• Categories

  • Archives

  • Join Bangladesh Army

    "Ever High Is My Head" Please click on the image

  • Join Bangladesh Navy

    "In War & Peace Invincible At Sea" Please click on the image

  • Join Bangladesh Air Force

    "The Sky of Bangladesh Will Be Kept Free" Please click on the image

  • Blog Stats

    • 314,020 hits
  • Get Email Updates

  • Like Our Facebook Page

  • Visitors Location

    Map
  • Hot Categories

Pakistan and “The Haqqani Network” : The Latest Orchestrated Threat to America and The End of History

by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts | Global Research,

Have you ever before heard of the Haqqanis? I didn’t think so. Like Al Qaeda, about which no one had ever heard prior to 9/11, the “Haqqani Network” has popped up in time of need to justify America’s next war–Pakistan.

President Obama’s claim that he had Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden exterminated deflated the threat from that long-serving bogyman. A terror organization that left its leader, unarmed and undefended, a sitting duck for assassination no longer seemed formidable. Time for a new, more threatening, bogyman, the pursuit of which will keep the “war on terror” going.

Now America’s “worst enemy” is the Haqqanis. Moreover, unlike Al Qaeda, which was never tied to a country, the Haqqani Network, according to Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, is a “veritable arm” of the Pakistani government’s intelligence service, ISI. Washington claims that the ISI ordered its Haqqani Network to attack the US Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, on September 13 along with the US military base in Wadak province.

https://i1.wp.com/www.tiptoptens.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/ISI-Best-Intelligence-Agency.jpg

Washington claims that the ISI ordered its Haqqani Network to attack the US Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan.

https://i1.wp.com/iprd.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/US-war-state1.jpg

Senator Lindsey Graham, a member of the Armed Services committee and one of the main Republican warmongers, declared that “all options are on the table” and gave the Pentagon his assurance that in Congress there was broad bipartisan support for a US military attack on Pakistan.

As Washington has been killing large numbers of Pakistani civilians with drones and has forced the Pakistani army to hunt for Al Qaeda throughout most of Pakistan, producing tens of thousands or more of dislocated Pakistanis in the process, Sen. Graham must have something larger in mind.

The Pakistani government thinks so, too. The Pakistani prime minister,Yousuf Raza Gilani, called his foreign minister home from talks in Washington and ordered an emergency meeting of the government to assess the prospect of an American invasion.

 Meanwhile, Washington is rounding up additional reasons to add to the new threat from the Haqqanis to justify making war on Pakistan: Pakistan has nuclear weapons and is unstable and the nukes could fall into the wrong hands; the US can’t win in Afghanistan until it has eliminated sanctuaries in Pakistan; blah-blah.

Washington has been trying to bully Pakistan into launching a military operation against its own people in North Waziristan. Pakistan has good reasons for resisting this demand. Washington’s use of the new “Haqqani threat” as an invasion excuse could be Washington’s way of overcoming Pakistan’s resistance to attacking its North Waziristan province, or it could be, as some Pakistani political leaders say, and the Pakistani government fears, a “drama” created by Washington to justify a military assault on yet another Muslim country.

Over the years of its servitude as an American puppet, the Pakistan government has brought this on itself. Pakistanis let the US purchase the Pakistan government, train and equip its military, and establish CIA interface with Pakistani intelligence. A government so dependent on Washington could say little when Washington began violating its sovereignty, sending in drones and special forces teams to kill alleged Al Qaeda, but usually women, children, and farmers. Unable to subdue after a decade a small number of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, Washington has placed the blame for its military failure on Pakistan, just as Washington blamed the long drawn-out war on the Iraqi people on Iran’s alleged support for the Iraqi resistance to American occupation.

Some knowledgeable analysts’ about whom you will never hear in the “mainstream media,” say that the US military/security complex and their neoconservative whores are orchestrating World War III before Russia and China can get prepared. As a result of the communist oppression, a signifiant percentage of the Russian population is in the American orbit. These Russians trust Washington more than they trust Putin. The Chinese are too occupied dealing with the perils of rapid economic growth to prepare for war and are far behind the threat.

War, however, is the lifeblood of the profits of the military/security complex, and war is the chosen method of the neoconservatives for achieving their goal of American hegemony.

Pakistan borders China and former constituent parts of the Soviet Union in which the US now has military bases on Russia’s borders. US war upon and occupation of Pakistan is likely to awaken the somnolent Russians and Chinese. As both possess nuclear ICBMs, the outcome of the military/security complex’s greed for profits and the neoconservatives’ greed for empire could be the extinction of life on earth.

The patriots and super-patriots who fall in with the agendas of the military-security complex and the flag-waving neoconservatives are furthering the “end-times” outcome so fervently desired by the rapture evangelicals, who will waft up to heaven while the rest of us die on earth.

This is not President Reagan’s hoped for outcome from ending the cold war.

Source: Pakalert Press

How America Planned For An Attack On BRITAIN In 1930 With Bombing Raids And Chemical Weapons

  • Emerging world power feared British reaction to its ambitions
  • Plan Red was code for massive war with British Empire
  • Top-secret document once regarded as ‘most sensitive on Earth’
  • $57m allocated for building secret airfields on Canadian border – to launch attack on British land forces based there

By DAVID GERRIE

Details of an amazing American military plan for an attack to wipe out a major part of the British Army  are today revealed for the first time.

In 1930, a mere nine years before the outbreak of World War Two, America drew up proposals specifically aimed at eliminating all British land forces in Canada and the North Atlantic, thus destroying Britain’s trading ability and bringing the country to its knees.

Previously unparalleled troop movements were launched as an overture to an invasion of Canada, which was to include massive bombing raids on key industrial targets and the use of chemical weapons, the latter signed off at the highest level by none other than the legendary General Douglas MacArthur.

The plans, revealed in a Channel 5 documentary, were one of a number of military contingency plans drawn up against a number of potential enemies, including the Caribbean islands and China. There was even one to combat an internal uprising within the United States.

In the end there was no question of President Franklin D. Roosevelt subscribing to what was known as War Plan Red. Instead the two countries became the firmest of allies during WW2, an occasionally strained alliance that continues to this day.

Still, it is fascinating that there were enough people inside the American political and military establishment who thought that such a war was feasible.

While outside of America, both Churchill and Hitler also thought it a possibility during the 30s – a time of deep economic and political uncertainty.

In 1930, a mere nine years before the outbreak of World War Two, America drew up a terrifying plan specifically aimed at eliminating all British land forces in Canada and the North Atlantic, thus destroying Britain’s trading ability and bringing our country to its knees.

 

The top-secret papers seen here – once regarded as the most sensitive on Earth – were found buried deep within the American National Archives in Washington, D.C.

The highly classified files reveal that huge pushes were to be made into the Caribbean and West Coast to block any British retaliation from either Europe, India or Australia.

 

In 1931, the U.S. government even authorised record-breaking transatlantic flying hero and known Nazi sympathiser Charles A. Lindbergh to be sent covertly as a spy to the west shore of Hudson Bay to investigate the possibility of using sea-planes for warfare and seek out points of low resistance as potential bridgeheads.

In 1931, the U.S. government authorised transatlantic flying hero and known Nazi sympathiser Charles Lindbergh to be sent covertly as a spy to the west shore of Hudson BayIn 1931, the U.S. authorised flying hero and known Nazi sympathiser Charles Lindbergh to be sent as a spy to Hudson Bay to look into using sea-planes for warfare and seek out points of low resistance as potential bridgeheads.

Four years later, the U.S. Congress authorised $57million to be allocated for the building of three secret airfields on the U.S. side of the Canadian border, with grassed-over landing strips to hide their real purpose.

All governments make ‘worst case scenario’ contingency plans which are kept under wraps from the public. These documents were unearthed buried deep within the American National Archives in Washington, D.C. – a top-secret document once regarded as the most sensitive on earth.

It was in 1930, that America first wrote a plan for war with ‘The Red Empire’ – its most dangerous empire.

But America’s foe in this war was not Russia or Japan or even the burgeoning Nazi Germany.

Plan Red was code for an apocalyptic war with Britain and all her dominions.

After the 1918 Armistice and throughout the 1920s, America’s historic anti-British feelings handed down from the 19th century were running dangerously high due to our owing the U.S. £9billion for their intervention in The Great War.

British feeling against America was known to be reciprocal.

By the 1930s, America saw the disturbing sight of homegrown Nazi sympathisers marching down New York’s Park Avenue to converge on a pro-Hitler rally in Madison Square Garden.

Across the Atlantic, Britain had the largest empire in the world, not to mention the most powerful navy.

Against this backdrop, some Americans saw their nation emerging as a potential world leader and knew only too well how Britain had dealt with such upstarts in the past – it went to war and quashed them.

Now, America saw itself as the underdog in a similar scenario.

In 1935, America staged its largest-ever military manoeuvres, moving troops to and installing munitions dumps at Fort Drum, half an hour away from the eastern Canadian border.

By the 1930s, America saw the disturbing sight of homegrown Nazi sympathisers marching down New York's Park Avenue to converge on a pro-Hitler rally in Madison Square GardenBy the 1930s, America saw the disturbing sight of homegrown Nazi sympathisers marching down New York’s Park Avenue to converge on a pro-Hitler rally in Madison Square Garden

It was from here the initial attack on British citizens would be launched, with Halifax, Nova Scotia, its first target.

‘This would have meant six million troops fighting on America’s eastern seaboard,’ says Peter Carlson, editor of American History magazine.

WAR PLAN RED, GREEN, PURPLE

During the 1920s and 30s, the U.S. devised several colour-coded war plans to deal with potential adversaries.

Many of these war games were submitted to the Military Information Division by officers working in their own time.

Among the contingency plans developed were:

Orange: War against Japan

Green: Against Mexico

Purple: South America

White: Domestic uprising

Black: Germany

Grey: Caribbean republics

Yellow: China

Brown: Philippines

Not surprisingly, many of these were hypothetical exercises – and provided only broad strategic outlines.

However, the planning was considered by the military to be good practice for its personnel.

‘It would have been like Verdun,’ alluding to the brutal conflict between German and French troops in 1916 which resulted in a death toll of 306,000.

Even Winston Churchill said while people regarded a war with the U.S. as inconceivable, it was not.

‘America felt Britain had thrown it under the bus in order to stay top dog,’ says Professor Mike Vlahos, of the U.S. Naval War College.

‘The U.S. was forced to contemplate any measure to keep Britain at bay.’

Even Hitler thought such a war was inevitable, but astonishingly wanted Britain to win, believing that to be the best outcome for Germany, since the UK could then join his forces to attack the U.S.

‘You have to remember the U.S. was born out of a revolutionary struggle against Britain in 1776,’ says Dr. John H. Maurer, of the U.S. Naval War College.

Using available blueprints for this war, modern-day military and naval experts now believe the most likely outcome of such a conflict would have been a massive naval battle in the North Atlantic with very few actual deaths, but ending with Britain handing Canada over to the U.S. in order to preserve our vital trade routes.

However, on June 15, 1939, the same year as the German invasion of Poland, an internal U.S. memo states these plans for an invasion were ‘wholly inapplicable’, but nevertheless ‘should be retained’ for the future.

This is now seen as the dawn of and prime reason behind the ‘special relationship’ between our two countries.

Huge troop movements were launched as an overture to an invasion of CanadaHuge troop movements were launched as an overture to an invasion of Canada, which was to include bombing raids on industrial targets and the use of chemical weapons – the latter signed off by the legendary General Douglas MacArthur, left (file picture)

 

Isolationism, prosperity and decline: America after WWI

As close allies in numerous conflicts, Britain and America have long enjoyed a ‘special relationship’.

Stemming from Churchill and Roosevelt, it has since flourished – from Thatcher and Reagan, and Clinton and Blair, to the Queen and Obama.

We know now that FDR ultimately rejected an invasion of Britain as ‘wholly inapplicable’.

But just how special was that relationship in the decade leading up to WWII?

By the start of the 1920s, the American economy was booming.

The ‘Roaring Twenties’ was an age of increased consumer spending and mass production.

But after the First World War, U.S. public opinion was becoming increasingly isolationist.

This was reflected in its refusal to join the League of Nations, whose principal mission was to maintain world peace.

U.S. foreign policy continued to cut itself off from the rest of the world during that period by imposing tariffs on imports to protect domestic manufacturers.

After a decade of prosperity and optimism, America was thrown into despair when the stock market crashed in October 1929 - marking the start of the Great DepressionThese children were part of a squatter community, known bitterly as ‘Hoovervilles’ because of the President’s inability to even admit to the existence of a national crisis after the stock market crash in 1929

And its liberal approach to immigration was also changing.

Millions of people, mainly from Europe, had previously been welcomed to America in search of a better life.

But by 1921, quotas were introduced and, by 1929, only 150,000 immigrants per year were allowed in.

After a decade of prosperity and optimism, America was thrown into despair when the stock market crashed in October 1929 – marking the start of the Great Depression.

The ensuing economic hardship and mass unemployment sealed the fate of President Herbert Hoover’s re-election – and Franklin D Roosevelt stormed to victory in March 1933.

He was faced with an economy on the brink of collapse: banks had been shut in 32 states, and some 17million people had been thrown out of work — almost a third of the adult workforce.

And the reality of a worldwide economic depression and the need for increased attention to domestic problems only served to bolster the idea that the U.S. should isolate itself from troubling events in Europe.

When Franklin D Roosevelt was elected as President in 1933, he was faced with an economy on the brink of collapseWhen Franklin D Roosevelt was elected as President in 1933, he was faced with an economy on the brink of collapse. Banks had been shut in 32 states, and some 17 million people had been thrown out of work

However, this view was at odds with FDR’s vision.

He realised the necessity for the U.S. to participate more actively in international affairs – but isolationist sentiment remained high in Congress.

In 1933, President Roosevelt proposed a Congressional measure that would have granted him the right to consult with other nations to place pressure on aggressors in international conflicts.

The bill faced strong opposition from leading isolationists in Congress.

As tensions rose in Europe over the rise of the Nazis, Congress brought in a set of Neutrality Acts to stop  America becoming entangled in external conflicts.

Although Roosevelt was not in favour of the policy, he acquiesced as he still needed Congressional support for his New Deal programmes, which were designed to bring the country out of the Depression.

By 1937, the situation in Europe was growing worse and the second Sino-Japanese War began in Asia.

In a speech, he compared international aggression to a disease that other nations must work to ‘quarantine’.

But still, Americans were not willing to risk their lives for peace abroad – even when war broke out in Europe in 1939.

A slow shift in public opinion saw limited U.S. aid to the Allies.

And then the Japanese attack on Pear Harbor in December 1941 changed everything.

Source: PakAlert Press

3 NATO Ships Sunk, 15 Senior NATO Personnel Held Captive In Benghazi

Leonor conveys the degree of censorship we are under, how little we are actually being told, from NATO atrocities to NATO losses.

The 15 NATO personnel abducted are talked about at 8 min 35.

 

 

Source: Pakalert Press

The Destabilization of Syria and the Broader Middle East War

by Michel Chossudovsky

What is unfolding in Syria is an armed insurrection supported covertly by foreign powers including the US, Turkey and Israel.

Armed insurgents belonging to Islamist organizations have crossed the border from Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. The US State Department has confirmed that it is supporting the insurgency.

The United States is to expand contacts with Syrians who are counting on a regime change in the country.

This was stated by U.S. State Department official Victoria Nuland. “We started to expand contacts with the Syrians, those who are calling for change, both inside and outside the country,” she said.

Nuland also repeated that Barack Obama had previously called on Syrian President Bashar Assad to initiate reforms or to step down from power.” (Voice of Russia, June 17, 2011)

The destabilization of Syria and Lebanon as sovereign countries has been on the drawing board of the US-NATO-Israel military alliance for at least ten years.

Action against Syria is part of a “military roadmap”, a sequencing of military operations. According to former NATO Commander General Wesley Clark–the Pentagon  had clearly identified Iraq, Libya, Syria and Lebanon as target countries of a US-NATO intervention:

“[The] Five-year campaign plan [included]… a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan” (Pentagon official quoted by General Wesley Clark)

In “Winning Modern Wars” (page 130) General Wesley Clark states the following:

“As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.

…He said it with reproach–with disbelief, almost–at the breadth of the vision. I moved the conversation away, for this was not something I wanted to hear. And it was not something I wanted to see moving forward, either. …I left the Pentagon that afternoon deeply concerned.”

The objective is to destabilize the Syrian State and implement “regime change” through the covert support of an armed insurgency, integrated by Islamist militia. The reports on civilian deaths are used to provide a pretext and a justification for humanitarian intervention under the principle “Responsiblity to Protect”.

Media Disinformation

Tacitly acknowledged , the significance of an armed insurrection is casually dismissed by the Western media. If it were to be recognized and analysed, our understanding of unfolding events would be entirely different.

What is mentioned profusely is that the armed forces and the police are involved in the indiscriminate killing of civilian protesters. Press reports confirm, however, from the outset of the protest movement an exchange of gunfire between armed insurgents and the police, with casualties reported on both sides.

The insurrection started in mid March in the border city of Daraa, which is 10 km from the Jordanian border.

The Daraa “protest movement” on March 18 had all the appearances of a staged event involving, in all likelihood, covert support to Islamic terrorists by Mossad and/or Western intelligence. Government sources point to the role of radical Salafist groups (supported by Israel)

Other reports have pointed to the role of Saudi Arabia in financing the protest movement.

What has unfolded in Daraa in the weeks following the initial violent clashes on 17-18 March, is the confrontation between the police and the armed forces on the one hand and armed units of terrorists and snipers on the other which have infiltrated the protest movement.

….

What is clear from these initial reports is that many of the demonstrators were not demonstrators but terrorists involved in premeditated acts of killing and arson. The title of the Israeli news report summarizes what happened:  Syria: Seven Police Killed, Buildings Torched in Protests.

(See Michel Chossudovsky, SYRIA: Who is Behind The Protest Movement? Fabricating a Pretext for a US-NATO “Humanitarian Intervention”, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24591 Global Research,  May 3, 2011)

The Role of Turkey

The center of the insurrection has now shifted to the small border town of Jisr al-Shughour, 10 km from the Turkish border.

Jisr al-Shughour has a population of 44,000 inhabitants. Armed insurgents have crossed the border from Turkey.

Members of the Muslim Brotherhood are reported to have taken up arms in northwest Syria.

There are indications that Turkish military and intelligence are supporting these incursions.

There was no mass civilian protest movement in Jisr al-Shughour. The local population was caught in the crossfire. The fighting between armed rebels and government forces has contributed to triggering a refugee crisis, which is the center of media attention.

MB Rebels at Jisr al Choughour

Muslim Brotherhood Rebels at Jisr al Shughour Photos AFP June 16, 2011

In contrast, in the nation’s capital Damascus, where the mainstay of social movements is located, there have been mass rallies in support rather than in opposition to the government.

President Bashir al Assad is casually compared to presidents Ben Ali of Tunisia and Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. What the mainstream media has failed to mention is that despite the authoritarian nature of the regime, president Al Assad is a popular figure who has widespread support of the Syrian population.

The large rally in Damascus on March 29, “with tens of thousands of supporters” (Reuters) of President Al Assad was barely mentioned. Yet in an unusual twist, the images and video footage of several pro-government events were used by the Western media to convince international public opinion that the President was being confronted by mass anti-government rallies.

 

Syrians display a giant national flag with a picture of Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad during a
pro-government rally at the central bank square in Damascus March 29, 2011. (Reuters Photo)

On June 15, thousands of people rallied over several kilometers on Damascus’ main highway in a march holding up a 2.3 km Syrian flag. The rally was acknowledged by the media and casually dismissed as irrelevant.

Thousands of supporters of Syrian President Bashar Assad carry a 2,300-metre-long Syrian flag in a demonstration in  Damascus on Wednesday. The Syrian government is working to stop the spectacle of Syrians fleeing in terror from government troops trying to quell the three-month rebellion.  Muzaffar Salman/Associated Press

AP. Thousands of supporters of Syrian President Bashar Assad carry a 2,300-metre-long Syrian flag in a demonstration in Damascus on Wednesday.

While the Syrian regime is by no means democratic, the objective of the US-NATO Israel military alliance is not to promote democracy. Quite the opposite. Washington’s intent is to eventually install a puppet regime.

The objective through media disinformation is to demonize president Al Assad and more broadly to destabilize Syria as a secular state. The latter objective is implemented through covert support of  various Islamist organizations:

Syria is run by an authoritarian oligarchy which has used brute force in dealing with its citizens. The riots in Syria, however, are complex. They cannot be viewed as a straightforward quest for liberty and democracy. There has been an attempt by the U.S. and the E.U. to use the riots in Syria to pressure and intimidate the Syrian leadership. Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan, and the March 14 Alliance have all played a role in supporting an armed insurrection.

The violence in Syria has been supported from the outside with a view of taking advantage of the internal tensions… Aside from the violent reaction of the Syrian Army, media lies have been used and bogus footage has been aired. Money and weapons have also been funnelled to elements of the Syrian opposition by the U.S., the E.U….Funding has also been provided to ominous and unpopular foreign-based Syrian opposition figures, while weapons caches were smuggled from Jordan and Lebanon into Syria. (Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, America’s Next War Theater: Syria and Lebanon? http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25000, Global Research, June 10, 2011)

The joint Israel-Turkey military and intelligence agreement

The geopolitics of this process of destabilization are far-reaching. Turkey is involved in supporting the rebels.

The Turkish government has sanctioned Syrian opposition groups in exile which support an armed insurgency. Turkey is also pressuring Damascus to conform to Washington’s demands for regime change.

Turkey is a member of NATO with a powerful military force. Moreover, Israel and Turkey have a longstanding joint military-intelligence agreement, which is explicitly directed against Syria.

…A 1993 Memorandum of Understanding led to the creation of (Israeli-Turkish) “joint committees” to handle so-called regional threats. Under the terms of the Memorandum, Turkey and Israel agreed “to cooperate in gathering intelligence on Syria, Iran, and Iraq and to meet regularly to share assessments pertaining to terrorism and these countries’ military capabilities.”

Turkey agreed to allow IDF and Israeli security forces to gather electronic intelligence on Syria and Iran from Turkey. In exchange, Israel assisted in the equipping and training of Turkish forces in anti-terror warfare along the Syrian, Iraqi, and Iranian borders.”

Already during the Clinton Administration, a triangular military alliance between the US, Israel and Turkey had unfolded. This “triple alliance”, which is dominated by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, integrates and coordinates military command decisions between the three countries pertaining to the broader Middle East. It is based on the close military ties respectively of Israel and Turkey with the US, coupled with a strong bilateral military relationship between Tel Aviv and Ankara. ….

The triple alliance is also coupled with a 2005 NATO-Israeli military cooperation agreement which includes “many areas of common interest, such as the fight against terrorism and joint military exercises. These military cooperation ties with NATO are viewed by the Israeli military as a means to “enhance Israel’s deterrence capability regarding potential enemies threatening it, mainly Iran and Syria.” (See Michel Chossudovsky,“Triple Alliance”: The US, Turkey, Israel and the War on Lebanon, August 6, 2006)

Covert  support to armed insurgents out of Turkey or Jordan would no doubt be coordinated under the joint Israel-Turkey military and intelligence agreement.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan with (former) Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (2004)

Dangerous Crossroads: The Broader Middle East War

Israel and NATO signed a far-reaching military cooperation agreement in 2005. Under this agreement, Israel is considered a de facto member of NATO.

If a military operation were to be launched against Syria, Israel would in all likelihood be involved in military undertakings alongside NATO forces (under the NATO-Israel bilateral agreement).  Turkey would also play an active military role.

A military intervention in Syria on fake humanitarian grounds would lead to an escalation of the US-NATO led war over a large area extending from North Africa and the Middle East to Central Asia, from the Eastern Mediterranean to China’s Western frontier with Afghanistan and Pakistan.

It would also contribute to a process of political destabilization in Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine. It would also set the stage for a conflict with Iran.

Source : https://i2.wp.com/a3.l3-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/142/f158012586d8442bb94026b81468ac1e/m.jpg

 

Six Principles of Global Manipulation [Video]

In their arrogance, convinced that by 2012 Europe will have become that socialist-like superstate and the global NWO (European Union/North American Union (SPP)(EU/NAU) will be a fact, they will celebrate the historical Venus rising and transit on Solar Maximum 2012 with a NaziGermany style Olympic Games (Berlin -1936) in order to demonstrate the power and reality of this New World Order and their supporters to the entire world.

 

 

What is Globalization?

In the 20th century the human race was confronted with such a natural phenomenon as globalization. Globalization can be defined as the process of concentration of power over all the mankind in one person or a small group. This process has been under way throughout the whole human history and is now near completion. Centuries ago Ancient Egyptian priests became aware that globalization can be controlled. They have worked out the overall principles and patterns of controlling society to achieve their own goals, and headed up this process. Let us take a look at how globalization process is being controlled now.

Principle 6 : Weapon of War

“War is the continuation of politics by other means” — Karl von Clausewitz

https://i2.wp.com/civicmirror.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/war31.jpg

The oldest and fastest way of controlling people has always been the war. The object of any war is the conquest of territories, wealth, human resources or complete elimination of enemy. World history has witnessed a great number of brutal wars.

Principle 5 : Weapon of Genocide

“All the crimes on Earth do not destroy so many of the human race, nor alienate so much property, as drunkenness” — Sir Francis Bacon

The next step in the process of globalization was the transition from “hot wars” waged by ordinary weapons to “cold wars” waged through the so called “cultural co-operation”. It’s possible to completely eliminate or subdue a whole nation to one’s own will by means of such genocide weapons as drugs, alcohol, tobacco, several types of vaccines and genetically modified foods. Yet to keep people unaware of the destructive nature of these weapons they have been disguised as superficially harmless means of relaxation, stress relief, amusement and acquiring immunity to disease. This idea is being inculcated in the minds through culture, mass media, and specially planted proverbs and tokens. In reality these substances are dangerous poisons undermining the genetics of the human species, destroying the human being both morally and physically, wiping out the existing and future generations.

Principle 4 : Economical

“Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes the laws” — Mayer Amschel Rothschild

Globalizers see no point in destroying nations completely. They are better off leaving a part of the slaves’ population alive having subdued its economics to their narrow clannish interests, but also in such the manner that a nation hasn’t the slightest idea of what is really going on. This can be done through universal money and the institution of credit, by means of usurious interest rates that allow the bankers’ clans to receive skyrocketing profits from credit interest without creating any values for the society, while other people, their families, entire nations have to spend their lives paying off debt and essentially become slaves.

Principle 3 : Factual

“There are no facts, only interpretations”– Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

A whole nation or separate social classes can be ruled much more efficiently after being brainwashed with various ideologies, religious dogmas, sociological doctrines and mass media. And if need be at some point in time people start being collided by activation of inherent contradictions using some special techniques such as provocations, assassinations, scandalous news articles, caricatures or deliberate mistakes, which seem to be accidental from outside. For example, we are now witnessing the attempts to set the traditional Islam and Biblical Christianity against each other, despite the belief shared by quite a number of world religions that God, the Creator, the Almighty is One for all creatures of the Earth.

Principle 2 : Chronological

“Look behind in the past more often to avoid big mistakes in the future”– Kozma Prutkov

It is common knowledge that one who has forgotten the history of his Motherland is like a tree with no roots. But what would happen if a whole nation forgot its history or accepted some historical myth imposed on it by external hostile elements.

To quote George Orwell, “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past”.

Rewriting of a nations history inevitably leads to alteration of its future..

Principle 1. Ideological (worldview)

“If you want to defeat your enemy bring up his children”– oriental wisdom

Conquest of a nation will become most steady, effective and almost irreversible if one manages to somehow alter its worldview nationwide, so that the nation willfully serves the interests of the invaders, considering them a part of their normal life.

“This world a hollow pageant you should deem;
All wise men know things are not what they seem;
Be of good cheer, and drink, and so shake off
This vain illusion of a baseless dream”
Omar Khayyam

Another CIA Blunder – ‘Kidnapped US Lesbian’ In Syria PsyOp Exposed?

By JOHN STEVENS

  • London woman says photo of U.S. lesbian blogger ‘kidnapped in Syria’ is actually her
  • Jelena Lecic said: ‘I don’t know how this happened, I’ve never met her. This has put me in danger’
  • Blogger’s ‘girlfriend’ admits she’s never met her
  • Story of alleged kidnap was reported across the globe

The reported kidnap of a U.S. lesbian blogger in Syria has come into question after a woman in Britain claimed that photos being used to call for her release are actually her.

Thousands of campaigners joined protest groups after media outlets across the world reported that Amina Arraf, a blogger known for her frank posts about her sexuality and her open criticism of President Bashar Assad had been detained.

But a woman in London came forward today claiming the photos being circulated were actually her, raising questions about the existence of the blogger.

Fake? These photos had been used by the prolific gay blogger
Fake? These photos had been used by the prolific gay blogger
Concerns: Jelena Lecic said that the identity theft has put her in danger
Concerns: Jelena Lecic said that the identity theft has put her in danger

Jelena Lecic found out that pictures of her were being used by the blogger when she saw her photo used next to an article in a British newspaper.

It reported that on Monday the supposed U.S. citizen was bundled into a car by three men in their 20s in civilian clothes in Damascus, the capital of Syria, where homosexuality is illegal.

‘That is absolutely my picture taken in the last year in Paris,’ Miss Lecic told the BBC’s Newsnight.

‘It was [taken] on my birthday. I don’t know how this happened. I was very upset to see my picture.

‘I’ve never met her [Amina]. I’m not part of her blog. I’m not friends with her,’ said the Croatian who is working as an adminstrator at the Royal College in London.

‘I’m very upset because you have privacy settings on Facebook and obviously it doesn’t work because anyone can hijack your picture.

‘This has put me in danger. This person is a gay activist in Syria. I really don’t feel comfortable.’

Stolen identity: Jelena Lecic, who lives in London, said her photo was used alongside stories about the 'missing' Syrian blogger
Stolen identity: Jelena Lecic, who lives in London, said her photo was used alongside stories about the ‘missing’ Syrian blogger

Lesbian blogger? A woman in London said this photo reported to be of blogger Amina Arraf is actually her

Lesbian blogger? A woman in London said this photo reported to be of blogger Amina Arraf is actually her.

Miss Lecic believes that her identity was stolen about a year ago, when her Facebook photographs appeared on another person’s profile.

An activist with the Local Coordination Committees, a group which helps documents the protests calling for an end to the Assad regime, had confirmed to reporters on Tuesday that Arraf had been taken.

But on Wednesday, the same activist said the group had ‘no independent confirmation’ and had reported it based on an entry by Arraf’s cousin on her ‘A Gay Girl in Damascus’ blog and from two people who claimed to be friends but who also got the information from the blog.

‘As far as we know, nobody’s emerged who has actually met her,’ the activist said.

On Tuesday news outlets across the globe reported the story of Amina Arraf, who it was claimed wrote a blog called ‘A Gay Girl in Damascus’, a mixture of erotic prose and updates about Syria’s uprising, including her participation in anti-regime protests.

Campaign: Thousands of people have joined a Facebook group calling for the release of Amina Arraf
Campaign: Thousands of people have joined a Facebook group calling for the release of Amina Arraf,
Gay girl in Damascus: Followers of the blog have started a campaign for her to be freed
Gay girl in Damascus: Followers of the blog have started a campaign for her to be freed.

A person claiming to be her cousin, Rania Ismail, posted on her cousin’s blog, that Arraf  had been taken in a car that had a sticker depicting Assad’s late brother Basel, according to a friend who was nearby and saw what happened.

‘Amina hit one of them,’ her cousin posted on Monday night. ‘One of the men then put his hand over Amina’s mouth and they hustled her into a red Dacia Logan.’

‘We are hoping she is simply in jail and nothing worse has happened to her,’ Miss Ismail wrote.

A woman who had claimed to have been Arraf’s girlfriend has admitted she had never actually met her.

Sandra Bagaria, who had said she ‘crashed to the street’ sobbing when she heard about the kidnapping, had conducted an online relationship with her since January entirely through Internet communications in writing, including more than 500 e-mails.

The protests go on: Hundreds took to the streets in Talbiseh, in the central province of Homs, after it came under attacks from government troops
The protests go on: Hundreds took to the streets in Talbiseh, in the central province of Homs, after it came under attacks from government troops

The day before the supposed blogger was reportedly detained, Arraf wrote:

‘I am complex, I am many things; I am an Arab, I am Syrian, I am a woman, I am queer, I am Muslim, I am binational, I am tall, I am too thin; my sect is Sunni, my clan is Omari, my tribe is Quraysh, my city is Damascus.

In the blog Arraf also said that she was born in Virginia, but no public records with her name or her parents’ names have been found there.

Since the uprising against Assad began in mid-March, a government crackdown has left about 1,300 people dead and more than 10,000 detained, according to human rights groups.

Homosexuality is illegal in Syria and gays are frowned upon by the country’s conservative society. It is rare for gay Arabs to speak openly about their sexuality.

Thousands of people had joined a ‘Free Amina’ Facebook page, calling for her release.

 

Adolf Hitler had a British Nephew Who Joined the U.S. Navy During WWII

Hitler’s nephew, who he would come to call “my loathsome nephew”, was originally named William Patrick Hitler, but he later changed it to William Patrick Stuart-Houston to distance himself from his uncle’s name after WWII.  William was born in Liverpool, the son of Adolf Hitler’s half brother, Alois Hitler, Jr., and an Irish woman named Bridget Dowling.

Prior to WWII, William moved from England to Germany where Adolf Hitler got him a job in a bank, which he subsequently left after convincing Hitler to get him a job at an automobile factory, as a salesman. At this point, Hitler began calling him “my loathsome nephew” and began publicly calling him out, stating, “I didn’t become Chancellor for the benefit of my family … No one is going to climb on my back.”

Getting nowhere further with his uncle, William then returned to London for a time and attempted to capitalize on his uncle’s fame there.  He later returned to Germany where Hitler eventually offered William a top ranking position with the Nazis if William would renounce his British citizenship.  William turned down the offer, fearing he’d be trapped in Germany in the coming conflict.

No longer caring to ask for a job or high ranking position, William subsequently began trying to blackmail his uncle, threatening to tell the media stories about Hitler and his family, including threatening to confirm a rumor that Hitler was the illegitimate grandson of the Jewish merchant, Leopold Frankenberger, if Hitler wouldn’t give him money. As you might imagine, this didn’t sit well with Hitler and William was forced to flee back to England, though some reports say he was given a sizable sum before being forced to leave.

Just before the start of WWII, William and his mother were invited to the United States at the invitation of famed publisher William Randolph Hearst.  Hearst then sponsored William on a nationwide lecture tour titled “My Uncle Adolf”, where William would tell stories about Hitler and the Nazis to audiences.

Once the war broke out, William tried to join the British forces, but was denied.  When the U.S. eventually entered the war, William appealed to President Roosevelt to be allowed to join the U.S. forces, stating why he felt he wasn’t being allowed to serve in the British forces: “The British are an insular people and while they are kind and courteous, it is my impression, rightly or wrongly, that they could not in the long term feel overly cordial or sympathetic towards an individual bearing the name I do.”

Roosevelt turned the matter over to the F.B.I. who eventually decided to allow William to join the U.S. navy, despite being a British citizen and the nephew of Hitler.    He served in the navy as a Hospital Corpsman and was discharged in 1947 after three years of service.

Bonus Factoids:

  • After the war, William married and moved to Long Island where he set up his own blood sample analysis business.
  • William had four sons: Alexander, Louis, Howard, and Brian. Three of them live in Long Island today.  The fourth son, Howard, died in a car accident in 1989, two years after William died.  Two of his remaining sons live together and own a landscaping company and the third is a social worker.
  • The apartment William Hitler and his family lived at in Liverpool was destroyed in a German air raid on January 10, 1942.
  • William’s mother, Bridget Dowling, once wrote a manuscript, My Brother-in-Law Adolf, to try to capitalize on Hitler’s fame.  Most of the content of the manuscript has been dismissed by historians including allegations that Hitler spent nearly six months living in Liverpool with her family in 1912 and into 1913.  She also claimed she was the one who convinced him to cut his mustache the way he did, rather than the more traditional handlebar style and claims to have introduced Hitler to astrology, which is something he is said to have taken great stock in while planning some of his military strategies.
  • William’s father, Alois Hitler, left the family to return to Austria in 1914.  Bridget and William did not go with him, though the two did not divorce.  After WWI began, Alois Hitler married Hedwig Weidemann, which subsequently got him in a lot of trouble once authorities discovered he was already married. Alois had a son with his new wife in Austria, Heinz Hitler, who served as a Nazi in WWII and was captured, tortured, and killed by the Soviet Union in 1942.
  • Interestingly, Alois Hitler only managed to escape punishment for getting married while he was already married when his first wife Bridget Dowling intervened with the authorities, claiming she had separated from him before he left for Austria.
  • When Alois Hitler first met Bridget Dowling, he claimed to be a wealthy hotel owner, when, in fact, he was just a waiter at a hotel.  He then eloped with Dowling, despite her father’s threats against him.

Sources:

%d bloggers like this: