'Fight Smart' Update - 18 Nov 2001

CIA provided funds to financiers of Sept 11 bomber

Bush restricts access to Presidential Records

"[The FBI] were prevented for political reasons from carrying out full investigations into members of the Bin Laden family in the US before the terrorist attacks of September 11"

London Guardian, 7 November 2001

FBI Deputy Director resigned in protest in July

One of the consequences of the mass FBI investigation into the September 11 bombings is that its hunt for suspects has inevitably lead to many trails overseas, and as a result directly into territory which is more typically occupied by the CIA.

In so doing it has become apparent that the alleged leader of the September 11 suicide bombers, Mohammed Atta, was provided with finance on the instructions of the head of the Pakistan Intelligence Service (ISI). The ISI has in turn had access to considerable funds from the CIA for the purpose of supporting militant groups in Afghanistan. According to one account provided earlier in the year from a regional policy expert with access to CIA officials, much of the spending of this money has been left to the discretion of the ISI itself with whom "The CIA still has close links".

Although these terrorist funding revelations were originally revealed by the Times of India (where favourable coverage of Pakistani affairs is not guaranteed), the situation has also been briefly reported in the Pakistani press as well as the Wall St Journal . The FBI's discovery of the situation involved information provided by the Indian intelligence services whose interest in the matter will have made the subject difficult for the US and Pakistani governments to subsequently sweep under the carpet. The ISI director-general concerned has therefore now been 'retired'.

The Times of India comments starkly in its story of 9 October that: "A direct link between ISI and the WTC attack could have enormous repercussions..... Evidence of a larger conspiracy could shake US confidence in Pakistan's ability to participate in the anti-terrorism coalition."

But do the implications of the situation in fact spread well beyond the questionable loyalty of America's 'allies' in the war against terrorism? The prospect of the US's own covert activities in Pakistan providing funds for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon will undoubtedly prove too troubling for many to wish to contemplate.

Such a scenario would, however, at the very least provide a clear example of what are the ultimate consequences of the US's continual malevolent interference in the affairs of other countries as it seeks to spread its economic influence into new regions of the world following the collapse of the Soviet empire . In this case access to the oil rich Caspian Sea region is the principal factor lying behind America's cynical support of violent factions in Afghanistan, of which the murderous Northern Alliance are only the latest candidates of convenience (see 'Killer dons mantle of hero' , London Times, 12 November 2001)

Many have questioned how it was possible that US intelligence failed to stop the attacks [*] on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon despite the advance warnings . Now it appears CIA funds may even have helped finance them.

But that is not all. The French Newspaper Le Figaro reported 11 October that the CIA had met with Osama Bin Laden in Dubai as recently as July this year (Bin Laden's apparent ten day stay at the American hospital in Dubai has also been commented on by the London Times . It appears neither Le Figaro nor the Times have been allowed to question Dr Terry Callaway, the Canadian surgeon reported to have been treating Bin Laden at the hospital for a kidney disorder).

During the course of earlier investigations into to embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, according to Le Figaro, "the FBI discovered 'financing agreements' that the CIA had been developing with its 'Arab friends' for years" and that "The [Bin Laden-CIA] Dubai meeting is then within the logic of 'a certain American policy'".

Le Figaro also reports that French intelligence services had confirmed that "very specific information was transmitted to the CIA with respect to terrorist attacks against American interests around the world, including on US soil. A DST report dated 7 September enumerates all the intelligence, and specifies that the order to attack was to come from Afghanistan." Moreover the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Airforce, General Anatoli Kornukov, told the press 12 September that " Generally it is impossible to carry out an act of terror on the scenario which was used in the USA yesterday. We had such facts too. As soon as something like that happens here, I am reported about that right away and in a minute we are all up."

If there is any truth in these reports then the question arises as to why the FBI is not making more progress in pursuing its investigations into the events surrounding September 11. According to the London Times (3 November 2001: 'FBI arrogance and secrecy dismays US' ) the FBI has now "exhausted most of its leads" and is "convinced that the key to al-Qaeda operations lay in Germany". Unfortunately for the FBI arrests made by the security services in Germany and other European countries based on these FBI leads have shown that "in almost every case these cells knew nothing about the September 11 hijacks".

The Times also reports that: "The main suspect in US custody .... had been picked up by immigration authorities in August but the FBI refused to let its field agents search his laptop computer which contained clues as to the September 11 mission.....". The Times further points out that despite 7,000 FBI agents on the case:"Nobody has yet been charged over the attacks on America", and in a separate article in the same edition, that "60 per cent of Muslims in the Middle East believe that Israeli or US intelligence services were responsible for the September attacks" (3 November 2001: 'Blair loses his way on road to Damascus' ).

According to the BBC this perception has been encouraged by the fact that: "The FBI was quick to release a list of alleged hijackers, but some of them turned up alive and well in the Arab world." (3 November 2001, 'Bin Laden popular in Saudi Arabia' ).

A subsequent report by the London Guardian (7 November 7, 2001, 'FBI claims Bin Laden inquiry was frustrated' ) reveals that "FBI and military intelligence officials in Washington say they were prevented for political reasons from carrying out full investigations into members of the Bin Laden family in the US before the terrorist attacks of September 11" and that "the restrictions became worse after the Bush administration took over this year". The intelligence agencies had been told to 'back off' from investigations involving "other members of the Bin Laden family, the Saudi royals, and possible Saudi links to the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Pakistan".

The evening before the BBC Newsnight programme had posed the critical question ' Has someone been sitting on the FBI?' . The programme interviewed US national security expert Joe Trento, author of 'Secret History of the CIA', into whose hands confidential FBI documentation relating to the Bin Laden family had fallen. Another interviewee on the programme states that 'There is a hidden agenda at the very highest levels of our government'.

In a follow up article entitled 'Bush took FBI agents off Laden family trail' the Times of India 7 November tells its readers that the FBI document featured by Newsnight had "alleged that the cynicism of the American establishment and 'connections between the CIA and Saudi Arabia and the Bush men and bin Ladens' may have been the real cause of the deaths of thousands in the World Trade Centre attacks."

Earlier the London Independent had reported (10 October) that "To the embarrassment of investigators, it has also emerged that the firm used to buy many of the 'put' options - where a trader, in effect, bets on a share price fall - on United Airlines stock was headed until 1998 by 'Buzzy' Krongard, now executive director of the CIA." United Airlines was one of the carriers whose aircraft were used in the attacks on the US and in whose shares there was highly unusual trading just before September 11 indicating prior knowledge of the strikes.

It is already known that prior warnings of the impending strikes were provided to the CIA by Israeli ( Daily Telegraph, London, 16 September 2001 ) and other intelligence services around the world . It is interesting, therefore, that in inverse fashion the Independent cautiously raises the concept of an unspeakable scenario by meekly asserting that "There is no suggestion that Mr Krongard had advance knowledge of the attacks".

The Independent offers no alternative suggestion as to who might have placed the 'put' options. It merely observes that those who profited from the exercise had not collected their $2.5m gains on the trade because they "failed to foresee that the first response of the US stock markets to the disaster was to suspend all trading for four days, thereby denying them the chance of cashing in their profits". However, the CIA is known to have well established connections at the highest levels within Wall Street ( 'The CIA's Wall Street connections' KPFA 94.1 FM Radio, Berkeley, CA, October 12, 2001 ).

Given these wider circumstances; given his agency's intimate links with the intelligence services in Pakistan; and given the latter's direct linkage to the September 11 suicide attacks, it seems that the time is now well overdue to get the Director of the CIA, George Tenet, into the witness box. As Time magazine put it on 24 September : " At some point, when the nation has moved beyond grief and vengefulness, CIA Director George Tenet and FBI Director Robert Mueller will have to explain how the $10 billion-a-year anti-terror system failed...."

But where does the buck stop? More recently two members of the US House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform have written to George W. Bush ( 6 November 2001 ) expressing their dismay at the President's sudden change to the Executive Order governing the release of Presidential records. Bush's new order places fresh restrictions on public access to such records. According to the letter's authors the new Executive Order even goes so far as to allow 'the sitting President to withhold the records of a former President, even if that President wants those records released'.

Just exactly why should these extraordinary steps be introduced at this time in a country which claims to be unremittingly engaged in the defence of 'democracy' and 'freedom' on behalf of the 'civilised' world? The title of an article in the US newspaper the 'Seattle Post-Intelligencer' 8 November - "Is Bush trying to protect dad?" - may provide a clue given the President's father's personal links to the CIA and the Bin Laden family. An important element of these links revolve around international 'defence' contracts pursued by Bush senior on behalf of the Carlyle group based in Washington DC (which now claims to be the largest private equity firm in the world and has also signed up former British Prime Minister John Major according to the London Guardian 31 October).

Equally to the point, the new Executive order means "that Mr Bush's personal papers detailing the decision-making process in the current war on terrorism could remain secret in perpetuity" ( 'Bush blocks public access to White House papers' , London Guardian, 2 November 2001). This is in stark contrast to those documents recently unearthed which reveal that Franklin Roosevelt knew of the impending Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour well in advance and did not stand in its way. President Roosevelt's purpose was to allow an outrage of sufficient magnitude to provoke an unwilling US public into accepting America's entry into the second world war.

We have now moved into the next century but how much has the world of power politics really changed?

It is now known that the FBI and the military intelligence services have already been obstructed from within the US administration from carrying out their investigations into the Bin Laden family 'for political reasons'. What is especially ominous in all of this is that moves characteristic of the introduction of a police state are now afoot to further consolidate the CIA's control of US 'intelligence'. These moves arise from a high level proposal that would incorporate the Pentagon's own three largest intelligence-collection agencies within the CIA ( Sydney Morning Herald 9 November 2001 'CIA to watch the watchers in intelligence overhaul' ). The three Pentagon agencies have traditionally been under the direction of the secretary of defence (London Guardian, 'Row looms on CIA intelligence coup' , 9 November).

Just prior to the arrival of these deeply totalitarian steps unprecedented legal action by Congress was already underway against Vice-President Cheney for his refusal to disclose records of his energy task force that had met in secret with major contributors to the Bush Presidential campaign in order to discuss US energy policy. The events of September 11 have, however, now served as an opportunity to conveniently squash these efforts to get at the truth. Such efforts are now vilified as 'unpatriotic'.

The Cheney situation (which may well be related to concealment of US energy strategy in relation to Afghanistan and the Caspian Sea region), together with the President's efforts to restrict public access to White House records, makes it necessary to ask whether the 'war against terrorism' is quietly being used to execute an escape manoeuvre on behalf of a government whose very legitimacy might otherwise be seriously in question by now. That is, were it not for the war smoke screen. ("The former Vice-President [Al Gore] won 51 million votes in last year's election, more than any American in history save Ronald Reagan. .... More than that, a comprehensive study of the Florida contest confirmed this week that Mr Gore would be occupying the Oval Office if he had found a way of triggering a state-wide recount of rejected ballots." - London Times, 17 November, 'Nearly man who should be President' )

There is, of course, nothing like a war to keep domestic scrutiny at bay. Meanwhile the BBC quotes a former Pakistani diplomat's knowledge as far back as July of a pre-planned US attack on Afghanistan scheduled for October . According to the London Guardian 22 September the matter was raised by US representatives at a meeting in Berlin convened by the UN secretary general's special representative on Afghanistan, Francesc Vendrell, and attended by US, Russian, Iranian and Pakistani former diplomats.

Until some credible answers are provided to a large number of searching and disturbing questions about the activities and intentions of the Bush Administration, American citizens should switch off CNN , start reading the foreign press , and consider more carefully the import of what is going on around them. They should consider what their most patriotic course of action might be in these unexpected circumstances, and they should not flinch from asking the very questions that the US media will not pose on their behalf. The very survival of the 'American dream' depends on those questions being asked.

Patriotism yes. Blind patriotism no. What on earth do the American people suppose is really going on?

As a Los Angles Times syndicated cartoon presented it 17 November under the title "Is Bush Trumanesque or Nixonesque?" - (Voice of Truman to Bush): 'Pay no attention to your critics. Do what is best for your country...'. (Voice of Nixon to Bush): '...After making sure that all the cheap, political advantage has been wrung out of it first'."

The London Times 13 November reminds it readers that the US's new found allies in the 'war against terrorism', the Northern Alliance killed 25,000 mostly civilians during a previous battle over Kabul in the 1990s and in the process "systematically looting and raping women". In another assault "there were reports of prisoners roasted alive in metal containers in the sun, and others skinned alive". In other words, the Northern Alliance are a group of terrorists of a standard to rival the Taliban. Or as the Mirror put it 14 November "One lot of barbarians has displaced another. Is this really what the allies want?....The war against terrorism is not over. It has simply entered a new and infinitely more complex, phase... Meanwhile, the menace of international terrorism is still with us. The bombs have not killed it."

Either you are for terrorism or you are against it - but only when it's convenient it would seem in the case of the US and NATO. Which country will be bombed next after Afghanistan? The London Times 15 November reports the discovery of nuclear weapon technology documentation in Kabul following the departure of the Taliban. This was documentation "which confirms the West's worst fears and raises the spectre of plans for an attack that would far exceed the September 11 atrocities in scale and gravity". How likely is it that such information is now only in the hands of one terrorist organisation following the break up of the Soviet Union and most recently the dispersal of key leaders of the Taliban into neighbouring countries?

The Times observes 16 November that "Bin Laden realises that the obsession is with catching him, so that leaves a chance for his lesser-known associates". The prospect of members of al-Qaeda having now decamped to Pakistan and Turkmenistan does not offer much comfort. Despite US air supremacy over the country Pakastan has been allowed to fly senior members of the Taliban out of Afghanistan. When questioned as to why America was allowing such flights the leader of the Northern Alliance General Dawood replied: "That is a question that you will have to put to the Americans." (London Times, 16 November print version p3, article continued from p1 - online version excludes this question and response).

An assessment of how the US's predilection for providing covert succour to terrorist organisations for tactical gain ( of which the Taliban has been only one ) was provided by Professor Michel Chossudovsky of the University of Ottawa shortly after the September 11 attacks. Already further demonstrated in the west's hasty support for the Northern Alliance Professor Chossudovsky elucidates the potential for an unfolding quagmire scenario at a more strategic level in the longer term concluding that: "In the wake of the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington the truth must prevail to prevent the Bush Administration together with its NATO partners from embarking upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity." And the military adventure will not be just overseas.

In a move more reminiscent of a country undergoing a coup d'etat President Bush signed an order at the beginning of November that would allow foreigners accused of terrorism to tried by a special military commission (New York Times, 15 November 'Seizing Dictatorial Power' ) . The order does not require approval from Congress and the trials would take place in greater secrecy than an ordinary criminal court, according to an Associated Press report 13 November . This means that any testimony given by foreign nationals which simultaneously exposed CIA complicity in fostering terrorists overseas - such as that which might be given by Bin Laden himself if captured - would be heard in secret.

Is the picture becoming clearer? Well here's a bit more: "... in late September and early October, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamic parties negotiated bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for the September 11 attacks. The deal was that he would be held under house arrest in Peshawar. According to reports in Pakistan (and the Daily Telegraph), this had both bin Laden's approval and that of Mullah Omah, the Taliban leader.... Later, a US official said that 'casting our objectives too narrowly' risked 'a premature collapse of the international effort if by some luck chance Mr bin Laden was captured'.... ( Daily Mirror 16 November 2001 ).

Contrary to their first impression the latter comments from the US official are indeed helpful, but only in the sense that they help clarify why it was that the US let Bin Laden go in Dubai back in July.

The piece from the Mirror continues by focusing on what has stemmed from this approach: "What the Afghani people got instead was 'American justice' - imposed by a president who, as well as denouncing international agreements on nuclear weapons, biological weapons, torture and global warming, has refused to sign up for an international court to try war criminals: the one place where bin Laden might be put on trial.". And it's now not difficult to see why.

Back in the US "Hundreds of suspects, of mainly Middle Eastern origin, are being held in a New York jail but nobody has been charged" (London Times 17 November) ; anthrax attacks are a constant threat; and the Bush administration continues to splurge over $1 billion per day on 'defence'.

With this monstrous background in mind it is worth reflecting on the long-standing nature of US sponsored violence in foreign lands as articulated by General Smedley Butler , one of the few Americans to be twice awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, in a statement he made in the 1930s:

" War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. . . .

I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. ...

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested....

Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

At the time General Smedley Butler made these remarks the threat of economic recession in the US had already set in (as indeed is the case today) and there had been plans by American corporations to overthrow President Franklin Roosevelt in a concealed coup d'etat, and to install a right wing government . Attempts were made to recruit General Smedley Butler, promising him an army of 500,000 men, unlimited financial backing, and favourable treatment by the media.

Roosevelt was to be pushed aside and the situation presented to the public as being the result of deteriorating personal health. Butler was told "You know the American people will swallow that. We have got the newspapers". The coup, however, was foiled when the general revealed the details in testimony to the McCormack-Dickstein Congressional Committee.

It the light of this litany of unsavoury historical and contemporary ingredients it is useful to reflect on a more recent observation made by Bill Richardson , US energy secretary in 1998, on the importance of US influence over pipeline related developments in 'newly independent countries' (of which the Balkans were of particular topical interest at the time). Richardson's comments on Caspian oil reserves and their transit routes lucidly give the game away regarding America's enthusiasm for subsequent military intervention in Afghanistan: "This is about America's energy security...... We've made a substantial political investment in the Caspian, and it's very important to us that both the pipeline map and the politics come out right" ( London Guardian, 15 February 2001 ).

To further re-emphasise the oil and gas related geopolitical point , on 15 November the global news agency Inter Press Service reported from Paris that: "Under the influence of U.S. oil companies, the government of George W. Bush initially blocked U.S. secret service investigations on terrorism, while it bargained with the Taliban the delivery of Osama bin Laden in exchange for political recognition and economic aid, two French intelligence analysts claim." The report refers to the publication of a book last Wednesday in Paris entitled "Bin Laden, la verite interdite" ('Bin Laden, the forbidden truth').

The book reveals that the FBI's deputy director John O'Neill resigned in July in protest over the obstruction. With the strategic objective of securing access to oil and gas reserves in Central Asia one of the book's authors states: "At one moment during the negotiations, the U.S. representatives told the Taliban, 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs' ".

The authors also draw a portrait of President Bush's closest aides, linking them to oil business. From the U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, through the director of the National Security Council Condoleeza Rice, to the Ministers of Commerce and Energy, Donald Evans and Stanley Abraham, all have for long worked for U.S. oil companies. (And, as it happens, in a separate development following the start of the Afghan war Prime Minister Blair's 'closest and most trusted' adviser Anji Hunter has now left 10 Downing St in order to join British Petroleum).

With the London Times already reporting a related story on 3 September , it may not come as a complete surprise in these circumstances to learn that "While the United States is relentlessly bombing Afghanistan with the official aim of getting Osama bin Laden, one of bin Laden's top collaborators is running a terrorist training camp in an area of Kosovo that is under U.S. control" (Executive Intelligence Review, 2 November 'U.S. Protects Al-Qaeda Terrorists in Kosovo' ).

The Balkans are yet another region of key strategic energy importance as General Michael Jackson , commander of NATO forces in Macedonia, previously confided to the Italian daily, Sole 24 Ore, 13 April 1999 : "Today, the circumstances which we have created here have changed. Today, it is absolutely necessary to guarantee the stability of Macedonia and its entry into NATO. But we will certainly remain here a long time so that we can also guarantee the security of the energy corridors which traverse this country." The Italian paper went on to say, "It is clear that Jackson is referring to the 8th Corridor, the East-West axis which ought to be combined to the pipeline bringing energy resources from Central Asia to terminals in the Black Sea and in the Adriatic, connecting Europe to Central Asia. That explains why the great and medium-sized powers, and first of all Russia, don't want to be excluded from the settling of scores that will take place over the next few months in the Balkans".

Or for that matter now in Afghanistan. Jostling for strategic position in relation to perceived long term energy 'security' and revenues is the unspoken order of the day for NATO countries and others. Is it not becoming a little clearer where it is that Russia's President Putin is now coming from both in his sponsorship of the Northern Alliance and also in his simultaneous attempts to 'befriend' Bush ? If Unocal Corporation, the US company previously scheduled to build the trans-Afghan oil pipeline, have to negotiate its security with allies of Russia, then from Putin's perspective - 'well, that would be nice obviously'.

Needless to say, any serious discussion by world leaders of the development of a global economy based instead on renewable energy sources remains notable simply by virtue of its almost total absence, despite the overwhelming relevance of such an approach to future prospects for world peace ( 'Solar Energy, Agriculture and World Peace' , NLPWessex, June 2001).

Meanwhile, whilst those pulling Bush's strings back at home play fast and loose with global security in order to promote US economic interests at home and abroad, thousands of innocent UK troops are being made ready to risk their lives as 'peace keepers' in Afghanistan. Yet the decades-long fight against terrorism in Northern Ireland continues to confront the British public post September 11, with bombs and sectarian murders emanating from their fellow Christians at home.

Such acts have a long history of receiving finance from America, ironically with many wealthy supporters in New York fuelling the supply. To quote the BBC: "While Libya's donation of arms to the IRA in the 1980s has been the most public sign of where the republican movement has previously turned for support, the reality is that North America has been the most important link of all." ( 'Rich Friends in New York' - BBC Online 26 September).

Back in the Islamic world The Sunday Times 18 November reports that "While thousands of Taliban have retreated to Pakistan, many say they will return to wage a guerrilla war - a tactic used successfully by mujaheddin against the Soviet forces...The threat of guerrilla warfare raises the prospect of a long and bloody campaign against the Northern Alliance, southern Afghan commanders and western troops".

Northern Ireland or Afghanistan ? Which situation now represents the greater challenge for the British troops? Described as "a motley collection of ethnic leaders and regional warlords" (i.e. they are terrorists) the Northern Alliance has already issued a veiled threat against UK troops arriving in Afghanistan ( ' Alliance warns British troops to stay away' , London Times 17 November). Which would you prefer, corporal - Belfast or Kabul ?

Unable to placate seething Christians in 'the civilised world' back home, how long do our boys-in-berets plan to stay in Afghanistan, bearing in mind that one American official has already confirmed the possibility that "we are embarking on the next Hundred Years' War"? What will be the cost of their stay? What evidence is there that their efforts will eliminate terrorism from those or any other lands? And where are the papers published in peer reviewed scientific journals that demonstrate this?

Naturally objective evidence confirming the likely success of any strategy in the 'war against terrorism' is an important criterion for the political decision making process of the western world, which prides itself on a commitment to science, rationality and progress. Or so it has been assumed. In reality, this is a pretence.

Until the known and preventable causes of terrorism are addressed through proven effective means - means that are already available on a non-violent and cost effective basis supported by extensive published scientific data - it is impossible to respect the sincerity of the 'war against terrorism'. Until then it can only be expected that the world will deteriorate into an increasingly unsafe place for all mankind, irrespective of creed or race.

NATURAL LAW PARTY WESSEX

nlpwessex@bigfoot.com

www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex

[*]

Footnote:

Update on this added 21 November - ' MR. CHENEY'S COVER STORY ' - http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-2.htm

"A coalition of Patriotic Americans in Favor of Humanitarian Action Against Terrorism and Hate"



Join the voice for Freedom, Diversity, Action, and Love

Join United 4 Love

http://www.united4love.com/

United 4 Love Member Essay

[extract]

"....Let us rejoice in our blessings, but take time to recognize our sins and cleanse the landscape of prejudice and hypocrisy that has weakened the fabric of our great American spirit....If we truly unite, and question the sincerity of slogans and rhetoric, and refute prejudice, our love will be invincible against hate....We must own up to that history makes us appear self-serving, and heartlessly materialistic to many poor and needy people around the globe....If we admit our mistakes to the world, we can convert our weaknesses to strengths, invalidate the terrorists' claims that we are the evil ones, and win love and support for America....Organized crime exists....Who do you think sells most of the illegal weapons throughout the world? Where do they get them? Organized crime infiltrates every government, negotiates weapon's deals (under the table) and sells the 'merchandise' to the highest bidder. If we don't address international organized crime, wars will continue to fester everywhere. Profits soar in times of war for the legal and illegal 'defense' industries. We must not ignore this conflict of interest. Their 'marketing' requires violent conflicts throughout the world and their agents fuel hate and division of people. I wonder what former President and CIA head, George Bush, could tell us about organized crime....Be honest. Demand that our leaders be honest too. "

http://www.united4love.com/essays/essays_1.php

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1109-09.htm

The New USA PATRIOT Act

Are You a Patriot?

"The USA Patriot Act, now passed and the law of the land, has eliminated the Constitutional guarantee of probable cause when investigating a crime, and now allows the police - at any time and for any reason - to enter and search your house, your files, your bank account - and not even tell you about it....The recent passage and signing of the Patriot Act has effectively nullified at least six amendments of the Bill of Rights addendum to the U.S. Constitution. As a result of this, America is longer America, but a police state, pure and simple. This Patriot Bill is, in fact, a massive violation of the Constitution it purports to uphold and improve...."

USA Patriot Act was signed into law by President Bush October 26, 2001- more details - click here

"While the Pakistani Inter Services Public Relations claimed that former ISI director-general Lt-Gen Mahmud Ahmad sought retirement after being superseded on Monday, the truth is more shocking. Top sources confirmed here on Tuesday, that the general lost his job because of the 'evidence' India produced to show his links to one of the suicide bombers that wrecked the World Trade Centre. The US authorities sought his removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of Gen Mahumd."

Times of India, 9 October 2001: ' India helped FBI trace ISI-terrorist links'

More at: http://www.timesofindia.com/articleshow.asp?art_id=1454238160

"The Taliban are a creation of America's Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in cooperation with Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI), said leading US South-Asia expert Selig Harrison. Harrison spoke in front of an audience of security experts in London in a conference on 'Terrorism and regional security: Managing the challenges of Asia' in the last week of February, just before the Taliban's assault on the Buddha statues of Bamiyan. As a senior associate of the Carnegy Endowment for International Peace from 1974 to 1996, he had been in close contact with the CIA...... After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, the CIA had encouraged militant Islamic groups from around the world to come to Afghanistan. The USA and its allies provided 3 billion dollars for building up the largest ever funded 'resistance movement'. .........The CIA had left much of the decision how to use the US funds to Pakistani specialists....'The CIA still has close links with the ISI', said Harrison. "

RATIONALIST INTERNATIONAL Bulletin # 68 (19 March 2001)

http://www.rationalistinternational.net/archive/rationalist_2001/68.htm

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aa68e10243d.htm

"On Oct. 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of Nazi German banking operations in New York City which were being conducted by Prescott Bush..... President Bush's family had already played a central role in financing and arming Adolf Hitler for his takeover of Germany; in financing and managing the buildup of Nazi war industries for the conquest of Europe and war against the U.S.A.; and in the development of Nazi genocide theories and racial propaganda, with their well-known results."

"George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography" --- by Webster G. Tarpley & Anton Chaitkin

http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm

More on this from Herald Tribune Newscoast, 11 November 2000

http://www.newscoast.com/headlinesstory2.cfm?ID=35115

"Ever since a 1995 uproar about the CIA's use of Guatemalan informants linked to torture and murder, the agency has been required to perform 'human rights' checks on its assets. Last week George H.W. Bush criticized the restriction. 'We have to free up the intelligence system from some of its constraints,' he said. The spy game is 'kind of a dirty business, and you have to deal with a lot of unsavory people.' "

Time Magazine 24 September 2001 on former CIA chief, son of Prescott Bush , and father of the current president of the US

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101010924/nintelligence.html

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."

Hermann Goering, Nazi leader, at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II

"[Nixon] lied to his closest staff members, to his Cabinet, to the nation, to the world. The Nixon staff lied to one another and to the President. .....It was, Reeves writes, 'a White House of lies, a house organized for deception... even the insiders themselves could no longer penetrate to reality'.... [At foreign summit meetings], Nixon and his National Security Adviser, Henry Kissinger, asked the foreign leaders to join them in lies to deceive Nixon's own Secretary of State, William Rogers."

Time Magazine, 5 November 2001

'Inside the White House that was built of lies'

(European Edition, p87)

Global War - 'It's the oil stupid' - for more click here

"While the Mujahideen are busy fighting America's war in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union, the FBI --operating as a US based Police Force - is waging a domestic war against terrorism, operating in some respects independently of the CIA which has --since the Soviet-Afghan war-- supported international terrorism through its covert operations..... In the wake of the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, the truth must prevail to prevent the Bush Administration together with its NATO partners from embarking upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity."

'Who is Osama Bin Laden?' by Michel Chossudovsky Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa, September 2001

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html

"[Dubai] was the backdrop of a secret meeting between Osama bin Laden and the local CIA agent in July.... According to Arab diplomatic sources as well as French intelligence, very specific information was transmitted to the CIA with respect to terrorist attacks against American interests around the world, including on US soil. A DST report dated 7 September enumerates all the intelligence, and specifies that the order to attack was to come from Afghanistan."

Le Figaro, 11 October 2001

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.print.html

" Generally it is impossible to carry out an act of terror on the scenario which was used in the USA yesterday. We had such facts too. As soon as something like that happens here, I am reported about that right away and in a minute we are all up."

Commander-in-Chief of Russian Airforce, Anatoli Kornukov

Pravda online: 18:50 2001-09-12

http://english.pravda.ru/main/2001/09/12/14983.html

"Last Tuesday was intolerable. Not just because of the volume of destruction and loss of life, but because anyone who has ever tried to keep a secret had good reason to wonder: Given the obvious scope of this terror operation - the number of perpetrators/potential leaks, the elaborateness of the preparations/potential money trails - how could thousands of spooks who supposedly had Osama bin Laden in their cross hairs for a decade miss every single moving part? At some point, when the nation has moved beyond grief and vengefulness, CIA Director George Tenet and FBI Director Robert Mueller will have to explain how the $10 billion-a-year anti-terror system failed...."

Time Magazine 24 September 2001 on US intelligence services

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101010924/nintelligence.html

"A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.... he said it was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if Bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taleban."

BBC Online, 18 September, 2001 :"'US 'planned attack on Taleban'"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1550000/1550366.stm

"A new and potentially explosive Great Game is being set up and few in Britain are aware of it. .....It is the large reserves of oil and gas in the Caucasus, notably the Caspian basin. Pipelines are the counters in this new Great Game....There is also a plan, backed by the US, for a pipeline running from the Bulgarian Black sea port of Burgas through Macedonia to the Albanian Adriatic port of Vlore. While the US and Nato - and now the EU - hold out the prospect of untold wealth for the Caucasian states of the former Soviet Union, the west will also have an important economic stake in Albania and Macedonia..... [hence the CIA funding of terrorists in the Balkans- see London Times, 3 September 2001 - nlpwessex] "

'The new Great Game' - London Guardian, 5 March 2001

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,446490,00.html

See also: 'Afghan Pipeline: A New Great Game': BBC News, 4 November 1997

http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/analysis/newsid_16000/16777.stm

"Now that exploratory drilling has commenced, the biggest question still facing Caspian Sea participants is one of export routes. The geopolitics of the whole region is a serious issue -- it's even the setting and plot device for the latest James Bond movie -- and a great deal of foreign policy is being conducted via these pipelines."

'Explorer' - February 2000

http://www.aapg.org/explorer/archives/02_00/caspian.html

" If USA actions in Afghanistan would be successful and Taliban regime will be replaced with new leaders the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan pipeline (previously promoted by Unocal) could become an attractive project again."

Caspian Oil Industry News, 21 October 2001

http://www.first-exchange.com/fsu/azer/news/news102001.asp

"Since April 2001, Rep. Waxman and Rep. John Dingell, ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, have been seeking information about the energy task force headed by Vice President Cheney. This request for information was prompted by news reports that the task force had met privately with major campaign contributors to discuss energy policy. The Bush Administration has been unwilling to provide that information, even to the General Accounting Office (GAO), the investigative arm of Congress."

US House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform, Minority Office

more on this at: http://www.house.gov/reform/min/inves_energy/energy_cheney.htm

"This summer, the General Accounting Office was spoiling for an unprecedented legal and constitutional clash with Vice President Cheney. Cheney had refused to turn over records from his energy task force, and the GAO, the 80-year-old investigative arm of Congress, was preparing to sue a federal entity for the first time.....Comptroller General David M. Walker described the fight as a direct threat to the GAO's reason for being, a separation-of-powers issue that would determine whether the legislative branch could exercise the oversight role envisioned by the founding fathers. '[Cheney's] attorneys are engaged in a broad-based frontal attack on our statutory authority,' Walker told The Washington Post in August. 'We cannot let that stand.'...But the GAO is letting it stand -- at least for now. Walker put the lawsuit on hold after the terrorist attacks two months ago....'Candidly, this is another example of how the events of September 11th have had a significant ripple effect on a range of issues, some of which have nothing to do with terrorism,' said Walker..... Meanwhile, senators from both parties have complained that briefings about war and anthrax have been practically devoid of information. Yesterday, the group Public Citizen complained to Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson that a new pharmaceutical industry task force on bioterrorism violated federal open-government laws."

'Amid War, GAO Puts Legal Fight With Cheney on Hold', Washington Post, 9 November,2001

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64520-2001Nov8.html



MORE ON CHENEY'S OIL AND MILITARY INTERESTS AT

http://www.public-i.org/story_01_080200.htm

'Government Ties Helped Cheney and Halliburton Make Millions'

http://www.corpwatch.org/trac/headlines/2000/354.html

"After leaving the Pentagon [under Bush's father's administration], Cheney ran Halliburton, the company that owns Brown and Root..... More than $2 billion of the $14 billion the Pentagon has spent in the Balkans since December 1995 has gone to private contractors led by Brown and Root...."

Time Magazine, Friday, Jan. 05, 2001

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,93858,00.html

"It is still possible to feel warmly patriotic in personal and important ways and yet believe the military and the generals and the war machine do not have your best interests at heart and really couldn't care less what those interests are anyway but thank you for sharing now please sit down and do as we tell you and by the way, thanks for all the flags and the money. ....There is more than one way to respond to the horror of Sept. 11. And there is more than one kind of patriotism. We forget this.You do not have to rally around Bush and tolerate Cheney's chthonic creepiness and wave a frantic flag and believe every scripted half-truth that drizzles out of the Pentagon, applaud the nonstop attacks on an already demolished nation. Pro-America does not mean pro-war. Or pro-Bush. Or anti-Afghanistan. Or pro-little-flags-on-SUV-antennas.It means thinking independently and getting better informed and filtering your news very carefully and realizing that just because one version of the American aggro attitude is currently being ramrodded down society's throat doesn't mean you have to swallow."

Mark Morford, SF Gate (San Fransico Chronicle online) October 19, 2001

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2001/10/19/notes101901.DTL

24 Reasons to oppose NATO

The CIA's Wall Street connections

NLPWessex 'War on Terrorism' Bulletins

'Getting back to normal' - 4 Nov 2001

US funds terrorists in Eastern Europe - Bush must go - 31 Oct 2001

The Real Bush Agenda - 28 Oct 2001

Islam, Vedic Defence and World Peace - 24 Oct 2001

Sept 11 Deja Vu? - 22 Oct 2001

Global War - 'It's the oil stupid' - 30 Sept 2001

Losing Control of Global Biosecurity - 10 September 2001

Don't Take the Bait - Fight Smart

ANIMATED PHOTO ESSAY - CLICK HERE

(with sound - allow time to load)

WHO IS THE ENEMY?

NATURAL LAW PARTY WESSEX

nlpwessex@bigfoot.com

www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex

Back to Home Page