“Full Responsibility for the First world War, lies squarely on the shoulders of the International Jewish Bankers. They are responsible for millions of dead and dying”. — U.S. Congress – Record 67th Congress, 4. Sitting, Senate Document nr. 346)
“The Eastern European Zionists are not Semites (though the Arabs are), have no semitic blood, and their remote forefathers never trod Palestinian earth.” The British journalist Douglas Reed, former chief Central European correspondent of the Times, 1950.
Douglas Launcelot Reed (1895 – 1976) was a British journalist, playwright, novelist and author of a number of books of political analysis. He was The Times correspondent in South-eastern Europe during which he was witness to the prevailing political machinations and social conditions.
His book Insanity Fair (1938) was influential in publicising the state of Europe and Hitler’s “megalomania.” Its follow-up Disgrace Abounding (1939) suffered a different fate: Organised Jewry soon realised its truths were inconvenient to them and their cause and so ensured it was routinely condemned by the liberal press, reviewers and commentators.
Reed had witnessed the appalling conditions of the Christian people, especially the peasant, in what is now Ukraine and Moldova. Especially their condition of servitude to “the Jews.” Reed’s crime was that he reported it honestly, unlike many other Western observers who had witnessed the same evil but had reported the exact opposite.
An honest treatment that was an anathema to the Zionist Myth especially disabusing a cherished dogma: “the poor Jews” in Eastern Europe, perennially persecuted and horribly impoverished by their Christian overlords.
Reed told the truth that flew in the Zionists’ face. That the Eastern Jew far from being “poor” and “persecuted” was cosseted by their wealth and comparative power. That the Christian “peasant is entirely in the hands of the Jews.”
A hint to the fact that when “the Jews” have ascendancy over the Christian they are merciless and cruel.
A condition of mind given free reign when the Bolshevik Zionists Jews were in the ascendant in Russia; when they orchestrated the liquidation of at least 60 million Christians. A planned genocide only stopped by the exigency of war with Nazidom.
The Bolshevik Zionists Jews realised that if Hitler prevailed they would surely be dead: being called to account for their murderous assault on Mother Russia, her Christian children, their religion and their God.
Reed’s experience in these impoverished lands, and “the Jews” obvious role in their enslavement, lead him to research the reasons behind the phenomenon.
The result was that he published some revealing facts about the World Revolutionary Movement, the Conspiracy for World Government commonly called the New World Order, and Organised Jewry’s crucial role in it.
That is, he honestly addressed the so-called “Jewish Question.”
An evolutionary journey of consciousness that made him Organised Jewry’s foe and it his enemy.
A terrible, formidable enemy that used its power and influence to render Reed’s scholarship and good works ridiculed and forgotten and the man himself condemned as a “virulent anti-Semite.”
Before the Second World War, Douglas Launcelot Reed was a celebrated foreign correspondent and author, especially because of his condemnation of Hitler and Nazidom, After the war, he and his works disappeared from view, and were largely forgotten.
His name and reputation suffered terrible abuse, such that at the time of his death the newspaper he was once a respected correspondent for, The Times,ran his obituary and condemned Reed as a “virulent anti-Semite.”
What was the cause of such churlish treatment?
Reed had used his years of experience and research to prepare a summation of his observations on the knotty problem of the “Jewish Question.” This was his book calledThe Controversy of Zion.
Finished in 1956, it was not published until 22 years later.
A struggle alluded to in the foreword: “the adversity, which Reed encountered, would have made a lesser personality give up. But not he.“
In the book, Reed described the long-term Zionist Conspiracy to impose a World Government – “Communist Empire” – on an enslaved humanity. He also gave plentiful examples of the Talmudicsource of both Communism and Zionism.
In his earlier work, Disgrace Abounding, Reed reported on the dire conditions in Christian East Europe. The lands in which Khazarian Jews were a significant minority. The lands in which White Christians had a long, intimate relationship with “the Jews.”
The lands routinely condemned by Organised Jewry and its Useful Goy Idiots as the most “anti-Semitic” in the world.
The lands who had suffered an early and ongoing phenomenon: the enduring enmity of the rancorous Jew for the White Christian, his nation, his religion and his God.
“The Jews’ interference with the religion of others, and the Jews’ determination to wipe out of public life every sign of the predominant Christian character of the United States, is the only active form of religious intolerance in the country today” Instead of blessing Jews with truth and godly rebuke, Christians have aligned themselves, through unconditional support and material blessing, with the Christ-denying state of Israel.*
The bill passed second reading at the end of April, and is now before the Standing Committee on Justice Policy.
The bill is entitled Prohibiting Hate-Promoting Demonstrations at Queen’s Park Act, 2019.
The bill provides that no demonstration, rally or other activity that, in the opinion of the Speaker, is likely to promote hatred against any identifiable group, shall be permitted on the legislative grounds.
(B’nai B’rith Canada, on its 2018 annual audit, reports a 16.5% increase in incidents from the previous year.) There is also a consensus in Canada that discrimination on the basis of race is equally unacceptable.
No surprise here, folks. The self-styled “conservative” Roman Baber is a Jew who was born in the former communist Soviet Union but also lived in Israel before moving to Canada as a teenager.
Why any Canadian would trust this treacherous peddler of “multiculturalism” and “inclusivity” is beyond belief. Jews usually use proxy warriors to introduce direct attacks on Christians so as to avoid the backlash and inevitable “antisemitism”.
But the fact that Baber introduced this hateful, anti-Christian and anti-White legislation demonstrates just how confident the Jews must be that they have Canada in complete lock-down.
But given the fact that prior to arriving in Canada, Baber lived in two countries that were either hostile toward Christianity (Israel) or outright outlawed it (USSR), it should be no surprise to Canadians that he wants to see it not only marginalized but also criminalized in “Kanada”.
And make no mistake, Canada’s “Human Rights Commission” is modeled after the Soviet Cheka, whose first order of business was to jail and even execute “antisemites” who dared notice that those who were committing the mass murder of White Christians in Russia were mostly Jews like Baber and his ancestors.
The Institute for Public Accuracy published a report today about the leaked engineering assessment from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons investigation into an alleged chemical attack in Douma, Syria which directly contradicts the findings of the official OPCW report on the matter.
MIT professor Theodore Postol provided IPA with a basic analysis of some of the data in the engineering assessment, adding that he “will have a much more detailed summary of the engineering report later this week.”
“A second issue that is raised by the character of the OPCW engineering report on Douma is that it is entirely unmentioned in the report that went to the UN Security Council,” Postol concludes after his analysis.
“This omission is very serious, as the findings of that report are critical to the process of determining attribution.
There is absolutely no reason to justify the omission of the engineering report in the OPCW account to the UN Security Council as its policy implications are of extreme importance.”
“A leaked OPCW document challenges claim that Assad used chemical weapons in Douma in April 2018, the basis for US military strikes,” tweetedjournalist Aaron Maté of the new IPA report.
“So far, Western media has ignored it, w/ only exceptions at the margins. Ted Postol is a leading expert; this should be impossible to ignore now.”
Hours later, the US State Department issued a statement once again accusing the Syrian government of using chemical weapons, and now when you search Google for information on chemical weapons in Syria, the results you get look like this:
So that’s convenient.
The State Department’s release actually reads like a government trying to regain control of an important narrative.
It begins with an unsubstantiated allegation of a chlorine gas attack by the Syrian government this past Sunday, and warns that the US and its allies will respond militarily if chemical weapons have been used.
It condemns the Syrian government’s offensive to recapture the Al Qaeda-occupied Idlib province, then veers off into sheer narrative management, accusing the Russian government of lying about the White Helmets and citing the OPCW as a trustworthy source of authority:
Russia’s recent allegations against the White Helmets and others are part of a continuing disinformation campaign by the Assad regime and Russia to create the false narrative that others are to blame for chemical weapons attacks that the Assad regime itself is conducting.
Similarly, on November 24, 2018, the Assad regime and Russia attempted to fabricate a chemical weapons attack near Aleppo and blame it on opposition forces.
At times, Russia and the Assad regime have made these false allegations as a pretext in advance of the Assad regime’s own barbaric chemical weapons attacks.
The facts, however, are clear: the Assad regime itself has conducted almost all verified chemical weapons attacks that have taken place in Syria — a conclusion the United Nations has reached over and over again.
The former Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)-UN Joint Investigation Mechanism repeatedly verified and reported the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons.
The Assad regime’s culpability in horrific chemical weapons attacks is undeniable.
As I wrote the other day, the fact that the OPCW kept the engineering report from receiving not a whisper of attention severely undermines the organization’s credibility, not just with regard to Douma but with regard to everything, including the establishment Syria narrative as a whole and the Skripal case in the UK.
Everything the OPCW has ever concluded about alleged chemical usage around the world is now subject to very legitimate skepticism, and now the State Department is trying to use this same dubious source in its narrative control campaign against a government long targeted by the US empire for regime change.
“Assad once again proving he’s either a total fool or just the biggest troll in history,” Off-Guardiantweeted sarcastically in response to the State Department’s allegations.
“In the midst of the scandal over the OPCW repressing evidence that the Douma chemical attack was staged, Bashar just goes and does another one.”
“The US can’t attack Iran so it’s going to unleash its impotent rage on Syria,” tweeted journalist Sharmine Narwani. “One false flag CW attack by US-trained terrorists coming up.”
The notion that the Syrian government would use chemical weapons at this stage in the game is even more nonsensical than it was at the time of the Douma allegations in April 2018.
President Bashar al-Assad has recaptured far more territory from the western-backed extremist factions, the eventual full recapture of the nation by Syria and its allies is a foregone conclusion barring direct military intervention by the US empire, and now the western imperialists are even beginning to lose the narrative war as well.
There’s no reason to believe Assad would use chemical weapons at this point in the game unless you sincerely believe that he gains some sort of sexual gratification from committing war crimes that is so powerful it overwhelms his most basic survival instincts.
Chemical weapons, particularly chlorine gas, are not an efficient way of killing people. As Moon of Alabamaonce put it, “Chemical warfare is ineffective. That is why everyone agreed to ban it.”
There is nothing about chemical weapons that is inherently more horrific than, say, nuclear weapons; the difference is that they’re just not a very efficient way of killing a large number of people, whereas nuclear weapons are.
The Syrian government and its allies have been securing military victory after military victory over the occupying militias which had taken over large territories, and they have been doing so using far more effective conventional munitions.
Assad would stand absolutely nothing to gain and absolutely everything to lose by using chemical warfare now.
At this point you almost wish America would just pick a target and stick with it. The US war machine is like a belligerent drunk at a pub with a broken bottle in his hand, menacing customer after customer while everyone silently prays he has a few more drinks and passes out on the floor.
From Iran to Venezuela to Syria and more, the agenda to bully all the world’s nations into allowing themselves to be absorbed into the blob of the US-centralized empire is causing conflict after conflict all around the globe, with devastating consequences for the civilians caught in the crossfire.
You may be certain that Syria remains a geostrategically crucial location for the empire because they keep working on manufacturing consent for interventionism there.
They work to manufacture that consent because they need that consent; if everyone saw their government doing horrific things they widely disapproved of, the illusion of freedom and democracy would be shattered, and they’d lose their ability to propagandize the masses. Without the ability to propagandize the masses, they could not rule.
So the good news is that we can slow them down by using truth to disrupt their use of their narrative control arsenal. The bad news is that they’re as depraved and determined as ever.
A Yemeni army spokesperson noted that the Houthis have never denied previous military maneuvers, saying “We do not hesitate to announce our military operations.” Mohammed AbdulSalam, a spokesman for the Houthi political wing Ansar Allah, said in a statement, “We avoid targeting civilians as well as holy places, and this [accusation] is Saudi bankruptcy,” adding “Saudi Arabia fabricated the Houthi threat [to Meccia] in order to mobilize official and popular support.”
COLOMBO, SRI LANKA — A leaked Saudi diplomatic memo obtained by Lebanese outlet Alahed News claims that the government of Saudi Arabia had foreknowledge of the Easter bombings that occurred last month in three cities on the island nationof Sri Lanka, killing nearly 300 and wounding over 500 more. The contents of the memo, which additionally suggests Saudi complicity in the attacks, are supported by the connections recently uncovered by Sri Lankan authorities, that the alleged ringleader of the bombings, Zahran Hashim, had to Saudi Arabia.
The document carries the Islamic calendar (Hijri) date of 11/8/1440, which equates to April 17, 2019 in the Gregorian calendar — just a few days before the bombings — and is addressed to the Saudi ambassador to Sri Lanka, Abdul Nasser bin Hussein al-Harethi, and authored by Saudi Foreign Minister Ibrahim bin Abdul Aziz al-Assaf. It carries the labels “urgent” and “top secret.”
The brief memo states the following (translated from Arabic):
His Excellency Ambassador Abdul Nasser bin Hussein al-Harethi
You should carry out the following measures immediately:
First: You should delete all documents, computer data and latest correspondence with domestic and foreign members and groups, in addition to imposing a curfew for the embassy personnel unless [travel] is necessary;
Second: You should inform all those related to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia — including counselors, security forces and intelligence during the three coming days, especially on the Christian Easter Day — to avoid presence in public and crowded places, namely churches;
Third: You should send written news about the Sri Lankan authorities and their viewpoints regularly to this ministry
The memo, seen here, carries the seal of Saudi Arabia, conforms with the format of other leaked Saudi diplomatic memos, and carries two watermarks. MintPress was unable to obtain a copy for independent confirmation of its authenticity.
The memo dovetails with other new evidence
The contents of the memo from the Saudi foreign minister to the Saudi ambassador to Sri Lanka, particularly its indication of prior knowledge of danger in crowded places and churches on Easter Sunday, have taken on a new significance following the arrest last Friday of Mohamed Aliyar, a 60-year-old, Saudi-educated Wahhabi scholar who operated the Center for Islamic Guidance in Zahran Hashim’s hometown of Kattankudy. According to a plaque outside of the Wahhabi religious center operated by Aliyar, the center is funded by unnamed Saudi and Kuwaiti donors.
A statement released by Sri Lankan police stated that “Information has been revealed that the suspect arrested [Mohamed Aliyar] had a close relationship with … Zahran and had been operating financial transactions” on his behalf and was also “involved” in the training of the suicide bombers responsible for the massacres on Easter Sunday.
A group of board members of the center, who spoke to the South China Morning Post prior to Aliyar’s arrest, stated that the center was funded by “local donations, student fees, and private donors who were classmates of Aliyar’s in Riyadh;” denounced Zahran Hashim as a “troublemaker;” and could not recall having seen him at the center recently. However, the police statement that followed Aliyar’s arrest suggested that his relationship with Zahran Hashim was not a part of his public persona.
Of key interest in the police statement is the mention of Aliyar’s operating of “financial transactions” on Zahran Hashim’s behalf in the lead-up to the attacks. Several reports, such as this one from the BBC, noted that the attacks “required detailed planning, safe houses, an extensive network of planners and handlers, expertise on bomb-making, and significant funding.” Aliyar’s connections to wealthy Saudi donors and to Zahran suggest that he may have been a liaison for much of that funding.
In addition, the leaked memo’s instruction for the Saudi ambassador to “delete all documents, computer data and latest correspondence with domestic and foreign members and groups,” suggests that the Saudi Embassy in Sri Lanka may have been aware or party to these or other transactions related to the Zahran-led attacks.
While it is possible that funding had come from elsewhere, the fact that Zahran’s sister, Mohammad Hashim Madaniya, had been sent 2 million Sri Lankan rupees (around $12,000) from Zahran just days before the blast suggests that the amount of money involved in funding this operation was significant indeed and likely of foreign origin.
Las Vegas Shooting False Flag To Cover Assassination Attempt On Saudi Prince
Extent of Saudi role
The fact that the Islamic State quickly claimed responsibility for the bombings — and that Zahran pledged loyalty to the group just hours before the attack — further suggests a Saudi role, since the Saudi government was revealed to be funding and logistically aiding the terror group in 2014. Leaked emails from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton revealed that the U.S. government has long known that Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states are among the main financiers of the international terror group.
Saudi Arabia Named As ‘Number One’ Terrorist State – Not Iran
The leaked memo contained in the email to Clinton states:
We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIS and other radical groups in the region.”
While mainstream reports have long asserted that it was private Saudi donors funding the terror group, this email revealed that U.S. intelligence had determined that the Saudi government was funding the group and also providing them it logistical assistance.
The Islamic State’s widely acknowledged role in the attacks and its known relationship to the Saudis — in combination with the recent arrest and role of Mohamed Aliyar in the attacks and the contents of the memo from the Saudi Foreign Minister — strongly suggest that the government of Saudi Arabia not only had foreknowledge of the brutal bombings (and did nothing to stop them) but may have also played a more active role in the bloodshed.
A critical, impressively researched history of US-Israeli relations
Pack with vital information…on a subject that most mainstream journalists won’t touch!
Without question, “Dangerous Liason” is the most comprehensive book summarizing U. S. – Israeli relations from 1948 – 1990. In fact, it is THE book many other authors refer to when writing about future CIA – Mossad operations. It is a “must read” for anyone really interested in knowing our true relationship with Israel.
BRIAN LAMB, HOST: Andrew Cockburn, co-author of “Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Covert Relationship,” what’s the premise of your book?
ANDREW COCKBURN, CO-AUTHOR OF “DANGEROUS LIAISON: THE INSIDE STORY OF THE U.S.-ISRAELI COVERT RELATIONSHIP”: The premise is that there’s a side to the relationship between the U.S. and Israel which goes much beyond just the sentimental links and the links forged by supporters of Israel in this country.
What we say, what we explain is that there has been since almost the earliest days of the Israeli state and the earliest days of the CIA a secret bond, a secret link between them, basically by which the Israelis — the Israeli intelligence — did jobs for the CIA and for the rest of American intelligence.
You can’t understand what’s been going on around the world with American covert operations and the Israeli covert operations until you understand that the two countries have this secret arrangement.
LAMB: Leslie Cockburn, what was the most interesting part of writing this book?
LESLIE COCKBURN, CO-AUTHOR OF “DANGEROUS LIAISON: THE INSIDE STORY OF THE U.S.-ISRAELI COVERT RELATIONSHIP”: There are a number of things. For example, one particular part which I found most interesting was we talk about Israeli operations in Colombia and some of the Israeli commandos who trained the hit squads of the Medellin cartel. It turns out that they had trained us in Israel as well when they were between trips to Colombia.
These were the same people who also trained most of the top commanders in the Guatemalan military and also trained the Contras.
They had a firm that was under license to the Israeli Ministry of Defense, and then they’d turn up in the jungles of Puerto Boyac in Colombia. So, we had a lot of adventures, I must say.
LAMB: Did the Israelis cooperate with you at all on this book?
A. COCKBURN: Well, we never made an official approach to the Israeli government or Mossad or anything like that, but we managed to get in the end to talk to all the people we wanted to talk to in Israel. We talked to people like, for instance, David Kimche who had a long Mossad career.
Spy Takes US/Israeli Secrets to Grave. David Kimche (right)
He eventually rose to be deputy head of Mossad, the Israeli secret intelligence agency — the equivalent of the CIA. I remember a wonderful evening we had in his home, in his study, where he was talking in guarded fashion about his career in intelligence. He then went on to be director general of their foreign ministry.
But I certainly noticed around the walls of his study where we were sitting, it was like a history of Israeli covert operations because, for instance, on one wall there were the most beautiful wood carvings, African wood sculptures.
I said, “Oh, they’re lovely, David. Where did you get those?” “Oh, a present from [Sese-Seko] Mobutu in Zaire.” “Oh, that one’s nice. Where did that come from?” “[Jean-Bedel] Bokassa of the Central African Empire.” Then on another wall beautiful Persian miniatures. “Where did they come from?” “Oh, a present from the Shah for something we did for him.”
So, there was this man sitting, this master spook, surrounded by mementos of his career. And so, we talked to him. We spent a lot of time talking — well, there’s a street in Tel Aviv, an avenue called Shaul Hamalekh, which is right across the street from what’s called the Kirya, which is the Ministry of Defense compound. It’s a huge area in the middle of Tel Aviv.
On the other side of Shaul Hamalekh is a row of very fancy high-rises which is basically the headquarters of the Israeli military-industrial complex — I mean, that area is, so you have offices of all the major arms dealers, the offices of the Israeli representatives of the major American defense corporations.
You have Mossad headquarters. Just down one side street you have a very beautiful building which is the headquarters of a man called Shaul Eisenberg, which not many people in the outside world know about, but he’s certainly the richest and probably the most powerful man in Israel. He’s the master arms dealer.
He’s behind a lot of political campaigns, behind a lot of politicians. Again, very much involved in this secret world of arms deals and covert operations that we talk about as the link with America.
LAMB: There were two American names early in the book — Al Schwimmer and Hank Greenspun.
Presidential Pardons: Greenspun, Schwimmer
A. COCKBURN: Al Schwimmer is, again, a fascinating character. He, right at the very birth of Israel — his real name is Adolph Schwimmer, but everyone calls him Al — was basically an arms smuggler for Israel. He was flying in arms during their war of independence from all over the place.
He was originally a TWA flight engineer, in fact, but also a brilliant pilot. So, for example, he was flying arms from Prague because in the early days of Israel, in fact, most of their arms or among their most important single arms supplier was the Communist government in Czechoslovakia, and Schwimmer was part of that.
He went on to found Israel Aircraft Industries, in the meantime still sort of flying arms, doing covert arms deals around the world. Then years later, his energy still undiminished, he was right at the heart of the Iran-Contra business. He was absolutely central at one point to the covert shipments of arms to Iran.
Hank Greenspun was another fascinating guy. He was a U.S. Army veteran at the end of World War II. He had just moved to Las Vegas to set up a radio station when Al Schwimmer suddenly knocked on the door. He didn’t know him — introduced by a mutual friend — and said, “Hey, drop everything.
I want you to come with us and we’re going down to Mexico. We need you to go and vet some arms that we’ve gotten hold of that we’re buying illegally, in fact. We need to get to Palestine.”
So, Greenspun says, “Oh, OK,” drops everything and becomes an arms smuggler, briefly. He disappears from his house for six months, comes back, can’t tell his wife where he’s been and he’s been in Mexico bribing officials. Then he goes back to Las Vegas.
He later became very famous as the publisher of the Las Vegas Sun, an early opponent of Joe McCarthy, fought Howard Hughes and, interestingly enough, he was the conduit for many years until the campaign finance laws got tightened up.
If candidates, especially Democratic candidates, needed cash in a hurry, Hank Greenspun in Las Vegas was the man to see because in Las Vegas, of course, there’s a lot of cash around.
And if you are in dire straits — for instance, Jimmy Carter was saved at a crucial moment of his candidacy in 1976 during the Pennsylvania primary when Hank Greenspun came out with $60,000. So we have characters go all the way through.
L. COCKBURN: One point about doing this kind of story about covert operations with U.S. and Israel is that because Israel is such a young country, some of these people who were there are the very beginning, who were making the deals in the ’50s, are still alive.
We went to see Isser Harel, who is really a towering figure in covert operations.
He was chief of Mossad at a crucial time in the ’50s when this secret relationship we’re talking about was just getting going.
There was a deal made in 1951. Ben-Gurion came to Washington and offered the CIA the services of Israeli intelligence.
LAMB: Who was Ben-Gurion?
L. COCKBURN: Ben-Gurion is the father of Israel.
A. COCKBURN: He was prime minister for many years. He really steered the state to independence, steered his people to independence, wrote the Israeli declaration of independence, was prime minister all the way through, with a brief interval, until 1963. The Israel you see today is really the creation of David Ben-Gurion.
LAMB: Originally from what country?
A. COCKBURN: He was originally from what’s now Poland but was then Russia, a part of the territory that’s changed hands.
LAMB: Let me go back to Leslie Cockburn and ask her who your favorite character was in your book.
LAMB: What do you think of Israeli people from what you’ve learned over the years in being close to them?
L. COCKBURN: Both of us love working in Israel. I’ve been going back every year — not every year — but have made numerous trips to Israel since 1980- 1981. Israelis are very interesting people, also.
The fact is, Israelis love to talk and tend to be, at least in this business — in the arms business and in intelligence — fairly gregarious, and also they have a lot of feuds with each other, very strong personalities. It’s a very interesting group of people to work with.
LAMB: Are they tough? Are they effective? Do you like them?
A. COCKBURN: Yes, really, I’ve got to say I do. They’re very tough. They have an engaging cynicism about them. I did. How could you not like it — this may sound bizarre — but for example, we were talking to an executive — this was some years back — an executive of Israel Aircraft Industries, which is the huge Israeli defense aerospace.
It’s the biggest business in Israel, in fact — biggest single firm. This was a time — this was the early ’80s — when there’d been a row, a big argument, here in Washington because the United States had wanted to sell F-15 fighters to Saudi Arabia.
The Israeli lobby here had kicked up a huge fuss saying, “You shouldn’t be selling these planes, but if you must, you shouldn’t can’t sell them with the extra fuel tanks that will enable them to reach Israel and bomb Israel should the Saudis get that idea.”
So the Carter administration had agreed that the F-15s would not have the extra fuel tanks.
A few years later we were talking to this gentleman from Israel Aircraft Industries who said, “Do you remember those fuel tanks that weren’t allowed to go to Saudi Arabia?” We said, “Yes.” And he said, “Do you remember how that ban got dropped?” which it had by that point.
I said, “Yes.” He said, “Do you know where those fuel tanks get made?” I said, “Where?” He said, “Tel Aviv. We make them.” So, he was delighted. He thought that was a great joke and great business coup that his firm was making the fuel tanks which would, theoretically at least, allow Saudi Arabia to bomb Israel.
L. COCKBURN: For example, we got to know quite well a man who we refer to in the book as “the Colonel,” who is an American intelligence official working in Israel, spying on Israel, spying on the Israelis. Of course, the Israelis knew he was doing it. He knew they knew he was doing it.
When he got to the end of his term in Israel, the chief of Israeli military intelligence threw him a big going-away party and said, “We like you. You’re more Israeli than the Israelis. Now get out of here and don’t come back.” So, it’s such an interesting interplay between these people.
LAMB: You tell a story early in the book — you know, I’ve never heard anyone pronounce his full name so I don’t even know if this is right — James Jesus Angleton — or do they call him Jesus [pronounces Hesus]?
A. COCKBURN: Although it should be Jesus [Hesus] because that was in recognition of the Mexican half of his family, everyone always pronounced it Jesus.
LAMB: You tell an early story about a monument to him near Yad Vashem, the memorial to the Holocaust. Explain that story.
A. COCKBURN: Right. Well, if you’re going on the outskirts of Jerusalem on the western side at least, you have Yad Vashem, which is the very moving memorial to the Holocaust.
If you take the road past there out of town, you down the hill and you wind through a pretty village and eventually come to what’s called the Jerusalem Forest, which is full of memorial groves, if you like, to people who get honored in this way — war heros or simply people who have been killed in war or people recognized by the state of Israel.
We were driving through this one day, and the reason we were doing this was we were looking for the memorial grove, memorial forest, to James Jesus Angleton. Angleton was a CIA man, a senior CIA official, very famous for a number of reasons but he was of interest to us because he was the link for many years between the CIA and the Mossad.
The Israelis had all said to us, his old intelligence friends had said, “Oh, yes, we love Jim and Jim was a good friend to Israel and we liked Jim a lot. In fact, after he died” — which was in 1987 — “we created a memorial forest for him. It’s out there. I suppose it’s a bit hard to find.
You might not want to look for it, but I can tell you that it’s there.” So, we thought we would go and take a look. We drove out, and there were all these nice groves with nice plaques carved in stone to various people, and we can’t find the Angleton memorial.
Eventually we decided to give up, thinking we had taken the wrong direction or something. We were looking for a place to turn and there is an open space, or it looks like an open space, and we drive up, but it isn’t. It’s basically a garbage dump with a few stunted, dying little trees poking up and a plaque actually on plastic screwed to the stone to James Jesus Angleton.
So this was the memorial forest. It’s kind of hard to explain, but in a way it was an Israeli joke. It was, “Look, we’re supposed to like you a lot. We’re supposed to owe you a lot, but we don’t owe anyone anything, so here’s what we really think of you,” and it’s a garbage dump.
LAMB: Mr. Angleton is dead?
A. COCKBURN: He is dead but not forgotten.
LAMB: Isn’t there a new book just out about him?
A. COCKBURN: Yes, but it doesn’t really go into the Israeli side, which is what interests us. Angleton did a number of things. He’s been most written about because he was head of CIA counter-intelligence and got obsessed about a Soviet mole in the CIA.
Although that may be the most publicized role he had, he did other things, too, and his most important job really — and this is the role that the agency has always been very keen to obscure.
In fact, the prevented one former colleague of his in the agency from writing a book about him because they said, “Oh, my God, if he writes that book, he’ll talk about this particular job,” which was Angleton’s role as a liaison with foreign intelligence services, including the Israelis — particularly the Israelis, in fact.
This was an absolutely key role. There’s a lot of bodies buried there. What Angleton was able to do were things the CIA couldn’t do or didn’t want to be seen doing or wanted to do in this country, in which it’s legally precluded from doing.
As liaison, Angleton could go to his buddies in foreign intelligence services, and particularly the Israelis, and say, “Help us out.” Angleton was really the point man for the connection that we explain in the book.
LAMB: What would happen if all American aid to Israel was stopped and the Israelis had to shut down their arms business? What would happen to that country?
L. COCKBURN: It would be a disaster.
L. COCKBURN: Because the arms business is the engine that drives the economy of Israel. It’s the biggest export. At this point it’s such a huge part of the economy that they have to continue shipping arms, which is one reason why you get a situation where they’re shipping all over the world, and particularly unattractive situations like shipping to South Africa.
So it’s all driven by money, by the desperate need to keep this business going.
People will say to you, “Well, we had to go into the arms business in a big way because we wanted to become self-sufficient because there’s always the possibility of a next war.”
But, in fact, because they’re very military-aid dependent on the U.S., what’s happened is that they’re more and more dependent on American components, on American research and development and hardly self-sufficient.
A. COCKBURN: There is another element to that which is they have this huge arms industry that they have to keep going and is the major provider of employment in the country, especially of well-paying jobs. Their market, as wars are tailing off around the world, they see as their principal future growth market the Pentagon here.
They’re becoming, or trying to be, in fact, more dependent on getting more business out of the U.S. military, which certainly doesn’t make them self-sufficient. If your economy depends on selling stuff to the Pentagon or tending that way, then that makes that connection even greater.
L. COCKBURN: But there’s also on the intelligence side of things — when I say their need for this military industry is desperate, you have a whole intelligence branch that was set up called LAKAM to get high-tech military technology around the world by any means, and that includes stealing it.
So you’ve had a lot of cases over the years of LAKAM operations, including in this country, going around to different companies and getting a hold of the blueprints and carting away boxes to bring back to Tel Aviv, because they have to say ahead of the curve.
LAMB: Do the Israelis lie to the public?
L. COCKBURN: In talking about this kind of stuff — covert operations, national security subjects — there is censorship in Israel. So a lot of these things can’t even be discussed. We talk about in the book the Israeli nuclear program and break some ground on this.
We talk about the Israeli chain of command, that it takes the prime minister, the head of Mossad and the defense minister to make the decision to push the nuclear button.
LAMB: Is this the nuclear facility at Dimona?
L. COCKBURN: That’s correct.
LAMB: Is that the only nuclear facility they have?
L. COCKBURN: It’s an enormous nuclear facility. But what we’ve discovered . . .
LAMB: Did you try to go there?
L. COCKBURN: Oh, I’ve been to Dimona, yes.
L. COCKBURN: No, no, no. That’s very difficult.
LAMB: Where is it?
L. COCKBURN: It’s down in the Negev. It’s out in the middle of nowhere, and what happens is when you go to Dimona, if you happen to stop the car and take a picture of it or film it or whatever, you’re out of there very quickly. One defense intelligence agency friend of ours said that he had more flat tires in front of Dimona than anywhere else in Israel.
But what we also have discovered was that Israel not only has nuclear weapons, but sophisticated tactical nuclear weapons just like we do. Remember the American Army used to have nuclear land mines, for example, all over Germany.
Well, the Israelis, we’ve discovered, have nuclear land mines seated on the Golan Heights and at one point Ariel Sharon, who is, of course, famous for the invasion of Lebanon and whatnot, went to [Menachem] Begin and said, “Look, you’re busy,” and had a terrible relationship at the time with the chief of Mossad.
Menachem Begin came to be Israeli Minister of Defense
He wanted to take over sole control of the nuclear button, and Begin, fortunately, said no. But this kind of thing — I mean this is why the Israelis have gone wild for the book and they’ve serialized it in Ma’ariv and written about it in Ha’aretz because they can’t talk about this sort of stuff unless it’s been printed abroad before.
LAMB: Ma’ariv and Ha’aretz are what?
L. COCKBURN: They’re two very large Israeli papers. Ha’aretz is the kind of New York Times of Israel and Ma’ariv is the conservative paper.
LAMB: You point out in your book that one of the things you did differently with this book is you’ve had a lot of translations of a lot of Hebrew in Israeli newspapers. Why?
A. COCKBURN: Because there’s an amazing amount of information that appears in Hebrew — the Israelis feel comfortable about this because if it’s in Hebrew it’s like it’s among themselves — that doesn’t get translated into English. They are very conscious of the feeling that Hebrew is like a code.
Not many people outside Israel actually speak it. So if you can say something in Hebrew, it’s almost like saying it in secret. We discovered that, for instance, the Hebrew press in Israel is very, very good, and there are a lot of good journalists.
There are very good newspapers. An amazing amount of information that never finds its way into the dispatches of foreign correspondents from Israel, very few of whom actually speak Hebrew, nor does it appear in the English-language Israeli papers like the Jerusalem Post.
Someone said to us, “Do you know what the function of the Jerusalem Post is?” We said, “What?” He said, “It’s to give the American ambassador a happy breakfast.” So they’re very conscious of, “Hebrew is for us and English is for everyone else.”
We also found with books and also some diaries and documents there was a treasure trove. The Israelis, of course, are good at keeping secrets. It’s not like they spill everything out and they have to have a freedom of information. But there is still a wealth of detail and information and color and a lot of what you need to know to understand the connection we’re talking about in Hebrew.
LAMB: How did you get it translated? Was it expensive?
A. COCKBURN: Yes, but we thought it was worth the investment.
LAMB: Can you give us an example of something that you learned that was in Hebrew that we never saw in English?
A. COCKBURN: Sure. The ’67 war, for example. The people’s general view of the 1967 war was all the Arabs sort of ganged up on Israel and may have even attacked Israel and the Israelis fought them off and won the great victory which got them the West Bank that people are arguing about today.
In fact, let me give you a quick background. Let me put it this way: We found a book of memoirs written by a guy who was the military aide to the then-prime minister of Israel.
It was a guy called Israel Lior. He gives an account in this book which has never been translated into English.
It’s available only in Hebrew; in fact, wasn’t even a bestseller there. He gives an account how on June 3, 1967 — two days before the war broke out — he was at the home of the prime minister and they were waiting for the head of Mossad to come back from Washington.
The head of Mossad had been sent to Washington to get permission, to get the green light, to launch the war. He explains, “We knew we could win” — he’s explained already in the book — ” The generals were hot to go.
They weren’t really scared of the Egyptians or anyone else, but they wanted to go ahead with this and the prime minister had been saying, ‘No, we can’t do it. We can’t attack until we have American permission.'”
He gives this very vivid description of how Meir Amit, the head of Mossad, comes back into the room at midnight. The high command is sitting around, and this being an Israeli meeting the air is thick with cigarette smoke.
Meir Amit and the Kurdish leader Mullah Mustafa Barzani
Amit walks back in and they say, “Well, what is it? Is it war or no war? Will they let us go?” Amit says, “Well, I’ve been given to understand, the Americans have told me that they will bless us if we crush Nassar, and that’s it.”
They started the war on Monday morning. He’d been to Washington and he’d seen Richard Helms, the head of the CIA, and a very few other very senior officials, also including, certainly, James Jesus Angleton, and they got permission to do it.
So that was something that had never been in English. Once you’ve read that, you understand that things are a bit different from the kind of histories you read in English.
L. COCKBURN: Well, look, whenever you’re looking into this kind of stuff, whenever you spend your life collecting frequent flyer miles to go to places like Cali, Colombia, and Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, and Thailand, and when you’re actually going out and finding out stuff, the world doesn’t fit into a neat little package.
It’s always a little different from what people expect it to ge. So, of course, it’s always controversial. The truth is controversial.
A. COCKBURN: People have trouble sometimes making Leslie out. We were talking to a master Israeli arms dealer called Shapik Shapiro who looks the part, too. He wears very expensive dark glasses and silk shirts and smokes big cigars.
We were sitting talking to him in his very elegant office opposite the Ministry of Defense in Tel Aviv, and Leslie was explaining what she’d been doing. We were talking like we’re talking now and Leslie was saying, “Oh, I’ve done this and done that,” and Shapik took a cigar out of his mouth and said, “Oh, I see. You’re a spy.”
L. COCKBURN: It’s happened more than once. But there was another, again a master Israeli intelligence operative who we were with in Manhattan. It was late at night. We were in a hotel room grilling this guy for information and he turned to us and he said, “You’re SHABAK,” which is domestic Israeli intelligence. It’s as I say, it’s always more confusing than it seems.
A. COCKBURN: On the question of being trailed in Israel, Israel — if you’re not Palestinian, at least — is quite an easy country to get into. On the way out is when they talk to you. As in most airports, they want to do a security check and see that you haven’t got a bomb in your baggage.
Over 700 Israel obstacles to Palestinian movement
But they also there give you a prolonged interrogation as to where you’ve been, want to see your hotel room, want to know who you’ve talked to.
As international flights tend to leave Israel at 4 o’clock in the morning, you’ve gotten up at 2 a.m. or not gone to bed or you’re groggy and then to be interrogated as to everyone you’ve talked to in the last month can be quite a trying experience.
LAMB: You tell the story about a group from Philadelphia — Jews, I believe — making the pilgrimage to Israel, and then you also at one point talk about one of you or the other or maybe both of you together were with Arik [Ariel] Sharon…
L. COCKBURN: I was.
LAMB: . . . traveling near the green line, the West Bank. What I’m getting at here is there was some cynicism coming through all this about what the Israelis do about American Jews coming to Israel on the pilgrimage.
Who wants to tell that? And the Golan Heights trip and Mr. [Yitzhak] Rabin coming in with his helicopter and landing and all that, if I remember it correctly.
When Palestinians are asked about Yitzhak Rabin, they remember a man who ordered Israeli soldiers to break their arms and legs.
L. COCKBURN: Yes, there is cynicism, and it’s very interesting because, frankly, you have a situation where American Jews come over and they’re donors.
I had the experience of being with a group of very big donors. We went up to a spot on the West Bank overlooking what’s called the coastal plain.
I was with Ariel Sharon, and he was making the point to them of how dangerous it was to give up the West Bank because, of course, then you could have missiles flying in from Jordan that could hit Tel Aviv or whatever.
Anyway, he gave a very good demonstration. He had the charts. Everyone was listening. Then they all got back up on the bus, and he turned to me and he said, “Don’t you love it here? Isn’t it a beautiful spot for a summer house?”
You have to understand that obviously Sharon takes security seriously. I mean, this guy is a general and has been involved in numerous wars in Israel. However, he is Israeli and there is a sense of “we’re here and you’re not. You live in New York or you live in Philadelphia. We’re here.” There’s also a certain snobbism that we talk about as well.
There is a group in Tel Aviv who are called “Wasps.” What “Wasps” mean is not the same connotation, but it’s White Ashkenazi Sabras with Proteksia, which means that you were born in Israel and you’ve got the right connections.
A. COCKBURN: You’re from the ruling class.
LAMB: Go back to the group from Philadelphia. What is the tour? When an American Jew comes to Israel and they’re donors, where do they take them?
A. COCKBURN: There are a number of set routes, but the tour we talk about here is the security tour where they’re taken to see, like the one Leslie described, the spot on the green line to show how vulnerable Israel is.
Israeli Shooting Range Offers Tourists to shoot Palestinian-Looking Targets
We describe in the book the scene where all these Philadelphians arrived to witness an Israeli army fire-power demonstration. We really tell it through the eyes of an Israeli who is watching, a correspondent for Ha’aretz, the big paper, because he reacted to it.
He said, “This is ludicrous. How demeaning for us that we have to put on this circus for these Americans who don’t understand us.”
He basically describes the Israeli soldiers having to perform like seals just for the gratification of the American donors in order to wait for the handout. He said it’s very demeaning for Israelis to have to do this. It’s a very cynical piece he wrote.
LAMB: Does the handout come eventually?
A. COCKBURN: Oh, well, the overall handout, of course, for one reason or another is many billions of dollars a year. Although the private donations aren’t as big as the U.S. taxpayer donations, they’re still very large — Israel bonds or direct contributions — so it’s something the Israelis pay a great deal of attention to.
LAMB: Was it the former defense minister, Rabin, that came in on a helicopter?
A. COCKBURN: Yes, in the Golan. In the middle of it all, there was an announcer. It’s like at a fairground. There’s an announcer crackling announcements in English. They were saying, “We’re showing you the Israeli army in training,” except all the signs were in English, which would be odd since
Israelis speak Hebrew, and all the commands that were issued were in English, too, which is, again, odd for a real demonstration.
In the middle of all this — putt, putt, putt — in comes the helicopter with Yitzhak Rabin, who made a stirring speech and everyone presented medals and awards to each other and then the IDF, the Israeli army, went on to attack the “Syrians,” which was a pile of barrels and blew them all apart.
LAMB: Do you think that this group of leaders, meaning everybody in the intelligence community and the military and in the government, are sitting behind the scenes laughing at the Americans coming over and giving the money?
L. COCKBURN: No, that’s much too strong. The reason why we put that anecdote in the beginning of the book about the demonstration that wasn’t a real demonstration was because that’s one side of Israel.
But we immediately asked people to take a tour down this street that Andrew mentioned before, Shaul Hamalekh, next to the Ministry of Defense, which is the real Israel for the security system.
LAMB: But they didn’t take the Philadelphians down the street where the defense ministry is located.
L. COCKBURN: No, and they don’t get to spend time with these kinds of people. Absolutely not.
LAMB: Why not?
L. COCKBURN: First of all, because if you’re not in the business in some way or meddlesome journalists like us, why go there? They would have nothing in common. They would have nothing to discuss. These are very tough, seasoned operators we’re talking about here.
They can’t be bothered with seeing a tour group unless they happen to be a politician.
LAMB: I asked you earlier whether or not the Israelis lie about what they’re doing, and I want to ask you the same question about the American government. Do you catch the American government in a lie when you’re covering them about things like arms and drugs?
A. COCKBURN: Why, sure. There’s a number of lies on the record. It’s of continuing embarrassment. One of the great lies of the ’80s was, for instance, that we weren’t selling arms to Iran. Well, we were. We were doing it through our Israeli proxy. In fact, as we reveal in the book, we were doing it from Day One of the Reagan administration.
We have someone we spoke to, actually, on the record, a Gen. Avraham Tamir, who is like this sort of Brent Skowcroft, sort of a shadowy back room figure, a high-level adviser to the Israeli governments through the 1980s. He told us how Al Haig gave them permission to sell arms to Iran from Day One of the administration.
Israeli military commander arrive in East Jerusalem, after Israeli forces seized East Jerusalem, during the Six Day War 1967. Left to Right: Major General Rehavam “Gandhi” Ze’evi, major general Avraham tamir, Major General Uzi Narkis, General Moshe Dayan and Lt. General Yitzhak Rabin
He also described to us, again, a lie. It was the lie that we weren’t involved in any way in the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. He described how he and Arik Sharon came to Washington in the spring of 1982 to get the green light to invade Lebanon.
He lays it all out and he explains why Haig wanted them to do it. He said Haig sort of said, “OK, we want a minor operation,” and then Tamir went like this and he said, “It’s a big word, minor,” because they went into this huge war.
LAMB: Does the American government lie?
L. COCKBURN: Oh, of course. All the time. We saw it in spades in the ’80s, particularly what we know of now as Iran-Contra. But interestingly enough, as part of that on the Central America side of things, for example, we were not given a very good picture of what Israel’s involvement was in Central America during that war.
In fact, what we reveal in the book, not only did you have an operation like Tipped Kettle where William Casey turned to the Israelis and said, “We want hundreds of tons of weapons for the Contras,” which he did, which they delivered.
You had Israeli advisers running around Honduras as early as l981. You had one of the guys on the Contra directorate who would go and regularly brief the Israeli consulate in Tegucigalpa in Honduras about how the war was going.
In Panama, Manuel Noriega — no one wants to touch him anymore but he was certainly great friends with people in the White House and in the agency as part of the whole Contra effort.
At his right hand was Mike Harari, known as “Mad Mike” in Panama, who was former chief of clandestine operations for Mossad, for Israeli intelligence. This was Noriega’s business partner.
Manuel Noriega with Mike Harari during a visit to Israel in the 1980s
This was a guy who imported half a billion dollars worth of Israeli arms into Panama and was intimately involved with the secret side of the operations, of training and supplying the Contras that were coming out of Panama.
LAMB: Where did you get all the intricate knowledge that you have of the Mike Harari departure from Panama on that night of the invasion?
L. COCKBURN: Well, that’s interesting, because there were a few very good journalists there at the time — Americans.
The Hebrew press has some excellent — I mean, there are people over there who really tried to track that down because they were very interested to see Mike Harari suddenly back in Tel Aviv.
At a time when the U.S. military controlled the ground, the air — all exit points — this guy suddenly disappears. Also the Panamanians have come up. The guy who became the chief of staff of the Panamanian military said that the U.S. officials told him to stay away from Harari — not to ask questions, just stay away from him.
LAMB: You say he got out in a C-130?
L. COCKBURN: Well, we don’t know exactly how he got out.
A. COCKBURN: We think he did, yes.
LAMB: Whose C-130?
A. COCKBURN: Well, I think there’s only one country that has C-130s in that neighborhood, and that’s the United States.
L. COCKBURN: But we don’t actually know how he left the country, how he left Panama. But he left at a time when he shouldn’t have been able to get out.
LAMB: Where is he now?
A. COCKBURN: He’s still building his new house in Tel Aviv, right?
L. COCKBURN: Yes, that’s right.
LAMB: And Mike Harari was involved originally in the Olympic massacre?
A. COCKBURN: Well, he wasn’t involved in the massacre itself.
LAMB: I mean the after-hunt.
A. COCKBURN: Right. He was in charge of a hit squad that was set up by Mossad, personally ordered by the then-Israeli prime minister Golda Meir, to go around assassinating, killing, the Palestinians who had been involved in the massacre at the Munich Olympics in 1972.
“Golda Meir said that after the Holocaust, Jews have the right to do anything they want” -Gideon Levy
They had some success, and then it all crashed to earth when they went off to Norway, he and his team, to deal with a guy known as the “Red Prince,” a very sort of important Palestinian. There was their man and they got ready and then they killed him, and it turned out to be a poor Moroccan waiter.
LAMB: When you find out things that are new and different and revealing about governments that lie, do you get mad or do you get excited when you find it out? In other words, what’s your personal reaction?
L. COCKBURN: No, I don’t get mad. I get very excited. I got very excited while we were working on this book when we got a hold of some documents, a lot of FBI files and others, that had been secret which were released under Freedom of Information about the cover-up of a series of White House administrations of Israeli nuclear espionage in the United States, and sitting there, poring over those documents, reading accounts of White House meetings, reading memos.
For example, when Nixon came into office, the second thing he asked J. Edgar Hoover to do for him was, “Get me the files on Israeli nuclear espionage.”
Likewise the Johnson administration, when CIA director Dick Helms briefed Johnson on what was going on with the Israeli nuclear program, Johnson said, “Don’t tell anybody, not even Rusk or McNamara,” who were, of course, his two very senior people. So, being able to find out, getting a glimpse of what’s happening in the real world, what’s happening on the inside is great.
LAMB: Do you get mad or do you get excited?
A. COCKBURN: Sometimes I must say the enormity of some crime takes my breath away. Yes, I do get indignant sometimes. But, like Leslie and I think like most journalists, I think when you actually find out or figure out “Ah, that’s what they were up to,” that’s a great surge of excitement you get when you have that feeling.
LAMB: Here’s what the book looks like. It’s called “Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Covert Relationship,” and our guests have been co-authors Andrew and Leslie Cockburn. Thank you both.
All key people in the JFK assassination investigative Commission were either personal enemies of Kennedy—like Allen Dulles, the CIA director fired by Kennedy in 1961—or ardent Zionists. At all stages of the plot, we find a Zionist cabal including business men, politicians and Irgun-connected gangsters, not forgetting media executives, all devoted to Israel.-Did Israel Kill the Kennedys?
“The truth appears to be out of our reach.” – Tony Dokoupil, “Who Killed RFK?” CBS News, May 28, 2018
“In the three years since 9-11, we’ve begun to understand that it’s possible to know what happened without knowing what happened.” – “The Public Knowledge of 9-11”, New York Times, September 11, 2004
“Since almost the earliest days of the Israeli state and the earliest days of the CIA a secret bond, a secret link between them, basically by which the Israelis — the Israeli intelligence — did jobs for the CIA and for the rest of American intelligence. You can’t understand what’s been going on around the world with American covert operations and the Israeli covert operations until you understand that the two countries have this secret arrangement.” – Andrew Cockburn: Dangerous Liaisons
The murder of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy (RFK), the leading presidential candidate when he was shot in Los Angeles on June 5, 1968, profoundly changed American history.
The RFK murder case, in which a Palestinian immigrant was blamed, has several similarities with the assassination of the senator’s brother, President John F. Kennedy in 1963, and the terrorist attacks of 9-11 three decades later.
If we examine the peculiar characteristics these crimes have in common, what will it reveal about the culprits?
If we find a high degree of commonality linking these political atrocities is it possible to deduce something about the nature of the criminal network behind them?
Are we dealing with different criminal networks, or one? Is it domestic or foreign?
These three crimes are similar in several ways. On the general level each crime was in effect a coup that radically changed American political history through violence.
The murder of John F. Kennedy abruptly ended a progressive and popular presidency; the assassination of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy prevented JFK’s reform-minded crime-fighting brother from becoming president; and the terror attacks of 9-11 ushered in a radical policy coup and a new era focused on waging the fraudulent War on Terror, an Israeli stratagem to rule the Middle East.
Another shared characteristic is that these crimes were all false-flag deceptions in which a fall guy was scapegoated to conceal a more elaborate crime.
Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Bishara Sirhan, and Osama bin Laden are the “lone gunmen” blamed for the crimes in the official narratives.
In spite of ample evidence clearly disproving the official stories, to this day the mainstream media promotes the false narratives.
Jack Rubinstein’s girlfriend: “Jack had bosses, just like everyone else. He was instructed on what he needed to do, therefore he did it
In all three cases official investigations were set up to support the false narrative. The agencies involved in the investigations participated in the confiscation and destruction of evidence that challenged their story.
Likewise, in each case the controlled media failed to conduct its own investigation and ignored irrefutable evidence that disproves the official story.
The media cover-ups have gone on for decades in spite of well-documented evidence, such as the autopsy report of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy which clearly proves he was killed by a second shooter behind him.
How is it that decades go by without the truth coming out in the media; without the evidence being discussed? Who has the power to exercise such control over the media?
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr does not believe that Sirhan Sirhan killed his father. Sirhan Sirhan was a Palestinian refugee from 1948 Jerusalem. Mossad set him up as patsy.
The autopsy of Robert Kennedy clearly shows that the fatal shot was fired from directly behind the senator, while Sirhan Sirhan was several feet in front of him.
This means the false narratives are being protected to allow the secret cabal behind these crimes to avoid being exposed and prosecuted.
This has been going on for more than fifty years, which means the criminal terrorist network responsible for all three atrocities remains in power and is able to carry out similar crimes whenever it wants – and it does.
The cabal behind the murders of the Kennedys and 9-11 is still in power at the highest levels of our government and media. This is why it is extremely important that the criminal network responsible for these heinous crimes be identified.
Mossad’s Ulysses Project’s secret operatives took on false identities, married Palestinians, had children – all while feeding intelligence to Israeli operators
“SIRHAN DID NOT KILL MY FATHER.”
The fact that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has spoken out and is calling for an investigation into the assassination of his father fifty years ago is commendable. His doubts about who really murdered his father were published in a Washington Post article on May 26, entitled “Who killed Bobby Kennedy?
His son RFK Jr. doesn’t believe it was Sirhan Sirhan.”
“There were too many bullets,” Kennedy Jr. said. “You can’t fire 13 shots out of an eight-shot gun.” Furthermore, as the article reported, “Kennedy was shot at point-blank range from behind, including a fatal shot behind his ear.
But Sirhan, a 24-year-old Palestinian immigrant, was standing in front of him.
Was there a second gunman? The debate rages to this day.”
It should be clear that we are not really talking about a raging debate, but rather a media and government cover-up of well-documented facts.
The murder of 3 Israel teens blamed on Hamas lie at the feet of Mossad, as almost everything that happens in the Middle East is. This would be an imp shift for Israel which blamed Hamas entirely in justifying why it launched Gaza war
Los Angeles Coroner Thomas Noguchi conducted the official autopsy on the body of Robert Kennedy on the morning of June 6, 1968, and found that the shot that killed RFK “had entered through the mastoid bone, an inch behind the right ear and had traveled upward to sever the branches of the superior cerebral artery.”
Noguchi wrote about the murder in a book entitled Coroner (1983), in which he said, “Until more is precisely known…the existence of a second gunman remains a possibility. Thus, I have never said that Sirhan Sirhan killed Robert Kennedy.”
Paul Schrade, a member of the Kennedy entourage, has been trying since 1974 to persuade authorities to reinvestigate the case and identify the second gunman. Robert Kennedy, Jr. has joined forces with Schrade in calling for a new investigation.
“The fact that Robert Kennedy Jr. would say, ‘Sirhan did not kill my father,’” Schrade told the Boston Globe, “I think that’s very effective.”
“Yes, he did shoot me. Yes, he shot four other people and aimed at Kennedy,” Schrade said about Sirhan. “The important thing is he did not shoot Robert Kennedy.
Why didn’t they go after the second gunman? They knew about him right away.
They didn’t want to know who it was. They wanted a quickie.”
In a statement to the author of “Who Killed Bobby? The Unsolved Murder of Robert F. Kennedy,” before Sirhan’s parole hearing in 2016, Schrade said:
The LAPD and LA DA knew two hours after the fatal shooting of Robert Kennedy that he was shot by a second gunman and they had conclusive evidence that Sirhan Bishara Sirhan could not and did not do it.
The official record shows that [the prosecution at Sirhan’s trial] never had one witness – and had no physical nor ballistic evidence – to prove Sirhan shot Robert Kennedy.
Why did Mohamed Atta speak Hebrew?
Evidence locked up for 20 years shows that the LAPD destroyed physical evidence and hid ballistic evidence exonerating Sirhan, and covered up conclusive evidence that a second gunman fatally wounded Robert Kennedy.
In calling for a new investigation into the murder of his father, Robert Kennedy, Jr. is like the relatives of the 9-11 victims who want a proper forensic investigation of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
The fact that none of these cases were properly investigated from the beginning is the first shared characteristic; in all three cases there was flagrant tampering and outright destruction of evidence.
Who is being protected by the failure to investigate the evidence from these crimes? Who has the power to control and corrupt such investigations?
Musta’ribeen, or mista’arvim in Hebrew, is a word that is derived from the Arabic “musta’rib”, or one that is specialized in Arabic language and culture. In Israeli security terms, the word denotes security forces who disguise themselves as Arabs and carry out missions in the heart of Palestinian societies or other countries.
Another peculiar similarity is that the Ambassador Hotel, where RFK was killed, and the World Trade Center were both owned by Zionist Jews who had very high-level connections to the state of Israel.
In both cases the ownership of the building also appears to have played a key role in the crime.
In the case of World Trade Center, having control of the property allowed the terrorists to prepare the buildings for the explosive demolitions that occurred on 9-11. Larry Silverstein, former national director of the United Jewish Appeal (UJA), a major funding operation for Israel, obtained control of the Twin Towers about five weeks before 9-11.
For years prior to 9-11, Silverstein had regular weekly phone calls with Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the godfather of the War on Terror, which began as a result of the false-flag terror attacks.
What were Netanyahu and Silverstein talking about every Sunday afternoon?
The Ambassador Hotel was owned by J. Myer Schine who was connected to the Jewish Mob and the Henry Crown family.
The Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles was owned by Junius Myer Schine, father-in-law of Lester Crown, son of Henry Crown (born Krinsky), the largest shareholder of General Dynamics, a leading defense contractor.
Henry Crown was a high-level Zionist agent who sent an aircraft manufacturing plant to Israel in the early 1950s in violation of U.S. law.
The factory he sent to Israel illegally became the original Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) plant.
Jack Bernstein stated that the 23 October 1983suicide bombing attack on the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon where 241 Marine personnelwere killed was planned by the Israeli military intelligence (the Mossad). Bernstein stated thatthe purpose for the attack on the marine base was to turn the American people against the Arabsin order to draw the United States into the war to help Israel.449[2012 Book] 9/11Enemies Foreign and Domestic by Edward Hendrie
Under Myer Schine’s ownership the Ambassador Hotel hosted the gambling operations of Mickey Cohen, the West Coast lieutenant of Jewish mob boss Meyer Lansky.
U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy had been involved in the prosecution of Cohen in which he was convicted for tax evasion and sent to Alcatraz in 1961.
Who arranged for Kennedy to use the Ambassador Hotel?
The Ambassador Hotel had been Mickey Cohen’s base of operations in the late 1940’s when he became friends with the Jewish terrorist leader Menachem Begin who was hiding out in Los Angeles after a terrorist bombing in Palestine.
The Jewish gangster Mickey Cohen is not only connected to the Ambassador Hotel and the Santa Anita Racetrack, where Sirhan worked and gambled on the horses.
Most notably, Cohen is also closely connected to Menachem Begin, former head of the terrorist gang, the Irgun, who was in position to take advantage of his relationship with Cohen to infiltrate his criminal network, which would include being able to set up Sirhan the Palestinian to be the Manchurian Candidate fall guy in the assassination of Bobby Kennedy. How neat.
The fact that the hotel was owned by Myer Schine, whose family was closely connected to Israeli intelligence, could explain how Sirhan, an armed stranger, was allowed to loiter in the hotel pantry for thirty minutes while Bobby Kennedy was speaking to a crowd in the adjacent room.
Why would Sirhan linger in the pantry if his goal was simply to kill Kennedy? Why wouldn’t he pass through the corridor and approach the candidate on the podium from behind? Why wait in the pantry when there was no plan for Kennedy to come that way? Who was choreographing the movements of Sirhan – and Kennedy?
Who was the hidden hand guiding Robert Kennedy into the pantry where Sirhan was waiting?
Pleased to meet you, hope you guessed my name!
As the author of “I Was There When Robert F. Kennedy Died” wrote:
Later, after events began to wind down, I remembered the strange incident where Frank Mankiewicz was insistent that Bobby leave through the kitchen, rather than the ballroom.
I discreetly asked others who had campaigned with him for a long time if it made any sense that Bobby would leave through the kitchen rather than through his crowd of supporters and they all said RFK preferred to walk through a crowd after a speech.
Neither at the time—nor for many years afterward—did I mention the incident that I witnessed, nor did I see any published accounts anywhere explaining why Bobby went through the kitchen.
Frank Mankiewicz, who had previously served as a West Coast director for the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, worked with the Kennedy campaign. Why did Mankiewicz insist that Kennedy go through the pantry, where Sirhan was waiting with a loaded gun?
What kind of hotel security would allow an armed stranger to loiter in the kitchen for a half-hour with a presidential candidate speaking in the next room?
The fact that the Ambassador Hotel and the World Trade Center were owned and controlled by individuals with high-level connections to Israel is very significant.
This makes it possible to consider that Israeli agents could have taken advantage of these connections to carry out both false-flag operations.
This would explain the use of an apparently mind-controlled Palestinian as the fall guy and the universal reluctance of the mainstream media to look beyond the official story.
This would also explain the position of Zionist-controlled media outlets such as CBS News (controlled by Leslie Moonves, the great-nephew of David Ben Gurion, Israel’s founding father) and the New York Times that we will never know what happened.
They want us to think that the truth is “out of our reach” because if the truth were known it would mean the end of the Zionist project.
Iron Dome, buy one today! The Israel Defense Forces–in conjunction with their U.S. military industrial subsidiaries Raytheon, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin– placed an advertisement in the Washington Post for Israel’s $3+ billion anti-missile system, a gift from American taxpayers.
“There is no missile in the world today able to intercept missiles or rockets. Iron Dome is a sound and light show that is intercepting only Israeli public opinion, and itself, of course. Actually, all the explosions you see in the sky are self explosions.
No Iron Dome missile has ever collided with a single rocket. Open spaces are a myth invented in order to up Iron Dome’s current interception percentages.
The rockets announced as intercepted by Iron Dome either never reach the ground, or are virtual rockets invented and destroyed on the Iron Dome control computer.
To this day, no one has ever seen an intercepted rocket fall to the ground.
“What lands here is what’s launched. The parts we see on the ground are from Iron Dome itself. We’re shooting at ourselves, mainly virtually.
The virtual rocket was invented in order to increase the vagueness surrounding Iron Dome. Assume that a real rocket arrives.
What does the command and control system do?
It creates nine more virtual rockets, and transmits their paths on computer graphics to the rocket launcher operators. The launcher operators see 10 rockets and launch 10 Iron Dome interceptors.
People hear 10 booms, one rocket enters, and you get a “90% success rate.”
“Israel” creates it’s own terror on it’s citizens and the Palestinians
Prize winning Israeli defense and aerospace engineering expert Dr. Moti Shefer stated, during a recent interview with Radio 103, that the infamous Israeli “Iron Dome” security system was one of the biggest bluffs that he’d ever seen.
Palestinian rockets are believed to be a desperate means used by the resistance movements in Gaza to respond to the Israeli aggression, according to a recent report by Al Ray Palestinian Media Agency.
So far, mainstream media has reported no fatalities caused by home-made rockets fired by Palestinian resistance. In addition, the harm inflicted by these rockets, upon Israel’s colonial settler community, amounts to only a dozen or so cases of mild injury and panic.
The rising death toll of Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip runs parallel to reports of well over 200 civilian houses being bombed and completely or near-completely destroyed, as of the time of this report, with Al Ray’s latest reported incident occuring in the Al-Shate’ refugee camp, west of Gaza City.
According to Dr. Shefer, the “Iron Dome” system is but a component of a widespread conspiracy, in which two interested parties afraid of peace are participating: the defense industries and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Al Ray further reports.
Dr. Shefer’s ideas for developing interception systems were universally rejected before “Iron Dome” was developed.
U.S. Senate Doubles Funding for Israel’s Iron Dome
A U.S. Senate subcommittee approved a spending bill providing $351 million for Israel’s Iron Dome program, double what the Obama administration requested.
“It works,” said Sen. Dick Durbin, chairman of the appropriations subcommittee.The missile defense system has largely been credited with helping prevent a single Israeli casualty in the country’s ongoing conflict with Hamas, shooting down an estimated 1,000 rockets fired into the country from Gaza with over 90 percent accuracy.
The Iron Dome is made up of ten batteries, or locations equipped with rocket intercepter missiles and advanced radar tracking devices, and each missile fired costs around $50,000.In previous wars with Hamas in 2008 and 2009, Israel sent ground troops into Gaza, something that dramatically increased the death toll on both sides of the conflict.
“If we did not have it and the rockets were falling in Israel, killing people, then the Israeli army would have little choice but to enter Gaza on foot to get rid of the place where the rockets are coming from,” former Israeli defense minister Amir Peretz and architect of the Iron Dome program told The Washington Post on Tuesday.
The defense bill will provide $549.3 billion for the fiscal year beginning October 1, investing in development within the military as well as preventing the elimination of weapons programs the Pentagon proposed cutting including the A-10 Warthog, the close air support aircraft and the USS George Washington aircraft carrier.
Did the Germans turn our dead soldiers into soap and feed human remains to animals? No, but the First World War propagandists would certainly have you believe so
Israel has three faces: Communism, Fascism and democracy. The Ashkenazi Jews who migrated to Israel from Russia brought with them the ideology of socialism/communism and have put into practice much of that ideology. The Ashkenazi Jews who migrated to Israel from Germany, while sympathetic to communism and support it, tend to favor the practices of Nazi-style fascism. During World War II, in Germany these elite Zionist Ashkenazi Jews worked closely with Hitler’s Gestapo in persecuting the lower class German Jews and delivering them to concentration camps.
The Power of Myth, WW1 & 2
“We had a terrible time and at last a company of us was hemmed into a large chalk pit. We were quite powerless, and heard the German cavalry approaching. Suddenly I looked up and encircling the top of the pit was a ring of shining angels.
As the cavalry rushed up, the horses saw them and there was a general stampede. Our lives were saved and the Germans were put to confusion. Seven soldiers as well as officers saw the angels.”
So recalled a wounded British soldier from Mons, some time after the initial battle fought by the British Expeditionary Force on August 23, 1914. Or did he?
The Director of the Holocaust – Khazar Expatriate Billy Wilder Almost all the films you’ve ever seen of the Holocaust were staged. Using Allied propaganda as a rough script, directors from Hollywood were shipped to Germany and Poland to direct propaganda films for post-war use. Directors Frank Capra, John Huston, Billy Wilder, and George Stevens all worked for the Army Signal Corps’ motion picture unit. Billy Wilder caught on camera. Epic blooper!
The First World War generated a number of widely held beliefs that turned out to be false – and one of the most famous folklore tales is that of the Angel of Mons which, like the most notable myths of the war, emerged early in the conflict.
Such tales were embodied in vivid stories that appeared quickly and developed into popular acceptance with such intensity that, even today, many people remain familiar with them.
This was an era when the word of newspapers, journals and books was widely accepted as truth and the ability to confirm the accuracy of a story was far from straightforward.
Many tales were promulgated by word of mouth, and what may have started as an innocent comment, observation or joke could sometimes finish as a widespread acceptance of historical truth.
With WW2 came the American Jewish propaganda movies. The power of myth: Tailoring, altering and radically sanitizing the history of the invasion of Palestine
Despite the apparent veracity of the Angel of Mons anecdote, its origins lie in a fictional short story by Arthur Machen called The Bowmen. Published on September 29, 1914, this recounted in first-person style how phantom archers from the Battle of Agincourt repelled a German attack during the British retreat from Mons.
The story hit a nerve and variations on the idea of ghostly intervention soon began to appear in print, although this time portrayed as fact. The story of the angels provided a comforting and inspiring message that God was on the side of the Allies, so religious organisations encouraged the spread of the legend.
Linked to this idea of divine intervention was the notion that the Germans were a godless nation and enemies of Christianity. Subsequent myths – such as the belief that German troops were raping nuns, bayoneting babies and perpetrating similar atrocities as they advanced across Belgium – fostered this resentment while
serving as useful propaganda to the British authorities.
Jewish holocaust Survivor Rachel Hanan Testimony. Jews were turned into SAUSAGES!
A small number of atrocities were perhaps inevitable in the chaos of an enemy invasion, but the scale of accusations was out of all proportion. Evidence exists that atrocity stories were created and spread by propagandists from both sides. Many accounts were simply a product of the bitterness and anger fostered by war.
German ‘‘frightfulness’’ was, in the eyes of many, proved in 1915 by the mass use of poison gas at the Second Battle of Ypres in April, the sinking of the civilian passenger liner Lusitania in May and the execution of British nurse Edith Cavell in October of that year.
Q: 70%+ of all German Jews left before WW2 had started. So who did Hitler kill?And the answer is: No one! Jews were secreted away to labor camps while Christian Europe burned to the ground.
For a British population convinced of the inhumanity of Germany, it took little imagination to add further, fabricated sins to the list. The government saw a useful channel for its propaganda and the officially sanctioned Report of the Committee on Alleged German Outrages, published in May 1915, was full of sensational stories of atrocities committed by German troops, which research has shown to be at best exaggerated or in many cases fictional.
One particularly unpleasant myth widely circulated was that the Germans had constructed a ‘‘corpse factory’’ secretly behind their lines, the purpose of which was to extract useful body fats from dead soldiers in order to produce soap, fertiliser and animal feed.
The extremely unlikely nature of the story did not, however, prevent some from believing it wholeheartedly. As late in the war as October 1918, one diarist noted while marching through Bellincourt: ‘‘Passed over the tunnel bridge which contained the Hun Corpse factory. Saw this factory and a lot of naked Hun dead ready for building down into fat.’’
Perhaps the most famous atrocity story appeared in the British press at the beginning of May 1915. A Canadian soldier had been seen crucified against a barn door by bayonets thrust through his hands and feet, although no eye-witness accounts could subsequently be verified or the body located.
The myth mirrored similar allegations from September 1914 that a British officer had been crucified while the story lived on in post-war memoirs by notable authors such as Robert Graves and Vera Brittain.
Recent research has suggested that the incident may in fact have been based on an element of truth, although there remains a distinct lack of certifiable evidence. As the story first appeared days after the sinking of the Lusitania, when public opinion against Germany was at a particularly hostile level, this may well indicate that the crucifixion tale was designed to strengthen anti-German feeling.
It certainly reinforced the idea that the Germans were both uncivilized and anti-religious.
One factor behind many myths was the comforting idea that there was an external force, either divine or earthly, which would be on hand to ensure victory despite any initial defeat.
It’s official ; the moon is made of wood. And so is the WW2 narrative.
The Dutch national Rijksmuseum made an embarrassing announcement that one of its most loved possessions, a moon rock, is a fake — just an old piece of petrified wood that’s never been anywhere near the moon. The moon rock was given to the Dutch prime minister by Apollo 11 astronauts in 1969 as a gesture of goodwill. If the Dutch never examined the rock and discovered the hoax, historians would have done so at a later time. Such is the WW2 and holocaust movie narrative! It’s no crime to study and examine, and announce the results! Unless it messes up a powerful someone’s agenda…
Hitler wanted to end the war in 1940, almost two years before the trains began to roll to the camps.
On Sept. 1, 1939, 70 years ago, the German Army crossed the Polish frontier. On Sept. 3, Britain declared war.
Six years later, 50 million Christians and Jews had perished. Britain was broken and bankrupt, Germany a smoldering ruin. Europe had served as the site of the most murderous combat known to man, and civilians had suffered worse horrors than the soldiers.
By May 1945, Red Army hordes occupied all the great capitals of Central Europe: Vienna, Prague, Budapest, Berlin. A hundred million Christians were under the heel of the most barbarous tyranny in history: the Bolshevik regime of the greatest terrorist of them all, Joseph Stalin.
What cause could justify such sacrifices?
The German-Polish war had come out of a quarrel over a town the size of Ocean City, Md., in summer. Danzig, 95 percent German, had been severed from Germany at Versailles in violation of Woodrow Wilson’s principle of self-determination. Even British leaders thought Danzig should be returned.
Why did Warsaw not negotiate with Berlin, which was hinting at an offer of compensatory territory in Slovakia? Because the Poles had a war guarantee from Britain that, should Germany attack, Britain and her empire would come to Poland’s rescue.
But why would Britain hand an unsolicited war guarantee to a junta of Polish colonels, giving them the power to drag Britain into a second war with the most powerful nation in Europe?
Was Danzig worth a war? Unlike the 7 million Hong Kongese whom the British surrendered to Beijing, who didn’t want to go, the Danzigers were clamoring to return to Germany.
Comes the response: The war guarantee was not about Danzig, or even about Poland. It was about the moral and strategic imperative “to stop Hitler” after he showed, by tearing up the Munich pact and Czechoslovakia with it, that he was out to conquer the world. And this Nazi beast could not be allowed to do that.
If true, a fair point. Americans, after all, were prepared to use atom bombs to keep the Red Army from the Channel. But where is the evidence that Adolf Hitler, whose victims as of March 1939 were a fraction of Gen. Pinochet’s, or Fidel Castro’s, was out to conquer the world?
After Munich in 1938, Czechoslovakia did indeed crumble and come apart. Yet consider what became of its parts.
The Sudeten Germans were returned to German rule, as they wished. Poland had annexed the tiny disputed region of Teschen, where thousands of Poles lived. Hungary’s ancestral lands in the south of Slovakia had been returned to her. The Slovaks had their full independence guaranteed by Germany. As for the Czechs, they came to Berlin for the same deal as the Slovaks, but Hitler insisted they accept a protectorate.
Now one may despise what was done, but how did this partition of Czechoslovakia manifest a Hitlerian drive for world conquest?
Comes the reply: If Britain had not given the war guarantee and gone to war, after Czechoslovakia would have come Poland’s turn, then Russia’s, then France’s, then Britain’s, then the United States.
We would all be speaking German now.
But if Hitler was out to conquer the world — Britain, Africa, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, South America, India, Asia, Australia — why did he spend three years building that hugely expensive Siegfried Line to protect Germany from France? Why did he start the war with no surface fleet, no troop transports and only 29 oceangoing submarines? How do you conquer the world with a navy that can’t get out of the Baltic Sea?
If Hitler wanted the world, why did he not build strategic bombers, instead of two-engine Dorniers and Heinkels that could not even reach Britain from Germany?
Why did he let the British army go at Dunkirk?
Why did he offer the British peace, twice, after Poland fell, and again after France fell?
Why, when Paris fell, did Hitler not demand the French fleet, as the Allies demanded and got the Kaiser’s fleet? Why did he not demand bases in French-controlled Syria to attack Suez? Why did he beg Benito Mussolini not to attack Greece?
Because Hitler wanted to end the war in 1940, almost two years before the trains began to roll to the camps.
Hitler had never wanted war with Poland, but an alliance with Poland such as he had with Francisco Franco’s Spain, Mussolini’s Italy, Miklos Horthy’s Hungary and Father Jozef Tiso’s Slovakia.
Indeed, why would he want war when, by 1939, he was surrounded by allied, friendly or neutral neighbors, save France. And he had written off Alsace, because reconquering Alsace meant war with France, and that meant war with Britain, whose empire he admired and whom he had always sought as an ally.
As of March 1939, Hitler did not even have a border with Russia. How then could he invade Russia?
Winston Churchill was right when he called it “The Unnecessary War” — the war that may yet prove the mortal blow to our civilization.
Anybody capable of critical thinking and basic levels of research ability can work out that the holocaust is a hoax and did not happen.
About the author of this article provided by Morris
There are documented orders given by Hitler preventing massacres of Jews. Irving provides documented facts from which the reader cannot avoid this conclusion. I will avoid the story of how this came to be, but, yes, you guessed it, it was the Zionists. You simply cannot say anything that alters their propagandistic picture of history.
In the aftermath of a war, history cannot be written. The losing side has no one to speak for it.Historians on the winning side are constrained by years of war propaganda that demonized the enemy while obscuring the crimes of the righteous victors.
People want to enjoy and feel good about their victory, not learn that their side was responsible for the war or that the war could have been avoided except for the hidden agendas of their own leaders. Historians are also constrained by the unavailability of information.
To hide mistakes, corruption, and crimes, governments lock up documents for decades.Memoirs of participants are not yet written.Diaries are lost or withheld from fear of retribution.
It is expensive and time consuming to locate witnesses, especially those on the losing side, and to convince them to answer questions.
Any account that challenges the “happy account” requires a great deal of confirmation from official documents, interviews, letters, diaries, and memoirs, and even that won’t be enough.
For the history of World War II in Europe, these documents can be spread from New Zealand and Australia across Canada and the US through Great Britain and Europe and into Russia.
A historian on the track of the truth faces long years of strenuous investigation and development of the acumen to judge and assimilate the evidence he uncovers into a truthful picture of what transpired. The truth is always immensely different from the victor’s war propaganda.
Truth is seldom welcomed.David Irving, without any doubt the best historian of the European part of World War II, learned at his great expense that challenging myths does not go unpunished.Nevertheless, Irving persevered.
David Irving files a libel suit in the UK against Lipstadt and Penguin Books, publisher of Denying The Holocaust, after claiming that his Goebbels biography was turned down by US publishers following the publication of the book.
If you want to escape from the lies about World War II that still direct our disastrous course, you only need to study two books by David Irving: Hitler’s War and the first volume of his Churchill biography, Churchill’s War: The Struggle for Power .
Irving is the historian who spent decades tracking down diaries, survivors, and demanding release of official documents. He is the historian who found the Rommel diary and Goebbles’ diaries, the historian who gained entry into the Soviet archives, and so on.He is familiar with more actual facts about the second world war than the rest of the historians combined.
The famous British military historian, Sir John Keegan, wrote in the Times Literary Supplement: “Two books stand out from the vast literature of the Second World War: Chester Wilmot’s The Struggle for Europe, published in 1952, and David Irving’s Hitler’s War.
Despite many such accolades, today Irving is demonized and has to publish his own books.
I will avoid the story of how this came to be, but, yes, you guessed it, it was the Zionists.You simply cannot say anything that alters their propagandistic picture of history.
In what follows, I am going to present what is my impression from reading these two magisterial works.Irving himself is very scant on opinions.He only provides the facts from official documents, recorded intercepts, diaries, letters and interviews.
World War II was Churchill’s War, not Hitler’s war.Irving provides documented facts from which the reader cannot avoid this conclusion.
Churchill got his war, for which he longed, because of the Versailles Treaty that stripped Germany of German territory and unjustly and irresponsibly imposed humiliation on Germany.
Hitler and Nationalist Socialist Germany (Nazi stands for National Socialist German Workers’ Party) are the most demonized entities in history. Any person who finds any good in Hitler or Germany is instantly demonized.The person becomes an outcast regardless of the facts.
“History is a constantly growing tree – the more you know, the more documents become available, the more you learn, and I have learned a lot since 1989,” the BBC reported him saying.
Irving is very much aware of this. Every time his factual account of Hitler starts to display a person too much different from the demonized image, Irving throws in some negative language about Hitler.
Similarly for Winston Churchill.Every time Irving’s factual account displays a person quite different from the worshiped icon, Irving throws in some appreciative language.
This is what a historian has to do to survive telling the truth.
To be clear, in what follows, I am merely reporting what seems to me to be the conclusion from the documented facts presented in these two works of scholarship.I am merely reporting what I understand Irving’s research to have established.You read the books and arrive at your own conclusion.
World War II was initiated by the British and French declaration of war on Germany, not by a surprise blitzkrieg from Germany. The utter rout and collapse of the British and French armies was the result of Britain declaring a war for which Britain was unprepared to fight and of the foolish French trapped by a treaty with the British, who quickly deserted their French ally, leaving France at Germany’s mercy.
Germany’s mercy was substantial. Hitler left a large part of France and the French colonies unoccupied and secure from war under a semi-independent government under Petain.For his service in protecting a semblance of French independence, Petain was sentenced to death by Charles de Gaulle after the war for collaboration with Germany, an unjust charge.
In Britain, Churchill was out of power.He figured a war would put him back in power.No Britisher could match Churchill’s rhetoric and orations.Or determination. Churchill desired power, and he wanted to reproduce the amazing military feats of his distinguished ancestor, the Duke of Marlborough, whose biography Churchill was writing and who defeated after years of military struggle France’s powerful Sun King, Louis XIV, the ruler of Europe.
In contrast to the British aristocrat, Hitler was a man of the people.He acted for the German people.The Versailles Treaty had dismembered Germany. Parts of Germany were confiscated and given to France, Belgium, Denmark, Poland, and Czechoslovakia.
As Germany had not actually lost the war, being the occupiers of foreign territory when Germany agreed to a deceptive armistice, the loss of approximately 7 million German people to Poland and Czechoslovakia, where Germans were abused, was not considered a fair outcome.
Hitler’s program was to put Germany back together again.He succeeded without war until it came to Poland.
Dated 1902. We have heard the story of “False Cry of Wolf”, “6 million Jewish Holocaust” is a similar story being told since 1899, only difference is, that, in this story, there was never any wolf, only Rothschild’s desire to have possession of Palestine and Jewish homeland ‘Israel’ .
Hitler’s demands were fair and realistic, but Churchill, financed by the Focus Group with Jewish money, put such pressure on British prime minister Chamberlain that Chamberlain intervened in the Polish-German negotiations and issued a British guarantee to the Polish military dictatorship should Poland refuse to release German territory and populations.
The British had no way of making good on the guarantee, but the Polish military dictatorship lacked the intelligence to realize that.Consequently, the Polish Dictatorship refused Germany’s request.
From this mistake of Chamberlain and the stupid Polish dictatorship, came the Ribbentrop/Molotov agreement that Germany and the Soviet Union would split Poland between themselves.
When Hitler attacked Poland, Britain and the hapless French declared war on Germany because of the unenforceable British guarantee.But the British and French were careful not to declare war on the Soviet Union for occupying the eastern half of Poland.
Thus Britain was responsible for World War II, first by stupidly interfering in German/Polish negotiations, and second by declaring war on Germany.
Churchill was focused on war with Germany, which he intended for years preceding the war.But Hitler didn’t want any war with Britain or with France, and never intended to invade Britain. The invasion threat was a chimera conjured up by Churchill to unite England behind him.
Hitler expressed his view that the British Empire was essential for order in the world, and that in its absence Europeans would lose their world supremacy.
After Germany’s rout of the French and British armies, Hitler offered an extraordinarily generous peace to Britain.
He said he wanted nothing from Britain but the return of Germany’s colonies.He committed the German military to the defense of the British Empire, and said he would reconstitute both Polish and Czech states and leave them to their own discretion.
He told his associates that defeat of the British Empire would do nothing for Germany and everything for Bolshevik Russia and Japan.
Winston Churchill kept Hitler’s peace offers as secret as he could and succeeded in his efforts to block any peace.Churchill wanted war, largely it appears, for his own glory.Franklin Delano Roosevelt slyly encouraged Churchill in his war but without making any commitment in Britain’s behalf.
Roosevelt knew that the war would achieve his own aim of bankrupting Britain and destroying the British Empire, and that the US dollar would inherit the powerful position from the British pound of being the world’s reserve currency.
Once Churchill had trapped Britain in a war she could not win on her own, FDR began doling out bits of aid in exchange for extremely high prices—for example, 60 outdated and largely useless US destroyers for British naval bases in the Atlantic.
FDR delayed Lend-Lease until desperate Britain had turned over $22,000 million of British gold plus $42 million in gold Britain had in South Africa.Then began the forced sell-off of British overseas investments.
For example, the British-owned Viscose Company, which was worth $125 million in 1940 dollars, had no debts and held $40 million in government bonds, was sold to the House of Morgan for $37 million.
It was such an act of thievery that the British eventually got about two-thirds of the company’s value to hand over to Washington in payment for war munitions. American aid was also “conditional on Britain dismantling the system of Imperial preference anchored in the Ottawa agreement of 1932.”
For Cordell Hull, American aid was “a knife to open that oyster shell, the Empire.”Churchill saw it coming, but he was too far in to do anything but plead with FDR: It would be wrong, Churchill wrote to Roosevelt, if “GreatBritain were to be divested of all saleable assets so that after the victory was won with ourblood, civilization saved, and the time gained for the United States to be fully armed against all eventualities, we should stand stripped to the bone.”
A long essay could be written about how Roosevelt stripped Britain of her assets and world power. Irving writes that in an era of gangster statesmen, Churchill was not in Roosevelt’s league. The survival of the British Empire was not a priority for FDR.
He regarded Churchill as a pushover—unreliable and drunk most of the time. Irving reports that FDR’s policy was to pay out just enough to give Churchill “the kind of support a rope gives a hanging man.”Roosevelt pursued “his subversion of the Empire throughout the war.”
Eventually Churchill realized that Washington was at war with Britain more fiercely than was Hitler.The great irony was that Hitler had offered Churchill peace and the survival of the Empire. When it was too late, Churchill came to Hitler’s conclusion that the conflict with Germany was a “most unnecessary” war.
Hitler forbade the bombing of civilian areas of British cities.It was Churchill who initiated this war crime, later emulated by the Americans.Churchill kept the British bombing of German civilians secret from the British people and worked to prevent Red Cross monitoring of air raids so no one would learn he was bombing civilian residential areas, not war production.
With her book Denying the Holocaust, Deborah Lipstadt tried to show the flawed methods and extremist motives of “Holocaust deniers.” Among other things, she utterly fails to use generally recognized standards of evidence. Given the way she handles documents and data, it is clear that she has no interest in scholarship or reason. In fact, truth has been the antithesis of her enterprise.
The purpose of Churchill’s bombing—first incendiary bombs to set everything afire and then high explosives to prevent firefighters from controlling the blazes—was to provoke a German attack on London, which Churchill reckoned would bind the British people to him and create sympathy in the US for Britain that would help Churchill pull America into the war.
One British raid murdered 50,000 people in Hamburg, and a subsequent attack on Hamburg netted 40,000 civilian deaths.Churchill also ordered that poison gas be added to the firebombing of German civilian residential areas and that Rome be bombed into ashes. The British Air Force refused both orders.
At the very end of the war the British and Americans destroyed the beautiful baroque city of Dresden, burning and suffocating 100,000 people in the attack. After months of firebombing attacks on Germany, including Berlin, Hitler gave in to his generals and replied in kind. Churchill succeeded.
The story became “the London Blitz,” not the British blitz of Germany.
Like Hitler in Germany, Churchill took over the direction of the war.He functioned more as a dictator who ignored the armed services than as a prime minister advised by the country’s military leaders.
Both leaders might have been correct in their assessment of their commanding officers, but Hitler was a much better war strategist than Churchill, for whom nothing ever worked.
To Churchill’s WW I Gallipoli misadventure was now added the introduction of British troops into Norway, Greece, Crete, Syria—all ridiculous decisions and failures—and the Dakar fiasco.
Churchill also turned on the French, destroying the French fleet and lives of 1,600 French sailors because of his personal fear, unfounded, that Hitler would violate his treaty with the French and seize the fleet.
Any one of these Churchillian mishaps could have resulted in a no confidence vote, but with Chamberlain and Halifax out of the way there was no alternative leadership.Indeed, the lack of leadership is the reason neither the cabinet nor the military could stand up to Churchill, a person of iron determination.
Hitler also was a person of iron determination, and he wore out both himself and Germany with his determination. He never wanted war with England and France.This was Churchill’s doing, not Hitler’s.
Like Churchill, who had the British people behind him, Hitler had the German people behind him, because he stood for Germany and had reconstructed Germany from the rape and ruin of the Versailles Treaty.
But Hitler, not an aristocrat like Churchill, but of low and ordinary origins, never had the loyalty of many of the aristocratic Prussian military officers, those with “von” before their name.He was afflicted with traitors in the Abwehr, his military intelligence, including its director, Adm. Canaris.On the Russian front in the final year, Hitler was betrayed by generals who opened avenues for the Russians into undefended Berlin.
Hitler’s worst mistakes were his alliance with Italy and his decision to invade Russia.He was also mistaken to let the British go at Dunkirk. He let them go because he did not want to ruin the chance for ending the war by humiliating the British by the loss of their entire army.
But with Churchill there was no chance for peace. By not destroying the British army, Hitler boosted Churchill who turned the evacuation into British heroics that sustained the willingness to fight on.
It is unclear why Hitler invaded Russia.One possible reason is poor or intentionally deceptive information from the Abwehr on Russian military capability. Hitler later said to his associates that he never would have invaded if he had known of the enormous size of the Russian army and the extraordinary capability of the Soviets to produce tanks and aircraft.
Some historians have concluded that the reason Hitler invaded Russia was that he concluded that the British would not agree to end the war because they expected Russia to enter the war on Britain’s side.Therefore, Hitler decided to foreclose that possibility by conquering Russia.
A Russian has written that Hitler attacked because Stalin was preparing to attack Germany. Stalin did have considerable forces far forward, but It would make more sense for Stalin to wait until the West devoured itself in mutual bloodletting, step in afterwards and scoop it all up if he wanted. Or perhaps Stalin was positioning to occupy part of Eastern Europe in order to put more buffer between the Soviet Union and Germany.
Warsaw ghetto-Zionists starved the Jews: “The whole of Israel throughout the world is uniting to declare an economic and financial war on Germany. Fourteen million Jews scattered over the entire world are tight to each other as if one man, in order to declare war against the German persecutors of their fellow believers. The Jewish wholesaler will quit his house, the banker his stock exchange, the merchant his business, and the beggar his humble hut, in order to join the holy war against Hitler’s people.”
Whatever the reason for the invasion, what defeated Hitler was the earliest Russian winter in 30 years. It stopped everything in its tracks before the well planned and succeeding encirclement could be completed.The harsh winter that immobilized the Germans gave Stalin time to recover.
Because of Hitler’s alliance with Mussolini, who lacked an effective fighting force, resources needed on the Russian front were twice drained off in order to rescue Italy.
Because of Mussolini’s misadventures, Hitler had to drain troops, tanks, and air planes from the Russian invasion to rescue Italy in Greece and North Africa and to occupy Crete.
Hitler made this mistake out of loyalty to Mussolini.Later in the war when Russian counterattacks were pushing the Germans out of Russia, Hitler had to divert precious military resources to rescue Mussolini from arrest and to occupy Italy to prevent her surrender.
Germany simply lacked the manpower and military resources to fight on a 1,000 mile front in Russia, and also in Greece and North Africa, occupy part of France, and man defenses against a US/British invasion of Normandy and Italy.
The German Army was a magnificent fighting force, but it was overwhelmed by too many fronts, too little equipment, and careless communications.The Germans never caught on despite much evidence that the British could read their encryption.Thus, efforts to supply Rommel in North Africa were prevented by the British navy.
Irving never directly addresses in either book the Holocaust.He does document the massacre of many Jews, but the picture that emerges from the factual evidence is that the holocaust of Jewish people was different from the official Zionist story.
No German plans, or orders from Hitler, or from Himmler or anyone else have ever been found for an organized holocaust by gas and cremation of Jews.This is extraordinary as such a massive use of resources and transportation would have required massive organization, budgets and resources.
What documents do show is Hitler’s plan to relocate European Jews to Madagascar after the war’s end.With the early success of the Russian invasion, this plan was changed to sending the European Jews to the Jewish Bolsheviks in the eastern part of Russia that Hitler was going to leave to Stalin.
There are documented orders given by Hitler preventing massacres of Jews.Hitler said over and over that “the Jewish problem” would be settled after the war.
It seems that most of the massacres of Jews were committed by German political administrators of occupied territories in the east to whom Jews from Germany and France were sent for relocation.
Instead of dealing with the inconvenience, some of the administrators lined them up and shot them into open trenches.Other Jews fell victim to the anger of Russian villagers who had long suffered under Jewish Bolshevik administrators.
The “death camps” were in fact work camps. Auschwitz, for example, today a Holocaust museum, was the site of Germany’s essential artificial rubber factory. Germany was desperate for a work force.
A significant percentage of German war production labor had been released to the Army to fill the holes in German lines on the Russian front.
War production sites, such as Auschwitz, had as a work force refugees displaced from their homes by war, Jews to be deported after war’s end, and anyone else who could be forced into work. Germany desperately needed whatever work force it could get.
Every camp had crematoriums. Their purpose was not to exterminate populations but to dispose of deaths from the scourge of typhus, natural deaths, and other diseases. Refugees were from all over, and they brought diseases and germs with them.
The horrific photos of masses of skeleton-like dead bodies that are said to be evidence of organized extermination of Jews are in fact camp inmates who died from typhus and starvation in the last days of the war when Germany was disorganized and devoid of medicines and food for labor camps. The great noble Western victors themselves bombed the labor camps and contributed to the deaths of inmates.
The two books on which I have reported total 1,663 pages, and there are two more volumes of the Churchill biography.This massive, documented historical information seemed likely to pass into the Memory Hole as it is inconsistent with both the self-righteousness of the West and the human capital of court historians.
The facts are too costly to be known. But historians have started adding to their own accounts the information uncovered by Irving. It takes a brave historian to praise him, but they can cite him and plagiarize him.
It is amazing how much power Zionists have gotten from the Holocaust. Norman Finkelstein calls it The Holocaust Industry. There is ample evidence that Jews along with many others suffered, but Zionists insist that it was an unique experience limited to Jews.
In his Introduction to Hitler’s War Irving reports that despite the widespread sales of his book, the initial praise from accomplished historians and the fact that the book was required reading at military academies from Sandhurst to West Point, “I have had my home smashed into by thugs, my family terrorized, my name smeared, my printers [publishers] firebombed, and myself arrested and deported by tiny, democratic Austria—an illegal act, their courts decided, for which the ministerial culprits were punished; at the behest of disaffected academics and influential citizens [Zionists], in subsequent years, I was deported from Canada (in 1992), and refused entry to Australia, New Zealand, Italy, South Africa and other civilized countries around he world. Internationally affiliated groups circulated letters to librarians, pleading for this book to be taken off their shelves.”
So much for free thought and truth in the Western world.Nothing is so little regarded in the West as free thought, free expression, and truth.In the West explanations are controlled in order to advance the agendas of the ruling interest groups. As David Irving has learned, woe to anyone who gets in the way.
Stoltenberg’s raving ego and vanity have just been fed by the witless ovations of the US Congress, much as US President Woodrow Wilson, a century ago reveled in the adulation of the crowds of Europe as his own mad, megalomaniacal policies sold them down the river for 30 more years of war, poverty, fear, conquest and death.
An advocate for democracy and world peace, President Wilson led the United States into an unnecessary and disastrous war via false flag event. World War I has been called “probably history’s worst catastrophe.” Under Wilson, passed legislation establishing the Jewish Federal Reserve and additionally, Wilson nominated the first Jewish person to the U.S. Supreme Court, Louis Brandeis (1856-1941), who was confirmed by the Senate in 1916.
Satan, we read in the second verse of the second chapter of the Biblical Book of Job, can never just relax and take it easy. He is always on the go, always looking for more trouble to stir up.
“And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.”
And so it is with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg. A veteran prime minister of Norway for eight years and political head and chief mouthpiece for the Atlantic Alliance for the past half-decade, he started the month of April addressing a Joint Session of both chambers of Congress in Washington, an honor given to no previous head of the alliance in the past 70 years.
Not content to rest on these laurels he went on later in the month to publci boast how NATO “increased its naval presence in the Black Sea, with NATO’s maritime groups taking part in exercises and also conducting several port visits” including to Georgia and Ukraine.
He called on Russia to “respect international law” so as to “make the waters of the Black Sea more secure”, according to a CaucasusWatch.de report.
And to prepare for his epochal address to Congress, Stoltenberg ended the month of March attending military exercises in Georgia, a very small, extremely unstable state embraced and supported by both the US government and NATO despite its record of violent conflicts and oppression of minorities since achieving independence following the end of the Soviet Union.
Georgia’s military strength is derisory. It has an armed land force of only 37,000 men. The effective combat strength of the Georgian Air Force is a dozen old Sukhoi combat jets.
The idea that bringing Georgia into NATO could somehow increase the deterrent and military strength of the alliance is a ridiculous joke.
It would simply further weaken the already alarmingly-overstretched US armed forces at a time when Washington is losing the only serious land military power apart from tiself in all of NATO, Turkey.
Georgia is no Turkey: Comparable to Estonia, maybe. But Stoltenberg cannot tell the difference between any of them.
Stoltenberg’s two immediate deputies are vastly more experienced and formidable figures, both US military/strategic diplomats Alexander Vershbow and Rose Gottemoeller.
His own background showed no serious engagement whatsoever with strategic issues, as one might expect from a small, usually peaceful and secure nation like Norway.
The illusion of being one of the powerful and mighty of the world has clearly bred in him extremely dangerous, albeitabsurd delusions.
Indeed, in the only serious life-or-death security crisis Stoltenberg has ever had to face, he and his government proved utterly worthless.
On July 22, 2011, Anders Behring Breivik, a hate crazed young Norwegian neo-Nazi, singlehandedly paralyzed the national security services by setting off a bomb near the prime minister’s house in Oslo that killed eight people.
Amid the confusion, Breivik then traveled out to a youth camp of Stoltenberg’s own ruling Labour Party on a nearby island where he massacred 69 people, almost all of them teens or in their early 20s.
There was not a single armed security guard on the island. It was the worst mass killing in Norwegian history. Stoltenberg had been prime minister for seven years: The appalling state of the security services and of security for the summer camp for the children of his own followers were his responsibility as national chief executive and party leader.
He was even due to give a speech at the camp the next day and was preparing it while the young people were being slaughtered. He was never held responsible for his shameful bungles.
The idea that such a man could raise dup only two years later to lead the largest and most wide-reaching military alliance in European history boggles the mind.
Once head of NATO, Stoltenberg underwent a predictable transformation: The lifelong anti-war dove who had protested the Vietnam War in his youth, overnight became an armchair war hawk.
Today, Stoltenberg is all for sucking both Ukraine and Georgia – weak, unstable and violent states lastingly destabilized by US and Western coups – into his (supposedly) mighty NATO.
Stoltenberg’s raving ego and vanity have just been fed by the witless ovations of the US Congress, much as US President Woodrow Wilson, a century ago reveled in the adulation of the crowds of Europe as his own mad, megalomaniacal policies sold them down the river for 30 more years of war, poverty, fear, conquest and death.
Today, Stoltenberg’s capacity to wreak catastrophe is even greater. With him on the job, a lot more people than Job will suffer at the hands of Satan.
A crucial position that could be used to work for lasting peace and mutual understanding between East and West has fallen instead into the hands of one of T S Eliot’s Hollow Men: A ludicrous and contemptible phony whose witless posturing threatens to incinerate the human race.
“International forces are looking for excuses to target Muammar.
What has he done to deserve this?” asked Gaddafi’s wife Safia.
“My children are civilians and they have been targeted.
What do they have to do with this?
UN is committing war crimes.
They killed my son and the Libyan people.
They are defaming our reputation.
Forty countries are against us.
Life has no value anymore.
What would I want with life now?
All I want out of life now is that the truth be heard.
By the will of God, we will be victorious.
We will live or die alongside the Libyan people.
In the end, history will judge us.”
“In response to “Abhorrent anti-Semitic slurs and despicable conspiracy theories” by Gaddafi critics
Muammar Gaddafi threw the UN general assembly into chaos when he effectively hijacked the podium to make a rambling, unscripted speech.
“The UN says that armed force shall only be used in the common interest of all nations, but what has happened since then?
Sixty-five wars have broken out since the establishment of the United Nations and the Security Council — 65 since their creation, with millions more victims than in the Second World War.
Are those wars, and the aggression and force that were used in those 65 wars, in the common interest of us all? No, they were in the interest of one or three or four countries, but not of all nations.
From the beginning, since it was established in 1945, the Security Council has failed to provide security. On the contrary, it has provided terror and sanctions. It is only used against us.
Why is veto power only given to a few countries?
For this reason, we will no longer be committed to implementing Security Council resolutions after this speech, which marks the 40th anniversary. Sixty-five wars have broken out: either fighting among small countries or wars of aggression waged against us by super-Powers.
The Security Council, in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations, failed to take action to stop these wars or acts of aggression against small nations and peoples.
The General Assembly will vote on a number of historic proposals.
Either we act as one or we will fragment. If each nation were to have its own version of the General Assembly, the Security Council and the various instruments and each were to have an equal footing, the Powers that currently fill the permanent seats would be confined to use of their own sovereign bodies, whether there be three or four of them, and would have to exercise their rights against themselves. This is of no concern to us.
At the Libyan border, I recently stopped 1,000 African migrants headed for Europe. I asked them why they were going there. They told me it was to take back their stolen wealth — that they would not be leaving otherwise.
Who can restore the wealth that was taken from us? If you decide to restore all of this wealth, there will be no more immigration from the Philippines, Latin America, Mauritius and India. Let us have the wealth that was stolen from us.
Ahmadinejad attacked the US for its history of slavery, causing two world wars and using a nuclear bomb against defenseless people. It also slated the country for supporting military dictatorships and totalitarian regimes in Asia, Africa and Latin America. US diplomats left the chamber, quickly followed by some of their European counterparts. “lalala we can’t hear you”
Africa deserves $777 trillion in compensation from the countries that colonized it. Africans will demand that amount, and if you do not give it to them, they will go to where you have taken those trillions of dollars. They have the right to do so. They have to follow that money and to bring it back.
The wars that took place after the establishment of the United Nations — why did they occur? Where was the Security Council, where was the Charter, where was the United Nations? There should be investigations and judicial intervention.
Why have there been massacres? We can start with the Korean War because it took place after the establishment of the United Nations. How did a war break out and cause millions of victims? Nuclear weapons could have been used in that war.
Those who are responsible for causing the war should be tried and should pay compensation and damages.
Then we come to the Suez Canal war of 1956. That file should be opened wide. Three countries with permanent seats on the Security Council and with the right of veto in the Council attacked a member State of this General Assembly.
A country that was a sovereign State — Egypt — was attacked, its army was destroyed, thousands of Egyptians were killed and many Egyptian towns and entities were destroyed, all because Egypt wanted to nationalize the Suez Canal. [In response, Israel invaded in late October, and British and French troops landed in early November, occupying the canal zone.]
How could such a thing have happened during the era of the United Nations and its Charter? How is it possible to guarantee that such a thing will not be repeated unless we make amends for past wrongs? Those were dangerous events and the Suez Canal and Korean War files should be re-opened.
Journalist Keyes Beech noted that “it is not a good time to be a Korean, for Yankees are shooting them all.”
Next we come to the Viet Nam war. There were 3 million victims of that war. During 12 days, more bombs were dropped than during four years of the Second World War. It was a fiercer war, and it took place after the establishment of the United Nations and after we had decided that there would be no more wars.
The future of humankind is at stake. We cannot stay silent. How can we feel safe? How can we be complacent? This is the future of the world, and we who are in the General Assembly of the United Nations must make sure that such wars are not repeated in the future.
Then Panama was attacked, even though it was an independent member State of the General Assembly. Four thousand people were killed, and the President of that country was taken prisoner and put in prison. Noriega should be released — we should open that file.
How can we entitle a country that is a United Nations Member State to wage war against another country and capture its president, treat him as a criminal and put him in prison? Who would accept that? It could be repeated. We should not stay quiet. We should have an investigation.
Any one of us Member States could face the same situation, especially if such aggression is by a Member State with a permanent seat on the Security Council and with the responsibility to maintain peace and security worldwide.
Che Guevara 1964 speech at UN : Those who kill their own children and discriminate daily against them because of the color of their skin; those who let the murderers of blacks remain free, protecting them, and furthermore punishing the black population because they demand their legitimate rights as free men — how can those who do this consider themselves guardians of freedom? We understand that today the Assembly is not in a position to ask for explanations of these acts. It must be clearly established, however, that the government of the United States is not the champion of freedom, but rather the perpetrator of exploitation and oppression against the peoples of the world and against a large part of its own population.
Che Guevara Killed by CIA operatives.
Then there was the war in Grenada. That country was invaded even though it was a Member State. It was attacked by 5,000 war ships, 7,000 troops and dozens of military aircraft, and it is the smallest country in the world.
Reagan: the government of Grenada was in chaos; Americans were in danger; and nearby governments requested our help. So we sent in troops. Does this sound at all familiar? As it happens, there was little evidence that any Americans were in danger, and the nearby governments had asked for help largely because Reagan had requested it.
This occurred after the establishment of the United Nations and of the Security Council and its veto. And the President of Grenada, Mr. Maurice Bishop, was assassinated. How could that have happened with impunity?
It is a tragedy. How can we guarantee that the United Nations is good or not, that a certain country is good or not? Can we be safe or happy about our future or not? Can we trust the Security Council or not? Can we trust the United Nations or not?
We must look into and investigate the bombing of Somalia. Somalia is a United Nations Member State. It is an independent country under the rule of Aidid. We want an investigation. Why did that happen? Who allowed it to happen? Who gave the green light for that country to be attacked?
Then there is the former Yugoslavia. No country was as peaceful as Yugoslavia, constructed step by step and piece by piece after being destroyed by Hitler. We destroyed it, as if we were doing the same job as Hitler.
Tito built that peaceful country step by step and brick by brick and then we arrived and broke it apart for imperialistic, personal interests. How can we be complacent about that? Why can we not be satisfied?
If a peaceful country like Yugoslavia faced such a tragedy, the General Assembly should have an investigation and should decide who should be tried before the International Criminal Court.
Then we have the war in Iraq — the mother of all evils. The United Nations should also investigate that. The General Assembly, presided over by Mr. Treki, should investigate that. The invasion of Iraq was a violation of the United Nations Charter.
It was done without any justification by super-Powers with permanent seats on the Security Council. Iraq is an independent country and a member State of the General Assembly. How could those countries attack Iraq? As provided for in the Charter, the United Nations should have intervened and stopped the attack.
Why was Iraq invaded? The invasion itself was a serious violation of the United Nations Charter, and it was wrong. There was also a total massacre or genocide. More than 1.5 million Iraqis were killed. We want to bring the Iraqi file before the International Criminal Court (ICC), and we want those who committed mass murder against the Iraqi people to be tried.”
Amnesty International Confirms US Gave ISIS $1 Billion of Weapons
There are other things as well. Why is it that Iraqi prisoners of war can be sentenced to death? When Iraq was invaded and the President of Iraq was taken he was a prisoner of war. He should not have been tried; he should not have been hanged.
When the war was over, he should have been released. We want to know why a prisoner of war should have been tried. Who sentenced the President of Iraq to death? Is there an answer to that question?
We know the identity of the judge who tried him. As to who tied the noose around the President’s neck on the day of sacrifice and hanged him, those people wore masks.
How could this have happened in a civilized world? These were prisoners of war of civilized countries under international law. How could Government ministers and a head of State be sentenced to death and hanged? Were those who tried them lawyers or members of a judicial system?
My third point on the Iraq war relates to Abu Ghraib. This was a disgrace to humankind. I know that the United States authorities will investigate this scandal, but the United Nations must not ignore it either. The General Assembly should investigate this matter.
Prisoners of war held in Abu Ghraib prison were torturers; dogs were set on them; men were raped. This is unprecedented in the history of war. It was sodomy, and it was an unprecedented sin, never before committed by past aggressors or invaders.
Prisoners of war are soldiers, but these were raped in prison by a State, a permanent member of the Security Council. This goes against civilization and humankind. We must not keep silent; we must know the facts.
Even today, a quarter of a million Iraqi prisoners, men and women alike, remain in Abu Ghraib. They are being maltreated, persecuted and raped. There must be an investigation.
Turning to the war in Afghanistan, this too must be investigated. Why are we against the Taliban? Why are we against Afghanistan? Who are the Taliban? If the Taliban want a religious State, that is fine.
Afghanistan is a productive war.
Think of the Vatican. Does the Vatican pose a threat to us? No. It is a religious, very peaceful State. If the Taliban want to create an Islamic Emirate, who says that this makes them an enemy?
Is anyone claiming that Bin Laden is of the Taliban or that he is Afghan? Is Bin Laden of the Taliban? No; he is not of the Taliban and he is not Afghan. Were the terrorists who hit New York City of the Taliban? Were they from Afghanistan? They were neither Taliban nor Afghan. Then, what was the reason for the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan?
Next is the assassination of United States President Kennedy in 1963. We want to know who killed him and why. There was somebody called Lee Harvey Oswald, who was then killed by one Jack Ruby. Why did he kill him? Jack Ruby, an Israeli, killed Lee Harvey Oswald, who killed Kennedy.
Why did this Israeli kill Kennedy’s killer? Then Jack Ruby, the killer of the killer of Kennedy, died in mysterious circumstances before he could be tried. We must open the files. The whole world knows that Kennedy wanted to investigate the Israeli Dimona nuclear reactor. This involves international peace and security and weapons of mass destruction. That is why we should open this file.