Mossad, Bush planned, executed 9/11’
Gordon Duff — Press TV Dec 25, 2014
Recent revelations published on the Press TV website, the New York Post and Veterans Today have changed history.
The story was simple, two American
congressional representatives were allowed to read the Congressional
9/11 Investigation Report, this time including the areas President Bush
had ordered removed. Both congressmen clearly state that the redacted
pages of the report place full responsibility for the planning and
execution of 9/11 on one or more foreign intelligence agencies, not
“terrorists.”
What is also clear is that President
Bush’s personal role in covering this up protected the real perpetrators
of 9/11 and pushed the US into, not just two insane wars but draconian
moves against America’s government.
The NSA and the Bush 9/11 coup
Nine eleven was a coup against the
constitution. Additional reports released this week make clear some of
the reasons Bush lied to the American people, to congress, our military
and our allies, “Obama’s Director for National Intelligence, James
Clapper, has declassified new documents that reveal how the NSA was
first given the green light to start collecting bulk communication data
in the hunt for Al-Qaeda terrorists after 9/11. President Barack Obama’s
administration has for the first time publicly confirmed ‘the existence
of collection activities authorized by President George W. Bush,’ such
as bulk amounts of Internet and phone metadata, as part of the
‘Terrorist Surveillance Program’ (TSP). The disclosures are part of
Washington’s campaign to justify the NSA’s surveillance activities,
following massive leaks to the media about the classified programs by
former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. Clapper explained on Saturday that
President George W. Bush first authorized the spying in October 2001,
just weeks after the September 11 attacks.”
We can prove Bush was fully criminally culpable in covering the tracks of those responsible for 9/11.
AIPAC through Bandar and Bush “under a bus”
More frighteningly, the articles
published this week in Rupert Murdoch’s New York Daily News, written by
Hoover Institute fellow and AIPAC member, Paul Sperry, now not only
blame Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia as the 9/11 mastermind but tie Bush
(43) in as well.
In fact, the entire AIPAC apparatus,
the largest lobbying organization in Washington, is currently engaged in
a “full court press,” to stop congress from pushing for the release of
the real report. Is this because the real report accuses Israel, not
Saudi Arabia, and AIPAC wants the Murdoch/Sperry story to stand?
Bin Laden myth “crashes down”
The real report, called “shocking” by
the legislators, who have called for President Obama to declassify the
entire report, proves that there was no al-Qaeda involvement, no reason
to invade Afghanistan or Iraq and no reason to hunt CIA operative,
Colonel Tim Osman, also known as “Osama bin Laden.”
In fact, Ambassador Lee Wanta, a former
White House Intelligence Chief and Inspector General of the Department
of Defense under Reagan, has cited meetings between key government
officials and “bin Laden” that he attended, meetings held in both Los
Angeles and Washington DC while the US was supposedly hunting him.
From Wanta, who was present during
these meetings, “In early 1990, bin Laden, suffering from advanced
kidney disease, was flown to an American facility in the Persian Gulf.
From there, bin Laden flew to Los Angeles, landing in the Ontario
airport, met by Albert Hakim, representing President Bush (41), Ollie
North (free on appeal bond), Admiral William Dickie, attorney Glenn
Peglau and General Jack Singlaub, one of the founders of the CIA. Hakim
was the personal representative of President Bush and in overall charge
of the project. ‘Bud’ McFarlane, an Iran-Contra figure pardoned by
President Bush in 1992, was also a part of the group.
Bin Laden then left Los Angeles for
Washington DC. There he stayed in the Mayflower Hotel. Meetings were
held at the Metropolitan Club in Washington. Attorney Glenn Peglau
stayed at the Metropolitan. While there, Peglau’s room was broken into
and “items” removed. At no point is there record, classified or public,
that this ‘working group’ was ever dissolved nor is there any record
that Osama bin Laden’s status as a security operative working for the US
government ever ended. In 2001, Osama bin Laden’s last public statement
denied any involvement in the 9/11 attacks. There are no classified
documents tying bin Laden to 9/11 or citing him to be a ‘rogue CIA
operative.’”
Which 9/11 is real?
In 2007, the FBI flew a team to Bangkok
to interview former Soviet nuclear intelligence specialist Dimitri
Khalezov. Khalezov told the FBI that, in the morning of September 12,
2001, he attended a breakfast gathering with Mossad Operations Chief
Mike Harari and his son along with other Israeli operatives.
Khalezov reported to the FBI that this
gathering was to celebrate the 9/11 attacks, not as Netanyahu had said,
as a “fortunate happenstance for Israel” but as a Mossad attack on the
United States. At that meeting, Harari also claimed credit for a role in
the Oklahoma City bombing. According to Khalezov, Harari was courting
him to join their group for an upcoming operation, a bombing attack on
Bali, scheduled for 2002.
On October 12, 2002, a huge explosive
device devastated nearly a square mile killing 202 people. An Islamic
group was blamed, just as with not just 9/11 but, initially, Oklahoma
City as well.
Khalezov told FBI agents that Harari
claimed nuclear weapons were used to bring down the twin towers on 9/11.
Harari also said he got a “cruise type” missile, a Soviet “Granit” for
the Pentagon attack, purchased through Victor Bout, the “Lord of War”
played by Nicholas Cage in the film of the same name.
Bout, residing in Bangkok with Harari
and Khalezov, was extradited to the United States based on a highly
classified indictment accusing him of supplying the guided missile used
to attack the Pentagon on 9/11. Bout was arrested in Bangkok in 2008,
not long after the FBI visit. He was officially convicted of supplying
arms to rebels in Colombia, an activity Bout had long been engaged in on
behalf of the CIA, his arms dealing partners for many years.
Leaks
Thus far, the initial report to
congress on the Bush falsification does not qualify as a leak. Only Bush
stands accused, the 9/11 perpetrators are still safe, their identities
still protected by security protocols maintained by President Obama,
despite congressional demands.
“Claimed” leaks reported by Sperry in the Washington Post blame
Bandar and Saudi Intelligence for 9/11. Sperry cites the CIA as a
source but, quite suspiciously, seems to be attempting to deflect the
possible fallout against Israel when or if then real report is made
public. The Sperry story, coordinated with AIPAC’s moves to quell
congress’s demand to declassify the report may well be an indication
that Israeli intelligence, as Khalezov indicates, worked with Bush to
plan and execute 9/11.
From the Press TV article: “This week,
Congressional representatives Stephen Lynch (D-MA) and Walter Jones
(R-NC) have officially requested a congressional resolution demanding
President Obama declassify the heavily redacted Congressional
Investigative Report on 9/11. The two representatives had just been
given authority under penalty of ‘national security secrecy’ to read the
censored 28 pages of the 800-page report that had not been seen. What
has been made clear is that President Bush was fully aware that neither
Afghanistan nor Iraq were involved in 9/11 and that military action
against those two nations was done to cover involvement of his
administration in 9/11, involvement that included support from foreign
intelligence agencies. The representatives, while reviewing the report,
came to the portion titled ‘Specific Sources of Foreign Support.’
A 28-page section here had been
‘butchered’ by the White House on the personal orders of President Bush.
On the original report given to Congress, an estimated 5-10,000 words
were omitted from this section with page after page of dotted lines
replacing text.”
This is only the most recent of
revelations that AIPAC has managed to suppress through pressuring
congress and its powerful assets in the press. What is increasingly
clear is that many of AIPAC’s allies in Washington had access to the
non-redacted report. An entire administration, leaders in congress and
the Pentagon, the CIA, NSA and a dozen other organizations, all knew
what was in the congressional report. They all lied to the 9/11
Commission. They all ordered measures to suppress freedom at home and to
butcher hundreds of thousands around the world, kidnap and torture
thousand more, all based on lies.
Countries were virtually wiped off the
map on a whim. Often we hear it asked, “How could thousands be involved
in a conspiracy so heinous?” We now stand ready to answer. The time has
come to ask.
HJL/HJL
Imminent Iran nuclear threat? A timeline of warnings since 1979.
Scott Peterson — Christian Science Monitor Jan, 2014
Breathless
predictions that the Islamic Republic will soon be at the brink of
nuclear capability, or – worse – acquire an actual nuclear bomb, are not
new.
For
more than quarter of a century Western officials have claimed
repeatedly that Iran is close to joining the nuclear club. Such a result
is always declared “unacceptable” and a possible reason for military
action, with “all options on the table” to prevent upsetting the Mideast
strategic balance dominated by the US and Israel.
And
yet, those predictions have time and again come and gone. This
chronicle of past predictions lends historical perspective to today’s
rhetoric about Iran.
1. Earliest warnings: 1979-84
Fear of an Iranian nuclear weapon
predates Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution, when the pro-West Shah Mohammad
Reza Pahlavi was deep in negotiations with the US, France and West
Germany, on a nuclear-energy spending spree that was to yield 20
reactors.
Late 1970s: US receives intelligence that the Shah had “set up a clandestine nuclear weapons development program.”
1979: Shah ousted in the Iranian
revolution, ushering in the Islamic Republic. After the overthrow of the
Shah, the US stopped supplying highly enriched uranium (HEU) to Iran.
The revolutionary government guided by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini
condemned nuclear weapons and energy, and for a time stopped all
projects.
1984: Soon after West German engineers
visit the unfinished Bushehr nuclear reactor, Jane’s Defence Weekly
quotes West German intelligence sources saying that Iran’s production of
a bomb “is entering its final stages.” US Senator Alan Cranston claims
Iran is seven years away from making a weapon.
2.Israel paints Iran as Enemy No. 1: 1992
Though Israel had secretly done
business with the Islamic Republic after the 1979 revolution, seeking to
cultivate a Persian wedge against its local Arab enemies, the early
1990s saw a concerted effort by Tel Aviv to portray Iran as a new and
existential threat.
1992: Israeli parliamentarian Benjamin
Netanyahu tells his colleagues that Iran is 3 to 5 years from being able
to produce a nuclear weapon – and that the threat had to be “uprooted
by an international front headed by the US.”
1992: Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon
Peres tells French TV that Iran was set to have nuclear warheads by
1999. “Iran is the greatest threat and greatest problem in the Middle
East,” Peres warned, “because it seeks the nuclear option while holding a
highly dangerous stance of extreme religious militanCY.”
1992: Joseph Alpher, a former official
of Israel’s Mossad spy agency, says “Iran has to be identified as Enemy
No. 1.” Iran’s nascent nuclear program, he told The New York Times,
“really gives Israel the jitters.”
3.US joins the warnings: 1992-97
The same alarm bells were already
ringing in Washington, where in early 1992 a task force of the House
Republican Research Committee claimed that there was a “98 percent
certainty that Iran already had all (or virtually all) of the components
required for two or three operational nuclear weapons.”
Similar predictions received airtime,
including one from then-CIA chief Robert Gates that Iran’s nuclear
program could be a “serious problem” in five years or less. Still, the
bureaucracy took some time to catch up with the Iran threat rhetoric.
1992: Leaked copy of the Pentagon’s
“Defense Strategy for the 1990s” makes little reference to Iran, despite
laying out seven scenarios for potential future conflict that stretch
from Iraq to North Korea.
1995: The New York Times conveys the
fears of senior US and Israeli officials that “Iran is much closer to
producing nuclear weapons than previously thought” – about five years
away – and that Iran’s nuclear bomb is “at the top of the list” of
dangers in the coming decade. The report speaks of an “acceleration of
the Iranian nuclear program,” claims that Iran “began an intensive
campaign to develop and acquire nuclear weapons” in 1987, and says Iran
was “believed” to have recruited scientists from the former Soviet Union
and Pakistan to advise them.
1997: The Christian Science Monitor reports that US pressure on Iran’s nuclear suppliers had “forced Iran to adjust its suspected timetable for a bomb. Experts now say Iran is unlikely to acquire nuclear weapons for eight or 10 years.”
4.Rhetoric escalates against ‘axis of evil’: 1998-2002
But Iran was putting the pieces of its
strategic puzzle together. A US spy satellite detected the launch of an
Iranian medium-range missile, sparking speculation about the danger
posed to Israel.
1998: The New York Times said that
Israel was less safe as a result of the launch even though Israel alone
in the Middle East possessed both nuclear weapons and the long-range
missiles to drop them anywhere. “The major reaction to this is going to
be from Israel, and we have to worry what action the Israelis will
take,” the Times quoted a former intelligence official as saying. An
unidentified expert said: “This test shows Iran is bent on acquiring
nuclear weapons, because no one builds an 800-mile missile to deliver
conventional warheads.”
1998: The same week, former Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld reports to Congress that Iran could build an
intercontinental ballistic missile – one that could hit the US – within
five years. The CIA gave a timeframe of 12 years.
2002: CIA warns that the danger from
nuclear-tipped missiles, especially from Iran and North Korea, is higher
than during the cold war. Robert Walpole, then a top CIA officer for
strategic and nuclear programs, tells a Senate panel that Iran’s missile
capability had grown more quickly than expected in the previous two
years – putting it on par with North Korea. The threat “will continue to
grow as the capabilities of potential adversaries mature,” he says.
2002: President George W. Bush labels Iran as part of the “axis of evil,” along with Iraq and North Korea.
5.Revelations from inside Iran: 2002-05
In August 2002, the Iranian opposition
group Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK, a.k.a. MKO) announces that Iran is
building an underground uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, and a
heavy water reactor at Arak. It is widely believed that the evidence had
been passed to the MEK by Israeli intelligence.
Enrichment and reactors are not
forbidden to Iran as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT), but the failure to disclose the work prompts an IAEA
investigation and much closer scrutiny. Iran insists its efforts are
peaceful, but is found in breach of its IAEA safeguards agreement, and
accused by the IAEA of a “pattern of concealment.”
2004: Then-Secretary of State Colin
Powell tells reporters that Iran had been working on technology to fit a
nuclear warhead onto a missile. “We are talking about information that
says they not only have [the] missiles but information that suggests
they are working hard about how to put the two together,” he said.
2005: US presents 1,000 pages of
designs and other documentation allegedly retrieved from a computer
laptop in Iran the previous year, which are said to detail
high-explosives testing and a nuclear-capable missile warhead. The
“alleged studies,” as they have since been called, are dismissed by Iran
as forgeries by hostile intelligence services.
6.Dialing back the estimate: 2006-09
2006: The drums of war beat faster
after the New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh quotes US sources saying that a
strike on Iran is all but inevitable, and that there are plans to use
tactical nuclear weapons against buried Iranian facilities.
2007: President Bush warns that a
nuclear-armed Iran could lead to “World War III.” Vice President Dick
Cheney had previously warned of “serious consequences” if Iran did not
give up its nuclear program.
2007: A month later, an unclassified
National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran is released, which
controversially judges with “high confidence” that Iran had given up its
nuclear weapons effort in fall 2003.
The report, meant to codify the
received wisdom of America’s 16 spy agencies, turns decades of
Washington assumptions upside down. Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad calls the report a “victory for the Iranian nation.” An
Iranian newspaper editor in Tehran tells the Monitor, “The conservatives
… feel the chance of war against them is gone.”
June 2008: Then-US Ambassador to the
United Nations John Bolton predicts that Israel will attack Iran before
January 2009, taking advantage of a window before the next US president
came to office.
May 2009: US Senate Foreign Relations Committee reports states: “There is no sign that Iran’s leaders have ordered up a bomb.”
7.Israel’s one-year timeframe disproved: 2010-11
Despite reports and intelligence
assessments to the contrary, Israeli and many US officials continue to
assume that Iran is determined to have nuclear weapons as soon as
possible.
August 2010: An article by Jeffrey
Goldberg in The Atlantic’s September issue is published online,
outlining a scenario in which Israel would chose to launch a unilateral
strike against Iran with 100 aircraft, “because a nuclear Iran poses the
gravest threat since Hitler to the physical survival of the Jewish
people.”
Drawing on interviews with “roughly 40
current and past Israeli decision makers about a military strike” and
American and Arab officials, Mr. Goldberg predicts that Israel will
launch a strike by July 2011. The story notes previous Israeli strikes
on nuclear facilities in Iraq and Syria, and quotes Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu saying, “You don’t want a messianic
apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs. When the wide-eyed believer
gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the
world should start worrying, and that’s what is happening in Iran.”
2010: US officials note that Iran’s
nuclear program has been slowed by four sets of UN Security Council
sanctions and a host of US and EU measures. The Stuxnet computer virus
also played havoc through 2011 with Iran’s thousands of spinning
centrifuges that enrich uranium.
January 2011: When Meir Dagan steps
down as director of Israel’s Mossad spy agency, he says that Iran would
not be able to produce a nuclear weapon until 2015. “Israel should not
hasten to attack Iran, doing so only when the sword is upon its neck,”
Mr. Dagan warned. Later he said that attacking Iran would be “a stupid
idea…. The regional challenge that Israel would face would be
impossible.”
January 2011: A report by the
Federation of American Scientists on Iran’s uranium enrichment says
there is “no question” that Tehran already has the technical capability
to produce a “crude” nuclear device.
February 2011: National intelligence
director James Clapper affirms in testimony before Congress that “Iran
is keeping the option open to develop nuclear weapons in part by
developing various nuclear capabilities and better position it to
produce such weapons, should it choose to do so,” Mr. Clapper said. “We
do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear
weapons.”
November 2011: The IAEA claims for the first time that
Iran is has worked on weapons-related activities for years, publishing
detailed information based on more than 1,000 pages of design
information that is corroborated, it says, by data from 10 member states
and its own investigation and interviews.
Source.
What will happen when Iran acquires nuclear weapons?
Talk in the West about Iran's atomic ambitions is often punctuated
with the word "apocalypse." As the Soviet Union was once vilified, so
Iran is today.
The Islamic Republic is accused of exporting terrorism, is the target (along with Iraq) of an American policy of "dual containment" and sanctions, and is feared by nearly all its Mideast neighbors.
President Hashemi Rafsanjani declared in June that Iran "hates nuclear and chemical weapons." But Western sources are convinced that Iran wants nuclear weapons to counter Israel's nuclear monopoly in the region.
Opinion is divided over the result: Would Iran with nukes mean an explosion of terrorism and blackmail - or a new cold-war-style stability?
So far, American pressure on Iran's nuclear suppliers seems to have forced Iran to adjust its suspected timetable for a bomb - once thought to be 2000. Experts now say Iran is unlikely to acquire nuclear weapons for eight or 10 years. Well before then, Iran is expected to have ballistic missiles that could hit targets as far away as Israel.
"Yes, some say we must have the atomic bomb," says an Iranian official. "But we can't afford it. The political consequences are too much trouble, and it's expensive."
Iran has said it plans to build "about 10" nuclear power plants. But many question Iran's need for nuclear energy when it has the second-largest oil and gas reserves in the world.
Western analysts find several motives for a bomb. "Iran ... wants to be among the countries that count," says a Western diplomat. "They don't accept that the bomb is for India and Pakistan and not for them."
Iraq's defeat in 1991 may also have persuaded Iranian officials that conventional strength will not deter Western intervention. "They realize that even with all the faith and fanaticism, they are nothing without these weapons," he says.
Israel - which covertly acquired elements of its own nuclear arsenal, including advanced US nuclear design technology, according to the London-based monthly Jane's Intelligence Review - has been the first to sound the alarm, strongly hinting it might strike Iran's nuclear facilities, just as it hit Iraq's reactor with warplanes in 1981.
But politicians' words and "intelligence leaks" sometimes seem designed to magnify the threat, providing Israel with a tool for swaying internal and US public opinion.
Fears are also voiced in tiny, oil-rich shiekhdoms to the south. "When Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it will blackmail all its neighbors," says Jamal al-Suwaidi, director of the Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research in Abu Dhabi. "It will put the whole Gulf under a cloud."
Iran's stated policy is to ensure peace in the region. And some argue that nuclear weapons could provide that stability.
"When Mao and Stalin acquired nuclear weapons, they calmed down," says Martin van Creveld, an Israeli military historian in Jerusalem. "If Islamic states get the bomb, the effect will be the same. Once you have the 'absolute weapon,' war ceases to be fun. It becomes suicide."
Activist writer Bruce Campbell was recently interviewed by PressTV.
Iran Eyes 'The Bomb,' West Watches
Would nuclear arms bulk up a bully, or be a step toward stability by creating a stalemate?
TEHRAN, IRAN. http://www.csmonitor.com/1997/0730/073097.intl.intl.5.html
Related stories
The Islamic Republic is accused of exporting terrorism, is the target (along with Iraq) of an American policy of "dual containment" and sanctions, and is feared by nearly all its Mideast neighbors.
President Hashemi Rafsanjani declared in June that Iran "hates nuclear and chemical weapons." But Western sources are convinced that Iran wants nuclear weapons to counter Israel's nuclear monopoly in the region.
Opinion is divided over the result: Would Iran with nukes mean an explosion of terrorism and blackmail - or a new cold-war-style stability?
So far, American pressure on Iran's nuclear suppliers seems to have forced Iran to adjust its suspected timetable for a bomb - once thought to be 2000. Experts now say Iran is unlikely to acquire nuclear weapons for eight or 10 years. Well before then, Iran is expected to have ballistic missiles that could hit targets as far away as Israel.
"Yes, some say we must have the atomic bomb," says an Iranian official. "But we can't afford it. The political consequences are too much trouble, and it's expensive."
Iran has said it plans to build "about 10" nuclear power plants. But many question Iran's need for nuclear energy when it has the second-largest oil and gas reserves in the world.
Western analysts find several motives for a bomb. "Iran ... wants to be among the countries that count," says a Western diplomat. "They don't accept that the bomb is for India and Pakistan and not for them."
Iraq's defeat in 1991 may also have persuaded Iranian officials that conventional strength will not deter Western intervention. "They realize that even with all the faith and fanaticism, they are nothing without these weapons," he says.
Israel - which covertly acquired elements of its own nuclear arsenal, including advanced US nuclear design technology, according to the London-based monthly Jane's Intelligence Review - has been the first to sound the alarm, strongly hinting it might strike Iran's nuclear facilities, just as it hit Iraq's reactor with warplanes in 1981.
But politicians' words and "intelligence leaks" sometimes seem designed to magnify the threat, providing Israel with a tool for swaying internal and US public opinion.
Fears are also voiced in tiny, oil-rich shiekhdoms to the south. "When Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it will blackmail all its neighbors," says Jamal al-Suwaidi, director of the Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research in Abu Dhabi. "It will put the whole Gulf under a cloud."
Iran's stated policy is to ensure peace in the region. And some argue that nuclear weapons could provide that stability.
"When Mao and Stalin acquired nuclear weapons, they calmed down," says Martin van Creveld, an Israeli military historian in Jerusalem. "If Islamic states get the bomb, the effect will be the same. Once you have the 'absolute weapon,' war ceases to be fun. It becomes suicide."
Dr Frankenstein’s Monster, by JR Campbell
JR Campbell — Darkmoon Jan 13, 2014
Activist writer Bruce Campbell was recently interviewed by PressTV.
You will find a full transcript of the interview HERE.
The article below, which contains some extra material, formed the basis of the interview.
“America must stop being Dr. Frankenstein’s monster.” — JB Campbell
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=88397
The American and Israeli Jews are worried that their power is slipping because of growing public awareness of their terrible achievements in the past, such as the destruction of Iraq. They were thwarted in their planned destruction of Syria and are now determined to show their power over at least sixty cowardly US senators to achieve the destruction of Iran.
The Jews here in America say they are a tiny minority – just two percent – yet they are able to control sixty percent of the US Senate in any important matter, such as maneuvering the US military to attack Iran – in the middle of negotiations! The Jews in America proved this in 1917 and 1941, despite the anti-war attitude of the American people back then. We waged total war against people the Jews didn’t like. Scores of millions died and much of the world was destroyed. The peoples of the world have never known peace since those horrible years.
They proved it in 1991 and in 2003. The Jewish Neo-Cons demanded total war against Iraq despite no hostile action by that country, which was totally destroyed.
The Jews are again showing their power over cowardly American politicians. Virtually overnight they are able to blackmail enough US senators to destroy another peaceful country with sadistic and aggressive sanctions. Sanctions, like surveillance, are a prelude to total war and are in fact a form of total war, as we saw with Japan, Germany and Iraq.
Like Iran, America has a Jewish problem.
The Jews have made the entire US Congress a laughingstock – except, no one can laugh at such a Frankenstein monster. The monster has slaughtered millions of innocent, normal people all over the world – over two million just in Iraq since ’91.
Dr. Frankenstein wants his monster to kill millions more.
Jewish power in America can only be ended by the American Defense Party, which is dedicated to shutting down the tyrannical federal government. It is tyrannical because it is controlled by Jews, who own the Federal Reserve, AIPAC and the Council on Foreign Relations. There is no other way to deal with these insatiable criminals who have seized control of the US government and have used it for a hundred years to kill millions of normal people and create a totalitarian world government.
They must be stopped forever and only the American Defense Party has the plan to do this. America must stop being Dr. Frankenstein’s monster.
http://www.americandefenseparty.com/#/
SourceUS attacks Israeli minister for ‘offensive’ remarks about Kerry
Press TV — Jan 14, 2014
The United States has lashed out at Israeli Minister of Military Affairs Moshe Ya’alon for making “offensive and inappropriate” comments about Secretary of State John Kerry.
Israeli media reported earlier that during a meeting behind closed doors Ya’alon called Kerry’s efforts for Israeli-Palestinian peace “messianic and obsessive.”
In a strong response on Wednesday, US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said that the remarks are “offensive and inappropriate especially given all that the US is doing to support Israel’s security needs.”
“Secretary Kerry and his team including General (John) Allen have been working day and night to try to promote a secure peace for Israel because of the Secretary’s deep concern for Israel’s future,” she added.
“To question his motives and distort his proposals is not something we would expect from the Defense Minister of a close ally,” Psaki said.
According to Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, the Israeli minister said Kerry, “who has come to us determined and is acting out of an incomprehensible obsession and a messianic feeling, cannot teach me a single thing about the conflict with the Palestinians.”
“The only thing that can save us is if Kerry wins the Nobel Prize and leaves us alone,” Ya’alon was quoted as saying by the paper.
In recent weeks, the Obama administration has been trying to nudge Israelis and Palestinians towards a peace framework.
The latest US quest for a long-elusive “peace deal” between Israel and Palestine has shown little sign of progress since the top US diplomat revived direct talks in July 2013 after a three-year deadlock.
Earlier this month, Kerry arrived in Tel Aviv and immediately headed for al-Quds (Jerusalem) to broker negotiations aimed at creating a Palestinian state alongside Israel.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accuses the Palestinian leaders of not being committed to negotiations.
However, Palestinian authorities say that Israel’s refusal to stop building settlements in the occupied territories is one of the stumbling blocks to the US-brokered direct talks.
AGB/AGB
Source
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar