Israeli drones said to operate over Iraq, Afghanistan

Ha’aretz (Israel)
March 19, 2009

Israeli-manufactured unmanned aerial vehicles have been operating in the skies of Iraq and Afghanistan in the service of the United States-led coalition for the last three years.

According to reports in foreign media, the unpiloted aircrafts are products of the Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI).

Over Iraq, the U.S. Army has been operating Hunter model UAVs that were manufactured in IAI’s Mississippi-based subsidiary Stark Aerospace. The top contractor for the project is the American defense company Northrop Grumman.

Reports say the aircraft have been deployed in various missions with considerable success.

Within the last year, the Canadian air force has also operated Israeli-made Heron UAVs over Afghanistan to assist Canada’s ground forces in combat against the Taliban.

It is not known whether any Israeli UAVs in Iraq and Afghanistan were shot down, yet no reports of such incidents have been received.

Though the UAVs were manufactured in Israel, there are no identifying marks on the aircraft to indicate the country of origin.

The above article can be found at: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072304.html

Israeli drones said to operate over Iraq, Afghanistan

Israeli AIPAC spies set to walk

Prosecutors lose key rulings in AIPAC case
The Jewish Daily Forward
February 25, 2009

WASHINGTON — Federal prosecutors in the national security case against two former pro-Israel lobbyists suffered legal blows this week that could affect their chances of winning or even lead the government to reconsider going forward with the case.

A February 24 ruling by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va. turned down a government appeal aiming to limit the use of classified evidence by the defendants in the case. It also upheld the decision of a lower court requiring the prosecution prove the defendants acted in bad faith.

Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, two former staffers of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, are accused of illegally communicating classified information to an Israeli diplomat, a journalist and to their AIPAC superiors. They were arrested after an FBI sting operation, in which they received information from Larry Franklin, a former mid-level Pentagon analyst. Rosen and Weissman were later fired from AIPAC.

The appeals court’s ruling comes after a February 18 decision by Judge T.S. Ellis of the U.S. district court in Virginia to allow the defense to call to the stand William Leonard, the former head of government Information Security Oversight Office, known as the “classification czar.” This decision gave a boost to the defendants who believe that Leonard’s testimony is crucial in countering prosecutors’ claims that the information Rosen and Weissman heard from Franklin and passed on, was, in fact, classified.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, who represents Steve Rosen, said the appeals court ruling will help the defendants prove the information they conveyed “was not classified, was not national defense information and its disclosure did not violate the law.”

“I see no winning strategy for the prosecution,” said Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, who has been following the case closely. “They are in an all but impossible situation.”

Aftergood noted the high bar set by the court, demanding that the prosecution proves Rosen and Weissman disclosed the information intending to damage U.S. interests.

The rulings might be a turning point for the case that began over four years ago. Observers and defense sources speculated the new circumstances created by the pre-trial decisions could lead the Attorney General to reconsider the entire prosecution, in light of what is seen as a growing difficulty to prove guilt.

“This is the defense’s dream scenario, but it’s not an unrealistic one,” Aftergood said.

A tentative April 21 date was set by the court for the trial, but it may be pushed back to accommodate the scheduling needs of both sides.

The above article can be found at: http://forward.com/articles/103356/

Israeli AIPAC spies set to walk

White House access (for Jews)? Step right in!

The Jewish Daily Forward
February 25, 2009

One month into the Obama presidency, Jewish communal leaders seeking high-level access appear to have come crashing through an open door.

Within four days in mid-February, community leaders were invited to two high-level conference calls — one with senior foreign policy officials to discuss the upcoming United Nations-sponsored Durban II conference on racism, and the other with Middle East special envoy George Mitchell. Attorney General Eric Holder is scheduled to speak in March at the annual plenum of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, an umbrella organization of public policy groups.

“It’s clear that Obama himself believes in outreach with a capital O,” said Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations public policy director, Nathan Diament, who participated in the calls.

This access may be deployed in part to ease community concerns about policy shifts that Jewish groups might find unwelcome. Many advocates fear that the Durban II conference, set to take place in Geneva in April, for example, will replicate the first Durban conference’s strident focus on purported Israeli and Zionist racism. Some Jewish groups urge Washington simply to boycott. The administration has indicated that it plans to address Jewish concerns during pre-conference agenda negotiations with other countries.

“It is clear they have things to say to the Jewish community, and it’s good they are saying them,” said one pro-Israel activist, speaking on condition of anonymity. Communal leaders say the administration’s efforts to connect with them appear to be a down payment on campaign promises of full transparency and outreach to all communities.

Initial administration outreach has departed somewhat from previous presidents’ approaches. In assembling invitation lists, the White House does not limit itself to working through the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the Jewish establishment’s formal foreign-policy voice to the executive branch. Ideologically diverse groups outside that orbit, such as the New Israel Fund and The Israel Project, have become regular participants in administration meetings.

The White House has also broken with tradition in not yet naming one individual as designated Jewish community liaison. Nonetheless, the job is still done, as in the past, by the Office of Public Liaison, now headed by Tina Tchen, who coordinated and moderated the recent conference calls.

Two White House staffers conduct daily outreach: Susan Sher, associate counsel to the president, and vice presidential staffer Danielle Borrin. Both are considered to have strong Jewish community ties. Sher was involved with the community in Chicago, and Borrin interned in the Washington office of United Jewish Communities before joining the staff of then-senator Joe Biden.

“Instead of having one point person, one e-mail address, one phone number to call, we have three,” said William Daroff, head of the UJC Washington office.

It is still not clear if and when the White House will name a full-time Jewish community liaison. Tchen has cited budgetary constraints as the reason the position remains unfilled. But a former Bush administration official scoffed at this, arguing, “There will always be resources to meet the president’s political needs.”

Dealing with the organized Jewish community’s myriad political connections has challenged every administration in designing its communications strategy. Previous administrations have had to juggle Jewish advocates’ expectations of having their own White House point person with the often contradictory desire for direct access to higher levels.

In this administration, as in others, certain senior officials have become de facto channels for lobbying, information and dialogue. Dan Shapiro, Middle East affairs director at the National Security Council, is seen as an address for Jewish groups on foreign policy issues. A former aide to Florida Democratic Senator Bill Nelson, Shapiro worked at the National Security Council during the Clinton administration and was a liaison on Middle East issues in Obama’s presidential campaign.

Another White House address is chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, who has longstanding ties with Jewish leaders both in Chicago and nationally, though his top position makes him less accessible than others.

In Mitchell’s hour-long February 19 conference call with Jewish leaders, the envoy made clear that he wanted to hear community activists’ views. He also spoke directly to some of their concerns, said one participant who took notes. Aware of criticism of his 2001 report on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Mitchell noted, “On the plane back from the region, I read my report from eight years ago and saw how the reality on the ground has changed.”

While the 2001 report does not mention the word “Iran,” he said, the issue was raised in the first sentence of every conversation in his latest talks.

The former Maine senator also tried to ease concerns regarding his views on settlements, saying they were only one issue among many that will have to be dealt with by the administration, not an exclusive focus.

The above article can be found at: http://forward.com/articles/103357/

White House access (for Jews)? Step right in!

Elder of Zion Kissinger calls Obama “important element” in “new world order”

The world must forge a new order or retreat to chaos
By Henry Kissinger

The Independent (UK)
January 20, 2009

As the new U.S. administration prepares to take office amid grave financial and international crises, it may seem counterintuitive to argue that the very unsettled nature of the international system generates a unique opportunity for creative diplomacy.

That opportunity involves a seeming contradiction. On one level, the financial collapse represents a major blow to the standing of the United States. While American political judgments have often proved controversial, the American prescription for a world financial order has generally been unchallenged. Now disillusionment with the United States’ management of it is widespread.
At the same time, the magnitude of the debacle makes it impossible for the rest of the world to shelter any longer behind American predominance or American failings. Every country will have to reassess its own contribution to the prevailing crisis. Each will seek to make itself independent, to the greatest possible degree, of the conditions that produced the collapse; at the same time, each will be obliged to face the reality that its dilemmas can be mastered only by common action.

Even the most affluent countries will confront shrinking resources. Each will have to redefine its national priorities. An international order will emerge if a system of compatible priorities comes into being. It will fragment disastrously if the various priorities cannot be reconciled.

The nadir of the international financial system coincides with simultaneous political crises around the globe. Never have so many transformations occurred at the same time in so many different parts of the world and been made accessible via instantaneous communication. The alternative to a new international order is chaos.

The financial and political crises are, in fact, closely related partly because, during the period of economic exuberance, a gap had opened up between the economic and the political organization of the world. The economic world has been globalized. Its institutions have a global reach and have operated by maxims that assumed a self-regulating global market. The financial collapse exposed the mirage. It made evident the absence of global institutions to cushion the shock and to reverse the trend. Inevitably, when the affected publics turned to their political institutions, these were driven principally by domestic politics, not considerations of world order. Every major country has attempted to solve its immediate problems essentially on its own and to defer common action to a later, less crisis-driven point.

So-called rescue packages have emerged on a piecemeal national basis, generally by substituting seemingly unlimited governmental credit for the domestic credit that produced the debacle in the first place, so far without achieving more than stemming incipient panic. International order will not come about either in the political or economic field until there emerge general rules toward which countries can orient themselves.

In the end, the political and economic systems can be harmonized in only one of two ways: by creating an international political regulatory system with the same reach as that of the economic world; or by shrinking the economic units to a size manageable by existing political structures, which is likely to lead to a new mercantilism, perhaps of regional units. A new Bretton Woods kind of global agreement is by far the preferable outcome.

America’s role in this enterprise will be decisive. Paradoxically, American influence will be great in proportion to the modesty in our conduct; we need to modify the righteousness that has characterized too many American attitudes, especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union. That event and the subsequent period of nearly uninterrupted global growth induced too many to equate world order with the acceptance of American designs, including our domestic preferences. The result was a certain inherent unilateralism — the standard complaint of European critics — or else an insistent kind of consultation by which nations were invited to prove their fitness to enter the international system by conforming to American prescriptions.

Not since the inauguration of president John F Kennedy half a century ago has a new administration come into office with such a reservoir of expectations. It is unprecedented that all the principal actors on the world stage are avowing their desire to undertake the transformations imposed on them by the world crisis in collaboration with the United States.

The extraordinary impact of the President-elect on the imagination of humanity is an important element in shaping a new world order. But it defines an opportunity, not a policy. The ultimate challenge is to shape the common concern of most countries and all major ones regarding the economic crisis, together with a common fear of jihadist terrorism, into a strategy reinforced by the realization that the new issues like proliferation, energy and climate change permit no national or regional solution.

The new administration could make no worse mistake than to rest on its initial popularity. The role of China in a new world order is crucial. A relationship that started on both sides as essentially a strategic design to constrain a common adversary has evolved over the decades into a pillar of the international system. China made possible the American consumption splurge by buying American debt; America helped the modernization of the Chinese economy by opening its markets to Chinese goods.

Each side of the Pacific needs the cooperation of the other in addressing the consequences of the financial crisis. Now that the global financial collapse has devastated Chinese export markets, China is emphasizing infrastructure development and domestic consumption. It will not be easy to shift gears rapidly, and the Chinese growth rate may fall temporarily below the 7.5 per cent that Chinese experts define as the line that challenges political stability.

What kind of global economic order arises will depend importantly on how China and America deal with each other over the next few years. A frustrated China may take another look at an exclusive regional Asian structure, for which the nucleus already exists in the ASEAN-plus-three concept. At the same time, if protectionism grows in America or if China comes to be seen as a long-term adversary, a self-fulfilling prophecy may blight the prospects of global order. Such a return to mercantilism and 19th-century diplomacy would divide the world into competing regional units with dangerous long-term consequences.

The Sino-American relationship needs to be taken to a new level. This generation of leaders has the opportunity to shape relations into a design for a common destiny, much as was done with trans-Atlantic relations in the postwar period — except that the challenges now are more political and economic than military.

The complexity of the emerging world requires from America a more historical approach than the insistence that every problem has a final solution expressible in programs with specific time limits not infrequently geared to our political process. We must learn to operate within the attainable and be prepared to pursue ultimate ends by the accumulation of nuance. An international order can be permanent only if its participants have a share not only in building but also in securing it. In this manner, America and its potential partners have a unique opportunity to transform a moment of crisis into a vision of hope.

The author was U.S. National Security Adviser, 1969-75, and U.S. Secretary of State, 1973-77.

The above article can be found at: Henry Kissinger: The world must forge a new order or retreat to chaos

Elder of Zion Kissinger calls Obama “important element” in “new world order”

GAZA’S BLOOD IS ON OUR HANDS (for ignoring the truth of 9/11)

As the dust settles in the Gaza Strip, Palestinian casualties, mostly women and children, are being counted in the hundreds. What just happened was a real holocaust — not a fictional Hollywood production like the “Holocaust” of European Jewry — and the blood of the more than 1300 slain Palestinians is on our hands.

If we had collectively faced up to the reality of Israel’s central role in the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington in 2001, none of these subsequent Israeli atrocities — including the Zionist-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — would ever have been allowed to happen.

In the wake of 9/11, overwhelming evidence emerged, available to anyone who was interested, implicating Israel in the attacks. Much of this evidence — more than enough to stand up in any legitimate court of law — even came out in the Jewish-owned “mainstream” media. (For a concise collection of this evidence, see Victor Thorn’s “9/11 Evil: Israel’s Central Role in the September 11, 2001 Attacks”.)

Now, imagine if, in the months and first few years after the tragedy, we had all had the courage to face the obvious: that the so-called Jewish state — along with its rats’ nest of agents in the US government and intelligence agencies — had conceived, planned, and executed the attacks in order to produce an imaginary “Clash of Civilizations” and drive the US into a global war against the enemies of Israel.

All of the proof was available to us. If we had all shown a little strength of character, and faced up to the truth staring us in the face, the subsequent march to war by the Jewish-controlled Bush Jr. Administration would have been stopped in its tracks.

Imagine: States of the union — pressured by their outraged constituencies — would have demanded legitimate, independent investigations, threatening the federal government with secession if need be.

Enormous demonstrations, involving millions of Americans, would have converged on Washington DC. At risk to life and limb, angry protestors would have dragged known culprits from the White House and other federal institutions to face trial or, depending on the circumstances, vigilante justice.

Jewish-owned mass-media institutions, which played such a vital role in the 9/11 conspiracy and subsequent cover-up, would have been quickly dismantled. Their Zionist propagandists would have been detained pending investigation, trial and — most likely — execution.

Good people in the armed services — still loyal to the US Constitution — would have found and exposed those within their ranks working in the service of a foreign power. Zionist conspirators within the military would have been court-martialed and, having been found guilty of high treason, subject to the maximum penalty.

Meanwhile, the Israeli embassy in the US, along with ADL and AIPAC offices countrywide, would have been besieged by angry Americans seeking redress for the murder of 3000 of their innocent compatriots. Zionist agents would have been tried — by emergency courts, convened by independent states of the union, if need be — and, given the overwhelming proof against them, sentenced to death.

Conspirators who escaped conviction in court would have become fugitives, to be hunted down by righteously-minded local posses spearheaded, perhaps, by the outraged kinsmen of those slain on 9/11.

Most importantly, America’s support for the criminal state of Israel would have vanished overnight, to be replaced by bitter acrimony. An alliance of sovereign nations including the US — whose peoples had purged their respective governments of Zionist rot — would have brought their full weight to bear against the pariah state, arresting its criminal leaders and forcing its military to disarm.

Universally despised and economically unsustainable without US funding, the Israeli experiment would have been brought to a close, forcibly if necessary. Its people would have been dispersed — to refugee camps, if need be — and replaced by the original, rightful inhabitants of Palestine.

But no. We chose instead to give Israel and its henchmen a pass on 9/11.

In an indication of how low we’ve sunk, we let them get away with it. And our apathy only emboldened them to pursue a litany of subsequent crimes — in Iraq (where millions have been killed), Afghanistan, Southern Lebanon, and now Gaza.

Those dead and dying in the Gaza Strip have already paid the price for our spinelessness. And if the global resistance doesn’t soon take this fight to the enemy, it’s only a matter of time before the next consignment of innocent children is offered up to Jewish gods on the altar of our cowardice.

How long before we seek — demand — righteous vengeance?

GAZA’S BLOOD IS ON OUR HANDS (for ignoring the truth of 9/11)

“9/11 Evil” by Victor Thorn — Israel’s Central Role in the Sept. 11 Attacks

Finally, a 9/11 book that addresses the attacks’ most important element: the direct involvement of Israel. Along with details of Israel’s lead role in the events of 9/11, author Victor Thorn reveals how the so-called “9/11 Truth Movement” has been co-opted by Zionist interests with the aim of steering suspicion away from Israel and her many agents in the US government.“A majority of 9/11 researchers, and especially those who have become known as ‘gatekeepers,’ have avoided this subject like the plague,” Thorn writes. “Why? Because the direct implications to Israeli involvement in 9/11 are so overt, and so obvious, that no one could ever investigate this case again without considering the Mossad as one of the primary suspects.”“9/11 Evil” by Victor Thorn — Download it HERE read it, and email it to every thinking person you know.

Much of “9/11 Evil” is devoted to what Thorn does best: exposing the multifarious disinformation agents in the so-called “truth movement.” As the author intelligently explains it:

“There has been established within the CONTROLLED alternative media and 9/11 ‘truth movement’ a framework which parallels precisely that of the mainstream media. Stated differently, those who lord over the Jewish-dominated corporate press established the same rigid type of operation when they created their phony 9/11 ‘truth’ network. The logic behind such a maneuver is obvious. To prevent unwanted information from leaking out to the public and to instead keep it contained, they hand-picked a group of operatives before 9/11 even occurred to eventually bamboozle truth-seekers after the attacks took place.”

“A large percentage of the alternative media and 9/11 ‘truth movement’ (many of them Jewish) aren’t differentiated in the least from their counterparts in the Zionist-run corporate media. This point is vital to understand, because information control is essential in the cover-up process of any crime.”

“The exact same forces controlling the mainstream media information Matrix are also the same ones who control a majority of the alternative media. The best way of viewing this situation is as such: powerful Jewish forces have spent decades consolidating and monopolizing this country’s TV networks, newspapers, radio stations, and magazines. Do you think it’s possible that they would simply ignore those who are trying hardest to expose one of their greatest crimes ever? Of course not.”

“From the very moment this plot was first conceived, the cabal behind it was also planning the cover-up. One of the most integral aspects of this cover-up was a massive infiltration of the 9/11 truth movement. In fact, many of the most prominent deceivers are either Jewish, Jewish apologists, or part of a complex Zionist protection racket. We can no longer ignore this fact or keep our heads in the sand about it.”

Thorn then goes on to enumerate some of the “techniques that those who are bought and sold by the Israeli Lobby use to divert researchers in an arrav of convoluted directions.” These include:

1) A constant droning of vague, non-specific entities such as the “New World Order,” “globalists,” “Illuminati,” “internationalists,” and even “neo-cons” to intentionally deflect people’s attention away from those who actually masterminded 9/11 (therefore never using the world “Israel”).

2) Encourage the cult of personality where a popular radio show host will expose a variety of clandestine conspiracies, but never point his finger at the true culprit.

3) Bring in a religious figure who lays out (for all to see) the entire truth about the mechanics of 9/11, including the all-important World Trade Center controlled demolitions and the Whitewash Committee’s many lies, omissions, and distortions. The only problem is, this individual will refuse to pound a final nail in the coffin by shining a light on Israel’s role in these attacks.

4) Use paid back-room moles to infiltrate every possible 9/11 chat room, message board, and forum to create as much din, disruption, “noise,” and chaos as possible which constantly litters and pollutes the soup; effectively preventing most people from focusing on Israel’s central role in 9/11.

5) A seeming obsession with minutiae where researchers spend an inordinate amount of time endlessly fixating on the tiniest of details without stepping back and exposing the bigger picture and its subsequent ramifications. Or else they’ll engage in rhetorical debates for debate’s sake; all of which is sterile, self-contained, and circular in nature.

Unlike the legions of paid shills in the bogus “truth movement,” however, Thorn isn’t afraid to hang the blame squarely on the shoulders of the true perpetrators of the attacks:

“These shadowy figures were also the descendents of a long-line of behind-the-scenes manipulators who murdered JFK in cold-blood on a bright sunny day in Dallas. They too were a part of the cabal which created the Holohoax lies, staged the Lavon Affair, attempted to sink the USS Liberty, tried to cover-up the Dimona nuclear reactor, finagled us into two successive wars with Iraq, ran arms during the Iran-Contra affair, lurked in the shadows of the notorious BCCI banking scandal, clandestinely facilitated key players at Elohim City before the OKC Bombing, murdered Rachel Corrie in all her innocence, masterminded numerous spy operations (including Jonathon Pollard), and had their fingers all over the 9-11 terror attacks.”

“Yes. these are the same hidden forces which leverage $10 billion in ‘foreign aid’ each year from the United States and who are building a high-tech, militant apartheid wall around their borders during a time when every other nation is supposed to be ‘beyond’ such notions. And even though we’re all brainwashed into believing that our goal in the Middle East is freedom, peace, and democracy, Israel is an oppressive Bolshevik dictatorship which teems with such brazen racism that it hinges on being outright genocide. Worst of all, their slithering multi-tentacled Lobby is so powerful that its economic blackmail extends not only through the halls of congress, but all the way to our executive branch.”

Along with the better-known incidents of the “dancing Israelis,” the Israeli “art student” spies and the Israeli-owned Urban Moving company, Thorn goes into particular detail about the conspiracy’s biggest players, such as WTC owner (and zionist Jew) Larry Silverstein and Pentagon comptroller (and zionist Jew) Dov Zakheim. Here’s what Thorn — brilliantly connecting the dots — has to say about the former:

“Less than two months prior to the twin towers being struck by kamikaze airliners (July 24, 2001), the former president of New York’s United Jewish Appeal — Larry Silverstein — purchased the WTC complex from the Port Authority. This 99-year lease was the final coup de grace which allowed the conspirators to cement the last remaining piece to their puzzle.”

“Christopher Bollyn of the American Free Press has also pointed out in great detail the Jewish connection of those who took control of the WTC towers. As stated, Larry Silverstein was former president of the UJA, a highly influential Zionist charity organization. Plus, the man who negotiated this deal — Saul Eisenberg — was on the planning board of not only the UJA, but also the United Jewish Federation. In addition, he also served as vice president of AIPAC, which is now ensnared in a huge Israeli spy scandal.”

“On top of that, Silverstein has been closely tied to two Likud mainstays — Ariel ‘the Butcher’ Sharon and former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In fact, prior to 9/11, Netanyahu and Silverstein would speak on the telephone every Sunday afternoon. Bibi [Netenyahu] becomes a key player in this scenario because he was the man who actually coined the term ‘war on terrorism,’ which is now the official buzzword for our never-ending, Israeli-induced perpetual war.”

Here’s what Thorn writes about the Israeli-owned ICTS airport security firm and its probable role in 9/11:

“This situation becomes even eerier when we realize that a private security firm — ICTS — was contracted to cover each of the terminals from which the 9/11 ‘hijackings’ took place. It should also be noted that ICTS is an Israeli company (its two chairmen are Ezra Harel and Menachem Atzmon), and many of its employees were formerly in the IDF (Israeli Defense Force). Thus, only one entity had inside access to all of the vital airports on the morning of September 11 — an Israeli owned company.”

On WTC 7 and mortgage holder Stephen A. Schwartzman, Thorn writes:

”The mortgage holder for WTC 7 was the Blackstone Group, whose President and CEO was a Jewish man named Stephen A. Schwartzman. The chairman for this company was Peter G. Peterson (Jewish) who also served as chairman of New York’s Federal Reserve Bank. Peterson is also on the board of directors for the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), while his partner (Mr. Schwartzman) is also a CFR member.”

”In addition, Peterson acted as chairman and CEO of Lehman Brothers from 1973-77 (Jewish), then became chairman and CEO of Lehman Brothers Kuhn, Loeb Inc (Jewish). Lastly, Peterson is founding chairman of the globalist-oriented Institution for International Economics and a recipient of the American Jewish Congress’s Stephen Wise Award.”

”And, just for good measure, it should be noted that the man who negotiated and authorized the transaction for Larry Silverstein (Jewish) was Port Authority Chairman Lewis M. Eisenberg (Jewish). Thus, what we’ve seen is that every pivotal player involved in the deal to move the WTC Complex from New York’s Port Authority to Larry Silverstein was Jewish. Every single one.”

On the infamous Defense Policy Board, which runs the US military machine, Thorn writes:

“Our nation’s War Machine takes its marching orders from an entity called the Defense Policy Board, which most certainly wields more power than the current Defense Secretary on 9/11, Donald Rumsfeld. The most important question now is: who runs the Defense Policy Board? The answer, not surprisingly, is Zionists such as long-time Bilderberg member Henry Kissinger (Jewish), James Schlessinger (Jewish), Eliot A. Cohen (Jewish), Paul Wolfowitz, now President of the World Bank (Jewish), Douglas Feith (Jewish), and the Prince of Darkness himself, Richard Perle (Jewish).”

On the so-called Neo-conservatives, Thorn writes:

”Who, though, are these oft-referred to neo-cons? Are they hard-core conservatives that want smaller government and limited US involvement in foreign armed conflicts? Not a chance. In actuality, the neo-cons are ex-Trotskyites who followed the lead of their Jewish mentor, Leo Strauss, who unequivocally advocated the ‘noble lie’ to further one’s agenda. Biographer Shadia Drury even described Strauss as a ‘new Machiavelli’ and said that he was ‘a great believer in the efficacy and usefulness of lies in politics.’ Does this sound eerily familiar to 9/11 — promoting the ‘big lie’ to further Israel’s Grand Cause?”

”Thus, when we view the neo-cons in this light, they’re not even conservatives or Republicans; but instead disaffected Leftists and Marxists loyal to Israel.”

[For more on the Neo-conservatives and their influence in Washington, watch this excellent BBC documentary -- “The War Party” -- HERE

And on the sinister Office of Special Plans — the driving force behind Washington’s illegal war on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq — the author writes:

”Another branch of this Zionist octopus is the Office of Special Plans, which nicknamed itself ‘The Cabal.’ Its dark-visionary driving force was Paul Wolfowitz, while being directed by Leo Strauss’ protege Abram Shulsky (Jewish). Shulsky was Donald Rumsfeld’s chief disinformation agent who had spent his Cold War years mastering Soviet disinformation techniques. He also reported directly to Paul Wolfowitz, and co-authored a research paper entitled ‘Leo Strauss and the World of Intelligence,’ which promoted the idea that ‘a certain amount of deception is essential in government.’”

“The neo-con-led Office of Special Plans was so powerful that it even took precedence over the Pentagon’s DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency), and was one of the primary contributors to the eventual war with Iraq. Deception about WMD’s was their forte.”

Finally, Thorn lists the names of “the primary players” inside the Pentagon/White House in positions to pull off 9/11. They include:

Richard Perle — Jewish
Paul Wolfowitz — Jewish
Kenneth Adelman — Jewish
Lewis “Scooter” Libby — Jewish
Douglas Feith — Jewish
Dov Zakheim — Jewish
David Wurmser — Jewish
Elliot Abrams — Jewish
Eliot Cohen — Jewish
Daniel Pipes — Jewish
Stephen Bryen — Jewish (suspected by the DIA of turning over classified Pentagon records to Israel in the late 1970’s; he later founded JINSA)

“So,” Thorn concludes, “what we have here is the Zionist-aligned Defense Policy Board (the real power behind the War Machine’s throne) controlling every top spot at the Pentagon; with PNAC-signatories Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney following in fully compliant lockstep. Therefore, when we look at the military’s ‘stand-down’ on the morning of 9/11, if anybody says that Israel didn’t control it, they’re absolutely incorrect, for the entire Pentagon think-tank was an insanely obsessed cabal of Jewish murderers who were calling all the shots.”

The book contains much more extremely relevant material on several other elements of the 9/11 crime, including the Israeli telecommunications firms — Amdocs, Comverse, Odigo and Checkpoint — that allowed Israel to control America’s communications network; the influence of the Israeli lobby and Zionist think-tanks on US foreign policy; control of the mainstream media by Jewish interests; and the leading role played by the Jewish Rothchild banking family in all the major conflicts of the last century.

“9/11 Evil: Israel’s Central Role in the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks” by Victor Thorn — Down load it here, read it, and email it to every thinking person you know.

To download an excellent 2008 interview with Victor Thorn by Christian pastor and radio host Texe Marrs — in which the two men discuss Thorn’s book — click HERE

Also, Thorn’s WingTV broadcast archives — in which he and wife Lisa Giuliani skewer so-called “truth-tellers” in the “alternative” media — are well worth listening to. They can all be found at www.wingtv.net (although they currently appear to be having some server problems).

“9/11 Evil” by Victor Thorn — Israel’s Central Role in the Sept. 11 Attacks

Michael Saba exposed Zionist “Armageddon Network” in 1982

The so-called neo-conservatives currently crafting US foreign policy are hardly fresh arrivals to the corridors of power. As author Michael Saba reveals in his little-known 1982 expose, the neo-con cabal, or what Saba calls the “Armageddon Network,” has been furthering Israel’s agenda in Washington — at the expense of American interests — since the 1970s.The book details how, in 1978, US officials, including neo-con stalwart Richard Perle, were caught passing highly-classified defense department documents to their Israeli counterparts — and got away with it scot-free. As Saba writes in the book’s forward: “That those involved in this affair are still ‘at large,’ and in fact currently hold senior positions in the Pentagon, is what distinguishes ‘The Armageddon Network’ from the average non-fiction account of an espionage investigation.”

The book begins by detailing how then Assistant Secretary of Defense Perle and deputy Stephen D. Bryen were caught red-handed passing top-secret US documents to Israel. Yet despite the author’s best efforts and piles of evidence (the book includes pages of damning documentation in several appendices), the treason is successfully covered up by Zionist agents in US law enforcement and the media.

“Incredible pressure was brought to bear upon the FBI and other sections at the Justice Department to terminate the investigation, and upon news media… to prevent publication of the details of the affair,” the author writes, providing a thorough account of the ensuing whitewash.

Saba doesn’t pull his punches, noting — in 1982, mind you — that the influence of the “network” extended far beyond Israel’s political-action lobby to include “high-level officials throughout all agencies of the government, Congressional aides, and journalists and other media specialists who cut or avoid stories which present Israel in a negative light and promote attempts to smear Israel’s ‘enemies’.”

Ultimately, the culprits — several of whom, notably, were proteges of then Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson — not only escape punishment, but go on to occupy positions of enormous influence in subsequent US administrations (including the current one) where they continue to work diligently for Israel.

“Mr. Perle’s influence in the Reagan Administration far exceeds that normally held by an Assistant Secretary of Defense,” reads a 1983 New York Times article cited in the book. “In the transition, he was able to place associates in important national security positions…”

The “network,” the author explains in no uncertain terms, is “working to achieve US policies that benefit Israel, but which are more and more damaging to America both at home and abroad.” Along with exposing blatant acts of espionage, Saba also chronicles how the network’s agents successfully fostered legislation over the years granting billions of US tax-payers’ dollars in annual military and financial “aid” to Israel.

Like former congressman Paul Findley’s “They Dare to Speak Out [LINK],” Saba’s book also explains how American commercial as well as security relationships “are adversely affected by the activities of Israel’s special interest leaders in Washington, both inside and outside the government,” and how Soviet interests were “correspondingly advanced.”

Saba doesn’t miss the inherent non-logic in the neo-conservatives’ supposed hatred of communism (knowing, perhaps, that both ideologies are opposing tentacles of the same beast): “Herein rests the penultimate irony of the efforts of Israel’s friends,” he writes, “most of whom also profess a virulent form of anti-communism.”

The author goes on to chronicle how Perle, Bryen and their associates exploited their positions and the circumstances of the Cold War to halt the export of US technologies to foreign markets — so that competing Israeli manufacturers could pick up the lost business. As a result of these Israel-first policies, he writes, “The Soviets got their equipment, a US company lost millions, and the rift between the US and other NATO nations deepened.”

The extent of the network’s power in Washington, meanwhile, is well-known in most foreign, particularly Arab, capitals, says Saba.

“Senior Middle East leaders are fully aware of both the specific incidents described herein, and the pervasive pattern of US security indiscretions where Israel is concerned,” he writes. “This knowledge… has changed the way these leaders approach their own security plans vis-a-vis the US, Western Europe and the Eastern Bloc countries.”

Saba adds: “Even Egypt, to which the US post-Camp David has provided over a billion dollars in military aid annually, has recently begun to operate on the premise that American advice and advisors constitute an Israeli Trojan horse in their midst.”

Unfortunately, “The Armageddon Network” does not appear to be available in PDF format (if anyone has it, please post it online). In the meantime, it can be ordered from Amazon here: amazon.com

For more on Richard Perle and the network’s more recent crimes, watch the BBC’s revealing 2003 documentary, “The War Party”

BBC Panorama, “The War Party” — Watch it HERE

BBC Panorama, “The War Party” — Download torrent HERE

Michael Saba exposed Zionist “Armageddon Network” in 1982

Brief Biography of Gamal Abdel Nasser

Gamal Abdel Nasser جمال عبد الناصر‎ Gamāl ‘Abd an-Nāṣir; – (January 15, 1918 – September 28, 1970) The pioneer of Arabic socialism and the leader of their struggle in one of the most critical periods in their history. Talking about his childhood Nasser says “I am proud to belong to this small village of Beni Mur. And I am more proud to be a member of a poor family from that village. I am saying these words for history that Nasser was born in a poor family and I promise that he will live and die a poor man.”
born in the poor Alexandrian suburb of Bacos, the son of (Suni Muslim from a poor family) Abdel Nasser Hussein, a postal worker from the El-Saeed الصعيد town of Beni Mur near the city of Asyut in Upper (southern) Egypt. Nasser’s mother, (Suni Muslim from a middle class family) Fahima Hamad, Nasser’s parents decided to send him to better school in Cairo. Nasser’s father remarried (Suni Muslim wife) and had seven more children. After finishing three years in Beni Mur’s (Suni) Qur’anic school, Nasser, also attended the Ras-al-Tin, Nahaseen and an al-Nahda secondary schools in Alexandria. In March 1937, Nasser was admitted to the Egyptian Military Academy. To some he was a hero to others he was a tyrant but he was a lovable incorruptible misinformed dictator that loved his country and destroyed all its political moments.

Nasser was married to (Shi’a Muslim) Tahia Kazem-Boghdadi (born 1920), s the daughter of a modest clerk of Iranian origin. The story goes that when cadet-officer Nasser asked for her hand in marriage in 1944, her father, Kazem-Boghdadi, sought the blessing of his sometime benefactor Abdelhamid Kazrouni Bey, the then-honorary head of Egypt’s small Persian community which naturally incuded Tahia’s Persian relations the Ismail Alis and the Hassan Mustafa Iranis all of them in the carpet trade with shops on Opera Square and in the Khan Khalili bazaar. They had five children (three sons and two daughters): Khalid, Abdel Hakeem, Abdel Hameed, Hoda and Mona.

Late in the 19th century several Persians settled in Egypt. From among those families: Abdelgawad Asfahani, Agami, Amir-Agha, Ismail Ali, Kazem-Boghdadi, Kazrooni, Khorassani, Khozan, Mirza Abdelgawad Mishki, Shirazi, Tabrizi, Tehrani, Yazdi, Zadeh, Shukrallah Kazem, Mustafa Irani (d. 1 January 1935)… Most were directly or indirectly involved in the indigo, carpet and dye trade. While most were of Shi’a faith with their own tikia and assembly hall located on Azhar Street, certain Irani individuals converted to Baha’ism such as Mirza Hassan Khorassani, Mirza Ali Mohammed Shirazi, (Agha) Ali Reza Asfahani. ["Mirza" is a title introduced by the Moghol Emperors who ruled India]

His first military post was in the town of Mankabad, near his native Beni Mur. According to Sadat, “the first whisperings of military unhappiness with the state and the willingness the monarchy of King Farouk began.

In 1939, Nasser volunteered to serve in Sudan (which was united with Egypt at the time) where they arrived before World War II. During the war, Nasser and Anwar Sadat, another friend and political ally, established contact with agents of the Axis powers, particularly several Italians, and planned a coup to coincide with an Italian offensive that would expel the British forces from Egypt. The plan, however, was never executed. During the war, Nasser also began forming a group of other young military officers with strong Egyptian nationalist feelings who supported some form of revolution.

As Egypt remained officially neutral until long after the Axis defeat at the Battle of El Alamein, the Egyptian military did not participate in the war. Nasser’s first experience on the battlefield was in Palestine during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, when Egyptian forces secured the area known as the Falluja Pocket. After the war, Nasser gained a post as an instructor at the Royal Military Academy in Cairo.For the next several years, he worked to organize his group of other reform minded officers and recruit new members. After 1949, this group adopted the name “Free Officers”,and “talked of… freedom and the restoration of their country’s dignity” very possibly influenced by other sources too (Zionist/Jewish).

Aswan Dam

Built to provide electricity for heavy industry and reduce the risk of flooding along the Nile River, the dam provided electric power to Egypt’s then growing economy, and was essential in modernizing rural Egypt through the introduction of electricity. The dam also spared Egypt from many floods that plagued the countries through which the Nile flowed.

Jewish and/or Foreign ownership

Land reform which was the cornerstone of President Nasser’s social program proposed two basic steps to improve the lot of the Egyptian peasant:
1. dramatic reduction of agricultural rents
2. expropriation of all landed property-holdings above 200 feddâns (1 feddân = 1.038 acres)

By the end of 1955, of the total of 567,000 feddâns subject to sequestration, 415,000 feddâns had been expropriated by the government. However, only a part of this land has been distributed among the small landholders, and the government held most of the expropriated land. By the end of the year 1955, 261,000 feddâns had been reallocated from the government reserve. In addition, 92,000 feddâns had been sold by large to small landowners just prior to the requisition. The government was attempting to organize the beneficiaries of this plan in cooperatives and also to continue the maintenance of the existing irrigation and drainage systems. The land reform of the revolutionary government had undoubtedly benefited the Egyptian peasantry. An Egyptian government source estimated that the new farmers had doubled their incomes, and that setting a limit on rents has reduced the total amount of land rent by $196,000,000.”.

Between 1955 and 1957, the Egyptian government under Nasser nationalized all Jewish and foreign-owned banks and insurance companies as well as a string of Jewish and foreign-owned manufacturing companies and forced all Jewish and foreign agencies and representations to move to Egyptian ownership. The Jews, many of whom held foreign passports and were lumped by the nationalists with the other non-Egyptian owners of most of Egypt’s business and industry, were one of the targets of this change. At this point many wealthy Jews began to leave.

By 1967 about 5,000 Jews were left in Egypt. The Six Day War spelled the virtual end of the community. During the war, 400 men between the ages of 18 and 50 were interned as a potential fifth column. About 150 were released after several weeks, mostly holders of foreign passports, but the remainder were held for three and one-half years. Ironically, they were held in a camp for political internees, which included members of the fanatical Moslem Brotherhood, apparently leading to better understanding between the two groups, according to Cairo Jews. The internees were finally released upon agreement to leave the country immediately. Seventeen refused to emigrate, preferring prison, and were finally let go. (For some inexplicable reason, when recently questioned by a group of Jewish journalists about the internment incident, Egyptian Information Minister Kamal Abul Magd denied that it had ever happened, and asked one journalist to bring him specific details. Several other Egyptian officials spoke openly of the affair to me, some defending it as necessary for security reasons, others feeling it was a mistake.)

Gamal Abdel-Nasser most probably has had the most assassination attempts on a president in world history according to Sami Sharaf, second-in-command after the former President. He was the number one man; Nasser depended on him more than anyone else. In fact, Nasser had handpicked Sharaf.

After a defeat in the 1967 Six-Day War against Israel, Nasser sought to resign from his position. However, widespread calls from the Egyptian people for Nasser to remain convinced him to remain in power. He consequently led Egypt through the War of Attrition in 1969-1970. Officially Nasser died of a heart attack only a few weeks after the war ended, on September 28, 1970. His funeral was the largest in history with an estimated 7 million people in attendance.

Nasser was killed by his Egyptian Jewish doctor Dr. Aly El-Atfy (physhical therapist) who was arrested shortly after Nasser’s Death and later released from jail following a visit from Began to Egypt. he bragged about this act in jail to Ahmed Foad Nigem and others
He also added that “they” don’t leave there men behind like the Russians.
The Death Of President Gamal Abdel Nasser.

this man took away land from his own uncle and passed it out to the poor his family was not well off after he died either. he was misled and got very paranoid in his last days. locked up every sort of group you could think of Muslims, Christians, Jews, Masons, Communists, and socialists. he knew what was going on. but did not possess the know-how nor the human resources to do something about it.

Brief Biography of Gamal Abdel Nasser

Essential Reading — “They Dare to Speak Out” by former congressman Paul Findley

Most books out there attribute the uncanny Zionist influence on US policy to the devastatingly effective “Jewish vote” or the Jews’ celebrated ability to “organize.” But for anyone who wants to know the true extent of Zionist control over the American body politic — and the real means by which that control is exerted — “They Dare to Speak Out” by former congressman Paul Findley is a must-read.

In his daring expose of the Zionists’ near-absolute control over US Middle East policy, Findley — who served for 22 years as Republican congressman from Illinois — shines a light on the Zionist rot that goes well beyond the vaunted “Lobby.”

A true American patriot, Findley describes the Jewish choke-hold on US decision-making — the mere mention of which can lead to “career suicide” — and recounts how Israel’s critics in Washington have been harassed, intimidated and ultimately removed from public office by the Zionist political machine.
Beginning his career in the 1960s with a good deal of sympathy for the self-proclaimed Jewish state, Findley — a relatively naive young congressman — soon began to “doubt the wisdom of United States policy in the Middle East.” By the early 1970s, he realized that US policy was particularly flawed in regards to the perennial Israel-Palestine conflict, and that Washington’s overwhelming bias towards Israel was deeply detrimental to America’s best interest.

For example, Findley soon discovered — to his shock and surprise — that powerful pro-Israel forces in Washington were deliberately derailing efforts aimed at achieving peace in the Middle East. Although Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was more than ready to come to terms with Israel by the late 1970s, Findley writes how representatives of the US government — including himself — were barred from talking to Arafat or to members of his Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO).

“Our unwillingness to talk directly to the political leadership of the Palestinians… handicapped our search for peace,” Findley writes (p. 11). “Why not talk directly to PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, the acknowledged political voice of the Palestinians? One reason, I discovered, was that Henry Kissinger…had, yielding to an Israeli request, agreed not to communicate formally with the PLO until they recognized the right of Israel to exist — a tough demand, especially in light of Israel’s flat refusal to accept a new Palestinian state as its neighbor!”

As a result of Findley’s own efforts to hold talks with Arafat and other Palestinian moderates, he was soon tarred as a “practicing anti-Semite” by his detractors. Who knows? Had these and other peace efforts been allowed to proceed, the Arab-Israeli conflict might have been resolved decades ago.

Findley also became critical of the shocking amounts of annual US financial and military aid to Israel, which accounted at the time for some 43 percent of the entire budget for all US financial assistance worldwide. In his book, he chronicles how, time after time, all efforts to reduce financial aid to Israel — or make it contingent upon acceptable behavior vis-à-vis the Palestinians — were thwarted by Zionist political agents in the Senate and Congress.

“While the lobby is watchful over the full membership of the House, …it gives special emphasis to the members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, where the initial decisions are made on aid, both military and economic,” Findley writes (p. 67). “Under the watchful eye of Israel’s lobby, congressmen will go to extreme measures to help move legislation providing aid to Israel,” he writes (p. 78).

Findley recalls how in 1973 Senator J. William Fulbright of Arkansas, appearing on CBS television’s “Face the Nation,” declared that the US Senate was “subservient” to Israeli policies inimical to American interests. “Israel controls the Senate,” Fulbright stated (p.95), going on to warn, “We should be more concerned about the United States’ interests.”

Findley also quotes Senator James G. Abourezk (p. 99) as telling reporters in 1977: “As a US senator, I have sworn to uphold the government of the United States, but I never dreamed that I would be required to swear allegiance to any other government.” Abourezk went on to warn of the Zionist lobby’s “extraordinary influence,” saying that the US “is likely to become, if it has not already, a captive of its client state.”

In 1982, Findley goes on to write, Senator Adlai Stevenson III of Illinois proposed an amendment withholding $150 million of the $2.18 billion in annual US financial aid to Israel. “This preference for Israel diverts funds from the support of human life and vital American interests elsewhere in an interdependent and unstable world,” Stevenson is quoted as saying in defense of the amendment (p. 88). “It reflects continued US acquiescence in an Israeli policy which threatens more Middle East instability, more Israeli insecurity, and a continued decline of US authority in the world.”

How right he was. But despite this sound judgment, Stevenson’s proposal — like so many before and since — was overwhelmingly defeated by the Israel-firsters in control of the senate.

For his commitment to America’s interests, Stevenson was treated to a smear campaign by the Zionist-manipulated media. “It’s not only the intimidation of the American politician, it’s also the intimidation of some American journalists,” Stevenson is quoted as saying (p. 89), in reference to Zionist influence on the so-called “mainstream” media. “If it’s not the journalists, then it’s the editors and perhaps more so the publishers,” he stated.

Interestingly, Stevenson’s subsequent bid to become governor of Illinois was thwarted by a series of irregularities that Time magazine described as “so improbable, so coincidental, so questionable that it could have happened only in Wonderland or the Windy City” (p. 91). A request by Stevenson for a recount was later denied by the Illinois Supreme Court.

Findley also writes how US aid to Israel was allowed to go towards financing Israeli industries, which — in some cases, such as fighter aircraft — directly competed with US industrial exports. He writes that, in 1983, Congress passed a resolution authorizing “a remarkable new form of aid to Israel”:

“It included an amendment crafted by AIPAC… that permitted $250 million of the military grant aid to be spent in Israel on the development of a new Israeli fighter aircraft, the Lavi. The new fighter would compete for international sales with the Northrop F-20 and the General Dynamics F-16 — both specifically designed for export… The amendment authorized privileged treatment Uncle Sam had never before extended to a foreign competitor. It was extraordinary for another reason: it set aside a US law that requires that all foreign aid procurement funds be spent in the United States (p. 80).”

Unsurprisingly, the resolution was easily passed by the Israel-firsters in Congress — despite warnings by Congressman Nick J. Rahall of West Virginia that “approximately 6,000 jobs would be lost as a direct result of taking the $250 million out of the US economy and allowing Israel to spend it on defense articles… that can just as easily be purchased here in the United States.”

Findley’s words on the enormous amount of US financial assistance to Israel, and the host of additional perks extended to the Hebrew state by Washington, still apply today: “Aid to Israel — despite US budget problems and Israel’s defiant behavior toward the United States in its use of US-supplied weapons and its construction of settlements on occupied territory — is still rising with no peak in sight.”

Since 1985, annual US financial aid to Israel has continued to run at about $3 billion a year. Findley goes on to point out that no US president since Eisenhower has been able to stand up to the Israel lobby, which has consistently foiled attempts by the White House to forge intelligent, even-handed Middle East policy:

“[US President Gerald] Ford, dissatisfied with Israeli behavior, had just issued a statement calling for a ‘reappraisal’ of US policies in the Middle East,” Findley writes (p. 101). “Ford wanted better cooperation in reaching a compromise with Arab interests, and ‘reappraisal’ meant suspension of US aid until Israel improved its behavior. It was a historic proposal, the first time since Eisenhower that a US president even hinted publicly that he might suspend aid to Israel.”

“Israel’s response came, not from its own capital, but from the United States Senate,” he continues. “Instead of relying on a direct protest to the White House, Jerusalem activated its lobby in the United States, which, in turn, signed up as supporters of Israel’s position more than three-fourths of the members of the US Senate.”

“A more devastating — and intimidating — response could scarcely be conceived,” states Findley. “The 76 signatures effectively told Ford he could not carry out his threatened ‘reappraisal.’ Israel’s loyalists in the senate — democrats and republicans alike — were sufficient in number to reject any legislative proposal hostile to Israel that Ford might make, and perhaps even enact a pro-Israeli piece of legislation over a presidential veto.”

Findley goes on to recall how former president Richard Nixon “privately criticized Israel for failing to cooperate in a comprehensive settlement of issues with its Arab neighbors”:

“On several occasions, he [Nixon] ordered Henry Kissinger, national security advisor and later secretary of state, to suspend aid to Israel until it became more cooperative,” he writes (p. 122). “Three days before he resigned the presidency, Nixon instructed Kissinger to disapprove an Israeli request for long-term military assistance.”

But according to Findley, Kissinger — that unelected Jewish architect of US Cold War strategy — never carried out the order.

The book also reveals the extent of Israeli espionage on the United States — a long-standing phenomenon well-known in US intelligence circles.

“For years, Israel has been able to learn virtually every secret about US foreign policy in the Middle East,” Findley writes (p. 338). He quotes Washington Post reporter Charles Babcock as saying: “This remarkable intelligence harvest is provided largely not by paid agents, but by an unofficial network of sympathetic American officials who work in the Pentagon, State Department, congressional offices, the National Security Council and even the US intelligence agencies.”

“The [intelligence] leaks to Israel are fantastic,” according to a veteran US ambassador quoted in the book (p. 139). “If I have something I want the secretary of state to know, but don’t want Israel to know, I must wait until I have a chance to see him personally.” He adds: “It is a fact of life that everyone in authority is reluctant to put anything on paper that concerns Israel if it is to be withheld from Israel’s knowledge. Nor do such people even feel free to speak in a crowded room of such things.”

Findley goes on to quote an unnamed official as saying: “Israelis were caught in the Pentagon with unauthorized documents, sometimes scooping up the contents of in-boxes on desk tops (p. 142).”

Remarkably, several of the US officials with long-standing connections to Israeli espionage activities — such as Richard Perle and Richard Armitage — continue to play major roles in the current Bush administration.

These are only a few examples of the many instances of Zionist political control and manipulation presented in Findley’s courageous book. “They Dare to Speak Out” also contains interesting material on Zionist intimidation tactics and the “anti-Semite” libel; the Zionist threat to academic freedom; Israel’s dastardly attack on the USS Liberty in 1967 and the subsequent cover-up; and Zionist manipulation of America’s so-called “Christian right.”

If every American read this book when it was first published in 1985, the US political landscape would probably be considerably different today. As former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff Admiral Thomas Moorer is quoted as saying (p. 161), “If the American people understood what a grip those people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms.”

Unfortunately, “They Dare to Speak Out” does not appear to be available in PDF format. It can be purchased from a number of online new and used book retailers, however, including Amazon.com, at www.amazon.com/They-Dare-Speak-Out-Institutions/dp/1556520735.

Paul Findley, meanwhile, is still fighting the good fight. He is currently head and founder of the Council for the National Interest (CNI), which, according to its mission statement, strives to “repair the damage being done to our political institutions by the over-zealous tactics of Israel’s lobby.” The CNI’s website can be found at: http://www.cnionline.org.

“They Dare to Speak Out” by former congressman Paul Findley

Seven detained Baha’i believers have confessed to setting up an illegal organization in Iran that took orders from Israel

Bahai' star

Iran Arrests 7 Israeli Spies 16:37 | 2008-08-03TEHRAN (FNA)- Seven detained Baha’i believers have confessed to setting up an illegal organization in Iran that took orders from Israel and others to undermine the Islamic system, an Iranian paper reported on Saturday the 2nd of August 2008.

The report in Resalat daily comes amid Israel’s heightened threats against Iran. Israel, believed to be the only Middle-East country with nuclear weapons, and its close ally the United States accuse Iran of seeking a nuclear weapon, while they have never presented any corroborative document to substantiate their allegations.

Iran vehemently denies the charges, insisting that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. Tehran stresses that the country has always pursued a civilian path to provide power to the growing number of Iranian population, whose fossil fuel would eventually run dry.
The Resalat report appeared to refer to a group of Baha’is, most of whom were detained in May, but it did not spell this out. Judiciary officials had no immediate comment.

“Seven Baha’i individuals have set up an illegal organization with connections to a number of countries including Israel and they have received orders from them to undertake measures against the Islamic system,” Resalat reported.

Resalat quoted an official in charge of security affairs of Tehran’s revolutionary court, named as Mr. Haddad, as saying that the seven latest arrests had made confessions. Revolutionary courts handle matters of national security.

“This fact led to the arrest of seven individuals. They have all confessed to the formation of an illegal organization, including (having ties) with Israel,” Resalat added.

Iran said in May it had detained six members of the Baha’i faith on security-related charges.

The seven arrestees were members of The Baha’i International Community, operating under a governing council which is based in Israel.

---

Iran: Baha’is confessed to taking orders from Israel Tue., August 05, 2008
By Haaretz Correspondent and Reuters , By Yoav SternSeven Baha’i believers detained by the Iranian authorities have confessed to setting up an illegal organization in Iran that took orders from Israel and others for the purpose of undermining the Islamic system, an Iranian newspaper reported yesterday.

The seven will apparently be charged with illegal acts against the Islamic regime in Iran and of taking orders from Israel and other countries.

The heads of the world Baha’i community yesterday rejected the Iranian accusations as “ridiculous.”

Douglas Moore, director of the Baha’i public information office, at the Baha’i World Center in Haifa, told Haaretz yesterday that the Iranian claim was an excuse to harm the heads of the Baha’i community. Moore said the Baha’i International Community categorically rejected the charges and viewed them as religious persecution. He said it was very easy to accuse them of spying for Israel because hatred of Israel is so great in Iran.

Moore told Israel Radio: “We see this as another trumped-up charge against the Baha’is in order for the government to go through the motions of setting them up on charges and convicting them on charges.”

The initial report, in the Iranian newspaper Resalat, appeared to refer to a group of Baha’is, most of whom were detained in May, but it did not spell this out. Judicial officials in Iran had no immediate comment.

Resalat quoted an official in charge of security affairs for Tehran’s revolutionary court, named only as Mr. Haddad, as saying that the seven latest arrested individuals had confessed. “They have all confessed to the formation of an illegal organisation, including [having ties] with Israel,” the paper added. The seven are expected to stand trial before a revolutionary court, which could sentence them to death. Revolutionary courts handle matters of national security.

Baha’is say hundreds of their faith have been jailed and executed since Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution, a charge that is denied by the Iranian government.

For many years, the Iranian regime has allowed the Baha’i community to tend to its needs by way of a council of seven to eight members. The Baha’i International Community had said those detained were members of the committee. It said the group of six were detained in May and a seventh member was detained in March.

The families of the detainees do not know where they are being held. About six weeks ago, the detainees were each permitted to make a minute-long phone call to their families, but since then there has been no contact with them.

The Baha’i International Community represents the faith worldwide, operating under a governing council that has its base in Israel. Baha’is say the faith has 5 million adherents worldwide, including an estimated 300,000 or more in Iran.

Baha’is regard their faith’s 19th-century founder, Baha’ullah (1817-1892), as the latest in a line of prophets including Abraham, Moses, Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed. Islam views Baha’is as heretics because they defy the Islamic principle that Mohammed was the last of the prophets.

Baha’ullah was exiled from Persia to Acre by the Ottoman Turks because of the religious status he had attained in Persia. He is buried near the house where he lived, north of Acre.

The disseminator of the faith, known as the Bab, is buried in Haifa.

To avoid religious persecution, the Baha’is conduct no religious or political activity in Israel. They have a presence in almost every country in the world, and suffer persecution from the regimes of other Islamic countries too, such as Egypt.

---

Last update – 18:13 03/08/2008
Int’l Baha’i community denies those held by Iran linked with Israel
By Reuters
Tags: Baha’i, Iran, arrests, IsraelSeven detained Baha’i believers have confessed to setting up an illegal organization in Iran that took orders from Israel and others to undermine the Islamic system, an Iranian newspaper reported on Sunday.

The report in the Resalat daily appeared to refer to a group of Baha’is, most of whom were detained in May, but it did not spell this out. Judiciary officials had no immediate comment.

The international Baha’i community denied the charges.

Bani Dugal, the principal representative of the Baha’i International Community to the United Nations, denied the charge in a statement issued in New York.

“Suggestions of collusion with the state of Israel are categorically false and misleading. The Iranian authorities are playing on the fact that the Baha’i world administrative centre is located in northern Israel,” she said.

The revelation comes amid heightened tensions between Iran and Israel over Tehran’s disputed nuclear plans. Israel has accused Iran of seeking atomic bombs and has not ruled out military action if diplomacy fails. Iran has denied the charge.

“Seven Baha’i individuals have set up an illegal organization with connections to a number of countries including Israel and they have received orders from them to undertake measures against the Islamic system,” Resalat reported.

Resalat quoted an official in charge of security affairs of Tehran’s revolutionary court, named only as Mr Haddad, as saying that the seven latest arrests had confessed. Revolutionary courts handle matters of national security.

“This fact led to the arrest of seven individuals. They have all confessed to the formation of an illegal organization, including (having ties) with Israel,” Resalat added.

Iran said in May it had detained six members of the Baha’i faith on security-related charges.

The Baha’i International Community had said they were members of a committee that tends to the needs of Baha’is in Iran. It said the group of six were detained in May and a seventh member was detained in March.

The Baha’i International Community represents the faith worldwide, operating under a governing council which is based in Israel, according to its website www.bahai.org.

Baha’is say hundreds of their faith have been jailed and executed since Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution. The government denies it has detained or executed people for their religion.

Baha’is regard their faith’s 19th-century founder as the latest in a line of prophets including Abraham, Moses, Buddha, Jesus and Mohammad. Iran’s Shi’ite religious establishment considers the faith a heretical offshoot of Islam.

The Baha’i faith originated in Iran 150 years ago and Baha’is say the faith has 5 million adherents worldwide, including an estimated 300,000 or more in Iran.

Seven detained Baha’i believers have confessed to setting up an illegal organization in Iran that took orders from Israel