Methods Tried and True. Why Change Now?

Update: Deniz Yeter has graciously alerted me to his updated, image-enhanced article. I present it now for your edification. Thank you Deniz for the excellent research.

=======================================================

Every now and again, it's good to do a little review of past events. That way when "we get fooled again" some of us (especially readers of Signs of the Times) can sagely nod. Don't actually say "I told you so" though. One day that could bring the proverbial door knock in the middle of the night.

Don't say you weren't warned.

Blue Ibis
*****************************************************

Bush Iran War Agenda: Trigger an "Accidental Conflict," as a pretext to justify "Limited Strikes"

Deniz Yeter
Truthout.org

Saturday, February 17, 2007


Hillary Mann Leverett, the former National Security Council Director for Iranian and Persian Gulf Affairs under the Bush Administration from 2001 to 2004 until she left the Administration, has issued a sober warning to the public concerning Bush's intentions with Iran.

Five days ago in an interview on CNN(1) she accused the Bush Administration of "trying to push a provocative, accidental conflict" from Iran as a pretext to justify "limited strikes" against the country’s crucial nuclear and military infrastructures, as opposed to "an all-out invasion like what happened with Iraq."

Her warning comes a day after sources revealed to Newsweek(2) that "a second Navy carrier group is steaming toward the Persian Gulf" and "that a third carrier will likely follow" to replace one of the strike carriers already in the Gulf.

In retaliation, "Iran shot off a few missiles in those same tense waters last week in a highly publicized test."

Hillary Mann joins a growing consensus of current and former US Government, Military, and Intelligence Officials who accuse the Bush Administration of trying to spark another unnecessary and unfounded war in the Middle East for their own self-interests.

Bush came up with the same plan for Iraq, to be used in case he wanted to garner more support for the legitimacy of a grossly illegitimate war, two months before the invasion of Iraq.

The plan is detailed in a leaked memo confirmed by both the Independent(3) and the Guardian(4), which is not contested by either the Bush or Blair Administrations.

One plot, among others, consisted of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colors" in the hopes that Saddam Hussein would have it shot down.



Tony Blair and George Bush at a press conference in the White House. Washington DC. January 31, 2003

When asked what the Bush Administration should do in its confrontation with Iran, Hillary Mann suggested that "we should do what Nixon and Kissinger did with China in the early 1970s."

"We should respond positively, [and] constructively to Iranian overtures, to enter into comprehensive talks with Iran and to strike a grand bargain.

"A grand bargain would mean we would have to make some concessions, and it would mean the Iranians would have to make some important concessions.

"But at the end of the day I think there is a path.

"The Iranians have put this on the table before.

"There is a path to go forward to resolve the outstanding differences between the two countries, and eventually normalize the relationship, like the US and China, like with what we did at the end of the Vietnam War in opening China to the United States."

Confronted with the question of why the Bush Administration is seeking to lure Iran into attacking, Hillary Mann responded vaguely that it is a part of Bush's broader agenda for the Middle East to bring about A "democratization... peace and stability", to the region.

[WTF??? does anyone else see a disconnect here?]

Of course, Iran is only one piece in the puzzle of a broader, century-long struggle by the US, Britain and its Western allies to colonize the Middle East to secure its oil reserves.

The Bush Administration is only picking up where others left off on this quest for global US hegemony.

1951 - Iran Nationalizes Oil Industry(5)

Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh succeeds in leading a movement to nationalize Iran's oil industry.

He becomes Iran’s first Prime Minister, the country’s first democratically elected leader, in the proceeding elections primarily as a result from this central issue.

This ends the immensely profitable monopoly that Britain controlled through the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company since 1909, which becomes the British Petroleum Company in 1954, more commonly known today as BP.

1953 - Operation Ajax(6)

The CIA conducts a series of covert actions under the name "Operation Ajax"(6) (TP-AJAX), aimed at overthrowing Mossadegh to replace him with a friendlier US dictator.

Tactics employed by the CIA include:
- Controlling the countries newspapers to scare and mislead the public with false propaganda
- Bribing and funding government and military officials to gain allies against Mossadegh
- Funding opposition parties with money and weapons
- Infiltrating, controlling, and organizing mobs and protests
- Distributing fake flyers saying "UP WITH MOSSADEGH", "UP WITH COMMUNISM", and "DOWN WITH ISLAM"
After an initial failed coup attempt, a mob organized by the CIA is successful in ousting Mossadegh.

1953 to 1979 - CIA Puppet Government(7)

After their successful coup, the CIA re-installs Iran's exiled Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

In exchange for giving him power over Iran, the Shah pleases his allies in the West by once again ensuring them a monopoly over Iran's oil fields.

Under the Shah's bloody reign, thousands of political opponents and innocent people suspected of being dissidents are rounded up by the Shah's CIA trained secret police, SAVAK, and put into their secret prison to be extensively tortured.

SAVAK also assassinates countless political opponents and government officials to ensure the Shah's, and ultimately the West's, control over Iran.



The Iranian Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, meeting with Zbigniew Brzezinski, US President Jimmy Carter, Arthur Atherton, William H. Sullivan, Cyrus Vance. Tehran, Iran. 1977


1979 - Iranian Revolution(8)

The Shah becomes increasingly oppressive, further deteriorating his public image along with his close relations with the West.

Accusations that the US, UK and Israel are actively conspiring against the Iranian public start to flourish in the country, helping fuel an already angry public to support Islamic Fundamentalists' call for revolution.

The CIA is caught completely off guard when the Shah leaves Iran on January 16 amidst sharp disapproval at home, followed by Ayatollah Khomeini and his Islamic Revolutionary Party seizing power on February 11.

1980 - Failed Nojeh Coup(9)

Zbigniew Brzezinski, the National Security Adviser under the Carter Administration from 1977 to 1981, meets with King Hussein, the ruler of Jordan, in July to discuss plans for a coup d'etat to topple the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.

Saddam Hussein in Iraq is chosen to lead the coup, largely due to the fact that he views Islamic Fundamentalists as a threat to his regime, and, with the backing of the US, CIA and its Western Allies, Saddam leads the failed Nojeh coup d'etat to remove Khomeini on July 9.

After failing to overthrow Khomeini, Saddam invades Iran under the disputed pretext that Iran tried to assassinate his Foreign Minister, Tariq Aziz, on September 22.


1980 to 1988 - Iran-Iraq War(10)

The US initially funds Iraq in the beginning of the war.

In November 1987, Congress concludes in their report over the Iran-Contra affair that the US had sold "arms to Iran through Israel", beginning "in the summer of 1985, after receiving the approval of President Reagan."(11)

The US sold approximately $2-4 billion worth of arms to Iran through Israel, including 2,008 BGM-71 TOW anti-tank missiles and 235 parts kits for MIM-23 Hawk surface-to-air missiles.(12)


Donald Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam Hussein as a part of Reagan’s Special Envoy to the Middle East. Baghdad, Iraq. December 1983


Last April Seymour Hersh, a writer for "The New Yorker", detailed in his report about the Bush Administration’s covert actions inside Iran(13), stating:

"The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack.

"Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups."

Larisa Alexandrovna, a writer for "The Raw Story", expands on this in her report(14) also published last April, stating:

"The Pentagon is bypassing official US intelligence channels and turning to a dangerous and unruly cast of characters in order to create strife in Iran in preparation for any possible attack, former and current intelligence officials say.

"One of the operational assets being used by the Defense Department is a right-wing terrorist organization known as Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), which is being ‘run’ in two southern regional areas of Iran.

"They are Baluchistan, a Sunni stronghold, and Khuzestan, a Shia region where a series of recent attacks has left many dead and hundreds injured in the last three months."

Retired U.S. Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner also appeared last April on CNN in defense of Seymour Hersh’s claims(15), saying he thinks that "the decision has been made and military operations are under way."

He also stated "the Iranians have been saying American military troops are in there, [and] have been saying it for almost a year."


"I was in Berlin two weeks ago, sat next to the ambassador, the Iranian ambassador to the IAEA.

"And I said, ‘Hey, I hear you're accusing Americans of being in there operating with some of the units that have shot up revolution guard units.’

"He said, quite frankly, ‘Yes, we know they are. We've captured some of the units, and they've confessed to working with the Americans.’"

Jim Webb, the freshman Senator from Virginia, whose Election Day victory in '06 tipped the power in the Senate in the Democrats favor, appeared on "Hardball with Chris Matthews"(16) last week echoing the same warning given by Hillary Mann.

"If you look at the framers of the constitution, they wanted to give the president as commander in chief the authority to repel sudden attacks.

"That is totally different than conducting a preemptive war.

"And you know one thing, if you look at where we are in the Persian Gulf right now, when I was secretary of the Navy and until very recently, we never operated aircraft carriers inside the Persian Gulf because, number one, the turning radius is pretty close, and number two, the chance of accidentally bumping into something that would start a diplomatic situation was pretty high.

"We now have been doing that, and with the tensions as high as they are, I'm very worried that we might accidentally set something off in there and we need, as a Congress, to get ahead of the ball game here."


Zbigniew Brzezinski, the man who masterminded the failed Nojeh Coup in 1980 to topple the current Iranian government, came out on February 1 to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee(17), blasting the Bush Administration's handling of the war.

He called the War on Terror a "mythical historical narrative" used to justify a "protracted and potentially expanding war," and accused them of trying to spread the conflict in Iraq to other parts of the Middle East by "deepening [a] quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan."

"A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran…"

"To argue that America is already at war in the region with a wider Islamic threat, of which Iran is the epicenter, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy,"

He also made note of the Bush Administration’s ludicrous cronyism, saying, "I am perplexed by the fact that major strategic decisions seem to be made within a very narrow circle of individuals—just a few, probably a handful, perhaps not more than the fingers on my hand.

"And these are the individuals, all of whom but one, who made the original decision to go to war, and used the original justifications to go to war."

Texas House Republican Ron Paul also had harsh words for the Bush Administration and Congress, giving an alarming speech before the US House of Representatives(18) on January 11.

He accused them both of using "the talk of a troop surge and jobs program in Iraq" to "distract Americans from the very real possibility of an attack on Iran

.""Our growing naval presence in the region and our harsh rhetoric toward Iran are unsettling.

"Securing the Horn of Africa and sending Ethiopian troops into Somalia do not bode well for world peace.

"Yet these developments are almost totally ignored by Congress.

"Rumors are flying about when, not if, Iran will be bombed by either Israel or the U.S. - possibly with nuclear weapons.

"Our CIA says Iran is ten years away from producing a nuclear bomb and has no delivery system, but this does not impede our plans to keep 'everything on the table' when dealing with Iran.

"We should remember that Iran, like Iraq, is a third-world nation without a significant military.

"Nothing in history hints that she is likely to invade a neighboring country, let alone do anything to America or Israel.

"I am concerned, however, that a contrived Gulf of Tonkin- type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran.

"Even if such an attack is carried out by Israel over U.S. objections, we will be politically and morally culpable since we provided the weapons and dollars to make it possible.

"Mr. Speaker, let's hope I'm wrong about this one."

When governments fail in their attempts at baiting their enemy into attacking them first, they usually resort to a false flag operation, much like the "contrived Gulf of Tonkin-type incident" that Congressman Paul mentioned in his speech.

The Bush Administration's plan to provoke a first strike from Iran is nothing new, but one of many commonly used strategies with a lot of historical precedent used by many in government including US Presidents, the Nazis and the Soviets.

1846 - Mexican-American War(19)

President James K. Polk meets with his Cabinet at the White House on May 8 and tells them that war should be declared in three days even if Mexico doesn't attack.

Polk sends 3,500 American troops to the Mexican border along the Nueces River, ordering General Zachary Taylor to cross over into disputed territory, successfully baiting Mexico into striking the first blow.

Newspapers mobilize public suport for the war with headlines like: "'Mexicans Killing our Boys in Texas", allowing Polk to get Congress to declare war on May 13.


1898 - Sinking of the USS Maine(19)

On February 15, the US sinks its own battleship, the USS Maine, near Havana after storing the ship's weapons and explosives right next to its coalbunker.

Newspapers accuse Spain of being behind the attack citing a fake telegram from Spain that they created to bolster public support for war, allowing President William McKinley to get Congress to declare war on April 19.



The USS Maine after the explosion


1915 - Sinking of the Lusitania(19)

The United States baits German U-boats into attacking the Lusitania, a British ocean liner carrying a shipment of US ammunition headed towards Great Britain.

President Woodrow Wilson used the passengers on board the Lusitania merely as human shields, or possibly with the intention of them being sacrificed in an effort to find a pretext for US involvement in WWI and to bolster the Isolationalist public to support entering the war.


1931 - Manchurian or Mukden Incident(20)

Japanese officers fabricate a pretext for annexing Manchuria, which was under Chinese control at the time, by blowing up a section of their own railway and blaming it on the Chinese on September 18.

A brutal invasion followed the incident, claiming 10 to 37 million Chinese lives during the span of WWII.

The Chinese would come to refer to the day as 9/18, similar to the way American's refer to the attacks of September 11 as 9/11.


1933 - Reichstag Fire(21)

On February 27, Nazis burn down the Reichstag, the German capital building, and leave Marinus van der Lubbe inside the building where police find him naked and drugged.

The Nazis accuse Marinus of being communist terrorist, and charge him of being a part of a larger Jewish communist plot to take over the Fatherland to coax the German public into fear, helping spread anti-Semitism and anti-communist sentiment like wildfire.

The next day in the aftermath of the attacks, Hitler gets President Hindenburg to sign the 'Reichstag Fire Decree' into law, suspending most civil liberties in Germany and uses it to go after political opponents and dissidents much like Bush’s USA PATRIOT Act.

On March 5, the Nazis and their allies' fall short of the two-thirds majority they wanted in their outcome on Election Day.

The Nazis coerce and bribe officials to get the votes they needed to pass the 'Enabling Act of 1933' on March 23, which allows Hitler and his Nazi party to rule by decree.


The Reichstag burning


1939 - Gleiwitz Incident(22)

During the night of August 31, the Nazis seize the German Gleiwitz radio station and broadcast a message in Polish that seemed authentic, urging the Polish to attack Germans.

The next day German police find Franciszek Honiok, a man the Nazi's dressed up and killed by lethal injection, shooting him repeatedly to make it look like an authentic Polish attack.


1939 - Shelling of Mainila(23)

On February 26, the Soviet Union fires artillery shells at its own village of Mainila on the Finnish border, faking casualties and blaming the attack on Finland to justify the Winter War.


1941 - Pearl Harbor(19)

The US military decodes a message they intercepted from the Japanese, outlining their plans to bomb Pearl Harbor weeks before the attack.

The message was a response to an insulting ultimatum the US sent Japan in attempts to provoke an attack.

The US gets its intended response, an attack on Pearl Harbor.

"The question was: how we should maneuver [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot." - Henry Stimson, Secretary of War under FDR

1948 to the 1980s - Operation Gladio(24)

Italian secret service agencies, under the training and direction of the CIA, British MI6, and NATO forces, launch countless staged terror attacks that kill thousands that are used to blame leftist opposition groups and scare the public into supporting the right wing government.

Although the efforts were most heavily concentrated against Italy through the 70's and 80's, many other countries throughout Europe experienced similar black ops by the same secret service groups throughout the Cold War.


1950 - Korean War(19)

South Korean President Syngman Rhee suffers a terrible election defeat, forcing him to ally himself more closely with the US, and to bait North Korea into war as they requested.

On June 25, the North Korean military moves three miles into South Korean territory.

The American public is told that the invasion is part of a Communist plot for world domination, instead of retaliation against South Korean aggression.


1953 - Operation Ajax(6)

Refer to Iran timeline


1962 - Operation Northwoods(25)

A plot authored by the Joints Chief of Staff, the top brass of the Pentagon, that involved scenarios such as hijacking a passenger plane and other staged terror attacks and campaigns that would be used to blame Cuba to mobilize public support for a war.

It was never carried out since Kennedy refused to authorize the operation, which comes to light after the plan is declassified under the Freedom of Information Act in 1997.


1964 - Gulf of Tonkin(26)

President Lyndon B. Johnson goes on national television accusing North Vietnamese PT boats of attacking the USS Maddox and the USS Turner Joy; two strike carriers in the Gulf.

The US Government later releases documents and tapes due to the Freedom of Information Act showing that President Johnson clearly knew without a doubt that there was no North Vietnamese attack upon any US forces.

LBJ then decides to go ahead and lie to the American public about the entire fabricated incident on national TV to garner support for escalating the war in Vietnam.


The USS Maddox firing at North Vietnamese PT boats to provoke them to attack first


1979 - Covert CIA War in Afghanistan(19)

In his book From the Shadows, current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates reveals that the Soviet invasion is actually provoked by the United States giving military assistance and aid to the Mujahadeen in attempts to bog down the Soviets in their own Vietnam.

The CIA trains terrorists, like Osama bin Laden, in guerilla warfare tactics and show them how to make IED’s.

Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri form the terrorist group al Qaeda, which trains the Iraqi Insurgency how to make IED’s just like the CIA originally taught them.

IED’s are responsible for killing a third of all US combat forces who have died in the current Iraq war,(27) as opposed to Iran, which the Bush Administration has been accused of killing 170 US soldiers(28) indirectly by funding Shiite militias.

Even though the smuggled weapons from Iran are overwhelmingly used to go after Sunnis and other rival factions in Iraq instead of US soldiers, the White House continues to lay all the blame for the chaos in Iraq upon the Iranian government.

Excerpt from a Boston Globe article published last week(29):

Kenneth Katzman, a Middle East researcher with Congressional Research Service, the research arm of Congress, said that Shi'ite militias were believed to be responsible for less than 10 percent of the total American deaths.

He said most of the weapons Iran had been supplying the Shi'ite militias were believed to be for use against Sunnis.

"Shi'ite militias may be attacking US forces in retaliation for arrests of militia leaders," he said, "but their attacks pale in comparison to the deaths inflicted by Sunni insurgents who are not believed to get assistance from Iran."

"The Shi'ite militias are not the key threat to US forces in Iraq, so the overall question is why is the US military making a huge issue of this?" he said.

"I would say that it is part of broader strategy to contain Iran, to go after Iran's activities in Lebanon, in Iraq itself... It is part of a broader picture."

Mujahadeen fighters in Afghanistan with US, Israeli supplied missiles


1980 - Failed Nojeh Coup(9)

Refer to Iran timeline


1989 - Invasion of Panama(19)

On December 16, the US media reports that there was an "unprovoked attack on a U.S. soldier who did not return fire."

It later turns out that US soldiers were harassing the Panamanian soldiers, including one incident where US officers fired at a military headquarters, wounding a soldier and a one-year old girl.

The wounded soldier later confirms this account to US reporters.

Some may argue that many of these wars or conflicts were inevitable, which can be agreed upon since the aggressing countries were seeking a pretext for a war they were already set on having.

The Bush Administration is now seeking to broaden an already costly, illegal, and illegitimate war from Iraq, to Iran and other parts of the region, employing many of the same lies and tactics used leading up to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq and throughout history.

The Administration’s actions against Iran will only succeed in exacerbating our already tarnished image and hurt US interests abroad.

Why, then, do President Bush, fellow Republicans in Congress and ‘Independent’ Senator Joe Lieberman keep accusing the Democrats of encouraging the enemy by simply talking about Iraq(30), as if Congress is expected to only talk about the inter-sectarian civil war that is going on in the country when it is convenient for the Bush Administration.
These types of foreign policy decisions only aid Islamic Fundamentalists recruit in the region as resentment spreads and grows among people in the Middle East.

This is clearly demonstrated in the failed 2006 Israeli-Lebanese Invasion where Israel was only successful at bolstering Lebanese support for Hezbollah.

History is doomed to repeat itself if Americans do not wake up to the shrewd methods being employed by the Bush Administration, and as a nation we have to stop doubting our government’s capability to commit such heinous actions.

Our democracy becomes just another dictatorship, guided by the agendas of a few elite in power, when there is an absence of a vigilant and informed citizenry.

This is a war with possible global nuclear consequences, with Bush even plotting to employ strategic mini-nukes to strike key nuclear and government targets.(31)

Write to your Congressmen and to presidential candidates, and tell them that they you won’t get your vote in the next election if they won’t support legislation that ends this war.

Petition Congress, they have the power to end this war, impeach Bush and Cheney and prevent future acts of aggression from this criminal administration.

Act before it’s too late.

We cannot stand to be remembered as the generation of Americans that did nothing.


Sources:

1 CNN. American Morning. Transcript: "Defense Department Offers Evidence High-Level Iranian Leader Is Supplying Arms to Shiite Insurgents in Iraq". February 12, 2007
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0702/12/ltm.03.html
2 Hirsh, Michael and Bahari, Maziar. "Blowup? America's Hidden War With Iran". Newsweek. February 11, 2007
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17086418/site/newsweek/
3 McSmith, Andy. "Bush 'plotted to lure Saddam into war with fake UN plane'". The Independent. February 3, 2006
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article342859.ece
4 Norton-Taylor, Richard. "Blair-Bush deal before Iraq war revealed in secret memo". Guardian Unlimited. February 3, 2006
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,1700881,00.html
5 "History of Iran: Oil Nationalization". Iran Chamber Society
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/oil_nationalization/oil_nationalization.php
6 United States. National Security Archive. "The Secret CIA History of the Iran Coup"
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/index.html
7 "Ministry of Security SAVAK". Pike, John. Federation of American Scientists
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iran/savak/
8 "History of Iran: Islamic Revolution of 1979". Iran Chamber Society
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/islamic_revolution/islamic_revolution.php
9 Gol, Pesare. "Nice Try". The Iranian. July 12, 2004
http://www.iranian.com/Pesar/2004/July/Nojeh/index.html
10 United States. National Security Archive. "Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein: The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984". Battle, Joyce. February 25, 2003
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
11 "The Iran-Contra Affair". Jewish Virtual Library. The American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/Iran_Contra_Affair.html
12 "Iran Military Introduction". Global Security
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/intro.htm
13 Hersh, Seymour. "The Iran Plans". The New Yorker. April 4, 2006
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact
14 Alexandrovna, Larisa. "On Cheney, Rumsfeld order, US outsourcing special ops, intelligence to Iraq terror group, intelligence officials say". The Raw Story. April 13, 2006
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/US_outsourcing_special_operations_intelligence_gathering_0413.html
15 CNN. Your World Today. Transcript: "Top Iranian Government Officials Speak Out Against the West; Sectarian Attacks Drive Iraqis From Their Homes; Calls for Rumsfeld's Resignation". April 14, 2006
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/14/ywt.01.html
16 MSNBC. Hardball with Chris Matthews. Transcript. February 7, 2007.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17049478/
17 United States. Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Brzezinski, Zbigniew. "SFRC Testimony". Washington. February 1, 2007
http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/testimony/2007/BrzezinskiTestimony070201.pdf
18 Congressman Paul, Ron. "Escalation is Hardly the Answer". United States. House of Representatives. January 11, 2007
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr011107.htm
19 Sanders, Richard. "Going to War: Unraveling the Tangled Web of American Pretext Stratagems (1846-1989)." Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade. May 2002
http://coat.ncf.ca/articles/links/how_to_start_a_war.htm
20 United States. Naval War College. "Handbook for the Chinese Civil War". Professor Wilson
http://www.nwc.navy.mil/chinesecs/
21 "The Reichstag Burns". The History Place
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/burns.htm
22 "Part I Blitzkrieg September 1, 1939: a new kind of warfare engulfs Poland". TIME Magazine. August 28, 1989
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,958453-1,00.html
23 Maddock, Robert. "The Finnish Winter War"
http://www.kaiku.com/winterwar.html
24 Ganser, Daniele. "NATO's secret armies linked to terrorism?". ISN Security Watch. December 15, 2004
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/GAN412A.html
25 United States. National Security Archive. "Operation Northwoods". Washington. The Joint Chiefs of Staff. March 13, 1962
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf
26 United States. National Security Archive. "The White House Tapes". Prados, John. New York. 2003
http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/tapes.htm
27 "Coalition Casualties: Fatality Details". Iraq Coalition Casualty Count
http://icasualties.org/oif/Details.aspx
28 "Bush Declares Iran’s Arms Role in Iraq Is Certain". Stolberg, Sheryl. Santora, Marc. The New York Times. February 15, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/world/middleeast/15prexy.html?ref=washington
29 Donnelly, John and Stockman, Farah. "Military offers evidence of Iran arming Iraqi militants". The Boston Globe. February 12, 2007
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2007/02/12/military_offers_evidence_of_iran_arming_iraqi_militants/?page=2
30 Goldberg, Jeffery. "The Lorax". The New Yorker. February 12, 2007
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070212fa_fact_goldberg
31 Chossudovsky, Michel. "Is the Bush Administration Planning a Nuclear Holocaust?". Centre for Research on Globalization. February 22, 2006
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060222&articleId=2032


Comment: Of course, the self-inflicted wound of 9/11 must be added to the above list of false-flag attacks and provocations for needless war.

Laura Knight-Jadczyk Interviewed by BBC Radio

Hear the voice behind some of the most original ideas going today.

Blue Ibis
**************************************************************

Laura Knight-Jadczyk Interview on BBC Radio

Host, Adam Walton
Producer, Chris Kneebone

Date of Interview: 2/12/07

http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/radiowales/

Click on "listen again" on the right hand side, then in the new window that pops up under "A-Z OF ALL SHOWS" click the "MON" edition of the "Adam and Mal" show, the interview is about five minutes in (after Norman Greenbaum's "Spirit in the Sky". The link should be good until next Monday.

Transcript of Interview

(intro music – ‘Spirit in the Sky’)

Adam Walton: […] I think that record met the approval of our next guest on the program. What if everything you think you know about the world is a lie? Would we be able to perceive the truth if it was shown to us? Ancient Civilizations, Hyperdimensional Realities, DNA changes, Bible conspiracies - which are true and which are deliberate disinformation? Laura Knight Jadczyk says she has the real answers, and, believe me, if you read her book, ‘The Secret History of the World and How To Get Out Alive’, you’ll know that the truth is far weirder than fiction. Laura joins us now from our Paris studio. Welcome to the program, Laura.


LKJ: Well, hi, thank you for having me.


AW: First and foremost, Norman Greenbaum’s ‘Spirit in the Sky’, I believe you enjoyed that.


LKJ: I love that song; it’s one of my favorites.


AW: Excellent, I think we chose it especially for you, Laura, that’s about as, uh, as creative as we get on this program sometimes. Now, I felt very guarded about using the term conspiracy theories. I wasn’t really sure how to bracket your book, as it were, do we need to be able to bracket your book, to bracket your writing, to be able to fit it into a genre or a pigeon hole?


LKJ: Well, it’s really very difficult. It’s difficult for me because, for example, you refer to conspiracy theories and a theory is something that is based on a certain number of concrete observations or facts. You don’t form a theory until you have collected, uh, facts and data and if you’ll notice, I have a, you know, a fifteen page bibliography in there, or maybe sixteen page, that includes the literature that I went through, uh, in order to collect the data that is included in the book. The book is heavily footnoted. Uhm, it does not, uh, get into any kind of material that is not fact based. And, it is just the interpretation of those facts that is somewhat different; because, you know, you can take the same facts and interpret them any numbers of ways. But, generally what happens is people interpret facts and exclude some in favor of others because there are those inconvenient facts, which Charles Fort called the ‘damned data’. And the only kind of explanation that you can come up with for this world that would make any sense is one that includes all of the ‘damned data’.


AW: Hmmm, it’s funny that you should mention Charles Fort, we interviewed someone about him not so long ago on the program, and of course, he was another maverick, I mean, do you, do you, if I called you a maverick? Is that a difficult, or, uh, title that you don’t feel fits you very well?


LKJ: Well, maverick is probably pretty good because I definitely do not go along with the herd and I don’t even go along with the herd of the so-called alternative theorists. (laughs)


AW: Hmmm, well I’ve not had an opportunity to read the book myself, and I feel as though, I like to be able to do that, especially in these situations, because I feel the easiest thing to do, whenever anyone expounds theories that go against the grain, or go against the norm is almost to pour scorn on them. In a situation like this, Laura, do you feel defensive? Have you gone through a lot of experiences where people aren’t actually prepared to listen to what you have to say, and would more, rather, kind of pour scorn before they give you a chance to explain yourself?


LKJ: Well, as I mentioned, I write some things that are counter to even the alternative theorists of today, so, I get scorned by the scientific community, to some extent - they have a little more difficulty, actually, scorning me than the alternative community because I support what I say with so much data - but, the alternative community, of course, it was quite a surprise to be so viciously attacked by those types of people and also the so-called new age community. So, and, then, of course, naturally, the religion, the religionists, uh, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, it doesn’t matter because they’re all based on one single document, which is the bible and, I pretty much, uh, dissect the bible in this book and explain things in ways that are more comprehensible. It’s not even a new way of approaching this semi-legendary, semi-mythical material, it’s something that Mircea Eliade, an historian of religion did extensively many years ago; and I quote him extensively, as well as other historians of religion.

So, I get attacked by people in religion, people in the new age, people in the scientific community, although, like I said, the scientific community pretty much leaves me alone. (laughs)


AW: Well, they appreciate the rigorousness of your work, I would imagine.


LKJ: I have a lot of scientists who are fans, actually, some of them covertly. They will write fan mail to me and ask me to please not reveal the fact that they, you know, enjoy my book so much.


AW: Funny, a lot of the correspondence I get for this program is along similar lines, I wonder why? But, as far as the book is concerned, it is an attempt to - well, not an attempt, it rewrites human history - so it’s difficult for me as the interviewer, really, to focus in on any one point where you could perhaps give the people listening an insight into the dramatically different way that you interpret the facts that you mentioned earlier, so is there, perhaps, a best part of history where we could start?


LKJ: Well, the fundamental thesis of the book is that our reality is projected from, or embedded in, a higher or hyper-dimensional reality, and that what we perceive with our senses, you know, the, - the three dimensions of space and the four dimensions of space and time - are not all there is. And that, you know, even when we try to measure things that come from these other realities with our limited three-dimensional instrumentation, they fall short; you know, you can’t even go there. So, that’s the fundamental thesis, so taking history, taking the data that we have about human history, some of which is extremely mysterious; some of which is baffling, some of it’s very shocking; putting it together, you begin to see a pattern, a flow, of something that enters and exits our reality in a way that, uhm; if you’re familiar with the story ‘Flatland’ where, where the plane being, where the fingertips are put on the plane and what you see on the plane are round circles. And, if the hand were to be put through a membrane, you would just see, you know, circles going through, until the hand actually coalesced into a larger object, but to the beings of the membrane, it would never be anything other a circle that appeared and disappeared in time.

So, our reality is something like that and that there are denizens of this other reality that are perceivable to some people through history, and, they’ve - down through history - they’ve referred to them as gods or goddesses, or, uhm, you know, forces, beings, whatever; and they ascribe to them powers, appearances, you know, based upon how they read them. I don’t think they necessarily are amorphous either, and that’s, that’s where the new age community has completely gone astray, by thinking that anything outside this reality must be amorphous, must be a spirit. It doesn’t have to be a spirit at all. Just a slight shift in the dimensional reality and you have a completely other reality that is as physical as our own.

AW: Ok, Laura, from the point of view of the basic science, really, behind this, the idea of a parallel universe is obviously one that is very common amongst physicists, and I believe your husband is a world renowned physicist as well?

LKJ: Yes, he is.


AW: So, at least from that particular foundation, there would appear to be great scientific support for your theories. Why is there, then, resistance from all of the bodies that you mentioned, if this is almost explainable.


LKJ: Well, as I said, people who are attached to their religion don’t want a rational explanation for, for what happens. People who are attached to the new age; the new age is really little more than a variation on the old standard religions, I just call it new age fundamentalism. The scientific support that I get is really kind of unique because it comes from odd and unusual places. And then there are, of course, many people in the scientific community who just reject it out of hand. There is one of my husband’s colleagues who jokes that he does world-class mathematics on odd days and channels on even days. So, we have an interesting life in that respect. So, I think that some of the rejection comes from some of the inspiration I use to follow these clues.


AW: And, obviously, people have vested interests in preserving their own version of the facts, which is incredible. Now you mentioned multiple realities, why is it important for us as humans to try to question or determine a reality that is beyond our own? In other words, we can’t actually change the other reality, or change our own reality, is there any point in you making the voyage you have, as it were?


LKJ: Well, there is nothing that says that we can’t change it if we know about it and understand it. What you don’t know can definitely hurt you, especially in this respect. Uh, one of the things that really got me going many years ago was that I would, you know, I would read these so called conspiracy theories, and I would follow each theory as far as I could follow it - you know following a paper trail - and I always came up against a dead end. I mean, it was like, you would take it as far as you could go and then it was a dead end. It was like, ok, beyond this, there is a mystery. And, yet at the same time, you could look at the vast pattern of history and you could see that, you know, that there was a strong indication that something was maneuvering things toward a particularly directed end. And yet there was no possibility in my mind, after following all these many trails, that this could be a human conspiracy, because human beings simply, simply can’t conspire over thousands of years; they can’t keep something going that long. They, they work on immediate, uh, immediate reward, they want, you know, cause and effect, if I am going to do something, I want my reward in this lifetime.

And, uhm, so, there is no possibility that any of these conspiracies could be human originated and that was, uh, that was where I was for a long time. And then I began to think about manipulations from other realities. And then, of course, it was when I got into my channeling experiment, because I was very frustrated at that point, because I could go no further. I mean, I had, I had, I had pretty much exhausted everything; I had exhausted the normal avenues of, of information and I had exhausted the so-called paranormal avenues of information and I kept coming up against that funny thing that Charles Fort said, you know, he says, “I think we’re property”. And it struck me, uh, that is exactly how it appears, when you look at this vast sweep of history, it’s as though we’re one big experiment.


AW: Well, and, and who is, you know, perpetrating the experiment?


LKJ: Who perpetrates it? Well, I would suggest that it is denizens of this other reality that are referred to by the ancients as gods, and nowadays, of course they, they may refer to them as aliens. I don’t think they’re aliens. I don’t think they come from other planets. I think they are hyperdimensional beings and I think that they’ve been here for many thousands of years, if not for all of human history. There are records of lights in the sky and strange beings that are similar to, you know, what are called aliens down through history. Jacques Vallee referred to it as a control system. Control system, hyperdimensional reality; it’s pretty much the same thing.


AW: Hmm, I’m just wondering why, you know, why they would appear to be so fascinated with us, especially over such a long protracted amount of time. Clearly, I don’t know what their intentions are, so it’s difficult to try to gauge that, or even if they do have intentions like human beings have intentions. But what do you hypothesize is the reason that people might want to manipulate us in this way, or, I’m sorry, beings, might want to manipulate us in this way?


LKJ: Well, the evidence strongly indicates that we are food for them.


(long silent pause)


AW: Uhm, what evidence suggests that?


LKJ: Well, the evidence of, say for example, wars, and plagues and famines, and, uh, the… and I’m not saying that we are physical food necessarily, I’m saying that, you know, energy, energetic food, emotional; that pain and suffering is something they uh, they feed on, that gives energy to them. Just as the movie ‘The Matrix’, you know, said that people were in pods and their emotional energy produced energy for the system, for the machine, that they were batteries, it’s very similar, that we are, in essence, a, uh, a power supply.


AW: Well, if we, the, the, the human way of maybe responding to something like that, to maybe analyze it scientifically, typically, is to try to look for, perhaps, an example within our universe. So to look at maybe, you know, a microcosm within, I don’t know, the flora or the fauna that we research and I, I can’t think of anything, you know, and I’m sure you’ll correct me. Or at least an example within our universe of an ecosystem that behaves in that way, where you put things kind of under stress rather than just eating them or devouring them, it seems a…


LKJ: Think of the cat and the mouse. What does the cat do with the mouse?


AW: He plays with the mouse.


LKJ: I mean, is it necessary for the cat to play with the mouse before it eats it?


AW: No, it’s not (laughs) that was a very, yeah, that’s a very obvious example isn’t it? A very good example. So, is the point then that they need to kind of maintain us, and keep us here, keep us going as a food source in the same way we try to sustain our own food sources?


LKJ: More or less, and I think that in many respects, they cut us some slack, you know, they make sure we know enough to create a civilization, to feed that civilization, to build that civilization up, to increase the numbers of people in that civilization; and then, to put people into conflict with one another so that they fight and kill one another so that there is massive pain and suffering.


AW: Do you find this, I mean, having come to this conclusion, do you find that, I don’t know, a depressing thought? Or do you think it’s empowering because it removes us from some of the ways that humans have sort of been stuck to over the millennium, I mean, how do you feel having come to that conclusion?


LKJ: Well, in the beginning, it was extraordinarily depressing, as you, as you might imagine. And, you know, it was… Somebody asked me, you know, after all these years what have you learned? And I said, well, I’ve learned that there is no free lunch in the Universe and if you think there is, then you’re lunch. And also, we are not at the top of the food chain.

And, that was pretty depressing for a period of time, and then I finally began to work my way through that and I went back and started searching the literature for evidence of anyone who had found their way out of this, this - you know, had they realized this situation; had they understood it - what clues were there, and what conclusions did they come to and was anybody able to, to overcome it, to escape it, so to speak?

And, clearly, there are individuals in history; and you’ll notice that the book has a thread all the way through it of alchemy. I believe that alchemists were among those who were able to not only come to understand the system, but were able to step outside of the system, to be able to access hyperdimensional realities. Because all of these things, that uh, these special powers that so-called alchemists were be able to achieve, have to do with mastery of space and time, which is what you achieve when you, uh, achieve the ability to step in and out of the hyperdimensional realities.

So, there are alchemists, there are some types of yogis, there is, uh, there is the ancient material that was brought to the West by Gurdjieff, by Mouravieff. There is some very ancient literature that speaks to these matters and talks about people who have escaped. And that’s why there is a subtitle to the book, you know, ‘and How to Get out Alive’, because I do address that. You know, I mean, I don’t want to tell somebody, you know, hey, you’re in a, in one hell of a situation, without telling them, you know, there is a way out. And it isn’t… the way out is not in believing your way out, because believing your way out is what they want you to do. As long as they can get you to believe something; as long as they can invoke your faith, in some pie in the sky idea that you’re going to change your reality by, by believing it, or you’re going to get raptured to heaven when Jesus comes, or, uh, when the Mahdi comes, or whatever. You know, that keeps you complacent. Because…


AW: But, but, but, in that case, then, we live, at least I would imagine it’s the same in the States and in France where you are at the moment, but certainly in this country, we seem to be living in an increasingly secular society, you know, an increasingly less complacent, uh, society. And, fewer people subscribe to those points of view. So what is the, the, you know, belief system that we have at the moment that makes us fodder for these hyperdimensional beings?


LKJ: I would say that I don’t necessarily agree with you. Now, I’m from the United States and I lived in the Bible Belt, and, if you’ve noticed, George Bush has a great deal of support among fundamentalist bible believers, who actually believe that if they push the envelope on Armageddon, it will force Jesus to come and rapture them. They really believe this. I don’t know if you have anybody in your family who subscribes to these types of beliefs, but I do, and they sincerely, truly, believe that.

And, interestingly, the ideas of the rapture originated in Wales, I don’t know if you’re aware of that or not.


AW: No, no, I didn’t know that, no.


LKJ: Yes, they, they originated in some fundamentalist type churches that, uh, went into some charismatic type activities that were accompanied by strange phenomena, including lights in the skies. At the same time, all over England, there were strange sightings of black cats, black dogs and, uh, other unusual what you would call hyperdimensional window-fallers; creatures that would slip between dimensions. So, it was an extremely unusual event that this belief system was introduced there, at that time, accompanied by these types of events, which is, once again, a little bit of evidence of the hyperdimensional manipulation.


AW: Hmmm, ok, but I’m still, I would still maintain, I mean, you know, obviously, within my experience, there is no one in my family who has those kinds of fundamentalist views, but I would suggest that even those, you know, the people who hold those views in the Bible Belt in the States, it’s still a minority of the population. So, I’m just wondering when does that kind of spiritual void, if it’s that kind of thing that these beings feed off of, if we’re becoming, you know, less complacent, as it were, then we’re, we’re kind of failing as a, as a food source.


LKJ: Well, I don’t think we’re failing…


AW: So, what will they do about that?


LKJ: Because, it’s as much a belief, uh, science is as much a religion as Christianity is. And, you can believe all you want in the power of science, and it’s not going to save you if you don’t acknowledge that science itself has its limits.


AW: Ok, well, yeah, but there’s a rationality to science that, well at least, I don’t have experience with it any other way, that precludes it from forming the kind of conflict that you’re talking about, though, that these beings feed off. I’m still, maybe I’m focusing too much on this idea that it’s the conflict that these beings feed off of. We’ve become a, I mean, clearly there are examples in the world at the moment where there appears to be more conflict than there has been before, but we’re a more peaceful planet, aren’t we - as a whole, than we’ve been at most points in the past?


LKJ: Are you living in the same world I’m living in?


AW: No, I’m not, but I’m not living during the Second World War, I’m not living during the First World War.


LKJ: Well, what I mean is, if we’re sitting…


AW: I’m not living during the great plagues or the great tribulations that have shaken, you know, human history in the not so distant and the distant past.


LKJ: But we’re sitting here on the… we’ve got a lunatic sitting in the White House in the United States and we’re sitting on the verge of global nuclear conflict, and don’t ever think that he’s not going to try it, because he is.


AW: Yes, but that’s scare mongering…


LKJ: It’s not scare mongering, the man is a psychopath; he will do it.


AW: Ok, well we’ve been…


LKJ: He will do it.


AW: well, I think…


LKJ: Take it to the bank.


AW: I think from a factual point of view, we’ve been a lot closer to nuclear apocalypse in the past. That doesn’t mean to say that we need to be, uh, you know, complacent, to use your own words, now, but I think that, that, I don’t think it’s out of order for me to say that that’s scare mongering language.


LKJ: Well, look at the United States; it has turned into a fascist police state. The U.K. is practically a fascist police state, I mean, you know, it’s, it’s everywhere.


AW: I think anyone who lived in, uh, Nazi Germany or lived in France under the occupation would, would definitely react against that statement.


LKJ: I don’t think so, I…


AW: Wouldn’t they?


LKJ: No, I absolutely do not think so, I have studied this extensively, and the comparisons between Nazi Germany and the United States today are vast and numerous.


AW: Do you have, uh, secret police that, that, uh, takes people in the middle of the night and they never reappear?


LKJ: Apparently they do…


AW: In large numbers?


LKJ: Well, they’re starting to get the numbers larger and larger; they’ve got a place called Guantanamo. It’s just the beginning.


AW: Ok, well that’s uhm, you know, it’s an interesting way of interpreting things. If we move on, though, and look maybe in the deeper and more distant past, I believe that, uh, you know, that the roots of your book go back into ancient civilizations.


LKJ: Yes


AW: And, obviously, I’m assuming, civilizations where we don’t have a great deal of documentary evidence as to how they functioned, and an awful lot of that is conjecture. So, what have you interpreted from, from the ancient civilizations?


LKJ: Well, the one thing that I looked at particularly was myth. And, if myth is the survival of this ancient technology that I’ve theorized to have existed, based on certain archeological finds that I enumerate in the book, it seems to me, that… For example, the myth of Perseus… Perseus was given a pair of sandals that helped him to fly and a, a helmet that gave him invisibility and various, you know, accoutrements that helped him accomplish his, uh, his particular mission to cut off the Gorgon’s head. Now, a lot of anthropologists say that these kinds of myths developed, you know, as a way to explain the forces of nature. But, if you’re just explaining the forces of nature, and you have a, say, a super being who can fly, why do you want to put sandals on him to give him that ability to fly? Why can’t he fly without sandals?

Because, there certainly are other mythical beings who are able to fly or to transport themselves hyper-dimensionally. They don’t need sandals. So, essentially, what you’re looking at is you’re looking at a technological object that enables this person to fly. Then, of course, there are the, you know, the Vedas where they have these Vimanas, these ships that they would fly in and engage in what, uh, what seems to be nuclear war.

And, if you look at these myths, for example, the, uh, the series of, of Grail myths, there are… there is a lance, there’s a cup, there’s a, uh, a, a platter, a talking head. You know, there are several elements to the, to the Grail myths, all of which, if you understood them properly, might indicate an ancient technology. And, I, I go into that in the book to some extent to try to show how, if a civilization ended, uhm, and the, you know, all of the infrastructure of that civilization came to, you know, came to… was destroyed, essentially, how the survivors would tell the stories about what civilization was like to their children, to their grandchildren. And how, after several generations, these stories of this ancient culture, this ancient technology, would be transformed into myth.

And that, that is what I think we see when we see these ancient myths of flying and special powers and mastery of space and time.


AW: Mmmm, and you mentioned archeological evidence, uh, what kind of archeological evidence are we talking about? Because, obviously, you know, I’m obviously, you know, I’ve obviously, I’ve been to Stonehenge, and just the very fact that we still don’t know why these amazing edifices were created thousands of years ago, of course there are strong theories, but what would your theories be?


LKJ: Well, I would say that Stonehenge itself is an energy accumulator and it probably worked with human beings as part of the machinery. They interacted with the stones to gather the energy, or to gather it into themselves. It was a, uh, a human hyperdimensional interface. One of the ancient legends is that the god Apollo danced at Stonehenge every 19 years, there’s an 18.5 year cycle between the Earth, the Moon and the, and the Sun, which is, you know, a three body system that every 19 years, or 18.5 years, it returns to the same position. And, at those times, there is a theory that, uh, during those times, that a gravitational node, uh, exists at a certain point between the Earth and Moon, which could be a doorway to hyperdimensional access.

So, if they’re talking, if they knew, in those ancient times, about this particular three body system cycle, and they talked about the god Apollo dancing at Stonehenge every, you know, 19 years, or 18.5 years, then they obviously understood something about hyperdimensional realities.


AW: So, why have we become ignorant to this knowledge, what has been the force behind that?


LKJ: Well, many times there have been events that happen on the Earth that, uh, wipe civilizations out. I’ve just recently finished reading an interesting book by a physicist, uh, his name is Richard Firestone. And, he talks about the most recent extreme cataclysmic event, which was about 1300, uh, 13,000 years ago, which is, which puts it right at the time of Plato’s Atlantis. And, uh, he goes through extensive, excruciating detail, and he discovered and analyzed, all of the material that shows that the entire planet was bombarded by a swarm of cometary bodies that exploded, you know, either in the air or impacted. He, he proposes that the southern end of Lake Michigan is a cometary impact crater, and that there was one in Hudson Bay, and he has found several others around the planet, and that basically, at this point in history, nearly the entire human race was wiped out as well as all of the mega-fauna of Europe and North American, and South America too.


AW: And the knowledge was lost at that point…


LKJ: Well, certainly…


AW: And other points like that in human history…


LKJ: Yeah, I mean, if, if you’re… also another thing that happened was that the sea level rose 400 feet, so the evidence, you know, most of our civilization lives on sea coasts or, you know, along sides of rivers, so your sea level has risen 400 feet since then, or at that time, uh, an awful lot would be covered up. And, of course, if you have exploding comets in the atmosphere, if you have hundreds of thousands of the Tunguska event, happening…


AW: Hmmm


LKJ: Now, imagine, because you look at the Carolina Bays in the United States, and there are hundreds of thousands of them, and, and actually, the Carolina Bays are not the only place in the United States where there are these particular features. He shows how they also exist all over the South West, that they are also in the, uh, in, in other areas of the world, that there are some of them even in Ireland, I believe. So, there, this was a massive global event 13,000 years ago that almost literally wiped out the entire human race.


AW: And, was that perpetrated by these beings, or was that…


LKJ: Oh, no, no, no, that was a natural cycle; those are natural cycles. But, you see, they know and understand the cycles, and then they do everything they can to keep us from knowing and understanding those cycles.


AW: So it wasn’t a question where we got to the point where we almost knew too much, and we were, uh, being reined back as it were?


LKJ: Well, you could say that, because, uh, it, maybe it’s just a natural cycle that when human beings get to the point that they can destroy themselves, then that’s just the way it happens.


AW: Ok


LKJ: And that may be the point where we are now.


AW: So, do you, you know, having written a book and having studied these subjects extensively, uh, your world view does sound bleak, I’m afraid to say, Laura. Is that your feeling? Do you feel as bleak as the very stark manner in which you described the current state of, uhm, of America at this point in time?


LKJ: Well, personally for myself, I don’t feel all that bleak about it. I just do what I can to try to make as many people aware of the possibilities as I can, and if, you know, more people become aware, then they can possibly do something to change it.


AW: So is your motivation to get them to change it within the boundaries of how our society works at the moment, in a political fashion, as it were? Or, is it to embrace, uh, this more, almost more existential way of looking at ourselves and, and the, our futures, as it were?


LKJ: I think the first thing we need is, we need to increase scientific study of many, many things because science is the only thing that is going to save us. And, we need to get politics out of science, that’s the first thing. And, we need to give them some freedom to work on what really matters, and to quit controlling science, politically speaking.

And, then we need to listen to the consensus of scientists, and, uh, I think that’s the first thing we need to do. And, as far as politics, well, uh, I’m not too sure that anything can be done politically. It’s uh, you know, I’m not really, I couldn’t even suggest anything along that line, except to get rid of the psychopaths. But, you know, that has to be done through science. The only way you could deal with politics is through science.


AW: Hmmm, mmmm, indeed. And, what are you working on at the moment? You mentioned that you were, at least you were in the process of working on something at the moment, how do you extend this work further?


LKJ: Well, I’m, I’m kind of zeroing in on one particular aspect of something I mentioned in ‘Secret History’, which is the, the origins of, of our religious beliefs, which is Judaism, which began with, you know, supposedly, with Moses, Abraham, etc. And, I am zeroing in on that, and bringing together a lot of documentary evidence to explain exactly who, where, when, how and why it happened.


AW: And, if, I don’t know whether you’re familiar with our bookshops in, in the United Kingdom, I mean, if people come into a bookshop, as I mentioned right at the start of our conversation, uh, tonight, you know, books, like music, tend to be grouped in pigeonholes. Where would people be able to find your book in the bookshops, under what heading does it go? Is that a cause of frustration? From that exhalation of breath, it sounds like it might be.


LKJ: yeah, because there is so much science in it, yet there is a certain amount of paranormal, there is para-science, there is religion, there is, uh, alchemy, there is; it’s just, it’s just really a no-niche book.


AW: It’s funny, whenever we talk about science, particularly on this program, increasingly, uh, the scientists we talk to want us to embrace science, I don’t know, more holistically, look at it not as strict disciplines, you know, to make sure we are aware that all of these things do join together.


LKJ: Right.


AW: So, is this a good thing, as far as you’re concerned, a good thing, moving away from regarding the sciences as strict disciplines and maybe realizing that they are actually all intertwined?


LKJ: Absolutely, one of the big problems that I’ve seen as I’ve gone through this scientific literature, and I’ve been able to consult with scientists directly, for some of the material in the book, and, uh, to ask questions and have my questions answered by the experts in the field, and the one thing I’ve noticed is, is that there is, you know, scientists in one field don’t talk so much to scientists in other fields. For example, lowest on my list, and I, and I really apologize to some of you out there, but kind of lowest on my list are Egyptologists.


AW: Hmmm


LKJ: I, I have a, I am extremely frustrated with them, because, you know, all of our history; our entire history, as we understand it and know it, as it’s promulgated, you know, popularly, is based on what Egyptologists decide about chronology. And, Egyptologists really, really need to learn some science.


AW: Hmmm, it’s a, it seems like a fundamental mistake. Laura, thank you very much for coming in and talking to us tonight. We’ve had a few text messages, but one I think I’ll definitely bring up is, “this lady’s very brave and I congratulate her, very strange subject and almost quite scary”. So, there is definitely support for you out there. Thank you so much for talking to us. ‘The Secret History of the World and How to Get out Alive’ is published by Red Pill Press, and you can find that at your bookshop or go to redpillpress.co.uk. Laura, thank you for your time.


LKJ: And thank you for having me.

Images & Words

Nothing more to add, except sorrow for the oppressed and the deceived.

Blue Ibis

*******************************************************


(c) Safael

There Is Apartheid in Israel

Shulamit Aloni
Arab News
Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:24 EST

Jewish self-righteousness is taken for granted among ourselves to such an extent that we fail to see what's right in front of our eyes. It's simply inconceivable that the ultimate victims, the Jews, can carry out evil deeds. Nevertheless, the State of Israel practices its own, quite violent, form of apartheid with the native Palestinian population.

The US Jewish establishment's onslaught on former President Jimmy Carter is based on his daring to tell the truth which is known to all: Through its army, the government of Israel practices a brutal form of apartheid in the territory it occupies. Its army has turned every Palestinian village and town into a fenced-in, or blocked-in, detention camp. All this is done in order to keep an eye on the population's movements and to make its life difficult. Israel even imposes a total curfew whenever the settlers, who have illegally usurped the Palestinians' land, celebrate their holidays or conduct their parades.

If that were not enough, the generals commanding the region frequently issue further orders, regulations, instructions and rules (let us not forget: They are the lords of the land). By now they have requisitioned further lands for the purpose of constructing "Jewish only" roads. Wonderful roads, wide roads, well-paved roads, brightly lit at night - all that on stolen land. When a Palestinian drives on such a road, his vehicle is confiscated and he is sent on his way.

On one occasion I witnessed such an encounter between a driver and a soldier who was taking down the details before confiscating the vehicle and sending its owner away. "Why?" I asked the soldier. "It's an order - this is a Jews-only road", he replied. I inquired as to where was the sign indicating this fact and instructing (other) drivers not to use it. His answer was nothing short of amazing. "It is his responsibility to know it, and besides, what do you want us to do, put up a sign here and let some anti-Semitic reporter or journalist take a photo so he that can show the world that apartheid exists here?"

Indeed apartheid does exist here. And our army is not "the most moral army in the world" as we are told by its commanders. Sufficient to mention that every town and every village has turned into a detention center and that every entry and every exit has been closed, cutting it off from arterial traffic. If it were not enough, that Palestinians are not allowed to travel on the roads paved "for Jews only", on their land, the current GOC found it necessary to land an additional blow on the natives in their own land with an "ingenious proposal": Humanitarian activists cannot transport Palestinians either

Maj. Gen. Naveh, renowned for his superior patriotism, has issued a new order. It prohibits the conveyance of Palestinians without a permit. The order determines that Israelis are not allowed to transport Palestinians in an Israeli vehicle (one registered in Israel regardless of what kind of number plate it carries) unless they have received explicit permission to do so. The permit relates to both the driver and the Palestinian passenger. Of course none of this applies to those whose labor serves the settlers. They and their employers will naturally receive the required permits so they can continue to serve the lords of the land, the settlers.

Did man of peace President Carter truly err in concluding that Israel is creating apartheid? Did he exaggerate? Don't the US Jewish community leaders recognize the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination of 7 March 1966, to which Israel is a signatory? Are the US Jews who launched the loud and abusive campaign against Carter for supposedly maligning Israel's character and its democratic and humanist nature unfamiliar with the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid of Nov. 30, 1973? Apartheid is defined therein as an international crime that among other things includes using different legal instruments to rule over different racial groups, thus depriving people of their human rights. Isn't freedom of travel one of these rights?

In the past, the US Jewish community leaders were quite familiar with the meaning of those conventions. For some reason, however, they are convinced that Israel is allowed to contravene them. It's OK to kill civilians, women and children, old people and parents with their children, deliberately or otherwise without accepting any responsibility. It's permissible to rob people of their lands, destroy their crops, and cage them up like animals in the zoo. From now on, Israelis and international humanitarian organizations' volunteers are prohibited from assisting a woman in labor by taking her to the hospital. (Israeli human rights group) Yesh Din volunteers cannot take a robbed and beaten-up Palestinian to the police station to lodge a complaint. (Police stations are located at the heart of the settlements.) Is there anyone who believes that this is not apartheid?

Jimmy Carter does not need me to defend his reputation that has been sullied by Israelophile community officials. The trouble is that their love of Israel distorts their judgment and blinds them from seeing what's in front of them. Israel is an occupying power that for 40 years has been oppressing an indigenous people, which is entitled to a sovereign and independent existence while living in peace with us. We should remember that we too used very violent terror against foreign rule because we wanted our own state. And the list of victims of terror is quite long and extensive. We do limit ourselves to denying the (Palestinian) people human rights. We not only rob them of their freedom, land and water. We apply collective punishment to millions of people and even, in revenge-driven frenzy, destroy the electricity supply for one and half million civilians. Let them "sit in the darkness" and "starve".

Employees cannot be paid their wages because Israel is holding 500 million shekels that belong to the Palestinians. And after all that we remain "pure as the driven snow". There are no moral blemishes on our actions. There is no racial separation.

There is no apartheid. It's an invention of the enemies of Israel. Hooray for our brothers and sisters in the US! Your devotion is very much appreciated. You have truly removed a nasty stain from us. Now there can be an extra spring in our step as we confidently abuse the Palestinian population, using the "most moral army in the world".

- Shulamit Aloni served as Israel's minister for education under Yitzhak Rabin. Aloni is a Laureate of the Israel Prize given by the State of Israel. She was awarded it in 2000 for her lifetime work. The source of this article is Yediot Acharonot, Israel's largest circulating newspaper through its associate Hebrew website Ynet. (It was never placed on the English site, Ynetnews.) Translated from Hebrew by Sol Salbe.

Lt. Ehren Watada Has Friends - Ones Truly Worth Listening To . . .

When the men and women considered to be the cream of Military Excellence begin to criticize the Bush Reich, we MUST be seriously hooped. Kudos to them for speaking out, likely for many at the risk of their careers.

Blue Ibis

*****************************************************************************

West Point Graduates Against the War Thank Lt. Ehren Watada

West Point Grads Against The War
Fri, 09 Feb 2007 10:57 EST

Dear Lieutenant Ehren Watada:

We are pleased to write to you to express our profound respect and gratitude for your refusal to participate in the illegal war in Iraq. We stand with you regarding the illegality of the orders issued to you and fully support your exercising your conscientious duty to refuse to obey them.

As graduates of the United States Military Academy and former officers in the armed forces of this nation we are enormously encouraged by your example. We too have served our country during war and during peace and we agree with your honorable and courageous decision. Your refusal to fight this illegal war in Iraq has heartened us. It is our hope that your example will encourage others to re-examine their own principles of truth, personal honor and the rule of law that are the founding precepts of our democracy, and act as their consciences dictate as you did.

Instilled by the Cadet Honor System with a fundamental, longstanding respect for truth, we believe that honor is a basic attribute of character, a requisite for leading the men and women of our country. We are appalled by the deceitful behavior of the government of the United States. The lying, evasions and quibbling has demeaned not only those who utter them and the United States of America, but has placed vast numbers of innocent people in deadly peril. We will not serve these lies and deceits, nor should you.

The last article of the Code of Conduct for the American Fighting Man states "I will never forget that I am an American fighting man, responsible for my actions and dedicated to the principles which made my country free." Your decision illustrates the broadness of scope of an officer's responsibility and highlights the difference between an American servicemember and any other. We share your desire to elevate mere obedience to orders to a higher duty, one unequivocally declared at Nuremburg, in the Geneva Convention and by the United Nations Charter.

Like you, we academy graduates swore to support and defend our Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We also swore to bear true faith and allegiance to the same Constitution. The illegal policies of the current administration have resulted in a war catastrophic to our nation's interests: politically, economically, militarily, and morally. We now stand to protect our nation from these deceptions. We seek justice for all victims of this illegal war, both servicemen and servicewomen, and the citizens of Iraq, and we support you in your quest for justice.

To this purpose we invoke the words of Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence whereby we too "mutually pledge to each other our lives, our Fortunes, & our sacred Honor."

With greetings of comradeship and deep respect,

West Point Graduates Against the War

The Dixie Chicks - I Hope

Music from the "Chicks" images from The Signs Team.

There's still some light.

Blue Ibis

Too Angry to Make Up A Title

Jesus-tap-dancing-Christ!!

Every time I think I am going to post about something else (anything else!!) besides murderous Zionist/Neocon psychopaths, something like this comes along.

How can an Israeli stay in Palestine and sleep at night, knowing that acts like this secure their place?

Blue Ibis

**************************************************

Why Was the Palestinian Mother of Eleven Murdered While Trying to Protect Her Deaf Husband?

by Paul Findley
mediamonitors
Thu, 08 Feb 2007 21:27 EST

"U.S. media are generally brave, except where Israel is concerned. So are members of Congress. So is the presidency. And the rest of us? Almost everyone is afraid to criticize Israel, no matter how barbaric its behavior."

Alison Weir, a California journalist and activist who chronicles the bias in U.S. media coverage of Middle East events, bestirred many Americans - perhaps many thousands - in early October with a powerful, chilling Internet account of the largely unreported murder of a Palestinian mother of 11 children by Israeli soldiers in Gaza.

Itemad Ismail Abu Mo'ammar was fatally shot while trying to rescue her deaf husband from a severe beating by Israeli soldiers, who were furious because he did not answer their questions.

Weir wrote:

"Foolishly or valiantly, how is one to say, the 35-year-old woman interfered. She tried to explain that her husband was deaf and couldn't hear their questions. Then she attempted to stop them from hitting him. So they shot her. Several times. She didn't die, though. That took longer, because the soldiers refused to allow an ambulance to transport her to a physician. Finally, after approximately five hours, one was permitted to take her to a hospital where physicians were able to render one service: pronounce her dead. Why did this all happen? The family lived behind the residence of a resistance fighter wanted by Israel. The death of Itemad was simply 'collateral damage' in a failed Israeli assassination-kidnapping operation."

Weir searched major U.S. media - broadcast and print - from coast to coast, and found Itemad's death reported in only three newspapers, a single-sentence notice in each. One of the three, The Washington Post, reported inaccurately that the woman was killed by an Israeli tank round. After exchanging messages with Weir, the Post cleared for publication her letter that explained that multiple bullets, fired close up - not a tank round - were the cause of death. But the Post reneged. The letter was not published. Why? Weir's explanation: "After all, these were only Palestinians, and it was just another mother dead."

Ponder the "why" of the shooting. Although the distraught woman struggled to get the armed soldiers to stop beating her deaf husband, she surely posed no physical threat to them. Even if they did not understand what she said, she was, at worst, an inconvenience, hardly deserving to be shot.

Now consider the "why" of the aftermath. Were the hearts of the Israeli squad so hardened that they could not act with compassion as the husband and children watched helplessly through unavailing tears as the woman bled to death? Why did they want her dead?

This Gaza atrocity is not an isolated aberration. Israeli brutality is commonplace, and so is American silence in response. What transformed the soldiers, their military superiors, as well as the civilian leaders of the Israeli government into callous brutes? Is the whole Israeli governmental system so corrupted with anti-Arab passion that mercy for a dying mother is nowhere to be found?

Other questions beg answers. Will the killers be punished or even rebuked? Will messages of regret, consolation, and - yes - compensation be sent to the survivors? Sadly, I know from the wells of memory the answer to these two questions is no.

Such messages should come from Washington, not just from Israel, as the guns and bullets used in the killing were almost certainly gifts of the U.S. government. Will the U.S. ambassador deliver messages to the aggrieved, as well as a threatening protest to Israeli officials, demanding an end to the brutal treatment of innocent people? Here again, the answer is no.

Why the cover-up in major U.S. media? The awful circumstances of Itemad's death were not reported, because major media are afraid - yes, afraid - to feature Israeli criminal behavior. Israel's influence is suffocating. Imagine the intense, sustained coverage that would have dominated major media if the roles in Gaza had been reversed, with a dying Israeli woman denied medical service for hours by Palestinians who had shot her at close range for no good reason.

U.S. media are generally brave, except where Israel is concerned. So are members of Congress. So is the presidency. And the rest of us? Almost everyone is afraid to criticize Israel, no matter how barbaric its behavior.

U.S. silence in the face of an Israeli atrocity is a green light to more crime. If we look at our own hands, we may find a trace of Itemad's blood right there in plain sight.

Standing on Principle: Lt. Ehren Watada

Another Signs of the Times double-feature. It seems the Gob'mint ain't willing to let Lt. Ehren Watada bring the (screaming il)legality of the Iraq war into question. As his defense turns on his refusing an illegal order (to deploy to an unlawful conflict) the easiest way for them to weasel out was to call a mis-trial. Read on for the particulars, and be sure to click the link to vote in the Seattle PI poll given with the original article.

If you are wondering why Lt. Watada is being so recalcitrant about deploying to Iraq, check out the second feature. Our psychopath . . er, brave fighting men in action.

Blue Ibis

**********************************************************
Mistrial could be end of Watada case - Double-jeopardy prohibition

Portrait of a principled man

By MIKE BARBER
Seattle PI
Thu, 08 Feb 2007 22:10 EST

FORT LEWIS -- The Army court-martial of 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, which ended in a mistrial Wednesday, may have stranger turns ahead: Prohibitions against double jeopardy may keep prosecutors from having a second trial, his lawyer and another legal expert say.

The opposition of Watada and his defense team to the mistrial, declared by the military judge and eventually endorsed by prosecutors after their case fell apart, opens the door for a double-jeopardy defense, said John Junker, a University of Washington law professor.

Double jeopardy, which forbids a person from being tried twice for the same crime, does not apply only after a verdict is rendered, but can apply after a jury is empaneled and witnesses have been called.

"The notion is that you can't just stop in the middle and say, 'I don't like the way it's going' and start over," Junker said. "If the defendant objected, it does raise the possibility" of double jeopardy, Junker said. "That would happen in a civilian court, and I presume in a military court. That doctrine comes from the Constitution."

Watada's case has drawn national attention and galvanized the anti-war movement. He is the first U.S. military officer publicly to refuse deployment to Iraq by stating the war is illegal and that he feels duty-bound to refuse unlawful orders.

Watada's trial was in its last day, and he was preparing to take the stand when the military judge, Lt. Col. John Head, raised the issue that led to the mistrial. That issue was a stipulation that Watada had signed and would be given to the jury as part of its instructions.

Head set a tentative retrial date in mid-March, though that date could be moved back.

Prosecutors had not decided last night whether they will retry Watada. Eric Seitz, Watada's civilian attorney, intends to fight to block the prosecutors from trying the lieutenant a second time.

Watada's supporters -- among the lucky few who gained access to the small military courtroom -- were excited at the dramatic turn of events.

"I continue to remain very hopeful my son will be exonerated," said Carolyn Ho, Watada's mother.

Ann Wright, a retired Army colonel and former diplomat who quit her post disputing the invasion of Iraq, said "the Army's case is a mess, and it reflects the mess the (Bush) administration is in also in Iraq."

Army officials said they were not disappointed in the outcome as Head's decision demonstrated the fairness of the military justice system and that the judge was looking out for Watada's interests.

Reading a prepared statement, Fort Lewis spokesman Joe Piek said: "The military judge ensures fairness in the proceedings, especially to the accused. In this case, the judge was concerned that the stipulation amounted to a confession by Lt. Watada to an offense to which he intended to plead not guilty."

Seitz, however, opposed the mistrial, saying Head "abused his discretion."

At the same time, said Seitz, who has been trying military cases since the Vietnam War, he had never seen a turn like this.

Seitz said Watada, who was ready to take the stand but never did, "was not happy that he does not get to get this over with," but also knows that the developments could lead to the end of the case against him.

The dramatic turn of events hinged on a stipulation of fact that Watada signed in a plea agreement more than a week ago. Under the plea deal, prosecutors dropped two charges of conduct unbecoming an officer against Watada. He was being tried this week on two other charges of conduct unbecoming an officer and one count of missing movement when his Stryker Brigade deployed to Iraq in June.

Head questioned Watada while the jury was out of the courtroom, which Seitz objected to but allowed, and legal experts such as Junker said they would consider that questioning "very unusual" in a civilian trial.

Head concluded that he could not accept Watada's statement. Although Watada had admitted to failing to deploy with his unit, it was not the same as admitting guilt, which prosecutors considered it to be, Head said.

"What did you understand that (the stipulation-of-fact) to mean? What does that mean to you?" the judge asked Watada after sparring with Seitz over his intention to question the lieutenant.

Of his refusal to get on the plane, Watada said: "To me it means to (not) participate in a war that I believed to be illegal."

Head asked if Watada believed the statement to be "confessional" to the charge of missing movement.

"No, I did not," Watada said.

If the stipulation couldn't be accepted, then the two charges that were dropped would be renewed. The plea agreement would have to be rejected. So the judge called a mistrial.

"We did not want a mistrial," Seitz said outside the courtroom. He said he believes that the prohibition against double jeopardy ought to keep prosecutors from trying Watada a second time. If they do, he will take the case to an appeals court, he said.

Since the start, Seitz was frustrated at seeing his defense, which included calling expert witnesses to testify about the legality of the war and the parameters of Watada's free speech rights, constricted to keep from putting the war on trial. Head has said he wanted the focus on the legality of Watada's actions, not on the legality of the war.

Yet Seitz said after the court-martial ended in mistrial that Watada's intentions are a significant part of his defense.

"There is no way around talking about why he didn't get on that plane, and that is the government's continuing dilemma in this case," Seitz said.

Had he been tried and convicted, Watada faced a maximum of four years in prison and dismissal from the service.

But for now, he continues to be an active-duty soldier, reporting for work every day at Fort Lewis.

********************************************************

Marine 'congratulated' men for murder of Iraqi civilian: witness

AFP
Thu, 08 Feb 2007 13:11 EST

CAMP PENDLETON, California - A US Marine squad leader congratulated soldiers "for getting away with murder" after an Iraqi civilian was bound and shot dead at point-blank range, a military court has heard.

Sergeant Lawrence Hutchins, who will stand trial for murder next month, made the comments after the abduction and killing of 52-year-old Hashim Ibrahim Award in Hamdania outside Baghdad last April, a witness testified.

Navy medic Melson Bacos, who was jailed for one year last September for his role in Awad's killing, recounted Hutchins' comments while giving evidence at a sentencing hearing for another Marine, Trent Thomas.

Bacos said that after Awad had been shot in a roadside hole, squad members had to work quickly to remove "zip ties" used to bind his hands and feet.

The squad wanted to make it look like they had just come upon the victim, when in fact they had dragged him from his home, Bacos said.

"When all was cleaned up, Hutchins said, 'Congratulations. We just got away with murder, gents,'" Bacos told the hearing at the Marines' Camp Pendleton base outside of San Diego.

Prosecutors say Hutchins, who is to stand trial on March 19, was the ringleader of the plot to kill Awad.

A hearing is ongoing to determine a sentence for Thomas, who pleaded guilty to unpremeditated murder last month in connection with the case. Thomas had earlier denied murder charges.

Thomas's sentencing hearing will continue on Thursday.

Five of the eight servicemen implicated in the killing have now admitted to charges connected to Awad's death, one of a string of incidents that has tarnished the reputation of US forces in raq.

Other witnesses involved in the case have testified that Awad was killed after the squad of soldiers failed to locate a suspected insurgent operating in the area west of Baghdad.

Awad was allegedly taken from his home and frog-marched to a hole, which Marines had dug to look like a roadside bomb crater.

He was then bound before being shot three times in the head. An AK-47 rifle was then left beside his body to create the impression he had been an insurgent planting a bomb.

Comment: Remember the stories of US forces planting explosives in the vehicles of Iraqi civilians stopped at checkpoints in order to create "terrorist attacks"? It isn't so hard to believe anymore, is it?