UK, January 25, 2010 (Pal Telegraph) - Why, in a period of only two days, has the security level in the United States been upgraded from "substantial" (an attack is a strong possibility) to "severe" (an attack is highly likely), even though our Home Secretary stressed that there was no intelligence suggesting an attack is imminent? It's all about the four Ps: pursue, prevent, protect and prepare. However, perhaps those four Ps really stand for "Panic People and Prevent Privacy."
Could it be a diversionary tactic to strengthen an ailing leader's popularity? You know what they say: When you are at an all-time low in ratings, start a war or create a "false flag" to panic your public! Once you have stirred them up into total hysteria, you can implement additional security measures that give more power to the government and less freedom to the public.
The threat upgrade also happened to coincide with two very important conferences in London -- one for Afghanistan and one for that new kid on the block, Yemen! Could this be an attempt to add strength to the new wave of political maneuvering prior to the election? Or to provide justification for our presence in Afghanistan? Or maybe even to build support for providing development and military aid to Yemen, even when the domestic economy is cash-starved?
One other very important event is taking place in London this week, the appearance of ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair at the Iraq Inquiry. It certainly points towards a diversionary conspiracy.
If the pathetic attempted bombing of the Delta Airlines plane in Detroit is an example of the threat to our respective nations, then my advice would be to carry on watching cricket! The spin from the ball is much more reliable than the spin from our leaders and their advisers. Why are we suddenly bombarded with so much "verbal diarrhoea" (a common ailment that first emerged before the Gulf War, when our leaders talked about WMDs and then later about Al Qaeda or other militant elements in Iraq as being a danger to our countries)? We heard the same story about Afghanistan, Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Suddenly our leaders switched the locus of the threat to Pakistan. Good old Obama, while visiting the UK's Gordon Brown, even went as far as saying that the streets of Britain were under greater threat than those of the Unite States. And now, the scene is switching to Yemen. Doesn't anyone out there ever ask themselves if all of this spin true? Or ask how a group of militias numbering just a couple of hundred in Afghanistan, three to four hundred in Pakistan and another several hundred in Yemen pose such a horrendous threat to our communities? Maybe we should also ask some more questions: How could a large, high-tech attack in Afghanistan, such as that on the Tora Bora mountains, manage to allow Al Qaeda to escape over the border? How can an army the size of 100,000 situated in one Pakistani province miss a small group of fighters when its location was known? And why wasn't the U.S., UK and NATO troops on the other side of the border when the Pakistan army pushed them back towards Afghanistan?
Let's just look for one moment at the size, weaponry and technology behind the coalition forces compared to the paltry possessions of the so-called terrorists (I would rather call them freedom fighters). Let's also look at what motivates these tribal-like armies, such as Al Qaeda (that is, assuming they exist). Could it be that the war on terror is just one big fraud designed to cover up the monopolists' economic greed and scare the public into yielding to their demands? Could it be their real intention is to create a police state in which we all exist as docile lambs? Could it be that whenever the people in power seek to take over or control someone else's natural resources, they initiate a "false flag scenario" to justify intervention? Could there be a strong connection to oil or gas or potential pipeline routes? And what about the wealth in copper ore that stretches from just south of Kabul and extends up around Bagram? Or the opium that is under our protection but is still flooding the Russian market in volumes higher than ever before? I guess one could say this would come under the commercial term of "high yield for a low investment."
Maybe we should also dwell on other possible conspiracies, including so many unanswered aspects of 9/11. However, before doing so, let me draw your attention to a most interesting interview that took place with a very controversial U.S. filmmaker, Aaron Russo. He was a wonderful filmmaker who always looked for the truth and was befriended by that notoriously evil man, Nick Rockefeller. As you may know, Rockefeller, Rothschild's, Bilderberg Group and other international bankers play a vital role in what can only be described as the cabal that controls the world through their associated companies and organizations (the "New World Order").
The interview reveals Rockefeller's first-hand knowledge of the elite global agenda. During the videotaped interview, Rockefeller told Russo about a plan to microchip the population, warned him about "an event that would allow us to invade Afghanistan and Iraq: some 11 months before 9/1, and predicted that the "War on Terror"would be a hoax in which soldiers would be looking in caves for non-existent enemies. Rockefeller also tried to recruit Russo to the Council on Foreign Relations. This picture provided by the Russo family verifies his friendship with Rockefeller. Watch and listen carefully, and draw your own conclusion:Â www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGAaPjqdbgQ&feature=related
Let's return to the superiority of the coalition forces and ask the question, "If the Taliban is the new enemy instead of Al Qaeda, why are we not targeting its locations? And if Pakistan is emerging threat as we have been advised by Obama and Brown, why are we now talking about Yemen?"
So how superior are we? First of all, in satellite technology and airborne unmanned platforms such as the Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), we have a generation of sophistication that almost allows one to read a newspaper from space. Take the spy satellite technology of yesterday and today for instance. We have what you can call a mother ship that acts like a platform for its babies that are called tethered satellites. These smaller satellites are tethered to their mother ship by an umbilical cord. They can come down to a lower orbit and with great detail provide you all of the data you require to carry out retaliatory action or plan your next mission.
In addition, we have the remotely piloted UAVs that fly continuously over a given conflict area such as Gaza with cameras, sensors, communications equipment or other payloads. They have been used in a reconnaissance and intelligence-gathering role since the 1950s, and today are also used for more challenging functions such as combat missions. Along with high-tech surveillance equipment (including night vision infrared lenses) they can carry weapons such as the indiscriminate Hellfire missiles. Pilots of conventional fighter aircraft and helicopters have frequently described their ability to pass through a building and into an adjacent block, killing innocent civilians. They also carry "bunker busters" that are known to contain uranium components; these also are totally indiscriminate in releasing their radioactive nanoparticle aerosols over international borders.
The UAVs vary in size from a small toy-like glider with fitted camera to a much larger aircraft with one or two engines that can carry much bigger payloads. All are controlled from far away locations in much the same way as our children play with their computer games. It is hard to imagine that a military or CIA operative can sit in his armchair in the United States and control a UAV flying over northern Pakistan. It is possible, although debatable, that he can zoom in, identify his potential enemy and release his deadly payload. Alternatively, Â he can also coordinate an attack from other military aircraft using laser beam technology. As an example, a fighter or bomber aircraft can remain outside the conflict zone at high altitude and release its payload of bombs or missiles from as far away as 60 miles or more with the help of satellite technology. Â UAVs also can make a weapon pass through a small window in your bathroom, for instance, and crisp everyone within that building beyond recognition. I am sorry for being so graphic, but it is critical to understand the sophistication of today's technology and also fully understand that our respective armed forces are using WMDs with uranium components. This is contaminating and killing our own troops and many thousands if not millions of innocent civilians around the world.
Then we have the huge array of bombers, fighters and helicopters and over-the-horizon missiles/rockets, etc. that can wipe out entire city blocks or areas. Some of those weapons, such as the Massive Ordnance Air Burst Bomb (MOAB) and the Massive Air Penetrator Bomb (MOP), can cause immense damage and even trigger an earthquake. We also have a new type of weapon for the foot soldier to use called the XM25 that is like a grenade launcher.It can be fired in the vicinity of the enemy without actually seeing him and comes with a laser distance reader. By aiming just a little bit beyond the target, the projectile will burst overhead or behind the target, killing everyone in the area -- even those inside buildings. We now have new missiles in the pipeline that will travel at hyper-speed....So, when you hear such a missile, it may well be many miles away. And then you have the Star Wars laser weapons that make the future look rather grim to say the least. Couple this with the fact that most of today's weapons contain uranium, which means we are spreading radiation around the globe by way of nanoparticle aerosols.
These genocide-creating weapons started being used extensively by NATO during the Balkans War in 1999 (although, in actual fact, NATO carried out air strikes as early as 1995). This continuous and unrelenting bombardment of our atmosphere has now been going on for more than 15 years and consequently has been adding more cancers, more diabetes, more mental health disturbances, more infertility, more still births and other grossly disfigured babies to our respective populations. I ask you, the public, to ask how Obama, Brown and all the other spin doctors declare their wish to ban nuclear weapons under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, yet re-classify smaller nuclear weapons as conventional weapons. This is an absolute sham, as is the war on terror and so many other government attempts to obscure the truth.
Let's return to our military technology. Now we come to our ground forces, supplemented by all of the above technology plus the other weapons they can use. In Gaza, for instance, the Israelis fired shells containing white phosphorus, which rained down on the highly populated districts of Gaza City. The result was totally indiscriminate, with terrible effects. The putrid smoke alone is extremely toxic for babies and young children, and on impact, the debris can burn right down to the bone. When the surgeon cleans the wound, the white phosphorous can re-ignite when it comes into contact with oxygen. This has even happened with corpses in the morgue.
Then we have flachette weapons that burst over a target area and send thousands of tiny, lethal darts in all directions, themselves in concrete walls. Dense Inert Metal Explosive (DIME ) weapons fragment and throw off thousands  of tiny pieces of tungsten or other additives, acting like a diamond saw by stripping flesh or taking off a limb. Last but not least, there are the many weapons that contain uranium components. They are "mini nukes" that contaminate the target area and adjacent ones as well.
These nanoparticle aerosols drift on the wind to the far corners of the globe. To prove this occurs, I can draw a chart on any given day and map where these particles travel. That is why, during the "Shock and Awe" attack on Baghdad and the "Tora Bora" attack in Afghanistan, the atmospheric filters in Oxfordshire almost went off the scale with airborne radiation contamination. Needless to say, while Brits were relaxing and watching TV, no one said a thing! Also note on the adjacent map that the contamination  is circulating in the UK and EU.
So I ask the question: With all this might and sophistication, how can an extremely well-equipped army fail to destroy an imaginary terrorist army called Al Qaeda, which in both Afghanistan and Pakistan amounts to around 400 Â foot soldiers at most? Why are the troops not fighting in the area where Al Qaeda exists? Why are they fighting in south Afghanistan, and for what reason? The answer is simple: It all has to do with oil, gas and other natural resources as usual. The TAPI pipeline will travel via Herat - Helmand - Kandahar and the coalition needs to secure its route before construction can take place. That is where we are fighting and where our troops are dying....all in the name of "democracy".....What an absolute con.
I became very emotional over the weekend when I learned of the death of another two British soldiers. One guy...only 19 years old...died in the arms of his comrades on the battlefield. He asked them before he passed away to tell his mum that he loved her very much. No doubt our government will seize this sad event as an opportunity to stoke patriotism by saying this brave hero died so that the streets of Britain could remain safe. Tis is what makes one feel intensely sick......especially when his death was in the region of the proposed TAPI pipeline. I am sorry to say he actually died for the U.S. and our economic greed. The other issue here is that Afghanistan is also rich in many other natural resources, including uranium.
It is obvious that the U.S. and the UK now have Yemen in their gun sights and that we may become militarily involved with the United States, which is already carrying out bombing raids in northern Yemen. The Saudi Air Force and its ground forces have already crossed over the border and things certainly do not look good for Yemen. Readers may also be interested to know that, already, white phosphorus has been used, along with many other illegal weapons.
It has been announced that Al Qaeda has been targeted, and yet it would appear that the people who have become victims of these airstrikes are innocent tribal people. Sound familiar? Is this going to become yet anothe-U.S.-instigated war? Keep in mind that according to the new NATO policy, "an attack on one is an attack on all".....this now also includes any U.S. or ally property, installation, oil pipeline or transit route that is attacked. Under the new guidelines, this would constitute an attack on all and would then allow the United States to pull the whole of NATO into another major conflict. Remember, it is important for the U.S. not to be seen as the instigators. That is why it attempts at all cost to pull in NATO and also wants Israel to attack Iran....but that is another story!
Let's just give a little thought to the fact that our dear Gordon Brown is hosting a conference on Afghanistan this week. I feel that any discussion on Afghanistan should be held regionally and should involve the U.S., UK and other NATO countries. It is interesting to note that the Afghanistan and Pakistan governments are seeking closer cooperation, with a plan to reach out to the Taliban and even possibly offering employment and possible representation in government. I think their approach is much better than Mr. Obama's and Brown's approach of seek and destroy! Oh, and lets not forget that Bin Laden tape that turned up exactly one month after the "false flag" incident in Detroit....doesn't it make you sick?
Watch this space for Part 2, which will cover the situation in Yemen and how Obama and Clinton are orchestrating this mass hysteria in order to gain more control of the world's resources and our own lives. They need desperately to bolster their own images to strengthen their positions or, in Brown's case, to get elected. The sad thing is that we do not really have a credible party, so I am sure that the independents will have a field day. Stay tuned!
Peter Eyre - Middle East Consultant - 24/1/2010
Â
Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
To create link towards this article on your website,
copy and paste the text below in your page.
Preview :
Monday, 25 January 2010
© 2010 - The Palestine Telegraph
| Comments |
|
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
