Friday, June 10, 2011

NATO attempts to destroy incriminating evidence on Nicolas MOSSAD Sarkozy, and others..., like the US Stooge Tony Bliar...

NATO attack on Libyan Anti-Corruption Office an attempt to destroy incriminating evidence on Nicolas MOSSAD Sarkozy, and others..., like the US Stooge Tony Bliar...

Why does NATO wish to protect corruption? Its rebel allies are mired deep in Libyan financial fraud....

Footage from Libyan state TV showing the results of the NATO bombing of the Libyan Anti-Corruption Agency. French President Sarkozy stood to benefit politically from the destruction of Libyan investigation files on the looting of the Libyan Sovereign Wealth Fund by Goldman Sachs.

The NATO attack on Libya's Anti-Corruption Agency on May 17 was extremely convenient for some Western politicians who could gave faced criminal probes had the Libyan agency completed its investigation of fraud and corruption by Libyan officials, including several ministers and other Libyan government officials who defected to the rebel side.

The Anti-Corruption Agency's files, fortunately, were backed up and are now stored in a secure location, according to Libyan officials this reporter spoke to during a recent trip to the Libyan capital.

The Anti-Corruption Agency was, among other things, investigating how Goldman Sachs "mis-invested" $1.3 billion from the Libyan Sovereign Wealth Fund. The loss of the Libyan money was reported officially in 2008 but the investments by Goldman Sachs took place over the previous few years/ There are strong indications that some of the Libyan money was siphoned off from Goldman Sachs into the presidential campaign coffers of then-French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, who was elected president of France in 2007. Cash payments into Sarkozy's campaign coffers was alluded to by Muammar Qaddafi's son, Seif al Islam Qaddafi, in an interview with the press. Both Colonel Qaddafi and Seif are now subject to International Criminal Court arrest warrants.

We learned that the Libyan Anti-Corruption Agency was prioritized as a NATO target by France. Sarkozy and his friend, the French Zionist champion Bernard-Henri Levy, were early supporters of the Libyan rebel movement and France was the first nation to recognize the rebels as the government of Libya. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that the rebel Interim Transitional National Council is made up of a number of ex-Libyan government officials who were subject to investigations for fraud by the Anti-Corruption Agency but were also suspected of close links with the CIA. Chief among the suspects is Mahmoud Jibril, the former Libyan Planning Minister and chief of the Economic Development Board. Jibril, who received his doctorate from the University of Pittsburgh, was under investigation by Libyan intelligence for being an agent of the CIA. Jibril now serves as the prime minister of the rebel declared "Libyan Republic."

Jibril successfully pressed Senator John Kerry, the chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to unfreeze $30 billion in frozen Libyan assets held by the US Treasury Department and transfer the funds to the Libyan rebels. However, we learned in Tripoli that based on the rebels squandering $US500.5 million and Libyan Dinar 900 million in cash looted from the Libyan Central Bank in Benghazi, the U.S. Treasury Department is reluctant to allow unfrozen Libyan assets to end up in the hands of the rebel leaders, who are considered by some U.S. Treasury officials to be blatant crooks.

Proof of the receipt of Libyan Sovereign Wealth Fund cash by Sarkozy will re-open the Clearstream scandal, in which Sarkozy was accused of receiving cash payments through a Clearstream account in Luxembourg. The money stemmed from business bribes between France and companies and government officials in Taiwan and Pakistan. Sarkozy denied the charges and tried to turn the tables by accusing his chief rival, former French Prime Minister Dominique deVillepin, of manufacturing the Clearstream evidence. Sarkozy, therefore, has every reason to press NATO to attack the Libyan Anti-Corruption Agency in order to destroy any incriminating evidence that could be used in criminal charges against Sarkozy and his campaign. Sarkozy is running for re-election as French president in 2012 and a Libyan political payola scandal would have all but sunk Sarkozy's chances for re-election and may have even landed him in prison....

Wednesday, June 08, 2011

Hama massacres reignited in Syria of the Assad thuggish Buffoons...

Hama massacres reignited in Syria of the Assad thuggish Buffoons....

Last week, it looked as though the Syrian government was winning against the popular uprising [1]. What happened since then took most analysts - including myself - by surprise. With over 100 protesters and over 100 security forces reportedly killed in a few days, what I had deemed only a distant theoretical possibility, a rapid slide of the country toward Libya-style civil war, has just become a lot more probable.

A word of caution: as the fog of war thickens by the day in Syria, it is very difficult to verify information coming out of there. A staggering amount of hearsay is evident in practically all reports, and the gap is growing between the government's narrative and that of the opposition. According to researchers of peace and conflict, this bodes further violence in the future. However, it is very difficult to provide a timeframe for this violence or to predict its course.

A civil war is just one of several main scenarios, and it is also possible that the regime is exaggerating its own casualty count and looking for an excuse to accelerate its crackdown. A crucial indicator to watch, one which will spell the survival of the regime more than any other, is whether rumors of substantial army defections will be confirmed.

Arguably, what rekindled the uprising over the weekend was an image that carries deep emotional significance for most Syrians. This image is summed up in the words "massacre in Hama".

Almost 30 years ago, in 1982, the current Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's father, Hafez al-Assad, ordered the army to level much of the city of Hama in order to put down a Muslim Brotherhood uprising. Between 10,000 and 40,000 people died. The Muslim Brotherhood never quite recovered from the trauma, but neither did the Syrian people.

This is why, when on Friday around 70 people were killed by government forces in Hama in what became the bloodiest day of the uprising so far, this struck a deep emotional chord.

In some ways, the regime played right into the hands of the opposition. The latter demonstrated remarkable tactical skills: it pinpointed and successfully utilized powerful symbols to rally support at a time when its fortunes looked bleak. Firstly, Friday's protests were dubbed "Children's Friday" in honor of children killed and tortured by the security forces.

The spotlight was centered on the story of Hamza al-Khateeb, the 13-year-old boy apparently killed in custody, but many similar tales circulate. And few things can mobilize a people like the torture and murder of its children; this is true even in times of great distress and widespread desperation.

On top of this came the Hama crackdown that brought old trauma to the fore; it didn't help also that the regime violated last week's promise of a general amnesty. There are two versions of what happened subsequently, on Sunday and Monday in the town of Jisr al-Shoughour, but they converge on the fact that a shocking number of government soldiers and police were killed, over 120 according to state television.

Rebels claim that army units had started a mutiny. "The army split; the confrontation is between them," Saeb Jamil, a local activist, told The New York Times. "The army is confronting the army."

This explanation seems credible, even though up until now only a few defections in the army are evident. It is difficult to explain otherwise the heavy casualty toll reported by the government. It is possible that the memory of the Hama massacre in 1982 turned out to be the proverbial straw that broke the patience of many Syrian soldiers, and that cracks inside the army are becoming wider and wider.

It didn't help that Jisr al-Shoughour was another Muslim Brotherhood stronghold that suffered heavily in the early 1980s. If this version of events is confirmed, it would mean that the Assad regime is in grave danger. Should defections from the army escalate, its days would be numbered.

However, the government's story, minus the shocking number of its dead security men, is credible as well. The memory of previous massacres is even stronger for Jisr al-Shoughour residents than it is for the general body of the army; reports have it, moreover, that the town is particularly well-supplied with weapons.

"If you get people angry enough, the arms are there, and they're going to go for it," a source told The New York Times. The article explains: "Jisr al-Shoughour is at the edge of the remote and neglected agricultural province of Idlib, an impoverished hub of Sunni conservatism and well-armed smuggling activity that is centered on tribal networks spanning the nearby Turkish border."

In the past, there have been other reports of government forces killed by rebels using heavy weaponry such as rocket-propelled grenades; weapons are reportedly being smuggled into Syria at an alarming rate from neighboring Lebanon, Iraq and Turkey. It is possible that people were finally driven to the brink and decided to launch an all-out war for their lives.

In addition, it is possible that the government has inflated is casualties, most likely to justify a more severe crackdown on the "armed gangs" that it claims to be fighting. The fact that almost no pictures of the dead were broadcast on Syrian TV raises a lot of questions. Reports of tanks rolling toward the restive area on Tuesday evening and of citizens fleeing in panic to neighboring Turkey [2] only heighten the suspicions that fresh massacres may be coming in the regime's desperate struggle for survival.

Syria experts believe that "Syria is slipping toward civil war". Many analysts are beginning to doubt the survivability of the Assad regime, even in the short- to mid-term, but neither this nor the alternative scenario of a blood-drenched suppression of the rebellion, 1982-style, bodes anything good for the days and weeks to come.

If full-scale anarchy breaks out in Syria, a prolonged civil war could result in the destabilization of the entire region. Robert Kaplan's analysis in Foreign Policy offers a lucid glimpse into the potential consequences [3]; its suffices to add that thousands of missiles and chemical weapons could be left unsecured and could fall into the hands of whimsical warlords, weapons smugglers and/or terrorists.

Even if the regime survives, at great human and moral cost, both its domestic and international legitimacy would be in tatters, and so will be its economy. The latter would be difficult to repair even in the best (and unlikely) scenario imaginable, by a victorious and united democratic opposition supported by loans from the International Monetary Fund and the international community; a bruised and isolated dictator whose main sponsor, Iran, is also declining economically under the weight of sanctions and internal divisions, stands little to no chance.

Previously, we have reported that the long-term economic outlook for Syria is bleak [4]. Meanwhile, some new information has emerged. The longer the conflict drags out, the worse the situation will become.

According to some:
The economic situation continues to deteriorate in Syria. Almost all hotels in Aleppo are closed, according to one informant. The government is not allowing the owners to officially close them before proving that they are in financial distress. But that is surely a technicality that can only delay the firing of hundreds of hotel employees. Owners can simply not afford to keep them on without paying guests ... Public Sector banks are asking people to pay the principle payments of their loans. People are not paying at all. It would seem that people are testing the government systems. [5]
What is most worrying is that at this time there seems to be no credible alternative to the two most likely scenarios mentioned above. As often happens in conflicts involving intense violence, the middle ground is among the first and most prominent victims. It now appears that Syria has been polarized beyond the point of no return, and that only more brutality and hardship is in store.....

'US-NATO war served al-Qaeda strategy'

'US-NATO war served al-Qaeda strategy'
By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON - Al-Qaeda strategists have been assisting the Taliban fight against United States-North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces in Afghanistan because they believe that foreign occupation has been the biggest factor in generating Muslim support for uprisings against their governments, according to the just-published book by Syed Saleem Shahzad, Asia Times Online's Pakistan bureau chief whose body was found in a canal outside Islamabad last week with evidence of having been tortured.

That al-CIAda view of the US-NATO war in Afghanistan, which Shahzad reports in the book based on conversations with several senior al-CIAda commanders, represents the most authoritative picture of the organization's thinking available to the public.

Shahzad's book Inside al-CIAda and the Taliban was published on May 24 - only three days before he went missing from Islamabad on his way to a television interview. His body was found on May 31.

Shahzad, who had been the Pakistan bureau chief for the Hong Kong-based Asia Times Online for 10 years, had unique access to senior al-CIAda commanders and cadres, as well as those of Afghan Taliban and Pakistani Taliban organizations. His account of al-CIAda strategy is particularly valuable because of the overall ideological system and strategic thinking that emerged from many encounters Shahzad had with senior officials over several years.

Shahzad's account reveals that Osama bin Laden was a "figurehead" for public consumption, and that it was his deputy, Egyptian Dr Ayman Zawahiri, who formulated the organization's ideological line or devised operational plans.

Shahzad summarizes the al-Qaeda strategy as being to "win the war against the West in Afghanistan" before shifting the struggle to Central Asia and Bangladesh. He credits al-Qaeda and its militant allies in the North and South Waziristan tribal areas in Pakistan with having transformed these areas into the main strategic base for the Taliban resistance to US-NATO forces.

But Shahzad's account makes it clear that the real objective of al-CIAda in strengthening the Taliban struggle against US-NATO forces in Afghanistan was to continue the US-NATO occupation as an indispensable condition for the success of al-CIAda's global strategy of polarizing the Islamic world.

Shahzad writes that al-CIAda strategists believed its terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 would lead to a US invasion of Afghanistan that would in turn cause a worldwide "Muslim backlash". That "backlash" was particularly important to what emerges in Shahzad's account as the primary al-Qaeda aim of stimulating revolts against regimes in Muslim countries.

Shahzad reveals that the strategy behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the large al-CIAda ambitions to reshape the Muslim world came from Zawahiri's "Egyptian camp" within al-Qaeda. That group, under Zawahiri's leadership, had already settled on a strategic vision by the mid-1990s, according to Shahzad.

The Zawahiri group's strategy, according to Shahzad, was to "speak out against corrupt and despotic Muslim governments and make them targets to destroy their image in the eyes of the common people". But they would do so by linking those regimes to the United States.

In a 2004 interview cited by Shahzad, one of Bin Laden's collaborators, Saudi opposition leader Saad al-Faqih, said Zawahiri had convinced Bin Laden in the late 1990s that he had to play on the US "cowboy" mentality that would elevate him into an "implacable enemy" and "produce the Muslim longing for a leader who could successfully challenge the West".

Shahzad makes it clear that the US occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq were the biggest break al-CIAda had ever gotten. Muslim religious scholars had issued decrees for the defense of Muslim lands against the non-Muslim occupiers on many occasions before the US-NATO war in Afghanistan, Shahzad points out.

But once such religious decrees were extended to Afghanistan, Zawahiri could exploit the issue of the US occupation of Muslim lands to organize a worldwide "Muslim insurgency". That strategy depended on being able to provoke discord within societies by discrediting regimes throughout the Muslim world as not being truly Muslim.

Shahzad writes that the al-CIAda strategists became aware that Muslim regimes - particularly Saudi Arabia - had become active in trying to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by 2007, because they feared that as long as they continued "there was no way of stopping Islamist revolts and rebellions in Muslim countries".

What al-CIAda leaders feared most, as Shahzad's account makes clear, was any move by the Taliban toward a possible negotiated settlement - even based on the complete withdrawal of US troops. Al-CIAda strategists portrayed the first "dialogue" with the Afghan Taliban sponsored by the Saudi king in 2008 as an extremely dangerous US plot - a view scarcely supported by the evidence from the US side.

Shahzad's book confirms previous evidence of fundamental strategic differences between the Taliban leadership and al-CIAda.

Those differences surfaced in 2005, when Taliban leader Mullah Omar sent a message to all factions in North and South Waziristan to abandon all other activities and join forces with the Taliban in Afghanistan. And when al-Qaeda declared the "khuruj" (popular uprising against a Muslim ruler for un-Islamic governance) against the Pakistani state in 2007, Omar opposed that strategy, even though it was ostensibly aimed at deterring US attacks on the Taliban.

Shahzad reports that the one of al-CIAda's purposes in creating the Pakistani Taliban in early 2008 was to "draw the Afghan Taliban away from Mullah Omar's influence".

The Shahzad account refutes the official US military rationale for the war in Afghanistan, which is based on the presumption that al-Qaeda is primarily interested in getting the US and NATO forces out of Afghanistan and that the Taliban and al-Qaeda are locked in a tight ideological and strategic embrace.

Shahzad's account shows that despite cooperative relations with Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in the past, al-CIAda leaders decided after 9/11 that the Pakistani military would inevitably become a full partner in the US "war on terror" and would turn against al-CIAda.

The relationship did not dissolve immediately after the terror attacks, according to Shahzad. He writes that ISI chief Mehmood Ahmed assured al-Qaeda when he visited Kandahar in September 2001 that the Pakistani military would not attack al-CIAda as long it didn't attack the military.

He also reports that Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf held a series of meetings with several top jihadi and religious leaders and asked them to lie low for five years, arguing that the situation could change after that period. According to Shahzad's account, al-CIAda did not intend at the beginning to launch a jihad in Pakistan against the military but was left with no other option when the Pakistani military sided with the US against the jihadis.

The major turning point was an October 2003 Pakistani military helicopter attack in North Waziristan that killed many militants. In apparent retaliation in December 2003, there were two attempts on Musharraf's life, both organized by a militant whom Shahzad says was collaborating closely with al-CIAda.

In his last interview with The Real News Network, however, Shahzad appeared to contradict that account, reporting that the ISI had wrongly told Musharraf that al-CIAda was behind the attempts, and even that there was some Pakistani Air Force involvement in the plot.

Inside Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Beyond Bin Laden and 9/11 by Syed Saleem Shahzad. ISBN: 9780745331010.

Qaddafi's financial aid met with betrayal from long-time recipients....
June 12, 2011 -- Libya was "betrayed" by African nations that received billions in Libyan economic assistance...

A senior Libyan official told this editor in Tripoli that Libya felt "betrayed" when three African members of the UN Security Council voted in favor of UN Security Council Resolution that authorized crippling sanctions on Libya, as well as military action by NATO and other nations. Libya cited the fact that when Russia, China, Brazil, India, and Germany abstained on the resolution, Libya's erstwhile friends in Africa -- South Africa, Gabon, and Nigeria -- voted in favor of the resolution, which authorized "all necessary measures" to protect Libyan civilians. The U.S. and NATO used the "all necessary measures" proviso to justify a sustained bombing campaign against Libya.

The biggest disappointment for Libya was South Africa's vote. Muammar Qaddafi's government was a major supporter of South African President Jacob Zuma's African National Congress when it was locked in its struggle with South Africa's apartheid regime. One reason why Zuma has been unsuccessful in his efforts to bring about a Libyan peace accord is that the central Libyan government no longer trusts Zuma. Privately, Libyan officials told me that Zuma sold out his principles in return for lucrative deals with South Africa's business cartels, which maintain the same influence in post-apartheid South Africa as they enjoyed under the white minority government.

As for Gabon, which received millions of dollars in Libyan assistance, the Libyans believe that President Ali Bongo is more of a puppet of the French government than was his father, the long-time dictator Omar Bongo. In another indication that Gabon's abstention was bought by the Western powers that are attacking Libya, Ali Bongo was hosted at the White House on June 9. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that Gabon, a thoroughly corrupt kleptocracy like Nigeria, provided "very significant and courageous votes" on the UN Security Council on Libya, Iran, Ivory Coast and human rights issues. Ali Bongo has violently suppressed Gabon's opposition political parties but was hypocritically praised by President Obama for his "human rights" commitment.

On June 7, Obama hosted Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan at the White House and thanked him for Nigeria's Security Council votes on Libya and Ivory Coast. Last March, Qaddafi suggested that Libya be split into two: an independent northern predominantly Islamic nation and an independent southern state dominated by Christians. Nigeria. Since Qaddafi had just led the African Union, the proposal was viewed with alarm in the West, which has substantial oil interests in Nigeria and will do anything to ensure the status quo in that nation. The West now sees Jonathan, a Christian, as a reliable, albeit corrupt, partner in Abuja to continue the status quo vis a vis Nigeria and the western oil companies. In fact, corruption is imbued in the three nations that abstained on the Libya resolution at the UN with two of them -- Nigeria and Gabon -- practitioners of systemic corruption that is the hallmark of nations that are merely servants to international Big Oil.

While South Africa, Gabon, and Nigeria are among the chief African betrayers of Libya, Colonel Qaddafi can still rely on support from Sudan and Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe castigated South Africa, Gabon, and Nigeria for their Security Council votes and we can report that Sudan remains firmly at Qaddafi's side. After all, Sudan and Libya have much in common: the West has managed to break both countries in two, with South Sudan slated for independence next month and the West having managed to break eastern Libya away to form the so-called "Libyan Republic," a virtual vassal regime of NATO and Israel. And Colonel Qaddafi and Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir are both subject to arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC), warrants backed by the United States even though it does not recognize the authority of the ICC over U.S. citizens who commit war crimes.
The Obomba administration does not want other dirty laundry coming out in trials, to wit warrantless wiretapping without a criminal predicate, massive fraud at NSA under generals Hayden and Alexander, and faulty intelligence systems that have resulted in a number of friendly fire incidents in war zones...

It is a fake, but the train of thought and the analysis perhaps worth considering....

It is a fake, but the train of thought and the analysis perhaps worth considering....

A confidential report from a Chinese National Security officer to his boss.!!!

Dear Sir,

You are worried about the consequences of the Middle Eastern Revolutions for China, and in Beijing they are worried about the contagion while also following a story by the famous American journalist Thomas Friedman about a flattened world where all news spreads easily and thus revolution can move very simply from one place to another.

His idea - and that of some Americans - is that China should be on its toes because revolution could quickly move to China as many disgruntled Chinese youths might be inspired by news and images of revolution in Syria or Libya.

The issue is complicated, and not as simple as the author puts it. As we know, the "flat world" of fast communications has not lowered cultural barriers; it has multiplied them and made them stronger but less perceivable. People can call from China to America, or vice versa, but still people carry on speaking their own languages. One speaks Chinese and the other English, and often they do not speak each other's language and do not understand each other.

Moreover, even when they do so, they rarely understand each other's culture and anthropological background. It is something that involves individual psychologies that most people carry within themselves, totally unaware. We do know from practical experience that direct communications, if involving something more complex than buying or selling a certain item, can create many misunderstandings and false perceptions of each other's reasons and motives.

Before direct communications, these misunderstandings were more difficult because interaction was harder and because people proceeded to keep in touch with extra caution, better aware of differences in culture and psychology. Now, easy and direct contact creates the false impression that cultural exchanges are easy. But they are not. Therefore this modern "flat world" creates more trouble and confusion than the previous "round world". It is a world that may be flat, but flat on many layers that intersect, fly above, are parallel to, and crash into each other.

Then what are the images of revolution in the Middle East telling the Chinese people? You, sir, know it better than me. To the vast majority of Chinese people, who have gained and are gaining from our 30 years of reforms, the pictures and the stories of the Middle East are depicting the old, sad Chinese story of chaos (luan) entailing death, starvation, war, misery, devastation, et cetera - all things Chinese people had to endure for over 100 years, from the time of the Taiping Rebellion until the start of Deng Xiaoping's reforms. It is a nightmare most people want to escape and dread plunging back into.

Therefore contrary to the ideas and intentions of many Westerners, the pictures coming from the Middle East scare the Chinese people, driving them even more into the arms of our government, which guarantees them peace, development and stability.

Those pictures are an inspiration only for a small minority of people who are looking for an opportunity to advance their selfish political aims irrespective of the possible disasters this would bring to our motherland. They would like to stir trouble, create confrontation, and even go as far as to start chaos and civil war in order to gain power.

Yet the story coming from the Middle East is frightening most of the common people, who are becoming more conscious that not supporting the government could be a path to chaos, famine, and bloodbath. And they are therefore far less inclined to support the troublemakers wishing for a Jasmine Revolution in China.

Therefore, the war in Libya, the growing rebellion in Syria, the renewed protests in Egypt, the possible collapse of Yemen, and the threat to Saudi Arabia, are for China a blessing in disguise - little different from what occurred in 2008 with the protest in Tibet. Those events reinforced pro-government feelings among most Chinese, who were very unwilling to part in any form with a smaller or greater part of Tibet.

But fortunately for us, many American pundits do not realize this. They are self-centered, travel the world by moving through their own global archipelago of McDonald's and Starbucks, surfing the net and watching CNN, and rarely taking the risk of "culturally converting themselves" into local people, so that they are in fact unaware of the deep feelings and understanding of the common people in different parts of the world. Therefore, in this case, they are de facto working for us, a government they officially despise!

This way of looking at the world, however, grants only short-term benefits to us, especially when we are thinking of the world in a very long-term way. Their support for the spread of revolution into the Islamic world could destabilize Iran and further disrupt Pakistan. In either case, it is hard to think that a revolution would make the situation in the region more peaceful, orderly, and conducive to local and global growth, development, and liberty.

On the contrary, the spread of revolution is creating an atmosphere where recourse to war and violence could become common and where hard-headed leaders, new dictators, and tyrants could emerge as saviors out of chaos.

In this situation, we should not be passive, sit idly, gloating while watching what happens. By granting more freedom to our people and advancing our agenda of democratization, we would take the firewood out from under the boiling pot of our opponents and turn the fire back at them. We would reinforce popular pro-government sentiments, further break the ranks of our domestic opponents, and prove to people of the world - including in the Middle East and in America - that China's way of cautious yet persistent development is sounder and more effective than this sudden American fascination with revolutions.

This could also help to stem the wave of revolutions in the Middle East, prod those governments to adopt China-inspired reforms, and then create a better system within our country.

Furthermore, this could also help America to move away from this kind of self-destructive mood, where solutions can only occur through recourse to violence, be it revolution or war.

Then we would gain on all fronts.

Yours sincerely,

Tuesday, June 07, 2011



And that’s effectively what the Zioconned stooges of AIPAC are advocating as they support Republican Steve Chabot in his efforts to push a bill in Congress that calls on America to stop giving money to the United Nations “if the General Assembly adopts a resolution in favor of recognizing a state of Palestine outside of or prior to a final status agreement negotiated between, and acceptable to, the State of Israel and the Palestinians”.

Apart from the obvious issue of morality here, there’s also the not insignificant fact that the US is already in debt to the UN to the tune of around $1 billion and has been for years. The neoconservatives are really scraping the bottom of the barrel if they feel the need to have to resort to these sorts of tactics in order to try and get what they want.

But it’s hardly likely to work.

I doubt if there is any nation on the planet that would be tempted to make their decision about which way they intend to vote when it comes to an issue like Palestinian statehood based on whether the US decides to pay its debt or not.

America’s right-wing and the neoconservatives demonstrate once again exactly what values it is that ‘they’ hate about ‘us’; arrogance, self-righteousness and the belief that money – money, incidentally, they haven’t actually got – can influence the morality of nations. No wonder the USA is in such a terrible mess since 1996....

The Pak Army's favorite terrorist, India's most wanted man, has NOT been erased in an American Predator attack, just like so many of the other previous kills, announced by the Pakistanis. The militants/terrorists/ultras/commandos/paramilitaries are the last chain in Pakistan's defense. They are the CIA's secret army. They will protect them by any means. If no verifiable death photo is produced, then it is safe to assume that the American drone killers are being scammed by the Army. Just like the scam about killing bin Laden in Abbottabad, if Pakistan and the US had nothing to hide, then they would verify the killing of terror kingpins... The terror war and all the little terrorist marionettes are merely stage productions, managed for our entertainment, in a government horror show. There is no terror war--there are no terrorists--only govt. agents doing what they know best, killing, lying and hiding. Let's put an end to this modern Greek "tragedy," NOW!

You can see from the collection of government (US and Pakistan) releases of killed terrorist leaders, the terror war has had a constant stream of corpse photos to back-up its claims. Where is bin Laden's alleged corpse photo, Obomba?

Monday, June 06, 2011

Decline and fall of the American empire....

Decline and fall of the American empire....

The economic powerhouse of the 20th century emerged stronger from the Depression. But faced with cultural decay, Hubris wars, extrajudicial assassinations by the infamous White House Murder INC, cronyism, decay, utter corruption at the Top/down..., structural weaknesses and reliance on finance, can the US do it again?

Feeding Frenzy of the power behind the power in DC....

America clocked up a record last week. The latest drop in house prices meant that the cost of real estate has fallen by 33% since the peak – even bigger than the 31% slide seen when John Steinbeck was writing The Grapes of Wrath.

Unemployment has not returned to Great Depression levels but at 9.1% of the workforce it is still at levels that will have nerves jangling in the White House. The last president to be re-elected with unemployment above 7.2% was Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

The US is a country with serious problems. Getting on for one in six depend on government food stamps to ensure they have enough to eat. The budget, which was in surplus little more than a decade ago, now has a deficit of Greek-style proportions. There is policy paralysis in Washington.

The assumption is that the problems can be easily solved because the US is the biggest economy on the planet, the only country with global military reach, the lucky possessor of the world's reserve currency, and a nation with a proud record of re-inventing itself once in every generation or so.

All this is true and more. US universities are superb, attracting the best brains from around the world. It is a country that pushes the frontiers of technology. So, it may be that the US is about to emerge stronger than ever from the long nightmare of the sub-prime mortgage crisis. The strong financial position of American companies could unleash a wave of new investment over the next couple of years.

Let me put an alternative hypothesis. America in 2011 is Rome in 200AD or Britain on the eve of the first world war: an empire at the zenith of its power but with cracks beginning to show.

The experience of both Rome and Britain suggests that it is hard to stop the rot once it has set in, so here are the a few of the warning signs of trouble ahead: military overstretch, a widening gulf between rich and poor, a hollowed-out economy, citizens using debt to live beyond their means, and once-effective policies no longer working. The high levels of violent crime, epidemic of obesity, addiction to pornography and excessive use of energy may be telling us something: the US is in an advanced state of cultural decadence.

Empires decline for many different reasons but certain factors recur. There is an initial reluctance to admit that there is much to fret about, and there is the arrival of a challenger (or several challengers) to the settled international order. In Spain's case, the rival was Britain. In Britain's case, it was America. In America's case, the threat comes from China.

Britain's decline was extremely rapid after 1914. By 1945, the UK was a bit player in the bipolar world dominated by the US and the Soviet Union, and sterling – the heart of the 19th-century gold standard – was rapidly losing its lustre as a reserve currency. There had been concerns, voiced as far back as the 1851 Great Exhibition, that the hungrier, more efficient producers in Germany and the US threatened Britain's industrial hegemony. But no serious policy action was taken. In the second half of the 19th century there was a subtle shift in the economy, from the north of England to the south, from manufacturing to finance, from making things to living off investment income. By 1914, the writing was on the wall.

In two important respects, the US today differs from Britain a century ago. It is much bigger, which means that it benefits from continent-wide economies of scale, and it has a presence in the industries that will be strategically important in the first half of the 21st century. Britain in 1914 was over-reliant on coal and shipbuilding, industries that struggled between the world wars, and had failed to grasp early enough the importance of emerging new technologies.

Even so, there are parallels. There has been a long-term shift of emphasis in the US economy away from manufacturing and towards finance. There is a growing challenge from producers in other parts of the world.

Now consider the stark contrast between this economic recovery and the pattern of previous cycles. Traditionally, a US economic recovery sees unemployment coming down smartly as lower interest rates encourage consumers to spend and the construction industry to build more homes. This time, it has been different. There was a building frenzy during the bubble years, which left an overhang of supply even before plunging prices and rising unemployment led to a blitz of foreclosures.

America has more homes than it knows what to do with, and that state of affairs is not going to change for years.

Over the past couple of months, there has been a steady drip-feed of poor economic news that has dented hopes of a sustained recovery. Optimism has now been replaced by concern that the United States could be heading for the dreaded double-dip recession.

In the real estate market, which is the symptom of America's deep-seated economic malaise, the double dip has already arrived. Tax breaks to homeowners provided only a temporary respite for a falling market and millions of Americans are living in homes worth less than they paid for them. The latest figures show that more than 28% of homes with a mortgage are in negative equity. Unsurprisingly, that has made Americans far more cautious about spending money. Rising commodity prices exacerbate the problem, since they push up inflation and reduce the spending power of wages and salaries.

Macro-economic policy has proved less effective than normal. That's not for want of trying, though. The US has had zero short-term interest rates for well over two years. It has had two big doses of quantitative easing, the second of which is now ending. Its budget deficit is so big it has led to warnings from the credit-rating agencies, in spite of the dollar's reserve currency status. And Washington has adopted a policy of benign neglect towards the currency, despite the strong-dollar rhetoric, in the hope that cheaper exports will make up for the squeeze on consumer spending.

Policy, as ever, is geared towards growth because the great existential fear of the Fed, the Treasury and whoever occupies the White House is a return to the 1930s. Back then, the economic malaise could be largely attributed to deflationary economic policies that deepened the recession caused by the popping of the 1920s stock market bubble. The feeble response to today's growth medicine suggests that the US is structurally far weaker than it was in the 1930s. Tackling these weaknesses will require breaking finance's stranglehold over the economy and measures to boost ordinary families' spending power and so cut their reliance on debt. It will require an amnesty for the housing market. Above all, America must rediscover the qualities that originally made it great. That will not be easy...

Meanwhile, the Shenanigans continue in the Big Apple....

Ehud Olmert, the disgraced former prime minister of Israel is currently fighting for his life in an Israeli court. Olmert, who was in New York City on a secret visit on the infamous inside Job of 9/11, is a disciple of the notorious Israeli terrorist Yitzhak Shamir of the LEHI (Stern Gang). Olmert is clearly one of the criminals "in the know" about the false-flag terrorism of 9/11.

Sources close to the 9/11 litigation have informed me that International Consultants on Targeted Security (ICTS), the Israeli defendant in the 9/11 terrorism case, was dismissed from the lawsuit last week. Although I have not seen a court document that says that ICTS has been dismissed, there is a document from 12 May 2011 that clearly indicates that this move was on Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein's agenda for May 16. Apparently ICTS had filed a motion to be dismissed from the lawsuit. ICTS is the Israeli parent company of Huntleigh USA, the passenger screening outfit that allegedly allowed armed terrorists to board the planes in Boston on 9/11, according to the official version of events.
The Zionist judge Alvin K. Hellerstein discussed dismissing ICTS, the Israeli defendant in the 9/11 litigation, as the 12 May 2011 court document from the Bavis family case shows.
Judge Hellerstein has a clear conflict of interest in the 9/11 litigation. His son Joseph is a lawyer in Israel with Amit, Pollak, and Matalon, a law firm which represents the owners of ICTS and Huntleigh USA. In 2001, ICTS was run by a team of Israelis including the Harel brothers, Boaz and Ezra, and Menachem Atzmon. Atzmon is a convicted Israeli criminal who was involved in illegal fund-raising for the Likud party of Ehud Olmert, Ariel Sharon, and Menachem Begin. Olmert was in New York City on the eve of 9/11 and probably remained to observe the crime. Ezra Harel "died" at age 53 on his yacht off the coast of Spain in November 2003 after being indicted with his father Aryeh Mualem of serious financial fraud in Israel.
The only remaining wrongful death case is Mary Bavis vs. UAL Corporation, et al. This case represents the only 9/11 trial that will ever be held and should be of great concern to all Americans... The flagrant conflict of interest on the part of the judge cannot be ignored. Judge Hellerstein must be removed from the case and a new process begun for all of the 9/11 families who have not been treated fairly in the tort litigation.
The simplest way to remove Judge Hellerstein is to show that his son's law firm has represented the owners of ICTS and Huntleigh USA. I am doing that with the following documents to show that Amit, Pollak, and Matalon (Joseph Z. Hellerstein is "of counsel" with Amit, Pollak, and Matalon) represents entities that include the owners of ICTS:
Amit, Pollak, and Matalon represents BOS (Better Online Solutions), Cukierman Investments, and Catalyst Fund. Edouard Cukierman is Chairman of the Board of Directors of BOS, the founder and CEO of Catalyst Funds, and the Chairman of Cukierman & Co Investment House.

C. Bollyn

The whole war on Terror is a fraud, ever since the inside Job of 9/11....

Either Gen. Kayani submits entirely to Obama’s will, including the planned submission to Indian domination afterwards, or he stands-up to the United States, meaning he stops the drone attacks and reveals the entire ugly scenario that the CIA cannot allow anyone to reveal. “Al Qaida” is fake. The war on terror is a fraud. The fraud is a plan for world war. And we all know that neither Gen. Kayani, nor any other Pakistani official will ever reveal the “great game” or the plot to destroy the Islamic Republic.

The United States corporacracy is a monstrous devouring beast and “Islamist terror” is her illegitimate offspring.”

The trusted watch-keepers of the world have turned their hearts to midnight plunder, while they carried-out their duty standing guard over mankind, who blissfully, unaware, continued to sleep. Morning rapidly approaches and the householders are sure to demand an accounting.

The exploding world economy and the expanding war are but symptoms of the great mental sickness that afflicts society, waves of warning of the tsunamis that lie directly ahead. The dominant ideas and ideology that drive our world are all collapsing around us, falling from the weight of their own corruption and immoral baggage.

In the ongoing warfare of ideas, the selfish immorality of the old order is proving to be its downfall, as it meets the impenetrable resistance of the higher ideals of selflessness and human compassion. When the heart of the people is exposed to the emotionally crippling images of the children of war, then and thereafter, their only concern becomes the ending of the scourge of war.


Human nature is naturally compassionate, no matter how much the person has changed from the innocence of their youth. Even evil men must feel the heart’s emotional tugging at their consciences, no matter how deeply they have buried it, at the sight of such a suffering little one. Knowing that you and your government did this to these children and thousands more just like them, just like your own children that you so dearly love. We are the authors of what you see.

For God so loved the world that he sent us all sons and daughters, to melt our cold hearts and to expose our buried consciences. Human suffering is probably the most powerful motivation for good on this earth. It moves men to take-up arms to avenge it. It motivates others to offer their own lives that others might suffer less.

Humankind has the means to save itself from itself, just as surely as it has the means to cause its own extinction, all that separates the two is the gulf of choice and human freewill. Those of us who believe in a higher power, The One who created all things both great and small, know for certain that mankind will one day rise to the challenge before him. We know that the promise of eventual world peace is a solid truth, just waiting for enough people to understand and choose to reach out with us. Peace is truly just a handshake away, all that is lacking is the will to effect change and the desire to leave this world a better place.

The only question is how long before we as a people begin to care about our fellow man? This is the one factor that determines how much the suffering will intensify before we arrive at our predetermined solution. Efforts spent shoring-up the old collapsing political/economic structure only add to the suffering by adding to the length of the suffering and wasting limited resources in futile attempts to repair the rotten, immoral order that compelled mankind’s sprint to self-destruction.

Military adventures, intended to deflect the coming collapse merely increase our national guilt for having failed in our voluntary task of standing watch at the ramparts of freedom, guarding the rights of God’s creation with one arm, while we killed and indiscriminately erased both people and human rights with the other strong arm. Our military became our means of plundering our brothers’ resources and rights, because we were trusted it to defend our friends against foreign aggressors.

We reach-out our hand to both friend and foe, expecting commerce, while preparing to wage covert war upon them. We buy our friends in the world, the rest we simply intimidate or secretly undermine. From behind the shield of nearly omnipotent military power we have bribed and browbeat the world into submission to our ideas, our ideology, our economic schemes. Our cutthroat system of buying, selling and extorting our friends based solely on profit instead of need, therefore it is designed to weed-out everyone (regardless of their needs) who don’t have the cash to meet they need. The “haves and have-nots” exclusionary economic system is about to be crushed under the impending weight of the hungry misery it spreads far and wide.

The immorality of the current system will bring forth a new moral economic system from the violence of the old one dying. Each war or epidemic of violence that wracks the nations is a cry for help, as a segment of society explodes as a result of the local contradictions.

The war on Pakistan is a case in point. Here we have compelled our most faithful ally to engage in full-scale civil war as the means to salvage our failing economic order, by way of seizing the Caspian oil and gas reserves. We have forced Pakistan onto a path towards its own destruction as a feeble-minded calculated gamble to avert our own deserved dissolution. It seems only logical that a nation which feeds its own insatiable appetite for more of everything by depriving the poorest of the poor nations of the little that they have to call their own, would seek to avert its own profit loss by spreading death and suffering amongst the very people who have time and again proven to be among its best friends.

History has proven that some of America’s most trusted friends and allies have been the recipients of her most insidious and deadly intrigues. Pakistani leaders are delusional if they think that their friendship with the United States is stronger than that of Italy, or Germany.

The CIA turned Pakistan into the “epicenter of terrorism” for a reason. That reason went way beyond the mission against the Soviets, or else the training camps would have been shut-down and some attempt would have been made to clean-up the mess they had made when the Russians left Afghanistan. The CIA kept the camps and the madrassas running, turning-out thousands of good jihadis. By relying on the factor of “deniability,” they put the training camps in Pakistani hands. This should have been understood by Pakistan’s leaders for what it was, a euphemistic way to express the reality that the Army and the ISI were always intended to be America’s scapegoat. That time has come.

America has turned the tables on Pakistan. Just as Pakistan has used their proxy army, the local Taliban to stage running battles (some were for real), in order to fool the United States about Pakistani intentions in the war on terror, the new administration is using their own creation, the “Pakistani Taliban” (TTP), to call the Army’s bluff about its latest war in its tribal region. The generals can no longer get away with merely chasing the local Taliban from one agency into another, or anything less than waging total war in all of FATA and the NWFP. Pakistan’s “double-game” is over, while America’s double-games have barely begun.

Gen. Kayani has been trying to follow in Musharref’s footsteps, running a limited pretend all-out war production, even following the same order of the previous war on Waziristan, tribal jirgas, lashkars, economic siege, etc. The General’s neatly dressed, never dirty, determined-looking soldiers faithfully posed for countless publicity shots, putting on a great show for the international circus media. Army spokesmen claim to have killed 1,500 terrorists in Malakand and elsewhere, always taking place beyond the range of the camera’s lens. There are no “embedded reporters” in Pakistan. The only news coming out of the region is approved after passing through several layers of filtering by the controlling governments there, especially by the one all-controlling super government. If Pakistan is really out to get Mehsud, as Kayani boasted, then it is because that is what Obama wants Pakistan to do.

The Predator strikes are the Pakistani strategy, intended to ease their citizenry into a renewed fight in S. Waziristan. The last two attempts to carry the operation into the militant home base were met by fierce resistance on the ground, as well as in Pakistan’s streets. The people became so enraged that this path of slowly boiling Pakistan’s “frogs” became the only feasible alternative. This theory means that Mehsud is either an asset of the ISI or their CIA bosses. and the regular terror attacks upon Shiites and their shrines, even attacks on outposts of the Frontier Corp are likely the work of the ISI, just as the militants have been claiming in various interviews. As unlikely as this all seems, no other theory explains the curious behavior of Pakistan’s government and military and mountains of circumstantial evidence linking the ISI to the militanct.

So while Pakistan’s dysfunction is entirely Pakistan’s fault, American naivete cannot get a pass because Pakistan is a basket case. In the Age of Obama, America has to do better. Anyone that was really interested in debilitating the Punjabi-dominated, Hindu-hating, right-leaning, military-dominated Pakistani establishment would have to be recklessly foolish if it went and helped rebrand the Pakistan army in the wake of eight years of Musharraf and a devastating and humiliating defeat at the hands of the country’s lawyers. Yet that’s exactly what President Zardari has done since the May 8 offensive was launched into Swat. The Swat offensive has helped rehabilitate the image of the military.”

If Pakistan was really pursuing a policy of “divide and rule” in its negotiations with Mullah Nazir, seeking to separate the powerful warlord from Baitullah Mehsud before launching a new war in S. Waziristan against him, then the Army would not have allowed the continuing Predator attacks on Nazir to take place, or go unanswered. None of this happened. If they were serious about overtures made to the Wana warlord then they most certainly would not have shelled his offices.

Obama is driving the former enemies together. This is Langley’s intention. Mullah Nazir has not been the sole target of drone attacks for the past year to thwart Pakistan’s peace initiatives with the militants (since Washington controls everything Islamabad does), the reason is much more sinister than that.

If the United States government was truly at odds with the Army over American attacks upon Pakistani citizens, carried-out in order to sabotage Pakistan’s war plans, then there would be swift reprisals, because such an affront to Pakistan’s sovereignty would be far worse than merely “counter-productive.” Everything is going according to the Imperial game plan–American drones attack all pro-Pakistani militant leaders, ignoring everyone who is killing Pakistanis. The targeted leaders coalesce into a powerful, motivated union.

The generous benefactors of Maulana Fazlullah and his TNSM forces were sponsors of state terrorism, directed mostly at girls’ schools and CD shops in the North West Region. Their murderous rampage and deceptive Shariah pacts forced Army intervention. Predator attacks upon Mullah Nazir intensify, until he begins to fight back, forcing the Army to scrap plans to divide the Taliban as a means to avoid a massive tribal war, focusing only on Mehsud. Meanwhile, some unknown outfit bombs Shia mosques and shopping areas (Nazir blames the attacks upon the Army), stoking the war in Kurram. Bahadur honors his pact with Nazir and Mehsud; he fights back, forcing the Army to broaden their planned offensive to include N. Waziristan against their better judgement.

Never once, do the generals complain, or offer resistance to American violations of sovereignty. Instead, they follow the orders of their American masters, while the President of Pakistan continues to represent the President of the United States, instead of his own people, who are being killed by the dozens and the hundreds by the good old USA!

Hard as they may try to set their own course, Pakistan’s generals have surrendered their souls to the devil when they plotted with American generals to deceive their countrymen into passively, even enthusiastically accepting the new war. The war in Waziristan (both North and South) will be fought on Obama’s terms.

According to Army spokesman, Maj-Gen Athar Abbas:

“It was thus obvious that the confrontation between the militants and the military in North Waziristan would escalate because the US is unlikely to give up its policy of using drones to target militants positions.”

In other words, for the first time, one of the silent generals dared to explain the Army’s position. ISI concerns about “shaping the battlefield” and confining the war in Wana to Mehsud didn’t amount to a hill of beans to Petraeus and Mullen, Obama insists that Pakistan go against the generals’ better judgment and incite a “tribal uprising.”

The attacks in N. Waziristan by Gul Bahadur and the artillery strikes upon Nazir’s headquarters, both a bi-product of the Predator prevarications, as well as the recent assassination of Pakistan’s other “ace in the hole, Qari Zainuddin, have destroyed Pakistan’s last chance to restore the writ of the state without resorting to all-out civil war. Either Gen. Kayani submits entirely to Obama’s will, including the planned submission to Indian domination afterwards, or he stands-up to the United States, meaning he stops the drone attacks and reveals the entire ugly scenario that the CIA cannot allow anyone to reveal. “Al Qaida” is fake. The war on terror is a fraud. The fraud is a plan for world war. And we all know that neither Gen. Kayani, nor any other Pakistani official will ever reveal the “great game” or the plot to destroy the Islamic Republic of Iran....

The United States corporacracy is a monstrous devouring beast and “Islamist terror” is her illegitimate offspring....

TRIPOLI, LIBYA. Real danger of chemical weapons falling into hands of radical Islamists...

TRIPOLI, LIBYA. Real danger of chemical weapons falling into hands of radical Islamists...

Chemical weapons and chemical weapons precursor materials that were declared by Libya to the United Nations and United States but not yet destroyed are stored in warehouses at facilities adjacent to Libyan military bases now being attacked by U.S. and NATO forces. Libyan chemical and environmental engineers now warn that if NATO and the U.S. manage to force Libyan security forces to abandon their positions around the military bases and chemical weapons storage facilities, chemical weapons could end up in the hands of the radical Islamist Salafist forces that make up part of the Libyan rebel coalition force.

One Libyan chemical engineer was blunt in his warning about the chemical weapons and their current lack of security. He said, "the U.S. and U.N. took over responsibility for protecting these weapons, which include mustard gas canisters . . . now, the U.S. and U.N. are placing these weapons in potential danger of being captured by the 'Al Qaeda' forces, being sold on the black market, or being used against the United States after the alliance between 'Al Qaeda' and the United States terminates after a rebel takeover of Libya." The engineer added, "the last time America allied itself with 'Al Qaeda' in Afghanistan, they attacked your country. After Libya, they will attack you again."

Chemical and environmental engineers gathered for a conference in Tripoli dealing with the environmental damage already witnessed as a result of the NATO military attack on Libya. As NATO bombs could be heard exploding in the Tripoli region, environmentalists said that the potential for greater environmental damage looms with the NATO attack.

Libyan conference in Tripoli on actual and potential environmental damage from the NATO military attack.

One conference participant said, "In Brega, which is now under attack by NATO helicopters, a stray missile from one of those helicopters into ethylene storage tanks which are kept at minus 174 degrees Fahrenheit at a plastics factory in the city would result in an atomic bomb-like explosion that would destroy everything in a 10 kilometer radius." The participant added that the environmental damage from such an explosion would be catastrophic. Another attendee said there has already been damage to feeding and watering areas used by migratory birds flying to Europe from Africa, including some rare species.

There will also be consequences from the use by NATO and U.S. forces of depleted uranium shells. One environmental conference participant revealed that depleted uranium has been used in the NATO attack. In fact, this reporter witnessed shrapnel wounds of patients in the intensive care unit at El Khadra Hospital in Tripoli that were consistent with the use of Dense Inert Metal Explosive (DIME) missiles. DIME weapons are spin-offs from bunker buster technology and both rely on depleted uranium. DIMEs cause powerful localized explosions that are, ironically, intended to limit "collateral damage." Wounds from DIME weapons, resulting from small shrapnel dispersion, are highly carcinogenic due to the use of uranium components. The discoloration of the wounds seen on the patients are consistent with DIME attacks on Libya. DIME weapons were a favorite weapon for the Israelis in their attack on Gaza.

Abdullah took a shrapnel wound in the abdomen after the NATO attack on Muammar Qaddafi's sprawling residential and military command compound at Bab al-Aziziya in downtown Tripoli. Abdullah's nearby house was damaged in the attack. His hospital window continues to be blown open and ceiling tiles fall on his bed from continued NATO attacks on Bab al-Aziziya, a kilometer and a half away. Abdullah, whose friend lost a hand in the NATO attack, says he is not able to sleep with the continuing NATO bombardment.

Muammar is from Zlitan, near rebel-held Misrata, east of Tripoli. His two legs were hit with DIME-like shrapnel while he and his friends were sitting in front of Muammar's grocery store.

Another victim of the Pentagon's "precision-guided" munitions. This 26-year old man from Tadjoura, west of Tripoli, remains unconscious after a NATO attack resulted in the roof of his house collapsing on him. The El Khadra hospital spokesman said the man is unaware that two of his family members were killed in the attack.

War reporting should always rely on the facts and be divorced from emotion. However, I witnessed a number of seriously injured Libyans and other Africans of all colors, many darker than or having the same skin tone as Barack Obama. For America's first African-American president to order such attacks against Africans makes one wonder just what kind of psychologically sick, self-hating, and "self-described" mongrel of a human being occupies the Oval Office of the White House. There comes a time when you run out of words to let Libyans know that most Americans do not support such barbaric behavior on the part of their military forces.
Rebels loot banks of government and private money....

We have also been informed of recent top-level defections form the Libyan rebel coalition to the government of Muammar Qaddafi. A number of former Libyan opposition leaders, who were never affiliated with the armed wing of the rebel movement, say that diving Libya and seeing Libyan irregulars, NATO and U.S. bombs, and foreign mercenary forces killing Libyans was never a goal of the moderate opposition, which wanted change through dialogue and reform.

We have also been informed that along with 900 million Libyan dinars and $500.5 million in U.S. dollars being stolen by the Libyan rebels from the Libyan Central Bank in Benghazi, the rebels have also looted the bank accounts of private companies in eastern Libya, including from banks in Benghazi, Derna, Tobruk, and Beida.

There are also credible reports that French troops in Misrata, Libya, now occupied by rebel forces, have been overseeing the procurement of human organs from those killed in the fighting in the city. The past theft of human organs from conflict zones, such as Kosovo and the West Bank, has involved Israeli middlemen and traffickers.

We are seeing the heaviest NATO strikes in three days of being in Tripoli. Although military targets are being hit, it is a matter of time before we see the takeout of infrastructure targets as was done in Belgrade and later, in Baghdad. Libyan state TV is still on the air (I did an interview there last night that has resulted in strangers coming up to me and thanking me for reporting the truth about what is happening in Libya). Internet still works and the lights are still on. However, AT&T, T Mobile, and Verizon have severed all cell phone links with Libya. The world must know that the real criminals in Libya are the rebel leaders who are handing over their country to the Western powers, western oil companies, and the global bankers who have been chewing on the carcasses of Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Ireland, Iceland and other nations and are now baring their fangs for a big feast on Libya....

Western intelligence using evidence of NATO involvement in Libya's chemical weapons program to cajole support for Libya military offensive....
June , 2011 -- The blackmail used to inch Germany into the Libya campaign

For decades, the CIA has been in possession of documents proving that Libya's chemical weapons program benefitted from the assistance of West German firms. Germany abstained on UN Security Council Resolution 1973, which authorized "any means" necessary to prevent the death of civilians in Libya's civil war, which the U.S. and NATO quickly adopted as a green light for regime change in Libya through the assassination of its leader Muammar Qaddafi.

To counter German resistance to UN and NATO action against Libya, German Chancellor Angela Merkel was told by President Obama that she and her country would be embarrassed if some of the details of Germany's involvement in Libya's nerve and mustard gas weapons program were "leaked" to the media. WMR learned in Libya that the blackmail of Germany by the U.S. and NATO worked and that Germany decided to step up its role in the Libyan war effort, although not to the extent desired by Washington, London, or Paris. In fact, the Germans want nothing reported about the continued presence in Libya of chemical weapons stocks turned over by Libya to the UN and U.S. but still await disposal. Libyan troops were placed in charge of the security for the chemical weapons stocks after Libya's 2003 agreement with the U.S. and UN to turn over its stockpiles. However, since NATO began bombing Libyan military bases, some of which are adjacent to the chemical weapons warehouses, there is a fear that the weapons could fall into the hands of Libyan rebels, some of whom are "Al Qaeda" and "mujaheddin" veterans of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Germany fears that its role in providing the chemical weapons technology to Libya might be revealed if the rebels gain control of the warehouses.

Libyan chemical weapons production was centered at the "Pharma 150" plant at Rabta, construction of which began in 1984. One of the primary firms involved in Rabta's construction was Imhausen-Chemie of Lahr/Schwarzwald, Germany. Assisting Inhausen were some thirty other West German firms, in addition to Belgian, Singapore, South African, and French companies, the Schweizerischen Kreditanstalt Bank of Zurich, and Liechtenstein, Hong Kong, and Switzerland subsidiaries of Imhausen. Assisting Imhaussen at Rabta was Japanese Steel Works and Marubeni of Japan, both of which masked chemical weapons production equipment sent to Rabta as desalinization plant materials. Some 200 construction workers from Thailand were also involved in the building of the Rabta complex.

Among the other West German firms supplying Libya's chemical weapons plant at Rabta were Abacus, Alfred Teves GmbH, Bischoff, Deutsche Bank, Drebs und Kiefer, Merck, Gesellschaft fur Automation, Heberger Bau, Hunnebeck, J. Sartorius, Kone, Krebs and Kefier, Linde, Pawling and Harnishchfeger, Preussag, Raab Karcher, Rhenus, Rose GmbH, Salzgitter Indistriebau GmbH, Siemens, Thyssen, Webac, and Zink.

Imhausen partnered with a Frankfurt-based firm, IIhsan Barbouti International (IBI), headed by Ihsan Barbouti, a native of Iraq and resident of London who was supplying chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq.

A Danish firm, DISA, supplied the foundry for Rabta's chemical bomb making capability, which may explain why Denmark's fanatically pro-business government has joined the NATO bombing campaign in Libya. The destruction of evidence pointing to how NATO and other European nations helped Libya develop chemical weapons may explain the involvement of a raft of NATO countries in the Libya military campaign and the reticence of European nations to discuss the present security problems with NATO's bombing of Libyan military bases that have the added responsibility of providing security for the adjacent warehouses containing chemical weapons and pre-cursor materials.

Belgium's Flaekt Company provided Rabta a cooling tower, while De Dietrich, a French company, provided glass lined cauldrons. Ironbridge, J.G. Trading, and Tosalex Trading of the United Kingdom were involved in shipping and contracting for Rabta.

Phillips Petroleum of Bartlesville, Oklahoma, supplied thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor chemical. Energoinvest of Yugoslavia supplied Rabta's power station, East Germany's VEB provided Rabta's steel production capabilities, and Lampart of Hungary and Peterlee of Italy also supplied materials to Rabta.

There are Western intelligence elements in Tripoli that wish to see the roles of NATO nations at Rabta consigned to the ash heap of history. They made their intentions and interests quite clear during a conference in Tripoli at which the security dangers of Libyan rebels, many of whom are radical Islamist Salafists. These NATO-backed rebels now pose a threat to the warehoused chemicals being protected by central Libyan government military forces under the 2003 agreement with the United States and UN.