Jump to content
The Education Forum

Christians in Palestine Deep Background


Steven Gaal
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

22/Rule by Secrecy:

23] “The Coming Fall of the House of Windsor”. The New Federalist. 1994

So the documentation for your claims supposedly lies in A) an entire book (no page number) claiming there is a conspiracy tracing back to the times of the Pyramids

B) and an book (no page numbers) by LaDouche?

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

22/Rule by Secrecy:

23] “The Coming Fall of the House of Windsor”. The New Federalist. 1994

So the documentation for your claims supposedly lies in A) an entire book (no page number) claiming there is a conspiracy tracing back to the times of the Pyramids

B) and an book (no page numbers) by LaDouche?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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

Kuhn, Loeb & Co. was an investment bank located in New York City, founded by Abraham Kuhn and Solomon Loeb in 1867...

“The Firm lost its independence in 1977 when it merged with Lehman Brothers, to create Lehman Brothers, Kuhn, Loeb Inc. Famous partners of the Firm included Otto Kahn, Paul Warburg, Felix Warburg, Mortimer Schiff, Benjamin Buttenweiser and Lewis Strauss. Sigmund Warburg, founder of S.G. Warburg, served as an Executive Director of the Firm...

“At the time, intermarriage among the German-Jewish elite was customary. Consequently, the partners of Kuhn, Loeb were closely related by blood and marriage to the partners of J & W Seligman, Speyer & Co., Goldman, Sachs & Co., and Lehman Brothers. A particularly close relationship existed between the partners of Kuhn, Loeb and M. M. Warburg & Co. of Hamburg, Germany, through Paul, Felix and Sigmund Warburg, who were Kuhn, Loeb partners.

“...in 1984...the Firm sold itself to Shearson/American Express, itself the product of a recent merger between American Express and Sandy Weill’s, Shearson Loeb Rhodes. Later, the combined firm purchased disgraced E.F. Hutton, becoming Shearson Lehman Hutton... Former Kuhn, Loeb employees remain in senior positions both within Lehman Brothers and throughout Wall Street. ” (“Kuhn, Loeb & Co.”) see books below

****************************************************************************************

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kuhn, Loeb & Co

Fate Merged with Lehman Brothers in 1977

Founded 1867

Website www.kuhnloeb.com

Kuhn, Loeb & Co. was a bulge bracket, investment bank founded in 1867 by Abraham Kuhn[1] and Solomon Loeb. Under the leadership of Jacob H. Schiff, it grew to be one of the most influential investment banks in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, financing America's expanding railways and growth companies, including Western Union and Westinghouse, and thereby becoming the principal rival of J.P. Morgan & Co. In the years following Schiff's death in 1920, the firm was led by Otto Kahn and Felix Warburg, men who had already solidified their roles as Schiff's able successors. However, the firm's fortunes began to fade following World War II, when it failed to keep pace with a rapidly changing investment banking industry, where Kuhn, Loeb's old-world, genteel ways, did not seem to fit; the days of the gentleman-banker had passed. The firm lost its independence in 1977 when it merged with Lehman Brothers, to create Lehman Brothers, Kuhn, Loeb Inc. The combined firm was itself acquired in 1984 by American Express, forming Shearson Lehman/American Express and with that, the Kuhn, Loeb name was lost forever. Kuhn Loeb is considered to be one of the last Gentlemen Investment houses.

Kuhn, Loeb & Co. was an investment bank located in New York City. It was founded in 1867, by Abraham Kuhn and Solomon Loeb. Kuhn and Loeb had created a successful merchandising business in Cincinnati, Ohio, when they decided to move east, to New York, to take advantage of the country's burgeoning economic expansion. Company records indicate that by the time Kuhn and Loeb established their partnership, they were able to capitalize it at $500,000. On January 1, 1875, Jacob Schiff (1847-1920), Solomon Loeb's son-in-law, joined the firm and began a remarkable reign as its leader, during which it grew to be the second most prestigious investment bank in the United States, behind J. Pierpont Morgan's, J.P. Morgan & Co.

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

The firm grew to prominence during the railroad era in the United States. Much like the internet boom which struck America in the 1990s, Americans saw great hope and promise in the railroad era and investors saw great opportunities to profit. Kuhn, Loeb, like all investment banks, brought capital together with commercial opportunity. Its first meaningful entry into railroad financing was in 1877 when it raised funds for the Chicago and North Western Railroad, and several years later, in 1881, for the Pennsylvania Railroad and the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railroad.

Schiff was instrumental in the reorganization of the Union Pacific in 1897, helping to place the firm on sound financial footing. In 1901, with Kuhn, Loeb's financial support, E. H. Harriman famously battled James Jerome Hill and J.P. Morgan to acquire control of the Northern Pacific Railroad.

The firm was long associated with many of America's emerging industrial giants, providing financial backing for Westinghouse and Western Union, as well as innovative consumer giants like the Polaroid Corporation. The firm also enjoyed respect as a trusted adviser overseas, providing services to numerous foreign governments, including the governments of Austria, Finland, Mexico and Venezuela.

It also acted as the leading investment house for John D. Rockefeller, through the guidance of his investment adviser, Frederick T. Gates. Rockefeller invested in many syndicates with the bank, including major stakes in the prominent railroad companies, as well as contributing to its consolidation of the Chicago meatpackers, which resulted in the formation of a leading trust. Overseas ventures that Rockefeller also got involved with included the bank's loans to the Chinese and Imperial Japanese governments.

The firm also joined a partnership with Rockefeller in 1911 to gain control of the Equitable Trust Company, which was later to merge and become the Chase Bank.[2]

Famous partners of the firm included Otto Kahn, Paul Warburg, Felix Warburg, Mortimer Schiff, Benjamin Buttenwieser, Lewis Strauss, Sigmund Warburg, founder of S.G. Warburg.

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

In its early years, intermarriage among the German-Jewish elite was common. Consequently, the partners of Kuhn, Loeb were closely related by blood and marriage to the partners of J & W Seligman, Speyer & Co., Goldman, Sachs & Co., Lehman Brothers and other prominent German-Jewish firms. Prior to the Second World War, a particularly close relationship existed between the partners of Kuhn, Loeb and M. M. Warburg & Co. of Hamburg, Germany, through Paul and Felix, who were Kuhn, Loeb partners. Later on, following World War II, their cousin Sigmund Warburg, would briefly continue this relationship as a partner and Executive Director of the firm.

The firm's fortunes began to fade in the years following World War II. Wall Street was changing and shifting away from relationship banking. Kuhn, Loeb's world of gentlemen bankers was gradually being replaced by a more aggressive, transaction-oriented Wall Street, with underwriters entering the trenches and selling securities directly to the public, territory Kuhn, Loeb stubbornly refused to enter. When asked how many people worked at Kuhn, Loeb, one partner famously quipped, "about half". Such was life at Kuhn, Loeb, resting on its laurels, while Wall Street passed it by.

In 1977, facing a capital crisis, the firm succumbed and merged with Lehman Brothers, to form Lehman Brothers, Kuhn, Loeb Inc. Internationally, the merged firms were known as Kuhn Loeb Lehman Brothers Inc., in recognition of the fact that Kuhn Loeb's international reputation was superior to that of Lehman's.

The merger did not, however, prove to be the panacea to what ailed Kuhn, Loeb. Indeed, as detailed more closely in the Lehman Brothers history, a period of bitter internal strife ended in 1984 when the firm sold itself to Shearson/American Express, itself the product of a recent merger between American Express and Sandy Weill's, Shearson Loeb Rhoades. The combined firms then dropped the Kuhn, Loeb name and became known as Shearson Lehman/American Express, ending Kuhn, Loeb's almost 120 years on Wall Street.

Later, the combined firm purchased disgraced E.F. Hutton, becoming Shearson Lehman Hutton. Ultimately, however, American Express could not make the pieces of its financial services supermarket work and the firm sold its retail brokerage operations to Primerica in 1993 and in 1994 spun off a beleaguered Lehman Brothers as Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., in an initial public offering.

Although the Kuhn, Loeb name is likely lost forever, the firm's legacy is not. Former Kuhn, Loeb employees remain in senior positions throughout Wall Street and until recently, at Lehman Brothers. Vestiges of the firm survived in the form of Lehman Brothers' extensive fixed income capabilities, including many of their bond indices, such as the Government/Credit index. This index, originally birthed in 1973 by Kuhn, Loeb, as the Government/Corporate index was among the first generation of bond index data to measure the fixed income market. It is still the preeminent benchmark in its class.

###################################################

Successors

The following is an illustration of the company's mergers and its role in later successor firms, notably Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb, Shearson Lehman Brothers and later Lehman Brothers (this is not a comprehensive list):[3]

Shearson Lehman Hutton

(merged 1988) Shearson Lehman Brothers

(merged 1984) Shearson/American Express

(merged 1981)

American Express

(est. 1850)

Shearson Loeb Rhoades

(acquired 1981) Shearson Hayden Stone

(merged 1973) Hayden Stone, Inc. (formerly CBWL-Hayden Stone, merged 1970)

Cogan, Berlind, Weill & Levitt

(formerly Carter, Berlind, Potoma & Weill, est. 1960)

Hayden, Stone & Co.

Shearson, Hammill & Co.

(est. 1902)

Loeb, Rhoades, Hornblower & Co.

(merged 1978) Loeb, Rhoades & Co.

(merged 1937)

Carl M. Loeb & Co.

(est. 1931)

Rhoades & Company

(est. 1905)

Hornblower, Weeks, Noyes & Trask

(merged 1953-1977)

Hornblower & Weeks

(est. 1888)

Hemphill, Noyes & Co.

(est. 1919, acq. 1963)

Spencer Trask & Co.

(est. 1866 as Trask & Brown)

Paul H. Davis & Co.

(est. 1920, acq. 1953)

Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb

(merged 1977)

Lehman Brothers

(est. 1850)

Kuhn, Loeb & Co.

(est. 1867)

Abraham & Co.

(est. 1938, acq. 1975)

E. F. Hutton & Co.

(est. 1904)

#################################################

Partners of the Firm

General Partners

Abraham Kuhn (1867-1887)

Solomon Loeb^ (1867-1899)

Samuel Wolff (1867-1872)

Samuel Kuhn (1868-1869)

Jacob Netter (1867-1869)

Jacob H. Schiff^ (1875-1920)

Abraham Wolff (1875-1900)

Michael Gernsheim (1875-1881)

Lewis S. Wolff (1884-1891)

James Loeb (1894-1901)

Louis A. Heinsheimer (1894-1909)

Felix M. Warburg (1897-1937)

Otto H. Kahn^ (1897-1934)

Mortimer L. Schiff (1900-1931)

Paul M. Warburg (1903-1914)

Jerome J. Hanauer** (1912-1932)

Gordon Leith (London) (1927-1930)

George W. Bovenizer (1929-1961)

Lewis L. Strauss (1929-1946)

Sir William Wiseman, Bart. (1929-1960)

John M. Schiff^ (1931 - ?)

Frederick M. Warburg (1931 - ?)

Gilbert W. Kahn (1931 - ?)

Benjamin J. Buttenwieser (1932-1949)

Hugh Knowlton (1932 - ?)

Elisha Walker (1933-1950)

Percy M. Stewart (1941 - ?)

Robert F. Brown (1941 - ?)

Robert E. Walker (1949-1958)

J. Emerson Thors (1949 - ?)

J. Richardson Dilworth (1952-1958)

Jonas C. Andersen (1955-1956)

Sir Siegmund G. Warburg (London) (1956-1964)

David T. Miralia (1957 - ?)

Kenneth N. Hall (1956 - ?)

Henry Necarsulmer (1956-1977)

Charles J. Ely (1956 - ?)

Bernard Einhorn (1965-1967)

Nathaniel Samuels (1955 - 1974)

Morris H. Wright

John M. Leonard

Alvin E. Friedman (1962 - ?)

John S. Guest (1962 - ?)

Jerome S. Katzin (1962-1977)

John T. Monzani (1962-?)

H. Spottswood White (1962-?)

Thomas E. Dewey, Jr. (?-1975)

Andre Istel (1964-1966)

Harvey M. Krueger^ (1965-1977)

Anthony M. Lund

William H. Todd

Yves-Andres Istel (1966 - ?)

John K. Libby (1967 - ?)

James H. Manges (1967 - ?)

David T. Schiff (1967 - ?)

Sydney S. Netreba (1968 - ?)

Sidney J. Sauerhaft (1968 - ?)

Joseph F. Schwartz (1968 - ?)

John Barry Ryan III (1969 -)

Edgar R. Koerner (1969 - ?)

Archie E. Albright (1969 - ?)

Mark C. Feer (1969 - ?)

W. Richard Bingham (1970 - ?)

James A. Favia (1970 - ?)

William M. Kearns, Jr. (1970 - ?)

Norman W. Stewart (1970 - ?)

Clifford W. Michel (1972 - ?)

Robert M. Shepard (1973 - ?)

** First non-family member to be admitted to the partnership.

^ Indicates status as former managing partne Partnership Summary Data

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

General Partners

longest Serving Partner: Felix M. Warburg (40 years)

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

Clients of the Firm

American Smelting and Refining Company

Anheuser-Busch Incorporated

Automatic Data Processing, Inc.

Bank Leumi Le-Israel B.M.

Bayer Foreign Investments Limited

Bethlehem Steel Corporation

C.I.T. Financial Corporation

Chemical Bank New York Trust Company

Dreyfus Corporation

Eastern Air Lines, Inc.

Endicott Johnson Corporation

Erie Lackawanna Railroad Corporation

European Coal and Steel Community (forerunner of the E.U.)

Ford Foundation

Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc.

International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation

Israel Discount Bank Limited

Kingdom of Denmark

Kingdom of Norway

L.M. Ericsson Telephone Company, Sweden

Metromedia, Inc.

Metropolis of Tokyo, Japan

Power Authority of the State of New York

R.K.O. General, Inc.

Republic Industrial Corporation

Republic of Austria

Republic of Finland

Republic of Peru

Republic of the Philippines

Republic of Venezuela

Reynolds Metals Company

Rockwell Manufacturing Company

Rockwell-Standard Corp.

Southern Pacific Company

Stouffer Foods Corporation

Uniroyal, Inc.

Mexico (United Mexican States)

Wagner Electric Corporation

Western Union Telegraph Company

Westinghouse Electric Corporation

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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

Value of a Dollar

In 1867 Kuhn, Loeb & Co., was reputed to have been capitalized at $500,000.00. In today's dollars, versus various benchmarks, this would be equal to:

$7,029,288.70 using the Consumer Price Index

$6,321,583.51 using the GDP deflator

$55,096,551.72 using the unskilled wage

$98,870,892.13 using the GDP per capita

$791,998,799.52 using the United States Gross Domestic Product [4]

================================ooooooo

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

================================ooooooo

References

^ Charles R. Geisst, The last partnerships: inside the great Wall Street money dynasties, p55

^ The leading investment bank for the Rockefeller interests - see Ron Chernow, Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. London: Warner Books, 1998. (p.373, 377)

^ "Salomon Smith Barney" from Gambee, Robert. Wall Street. W. W. Norton & Company, 1999. p.73

^ MeasuringWorth.com

---------------------------oo----------------------------

Books

Auletta, Ken. Greed and Glory on Wall Street: The Fall of the House of Lehman. Random House, 1985

Birmingham, Stephen. Our Crowd. Pocket Books, 1977

Chernow, Ron. The Warburgs. Random House, 1993

Collins, Theresa M. Otto. Kahn - Art, Money & Modern Time. The University of North Carolina Press, 2002

Kuhn, Loeb & Co. Kuhn, Loeb & Co. A Century of Investment Banking. New York: privately printed, 1967

Kuhn, Loeb & Co. Kuhn Loeb & Co. Investment Banking Through Four Generations. privately printed, 1955

Strauss, Lewis L. Men and Decisions. Doubleday, 1961

-----------------------o--------------------------

Articles

The Gilded Age - Investment Bankers

External links

Kuhn, Loeb & Co

Citigroup's ancestor companies 1812 - 2000

Harriman v. Interstate Commerce Commission

###########################

###########################

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

###########################

Club of the Isles The only (vague) information about this group comes from EIR. It is not to be confused with the 1001 Club. November 1994, Executive Intelligence Review, 'The Coming Fall of the House of Windsor', p. 9-11:

"But the power of the House of Windsor also derives from Queen Elizabeth IPs status as the "chief executive officer" of an informal body known to some as the Club of the Isles, which combines the political and financial clout of a far more extensive combine of intermarried European royal and princely families that extends from Scandinavia to Greece. The estimated combined financial worth of the Club of the Isles is greater than $1 trillion and the holdings in which the club has controlling interest are believed to exceed $9 trillion. The world petroleum supply is dominated by the British royal household, as is much of the world's supply of precious metals and raw materials, through such "Crown jewels" as Rio Tinto Zinc, Lonrho, and DeBeers Anglo American Corp. The Royal Consort, Prince Philip Mountbatten, Duke of Edinburgh, plays a similar role in his capacity as "chief operations officer" for the Club of the Isles, and as the head of the World Wide Fund for Nature. What's more, Prince Philip is the principal public spokesman for the number one priority policy of the club: to reduce the population of the world to below 1 billion people within several generations... Through the Club of the Isles (see p. 9), the Windsor Dynasty functions as primus inter pares for an extended royal family that claims the thrones of Russia, Prussia, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, Greece, the Netherlands, Yugoslavia, and scores of smaller principalities." I asked them about the club, but they don't seem to have that much additional info either.

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's see, Sir William Wiseman, the director of British Intelligence in the USA before William Stephenson, J. Richardson Dilworth, mayor of Philadelphia, and Thomas Dewey? Isn't Dewey Irish?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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

Running for an unprecedented fourth term in 1944, Roosevelt used the election campaign to educate Americans about their special responsibility in the creation of the postwar world. It is in the interest of America, he told them in several speeches, to rebuild the world in its image, to give hope and prosperity to millions. The campaign to make the world's population truly free from want, as he had promised in his Four Freedoms speech three years earlier, would mean jobs and prosperity for Americans: It was in our own best interests to see others prosper.

Speaking at the meeting of the International Labor Organization in May, was broadcast nationally, Roosevelt dsecribed the horrors of the British imperial system in Gambia, he said:

``I think that we can get somewhere if we keep that idea of being `agin'--as we say in Irish-American--`against' exploitation everywhere. It would be an awfully good thing for all of us....''

However, Roosevelt balked at enlisting the American people into his fight against Churchill and the British Empire. That would have to wait, he told aides, until after the war was won on the battlefields.

The British responded to the threat Roosevelt represented through the mouth of GOP candidate Thomas Dewey, who was controlled by John Foster Dulles. Dewey claimed that Roosevelt and the New Deal apparatus responsible for his economic proposals were ``communists'' and that Roosevelt, if elected, would turn the country over to the ``Reds.'' (American Almanac)

=========================-========================

Bill,

John Foster Dulles helped write speeches for Dewey. Greg Burnham at the old Della Rosa site scaned up the original CFR incorporation papers. The top page was signed by one

person, John Foster Dulles.The people helping along/controlling these revolutions dont believe in the 4 freedoms for the average Arab joe. sg

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's see, Sir William Wiseman, the director of British Intelligence in the USA before William Stephenson, J. Richardson Dilworth, mayor of Philadelphia, and Thomas Dewey? Isn't Dewey Irish?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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

Running for an unprecedented fourth term in 1944, Roosevelt used the election campaign to educate Americans about their special responsibility in the creation of the postwar world. It is in the interest of America, he told them in several speeches, to rebuild the world in its image, to give hope and prosperity to millions. The campaign to make the world's population truly free from want, as he had promised in his Four Freedoms speech three years earlier, would mean jobs and prosperity for Americans: It was in our own best interests to see others prosper.

Speaking at the meeting of the International Labor Organization in May, was broadcast nationally, Roosevelt dsecribed the horrors of the British imperial system in Gambia, he said:

``I think that we can get somewhere if we keep that idea of being `agin'--as we say in Irish-American--`against' exploitation everywhere. It would be an awfully good thing for all of us....''

However, Roosevelt balked at enlisting the American people into his fight against Churchill and the British Empire. That would have to wait, he told aides, until after the war was won on the battlefields.

The British responded to the threat Roosevelt represented through the mouth of GOP candidate Thomas Dewey, who was controlled by John Foster Dulles. Dewey claimed that Roosevelt and the New Deal apparatus responsible for his economic proposals were ``communists'' and that Roosevelt, if elected, would turn the country over to the ``Reds.'' (American Almanac)

=========================-========================

Bill,

John Foster Dulles helped write speeches for Dewey. Greg Burnham at the old Della Rosa site scaned up the original CFR incorporation papers. The top page was signed by one

person, John Foster Dulles.The people helping along/controlling these revolutions dont believe in the 4 freedoms for the average Arab joe. sg

From what I understand, Allen Dulles was at the New York office of the Council on Foreign Relations when JFK was assassinated.

You say "The people helping along/controlling these revolutions don't believe in the 4 freedoms of the average Arab joe," but you have yet to establish who is conrolling these revolutions.

Who is controlling the revolution in Syria? I want to talk to get a job with them.

BK

Revolutionary Program

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's see, Sir William Wiseman, the director of British Intelligence in the USA before William Stephenson, J. Richardson Dilworth, mayor of Philadelphia, and Thomas Dewey? Isn't Dewey Irish?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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

Running for an unprecedented fourth term in 1944, Roosevelt used the election campaign to educate Americans about their special responsibility in the creation of the postwar world. It is in the interest of America, he told them in several speeches, to rebuild the world in its image, to give hope and prosperity to millions. The campaign to make the world's population truly free from want, as he had promised in his Four Freedoms speech three years earlier, would mean jobs and prosperity for Americans: It was in our own best interests to see others prosper.

Speaking at the meeting of the International Labor Organization in May, was broadcast nationally, Roosevelt dsecribed the horrors of the British imperial system in Gambia, he said:

``I think that we can get somewhere if we keep that idea of being `agin'--as we say in Irish-American--`against' exploitation everywhere. It would be an awfully good thing for all of us....''

However, Roosevelt balked at enlisting the American people into his fight against Churchill and the British Empire. That would have to wait, he told aides, until after the war was won on the battlefields.

The British responded to the threat Roosevelt represented through the mouth of GOP candidate Thomas Dewey, who was controlled by John Foster Dulles. Dewey claimed that Roosevelt and the New Deal apparatus responsible for his economic proposals were ``communists'' and that Roosevelt, if elected, would turn the country over to the ``Reds.'' (American Almanac)

=========================-========================

Bill,

John Foster Dulles helped write speeches for Dewey. Greg Burnham at the old Della Rosa site scanned up the original CFR incorporation papers. The top page was signed by one

person, John Foster Dulles.The people helping along/controlling these revolutions dont believe in the 4 freedoms for the average Arab joe. sg

From what I understand, Allen Dulles was at the New York office of the Council on Foreign Relations when JFK was assassinated.

You say "The people helping along/controlling these revolutions don't believe in the 4 freedoms of the average Arab joe," but you have yet to establish who is conrolling these revolutions.

Who is controlling the revolution in Syria? I want to talk to get a job with them.

BK

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Bill, Apply at Henry Jackson Society. Michael Weiss is the man to talk to,see below.

The Henry Jackson Society would be delighted to hear from you, whether you have a query about our society, our work, or our website. Please fill out the form below and send us your thoughts.

If you would prefer to contact us by post, our address is 8th Floor, Parker Tower, 43-49 Parker Street, London, WC2B 5PS..

We can be reached by telephone at 020 7340 4520 or fax at 020 7340 4521.

For out of office hours media enquiries please call: 07766641670.

---------------ooo--------------ooo--------------

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

Neocon Israel Mouthpiece Writes Syrian Opposition Intervention Paper

12. Jan, 2012

ShareAl-Assad blames ‘external conspiracies’ for Syrian violence

---------------------------o----------------------

“The mask has fallen off these faces,” [syrian President Bashar al-Assad] said. “No wise person denies these international conspiracies that (are) being done in order to spread fear inside. But this time, it was done with people from inside.”

Bashar al-Assad is right. There are international conspiracies to take him down.

This is for example obvious when the expatriate Syrian National Council uses a policy papers arguing for military intervention in Syria that was written by a neocon and Israel supporter and paid for by the U.S. State Department. To further the military intervention the paper is defended by doing away with the local protesters in Syria who oppose any intervention.

Michael Weiss is Director of Communications and Public Relations for the Henry Jackson Society, a British neocon organization which patrons include the U.S. neocons Richard Perle, William Kristol and James Woolsey. He also has a blog at the Telegraph website.

Michael Weiss is also executive director of Just Journalism a “pressure group whose stated goals are to focus “on how Israel and Middle East issues are reported in the UK media.” Critics characterize Just Journalism as a “privately-funded mouthpiece for Israel”. Until the end of 2009 Weiss published a blog for the Jewish magazine Tablet.

Recently Weiss wrote a policy paper Safe Area for Syria – An Assessment of Legality, Logistics and Hazards (pdf) which is an amateur attempt (Weiss is, as far as can find out, neither a lawyer nor does he seem to have military experience) to write a playbook for military intervention in Syria:

In the interest of assessing all suggested options for hastening the end of a totalitarian dictatorship and/or averting a mass humanitarian catastrophe, this paper examines the way in which foreign military intervention could work for Syria.

The paper was written for the Strategic Research & Communication Centre, a somewhat mysterious organization in Britain that claims to offer “Informed insight on Syria”, founded in 2010 and run by the Syrian expat Ausama Monajed who “previously served as the director of Barada Television”. As is known from Wikileaks cables:

Barada TV is closely affiliated with the Movement for Justice and Development, a London-based network of Syrian exiles. Classified U.S. diplomatic cables show that the State Department has funneled as much as $6 million to the group since 2006 to operate the satellite channel and finance other activities inside Syria.

We can safely assume that Ausama Monajed, who’s current organization does not reveal its funding sources, is still on that indirect U.S. State Department payroll.

The paper Weiss wrote to argue for military intervention is endorsed as a Special Report by the expat Syrian National Council on its slick new website.

In a recent Foreign Affairs piece Weiss again argues for military intervention in Syria but sees a more united opposition as a requirement toward that. He achives that more united opposition by simply doing away with those parts of the opposition that are against intervention.

His way to do so is seemingly to promote the interventionist expat Syrian National Council (SNC) while denigrating the non-interventionist on-the-ground protesters in Syria who are organized in the National Coordination Body for Democratic Change:

Making matters worse, in the last two weeks, the SNC has further embarrassed itself by sending mixed messages about its real intentions. First, the group said that it was in favor of foreign military intervention. But on December 30, 2011, reports swirled that Ghalioun and a handful of senior SNC figures had inked a unity agreement with the anti-interventionist National Coordination Body for Democratic Change, a domestic opposition group that activists suspect is a cover organization pushing reconciliation with Assad’s regime.

The local Syrian protesters who do not want outside military intervention are now a “cover organization pushing reconciliation”. Cover for whom? How dare the protesters in Syria to want a peaceful solution and have a “cover” for that!

Two high-ranking members of the SNC, Ausama Monajed and Radwan Ziadeh, told me that the council rejected the text of the agreement, which they claimed was only a “draft.” Sure enough, a few days later, the SNC launched its official Web site that, drawing on a blueprint I prepared, called for outside forces to establish a safe zone in Syria. This more aggressive call for foreign military intervention reflects a need to hang on to support from the protesters, who now often denounce the regime and the SNC in the same breath.

Weiss then does away with the split between the expatriate regime-change-by-force militants and local Syrian protesters who want peaceful solutions by simply vanishing the later:

Nevertheless, there are signs of progress. Now that the SNC has endorsed foreign intervention, bringing it in line with what all factions of the Syrian insurgency have advocated for months, there is a greater likelihood that the various political and military arms of the opposition will unite, if only out of their shared desperation over the unabated carnage.

See, that nasty “cover organization pushing reconciliation” that represents the real protesters in Syria is now simply done away with.

The neocon org’s communications director and excecutive director of a “mouthpiece for Israel” Michael Weiss writes a paper to further military intervention in Syria for a U.S. State Department funded expat Syrian think tank which then gets adopted by the expat militant Syrian National Council.

Weiss then takes to the pages of Foreign Affairs where he excommunicates the anti-intervention local Syrian protesters as “cover organization pushing reconciliation” to then claim that military intervention is endorsed by all factions involved in the Syrian protests.

Assad says that there are “international conspiracies” driving the violence to overthrow the Syrian government by force. He is right. The neocons and zionist are out to take him down by military forces against the will of the Syrian people including that of the protesters.

Posted by b on January 10, 2012 at 01:36 PM

Revolutionary Program

##############################################

=??? GEE BILL PEOPLE ARE BURNING THEMSELVES ALIVE,NOW !! STILL !! In Tunisia......still,now,now,still ....cause the new government doesnt want to help the average Arab joe.

========oooooooo======================

A trauma center in the Tunisian capital reports that over a hundred people have set themselves alight since the overthrow of the government on January 14, 2011.

The protests leading to the revolution began after Mohamed Bouazizi, a market vendor, set himself on fire on December 17, 2010, as a protest against police brutality.

------------------------ooo----------------------------- JAN 13,2012.

Author and Middle East expert Tariq Ali thinks that the recent self-immolations first of all testify to public frustration over the way the new authorities are ruling the country.

“People are disappointed and angry that the post-Ben Ali operation has not been successful. They were prepared to wait. They did wait for the general elections. They feel that the new politicians who have taken over have no social and economic program to benefit the poor and they are trying to revive a popular movement by burning themselves.”

Ali says that although one year may be not enough to completely reform the country there is no transparent political program and he does not rule out the possibility of another revolution.

“People have the awareness that it was when they took to the streets that they toppled these dictators, and this awareness gives them a feeling and an understanding of real power and it is not impossible that if things carry on like this they can do so again and then it will be a question of what the army does,” he explained, adding that “the army has been quite repressive over the last six months in some parts of Tunisia.”

=+==========================+==

What its like bringing Bill Kelly to the truth.(link below)

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=stubborn+as+mule&hl=en&biw=1013&bih=459&tbm=isch&tbnid=acA0zi7Yp7HVZM:&imgrefurl=http://depositphotos.com/6090396/stock-illustration-Stubborn-Mule.html&docid=PhAbF34_rxj1IM&imgurl=http://static6.depositphotos.com/1030387/609/v/450/dep_6090396-Stubborn-Mule.jpg&w=450&h=450&ei=FpgRT-yEEIGMiAKFmNXIDQ&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=125&sig=112008773479372019036&page=7&tbnh=103&tbnw=103&start=72&ndsp=12&ved=1t:429,r:12,s:72&tx=56&ty=47

=================== Bill Kelly Quote ============

Nobody knows what will happen tomorrow, but thus far theTunisian rising has been a hugely heartening development – especially becauseit was an authentic, homegrown, largely spontaneous movement, with littleactive support from western powers.

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

NO BILL NO !!!!!!!! NO !!!

People are self lighting themselves NOW,TODAY !!!!

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's see, Sir William Wiseman, the director of British Intelligence in the USA before William Stephenson, J. Richardson Dilworth, mayor of Philadelphia, and Thomas Dewey? Isn't Dewey Irish?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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

Running for an unprecedented fourth term in 1944, Roosevelt used the election campaign to educate Americans about their special responsibility in the creation of the postwar world. It is in the interest of America, he told them in several speeches, to rebuild the world in its image, to give hope and prosperity to millions. The campaign to make the world's population truly free from want, as he had promised in his Four Freedoms speech three years earlier, would mean jobs and prosperity for Americans: It was in our own best interests to see others prosper.

Speaking at the meeting of the International Labor Organization in May, was broadcast nationally, Roosevelt dsecribed the horrors of the British imperial system in Gambia, he said:

``I think that we can get somewhere if we keep that idea of being `agin'--as we say in Irish-American--`against' exploitation everywhere. It would be an awfully good thing for all of us....''

However, Roosevelt balked at enlisting the American people into his fight against Churchill and the British Empire. That would have to wait, he told aides, until after the war was won on the battlefields.

The British responded to the threat Roosevelt represented through the mouth of GOP candidate Thomas Dewey, who was controlled by John Foster Dulles. Dewey claimed that Roosevelt and the New Deal apparatus responsible for his economic proposals were ``communists'' and that Roosevelt, if elected, would turn the country over to the ``Reds.'' (American Almanac)

=========================-========================

Bill,

John Foster Dulles helped write speeches for Dewey. Greg Burnham at the old Della Rosa site scanned up the original CFR incorporation papers. The top page was signed by one

person, John Foster Dulles.The people helping along/controlling these revolutions dont believe in the 4 freedoms for the average Arab joe. sg

From what I understand, Allen Dulles was at the New York office of the Council on Foreign Relations when JFK was assassinated.

You say "The people helping along/controlling these revolutions don't believe in the 4 freedoms of the average Arab joe," but you have yet to establish who is conrolling these revolutions.

Who is controlling the revolution in Syria? I want to talk to get a job with them.

BK

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Bill, Apply at Henry Jackson Society. Michael Weiss is the man to talk to,see below.

The Henry Jackson Society would be delighted to hear from you, whether you have a query about our society, our work, or our website. Please fill out the form below and send us your thoughts.

If you would prefer to contact us by post, our address is 8th Floor, Parker Tower, 43-49 Parker Street, London, WC2B 5PS..

We can be reached by telephone at 020 7340 4520 or fax at 020 7340 4521.

For out of office hours media enquiries please call: 07766641670.

---------------ooo--------------ooo--------------

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

Neocon Israel Mouthpiece Writes Syrian Opposition Intervention Paper

12. Jan, 2012

ShareAl-Assad blames ‘external conspiracies’ for Syrian violence

---------------------------o----------------------

“The mask has fallen off these faces,” [syrian President Bashar al-Assad] said. “No wise person denies these international conspiracies that (are) being done in order to spread fear inside. But this time, it was done with people from inside.”

Bashar al-Assad is right. There are international conspiracies to take him down.

This is for example obvious when the expatriate Syrian National Council uses a policy papers arguing for military intervention in Syria that was written by a neocon and Israel supporter and paid for by the U.S. State Department. To further the military intervention the paper is defended by doing away with the local protesters in Syria who oppose any intervention.

Michael Weiss is Director of Communications and Public Relations for the Henry Jackson Society, a British neocon organization which patrons include the U.S. neocons Richard Perle, William Kristol and James Woolsey. He also has a blog at the Telegraph website.

Michael Weiss is also executive director of Just Journalism a “pressure group whose stated goals are to focus “on how Israel and Middle East issues are reported in the UK media.” Critics characterize Just Journalism as a “privately-funded mouthpiece for Israel”. Until the end of 2009 Weiss published a blog for the Jewish magazine Tablet.

Recently Weiss wrote a policy paper Safe Area for Syria – An Assessment of Legality, Logistics and Hazards (pdf) which is an amateur attempt (Weiss is, as far as can find out, neither a lawyer nor does he seem to have military experience) to write a playbook for military intervention in Syria:

In the interest of assessing all suggested options for hastening the end of a totalitarian dictatorship and/or averting a mass humanitarian catastrophe, this paper examines the way in which foreign military intervention could work for Syria.

The paper was written for the Strategic Research & Communication Centre, a somewhat mysterious organization in Britain that claims to offer “Informed insight on Syria”, founded in 2010 and run by the Syrian expat Ausama Monajed who “previously served as the director of Barada Television”. As is known from Wikileaks cables:

Barada TV is closely affiliated with the Movement for Justice and Development, a London-based network of Syrian exiles. Classified U.S. diplomatic cables show that the State Department has funneled as much as $6 million to the group since 2006 to operate the satellite channel and finance other activities inside Syria.

We can safely assume that Ausama Monajed, who’s current organization does not reveal its funding sources, is still on that indirect U.S. State Department payroll.

The paper Weiss wrote to argue for military intervention is endorsed as a Special Report by the expat Syrian National Council on its slick new website.

In a recent Foreign Affairs piece Weiss again argues for military intervention in Syria but sees a more united opposition as a requirement toward that. He achives that more united opposition by simply doing away with those parts of the opposition that are against intervention.

His way to do so is seemingly to promote the interventionist expat Syrian National Council (SNC) while denigrating the non-interventionist on-the-ground protesters in Syria who are organized in the National Coordination Body for Democratic Change:

Making matters worse, in the last two weeks, the SNC has further embarrassed itself by sending mixed messages about its real intentions. First, the group said that it was in favor of foreign military intervention. But on December 30, 2011, reports swirled that Ghalioun and a handful of senior SNC figures had inked a unity agreement with the anti-interventionist National Coordination Body for Democratic Change, a domestic opposition group that activists suspect is a cover organization pushing reconciliation with Assad’s regime.

The local Syrian protesters who do not want outside military intervention are now a “cover organization pushing reconciliation”. Cover for whom? How dare the protesters in Syria to want a peaceful solution and have a “cover” for that!

Two high-ranking members of the SNC, Ausama Monajed and Radwan Ziadeh, told me that the council rejected the text of the agreement, which they claimed was only a “draft.” Sure enough, a few days later, the SNC launched its official Web site that, drawing on a blueprint I prepared, called for outside forces to establish a safe zone in Syria. This more aggressive call for foreign military intervention reflects a need to hang on to support from the protesters, who now often denounce the regime and the SNC in the same breath.

Weiss then does away with the split between the expatriate regime-change-by-force militants and local Syrian protesters who want peaceful solutions by simply vanishing the later:

Nevertheless, there are signs of progress. Now that the SNC has endorsed foreign intervention, bringing it in line with what all factions of the Syrian insurgency have advocated for months, there is a greater likelihood that the various political and military arms of the opposition will unite, if only out of their shared desperation over the unabated carnage.

See, that nasty “cover organization pushing reconciliation” that represents the real protesters in Syria is now simply done away with.

The neocon org’s communications director and excecutive director of a “mouthpiece for Israel” Michael Weiss writes a paper to further military intervention in Syria for a U.S. State Department funded expat Syrian think tank which then gets adopted by the expat militant Syrian National Council.

Weiss then takes to the pages of Foreign Affairs where he excommunicates the anti-intervention local Syrian protesters as “cover organization pushing reconciliation” to then claim that military intervention is endorsed by all factions involved in the Syrian protests.

Assad says that there are “international conspiracies” driving the violence to overthrow the Syrian government by force. He is right. The neocons and zionist are out to take him down by military forces against the will of the Syrian people including that of the protesters.

Posted by b on January 10, 2012 at 01:36 PM

Revolutionary Program

##############################################

=??? GEE BILL PEOPLE ARE BURNING THEMSELVES ALIVE,NOW !! STILL !! In Tunisia......still,now,now,still ....cause the new government doesnt want to help the average Arab joe.

========oooooooo======================

A trauma center in the Tunisian capital reports that over a hundred people have set themselves alight since the overthrow of the government on January 14, 2011.

The protests leading to the revolution began after Mohamed Bouazizi, a market vendor, set himself on fire on December 17, 2010, as a protest against police brutality.

------------------------ooo----------------------------- JAN 13,2012.

Author and Middle East expert Tariq Ali thinks that the recent self-immolations first of all testify to public frustration over the way the new authorities are ruling the country.

“People are disappointed and angry that the post-Ben Ali operation has not been successful. They were prepared to wait. They did wait for the general elections. They feel that the new politicians who have taken over have no social and economic program to benefit the poor and they are trying to revive a popular movement by burning themselves.”

Ali says that although one year may be not enough to completely reform the country there is no transparent political program and he does not rule out the possibility of another revolution.

“People have the awareness that it was when they took to the streets that they toppled these dictators, and this awareness gives them a feeling and an understanding of real power and it is not impossible that if things carry on like this they can do so again and then it will be a question of what the army does,” he explained, adding that “the army has been quite repressive over the last six months in some parts of Tunisia.”

=+==========================+==

What its like bringing Bill Kelly to the truth.(link below)

http://www.google.co...:72&tx=56&ty=47

=================== Bill Kelly Quote ============

Nobody knows what will happen tomorrow, but thus far theTunisian rising has been a hugely heartening development – especially becauseit was an authentic, homegrown, largely spontaneous movement, with littleactive support from western powers.

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

NO BILL NO !!!!!!!! NO !!!

People are self lighting themselves NOW,TODAY !!!!

I know, but that fact doesn't support your contention that the first self-immolation, by Mohamid Bouazizi was instigated by the CIA, the Endowelment for Democracy or global imperialist Jews. Of course the revolution isn't over, in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Bahrain or Yemen, and the true revolutionaries won't give up until they obtain their freedoms, dignity, true democracy and economic independence, and not fullfill the orders wishes of the western global colonial boogyman that you are so afraid of. The American revolution is still going on.

A monk from Tibet self-immolatized himself to protest against Chinese imperialism. Will the revolution spread to China because the USA wants it to? Does the USA want it to? They didn't want changes in Bahrain or Libya, where they already had friendly dictators.

The revolutionaries didn't revolt and die for an Islamic jahid, and they won't exchange a tyrannical dictator for an Iranian or Saudi style Islamic society because they've already tasted freedom and won't accept a closed society again, especially the women who are calling for a secularist legal state in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt, even though the majority of people are Muslim.

They've rejected dictators and won't accept an strict, orthodox religious law or that imposed on them by western governments, but we'll just have to see how it will all play out. It's only been a year now, and the American Revolution took seven years to finish the combat and many more to figure out the constitutional aspects.

We're still in the first inning.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know, but that fact doesn't support your contention that the first self-immolation, by Mohamid Bouazizi was instigated by the CIA, the Endowelment for Democracy or global imperialist Jews.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ End Bill Kelly Quote

PLEASE ,polite ,OK ?? Never said they instigated incident. I have shown they were in place BEFORE, BEFORE incident. Two years before Egypt,which means in Tunisia before vendor self alighted. The people already in place said,"how can we use this incident?". Now the slap story of the woman was false ,it was an added (false) detail. In the ARAB world a woman hitting a man is a very big NO NO . BILL that should have been a clue that something was wrong about this. Doesnt it remind you of false CIA stories re JFK ???? THINKING CAP PLEASE.

++++++++++++++++++++++++oooooooo=

As to China......yes the WEST (banks) wants to take over China.

see

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=listByCountry&country=China

and

http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/tag/fethullah-gulen/page/2/

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...