Archive for 911

U.S. spent $ 1 Trillion in war against Islam

Posted in USA with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on December 29, 2008 by indonesiaunderground

american_flag1

Written by http://www.daily.pk

Sunday, 28 December 2008 19:46

The news that President Bush’s so-called “war on terrorism” (on other word war on Islam) soon will have cost the U.S. taxpayers $ 1 trillion – and counting – is unlikely to spread much Christmas cheer in these tough economic times.

A trio of recent reports – none by the Bush Administration – suggests that sometime early in the Obama presidency, spending on the wars started since 9/11 will pass the trillion-dollar mark. Even after adjusting for inflation, that’s four times more than America spent fighting World War I, and more than 10 times the cost of 1991’s Persian Gulf War (90 % of which was paid for by U.S. allies). The war on “terrorism” looks set to surpass the costs the Korean and Vietnam wars combined, topped only by World War II’s price tag of $ 3.5 trillion.

The cost of sending a single soldier to fight for a year in Afghanistan or Iraq is about $ 775,000 – three times more than in other recent wars, says a new report from the private but authoritative Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA). A large chunk of the increase is a result of the Administration’s cramming new military hardware into the emergency budget bills it has been using to pay for the wars. (See pictures of U.S. troops in Iraq.)

These costs, of course, pale alongside the price paid by the nearly 5,000 U.S. troops who have lost their lives in the conflicts – not to mention the wounded – and the families of all the casualties. And President Bush insists that their sacrifice and the expenditure on the wars have helped prevent a repeat of 9/11. “We could not afford to wait for the terrorists to attack again,” he said last week at the Army War College. “So we launched a global campaign to take the fight to the terrorists abroad, to dismantle their networks, to dry up their financing and find their leaders and bring them to justice.”

But many Americans may suffer a moment of sticker shock from the conclusions of the CSBA report and similar assessments from the Government Accounting Office (GAO) and Congressional Research Service (CRS), which make clear that the nearly $ 1 trillion already spent is only a down payment on the war’s long-term costs. The trillion-dollare figure does not, for example, include long-term health care for veterans, thousands of whom have suffered crippling wounds, or the interest payments on the money borrowed by the Federal Government to fund the war. The bottom lines of the three assessments vary: the CSBA study says $ 904 billion has been spent so far, while the GAO says the Pentagon alone has spent $ 808 billion through last September. The CRS study says the wars have cost $ 864 billion, but CRS didn’t factor inflation into its calculations.

Sifting through Pentagon data, the CSBA study breaks down the total costs of the “war on terrorism” as $ 687 billion for Iraq, $ 184 billion for Afghanistan and $ 33 billion for homeland security. By 2018, depending on how many U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan and Iraq, the total cost is projected to likely be between $ 1.3 trillion and $ 1.7 trillion. On the safe assumption that the wars are being waged with borrowed money, interest payments raise the cost by an additional $ 600 billion through 2018.

Shortly before the Iraq war began, White House economic adviser Larry Lindsey earned a rebuke from within the Administration when he said the war could cost as much as $ 200 billion. “It’s not knowable what a war or conflict like that would cost,” Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld said. “You don’t know if it’s going to last two days or two weeks or two months. It certainly isn’t going to last two years.”

According to the CSBA study, the Administration has fudged the war’s true costs in two ways. Borrowing money to fund the wars is one way of conducting them on the cheap, at least in the short term. But just as pernicious has been the Administration’s novel way of budgeting for them. Previous wars were funded through the annual appropriations process, with emergency spending – which gets far less congressional scrutiny – used only for the initial stages of a conflict. But the Bush Administration relied on such supplemental appropriations to fund the wars until 2008, seven years after invading Afghanistan and five years after storming Iraq.

“For these wars, we have relied on supplemental appropriations for far longer than in the case of past conflicts,” says Steven Kosiak of the CSBA, one of Washington’s top defense-budget analysts. “Likewise, we have relied on borrowing to cover more of these costs than we have in earlier wars – which will likely increase the ultimate price we have to pay.” That refusal to spell out the full cost can lead to unwise spending increases elsewhere in the federal budget or unwarranted tax cuts. “A sound budgeting process forces policymakers to recognize the true costs of their policy choices,” Kosiak adds. “Not only did we not raise taxes, we cut taxes and significantly expanded spending.”

The bottom line: Bush’s projections of future defense spending “substantially understate” just how much money it will take to run Obama’s Pentagon, the CSBA says in its report. Luckily, Defense Secretary Robert Gates plans to hang around to try to iron out the problem.

Source : http://www.daily.pk

Advertisements

9/11 TV Hoax is Exposed

Posted in USA, Who is The Real Terrorist? with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on December 10, 2008 by indonesiaunderground

Source : youtube.com

The 9/11 TV hoax is now clearly exposed : The entire Manhattan scenery was composed with digital imagery aimed at faking ” hijacked aircrafts ” hitting the Twin Towers. This analysis demonstrates how the TV footage was also used to concoct “amateur videos” endorsed by individuals who may have participated in the actual image doctoring .

No Planes Hit WTC?


9/11 Rumors That Become Conventional Wisdom

Posted in Conspiracy Theory, Israel, USA with tags , , , , , , on September 9, 2008 by indonesiaunderground

Shawn Baldwin for The New York Times, 2007

The planning and execution of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, are a continuing topic of conversation all over Cairo

Memo From Cairo

Published: September 8, 2008

CAIRO — Seven years later, it remains conventional wisdom here that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda could not have been solely responsible for the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and that the United States and Israel had to have been involved in their planning, if not their execution, too.

This is not the conclusion of a scientific survey, but it is what routinely comes up in conversations around the region — in a shopping mall in Dubai, in a park in Algiers, in a cafe in Riyadh and all over Cairo.

“Look, I don’t believe what your governments and press say. It just can’t be true,” said Ahmed Issab, 26, a Syrian engineer who lives and works in the United Arab Emirates. “Why would they tell the truth? I think the U.S. organized this so that they had an excuse to invade Iraq for the oil.”

It is easy for Americans to dismiss such thinking as bizarre. But that would miss a point that people in this part of the world think Western leaders, especially in Washington, need to understand: That such ideas persist represents the first failure in the fight against terrorism — the inability to convince people here that the United States is, indeed, waging a campaign against terrorism, not a crusade against Muslims.

“The United States should be concerned because in order to tell people that there is a real evil, they too have to believe it in order to help you,” said Mushairy al-Thaidy, a columnist in the Saudi-owned regional newspaper Asharq al Awsat. “Otherwise, it will diminish your ability to fight terrorism. It is not the kind of battle you can fight on your own; it is a collective battle.”

There were many reasons people here said they believed that the attacks of 9/11 were part of a conspiracy against Muslims. Some had nothing to do with Western actions, and some had everything to do with Western policies.

Again and again, people said they simply did not believe that a group of Arabs — like themselves — could possibly have waged such a successful operation against a superpower like the United States. But they also said that Washington’s post-9/11 foreign policy proved that the United States and Israel were behind the attacks, especially with the invasion of Iraq.

“Maybe people who executed the operation were Arabs, but the brains? No way,” said Mohammed Ibrahim, 36, a clothing-store owner in the Bulaq neighborhood of Cairo. “It was organized by other people, the United States or the Israelis.”

The rumors that spread shortly after 9/11 have been passed on so often that people no longer know where or when they first heard them. At this point, they have heard them so often, even on television, that they think they must be true.

First among these is that Jews did not go to work at the World Trade Center on that day. Asked how Jews might have been notified to stay home, or how they kept it a secret from co-workers, people here wave off the questions because they clash with their bedrock conviction that Jews are behind many of their troubles and that Western Jews will go to any length to protect Israel.

“Why is it that on 9/11, the Jews didn’t go to work in the building,” said Ahmed Saied, 25, who works in Cairo as a driver for a lawyer. “Everybody knows this. I saw it on TV, and a lot of people talk about this.”

Zein al-Abdin, 42, an electrician, who was drinking tea and chain-smoking cheap Cleopatra cigarettes in Al Shahat, a cafe in Bulaq, grew more and more animated as he laid out his thinking about what happened on Sept. 11.

Justin Lane for The New York Times

Many in Cairo see the attacks as part of an anti-Muslim plot.

“What matters is we think it was an attack against Arabs,” he said of the passenger planes crashing into American targets. “Why is it that they never caught him, bin Laden? How can they not know where he is when they know everything? They don’t catch him because he hasn’t done it. What happened in Iraq confirms that it has nothing to do with bin Laden or Qaeda. They went against Arabs and against Islam to serve Israel, that’s why.”

There is a reason so many people here talk with casual certainty — and no embarrassment — about the United States attacking itself to have a reason to go after Arabs and help Israel. It is a reflection of how they view government leaders, not just in Washington, but here in Egypt and throughout the Middle East. They do not believe them. The state-owned media are also distrusted. Therefore, they think that if the government is insisting that bin Laden was behind it, he must not have been.

“Mubarak says whatever the Americans want him to say, and he’s lying for them, of course,” Mr. Ibrahim said of Hosni Mubarak, Egypt’s president.

Americans might better understand the region, experts here said, if they simply listen to what people are saying — and try to understand why — rather than taking offense. The broad view here is that even before Sept. 11, the United States was not a fair broker in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and that it then capitalized on the attacks to buttress Israel and undermine the Muslim Arab world.

The single greatest proof, in most people’s eyes, was the invasion of Iraq. Trying to convince people here that it was not a quest for oil or a war on Muslims is like convincing many Americans that it was, and that the 9/11 attacks were the first step.

“It is the result of widespread mistrust, and the belief among Arabs and Muslims that the United States has a prejudice against them,” said Wahid Abdel Meguid, deputy director of the government-financed Al Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, the nation’s premier research center. “So they never think the United States is well intentioned, and they always feel that whatever it does has something behind it.”

Hisham Abbas, 22, studies tourism at Cairo University and hopes one day to work with foreigners for a living. But he does not give it a second thought when asked about Sept. 11. He said it made no sense at all that Mr. bin Laden could have carried out such an attack from Afghanistan. And like everyone else interviewed, he saw the events of the last seven years as proof positive that it was all a United States plan to go after Muslims.

“There are Arabs who hate America, a lot of them, but this is too much,” Mr. Abbas said as he fidgeted with his cellphone. “And look at what happened after this — the Americans invaded two Muslim countries. They used 9/11 as an excuse and went to Iraq. They killed Saddam, tortured people. How can you trust them?”

Nadim Audi contributed reporting.

BBC Set To Launch New Smear Attack On 9/11 Truth

Posted in Conspiracy Theory with tags , , , , , , on September 9, 2008 by indonesiaunderground

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, June 20, 2008

The BBC is set to launch another savage smear attack on the 9/11 truth movement with two documentaries about the September 11 attacks and the 7/7 bombings that attempt to debunk evidence of government complicity and smear doubters of the official story as holocaust deniers, Neo-Nazis, and crop circle fanatics.

Having taken its rightful place alongside Popular Mechanics and The History Channel as one of the 21st century’s most plentiful peddlers of yellow journalism with their first 9/11 hit piece last year, “Auntie Beeb” is set to have another crack at the whip on July 6th when it airs a documentary about the collapse of WTC Building 7, the 47-storey skyscraper that imploded into its own footprint on 9/11 without being hit by a plane, called The Third Tower.

The preview clip for the show claims that the program will offer the solution to the “final mystery of 9/11,” presumably self-satisfied that the BBC’s previous woeful effort to debunk 9/11 truth dismissed the mountains of other contradictions and outright falsehoods of the official story.

Judging from the end of the clip, it seems as if the BBC is ready to violate the fundamental laws of physics and proclaim that fire caused the steel-framed building to collapse, an unprecedented event in history.

The making of the show was undoubtedly motivated by the BBC themselves having been shamed last year by footage that emerged of them reporting the collapse of Building 7 before it had happened, a revelation that prompted a series of blundering PR gaffes on behalf of the corporation and seemingly a vendetta against 9/11 truthers who bombarded the company with bad publicity at the time.

The BBC’s flustered attempts to adopt damage control over questions about why their correspondent reported the collapse of Building 7 before it happened only provoked a firestorm of new interest in 9/11 truth and exalted questions surrounding WTC 7 to the point where it is now the Achilles’ heel of the official conspiracy theory.

The new hit piece features an interview with 9/11 shill extraordinaire and former chief counter-terrorism adviser to the White House Richard Clarke, who denies a controlled demolition took down Building 7.

The BBC’s first stab at debunking the 9/11 truth movement was a jaw-dropping exercise in journalistic prostitution more befitting of state-controlled TV stations in Communist China or Zimbabwe.

The show was a tissue of lies, bias and emotional manipulation from beginning to end, structured around fallacy, lying by omission and an overwhelming dearth of impartiality.

During a follow-up radio debate, producer Guy Smith had no answers for the plethora of inaccuracies that littered the program.

The BBC has also completed a documentary on the 7/7 bombings, set to air in Autumn, which puts forward an individual called Nick Kollerstrom as the main proponent of “conspiracy theories” surrounding the 2005 London Underground attacks.

Despite the fact that we were at the forefront of 7/7 coverage immediately after it happened and have produced scores of articles on the subject that received millions of readers, the BBC did not choose to speak to us and instead interviewed a radical astrologist who also dabbles in crop circles, holocaust denial and making apologies for Hitler.

Kollerstrom is just about the wackiest person the BBC could have picked to represent alternative explanations behind 7/7. The idea behind it is simple – pick a nutcase closet Neo-Nazi to talk about 7/7 thus sending a very clear message to the viewer – anyone who questions the official government story behind 7/7 is a holocaust denier, a lunatic, and potentially dangerous.

In pursuing such dirty smear tactics once again, the BBC has proven itself to be not only biased and agenda-driven, but the producers of the show have displayed their complete ineptness in judging who to interview for the documentary.

“The stakes are high because conspiracy theories are spreading suspicion about the official account of what happened, ultimately questioning whether the authorities can be trusted,” writes producer Mike Rudin. “Establishing whether what is argued is true or false, and scrutinising the way proponents conduct themselves, is clearly in the public interest and is a serious and legitimate task for the BBC.”

Oh diddums, now we wouldn’t want to question whether the authorities should be trusted now would we Mike? Because we know governments never lie, have never engaged in any conspiracies and always have the interests of the people at heart.

The BBC thinks it is in the “public interest” and a “legitimate task” to run defense for this criminal Blair-Brown government that has already aided in the slaughter of over 600,000 innocent people in Iraq based on their own conspiracy theories about weapons of mass destruction, by smearing anyone that questions the official story behind 7/7.

This is a damning indictment of how the BBC views itself and corporate media today as a whole – not as an independent media outlet tasked with putting politicians’ feet to the fire, muckraking, and asking hard questions – but acting as a Ministry of Truth to put a lid on the shocking facts behind 7/7 and backing up a Labour government that has refused all along to allow a proper investigation into the bombings come hell or high water.

“Scrutinising the way proponents conduct themselves,” as Rudin calls it is merely newspeak for “taking the piss out of mentally unstable Neo-Nazis and then claiming they represent conspiracy theorists.”

The BBC masquerades as some kind of credible arbiter of “case closed” truth, yet the corporation is almost universally loathed in the United Kingdom because Britons are forced to fund its existence through a TV license tax and in return the BBC provides them with utter garbage on a regular basis.

The BBC’s latest serving of yellow journalism is likely to be little improvement.

We invite readers to leave a comment on producer Mike Rudin’s blog so as to give him the opportunity to write a new blog expressing his phony outrage to hostile put-downs of his career in yellow journalism.

source : http://www.congresscheck.com

7/7

The BBC has also completed a documentary on the 7/7 bombings, set to air in Autumn, which puts forward an individual called Nick Kollerstrom as the main proponent of “conspiracy theories” surrounding the 2005 London Underground attacks.

German Intelligence Report on 9/11 Conspiracy

Posted in Conspiracy Theory with tags , , , , , , , , , , on September 5, 2008 by indonesiaunderground

German Intelligence Report on 9/11 Conspiracy
by TBRNEWS.ORG

Is the BND Report fact or fiction?

(TBR Editor’s Note: This German intelligence report surfaced in 2004 from German Rudolf, a well-known German historical revisionist. At the time, Rudolf said he had received the original of this in German from a contact in Germany. This was made public during Rudolf’s losing battle to win political asylum in the United States and he suddenly claimed that he had written it, not German intelligence.

This volte face did him no good with the INS and he was subsequently deported to Germany where is was sentenced to 30 months in prison for daring to dispute the Holocaust story. We have read this over very carefully and sent the original German copy off to Germany to see if it could be either confirmed or denied.

In three cases, different German agencies said that they refused to either confirm or deny its authenticity which is certainly not a denial. The original is written in what has been termed standard official style and is available to anyone writing for it.

Because it has so much of interest to many people, we are printing it subject to the information above noted.)

Translation of Secret BND Report of September 11, 2001

T O P S E C R E T

B a c k g r o u n d R e p o r t

o n 9 / 1 1 / 2 0 0 1

– DO NOT RUBBERSTAMP –

– DO NOT SIGN –

– DO NOT WRITE ON –

– DO NOT MARK –

[Page 2]

On Monday August 6, 2001, at 17:50, [German] Ambassador Ischinger personally notified the President of the United States that information developed by the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz [German domestic secret service] as well as the BND [Bundesnachrichtendienst, German foreign secret service] indicated clearly that an attack by a radical Arab group partially based in Germany was to occur on September 10-11, 2001. The President was at that time in residence at his farm in Texas. Our [German] Ambassador was acting in direct response to instructions from Foreign Minister Fischer.

This information was developed from official surveillance of Arab extremist groups operating in the Federal Republic as well as from intercepted communications between the Embassy of Israel and the Israeli Foreign Ministry in Tel Aviv concerning this matter.

The information was “gratefully received” by the U.S. President who stated at the time that he was also aware of the same pending assaults.

Subsequent to these attacks, the office of the U.S. President, through the U.S. Department of State, made an urgent request to the Federal Government [of Germany] that no reference whatsoever should be made to the official warnings given by Ambassador Ischinger.

In order to clarify the background of this matter, this Gesamtübersicht [overall survey] of the events leading to the assault was prepared, basing on extracts of reports from our [BND’s] stations abroad.

[Page 3]

Overall, it is evident that the American authorities were aware of the pending attacks. Why they did nothing, is explained in the following.

Background: General Overview

Because of the Bush family’s involvement in oil (Zapata Oil Company), many important and wealthy individuals and corporations with oil interests financially supported the Bush political career. Today, the Bush administration is therefore strongly influenced by major American business groups.

The candidate for American Vice President, Richard “Dick” Cheney, had been the Chief Director of the Halliburton Company. This company, based in Dallas, Texas, where Bush was Governor, is the largest oil service company in the world.

Between 1991 through 1997, such important American oil companies as Texaco, Unocal, Shell, BP Amoco, Chevron and Exxon-Mobil became involved with the former Soviet state of Kazakhstan who holds enormous oil reserves. The government of Kazakhstan was eventually paid over $3 billions of corporate money to allow these companies to secure oil rights. At the same time, these companies agreed further to give the sums of 35 billion U.S. Dollar in investments in plant and equipment to the Kazakhstan projects. A confidential project report of said U.S. firms announced that the gas and oil reserves in Kazakhstan would amount to 4 trillion U.S. Dollar.

[Page 4]

The United States is not self-sufficient in oil and 50% of their supply is imported from various foreign sources. Some 80% of oil imported to the U.S. comes from OPEC-countries, the Arabian oil cartel. Because of the unconditional support by American political leaders of the state of Israel, these Arab governments have a very strained relationship with the U.S.A.

A further smaller percentage of oil imported to the U.S. comes from Venezuela. Just recently, the U.S. government has been attempting to overthrow the government of Chavez with the help of the CIA and replace it with a government “more sympathetic to American oil needs.”

A position paper prepared by the office of the later-Vice President Cheney states that the Kazakhstan oil reserves would be “more than sufficient to supply U.S. needs for at least a decade” and would further “reduce American dependence on OPEC.”

Unocal Oil Company signed an agreement with the reigning Taliban forces as well as their opponents, the Northern Alliance, in order to permit an oil pipeline to be built through Afghanistan direct through Pakistan to the Indian Ocean. By this, the exorbitant rates charged by the Russians to use their pipelines would be avoided. Unocal then opened official offices in Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan to facilitate the construction of this oil pipeline.

In December of 1997, official Taliban representatives were in the United States to attend a conference at Unocal headquarters in Texas to discuss the

[Page 5]

Afghanistan pipeline. These talks failed because the Taliban made what Unocal felt were excessive financial demands.

In 1998, internal strife in Afghanistan and inherent instability in Pakistan reached such levels as to render the pipeline project impossible to execute. In the same year, the Houston, Texas based firm of Enron suggested instead to build a $3 billion oil pipeline parallel to the Russian pipelines, running westwards rather than taking the shorter but more problematic route south.

In a secret memorandum by Cheney, it is stated that the Unocal Company was prepared to finance the southern route. According to this, this project would take five years to complete and its annual revenues from the successful completion of this pipeline would approximate $2 billions. However, and this has been the subject of a number of secret American reports, the only thing standing in the way of the construction of this pipeline was the basic opposition of the Afghanistan government and its political supporters.

On May 8, 2001, the U.S. Department of State, in the name of the Secretary of State Powell, gave 43 million U.S. Dollars to the Taliban in order to facilitate their cooperation in the pipeline project.

On June 10, 2001, the BND warned the CIA office in the U.S. Embassy to the Federal Republic [of Germany] that certain Arab terrorists were planning to seize American commercial aircraft for use as weapons of destruction against

[Page 6]

significant American symbols. This was considered a general warning only. The Federal Republic’s warning of August 6, however, was specific as to date, time and places of the attacks.

On July 11, 2001, in Berlin, U.S. officials: Thomas Simmons, a former American Ambassador to Pakistan, Lee Coldren, State Department expert on Asian matters and Karl Inderfurth, Assistant Secretary of State for Asian matters met with Russian and Pakistani intelligence officers. At this meeting, which was under surveillance, it was stated by the Americans that the United States planned to launch military strikes against Afghanistan in October of that year. The purpose of these strikes was to topple the Afghanistan government and the Taliban in order to replace it with a government “more sensitive to the needs of American oil interests.”

In mid-August, 2001, President of the Russian Federation Putin ordered that the American authorities be warned of pending attacks on government buildings inside the United States. This warning was conveyed to the U.S. Ambassador in Moscow and via the Russian Ambassador’s office directly to the U.S. President.

On August 20, the Government of France, through the American Embassy in Paris and their Embassy in Washington, issued a more specific warning. This warning specified the exact date, time and places of the attacks.

On September 11, President Bush and top aides flew to the state of Florida so that the President could speak with children in

[Page 7]

a kindergarten. Also at that time, Vice President Cheney absented himself from Washington and went to the safety of the Presidential compound in the mountains of Maryland.

It was noted in Washington that Cheney remained sequestered in Maryland for some time and only appeared in public surrounded by heavy security.

The Role of the Israeli Mossad in the Terrorist Attacks

Note: The following two sections are considered to be extremely sensitive due to the special relationship between the Federal Republic [of Germany] and its Jewish citizens as well as the State of Israel. This material is compiled from German and American sources.

During the term of President George H.W. Bush, the government of Israel made an official, but very secret, request of the American President. This request was to permit agents of the Mossad, Israeli Foreign Intelligence, to enter the United States and conduct surveillance operations against various Arab groups residing in that country.

The stated purpose of this surveillance was to permit Israeli early warning of terrorist plots against their country. Permission for this surveillance was granted with the caveat that the Mossad would have a liaison with the FBI and report any and all findings to that agency.

[Page 8]

However, these conditions were not observed. The Mossad not only did not inform the FBI of any of its findings, it is known to have engaged in commerce with several groups of Israeli criminals of Russian backgrounds. These groups were engaged in extensive criminal activities inside the United States, to include the smuggling of the Ecstasy drug. Mossad agents were able to subvert American criminal investigations through their knowledge of American telephone surveillance of such groups.

It is very evident from surveillance conducted against Mossad agents in the Federal Republic as well as interceptions of Israeli diplomatic communication from the Federal Republic to Tel Aviv, that the Mossad had successfully penetrated various extremist Arab groups in both the Federal Republic and the United States.

These investigations disclosed in late May of 2001 that an attack was to be made against certain specified targets in the American cities of Washington and New York. But it was apparent that the Mossad was not only fully aware of these attacks well in advance but actually, through their own agents inside the Arab groups, assisted in the planning and the eventual execution of the attacks.

That the Israeli government was fully aware of these attacks is absolutely certain and proven. Diplomatic traffic between the Israeli Embassy in the Federal Republic and the Israeli Foreign Office made it very clear that Minister President Sharon was fully aware

[Page 9]

of this pending attack and urgently wished that no attempt was made to prevent the attacks.

Although the Israeli officials were instructed to warn the American intelligence community that some kind of an attack might be possible, at no time were the specific dates and targets (known at that time to Israeli officials) to be given to the Americans.

The rationale for this attitude was expressed in a conversation on August 1, 2001, between the Israeli Military Attaché in the Federal Republic to a member of the Israeli General Staff. There it was stated that Israel believed an attack on the continental United States would so inflame American public opinion that they would permit Israel to “cleanse” their state of “Arab terrorists and those who support such terrorists.” This “cleansing” was explained as the expulsion of all Arabs, and even Christian groups, from the Palestine area.

American intelligence officials have repeatedly expressed great concern in meetings with our people that the Israeli government, through a company called Amdocs, was able to conduct surveillance of all telephone communications within the United States. It was categorically stated that this Israeli-based firm was given an American contract with 25 of the largest American telephone companies. This contract was granted over the objections and concerns of the American intelligence community.

[Page 10]

The official reason given for this extraordinary arrangement that permitted Israeli agencies to observe all highly confidential investigative telephone calls was that the United States had a “special relationship” with the State of Israel and they had requested this.

The Israeli Political Influence in the United States

It should be noted here that the professional Israeli lobby in America is huge in size and is considered even by our American colleagues to be a very powerful and entirely dominant factor in American politics.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is the largest foreign lobby in Washington and the fourth most powerful lobby in the country. Other Israeli groups also include the Anti-Defamation League (from whose national offices, along with the Israel Trade Mission and the many Israeli Consulates, many Mossad agents were working,) the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs and the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America.

These groups, in conjunction with Jewish dominated media giants like the New York Times, the Washington Post, Newsweek Magazine, the Los Angeles Times, Time-Warner-AOL and their CNN news network, basically control the dissemination of news in the United States.

[Page 11]

It is therefore almost impossible for any news that would be considered in opposition to Israeli interests to appear before the American public, although such stories are readily available in most European media.

The Role of the Christian Fundamentalists in American Politics

The so-called “Christian Right” consists of Protestant fundamentalists, where the so-called Pentecostals play a dominant role. This is a very fanatical and aggressively missionary denomination that believes in a return of a living Christ to earth and the subsequent elevation of its members to heavenly paradise.

In order for this appearance of Christ to occur, several factors must be in place according to the views of this denomination. In the first place, a number of Jews must convert to Christianity, and in the second, there must be a rebuilding of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem. As the site of this temple is now occupied by a major Islamic mosque, it will be necessary to destroy this building.

Starting as an Episcopalian, Bush tried other Protestant denominations before joining the Pentecostals. Apart from U.S. President Bush and his Attorney General Ashcroft, other members of his administration are members of this denomination, too, which is the second largest Christian denomination after the Catholic Church. As a considerable

[Page 12]

part of the American public sentiment is strongly opposed to religious fanatics; these facts have been kept very quiet.

Bush and his entourage are very strong supporters of the State of Israel because of their belief, that the founding of this nation is viewed as another requirement for the return of Christ. For this reason, Bush unconditionally supports any program put forward by the Israeli government and is a devoted follower and supporter of Sharon, the Israeli right wing extremist Minister President.

Attorney General Ashcroft has stated in a public sermon (he is a lay preacher of the Pentecostal church) that the Muslims are “agents of the Anti-Christ” and must be destroyed in the so-called “Battle of Armageddon.” According to the beliefs of fundamentalist Christians, this battle will be fought over Israel’s existence and will lead to the end of the world and the return of Christ.

It is generally known in Washington that Bush is entirely guided by his religious beliefs and that he has been attempting repeatedly to force his views onto the American public by means of various disguised programs, such as religious control of charities, unconditional support of Israel, and so forth.

Summary and Outlook

The terrorist attacks on American targets were fully known to many entities well in advance. The U.S. President was fully informed as to the

[Page 13]

nature and exact time of these attacks.

The U.S. government in general and the U.S. President in specific have become subservient to the wishes and plans of the Israeli government. As these plans encompass the removal of the Arab population of Israel and adjoining territories, it is evident that the population of the United States is being pushed into a situation that could easily result in more, and terrible, attacks on their home country.

In view of this possibility, the U.S. authorities are determined to limit any discussion of the 11 September attacks to the official version as it appears regularly in the U.S. media.

It also appears from confidential sources that Bush’s plans to attack Iraq are based mainly on a desire on the part of Israel to remove Saddam Hussein. Tel Aviv views Hussein as a real threat and has already attacked that country before.

There is also evidence that if Hussein were toppled by American military force, the oil resources of Iraq would be put under the control of a consortium of the American oil interests that so avidly support the Bush Administration.

Pullach, April 5, 2002

source : conspiracyplanet.com


IT IS BLOOD FOR OIL

Posted in USA with tags , , , , , , on September 3, 2008 by indonesiaunderground

IT IS BLOOD FOR OIL


George Bush’s Land Mine:If the Iraqi People Get Revenue Sharing, They Lose Their Oil to Exxon

by Richard Behan
George Bush has a land mine planted in the supplemental appropriation legislation working its way through Congress.
The Iraq Accountability Act passed by the House and the companion bill passed in the Senate contain deadlines for withdrawing our troops from Iraq, in open defiance of the President’s repeated objections.
He threatens a veto, but he might well be bluffing.
Buried deep in the legislation and intentionally obscured is a near-guarantee of success for the Bush Administration’s true objective of the war-capturing Iraq’s oil-and George Bush will not casually forego that.

This bizarre circumstance is the end-game of the brilliant, ever-deceitful maneuvering by the Bush Administration in conducting the entire scenario of the “global war on terror.”

VIDEO – BUYING THE WAR – BILL MOYERS

The supplemental appropriation package requires the Iraqi government to meet a series of “benchmarks” President Bush established in his speech to the nation on January 10 (in which he made his case for the “surge”). Most of Mr. Bush’s benchmarks are designed to blame the victim, forcing the Iraqis to solve the problems George Bush himself created.

One of the President’s benchmarks, however, stands apart. This is how the President described it: “To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.” A seemingly decent, even noble concession. That’s all Mr. Bush said about that benchmark, but his brevity was gravely misleading, and it had to be intentional.

The Iraqi Parliament has before it today, in fact, a bill called the hydrocarbon law, and it does call for revenue sharing among Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. For President Bush, this is a must-have law, and it is the only “benchmark” that truly matters to his Administration.

Yes, revenue sharing is there-essentially in fine print, essentially trivial. The bill is long and complex, it has been years in the making, and its primary purpose is transformational in scope: a radical and wholesale reconstruction-virtual privatization-of the currently nationalized Iraqi oil industry.

If passed, the law will make available to Exxon/Mobil, Chevron/Texaco, BP/Amoco, and Royal Dutch/Shell about 4/5’s of the stupendous petroleum reserves in Iraq. That is the wretched goal of the Bush Administration, and in his speech setting the revenue-sharing “benchmark” Mr. Bush consciously avoided any hint of it.

The legislation pending now in Washington requires the President to certify to Congress by next October that the benchmarks have been met-specifically that the Iraqi hydrocarbon law has been passed. That’s the land mine: he will certify the American and British oil companies have access to Iraqi oil. This is not likely what Congress intended, but it is precisely what Mr. Bush has sought for the better part of six years.

It is why we went to war.

For years President Bush has cloaked his intentions behind the fabricated “Global War on Terrorism.” It has long been suspected that oil drove the wars, but dozens of skilled and determined writers have documented it. It is no longer a matter of suspicion, nor is it speculation now: it is sordid fact.
( Remember 911)
Planning for the two wars was underway almost immediately upon the Bush Administration taking office–at least six months before September 11, 2001. The wars had nothing to do with terrorism. Terrorism was initially rejected by the new Administration as unworthy of national concern and public policy, but 9/11 gave them a conveniently timed and spectacular alibi to undertake the wars. Quickly inventing a catchy “global war on terror” theme, the Administration disguised the true nature of the wars very cleverly, and with enduring success.

The “global war on terror” is bogus. The prime terrorist in Afghanistan and the architect of 9/11, Osama bin Laden, was never apprehended, and the President’s subsequent indifference is a matter of record. And Iraq harbored no terrorists at all. But both countries were invaded, both countries suffer military occupation today, both are dotted with permanent U.S. military bases protecting the hydrocarbon assets, and both have been provided with puppet governments.

And a billion dollar embassy in Baghdad is under construction now. It will be the largest U.S. embassy in the world by a factor of ten.
It consists of 21 buildings on 104 acres, six times larger than the United Nations compound in New York city, larger than Vatican City. It will house a delegation of more than five thousand people. It will have its own water, electric, and sewage systems, and it is surrounded by a fortress wall of concrete fifteen feet thick. For an Administration committed to fighting terrorism with armies and bombs, that’s far more anti-terror diplomacy than a tiny country needs. There must be another purpose for it.

In the first two months of the Bush Administration two significant events took place that preordained the Iraqi war. Vice President Cheney’s Energy Task Force was created, composed of federal officials and oil industry people. By March of 2001, half a year before 9/11, the Task Force was poring secretly over maps of the Iraqi oil fields, pipe lines, and tanker terminals. It studied a listing of foreign oil company “suitors” for exploration and development contracts, to be executed with Saddam Hussein’s oil ministry. There was not a single American or British oil company included, and to Mr. Cheney and his cohorts that was intolerable. The final report of the Task Force was candid: “… Middle East oil producers will remain central to world security. The Gulf will be a primary focus of U.S. international energy policy.” The detailed meaning of “focus” was left blank.

The other event was the first meeting of President Bush’s National Security Council, and it filled in the blank. The Council abandoned abruptly the decades-long attempt to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and set a new priority for Middle East foreign policy instead: the invasion of Iraq. This, too, was six months before 9/11. “Focus” would mean war.

By the fall of 2002, the White House Iraq Group-a collection not of foreign policy experts but of media and public relations people-was cranking up the marketing campaign for the war. A contract was signed with the Halliburton Corporation-even before military force in Iraq had been authorized by Congress-to organize the suppression of oil well fires, should Saddam torch the fields as he had done in the first Gulf War. Little was left to chance.

The oil industry is the primary client and top-ranked beneficiary of the Bush Administration. There can be no question the Administration intended to secure for American oil corporations the rich petroleum resources of Iraq: 115 billion barrels of proven reserves, twice that in probable and possible resources, potentially far more than Saudi Arabia. The Energy Task Force spoke to this and the National Security Council answered.

A secret NSC memorandum in 2001 spoke candidly of “actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields” in Iraq. In 2002 Paul Wolfowitz suggested simply seizing the oil fields. These words and suggestions were draconian, overt, and reprehensible-morally, historically, politically and diplomatically. The seizure of the oil would have to be oblique and far more sophisticated.

A year before the war the State Department undertook the “Future of Iraq” project, expressly to design the institutional contours of the postwar country. The ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­”Oil and Energy Working Group” looked with dismay at the National Iraqi Oil Company, the government agency that owned and operated the Iraqi oil fields and marketed the products. 100% of the revenues went directly to the central government, and constituted about 90% of its income. Saddam Hussein benefited, certainly-his lavish palaces-but the Iraqi people did so to a far greater extent, in terms of the nation’s public services and physical infrastructure. For this reason nationalized oil industries are the norm throughout the world.

The Oil and Energy Working Group designed a scheme that was oblique and sophisticated, indeed. The oil seizure would be less than total. It would be obscured in complexity. The apparent responsibility for it would be shifted, and it would be disguised as benefiting, even necessary to Iraq’s well being. Their work was supremely ingenious, undeniably brilliant.

The plan would keep the National Iraqi Oil Company in place, to continue overseeing the currently producing fields. But those fields represent only 19% of Iraq’s petroleum reserves. The other 81% would be flung open to “investment” by foreign oil interests, and the companies in favored positions today-because of the war and their political connections-are Exxon/Mobil, Chevron/Texaco, BP/Amoco, and Royal Dutch/Shell.

The nationalized industry would be 80% privatized.

The investment vehicle would be the “production sharing agreement,” a long-term contract-up to 40 years-that grants to the company a share of the oil produced; in exchange, the company underwrites the development costs and oilfield infrastructure. Such “investment” is touted by the Bush Administration and its puppets in Iraq as necessary to the country’s recovery, and a huge benefit, accordingly. But it is not unusual for these contracts to grant the companies more than half the profits for the first 15-30 years, and to deny the host country any revenue at all until the investment costs have been recovered.

The Iraqi oil industry does very much need a great deal of investment capital, to repair, replace, and upgrade its infrastructure. But it does not need Exxon/Mobil or any other foreign company to provide it. At a reduced level, Iraq is still producing oil and hence revenue, and no country in the world, perhaps, has better collateral against which to float bond issues for public investment. Privatization of any sort and in any degree is utterly unnecessary in Iraq today.

The features of the State Department plan were inserted by Paul Bremer’s Provisional Coalition Authority into the developing structures of Iraqi governance. American oil companies were omnipresent in Baghdad then and have been since, shaping and shepherding the plan through the several iterations of puppet governments-the “democracy” said to be taking hold in Iraq.

The package today is in the form of draft legislation, the hydrocarbon law. Only a handful of Iraqi officials know its details. Virtually none of them had a hand in its construction. (It was first written in English.) And its exclusive beneficiaries are the American and British oil companies, whose profits will come directly from the pockets of the Iraqi people.

The Iraqi people do, however, benefit to some degree. The seizure is not total. The hydrocarbon law specifies the oil revenues-the residue accruing to Iraq-will be shared equally among the Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish regions, on a basis of population. This is the feature President Bush relies upon exclusively to justify, to insist on the passage of the hydrocarbon law. His real reasons are Exxon/Mobil, Chevron/Texaco, BP/Amoco, and Royal Dutch/Shell.

No one can say at the moment how much the hydrocarbon law will cost the Iraqi people, but it will be in the hundreds of billions. The circumstances of its passage are mired in the country’s chaos, and its final details are not yet settled. If and when it passes, however, Iraq will orchestrate the foreign capture of its own oil. The ingenious, brilliant seizure of Iraqi oil will be assured.

That outcome has been on the Bush Administration’s agenda since early in 2001, long before terrorism struck in New York and Washington. The Iraqi war has never been about terrorism.

It is blood for oil.

The blood has been spilled already, hugely, criminally. More than 3,200 American military men and women have died in Iraq. 26,500 more have been wounded. But the oil remains in play.

The game will end if the revenue-sharing “benchmark” is fully enforced. The land mine will detonate.

Mission almost accomplished, Mr. President.

WHY WE FIGHT, EXECUTIVE ORDER 13303

(O)peration
(I)raqi
(L)iberation

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that the threat of attachment or other judicial process against the Development Fund for Iraq, Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations, or any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, obstructs the orderly reconstruction of Iraq, the restoration and maintenance of peace and security in the country, and the development of political, administrative, and economic institutions in Iraq. This situation constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.

I hereby order:

Section 1. Unless licensed or otherwise authorized pursuant to this order, any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void, with respect to the following:

(a) the Development Fund for Iraq, and (b) all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations, or any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons.

Executive order 13303

Author’s endnote:

This article was written assuming the members of Congress were ignorant, when they passed the supplemental appropriation bills, of the clever origin, the details, and the true beneficiaries of the Iraqi hydrocarbon law. It was written assuming they did not know President Bush’s stated “benchmark” of revenue-sharing was fraudulently incomplete, intentionally obscuring the fully intended seizure, by military force, of Iraqi oil assets.

The Bush Administration made every effort to mislead deliberately both the Congress and the American people. Ignorance of the circumstances was imposed.

If any members of Congress acted with full and complete knowledge, however, then they have become complicit in a criminal war.

Published on Friday, March 30, 2007 by CommonDreams.org
Richard W. Behan lives and writes on Lopez Island, off the northwest coast of Washington state. He is working on his next book, To Provide Against Invasions: Corporate Dominion an America’s Derelict Democracy. He can be reached at rwbehan@rockisland.com

(This essay is deliberately not copyrighted: it may be reproduced without restriction.)

(Taken from http://leapingrealeyes.blogspot.com)

911 Conspiracy

Posted in USA with tags , , on September 3, 2008 by indonesiaunderground

The WTC buildings collapsed at free the fall speed of gravity, 8.4 seconds (10 floors per second). To collapse at “Free fall” speed means that the falling building pieces had to crush concrete, shear steel bolts, and brake welds and fall just as fast as a rock dropped off the side of the building that hit nothing but air. Impossible without explosives. Each floor hit would have significantly slowed the fall!

The South Tower (Building #2) fell after 1 hour; the North Tower (Building #1) fell after 2 hours.The Meridian Plaza burned fiercely for 19 hours and never collapsed. The Madrid fire in 2005 burnt for 24 hours looking like a torch and never collapsed.

Yet Scientific American, October 2001 said “The WTC was probably one of the more resistant tall buildings..they just don’t build them as tough as the World Trade Center“s

“The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time.”- Federal Emergency Management Agency. Chapter 5, Page 31, May 2002

The investigation of the WTC “is a half-baked farce.” – Fire Engineering Magazine. Jan 2002

All of the important evidence from the disaster was destroyed, illegally, and before the investigation was even concluded, some before it began! – Fire Engineering

$600,000 was spent investigating the WTC collapses vs. $40 million on Clinton’s sex life.The entire 9/11 Commission only spent $15 million while all expenditures on Clinton’s indiscretion exceed $65 million.

Building 7 at the WTC, 47 floors, steel, and constructed differently from the twin towers, fell at 5:30 but it was never hit by an airplane, had no significant fire! The fires were not long enough (only 1-2 hours) to harm the steel. Yet days later, there were “hot spots” in the building that still exceeded the maximum temperature possible from jet fuel – but not from explosives.

The gusting wind on the towers had at times been greater than the impact of the airliners. Neither tower was bent nor did they creak or groan at any time.

The concrete was encased in a steel framed pan yet clouds of finely pulverized concrete and steel beams came shooting out of the buildings for up to three times the width of the building at hundreds of miles per hour – only possible with explosives.

If the force of the falling building is strong enough to pulverize concrete then the bolts and rivets would have to hold beyond that force – and then give way. Yet the force to pulverize concrete into fine powder is greater than the force that sheers or stretches steel bolts and rivets. It cannot be both ways.

Both impacts and fires in the Twin Towers did not hit the center of the buildings. That means that only two sides of the building were harmed at most and two sides were structurally sound. Building 7 had no impact or significant fires. Yet all three collapses are perfectly straight down. Only the tops of the Towers should have fallen over, not the entire building all straight down, just like a controlled demolition.

“I’m still to this day amazed that he [alleged pilot on Flight 77] could have flown into the Pentagon,” according to the hijackers pilot instructor. “He could not fly at all.” Yet, “The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it’s clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed.”

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES, Public Hearing, Friday, May 23, 2003 : Mr. Mineta: “There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, “The plane [Flight 77] is 50 miles out…30 miles… 10 miles out” – Cheney knew this plane was coming at Washington and the Pentagon and yet no planes had been scrambled to protect Washington after over 1 hour since the WTC was attacked. Even at 400 miles per hour, it takes over 7 minutes to travel 50 miles, more since the plane was at altitude. Cheney knew the plane was coming when it was even farther away since Mr. Mineta had not been present when Flight 77 was first reported to Mr. Cheney. They had known this flight was missing for over an hour after the first plane crashed into the North Tower. There should have been an umbrella of F-16 and other aircraft over Washington, DC. An F-16 fighter can travel 50 miles and destroy a target in less than 2 minutes. Moreover, pictures released by the Pentagon show anti-aircraft missiles firing at an aircraft much smaller than a 757. Everything failed! Incompetence, if not guilt.

Read how the alleged hijackers used top secret information to find holes in our Radar Defenses.

NORAD successfully intercepted off course and suspected hijackings 100% of 67 times during the year prior to 9/11 (AP, 8/13/02), each time in under 20 minutes. An Air Force F-15 “scrambles” to 29,000 feet in 2.5 minutes, normally intercepting in 15 minutes. Yet on 9/11 they were four failures for over an hour each — three after they knew the planes were high-jacked and intended mass murder. Please read, “Crossing the Rubicon”, by Michael Ruppert, which indicts Richard Cheney for his involvement in the war games that diverted our interceptors from stopping the high-jacked airplanes. Contrast this to Condoleezza Rice’s statement from her May 16, 2002 press briefing, “I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile”. (See Fox TV broadcast plot 6 months earlier) “Condoleezza Rice was the top National Security official with President Bush at the July 2001 G-8 summit in on Genoa. This was where U.S. officials were warned that Islamic terrorists might attempt to crash an airliner into the summit, which prompted officials to close the airspace over Genoa and station anti-aircraft guns at the city’s airport”.

“On August 6, 2001, just over a month before 9/11 and during the “summer of threat”, President Bush received a Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) at his Crawford, Texas ranch, entitled Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US The August 6th memo focused entirely on the possibility of terrorist attacks inside the US. In testimony before the 9/11 Commission, Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor to President Bush, stated to the 9/11 Commission that she and President Bush considered the August 6th PDB as just an historical document and commented that this was not considered a domestic warning. At this 9/11 hearing, Condoleezza Rice had taken an oath to tell the truth to the Commissioners. [Perjury!] “Additionally, according to the 9/11 Commission report, chief White House expert on terrorism, Richard Clarke, sent Rice an urgent memo just days after she took office stressing the severity of the terrorist threat. She did not respond. Although the national security leadership met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks . . . terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions. The first meeting that dealt with al Qaeda did not occur until 9/4/01.” Read the 9/11 widows letter on “Kindasleazy” Rice.

Rice lied that they did not anticipate hijackers using airplanes as weapons yet FEMA’s cover image depicts just such an attack!

I am also appalled by the media. A Zogby Poll I commissioned reported that 66% of New Yorkers want the 9/11 investigation re-opened and 49% believe government VIP’s knew ahead of time and did nothing to stop it. The New York Times thought it NOT “news fit to print”. I had to pay for an advertisement to get it in the New York Times!