NORTHWOODS PROJECT:Exposing the Pentagon's Diabolical Schemes
http://web.archive.org/web/20010125083900/http://aztlan.net/index.htm http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://aztlan.net/index.html
My stuff...©2004 See some art work by CM3
See some art work by CM3Mingus Designs shall not be liable for any errors, omissions, interruptions or delays in connection with the content or for any
damages arising wherefrom. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of
issues relating to civil rights, economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science & technology, etc. We believe
this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information please visit :
"The former German Minister of Technology has estimated that up to $15 billion of insider trading occurred before 9/11.
FYI About 40% of all US Marines are now Mexican-Americans
 This thing really works!  |
VIEW THE ART OF JOHN ALEXANDER PARKS
" One of the m©2004 Current works of master artist John A. Parksost powerful motives that attracts people to science & art islonging to escape from every day life." Einste
FYI From CM3 Cary Fisher recommended this guy
The good stuff
"After seeing the stuff. Yes I recommend
Merry Karnowsky Gallery [But its not
hearmless]" Merry Karnowsky Gallery
Re: wheels coming loose
Re: coup de tat
The Neo Con Crusades & Internet Archive Wayback Machine
FYI About 40% of all US Marines are now Mexican-Americans
Living off the grid 
Second guessing 
As American as You
As American as You
 ....Please Skip The Megga Pages Above Unless You Have High Speed Cable or DSL . |
 |
© 2002, Imagination Engines, Inc.
(2 of 4) [6/9/2004 6:17:04 AM]
Alt Links
How the Great Pyramid was Built based on the information
and discoveries of Edward Kunkel Page 2 of 2
The Secret of the Ages Reveled!
what slime.
With Trembling Fingers
Despite the worst foreign policy blunder in American history, George W. Bush
and his millionaire supporters don't know the meaning of the word shame.
By Hal Crowther Durham Independent Weekly May 12, 2004
I used to take a drink on occasion with a network newsman famed for his
impenetrable calm -- his apparent pulse rate that of a large mammal in deep
hibernation -- and in an avuncular moment he advised me that I'd do all right, in the
long run, if I could only avoid the kind of journalism committed to the
keyboard "with trembling fingers." I recognized the wisdom of this advice and
endeavored over the years to write as little as possible when my blood pressure was
soaring and my face was streaked with tears. The lava flows of indignation
ebb predictably with age and hardening arteries, and nearing three-score I
thought I'd never have to take another tranquilizer -- or a double bourbon -- to
keep my fingers steady on the keys.
I never imagined 2004. It would be sophomoric to say that there was never a
worse year to be an American. My own memory preserves the dread summer of 1968.
My parents suffered the consequences of 1941 and 1929, and my grandfather
Jack Allen, who lived through all those dark years, might have added 1918, with
the flu epidemic and the Great War in France that each failed, very narrowly,
to kill him. Drop back another generation or two and we encounter 1861.
 |
But if this is not the worst year yet to be an American, it's
the worst year by far to be one of those hag-ridden wretches
who comment on the American scene. The columnist who
trades in snide one-liners flounders like a stupid comic with a
tired audience; TV comedians and talk-show hosts who try to
treat 2004 like any zany election year have become grotesque,
almost loathsome. Our most serious, responsible newspaper
columnists are so stunned by the disaster in Iraq that they've
begun to quote poetry by Rupert Brooke and Wilfred Owen.
They lower their voices; they sound like Army chaplains delivering eulogies over ranks of flag-draped coffins, under
a hard rain from an iron sky.
Yeats' "blood-dimmed tide is loosed." The war news has already
deteriorated from bad to tragic to pre-apocalyptic, which leaves
no suitable category for these excruciating reports on the sexual
torture of Iraqi prisoners. Fingers, be still. In less than a year, the
morale of the occupying forces has sunk so low that murder,
suicide, rape and sexual harassment have become alarming
statistics, and now the warriors of democracy -- the emissaries
of civilization -- stand accused of every crime this side of
cannibalism. Osama bin Laden has always anathematized America's culture, as well as its geopolitical influence.
|
To him these atrocities are a sign of Allah's certain favor, a great moral victory, a vindication of
his deepest anger and darkest crimes.
Where does it go from here? The nightmare misadventure in Iraq is over,
beyond the reach of any reasonable argument, though many more body bags
will be filled. In Washington, chicken hawks will still be squawking about "digging in"
and winning, but Vietnam proved conclusively that no modern war of occupation
will ever be won. Every occupation is doomed. The only way you "win" a war of
occupation is the old-fashioned way, the way Rome finally defeated the
Carthaginians: kill all the fighters, enslave everyone else, raze the cities
and sow the fields with salt.
Otherwise the occupied people will fight you to the last peasant, and why
shouldn't they? If our presidential election fails to dislodge the crazy bastards
who annexed Baghdad, many of us in this country would welcome regime change
by any intervention, human or divine. But if, say, the Chinese came in to
rescue us -- Operation American Freedom -- how long would any of us, left-wing or
right, put up with an occupying army teaching us Chinese-style democracy? A
guerrilla who opposes an invading army on his own soil is not a terrorist, he's a
resistance fighter. In Iraq we're not fighting enemies but making enemies. As
Richard Clarke and others have observed, every dollar, bullet and American
life that we spend in Iraq is one that's not being spent in the war on
terrorism. Every Iraqi, every Muslim we kill or torture or humiliate is a precious shot
of adrenaline for Osama and al Qaeda.
The irreducible truth is that the invasion of Iraq was the worst blunder, the
most staggering miscarriage of judgment, the most fateful, egregious,
deceitful abuse of power in the history of American foreign policy. If you don't
believe it yet, just keep watching. Apologists strain to dismiss parallels with
Vietnam, but the similarities are stunning. In every action our soldiers kill
innocent civilians, and in every other action apparent innocents kill our
soldiers -- and there's never any way to sort them out. And now these acts of
subhuman sadism, these little My Lais.
Since the defining moment of the Bush presidency, the preposterous
flight-suit, Fox News-produced photo-op on the USS Abraham Lincoln in front of the
banner that read "Mission Accomplished," the shaming truth is that everything has
gone wrong. Just as it was bound to go wrong, as many of us predicted it would
go wrong -- if anything, more hopelessly wrong than any of us would have dared
to prophesy. Iraq is an epic trainwreck, and there's not a single American
citizen who's going to walk away unscathed.
The shame of this truth, of such a failure and so much deceit exposed, would
have brought on mass resignations or votes of no confidence in any free
country in the world. In Japan not long ago, there would have been ritual suicides,
shamed officials disemboweling themselves with samurai swords. Yet up to this
point -- at least to the point where we see grinning soldiers taking pictures
of each other over piles of naked Iraqis -- neither the president, the vice
president nor any of the individuals who urged and designed this debacle have
resigned or been terminated -- or even apologized. They have betrayed no
familiarity with the concept of shame.
Thousands of young Americans are dead, maimed or mutilated, XXX billions of
dollars have been wasted and all we've gained is a billion new enemies and a
mouthful of dust -- of sand. Chaos reigns, but in the midst of it we have this
presidential election. George Bush has defined himself as a war president, and
it's fitting that the war should be his undoing. But even now the damned polls
don't guarantee, or even indicate, his demise.
Conventional wisdom says that an incumbent president with a $200 million war
chest cannot be defeated, and that one who commands a live, bleeding,
suffering army in the field is doubly invincible. By this logic, the most
destructively incompetent president since Andrew Johnson will be rewarded
with a second term. That would probably mean a military draft and more wars
in the oil countries, and, under visionaries like Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz,
a chance forthe USA to emulate 19th-century Paraguay, which simultaneously
declared war on Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay and fought ferociously until 90%
of the male population was dead.
What hope then? Impeachment is impossible when the president's party controls
both houses of Congress, though Watergate conspirator John Dean, who ought to
know, claims in his new book that there are compelling legal arguments for a
half dozen bills of impeachment against George W. Bush. Peer pressure? At the
White House, world opinion gets no more respect than FBI memos or
uncomfortable facts. Many Americans seem unaware that scarcely anyone on
the planet Earth supported the Iraq adventure, no one anywhere except the 40-50
million Republican loyalists who voted for George Bush in 2000.
Among significant world leaders he recruited only Great Britain's Tony Blair
-- whose career may be ruined because most Britons disagree with him -- and
the abominable Ariel Sharon, that vile tub of blood and corruption who recently
used air-to-ground missiles to assassinate a paraplegic in a wheelchair at the
door of his mosque. (Palestinians quickly squandered any sympathy or moral
advantage they gained from this atrocity by strapping a retarded 16-year-old
into a suicide bomber's kit. Such is the condition of the human race in the
Middle East, variously known as the Holy Land or the Cradle of Civilization.) Says
Sharon, oleaginously, of Bush: "Something in his soul committed him to act
with great courage against world terror."
The rest of the known world, along with the United Nations, has been dead set
against us from the start. But they carry no weight. Thanks to our tax
dollars and the well-fed, strong but not bulletproof bodies of our children --
though mostly children from lower-income families -- George Bush and his lethal
team of oil pirates, Cold Warriors and Likudists commands the most formidable
military machine on earth. No nation, with the possible exception of China, would
ever dare to oppose them directly.
But the Chinese aren't coming to save us. Nothing and no one can stop these
people except you and me, and the other 100 million or so American citizens who
may vote in the November election. This isn't your conventional election, the
usual dim-witted, media-managed Mister America contest where candidates vie
for charm and style points and hire image coaches to help them act more
confident and presidential. This is a referendum on what is arguably the most dismal
performance by any incumbent president -- and inarguably the biggest mistake.
This is a referendum on George W. Bush, arguably the worst thing that has
happened to the United States of America since the invention of the cathode ray
tube.
One problem with this referendum is that the case against George Bush is much
too strong. Just to spell it out is to sound like a bitter partisan. I sit
here on the 67th birthday of Saddam Hussein facing a haystack of incriminating
evidence that comes almost to my armpit. What matters most, what signifies?
Journalists used to look for the smoking gun, but this time we have the cannons
of Waterloo, we have Gettysburg and Sevastopol, we have enough gunsmoke to
cause asthma in heaven. I'm overwhelmed. Maybe I should light a match to this
mountain of paper and immolate myself. On the near side of my haystack, among
hundreds of quotes circled and statistics underlined, just one thing leaped out at
me. A quote I had underlined was from the testimony of Hermann Goering at the
Nuremberg trials, not long before Hitler's vice-fuhrer poisoned himself in
his jail cell:
"... It is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a
democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to
danger. It works the same in every country."
Goering's dark wisdom gained weight when a friend called me and reported that
Vice President Cheney was so violently partisan in his commencement speech at
Westminster College in Missouri -- so rabid in his attacks on John Kerry as a
anti-American peace-marching crypto-communist -- that the college president
felt obliged to send the student body an email apologizing for Cheney's
coarseness.
If you think it's exceptionally shameless for a man who dodged Vietnam to
play the patriot card against a decorated veteran, remember that Georgia
Republicans played the same card, successfully, against Sen. Max Cleland,
who suffered multiple amputations in Vietnam. In 2001 and 2002, George Bush
and his Machiavelli, Karl Rove, approved political attack ads that showed the
faces of Tom Daschle and other Democratic senators alongside the faces of
Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. And somewhere in hell, Goering and
Goebbels toasted each other with a schnapps.
Am I polarized? I've never been a registered Democrat, I'm sick of this
two-party straitacket, I wish to God it didn't take Yale and a major American
fortune to create a presidential candidate. The only current Democratic leaders
who show me any courage are Nancy Pelosi and old Bob Byrd -- Hillary Clinton
has been especially cagy and gutless on this war -- and John Kerry himself may
leave a lot to be desired. He deserves your vote not because of anything he ever
did or promises to do, but simply because he did not make this sick mess in
Iraq and owes no allegiance to the sinister characters who designed it. And
because his own "place in history," so important to the kind of men who run for
president, would now rest entirely on his success in getting us out of it.
Kerry made a courageous choice at least once in his life, when he came home
with his ribbons and demonstrated against the war in Vietnam. But Sen. Kerry
could turn out to be a stiff, a punk, an alcoholic, and he'd still be a colossal
improvement over the man who turned Paul Wolfowitz loose in the Middle East.
The myth that there was no real difference between Democrats and Republicans,
which I once considered seriously and which Ralph Nader rode to national
disaster four years ago, was shattered forever the day George Bush announced his
cabinet and his appointments for the Department of Defense.
I'm aware that there are voters -- 40 million? -- who don't see it this way.
I come from a family of veterans and commissioned officers; I understand
patriots in wartime. If a spotted hyena stepped out of Air Force One wearing a
baby-blue necktie, most Americans would salute and sing "Hail to the Chief."
President Bush cultivated his patriots by spending $46 million on media in the
month of March alone. Somehow I'm on his mailing list. (Is that because my late
father, with the same name, was a registered Republican, or can Bush afford to
mail his picture to every American with an established address?) Twice a week I
open an appeal for cash to crush John Kerry and the quisling liberal
conspiracy, and now I own six gorgeous color photographs of the president and his
wife. I'm sure some of my neighbors frame the president's color photographs and
fill those little blue envelopes he sends us with their hard-earned dollars.
I struggle against the suspicion that so many of my fellow Americans are
conceptually challenged. I want to reason with my neighbors; I want to engage
these lost Americans. What makes you angry, neighbor? What arouses your
suspicions? Does it bother you that this administration made terrorism a low priority,
dismissed key intelligence that might have prevented the 9/11 catastrophe, then
exploited it to justify the pre-planned destruction of Saddam Hussein, who
had nothing to do with al Qaeda? All this is no longer conjecture, but direct
reportage from cabinet-level meetings by the turncoat insiders Richard Clarke
and Paul O'Neill.
If the Pentagon ever thought Saddam had "weapons of mass destruction," it was
only because the Pentagon gave them to him. As Kevin Phillips recounts in
American Dynasty, officials of the Reagan and first Bush administrations eagerly
supplied Saddam with arms while he was using chemical weapons on the Kurds.
They twice sent Donald Rumsfeld to court Saddam, in 1983 and 1984, when the
dictator was in the glorious prime of his monsterhood.
This scandal, concurrent with Iran-Contra, was briefly called "Iraqgate,"
and, yes, among the names of those officials implicated you'll find most of the
engineers of our current foreign policy. (They also signaled their fractious
client, Saddam, that it might be all right to overrun part of Kuwait; you
remember what happened when he tried to swallow it all.) Does any of this trouble
you? Does it worry you that Dick Cheney, as president of the nefarious
Halliburton Corporation, sold Iraq $73 million in oilfield services between 1997 and
2000, even as he plotted with the Wolfowitz faction to whack Saddam? Or that
Halliburton, with its CEO's seat still warm from Cheney's butt, was awarded unbid
contracts worth up to $15 billion for the Iraq invasion, and currently earns
a billion dollars a month from this bloody disaster? Not to mention its $27.4
billion overcharge for our soldiers' food.
These are facts, not partisan rhetoric. Do any of them even make you
restless? The cynical game these shape-shifters have been playing in the
Middle East is too Byzantine to unravel in 1,000 pages of text. But the hypocrisy
of the White House is palpable, and beggars belief. If there's one American who
actually believes that Operation Iraqi Freedom was about democracy for the poor
Iraqis, then you, my friend, are too dangerously stupid to be allowed near a voting
booth.
Does it bother you even a little that the personal fortunes of all four Bush
brothers, including the president and the governor, were acquired about a half
step ahead of the district attorney, and that the royal family of Saudi
Arabia invested $1.476 billion in those and other Bush family enterprises? Or,
as Paul Krugman points out, that it's much easier to establish links between the
Bush and bin Laden families than any between the bin Ladens and Saddam Hussein.
Do you know about Ahmad Chalabi, the administration's favorite Iraqi and
current agent in Baghdad, whose personal fortune was established when he
embezzled several hundred million from his own bank in Jordan and fled to
London to avoid 22 years at hard labor?
That's just a sampling from my haystack. Maybe I can reach you as an
environmentalist, one who resents the gutting of key provisions in the Clean Air Act?
My own Orange County, N.C., chiefly a rural area, was recently added to a
national register of counties with dangerously polluted air. You say you vote for
the president because you're a conservative. Are you sure? I thought
conservatives believed in civil liberties, a weak federal executive, an inviolable
Constitution, a balanced budget and an isolationist foreign policy. George Bush
has an attorney general who drives the ACLU apoplectic and a vice president who
demands more executive privilege (for his energy seances) than any elected
official has ever received. The president wants a Constitutional amendment to
protect marriage from homosexuals, of all things. Between tax cuts for his
high-end supporters and three years playing God and Caesar in the Middle East,
George Bush has simply emptied America's wallet with a $480 billion federal deficit
projected for 2004 and the tab on Iraq well over $100 million and running.
"A lot of so-called conservatives today don't know what the word means,"
Barry Goldwater said in 1994, when the current cult of right-wing radicals and
"neocons" had begun to define and assert themselves. Goldwater was my first
political hero, before I was old enough to read his flaws. But his was the
conservatism of the wolf -- the lone wolf -- and this is the conservatism of sheep.
All it takes to make a Bush conservative is a few slogans from talk radio and
pickup truck bumpers, a sneer at "liberals" and maybe a name-dropping nod to
Edmund Burke or John Locke, whom most of them have never read. Sheep and sheep
only could be herded by a ludicrous but not harmless cretin like Rush
Limbaugh, who has just compared the sexual abuse of Iraqi prisoners to "a college
fraternity prank" (and who once called Chelsea Clinton "the family dog" -- you
don't have to worry about shame when you have no brain).
I don't think it's accurate to describe America as polarized between
Democrats and Republicans, or between liberals and conservatives. It's polarized
between the people who believe George Bush and the people who do not. Thanks to
some contested ballots in a state governed by the president's brother, a
once-proud country has been delivered into the hands of liars, thugs, bullies,
fanatics and thieves. The world pities or despises us, even as it fears us. What this
election will test is the power of money and media to fool us, to obscure the
truth and alter the obvious, to hide a great crime against the public trust
under a blood-soaked flag. The most lavishly funded, most cynical, most
sophisticated political campaign in human history will be out trolling for fools. I
pray to God it doesn't catch you.
Hal Crowther is a former writer for Time and Newsweek, the Buffalo News and
the North Carolina Spectator before parking his column at the weekly
Independent in Durham, N.C., and The Progressive Populist, among others.
He won the H.L. Mencken Award for column writing in 1992.
Write him at 219 N. Churton St., Hillsborough, NC 27278.
PLEASE FORWARD (any and all responses are welcomed)
Fables of the reconstruction - A confidential Coalition
memo reveals that corruption, dysfunction and greed are
sowing the seeds of civil war - Jason Vest (April 21, 2004)
A vast left-wing conspiracy? Not quite. - September 11th
Families for Peaceful Tomorrows gets pounded by the
conservative press over non-existent financial ties to John
Kerry's wife - Fiona Morgan (March 17, 2004)
War profiteers? - Critics assail RTP's Research Triangle
Institute for supporting U.S. selections, not elections, in Iraq -
Blair Goldstein (March 10, 2004)
|
Key West Literary Seminar "SPIRIT OF PLACE: American Literary
Landscapes"
January 10-13, 2002 Back to List of Panelists January 10-13, 2002
|
Panelist - Hal Crowther
HAL CROWTHER was born in
1945 in Halifax, Nova Scotia,
of Southern-American parents.
He is a graduate of Williams
College (BA, English) and the
Columbia University Graduate
School of Journalism (1967).
He was a media columnist and
a film and drama critic for the
Buffalo News, staff writer at
Time and associate editor at
Newsweek, where he served
as television critic and editor
of the Media section. He was
also a columnist on film and
media for The Humanist and
Free Inquiry magazines and a
regular contributor to the book
pages of The Atlanta
Journal-Constitution.
|
 Hal Crowther January 10-13, 2002
|
In 1981 he began writing his syndicated column for Spectator,
where he was executive editor from 1986 - 1989. During the
'90s the column originated in The Independent Weekly of
Durham. In 1992, it received the Baltimore Sun's H.L. Mencken
Writing Award, the first weekly column so honored. Along with
their decision, the judges delivered the following commentary:
"Like Mencken, Hal Crowther has the narrowed pupil of a
sharpshooter, the hairy ear of a heavy artilleryman, and the
ballistic rifling of an implacable anathematist. Mr. Crowther
steadies his weapon of choice; he draws a bead; blam! And
one more target is left trying to wipe off the splatter of his
true and accurate words." In 1998 it won another national
award, the AAN (American Association of Newsweeklies) first
prize for commentary, shared with Nat Hentoff of the Village
Voice.
"Dealer's Choice," Crowther's column on southern letters and
culture, has been featured in The Oxford American since 1994.
He also writers a column for The Progressive Populist, out of
Austin, Texas. A collection of his essays--Unarmed But
Dangerous, with a foreword by Annie Dillard--was published in
June 1995 by Longstreet Press. His current collection,
Cathedrals of Kudzu, A Personal Landscape of the
South--foreword by Fred Hobson--was published last fall by
LSU Press. Nominated for the Pulitzer Prize and the National
Book Award, Cathedrals received the 1999-2001 Fellowship
Prize for Non-Fiction from the Fellowship of Southern Writers
and the 2001 first prize for essays from Foreword Magazine,
which named it a finalist for Book of the Year. In 2000
Crowther received the Russell J. Jandoli Award for Excellence
in Journalism from St. Bonaventure University. His essays have
been published in many anthologies, most recently Novello:
Ten Years of Great American Writing (2000), Books of Passage
(1997), Close to Home (1996), Cast a Cold Eye (1991), and
the language arts textbook Textures (1993). He has several
screen credits for film and television scripts, and his radio
commentaries have been carried on WKBW in Buffalo, WPTF in
Raleigh, and on NPR's "Soundings" program from the National
Humanities Center.
Crowther has one daughter, Amity, and two stepsons, and
lives in an ante-bellum house in Hillsborough, North Carolina,
with his wife and fellow panelist, Lee Smith.
Bibliography:
Cathedrals of Kudzu: A Personal Landscape of the South, LSU
Press, 2000 Unarmed But Dangerous, Longstreet Press, 1995
of insider trading occurred before 9/11. Still unknown stock traders knew what airlines
would be hijacked as well as what corporations would be hardest hit by their targets and
placed billions in short selling puts on those companies. They also bought heavily in US.
Treasury bonds, gold and oil futures which rose in value after the event as could have
been expected if the attacks were known about."
Cynthia McKinney An oldie but goody 1. Mario deSantis agrees with U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney
Home Run
Prince Turki al Faisal, Saudi ambassador to Great Britain, also the former
Saudi intelligence chief who unexpectedly resigned twelve days before
September 11 on 31 August 2001, said today that America is a colonial power;
that all this stuff about democracy for Iraq is horsefeathers; that the
(regrettably endlessly corrupt) Abu Ammar, Chairman Arafat, is a living
martyr.
It was Prince Turki who recruited the group that later became al Qaeda to
fight the Soviets in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989. At war's end, Prince
Turki certainly didn't want the soldiers to come home to Saudi Arabia, so he
started paying the group $300 million a year to keep them elsewhere. A
dozen years later, New York got the picture.
Prince Turki al Faisal's remarks, impolitic by most standards, probably
advance the widely-held notion that one faction of the House of Saud has
always utterly loathed the United States and considers Americans to be
servants.
.
| NORTHWOODS PROJECT: Exposing the Pentagon's Diabolical Schemes
Los Angeles, Alta Califronia - October 28, 2002 - (ACN) La Voz de Aztlan has recently reported on our doubts that many of the terrorist attacks in the U.S. and around the world are the work of Islamic fundamentalists, Muslims or Arabs. There is ample evidence that these terrorist attacks are actually being committed by certain rogue elements of the U.S. and Israeli governments. In order to justify our doubts, we are making available to our readership below, the damning and shocking top secret "Northwoods Project" document that has been declassified and obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. Even though the project was written and approved by the Joints Chiefs of Staff and approved by the Secretary of Defense to deal with Cuba in 1962, the plan "fits like a glove" to what is presently occurring in the "War Against Islam."
The diabolical Northwoods Project's principal architect was the than Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Zionist General Lyman Lemnitzer who many patriotic Americans claimed was a Jewish operative for Israel. The evil nature of the plan is almost identical to those of Ariel Sharon's military command. The once "Top Secret" Pentagon document, that can be accessed through our link below, will hopefully help wake up the American public.
The plan calls for, among other things, the staging of terrorist incidents that would provide "pretexts" and "justifications" to attack Cuba. It outlined how Cuba would first be "demonized" in the eyes of the world and in the eyes of the United Nations. It is exactly the same script being utilized against Iraq. It provided ways by which Cuba would be seen as "rash", "irresponsible", "unpredictable", and a "threat" to the peace of the Western Hemisphere.
Among some of the specific "staged" terrorist incidents the plan proposed were to "blow up" a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba, attack the U.S. Guantanamo base with "fake" Cubans, and use fake MIG type aircraft piloted by U.S. pilots to attack US surface ships and passenger airlines. One proposal made by the Northwoods Project, and this may explain the "phantom" AA passenger airline that supposedly hit the Pentagon on September 11, was to provoke the Cuban government to shoot down a U.S passenger airline that the CIA would substitute with a "drone." In addition, the plan called for producing U.S. citizen casualty lists in Florida and Washington D.C. that would be published in the media thus generating "indignation" by the American public.
|
..................................................................
Saudi Envoy, Turki Al-Faisal: Iraq War Was 'Colonial' and About Oil
Mon May 24, 2004 07:16 AM ET
DUBLIN (Reuters) - The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was a colonial war and
there were some in the United States who saw it as a means of getting their
hands on Iraqi oil, a senior Saudi ambassador was quoted as saying Monday.
Prince Turki al-Faisal, ambassador to Britain and Ireland, told the Irish
Independent newspaper Washington's stated aims in going to war in Iraq
masked a more cynical reality.
"No matter how exalted the aims of the U.S. in that war, in the final
analysis it was a colonial war very similar to the wars conducted by the
ex-colonial powers when they went out to conquer the rest of the world ...,"
Prince Turki said.
"What we have heard from American sources they were there to remove the
weapons of mass destruction which Saddam Hussein was supposed to have
acquired."
Saudi Arabia, a key U.S. regional ally, opposed the war despite tensions
with Iraq since its 1990 invasion of Kuwait.
"What we read and hear from our commentators in America and sometimes
congressional sources, if you remember going back a year ago, there was the
issue of the oil reserves in Iraq and that in a year or two they would be
producing so much oil in Iraq that, as it were, the war would pay for
itself," the envoy said.
" indicated that there were those in America who were thinking in those
terms of acquiring the natural resources of Iraq for America." Prince Turki
said U.S. pledges to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq remained "still
just aims."
"The individual Iraqi, until he can actually declare that his government is
truly representative of his wishes and aspirations must still consider
himself occupied," he said.
On the wider conflict in the Middle East, Prince Turki described Palestinian
leader Yasser Arafat as "a living martyr," persecuted by an Israel "that is
ruthless and generally devoid of any human considerations (toward the
Palestinians)."
Critics of Saudi Arabia, cradle of Islam and the birthplace of Osama bin
Laden and 15 of the September 11 hijackers, have accused it of allowing
religious militancy to flourish.
The envoy described bin Laden's al Qaeda network as "not so much an
organization as a cult with a cult leader and a cult philosophy...."
"One of the main drawbacks of the operations in Afghanistan is that bin
Laden has not been caught," he said. "To bring bin Laden to justice will go
a long way to removing some of his mystique."
.................................
For a current genealogy of the House of Saud, see
.................................
On a more productive note, if that's the adjective in these early days of
asymmetrical world war:
Sept. 11 Families Sue Saudis, Sudan
August 16, 2002
"We will succeed because we have the facts and the law on our side."
Thomas E. Burnett Sr., father of Sept. 11 victim
(CBS) - Some 600 relatives who lost loved ones in the Sept. 11 terrorist
attacks have filed a $100 trillion lawsuit against the Sudanese government
and Saudi officials, banks and charities, claiming they helped finance Osama
bin Laden's network.
However, lead attorney Ron Motley said Friday that the $100 trillion
complaint was being amended and would likely be scaled down asking for
damages in excess of $1 trillion in future filings.
"It's not the money. We want to do something to get at these people," said
Irene Spina, whose daughter, Lisa L. Trerotola, 38, died in the World Trade
Center in New York City. "There's nothing else we can do."
"This is the right thing to do," said Matt Sellito, father of Matthew Carmen
Sellito, 23, who also died at the World Trade Center. "If the odds are
stacked against us, we will beat them."
The 15-count federal lawsuit seeks to cripple banks, charities and some
members of the Saudi royal family as a deterrent to terrorist financing
schemes.
The suit was filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va., on
behalf of the families. The complaint charges the defendants with
racketeering, wrongful death, negligence and conspiracy.
Motley said the money likely would come largely from assets held by the
defendants in the United States. He said the plaintiffs were after more
institutions than those whose assets already have been frozen by the U.S.
and other governments.
Another attorney in the case, Allan Gerson, said Friday that one aim of the
lawsuit was to choke off the financial support for terrorist networks.
"Until now, sponsoring terrorism has been a cost-free operation," Gerson
said on CBS News' "The Early Show." He said "we intend to stop that."
The lawsuit is likely to cause post 9-11 friction between the U.S. and Saudi
Arabia, reports CBS News Chief Washington Correspondent Bob Schieffer.
The Bush administration has been careful not to blame the Saudi government
for the attacks in its drive to build a coalition for its war against
terrorism. But the relatives' lawsuit bluntly accuses Saudi officials and
institutions of supporting terrorists.
"That kingdom sponsors terrorism," Motley told reporters. "This is an
insidious group of people."
The complaint names more than seven dozen defendants, including the
government of Sudan, seven banks, eight Islamic foundations and three Saudi
princes.
Those listed include Prince Mohammed al-Faisal, former intelligence chief
Prince Turki al-Faisal, Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan, Khalid bin
Salim bin Mahfouz of the National Commercial Bank and the Faisal Islamic
Bank.
Officials from the Saudi Embassy did not return a call for comment.
Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, said last week that the
70-year-old U.S.-Saudi alliance was as solid now as before the Sept. 11
attacks on the United States.
He said bin Laden, who was stripped of Saudi citizenship and is accused of
directing the al Qaeda attacks, had intended to drive a wedge between the
two countries when he chose 15 Saudi citizens to be among the 19 hijackers.
Several plaintiffs, fighting tears, said they would dedicate the rest of
their lives to punishing those who financed the hijackings and crashes of
four U.S. commercial jets on Sept. 11.
"We will succeed because we have the facts and the law on our side," said
Thomas E. Burnett Sr., whose son, Thomas E. Burnett Jr., led a passenger
revolt against the hijackers of United Airlines Flight 93 and died when it
plummeted to the ground in a southwestern Pennsylvania field.
"We have justice and morality on our side," he added.
Burnett's mother, Deena, said her son told her in a phone call that he was
"putting a plan together that he and others were going to take back the
airplane."
"And he said, 'You know Deena, I think we can do it. It's up to us,' she
said. "Those words resonate in my mind. And I think we're going to do
something, too. And this is a good start."
© MMII, CBS Worldwide Inc.