffer fools lightly and these people have mouths that are not connected to souls. The final two verifiable truths about the atrocities committed by NATO and the Rebels and the US and UK are: 1. The leader of a tribe of 1 million Libyans living in Benghazi was brutally murdered in his home by the rebels after a kangaroo court which was broadcast in the news on TV here in Libya by Dr. Shakeer. The million people tribe wanted to retaliate against all the rebels, the other tribal leaders and Ghadafi told them please do not kill all these people as there has already been too much bloodshed in Libya. Does this sound like a tyrant? 2. Two days later another pro Ghadafi person was murdered, his head was cut off and placed at the door step of the security office in Dharna (he was a tribal leader) the outrage by most of the population in Dharna was expressed in demonstrations of disgust against the rebels and at the end of the day, the green flag of the legitimate government of Libya was flying. The three major tribes in Dharna proclaimed that they had had enough of the death at the hands of these rats and the Council of Shame as they call the revolution council in Benghazi. All of these facts are true and verifiable by video and by affidavit of those present, this xxxx cannot prove one thing that he is saying. The word of some paid CIA mercenary is not worth ****. Susan believe us when we say, we have huge amounts of documentation, we are collecting it every day. We must file war crime charges against Obama, Sarkozy, Cameron, and NATO. Question the Libyans constantly ask is: “Who are these countries to dictate who our leader should or should not be, we will pick our own leader, we ask for a vote, let us vote and then you will see who should be our leader.” NATO will never dictate to us, if they impose their puppet leader upon us, we will have another revolution and throw him out, he will not last one week. The biggest population is Libya as you know, is in the west, the more NATO rains down destruction upon them the more they back Ghadafi. These are a strong and resilient people, they have an ancient culture and they are an endangered species. Misinformation is the tool of the West not Libya. We have nothing to gain by helping these people (except our souls). One cannot stand by and witness this type of tyranny without doing everything possible to stop it. God Bless them, I pray they will survive this siege that is upon them. Susan Lindauer covered the Iraqi Embassy at the United Nations for seven years before the invasion. She is the author of Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq. Read other articles by Susan. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alexander Cockburn: Where’s the evidence of Gaddafi’s war crimes in Libya? 10 June 2011 229 By Alexander Cockburn, June 9, 2011. It’s pitiful, but scarcely surprising. After all the endless disclosures of Nato’s lies concerning its onslaughts on the former Yugoslavia in the late 1990s, and the hundreds of postmortems and official inquiries into the propaganda blitz before the attack on Iraq in 2003, the Western press is more gullible regarding Libya, less inclined to question official claims than in those earlier failures. The bar was already low, but now that those supposed lessons have been acknowledged and ignored, it has been lowered even further. Who can argue with a straight face that UN Resolution 1973, passed on March 17, permits efforts to assassinate Gaddafi by bombs and missiles or escalations in the arsenal of regime change, such as the deployment of British Apache helicopters or the intense bombing of Tripoli on Tuesday? A hundred years from now this UN/Nato intervention will be seen as a shameless imperial enterprise in the old style, with the increasingly ridiculous rationale of a mission “to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas”, as hollow as the self-righteous British claims that the conquest of India was primarily about saving widows from suttee. In the past few weeks we have had amply documented records of ferocious repression across the Middle East. There are body counts and vivid reports out of Syria. The violence that finally prompted President Saleh’s flight from Yemen to Saudi Arabia was relayed in graphic reportage. Admittedly, the US press has been less energetic in relaying the savageries being inflicted on erstwhile democracy-seekers in Bahrain, thus reflecting the desire of President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton that the topic not be mentioned. Whereas ‘Libya’ appears at least 14 times in the three major declarations issued at the recent G8 summit in Deauville, and ‘Syria’ 12 times, ‘Bahrain’ appears not at all. Contrast these detailed reports with the amazing vagueness of news stories coming out of Libya. Here, remember, we have a regime accused in Resolution 1973 of “widespread and systematic attacks… against the civilian population [that] may amount to crimes against humanity.” We have a press corps and insurgents ready and eager to report anything discreditable to the Gaddafi regime. Yet since mid-February the reporting out of Libya has had a striking lack of persuasive documentation of butcheries or abuses commensurate with the language lavished on the regime’s presumptive conduct. Though human rights groups have furnished some detailed accounts of specific repressions, time and again one reads vague phrases like “thousands reportedly killed by Gaddafi’s mercenaries” or Gaddafi “massacring his own people,” delivered without the slightest effort to furnish supporting evidence. This is not said out of any singular respect for Gaddafi. But it was the second-hand allegation of fearsome massacres that drove both news coverage and UN activities – particularly in the early stage, when UN Resolution 1970 was adopted, calling for sanctions and the referral of Gaddafi’s closest circle to the International Criminal Court, for an investigation, which Louis Moreno-Ocampo almost immediately agreed to do on March 3. News reports in mid-March, such as those by McClatchy reporters Jonathan Landay, Warren Strobel and Shashank Bengali, contain no claims of anything approaching a “crime against humanity,” the allegation in Resolution 1973. Yet by February 23 the propaganda blitz was in full spate, with Clinton denouncing Gaddafi and Reagan’s “mad dog of the Middle East” phrase from 1986 exhumed as the preferred way of describing the Libyan leader. The UN commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay, started denouncing the Libyan government as early as February 18; UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon joined Pillay on February 21. The UN News Center reported that Ban was “outraged at press reports that the Libyan authorities have been firing at demonstrators from war planes and helicopters” (my italics). On this kind of basis, the Security Council’s February 22 session, devoted to ‘Peace and Security in Africa’, became instead devoted to denouncing Libya. In these early days, no one who represented the Libyan government was permitted to address the council. Only defectors speaking on behalf of Libya were given the floor. Now remember that on March 10, French President Sarkozy, a major player in Nato’s coalition of the willing against Libya, declared the Libyan National Transition Council the only legitimate representative of the Libyan people. So Gaddafi was facing a formal armed insurrection – not a protest movement demanding “democracy” – led by a shadowy entity based in Benghazi, one of whose more diligent enterprises appears to have been the establishment of a ‘central bank’. Seven days later, Resolution 1973 made clear that attempts to suppress this insurrection would elicit armed intervention by Nato. On June 6 the independent International Crisis Group issued a report ‘Making Sense of Libya’, which stated forthrightly that Nato was in the business of “regime change” and was strongly critical of Nato’s refusal to respond to calls for ceasefire and negotiation, a stance which the International Crisis Group says is guaranteed to prolong the conflict, and the tribulations of all Libyans. On the issue of Gaddafi’s alleged war crimes, the ICG noted reports of mass rapes by government militias, but declared that at the same time, “much Western media coverage has from the outset presented a very one-sided view of the logic of events, portraying the protest movement as entirely peaceful and repeatedly suggesting that the regime’s security forces were unaccountably massacring unarmed demonstrators who presented no real security challenge. “This version would appear to ignore evidence that the protest movement exhibited a violent aspect from very early on… There is also evidence that, as the regime claimed, the demonstrations were infiltrated by violent elements. Likewise, there are grounds for questioning the more sensational reports that the regime was using its air force to slaughter demonstrators, let alone engaging in anything remotely warranting use of the term ‘genocide’.” In this context, since the International Criminal Court’s record of subservience to Nato’s requirements is one of near 100 per cent compliance, one can view with reasonable cynicism its timing in issuing accusations of mass rape against Gaddafi’s militia immediately in the wake of this week’s Nato bombing onslaught on Tripoli. Nato says it has flown more than 3,000 missions, and it is clear that despite the Benghazi rebels’ pretensions and effusive coverage in the Nato powers’ homelands, the rebels have been unable to make any effective military showing. In other words, the only serious challenge to Gaddafi is a pirate coalition of Nato forces operating without the slightest mandate in international law, currently engaged in bombing a major city – Tripoli – filled with civilians. The indifference of the Western press, not to mention the liberal/left in the United States, to these obvious facts has emboldened the coalition to ever more brazen affronts to law, with bluff calls from British generals amid the embarrassing stalemate to cut the cackle and send in the troops. America’s clients in Bahrain and Riyadh can watch the undignified pantomime with a tranquil heart, welcoming this splendid demonstration that they have nothing to fear from Obama’s fine speeches or Clinton’s references to democratic aspirations, well aware that Nato’s warplanes and helicopters are operating under the usual double standard – with the Western press furnishing all appropriate services.

Kelly quote We go to Tripoli to rejoin the continuing American Revolution. END Kelly quote == SIR, YOU MAKE ME WANT TO VOMIT !!! ###########################OOOOOOOO################################# PART ONE ############################################################################################ God Bless America. And its Bombs by William Blum When they bombed Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, El Salvador and Nicaragua I said nothing because I wasn't a communist. When they bombed China, Guatemala, Indonesia, Cuba, and the Congo I said nothing because I didn't know about it. When they bombed Lebanon and Grenada I said nothing because I didn't understand it. When they bombed Panama I said nothing because I wasn't a drug dealer. When they bombed Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen I said nothing because I wasn't a terrorist. When they bombed Yugoslavia and Libya for "humanitarian" reasons I said nothing because it sounded so honorable. Then they bombed my house and there was no one left to speak out for me. But it didn't really matter. I was dead. 1 The Targets It's become a commonplace to accuse the United States of choosing as its bombing targets only people of color, those of the Third World, or Muslims. But it must be remembered that one of the most sustained and ferocious American bombing campaigns of modern times — 78 consecutive days — was carried out against the people of the former Yugoslavia: white, European, Christians. The United States is an equal-opportunity bomber. The only qualifications for a country to become a target are: (A) It poses an obstacle — could be anything — to the desires of the American Empire; It does not possess nuclear weapons; © It is virtually defenseless against aerial attack. The survivors "We never see the smoke and the fire, we never smell the blood, we never see the terror in the eyes of the children, whose nightmares will now feature screaming missiles from unseen terrorists, known only as Americans." 2 NASA has announced an audacious new mission, launching a spaceship that will travel for four years to land on an asteroid, where it will collect dust from the surface and deliver the precious cargo to Earth, where scientists will then examine the material for clues to how life began. Truly the stuff of science fiction. However, I personally would regard it as a much greater accomplishment of humankind if we could put an end to America's bombings and all its wars, and teach some humility to The Holy Triumvirate — The United States, the European Union and NATO — who recognize no higher power and believe they literally can do whatever they want in the world, to whomever they want, for as long as they want, and call it whatever they want, like "humanitarian." The fall of the American Empire would offer a new beginning for the long-suffering American people and the long-suffering world. Why is the United States waging perpetual war against the Cuban people's health system? In January the government of the United States of America saw fit to seize $4.207 million in funds allocated to Cuba by the United Nations Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria for the first quarter of 2011, Cuba has charged. The UN Fund is a $22 billion a year program that works to combat the three deadly pandemics in 150 countries. 3 "This mean-spirited policy," the Cuban government said, "aims to undermine the quality of service provided to the Cuban population and to obstruct the provision of medical assistance in over 100 countries by 40,000 Cuban health workers." Most of the funds are used to import expensive AIDS medication to Cuba, where antiretroviral treatment is provided free of charge to some 5,000 HIV patients. 4 The United States sees the Cuban health system and Havana's sharing of such as a means of Cuba winning friends and allies in the Third World, particularly Latin America; a situation sharply in conflict with long-standing US policy to isolate Cuba. The United States in recent years has attempted to counter the Cuban international success by dispatching the US Naval Ship "Comfort" to the region. With 12 operating rooms and a 1,000-bed hospital, the converted oil tanker has performed hundreds of thousands of free surgeries in places such as Belize, Guatemala, Panama, El Salvador, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Nicaragua and Haiti. However, the Comfort's port calls likely will not substantially enhance America's influence in the hemisphere. "It's hard for the U.S. to compete with Cuba and Venezuela in this way," said Peter Hakim, president of the Inter-American Dialogue, a pro-US policy-research group in Washington. "It makes us look like we're trying to imitate them. Cuba's doctors aren't docked at port for a couple days, but are in the country for years." 5 The recent disclosure by Wikileaks of US State Department documents included this little item: A cable was sent by Michael Parmly from the US Interests Section in Havana in July 2006, during the runup to the Non-Aligned Movement conference. He notes that he is actively looking for "human interest stories and other news that shatters the myth of Cuban medical prowess". Michael Moore refers to another Wikileaks State Department cable: "On January 31, 2008, a State Department official stationed in Havana took a made-up story and sent it back to his headquarters in Washington. Here's what they came up with: [The official] stated that Cuban authorities have banned Michael Moore's documentary, 'Sicko,' as being subversive. Although the film's intent is to discredit the U.S. healthcare system by highlighting the excellence of the Cuban system, the official said the regime knows the film is a myth and does not want to risk a popular backlash by showing to Cubans facilities that are clearly not available to the vast majority of them." Moore points out an Associated Press story of June 16, 2007 (seven months prior to the cable) with the headline: "Cuban health minister says Moore's 'Sicko' shows 'human values' of communist system." Moore adds that the people of Cuba were shown the film on national television on April 25, 2008. "The Cubans embraced the film so much it became one of those rare American movies that received a theatrical distribution in Cuba. I personally ensured that a 35mm print got to the Film Institute in Havana. Screenings of Sicko were set up in towns all across the country." 6 The United States also bans the sale to Cuba of vital medical drugs and devices, such as the inhalant agent Sevoflurane which has become the pharmaceutical of excellence for applying general anesthesia to children; and the pharmaceutical Dexmetomidine, of particular usefulness in elderly patients who often must be subjected to extended surgical procedures. Both of these are produced by the US firm Abbot Laboratories. Cuban children suffering from lymphoblastic leukemia cannot use Erwinia L-asparaginasa, a medicine commercially known as Elspar, since the US pharmaceutical company Merck and Co. refuses to sell this product to Cuba. Washington has also prohibited the US-based Pastors for Peace Caravan from donating three Ford ambulances to Cuba. Cubans are moreover upset by the denial of visas requested to attend conferences in the field of Anesthesiology and Reanimation that take place in the United States. This creates further barriers for Cuba's anesthesiologists to update themselves on state of the art anesthesiology, the care of severely ill patients, and the advances achieved in the treatment of pain. Some of the foregoing are but a small sample of American warfare against the Cuban medical system presented in a Cuban report to the United Nations General Assembly on October 28, 2009. Finally, we have the Cuban Medical Professional Parole (CMPP) immigration program, which encourages Cuban doctors who are serving their government overseas to defect and enter the US immediately as refugees. The Wall Street Journal reported in January of this year that through Dec. 16, 2010, CMPP visas had been issued by US consulates in 65 countries to 1,574 Cuban doctors whose education had been paid for by the financially-struggling Cuban government. 7 This program, oddly enough, was initiated by the US Department of Homeland Security. Another victory over terrorism? Or socialism? Or same thing? Wait until the American conservatives hear that Cuba is the only country in Latin America offering abortion on demand, and free. Items of interest from a journal I've kept for 40 years, part IV "Remember the scene in Battle of Algiers in which, after the French have 'killed off' the revolution, mist fills the screen and then, gradually, coming out of the mist, the Algerians appear waving their fists, ululating with that sound both thrilling and frightening? That's how I see 9/11 for those of us who grew up believing that the US stood for something grand, despite eras such as slavery, indigenous genocide, Jim Crow, etc. Many people say 'Everything changed on 9/11.' I think it's more that 'Everything became clear, finally, on 9/11.' The mist cleared away." — Catherine Podojil From a reader in Slovakia: I used the word "democracy" and not "capitalism", because we were told [after the dissolution of the Soviet Union] that democracy was introduced in Slovakia, not capitalism. Everything was done in the name of democracy and not in the name of capitalism. "If someone other than Stalin had gained ascendancy in the Soviet Union, it is likely that millions of lives would have been spared — but millions of others still would have been caught up in the maw of the state machine, because the system itself was based on violence, repression and lawlessness — all in the name of 'preserving the Revolution,' a phrase which served the same function for the Kremlin as 'national security' does for the American elite, or the 'higher law' of God does for religious extremists of every stripe." — Chris Floyd Bill Richardson, as US ambassador to the UN, re the newly-formed International Criminal Court in 1998: The United States should be exempt [from the court's prosecution] because it has "special global responsibilities". Russia might be a target of an American invasion some day because it's the most powerful geopolitical opponent of the United States, with the power to extinguish the US in 30 minutes. The US might want to control the Russian oil and have complete control of Central Asia. That's what's behind the many missile sites the US has been building in Europe, not the stated fear of Iran. Bolivia has South America's largest hydrocarbon deposits after Venezuela. "The notion that we ought to now go to Baghdad and somehow take control of the country strikes me as an extremely serious one, in terms of what we'd have to do when we got there. You'd probably have to put some new government in place. It's not clear what kind of government that would be, how long you'd have to stay. For the U.S. to get involved militarily in determining the outcome of the struggle over who's going to govern in Iraq strikes me as the classic definition of a quagmire." – Dick Cheney, when he was Secretary of Defense in 1991. When the plans for a new office building for the U.S. military were brought before the Senate on Aug. 14, 1941, Sen. Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan was puzzled. "Unless the war is to be permanent, why must we have permanent accommodations for war facilities of such size?" he asked. "Or is the war to be permanent?" (Steve Vogel, "The Pentagon: A History" (2007) p.84) The combination of free trade and heavy US subsidies to American businesses has crippled the Mexican agricultural sector, causing impoverished former subsistence farmers to immigrate to the US by any means necessary. Conservative policies of supporting free trade while restricting immigration are inherently incompatible. The head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, the first US occupation administration of Iraq in 2003, Paul Bremer, made free enterprise a guiding rule, shutting down 192 state-owned businesses where the World Bank estimated 500,000 people were working. (UPI, July 25, 2007) If an individual were behaving as Israel does as a country, that person would be removed to an institution for the criminally insane and subjected to intense drug therapy and a lobotomy. The person might find the guy next door to be named America. The United States threatens other states sufficient to cause those states to engage in defensive responses in order to exploit these to justify increasing "defense" expenditures. Bush, Obama and Western Europe have used criticism of Russian President Vladimir Putin's authoritarianism as a way of showing their publics how they allegedly stand up for democracy. US right-wingers have a desire to replace our constitutional form of government with an authoritarian theocracy, and to (militarily) spread that theocratic construct around the world. (Ironically, the exact same objective fundamentalist Muslims have!) — Kerry Thomasi, Online Journal "Behind the 'unexamined nostalgia for the "Golden Days" of American intelligence' lay a much more devastating truth: the same people who read Dante and went to Yale and were educated in civic virtue recruited Nazis, manipulated the outcome of democratic elections, gave LSD to unwitting subjects, opened the mail of thousands of American citizens, overthrew governments, supported dictatorships, plotted assassinations, and engineered the Bay of Pigs disaster. 'In the name of what?' asked one critic. 'Not civic virtue, but empire'." — Frances Stonor Saunders, The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters (1999) ... a more just world, a deeper democracy and a liveable planet ... "Colin Powell's presentation at the UN, February 5, 2003 seems like something out of Monty Python, with one key British report cited by Powell being nothing more than a student's thesis, downloaded from the Web — with the student later threatening to charge U.S. officials with plagiarism." — Bill Moyers "Venezuela's well-off complain endlessly that their economic power has been diminished; it hasn't; economic growth has never been higher, business has never been better. What the rich no longer own is the government." – John Pilger Notes Full list of US bombings since World War 2 ↩ Martin Kelly, publisher of a nonviolence website ↩ Prensa Latina (Cuba), March 12, 2011 ↩ The Militant (US, Socialist Workers Party), April 4, 2011↩ Bloomberg news agency, September 19, 2007 ↩ Huffington Post, December 18, 2010 ↩ Wall Street Journal, "Cuban Doctors Come In From the Cold" (video), January 14 2011 ↩ – William Blum is the author of: Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2 Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire Portions of the books can be read, and signed copies purchased, at www.killinghope.org William Blum is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by William Blum ###################################OOOOOOOO##############################################++++ PART TWO ###################################OOOOOOOO##############################################++++ The Lies behind the West's War on Libya Are Those Who Want to Export Democracy Themselves Democrats? by Jean-Paul Pougala Africans should think about the real reasons why western countries are waging war on Libya, writes Jean-Paul Pougala, in an analysis that traces the country’s role in shaping the African Union and the development of the continent. It was Gaddafi’s Libya that offered all of Africa its first revolution in modern times – connecting the entire continent by telephone, television, radio broadcasting and several other technological applications such as telemedicine and distance teaching. And thanks to the WMAX radio bridge, a low cost connection was made available across the continent, including in rural areas. It began in 1992, when 45 African nations established RASCOM (Regional African Satellite Communication Organization) so that Africa would have its own satellite and slash communication costs in the continent. This was a time when phone calls to and from Africa were the most expensive in the world because of the annual US$500 million fee pocketed by Europe for the use of its satellites like Intelsat for phone conversations, including those within the same country. An African satellite only cost a onetime payment of US$400 million and the continent no longer had to pay a US$500 million annual lease. Which banker wouldn’t finance such a project? But the problem remained – how can slaves, seeking to free themselves from their master’s exploitation ask the master’s help to achieve that freedom? Not surprisingly, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the USA, Europe only made vague promises for 14 years. Gaddafi put an end to these futile pleas to the western ‘benefactors’ with their exorbitant interest rates. The Libyan guide put US$300 million on the table; the African Development Bank added US$50 million more and the West African Development Bank a further US$27 million – and that’s how Africa got its first communications satellite on 26 December 2007. China and Russia followed suit and shared their technology and helped launch satellites for South Africa, Nigeria, Angola, Algeria and a second African satellite was launched in July 2010. The first totally indigenously built satellite and manufactured on African soil, in Algeria, is set for 2020. This satellite is aimed at competing with the best in the world, but at ten times less the cost, a real challenge. This is how a symbolic gesture of a mere US$300 million changed the life of an entire continent. Gaddafi’s Libya cost the West, not just depriving it of US$500 million per year but the billions of dollars in debt and interest that the initial loan would generate for years to come and in an exponential manner, thereby helping maintain an occult system in order to plunder the continent. AFRICAN MONETARY FUND, AFRICAN CENTRAL BANK, AFRICAN INVESTMENT BANK The US$30 billion frozen by Mr Obama belong to the Libyan Central Bank and had been earmarked as the Libyan contribution to three key projects which would add the finishing touches to the African federation – the African Investment Bank in Syrte, Libya, the establishment in 2011 of the African Monetary Fund to be based in Yaounde with a US$42 billion capital fund and the Abuja-based African Central Bank in Nigeria which when it starts printing African money will ring the death knell for the CFA franc through which Paris has been able to maintain its hold on some African countries for the last fifty years. It is easy to understand the French wrath against Gaddafi. The African Monetary Fund is expected to totally supplant the African activities of the International Monetary Fund which, with only US$25 billion, was able to bring an entire continent to its knees and make it swallow questionable privatisation like forcing African countries to move from public to private monopolies. No surprise then that on 16-17December 2010, the Africans unanimously rejected attempts by Western countries to join the African Monetary Fund, saying it was open only to African nations. It is increasingly obvious that after Libya, the western coalition will go after Algeria, because apart from its huge energy resources, the country has cash reserves of around €150 billion. This is what lures the countries that are bombing Libya and they all have one thing in common – they are practically bankrupt. The USA alone, has a staggering debt of $US14,000 billion, France, Great Britain and Italy each have a US$2,000 billion public deficit compared to less than US$400 billion in public debt for 46 African countries combined. Inciting spurious wars in Africa in the hope that this will revitalise their economies which are sinking ever more into the doldrums will ultimately hasten the western decline which actually began in 1884 during the notorious Berlin Conference. As the American economist Adam Smith predicted in 1865 when he publicly backed Abraham Lincoln for the abolition of slavery, ‘the economy of any country which relies on the slavery of blacks is destined to descend into hell the day those countries awaken’. REGIONAL UNITY AS AN OBSTABLE TO THE CREATION OF A UNITED STATES OF AFRICA To destabilise and destroy the African union which was veering dangerously (for the West) towards a United States of Africa under the guiding hand of Gaddafi, the European Union first tried, unsuccessfully, to create the Union for the Mediterranean (UPM). North Africa somehow had to be cut off from the rest of Africa, using the old tired racist clichés of the 18th and 19th centuries ,which claimed that Africans of Arab origin were more evolved and civilised than the rest of the continent. This failed because Gaddafi refused to buy into it. He soon understood what game was being played when only a handful of African countries were invited to join the Mediterranean grouping without informing the African Union but inviting all 27 members of the European Union. Without the driving force behind the African Federation, the UPM failed even before it began, still-born with Sarkozy as president and Mubarak as vice president. The French foreign minister, Alain Juppe is now attempting to re-launch the idea, banking no doubt on the fall of Gaddafi. What African leaders fail to understand is that as long as the European Union continues to finance the African Union, the status quo will remain, because no real independence. This is why the European Union has encouraged and financed regional groupings in Africa. It is obvious that the West African Economic Community (ECOWAS), which has an embassy in Brussels and depends for the bulk of its funding on the European Union, is a vociferous opponent to the African federation. That’s why Lincoln fought in the US war of secession because the moment a group of countries come together in a regional political organisation, it weakens the main group. That is what Europe wanted and the Africans have never understood the game plan, creating a plethora of regional groupings, COMESA, UDEAC, SADC, and the Great Maghreb which never saw the light of day thanks to Gaddafi who understood what was happening. GADDAFI, THE AFRICAN WHO CLEANSED THE CONTINENT FROM THE HUMILIATION OF APARTHEID For most Africans, Gaddafi is a generous man, a humanist, known for his unselfish support for the struggle against the racist regime in South Africa. If he had been an egotist, he wouldn’t have risked the wrath of the West to help the ANC both militarily and financially in the fight against apartheid. This was why Mandela, soon after his release from 27 years in jail, decided to break the UN embargo and travel to Libya on 23 October 1997. For five long years, no plane could touch down in Libya because of the embargo. One needed to take a plane to the Tunisian city of Jerba and continue by road for five hours to reach Ben Gardane, cross the border and continue on a desert road for three hours before reaching Tripoli. The other solution was to go through Malta, and take a night ferry on ill-maintained boats to the Libyan coast. A hellish journey for a whole people, simply to punish one man. Mandela didn’t mince his words when the former US president Bill Clinton said the visit was an ‘unwelcome’ one – ‘No country can claim to be the policeman of the world and no state can dictate to another what it should do’. He added – ‘Those that yesterday were friends of our enemies have the gall today to tell me not to visit my brother Gaddafi, they are advising us to be ungrateful and forget our friends of the past.’ Indeed, the West still considered the South African racists to be their brothers who needed to be protected. That’s why the members of the ANC, including Nelson Mandela, were considered to be dangerous terrorists. It was only on 2 July 2008, that the US Congress finally voted a law to remove the name of Nelson Mandela and his ANC comrades from their black list, not because they realised how stupid that list was but because they wanted to mark Mandela’s 90th birthday. If the West was truly sorry for its past support for Mandela’s enemies and really sincere when they name streets and places after him, how can they continue to wage war against someone who helped Mandela and his people to be victorious, Gaddafi? ARE THOSE WHO WANT TO EXPORT DEMOCRACY THEMSELVES DEMOCRATS? And what if Gaddafi’s Libya were more democratic than the USA, France, Britain and other countries waging war to export democracy to Libya? On 19 March 2003, President George Bush began bombing Iraq under the pretext of bringing democracy. On 19 March 2011, exactly eight years later to the day, it was the French president’s turn to rain down bombs over Libya, once again claiming it was to bring democracy. Nobel peace prize-winner and US President Obama says unleashing cruise missiles from submarines is to oust the dictator and introduce democracy. The question that anyone with even minimum intelligence cannot help asking is the following: Are countries like France, England, the USA, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Poland who defend their right to bomb Libya on the strength of their self proclaimed democratic status really democratic? If yes, are they more democratic than Gaddafi’s Libya? The answer in fact is a resounding NO, for the plain and simple reason that democracy doesn’t exist. This isn’t a personal opinion, but a quote from someone whose native town Geneva, hosts the bulk of UN institutions. The quote is from Jean Jacques Rousseau, born in Geneva in 1712 and who writes in chapter four of the third book of the famous ‘Social Contract’ that ‘there never was a true democracy and there never will be.’ Rousseau sets out the following four conditions for a country to be labelled a democracy and according to these Gaddafi’s Libya is far more democratic than the USA, France and the others claiming to export democracy: 1. The State: The bigger a country, the less democratic it can be. According to Rousseau, the state has to be extremely small so that people can come together and know each other. Before asking people to vote, one must ensure that everybody knows everyone else, otherwise voting will be an act without any democratic basis, a simulacrum of democracy to elect a dictator. The Libyan state is based on a system of tribal allegiances, which by definition group people together in small entities. The democratic spirit is much more present in a tribe, a village than in a big country, simply because people know each other, share a common life rhythm which involves a kind of self-regulation or even self-censorship in that the reactions and counter reactions of other members impacts on the group. From this perspective, it would appear that Libya fits Rousseau’s conditions better than the USA, France and Great Britain, all highly urbanised societies where most neighbours don’t even say hello to each other and therefore don’t know each other even if they have lived side by side for twenty years. These countries leapfrogged leaped into the next stage – ‘the vote’ – which has been cleverly sanctified to obfuscate the fact that voting on the future of the country is useless if the voter doesn’t know the other citizens. This has been pushed to ridiculous limits with voting rights being given to people living abroad. Communicating with and amongst each other is a precondition for any democratic debate before an election. 2. Simplicity in customs and behavioural patterns are also essential if one is to avoid spending the bulk of the time debating legal and judicial procedures in order to deal with the multitude of conflicts of interest inevitable in a large and complex society. Western countries define themselves as civilised nations with a more complex social structure whereas Libya is described as a primitive country with a simple set of customs. This aspect too indicates that Libya responds better to Rousseau’s democratic criteria than all those trying to give lessons in democracy. Conflicts in complex societies are most often won by those with more power, which is why the rich manage to avoid prison because they can afford to hire top lawyers and instead arrange for state repression to be directed against someone one who stole a banana in a supermarket rather than a financial criminal who ruined a bank. In the city of New York for example where 75 per cent of the population is white, 80 per cent of management posts are occupied by whites who make up only 20 per cent of incarcerated people. 3. Equality in status and wealth: A look at the Forbes 2010 list shows who the richest people in each of the countries currently bombing Libya are and the difference between them and those who earn the lowest salaries in those nations; a similar exercise on Libya will reveal that in terms of wealth distribution, Libya has much more to teach than those fighting it now, and not the contrary. So here too, using Rousseau’s criteria, Libya is more democratic than the nations pompously pretending to bring democracy. In the USA, 5 per cent of the population owns 60 per cent of the national wealth, making it the most unequal and unbalanced society in the world. 4. No luxuries: according to Rousseau there can’t be any luxury if there is to be democracy. Luxury, he says, makes wealth a necessity which then becomes a virtue in itself, it, and not the welfare of the people becomes the goal to be reached at all cost, ‘Luxury corrupts both the rich and the poor, the one through possession and the other through envy; it makes the nation soft and prey to vanity; it distances people from the State and enslaves them, making them a slave to opinion.’ Is there more luxury in France than in Libya? The reports on employees committing suicide because of stressful working conditions even in public or semi-public companies, all in the name of maximising profit for a minority and keeping them in luxury, happen in the West, not in Libya. The American sociologist C. Wright Mills wrote in 1956 that American democracy was a ‘dictatorship of the elite’. According to Mills, the USA is not a democracy because it is money that talks during elections and not the people. The results of each election are the expression of the voice of money and not the voice of the people. After Bush senior and Bush junior, they are already talking about a younger Bush for the 2012 Republican primaries. Moreover, as Max Weber pointed out, since political power is dependent on the bureaucracy, the US has 43 million bureaucrats and military personnel who effectively rule the country but without being elected and are not accountable to the people for their actions. One person (a rich one) is elected, but the real power lies with the caste of the wealthy who then get nominated to be ambassadors, generals, etc. How many people in these self-proclaimed democracies know that Peru’s constitution prohibits an outgoing president from seeking a second consecutive mandate? How many know that in Guatemala, not only can an outgoing president not seek re-election to the same post, no one from that person’s family can aspire to the top job either? Or that Rwanda is the only country in the world that has 56 per cent female parliamentarians? How many people know that in the 2007 CIA index, four of the world’s best-governed countries are African? That the top prize goes to Equatorial Guinea whose public debt represents only 1.14 per cent of GDP? Rousseau maintains that civil wars, revolts and rebellions are the ingredients of the beginning of democracy. Because democracy is not an end, but a permanent process of the reaffirmation of the natural rights of human beings which in countries all over the world (without exception) are trampled upon by a handful of men and women who have hijacked the power of the people to perpetuate their supremacy. There are here and there groups of people who have usurped the term ‘democracy’ – instead of it being an ideal towards which one strives it has become a label to be appropriated or a slogan which is used by people who can shout louder than others. If a country is calm, like France or the USA, that is to say without any rebellions, it only means, from Rousseau’s perspective, that the dictatorial system is sufficiently repressive to pre-empt any revolt. It wouldn’t be a bad thing if the Libyans revolted. What is bad is to affirm that people stoically accept a system that represses them all over the world without reacting. And Rousseau concludes: ‘Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium – translation – If gods were people, they would govern themselves democratically. Such a perfect government is not applicable to human beings.’ To claim that one is killing Libyans for their own good is a hoax. WHAT LESSONS FOR AFRICA? After 500 years of a profoundly unequal relationship with the West, it is clear that we don’t have the same criteria of what is good and bad. We have deeply divergent interests. How can one not deplore the ‘yes’ votes from three sub-Saharan countries (Nigeria, South Africa and Gabon) for resolution 1973 that inaugurated the latest form of colonisation baptised ‘the protection of peoples’, which legitimises the racist theories that have informed Europeans since the 18th century and according to which North Africa has nothing to do with sub-Saharan Africa, that North Africa is more evolved, cultivated and civilised than the rest of Africa? It is as if Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Algeria were not part of Africa, Even the United Nations seems to ignore the role of the African Union in the affairs of member states. The aim is to isolate sub Saharan African countries to better isolate and control them. Indeed, Algeria (US$16 billion) and Libya (US$10 billion ) together contribute 62 per cent of the US$42 billion which constitute the capital of the African Monetary Fund (AMF). The biggest and most populous country in sub Saharan Africa, Nigeria, followed by South Africa are far behind with only 3 billion dollars each. It is disconcerting to say the least that for the first time in the history of the United Nations, war has been declared against a people without having explored the slightest possibility of a peaceful solution to the crisis. Does Africa really belong anymore to this organisation? Nigeria and South Africa are prepared to vote ‘Yes’ to everything the West asks because they naively believe the vague promises of a permanent seat at the Security Council with similar veto rights. They both forget that France has no power to offer anything. If it did, Mitterand would have long done the needful for Helmut Kohl’s Germany. A reform of the United Nations is not on the agenda. The only way to make a point is to use the Chinese method – all 50 African nations should quit the United Nations and only return if their longstanding demand is finally met, a seat for the entire African federation or nothing. This non-violent method is the only weapon of justice available to the poor and weak that we are. We should simply quit the United Nations because this organisation, by its very structure and hierarchy, is at the service of the most powerful. We should leave the United Nations to register our rejection of a worldview based on the annihilation of those who are weaker. They are free to continue as before but at least we will not be party to it and say we agree when we were never asked for our opinion. And even when we expressed our point of view, like we did on Saturday 19 March in Nouakchott, when we opposed the military action, our opinion was simply ignored and the bombs started falling on the African people. Today’s events are reminiscent of what happened with China in the past. Today, one recognises the Ouattara government, the rebel government in Libya, like one did at the end of the Second World War with China. The so-called international community chose Taiwan to be the sole representative of the Chinese people instead of Mao’s China. It took 26 years when on 25 October 1971, for the UN to pass resolution 2758 which all Africans should read to put an end to human folly. China was admitted and on its terms – it refused to be a member if it didn’t have a veto right. When the demand was met and the resolution tabled, it still took a year for the Chinese foreign minister to respond in writing to the UN Secretary General on 29 September 1972, a letter which didn’t say yes or thank you but spelt out guarantees required for China’s dignity to be respected. What does Africa hope to achieve from the United Nations without playing hard ball? We saw how in Cote d’Ivoire a UN bureaucrat considers himself to be above the constitution of the country. We entered this organisation by agreeing to be slaves and to believe that we will be invited to dine at the same table and eat from plates we ourselves washed is not just credulous, it is stupid. When the African Union endorsed Ouattara’s victory and glossed over contrary reports from its own electoral observers simply to please our former masters, how can we expect to be respected? When South African president Zuma declares that Ouattara hasn’t won the elections and then says the exact opposite during a trip to Paris, one is entitled to question the credibility of these leaders who claim to represent and speak on behalf of a billion Africans. Africa’s strength and real freedom will only come if it can take properly thought out actions and assume the consequences. Dignity and respect come with a price tag. Are we prepared to pay it? Otherwise, our place is in the kitchen and in the toilets in order to make others comfortable. This article was first published by Pambazuka News Jean-Paul Pougala is a Cameroonian writer. Translated from the French by Sputnik Kilambi. Please send comments to editor@pambazuka.org or comment online at Pambazuka News. Global Research Articles by Jean-Paul Pougala ################################################ PART THREE (not all pro Gadaffi) http://moreleftthanthou.wordpress.com/2011/06/11/on-the-libyan-conflict/ Info below from this link #####################OOOOOOOO##################++++ Today’s Propaganda Early on during the Libyan rebel uprising there were reports that the Libyan government had carried out air attacks against civilians. Russian satellites monitoring the area did not detect any air attacks, but this fact failed to gain the attention of the media. After reports of mass civilian deaths and the undeclared war against Qadaffi began, President Obama stated that if the US/NATO hadn’t stepped in there would have been a genocide. The need for this narrative is obvious since NATO can only legally intervene in a country to prevent a genocide (link). A look at a time line of events in Libya show the protests here are of a distinct character from those that took place in Egypt and Tunisia. Despite the obvious differences, all three are continuously lumped together in order to give the impression that all of these protests are of a similar nature and as a way of distancing the US from its former strong allies: Egypt’s Mubarak and Tunisia’s Ben Ali. Despite the professed similarities, the distortion starts with the US response to each uprising. While the “worthy” Libyan victims need to be saved through military intervention, the 846 “unworthy” Egyptians apparently didn’t need America’s help. There have also been reports of mercenaries in Libya, although the finding by Human Rights Watch that didn’t find any, or at least not their widespread use of mercenaries went extremely under reported. Also not mentioned in the news are the members of the three black tribes in Libya that support Qadaffi. There have been many reports of racist beheading, lynchings, and rape of black African migrant workers and soldiers that are suspected of being mercenaries (Link 1, 2, 3). While the often dubious reports of mercenaries being present are widely circulated, the human rights violations by the rebel forces are hardly mentioned. The purpose of the misinformation about mercenaries is to portray Qadaffi as a marginalized, mad-dog dictator waging war on his entire county and needing an external military to maintain control. The overwhelming lack of information about atrocities committed by the Libyan rebels is meant to cast the rebels as martyrs of freedom and democracy, worthy of US/NATO support. If the media presented an honest, objective view of the conflict the drum beat to war would be muted. Would the US/NATO citizens be so wholeheartedly supportive of an intervention in a civil war in which the waring factions compete militarily for control of the country? Maybe, but there’s a hell of a lot of questions they’d need answered first. One of the latest pieces of propaganda to come out of Libya is that a child shown to be injured by a NATO air strikes was actually injured in a car crash. This information is based off an anonymous note given to an anonymous foreign journalist and not independently verified. It could very well be true that this child is being used as a propaganda tool by Qadaffi, but the sloppy journalism points to the propaganda model. The question not being asked by the media is,“why intervene in Libya and not elsewhere?” Oil: The Lubricant of War As with most things in the this region, oil is king. Leaked cables and a very public and tenuous relationship with the west give a rare, candid look into some of the possible financial incentives for war. At the heart of Libyan oil is the National Oil Corporation. They control most of the oil reserves, although there are many International Oil Companies (IOC) that do business in Libya. Eni (30% owned by the Italian government) , is the largest IOC in Libya. Under Qadaffi’s Libya, France was a much smaller player and was mostly confined to the smaller Western oil fields. This is subject to change as the National Transition Council (NTC) redraws contracts. Gazprom (Russian owned) has been increasing their involvement in Libya over the past few years. It’s not coincidental that Russia and Italy where against the bombing of Libya while France and the US fully supported it. As always, those who would gain from destabilization support wars. At the heart the oil grab is the increased Russian involvement over the past few years. Gazprom has used it’s strangle hold on European natural gas and oil supply/movement to punish Belarus, Georgia, and other European countries. In 2008 Gazprom offered to buy all excess natural gas, invest in oil production, and build a pipeline from North Africa to Europe (link). In order to make this possible there had to be a deal between Eni and Gazprom. The US feared that this would further strengthen Russia’s strategic control over Europe’s natural gas supply and movement (link). The need to break the Russian monopoly of the European market is one many reasons for regime change. In January of 2009 Qadaffi announced that he was looking into nationalizing all the oil fields in Libya. He said that “Oil should be owned by the State at this time, so we could better control prices by the increase or decrease in production”. One month latter he announced his plan to directly distribute all oil revenue to the people of Libya while weeding out corruption. Prime Minister Al-Baghdadi, Ali Al-Mahmoudi and Farhat Omar Bin Guida, of the Central Bank where very critical of this move citing fears of “capital flight” (link). In retrospect, much of the corruption of the government would not have been possible with such a transparent distribution of the countries wealth. Many of the high ranking officials that had siphoned off the profits for their own benefit would no longer be able to do so. This is one of the major reasons there was such large scale flight from the government in the early days of the upheaval. When the measure went to a vote in the General Peoples Committee (Libya is run very similar to Cuba) 64 ministers voted for it and 251 voted to delay its implementation out of 468 members. The measure failed and has not been brought up again. A Wikileaks cable from 2007 describes Libya as an “exceptionally difficult place to do business” and that “Libya features some of the smallest profit margins in the world for IOCs”. One unnamed IOC is said to make the same profit from a neighboring country (most likely Tunisia) that is at ¼ their production in Libya. Another IOC claimed to have had profit sharing at 6.8%, something unheard of in oil production. The cable also mentions IOC’s frustration with laws passed by the “particularly powerful General People’s Committee” that have required a 2% “Stamp Tax” as well as requiring that one Libyan be added to the payroll for every foreign worker (meant to address the countries 20% unemployment rate). The cable also mentions that the IOC officials “consistently hear expressions of disappointment from senior GOL [Government of Libya] officials that more U.S. firms have not rushed to enter Libya’s market…”. The NTC has been shipping oil to Qatar, a major participatory of bombing raids, since March and on June 8th the first shipments of Libyan oil reached US refineries. In order to accomplish the sell of oil to US refineries, the Office of Foreign Assets Control at the Treasury Department needed to write new policies, which it did in April. Despite the deal for 1.2 million barrels of crude oil the US has yet to recognised the NTC. The wikileaks cables and the attempt to nationalize all profits highlight the balancing the act between attracting foreign capital and guaranteeing control of the countries resources so Libyan people can maintain their high living standards. As iconic as Qadaffi is he is still not as powerful as the “particularly powerful General People’s Committee”. Nonetheless, having a man to direct propaganda against is the metronome of the drum beat to war. The Man America Loves to Hate Qadaffi’s been alleged to have supported (or is still supporting) the FARC (with questionable evidence), the IRA, Basque and Corsican separatist, anti-apartheid groups in South Africa, the Japanese Red Army, the Italian Red Brigades, the Germany’s Baader-Meinhof, the PFLP, various leftist Latin American groups, and essentially anyone else against the U.S’ interest (link). He was also implemented in the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II who we now know was solely perpetrated by Mehmet Ali Ağca, an ultra right-winger from Turkey. He also allegedly helped out El Rukin, a Muslim “gang”, reported to have received weapons, training and orders from Libya. When members of El Rukin went to trial the courts ruled that there was no evidence of Libyan involvement, but this was widely under reported. Essentially anything that the US government is against, it is reported that Qadaffi is for. Some of the times, like in the case of the PFLP, Basque separatist, and anti-Apartheid groups, it’s true. Often though his support is fabricated beyond the point of recognition to make a cause for to militarily/economically intervene. The problem the West has with Qadaffi is not that he supported “terrorist” but that he supported the wrong side. If he had supported the Contras in Nicaragua, Muerte a Secuestradores in Colombia, or the colonialist government in South Africa he would have been seen as a partner. But to support organizations like this would be against the principles Libya was founded on. Libya has an office called “Maktab Tafsir al-Thawra” with the rough translation being “the Bureau to Export the Revolution”. This is a tenet of Libyan socialism found in he Green Book, something everyone should read if they truly want to understand this situation. Despite the condemnations, sanctions, and attacks from the US because on Libyan support for “terrorism” the US government did (and still does) support terrorism for their own benefit. The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (often grouped with al-Qaeda) was funded by Britain and the US in their assassination attempt of Qadaffi in the 1996. I’m sure they regret it as the LISG is the largest contributor to suicide bombers in Iraq according the a 2007 West Point Study (pdf). They are also big players in the current civil war and a few members sitting on the interim council. The Tribal Factor Libya has over 140 tribes (over 1000 if you include subgroups) but only 30 are really large enough to be important. The vast majority of the population live around the coastal areas in Tripolitania and Cyrenaica but the majority of the oil reserves are in the less inhabited regions of Cyrenaica and Fezzan. The tribes of Tripolitania (West) and Cyrenaica (East) can trace their division to 11th century when the Banu Hilal (Tripolitania) and Banu Salim (Cyrenaica ) Arabs settled in these different regions. One of the most important tribes in Libya is the Gadhafis which Qadaffi is a member of. They are made up of 6 sub-tribes and are heavily concentrated in Eastern Libya but also make up a sizable minority in Benghazi. This tribe is not historically significant as they’re relatively small but, do to political maneuvering since the 1969 coup, many Gadhafis are in prominent positions within the armed forces and government. In order to maintain control of the country Qadaffi formed a long lasting alliance through the Gadhafis with the Warfallah and Magariha tribes, both of which are from Western Libya. With over 1 million people, the Warfallah tribe is the largest tribe within Libya. They make up a sizable minority in Benghazi, the majority in Tripoli and are mainly centered in Wadi Warfallah and Bani Walid. Warfallah was a strong ally of the Libyan government but members from the tribe sponsored a failed coup attempt in 1993 that helped lead to the 1997 “Charter of Honor” collective punishment law in which whole tribes can (and are) punished for actions of individuals. The May 29 meeting of 100+ Warfallah leaders (from all 6 sub-tribes) highlights how split the tribe is. Many of the delegates, like their strongest leader Mansour Khalaf, are taking soft pro Qadaffi stances. Some Warfallah leaders want Qadaffi to step down but also reject the NTC based out of Benghazi. There is a loud (in the amount of press they get) sector of the Warfallah tribe that are hard-lined anti-Gadhafi and pro NTC. Mahmoud Jibril is from the Warfallah tribe and is currently leading the executive team of the NTC. He was appointed by Qadaffi in 2007 to head up the National Economic Development Board and is behind for much of the countries privatization and neo-liberalization policies. Although the Warfallah tribe denounced Gadafi in February their support is split between the sub-tribes and even within the sub-tribes. The Magariha tribe is largest tribe in Fezzan and second largest in Libyia. Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi (AKA the Lockerbie bomber) is a prominent member of this tribe and Qadaffi has further secured their loyalty by orchestrating his release. In February it was reported that they supported the rebels but it is clear that not all tribal members do so as no high ranking Magariha officers have defected. The Tarhuna Tribe (1/3 of Tripoli’s population) and the Zentan Tribe are from West Libya and are highly integrated into the military. Many civilians of this tribe where given weapons and training to aid in the resistance to an anticipated NATO ground invasion. The Zuwaya tribe in Cyrenaica are not very large but geographically the most important. They sit on most of the large areas of oil production (Sarir, Messla and Aquila oil fields). They have sided with the rebels early in the uprising in threatening to shut off oil supply. The Libyan government gave them arms during the war with Chad over the Ouzou Strip in the 1980s (wikileaks cable). These are not very high tech or serious weapons but they have used them on the Toubou tribe whose territory they’ve been encroaching on (and stole from in the 1800’s). The Toubou tribe (one of three black-Libyan tribes) has surprisingly joined Qadaffi loyalist forces. Although not large, many of them work on date farms and in the oil fields on lands they’ve been pushed out of. Bashir Salah Bashir is a Toubou that is in charge of Africa investment within the Qadaffi led government. Many Toubou have joined in the fighting and are being called “mercenaries” while many others have fled to Chad (the tribe overlaps with the boarder) and their return is uncertain under the new, stronger Zuwaya control. Although there is a history of grievances against the government of Qadaffi there is greater danger to them if the Toubou tribe gains more power. The Tuareg tribe (another black-Libyan tribe) are nomadic and do not recognise national boarders. Qadaffi has helped fund their attempts to gain independence and/or political power in other North African countries. Although their culture has been horribly suppressed within Libya by Qadaffi his son has aided them over the past few years. Some, citing repression from Qadaffi, have chosen to fight with the rebels while others believing in a reformed Libyan have chosen to fight with the government. Many of the Tuareg that are pro, anti, or neutral are being accused of being mercenaries. There are reports that some Tuareg tribesmen are being recruited from outside Libya but their nomadic nature makes it imposable to say how many are native and how many are truly foreign. Cyrenaica has been historically united (under Italian resistance and the following Monarchy of King Idris I) by the Harabi umbrella tribe with the most important member being the Obeidat tribe. The Obeidat Tribe is made up of 15 sub-tribes and gained influence after the failed 1993 coup in order to balance the power from the Warfallah tribe and others in the West. Because of this they gained some military personal and two high ranking defectors: Justice Minister Mustafa Mohamed Aboud Al Jeleil and the Interior Minister General Abdul Fatah Younis. When Qadaffi took power he waned the power of the Harabi tribes in favor of the 3 large Western tribes mentioned above. What united Cyrenaica (aside from geographic location and isolation due to a desert) is Senussi Islam. About ⅓ of the population follow Senussi and are almost exclusively in Eastern Libya. Qadaffi has said that “no caliphate is necessary in order to discover the meaning of the Koran” and has advocated against Senussi teachings. During this uprising there has been a resurgence in various far-right Islamic tendencies (Wahhabi, Senussi, LIFG, ect) in the East with some hoping to use the Saudi Arabia model of Islamic governance. The political marginalization of the East combined with the repression of far-right religious fervor has had the effect of weakening the regions power but also in unifying it. A true gauge of tribal loyalty is next to impossible under the constant constraint of the propaganda model. During the July National Conference for Libyan Tribes meeting of 2,000 tribal leaders representing 850 tribes (and sub-tribes) a near unanimous call for the stopping of NATO bombing raids and a disarming of the rebels (link). It is unclear how representative the conference was of all Libyan tribes (especially those in the East) or how much authority they carry over their own tribe. As the propaganda model predicts, this meeting received little coverage but the April announcement of 61 tribal leaders calling for Quadfi removal received widespread coverage. This tribal breakdown is dynamic and faulty at best. It’s useful in understanding how tribal allegiances can influence regional support but in the age of mass urbanization these allegiances hold less water. Many tribesmen are joining Qadaffi despite their leaders positions (with the same being true for the reverse) and about 15% of Libyans have no tribal allegiance. The tribal factor is undoubtedly one of the most important factors buy it is not the only one. The ability for Eastern Libya to unite under one ideology (conservative Islam, restoration of a monarchy, etc.), their control of the vast majority of the countries resources, and their ability to capitalize on various disaffected minorities within Libya alone cannot win this civil war alone. Support from NATO and it’s counterpart the Gulf Cooperation Council is needed if the NTC wishes take over Western Libya. Who to Support The ideal of a unified Libya seems out of the question for all but the current Qadaffi led government. Due to the tribal nature of Libya there is a real possibility is of the country being broken up into East and West. This would be desirable for the US/NATO military machine as they would find a new excuse to create bases along the boarder to protect the sovereignty of Cyrenaica. There has already been talks of putting in an Israeli base on the Algerian boarder. This is shocking as the current Qadaffi led government has refused to even recognize Israel as a state. The only reason I can see for the rebels pandering so heavily to imperialist interests is to procure weapons and to ensure that NATO continues to act as its air force. As this conflict continues to play out let us not forget that the dichotomization of opinions is the desired product of the propaganda model. We are to be either fully for Qadaffi or for the rebel led NTC, with any honest discussion being seen as reactionary. One side is always entirely evil while the other is a victim of its circumstances. In order to pick sides in this civil war a clearer understanding is needed. Let us not project our ideals onto either side of this conflict. The rebels are not fighting against neoliberalism as was widely discussed on the left early in the uprising. Let us stay away from immaterial options such as the a phantasmal pro-socialist rebels. An honest look through the haze of propaganda reveals the grimy truth: this is a civil war based partly on tribal allegiances where one side, the East lead by the National Transition Council, is placating to the US/NATO in order to gain control over the West, lead by an aging champion of what the US considers far-left terrorism.

#####################################################oooo= Colby uses Lance.LANCE IS ON YOUR (Colby team) TEAM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes,Lance can get things right+ but ye old stopped clock correct two times day. LANCE WRONG ,Ali Mohamed double ,triple,quadruple,quintuple agent ...didnt you read first post is this thread ???? .....ZAWAHIRI Anglo/American spook....if so,everything you have said about 911 is 100% pure bunk. (see very bottom of post for further insight into mythbuster 911 man Colby) #################################+ooo+#########################= COLBY ABOUT WHO GAVE Bin Laden Family diplomatic passports....."the SAUDI goverment". Prince Turki al-Faisal, the head of the Saudi intelligence agency, resigned Aug.31,2001. He said then ,"I have been a friend of GHWB for 30 years." GEE ,QUI BONO Bush family re 911 ? ITS CALLED THE SECRET TEAM. ---------------ooo------------------------------ In the late 1930s GHWB father Prescott Bush travelled with Allen Dulles to the Middle East and had meetings with the the Saudi Family...GEE maybe thats why Saudi Prince Bandar considered part of Bush famiy.........called BANDAR BUSH !!! PASSPORTS from Saudi goverment ??? LOL !!!!! Head of Saudi Intell 30 year friend of GHWB...passports !! LOL !!! QUE BONO ($$) 911 Bush family. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o ----------------------------oooo--------------------- link BANDAR and additional article on Bandar below. http://mattwelch.com/NatPostSave/bandar.htm -------------------------oo------------------------------------------------------------- IMHO Louis Freeh = Secret Team IMHO --------------------------------------------oo+-- two LA Times reporters on Bandar "Bush" ++++++++++++ --------------oooo-------------oooo----------- $2 billion from an British arms manufacturer to Saudi Arabia’s then-U.S. ambassador, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, has come under scrutiny. Louis Freeh defends Bandar on ‘Frontline.’ By Tom Hamburger and Josh Meyer April 7, 2009 Reporting from Washington — Former FBI Director Louis J. Freeh says $2 billion that flowed from a British arms manufacturer to U.S. bank accounts controlled by Prince Bandar bin Sultan, then Saudi ambassador to the U.S., was not a bribe, but was instead part of a complex barter involving the exchange of Saudi oil for British fighter jets. The transfer of funds to accounts at Riggs Bank [money-laundering, CIA/terror financing; "Albanian and Bosnian guerrillas in the Balkans...were being backed by money provided by the Bosnian Defense Fund, an entity established as a special fund at Bush-influenced Riggs Bank and directed by Richard Perle and Douglas Feith."] in Washington, D.C.], has come under scrutiny as the Justice Department continues an international corruption investigation involving British arms manufacturer BAE Systems. Freeh, who is now a lawyer and consultant for Bandar, made his comments to the Public Broadcasting Service for a “Frontline” documentary to be broadcast this evening. Bandar is now a national security advisor to the Saudi king. He has denied any wrongdoing, as have other Saudi officials. Freeh said that a 1985 treaty between Britain and Saudi Arabia allowed the trade of oil for weapons. BAE signed an $86-billion contract with the Saudis under the provisions of the treaty, and the funds that flowed between Britain and the Bandar-controlled bank accounts in the U.S. may have come from the sale of Saudi oil under the terms of the contract. As part of the deal, BAE also supplied an Airbus 340 plane, which for years has been used by Bandar. U.S. government officials said the investigation was being conducted under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which has jurisdiction over business executives making bribes but not the government officials receiving them. As a result, someone like Bandar would not be the target of the Department’s investigation, but his role helping to manage the Riggs Bank accounts has made him central to the inquiry. Bandar was among the longest-running Saudi ambassadors to the United States, serving from 1983 to 2005. In a statement issued to The Times, Freeh’s consulting firm, Freeh Group International, dismissed the bribery allegations, saying that “not only have both these reckless allegations not been proved in any court or fair factual forum, but neither has been the subject of any charge or official government accusation.” Freeh was FBI director from 1993 to 2001 and became known for his tough approach to white-collar crime and terrorism. BAE confirmed that it is the subject of ongoing investigations, saying in a statement: “BAE Systems’ view is that the interests of the company as well as of all its stakeholders, including the general public, are best served by allowing these investigations to run their course. The company is working with regulators towards that end, with a view to achieving resolution of the ongoing investigations.” The British government has halted its own corruption investigation into the BAE contract. At the time it terminated the probe, there were published allegations that the Saudis were threatening to stop cooperating on counter-terrorism matters if the investigation continued. In the statement issued Monday, Freeh’s office said that “the claim that Prince Bandar attempted to interfere” with the British investigation is “refuted by the facts.” Richard Clarke, a top counter-terrorism advisor to Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush, and others said they have concerns about Freeh’s defense of Bandar. “Someone who characterizes himself as a U.S. patriot and national security advocate ought not to be on the side of someone blackmailing people not to investigate crimes by threatening to withdraw a nation’s cooperation against terrorists,” Clarke said. In his “Frontline” interview, Freeh emphatically tells correspondent Lowell Bergman that Bandar did not accept a bribe, either in the form of $2 billion in funds flowing to Riggs Bank or in the use of the aircraft supplied by BAE. Freeh says that the Airbus — painted in the colors of Bandar’s favorite football team, the Dallas Cowboys — is in fact owned by the Saudi Air Force. If members of the Saudi royal family agree to allow Bandar to accept an airplane or anything else, “what was personal or not personal is really none of the business of the United States,” he says. Actually, that question was important to a former FBI supervisory agent who oversaw the financial investigation into the Saudi government’s accounts at Riggs. Dennis Lormel said Bandar controlled at least 20 accounts at the bank and that government and personal expenditures were intermingled. The FBI found that significant funds were used by Bandar and his family for personal travel, for his mansions and for some parties, Lormel said. “What’s personal and not personal?” Lormel asked, especially when the Saudi royal family essentially is the government. He said the FBI would ask Saudi officials, “Was this personal money? Where was the money going?” and that the Saudis’ answers were evasive. Lormel said he had the “utmost regard” for Freeh’s integrity but thought it was nonetheless a mistake for him to represent someone who reportedly helped shut down the British investigation into BAE. In the “Frontline” interview, Freeh strikes a politically controversial note by contending that the BAE deal was structured partly to avoid congressional restrictions on sale of U.S. parts to the Saudi military. “U.S. arms could be purchased through BAE in a way that did not deal with the objection of the U.S. Congress to the selling of American equipment to the Saudis,” Freeh says. He does not elaborate. BAE has sold planes with American-made components to the Saudis. U.S. law requires congressional review before such deals are completed. Congressional arms experts said that as far as they knew all such sales to the Saudis by BAE were reviewed and that they could not explain Freeh’s comment. ########################################################### ########################o#############o#################### ########################################################## >>>>>>>Why didnt we work on numerous "pre" 911 warnings ?? >>>>>>>Answer......Secret Team see below ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------oooo------------------------------ #################################################++################################################################## They Tried to Warn Us: Foreign Intelligence Warnings Before 9/11 By Paul Thompson DISCLAIMER: The analytical articles published on this website were written and published by “project managers” of certain investigative projects hosted by the History Commons website. Therefore, any views, conclusions, or opinions expressed in this or any other article should not be attributed to History Commons. For questions concerning an article, please contact the author(s) directly. New documentary, 9/11 Press for Truth, based on the Complete 911 Timeline. View Trailer | Purchase 9/11 Press for Truth DVD The Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9-11 is now finished, but the findings that have been released fail to mention any warnings from foreign governments. The US mainstream media also has paid little attention to warnings from foreign governments. Yet there were so many warnings—from both our friends and enemies alike—often specifically suggesting the targets or method of attack. In at least one case, the warnings actually mentioned hijackers by name. This type of communication between intelligence agencies normally occurs in secret, so one can only wonder what additional warnings or details were provided to us that have never been made public. No US publication has ever put all the various foreign government warnings in one place; even Internet skeptics of Bush have paid scant attention to this issue. Here, for the first time, is such a list of warnings. First, General Warnings In late 2000, British investigators teamed up with their counterparts in the Cayman Islands and began a yearlong probe of three Afghan men who had entered the Cayman Islands illegally. [Miami Herald, 9/20/01, Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01] In June 2001, the Afghan men were overheard discussing hijacking attacks in New York City, and were promptly taken into custody. This information was forwarded to US intelligence [Fox News, 5/17/02]. In late August 2001, shortly before the attacks, an anonymous letter to a Cayman radio station alleged these same men were al-Qaeda agents “organizing a major terrorist act against the US via an airline or airlines.” [Miami Herald, 9/20/01, Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01, MSNBC, 9/23/01] In late July 2001, Afghanistan’s Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil learned that Osama bin Laden was planning a “huge attack” on targets inside America. The attack was imminent, and would kill thousands, he learned from the leader of the rebel Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which was closely allied with al-Qaeda at the time. Muttawakil sent an emissary to pass this information on to the US Consul General, and another US official, “possibly from the intelligence services.” Sources confirmed that this message was received, but supposedly not taken very seriously, because of “warning fatigue” arising from too many terror warnings. [independent, 9/7/02, Reuters, 9/7/02] Also in late July 2001, the US was given a “concrete warning” from Argentina’s Jewish community. “An attack of major proportions” was planned against either the US, Argentina, or France. The information came from an unidentified intelligence agency. [Forward, 5/31/02] An undercover agent from Morocco successfully penetrated al-Qaeda. He learned that bin Laden was “very disappointed” that the 1993 bombing had not toppled the World Trade Center, and was planning “large scale operations in New York in the summer or fall of 2001.” He provided this information to the US in August 2001. [Agence France Presse, 11/22/01, International Herald Tribune, 5/21/02, London Times, 6/12/02] Hasni Mubarak, President of Egypt, maintains that in the beginning of September 2001 Egyptian intelligence warned American officials that al-Qaeda was in the advanced stages of executing a significant operation against an American target, probably within the US. [AP, 12/7/01, New York Times, 6/4/02] He learned this information from an agent working inside al-Qaeda. [ABC News, 6/4/02] Warnings the Attack Will Come from the Air Many warnings specifically mentioned a threat coming from the air. In 1999, British intelligence gave a secret report to the US embassy. The report stated that al-Qaeda had plans to use “commercial aircraft” in “unconventional ways,”“possibly as flying bombs.” [sunday Times, 6/9/02] On July 16, 2001, British intelligence passed a message to the US that al-Qaeda was in “the final stages” of preparing a terrorist attack in Western countries. [London Times, 6/14/02] In early August, the British gave another warning, telling the US to expect multiple airline hijackings from al-Qaeda. This warning was included in Bush’s briefing on August 6, 2001. [sunday Herald, 5/19/02] In June 2001, German intelligence warned the US, Britain, and Israel that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft and use them as weapons to attack “American and Israeli symbols which stand out.” Within the American intelligence community, “the warnings were taken seriously and surveillance intensified” but “there was disagreement on how such terrorist attacks could be prevented.” This warning came from Echelon, a spy satellite network that is partly based in Germany. [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 9/11/01, Washington Post, 9/14/01] In late July 2001, Egyptian intelligence received a report from an undercover agent in Afghanistan that “20 al-Qaeda members had slipped into the US and four of them had received flight training on Cessnas.” To the Egyptians, pilots of small planes didn’t sound terribly alarming, but they passed on the message to the CIA anyway, fully expecting Washington to request information. “The request never came.” [CBS, 10/9/02] Given that there were 19 hijackers and four pilots (who trained on Cessnas) in the 9/11 plot, one might think this would now be a big news item. But in fact, the information has only appeared as an aside in a CBS “60 Minutes” show about a different topic. In late summer 2001, Jordan intelligence intercepted a message stating that a major attack was being planned inside the US and that aircraft would be used. The code name of the operation was Big Wedding, which did in fact turn out to be the codename of the 9/11 plot. The message was passed to US intelligence through several channels. [international Herald Tribune, 5/21/02, Christian Science Monitor, 5/23/02] Russian President Vladimir Putin publicly stated that he ordered his intelligence agencies to alert the US in the summer of 2001 that suicide pilots were training for attacks on US targets. [Fox News, 5/17/02] The head of Russian intelligence also stated, “We had clearly warned them” on several occasions, but they “did not pay the necessary attention.” [Agence France-Presse, 9/16/01] The Russian newspaper Izvestia claimed that Russian intelligence agents knew the participants in the attacks, and: “More than that, Moscow warned Washington about preparation for these actions a couple of weeks before they happened.” [izvestia, 9/12/02] Five days before 9/11, the priest Jean-Marie Benjamin was told by a Muslim at an Italian wedding of a plot to attack the US and Britain using hijacked airplanes as weapons. He wasn’t told time or place specifics. He immediately passed what he knew on to a judge and several politicians in Italy. Presumably this Muslim confided in him because Benjamin has done considerable charity work in Muslim countries and is considered “one of the West’s most knowledgeable experts on the Muslim world.” [Zenit, 9/16/01] Benjamin has not revealed who told him this information, but it could have come from a member of the al-Qaeda cell in Milan, Italy. This cell supplied forged documents for other al-Qaeda operations, and wiretaps show members of the cell were aware of the 9/11 plot. [Los Angeles Times, 5/29/02, Guardian, 5/30/02, Boston Globe, 8/4/02] For instance, in August 2000, one terrorist in Milan was recorded saying to another: “I’m studying airplanes. I hope, God willing, that I can bring you a window or a piece of an airplane the next time we see each other.” The comment was followed by laughter [Washington Post, 5/31/02]. In another case in January 2001, a terrorist asked if certain forged documents were for “the brothers going to the United States,” and was angrily rebuked by another who told him not to talk about that “very, very secret” plan. [Los Angeles Times, 5/29/02] In March 2001, the Italian government gave the US a warning based on these wiretaps. [Fox News, 5/17/02] What Did Israel Know? But the most remarkable warnings of all come from Israel. The issue of Israeli foreknowledge of 9/11 is highly controversial. The story is too complicated to go into detail here, but a number of respected publications (for instance, Fox News, 12/12/01, Forward, 3/15/02, ABC News, 6/21/02, Salon, 5/7/02, Ha’aretz, 5/14/02, Le Monde, 3/5/02, Reuters, 3/5/02, AP, 3/5/02, AP, 3/9/02, Cox News, 3/5/02, Guardian, 3/6/02, Independent, 3/6/02, New York Post, 3/6/02, Jane’s Intelligence Digest, 3/15/02) have written about an Israeli “art student” spy ring operating in the US for several years before 9/11. The name “art student” is used because most of these scores of spies were posing as college art students. There have been suggestions that some of these Israeli spies lived close to some of the 9/11 hijackers. For instance, a US Drug Enforcement Administration report from before 9/11 noted that Israeli spies were living in the retirement community of Hollywood, Florida at 4220 Sheridan Street, which turned out to be only a few hundred feet from lead hijacker Mohamed Atta’s residence at 3389 Sheridan Street (see the DEA report, 6/01). Israeli spies appear to have been close to at least ten of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers. [salon, 5/7/02] In fact, Forward, the most widely circulated publication in the US targeting the Jewish audience, has admitted the spy ring existed, and that its purpose was to track Muslim terrorists operating in the US. [Forward, 3/15/02] Some have claimed that the existence of this spy ring shows that Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks, an argument that is beyond the scope of this essay. But if the mainstream media is to be believed, Israel gave the US several specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks. In the second week of August 2001, two high-ranking agents from the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, came to Washington and warned the CIA and FBI that 50 to 200 al-Qaeda terrorists had slipped into the US and were planning an imminent “major assault on the US” aimed at a “large scale target” [Telegraph, 9/16/01, Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01, Ottawa Citizen, 9/17/01 Fox News, 5/17/02]. Near the end of August, France also gave a warning that was an “echo” of Israel’s. [Fox News, 5/17/02] In October 2002, the story broke in Europe and Israel that on August 23, 2001, the Mossad had given the CIA a list of 19 terrorists living in the US. The Mossad had said that the terrorists appeared to be planning to carry out an attack in the near future. It is unknown if these are the same 19 names as the actual hijackers, or if the number is a coincidence. However, the four names on the list that are known are names of the 9/11 hijackers: Nawaf Alhazmi, Khalid Almihdhar, Marwan Alshehhi, and Mohamed Atta. [Die Zeit, 10/1/02, Der Spiegel, 10/1/02, BBC, 10/2/02, Ha’aretz, 10/3/02] These are also probably the four most important of the hijackers (and two of the pilots). From them, there were many connections to the others. The CIA had already been monitoring three of them overseas the year before, and two, Alhazmi and Almihdhar, were put on a watch list the same day the Mossad gave this warning. [AFP, 9/22/01, Berliner Zeitung, 9/24/01, Observer, 9/30/01, New York Times, 9/21/02] Such detailed warnings of exact names fit in well with the reports that Israeli spies were tracking the hijackers for months before 9/11. Yet, as Jane’s Intelligence Digest put it, “It is rather strange that the US media seems to be ignoring what may well be the most explosive story since the 11 September attacks…” [Jane’s Intelligence Digest, 3/13/02] The spy ring story did get a little coverage in the US, but more recent stories claiming that Israel knew the exact names of at least some of the hijackers hasn’t been reported here at all. Perhaps the story is too controversial for the US media to touch? Conspicuous in Their Absence So many countries warned the US: Afghanistan, Argentina, Britain, Cayman Islands, Egypt, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Morocco, and Russia. Yet the two countries in the best position to know about the 9/11 plot—Saudi Arabia and Pakistan—apparently didn’t give any warning at all. The ties between wealthy Saudi figures and al-Qaeda are many, and too complicated to go into here. But it is interesting to notice that, while discussing the resignation of Prince Turki al-Faisal, the head of the Saudi intelligence agency, the Wall Street Journal has speculated that the Saudi Arabian government may have had foreknowledge of 9/11: “The timing of Turki’s removal—August 31—and his Taliban connection raise the question: Did the Saudi regime know that bin Laden was planning his attack against the US? The current view among Saudi-watchers is that this is doubtful, but that the House of Saud might have heard rumors that something was planned, though they did not know what or when.” An interesting and possibly significant detail is that Prince Sultan, the defense minister, was due to visit Japan in early September, but canceled his trip for no apparent reason two days before his planned departure. [Wall Street Journal, 10/22/01] In fact, that same Prince Sultan appears to have rejected a chance to warn the US. In August 2001, a military associate of a Middle Eastern prince passed information to former CIA agent Robert Baer about a “spectacular terrorist operation” to take place shortly. He also gave Baer a computer record of around 600 secret al-Qaeda operatives in Saudi Arabia and Yemen. But when Baer tried to give this information to Prince Sultan, he was rebuffed. Baer gave the information to the CIA as well, making this apparently yet another ignored warning. [Financial Times, 1/12/02, See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA’s War on Terrorism,Robert Baer, 2/02, pp. 270-271, Breakdown: How America’s Intelligence Failures Led to September 11, Bill Gertz, pp. 55-58] The story of Pakistan’s direct involvement in 9/11 is another topic beyond the scope of this essay. One example will suffice. The Wall Street Journal reported in October 2001 that Lt. Gen. Mahmud Ahmed, head of the Pakistani intelligence agency Inter-Services Intelligence, ordered $100,000 be given to Mohamed Atta in the US. The Journal further noted that the FBI had confirmed this information. [Wall Street Journal, 10/10/01] So perhaps it’s not surprising that Pakistan wouldn’t warn the US what its intelligence chief was up to. But again, this information did reach the US through other means. On July 14, 1999, Randy Glass, a thief turned government informant, was wiretapping a meeting in New York City in which he was trying to sell military equipment to some Pakistanis as part of a sting operation. During the meeting, a Pakistani intelligence agent pointed to the World Trade Center and said to Glass, “Those towers are coming down.” Glass recorded this on tape, and passed this and other disturbing evidence to his local congressperson, senator, and others. Senator Bob Graham has admitted his office received such a warning from Glass before 9/11. [Palm Beach Post, 10/17/02] What Defenses? From this list, one can see there were many warnings specifying the type of attack, a general timeframe, and the location as either New York City or the World Trade Center. And this list only includes warnings from foreign governments, and excludes warnings from the US itself: its own communications intercepts, individuals with foreknowledge, suggestions from similar attacks, and the knowledge of American intelligence agents on the track of al-Qaeda. We know that US intelligence was suffering “warning fatigue” from so many notifications of an upcoming al-Qaeda attack. One would think that, based on these warnings, the US would have dramatically increased its security. One would be wrong. But in fact, while the US recently had over 100 fighters defending the US, the number was reduced in 1997 to save money. By 9/11 there were supposedly only 14 fighters protecting the entire US, and most of those were focused on drug interdiction. Of the 14, only four were in the greater vicinity of New York or Washington. Supposedly, on 9/11 there was not a single plane on alert within 100 miles of either city. With so many warnings suggesting an imminent attack would come from the air and/or target important, symbolic buildings, why weren’t New York, Washington and other probable target areas defended with fighters or antiaircraft batteries? There was an antiaircraft battery permanently stationed on top of the White House, but inexplicably it wasn’t used to shoot down Flight 77, which flew low over the White House before making a sharp turn and hitting the Pentagon. [Dallas Morning News, 9/16/01, Newsday, 9/23/01] The US government has not claimed it improved ground security before 9/11 at places like the Pentagon and World Trade Center either. In case there was a failure of imagination, Italy had just set an example two months before 9/11 on how to respond to a terrorist threat: After receiving a warning that a summit of world leaders in the city of Genoa would be targeted by al-Qaeda, they conspicuously defended the city with increased police, antiaircraft batteries, and constantly flying fighter jets. Apparently the press coverage of the defenses caused al-Qaeda to cancel the attack. President Bush could hardly have failed to notice, since he took the unusual step of sleeping on board a US aircraft carrier during the summit. [bBC, 7/18/01, CNN, 7/18/01, Los Angeles Times, 9/27/01] Conclusion One single warning should have been enough to take precautions, but with so many warnings coming in, how can inaction be explained as mere incompetence? Yes, it is often difficult to know which terrorist threats are real, and what information to trust. But if the US couldn’t take seriously warnings from close allies like Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and so on, then what were they waiting for? What would they have taken seriously? And where is the outrage, the investigation? As can be seen with the recent Congressional inquiry, the typical US government response has been to ignore these foreign government warnings altogether, or to say they were lies. On October 17, 2002, CIA Director Tenet claimed that the only warnings “where there was a geographic context, either explicit or implicit, appeared to point abroad, especially to the Middle East.” [Congressional Intelligence Committee, 10/17/02] On May 16, 2002, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice stated to the press: “I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile.” She added that “even in retrospect” there was “nothing” to suggest that. [White House, 5/16/02] On June 7, 2002, President Bush stated, “Based on everything I’ve seen, I do not believe anyone could have prevented the horror of September the 11th.” [sydney Morning Herald, 6/8/02] Either the Bush Administration is lying, or most of America’s close allies are. So why hasn’t Congress investigated these foreign intelligence claims? Why hasn’t a single mainstream media article connected all these dots, or given these warnings the coverage they deserve? Either some people within the US government knew the 9/11 attack would happen and did nothing, or some people within the US government failed to heed advice from a dozen foreign governments and properly defend the US from attack. Perhaps both. These people should be removed from office on the grounds of gross incompetence, or face the legal consequences of aiding and abetting terrorism. It seems clear that there are people who fear an investigation, and that that is why these dots are left unconnected. Ultimately, we are all in grave danger if these same officials continue to be in charge of protecting us from terrorist attacks. ##############################OOOOOOOO####################################################### +++++++++++++++++++++++ooooooooooooo+++++++++++++++++++++ ##################### COLBY is not IMHO a reliable source.....why ?? please below.##################oooo############++++ CHARLES DRAGO 2008 post * As Jan Klimkowski has explained: On the Education Forum, "Colby" routinely demands citations, peer-reviewed papers& official documents from posters whose views he is opposed to. Well, the "Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories" looks very rigorous and academic: http://www.jod911.com/ The website proudly proclaims that it publishes "peer-reviewed papers". But there's a problem. The website states, "The authors must indicate a desire to stay anonymous and provide an anonymous ID which can be published on the internet. Anonymity is provided to prevent harassment from fringe members of the 911 conspiracy movement." Maggie Hansen and I questioned the nature of this peer review process. Anonymity is no part of any proper peer review process. However, "Len Brazil" aka "Colby", an advisor to that website, was able to clarify what "peer review" amounted to. "Colby" wrote: "As for Maggies 'point' that people normally use their real names at peer reviewed journals, that is the truth but JOD911 is no ordinary peer reviewed journal. Two of the advisors use obvious pseudonyms (Shagster and Debunking911) and three use partial pseudonyms (JamesB, ScottS and me). Calling it 'peer reviewed' was meant to be a tongue in cheek stab at the "Journal of 9/11 Studies" which makes the same claim but apparently their only peer review process is posting articles on a closed forum before publication." http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...10872&st=60 In other words, the website is telling lies. It is not engaged in a proper peer review process. However, casual visitors to that site would not have the benefit of its "advisor" "Brazil/Colby" informing them that the peer review claim was "tongue in cheek". Casual visitors may innocently have believed it was akin to "The Lancet" or "The New England Journal of Medicine". So, it's not just a lie. It's a Big Lie.

#####################################oooo###############################++++ IDF MURDER BREAK BONES FOR FUN >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://wn.com/Breaking_news_Israel_attack_Palistine,jewish_soldiers_murder_and_break_bones_for_fun ++++o video link ###################oooooooooooooooo################################ New Birth Defects Seen In Gaza Due To Israeli Weapons http://www.paltelegraph.com/palestine/gaza-strip/3931-gaza-infants-deformity-increases-due-to-war-effects ++++o link » CAST LEAD'S CONSEQUENCES: GAZA BIRTH DEFECTS HAVE DOUBLED SINCE 2009 ++++o link http://palestinevideo.blogspot.com/2009/09/rise-in-birth-defects-after-israeli-war.html VIDEO =========================oooo=================================++++ Israel gives birth to strange cretures in GAZA hospitals see below link -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ooooooo####+ http://palestinenote.com/cs/blogs/topnews/archive/2010/02/16/israel-gives-birth-to-strange-creatures-in-gaza-s-hospitals.aspx ########################################OOOOOOOO#############################################++++ http://palestinephoto.blogspot.com/2011/05/israels-weapons-crime-on-humanity.html PLEASE NOTE == this is link to article below ,if you go there many links to more ,if you are interested. References and more resources and related news covered by media below this article Effects of use of Illegal White PhosphorusIn an article of March 4, Richard Lightbown argues that Israels use of depleted uranium, white phosphorus and other toxic metals in its war on the people of the Gaza Strip has put the whole of the Strips population and its environment air, soil, groundwater and possibly seawater at risk of serious long-term injury and contamination. Press TV on 4 March 2011 reported that cancer cases in Gaza had increased by 30 per cent, and that there was a link between the occurrence of the disease and residence in areas that had been badly hit by Israeli bombing. Zekra Ajour from the Al-Dameer Association for Human Rights told the channel that Gaza had been a testing ground for illegal weapons. Birth defects On 20 December 2009 Al-Dameer had published another paper in Arabic on the increase in the number of babies born in Gaza with birth defects, thought to be the result of radioactive and toxic materials from Operation Cast Lead.1 The birth defects included incomplete hearts and malformations of the brain. During August, September and October 2008 the number of cases had been 27. In the comparable months in 2009 the numbers had risen to 47. There was a similar rise in aborted foetuses. Al-Dameer had called for scientific monitoring throughout the Gaza Strip to obtain statistics on deformed foetus cases relating to the intentional use of internationally banned weapons. Similar dramatic increases in birth defects over a longer period have been recorded in Iraq and have been linked to widespread use of depleted uranium (DU) weapons. (It is reported that local midwives no longer look forward to births as they dont know what is going to come out.) Depleted uranium Depleted uranium burns at almost 1200 degrees Celsius. (TNT by comparison burns at 576 degrees Celsius.) At this temperature the fire vaporizes any metals in the target which in combination with uranium are released into the air in aerosol form. After deposition the aerosols have the potential to contaminate groundwater. Although the epidemiologist Professor Alastair Hay told the BBC in March 2010 that it was difficult to suggest any particular cause for the trend,2 scientific data has been published which contradicts his opinion. A review in Environmental Health in 20053 concluded by saying: Regarding the teratogenicity of parental prenatal exposure to DU aerosols, the evidence, albeit imperfect, indicates a high probability of substantial risk. Good science indicates that depleted uranium weapons should not be manufactured or exploded. When later asked in the same interview about white phosphorus, Prof. Hay had replied; …phosphorus is an essential element in our bodies and so you would I think have to ingest a huge amount to cause any particular problem. But there has been no investigation anywhere that I am aware of to link phosphorus with health problems… Apparently the professor has not read the Goldstone Report of the previous year which states in paragraph 896: Medical staff reported to the mission how even working in the areas where the phosphorus had been used made them feel sick, their lips would swell and they would become extremely thirsty and nauseous. The toxicity of phosphorus is also recorded in a report by New York medical staff:4 Oral ingestion of white phosphorus in humans has been demonstrated to result in pathologic changes to the liver and kidneys. The ingestion of a small quantity of white phosphorus can cause gastrointestinal complaints such as nausea, abdominal cramps, and vomiting. Individuals with a history of oral ingestion have been noted to pass phosphorus-laden stool (smoking stool syndrome). The accepted lethal dose is 1 mg/kg, although the ingestion of as little as 15 mg has resulted in death. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) reported that breathing white phosphorus for long periods causes phossy jaw, a condition in which there is poor wound healing of the mouth and breakdown of the jawbone.5 Depleted uranium in US-supplied bunker-buster bombs Evidence of the use of depleted uranium against Gaza is tenuous and Goldstone merely recorded in paragraph 907 that it had received allegations which it had not further investigated. Much of this evidence came from Action des citoyens pour le désarmement nucléaire (ACDN: Citizens Action for Nuclear Disarmament). Their report of July 2009 hypothesizes that the GBU-39 bunker-buster bomb is packed with 75 kilogram of depleted uranium. (A UNEP report also ambiguously refers to bunker-buster bombs containing depleted uranium.) The US delivery of 1,000 of these bombs to Israel arrived in early December 2008 shortly before the start of the war. The GBU-39 is considered one of the worlds most precise bombs and Boeing, the manufacturer, claims that the bomb will penetrate three feet of steel-reinforced concrete. (UNEP suggests that it can penetrate reinforced concrete to depths ranging from 1.8 to over 6 metres.) Boeings patent on the weapon mentions depleted uranium.6 It is not known how many bunker-buster bombs were used against Gaza but it seems reasonable to assume that the number could run into hundreds. It is thought that they were used mostly in the Philadelphia corridor against the tunnels. Desmond Travers, the former Irish army officer who was a member of the Goldstone Commission, would only say that depleted uranium may have been used during the war, although he did agree that it would have been well suited for attacking the tunnels where maximum penetration would have been desired.7 He was also in agreement with ACDN that the use of below-ground targets would have considerably reduced the levels of aerosol uranium that was dispersed into the air. Col Raymond Lane, who is chief instructor of ordnance with the Irish armed forces, gave testimony to the Goldstone Commission on weapons used in the Gaza conflict. He told the commission that he had no expertise of depleted uranium and so had not investigated it. He gave no reason for his failure to bring in specialist expertise to investigate the subject.8 In April 2009 Jean-François Fechino from ACDN was part of a four-person team which went to Gaza for the Arab Commission for Human Rights. Samples that the team brought back were analysed by a specialist laboratory which identified carcinogens: depleted uranium, caesium, asbestos dust, tungsten and aluminium oxide. Thorium oxide was also found, which is radioactive, as are depleted uranium and caesium. The analysis also identified phosphates and copper, along with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) which are a health hazard, especially to children, asthmatics and elders.9 Depleted uranium burns at almost 1200 degrees Celsius. (TNT by comparison burns at 576 degrees Celsius.)10 At this temperature the fire vaporizes any metals in the target which in combination with uranium are released into the air in aerosol form. After deposition the aerosols have the potential to contaminate groundwater. (The Gaza aquifer, which is the Strips only water source, is also connected to ground water supplies in Egypt, although water only flows into Gaza from Israel.11) There is empirical documentation that the aerosols can travel up to 42 Km and theoretical documentation that they can travel further. Sderot is about 43 kilometres from the Philadelphia corridor and less than five kilometres from Beit Hanoun. In consequence, it may be that the activities of Israels air force have created a greater threat to the Israeli city than all of the 8,000 well-publicized rockets from Gaza ever have. Depleted uranium accumulation has been recorded in the bone, kidney, reproductive system, brain and lung. It is carcinogenic, toxic to the kidneys, damaging to cellular DNA and causes malformations to an embryo or foetus. White phosphorus Doctors found that when they removed bandages applied to a wound that still contained fragments of white phosphorous, smoke would come from the wound since the chemical continues to burn as long as it is in contact with oxygen. Although an Israeli army spokesman told CNN on 7 January 2009, I can tell you with certainty that white phosphorus is absolutely not being used. the chemical had been used by Israeli forces since the beginning of the war.12 The Goldstone Report stated that Israeli sources later claimed their forces had stopped using white phosphorous on 7 January 2009 because of international concerns. This was also untrue as there is evidence that it had been used after that date. Goldstone declared the Israeli armed forces to have been systematically reckless in using white phosphorous in built-up areas (paragraphs 884, 886 and 890). Difficulty in detecting the extent of damage to tissue and organs gave serious problems to medical staff trying to treat white phosphorus injuries. Several patients died as a result. Doctors found that when they removed bandages applied to a wound that still contained fragments of white phosphorous, smoke would come from the wound since the chemical continues to burn as long as it is in contact with oxygen. White phosphorous sticks to tissue so that all flesh and sometimes muscle around the burn would have to be cut out. The substance is also highly toxic (Goldstone paragraphs 892/4/5/6). An article published in The Lancet included photographs of a young man who was admitted to hospital in Gaza with white phosphorous burns on 30 per cent of his body. The day after admission smoke was noticed coming from the wounds and the patient was rapidly transferred to the operating room for removal of dead tissue and removal of white phosphorus particles. During the operation a particle of the chemical was dislodged and caused a superficial burn on a nurses neck. The patient survived.13 Col Lane testified that although white phosphorus gave the best quality of smoke for military purposes it was horrible stuff and the Irish army had stopped using it 20 years previously. He recounted how the British army had sea-dumped quantities of the material off the coast of southwest. Scotland in the 1950s, some of which had been washed up on the coast of Ireland by a storm in 2007. It had ignited on drying (the colonel had witnessed this himself) and in one instance a child had suffered burns as a result. Other toxic materials Mass spectrometry analysis conducted by the New Weapons Research Group (NWRG) found aluminium, titanium, strontium, barium, cobalt and mercury in biopsies taken from white phosphorus wounds at Shifaa Hospital, Gaza. (Aluminium, barium and mercury have potential for lethal and intoxicating effects; aluminium and mercury can cause chronic pathologies over time; mercury is carcinogenic for humans; cobalt can cause mutations; and aluminium is fetotoxic, i.e. injurious to foetuses.)14 White phosphorus bombs are built with alternating sectors of white phosphorus and aluminium. Analysis by NWRC of the powder from a shell near Al-Wafa Hospital in Gaza also found high levels of molybdenum, tungsten and mercury. Tungsten and mercury are carcinogenic, while molybdenum is toxic to sperms. In a report appropriately entitled Gaza Strip, soil has been contaminated due to bombings: population in danger, NWRG also conducted analyses of two craters caused by bombs in 2006 and two others by bombs in 2009. In the 2006 craters they identified tungsten, mercury and molybdenum, while in the 2009 craters at Tufah they discovered molybdenum, cadmium, cobalt, nickel, manganese, copper and zinc. Cadmium and some nickel and manganese compounds are carcinogenic.15 NWRG has further conducted research of hair samples from 95 children resident in heavily bombed areas of Gaza. Again using mass spectrometry the study identified the carcinogenic or toxic metals chromium, cadmium, cobalt, tungsten and uranium. One wounded individual also had unusually high levels of lead. The study found the results alarming and considered the levels could be pathogenic in situations of chronic exposure. Thirty-nine of the examinees were recommended for further checks.16 DIME weapons, soil contamination and cancer DIME bombs cause a high proportion of amputations particularly of legs, while patients often suffered internal burns as well. It has been reported that soil in the area of a DIME (dense inert metal explosive) bomb blast may remain barren for an indefinite period of time because of contamination from heavy metal tungsten alloy.17 The same material in trial rapidly caused tumours in 100 per cent of rats when used at both low and high doses, with the tumours spreading to the lungs, necessitating euthanasia.18 DIME weapons were first used against Gaza by Israeli drones in the summer of 2006, when Palestinian medical personnel reported that it significantly increased the fatality rate among victims.19 Shortly after the DIME weapons were also trialled during the first week of the war in Lebanon in July 2006. The Goldstone Commission was unable to confirm that DIME munitions were used by Israeli forces during Operation Cast Lead. Col Lane had told the commission in testimony that there was no actual proof. He then went on to testify that he had been given samples in Gaza which analysis in Dublin had shown to contain DIME materials consisting mostly of tungsten with traces of iron and sulphur. He was of the opinion that ordnance had been used that had some sort of DIME component. He also mentioned that he had read of unusual amputations, and that tungsten and cobalt would have this effect. Weaponry had been found with DIME components which was capable of amputation and there are Palestinian amputees, yet neither Col Lane nor the commission was prepared to say that DIME weapons had been used by Israeli forces. DIME bombs cause a high proportion of amputations particularly of legs, while patients often suffered internal burns as well. The bombs consist of powdered tungsten alloy mixed with an explosive material inside a casing which disintegrates on explosion. The tungsten powder tears apart anything it hits including soft tissue and bone, causing very severe injuries. Tungsten alloy particles, described as finely powdered micro-shrapnel, are too small to be extracted from the victims body and are highly carcinogenic. (Goldstone, paragraphs 902-4) No weapons fragments can be found from DIME bombs with standard diagnostic resources, despite the indication of heavy metals from this type of injuries. Mass spectrometry analyses by NWRG of biopsies from amputation injuries revealed aluminium, titanium, copper, strontium, barium, cobalt, mercury, vanadium, caesium, tin, arsenic, manganese, rubidium, cadmium, chromium, zinc and nickel. Doctors reported that it was difficult to determine the extent of dead tissue (which it is vital to remove). This resulted in higher rates of deep infection, subsequent amputation and higher mortality.20 The wide range of heavy metals discovered by analysis in casualties, residents and soil in Gaza suggests that other unidentified weapons may have also been trialled. (The Sensor Fuzed Weapon has been suggested as one such technological perversion that the Israeli forces may have used.21) The whole Gaza population and their environment, including generations yet to be conceived, have been put at risk of serious long-term injury from heavy metal pollution of the air, soil and groundwater (and possibly the seawater too), while the causal pollution is likely to cross state borders into Egypt and even into Israel. Reassurances of the legitimate and responsible use and the reduced lethality of weapons (an opinion in part shared by Col Lane) are callous and inadequate in the context of the dangerous reality that has resulted. Meanwhile, the impacts of Israels illegal assaults on Gaza remain ignored and its deeds uncensored by the wider international community. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes Kawther Salam, 29 December 2009; Abortions, Cancer, Diseases and… in Gaza | Intifada-Palestine. BBCNews, 4 March 2010; Falluja Doctors Report Rise in Birth Defects. Rita Hindin, Doug Brugge and Bindu Panikkar; Teratogenicity of depleted uranium aerosols: A review from an epidemiological perspective; Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source 2005, 4:17 doi:10.1186/1476-069X-4-17. Lisandro Irizarry, Mollie V Williams, Geri M Williams and José Eric Díaz-Alcalá, 21 October 2009; CBRNE Incendiary Agents, White Phosphorus. UNEP, 2007; Lebanon Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment, p 149. ACDN, 4 July 2009; Report on the Use of Radioactive Weapons in the Gaza Strip during Operation Cast Lead | PDF Dr Hana Chehata, 9 March 2010; Disturbing Findings of Toxic Uranium Levels in Gaza | Middle East Monitor. Video accessed from http://blog.unwatch.org/?p=413 Palestinian Telegraph, 24 May 2009 | Israel Used Depleted Uranium in Offensive on Gaza. Sister Rosalie Bertell | Depleted Uranium in the Human Body: Sr Rosalie Bertell, PhD | video www.standwithus.com/FLYERS/WaterFlyer.pdf Human Rights Watch, 10 January 2009 | Q & A on Israels Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza | PDF http://tinyurl.com/287wxo9 Sobhi Skaik, Nafiz Abu-Shaban, Nasser Abu-Shaban, Mario Barbieri, Maurizio Barbieri, Umberto Giani, Paola Manduca, 31 July 2010| Metals Detected by ICP/MS in Wound Tissue of War Injuries Without Fragments in Gaza | PDF NWRC, 17 December 2009; Gaza Strip, soil has been contaminated due to bombings: population in danger | PDF NWRC, 17 March 2010; Metals Detected in Palestinian Childrens Hair Suggest Environmental Contamination James Brooks, 6 December 2006; US and Israel Targeting DNA in Gaza? The DIME Bomb: Yet Another Genotoxic Weapon, Part II. Al-Jazeerah: Cross-Cultural Understanding. John F. Kalinich, et al, 15 February 2005; Embedded Weapons-Grade Tungsten Alloy Shrapnel Rapidly Induces Metastatic High-Grade Rhabdomysoarcomas in F344 Rats | PDF | ehponline.org James Brooks, 5 December 2006; The DIME Bomb: Yet Another Genotoxic weapon | Part 1; Al-Jazeera. David Halpin, 14 August 2006; Are New weapons Being Used in Gaza and Lebanon | Electronic Intifada. James Brooks, 5 December 2006; The DIME Bomb: Yet Another Genotoxic weapon | Part III; Al-Jazeera. More resources Israels lucrative weapons exports depend on how effectively it kills Palestinians | SajePress Israels Chemical Weapons by James Brooks | Antiwar.com Israels Use of Chemical Weapons | VTJP White Phosphorous: Israel Uses Chemical Weapons | KABOBfest Israel used chemical weapons in Lebanon and Gaza | Oct 24, 2006 New and unknown deadly weapons used by Israeli forces, Direct energy weapons, chemical and/or biological agents, in a macabre experiment of future warfare | Prof. P. Manduca | Aug 7, 2006 Palestinian injuries suggest Israel is using chemical weapons in Gaza | Electronic Intifada | July 11, 2006 In Media Israeli Army: We use Gaza military operation to test new weapons | Ahram Online | May 4, 2011 Another price for nonviolent Palestinian resistance: the Skunk -| Joseph Dana | May 1, 2011 - video The IOF used white phosphorus bombs in its latest aggression | Apr 8, 2011 Israel using expired tear gas on Palestinians of East Jerualem (With Pictures) | Silwanic | Jan 22, 2011 In this ongoing atrocities, funded by US Tax payers: New database reveals weapons to Israel, impact on Palestinians How Many Weapons to Israel? Costs of arming Israel can no longer be ignored US weapons to Israel deter peace US weapons give-a-way to Israel used to kill 735 Palestinian children in past decade US Weapons to Israel Are Disincentives to Peace Checkpoint Washington | Netanyahu: America is a thing you can move very easily Consequences of Israeli Chemical Weapons Special Topic | ETHNIC CLEANSING To learn about the truth behind occupation, the ethnic cleansing and the Nakba watch these videos / pictures Cast Lead War on Gaza | The Wounded | Photography [ graphic] Occupation 101 (Full Movie in 11 Parts) | video Al Nakba | English | The Full Movie | video About Ethnic Cleansing Policies Map of Greater Israel Published by Radical Settler Movement All Israeli Massacres on Palestinians Map of already ethnically cleansed, destroyed and excisting Arab Villages Peace Now | Current West Bank and Jerusalem Map 2011

Obviously Gaal and the author he quoted aren't familiar with the details of WWII. ################################OOOOOOOO########################################++++ Collective Punishment is illegal ,Collective Punishment is illegal ,Collective Punishment is illegal ------------------------------------------------ Yes, 2D Colby mention WWII .... yes... WWII ..right after WWII its illegal.....have we come full circle ???...... Warsaw Ghetto = Gaza = collective punishment ====================================================== Relevant Major Principles of International Law - (5) Collective Punishment is illegal because Civilians are Punished who were not Directly Responsible for the Crime. This Law has opened in a separate window so that you can study it simultaneously with other documents. To search for a word, use the "find" function in the Edit Menu at the top of your browser. To close or minimalize this page, click in the appropriate box in the upper right corner. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STUDY GUIDES: Israeli Law Israeli Military Orders International Law International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on Wall STUDY GUIDE : International Law & Israel Relevant International Laws: Full Text Relevant Major Legal Principles of International Law Relevant International Law: Application & Enforcement Israeli Violations Relevant Major Principles of International Law - (5) Collective Punishment is illegal because Civilians are Punished who were not Directly Responsible for the Crime: RELEVANT PRINCIPLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW Even though military action is allowable if it is in self-defense (see point #1), it still must be limited just to targets that are directly involved in the original offensive action. The self-defensive response cannot punish people or property that are not directly involved in the original act of aggression. When innocent people or property are punished by a self-defensive military action - this is called "Collective Punishment", and it is forbidden by international law (see below for quotes) - it is a violation of the basic legal principle of "proportionality"(see point #4). This is why the article in the Geneva Conventions (1949) which forbids collective punishment also forbids pillaging and acting out of revenge. Such actions are considered to be generally beyond what would be necessary just to restore peace and security, which is what a purely self-defensive action would do. RELEVANT LAWS & RESPONSES As per International Law - Geneva Conventions IV (1949), article 33 (full text) (specific articles - see below) Geneva Conventions (Protocol I) (1977), article 75(2d) (full text) (specific articles - see below) Israeli Violations - 5. Israel repeatedly practices collective punishment against Palestinian acts of rebellion wherein an entire community is punished for the actions of a few (more details). International Response - United Nations - International Miscellaneous response - Academic Analysis - RELEVANT QUOTES FROM TEXT Geneva Conventions IV (1949), article 33: Article 33. No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited. Pillage is prohibited. Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited. Geneva Conventions (Protocol I) (1977), article 75(2d): Article 75. Fundamental guarantees 1. In so far as they are affected by a situation referred to in Article 1 of this Protocol, persons who are in the power of a Party to the conflict and who do not benefit from more favourable treatment under the Conventions or under this Protocol shall be treated humanely in all circumstances and shall enjoy, as a minimum, the protection provided by this Article without any adverse distinction based upon race, colour, sex, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national or social origin, wealth, birth or other status, or on any other similar criteria. Each Party shall respect the person, honour, convictions and religious practices of all such persons. 2. The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever, whether committed by civilian or by military agents: (a) violence to the life, health, or physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular: (i) murder; (ii) torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental; (iii) corporal punishment; and (iv) mutilation; ( outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, enforced prostitution and any form of indecent assault; © the taking of hostages; (d) collective punishments; and (e) threats to commit any of the foregoing acts. REFERENCES -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Any comments, suggestions, or questons are most welcomed. Please contact us at info@israellawresourcecenter.org ###############################OOOOOOOO#######################################++++ MORE insane Jews !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ###############################ooooooo###########################################OOOO US Boat to Gaza Is a Quarter Jewish - "Not Too Shabby!" Tuesday 7 June 2011 by: Robert Naiman, Truthout Hedy Epstein is an 86-year-old US Boat to Gaza passenger whose parents died in the Holocaust. (Photo: marx21de) Editor's Note: Robert Naiman will be a passenger aboard the Audacity of Hope boat, which sets sail for Gaza this month. - ms/TO According to The New York Times, a quarter of the passengers on the upcoming US Boat to Gaza are Jewish. What does it mean that the US Boat to Gaza is a quarter Jewish? According to the noted American Jewish commentator Adam Sandler, a quarter Jewish is "not too shabby!" Maybe the US Boat to Gaza will be mentioned in Adam's next Hanukkah song. What does it mean that the US Boat to Gaza is a quarter Jewish? Maybe it means that the Israeli authorities will have some compunction about shooting up our boat. After all, isn't the official story of Zionism all about making a "safe harbor" for Jews in Palestine? We're not trying to make aliyah. We just want to visit. Should we be shot for trying to do so? Wouldn't it be a mitzvah to let us pass unharmed? What does it mean that the US Boat to Gaza is a quarter Jewish? Maybe it means that we can openly contest a construction of Jewish identity based on supporting the obstruction of Palestinian freedom, with a Jewish counter-narrative of universal human liberation. US Boat to Gaza passenger Hedy Epstein, an 86-year-old whose parents died in the Holocaust, told The New York Times, "The American Jewish community and Israel both say that they speak for all Jews. They don't speak for me. They don't speak for the Jews in this country who are going to be on the US boat and the many others standing behind us." Of course, in referring to "the American Jewish community," Hedy meant organizations commonly presented in the media as representing American Jews on the question of Palestine, even though the leadership of these institutions isn't elected by American Jews as a whole and even though key policies that these institutions support, such as Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank and opposition to Israel's internationally-recognized 1967 borders being the basis of a peace deal, don't represent the opinions of the majority of American Jews. Get Truthout in your inbox every day! Click here to sign up for free updates. In a March 2009 poll commissioned by J Street, 60 percent of American Jews opposed Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank, 76 percent supported a peace agreement on the 1967 borders with negotiated land swaps (the position recently articulated by President Obama) and 69 percent supported the US working with a unified Fatah-Hamas Palestinian Authority government to achieve a peace agreement with Israel. To act as if Bibi Netanyahu has been anointed to speak for all Jews on the question of Palestine is preposterous. Even Meir Dagan, the former head of Mossad, has said that Israel's top leaders lack judgment and has criticized the Israeli government for failing to put forward a peace initiative with the Palestinians and for ignoring the Saudi peace initiative promising full diplomatic relations in exchange for a return to the 1967 border lines, as The New York Times noted last week. In the 2009 poll, 65 percent of American Jews agreed with the statement, Israel has the right to defend itself, but it must also take into account humanitarian considerations and avoid collective punishment of the entire Palestinian population by closing the borders and causing major civilian hardship. I have previously noted that in challenging the blockade of Gaza, we are acting consistently with the policy advocated by President Obama in June 2010 when he said that external restrictions on Gaza's travel and commerce should be "focusing narrowly on arms shipments" rather than a general blockade of goods and persons, to which some exceptions are permitted. But we are also acting consistently with the policy advocated by 65 percent of American Jews in March 2009: no to "collective punishment of the entire Palestinian population." It will be a great day when the opinions of the majority of American Jews matter more than the tired right-wing slogans recycled to try to maintain the destructive status quo. Letting our peaceful boat reach Gaza unmolested would be a great place to start. If you agree, tell Secretary of State Clinton, whose job duties include the protection of Americans traveling abroad.

#################################OOOOOOOO###########################++++ Hanjour license ----------------- COLBY QUOTE + How would forcing Hanjour to re-take his commercial pilot’s exam have thwarted the “plot”? + END Colby No license ,no "real" simulator time,no jet training.Hanjour’s new license allows him to begin passenger jet training at other flight schools, despite having limited flying skills. #################################OOOOOOOO##############################++++ FAA SOURCE COLBY +The aviation agency said, however, that throughout the life of the rule not a single U.S. air carrier took advantage of it, effectively rendering it "moot," according to one agency official. End COLBY SOURCE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some security experts speculate that had airlines taken advantage of the rule, it likely would not have been rescinded by the FAA. And if it had been implemented by the airlines, they say, the Sept. 11 hijackings ? which led to the deaths of nearly 3,000 people in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C. ? may never have occurred. ( from WND) Golly better be sure about 911 even if policy (pilots with guns) not being used. (COLBY 2D thinking) (Golly wasnt "W" pro GUN ??) Is it possible Colby cant think "AS" a conspirator ?? -------------------------------------------------------------------++++ Airlines /FAA say pilots carrying guns maybe woundnt have stop 911.....its CYA (cant figure out CYA. .. lawsuits ...COLBY 2D thinking) ################################OOOOOOOO##################################++++ Hanjour in AZ in summer 2001 ANSWER PART one and part two Colby + Everyone, no matter how lunatic their theories, believes their “conclusion comes from the the [sic] logic of the premise and FACTS”. The number of conspirators per your theory would have to be prohibitively large. You still haven’t explained why the FAA inspectors – who only had limited contact with Hanjour - should have suspected him if the people at the flight school - who had many hours of contact with him - didn’t. +end Colby ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- part one ANSWER ANSWER THE MOLA ?????? MONEY . Really Mr. Colby your posts show weak 2D thinking. (Historycommons) When Hani Hanjour attended flight schools between 1996 and 1998 he was found to be a “weak student” who “was wasting our resources” (see October 1996-December 1997), and when he tried using a flight simulator, “He had only the barest understanding what the instruments were there to do.” (see 1998) Yet, on this day, he is certified as a multi-engine commercial pilot by Daryl Strong in Tempe, Arizona. Strong is one of many private examiners independently contracted with the FAA. A spokesperson for the FAA’s workers union will later complain that contractors like Strong “receive between $200 and $300 for each flight check. If they get a reputation for being tough, they won’t get any business.” Hanjour’s new license allows him to begin passenger jet training at other flight schools, despite having limited flying skills and an extremely poor grasp of English If they get a reputation for being tough, they won’t get any business. = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ maybe Colby should be called 2D ?? OH,BTW FLIGHT SCHOOL Soooooo upset with Hanjour they DO !! contact FAA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! even if this effects the $$$$$$$ money !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (see below) The flight school again alerts the FAA about this and gives a total of five alerts about Hanjour, but no further action on him is taken. The FBI is not told about Hanjour. [CBS News, 5/10/2002] Ironically, in July ___________________________________________________________part two Sorry, Hanjour was in AZ in the SUMMER 2001. He had payed for ,I recall ,34 hours of simulator,but took only 21 hours,so this would explain not being on payment records,they owed him 13 hours. COLBY + Get back to us when you have a source. But even if he was, it would only reinforce the evidence Williams did not follow his own advice.+ END COLBY -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Historycommons is source Mr. 2D ugh Colby. Hani Hanjour practices on a Boeing 737-200 simulator for a total of 21 hours at the JetTech International flight school in Phoenix, Arizona. Hanjour also attends ground school and pays just under $7,500 for the training. Despite only completing 21 of his originally scheduled 34 hours of simulator training, according to the FBI this is the best-trained of the four hijacker pilots (see Spring-Summer 2001). However, an instructor comments: “Student made numerous errors during performance… including a lack of understanding of some basic concepts… Some of the concepts involved in large jet systems cannot be fully comprehended by someone with only small prop plane experience.” [uS District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia; Alexandria Division, 7/31/2006 ] The school contacts the FAA to warn it of Hanjour’s poor English and flying skills (see January-February 2001). Hanjour was in AZ SEE BELOW HIS NAME IS ON SCHOOL DOCUMENT June 23,2001 for flight simulator. (WAKE UP ALL 2D PEOPLE !!! )) Now FBI thinks Hanjour in AZ in summer 2001 (see last info) Hanjour had trained at the Sawyer School of Aviation previously (see 1998), and there is some evidence he returns there. One school document records Hanjour’s name for use of a flight simulator on June 23, 2001, though his name does not appear on payment records. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------++++ There are also indications that Hanjour signs up to use a flight simulator in August with three other Muslim men, including al-Salmi. One Sawyer employee is fairly certain she sees Hanjour during the summer. Another witness sees Hanjour with al-Salmi elsewhere in Phoenix. The 9/11 Commission will note that the evidence of Hanjour training in Phoenix during the summer is not definitive, but “the FBI’s Phoenix office believes it is plausible that Hanjour return to Arizona for additional training.” ############################################OOOOOOO#################################################### Secret Team at work in State Department -------------------------------------ooo++++ 1998: Diplomatic Passports Help Stifle FBI Investigation into Bin Laden Family Michael Scheuer, the head of the CIA Counter Terrorism Center’s special unit focusing on bin Laden from 1996 to 1999 (see February 1996), later will claim that before 9/11 members of the bin Laden family in the US are nearly completely off limits to US law enforcement. Author Douglas Farah, a former longtime Washington Post reporter, later will write that “All the bin Ladens living in the United States were granted Saudi diplomatic passports in 1996.… In 1998, when the FBI’s New York office actually sought to investigate some of the bin Laden family’s activities in this country because of suspicions of ties to terrorism, the State Department forced them to shut down the entire operation. Because the bin Laden’s were ‘diplomats’ and as such enjoyed diplomatic immunity, making such investigations illegal.” Scheuer will comment about the 1998 investigation, “My counterparts at the FBI questioned one of the bin Ladens. But then the State Department received a complaint from a law firm, and there was a huge uproar. We were shocked to find out that the bin Ladens in the United States had diplomatic passports, and that we weren’t allowed to talk to them.” Scheuer believes that these unusual diplomatic privileges may help explain how the bin Ladens will be able to depart so quickly just after 9/11 (see September 13, 2001; September 14-19, 2001). Farah later says he interviewed Scheuer about this and claims to have found a second source to verify the information. [Farah, 12/5/2004; Der Spiegel (Hamburg), 6/6/2005] The issue of diplomatic passports for the bin Laden family has generally not been reported in the US media, although a 2005 New Yorker article will mention in passing that in 1996, “the State Department stymied a joint effort by the CIA and the FBI to question one of bin Laden’s cousins in America, because he had a diplomatic passport, which protects the holder from US law enforcement.” [New Yorker, 2/8/2005] This is a probable reference to the 1996 investigation of Abdullah Awad bin Laden (although he is bin Laden’s nephew, not cousin (see February-September 11, 1996)). It is unclear what connection there may be, if any, between that investigation and this 1998 investigation. ------------------------------------------------- SEEMS Steinger cant keep story straight.....WHY ????? Steinger will later give a series of conflicting explanations about why she reversed her decision and issued the visa (see August 1, 2002, January 20, 2003, and December 30, 2003). After 9/11, a former consular official named Michael Springmann will say that while serving in Jeddah during the Soviet-Afghan War he was sometimes pressured to reverse denials of visa applications by the CIA for apparent mujaheddin (see September 1987-March 1989). .........................................................................(more detail) The application is dealt with by consular officer Shayna Steinger, who issues a total of 12 visas to the 9/11 hijackers (see July 1, 2000) and who rejected Hanjour’s previous application. [9/11 Commission, 12/30/2002, pp. 2; Office of the Inspector General (US Department of State), 1/30/2003] Hanjour apparently applies for a student visa, not a tourist visa, as he had done previously, saying he wishes to attend a language school in California. Steinger will later recall that Hanjour, or someone acting on his behalf, submits an I-20 INS school enrollment form, the documentation required for the visa. She will say: “It came to me, you know, at the end of the day to look at it. I saw he had an I-20 and it [his visa] was issued.” This apparently allows Hanjour to overcome his previous rejection, as the two applications are treated as one case. The INS had approved a change of status for Hanjour to attend the same school in 1996, but Steinger does not know of this. She will later say that, if she had known, she might have denied the visa. Although a photocopy of a student visa in Hanjour’s passport will later be made public, Steinger now enters the visa in the State Department’s records as a business/tourist visa. (Note: the visa in Hanjour’s passport may be changed upon his entry to the US (see December 8, 2000).) [9/11 Commission, 12/30/2002, pp. 13-14, 38] Steinger will later give conflicting accounts of her issuance of this visa. She will first falsely claim to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that she issued the visa under the Visa Express program and that Hanjour was not even present during the first application on September 10 (see August 1, 2002), but will later change her story for the State Department’s inspector general (see January 20, 2003) and the 9/11 Commission (see December 30, 2003). ############################################ OOOOOOO##############++#####################################++++++++++++++++++++oooo The Secret Team at work..IN TWO PARTS .....no investigation...(FBI inside FBI) part one, CIA lies to 911 Commission (CIA inside CIA) part,two. oooooooooooooOOOOooooooooooo Below for the 2D thinkers..... ############################################OOOOOOO########################################### PART one June 16, 1993: Ali Mohamed Detained in Vancouver; FBI Tells Canadian Authorities He Is an FBI Informant Essam Marzouk. [source: FBI]US-al-Qaeda double agent Ali Mohamed is detained by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) in Vancouver, British Columbia, after attempting to pick up a man named Essam Marzouk, who is carrying numerous false passports. They identify Mohamed as a top al-Qaeda operative. Mohamed admits to them that he traveled to Vancouver to help Marzouk sneak into the US and admits working closely with bin Laden. [san Francisco Chronicle, 11/4/2001; Globe and Mail, 11/22/2001; Wall Street Journal, 11/26/2001] After many hours of questioning, Mohamed tells the Canadian officials to call John Zent, his handler at the FBI. Zent confirms that Mohamed works for the FBI and asks them to release him. They do. [Lance, 2006, pp. 124] Mohamed is accompanied by fellow al-Qaeda operative Khaled Abu el-Dahab (see 1987-1998), who brings $3,000 sent by bin Laden to pay for Marzouk’s bail. Marzouk had run one of bin Laden’s training camps in Afghanistan and was an active member of the al-Qaeda allied group Islamic Jihad at the time. However, Canadian intelligence apparently is not aware of his past. Marzouk will spend almost a year in detention. But then, again with the help of another visit to Canada by Mohamed, Marzouk will be released and allowed to live in Canada (see June 16, 1993-February 1998). He later will help train the bombers of the 1998 African embassy bombings (see 10:35-10:39 a.m., August 7, 1998). [Globe and Mail, 11/22/2001; National Post, 11/26/2005] Jack Cloonan, an FBI agent who later investigates Mohamed, will later say, “I don’t think you have to be an agent who has worked terrorism all your life to realize something is terribly amiss here. What was the follow up? It just sort of seems like [this incident] dies.” [Lance, 2006, pp. 125 ##########################################OOOOOOOO############################# PART two January 14, 2004: 9/11 Commission First Learns of Clinton Order to Assassinate Bin Laden The 9/11 Commission first learns that the US had a program to assassinate Osama bin Laden before 9/11 (see December 24, 1998). The program, which is disclosed to the commission’s staff by former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, was a response to the African embassy bombings (see 10:35-10:39 a.m., August 7, 1998). The commission was not previously aware of the order and when Berger tells them about it they are confused, because the CIA has been telling them there was no such order for months. When the commission tells Berger what the CIA has said, he assures them that there is an explicit document, a memorandum of notification concerning Afghanistan, that gives the CIA the authority to kill bin Laden, not just capture him. It is unclear why CIA managers repeatedly told the commission there was no such order (see Before January 14, 2004). [shenon, 2008, pp. 253-254] _____________________________________ Why would the CIA lie ???? WHY ???

######################OOOOOOOO################################++++_ Sorry to see limited thinking again of COLBY. You need a word of the day again.You see I have in my research numerous files on a number of subjects.. I have a full quiver. QUIVER WORD OF DAY FOR COLBY. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quiver ##############ooooooooooooo############===== VIDEO of the day for COLBY. You see COLBY=KHAN. Colby and Khan only think in 2D not 3D. see video

TOM, YES I agree with your ideas presented in your post and add this in context. THANKS sg #########################oooooooo##############################++++ Vivian Johnson Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 21:16:54 -0500 Media In America Instructor: Moti Nissani Newspapers Snub the Specter of Assassination: Was Walter Reuther murdered? In this paper I am going to discuss the death of Walter Reuther and the suspicious way that the newspapers covered it. My interest in Walter Reuther arose in part from my experiences as a member of the United Auto Workers. While at the Walter and May Reuther Educational and Recreational Center at Black Lake, I saw a film that depicted much about the life of Walter Reuther and I was fascinated. I wanted to know more about him and this paper gave me the opportunity to do just that. After completing my research, I feel that the newspapers engaged in a conspiracy of silence while reporting on the death of Walter Reuther: they presented information about the plane crash along with biographical data, but only one paper addressed the possibility that he may have been murdered. Walter Reuther died at the age of 62 in a plane crash. He was the dynamic and charismatic leader of the United Auto Workers (UAW). This second son of a German immigrant couple was born on September 1, 1907, in Wheeling, West Virginia. Walter Reuther was born into the labor movement and during his 35 years as a labor leader, he was instrumental in bringing it to its greatest expansion in American History. His father, Valentine, a socialist, trained Walter early in trade unionism and encouraged his natural bent for debate. Walter Reuther was first and foremost a labor organizer, with an overpowering sense of social justice that shaped his controversial, temperamental, combustible, and at times unrelenting character. Reuther developed his passion for social justice from his father. By nature shrewd and brilliant, he developed a fiery oratorical style that captured the imagination of millions of supporters. It was not uncommon for Reuther to hold an audience mesmerized for three or more hours1. As a member of the UAW, I now enjoy many of the same benefits that Reuther obtained for its members. There are some who believe that Reuther was murdered, most especially his family. It was a dark and rainy night on May 9, 1970 near Pellston, Michigan. Walter Reuther, his wife May, the architect Oscar Stonorov, a bodyguard, the pilot and co-pilot were killed in a chartered Lear jet while en route to the union’s recreational and educational facility at Black Lake. This new facility had been designed by Oscar Stonorov and was due to be opened to the membership within a few weeks of the crash. There were three witnesses who heard the plane before it crashed and then were subsequently at the scene. Manuel Suarez, a farmer, said “He (the pilot) came over the house and sounded awful low. It was right above the house, then the sound stopped and I looked out the window.” Suarez was the first to reach the crash site and was soon joined by Donald and Sharon Bonter. Sharon Bonter said “I saw a huge light from our house. I heard a couple of small booms before the light.”2 In October of 1968, a year and a half before the fatal crash, Reuther and his brother Victor were almost killed in a small private plane as it approached Dulles Airport. Luckily for the Reuther brothers, the sky was clear and the pilots realized the plane was too low and the altimeter was malfunctioning. The pilots managed a crash landing that allowed all on board to walk away without injury. Both incidents are amazingly similar; the altimeter in the fatal crash was believed to have malfunctioned. When Victor Reuther was interview many years after the fatal crash he said “I and other family members are convinced that both the fatal crash and the near fatal one in 1968 were not accidental.”3 There was only one article in the Detroit Free Press that detailed some of the previous murder attempts on the lives of Walter and Victor Reuther. I found it strange that only one of the five newspapers discussed the murder attempts. This article was printed on May 11, 1970. It concentrates on the murder attempts that occurred in 1948 and 1949, the investigation, and the reward for information raised by the union. I believe that the murder attempt in 1938 had been retribution for his union activities at Ford Motor Company. The article suggests that the two incidents in 1948 and 1949, were similar because they had been committed by hidden assailants who stood behind house-side bushes, and fired shotgun blasts through a window. Some details of the attempts are: 1) In April 1938, two masked gunmen forced their way into Walter Reuther’s home and tried to abduct him. One of the dinner guests managed to escape and call for help. The assailants were caught and acquitted in a trial that was a sham. One of the defendants provided security for Ford Motor Company. The jury was packed with Ford supporters and the lawyer for the defense claimed that Ruether had staged the event.4 2) In April 1948, they tried to kill Walter Reuther with shotgun blasts in his home. Reuther said: “I went to the icebox to get a bowl of fruit salad, my wife was just a foot from me. I had just made that step and the dish in my hand just flew into a thousand pieces. In fact, the impact of the thing knocked me down on the floor, and I tried to get up and I got my arm tangled up as thought it had been torn off. I couldn’t get up, and I lay there flat on my back for a second or two. They shot through the both the regular window and the storm window in the kitchen, and I just lay there on the floor until they came and took me to the hospital.” He suffered chest and arm wounds that never allowed him to recover the full use of his right arm and hand. 3) Victor Reuther was almost killed in 1949 by what appeared to be law enforcement officials. The Detroit Police claimed that neighbors had been complaining about his barking dog. The next evening after Victor had given the dog to family friends, he was shot in the head while in his home. He suffered the loss of part of his right eye and parts of his jaw. 4) There was an attempt in 1949 to bomb the UAW’s headquarters in Detroit. The Detroit Police nor J. Edgar Hoover’s Federal Bureau of Investigation attempted to discover who the perpetrators were.5 Why doesn’t anyone seem to find it strange that this article was not enough to spur local or national attention nor any debate in the other newspapers? If Walter Reuther was indeed murdered or assassinated, there are others with political enemies and bents toward social justice who have preceded him. Consider the assassinations of the following individuals: 1) John Fitzgerald Kennedy our 35th president was murdered on November 22, 1963 while visiting Dallas, Texas. Although he and his brother were from a very wealthy and affluent family, he sought to promote social change and justice for the victims of discrimination in this country.6 2) Malcolm X was murdered on February 21, 1965. He was labeled a radical black civil rights activist with ties to the Nation of Islam. He felt that violence towards those that would do him and his supporters harm was necessary.7 3) Martin Luther King was murdered on April 4, 1968. He was a black civil rights activist who advocated change through non-violent means.8 4) Senator Robert Francis Kennedy former Attorney General under JFK’s administration died on June 6, 1968, one day after he was shot at point blank range to the head. He had recently announced his candidacy for president on March 16, 1968 and had just finished giving a speech to his supporters.9 All of these men were heavily involved in civil rights and the move toward social justice for all Americans. Why is it that no one seems to find it curious that some of the major voices for social change were silenced within such a short span of time? When I consider what happened to these men, I cannot help thinking about the death of two of my relatives. Again, their story seems to support the view that political murders are quite common in the USA. My grandfathers lived in rural Alabama during the most racist era in American history. African-Americans could not seek justice in a society dominated by whites. Segregation left African-Americans in the position of feeling both inferior and expendable. My paternal grandfather was murdered after he was falsely accused of raping a white female. Men came to his home and took him away. He was found a short time later, beaten to death. My grandmother was left to raise her six children alone and never remarried. My maternal grandfather was thrown in front a moving train. His remains were spread about the area of impact. My grandmother was left to raise her five children alone and she never remarried. My parents explained that there was nowhere for their families to go for justice, because they feared reprisals from whites. Both men were in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Their murders were just as politically motivated as the others. It is a shame that the political and social atmosphere of the time would allow such a thing to happen. I believe that it is basically the same environment that allowed the deaths of JFK, Malcolm X, RFK and MLK. Is it such a stretch to assume that our government and other parties may have been involved in Walter Reuther’s death? I decided to focus my research on May 9, 1970 (the day of Reuther’s death), through the end of that month. My study was confined to the following newspapers: Christian Science Monitor (CSM), Detroit Free Press (DFP), Detroit News (DN), Michigan Chronicle (MC), and New York Times (NYT). The picture that emerged was quite unsettling. I found 31 articles on the subject of Walter Reuther’s death. There were five editorials, one obituary, one article on the National Transportation Safety Board’s initial report. There was one conspiracy article from my class on Media in America and one article that discussed previous murder attempts. The rest involved biographies, details of the crash, and how the UAW was effected before and after Reuther’s death. As a reader who knew about the appearance of a conspiracy in this case, I was left with more questions than I had before I started. A reader who was exposed to the facts printed by the newspapers at that time, were not given enough information. How could the public understand the ramifications of Walter Reuther’s death without all of the facts? Why were the newspapers so unwilling to give it to them? Many of the newspapers went through the process of trying to explain something about the life and times of Walter Reuther. I found it strange that the CSM had one very brief paragraph mentioning Reuther’s death, three days after the deadly crash. It was on page two and it appeared in a regular section called The News-Briefly. It was only three sentences long. It mentioned that Walter Reuther had died along with his wife May, his affiliation with the UAW, and the size of its membership.10 There was no other mention of him made during the time frame for my research. Why is that? Why would a regional paper totally ignore the president of the largest labor union in the country? A man who had been courted and consulted by the politically powerful and the corporate world’s elite? Why did they consider his death to be of so little consequence? Considering the fact that the DFP and the DN operate within the sphere of the UAW’s World Headquarters, you would expect for them to have the most in-depth reports involving Walter Reuther’s death. I found this to be true. Both papers had many details about his life and the plane crash that killed him, testimonials, and details about Reuther’s funeral rites. On May 11, 1970 (two days after the fatal crash), the DN set itself apart from all four of the other papers, when an article was printed asking: What caused the crash of Reuther’s jet? The DN’s Aerospace Writer, Edwin Pip, wanted to know how a time-proven airplane, flown by an experienced pilot in reasonable weather, could suddenly plunge to the ground. Eight investigators from the NTSB were said to be at the crash site probing the wreckage from the plane, and that this was the question that faced them. Pip mentions that there was “absolutely no sign of trouble reported at the time” (of the crash). Everything appeared normal as the pilot George Evans, 48, started his final approach for landing. One of the pilots radioed that they had the airport in sight. He notes that witnesses saw the plane’s bright landing lights wink on as it approached the field. The plane should have been flying at about 130 miles per hour, only seconds away from touchdown, but two and three quarter miles short of the airport something happened. Suddenly the plane--flying on visual rules, not ground controlled—was lower than it should have been. It sliced off the top of a 50-foot elm tree, and slammed into the ground in a ball of flame. Again, there was no indication from the crew over the radio that any problem existed. Officials at Executive Jet Aviation in Columbus, Ohio, where the jet was based, said Evans was probably one of the most experienced Lear Jet pilots in the world. He had been with the company three years. Joe Karaffa, 41, was the co-pilot and had only recently joined the charter firm after his Air Force career; both men were retired military jet pilots. The Lear Jet is one of the first jets designed and built specifically for business flying. It carries a crew of two and six passengers at nearly 600 miles per hour. They were first put on the market in 1965, but during the first few years there were a number of fatal accidents. Some were due to aircraft failures, but most by pilot inexperience. That certainly was not the case with the pilots flying Reuther’s plane.11 The NTSB’s preliminary ruling of what caused the crash of Walter Reuther’s plane on May 9, 1970, was printed on May 14, 1970 in the DN. The same author of the previous article, Edwin Pip, covered the ruling. The accident investigators said that the twin jet engines of the plane that carried Walter Reuther and five others to their deaths had flamed out after striking trees before the crash. The investigators also noted that the Lear Jet hit trees on a knoll that was 200 feet higher than the airport near Pellston, MI and a little more than two miles from the runway. The left engine ingested wood from the trees and flamed out. The right engine ingested wood and metal from the airplane and also flamed out. Investigators said after that, the pilots were only passengers aboard the plane. They had no power to recover. The investigators recovered an altimeter believed to be the pilot’ s and took it back to Washington, DC for analysis.12 The DFR, DN, MC, and NYT all printed the initial findings of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), but the final report that was released on December 22, 1970 was totally ignored. The report seemed to focus on the altimeter found in the wreckage. There were several unusual defects noted with the device: 1) A brass screw was found loose in the instrument case. If the screw was loose, it would have left the high by 200-300 feet. 2) An incorrect pivot was installed in one end of a rocking shaft. 3) An end stone was missing from the opposite end of the rocking shaft. 4) A ring jewel within the mechanism was installed off center. 5) A second rocking shaft rear support pivot was incorrect. 6) The wrong kind of link pin, which holds a spring clip in place at the pneumatic capsule, was installed. 7) An end stone, which supports a shaft within the mechanism, was installed off center.13 I must admit that I was extremely biased before I began my research. I believe that Walter Reuther was murdered. I had to make a conscious effort to remain objective. I must also admit that after reading all of the articles involved in my research, my feelings have not changed. If nothing else, my beliefs have been strengthened by the total disreguard for responsible reporting that I found. Many of us believe that our media is the last bastion of truth and freedom. That is not what my research has proven. What I found were newspapers that were very selective about what version of truth they wished to reveal to the public. Whether this was due to some form of political subversion or other powerful entities, we may never know. Walter Reuther presented a very real threat to our political establishment. He and his brother Victor had not made things easy for themselves when they went to Russia in 1932. J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI doctored a letter that Victor Reuther sent back to the United States to make it seem as if they were communists. This letter was distributed to political leaders, corporate heads, and rival unionists to prove that they were communist sympathizers. J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI would plague Walter Reuther for almost forty years. He was constantly a thorn in Reuther’s side and Reuther could do nothing without Hoover documenting the details.14 As if Walter Reuther’s stance on business, political, and social policies were not enough, consider these facts: 1) Reuther ran ads in the national media and appeared before congressional committees to denounce the war and call for drastic cuts in the military budget. 2) In January of 1970, three months before the crash, President Richard Nixon requested the FBI’s files on Walter Reuther. 3) One day before the fatal crash, Walter Reuther sent a telegram to the White House condemning the war, the invasion, and “the bankruptcy of our policy of force and violence in Vietnam.”15 One can imagine that this was not well received by the Nixon White House. One can also assume that this was not well received by any of the corporations providing material for the American war machine. With all of this information being public knowledge and not to mention a sensational story, why did only one of the newspapers (DFP), provide any in-depth reporting into the possibility of assassination? Why did the other newspapers remain silent about the possibility that Walter Reuther was murdered? Walter Reuther had made many enemies in both the political arena and in the world of business through his negotiations for the UAW, and his social agenda. Some may have felt that he had become too powerful and had to be stopped! Walter Reuther’s position as the president of the largest labor union in America provided him with many resources to promote his agenda. Reuther’s stance on civil rights for African-Americans and the social programs that he advocated for the poor did not endear him to his enemies. The previous murder attempts on the life of Walter Reuther, should have been examined more thoroughly. The newspapers and our government have remained strangely silent in this matter. I find it hard to believe that the FBI still refuses to turn over nearly 200 pages of documents involving Reuther’s death, and correspondence between field offices and J. Edgar Hoover. Many of the released documents are well over forty years old, and the pages were totally inked out!16 Is there some matter of national security involved where our FBI and CIA would still want to keep so many secrets about the life and death of Walter Reuther? Who knows what evidence may have been found to either support or refute those who believe that Walter Reuther was murdered? The UAW and those in the world who sought social change, lost an incredible voice for their causes when Walter Reuther was silenced on May 9, 1970. I had always viewed the information given by our media with a great deal of skepticism, but now I know more than ever that we must find as many sources as possible to seek the truth for ourselves. Our newspapers seem to have lost all objectivity. Works listed in order cited: 1) Dewey, James. “A Born Battler for Labor’s Causes.” Detroit Free Press. 11 May 1970. 3B. 2) Delisle, Tom and James Dewey. “Walter Reuther is Dead and the Nation Mourns.” Detroit Free Press. 11 May 1970. 1A+. 3) Parenti, Michael and Peggy Norton. “The Wonderful Life and Strange Death of Walter Reuther.” 1996. 193. 4) Parenti, Michael and Peggy Norton. “The Wonderful Life and Strange Death of Walter Reuther.” 1996. 194-196. 5) Mollison, Andrew. “ ’48 Shooting, Still Unsolved, Sent Family into Seclusion.” 11 May 1970. 2B. 6) Kennedy, John F. American Presidents. 14 March 2000. http://www.americanpredidents.com/kennedy.html 7) Malcolm X. 14 March 2000. http://www.webcorp.com/civilrights/malcomx.htm 8) Martin Luther King-A Historical Examination. 14 March 2000. http://mlking.org/ 9) Robert F. Kennedy Biography. 14 March 2000. http://pages.prodigy.net/kpmcclave/RFKbio.htm 10) “The News in Brief.” Christian Science Monitor. 12 May 1970. 2. 11) Pip, Edwin G. “What caused the crash of Reuther’s jet?” Detroit News. 11 May 1970. 11A. 12) Pip, Edwin G. “Reuther plane had a flame out.” Detroit News. 14 May 1970. 1A. 13) National Transportation Safety Board, Aircraft Accident Report, Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. Lear Jet L23A N434EJ Near the Emmet County Airport, Pellston, Michigan, May 9, 1970, Report No. NTSB-AAR-71-3. 14) Parenti, Michael and Peggy Norton. “The Wonderful Life and Strange Death of Walter Reuther.” 1996. 194. 15) Parenti, Michael and Peggy Norton. “The Wonderful Life and Strange Death of Walter Reuther.” 1996. 200-201. 16) Parenti, Michael and Peggy Norton. “The Wonderful Life and Strange Death of Walter Reuther.” 1996. 206. ###################################OOOOOOOO###############################++++ The Wonderful Life and Strange Death of Walter Reuther excerpted from the book Dirty Truths by Michael Parenti City Lights Books, 1996, paper p192 THE WONDERFUL LIFE AND STRANGE DEATH OF WALTER REUTHER (co-authored with Peggy Noton) In recent decades, organized labor has endured a serious battering from conservative interests in both government and the corporate world. As progressives in the AFL-CIO try to rally their forces, they would do well to remember those few especially dedicated and gifted union leaders who understood the broader social and political dimensions of the labor struggle. Among such leaders looms the great figure of Walter Reuther. Rising from the ranks to spearhead the creation of the United Auto Workers (UAW), Reuther brought a special blend of unfaltering progressivism and efficacy to the U.S. political scene. For this he earned the wrath of powerful corporate and political interests. On the evening of May 9, 1970, Reuther, along with his wife, The Early Struggle Eight months before his death, Reuther reflected on the broader dimensions of labor's struggle: "The labor movement is about changing society . . . . What good is a dollar an hour more in wages if your neighborhood is burning down? What good is another week's vacation if the lake you used to go to, where you've got a cottage, is polluted and you can't swim in it and the kids can't play in it? What good is another $100 pension if the world goes up in atomic smoke?" Reuther was the kind of labor leader who unsettled the higher circles: militant, incorruptible, and dedicated both to the rank-and-file and a broad class agenda. p198 In 1958, at a GOP fundraiser, Senator Barry Goldwater declared that "Walter Reuther and the UAW-CIO are a more dangerous menace than . . . anything Soviet Russia might do to America." ... A two-page ad in the Wall Street Journal (9/22/58) ran an inch-high headline: "WILL YOU LET REUTHER GET AWAY WITH IT?" The ad warned: "Walter Reuther is already within reach of controlling your Congress. The American Labor movement has now become a political movement with the objective of establishing a socialist labor government in control of the economic and social life of this nation." p198 Hoover's Vendetta FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover certainly never lost his violent bitter taste, stalking Walter for some forty years, using undercover informants and illegal bugging equipment. Reuther was on friendly terms with several Democratic presidents who submitted his name for positions on presidential boards and commissions. In each instance, Hoover successfully blocked Reuther's appointment by secretly circulating disinformation packets to the White House and members of Congress, featuring the doctored "For a Soviet America" letter and testimony by individuals falsely accusing Walter of communist affiliations. Both the CIA and the FBI monitored Reuther's foreign travel, taking note of public comments of his that "might be construed as contrary to the foreign policy of the United States?' During World War II, Hoover made preparations to put all three Reuther brothers in custodial detention. He was ultimately dissuaded from doing so by John Bugas, chief FBI agent in Detroit. In his early Detroit days, Walter had formed an alliance with communists within the union in order to combat conservative labor factions and company bosses. In 1938 he severed this association and some years later, after gaining control of the UAW board, he launched a purge of dedicated UAW organizers who were communists or close to the party. In 1949, he played a key role in the expulsion of eleven unions accused of being communist-led. Over the years, Reuther denounced communism at every opportunity, seeking thereby to legitimate his own status as a loyal American. Like so many on the Left then and now, he did not realize that those who fight for social change on behalf of the less-privileged elements of society are abhorred by conservative elites whether they be communists or not. For the industrialists, financiers, and leading politicos, it made little difference whether their wealth and power was challenged by "communist subversives" or "loyal Americans?' The communist label was used in attempts to smear and delegitimate Reuther. But it was not an obsession with communism that caused them to hate and fear Reuther but an obsession with maintaining their privileged place in the politico-economic status quo. At the same time, Reuther was critical of right-wing radicalism. In 1961, Attorney General Robert Kennedy asked him, Victor, and Joseph Rauh, an attorney for the UAW, to investigate the ultra-Right. (Reuther was a close friend and advisor to the Kennedys.) The resulting report warned of radical right elements inside the military and urged the president to dismiss generals and admirals who engaged in rightist political activities. The report also faulted J. Edgar Hoover for exaggerating "the domestic Communist menace at every turn" thus contributing "to the public's frame of mind upon which the radical right feeds." p200 From the first days of the AFL-CIO merger in 1955, irreconcilable political differences existed between Reuther and AFL-CIO president George Meany, a cold-war hawk. Under Meany, the AFL-CIO entered into an unholy alliance with the CIA in order to bolster conservative, anticommunist unions in other countries. These unions, as Victor Reuther describes them, were run by people who were "well soaked with both U.S. corporate and CIA juices. It was, in effect, an exercise in trade union colonialism." In early 1968 the UAW withdrew from the AFL-CIO and joined forces with the Teamsters and two smaller unions to form the Alliance for Labor Action (ALA), with a membership totaling over four million. The Teamsters gave Reuther a free hand on political and social issues. With Nixon in the White House and the bombings in Indochina escalating to unprecedented levels, Reuther ran ads in the national media and appeared before congressional committees to denounce the war and call for drastic cuts in the military budget. While the AFL-CIO was proclaiming its support for Nixon's escalation of the war and his anti-ballistic missile program, the ALA was lobbying hard against both. Nixon's invasion of Cambodia and the killing of four students at Kent State University prompted Reuther-the day before his death-to send a telegram to the White House condemning the war, the invasion, and "the bankruptcy of our policy of force and violence in Vietnam?' By 1970, Reuther was seen more than ever as a threat to the dominant political agenda, earning him top place on Nixon's enemy list. p201 The Fatal Crash: Some Disturbing Evidence The struggles of Walter Reuther's life should cause us to give more than cursory attention to the questionable circumstances of his death. Here are some things to consider: First, as president of the largest union in the country, Reuther had the resources for advancing his causes on the national scene as did few others. He was an extraordinarily effective proponent of socioeconomic equality and an outspoken critic of the military-industrial complex, the arms race, the CIA, the national security state, and the Vietnam war. For these, things he earned the enmity of people in high places. Second, in the years before the fatal crash there had been assassination attempts against Walter and Victor. (Victor believes the attempt against him was intended as a message to Walter.) In each of these instances, state and federal law-enforcement agencies showed themselves at best lackadaisical in their investigative efforts, suggesting the possibility of official collusion or at least tolerance for the criminal deeds. (In this context, it might be noted that in January 1970, only three months before the fatal plane crash, the Nixon White House requested Reuther's FBI file The call came from Egil Krogh, a Nixon staff member who was later arrested as a Watergate burglar. The file documented Reuther's leadership role in progressive and antiwar organizations. In 1985, when Detroit newsman William Gallagher asked why Nixon had wanted the file, Krogh was evasive, claiming a lack of memory.) Third, like the suspicious near-crash that occurred the previous year, the fatal crash also involved a faulty altimeter in a small plane. It is a remarkable coincidence that Reuther would have been in two planes with the exact same malfunctioning in that brief time frame... p206 In a follow-up interview with us, Victor further noted: Animosity from government had been present for some time [before the fatal crash]. It was not only Walter's stand on Vietnam and Cambodia that angered Nixon, but also I had exposed some CIA elements inside labor, and this was also associated with Walter .... There is a fine line between the mob and the CIA There is a lot of crossover. Throughout the entire history of labor relations there is a sordid history of industry in league with Hoover and the mafia .. . . You need to check into right-wing corporate groups and their links to the national security system Checking into such things is no easy task. The FBI still refuses to turn over nearly 200 pages of documents regarding Reuther's death, including the copious correspondence between field offices and Hoover. And many of the released documents-some of them forty years old-are totally inked out. It is hard to fathom what national security concern is involved or why the FBI and CIA still keep so many secrets about Walter Reuther's life and death. Reuther's demise appears as part of a truncation of liberal and radical leadership that included the deaths of four national figures: President John Kennedy, Malcolm X Martin Luther King, and Senator Robert Kennedy, and dozens of leaders m the Black Panther Party and in various community organizations. Whether Reuther's death was part of a broader agenda to decapitate and demoralize the mass movements of that day, or whether such an agenda existed at all, are questions that go beyond the scope of our inquiry. Suffice it to say that Victor's belief, shared by Walter's daughter Elizabeth Reuther Dickmeyer and other members of the family, that the crash was no accident sounds disturbingly plausible. Despite the limited investigation there is enough evidence to suggest that foul play was involved. The untimely death, of this dedicated and effective progressive labor leader raises disquieting questions about the criminal nature of state power in what purports to be a democracy. p209 In C. Wright Mill's words: "What people are interested in is not always what is to their interest; the troubles they are aware of are not always the ones that beset them. . . It is not only that [people] can be unconscious of their situations; they are often falsely conscious of them." p213 One can see instances of false consciousness all about us. There are people with legitimate grievances as employees, taxpayers, and consumers who direct their wrath against welfare mothers but not against corporate welfarism, against the inner city poor not the outer city rich, against human services that are needed by the community rather than regressive tax systems that favor the affluent. They support defense budgets that fatten the militarists and their corporate contractors and dislike those who protest the pollution more than they dislike the polluters. In their confusion they are ably assisted by conservative commentators and hate-talk mongers who provide ready-made explanations for their real problems, who attack victims instead of victimizers, denouncing feminists and minorities rather than sexists and racists, denouncing the poor-rather than the rapacious corporate rich who create poverty. So the poor are defined as "the poverty problem." The effects of the problem are taken as the problem itself. The victims of the problem are seen as the cause, while the perpetrators are depicted as innocent or even beneficial. Does false consciousness exist? It certainly does and in mass marketed quantities. It is the mainstay of the conservative reactionism of the 1980s and 1990s. Without it, those at the top, who profess a devotion to our interests while serving themselves, would be in serious trouble indeed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ###################################################OOOOOOOO##########################################++++ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 02:42 PM PST by AJ Weberman THE DEATH OF WALTER REUTHER The fatal plane crash of Walter Reuther, a liberal who was head of the United Automobile Workers union on May 9, 1970, also raised questions. In 1933 Victor and Walter Reuther had lived and worked in the Soviet Union. They were favorably impressed with pre-Stalinist Marxist-Leninism. In 1937 Walter Reuther became the leader of a United Automobile Workers insurgent faction that included Communists. The FBI reported: "He ran for the Common Council in Detroit in the 1937 election on a Communist Party of the United States of America ticket." [FBI 61-9556-283, p8] In 1940 J. Edgar Hoover stated: "Walter Reuther was one of the Reuther brothers of the CIO, an avowed Communist, who was educated at the propaganda college in Moscow; was sent to this country eight or nine years ago, and was active in the Detroit area." It was suggested to the FBI by one of its informants that Walter Reuther's anti-communism was insincere, and merely a self-serving ruse in his quest for power. Walter Reuther was characterized as a Communist mole within the labor movement. The Communist Party of the United States of America had tried to recruit Walter Reuther, but was unsuccessful. In June 1963, Victor Lasky reported that Walter Reuther had urged United States Attorney General Robert Kennedy to curb the FBI's war on Communism. [NY Journal American 6.5.63] David Halberstam related the President Kennedy planned to replace John McCone as CIA Director with Jack Conway, Walter Reuther's chief political lobbyist. In 1966 Victor Reuther told Drew Pearson and The Los Angeles Times that many of the AFL/CIO's overseas operations were conduits for the CIA. Victor Reuther named CIA labor operatives and CIA-founded unions. He described AID and AIFLD as CIA conduits. This allegation angered former CIA Staffer Thomas Braden and he revealed that in 1967, that some time between 1950, and 1954, he gave the Reuther brothers $50,000 of CIA funds. Braden was born in Dubuque, Iowa, on February 22, 1918. As World War II approached, he enlisted in the British Army. When the United States entered the war, he served in the OSS. He joined the CIA in 1950 as Special Assistant to Allen Dulles. In 1948 Braden married the former Joan Ridley, whom he met when she was on Nelson Rockefeller's staff. Walter Reuther admitted having taken the money, and said that Braden had tried to recruit his brother Victor as a CIA agent: "Victor was contacted by Tom Braden at the U.S. Embassy in Paris and asked to become a CIA agent, using as a 'front' his position [with the CIO]." Braden stated: "Victor spent the money, mostly in West Germany, to bolster labor unions there. He tried undercover techniques to keep me from finding out how he spent it. But I had my own undercover techniques." Braden gave Walter Reuther the money in $50 bills. Although funding non-communist labor unions was a common practice, had Walter Reuther misappropriated any of these funds, the CIA would have been able to get a handle on him. Victor Reuther wrote: "I was still in Paris when the transfer of the $50 bills took place. The $50,000 was obviously an attempt to silence us..." In 1960 NIXON called Walter Reuther "a labor leader-turned- radical politician." In 1962, Walter Reuther, a member of the Tractors for Freedom Committee, helped conduct negotiations to release the Bay of Pigs Brigade prisoners from Cuba. NIXON called this "submission to blackmail." On May 9, 1970, Walter and May Reuther, Oskar Stronorov, William Wolfman, George Evans and Joseph Karrafa were killed when their Executive Jet Aviation M43EJ Lear Jet crashed at Emmet County Airport in Pellston, Michigan. Victor Reuther wrote: "Like others, I have been haunted continually by the question, 'Was the crash accidental?' There had been so many attempts on Walter's life. But from the intensive FAA investigation, the facts seem to say clearly that it was caused by human error, not neglect..." The FAA/NTSB found "no indication of sabotage." An examination of the reports by Barfield and Kollsman Instruments, on which the National Transportation Safety Board based their findings, told a different story. THE CAPTAIN'S ALTIMETER The National Transportation Safety Board report stated that "while all systems were irreparably damaged [including the co-pilot's altimeter], information was nevertheless obtained from a few units. The captain's altimeter showed a reading of 1400 feet M.S.L. with an altimeter setting 29.75 inches..." This was similar to the altimeter reading uncovered after the crash of October 1964. The altimeter was sent to Barfield Instruments, and then to James W. Angus at Kollsman Instruments for examination. The Kollsman Instrument's report stated: "No identification was present to trace the specific instrument type and date of manufacture. The mechanism construction isolated the unit to one of three major types, each of which had numerous variations, none of which were TSO certified. All of these types were essentially military." Had an untraceable altimeter been substituted for the original? Had this altimeter been constructed and tested so that it would fail at a specific, critical time during the flight? The jet Walter Reuther was on had been initially assigned a ferry job from Columbus to Akron, Ohio. The plane refueled at Akron and went on to Detroit's City Airport, then on to Detroit's Metro Airport. According to Victor Reuther: "It was on the ground only 20 minutes, taxiing in and out before it loaded Walter and his party at 8:44 p.m. The Lear Company maintained that it was impossible for anyone but trusted officials of their firm to have known who was to use the plane..." Steven I. Schlossberg, who conducted the investigation of the crash for the United Automobile Workers, reported: "In view of the fact that almost no one outside of top officials of Executive Jet could have known the identity of the passengers and there was little, if any, chance for ground tampering of this airplane, it appears to me that further investigation on a private basis is unwarranted." David O. Norris, a private detective hired by Elizabeth Reuther Dickmeyer, youngest daughter of Walter Reuther, discovered evidence to the contrary: "Just hours after the crash a reporter from the Detroit News talked to the night dispatcher at Butler Aviation who said he knew that Walter Reuther was on the plane." Mrs. Dickmeyer stated that her father was going up to Black Lake almost every weekend, and that information would not have been hard to discern. Twenty minutes on the ground gave the saboteur enough time to change an altimeter. Aside from the fact it had no past, there were many other strange things about the captain's altimeter: THE TORN OUT THREADS A report from the Barfield Instrument Corporation dated May 19, 1970, stated: "One of the set screws was out of the rocking shaft, allowing the calibration arm assembly to be loose in the shaft. There was an indentation adjacent to the missing set screw hole. The set screw, which was missing from the rocking shaft, was recovered from within the case. Inspection revealed charred aluminum in the brass screw threads. The rocking shaft screw hole was inspected and found to have the threads torn out." A report from the Kollsman Instrument Company stated: "If the questionable calibration arm set screws were loose..." (BROKEN LINK AUDIO BY AJ WEBERMAN) ANALYSIS The screw had not fallen out due to worn out or damaged threads. Photographs of the set screw revealed normal threading. The screw hole shaft had its threads "torn," or drilled out. This was why it popped out. This was consistent with the indentation mark near the screw hole, that looked like a mark a left by a high speed drill bit that had drilled in the wrong area, then quickly withdrawn. The proper hole was located, and the threads were drilled out. The set screw was put back in place. The altimeter looked intact, even though it had been tampered with. As the rocking arm rotated, erroneous information would be transmitted to the dials from the altimeter's pressure capsule. The Kollsman Instrument Report: "If the questionable calibration arm set screws were loose at the time of the approach under concern, the instrument would probably have indicated high by roughly 225 to 250 feet." This finding was based on a test during which the rocking shaft "calibration arm set screw was loosened. The unit was exposed to 10,000 ft. pressure altitude, then the return scale error readings were recorded." This error was significant. Walter Reuther's jet had been cleared for an instrument landing and broke through scattered clouds at 400 feet. But it landed short of the airport, and crashed into 50-foot elm trees. The jet engines were immediately stopped by the branches. The momentum of the plane took it 269 feet farther, cutting through the trees; then it exploded into a ball of fire. The bodies were burned beyond recognition except for dental records. The crash occurred because the pilot thought he was flying higher than was indicated by the altimeter readings. Weather conditions that day were reported as "scattered clouds at 400 feet, measured ceiling 800 feet overcast, visibility seven miles, thunderstorms and light rain showers, wind at ten knots." The crew was experienced: Captain Evans with 7760 flight hours and his copilot, Karaffa, with 6533. The loose set screw could not be explained. A Kollsman Instrument Report attempted to explain the indentation: "Examination of the shaft indicated physical damage adjacent to the questionable screw hole in the shaft. Further microscopic examination leads to the belief that this was due to causes other than upset by staking, due to the lack of upset material adjacent to the depression, and hole shape. It was more likely caused by high heat and pressure of a part laying in contact. A staked depression would deform the adjacent holes and shaft as noted in Photo 45 which was purposely done on an equivalent shaft at room temperature." The altimeter, however, had only been partially opened by crash events and the rocking shaft in question was still shielded by the altimeter's case. It could not have been caused by "a part laying in contact." Click HERE to see this. The Barfield Report never addressed itself to where the drill mark came from, or how the threads had been torn out. The Kollsman Report speculated that the damaged threads, and loose screw, might have been caused by heat damage: "Examination of a similar rocking shaft exposed to 1100 degrees Fahrenheit, believed to be higher than that which the subject instrument was exposed to, showed that with a thread which is unabused, and with a properly tightened screw: a) the screw did not come out due to high temperature exposure: letter b= there is an aluminum deposit on the brass screw threads under load: c) the thread in the shaft tapped hole, Photo 39, is not damaged to the extent shown on Photos 24, 25, 26 and 27." This ruled out heat damage as being responsible for the threads being torn out. THE BRIGHT SPOT The investigators at Kollsman agreed with those at Barfield that the set screw was in place during the crash. The Kollsman Report stated: "Examination of the calibration arm, Photo 31, and 32, and the end of the questionable screw show discolorations whose shapes tend to confirm that this screw was in position at the time of exposure to high temperature. The questionable calibration arm set screw is reasoned to have been in position at the time the X-ray pictures were taken (analysis of the X-ray, Photo 10, and Photo 5 NTSB picture) and Photos 11 - 14 allow the conclusion that the questionable calibration arm set screw was in the shaft at the time the X-ray was taken and the stains on the calibration arm indicate that the arm position was reasonably correct." The Barfield Report, which was based on the primary examination of the unit, agreed: "One of the set screws was out of the rocking shaft, allowing the calibration arm assembly to be loose in the shaft. However, a bright spot on the arm in the area indicated (ref D) was in position in line with the set screw hole at the time the mechanism was removed from the case." ANALYSIS No test was conducted to determine if the set screw, sitting in a drilled-out thread, would leave a similar mark; with the threads torn, it could not have left a bright spot or stain on the shaft, since there would have been a total absence of tension. Even if there were tension, the screw would have left traces of movement on the shaft. When recovered, the rocking shaft was bent, so the screw must have changed position. The screw was tightened prior to the drilling-out of its base threads, so that the screw left the proper mark on the shaft. The fact that the screw was still in place after the crash, and was in a virtually pristine condition, while the threads that surrounded it had been obliterated was, furthermore, never addressed. There were several other problems with the construction of this altimeter: THE INCORRECT PIVOTS AND MISSING JEWELS According to a Kollsman Instrument report, the same rocking shaft that contained the missing set screw "has the improper pivot on the forward end." The Kollsman report stated: "One of the pivots which supports the rear of the rocking shaft was incorrect in that it is intended for a ring stone application only. If it was placed in the end of the shaft that did not have an end stone, it means that the improper jewel installation in the rocking shaft A was noted." Click HERE to see this. ANALYSIS The correct pivot was conical, the incorrect pivot was flat. The technician that placed the wrong pivot should have realized that the end stone had been "installed in an inverted position." On the opposite end of the same rocking shaft the end stone was missing and the ring jewel was pushed off center. The forward jewel for this shaft was damaged (oval recess) but not cracked. A drawing of this shaft and its jeweled bearings pointed out several areas of "possible interference" with the altimeter's accuracy as a result of these mismatches. Click HERE to see this. THE LINK PIN The link pin of the same rocking shaft was incorrect. "Pin installed was a P/N 371-80 (should be 1357-37)." The correct link pin ends were flat, while the incorrect one was tapered on one end. The Kollsman Report stated: "The link from shaft A to the capsule is the unit which had the improper link pin in the spring clip on the capsule." ANALYSIS Any part that comes into contact with the altitude capsule itself is critical. The technician who assembled the altimeter had made too many mistakes in the same area, to have done so innocently. The Kollsman report concluded: "Considerable reinspection of altimeters of same repair history is recommended to ensure that the altimeters in service are in accordance with the manufacturer's recommended standards regarding parts used, assembly techniques, and calibration/compensation." [Reuther, Victor The Brothers Reuther Houghton-Mifflin 1976; NYT 5.8.67, 5.11.1970; Kollsman and Barfield reports; NTSB records] VICTOR REUTHER In April 1993, Victor Reuther received documentation of the preceding information. He stated: "I've had very strong suspicions from the day the accident occurred. I'm convinced there was tampering with the altimeter and, although the plane was on the ground for only a short time, it was time enough. The full story was not told. When I wrote my book I had not seen these files. I relied on the then-General Counsel of the United Automobile Workers, Steve Schlossberg, who I know from later experience was not too eager to make the investigation terribly thorough...He was more interested in passing the reigns of power to the new president, Leonard Woodcock, and getting the Reuther years behind him, so I felt he was too quick to accept the findings...he is now in Washington as the official representative of the ILO [international Labor Organization]..." STEVEN SCHLOSSBERG Schlossberg had made reference to a faulty altimeter in his report: "This possibility is discounted because there were two altimeters in this particular Lear Jet, but the instrumentation is still being checked." Schlossberg was sent a copy of this analysis and contacted. He stated that as he understood it, the cause of the crash was a faulty altimeter. He took the technicians' word there was no evidence of sabotage. Steve Schlossberg told this researcher: "It's not my field. The technical part of the report was like a foreign language to me. I was impressed with the honesty of the people who were doing this." He did not believe Walter Reuther's death was the result of a conspiracy, nor did he believe CIA had any motive to assassinate him. He elaborated: "Walter Reuther became a dove in the middle of the Hubert Humphrey - NIXON election. He was very much a hawk. A wonderful guy, but he was for the war. He was Johnson's biggest supporter. Walter finally opposed the war, but he never made it into a crusade. In the future he probably would have, he was a wonderful guy and it's too bad he didn't come around earlier. But when he did come around, it was great, and who knows what he would have developed into. Probably something wonderful." HEMMING commented: "Sabotage of the altimeters would not do the job. Every instrument rated pilot sets the field elevation published on the front of the control tower when he takes off. You check if what the tower just gave you is correct. He'd know something was wrong. The fact it was a war surplus altimeter is strange. They don't put them in Lear Jets. Instrument Landing System, ILS, is a separate instrument you are viewing that had the cross-hairs. You're going up against an instrument pilot who's been through partial panel training, where you have a failure of half your critical instruments. You don't file with just one clue. There was also a radar altimeter." ANALYSIS NIXON called Walter Reuther's death "a deep loss." With Walter Reuther dead, AFL-CIO President George Meany's hawkish views on the Vietnam war went unopposed. Of the Vietnam war, Walter Reuther had stated: "It has divided this nation. It is wasting our resources that we need at home and it is tarnishing our moral credentials in the world." Victor Reuther: "My brother came out against it and that opposition persisted through the Johnson years. Vietnam soured the relationship between Johnson and my brother." Victor Reuther now believes that sabotage was involved in his brother's death; however, he did not believe it was the CIA: "What I did not garner from the material you sent me was that it was the CIA...there are all kinds of wing groups, who could hire sophisticated people; there was a history of right-wing attacks on us." It was explained to Victor Reuther that an intelligence agency was often involved in sabotage of a sophisticated nature. Victor Reuther wondered if organized crime or the Communist Party was involved. It was pointed out to Victor Reuther that no mafia figures had offered valid information on the plane crash. Victor Reuther conceded that this was true. He added that he believed the altimeter had been tampered with during the earlier plane crash, and that the two accidents were related.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/03/israel-government-reckless-mossad-chief Its all about the land. SEE LINK BELOW ALSO ----------------------------------- http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/mapstellstory.html ######################OOOOOOOO##########++++ How does a defensive action result in the total conquest of someone else's lands? The answer is that it does not. Israel is the aggressor. The maps of Israel then and now prove it. (see above link ++ Now who is pushing who into sea ????)

(Historycommons) TELLS US DEAR MR. CHERTOFF WHY ARE YOU HELPING THIS TERROR MAN ?? Spring 1999: New Jersey HMO Is Possibly Funding Al-Qaeda Randy Glass is a con artist turned government informant participating in a sting called Operation Diamondback. [Palm Beach Post, 9/29/2001] He discusses an illegal weapons deal with an Egyptian-American named Mohamed el Amir. In wiretapped conversations, Mohamed discusses the need to get false papers to disguise a shipment of illegal weapons. His brother, Dr. Magdy el Amir, has been a wealthy neurologist in Jersey City for the past twenty years. Two other weapons dealers later convicted in a sting operation involving Glass also lived in Jersey City, and both el Amirs admit knowing one of them, Diaa Mohsen. Mohsen has been paid at least once by Dr. el Amir. In 1998, Congressman Ben Gilman was given a foreign intelligence report suggesting that Dr. el Amir owns an HMO that is secretly funded by Osama bin Laden, and that money is being skimmed from the HMO to fund al-Qaeda activities. The state of New Jersey later buys the HMO and determines that $15 million were unaccounted for and much of that has been diverted into hard-to-trace offshore bank accounts. However, investigators working with Glass are never given the report about Dr. el Amir. Neither el Amir has been charged with any crime. Mohamed now lives in Egypt and Magdy continues to practice medicine in New Jersey. Glasss sting, which began in late 1998, will uncover many interesting leads before ending in June 2001. [MSNBC, 8/2/2002] Remarkably, Dr. Magdy el Amirs lawyer is none other than Michael Chertoff, a prominent criminal defense lawyer in New Jersey, who will later join the Bush administrations Justice Department as assistant attorney general in charge of the Criminal Division and then become homeland defense secretary. [New York Times, 12/18/1998; Bergen Record, 6/19/2000] After 9/11, Chertoff will play a leading role in investigating and prosecuting terrorist crimes, including terrorism financing through money laundering. [New Yorker, 11/5/2001] It seems that the only subsequent media reference to Chertoffs involvement in the el Amir case will appear in an opinion column by Sidney Blumenthal, a strong critic of the Bush administration. [salon, 12/22/2005] #######################################oooooooo############################################++++ Who was asleep for this ?? Only the Shadow Knows ..ugh.. I mean ONLY THE SECRET TEAM KNOWS..... September 1999: US Report Predicts Spectacular Attack on Washington; Al-Qaeda Could Crash-Land Aircraft into Buildings A report prepared for US intelligence titled the Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why is completed. It states: Al-Qaedas expected retaliation for the US cruise missile attack… could take several forms of terrorist attack in the nations capital. Al-Qaeda could detonate a Chechen-type building-buster bomb at a federal building. Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al-Qaedas Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and Semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House. Whatever form an attack may take, bin Laden will most likely retaliate in a spectacular way. [Associated Press, 4/18/2002] The report discusses the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and includes a picture of the WTC towers. [Hudson, 1999, pp. 4 ; Los Angeles Times, 5/17/2002] It was prepared by the Federal Research Division, an arm of the Library of Congress, for the National Intelligence Council, which advises the president and US intelligence on emerging threats. Its author is Rex A. Hudson. [Associated Press, 4/18/2002; Hudson, 2005] The Bush administration will later claim to have never heard of this report until May 2002, despite the fact that it had been publicly posted on the Internet since 1999, and widely shared within the government, according to the New York Times. [CNN, 5/18/2002; New York Times, 5/18/2002] #####################################OOOOOOOO###################################++++ Late January 2001: US Intelligence Told to Back Off from Bin Laden and Saudis The BBC later reports, After the elections, [uS intelligence] agencies [are] told to back off investigating the bin Ladens and Saudi royals, and that anger agents. This follows previous orders to abandon an investigation of bin Laden relatives in 1996 (see February-September 11, 1996), and difficulties in investigating Saudi royalty. [bBC, 11/6/2001] An unnamed top-level CIA operative says there is a major policy shift at the National Security Agency at this time. Bin Laden could still be investigated, but agents could not look too closely at how he got his money. One specific CIA investigation hampered by this new policy is an investigation in Pakistani nuclear scientist A. Q. Khan and his Khan Laboratories. Khan is considered the father of Pakistans nuclear weapons capability. But since the funding for this nuclear program gets traced back to Saudi Arabia, restrictions are placed on the inquiry. [Palast, 2002, pp. 99-100] Also in early 2001, FBI agent Robert Wright, attempting to pursue an investigation into Saudi multimillionaire Yassin al-Qadi, is told by FBI superiors, its just better to let sleeping dogs lie(see January-March 2001). Reporter Greg Palast notes that President Clinton was already hindering investigations by protecting Saudi interests. However, as he puts it, Where Clinton said, Go slow, Bush policymakers said, No go. The difference is between closing one eye and closing them both. [Palast, 2002, pp. 102] ########################### Its one whole theme of look the other way #################################### February 2001: Bush Administration Abandons Global Crackdown on Terrorist Funding According to Time magazine, The US was all set to join a global crackdown on criminal and terrorist money havens [in early 2001]. Thirty industrial nations were ready to tighten the screws on offshore financial centers like Liechtenstein and Antigua, whose banks have the potential to hide and often help launder billions of dollars for drug cartels, global crime syndicatesand groups like Osama bin Ladens al-Qaeda organization. Then the Bush administration took office. [Time, 10/15/2001] After pressure from the powerful banking lobby, the Treasury Department under Paul ONeill halts US cooperation with these international efforts begun in 2000 by the Clinton administration. Clinton had created a Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Center in his last budget, but under ONeill no funding for the center is provided and the tracking of terrorist financing slows down. Spurred by the 9/11, attacks, the center will finally get started three days after 9/11 (see October 2000-September 14, 2001). [Foreign Affairs, 7/2001; Time, 10/15/2001] Counterterrorism tsar Richard Clarke will later claim that efforts to track al-Qaedas finances began to make significant headway in 2000, after Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin stepped down and was replaced by Larry Summers. But, Clarke will claim, When the Bush administration came into office, I wanted to raise the profile of our efforts to combat terrorist financing, but found little interest. The new Presidents economic advisor, Larry Lindsey, had long argued for weakening US anti-money laundering laws in a way that would undercut international standards. The new Secretary of the Treasury, Paul ONeill, was lukewarm at best toward the multilateral effort to name and shame foreign money laundering havens, and allowed the process to shut down before the status of Saudi Arabian cooperation was ever assessed. [Clarke, 2004, pp. 195-196] May-July 2001: No Cabinet Level Meetings on Terrorism Despite New Warnings Around this time, intercepts from Afghanistan warn that al-Qaeda could attack an American target in late June or on the July 4 holiday. However, the White Houses Cabinet-level principals group does not meet to discuss this prospect. This group also fails to meet after intelligence analysts overhear conversations from an al-Qaeda cell in Milan suggesting that bin Ladens agents might be plotting to kill Bush at the European summit in Genoa, Italy, in late July (see July 20-22, 2001). In fact, the group will only hold one meeting on terrorism before 9/11 (see September 4, 2001). [New York Times, 12/30/2001] According to 9/11 Commissioner Tim Roemer, before 9/11 the principals group met 32 times on other issues, such as Iraq, Russia, China, the Middle East, and missile defense. [Editor & Publisher, 10/1/2006] By comparison, the principals group met to discuss terrorism around once a week between 1998 and 2000 under Clinton (see Late August 1998-November 2000). [New York Times, 12/30/2001]

COLBY QUOTE + 1) Try reading for comprehension However, the memo is not uploaded into the FBIs information system UNTIL THE END OF THE MONTH and is apparently not received by all these people (see JULY 27, 2001 and after) 2) However, the memo is merely marked routine, rather than urgent. , thanks again for bringing this to my attention, Williams whose hunch seems to have been dumb luck (since no one has ties the 10 men he suspected to terrorist plots) marked his memo routine 3) ONeill was on vacation when the memo was sent* and he was still in charge of the anti-terror unit till he retired ** so there is no reason to doubt he saw the memo (upon his return) as stated by the NYT. + END COLBY QUOTE #################################################################################################### John O'Neill saw memo.....but parts of MEDIA SECRET TEAM dont record/find his reaction. COLBY SHOWN A,B,blank,D > says," golly we will never know whats between letter B and letter D." Our web Hoster ,Mr. Simkin, has provide great material on the media. After reading the said media material,one can say,"The elite media does not have the truth in them when deep politics/operations are shown some partial light." I think Mr. Simkin would agree. sg PHOENIX MEMO WENT TO FRUSTRATED NYC PATRIOT-MARTYR MediaWhoresOnline.com May 22, 2002 John O'Neill, FBI Hero, Got Word in July, Was Rebuffed, "Retired" In Anger NY Times, Incredibly, Reports And Then Blows Huge Story A Crucial Piece Of The Bush Scandal Puzzle? In a stunning revelation, the New York Times has reported that among the two FBI office counterterrorism chiefs who received the now famously neglected Phoenix memorandum last July was none other than John O'Neill -- then the top counterterrorist officer in the FBI's New York City's office, and the FBI's leading expert on Osama bin Laden. O'Neill knew perfectly well what Al Qaeda was up to, and had been knocking on doors (and, at times, heads) for years to get his colleagues and superiors to understand what he did. The last straw came in July 2001, when (as he told the French authors Guillaume Dasquié and Jean-Charles Brisard in an interview), O'Neill became fully aware that the Bush administration, anxious over negotiations for a Caspian Sea oil pipe line, had decided to back off of tracking bin Laden and opposing the Taliban, lest it risk alienating powerful Saudi families. Instead of going after the Taliban and bin Laden, the Bush Administration decided to negotiate and try to buy off the Taliban and bin Laden. Unfortunately for the Administration, the pipe-line negotiations broke down in August. And on September 11, bin Laden struck. What no one has known until now is that at the very moment that O'Neill was finally giving up, in July, he was being apprised of the Phoenix memorandum -- a memo, it seems, that practically nobody inside the Bush Administration was willing to treat seriously other than himself. At the end of August, in disgust, O'Neill left the FBI to take what he somewhat ruefully regarded as his "retirement" job --as head of security at the World Trade Center. There, on September 11, John O'Neill died at the hands of his arch-enemy bin Laden's fiendish followers. Connect the dots? Well, duh! O'Neill got the Phoenix message. No one would listen. No one. The Bushies had backed off bin Laden. So O'Neill changed jobs -- and went on to die a martyr's death. While all the people who ignored him, on up the chain to the Oval Office, live on -- ghoulishly making political hay out of his sacrifice and their own incompetence -- and, in a sense, their own perfidy. But here's the really amazing thing -- having unearthed this blockbuster, the New York Times reporters David Johnston and Don Van Natta, Jr., simply bury it in their story. They report, incredibly, that O'Neill simply "retired" back in August -- ignoring the well-known background, leaving the dots unconnected!! What did O'Neill know back in July? Whom did he try to warn? What happened when he did so? What did his "retirement" -- and its tragic consequences -- have to do with his frustrated efforts to get Bush's people to listen to him about the Phoenix memo, and/or about everything else he knew about Osama bin Laden's clear and present danger to American lives? Here are some questions that the Bush people don't want asked, by the New York Times, by a National Board of Investigation, or by anyone else. Who among ye Whores will have the guts to ask them -- and then have the additional guts to find the answers? If you can't be stirred by common decency or by human justice or by old-fashioned professionalism, listen to this -- there's a Pulitzer Prize here for someone with enough guts. Just connect the dots -- and do some intelligent reporting. In death, the hero John O'Neill may just turn out to be the central clue to solving the Bush 9/11 scandal. Which will still be cruel -- but at least might lead to justice.

COLBY QUOTE +Your source failed to produce evidence Sabols decisions were wrong and who told who what is largely a case of he said, she said. + END COLBY QUOTE #################################OOOOOOIOO###################################++++ (below Historycommons) So is it CORSI the Secret Team member ???? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- How to resolve the conflict between Sabol and Corsi? Well, one cannot help but note, as the 9/11 Commission did, that Corsis e-mail that allegedly misrepresented Sabols advice was not copied to Sabol, so she had no opportunity to correct Corsi. However, other actions by Corsi over the summer cast light on her intentions. For example, Corsi, who was assigned to support the Cole investigation, was aware that a key figure in the investigation, al-Qaeda leader Khallad bin Attash, had attended an important al-Qaeda meeting in Kuala Lumpur in January 2000, but she withheld this from the Cole investigators. In addition, the passage to the Cole investigators of some of the intelligence information that Bongardt needed to search for Almihdhar under a criminal investigation was approved by the NSAs general counsel on August 28 at Corsis request, but Corsi still continued to insist to Bongardt that day and the next that he could not search for Almihdhar within a criminal investigation as he could not have the information whose passage to him had just been approved by the NSA at her request! What clearer proof of malfeasance could one want? Let us hope that, at some point in the not too distant future, the investigation into 9/11 will be reopened and that, in the great tradition of the FBI, both Dina Corsi and the ubiquitous Tom Wilshire will be polygraphed and asked what the hell they were doing ---------------------------------------------------------(########)-----------.****** GOLY, somebody is not telling the truth, WHY ?? Its the biggest USA event on its soil since ..since.....PEARL Harbor..... Sooo ,soo ,so important,yet no truth,WHY ?

COLBY QUOTE ++ Even if your source’s claims were correct , this was a military unit tracking OBL physical location, not a unit tracking his operatives in the US. I guess this would be in case the POTUS wanted to kill or capture him. AFAIK his base of operations (the Tarnak Farms, Kandahar) had been public knowledge since 1997*. How could knowing his exact location have led to foiling the attacks? END COLBY QUOTE ############################ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ++++ TO KILL HIM. +++++++ (Historycommons below) January 10-25, 2001: Rice Rejects Resuming Use of Surveillance Drone to Track Bin Laden Even before President Bush’s official inauguration, Clinton holdover counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke pushes National Security Adviser Rice and other incoming Bush officials to resume Predator drone flights over Afghanistan (originally carried out in September and October 2000) in an attempt to find and assassinate bin Laden. [Washington Post, 1/20/2002; CBS News, 6/25/2003] On January 10, Rice is shown a video clip of bin Laden filmed by a Predator drone the year before. [Washington Post, 1/20/2002] Aware of an Air Force plan to arm the Predator, when Clarke outlines a series of steps to take against al-Qaeda on January 25 (see January 25, 2001), one suggestion is to go forward with new Predator drone reconnaissance missions in the spring and use an armed version when it is ready. [9/11 Commission, 3/24/2004] The original Air Force development plan calls for three years of Predator testing, but Clarke pushes so hard that a Hellfire missile is successfully test fired from a Predator on February 16, 2001. The armed Predator will be fully ready by early June 2001 (see Early June-September 10, 2001). [CBS News, 6/25/2003; New Yorker, 7/28/2003] However, Rice apparently approves the use of the Predator but only as part of a broader strategy against al-Qaeda. Since that strategy will still not be ready before 9/11, the Predator will not be put into use before 9/11. [Associated Press, 6/22/2003] ######################OOOOOOO########################++++ Early June-September 10, 2001: Armed Drone Ready to Hit Bin Laden, but Bureacratic Concerns Prevent Its Use An armed version of the Predator drone successfully passes a test showing it is ready for use in Afghanistan. The Predator had been used successfully in 2000 to spot bin Laden (see September 7-October 2000), but it was not used in early 2001 while an armed version was prepared (see January 10-25, 2001). A Hellfire missile was successfully test fired from a Predator on February 16, 2001. [CBS News, 6/25/2003] In early June 2001, a duplicate of the brick house where bin Laden is believed to be living in Kandahar, Afghanistan, is built in Nevada, and destroyed by a Predator missile. The test shows that the missile fired from miles away would have killed anyone in the building, and one participant calls this the long sought after “holy grail” that could kill bin Laden within minutes of finding him. [Washington Post, 1/20/2002] But National Security Adviser Rice reportedly wants to use the Predator only after an overall strategy for confronting al-Qaeda is worked out, and no such plan is close to being ready. [Associated Press, 6/22/2003] She and her deputy Steve Hadley decide to delay reconnaissance flights until all the arrangements for using the armed version can be worked out. In July 2001, Hadley directs the military to have armed Predators ready to deploy no later than September 1. [9/11 Commission, 3/24/2004] The main hold up seems to be bureaucratic. Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke repeatedly advocates using the Predator, armed or unarmed. However, infighting between the CIA and the Air Force over who would pay for it and take responsibility delays its use. Clarke later says, “Every time we were ready to use it, the CIA would change its mind.” [New Yorker, 7/28/2003] The issue comes to a head in early September 2001, but even then, a decision to use the Predator is delayed (see September 4, 2001). [New Yorker, 7/28/2003] The armed Predator will finally be used in Afghanistan just days after 9/11. [Associated Press, 6/25/2003] ############################OOOOOOOO################################++++ April 30, 2001: Wolfowitz in Deputy Secretary Meeting: Who Cares About [bin Laden]? ########################### OOOOOOOO################################++++ September 4, 2001: Debate Heats Up Over Using Armed Predator Drone Against Bin Laden; Decision Again Delayed ##########################OOOOOOOO##################################++++ Early October-Mid-November, 2001: Air Force Is Repeatedly Denied Permission to Bomb Top al-Qaeda and Taliban Leaders #########################OOOOOOOO#####################################++++ GOLLY, DOES THE DRONE WORK ???? YUP, but only after 911........... November 15, 2001: Al-Qaeda Leader Reported Killed in Bombing Raid Mohammed Atef. [source: FBI]Al-Qaeda leader Mohammed Atef (a.k.a. Abu Hafs) is believed to have been killed in Gardez, near Kabul, Afghanistan. Atef is considered al-Qaeda’s military commander, and one of its top leaders. Initial reports claim he was killed by a US bombing raid, but later reports will reveal he was hit by Hellfire missile fired from a Predator drone. [uS Department of State, 11/16/2001; ABC News, 11/17/2001; Newsweek, 11/11/2002] CIA Director George Tenet will later indicate that Atef was “a key player in the 9/11 attacks,” but the exact nature of his role has not been revealed. [Tenet, 2007, pp. 187] Documents and videotapes are discovered by US forces in the rubble after the raid. Details on two upcoming al-Qaeda attacks are discovered. Investigators examining the videotapes find images of about 50 al-Qaeda operatives (see November 15-Late December 2001). [suskind, 2006, pp. 57]

COLBY QUOTE ++ 1) Nothing there supports the notion he was in AZ during the SUMMER of 2001 2) “No one at the school suspects Hanjour of terrorist intent”, thus there was no reason for the FAA to have done so or passed info about him to the FBI or other agencies. Perhaps the Phoenix FAA office was ‘in on it’ as well. ++ END COLBY QUOTE #############################################OOOOOOOO################################++++(Historycommons below,except where noted)) If one was helping along a plane flase flag attack,I would have Secret Team members at the FAA. Said conclusion comes from the the logic of the premise and FACTS. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------oooooooo--------------------------------------++++ The FAA verifies that Hanjour’s 1999 pilot’s license is legitimate (see April 15, 1999), but takes no other action. However, his license should have been rejected because it had already expired in late 1999 when he failed to take a manadatory medical test. [Associated Press, 9/15/2001; CBS News, 5/10/2002] An Arizona FAA inspector later says, “There should have been a stop right then and there.” He will claim that federal law would have required Hanjour to be re-examined. [Associated Press, 6/13/2002] ++ Why was he not stopped ?? Shoulda,woulda,,911 coulda. Secret Team ++ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------ooooooooo------------------------------------------------------------+++++ July 2001 - Armed pilots banned 2 months before 9/11 Killtown's oddity 911 page "A 40-year-old Federal Aviation Administration rule that allowed commercial airline pilots to be armed was inexplicably rescinded two months before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, leading aviation security experts to lay at least some of the blame for the tragedy at the feet of airlines, none of which took advantage of the privilege while it was in effect. But in July 2001 – just two months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks – the rule was rescinded." - WorldNetDaily (05/16/02 ##########################OOOOOOOO####################+++ (Historycommons) April 1, 2001-September 10, 2001: Nearly Half of FAA’s Daily Intelligence Summaries Mention Bin Laden or Al-Qaeda; No Action is Taken ------------------ooo------------------ In 2005 (see February 10, 2005), it will be revealed that of the FAA’s 105 daily intelligence summaries between these dates, 52 mention bin Laden, al-Qaeda, or both. Most of the mentions are “in regard to overseas threats.” None of the warnings specifically predict something similar to the 9/11 attacks, but five of them mention al-Qaeda’s training for hijackings and two reports concern suicide operations unconnected to aviation. [Associated Press, 2/11/2005] One of the warnings mentions air defense measures being taken in Genoa, Italy, for the July 2001 G-8 summit to protect from a possible air attack by terrorists (see July 20-22, 2001). However, the New Jersey Star-Ledger is virtually the only newspaper in the US to report this fact. [New Jersey Star-Ledger, 2/11/2005] Despite all these warnings, the FAA fails to take any extra security measures. They do not expand the use of in-flight air marshals or tighten airport screening for weapons. A proposed rule to improve passenger screening and other security measures ordered by Congress in 1996 has held up and is still not in effect by 9/11. The 9/11 Commission’s report on these FAA warnings released in 2005 (see February 10, 2005) will conclude that FAA officials were more concerned with reducing airline congestion, lessening delays, and easing air carriers’ financial problems than preventing a hijacking. [Associated Press, 2/11/2005] The FAA also makes no effort to expand its list of terror suspects, which includes only a dozen names by 9/11 (see April 24, 2000). The former head of the FAA’s civil aviation security branch later says he wasn’t even aware of TIPOFF, the government’s main watch list, which included the names of two 9/11 hijackers before 9/11. Nor is there any evidence that a senior FAA working group responsible for security ever meets in 2001 to discuss “the high threat period that summer.” [New York Times, 2/10/2005] _______________++++++++_________________________________OOOO AND SECRET TEAM MEMBERS IN THE State Department http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a092500hanigetsvisa#a092500hanigetsvisa #############################################OOOOOOOO##################################++++ OOOOOOOO########OOOOOO ################################################ Sorry, Hanjour was in AZ in the SUMMER 2001. He had payed for ,I recall ,34 hours of simulator,but took only 21 hours,so this would explain not being on payment records,they owed him 13 hours. .---------------------------------------------------oooo--------------------------------------------++++ One school document records Hanjour’s name for use of a flight simulator on June 23, 2001, though his name does not appear on payment records. Faisal al-Salmi, Rayed Abdullah, and Lotfi Raissi also use the flight simulator that day. Al-Salmi will later be convicted of lying about his associations with Hanjour (see February 15, 2002). Abdullah had moved with Hanjour from Florida in 1997, and is known for giving extremist speeches at a Phoenix mosque (see October 1996-Late April 1999). Raissi will later be suspected of involvement in the 9/11 plot, then cleared (see September 21, 2001). There are also indications that Hanjour signs up to use a flight simulator in August with three other Muslim men, including al-Salmi. One Sawyer employee is fairly certain she sees Hanjour during the summer. Another witness sees Hanjour with al-Salmi elsewhere in Phoenix. The 9/11 Commission will note that the evidence of Hanjour training in Phoenix during the summer is not definitive, but “the FBI’s Phoenix office believes it is plausible that Hanjour return to Arizona for additional training.” On July 10, 2001, Phoenix FBI .

START COLBY QUOTE + Let’s not forget most truthers (including you) think O'Niell was set-up, if not to die in the collapse of the WTC, at least over the missing brief case, so if the senior agent most preoccupied with AQ was not spurred to action by the memo how can other bureau officials be considered so negligent that their failures to act is considered evidence of an "inside job"? END COLBY QUOTE + ################################ OOOOO ########################## Sorry COLBY -YOU "IS" WRONG again. (Im trying out Palanism) READ BELOW ABOUT "the wall" ,this is how the secret team of USA intell assets helped along 911 ,AKA the GREAT TREASON. AT the very bottom is a very good article IMHO. COLBY'S points are weak.Four parts below to counter COLBY and then great article at bottom. SG ###############################################OOOOOOOO#####################################################++++ While most evidence places 9/11 hijacker Hani Hanjour on the East Coast in the summer of 2001, he may undergo some flight training in Phoenix, Arizona. Hanjour had trained at the Sawyer School of Aviation previously (see 1998), and there is some evidence he returns there. One school document records Hanjour’s name for use of a flight simulator on June 23, 2001, though his name does not appear on payment records. Faisal al-Salmi, Rayed Abdullah, and Lotfi Raissi also use the flight simulator that day. Al-Salmi will later be convicted of lying about his associations with Hanjour (see February 15, 2002). Abdullah had moved with Hanjour from Florida in 1997, and is known for giving extremist speeches at a Phoenix mosque (see October 1996-Late April 1999). Raissi will later be suspected of involvement in the 9/11 plot, then cleared (see September 21, 2001). There are also indications that Hanjour signs up to use a flight simulator in August with three other Muslim men, including al-Salmi. One Sawyer employee is fairly certain she sees Hanjour during the summer. Another witness sees Hanjour with al-Salmi elsewhere in Phoenix. The 9/11 Commission will note that the evidence of Hanjour training in Phoenix during the summer is not definitive, but “the FBI’s Phoenix office believes it is plausible that Hanjour return to Arizona for additional training.” On July 10, 2001, Phoenix FBI agent Ken Williams sends a memorandum to FBI headquarters urging a nationwide check on Middle Eastern students at flight schools (see July 10, 2001). Yet he does not seem to conduct any kind of check on Phoenix flight schools at this time. Phoenix flight school managers will later claim that the FBI did not ask them for tips on suspicious students before 9/11. A Sawyer School manager apparently had suspicions about some of his students (though he does not mention Hanjour specifically). He later will say that had he known the FBI was concerned that some students might be Islamic militants, “I would have called someone.” Another flight school manager claims he has a good relationship with the FBI and is surprised he is not asked about Williams’ concerns. He will complain, “Should flight schools be clairvoyant?” [New York Times, 5/24/2002; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 529] (Historycommons) ###############################################OOOOO##################################################++++ SCREW THE Commission,"The 9/11 Commission will note that the evidence of Hanjour training in Phoenix during the summer is not definitive", GOLLY didnt have FAA data ?? see below January-February 2001: Flight School’s Repeated Warnings About Hijacker Hanjour Ignored by FAA In January 2001, the Arizona flight school JetTech alerts the FAA about hijacker Hani Hanjour. No one at the school suspects Hanjour of terrorist intent, but they tell the FAA he lacks both the English and flying skills necessary for the commercial pilot’s license he has already obtained. For instance, he had taken classes at the University of Arizona but failed his English classes with a 0.26 grade point average. A JetTech flight school manager “couldn’t believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had.” A former employee says, “I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all.” They also note he is an exceptionally poor student who does not seem to care about passing his courses. [New York Times, 5/4/2002; CBS News, 5/10/2002] An FAA official named John Anthony actually sits next to Hanjour in class and observes his skills. He suggests the use of a translator to help Hanjour pass, but the flight school points out that goes “against the rules that require a pilot to be able to write and speak English fluently before they even get their license.” [Associated Press, 5/10/2002] The FAA verifies that Hanjour’s 1999 pilot’s license is legitimate (see April 15, 1999), but takes no other action. However, his license should have been rejected because it had already expired in late 1999 when he failed to take a manadatory medical test. [Associated Press, 9/15/2001; CBS News, 5/10/2002] An Arizona FAA inspector later says, “There should have been a stop right then and there.” He will claim that federal law would have required Hanjour to be re-examined. [Associated Press, 6/13/2002] In February, Hanjour begins advanced simulator training, “a far more complicated task than he had faced in earning a commercial license.” [New York Times, 6/19/2002] The flight school again alerts the FAA about this and gives a total of five alerts about Hanjour, but no further action on him is taken. The FBI is not told about Hanjour. [CBS News, 5/10/2002] Ironically, in July 2001, Arizona FBI agent Ken Williams will recommend in a memo that the FBI liaison with local flight schools and keep track of suspicious activity by Middle Eastern students (see July 10, 2001). (Historycommons) ####################################OOOOOOOO##############################################++++ AQ = MEMO also MEMO NOT UPLOADED INTO FBI SYSTEM (??) also FBI O’Neill seems not on MEMO list. In the memo, Williams does the following: Names nine other suspect students from Pakistan, India, Kenya, Algeria, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia. [Die Zeit (Hamburg), 10/1/2002] Hijacker Hani Hanjour, attending flight school in Arizona in early 2001 and probably continuing into the summer of 2001 (see Summer 2001), is not one of the students, but, as explained below, it seems two of the students know him. [uS Congress, 7/24/2003, pp. 135 ; Washington Post, 7/25/2003] Notes that he interviewed some of these students, and heard some of them make hostile comments about the US. Additionally, he noticed that they were suspiciously well informed about security measures at US airports. [Die Zeit (Hamburg), 10/1/2002] Notes an increasing, “inordinate number of individuals of investigative interest” taking flight lessons in Arizona. [Die Zeit (Hamburg), 10/1/2002; US Congress, 7/24/2003, pp. 135 ] Suspects that some of the ten people he has investigated are connected to al-Qaeda. [uS Congress, 7/24/2003, pp. 135 ] One person on the list, Ghassan al Sharbi, will be arrested in Pakistan in March 2002 with al-Qaeda leader Abu Zubaida (see March 28, 2002). Al Sharbi attended a flight school in Prescott, Arizona. He also apparently attended the training camps in Afghanistan and swore loyalty to bin Laden in the summer of 2001. He apparently knows Hani Hanjour in Arizona (see October 1996-Late April 1999). He also is the roommate of Soubra, the main target of the memo. [Los Angeles Times, 1/24/2003; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 521] Discovers that one of them was communicating through an intermediary with Abu Zubaida. This apparently is a reference to Hamed al Sulami, who had been telephoning a Saudi imam known to be Zubaida’s spiritual advisor. Al Sulami is an acquaintance of Hanjour in Arizona (see October 1996-Late April 1999). [Mercury News (San Jose), 5/23/2002; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 520-521, 529] Discusses connections between several of the students and a radical group called Al-Muhajiroun. [Mercury News (San Jose), 5/23/2002] This group supported bin Laden, and issued a fatwa, or call to arms, that included airports on a list of acceptable terror targets. [Associated Press, 5/22/2002] Soubra, the main focus of the memo, is a member of Al-Muhajiroun and an outspoken radical. He met with Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, the leader of Al-Muhajiroun in Britain, and started an Arizona chapter of the organization. After 9/11, some US officials will suspect that Soubra has ties to al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. He will be held two years, then deported to Lebanon in 2004. [Los Angeles Times, 10/28/2001; Los Angeles Times, 1/24/2003; Arizona Republic, 5/2/2004; Arizona Monthly, 11/2004] Though Williams doesn’t include it in his memo, in the summer of 1998, Bakri publicized a fax sent by bin Laden to him that listed al-Qaeda’s four objectives in fighting the US. The first objective was “bring down their airliners.” (see Summer 1998). [Los Angeles Times, 10/28/2001] Warns of a possible “effort by Osama bin Laden to send students to the US to attend civil aviation universities and colleges” [Fortune, 5/22/2002] , so they can later hijack aircraft. [Die Zeit (Hamburg), 10/1/2002] Recommends that the “FBI should accumulate a listing of civil aviation universities and colleges around the country. FBI field offices with these types of schools in their area should establish appropriate liaison. FBI [headquarters] should discuss this matter with other elements of the US intelligence community and task the community for any information that supports Phoenix’s suspicions.” [Arizona Republic, 7/24/2003] (The FBI has already done this, but because of poor FBI communications, Williams is not aware of the report.) Recommends that the FBI ask the State Department to provide visa data on flight school students from Middle Eastern countries, which will facilitate FBI tracking efforts. [New York Times, 5/4/2002] The memo is addressed to the following FBI Agents: Dave Frasca, chief of the Radical Fundamentalist Unit (RFU) at FBI headquarters; Elizabeth Harvey Matson, Mark Connor and Fred Stremmel, Intelligence Operations Specialists in the RFU; Rod Middleton, acting chief of the Usama bin Laden Unit (UBLU); Jennifer Maitner, an Intelligence Operations Specialist in the UBLU; Jack Cloonan, an agent on the New York FBI’s bin Laden unit, the I-49 squad; (see January 1996 and Spring 2000). Michael S. Butsch, an agent on another New York FBI squad dealing with other Sunni terrorists. [Federal Bureau of Investigation, 7/10/2001 ; US Congress, 7/24/2003, pp. 135 ] However, the memo is not uploaded into the FBI’s information system until the end of the month and is apparently not received by all these people (see July 27, 2001 and after). Williams also shares some concerns with the CIA (see (July 27, 2001)). [Mercury News (San Jose), 5/23/2002] One anonymous government official who has seen the memo says, “This was as actionable a memo as could have been written by anyone.” [insight, 5/27/2002] However, the memo is merely marked “routine,” rather than “urgent.” It is generally ignored, not shared with other FBI offices, and the recommendations are not taken. One colleague in New York replies at the time that the memo is “speculative and not very significant.” [Die Zeit (Hamburg), 10/1/2002; US Congress, 7/24/2003, pp. 135 ] Williams is unaware of many FBI investigations and leads that could have given weight to his memo. Authorities later claim that Williams was only pursuing a hunch, but one familiar with classified information says, “This was not a vague hunch. He was doing a case on these guys.” [Mercury News (San Jose), 5/23/2002](Historycommons) ##########################################OOOOOOOO###################################################++++ More than 20 years before 911 the term SECRET TEAM was used RE CT ideas. AN ONI inside ONI,a CIA inside CIA and OH YES ,a FBI inside the FBI. FRASCA not only only coverup artist,lets add SABOL. Kevin Fenton 3/19/2008 Sherry Sabol is not a name known to most of those who have examined the events of 9/11, let alone the general public, but the import of what she told investigators after the attacks cannot be overstated. Sabol was an attorney with the FBI’s National Security Law Unit (NSLU) who was consulted in late August 2001 about an application for a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui’s belongings and the search for Khalid Almihdhar. Both these investigations had the potential to prevent 9/11, but both failed to do so. Sabol gave advice that turned out to be wrong in both cases – she said that the FBI did not have enough evidence to get a search warrant for Moussaoui’s belongings and that the search for Almihdhar should be an intelligence investigation. However, in both cases the blame can be placed on the FBI agents who asked for the consultations, Rita Flack and Michael Maltbie in the Moussaoui case, and Dina Corsi in the search for Almihdhar, who failed to provide Sabol with the relevant information and documentation. Had Sabol been given the relevant facts, she may well have given better advice and the attacks have been prevented. What’s more, Sabol later claimed that Corsi misrepresented her advice to an FBI agent investigating the USS Cole bombing. If Sabol is right, that means Corsi intentionally sabotaged the search for Almihdhar. Zacarias Moussaoui and Rita Flack Sabol was consulted about the Moussaoui case on August 27 by Maltbie and Flack of the FBI’s Radical Fundamentalist Unit. This consultation was broadly similar to those with another three attorneys also asked about the case: Sabol received an oral briefing about Moussaoui, but not the relevant documentation from the Minneapolis field office, even though Maltbie brought it to the meeting. Instead of supporting the application for a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the two RFU agents were negative about its chances and downplayed Moussaoui’s terrorism connection. The Justice Department’s inspector general later found that Minneapolis had gathered sufficient information for a warrant to be issued and that the withholding of the documentation from Sabol and other attorneys was a key factor in the failure to get a search warrant and prevent 9/11. According to testimony by FBI agent Aaron Zebley at Moussaoui’s 2006 trial, the evidence in Moussaoui’s belongings that the Minneapolis field office wanted to search linked Moussaoui to no less than eleven of the 9/11 hijackers. However, what is really noteworthy about the consultation with Sabol is that, in Sabol’s version, one of the questions she asked was whether anybody was sending people to the US for flight training. Although this is a perfectly logical question to ask, Maltbie later claimed not to recall it, and Flack said Sabol never asked whether Middle Easterners were training at US flight schools. That’s what they told the Justice Department’s inspector general and that’s what it says in a substitution for testimony at Moussaoui’s trial. Ken Williams and the Phoenix Memo At this point, at least one agent in the bureau correctly suspected that bin Laden was sending pilots to train in the US – Ken Williams of the FBI’s Phoenix office. The previous month Williams had written the “Phoenix Memo,” a communication that hypothesised radical Islamists were learning to fly in the US and suggested that the bureau investigate this. The memo, which reached FBI headquarters in late July, was only seen by a few people, but, as luck was have it, one of them was Flack. Although she later claimed not to recall reading it at all, the FBI’s computer records show that she not only accessed it, but also printed it out. The connection between the Phoenix Memo and the Moussaoui investigation is abundantly clear – the memo theorised radical Islamists were coming to the US to learn to fly, and look! here is one of those radical Islamists. However, Flack claims that she failed to appreciate this and that she did not discuss the memo with anyone. Clearly, she should have shown it to Maltbie, their boss at the RFU Dave Frasca, to whom the Phoenix memo was actually addressed, the Minneapolis field office and Sabol. It is hard to resolve the dispute between Sabol and Flack – it is basically Flack’s word against Sabol’s – but the same cannot be said for the second case Sabol was involved in, the search for Khalid Almihdhar. Khalid Almihdhar and Dina Corsi Sabol was consulted about the search for Khalid Almihdhar the next day, August 28, but a deal of background is required to understand the ins and outs. The consultation was the result of a dispute between Steve Bongardt, a FBI New York field office agent working on the Cole bombing investigation, and two FBI headquarters employees, Dina Corsi of the Usama bin Laden unit and Tom Wilshire, a CIA manager on loan to the FBI who was a consultant to the boss of Corsi’s boss. Wilshire also figured in the Moussaoui case, where he was the most senior official at FBI headquarters who was seriously involved in the case. The CIA had known Khalid Almihdhar, who is said to have died aboard Flight 77 when it hit the Pentagon, had a US visa as far back as January 2000, but a series of bizarre coincidences had allegedly frustrated its attempts to notify the FBI of this. However, on August 22 an analyst on loan from the FBI to Alec Station, the CIA’s bin Laden unit, found out about the visa, checked with the INS to determine whether Almihdhar was still in the US, and then called Corsi at the FBI without asking her superior’s permission to do so (this is the obstacle on which one of the previous attempts to notify the FBI in January 2000 had floundered). Corsi was initially shocked by the news, as she was aware that Almihdhar played some sort of role in the Cole bombing, and called the New York field office, saying that it would conduct a search for Almihdhar so he could be interviewed about that attack. Corsi also told the news to Wilshire, the CIA manager who had blocked the previous notification in January 2000. Wilshire was aware al-Qaeda was planning a big attack on US interests and that Almihdhar would likely be involved in the attack, so the fact Almihdhar had arrived in New York must have been highly significant to him. However, neither he nor Rich B, his old boss at Alec Station who also knew this, seems to have taken the trouble to point this out to anyone. Steve Bongardt and the “Wall” This is where the “wall” comes in. Corsi told the New York field office that the search for Almihdhar should be an intelligence investigation. Bongardt and some other New York agents protested, saying (correctly, as it turned out) that it should be done as a part of the criminal investigation into the Cole bombing. They also said it would be easier to find Almihdhar within a criminal investigation because of the better tools available to criminal investigators. Corsi claimed that the “wall” prevented the information being shared with criminal agents, as it was intelligence information (note: this is nonsense, the “wall” did not prevent anything being shared with anyone, it merely required that the passage of some, not all types of intelligence information be approved before it could be shared with prosecutors. In some cases, arguably including the search for Almihdhar, the “wall” actually mandated that intelligence information be passed to prosecutors). Bongardt, a criminal agent, requested that Corsi get an opinion from an FBI lawyer, and Corsi approached Sabol. According to Corsi, Sabol was asked two questions (1) should the search for Almihdhar be an intelligence or criminal investigation, and (2) if the search were an intelligence investigation, could a criminal investigator be present at an interview of Almihdhar. Corsi consulted Sabol and then wrote back to Bongardt saying that Sabol had told her the search should be an intelligence investigation and that a criminal investigator could not be present at an interview of Almihdhar, if he were located. Bongardt, stymied, was stood down. The problem for Corsi is what happened when internal investigators asked Sabol for her account of the consultation. Sabol agreed that she had recommended the search be an intelligence investigation. However, Corsi had not given her all the relevant facts, for example Sabol was not informed that Almihdhar had lied on his visa application form, a criminal offence. What’s more, Sabol said that she never told Corsi a criminal investigator could not be present at an interview and that she would not have said that (note: the “wall” did not prevent a criminal investigator from being present at such interview). Sherry Sabol or Dina Corsi The choice here is stark, either Sabol is telling the truth or Corsi is. The import of Sabol’s claim is that Corsi deliberately misrepresented her advice to Bongardt, ensuring that less resources were devoted to the search for Almihdhar. In the event, the search was assigned to a single rookie agent, the only intelligence agent available in New York, who already had an urgent case to deal with. Unsurprisingly, the rookie failed to locate Almihdhar before 9/11. After the attacks, Bongardt turned up information about him within hours. How to resolve the conflict between Sabol and Corsi? Well, one cannot help but note, as the 9/11 Commission did, that Corsi’s e-mail that allegedly misrepresented Sabol’s advice was not copied to Sabol, so she had no opportunity to correct Corsi. However, other actions by Corsi over the summer cast light on her intentions. For example, Corsi, who was assigned to support the Cole investigation, was aware that a key figure in the investigation, al-Qaeda leader Khallad bin Attash, had attended an important al-Qaeda meeting in Kuala Lumpur in January 2000, but she withheld this from the Cole investigators. In addition, the passage to the Cole investigators of some of the intelligence information that Bongardt needed to search for Almihdhar under a criminal investigation was approved by the NSA’s general counsel on August 28 at Corsi’s request, but Corsi still continued to insist to Bongardt that day and the next that he could not search for Almihdhar within a criminal investigation as he could not have the information whose passage to him had just been approved by the NSA at her request! What clearer proof of malfeasance could one want? Let us hope that, at some point in the not too distant future, the investigation into 9/11 will be reopened and that, in the great tradition of the FBI, both Dina Corsi and the ubiquitous Tom Wilshire will be polygraphed and asked what the hell they were doing. August 20, 2001 and After: Key Justice Department Unit Not Consulted about Moussaoui Warrant Request A key Justice Department unit, the Office of Intelligence and Policy Review (OIPR), is not consulted about a request to search Zacarias Moussaoui’s belongings. Although it is this office that would submit an application for a search warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the legal aspects of the application are discussed only with the National Security Law Unit, which is beneath the OIPR (see August 22-28, 2001). FBI officials discuss what they think the OIPR will want in a warrant application, but do not ask it directly. Sherry Sabol, an attorney in the lower National Security Law Unit, will later say that she would have contacted the OIPR to discuss a possible warrant application, if FBI headquarters agents had not withheld information from her (see August 22-28, 2001). When shown the relevant documentation for the Moussaoui case after 9/11, the OIPR’s general counsel will say he would have considered the application and, if submitted, he “would have tied bells and whistles” to a comment by Moussaoui’s imam that Moussaoui and an associate wanted to “go on jihad” (see August 17, 2001). [uS Department of Justice, 11/2004, pp. 132-166, 182-4, 201 pdf file] However, a memo from Attorney General John Ashcroft issued in May to improve the efficiency of the FISA process recommended communications between field offices, FBI headquarters, and the OIPR. In addition, the OIPR and the FBI should hold regular monthly meetings to discuss FISA warrants. It is unclear if such a meeting is held in the three weeks between Moussaoui’s arrest and 9/11. However, one of the people supposed to attend such meetings is Spike Bowman, chief of the National Security Law Unit, who is involved in the Moussaoui case (see August 28, 2001). [uS Department of Justice, 5/18/2001 pdf file] August 22-28, 2001: Phoenix Memo Withheld from FISA Attorneys in Moussaoui Case The FBI’s Minneapolis field office drafts an application for a FISA warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui’s belongings and sends it to the Radical Fundamentalist Unit (RFU) at FBI headquarters. From there, the application is sent to four attorneys at the FBI’s National Security Law Unit, as it needs to be legally cleared by them before being submitted to the FISA Court. All four attorneys are doubtful that the application contains enough evidence to secure a warrant. Although they are aware that Moussaoui is connected to Chechen rebels, they do not believe the FISA court will consider the Chechen rebels to be a foreign power. Moreover, they do not think the connection between the Chechens and bin Laden is strong enough to make Moussaoui an agent of al-Qaeda. However, the attorneys are not given the relevant documentation. For example, they are not informed that the FBI was warned in April that the Chechen rebel leader and Osama bin Laden were planning an attack against the US (see Before April 13, 2001). Nor are they provided with a copy of the Phoenix Memo, in which Arizona FBI agent Ken Williams correctly theorized that bin Laden was sending agents to the US to train in flight schools (see July 10, 2001). Attorney Sherry Sabol will later say that she asked RFU agents Mike Maltbie and Rita Flack whether there was any evidence of people being sent to the US for flight training. Flack, who read the Phoenix memo five days before (see August 22, 2001), said no. Maltbie will later say he does not recall this and Flack will deny it. [uS Department of Justice, 11/2004, pp. 139-160 pdf file; US Department of Justice, 3/1/2006 pdf file; US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, 7/31/2006 pdf file] The Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General will later criticize Flack for failing to inform the attorneys of the memo. [uS Department of Justice, 11/2004, pp. 208 pdf file] Sabol and two of the other attorneys will say that they would have taken actions to support the application if they had known about the Phoenix Memo. However, they do not believe that material from the Phoenix memo would have been enough to secure the FISA warrant. [uS Department of Justice, 11/2004, pp. 146-8, 158-160, 208 pdf file] August 28-29, 2001: FBI Headquarters Allegedly Misrepresents Attorney’s Advice, Ensuring Search for Hijacker Almihdhar Is Intelligence Investigation FBI headquarters agents Dina Corsi and Rod Middleton contact Justice Department lawyer Sherry Sabol to ask her opinion on the search for hijacker Khalid Almihdhar, but Sabol will later say that Corsi misrepresents her advice to other agents. Corsi contacts Sabol, an attorney at the National Security Law Unit, to ask her about legal restrictions on the search for Khalid Almihdhar, because of an argument she has had with New York agent Steve Bongardt about whether the search should be an intelligence or criminal investigation (see August 28, 2001 and August 28, 2001). Corsi will later tell Bongardt that Sabol told her that the information needed for the investigation cannot be passed on to criminal agents at the FBI, only intelligence agents, and that if Almihdhar is located a criminal agent cannot be present at an interview. [uS Department of Justice, 11/2004, pp. 307-8 pdf file] Corsi’s understanding of the issue is wrong and the “wall”, which restricted the passage of some intelligence information to criminal agents at the FBI, does not prevent the information in question being shared with criminal agents (see August 29, 2001). The 9/11 Commission will comment that Corsi “appears to have misunderstood the complex rules that could apply to the situation.” [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 271] In addition, Sabol will later insist that her advice was very different than what Corsi claims it is. She will deny saying a criminal agent could not interview Almihdhar, arguing that she would not have given such inaccurate advice. She will also say the caveat on the intelligence information from the NSA would not have stopped criminal agents getting involved and, in any case, the NSA would have waived the caveat, if asked (note: the NSA did so at Corsi’s request just one day earlier (see August 27-28, 2001), but presumably Corsi does not tell Sabol this). [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 271] Further, Corsi apparently does not tell Sabol that Almihdhar is in the US illegally. The illegal entry is a crime and means criminal FBI agents can search for him (see August 29, 2001). ########################################OOOOOOOO#########################################++++ http://www.truth-out.org/report-intelligence-unit-told-911-stop-tracking-bin-laden/1306159803 -------------- Report: Intelligence Unit Told Before 9/11 to Stop Tracking Bin Laden Monday 23 May 2011 by: Jeffrey Kaye, Truthout --------------ooo-------------- Smoke billows from the World Trade Center in New York, on September 11, 2001. (Photo: Ruth Fremson / The New York Times) A great deal of controversy has arisen about what was known about the movements and location of Osama bin Laden in the wake of his killing by US Special Forces on May 2 in Abbottabad, Pakistan. Questions about what intelligence agencies knew or didn't know about al-Qaeda activities go back some years, most prominently in the controversy over the existence of a joint US Special Forces Command and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) data mining effort known as "Able Danger." What hasn't been discussed is a September 2008 Department of Defense (DoD) inspector general (IG)report, summarizing an investigation made in response to an accusation by a Joint Forces Intelligence Command (JFIC) whistleblower, which indicated that a senior JFIC commander had halted actions tracking Osama bin Laden prior to 9/11. JFIC is tasked with an intelligence mission in support of United States Joint Force Command (USJFCOM). The report, titled "Review of Joint Forces Intelligence Command Response to 9/11 Commission," was declassified last year, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request from Steven Aftergood at the Federation of American Scientists. The whistleblower, who the IG report identified as a former JFIC employee represented only by his codename "IRON MAN," claimed in letters written to both the DoD inspector general in May 2006 and, lacking any apparent action by the IG, to the Office of the National Director of Intelligence (ODNI) in October 2007, that JFIC had withheld operational information about al-Qaeda when queried in March 2002 about its activities by the DIA and higher command officials on behalf of the 9/11 Commission. The ODNI passed the complaint back to the IG, who then opened an investigation under the auspices of the deputy inspector general for intelligence. In a November 27, 2007,letterfrom Edward Maguire at the ODNI to Gen. Claude Kicklighter at the DoD's IG office, Maquire identifies the whistleblower as "a DIA employee in the Defense HUMINT Management Office, Policy and Plans Division," who was "personally involved in JFIC intelligence activities related to al-Qa'ida and the 9/11 attacks and had first hand knowledge of circumstances surrounding that alleged false reporting to the Secretary of Defense and Congress." Maguire also offered to send classified material to the DoD IG that was in possession of the Director of National Intelligence's (DNI) inspector general. He also told Kicklighter that the DNI had not performed even a preliminary inquiry on the allegations. The IG report, which does not explain the 18-month delay in opening an investigation, cleared JFIC of any wrongdoing and declared that the intelligence agency had "provided a timely and accurate reply in response to the 9/11 Commission." In evident response, IRON MAN indicated to the IG investigating staff that "he had never seen the 9/11 Commission questions or JFIC's response, but that Congress should have asked for files concerning the tracking of Usama Bin Ladin." According to the IG report, the 9/11 Commission "had not requested the direct submission of any files or requested information regarding the tracking of Usama Bin Ladin." The report said the commission questions "were very specific," and asked what the JFIC knew about "imminent attack" or "hijackers involved" in the 9/11 terrorist attack. Tracking Bin Laden had been undertaken by a secret unit within the JFIC, the Asymmetric Threats Division, formed in 1999 "to take a non-traditional approach to analysis." Known by its DoD acronym, DO5, it was tasked with providing "current intelligence briefings and produced the Worldwide Terrorist Threat Summary in support of the USJFCOM Intelligence staff [J2]." Almost no public source material exists on DO5 activities, except what is in the IG report. The IG report does not deny the tracking of Bin Laden, but notes that the JFIC was to provide general and direct intelligence support to USJFCOM and subordinate joint forces commands and that it did not have a mission to track Osama bin Laden or predict imminent targets of terrorism on US soil. Nevertheless, DO5 was involved in intelligence concerns domestically. It provided assistance to the Joint Task Force - Civil Support (JTF-CS), which, like DO5, was formed in 1999 and based out of Fort Monroe, Virginia. The JTF-CS was tasked with assisting the DoD response to domestic terror incidents,including"managing the consequences of a domestic chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and high-yield explosive (CBRNE) situation." At one point, DO5 assisted the JTF-CS by "establishing fictional terrorist organizations that would mimic real world terrorist groups" that were utilized as part of JTF-CS "exercises." The obscurity of DO5's mission was summed up by a former JFIC deputy director of intelligence, who told investigators that DO5 had "no theater specific mission." According to the answers the JFIC provided to the 9/11 Commission, the JFIC received over 2,200 messages daily "from other agencies, JFCOM components, or services." It did "not conduct any unilateral collection" of any intelligence domestically. According to the narrative in the IG report, a previous JFIC deputy director of intelligence said that the JFIC commander, identified elsewhere in the report as Capt. Janice Dundas, US Navy, "directed him to stop tracking Usama Bin Ladin. The Commanding Officer stated that the tracking of Usama Bin Ladin did not fall within JFIC's mission." At the same time, JFIC analysis of purported Afghanistan "terrorist training camps" was also curtailed, with an explanation that such activities were outside the agency's Area of Operations and "that the issues where [sic] not in JFIC's swim lane." According to the report, the Asymmetric Threats Division was "realigned" in summer 2001 under the "Intelligence Watch Center." The Intelligence Watch Center may be the Combined Intelligence Watch Centerassociatedwith NORAD, which is an "indications and warning center for worldwide threats from space, missile and strategic air activity, as well as geopolitical unrest that could affect North America and US forces/interests abroad." This would be consistent with the work DO5 did with the JTF-CS. The order to stop tracking Bin Laden, therefore, came sometime between the origin of DO5 in 1999 and its realignment just prior to, or right after 9/11. In 2005, the JFIC itself was renamed the Joint Transformation Command-Intelligence, still subordinate to and serving USJFCOM. Other Allegations According to the IG report, IRON MAN claimed that the JFIC had "original material created by DO5 relevant to al-Qa'ida," and that the JFIC had constructed "numerous original reports." But the IG investigators found that interviews with other JFIC personnel and a review of historical DO5 briefings did not support these allegations. They claimed that DO5, which "recruited JFIC personnel from the command based upon their counterintelligence and counterterrorism expertise," merely "monitored and compiled intelligence reporting" from other agencies. IRON MAN told IG investigators that he believed that his agency, JFIC, would deny the existence of the Asymmetric Threat Division and its analyses. But the IG report authors claimed, "JFIC correctly identified the DO5 in its response to question 8" from the 9/11 Commission and explained, in addition, that the JFIC noted that "D05's emphasis was on force protection for the USJFCOM components." But in the reply to question 8 reproduced in the IG report, there is no mention of either DO5 or the Asymmetric Threat Division. The answer states, "JFIC's Counter-terrorism focus has changed over the years," and that from fall 1999 until September 11, 2001, the JFIC's counterterrorism focus switched to "Asymmetric Threats OCONUS [outside the continental US] to include terrorism and CBRN [Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear] issues," with the aforementioned emphasis on USJFCOM force protection. Nowhere does it indicate the existence of DO5 and there is no reason to believe that 9/11 Commission members were ever aware of its existence. The JFIC was never mentioned in the subsequent 9/11 Commission report. In addition, IRON MAN's allegations also included charges that the JFIC and specifically DO5, had developed information that the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were the most likely domestic targets of an al-Qaeda attack. The IG report disputes this and claims, with less than definitive assurance, "Evidence indicated that the JFIC did not have knowledge regarding imminent domestic targets prior to 9/11 or specific 9/11 hijacker operations." The IG report indicated that IG investigators spoke with a number of key ranking JFIC personnel, as well as the previous USJFCOM director of intelligence, the JFIC Commanding Officer and personnel from the Asymmetric Threat Division. Earlier this year, a blogger, Susie Dow, who has beenfollowingthe story of Kirk von Ackermann , a US Army contractor in Iraq who disappeared on the road between Tikrit and Kirkuk in October 2003, asserted that von Ackermann had earlier belonged to JFIC's Asymmetric Threat Division. Von Ackermann's vehicle was found by the side of the road with a computer and a briefcase containing $40,000 in cash. An Army Criminal Investigative Division investigation later concluded that he was the victim of a probable kidnapping, while rumors persisted that he was possibly going to blow the whistle on DoD corruption. An associate of von Ackermann, Ryan Manelick, a former Air Force Intelligence officer, was shot and killed outside a US military base near Baghdad two months later. Manelick had earlier told various people that he was in fear for his life. Both von Ackermann and Manelick worked for the contractor Ultra Services, based in Turkey. No particular link between von Ackermann or Manelick and the IRON MAN allegations has ever been proposed. Dow has written on the two contractors for the website e Pluribus Media. In a May 6 posting at her own web site, "The Missing Man," Dow noted the IG report's conclusion: "The analysis completed by the Joint Forces Intelligence Command, specifically the Asymmetric Threat Division, was not applicable to the questions asked by the 9/11 Commission." "Which leads me to believe the 9/11 Commission did not ask the correct questions," Dow said.

#######################oooooooo#######################ooooooooo ))))))))))))00000000))))))))))))))))))))00000000))))))))))))))) SAY what BRO ????? SAY WHAT ??? COLBY KING OF THE NIT-PIC DISTRACTION,its almost as if he is part "OF" a coverup. COLBY SEEMS to work 24/7 on these disinformative to understanding posts,WHY ??? .... NOW !!!! ++ MEMO IN QUESTION ++ It is subtitled: “Osama bin Laden and Al-Muhjiroun supporters attending civil aviation universities/colleges in Arizona.” [Fortune, 5/22/2002; Arizona Republic, 7/24/2003] from Historycommons website 911 timeline -------------------------------------oooo-----------------------------oooo----- July 10, 2001: FBI Agent Sends Memo Warning that Unusual Number of Muslim Extremists Are Learning to Fly in Arizona FBI agent Ken Williams. [source: FBI]Phoenix, Arizona, FBI agent Ken Williams sends a memorandum warning about suspicious activities involving a group of Middle Eastern men taking flight training lessons in Arizona. The memo is titled: “Zakaria Mustapha Soubra; IT-OTHER (Islamic Army of the Caucasus),” because it focuses on Zakaria Soubra, a Lebanese flight student in Prescott, Arizona, and his connection with a terror group in Chechnya that has ties to al-Qaeda. It is subtitled: “Osama bin Laden and Al-Muhjiroun supporters attending civil aviation universities/colleges in Arizona.” [Fortune, 5/22/2002; Arizona Republic, 7/24/2003] Williams’ memo is based on an investigation of Sorba that Williams had begun in 2000 (see April 2000), but he had trouble pursuing because of the low priority the Arizona FBI office gave terror investigations (see April 2000-June 2001). Additionally, Williams had been alerted to suspicions about radical militants and aircraft at least three other times (see October 1996; 1998; November 1999-August 2001). In the memo, Williams does the following: Names nine other suspect students from Pakistan, India, Kenya, Algeria, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia. [Die Zeit (Hamburg), 10/1/2002] Hijacker Hani Hanjour, attending flight school in Arizona in early 2001 and probably continuing into the summer of 2001 (see Summer 2001), is not one of the students, but, as explained below, it seems two of the students know him. [uS Congress, 7/24/2003, pp. 135 ; Washington Post, 7/25/2003] Notes that he interviewed some of these students, and heard some of them make hostile comments about the US. Additionally, he noticed that they were suspiciously well informed about security measures at US airports. [Die Zeit (Hamburg), 10/1/2002] Notes an increasing, “inordinate number of individuals of investigative interest” taking flight lessons in Arizona. [Die Zeit (Hamburg), 10/1/2002; US Congress, 7/24/2003, pp. 135 ] Suspects that some of the ten people he has investigated are connected to al-Qaeda. [uS Congress, 7/24/2003, pp. 135 ] One person on the list, Ghassan al Sharbi, will be arrested in Pakistan in March 2002 with al-Qaeda leader Abu Zubaida (see March 28, 2002). Al Sharbi attended a flight school in Prescott, Arizona. He also apparently attended the training camps in Afghanistan and swore loyalty to bin Laden in the summer of 2001. He apparently knows Hani Hanjour in Arizona (see October 1996-Late April 1999). He also is the roommate of Soubra, the main target of the memo. [Los Angeles Times, 1/24/2003; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 521] Discovers that one of them was communicating through an intermediary with Abu Zubaida. This apparently is a reference to Hamed al Sulami, who had been telephoning a Saudi imam known to be Zubaida’s spiritual advisor. Al Sulami is an acquaintance of Hanjour in Arizona (see October 1996-Late April 1999). [Mercury News (San Jose), 5/23/2002; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 520-521, 529] Discusses connections between several of the students and a radical group called Al-Muhajiroun. [Mercury News (San Jose), 5/23/2002] This group supported bin Laden, and issued a fatwa, or call to arms, that included airports on a list of acceptable terror targets. [Associated Press, 5/22/2002] Soubra, the main focus of the memo, is a member of Al-Muhajiroun and an outspoken radical. He met with Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, the leader of Al-Muhajiroun in Britain, and started an Arizona chapter of the organization. After 9/11, some US officials will suspect that Soubra has ties to al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. He will be held two years, then deported to Lebanon in 2004. [Los Angeles Times, 10/28/2001; Los Angeles Times, 1/24/2003; Arizona Republic, 5/2/2004; Arizona Monthly, 11/2004] Though Williams doesn’t include it in his memo, in the summer of 1998, Bakri publicized a fax sent by bin Laden to him that listed al-Qaeda’s four objectives in fighting the US. The first objective was “bring down their airliners.” (see Summer 1998). [Los Angeles Times, 10/28/2001] Warns of a possible “effort by Osama bin Laden to send students to the US to attend civil aviation universities and colleges” [Fortune, 5/22/2002] , so they can later hijack aircraft. [Die Zeit (Hamburg), 10/1/2002] Recommends that the “FBI should accumulate a listing of civil aviation universities and colleges around the country. FBI field offices with these types of schools in their area should establish appropriate liaison. FBI [headquarters] should discuss this matter with other elements of the US intelligence community and task the community for any information that supports Phoenix’s suspicions.” [Arizona Republic, 7/24/2003] (The FBI has already done this, but because of poor FBI communications, Williams is not aware of the report.) Recommends that the FBI ask the State Department to provide visa data on flight school students from Middle Eastern countries, which will facilitate FBI tracking efforts. [New York Times, 5/4/2002] The memo is addressed to the following FBI Agents: Dave Frasca, chief of the Radical Fundamentalist Unit (RFU) at FBI headquarters; Elizabeth Harvey Matson, Mark Connor and Fred Stremmel, Intelligence Operations Specialists in the RFU; Rod Middleton, acting chief of the Usama bin Laden Unit (UBLU); Jennifer Maitner, an Intelligence Operations Specialist in the UBLU; Jack Cloonan, an agent on the New York FBI’s bin Laden unit, the I-49 squad; (see January 1996 and Spring 2000). Michael S. Butsch, an agent on another New York FBI squad dealing with other Sunni terrorists. [Federal Bureau of Investigation, 7/10/2001 ; US Congress, 7/24/2003, pp. 135 ] However, the memo is not uploaded into the FBI’s information system until the end of the month and is apparently not received by all these people (see July 27, 2001 and after). Williams also shares some concerns with the CIA (see (July 27, 2001)). [Mercury News (San Jose), 5/23/2002] One anonymous government official who has seen the memo says, “This was as actionable a memo as could have been written by anyone.” [insight, 5/27/2002] However, the memo is merely marked “routine,” rather than “urgent.” It is generally ignored, not shared with other FBI offices, and the recommendations are not taken. One colleague in New York replies at the time that the memo is “speculative and not very significant.” [Die Zeit (Hamburg), 10/1/2002; US Congress, 7/24/2003, pp. 135 ] Williams is unaware of many FBI investigations and leads that could have given weight to his memo. Authorities later claim that Williams was only pursuing a hunch, but one familiar with classified information says, “This was not a vague hunch. He was doing a case on these guys.” [Mercury News (San Jose), 5/23/2002] Entity Tags: Jennifer Maitner, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Fred Stremmel, Ghassan al Sharbi, Hani Hanjour, I-49, Jack Cloonan, Elizabeth Matson, Islamic Army of the Caucasus, David Frasca, Michael Butsch, Al-Muhajiroun, Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, Zakaria Mustapha Soubra, Al-Qaeda, Rod Middleton, Osama bin Laden, Radical Fundamentalist Unit, Mark Connor, Ken Williams, Abu Zubaida ---------------------------------------------oooo-------------------------------------------oooo-----------------------------------------oooo------------------------- ++ FROM Historycommons Ghassan al Sharbi.,Ghassan al Sharbi.,Ghassan al Sharbi.,Ghassan al Sharbi.= AQ ----------------------------ooo---------------------------------------------------- Harry Ellen, a businessman who converted to Islam, has high credibility with Muslims in Arizona because of his work on behalf of the Palestinian cause. He has had important meetings with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. In 1994, he began working as an FBI informant. Ken Williams, the Phoenix FBI agent who will later write the July 2001 “Phoenix memo”(see July 10, 2001), is his handler. In October 1996, Ellen tells Williams that he has suspicions about an Algerian pilot who is training other Middle Eastern men to fly. He later recalls, “My comment to Williams was that it would be pitiful if the bad guys were able to gain this kind of access to airplanes, flight training and crop dusters. I said, ‘You really ought to look at this, it’s an interesting mix of people.’” Ellen had previously begun spying on a man known as Abu Sief, which apparently is his alias. Sief had come to Arizona from New Jersey in 1993, and bragged about having close ties with al-Qaeda figures Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman and Ramzi Yousef (when Yousef’s computer is seized in the Philippines in 1995, there is a mention of a contact in Tucson, Arizona, but it is unknown if this is a reference to Sief or someone else (see January 7-11, 1995)). Sief attended a New Jersey mosque that many of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers also attended. Ellen soon sees the unnamed Algerian pilot meeting with Abu Sief. He tells this to Williams and later will claim, “I told him to be very concerned about air schools.” However, Ellen will claim that Williams responds by telling him to “leave it alone.” So he does. Ellen later believes that Williams should have sent the gist of his Phoenix memo at this time, instead of four and a half years later. Hani Hanjour is living in Phoenix by this time and taking flight training nearby (see October 1996-Late April 1999). Ellen later will say he did not know Hanjour directly, but he knew some of his friends and relatives. Ellen and Williams will have a falling out in late 1998 on an unrelated manner, and Ellen’s flow of information will stop. [Washington Post, 5/24/2002; New York Times, 5/24/2002; Lance, 2003, pp. 211, 352-355, inset 21] Entity Tags: Ramzi Yousef, Harry Ellen, Ken Williams, Abu Sief, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Omar Abdul-Rahman -------------------------------ooo----------------------00------------------------oooo----------------------------------------------- October 1996-Late April 1999: Hani Hanjour Associates with FBI Suspects On several occasion between 1996 and 1999, future 9/11 hijacker Hani Hanjour attends flight schools in Arizona (see October 1996-December 1997 and 1998). The 9/11 Commission will later note, “It is clear that when Hanjour lived in Arizona in the 1990s, he associated with several individuals who have been the subject of counterterrorism investigations.” Some of the time, he is accompanied by two friends, Bandar Al Hazmi and Rayed Abdullah. Al Hazmi and Abdullah have been friends with each other in high school in Saudi Arabia, but it is not known if either knew Hanjour before moving to the US. Al Hazmi and Hanjour are roommates for a time. Al Hazmi will finish his training and leave the US for the last time in January 2000 (he apparently will be interviewed overseas in 2004). Abdullah becomes a leader of a Phoenix mosque where he reportedly gives extremist speeches. He will continue to train with Hanjour occasionally through the summer of 2001. The FBI apparently will investigate him in May 2001. He will repeatedly be questioned by authorities after 9/11, then move to Qatar. In 2004, the 9/11 Commission will report that the FBI remains suspicious of Al Hazmi and Abdullah, but neither man is charged with any crime. The 9/11 Commission will also imply that another of Hanjour’s Arizona associates is al-Qaeda operative Ghassan al Sharbi. Al Sharbi will be arrested in Pakistan in March 2002 with al-Qaeda leader Abu Zubaida (see March 28, 2002). He apparently is a target of Ken Williams’s “Phoenix memo”(see July 10, 2001). Another associate of Hanjour’s, Hamed al Sulami, is in telephone contact with a radical Saudi imam who is said to be the spiritual advisor to al-Qaeda leader Abu Zubaida. This imam may have a role in recruiting some of the 9/11 hijackers. Abdulaziz Alomari, for instance, was a student of this imam. It seems that al Sulami is also a target of Williams’s memo. [Washington Post, 9/10/2002; US Congress, 9/26/2002; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 233, 520-521, 529] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^####################^^^^^^^^^^^^ SAY WHAT BRO ???? GOLLY I ask how high can u pile it ???? Only Colby and his PAL Frasca know for sure. PLEASE DEAR READER DONT LET COLBY FOOL YOU , for THE JULY 10 memo was a AQ MEMO .... CASE CLOSED. see below ...... #######################0000################### Not only did Dave Frasca not share the information about Moussaoui to other appropriate intelligence/law enforcement authorities, he also, according to Rowley "never disclosed to the Minneapolis agents that the Phoenix Division had, only three weeks earlier, warned of Al Qaeda operatives in flight schools seeking flight training for terrorists purposes!" (Rowley's memo to FBI, May 21, 2002 p. 3) It is of course impossible to believe that Dave Frasca on his own, is just sitting on this information and not doing anything with it, unless ordered to do so.(Historycommons site)

+###################OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO###########################+ Global Outlook , Issue No 2 9-11: Foreknowledge or Deception? Stop the Nuclear Threat. Now available (for details click here) . Order by phone from publisher. Call (toll free) 1-888-713-8500. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Frasca is the key supervising special agent in the charge of the FBI's Radical Fundamentalist Unit in Washington D.C. According to Newsweek (June 3, 2002, p. 25) "Frasca was the agent in charge of the Moussaoui case and his office also received the Phoenix memo." The New York Times also confirms that the "FBI clearinghouse for Al Qaeda intelligence was the Bin Laden and Radical Fundamentalist Units...The units had complete access to the Phoenix memorandum, the Moussaoui case and the Ressam debriefings." (Ressam is the man with the bomb intended for the L.A. Airport who was arrested at the Canadian border in December, l999) (New York Times, May 27, 2002, p. A11) Despite intense criticism of Dave Frasca by FBI agent Rowley in her famous report, she has never revealed publicly his name. Yet Patrick J.. Leahy (an anthrax target), Democrat of Vermont; Charles E. Grussley, Republican of Iowa and Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania "have identified Dave Frasca" as the cutting edge of the U.S. Government's pre-September 11 do nothing policy in regards to Al Qaeda terrorists. This short article will detail the key supervisory role Dave Frasca played in the events of September 11. First some background facts. On August 6, 2001, President Bush received a briefing by the CIA titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." (National Post, May20, 2002, p.1) The report was prepared at Mr. Bush's request after he became alarmed at warnings of "an impending attack in the summer of 2001." (National Post, May 20, 2002, p. A9) At the time, Bush was concerned about "domestic targets." Yet According to Jonathan Freeland (writing in the National Guardian, May30-June5, 2002 p. 11) "Vice President Dick Cheney sat on a Counter-Terrorism Bill passed to him in July, 2001. The Attorney General John Ashcroft refused a demand for more FBI anti-terrorism agents. The Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield did not deploy a predator drone aircraft which the Clinton Administration had used to track Bin Laden. National Security Advisor Condi Rice was warned by her Clintonite predecessor that she should spend more time on Al Qaeda than any other issue." She didn't So on the one hand, we have the July unspecified "threat assessment", which has never been revealed, that caused President Bush to request the August 6th "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." report which was also classified. On the other hand, cabinet members are involved in cut backs and go slows in regards to anti-terrorist actions by their departments. Even though they undercut the personal security of the American people, there is evidence that cabinet members took the threats as a real personal danger to themselves. For example, Attorney General John Ashcroft, who presides over the FBI, was getting enough disturbing indications of an attack that he "begin using only chartered planes on private as well as public business." (Paul Knox "A Problem Named Ashcroft" Globe and Mail, June 7, 2002, p. When the possibility came up of a Al Qaeda sucide-hijack smashing into CIA headquarters in 1995, "FBI agents descended upon flying schools in 1995." (San Francisco Chronicle, March 6, 2002, p. A11) This was the swift government response to police interrogations of Abul Hakim Murad and Ramzi Yoursef who were convicted in the United States and sentenced to life in prison for a plot to blow up 12 U.S. bound airlines flying out of Asia. Murad attended flight schools in New York, Texas, California and North Carolina. According to Filipino police report of 1995, "Murad's idea is that he will board an American commercial aircraft pretending to be an ordinary passenger, then he will hijack said aircraft, control its cockpit and dive it at CIA headquarters." Robert Delfin, Chief of Intelligence Command for the Philippines Police says, "We shared that with the FBI." (San Francisco Chronicle, March 6, 2002, p. A11) Murad was also in touch with 10 other Middle East men training in U.S. flight schools. Special Agent Dave Frasca occupies a very important position mid-way between the Bush cabinet/FBI leadership and the FBI agents on the ground in various American cities. He is in the unusual position of taking important findings of intended radical Bin Laden-type terrorist actions to his supervisors, especially the heads of the FBI. Clearly, he was, along with the various world intelligence agencies, able to forward enough information through his supervisors to raise concerns with President Bush himself in July 2001. FBI agent Kenneth Williams wrote the famous Phoenix memo on July 10, 2002 warning that Osama Bin Laden's foot soldiers might be training in American flight schools. Special Agent Dave Frasca, as the Head of the Radical Fundamentalist Unit in Washington D.C., received the memo. Kenneth Williams was the most senior member of a joint terrorist task force and according to Ronald Myers, a 31 year FBI veteran and William's former colleague, told the Los Angeles Times "He is one of the strongest agents I have ever met. Anyone in FBI management who wouldn't take what Williams said seriously is a fool." Dave Frasca got the memo but he is no "fool" as we shall see. (cnn.com, May20, 2002) Williams specifically recommended a nation-wide survey of Arab-American students attending flight schools. Unlike 1995, the FBI did not descent on flight schools as recommended by Senior Agent Kenneth Williams. Williams also recommended his memo be shared with other local FBI agents. It never was. The official view is that, unlike 1995, there were not enough agents available for the flight school survey. (Remember the cutbacks and refusals by cabinet members mentioned earlier) Robert Mueller even refused to turn over the William's memo to Arlen Specter, a veteran Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. It remains "classified." (cnn.com, May 20, 2002) Both Ashcroft and Mueller claim to not know of the memo until after September 11. Even the Rowley letter to Robert Mueller was a "classified letter" but someone in the Congressional Committee released an edited version. The Rowley letter is explosive. In her memo, she says the Minneapolis FBI office identified Moussaoui as "a terrorist threat" from a very early point. He was arrested on August 15, 2001. Rowley reports "within days" the French Intelligence service confirmed "Moussaoui's affiliations with radical fundamentalist Islamic groups." The Minneapolis agents "became desperate" to search the computer lap top taken (3 of 5) from Moussaoui. Enter Dave Frasca. Frasca thought there was not "probable cause" to search the computer even after being informed of the reports from French Intelligence Services. Keep in mind, that Moussaoui had informed his flight instructors that he only wanted to learn how to fly and not to land or take off. When the flight instructors first phoned the Minneapolis office, they didn't get much of a response. The second time they mentioned the "plane as a missile" idea and the local FBI made the rest. Just hours after Moussaoui was arrested Mr. Atlas, a student who drove Mr. Moussaoui from Oklahoma to a flight school in Minnesota, reported to the Minnesota FBI that Moussaoui believed it was "acceptable to kill civilians who harm Muslims and that he approved of Muslims who died as ‘martyrs' in such attacks." (New York Times, May 24, 2002, p. 1) According to Agent Rowley's 13 page memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller, Dave Frasca threw "up roadblocks and undermined Minneapolis' by now desperate efforts to obtain a FISA search warrant, long after the French Intelligence service provided information and probable cause became clear." (Rowley's memo to FBI, May 21, 2002, page 3) (see the following web site) http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020603/memo.html Not only did Dave Frasca not share the information about Moussaoui to other appropriate intelligence/law enforcement authorities, he also, according to Rowley "never disclosed to the Minneapolis agents that the Phoenix Division had, only three weeks earlier, warned of Al Qaeda operatives in flight schools seeking flight training for terrorists purposes!" (Rowley's memo to FBI, May 21, 2002 p. 3) It is of course impossible to believe that Dave Frasca on his own, is just sitting on this information and not doing anything with it, unless ordered to do so. The Minneapolis agents even tried to do an end run around Dave Frasca and notified the CIA's Counter Terrorist Center. The end result was that FBI headquarters personal (Dave Frasca and unnamed higher ups) "actually chastised the Minneapolis agents for making the direct notification without their approval." (Rowley Report, p. 4) Going even further, Dave Frasca "undercut" the search warrant application by not adding information on Moussaoui's foreign power connections which he had promised Minneapolis agents would be included. He also made damaging changes to the text provided by Minneapolis agents thereby, according to one Minneapolis agent, "setting this up for failure." (Rowley Report p. 4) Even after the World Trade Center was hit, Agent Rowley asked Dave Frasca if she could now obtain a criminal search warrant for Moussaoui's laptop and personal property, she was again refused because it was probably all a "coincidence". Agent Rowley was warned to "do nothing" because "we might ‘screw up' something else going on elsewhere in the country." (Rowley Report, p. 7) The words "do nothing" are interesting; even more revealing what's to ‘screw up' at that point, except another plane going into another building? After, when Rowley talked to other FBI agents in other parts of the country, the first question was Why?—"Why would an FBI agent(s) deliberately sabotage a case?" Agent Rowley reports that jokes were made that FBI Headquarters personnel were "spies" or "moles" who were actually "working for Osama Bin Laden." (Rowley Report p. 7) Apparently no one mentioned that it could be the other way around i.e., Bin Laden working for the CIA/FBI. The notion that Bush cabinet members were urging the CIA/FBI chiefs to keep a lit on local FBI investigative actions to arrest or curtail terrorist plots was, at the time, an unthinkable thought. That after all, would not be a joke. It would be one of the most murderous, diabolical cover up committed against American citizens by an American President and cabinet. Back to Dave Frasca, the head of the FBI's Radical Fundamentalist Unit. Here we have a classic case of a highly placed intelligence agent stonewalling for his paymasters. Frasca even suggested that the French Intelligence Reports were "worthless" because they only identified Zacarias Moussaoui by name and he didn't know how many people existed with that name in France. A Minneapolis agent phoned the FBI's legal attache in France who found only one Zacarias Moussaoui in the entire Paris phone directory (Rowley Report, p. 8) Rowley writes further that "we were prevented from even attempting to question Moussaoui on the day of the attacks, when in theory, he could have possessed further information about other co-conspirators." (Rowley Report, p. 9) According to Newsweek June 3, 2002, p. 22) "Moussaoui's computer, searched after September 11, revealed information about crop-dusting and large jets and his belongings included the phone number of lead hijacker Mohamed Atta's roommate." So now the Bush Administration claims Moussaoui is the 20th hijacker. Yet Special Agent Dave Frasca who downplayed all reports of impending terrorist plots (the Phoenix Memo, French Intelligence Reports, the Moussaoui case, etc.) gets to maintain his highly placed position as does his unit Chief Superior. Furthermore, those FBI leaders who did the most stonewalling occupied "critical positions in the FBI SIOC Command Center post September 11." Rowley is particularly upset that Dave Frasca "actually received a promotion some months afterwards." (Rowley Report p. 5) FBI agents don't get promoted for screwing up; they get promoted for a job well done. The key areas for further research are connecting the dots in the chain of command from Dave Frasca to his Unit Chief to the Director of the FBI to John Ashcroft, the Attorney General and President George Bush. Clearly, we have an amazing amount of circumstantial evidence that the Bush Cabinet knew of a forthcoming terrorist attack and decided to allow the first hit in order to mobilize the American People behind their political and economic objectives (crush dissent, war on Iraq , oil pipelines, etc) Now, researchers need to work their way up the ladder starting with Dave Frasca;.and, at the same time, work down the ladder from the Bush Cabinet (the more difficult task). In time, perhaps decades, with the help of a few defectors, we will be able to connect all the dots. The comments by FBI Director Robert S. Mueller on whether the Bureau has prior indications of the September 11 attacks are very revealing. On September 14, 2001, he said, "The tragedies quite clearly astonish and shock me and the country. The fact that there were a number of individuals that happened to have received training at flight schools here is news, quite obviously. If we had understood that to be the case, we would have—perhaps one could have averted this. But beyond that, I and I think everyone else is just astonished at the extent of the tragedy." On Sept 17, 2002, Mueller says, "There were no warning signs that I'm aware of that would indicate this type of operation in the country." (Both quotes from the New York Times, Friday, May 31, 2002, p. A18) Clearly, the cover-up was put into play immediately. For Agent Rowley, these statements by her boss caused many sleepless nights and raised for her the fundamental issue of "integrity." (Rowley Report, p. 1) Dave Frasca, on the other hand, has never spoken a word to the press, even though he was interviewed by U.S. Senators. The results of that interview are classified, not even an edited version surfaced. What America needs is one good investigative reporter who can appeal to Dave Frasca's (and his superiors' ) conscience to make a public statement of the orders he(they) was operating under when he (they) stonewalled local FBI agents. Even a Watergate "deep throat" would be helpful in connecting the dots. Surely, there are Americans in high places who are uncomfortable with following orders which allowed the tragedy of September 11 to take place. Democracy may still be a part of the value system of humans caught up in the security apparatus. Certainly, there must be individuals in the FBI/CIA who view their vocation as protecting Americans rather than being complicite in their murder, especially in the thousands. Perhaps I am being naive to think there are individuals who would risk their jobs or even their lives for freedom and act against the tyranny of the American Oligarchy. But George Washington did and so did Special Agent Coleen Rowley. Now more than ever, we need the Dave Frasca's of the FBI and CIA to come forward. The future of Democracy, the future of the world is at stake! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% A shopkeeper knows but the CIA does not ???? ?#####))))((((#####? ----------------oo-- Egyptians Knew of Planned 9-11 Attacks Last August, Says Banker Dave Eberhart, NewsMax.com Wednesday, May 29, 2002 As the Los Angeles Times reveals that for a year Italian authorities monitored loose-lipped al-Qaeda members in Europe repeatedly discussing a pending major plot aimed at the United States, NewsMax.com has learned that the 9-11 attacks may have been the subject of street gossip in Cairo, Egypt in August 2001. While on vacation in Cairo last August, Connecticut banker Richard Dennison says a shopkeeper in the bazaar told him in detail about planes that would be flown like bombs into the World Trade Center by Arabs in September or October. Furthermore, according to the shopkeeper, the coming attack was a prime topic of conversation at his mosque. Dennison, an executive with American Savings Bank, told NewsMax, "I called the FBI about a week after the attack and was transferred to another FBI agent who listened to my story and indicated that I might hear back from another agent in the future. I did not. "I still have a certain amount of guilt about not reporting the incident to the authorities immediately when I returned. I guess I didn’t really know what to make of it, and I have said over and over, if I knew, the CIA must also have known. I am convinced some agents did. "I still doubt my voice would have made any difference.” Dennison had his experience while touring with a bodyguard and a guide in the sprawl of downtown Cairo. At one point, the tourist was escorted to a leather shop where he was told they stocked certain specialty belts he hoped to purchase. When they entered the shop, the shopkeeper was talking to a friend, perhaps another shopkeeper, in English. The shopkeeper’s friend excused himself, saying that he was going home to play video games. After the friend left, Dennison selected and purchased some belts, then gratuitously asked what video games they played in Cairo. The Dialogue The reply was "Flight Simulator,” a popular American-made game that allows the player to practice flight maneuvers using a computer equipped with a joystick. Thinking that this was a curious game for people in Cairo to be playing, Dennison asked why "Flight Simulator” was popular. The enigmatic response reply was, "You will see.” Dennison: "What will we see?” Shopkeeper: "Planes used as bombs.” Dennison: "That will cost a lot of money to buy the planes.” Shopkeeper: "It will not cost a thing.” Dennison: "Who will be flying the planes?” Shopkeeper: " Arabs.” Dennison: "What will they bomb with these planes?” Shopkeeper: "They will bomb the symbol of capitalism in New York City.” Dennison: "You mean the Stock Exchange?” Shpkeeper: "No, the World Trade Center.” Dennison: "When will all this happen?” Shopkeeper: "Just do not travel in September or October; also stay away from Boston Logan; their security is no good.” FBI Memo References Plots This week, Coleen Rowley, the FBI’s chief lawyer in the Minneapolis field office and author of the now-infamous scathing memo to the Bureau’s director about thwarting the nation’s last clear chance to intercept the 19 Arab hijackers of 9-11, hinted between the lines that there were perhaps reports similar to Dennison’s floating about in Bureau circles -- before 9-11: "It’s quite conceivable that many of the HQ personnel who so vigorously disputed [so-called 20th hijacker Zacarias] Moussaoui’s ability/predisposition to fly a plane into a building were simply unaware of all the various incidents and reports worldwide of Al Qaeda terrorists attempting or plotting to do so.” Agent Rowley’s reference to disputing Moussaoui’s predisposition to fly a plane into a building was the salient issue at the time she and agents of the Minneapolis field office were unsuccessfully badgering a recalcitrant FBI headquarters to approve a search warrant to explore the contents of Moussaoui’s laptop computer. The arrest of Moussaoui on INS charges, as well as the fruitless drill to get a warrant came before the tragedy of 9-11. Giving the sentence its clear meaning, the "various incidents and reports worldwide of Al Qaeda terrorist attempting or plotting to do so” also came before 9-11. Official Charges Pre-knowledge Furthermore, Dennison’s unsettling revelations come on the heels of assistant U.S. attorney Kenneth Breen accusing Amr Ibrahim Elgindy, an Egyptian-born stockbroker on trial in San Diego last week, of knowing in advance about 9-11 and capitalizing on insider information by attempting to unload $300,000 worth of shares on Sept. 10, 2001. In court Breen charged that on the afternoon of Sept. 10, Elgindy contacted his broker at Salomon Smith Barney and asked him to sell the stock, confiding in the broker that the Dow Jones industrial average, which at the time stood at about 9,600, would soon dive to below 3,000. After the federal prosecutor’s sensational charge, the media pressed the FBI on the issue, and senior law enforcement officials said that investigators had no hard evidence that Elgindy had advance information about the Sept. 11 attacks. Additionally, the officials maintained that they had not found anyone who had prior knowledge of the attacks, conceding only that Elgindy’s attempt to sell the shares in his children’s trust accounts before Sept. 11 had raised questions that had not been fully answered. Elgindy, his father and brother have been active supporters of Muslim causes. Ibrahim Elgindy, the father, founded a consortium of Muslim organizations in Chicago and spearheaded a 1998 protest on behalf of Muhammad A. Salah, whose assets were seized after U.S. investigators linked Salah to Palestine’s radical Hamas.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ********************************************************^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ CORRECTED comma http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/planetarycom/prior.html HACKED LINK above ############################################## FBI 'was told to back off bin Laden family' London: United States special agents were told to back off the bin Laden family and the Saudi royals soon after George Bush became president, although that has all changed since September 11, a BBC television program has claimed BBC2's Newsnight also said on Tuesday night that it had secret documents from the FBI investigation into the terrorist attacks which showed that despite claims that Osama bin Laden is the black sheep of the family, at least two other US-based members are suspected of links with a possible terrorist organisation. The program said it had obtained evidence that the FBI was on the trail of bin Laden family members living in the US before September 11. A document showed that special agents from the Washington field office were investigating Abdullah, a close relative of Osama, because of his relationship with the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), a suspected terrorist organisation, it said. The US Treasury has not frozen WAMY's assets, and insists it is a charity, the program said, yet Pakistan had expelled WAMY "operatives" and India claimed WAMY was funding an organisation linked to bombings in Kashmir. The FBI did look into WAMY but for some reason agents were pulled off the trail, it said. The former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah from 1987 to 1989, Michael Springman, told the program: "In Saudi Arabia I was repeatedly ordered by high-level State Department officials to issue visas to unqualified applicants - people who had no ties either to Saudi Arabia or to their own country. I complained there. I complained here in Washington ... and I was ignored." He added: "What I was doing was giving visas to terrorists, recruited by the CIA and Osama bin Laden to come back to the United States for training to be used in the war in Afghanistan against the then Soviets." The program said it had been told by a highly placed source in a US intelligence agency there had always been "constraints" on investigating Saudis, but under President George Bush it had become much worse. After the elections, the intelligence agencies were told to "back off" from investigating the bin Laden family and the Saudi royals. The policy was reversed after September 11, it reported. Press Association