• úvod
  • témata
  • události
  • tržiště
  • diskuze
  • nástěnka
  • přihlásit
    registrace
    ztracené heslo?
    GORGworld conspiracy // 911 // new world order ... part 2
    JAXXE
    JAXXE --- ---
    Blair scorns Iraq claim by Meacher

    By Jo Dillon, Deputy Political Editor
    07 September 2003


    Tony Blair yesterday "totally rejected" remarks by his former minister Michael Meacher blaming the Iraq war on the United States' desire for world domination.

    Mr Meacher, who was environment minister until three months ago, suggested the Americans might have failed to prevent the 11 September attacks because they gave a pretext for military action.

    He has already outlined his opposition to war, calling the case for action an "uncertain fantasy". Criticising the British Government for colluding with the US, he said the Bush government always intended to take control of the Gulf region in order to secure further oil supplies.

    A Downing Street spokes-man responded: "He is obviously not a government minister any more. His views are his own and ones which clearly would not be shared by the Prime Minister."


    Mr Meacher wrote in yesterday's Guardian: "It seems that the so-called war on terrorism is being used largely as a bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives.

    "The evidence again is quite clear that plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before 11 September.

    "The global war on terrorism has all the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for ... the US goal of world hegemony."

    Mr Meacher also said the US had passed up opportunities to catch Osama bin Laden.

    The US embassy insisted Mr Meacher's views, particularly the suggestion that the US government knowingly stood by while terrorists killed its citizens, "would be ... monstrously offensive, if they came from someone serious or credible".

    Mr Meacher yesterday stood by his remarks, saying he was no conspiracy theorist but simply "in favour of giving people the facts".

    http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=441049
    JAXXE
    JAXXE --- ---
    hmm tak uz je to i na blistech ;)

    Meacher: "USA zneužily 11. září k prosazování politiky světové nadvlády"

    Je známo, že nejméně 11 zemí předem Spojené státy varovalo před útoky z 11. září. V srpnu 2001 byli do Washingtonu vysláni dva agenti Mossadu, aby varovali CIA a FBI, že existuje buňka 200 teroristů, kteří prý připravují velkou operaci (Daily Telegraph, 16. září 2001). Seznam, který poskytli, obsahoval jména čtyř únosců z 11. září. Žádný z nich nebyl zatčen.

    Bývalý britský ministr životního prostředí Michael Meacher pozoruhodným způsobem zaútočil na americkou vládu. Argumentuje, že Američané předem věděli o útoku z 11. září a nic proti němu nepodnikli, neboť se jim hodil jako zástěrka pro realizaci jejich globálních imperiálních zájmů. Z Meacherovy argumentace vybíráme:




    Víme nyní, že plán na globální pax americana vypracovali Dick Cheney (nyní viceprezident), Donald Rumsfeld (ministr obrany), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeldův náměstek), Jeb Bush (mladší bratr George Bushe) a Lewis Libby (Cheneyho šéf štábu). Tento dokument, který má název "Rebuilding America's Defences (Obnovit americkou vojenskou obranu)" vypracoval v září 2000 neokonzervativní tým "Projekt pro nové americké století" (Project for the New American Century, PNAC).

    Z tohoto plánu vyplývá, že Bushova vláda zamýšlela vojensky ovládnout oblast kolem Perského zálivu bez ohledu na to, zda je či není Saddám Husajn u moci. V dokumentu se praví: "zatímco nevyřešený konflikt s Irákem poskytuje bezprostřední ospravedlnění, potřeba podstatné americké vojenské přítomnosti v Perském zálivu jde mimo otázku režimu Saddáma Husajna".

    Plán Projektu pro nové americké století podporuje dřívější dokument, který se připisuje Wolfowitzovi a Libbymu. V něm se praví, že Spojené státy musejí "odrazovat rozvinuté průmyslové země, aby se nepokoušely konkurovat naší vedoucí úloze a nesnažily se hrát významnější regionální či globální roli". Zmiňuje se o hlavních spojencích, jako je Velká Británie, jakožto o "nejefektivnějším prostředku, jak vykonávat americkou vůdčí globální roli". Charakterizuje mírotvorné vojenské akce jako akce, které "vyžadují americké politické vedení a nikoliv vedení OSN". Konstatuje "i kdyby měl Saddám zmizet ze scény, americké základny v Saúdské Arábii a v Kuvajtu tam zůstanou natrvalo, protože "se může ukázat, že je Írán tak velkou hrozbou americkým zájmům jako Irák". Dokument hovoří o Číně jako o zemi, kde by měla být provedena "změna režimu", a konstatuje, že "je načase zvýšit přítomnost amerických jednotek v jihovýchodní Asii".

    Dokument také požaduje vytvoření amerických "vesmírných vojenských sil" k ovládnutí vesmírného prostoru a totální kontrolu internetu, aby "nepřátelé" nemohli používat počítačových sítí proti USA. Dokument také naznačuje, že Spojené státy možná budou uvažovat o vyvíjení biologických zbraní, "které by se mohly zaměřit na specifické genotypy [a] a mohly by proměnit biologické zbraně z nástroje teroru v politicky užitečný instrument".

    Tento dokument - který vznikl rok před 11. zářím 2001 - se zaměřuje na Severní Koreu, Sýrii a Írán jako na nebezpečné režimy a konstatuje, že jejich existence ospravedlňuje vytvoření "celosvětového systému velení a kontroly".

    To je plán na americkou světovou nadvládu, argumentuje Meacher a pokračuje: Ale dříve, než ho odmítneme jako agendu pravicových fantastů, je jasné, že poskytuje daleko lepší vysvětlení toho, co se ve skutečnosti stalo před 11. zářím, během toho dne a po 11. září než teze o válce proti terorismu.

    Zaprvé, je jasné, že americké úřady nepodnikly nic nebo podnikly velmi málo preventivních opatření proti událostem z 11. září. Je známo, že nejméně 11 zemí předem Spojené státy varovalo před útoky z 11. září. V srpnu 2001 byli do Washingtonu vysláni dva agenti Mossadu, aby varovali CIA a FBI, že existuje buňka 200 teroristů, kteří prý připravují velkou operaci (Daily Telegraph, 16. září 2001). Seznam, který poskytli, obsahoval jména čtyř únosců z 11. září. Žádný z nich nebyl zatčen.

    Bylo známo už v roce 1996, že existují plány zaútočit na Washington letadly. V roce 1999 se konstatovalo ve zprávě amerického národního výboru pro rozvědku, že "sebevražední atentátníci z organizace al Kajdá by mohli zaútočit letadly, naloženými výbušninami, na Pentagon, na ústředí CIA nebo na Bílý dům".

    Patnáct únosců z 11. září dostalo americké vízum v Saúdské Arábii. Michael Springman, bývalý šéf amerického vízového oddělení v městě Jedah, konstatoval, že od roku 1987 CIA tajně vydávala víza neoprávněným žadatelům z Blízkého východu a přivážela je do USA na teroristický výcvik pro afghánskou válku ve splupráci s bin Ladinem (BBC, 6. listopadu 2001). Zdá se, že tato operace pokračovala i po afghánské válce k jiným účelům. Bylo také zveřejněno, že pěti únoscům letadel z 11. září se dostalo výcviku v devadesátých letech na tajných amerických vojenských základnách (Newsweek, 15. září 2001).

    Případy, kdy existovalo jasné podezření před 11. září, nebyly sledovány. Francouzsko-marocký student Zacarias Moussaoui (o němž se nyní usuzuje, že byl zřejmě dvacátým únoscem) byl zatčen v srpnu 2001 poté, co informoval letecký instruktor o tom, že student projevil podezřelý zájem naučit se řídit velká letadla. Když se američtí agenti dověděli od francouzské rozvědky, že má styky s radikálními islámskými teroristy, chtěli získat soudní příkaz k prohlídce jeho počítače, který obsahoval informace o misi z 11. září (Times, 3. listopadu 2001). Avšak FBI jejich žádost odmítla. Jeden agent napsal, měsíc před 11. září, že je možné, že Moussaoui plánuje vletět letadlem do WTC (Newsweek, 20. května 2002).

    V důsledku toho všeho je velmi překvapivé, míní Meacher, že na útoky z 11. září reagovaly americké úřady tak pomalu. Podezření, že první letadlo bylo uneseno, vzniklo už v 8.20 ráno, a poslední unesené letadlo havarovalo v Pennsylvánii v 10.06 dopoledne. Ze základny amerického letectva Andrews, pouhých 15 kilometrů od Washingtonu, nevzlétla ani jediná stihačka, aby situaci prozkoumala, dokud třetí letadlo nenarazilo v 9. 38 dopoledne do Pentagonu. Proč ne? Před 11. září platily přece pro unesená letadla standardní procedury amerického Federálního úřadu pro letectví. Od září 2000 do května 2001 startovaly americké vojenské stihačky 67krát, aby prověřily podezřelá letadla (AP, 13. srpna 2002). Podle amerického zákona musejí být vyslány vojenské stihačky zkoumat situaci, jakmile se letadlo významně odkloní od své letecké trasy.

    Byla tato nečinnost prostě důsledkem toho, že klíčové osoby ignorovaly důkazy, anebo o nich nevěděly? Anebo byla americká letecká bezpečnostní opatření dne 11. září 2001 úmyslně suspendována? Pokud se to stalo, proč k tomu došlo a kdo o tom rozhodl? Bývalý americký federální kriminální prokurátor John Loftus konstatoval: "Informace, které [nám] poskytly evropské rozvědky před 11. září byly tak rozsáhlé, že už není možné, aby se CIA či FBI bránily tím, že jednaly nekompetentně".

    O nic lepší není ani reakce USA po 11. září, pokračuje Meacher. Nebyl nikdy podniknut vážnější pokus chytit bin Ladina. Koncem září a začátkem října 2001 vyjednali šéfové dvou islámských politických stran v Pákistánu, že bude bin Ladin vydán do Pákistánu a bude tam postaven před soud za 11. září. Avšak jeden americký činitel konstatoval, že "pokud si stanovíme své cíle příliš úzce", riskuje to "předčasný rozklad mezinárodního úsilí, kdyby byl nějakou šťastnou náhodou pan bin Ladin zatčen". Generál Myers, americký předseda spojených štábů armády, zašel tak daleko, že konstatoval, že "chytit bin Ladina nikdy nebylo naším cílem". (AP, 5. dubna 2002). Agent FBI Robert Wright řekl ABC News (19. prosince 2002), že ústředí FBI nechtělo žádné zatýkání. A v listopadu 2001 si americké letectvo stěžovalo, že mělo vedoucí činitele Talibanu a al Kajdy na mušce během předchozích šesti týdnů desetkrát, avšak nemohlo na ně zaútočit, protože nedostalo k tomu dostatečně rychle povolení (Time Magazine, 13. května 2002). Všechny tyto informace jsou veřejně dostupné.

    Takzvaná "válka proti terorismu" je zneužívána jako zástěrka pro realizaci širších amerických strategických geopolitických zájmů, argumentuje dále Meacher. Naznačil to podle něho i Tony Blair, když konstatoval v jednom parlamentním výboru britské Dolní sněmovny: "Abych to řekl upřímně, nikdy bychom nedostali souhlas veřejnosti k náhlému útoku proti Afghánistánu, kdyby nedošlo k útokům z 11. září." (Times, 17. čevence 2002). Obdobně se Rumsfeld snažil získat důvod pro útok na Irák, že desetkrát žádal CIA, aby nalezla důkazy, že se na útoku z 11. září podílel Irák, CIA opakovaně přišla s prázdnýma rukama (Time Magazine, 13. května 2002).

    Podle Meachera byly útoky z 11. září pro PNAC velmi příhodnou záminkou k realizaci jeho globálních plánů. Plány na vojenské akce proti Afghánistánu a Iráku byly připraveny dlouho před 11. září 2001. Zpráva, kterou vypracoval v dubnu 2001 pro americkou vládu Bakerův institut pro veřejnou politiku, konstatovala, že "Spojené státy zůstávají vězněm svého energetického dilematu. Irák zůstává destabilizujícím faktorem ... pro proud ropy z Blízkého východu na mezinárodní trhy". Tato zpráva byla předložena energetickému výboru, jemuž předsedal viceprezident Dick Cheney. Doporučovala, že protože je toto pro Spojené státy nepřijatelným rizikem, je nutná "vojenská intervence". (Sunday Herald, 6, října 2002).

    Obdobné důkazy existují v souvislosti s Afghánistánem. BBC přinesla zprávu (18. září 2001), že vysocí američtí činitelé informovali na schůzce v Berlíně v polovině července 2001 Niaze Niaka, bývalého pákistánského ministra zahraničních věcí, že "vojenské akce proti Afghánistánu budou zahájeny v polovině října". Do července 2001 považovala americká vláda režim Talibanu za zdroj stability ve střední Asii, který měl umožnit výstavbu uhlovodíkových potrubí z ropných a plynových polí v Turkmenistánu, v Uzbekistánu a v Kazachstánu přes Afghánistán a Pákistán k Indickému oceánu. Avšak když Taliban odmítl přijmout americké podmínky, američtí představitelé mu řekli: "buď přijmete naši nabídku koberce zlata, anebo vás pohřbíme pod kobercem bomb" (Inter Press Service, 15. listopadu 2001).

    Není tedy překvapující, že někteří lidé se domnívají, že Američané předem nezasáhli proti útoku z 11. září proto, aby si vytvořili cennou záminku k útoku na Afghánistán ve válce, která zjevně byla plánována dlouho dopředu. Existuje pro to možný precedens. V americkém národním archivu najdeme důkazy, že prezident Roosevelt použil přesně tohoto přístupu ve vztahu k útoku na Pearl Harbor dne 7. prosince 1941. Američané předem dostali určité varování, že k tomuto útoku dojde, ale tyto informace nebyly předány americké flotile. V americké veřejnosti v důsledku útoku vzniklo obrovské rozhořčení a to přimělo do té doby neochotné americké voliče, aby podpořili vstup Ameriky do druhé světové války.

    Obdobně konstatuje plán PNAC ze září 2000, že proces proměny USA v "dominantní sílu zítřka" bude dlouhý, pokud nedojde k nějaké "katastrofální a urychlující události - jako nový Pearl Harbor".

    Hlavní motivací pro tuto politickou zástěrku je skutečnost, míní Meacher, že Spojeným státům a Británii začínají docházet bezpečné zásoby uhlovodíkových energetických zdrojů. V roce 2010 bude muslimský svět ovládat 60 procent světové těžby ropy a - což je důležitější - 95 procent veškeré zbývající vývozní ropné kapacity. Jak se zvyšuje poptávka, klesá nabídka, to se děje po celou dobu už od šedesátých let.

    To vede k stále větší závislosti na zahraničních energetických zdrojích. Spojené státy, které v roce 1990 těžily samy 57 procent veškerých svých energetických zdrojů, budou podle předpovědí v roce 2010 produkovat jen 39 procent energie, které potřebují. Činitel britského ministerstva obchodu a průmyslu přiznal, že od roku 2005 bude Británie čelit "vážnému" nedostatku zemního plynu. Britská vláda potvrdila, že v roce 2020 se bude 70 procent elektrické energie v Británii vyrábět z plynu a 90 procent tohoto plynu se bude dovážet. V tomto kontextu je nutno zaznamenat, že Irák má kromě ropy 110 trilionů krychlových stop plynových rezerv.

    Zpráva Komise pro americké národní zájmy z července 2000 konstatovala, že nejslibnějšími novými světovými energetickými zdroji je kaspická oblast. Pokud by USA získaly přístup k této oblasti, osvobodilo by je to od energetické závislosti na Saúdské Arábii. Ropovody a plynovody z kaspické oblasti by měly být diverzifikovány. Jedno potrubí by vedlo směrem na Západ přes Ázerbajdžán a Gruzii do tureckého přístavu Ceyhan. Druhé by vedlo na východ přes Afghánistán a Pákistán a končilo by u indické hranice. Tím by se zachránila elektrárna firmy Enron v Dabholu na západním pobřeží Indie. Tato elektrárna je v krizi. Enron do ní investoval 3 miliardy dolarů, ale její přežití je závislé na přístupu k levnému plynu.

    I Velká Británie se zajímá o tento boj o zbývající světové zásoby uhlovodíků a to může částečně vysvětlit britskou účast na amerických vojenských akcích. Lord Browne, generální ředitel firmy British Petroleum, varoval Washington, aby neposkytl Irák po válce jen vlastním ropným společnostem (Guardian, 30. října, 2002). A britský ministr zahraničních věcí řekl v srpnu 2002 plukovníku Gaddáfímu, že "Británie nechce přijít o své pozice ve prospěch jiných evropských zemí, když jde o potenciálně lukrativní ropné kontrakty" s Libyí (BBC Online, 10. srpna 2002).

    Závěrem této analýzy přece nutně musí být, že "globální válka proti terorismu" má rysy politického mýtu, který je šířen, aby se prosadila úplně jiná agenda- americký cíl světové hegemonie, vybudovaný kolem vojenského zajištění ropných zdrojů. kterých je zapotřebí pro uskutečnění tohoto projektu, zdůrazňuje Meacher. Je spiklenecká účast britské vlády a účast Británie na tomto projektu jako slabšího partnera skutečně řádným cílem britské zahraniční politiky, ptá se závěrem autor.

    Michael Meacher byl v letech 1997 - 2003 britským ministrem životního prostředí.


    http://www.blisty.cz/txt.php?id=15288
    JAXXE
    JAXXE --- ---
    clanek od byvaleho britskeho ministra zivotniho prostredi, ktery shrnuje podstatnou cast obsahu tohohle klubu za posledni 2 roky... v guardianu

    must read...

    This war on terrorism is bogus

    The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination

    Michael Meacher
    Saturday September 6, 2003
    The Guardian

    Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too. The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier.
    We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

    The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

    The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to Wolfowitz and Libby which said the US must "discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role". It refers to key allies such as the UK as "the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership". It describes peacekeeping missions as "demanding American political leadership rather than that of the UN". It says "even should Saddam pass from the scene", US bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently... as "Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has". It spotlights China for "regime change", saying "it is time to increase the presence of American forces in SE Asia".

    The document also calls for the creation of "US space forces" to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent "enemies" using the internet against the US. It also hints that the US may consider developing biological weapons "that can target specific genotypes [and] may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool".

    Finally - written a year before 9/11 - it pinpoints North Korea, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes, and says their existence justifies the creation of a "worldwide command and control system". This is a blueprint for US world domination. But before it is dismissed as an agenda for rightwing fantasists, it is clear it provides a much better explanation of what actually happened before, during and after 9/11 than the global war on terrorism thesis. This can be seen in several ways.

    First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.

    It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit Washington targets with aeroplanes. Then in 1999 a US national intelligence council report noted that "al-Qaida suicide bombers could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House".

    Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia. Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001).

    Instructive leads prior to 9/11 were not followed up. French Moroccan flight student Zacarias Moussaoui (now thought to be the 20th hijacker) was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor reported he showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer large airliners. When US agents learned from French intelligence he had radical Islamist ties, they sought a warrant to search his computer, which contained clues to the September 11 mission (Times, November 3 2001). But they were turned down by the FBI. One agent wrote, a month before 9/11, that Moussaoui might be planning to crash into the Twin Towers (Newsweek, May 20 2002).

    All of this makes it all the more astonishing - on the war on terrorism perspective - that there was such slow reaction on September 11 itself. The first hijacking was suspected at not later than 8.20am, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at 10.06am. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not? There were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before 9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent up to investigate.

    Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could US air security operations have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on whose authority? The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus, has said: "The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence."

    Nor is the US response after 9/11 any better. No serious attempt has ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October 2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamist parties negotiated Bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US official said, significantly, that "casting our objectives too narrowly" risked "a premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured". The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that "the goal has never been to get Bin Laden" (AP, April 5 2002). The whistleblowing FBI agent Robert Wright told ABC News (December 19 2002) that FBI headquarters wanted no arrests. And in November 2001 the US airforce complained it had had al-Qaida and Taliban leaders in its sights as many as 10 times over the previous six weeks, but had been unable to attack because they did not receive permission quickly enough (Time Magazine, May 13 2002). None of this assembled evidence, all of which comes from sources already in the public domain, is compatible with the idea of a real, determined war on terrorism.

    The catalogue of evidence does, however, fall into place when set against the PNAC blueprint. From this it seems that the so-called "war on terrorism" is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives. Indeed Tony Blair himself hinted at this when he said to the Commons liaison committee: "To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11" (Times, July 17 2002). Similarly Rumsfeld was so determined to obtain a rationale for an attack on Iraq that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to 9/11; the CIA repeatedly came back empty-handed (Time Magazine, May 13 2002).

    In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before 9/11. A report prepared for the US government from the Baker Institute of Public Policy stated in April 2001 that "the US remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising influence to... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East". Submitted to Vice-President Cheney's energy task group, the report recommended that because this was an unacceptable risk to the US, "military intervention" was necessary (Sunday Herald, October 6 2002).

    Similar evidence exists in regard to Afghanistan. The BBC reported (September 18 2001) that Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan foreign secretary, was told by senior American officials at a meeting in Berlin in mid-July 2001 that "military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October". Until July 2001 the US government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But, confronted with the Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, the US representatives told them "either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs" (Inter Press Service, November 15 2001).

    Given this background, it is not surprising that some have seen the US failure to avert the 9/11 attacks as creating an invaluable pretext for attacking Afghanistan in a war that had clearly already been well planned in advance. There is a possible precedent for this. The US national archives reveal that President Roosevelt used exactly this approach in relation to Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941. Some advance warning of the attacks was received, but the information never reached the US fleet. The ensuing national outrage persuaded a reluctant US public to join the second world war. Similarly the PNAC blueprint of September 2000 states that the process of transforming the US into "tomorrow's dominant force" is likely to be a long one in the absence of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor". The 9/11 attacks allowed the US to press the "go" button for a strategy in accordance with the PNAC agenda which it would otherwise have been politically impossible to implement.

    The overriding motivation for this political smokescreen is that the US and the UK are beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon energy supplies. By 2010 the Muslim world will control as much as 60% of the world's oil production and, even more importantly, 95% of remaining global oil export capacity. As demand is increasing, so supply is decreasing, continually since the 1960s.

    This is leading to increasing dependence on foreign oil supplies for both the US and the UK. The US, which in 1990 produced domestically 57% of its total energy demand, is predicted to produce only 39% of its needs by 2010. A DTI minister has admitted that the UK could be facing "severe" gas shortages by 2005. The UK government has confirmed that 70% of our electricity will come from gas by 2020, and 90% of that will be imported. In that context it should be noted that Iraq has 110 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves in addition to its oil.

    A report from the commission on America's national interests in July 2000 noted that the most promising new source of world supplies was the Caspian region, and this would relieve US dependence on Saudi Arabia. To diversify supply routes from the Caspian, one pipeline would run westward via Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Another would extend eastwards through Afghanistan and Pakistan and terminate near the Indian border. This would rescue Enron's beleaguered power plant at Dabhol on India's west coast, in which Enron had sunk $3bn investment and whose economic survival was dependent on access to cheap gas.

    Nor has the UK been disinterested in this scramble for the remaining world supplies of hydrocarbons, and this may partly explain British participation in US military actions. Lord Browne, chief executive of BP, warned Washington not to carve up Iraq for its own oil companies in the aftermath of war (Guardian, October 30 2002). And when a British foreign minister met Gadaffi in his desert tent in August 2002, it was said that "the UK does not want to lose out to other European nations already jostling for advantage when it comes to potentially lucrative oil contracts" with Libya (BBC Online, August 10 2002).

    The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the "global war on terrorism" has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda - the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project. Is collusion in this myth and junior participation in this project really a proper aspiration for British foreign policy? If there was ever need to justify a more objective British stance, driven by our own independent goals, this whole depressing saga surely provides all the evidence needed for a radical change of course.

    · Michael Meacher MP was environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003


    ...

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1036571,00.html
    JAXXE
    JAXXE --- ---
    Motorists face travel tax and 'Big Brother' microchip law enforcement

    Stuff (New Zealand)

    Motorists face being taxed on how far they travel under government plans to generate cash.

    Transport Minister Paul Swain said with vehicles becoming more fuel efficient, revenue from petrol tax would drop and alternative charges needed to be considered.

    It is one of a number of transport schemes being looked at by officials, including a Big Brother-style project to equip every car with a personalised microchip so law-breaking motorists can be prosecuted by computer.

    ...

    http://www.propagandamatrix.com/060903nzmicrochip.html

    ----------------------------

    Notice how the exact same systems often with very similar names are being introduced in each developed country at precisely the same time, that is because it is a global agenda that has been planned in advance.
    PETVAL
    PETVAL --- ---
    Maryland Tests E-Voting Security
    ...
    DeLeaver said the governor and the Board of Elections plan to reveal the results of the audit to the public next week, though they have not yet decided whether they will make the full report available to the public. DeLeaver also said she did not know whether Diebold will be shown the report first.
    ...
    http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,60323,00.html
    JAXXE
    JAXXE --- ---
    An Airline Ticket for a 9/11 Hijacker Was Purchased from the OU Library Computer

    The University of Oklahoma is in Norman, where I reside. In the fall of 2001, I was talking to an OU library employee who told me that she was present when an FBI agent was interviewing her colleague. The agent was interested in the fact that the OU library computer terminal had been used for an online purchase of an airline ticket for a 9/11 hijacker who was on the plane which crashed in Pennsylvania. She also told me that he had not been a hijacker. He was a white American male.

    http://members.aol.com/mpwright9/sting.html
    JAXXE
    JAXXE --- ---
    Kelly told neighbour 'see you later'

    03.09.2003
    By BEN RUSSELL

    The neighbour who was probably the last person to see Dr David Kelly alive told yesterday how he left her with a friendly "cheerio" and a promise to "see you later".

    Ruth Absalom told the inquiry she was walking her dog near her home when she saw Dr Kelly at about 3pm on July 17 as he went out for what proved to be his last afternoon stroll.

    She said the scientist "seemed his normal self" as she chatted with him about a mile from their homes before he walked off towards the countryside.

    She told the inquiry: "He said: 'Hello Ruth' and I said: 'Oh hello David, how are things?' He said: 'Not too bad'.

    We stood there for a few minutes then Buster, my dog, was pulling on the lead, he wanted to get going.

    I said: 'I will have to go, David'. He said: 'See you again then, Ruth,' and that was it, we parted."

    She added: "Well, he said: 'I must get going' and that was it. We parted and he said: 'Cheerio Ruth', I said: 'Bye David'. That was it.

    ...

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3521541
    JAXXE
    JAXXE --- ---
    flashback:

    Middle East

    In the pipeline: More regime change


    By Hooman Peimani Apr 4, 2003

    An Israeli daily, Ha'aretz, has reported that Israel is seriously considering restarting a strategically important oil pipeline that once transferred oil from the Iraqi city of Mosul to Israel's northern port of Haifa. Given the Israeli claim of a positive US approach to the plan, the Israeli project provides grounds for a theory that the ongoing war against Iraq is in part a joint US, British and Israeli design for reshaping the Middle East to serve their particular interests, including their oil requirements.

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ED04Ak01.html

    Israel seeks pipeline for Iraqi oil

    US discusses plan to pump fuel to its regional ally and solve energy headache at a stroke

    Ed Vuillamy in Washington
    Sunday April 20, 2003
    The Observer

    Plans to build a pipeline to siphon oil from newly conquered Iraq to Israel are being discussed between Washington, Tel Aviv and potential future government figures in Baghdad.

    The plan envisages the reconstruction of an old pipeline, inactive since the end of the British mandate in Palestine in 1948, when the flow from Iraq's northern oilfields to Palestine was re-directed to Syria

    .

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,940250,00.html

    Israel offers to reactivate old Mosul-Haifa oil pipeline

    21-04-03 In the wake of the liberation of Iraq, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is offering to reactivate the old Mosul-Haifa oil pipeline. The pipeline was built by the Iraqi-British oil company in the late 1920s and early 1930s and was among the main targets of the 1936-1939 Arab revolt.
    The pipeline carried Iraqi crude oil to the Haifa refineries on the Mediterranean. From there it was shipped to Europe. But the facility was constantly attacked by Arab guerrillas. Most often it was targeted by Sheikh Az-Adin Kassem, who was finally killed in an engagement with British forces.

    http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntm32049.htm
    JAXXE
    JAXXE --- ---
    bin Laden ploting bio-terror attacks

    KABUL, Afghanistan, Aug. 31 (UPI) -- Taliban sources told Newsweek magazine Osama bin Laden's new "priority" is a bio-terrorism attack against the United States.

    The Newsweek source described a meeting with bin Laden who said he was working on "serious projects."

    "His priority is to use biological weapons," the source said, adding al-Qaida already has such weapons.

    The only question is how to transport and launch them, he asserted. The source insisted he didn't know any further details but bragged: "Osama's next step will be unbelievable."

    Newsweek said the plan was delayed and revised after the March capture of al-Qaida's operations chief, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, in Pakistan.

    U.S. intelligence officials said no one disputes bin Laden's interest in germ warfare. Nevertheless, they said, his priority is to kill Americans by any means readily at hand and most bioweapons are harder to get and use than the alternatives.

    http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20030831-083857-7550r.htm
    PETVAL
    PETVAL --- ---
    "On Democracy Now Bev Harris of BlackBoxVoting fame, disclosed (near the end of the transcript) that in the compromised 1.8Gigs off Diebold's FTP site they uncovered "an actual election file containing actual votes on election day from San Luis Obispo County, California". Problem is, the date stamp was 3:31pm - during voting hours! The Diebold system uses a wireless network card. Worse: "So that means if they can pull the information in, they can also send information back into those machines. ""

    http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/04/199210
    JAXXE
    JAXXE --- ---
    GLOBAL OUTLOOK (TM)

    THE ALTERNATIVE 9/11 INQUIRY

    The Senate and House 9/11 Joint Inquiry has published a 900 page report. Through careful omission, the numerous press and intelligence reports in the public domain (mainstream media, alternative media, etc), which confirm that key members of the Bush Administration were involved in acts of political complicity and camouflage, have been carefully removed from the Inquiry's data bank and excluded from the hearings, held behind closed doors.

    While the FBI has acknowledged the role of Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI), neither the Joint Inquiry nor the the 9/11 Commission headed by former Governor Thomas Kean have addressed this issue. The fact that Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA, a so-called "intelligence asset" (confirmed by official reports and congressional transcripts), is not part of the Joint Inquiry's terms of reference.

    Global Outlook offers to its readers a set of publications which refutes the official explanation and which provides an alternative understanding of the tragic events of 9/11 and their aftermath.

    http://globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/SPECIAL911.html
    JAXXE
    JAXXE --- ---
    The Road Map to Empire



    by Michel Chossudovsky and Ian Woods

    Editorial, Global Outlook, No. 5, Summer/ Fall 2003
    www.globalresearch.ca 18 July 2003

    The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO307C.html

    Click here for details on Global Outlook, Issue No. 5

    In the war's sinister aftermath, the entire world knows that the pretext for the invasion of Iraq was based on fabricated evidence and doctored intelligence. (See p.13.) The facts regarding Iraq's alleged WMDs had been carefully manipulated. The lies were known and documented prior to the war, discussed behind closed doors not only at the UN Security Council but also on Capitol Hill.

    Prior to the war's onslaught and throughout the military campaign, the US media, in close liaison with the Pentagon, was instrumental in withholding the truth. This tactic is straight out of the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence which Bush promised would be shut down due to the public uproar against the idea that the Pentagon might be allowed to spread false information in the media for their own purposes. (For more see Global Outlook No. 4, p.20.)

    Covert ‘dirty tricks' operations had been launched to produce misleading intelligence, which was then fed into the news chain. WMD-Al Qaeda threats to ‘the Homeland' had been played up and repeated ad nauseam, pasted on a daily basis across the tabloids. The objective of the disinformation campaign was to "whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor", while fudging the issue of forged intelligence until the war was over. The fact that President Bush was an outright liar was only brought to US public's attention in the invasion's aftermath, once a US-UK occupation government (‘The Authority'), duly sanctioned by the UN, had been put in place.
    Releasing the ‘Big Lie'

    When the unofficial ‘release date' was reached in early June, the ‘Big Lie' was revealed. Time magazine, which had relentlessly applauded the coalition's invasion plan, started accusing the Bush Administration of "cooking the books". How convenient! Now that Iraq is occupied, looted and pillaged by American and British troops, the lie has now belatedly surfaced on the front pages of America's newspapers.

    Leading Democrats in the US Congress were fully aware that the Administration's casus belli was a brazen lie. They had agreed, however, with their Republican cronies, to remain silent on the issue of cooked intelligence until after the Blitzkrieg and the conquest of Iraq. The US Senate and British House of Commons inquiries do not purport to "undo a war" waged on a fabricated pretext, nor demand the eventual withdrawal of coalition troops from Iraq. Quite the contrary – more troops have been sent into Iraq to quell armed resistance against occupation forces. (See p.3, Global Outlook, Issue 5.)

    As a result, the US has vastly increased its military presence in the broader Middle East Central Asian region. In the immediate wake of the war, even France, Germany and Russia, which had earlier opposed the invasion, granted (in the name of multilateralism) their unbending support to the US-UK led ‘Authority' in Iraq. In so doing, they have not only violated the UN charter, they are also complicit in the crimes committed against the Iraqi people, including the killing of over 3,000 civilians and the maiming of countless others in the latest Gulf War.

    Visibly, a token deal had been struck, behind closed doors, between the victors and ‘Old Europe' on sharing a portion of Iraq's sizeable oil wealth.

    The Project for a New American Century (PNAC)




    The ‘public outcry' on cooked intelligence – carefully orchestrated by the corporate media – creates the illusion of an unbiased press and a functioning democracy. Yet this ritual, in which political leaders are said to be held accountable, also contributes to upholding the democratic fa
    JAXXE
    JAXXE --- ---
    ...
    The second-generation Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening System, known as CAPPS II, is the subject of a probe by Congress' investigative arm, the General Accounting Office, said congressional staff of both parties and GAO investigators.

    Language in two funding bills, one already completed, forbids spending any money on the program until it addresses lawmakers' concerns.

    CAPPS II would divide passengers into three categories: green, screened normally at the gate; yellow, given extra screening; and red. Transportation Security Administration officials said passengers with a red rating would be forbidden to fly and would be questioned at the airport by law-enforcement officials.

    The program would compare personal data about passengers collected by airlines — name, address, date of birth and telephone number — with commercial databases held by marketing companies and others.

    Mathematical formulas called algorithms would be used to combine and cross-check all kinds of data about every passenger — how long he or she has lived at an address, for example — but also intelligence information about individuals and groups. The program then comes up with a threat score, a bit like a credit rating, for each traveler.


    CAPPS II, initially announced in January this year, would replace two earlier systems administered by airlines. The "no-fly list," identifying individuals suspected of terror links or barred for other reasons, and CAPPS I, which checks a range of data about the trip and compares the passenger's name against a federal "watch list" of terrorist suspects.

    ...

    http://www.propagandamatrix.com/010903capps.html
    JAXXE
    JAXXE --- ---
    Nutch is a nascent effort to implement an open-source web search engine.

    Web search is a basic requirement for internet navigation, yet the number of web search engines is decreasing. Today's oligopoly could soon be a monopoly, with a single company controlling nearly all web search for its commercial gain. That would not be good for users of the internet.

    Nutch provides a transparent alternative to commercial web search engines. Only open source search results can be fully trusted to be without bias.
    (Or at least their bias is public.) All existing major search engines have proprietary ranking formulas, and will not explain why a given page ranks as it does. Additionally, some search engines determine which sites to index based on payments, rather than on the merits of the sites themselves. Nutch, on the other hand, has nothing to hide and no motive to bias its results or its crawler in any way other than to try to give each user the best results possible.

    Nutch aims to enable anyone to easily and cost-effectively deploy a world-class web search engine. This is a substantial challenge. To succeed, Nutch software must be able to:

    * fetch several billion pages per month
    * maintain an index of these pages
    * search that index up to 1000 times per second
    * provide very high quality search results
    * operate at minimal cost

    This is a challenging proposition. If you believe in the merits of this project, please help out, either as a developer or with a donation

    © The Nutch Organization, 2003

    http://www.nutch.org/docs/index.html
    JAXXE
    JAXXE --- ---
    ...

    Secondly a contact of mine, a former MI6 spook, was speaking about the circumstances of Kelly's death. He said he's been taught how to "make anything look like anything" and said that there must have been some kind of struggle at the scene of Kelly's death. He said it was sloppy work that Kelly's body was found with enough pills for an overdose but hadn't ingested them, he said that should have been removed from the scene under normal procedure. He added "You can slit someone's wrists and make it look like suicide easily but it's a lot harder to make someone swallow tablets." He also said the heart monitor pads found on Kelly's chest were "simply there to make sure he was dead." He also said those should have been removed and suspects the agents involved were disturbed by someone in the process of the killing.

    ...

    http://www.propagandamatrix.com/010903kellymurder.html
    JAXXE
    JAXXE --- ---
    JAXXE
    JAXXE --- ---
    What Was Mossad Doing In Najaf One Week Before The Bombing ?
    Sep 01, 2003
    Source: IRIB Via MDA

    During a ceremony to commemorate Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim, the head of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council Hojatol Islam Dr. Hasan Rowhani said that a number of people affiliated to the former regime and appointed by the American governor of Iraq are responsible for maintaining security in Najaf and these people must explain what was a Zionist group linked to Mossad doing in Najaf a week before this incident?

    Mr Rowhani said that the USA and Britain are directly responsibility for this incident and they must be answerable to the world of Islam because in keeping with international norms, the occupiers are responsible for maintaining security in Iraq.

    The secretary of Supreme National Security Council said that Americans must be aware that they have won themselves an everlasting hatred of Arab states, regional countries and Muslims.

    Mr Rowhani stressed that the incident leading to the martyrdom of Ayatollah al-Hakim and tens of
    worshippers on Friday was not the job of an amateur group but of a powerful government and America is directly responsible for it.

    Addressing the people of Iraq, Mr Rowhani said that the experience of Iranians in challenging America is that this country, other than the language of power, does not heed to any other language or logic and that the language of power is rooted in unity.

    Mr Rowhani said the martyrdom of Ayatollah al-Hakim should not lead to division because he called for independence, national sovereignty, the expelling of foreigners, and the participation of all Iraqis in running the country with respect for Islam, and that the people of Iraq must continue the path of Ayatollah al-Hakim.

    http://www.jihadunspun.com/intheatre_internal.php?article=74475&list=/home.php&
    JAXXE
    JAXXE --- ---
    Patriot Act Con: Feds Use Fear To Grab Power Of A Police State

    By PENNY TEAL
    Published on 8/31/2003

    Opposition to the USA Patriot Act has reached such a high level that Attorney General John Ashcroft has had to launch a road show to defend it. In June he met with editors and media executives in Aspen, Colo., to solicit their assistance in “portraying accurately” the act, which places unprecedented restrictions on the rights and freedoms of people in this country — both citizens and noncitizens. The Justice Department has also asked that law enforcement officials write commentaries supporting the act.

    Unfortunately, the arguments used by the Justice Department fail to convince. That is partly because many are deceptive, if not outright lies; and partly because the manipulation of fears and the lack of self-consistency are apparent in those arguments.

    The first thing you are likely to hear in defense of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terroristm Act — the USA PATRIOT Act — is that it was needed as a response to Sept. 11, 2001. It was, in fact, written long before that day, not in response to that tragedy, and was rejected as too draconian every time Ashcroft tried to introduce parts of it to Congress.
    And the provisions outlined in the 350-plus pages of the Patriot Act would have done nothing to prevent the horrific attacks of Sept. 11 (see the London Observer, Oct. 27, 2002, Review Section pages 1-4, for starters). The FBI had plenty of information on Sept. 11 suspects and agents who were urging investigations which were shut down by their superiors. Adding information on millions more people will not make it easier to target terrorists; it could conceivably lead to bureaucratic meltdown.

    ...

    http://www.theday.com/eng/web/newstand/re.aspx?reIDx=EE60F028-3C8E-4CE5-AA13-99E956FF8F62
    JAXXE
    JAXXE --- ---
    Anger at plan to add fluoride to water supplies for 13m

    Mark Townsend
    Sunday August 31, 2003
    The Observer

    Fluoride could be added to the drinking water of another 13 million people by next summer under plans by Ministers to supply major cities with the chemical.

    A new amendment to forthcoming legislation will force water companies to add fluoride to water supplies, smoothing the way for the largest extension of fluoridation for almost 50 years. Opponents have condemned the moves, accusing Ministers of mass medication by stealth and a 'nanny state' mentality.

    They also claim fluoride has been linked to adverse health affects including cancer, brittle bones and thyroid disease and can cause teeth to mottle.

    The Government, however, views its introduction as a way of cutting high rates of tooth decay among youngsters in deprived neighbourhoods. So far 11 per cent of the population - six million people - have fluoride added to their water, mainly in the Midlands. The British Fluoridation Society, a group representing pro-fluoride dentists, said discussions with the Government had indicated a third of the population of England and Wales, just over 19 million, should be supplied with the substance.

    Areas identified include central London, greater Manchester, the West Yorkshire conurbation, Cardiff and Southampton.

    The Government's amendment - inserted quietly into the Water Bill last month - will wrest control away from the water companies who have traditionally presided over the decision whether to add fluoride to drinking water. In the past, they have turned down scores of requests, fearing legal action from campaign groups. Instead, responsibility will be transferred to the strategic health authorities of England and Wales.

    ...

    http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1032730,00.html
    Kliknutím sem můžete změnit nastavení reklam