Thursday, March 31, 2011

Zbigniew Brzezinski : How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujaheddin....


Zbigniew Brzezinski : How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujaheddin....


http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_obama08.htm

Interview of Zbigniew Brzezinski Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76*

Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujaheddin began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would....

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea... It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire...

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [integrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today...

Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

* There are at least two editions of this magazine; with the perhaps sole exception of the Library of Congress, the version sent to the United States is shorter than the French version, and the Brzezinski interview was not included in the shorter version.

...

The Deep State "is a parallel secret government, organized by the intelligence and security apparatus, financed by drugs, and engaging in illicit violence, to protect the status and interests of the military..."

The 'Deep State' is the hidden government.

At Global Research, on 7 April 2011, Kevin Zeese reported on the bad guys.

The Link Between War and Big Finance

According to Zeese:

1. Both the military-industrial complex and the Wall Street oligarchs benefit from certain wars.

Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan wrote of World War I: “the large banking interests were deeply interested in the world war because of the wide opportunities for large profits.”

2. The most decorated US Marine in history, Smedley Butler, said:

"I was a gangster for capitalism.

"I helped make Mexico ... safe for American oil interests in 1914.

"I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in.

"I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street... In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested."


3. In Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, John Perkins explains how World Bank and IMF loans are used to make profits for US business and saddle countries with huge debts that allow the USA to control them.

If a country refuse to "honor" its debts, the CIA topples its leader.

4. Tarak Kauff, US Veteran For Peace activist, stated, "The wealth of this country is disappearing down the tubes into the stuffed pockets of the financial/military/industrial oligarchs. Americans are being bled dry while people of the world are literally bleeding and dying from U.S.-made weapons and warfare."


On 6 April 2011, Professor Peter Dale Scott, at Voltaire Network, tells us about:

The "Deep State" behind U.S. democracy

According to Peter Dale Scott:

1. The term 'Deep state' comes from Turkey.

In 1996, in Turkey, a Mercedes crashed.

In the Mercedes were a top drug trafficker, a senior police officer, a Member of Parliament and a beauty queen.

The drug trafficker was head of NATO's paramilitary organization, the Grey Wolves (Operation Gladio terrorism).

The Deep State "is a parallel secret government, organized by the intelligence and security apparatus, financed by drugs, and engaging in illicit violence, to protect the status and interests of the military against threats from intellectuals, religious groups, and occasionally the constitutional government."



2. The influence of the deep state, the American war machine, has continued to increase.

In 1978, Zbigniew Brzezinski sent Islamist agents to Afghanistan, destabilizing the country.

Afghanistan became a centre for poppy culture, heroin trafficking, and jihadist Islamism.

The CIA under William Casey worked with the drug-dealing Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) in creating a huge Afghan narco-economy.

The BCCI was a big global drug-laundering bank.

It was corrupting US politicians, and politicians, presidents and prime ministers all over the world.

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was probably the leading heroin trafficker in the world during the 1980’s. He also became the leading recipient of CIA largesses supplemented by an equal amount of Saudi Arabian money.

3. The media presented Carter as a populist candidate, a peanut farmer from the South.

Carter had been prepared for the presidency by Wall Street, and particularly by the Trilateral Commission, funded by David Rockefeller, and directed by Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Brzezinski became Carter’s national security adviser.


9 11 was carried out by people within the governments and institutions of many countries, including the USA, UK, other countries in Europe, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel.

We call the bad guys Mafia-Fascists.

Porter Goss, former boss of the CIA

From an article entitled
Robert Gates, Lockerbie, October Surprise, Iran-Contra, we learn that Mohamed Atta was 'flying Lebanese heroin into Florida for Porter Goss's 911 operation'.

Reportedly, tied to Porter Goss' 911 training operation in Florida were the Muslim Brotherhood, and agents of the intelligence agencies of Saudi Arabia, Germany, Syria and Pakistan.

Reportedly, Sam Giancana rigged the US presidential election for President Kennedy. Reportedly, Giancana had links to 7 US Presidents. According to Giancana, both presidents Roosevelt and Truman were 'bought'. (
Sam 'Momo' Giancana: Live and Die by the Sword)

Licio Gelli of Italy's P2 masonic lodge

In Italy, the P2 masonic lodge was a link between the mafia and the government. (
http://www.american-buddha.com/darkhistory3.htm)

In March 1981, the Italian police found a list of the 962 members of P2, which contained the names of: 3 government ministers, 43 members of parliament, 43 generals, 8 admirals, secret service chiefs, top bureaucrats and diplomats, police commanders, industrialists, financiers, journalists and TV personalities.

Ex-Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky wrote that Licio Gelli, P-2's Grand Master, was the ally of Mossad in Italy and that Gelli also had a close relationship with the Gladio group. (
down with murder inc / Israel, Mossad, Iran and a Nuclear False Flag Attack )

Top people who allegedly had contact with P-2 include Henry Kissinger, Edmond de Rothschild, and David Rockefeller.

Khashoggi reportedly has links to the Bush family and Osama bin Laden. (Adnan Khashoggi Linked to 911 Terrorists)

In 1999, according to Peter Dale Scott, a former Canadian diplomat, (The Global Drug Meta-Group.) a meeting took place at Adnan Khashoggi's villa in Beaulieu, near Monaco.

Those at the meeting included a member of the Yeltsin cabal and four people with passports from Venezuela, Turkey, United Arab Emirates and Germany.

Between them they allegedly enjoyed excellent relations with: 1) Ayman al-Zawahiri, the 'mastermind of 9/11'. 2) Soviet military intelligence. 3) the FARC Colombian revolutionary group. 4) the Kosovo Liberation Army. 5) (according to a well-informed Russian source) the CIA.

Bush and Kissinger have links to BCCI

Think of the criminal bank known as BCCI.

It involved leaders from 73 countries.

And at the top was the CIA.

"Investigations by the US Senate, NY Attorney General Robert Morgenthau and several award-winning journalists revealed that BCCI was run by the CIA and top US officials." (
Inside the Global Banking Intelligence Complex, BCCI Operations)

Key players were: Former CIA directors George Bush Sr., William Casey and Richard Helms, former Defense Secretary Clark Clifford and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gOcREYEbJ4&feature=player_embedded

At Global research, on 12 October 2010, David DeGraw (Inside the Global Banking Intelligence Complex, BCCI Operations) pointed out that BCCI consisted of an alliance of certain:

1. Intelligence agencies

2. Corporations

3. Weapons dealers

4. Drug traffickers

5. Terrorists

6. Bankers

7. Government officials.

David DeGraw, whose new book is “The Road Through 2012: Revolution or World War III,” points out:

1. BCCI links many scandals, including Iran-Contra, October Surprise, the funding of Saddam, the sale of nuclear technology to North Korea, the funding of Osama and al Qaeda, the drugs trade, the trade in people.

2. BCCI was modeled on top intelligence agencies and corporations.

The richest fifth of the World's population receive 82% of the World's income.

3. BCCI involved people such as Manuel Noriega, Ferdinand Marcos, Saddam Hussein and the Colombian drug barons.

Time magazine reported:

"This is the story of how the wealthy and corrupt in Latin America managed to steal virtually every dollar lent to their countries by Western banks, creating the debt crisis of the 1980s;

"how heads of state… skimmed billions from their national treasuries and hid them in Swiss and Cayman accounts forever free from snooping regulators;

"how Pakistan and Iraq got materials for nuclear weaponry and how Libya built poison-gas plants.”

4. The CIA was in charge.

CIA covert operations were run through BCCI’s “black network.”

BCCI frontmen Kamal Adham and A.R. Khalil were 'primary CIA liaisons for the entire Middle East'.

Among the others involved with the bank were high-ranking Republicans and Democrats, top executives at First American Bank, Bank of America, PR firm Hill & Knowlton, cable company TCI, and auditing firms Price Waterhouse and Ernst & Young.

5. Investigative reporter Chris Floyd wrote, “Instead of stopping the drug-runners and terrorists, the CIA decided to join them, using BCCI’s secret channels to finance ‘black ops’ all over the world.”

The black network, 'which is still functioning', operates an arms-trade business and transports drugs and gold.

6. Sources have told investigators that B.C.C.I. worked closely with Israel’s spy agencies and other Western intelligence agencies.

BCCI 'maintained cozy relationships' with terrorists, say investigators who discovered suspected terrorist accounts for Libya, Syria and the Palestine Liberation Organization in B.C.C.I.’s London offices.



7. Bin Laden had accounts in BCCI and ran a CIA/BCCI-funded camp.

8. BCCI also funded Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program when they set up the Khan Institute of Engineering Sciences and Technology.

9. George Bush Sr. and Robert Gates were key players in the BCCI financed Iran-Contra Affair.

10. George Bush Sr. and Henry Kissinger were also involved in funnelling billions of dollars to Saddam Hussein.

Kissinger and his firm Kissinger Associates played a key role in BCCI.

11. BCCI secretly owned Washington’s largest bank, First American.

Five of Bank of America’s senior officers were either on BCCI’s board of directors or helped to manage the bank.

Bank of America transferred more than $1 billion a day for BCCI.

BCCI was linked to market manipulation and money laundering.

12. The Savings and Loan scandal was part of the BCCI Affair.

Many of the failed S&L thrifts were secret intelligence shell companies and were traced back to BCCI and the CIA.

George Bush Sr., Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Robert Mueller, Robert Gates and Alan Greenspan were all heavily involved in BCCI activities. Former President Bill Clinton even played a crucial role in continuing the cover-up by killing follow-up investigations upon taking office.




Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Germany wants to cherry-pick its own partners in the world, "If in doubt, stick with the West'" no longer applies....


Germany wants to cherry-pick its own partners in the world, "If in doubt, stick with the West'" no longer applies....


The world that Konrad Adenauer grew up in no longer exists, and as a result the Germans are now looking eastward .... not westward. Fed up with bailing under performing (and corrupt) European governments who cannot balance their budgets, and faced with a U.S. foreign policy establishement whose focus is .... at best .... ambivalent towards Europe, and sometimes openely or covertly hostile .... the Germans are now responding to an environment that they realize is not in their best interests. My prediction .... expect the Germans to look towards countries like Russia, China, and the other emerging BRIC countries in developing diplomatic and trade relations....

China's continued growth and influence in Asia and what it would mean to U.S. influence , but it is a good summary that should be read to refresh one's memory on how we have gotten to where we are today.

With its abstention in the UN Security Council vote on Libya, Germany has abandoned its strict alignment with the West, a basic tenet of German foreign policy for decades. Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle's new doctrine is a dangerous one. It would be disastrous for Germany's Western partners began doubting Berlin's committment.

"My God, what will become of Germany when I'm gone?" Konrad Adenauer, West Germany's first chancellor, said 50 years ago. His overriding goal was to keep Germany firmly anchored in the West. He believed that integrating Germany in Europe and keeping it closely allied with the United States was necessary to protect the Germans from themselves. Adenauer was afraid that his compatriots might once again be tempted to veer out and forge their own path. Until a few weeks ago, this fear seemed absurd. But the situation has changed.

By abstaining in the United Nations Security Council vote on the resolution to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, the government has given up what had been a cross-party consensus on German security policy. Until now, Germany was committed to siding with America and France. That wasn't always easy. Sometimes, for example before the 2003 Iraq war, it was impossible. On Iraq, Germany had to choose between one of its two most important partners. But it remained convinced that on no account should it oppose both nations at the same time.

The government has now given up this basic tenet of German policy.

The official explanation is an excuse: Germany doesn't want to take part in a war against Libya, said Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle. If Germany had voted in favor of a no-fly zone, joining the military mission would have been unavoidable, he claims. But such an automatic link between voting yes and taking part doesn't exist. Germany could have voiced its quite justified misgivings and still sided with the other Western nations. That would not have forced it to commit German forces to the military operation.

Central Principles of German Foreign Policy in Doubt

In fact, much more is at stake than the question of a German military contribution. Chancellor Angela Merkel and Westerwelle have called central principles of German foreign policy into question. This will have consequences. Germany's westward integration wasn't just the obsession of Adenauer, a Rhinelander. It was a response to the fundamental problem of Europe's balance of power.

What was to become of this restless nation in the center of Europe that had spent its history shifting between east and west, that for so long entertained a special awareness of its historical role and that started two world wars?

The Germans have come up with three different answers to this question over the last 150 years. Chancellor Otto von Bismarck pursued an equilibrium, trying to preserve peace by preventing other nations from allying themselves against Germany. But even a diplomat as skilled as Bismarck wasn't able to maintain the precarious balance of power. The collapse of his system resulted in World War I. Adolf Hitler tried to solve the problem by trying to dominate Europe by force. That resulted in total defeat. Only with Adenauer's policy of firmly aligning West Germany with the West was the republic able to find its place in Europe and the world.

That makes it so alarming when Westerwelle proclaims Germany's UN abstention as the birth of a new foreign policy doctrine. In the future, Germany wants to cherry-pick its own partners in the world. That can be France, Britain and America, but it could also on occasion be Brazil or India. The principle of "If in doubt, stick with the West'" no longer applies.

Westerwelle's New Doctrine is Contradictory

This new doctrine ignores Germany's history. It is deeply contradictory. On the one hand Westerwelle is exaggerating Germany's international role -- even a superpower like the US can't keep up such a policy of shifting alliances in the long run. Germany would be hopelessly overreaching itself by doing so. If Bismarck didn't manage it, Westerwelle doesn't have a hope. It would be disastrous for Germany if its Western partners began to doubt its commitment to them.

At the same time, Westerwelle is making Germany more insignificant than it really is. He wants Germany to be a country that doesn't send any soldiers on foreign missions and instead serves as a role model for peace. This Germany wants its role in the Security Council to be about abolishing child soldiers and landmines, not about imposing no-fly zones. It wants to leave the unpleasant matters for others to sort out.

The Libyan controversy highlights this double standard. Westerwelle was at the forefront of Western politicians supporting the popular uprisings in Arab countries. But he left it to others to keep protesters from being massacred. That is simply hypocritical. One can't accuse the other European countries of being too slow in backing a weapons and oil embargo while at the same time withdrawing German ships that could enforce such an embargo.

Scoring Domestic Points at the Expense of Germany's Reputation

The pacifist cloak doesn't make the new unilateralism any more appealing. Our partners are as averse to an overbearing Germany as they are to a Germany that shirks its responsibilities. The government is currently doing both at the same time: shooting its mouth off and ducking away. This new German exceptionalism is distasteful -- just listen to how Defense Minister Thomas de Maiziere or Development Minister Dirk Niebel are more or less directly accusing their allies of just bombing Libya for the sake of the country's oil.

This supposed new foreign policy doctrine smacks of domestic populism. Westerwelle has succumbed to such temptations before. He opposed the Iraq war, but then complained that Germany's "no" had damaged the trans-Atlantic alliance. He has been demanding the withdrawal of militarily redundant nuclear weapons from German soil although they are an important symbol of Germany's cooperation with the US. He's more worried about scoring political points at home than about the damage he's doing to Germany's standing in the world.

It has been the same pattern with Libya. Westerwelle's advisors in the Foreign Ministry recommended that Germany should vote "yes" in the Security Council. He ignored their advice because that would have diluted his domestic message: no involvement of German troops.

Angela Merkel didn't stop her foreign minister. She has often shown the right foreign policy instincts. But she probably wanted to avoid a public debate about German military involvement ahead of important regional elections. That kind of thinking would be in line with her character.

Perhaps she agrees with Westerwelle's view that the old certainties no longer apply. In that case a Christian Democrat chancellor would be jettisoning Germany's policy of Western loyalty -- a stance that was part of her party's creed for decades....

http://the-diplomat.com/china-power/2011/03/28/vietnam-eyes-china-threat/

Both Vietnam and China have a recent history of war and conflict .... a history that has not been resolved. Add this history to the present territorial disputes and claims on the South China Sea .... it is then not a surprise to see countries like Vietnam looking at China with a sense of apprehension...


Back to Westphalia
The Westphalian principle that nation states could run their internal affairs as they pleased helped to reduce war for 300 years. That principle is now increasingly abandoned, not just in Libya but through the International Monetary Fund and other non-democratic international organizations. The consequences are hugely hazardous, while putting at risk the immense benefits the ancient treaty brought. - Martin Hutchinson (Mar 29, '11)