Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Wall Street Journal pushing discredited story

Wall Street Journal pushing discredited story

The Wall Street Journal reported that the IL-76 cargo plane detained on December 11 along with a Ukrainian and Belarusian crew at Bangkok's Don Muang Airport en route from North Korea was destined for Tehran with a consignment of North Korean weapons. However, WMR has learned from informed Asian intelligence sources that Tehran was not the final destination for the North Korean weapons. The weapons were destined for Sri Lanka and Ukraine.

Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili has denied any Iranian link to the weapons seized in Bangkok. The denial comes at the same time that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadiejad has condemned as a forgery a two-page Farsi document pointing to alleged Iranian development of nuclear weapons. The Bangkok incident and the forged Iranian document suggests that the disinformation campaign against Iran is reachng levels to that waged against Iraq and Saddam Hussein in the months before the U.S.-led attack on that nation.

The cargo plane used to transport the weapons from North Korea was chartered by an intricate web of CIA front and pass-through companies registered in New Zealand, Hong Kong, Vanuatu, Georgia, British Virgin Islands, and Sharjah. The Air West Georgia plane is owned by Overseas Cargo FZE of Sharjah and was leased to SP Trading of Auckland, New Zealand. The IL-76 was previously owned by a Kazakhstan-based company linked to international weapons smuggler Viktor Bout, now imprisoned in Bangkok while the United States appeals a Thai court decision not to extradite him to the United States. Bout has flown charter missions for the Taliban, Al Qaeda, the United Nations, the CIA, and the U.S. Department of Defense. Bout apparently knows enough about U.S. intelligence operations, including 9/11-related information, for him to be a threat to the CIA.

The operation to smuggle weapons from North Korea was a CIA sting operation, conducted with the assistance of Mossad assets in Azerbaijan, where the IL-76 stopped en route to North Korea from Ukraine, and Georgian and Ukrainian intelligence. The North Koreans responded favorably to the request from Sri Lanka for arms because the two countries have been close allies in the Non-Aligned Movement. There is also a possibility, according to our sources, that the IL-76 picked up weapons in Azerbaijan while en route to Sri Lanka, Bangkok, and North Korea.

One of the organizations that served as a "source" for the Wall Street Journal's disinformation about Iran being the final destination for the North Korean weapons, TransArms of Chicago, is, according to our sources in China and Japan, linked to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. The only other time TransArms, a non-governmental organization, has surfaced in the main stream media in the recent past has concerned its reports about the smuggling of weapons to Hamas in Gaza.

Chinese intelligence sources report that the "sting" operation conducted against North Korea and Iran appears to have been part of a plan by the CIA to resurrect the pro-U.S. "GUAM" alliance of Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and Moldova. All four countries are now led by governments put into office by elements associated with George Soros and his Open Society Institute/Foundation.

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Committing Treason for a Piece of the Pie

It has been the CIA’s signature strategy for several decades that all of its missions are joint missions, if possible, comprised of black ops forces drawn from various spy and military organizations.

By: Peter Chamberlin

If things were as they seemed, then the most powerful military force that the world has ever seen would have had no trouble defeating Afghan or Iraqi tribes, or the already decimated military of Saddam Hussein. But things are not as they seem on the nightly news; in fact, most things prove to be the exact opposite of how they are portrayed. In a country like America (and sadly, most countries want to be like America), the people prefer to believe whatever they are told.

No one questions now, nor did they at the time these things occurred, why American military forces performed in the following unprofessional, illogical manner—they consistently refused to contain the forces they fought against in any encounter (never closing the back doors) and they always stopped fighting just short of victory, allowing their enemies years to rebuild their forces while American soldiers were restrained from finishing the enemy to become instructors. Continuing the Iraq and Afghan wars was more important than winning or ending them; continuing the wars was “winning” them in the lexicon of the Empire-builders.

In the greatest fraud ever perpetrated upon any force of patriotic fighting men in the history of the human race, over two-million men and women have been sent to fight and die in wars where victory was never possible, by government mandate. This has been a hallmark of America’s wars, set by the first Pres. Bush in his Gulf war. No useful assets like Saddam Hussein (or the Taliban, for that matter) can be eliminated in our wars of conquest. We are only interested in reeling-in those who think that they are beyond control, restoring the balance of power, the balance of terror.

It is imperative that the still free citizens of the world understand that their own leaders consider the continuation of America’s wars more important than anything else in the world right now. Every leader on the world stage has a financial stake in our war, although there is, no doubt, an element of threat in the equation, as well. If we prevail, then their rewards will multiply exponentially. Nothing less can explain how all of them could sell-out their own people for the opportunity to sign deals with the United States, or worse, how they all cover up crimes committed by American agencies.

The American war is not about fighting terror; that is just the most convenient excuse for the many criminal events that our governments have planned for us all. We fight to advance a new American order, one without resistance to the Empire’s designs. Everyone who can go along with these plans and get along (doing as they are told) is guaranteed a better lot in the new order than those who resist. Anyone in the way of those designs is branded an extremist or a “terrorist,” who must be taken out of the way.

The one nation that potentially has more to gain from partnering with the United States than any other compromised nation is India. The economic explosion that India has experienced over the past decade is a direct result of its new partnership with American interests. The globalist “outsourcing” solution has directly transferred millions of jobs and countless industries to India, resulting in an equivalent loss of American jobs. (The same can be said of China—the decades of economic boom it has experienced was a conscious transfer of American jobs and wealth to China—the “Walmart solution.”).

India has special roles to play in the Empire’s plans, on many different levels. Beyond the scientific and economic partnership is the US/India military partnership. This extends beyond the obvious visible manifestations of this partnership to the secret covert level. It is here in the septic tank level of international relations that India is dirtying itself in unbelievable ways, in order to fulfill what is required of it in this partnership. Considering the CIA’s resounding success in persuading ISI men to aid in terror within Pakistan, it is not outrageous to suspect that the same thing is happening inside India.

India and the US are walking a dangerous line, accusing Pakistan for false flag attacks (that were probably their own handiwork), all the while running mercenaries inside Pakistan. If it is proven that the CIA has been running ops against the Indian government, then it is probable that Indians are part of the plan.

Evidence of both adversarial agencies is evident in the person of one captured spy, Daood Gilani, a.k.a. David Headley. Mr. Headley is a known asset of the CIA and the DEA, but he has also been trained by Pakistan’s premier terror outfit, Lashkar e-Taiba. He will be charged for the planning of the Mumbai attack, thus implicating the American government in that attack. In addition, testimony of two of the men captured after the Mumbai attack testimony suggests that Headley was possibly a colonel in one of India’s agencies, or perhaps the Mumbai police force. Will prosecuting Headley for the attack implicate Indian players, possibly drawing-in RAW and the military?

It is difficult to see how India can pursue real leads in their Mumbai investigation (other than their usual anti-Pakistani propaganda) without exposing their own responsibility in that false flag attack upon mostly Indian citizens. Even though US, Israeli and British sources of the attackers are indicated, in addition to the Pakistanis, a central element of the Mumbai attack was the elimination of Hemant Karkare, chief of the Mumbai Anti-Terrorist Squad and his associates, in order to cover-up the Indian hand in previous false-flag attacks against Muslims within India.

The US maintains a delicate balancing act; using India to anchor its Asian operation and to provide an economic boost to its own stability, while the CIA pits RAW and ISI against each other in Pakistan and Afghanistan. In the case of Headley, you have the reverse situation, where Pakistani assets are developed to be used in a “false flag’ attack upon India by a consortium of agencies, which included Indian assets, intended to implicate Pakistan. In Pakistan, you have the same set-up with the TTP, the Pakistani Taliban, where Pakistanis are helping Indians and Americans by hurting other Pakistanis.

It is the contradictions seen in all false flag ops that make them appear absurdly impossible; they are dependent upon key players, “patsies,” committing acts of treason against their own homelands. It is a phenomenon seen in all anti-state agency operations, from the Kennedy assassination to the attack upon Mumbai—the contradictions make them seem impossible, but in reality, it is the inherent contradictions that make “big lie” ops work.

It has been the CIA’s signature strategy for several decades that all of its missions are joint missions, if possible, comprised of black ops forces drawn from various spy and military organizations. The black ops forces that have served on American international missions are known collectively as “al Qaida,” the Base. Since late 2000, the term “al Qaida” has been used to blame attacks upon terrorists associated with Osama bin Laden, although the bulk of the attacks attributed to this militant movement have been the work of the international mercenary/militant CIA forces.

Drafting India and RAW into this exclusive international terrorist order was a brilliant move, that presented the “false flag” think tanks with a wide range of staging opportunities. The destabilizing mission planned for the sub-continent and all of Central Asia required active collaborators in every targeted state, to stage the attacks and battles required to incite war hysteria and to agitate for the revenge attacks that are necessary to fuel the war cycle against the “Islamist” perpetrators of the terror attacks.

By seducing India with economic incentives and promises of thermonuclear technology needed to overcome deficiencies in its arsenal, the United States has acquired a new economic lifeline, as well as the means to proceed with its own nuclear tests (through India), thereby ducking the political heat for the apparent hypocrisy of conducting nuclear tests while trying to eliminate nuclear arms. India is to serve as an American anchor, to help hold the subcontinent, while land is pacified ahead of the pipeline construction crews.

Indian authorities don’t seem to have a problem with American intentions or covert actions in the region. Until the Headley incident popped-up there were no Indian voices critical of American foreign policy. Since then, Indian reporters are suggesting the unthinkable—that Headley is a double agent for both Pakistan and the US. One brave analyst goes so far as to suggest that he is a “quadruple agent.”

It will be interesting to see where the Headley investigation goes, now that it has broken through the Western filters and burst onto the traditional media. You can be certain that everyone will be trying to sweep it all under the rug. The best that we can do here in Internet world is to keep digging to expose the roots of the corruption, and doing our best to funnel key pieces of evidence through that hole in the filters.

Monday, December 21, 2009

Reports on Mumbai attacks being linked to CIA assets confirmed

Reports on Mumbai attacks being linked to CIA assets confirmed...

The Hindustan Times is reporting what WMR exposed last year: that the CIA's fingerprints, not those of "Al Qaeda," were on the deadly terrorist attacks in Mumbai. The Indian paper reported the following on December 20: "Did the Americans have detailed advance information about the 26/11 plot which they did not share with India, only passing on a watered-down warning? And was there an American spy within the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba [LeT] who kept Washington (or Langley) informed of terror acts planned against India — even if this information was never handed over to us?"

WMR provided a "yes" response to the Hindustan Times's question on December 4, 2008: "WMR has learned from Asian intelligence sources that one of the accused masterminds of the gangland assault on Mumbai, the soft-spoken but extremely dangerous exiled Indian mobster and one-time Bombay local street tough, or 'dada,' Ibrahim, was a key 'unsavory' ally of the CIA and Cheney in the war against 'Al Qaeda.' In fact, Ibrahim's dalliances with the CIA go back to the Afghan mujaheddin war against the Soviets and coincide with the CIA's alliance, at the time, with Osama Bin Laden . . . Ibrahim, according to our sources, played an important part in Cheney's and Rumsfeld's 'shadow war' after 9/11. It was Ibrahim, for example, who used his criminal network to track down the killers of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in Pakistan. Ibrahim's men were also used to provide protection for Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai in Pakistan and Afghanistan, especially when the Afghan frequented gay brothels in Pakistan. Ibrahim's enterprises, called 'D-Company,' ensured that U.S. supply ships in the Arabian Sea were protected from attack, that the U.S. embassy in Islamabad was not targeted for terrorist attack, arranged for reasonable port fees to be assessed for U.S. ships in Dubai in support of the Iraq war, that U.S. sailors and contractors in Dubai were protected, and that all the kickbacks for Cheney's Halliburton and other U.S. contractors were properly laundered through Dubai banks. Ibrahim's network also ensured that the land route from Karachi to Afghanistan allowed U.S., Indian, and other nations' goods to move into the landlocked country unimpeded."

On December 1, 2008, WMR reported: "As first reported by WMR while the corporate press was uttering the 'Al Qaeda' bogeyman as likely behind the terror attacks on Mumbai, the Press Trust of India (PTI) is now confirming WMR's initial report that Pakistan- and Dubai-based criminal syndicate boss Dawood Ibrahim's gangsters handed over the weapons and explosive material to Lashkar-e-Taiba (LET) terrorists to carry out the assault on targets in Mumbai."

Pakistani-American David Headley, aka Daood Gilani, who was an agent for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and, reportedly, the CIA, was arrested in Chicago and charged with involvement in the Mumbai attacks and the planning of others in India and Denmark. U.S. authorities are denying Indian law enforcement authorities access to Headley. Headley, according to The Times of London, tried to pass himself off as Jewish in India. Many investigators now believe that the DEA affiliation was merely a CIA "official cover" for Headley.

The Hindustan Times has provided more details of Headley's relationship with the CIA: "When Headley was first arrested, the Americans declared that they had foiled a
plot to kill a Danish cartoonist. Then, more details began to trickle out. The
terror suspect, we were told, was a US citizen of Pakistani origin. He had some
links with the LeT. He had visited India. He may have been part of an advance
team for 26/11. Indian investigators, intrigued by these reports, flew to Washington to meet Headley. They were denied any access to him. They tried to work out if Headley
was in fact somebody they themselves had been looking for. They had asked the
CIA if it had any information about an American who, their sources had told
them, was part of the LeT. They received no real cooperation."

The Hindustan Times also presented a likely scenario for Headley: "In the aftermath of 9/11, the US was desperate for spies it could sent into Pakistan. Headley was sprung from jail and asked to infiltrate terror groups. Assisted by the US government (new passport etc.), he worked for the LeT using his American passport to gain access to places where he would normally have been treated with suspicion if he had revealed his Pakistan roots.
He came to Bombay not just to check out the Taj but do a recon of Nariman House.
He posed as an American Jew and sent back detailed reports. Along the way, he
revealed details of the 26/11 plot to his American handlers. The US was caught
in a bind. If it told us everything, the LeT would know that Headley was the
source and his cover would be blown. Yet, it could not sit by. So, it
compromised by giving us some intel about the attack that could not be traced
back to Headley. And Headley continued to operate as a US asset inside LeT."

The U.S. arrest of Headley was championed by the Obama administration as a "success" in the war against terror. In reality, President Obama, who has his own ties to CIA activities in Pakistan in the early 1980s, is merely trying to cover up yet another CIA link to terrorist attacks. Mr. Obama could easily wear a "false flag," instead of a U.S. flag, on his lapel.

The stark contrast between the treatment of the Iranian and South Korean cases by the IAEA

The stark contrast between the treatment of the Iranian and South Korean cases by the IAEA
In 2004, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) revealed that a member state had violated its Safeguards Agreement by carrying out covert uranium conversion and enrichment activities and plutonium experiments for more than two decades. The nature of some of those enrichment activities, moreover, raised legitimate suspicions of interest in a nuclear weapons program.

The state was found to have lied to the IAEA even when the authority began investigating these suspicious activities, with the country concerned claiming that its laser enrichment research did not involve any use of nuclear material.

If that sounds like a description of Iran's troubled relationship with
the IAEA up to 2004, that's because it bears striking resemblance to it. In fact, it is a description of the deception of the IAEA by the government of South Korea.

There was just one major difference between the South Korean and Iranian cases: Iran never enriched uranium at a level that could only represent an interest in nuclear weapons - but South Korea did.

Yet the IAEA treated Iran as a state to be investigated indefinitely, after failing to give South Korea even a slap on the wrist.

Even more remarkable is the fact that the two cases were the subject of IAEA reports issued within the same week in November 2004.

Three months before the report on its nuclear activities was published, South Korea admitted to doing everything in violation of its Safeguards Agreement that Iran was found to have done up to 2003.

In the early 1980s, South Korea carried out uranium conversion in a facility that was kept secret from the IAEA. It also secretly extracted plutonium from a hot cell, and had carried out at least 10 covert uranium enrichment experiments from 1993 through 2000 using undeclared natural uranium metal.

South Korea used 3.5kg of natural uranium metal for its unreported enrichment experiments; Iran used 8.0kg of natural uranium for the same kind of experiments.

But by the far most important finding by the IAEA was that, during a series of covert experiments in uranium enrichment using atomic vapor laser isolate separation (AVLIS) in 2000, Korean scientists enriched the uranium to 77%. South Korea finally admitted that experiment in its August 2004 declaration to the IAEA.

"Not only did they have an undeclared uranium-enrichment program, but they were actually making something close to bomb-grade, so you have to conclude someone wanted to develop a capability to make nuclear weapons," said David Albright of the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security after the Korean violations were revealed.

Despite covert activities that could only be reasonably interpreted as evidence of an intention to develop nuclear weapons, however, Seoul was given what amounted to a free pass.

After its August 2004 confidential admission to its covert activities, South Korea mounted an aggressive diplomatic offensive, aimed at avoiding any legal consequences.

First, South Korean officials put pressure on IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei not to disclose the enrichment in his report to the Governing Board. The South Koreans threatened to undermine ElBaradei's reelection bid, according to a November 25, 2004 Washington Post story.

ElBaradei was well aware that South Korea's ally, the George W Bush administration, was seeking to oust ElBaradei because of his refusal to conform to US policies toward Iraq and Iran.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration made no secret of the fact it wanted the IAEA Board of Governors to call for Iran to be reported to the UN Security Council.

US officials understood that the South Korean covert enrichment and other violations were, if anything, worse than those of Iran. At least some officials were prepared to support a resolution in the IAEA Governing Board to send Korea's case to the Security Council in order to establish a precedent that could then be applied to Iran, according to the Post story.

But the British, French and Germans were negotiating with Iran on an agreement under which Tehran would maintain its suspension of uranium enrichment, and they were threatening to send the Iranian file to the Security Council if Iran did not agree.

Given those negotiations, ElBaradei felt no need to write a report that would be the basis of a resolution from the IAEA Board of Governors in late November 2004 to refer the South Korean case to the UN Security Council.

ElBaradei's November 11, 2004, report on South Korea confirmed that enrichment had gone as high as 77% but did not raise the obvious question of whether its covert nuclear activities had been military-related.

It recounted without comment the South Korean authorities' explanation that both the plutonium and uranium enrichment experiments had been "performed without the knowledge or authorization of the government".

Given the fact South Korea admitted the covert uranium enrichment was carried out by no less than 14 government scientists, an IAEA investigation was obviously in order. But the report gave no hint that there was any need to find out who authorized it and why.

In effect, ElBaradei's report on South Korea effectively eliminated the issue from the agency's agenda.

Three days after the report, Iran reached agreement with the Europeans on a voluntary suspension of enrichment and more negotiations. Since there was no chance of getting the Iranian case referred to the UN Security Council, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the South Koreans at a meeting in Chile that the United States was now prepared to "accept Seoul's explanation" for its covert enrichment to bomb-grade levels.

That clearly signaled that the United States had decided against a resolution to send the South Korean case to the Security Council after the European agreement with Iran.

The subject of South Korea's violations of its Safeguards Agreement was never raised again at an IAEA meeting. In 2007, an IAEA Safeguards report said the agency was "able to clarify all issues relating to past undeclared activities".

It offered no explanation for the enrichment to bomb-grade levels and the obvious official falsehoods surrounding the activities, or for its own acquiescence in it.

In contrast to ElBaradei's lack of curiosity about the obviously suspect official South Korean explanations for its bomb-grade enrichment, his report on Iran, issued four days later, concluded that it would "take longer than in normal circumstances" to "conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran".

The report suggested the IAEA would continue to pursue what it called "open source reports relating to dual use equipment and materials" in Iran. That meant that any technology, no matter how innocent, would now be treated as evidence of an Iranian covert nuclear weapons program.

The double standard of treatment of the South Korean and Iranian cases implied that the United States had hard intelligence that Iran had exhibited an interest in nuclear weapons, whereas South Korea had not.

However, the closest thing to such evidence in US possession was a set of documents of uncertain provenance and authenticity.
On the other hand, nuclear physicists working in the Korean nuclear program, who had been recruited by the CIA, had reported in the mid-1970s that South Korea was carrying out a clandestine nuclear weapons program.

The stark contrast between the treatment of the Iranian and South Korean cases by the IAEA Secretariat and its Board of Governors is the most dramatic evidence of a politically motivated nuclear double standard practiced by the agency and its Governing Board, dominated by the United States.

And as the episode showed, that double standard essentially reflected the political-military interests of the US government.