War Without End Forum Index War Without End
The global war against terror from a British perspective
 FAQ   Popular Topics   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register 
 Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
 UK and World News  Spam Audit  Ignore List 

Christison (former CIA Analyst) on the Neocons
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    War Without End Forum Index -> Middle East and Asia
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 06 Jan 2003
Posts: 30958

PostPosted: Sun Mar 21, 2004 10:57 pm    Post subject: Christison (former CIA Analyst) on the Neocons Reply to topic Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Subj: Christison on the Neocons
Date: 3/21/04 12:49:40 PM Pacific Standard Time


Christison on the Neocons

Bill Christison is a former CIA figure who is not too fearful to mention the role of Israel's supporters in shaping American foreign policy. In this article, Christison details the neocons’ power. (Although the title refers to the neocons’ "faltering," this does not seem to be central to the article.) Acknowledging that the neocons don't act alone, Christison writes that "Within this entire conglomerate, the neocons definitely wield real power and influence, even though none of them at present occupies a cabinet-level position. But one thing and only one thing makes them important -- the fact that with minor exceptions, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice have enthusiastically accepted all the early phases of the policy agenda that has, since the early 1990s, been the very trademark of the neocons." I would go even farther than Christison here. It should be added that Cheney and Rumsfeld have been close to the neocons for some time, and are, to some extent, dependent on neocon support. Rice is a foreign policy lightweight, with little knowledge about the Middle East. Bush, of course, is a total dunderhead. The neocons' power results from the fact that they have an agenda and a network pushing their propaganda within and outside of the Bush administration. There has been no real countervailing power in the Bush administration. Of course, the September 11 terrorist attacks provided the neocons with the golden opportunity to implement their agenda. And their war agenda does mesh with the interests of war profiteers, Republican political partisans, Christian Zionists, and war liberals bent on advancing democracy, women's rights, etc. in far corners of the globe. But the neocons have been the key to this whole war coalition, which has coalesced around the neocon agenda.

Christison points out that the neocon foreign policy agenda contains two aspects: one global and the other oriented toward an Israelocentric Middle East. "This agenda includes a general, or global, aspect and another aspect that gives greater emphasis to the Middle East than to any other area. The global agenda includes constantly expanding U.S. military expenditures, a unilateral U.S. drive for global domination, and increased control over the world's fossil fuel supplies."

While the two aspects are there, it is apparent to me that the focus on Israel is primary. There are many other American imperialists such as Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft who opposed the war on Iraq because they correctly believed that it would impede America's global imperial effort. The unilateralist war has alienated allies. America's military forces have been stretched thin. The billions of defense dollars that have been diverted to Iraq cannot be used for more profitable imperialist ventures. While the neocons do have an American global dominance objective, they only intend to pursue it by a policy that simultaneously advances Israeli interests. However, the optimal way of advancing American imperialism would not necessarily involve advancing Israel.

Christison points out that neocons are "lying low for the moment," due to the obvious problems in Iraq. They have had to downplay their role in the policymaking. Furthermore, there is the election year politics, making it especially essential to cover up any relationship between the war and Israel. Bush's "political handlers surely want to avoid the embarrassment that might result if it became more widely accepted that one of the real U.S. motives in invading Iraq was to strengthen Israel's military position and political dominance throughout the Middle East."

"Supporters of Bush have launched a two-pronged counterattack, arguing first that the influence of the neocons over U.S. foreign policy is a myth and, second, that if you are dumb enough to believe the myth, it is almost a sure thing that you are also an anti-Semite."

While covering up their own power in the administration, the neocons are moving to take more power. One tactic is to present their WMD lies as incompetent intelligence gathering by CIA professionals, who actually have served as a block to neocon propaganda efforts. Christison points out that this is actually an effort by the neocons to o expand their influence and replace the intelligence professionals. "They are trying to switch the entire blame for the fiasco over weapons of mass destruction and the continuing killings in Iraq to the CIA. There is no question that the CIA deserves some of the criticism directed against it, but most of the blame in my view belongs to the administration's own distortions and exaggerations of intelligence. The neocons want to reorganize the intelligence apparatus of the United States to make it even easier for the administration to introduce more distortions and exaggerations into intelligence analysis in the future."

Christison also makes the sometimes-ignored point that neocons are not isolated from the general Jewish pro-Zionist community. Where their interests converge on the interests of Israel, non-neocon Zionist organizations such as AIPAC work together with the neocons. "It suffices to know, however, that the neocons and the [Israel] lobby together form a very powerful mutual support society, and their relationship is symbiotic in the extreme."

Christison also emphasizes the close ties between the American and Israel military-industrial complexes as a major factor in orienting American foreign policy toward Israel.

"AIPAC sells Israel by telling a congressman that he or she should support Israel because this is how many industries in your state have business links to Israel, this is how many military research people are sitting in universities in your district, this is how many jobs in your district are dependent on the military and the defense industry." I just don't see the pressure from the defense industry as a fundamental explanation for congressional support for Israel. American defense contracts with Israel would seem to be only a tiny fraction of the American defense industry's business, and far more members of Congress are willing to reduce the American defense budget than to take a stand against Israel. As opposed to Christian's alleged indirect approach, it appears that organized supporters of Israel go directly after politicians that they deem opponents of Israel and can inject very substantial amounts of money to do this. Pro-Zionists were able to remove Senator Charles Percy (Illinois) in 1984 for actually okaying defense sales to Saudi Arabia. Similarly, the removal of Black congresspersons Earl Hilliard (Alabama) and Cynthia McKinney (Georgia) in 2002 was achieved in such a direct fashion rather than through any pressure from arms dealers. In short, the Israeli lobby can directly mount a political challenge to any member of Congress who opposes Israel and most members of Congress simply don't want to face this danger and thus support the Israeli line. It also should be remarked that the generally pro-Israel slant of the American media, where Jews are heavily involved, also plays a role in shaping public and elite opinion, and can be used to attack any political figure who dares to criticize Israel.

Christison also touches on the possibility the neocons might be involved in an "October surprise" to keep Bush in office. However, while he recognizes that a new Kerry regime would not have neocon advisers, its foreign policy in the Middle East would not be drastically different from the Bush regimes.

The Christisons also had this following article (via this URL) on JINSA/PNAC Zionst (Jew) traitor to America Richard Perle (who recently resigned from the Defense Policy Board at the Pentagon):


Additional material related to how Zionist (Jew) traitors to America are serving Israel first in the current Bush regime appears at the following URL:



March 5, 2004

Faltering Neo-Cons Still Dangerous

How They Might Influence the Election


Former CIA Analyst

(A Primer for a Talk in Santa Fe, New Mexico.)

You've all surely heard widely varying stories about how much power, or how little power, the so-called neoconservatives -- or neocons -- have inside the Bush administration. I've been asked to explain, briefly, some of the mysteries about these neocons and what role, if any, they might play in this year's election.

To start with, let's spend a minute or two on definitions -- who's a neocon and who is not? Specifically, President George W. Bush and his very highest-level foreign policy advisers are not neocons. Bush himself, as well as Vice-President Richard Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, are all just plain conservatives and always have been, with nothing "neo" about them. (Secretary of State Colin Powell is not a neocon either, but in the eyes of many Washington insiders he is also not really a part of this inner sanctum that dominates the actual making of U.S. foreign policy these days.)

The real neocons are those who started out as liberals or at least Democrats and who later proudly became Republicans. They are all one or more rungs below Bush's top foreign policy advisers in the hierarchies of our nation's capital. Others, generally younger officials, are happy to call themselves neocons, even though technically they cannot claim to be neo-anythings, because they never were liberals and never switched parties. In their careers to date, they've always been conservatives. But they too claim the neocon label.

A few of the neocons (Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, "Scooter" Libby, John Bolton, and Elliott Abrams) wield real power in Washington. Most, however, do not. In general, the neocons and their supporters who are not in top jobs are advocates, spokesmen, think tank idea-men, writer-flacks, and rationalizers of policies that would never be implemented unless they were converted into official policy by Bush himself and his top advisers, and by those who have paid the most money for his elevation to the presidency, the leaders of the corporate and military power structure that dominates the country's politics. This structure, of course, is far greater than just a small group of leaders. It includes thousands of defense and high-tech workers, contractors, government employees, military personnel, members of Congress, investment firms, many lawyers and judges, and lobbyists, foreign and domestic, who see their future livelihood as dependent on the continuation of this system.

Within this entire conglomerate, the neocons definitely wield real power and influence, even though none of them at present occupies a cabinet-level position. But one thing and only one thing makes them important -- the fact that with minor exceptions, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice have enthusiastically accepted all the early phases of the policy agenda that has, since the early 1990s, been the very trademark of the neocons. This agenda includes a general, or global, aspect and another aspect that gives greater emphasis to the Middle East than to any other area. The global agenda includes constantly expanding U.S. military expenditures, a unilateral U.S. drive for global domination, and increased control over the world's fossil fuel supplies. The Middle East agenda includes the strengthening of Israeli/U.S. partnership and hegemony throughout the region and, in furtherance thereof, advocacy of war, first against Iraq and then if necessary against Syria, Iran, and possibly other Middle Eastern states.

In effect, Bush has made at least the early stages of these policies his own. Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice support them. Early on, Colin Powell may have had qualms about these policies, but, good soldier that he is, his loyalty to the Bush family quickly overcame his qualms.

The neocons are lying low at the moment, for a couple of reasons. Since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, they have gone through an early phase of riding high and wanting to capitalize on their success, and then a "downer" phase -- still continuing -- of nagging constant casualties and instability in Iraq. This is one reason for downplaying their own role in policymaking. Another is their ties to Israel. Some of the most important neocons support and encourage practically every policy of Ariel Sharon's right-wing Likud government, although they choose not to advertise these close ties. Too much talk by the neocons poses some danger for Bush in this election year. His political handlers surely want to avoid the embarrassment that might result if it became more widely accepted that one of the real U.S. motives in invading Iraq was to strengthen Israel's military position and political dominance throughout the Middle East. It has been important ever since Bush took office in January 2001 for the administration to downplay any connection between Israel and the war against Iraq. Obfuscating the "Israeli motive" of the war was almost certainly one of the reasons the administration so transparently exaggerated first Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction and, more recently, Washington's desire for democracy in Iraq.

So supporters of Bush have launched a two-pronged counterattack, arguing first that the influence of the neocons over U.S. foreign policy is a myth and, second, that if you are dumb enough to believe the myth, it is almost a sure thing that you are also an anti-Semite. A great example of this approach was written by David Brooks, one of the New York Times' more conservative columnists, who also appears frequently on PBS's News Hour with Jim Lehrer. In his January 6, 2004 Times column, Brooks wrote:

"Theories about the tightly knit neocon cabal came in waves. One day you read that neocons were pushing plans to finish off Iraq and move into Syria. Web sites appeared detailing neocon conspiracies . . . The full-mooners fixated on a think tank called the Project for the New American Century [or PNAC] . . . To hear these people describe it, PNAC is sort of a Yiddish Trilateral Commission, the nexus of the sprawling neocon tentacles . . . In truth, the people labeled neocons (con is short for 'conservative' and neo is short for 'Jewish') travel in widely different circles and don't actually have much contact with one another . . . There have been hundreds of references, for example, to Richard Perle's insidious power over administration policy, but I've been told by senior administration officials that he has had no significant meetings with Bush or Cheney since they assumed office . . . It's true that both Bush and the people labeled neocons agree that Saddam Hussein represented a unique threat to world peace. But . . . all evidence suggests that Bush formed his conclusions independently . . . Still, there are apparently millions of people who cling to the notion that the world is controlled by well-organized and malevolent forces. And for a subset of these people, Jews are a handy explanation for everything . . . Anti-Semitism is resurgent."

This piece by David Brooks is an effort, first, to divert attention from the extraordinarily well documented influence of the neocons and, second, to squelch criticism of what many Americans believe are dangerous U.S. policies toward Israel, Iraq, and the entire Middle East. The views of the neocons have in no sense been a conspiracy. Information about them is wide open and readily available. Raising the charge of anti-Semitism against those who criticize U.S. -- and Israeli -- policies is, to put it bluntly, appalling but not surprising. The British journalist Robert Fisk has commented, with respect to the Brooks column, that:

"Brooks even tries to erase the word 'neo-conservative' from the narrative of the Iraq war . . . And so here we go again. No weapons of mass destruction. No links between Saddam and 11 September. No democracy. Blame the press. Blame the BBC. Blame the spooks. But don't blame Messers Bush and Blair. And don't blame the American neo-conservatives who helped to push the US into this disaster. They don't even exist. And if you say they did, you know what you're going to be called."

Most people who are knowledgeable on Middle Eastern affairs believe, as Robert Fisk does, that the neocons are in no way a myth. And in the area of intelligence, it is quite clear that the neocons are right now trying to expand their influence. They are trying to switch the entire blame for the fiasco over weapons of mass destruction and the continuing killings in Iraq to the CIA. There is no question that the CIA deserves some of the criticism directed against it, but most of the blame in my view belongs to the administration's own distortions and exaggerations of intelligence. The neocons want to reorganize the intelligence apparatus of the United States to make it even easier for the administration to introduce more distortions and exaggerations into intelligence analysis in the future. The proper answer here is to make the CIA less susceptible to any administration's attempts to slant and twist intelligence analysis to its own liking. (For proposals on precisely how the CIA should be reorganized, see http://www.counterpunch.org/)

One of the problems we face in trying to evaluate the true influence of the neocons in supporting aggressive U.S. foreign policies that strengthen Israel's position throughout the Middle East is the need to determine the relative weight of the neocons versus other factors that are also at work in influencing U.S. policy toward Israel. One of these other factors is AIPAC -- the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the principal pro-Israel lobby organization -- and its numerous subsidiary lobbies that are able to generate majority support in both houses of Congress for almost any measure that the government of Israel wants. Without the activities of these organizations, the influence of the neocons in Washington would be diminished, although by how much we cannot say.

It suffices to know, however, that the neocons and the lobby together form a very powerful mutual support society, and their relationship is symbiotic in the extreme. The neocons, as noted, have long pressed for ever larger military expenditures by the U.S., thus throwing their full support to the very groups that finance most heavily the election of today's presidents. The influence of the lobby, for its part, is far more than a matter of the money it has to spend. The extremely close ties that many elements of the U.S. military-industrial complex have developed in recent decades with the smaller but also powerful Israeli military-industrial complex magnify the strength of the pro-Israel lobby in Washington in ways that most people simply do not comprehend. The Israeli activist, Jeff Halper, who is the founder and head of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions and has had considerable experience dealing with members of Congress in recent years, describes it this way:

"Israel has located itself very strategically right in the center of the global arms industry. Israel's sophisticated military hardware and military software are very important to weapons development in the United States. Israel has also become the main subcontractor of American arms. Just last year, Israel signed a contract to train and equip the Chinese army. It signed another multi-billion dollar contract to train and equip the Indian army. What is it equipping them with? It is equipping them with American weapons.

"Israel is very important, because on the one hand it is a very sophisticated, high-tech arms developer and dealer. But on the other hand, there are no ethical or moral constraints: there is no Congress, there are no human rights concerns, there are no laws against taking bribes -- the Israeli government can do anything it wants to. So you have a very sophisticated rogue state -- not a Libyan rogue state, but a high tech, military-expert rogue state. Now that is tremendously useful, both for Europe and for the United States."

Halper points out that there are still some American Congressional constraints on selling arms to China because of China's human rights problems. So Israel modifies American arms just enough that "they can be considered Israeli arms, and in that way bypasses Congress." He adds that "for the most part, Israel is the subcontractor for American arms to the Third World. There is no terrible regime . . . that does not have a major military connection to Israel. Israeli arms dealers are . . . like fish in water in the rough and tumble countries that eat Americans alive: Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Russia, China, Indonesia, these countries where Americans just cannot operate, partly because of business practices, and partly because they have [Congressional] constraints and laws."

Thus, when AIPAC sells Israel to Congress, it does not go to congressmen and ask them to support Israel because it is Judeo-Christian, or because it is the "only democracy in the Middle East." AIPAC sells Israel by telling a congressman that he or she should support Israel because this is how many industries in your state have business links to Israel, this is how many military research people are sitting in universities in your district, this is how many jobs in your district are dependent on the military and the defense industry. Therefore, if you are voting against Israel, you are voting against your own best interests. Halper adds that in most congressional districts, "members of Congress have a great dependence on the military. More than half of industrial employment in California is in one way or another connected to defense. Israel is right there, right in the middle of it all. And that is part of its strength."

When activists on the other side go to a member of Congress and talk about human rights, about occupation, about Palestinians, the congressman usually, in Halper's experience, says, "Look I know, I read the papers, I'm not dumb, but that is not the basis on which I vote. The basis on which I vote is what is good for my constituents."

Although Israel is a tiny country, its U.S. supporters present it as more than an ally of the United States. The AIPAC website says, for example, that the job of Israel is to protect American economic interests in the Middle East. It even says that Israel is developing laser weapons from outer space to protect American interests. Israel clearly sees itself as, and is proud of being, a part of the American Empire. We need to expose Israel as the regional superpower and necessary component in the U.S. Empire that it really is.

So both the neocons and these other factors that strengthen the neocons should be kept in mind when we try to answer questions about the neocons and the 2004 presidential election. Let's look at two questions.

First, what role if any will the neocons and their views on foreign policy play in this year's presidential election?

Perhaps the neocons will not play any role, but that may be wishful thinking. If Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Karl Rove come to believe, around September or October, that they are likely to lose the election, it is not by any means beyond belief that they would, in desperation, undertake some new aggressive and "preemptive" military action against Syria, Iran, North Korea, or someplace else we cannot now even anticipate. In other words, a new "October surprise." They have used lies to instill fear and advance their ill-considered doctrine of preemption once, and it is not beyond the realm of possibility that they might do so again. The neocons, of course, would be among the strongest advocates of such moves, and that would be one way in which they might influence the election. Peace movements in this country and around the world should, in my view, be ready to undertake massive demonstrations in the hope of preventing such an eventuality.

Second, how might the outcome of the election affect the neocons themselves?

The answer here is simple, but it is a limited answer. If the Democrats win back the presidency this year, the neocons -- or most of them -- will at least temporarily be out of work, and that will be excellent news. Any conceivable Democratic administration would implement somewhat less aggressive and less unilateral foreign policies. But most likely, a Democratic administration would be almost as beholden to the nation's military-national security-corporate complex for campaign funding as the present Republican administration. There would be changes of tone in U.S. foreign policies, but very likely only limited changes in the policies themselves. The close ties between the U.S. and Israeli military-industrial complexes that I described would continue, and changes in U.S. policies toward the Middle East would be minimal.

Bill Christison joined the CIA in 1950 and worked on the analysis side of the Agency for over 28 years. In the 1970s he served as a National Intelligence Officer (principal adviser of the Director of Central Intelligence) for Southeast Asia, South Asia, and Africa. Before his retirement in 1979, he was Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis, a 250-person unit. He can be reached at:

Weekend Edition Features for February 28 / 29, 2004

The following Op-Ed (which appeared in the Los Angeles Times) conveys just how apparently concerned Neocons like Max Boot are getting with regard to the truth of their nefarious 'protect Israel at all cost' agenda becoming known to more and more Americans:



The Fringe Fires at Bush on Iraq
Max Boot

March 11, 2004

Ted Kennedy delivered another stemwinder last week, accusing the Bush administration of lying its way into Iraq for political gain. Ho-hum. Nothing new there. But one paragraph caught my attention.

In trying to buttress his charge that the president twisted intelligence about Saddam Hussein, Kennedy cited "Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, a recently retired Air Force intelligence officer who served in the Pentagon during the buildup to the war." He quoted her as follows: "It wasn't intelligence — it was propaganda … they'd take a little bit of intelligence, cherry-pick it, make it sound much more exciting, usually by taking it out of context, usually by juxtaposition of two pieces of information that don't belong together."

Sounds pretty damning, doesn't it? Those aren't the words of a political opponent; that's the judgment of a presumably disinterested military professional. Except that Kwiatkowski's judgment doesn't look so disinterested when you examine her views more closely.

Since her retirement in March 2003, she has become a prolific contributor to isolationist publications like the American Conservative, Pat Buchanan's magazine, and lewrockwell.com, an ultra-libertarian website. Pretty much all her work is devoted to uncovering "neoconservative warmongers" who have supposedly taken over U.S. foreign policy.

She is not subtle in denouncing "Dickie Cheney, Richie Perle and Dougie Feith" (as well as, occasionally, "my pal, Max Boot"), whose "neoconservative philosophy is hateful to humanity, anti-American, statist and anti-free trade." (Anti-free trade?) She thinks the United States is a "maturing fascist state." And she predicts a dire fate for those who led us into the Iraq war: "Some folks on the Pentagon's E-ring may be sitting beside Hussein in the war crimes tribunals."

Kennedy's speechwriters must have been familiar with Kwiatkowski's oeuvre — how else could they have dredged up that quote? — but it did not stop them from holding her up as a trustworthy source. This isn't unusual. Many retired national security bureaucrats claiming President Bush lied about Iraq have a not-so-hidden agenda.

The best-known example is Joseph C. Wilson IV, the former ambassador who has accused the administration of spreading misinformation about Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium and of deliberately outing his wife, Valerie Plame, as an undercover CIA operative. Wilson is now notorious as a world-class publicity hound who makes Paris Hilton look meek by comparison. Since l'affaire Plame broke last summer, Wilson has been making paid speeches denouncing the president, writing a memoir and even appearing with his wife in a Vanity Fair photo spread.

Wilson is motivated by more than a desire for fame and fortune. He's also an ideologue. On March 3, 2003 — long before the contretemps over his wife — he was denouncing the invasion of Iraq in the Nation, a leftist magazine. He claimed that "the underlying objective of this war is the imposition of a Pax Americana on the region and installation of vassal regimes that will control restive populations." Since then, Wilson has emerged as an active Democrat who has advised John Kerry on foreign policy. He was quoted last year explaining what he's up to: "Neoconservatives and religious conservatives have hijacked this administration, and I consider myself on a personal mission to destroy both."

Equally biased are the former CIA officers who call themselves Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity — a name that implies the administration, which they oppose, is insane. Ray Close, David MacMichael and Ray McGovern, who make up VIPS' steering committee, have many decades of intelligence experience among them, which is why they are often cited as sources by news organizations like the New York Times when they write stories about how the Bush team has run roughshod over "objective" CIA analysts.

What is seldom mentioned is where the VIPS-ters publish most of their anti-Bush screeds: on Counterpunch.org, a conspiracy-mongering website run by Nation columnist Alexander Cockburn. VIPS even has an e-mail address at Counterpunch, which is so extreme that it has run an article suggesting that the only major difference between George W. Bush and Adolf Hitler is that "Bush simply is not the orator that Hitler was." But then, that wouldn't bother someone like VIPS' McGovern, who in an interview equated the administration's selling of the Iraq war with the techniques employed by "Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels [who] said, if you repeat something often enough, the people will believe it."

Simply because Kwiatkowski, Wilson, McGovern, et al have flaky views doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong in all the charges they make against the administration. But those who hear their vituperative accusations should at least be aware of where they're coming from. Citing them out of context gives them an authority that their own intemperate words undermine.

Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, writes a weekly column for the Los Angeles Times.

Neocons' Iraq Strategy Now Focused on Syria:


More on 'A Clean Break' document:

The 'A Clean Break' document was prepared by JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) /PNAC (Project for the New American Century) Zionist Neocon extremists Richard Perle and Douglas Feith for Israeli (Likudite) Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu (as you can read the 'A Clean Break' document via the link in the following article) to neutralize Israel's enemies (as no US soldier should be dying in Iraq for such):


'A Clean Break' was also prepared by Zionist extremist David Wurmser (who is now working for Dick Cheney).

You can watch/listen to the 'A Clean Break' panel discussion via the link at the following URL:


Additional links about JINSA/CSP/PNAC appear at the end of the following article which appeared in the UK Guardian newspaper this past Saturday:


Need to build a case for war? Step forward Mr Chalabi

If governments are going to rely on intelligence, its reliability is critical

Isabel Hilton
Saturday March 6, 2004
The Guardian

In the mayhem that followed the explosions in Baghdad and Karbala this week, Ahmad Chalabi, an ever more powerful member of the Iraqi Governing Council and a Pentagon favourite, was swiftly at the scene, behaving like a politician come to offer sympathy. It was a shrewd piece of public relations - if you forget the responsibility Chalabi bears for Iraq's present tragic condition. It was Chalabi, more than any other individual, who helped persuade the US that toppling Saddam Hussein would bring peace and democracy, and break the link that he alleged existed between the Iraqi leader and al-Qaida.
The argument surrounding the decision to go to war in Iraq, Tony Blair said yesterday, is not about trust or integrity but about judgment and intelligence. That is also the case his critics make. In the approach to war, both the US and the UK governments mobilised a mishmash of arguments in a campaign of persuasion that was based not on rigorous analysis of intelligence but on the selective use of data and informants. And in this sorry tale, no one played a more critical role than the man many proclaim the most likely future leader of Iraq, Ahmad Chalabi.

He has been working to take power in Iraq for a long time. The son of a wealthy and influential family in Iraq that lost its place with the fall of the monarchy, Chalabi has a long association with US intelligence. In the early 1990s, he was considered a serious asset by the CIA - but they soon found him to be unreliable. By then, however, he had found other supporters, among them the staff and advisers of one of the neo-cons' favourite thinktanks, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (Jinsa) in Washington. In 1997, Jinsa declared: "Jinsa has been working closely with Iraqi National Council leader Dr Ahmad Chalabi to promote Saddam Hussein's removal from office and a subsequently democratic future for Iraq."

Jinsa describes its mandate as two-fold: "To educate the American public about the importance of an effective US defence capability...and to inform the American defence and foreign affairs community about the important role Israel can and does play in bolstering democratic interests in the Mediterranean and the Middle East." Their interests, Chalabi persuaded them, coincided: Saddam, the supporter of Palestinian suicide bombers, the strongest and most troublesome leader in the Arab world and a menace to Israel, should be replaced with a friendly government that would make peace with Israel and become the US's best Arab friend.

The advocates of radical action in the Middle East came to power with Bush. The next steps are now well documented. As Richard Perle once complained: "The CIA has been engaged in a character assassination of Ahmad Chalabi for years now, and it's a disgrace." To bypass such obstacles, an alternative intelligence group - the Office of Special Plans - was created. But there was still a shortage of evidence on two key points: that Saddam had WMD and that he had links to al-Qaida. Step forward Ahmad Chalabi, whose INC benefited from nearly $100m of US taxpayers money, despite Chalabi's conviction for a $300m bank fraud in Jordan. Chalabi, who knows a market when he sees one, claimed his sources inside and outside Iraq could supply the necessary evidence.

In 2001, Colin Powell declared: "He [Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction...our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbours of Iraq." Tony Blair told the Commons in November 2000 that, "We believe that the sanctions regime has effectively contained Saddam Hussein." These assessments coincided with the view of the intelligence services and the inspectors.

The alternative intelligence, marshalled to make the case for war, came overwhelmingly from Chalabi's INC and their carefully coached "sources". Among the INC allegations that have not been borne out were that Hussein had built mobile biological weapons facilities, that he was rapidly rebuilding his nuclear weapons programme and that he had trained Islamic warriors at a camp south of Baghdad. Now defence officials acknowledge that the defectors' tales were "shaky" at best.

On whose judgment was this shaky information included in official pre-war intelligence estimates of Iraq's illicit weapons programmes and key statements by US and UK politicians? On September 12 2002, for instance, claims by Iraqi military officers supplied by the INC that Iraq had been training Arabs in "hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage and assassinations" were given uncritical prominence in a White House report. And what is now described as an INC "fabrication" - that Iraq had mobile biological warfare research facilities - was included in Powell's presentation to the UN security council in February 2003.

To give wider credibility to this dubious narrative, Chalabi planted stories in mainstream newspapers such as the New York Times, stories that were then quoted as independent corroborative evidence by administration officials. The paper's now much-criticised specialist on WMD, Judith Miller, has acknowledged her 10-year association with Chalabi.

Chalabi has admitted that the "evidence" he supplied was wrong. Unlike Blair, he is no longer interested in pretending that there are any WMD in Iraq, but nor is he repentant. Bush may lose the election and Blair is trapped in the political minefield of the war's aftermath, but Chalabi is a clear winner. "We are heroes in error," he told the Telegraph. Since Saddam was gone, "What was said before is not important."

When the US flew Chalabi into Iraq by helicopter early in the war, along with 700 friends and supporters, he was not remotely electable. He did, though, look like a man positioning himself to be at the centre of power. This week, Iraq's provisional constitution was agreed. Given Bush's need to create a puppet government in time for the US elections, power will now remain in the hands of the governing council until such time as elections might be held - a promise that recedes into the future with each terrorist outrage. The first drafts of the Iraqi transitional administrative law were written by Chalabi's nephew. The longer elections are postponed, the better for Chalabi, who is now in control of Iraq's finances and of de-Ba'athification.

Perhaps his greatest coup was to gain possession of 25 tonnes of captured Saddam documents that could prove useful in the future. Before the war, for instance, the Jordanian foreign minister criticised Chalabi as untrustworthy. Chalabi then threatened to "expose" documentary evidence of the Jordanian royal family's close relations with Saddam. The public criticisms stopped. Since the war several forged documents have come into circulation. Some have been used to animate dead arguments, others to discredit critics of the war, such as George Galloway.

With power there also come opportunities for enrichment. US authorities in Iraq have awarded more than $400m in contracts to a company that has extensive family and business ties to Chalabi. One, for $327m, to supply equipment for the Iraqi armed forces, is now under review after protests to Congress.

If intelligence, Blair tells us, is to be of even greater importance in the future, its reliability is critical - an argument, perhaps, to learn from recent experience. Not for the US Defence Department. It plans to spend $4m over the next year buying intelligence on Iraq. And who does it plan to buy that intelligence from? Step forward Ahmad Chalabi.

Additional material related to the above appears at the following URL:



Bush is following the JINSA/CSP/PNAC (Zionist extremist) policy which most Americans don't even have a clue about because the Zionist-hijacked press/media in the USA doesn't convey such to them... But we can still find out about it via courageous journalists like Robert Fisk (in the following article) and Jason Vest (how many times have you seen the Zionist-hijacked media in the USA interview Jason Vest?):


Men from JINSA and CSP (by Jason Vest) as this is the article which Fisk refers to in the above URL:


Dual Loyalties in the Bush regime:


War Conceived in Israel (Must Read):


Whose War?:


The following article conveys how Zionist extremist Jews have used the 'democracy' line to get their wars going for Israel as the article also conveys that they will use supposed non-Jews to push their agenda as well (like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld):


The 'War Conceived in Israel' article (linked under the 'greater Israel' map on the left after scrolling down to it at the following URL) says it all:


The proposed oil pipeline from Iraq to Israel (as no US/UK soldier should have to die for such in Iraq) is shown at the following URL:

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant

Joined: 27 Jan 2004
Posts: 3758
Location: Netherlands

PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2004 6:25 am    Post subject: AIPAC and CIA Reply to topic Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

AIPAC does not sell Israel, it blackmails senators and representatives into never taking any decision that hurts Israel.
If they do, they're out of office in the next election, AIPAC finaces the campaign of an opponent.
This is USA moneycracy, sold abroad as democracy.

I saw one of the results yesterday evening on Belgian French TV5, on a report on the Muslim city of Trappes, near Paris.
Fundamental Muslims of Middle East origin have taken over the town.
A large Muslim center is being built, mosque, schools, library, community rooms, whatever.
This is largely the fault of the French government that did nothing to integrate these people.

One of the interesting things is that Muslims of N African descent object, they state they do not want to mix religion and politics.

But what surprises me how Zionist ME colonial racism influences a town near Paris, consisting of dilapidated apartment houses.
The radical young Muslims refuse Coca Cola, it's an American product.
The USA is the supporter of war criminal Sharon, this they know very well in Trappes.
Of course dumb Zionist propagandists can try to continue peddling their stuff: 'the Gaza retreat is not a charade, to keep the West Bank, and make Gaza the Final Solution, for the Palestinians expelled from Palestine in 1948'.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant

Joined: 27 Jan 2004
Posts: 3758
Location: Netherlands

PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2004 6:46 am    Post subject: on the CIA Reply to topic Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

In the meantime Kansi has been kidnapped in Pakistan, brought to the USA, was convicted to death and has been executed.

As far as I know the answer to the last question in the article is classified, it concerns USA security, of course.
Freedom of information (act) is great, but of course there are limits.

November 4, 2001



The Stranger

by Mary Anne Weaver

Issue of 1995-11-13
Posted 2001-10-29

This week in the magazine and here online (see Fact), Seymour M. Hersh reports on Pakistan, its nuclear arsenal, and the role its Inter-Services Intelligence directorate, which has ties to the Taliban, may play in an explosive confrontation with India. This article, from November, 1995, looks at the murder of two C.I.A. employees outside the agency's Virginia headquarters, and at the links the gunman may have had to the I.S.I.; to Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, the alleged mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing, in 1993; and to the C.I.A. itself.

The gunman seemed so ordinary, so inconspicuous, that he would be remembered later in only the vaguest of ways: not too short but not too tall; of stocky, medium build; of a swarthy complexion that easily gave way to a burnished blush. His hair was dark brown, and his eyes were dark and expressionless. Judy Becker-Darling first glimpsed him on a January morning in 1993 as she sat with her husband, Frank Darling, in their blue Volkswagen at a congested traffic light in the prosperous Virginia suburb of McLean. They were waiting to turn in to the main entrance of the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency, where they both worked, and were perhaps only five hundred feet from the gate of the agency's sprawling complex of floodlights, guard boxes, and sweeping, manicured lawns. Judy, who had just turned thirty-three, had been with the agency for thirteen years, and was now a logistics officer; Frank, twenty-eight, was a communications engineer, and had spent much of his five years with the C.I.A. abroad. The couple met in Miami, where Judy had been based, and had married, after a whirlwind courtship, only three months before.

A petite woman, with short auburn-tinted hair and large hazel eyes, Judy Becker-Darling is vivacious one moment, silent and reflective the next. She is dressed in bluejeans and a red ribbed turtleneck; the only jewelry she wears is a simple gold wedding band and, around her neck, a gold chain holding her husband's wedding ring.

"We were talking about a new apartment that we were about to buy," she says. "We were late—it was almost eight o'clock. I was fidgety. It was all so ordinary. We were on our way to work!" She remembers glancing out the car window, across the divided highway, and at the lines of cars. Those in the two C.I.A. turn lanes, in front of and behind the Darlings, must have stretched for at least a mile. "Then I heard a noise. It sounded like a pop. I thought that someone had rammed our back bumper, and I turned around. Then Frank shouted, 'My God, get down, Judy! I've been shot!' "

She fell to the floor and was able to fit under the Volkswagen's dash. Frank, who had been shot in the back, clung to the steering wheel, desperately trying to maneuver their car out of the claustrophobic traffic jam.

After shooting Frank, his first victim, the assailant began running from car to car, methodically moving up one lane and down the next while spraying bullets from an AK-47 into the windows at point-blank range. Twisting from side to side between the two lanes of cars, he fired some seventy rounds in all. Glass was shattered; car horns blared; people began to scream. Judy had raised her head, and she saw the gunman, an anonymous figure dressed in brown, turn around. Then he began walking—calmly, almost casually—back toward the Darlings' car.

"All I could think of was: Please, please, run out of bullets." She watched as he aimed his AK-47 directly at the windshield of her car, and then she slid back under the dash. A barrage of gunfire followed, shattering the windows and tearing the seat apart. Frank's body slumped forward, with bullet holes in the back, head, chest, and neck. There was a silence. Judy pulled herself toward Frank. His forehead had been shot away.

"I had never seen anyone shot before. But I knew that Frank was dead. I've often wondered why I didn't die with Frank that day. He saved my life. If I'd sat up . . . But he kept shouting at me, 'Stay down! Stay down!' "

She stops to take a sip of coffee, and looks around the lobby of the hotel, not far from the C.I.A. headquarters, where we are sitting. "The man who killed my husband had the perfect opportunity to kill me as well. He was still there when I jumped out of the car. I didn't see his face, but others told me later that for a moment he just stood there—he just stood there, with a cold, icy stare."

Covered with Frank's blood and brain matter, Judy grabbed another woman from the agency, who was standing in the middle of the highway in a state of shock, and they raced to the agency's gate, shouting to the guards, "They're killing us! They're killing us!"

Then the gunman, as suddenly as he had opened fire, jumped into a brown station wagon, which he had parked along the highway, and disappeared. In nearly three years, despite what is described as an exhaustive F.B.I. and C.I.A. manhunt for one of America's "Ten Most Wanted" men, his pursuers have never seen him again.

All but one of the victims were employees of the C.I.A.: an analyst, a doctor, an intelligence officer, and an engineer. The fifth was an A.T. & T. contractor who serviced the agency's facilities. Two of them died, and one was permanently disabled. All were men.

Two days after the shootings, the owner of a gun shop in Chantilly, Virginia, recognized an F.B.I. composite sketch of the assailant and matched it with his purchase records. The gunman was Mir Aimal Kansi, a twenty-eight-year-old tribesman from the Pakistani province of Balochistan. For reasons that are unexplained, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms did not officially identify Kansi until ten more days had passed. Meanwhile, on the evening of January 26th, Mir Aimal Kansi quietly boarded a plane in New York and returned to Pakistan; landing in the commercial hub of Karachi, he took a connecting flight to Quetta, the provincial capital of Balochistan, where he arrived more than twenty-four hours after his picture had been identified. Exactly a month later, on February 26, 1993, the World Trade Center bombing occurred in New York, and another Pakistani from Balochistan, who subsequently became known to the world by the name Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, and was alleged to be the mastermind of that attack, boarded the same Pakistan International Airlines flight that Kansi had; flew to Karachi; and took, like Kansi, the connecting flight to Quetta, Balochistan.

Frustrated American investigators have been attempting to determine what links, if any, exist between the two men, and also between Mir Aimal Kansi's apparent outburst of rage outside C.I.A. headquarters in 1993 and an almost identical ambush of three American Consulate officials—one a communications expert from the C.I.A.—in Karachi this March: the van in which they were being ferried to work was attacked as it stopped for a traffic light on one of Karachi's busiest boulevards; four masked men jumped out of a stolen cab and sprayed the van with Kalashnikov fire; and then, just as suddenly as Kansi had, they disappeared.

"I often wonder if they've ever really tried to find Kansi," Judy Becker-Darling says, her eyes filling with tears. "I can't let go of this until they do. I live it every single day. For two years, I've tried to get answers, and the C.I.A. keeps sweeping it under the rug, as though it never happened! They won't tell me who Kansi is. They've done an in-house investigation, which they won't share with us. We've had to fight for every single thing we've gotten from them—everything from the tiniest little detail, like a star on the agency's wall for Frank and for Lansing Bennett, the physician who was killed." (Fifty-five stars are chiselled into the marble wall of the agency's entryway. They represent C.I.A. agents killed on duty in declared or undeclared wars. Not all are named; some identities remain secret, with anonymous stars.)

Judy Becker-Darling's voice is full of energy, and a torrent of words spills out: "The agency"—from which she resigned a year ago—"keeps telling me I should be quiet, and has criticized me for making such a public fuss. The agency is a family, they say, and we look out for each other. But what have they done for me? My husband is splattered all over me, all over the car, and I'm not supposed to be affected? Nothing was cleaned up in our car. Frank's briefcase, my gym bag, Frank's lunch—they were all still in the car, covered with blood, two weeks later, when the car was returned to me. But the C.I.A. took every credential we ever owned—our badges, all our awards. It went through our office desks and, inexplicably, took everything. Thirteen years I worked there, and only some pictures and a coffee cup came back!"

Judy has channelled her energy, her anger, and her grief into trying to discover why Frank was killed, and into a drive to ban assault weapons. Travelling across Pennsylvania, where she now lives, and to Washington and back, she has been telling congressional committees and public gatherings just how easy it was for an immigrant drifter, from a strange, remote tribal region some seven thousand miles away, to buy an arsenal of weapons, ammunition, and a bulletproof vest in Virginia and North Carolina, and then to use them at the very gate of the citadel of espionage with such deadly effect.

For two years, she has attempted to open a congressional investigation into Frank's death. Only now has she met with some success. Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, who chairs the Select Committee on Intelligence, has opened a discreet inquiry among the agencies charged with investigating the seemingly lone gunman, Mir Aimal Kansi, who, according to investigators, has travelled on at least three passports, and under at least six aliases, during the past four years. Depending upon Specter's findings, congressional hearings could be held later this year.

"Did Kansi know my husband?" Judy wonders aloud.

The question, at least outside the C.I.A., remains unanswerable. The efforts of other investigators have thus been hampered by the fact that, according to Robert F. Horan, Jr., the chief prosecutor of Fairfax County, Kansi "truly was and is a mystery man. You meet yourself coming back every time on him." Nevertheless, there are suggestions that Kansi and Darling may have had more in common than it would appear. Two other key questions, nearly three years after Frank Darling died, are whether the C.I.A. is stonewalling about some very curious circumstances involving the murder of three of its employees and the attempted murder of three more, and, just as important, whether it is holding back information on how Kansi may have fit into the C.I.A.-sponsored "jihad," or holy war, against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan—a war that the agency funded lavishly from 1980 until 1989 and then appeared to turn its back on. Today, the C.I.A. may be experiencing the consequences of that undertaking.

The C.I.A. publicly denies any connection between itself and Kansi, and has told Judy Becker-Darling and the press that after an "exhaustive search" of its files it is quite certain that Kansi never worked for it. Its disclaimer has been challenged privately by officials of two Pakistani governments—that of Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and that of her predecessor, Nawaz Sharif—and it has certainly been challenged by Balochistan's powerful tribal chiefs.
Squeezed into the triangle where Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan meet, Balochistan is a rugged, lawless sort of place, riven by violence and rich in political intrigue; it has been a battleground for imperial armies and tribal warlords for centuries. Its ordered chaos is presided over by seventeen major tribes that make up two major ethnic groups, the Pathans, in the north, and the Baloch, in the south, led by irascible chiefs.

Only in 1979 did the province assume significance for the United States, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, to Balochistan's north, in order to prop up that country's pro-Communist government. Our government responded by launching what became Washington's largest covert-action program since the Vietnam years, and Balochistan was transformed. It became a key staging area for the Afghan resistance forces fighting the C.I.A.'s jihad. All told, the C.I.A. invested more than three billion dollars in the feuding mujahideen groups, channelling all its weapons and funds through Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence, or I.S.I., whose powers proved formidable during the war, and whose generals, part of a martial-law government, politicized the I.S.I. as it had never been politicized before. One Pakistani government official told me during a visit this spring that some twenty thousand Pakistanis—including thousands of tribesmen from Balochistan—were enlisted by the I.S.I. in support of the jihad. Some were known to the sixty or so officers from the C.I.A. and the Special Forces who were overseeing the war, but most of them were not; little accountability was provided by the I.S.I. But there was little doubt that Balochistan flourished on the C.I.A.'s last battleground of the Cold War.
The agency used the tribesmen as guides and scouts, as drivers and trackers, and for logistical support. Some secured precipitous mountain passes on the Afghan frontier for weapons transport; others crossed the border to collect intelligence; still others, under the cover of the C.I.A., smuggled arms and drugs. Nearly everyone in the province, whose population is only four and a half million, was in one way or another affected by the jihad. Mir Aimal Kansi was almost certainly no exception.

He was born in Quetta, in February of 1964, the only child of a Pathan tribal malik—or notable—Abdullah Jan Kansi, and his second wife. At an early age, he was indoctrinated in the ancient codes and rituals of the Pathans, a warlike grouping of tribes who inhabit the wild mountain country where Pakistan and Afghanistan meet, and whose severe code of honor requires that revenge be exacted for a wrong even if a generation has passed.

Mir Aimal enjoyed a privileged life, for while he was growing up his family became one of Quetta's most prosperous and politically prominent. But unlike Balochistan's major tribes, the Kansis—who were among those favored by the British during the days of the Raj, and were consequently better educated and more represented in government service than most—were never one of the martial tribes. They are small in number—perhaps fifteen hundred in all—and, unlike the major tribes, have no private army. In fact, one senior tribal leader told me that in his view the Kansis really weren't a tribe at all but merely a clan, whose leverage and strength were grounded primarily in their political influence—and in their connections with Pakistani intelligence.

By all accounts, Mir Aimal was doted upon by his father, a building contractor and businessman, and at an early age he was clearly being groomed by Abdullah Jan to become his business and political heir. When the boy was six, his father enrolled him in Quetta's most élite private school; when he was eight, in the aftermath of a dispute with one of his teachers, Mir Aimal, assisted by the family servants, burned the school down. Yet, because of Balochistan's strict tribal code—and the Pathans' even harsher code of honor and revenge—none of his classmates ever betrayed him to the school authorities. Abdullah Jan was irritated when he learned what Mir Aimal had done, but one of his friends says that the father secretly admired his eight-year-old's precocity and resourcefulness.

In 1980, when the jihad began, Mir Aimal was sixteen, and friends of his recall that, like many of his classmates, he grew fond of carrying an AK-47 to school. As he moved between his classroom and his family's walled compound, and between two hotels owned by Abdullah Jan, which were used often as rendezvous points for I.S.I. officers and Afghan fighters during the jihad, the teen-age Mir Aimal would have found it nearly impossible to escape the war. For a decade, hundreds of Islamic militants and thousands of mujahideen came through Quetta on their way to and from the jihad; unprecedented amounts of money, arms, and equipment were transferred; the drug trade thrived; mullahs exhorted the faithful to fight. The I.S.I. generals—largely committed Islamists—and their C.I.A. counterparts were exceedingly pleased. But no one was happier with Balochistan's new prosperity than the tribal chiefs, even though their political feelings were largely anti-American.
Abdullah Jan's businesses expanded, and in 1983 he sent Mir Aimal to Quetta's University of Balochistan. There he studied English literature (he received a master's degree in 1989); joined a militant nationalist movement of the Pathans; and dabbled in activities that, considering the times, were rather mild, such as participating in Pathan student demonstrations and burning the American flag. Like his father, Mir Aimal championed the cause of a "greater Pakhtunistan"—a somewhat hazy but politically explosive call to reunite Pakistan's and Afghanistan's Pathan tribes. Abdullah Jan was a heavy financial backer of Pathan politicians who supported the call, many of whom—like the tribal chiefs (and the C.I.A.-sponsored Afghan resistance leaders themselves)—had long histories of being anti-American.

"Was Mir Aimal anti-American?" I asked one of his friends.

He thought for a moment, and then he said, "Sometimes he was, but basically he was weird."

Those who know Kansi describe him variously as shy and gentle, angry and bitter, and a tangle of contradictions: a political demonstrator who seemed apathetic about politics; a born-again Muslim who seemed casual about Islam; the heir to a political fortune who came to the United States and slept on Pakistani immigrants' floors. One phrase that most frequently came to mind when people who knew Kansi were asked about him was that he, like Ramzi Yousef, of the World Trade Center bombing, was "one of the children of the C.I.A.'s jihad."

Exactly when Abdullah Jan's intelligence connections began is a matter of dispute. Some investigators say that they were long-standing, and others that they were only marginal before the jihad; but all agree that they flourished during that war. Pakistani officials who are attempting to piece together the multifarious aspects of Mir Aimal Kansi's life say that Abdullah Jan, at least one of his cousins, and two of his sons, including Mir Aimal, were an integral part of the C.I.A.-I.S.I. weapons pipeline to the mujahideen, assisting in the transport of arms and in securing the routes out of Quetta and north through the border towns of Pishin and Chaman, and on across the rugged, often snowcapped Toba Kakar mountain range, using little-known passes and unmarked trails controlled by the Pathan tribes, who spill across the border into southern Afghanistan.

I asked one of Balochistan's tribal chiefs, a man I have known for a number of years and found trustworthy, and who is close to the Kansi clan, about Abdullah Jan. "Malik Abdullah was a good friend of mine, but he sold his soul to the Devil," he said. "The C.I.A.—he worked for them quite openly for most of his adult life. Everyone knew about it—it certainly wasn't a secret here. He would never tell me exactly what he did, but I personally know at least three tribal chiefs—quite minor ones, I must say—whom Malik Abdullah paid handsomely to secure their allegiance to the United States. It's well known among his friends that many of his businesses were set up by the C.I.A., and it's generally assumed that the agency used them from time to time as fronts. Oh, he received a lot of goodies over the years, including the pledge that his son would take his place when he retired."

"Which son?"

"Young Aimal."

When I asked a United States intelligence official what he thought about that, he answered "Bullshit." He then went on to say that Abdullah Jan really worked for the I.S.I. "Sure the agency was in contact with him. Absolutely," he said. "But he wasn't on our payroll, he was on theirs!"—a rather moot distinction, considering that the I.S.I.'s jihad activities were underwritten by the C.I.A.

Mir Aimal Kansi underwent profound changes in 1989, when his father died of a heart attack. He became increasingly impetuous and restless, his half brothers say, and, although he had not sought employment after receiving his master's degree, he adopted an even more unsettled life style, disappearing for long periods at a time. Then, in the fall of 1990, several months after the C.I.A. closed down its pipeline to the Afghan mujahideen, he abruptly announced that he was going to Germany. "It was all very mysterious," the Fairfax prosecutor Robert Horan recalls. "He stayed in Germany for between three and six months, returning to Pakistan in the winter of 1990-91. Then—boom!—off to the United States in March. One of the great mysteries of my life is: Why in God's name did the wealthy son of a Pakistani tribal chief head directly for Herndon, Virginia, a nice, quiet little rural town? It's an odd place for someone to head. Its only significance is that it's five minutes from Dulles Airport." It is also perhaps fifteen minutes from the C.I.A.

Kansi had entered the United States without being interviewed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service—something that the I.N.S. claims could only have occurred if he had been sponsored by an official agency of the United States government. However that may be, for the next year Kansi's life seemed unremarkable: he drifted around the Virginia suburbs, taking odd jobs from time to time, as a courier, a mover, a gas-station attendant, all the while staying at various friends' apartments—all of them near the C.I.A. He may have travelled back and forth to Pakistan during that time, on one of the three passports he is known to have had.

Then, in 1992, Kansi's apparent inertia gave way to spurts of energy. He applied for political asylum in the United States, claiming, without explanation, that he would be prosecuted or killed if he returned home; travelled to North Carolina at least once, perhaps twice, to meet with a delegation from Pakistan's radical Tablighi Jama'at, an organization—to which Kansi has been frequently linked—of Islamic zealots. Fashioned by the I.S.I. during the jihad years, ostensibly to do missionary work, Tablighi nevertheless sent eager recruits off to fight in the jihad, primarily with one of the most virulently anti-American groups. One of its most prominent voices is that of a former I.S.I. director, retired Lieutenant General Javed Nasir, whose activities in support of the "international jihad" brought Pakistan dangerously close to being declared a terrorist state by Washington two years ago. (The General is now reportedly being questioned in connection with the arrest of forty Pakistani Army officers, including a number of his followers, a few weeks ago on suspicion that they are linked to an international network of Islamic fundamentalists, and may have been plotting to overthrow Benazir Bhutto's government.)

Shortly after returning from North Carolina, in the summer of 1992, Kansi moved into an apartment in Reston, Virginia, less than a mile from the garden apartment where Frank and Judy Becker-Darling lived, and sought his first steady job—with Excel Courier, Inc., which is one of only a handful of companies cleared to make deliveries to the C.I.A. Excel is owned by Chris Marchetti, the son of Victor Marchetti, who was a senior official at the C.I.A. in 1969, when he resigned in protest over some of its covert-action programs; he has since become one of its harshest foes. The younger Marchetti told me that, as far as he could recall, Kansi was not cleared to make deliveries to the C.I.A.; other Excel drivers told me that Kansi had nevertheless, through them, become familiar with the procedures and routes.

Fifteen days before the shootings in front of the C.I.A., Kansi began to prepare. Between January 10th and January 22nd, he visited David Condon Inc.—the shop in Chantilly that was later visited by the A.T.F.—at least four times, buying ammunition, two handguns, and a Colt AR-15 assault rifle, which he later exchanged for the AK-47 that was used in the attack. With the credit card of his roommate, Zahed Ahmad Mir, who, on occasion, accompanied him on his gun-buying trips, Kansi ordered a bulletproof vest by mail from a North Carolina shop.

Mir—who was never implicated in the C.I.A. killings—later told investigators that Kansi had said he was outraged by the treatment of Muslims in Bosnia, and wanted to "make a big statement, by shooting up the White House, the Israeli Embassy, or the C.I.A.," according to Prosecutor Horan. (The Bosnian connection has been given little credence by most investigators, I learned.)

"Mir Aimal Kansi came to this country with one mission—to kill C.I.A. employees," a U.S. counterterrorism expert who has worked closely on the case told me in Washington. "What we don't know is why. It could be related to the jihad. It could be related to drugs; there is certainly a connection between the Kansis and the drug barons—it goes with the territory there. And then again it could be related to Kansi's uncle's death." In June of 1984, Malik Gul Hasan Kansi, a legislator and adviser to Pakistan's then military ruler, General Mohammed Zia ul-Haq, was killed in Quetta when his car was ambushed. And, although the martial-law regime of the time described the killing as the result of a family dispute—as it was inclined to describe many political assassinations—the death of Kansi's uncle was generally seen as being connected to his own intelligence work and to his jihad activities gone awry; there was a widespread belief that he was killed—perhaps with the C.I.A.'s knowledge—by the I.S.I. "This was a very personal thing Mir Aimal did, and it seems very closely tied to the Pathan code of revenge," the counterterrorism expert said. "I'm absolutely convinced that one or more people close to Kansi died, and he holds the C.I.A. responsible for their deaths. He came directly to the gate of the C.I.A. He was sending us a message. And I truly believe that, in his mind, he thinks we should know why he did what he did."

Victor Marchetti, the former senior C.I.A. official whose son employed Kansi, agrees: "I'm operating on the hypothesis that Kansi had a grudge. Or that he was on a mission to send a message to the C.I.A. from someone. He comes from a country where the agency has been involved since the beginning of time. One of our oldest intelligence-sharing programs is with Pakistan, and we did some pretty dirty things together in Afghanistan."
Not everyone believed that the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. were doing all they could to apprehend Kansi, I said, and he replied, "That is precisely what most intrigues me about this case—the minimal way that the F.B.I. has investigated it. Why haven't they talked to the other drivers at Chris's company who knew Kansi well? Why haven't they talked to me? Are they covering up for the C.I.A., or are they simply out of their league? They talked to Chris only twice, briefly, and didn't seem that concerned. One of Kansi's friends in Herndon received a letter from him, some time back, saying that he owed him money. He even gave him an address in Pakistan to which the money should be sent. The friend called the F.B.I. and told them about it, but the F.B.I. never called back."

"Does this have the earmarks of a C.I.A. coverup?" I asked.

He replied, without answering directly, "The C.I.A.'s history is replete with stonewalling and coverups. The cardinal rule of covert action has always been deniability. You protect the agency, and the agency's hand, as your first line of defense, and then you've got to protect the President. I reviewed 'high-risk operations' for the White House for a number of years, and one of our key priorities always was: If it goes wrong, how can we cover up?" Then he added, almost as an afterthought, "In the secret business of intelligence, which is a wilderness of mirrors, anything is possible."

Among the enigmas that the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. have not unravelled since Frank Darling and Lansing Bennett died is whether Mir Aimal Kansi simply came to Herndon, Virginia, or was sent there; whether any of his five victims were specifically targeted by a professional gunman, trying to make it appear a random act; and whether there are any connections between Kansi and Ramzi Yousef, the alleged mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing, who was arrested in Pakistan in February and is now awaiting trial in New York; and whether there are connections between the almost identical ambushes outside the C.I.A. in 1993 and in Karachi this spring. There are tantalizing hints that there could be.

Both Yousef—whose real name is Abdul Basit Mahmud Abdul Karim—and Kansi are from Balochistan; both came of age on the C.I.A.'s jihad battlefield; both entered and left the United States by the same routes; and both shared an alias—Mohammed Alam. Both lived quite openly in Pakistan, despite allegedly exhaustive manhunts for two of America's "Ten Most Wanted" men. Over the past two years, agents from the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. have conducted a series of abortive, sometimes farcical raids in Quetta and Peshawar in attempts to capture them, but Kansi—like Yousef until earlier this year—has always been alerted in advance, and, like Yousef, has quietly slipped across the border into Afghanistan. According to Pakistani intelligence sources, in the spring of 1993 both men, along with Muhammad Islambouli, a key Egyptian aide to Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman—who was just convicted of "waging a war of urban terrorism against the United States"—were sighted in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, at a military training camp of one of the most stridently anti-Western and fundamentalist leaders of the Afghan jihad, Professor Abdurrab Rasul Sayyaf. The sources caution that this could be a coincidence; or it could not.

Blending into the tribal fabric, and into the general anarchy of Afghanistan's ongoing civil war, Kansi has also been linked, from time to time, with another Afghan resistance group, led by the fanatically anti-American Gulbadin Hekmatyar, who was a particular favorite of the I.S.I.—and of the Tablighi Jama'at—during the jihad and, as a consequence, received roughly fifty per cent of the arms that the C.I.A. supplied to it.

As for the likelihood of a connection between the attacks in Karachi and outside the headquarters of the C.I.A., Karachi is considered to be the most anarchic city on the Indian subcontinent, and the list of possible suspects in that attack was long. But the prevailing view among investigators is that the ambush of the three American Consulate officials on their way to work was in retribution for Ramzi Yousef's extradition to the United States, and had been organized and planned by a militant underground Islamic group in Karachi, or in Balochistan. Mir Aimal Kansi and also Ramzi Yousef's father are among several suspects.

Judy Becker-Darling's question as to whether Kansi knew her husband cannot be easily dismissed. Frank Darling was a communications engineer, operating under cover of the Department of State, who travelled frequently to Pakistan, including Karachi, in 1987 and 1988—the height of the jihad—from his base in Athens, Greece; Gary Durell, killed two years after Frank, in the Karachi attack, was also a C.I.A. communications engineer operating under cover of the Department of State but based in Karachi. And it is from the C.I.A. station in Karachi that the agency monitors Balochistan.

Of the eight Americans—all but two from the C.I.A.—killed or wounded in the Virginia and Karachi attacks, the two men who seem to have been deliberately fired upon were Darling and Durell; in both cases, the gunmen returned to the victims' vehicles—the Darlings' car, Durell's side of the Consulate van—to make certain, before disappearing, that the young C.I.A. communications experts were dead.

On the northern tier of Pakistan today, Mir Aimal Kansi, using a portfolio of disguises and pseudonyms, appears to move with ease, travelling between Quetta and southern Afghanistan—sometimes protected by the Pathan tribes, sometimes by the drug barons—in a circle of a few hundred square miles, crossing through the same mountain passes, and over the same little-known tribal trails, through which Abdullah Jan's convoys passed during the jihad years.

United States government sources argue that Kansi has an advantage that Ramzi Yousef didn't enjoy at the time of his arrest: a tribal structure that protects him, and has proved impossible for U.S. investigators to penetrate. But, according to Pakistani sources, the U.S. government has never expended the same amount of manpower, enthusiasm, or time in investigating or attempting to apprehend Mir Aimal Kansi as it did in tracking down Yousef. In fact, a ranking Pakistani government official told me in March that, although there was technically still an ongoing joint Pakistani-American investigation into Kansi's whereabouts, there had really been no activity for the past year. Mir Aimal Kansi—who not only entered the United States without being interviewed by the I.N.S. but was then, inexplicably, allowed to slip away after his identity was made known—was, in the view of many Pakistanis, a man whom the Americans did not really want to apprehend.

"The U.S. government has been fractured and divided over how to proceed on Kansi since this began," Vincent Cannistraro, a former top counterterrorism official with the C.I.A., told me in late September. "The F.B.I. doesn't share its information with other U.S. government agencies; they're trying to find Kansi with absolutely no information on the environment they're working in. They pulled their people out of Pakistan some time ago, and the investigation was on the plate of Islamabad. The danger passed for Kansi in that sense, and it also tells me that the U.S. government was not really looking for him."

Earlier this year, I'm told, the F.B.I.'s low-key strategy to apprehend Kansi began to change, largely as a result of pressure from Judy Becker-Darling and her family, and from Senator Specter and others on Capitol Hill. The Bureau reclassified Kansi as an "international terrorist." The State Department resisted the move, and continues to fear that raising Kansi's profile could lead to further retaliation against American diplomats, and could further strain the already uneasy relationship between Pakistan and the United States.

Nevertheless, in a surprise statement on October 2nd, the State Department announced—after a six-month standoff with the F.B.I.—that it had acceded to the Bureau's request to increase the reward offered for Kansi's arrest from a hundred thousand dollars to two million dollars, and to launch a vast publicity campaign in Pakistan, in which tens of thousands of bright-red matchbooks bearing Kansi's picture and the amount of the reward would be distributed, along with thousands of posters and photographs.

Judy Becker-Darling looks out the hotel window, in the direction of the C.I.A., and says, "Yes, you're a member of the family, until you die for them." Then she says, "All I really want to do is go to Balochistan and ask Kansi, 'Why? Why did you kill my husband? What did we at the C.I.A. do to you?' "
Of course dumb Zionist propagandists can try to continue peddling their stuff: 'the Gaza retreat is not a charade, to keep the West Bank, and make Gaza the Final Solution, for the Palestinians expelled from Palestine in 1948'.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 06 Jan 2003
Posts: 30958

PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2004 7:52 am    Post subject: Re: AIPAC and CIA Reply to topic Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

foppe37 wrote:
AIPAC does not sell Israel, it blackmails senators and representatives into never taking any decision that hurts Israel.
If they do, they're out of office in the next election, AIPAC finaces the campaign of an opponent.
This is USA moneycracy, sold abroad as democracy.

how israel corrupts and controls the us congress and media:

The following article appeared in the San Diego Union Tribune newspaper:

Bush's domestic politics and the pro-Israeli tilt

By James O. Goldsborough

San Diego Union-Tribune
April 25, 2002

How are Americans to understand President Bush's kowtowing to
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon?

Told to withdraw Israeli forces from the West Bank "without delay,"
Sharon refused. As Israel reduced the Jenin refugee camp to rubble
using U.S.-supplied arms, Bush praised him as a "man of peace." The
man of peace now wants to dictate the composition of a U.N.
fact-finding mission, approved with U.S. support, into Jenin.
As former President Carter pointed out Sunday, presidents don't just
spin their wheels. Presidents have power levers. In the case of
Israel, said Carter, the levers are two: We provide $10 million per
day in aid to Israel; we supply Israel weapons for defensive
purposes only, not for attacks on refugees.
Bush is having a rocky time. He rides high approval ratings because
of Sept. 11, but faced with the complexity of Middle East politics,
he is at sea. A man of domestic politics, he founders in the world
arena, where America has the reputation of being a superpower.
Bush's instinct from the beginning was to pull back from world
affairs. Just as he would be the anti-Clinton, he would be the
anti-Bush I. Those two presidents were too involved in the world,
too busy with alliances, agencies, treaties and all those things
that tie a good Texan down.
Bush wanted to "park" the Mideast. Last fall, when the White House
finally issued a few tepid words of caution about Israel's
bulldozing of Palestinian homes, Sharon accused Bush of Munich-style
"appeasement." To this gross insult to a nation that took no part in
Munich, the White House tut-tutted, asking Sharon to make friendlier
comments, which he did.
This month, however, as Israeli troops invaded the West Bank, Bush
said, "stop." Secretary of State Colin Powell was sent to the Middle
East to secure a troop withdrawal.
Bush was likely pushed into the Powell trip by his father and Brent
Scowcroft, who are said to have his ear. Neither John Ashcroft, the
fundamentalist zealot who is attorney general, nor Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld expressed support. Tom DeLay, the rabid House whip,
urged fellow born-again Christian Bush to eliminate Yasser Arafat,
not talk to him.
It took some moxie for Bush to "unpark" the Middle East, but then he
collapsed. There's no way to pretty this up. Sharon told him to take
a jump, and he did. Is there a precedent for a presidential mission
coming up so empty? Marshall's trip to Moscow in 1947? Kissinger and
Le Duc Tho in Paris in 1972? James Baker in Geneva with Tariq Aziz
in 1991?
In each of those cases, America reacted decisively. There is a price
to be paid for opposing our interests. That's what power politics is
all about.
Foreign policy can't be driven by parochial interests. A nation that
aspires to leadership must have more to its policy than local
politics. In the Middle East, U.S. leadership is accepted because we
are viewed as an honest broker. Many administrations have kept it
that way. We don't kowtow.
The Bush administration is different. It appears to care more about
political support from American Jews than about a fair Mideast peace
accord. When Bush I and Baker stopped Israel in 1991 from using U.S.
money to build illegal settlements on Arab land, they were attacked
by the pro-Israel lobby. Said Baker: "---- the Jews, they don't vote
for us anyway."
Bush II doesn't accept that. He believes in political realignment.
He thinks he can win the Hispanic vote, which is 75 percent
Democratic. If Hispanics, why not Jews, who voted 4-1 for Democrats
in 2000? It's not just that the Jewish vote in a state such as
Florida might be crucial in 2004, but that being pro-Israel helps
him with conservatives, religious fundamentalists, the South and the
U.S. media are strongly pro-Israel. One criticizes Israel at the
risk of being called anti-Semitic. New York Times columnist William
Safire, who acts as the official media spokesman for Israel, lashes
out at the "ridicule of liberal pundits" like Mary McGrory to Mark
Shields who dare to criticize Israel. All two of them.
Eric Alterman, who writes for The Nation, recently compiled a list
of commentators who write on the Middle East. Sixty-five were listed
as supporting Israel, right or wrong. Five were listed as willing to
criticize both Israel and the Palestinians. Another five, only one
of them writing for the national press, was listed as anti-Israel.
Politicians and the media feed off each other. If a politician dares
speak out against Israel, he is pilloried by the Safire 65, and soon
has Jews shouting charges of anti-Semitism at him.
A former California member of Congress told me this story: A
colleague was running for the Senate. AIPAC, the Jewish lobby,
approached him. AIPAC would organize fund-raisers for him in five
cities, each with a guaranteed take of $100,000.
AIPAC asked for only one thing in return: If he won, he would commit
to vote in favor of the $3.5 billion in aid Israel receives annually
from America.
I get my share of anti-Semitic charges. To my accusers, I ask: Why
wasn't I anti-Semitic between 1993 and 2001, during the Oslo peace
process? With Sharon, Israel will never have peace. You confuse
anti-Semitism with anti-Sharonism.
To the latter, I plead guilty. But then, so do many of my Jewish
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 06 Jan 2003
Posts: 30958

PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2004 8:01 am    Post subject: Israel's Threat To World Peace Reply to topic Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List


Israel's Threat To World Peace
By James J. David

James J. David is a retired Brigadier General and a graduate of the U.S. Army's Command and General Staff College, and the National Security Course, National Defense University, Washington DC. He served as a Company Commander with the 101st Airborne Division in the Republic of Vietnam in 1969 and 1970 and also served nearly 3 years of Army active duty in and around the Middle East from 1967-1969. He is a regular contributor to Media Monitors Network (MMN).
"Libya has never been a threat to the United States, and for that matter, Iraq was never a threat to the United States. The only threat Iraq or Libya posed was a threat to Israel's dominance of nuclear weapons in the Middle East."
It seems that the entire world is praising American and British diplomacy for its efforts in convincing Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi in announcing that Libya would cease work on its programs to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. This is quite an accomplishment, considering that Libya has been listed for more than 17years by the U.S. State Department as one of the major countries supporting state terrorism.
As wonderful as this news may be, the United States needs to concentrate its efforts towards the real obstacle to world peace. Libya was no threat to world peace, and neither was Iraq. If the United States devotes as much effort in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as they did with Libya's weapons of mass destruction then maybe the American people could rest a bit easier.
According to a recent poll by the Anti-Defamation League, forty-two percent of the American people consider Israel as a threat to world peace. What's even more astonishing is the result of a recent European poll that found 59 percent of Europeans considered Israel as the major threat to world peace with the United States coming in second. Libya wasn't even mentioned.
Libya has never been a threat to the United States, and for that matter, Iraq was never a threat to the United States. The only threat Iraq or Libya posed was a threat to Israel's dominance of nuclear weapons in the Middle East.
While Iraq failed to obey one UN resolution fast enough, Israel has steadfastly refused to obey not just one UN resolution, but an incredible 69 UN resolutions. Israel's actions have brought outrage from a majority of the UN's member states on 69 separate occasions. They have condemned Israel for the destruction of Arab villages, for the murder of innocent women and children, for making war on neighboring states, for refusing to withdraw from invaded and occupied territory, for killing protesting students, for killing civilians protesting being expelled from their homes, for a transcontinental bombing raid against Tunisia, and for dozens of other violations. And on 29 other occasions, UN resolutions with real teeth in them, calling for Israel to withdraw from stolen land and allow self-determination for the Palestinian people among other things, would have been adopted but were vetoed by the one dissenting vote of the United States. When it comes to the exercising of any kind of real power against those who violate UN resolutions, it seems that some countries are "more equal than others." Israel gets away not only with an expansionist foreign policy, but with repeatedly and endlessly violating the most elementary human rights of her subject peoples.
Although Israel's PR men would have us believe that Israel is an island of Western values in the Middle East, the truth is quite the opposite. Not only does Israel violate the most fundalmental human rights laws but Israel is also guilty of assassination, kidnapping, expulsion, detention without charges or trial, land confiscation, and collective punishment - not to mention Israel's long-standing practice of espionage against the United States, its principal benefactor and the attack on the USS Liberty that killed 34 American sailors and injured another 171.
Hardly a day goes by without the Israelis killing innocent Palestinian men, women, and children. Today they killed 8 Palestinians and wounded an estimated 300. Three days ago they killed a 6-year-old Palestinain boy just hours before a 13-year-old Palestinian boy died from a gunshot to his head. Twenty Palestinians have been killed in the past two weeks even though there hasn't been even one suicide bombing in over two months. And just last week the Israelis shot and killed a 21-year-old pregnant Palestinian mother trying to take her young son to the hospital. The Israelis have killed more than 500 women and children in the past 3 years. They have demolished more than 3000 Palestinian homes, causing more than 17,000 homeless, including 2300 children.
These stories never make the Headline News or the front pages of your local newspapers. You don't see President Bush or Condoleezza Rice out on the front lawn of the White House condemning the Israelis for killing innocent men, women, and especially children. The United States talks about a balanced Middle East Policy but just look at what we actually practice. We have one standard for the treatment of Israelis that is so high they cannot be criticized no matter what grisly crimes they commit. Then we have a second standard for the treatment of Palestinians that is so low we publicly finance their ethnic cleansing and torture.
President Bush may refer to Israeli policies as obstacles to peace but when it comes time for a vote in the U.N. Security Council on the illegal settlements, or the apartheid wall, or on assassinations, or any of the other Israeli criminal acts, the United States vetoes every move to condemn Israeli aggression. The United States could not even bring itself to condemn the Qana Lebanese refugee camp massacre of 1996 in which 103 innocent Lebanese civilians were killed. Is it any wonder the Arab world hates us? Is it any wonder America was attacked? How can the United States strive for world peace when Israel is allowed to do whatever it pleases? Supporting Israel may be politically correct, but the more we look the other way, the more violence there will be. American politicians jump on the Zionist bandwagon simply because they know that is where the power is. The Jewish Anti-Defamation League and the Jewish Lobby and Jewish interest groups have effectively silenced any politician who is critical to Israeli policy.
Is the Israeli lobby and the Jewish control of our American politicians so powerful that our elected officials have lost all sense of moral right? Evidently, former President Jimmy Carter thought so when he was prompted to say, after he left office of course, that no politician dared to oppose its demands, because to do so would be "political suicide." They take our money, we fight and die in their wars, and, since both political parties are in their pocket, the American people don't have any choice in the matter. Sheilding Israel is an international embarrassment and places U.S. citizens in danger around the world, let alone danger to our own nation. It is time for the American people to face the fact that supporting Israel's criminal activities is the greatest threat facing America today. Disguising America's threat with anything else is nothing more than political spin and a decoy used as a means of savings one's career. Placing the blame on Israel would end one's political career.
The recent decision by Libya to abandon its weapons of mass destruction is just one step towards world peace. The bigger step would be for Israel to do the same. It is time for the United States to free itself from the grips of the Jewish lobby and to take a stand on the side of human mankind. It is time to use our foreign aid as leverage and to insist on Israel to abandon its weapons of mass destruction and to abide by International Law. It is time we stop fooling the American people. It is time to get tough with Israel. After all, Israel is the biggest threat to world peace.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant

Joined: 27 Jan 2004
Posts: 3758
Location: Netherlands

PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2004 8:55 am    Post subject: Israel no threat to world peace Reply to topic Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Israel is no threat to world peace, because there is no world peace any more.
World peace, at least, what was seen as such, ended with the Muslim attack on the USA, sept 11 2001.

Since then the USA, Israel's pawn, occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, and now threatens Iran and Syria.

This morning the Tel Aviv criminal gang escalated WW III further, it killed a 66 year old man in a wheel chair, he had difficulty speaking.
The reason given by the mentioned criminal gang is that he was a threat to the Israeli state.
This may be so, I once saw an interview with him, in his very modest house.
He said 'if my house and my land are stolen, am not I allowed to defend myself ?'.

Such are the people that are threats to the Israeli state, they are so dangerous that Apache helicopters (made in USA) fire Hellfire rockets at this wheelchair man, who disapproves of theft.

I happened to hear the comment of the Israeli Labour leader, he is in the USA.
As he said: 'he had no moral objections to the killing, but the timing was wrong, this might create a Hamas state in Gaza Strip after the Israeli withdrawal'.

‘Jews. The essence and character of a people’, Arthur Herzberg and Aron Hirt-Manheimer, HarperSanFrancisco, 1998, written by two Jews, already states on page 23 or so 'that Jews aways lived dangerously on the edges of hostile societies'.

R.Solomon ibn Verga, who died in 1520, an Iberian Jew, already wrote 'that all Jewry's evil's were caused by conceited and moronic leadership'.

The Israeli Labour leader confirmed Verga's view just now, this leader (towards Hellfire, one assumes) did not recognise that the horrible pictures of a corpse without a head now have been beamed around the world, that once more the murderous brutal criminal gang that runs the Israeli banana republic has been exposed all over the world.

This conceited moron (and he's one of the more enlightened Israeli leaders, the Likud are even more moronic and conceited) does not comprehend that Jews now live on the edge of a hostile world.
Since interplanetary travel not yet is possible there is not a diaspora any more to protect them.

The Jewish tragedy, I more and more think, is that they nowhere ever had to take real responsibility, they went about their businesses until driven away or murdered by some pogrom.
A world pogrom seems to be around the corner.

Alas it will not just destroy Israel, maybe a positive aspect is that this world is overpopulated with homo sapiens.
Species are rapidly dying out; nuclear radiation, remaining at least for decades, after the nuclear holocaust will, through mutations, create many new species.
Of course dumb Zionist propagandists can try to continue peddling their stuff: 'the Gaza retreat is not a charade, to keep the West Bank, and make Gaza the Final Solution, for the Palestinians expelled from Palestine in 1948'.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant

Joined: 04 Feb 2004
Posts: 2557
Location: South Coast of England

PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2004 9:42 am    Post subject: Reply to topic Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Israel is no threat to world peace, because there is no world peace any more.
World peace, at least, what was seen as such, ended with the Muslim attack on the USA, sept 11 2001.

'aint that the truth! There hasn't been peace in the world, for a long time now, even before Sept 11, 2001 - this horrific day woke us all up out of our slumber, that's all. And it's no good pointing the figure at just one person or one country for blame, we are ALL to blame for the lack of peace and security that we ALL suffer. Its about time we woke up to that truth and started doing something about it. Blaming each other, is getting us nowwhere fast...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant

Joined: 27 Jan 2004
Posts: 3758
Location: Netherlands

PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2004 10:29 am    Post subject: world peace Reply to topic Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

My idea is that world peace existed from 1989, the collapse of the USSR, until sept 11 2001.

Of course conflicts existed during that time on different places, the USA attacked Iraq in 1991, the Zionist -Arab conflict existed since 1880 (1880), the Russians fought the Chechnians, of course the USA controlled its backyard, but aside from these conflicts it was relatively peaceful.

The immediate cause of the sept 11 2001 attacks was the USA refusal, contrary to promises, to leave Kuwait and Saudi Arabia after the 1991 attack on Iraq.

Of course the real cause is USA worldwide imperialism.
Of course dumb Zionist propagandists can try to continue peddling their stuff: 'the Gaza retreat is not a charade, to keep the West Bank, and make Gaza the Final Solution, for the Palestinians expelled from Palestine in 1948'.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Posts: 8933
Location: Zion occupied America

PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2004 4:49 pm    Post subject: Reply to topic Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

You need to go back through the archives of this site. The Zionists and their NeoCon buddies in Washington brought down the world trade center. Bush and his wealthy friends were after oil and govt. contracts. Jews were after removal of their Arab enemies so greater Israel can be created and the oil wealth of the area transferred to their keeping. The idea that some guy in a cave in Afghanistan brought it off is laughable. Try thinking for yourself for a change instead of believing the propaganda put out by the media which is almost entirely Jewish owned.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jefferson Davis

Joined: 07 Sep 2002
Posts: 8175
Location: USA, formerly CSA

PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2004 5:17 pm    Post subject: Re: world peace Reply to topic Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

foppe37 wrote:
My idea is that world peace existed from 1989, the collapse of the USSR, until sept 11 2001.

Of course conflicts existed during that time on different places, the USA attacked Iraq in 1991, the Zionist -Arab conflict existed since 1880 (1880), the Russians fought the Chechnians, of course the USA controlled its backyard, but aside from these conflicts it was relatively peaceful.

The immediate cause of the sept 11 2001 attacks was the USA refusal, contrary to promises, to leave Kuwait and Saudi Arabia after the 1991 attack on Iraq.

Of course the real cause is USA worldwide imperialism.

Should we re-intern the American cemetery at Margraten somewhere else as a punishment for our transgressions?

The real cause of much of the modern world's problems was the USA ever involving itself in WW1, WW2, Korea, Viet Nam, Gulf Wars, the Cold War, amd 120 other international interventions, the creation of the US military industrial complex and our support for Israel, Egypt and Jordan, Iran et al and yes, foppe37 some were actually humanitarian as you clearly show, no good deed goes unpunished.

You comepletely ignored the Balkan civil war of the 1990's. You have a selective memory and an obvious anti-American bias which is your right but the world is not so black and white, US and everybody else. Sorry you can't see it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    War Without End Forum Index -> Middle East and Asia All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Stop war criminal Blair's plan to steal your privacy - sign the petition

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
 miserable failure  poodle  Opera  Get Firefox!