(1) Turkey Signs 20-Year Water pact with Israel

(2) The ghetto inside, by Uri Avnery

(3) Major Jordan's book is online

(4) Views of John Kerry as extreme as Bush Administration

(5) Zionist Commando Daniel Lewin Orchestrated The 9-11 Terrorist
Attacks

(1) Turkey Signs 20-Year Water pact with Israel

Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 20:21:28 -0800 From: Jeff Blankfort
<jblankfort@earthlink.net>

From the Turkish press:

PACT SIGNED FOR WATER SALES TO ISRAEL

Following two years of negotiations between Turkey and Israel, Foreign
Ministry Undersecretary Ugur Ziyal and his Israeli counterpart yesterday
signed an agreement to sell water from Turkey's Manavgat River to
Israel. Under the agreement, 50 million cubic meters of water will be
transported annually to Israel over a 20-year period. /Turkiye/

Does anyone believe that his deal will enable Israel to give up its
control of the West Bank acquifers which it currently exploits to the
maximum degree?

(2) The ghetto inside, by Uri Avnery

Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 00:41:14 +1000 From: "makichris"
<chrispaul@netpci.com>

Israel: The Ghetto Inside By Uri Avnery Mar 5, 2004,
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_5-3-2004_pg3_3

We created the State of Israel in order to become a normal nation, "a
people among peoples". The events of this week show that we have not
succeeded in this. The ghetto is deep inside us

"It is easier to get the Jews out of the ghetto than to get the ghetto
out of the Jews!" This dictum of the early Zionists is now assuming a
new meaning. Israel is cutting itself off from the world and enclosing
itself in a ghetto: and not just physically.

In The Hague, the proceedings of the International Court of Justice on
the Separation Wall have started. Sharon's people understand that they
have no chance of winning and have decided, therefore, to boycott the
session. Instead of arguing their case before the court, they decided to
organise a street event, in the spirit of the classic Israeli maxim: "If
your case is weak, raise your voice!"

Inside the courtroom, the legal arguments were made. The representatives
of Palestine argued that the Wall is unlawful, since it is being erected
in the middle of the West Bank. According to them, if Israel fears
suicide bombings, it is entitled to put up such a wall on its border,
but not in the heart of the occupied territory, where it puts the
Palestinian population into prison-like enclaves. Nobody contradicted
this argument inside the court.

Outside, Sharon's people organised a colourful spectacle. As a gimmick
for the media, they brought a bombed-out bus over from Israel, complete
with experts on the gathering of body parts. Also, dozens of
family-members of victims of attacks were brought over. The Israeli
embassy distributed the photos of the 900 victims, and Jewish students
carried them in procession. The message: the Jews are suffering; in
Israel, too, they are the victims of pogroms.

Later in the day, the Palestinians organised a counter-spectacle. There,
the 3000 Palestinian victims of the intifada were lamented, as well as
the sufferings of the Palestinian population under occupation. The
residents of The Hague were treated to a kind of World Championship for
victims. The world media devoted some minutes to the spectacles, evenly
divided between the two parties. But, for them, the main event was the
proceedings inside the courtroom.

In Israel, an entirely different picture was presented. In a style
reminiscent of the Soviet Union, the media enlisted as one man in the
service of the brain-washing. All TV networks, all radio stations, all
newspapers, without exception, took part in this national effort. From
early morning to late at night, all TV and radio stations broadcast
continuous coverage from The Hague and created the impression that the
whole world was glued to the Israeli street-spectacle.

The court proceedings themselves were presented as unimportant, a
miserable little show of Arabs and other anti-Semites. The Israeli
demonstration was turned into a world-shaking event. The bombed-out bus
appeared on the screen of all Israeli channels many dozens of times, as
did the victims' families: again and again and again. The corresponding
Palestinian event was shown for a few seconds, as were the courtroom
proceedings. Just to show how liberal we are, the Palestinian
representative was also allowed to say three sentences.

But the message for the Israeli viewer and listener was unequivocal:
this was a huge Israeli victory. The whole world now understands that in
this story we are the victims, that the Palestinians are terrorists,
that the Wall is needed to save our lives, that "the lives of Jews are
more important than the quality of life of the Palestinians", a sentence
repeated dozens of times during the day. A phalanx of army officers,
security service personnel, reporters, commentators and professors
talked their heads off on all stations, and all of them said exactly the
same thing: we are being attacked, we are the persecuted, the Arabs are
killers, we are defending ourselves. The occupation was not mentioned at
all. Why should it be? What has it got to do with this?

While the broadcast was going on, the Israeli peace movements
demonstrated against the Wall at the Prime Minister's residence in
Jerusalem. The state-owned TV Channel 1 showed it for all of four
seconds. Throughout the day, not one Israeli TV channel or radio station
allowed anyone to say a word against the Wall or in favour of the
International Court of Justice.

This is quite frightening, because it is happening in a democracy. No
KGB or Gestapo is threatening the lives of the journalists, no Gulag or
concentration camp is awaiting those who deviate from the official line.
It is all done voluntarily, from inner conviction.

True, the free media in the democratic USA behaved in much the same way
during the early days of the Iraq war. But they, at least, were not
afflicted with the syndrome of "The Whole World is Against Us".

The day after the first court session, Israeli Deputy Minister of
Defense, Ze'ev Boim, declared in the Knesset that all Muslims are
murderers from birth; that it is in their genes. And a personal friend
of Ariel Sharon disclosed on TV: "Arik has told me that he is deeply
worried about the rise of Christian anti-Semitism: for example, in Mel
Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ". And now, a large part of the
Muslim world is also infected by anti-Semitism."

This is the mentality of the ghetto. We created the State of Israel in
order to become a normal nation, "a people among peoples". The events of
this week show that we have not succeeded in this. The ghetto is deep
inside us.

This also throws another light on the Wall. It encloses the Palestinians
in enclaves, but it also returns us to the reality of the ghetto, and
not only physically.

The struggle against the Wall has many aspects. It is not only a
struggle to liberate the inhabitants of the West Bank from the monstrous
obstacle that turns their life into hell and puts them under pressure to
leave "voluntarily". It is not only a struggle to liberate the two
peoples of this country from a situation that imposes on them an
ever-widening cycle of bloodshed. It is also a struggle to liberate the
Israeli nation from the ghetto that is inside our hearts.

Uri Avnery is a leading Israeli writer and peace activist and a former
member of Knesset

(3) Major Jordan's book is online

Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 06:41:52 -0800 From: Phil Eversoul
<Philev@e-znet.com>

Major Jordan's book, "From the Diaries of Major George Racey Jordan," is
available online at:
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/wars/jordan/01.html One good tidbit,
right at the beginning, is that Jordan was designated a United Nations
representative in 1942, three years before the first conference to
establish the United Nations in San Francisco in 1945. But nah, there
couldn't be an international conspiracy about it.

(4) Views of John Kerry as extreme as Bush Administration

Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 21:18:50 -0500 From: "David Chiang"
<chiang.d@worldnet.att.net>

All News is Lies March 8, 2004 By John Laughland
http://www.sandersresearch.com/Sanders/NewsManager/ShowNewsGen.aspx?NewsID=5
77

A recent SRA Commentary by Chris Sanders[1] drew attention to the
astonishing swiftness with which Howard Dean's candidacy was displaced
by John Kerry's. Now that the dark horse candidate, Kerry, has indeed
won the Democratic nomination, and given that he has campaigned against
the Bush administration on the war on terror, what exactly are the
foreign policy views of this man who, like Bush, is a member of the
Skull & Bones society?

Kerry's position was made clear in two speeches, one at the University
of California in Los Angeles on 27th February 2004 [2], and the other
given on 3rd December 2003 to the Council of Foreign Relations in New
York.[3] Both speeches show that Kerry subscribes to all the same
doctrines of militarism, worldwide democratisation and interventionism
as his rival, the incumbent president.

Kerry told his audience at UCLA that, "Americans deserve a principled
democracy ... backed by undoubted military might ... a diplomacy that
commits America to lead the world toward liberty and prosperity."He
called for "a bold progressive internationalism that focuses not just on
the immediate and imminent, but insidious dangers that can mount over
the next years and decade, dangers that span the spectrum from the
denial of democracy, to destructive weapons, endemic poverty and
epidemic disease. These are not just issues of international order, but
vital issues of our own national security."

Fine words. So fine, in fact, that they are effectively identical to
those contained in George W. Bush's National Security Strategy of
September 2002, in which exactly the same claim is made that America
cannot be safe until the whole world subscribes to American values, and
until every possible source of tension, including things like AIDS and
lack of education in third world countries, has been removed.

Far from calling for a more humble foreign policy than that pursued by
George W. Bush, Kerry in fact says he wants "a stronger, more
comprehensive strategy for winning the war on terror than the Bush
Administration has ever envisioned." For Kerry, Bush is a wimp. He
attacks George Bush for not having caught Osama bin Laden and blames the
use of local warlords for this failure: the logical implication of this
is that the West should take over that country directly (even though
this is just what the current administration is trying to do in getting
NATO involved in Afghanistan.) Interestingly Kerry adds that the current
arrangements are insufficient to "bring the billion dollar drugs trade
under control." Surely he meant to say "eradicate it"?

Kerry says, "I do not fault George Bush for doing too much in the war on
terror; I believe he's done too little." Neither the war on terror nor
the Department of Homeland Security is enough for Kerry: in the war for
American security, the Bush administration "has done nothing or been too
little and too late." George Bush has "weakened" the military, so Kerry
promises 40,000 more active-duty Army troops. Kerry has even promised to
"strengthen the capacity of law enforcement at home" and to "break down
the old barriers between national intelligence and local law
enforcement", even though every first-year student of political science
knows that one of the cardinal rules in a democratic state of law is
precisely that there should be a firm division between law enforcement
and intelligence.

Kerry even reproaches Bush for weakness an Iraq. He said ten days ago,
"Their (i.e. the Administration's) sudden embrace of accelerated
Iraqification and American troop withdrawal without adequate stability
is an invitation to failure. The hard work of rebuilding Iraq must not
be dictated by the schedule of the next American election." Kerry
promises to "stay in Iraq until the job is finished"--whatever the job
is--and quotes Franklin Roosevelt against Bush, saying, "It is useless
to win a war unless it stays won." Kerry comments, "This Administration
has not met that challenge; a Kerry administration will." Astonishingly,
Kerry even, in the CFR speech, attacked the Bush administration for
"jeopardising the security of Israel" and "encouraging Palestinian
extremists." Such nonsense recalls Frank Gaffney's lunatic attacks on
Bush for frequenting "Muslim extremists" (in the form of Grover
Norquist).[4]

Kerry's view of the war on terror is identical to that of Bush and the
neo-cons. For them, this is an ideological war. Seeming almost to relish
his statement that the war on terror will last indefinitely, and
certainly beyond the capture of Osama bin Laden, Kerry says that, "We
face a global jihadist movement of many groups ... all committed to
assaulting the United States and free and open societies around the
globe." He even refers to terrorists in "60 nations", just as Bush said
at West Point on 1st June 2002 that, "We must uncover terror cells in 60
or more countries." Kerry says, "At the core of this conflict is a
fundamental struggle of ideas. Of democracy and tolerance against those
who would use any means to attack any target to impose their narrow
views ... Nothing else will matter unless we win the war of ideas." Such
talk really is just like Bush. In his remarks on Labor Day, 1st
September 2003, Bush said, "Our enemies hate freedom" and also referred
to the "enemies of freedom" in his address to the joint session of the
Congress on 20th September 2001.

Kerry even uses the Bush rhetoric about chaos. "The war on terror is not
a clash of civilisations," he tells us. "It is a clash of civilisation
against chaos." But Bush said in the National Security Strategy of 2002
that "Today, the world's great powers find ourselves on the same
side--united by common dangers of terrorist violence and chaos." The
doctrines of "chaos" and "failed states" are orthodox neo-conservative
ones, and Kerry holds both. And like Bush, Kerry is explicitly
progressive: he says America should align with the "best hopes of
humanity against dogmatic fears of progress and the future", echoing
Bush's call for a national security strategy will "keep open the path of
progress". And when Kerry says, "Democracy won't come overnight, but
America should speed that day by sustaining the forces of democracy
against repressive regimes and by rewarding governments which take
genuine steps towards change," it is little more than the echo of George
Bush's statement to the National Endowment for Democracy that "we watch
and encourage reform" (in the Middle East), or his statement in London
on 19th November 2003 that "Our part, as free nations, is to ally
ourselves with reform, wherever it occurs."

Kerry claims to attack Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive war and
unilateralism. In the speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Kerry
dwelt at length on the need for more international alliances, while in
the UCLA speech he said that Bush's "doctrine of unilateral pre-emption
has driven away our allies and cost us the support of other nations".
But these alleged differences between Bush's unilateralism and Kerry's
multilateralism are exaggerated. First, President Bush himself
explicitly calls for a multilateral approach to the war on terror. In
the National Security Strategy, he wrote, "We are also guided by the
conviction that no nation can build a safer, better world alone.
Alliances and multilateral institutions can multiply the strength of
freedom-loving nations," and he re-stated the America's commitment to
the UN, the WTO, the Organisation of American States and NATO. Indeed,
it should never be forgotten that the Bush administration constantly and
doggedly claims that the United Nations is the source of the legitimacy
of the Iraq war, and that the US-UK attack on Iraq has preserved the
credibility of the United Nations.[5]

Secondly, Kerry is, in any case, less anti-unilateralist than he likes
to pretend. He told his UCLA audience that, "If I am President, I will
be prepared to use military force to protect our security, our people
and our vital interests ... As President, I will not wait for a green
light from abroad when our safety is at stake. Allies give us more hands
in the struggle, but no President would ever let them tie our hands and
prevent us from doing what must be done." He repeats several times his
readiness to "order direct military action". Kerry even seems to imply
that military intervention might be conceivable in countries which are
strong American allies: "We can't wipe out terrorist cells in places
like Sweden, Canada, Spain, the Philippines or Italy just by dropping in
Green Berets" (my emphasis).

Like Bush, Kerry promises to act against the "flow of terrorist funds".
Interestingly, he singles out Saudi Arabia for special mention in
connection with the laundering of terrorist money, and he accuses George
Bush of adopting a "kid glove" approach to that country. Kerry promises
to launch a 'name and shame' campaign "against those that are financing
terror" and to shut them "out of the US financial system". He also,
again like Bush, claims that "we must act immediately to prevent
terrorists from acquiring nuclear, chemical or biological weapons."
Kerry even has the cheek to say, in his CFR speech, that "the gravest
threats" comes from "terrorists or unstable states" acquiring "weapons
of mass destruction". "As President," he told the CFR, "I will elevate
non-proliferation to the top of the global agenda." How could it be
elevated any further to the top of the global agenda than under Bush?

In the speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Kerry made exactly
George Bush's claim that America embodies universal values. He quoted
Abraham Lincoln whose vision, he said, was "founded on values and the
power of an idea, not primarily on wealth or weapons" and that "the use
of American power has always been guided by values and principles, not
by might alone". But this is just like Bush, who wrote in the National
Security Strategy that, "The United States enjoys a position of
unparalleled military strength and great economic and political
influence. In keeping with our heritage and principles, we do not use
our strength to press for unilateral advantage. We seek instead to
create a balance of power that favors human freedom." Bush has devoted
two speeches - the NED speech and the London speech - to America's
mission to promote "freedom", while he pronounced the word "free" no
fewer than nineteen times in his "victory" speech on board the USS
Abraham Lincoln on 1st May 2003. Likewise, Kerry told the CFR that
America should "once again become a leader for freedom." In the UCLA
speech, Kerry even attacked Bush for allowing the US to be referred to
as "the occupying power" in Iraq: no doubt he would have preferred the
neo-con label "the liberating power".

Indeed, in reading Kerry's speeches one is reminded of nothing so much
as of the recent neo-conservative manifesto published by David Frum and
Richard Perle, "An End to Evil". When John Kerry told the Council on
Foreign Relations, "I fear that in the run up to the 2004 election the
Administration is considering what is tantamount to a cut and run
strategy," one has the impression of reading Frum & Perle who write, "We
feel the will to win ebbing in Washington" (p. 5). When Kerry lambasted
the administration for contemplating a withdrawal from Iraq - in my
view, his fears are unfortunately misplaced - he was doing nothing but
echoing the editorial, "Do What it Takes in Iraq", published in The
Weekly Standard of 1st - 8th September 2003 by Robert Kagan and William
Kristol.[6] And Kerry's astonishing attacks on Saudi Arabia, stated in
both the UCLA and in the CFR speeches, in which he alleges that funding
for terrorism and Islamic extremism come from the peninsula, are
identical to those propagated by Frum and Perle in their latest
writings.[7] In his CFR speech, Kerry even accused the Saudi interior
minister of "hate speech", and of promoting "wild anti-Semitic
conspiracy theories", just as Frum and Perle call the kingdom "an
unfriendly power" (p. 141). Both Frum & Perle and Kerry, moreover, call
for radical reform of the intelligence services, Kerry saying that a
Director of National Intelligence should be created "with real control
of all national intelligence personnel and budgets".

Perhaps the most intriguing area of agreement between Kerry and the most
extreme neo-cons lies in his view of the Muslim world. To be sure, Bush
has announced his "forward strategy of freedom for the Middle East", in
a speech to the National Endowment for Democracy on 6th November 2003.
But Bush is generally fairly circumspect about being seen as an enemy of
Islam. Kerry, on the other hand, says several times that he thinks there
is a particular danger in the Islamic world, and that America must
tackle it. He argues, for instance, that the principal target for the
"war of ideas", for which he calls, is the Islamic world, where, he
says, a large disaffected young male population is easily whipped up
against America. Kerry even attacks President Bush for not giving enough
money to his programme of democratising the Middle East.

In considering all this, ask yourself the following question: if you
were a neo-conservative strategist, with all the huge plans for
world-wide "democratisation" which that entails, who would you rather
have in the White House? A red-neck Texan surrounded by a bunch of
corporate war profiteers, whose very selves excite furious opposition
from whole swathes of leftish public opinion in America and around the
world, or a smooth multilateralist Patrician with a pleasing mix of
patriotic and liberal credentials? Go figure.

(5) Zionist Commando Daniel Lewin Orchestrated The 9-11 Terrorist
Attacks

Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 11:35:20 +0300 From: "Media Watch"
<mediaw@hotmail.com>

Zionist Commando Daniel Lewin Orchestrated The 9-11 Terrorist Attacks

His Troops Stole Arab Identites While Mossad Agents In Hollywood,
Florida Assassinated Mohammed Atta And Framed Him For The Crime

http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=6819

3/7/2004 12:55:07 AM Discuss this story in the forum

Anonymous Investigative Report -- [Bill: This is part of one of the most
intriguing pamphlets on 9-11 I have ever seen published. I have been
unable to find any other copies of it available on the internet. It
hasn't gotten circulation because its publisher (author is unknown) was
arrested on trumped up charges soon after it hit the press, and that
publisher has been held in solitary confinement while these pamphlets
have been languishing without a distributor. Here is the first lengthy
excerpt . I hope to excerpt more. This starts with the dancing Zionists,
which is well known, and then goes deeper than any other investigation I
have seen into this topic:]

THE DANCING ISRAELIS

Like most Americans, I was gripped by senses of profound shock, horror,
revulsion, sadness and rage as I watched the horror of September 11,
2001, unfolding live on my television screen. Watching the mass murder
of thousands of innocent people live on television was the most
upsetting experience of my life. .

But not all of the eye-witnesses to the 9-11 slaughter were so saddened.
On September 11, five Israeli army veterans were arrested by the FBI
after several witnesses saw them "dancing", "high-fiving" and
"celebrating" as they took pictures of the World Trade Center disaster
from across the river in New Jersey. .

When the photos [taken by the dancing Israelis] were developed, they
revealed that the dancing Israelis were smiling in the foreground of the
New York massacre. According to ABC's 20/20 attempted whitewash of the
incident, in addition to their outrageous and highly suspicious
behavior, the five also has in their possession the following items:
box-cutters, European passports, and $4700 in cash hidden in a sock. Why
were these Israeli agents so happy about the horrible massacre unfolding
before their very eyes? . Could it be that these happy Israeli army
veterans were in some way linked to this monstrous attack? That's what
officials close to the investigation told the Bergen Record newspaper of
New Jersey. .

THE SEPTEMBER 11 DANCE PARTY

. Having established [that Israelis and Jews have committed acts of
terror against Americans in the past], we can now easily deduce the
reason why those five dancing Israeli agents who celebrated the 9-11
attacks were so happy is because they knew that Americans would now
become unconditional supporters of their "Israeli ally" and fanatical
haters of Muslims and Arabs. On the day of the attacks, former Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanayhu was asked what the attack would mean
for US-Israeli relations. His quick reply was "It's very good . Well,
it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)"

The five Israelis made such a spectacle that everyone who saw them felt
compelled to call the police. According to ABC's 20/20, when the van
belonging to the cheering Israelis was stopped by the police, the first
word out of the driver's (Sivan Kurzberg's) lying mouth were: "We are
Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The
Palestinians are your problem." The police and FBI field agents became
really suspicious when they found box cutters (the same items the
hijacker supposedly used), $4700 cash stuffed in a sock, and foreign
passports. Police also told the Bergen Record that bomb sniffing dogs
were brought to the van and that they reacted as if they had smelled
explosives.

From there, the story gets even more suspicious. The Israelis worked for
a Weehawken moving company known as Urban Moving Systems. An American
employee of Urban Moving Systems told the Bergen Record that a majority
of his co- workers were Israelis and they were all joking about the
attacks. The employee, who declined to give his name, said "I was in
tears. These guys were joking and that bothered me."

A few days after the attacks, Urban Moving System's Israeli owner,
Dominick Suter, dropped his business and fled the country. He was in
such a hurry to flee America that some of Urban Moving System's
customers were left with their furniture stuck in storage facilities.
The five Israeli army veterans (Mossad) were held in custody for several
months before being quietly released. Some of the movers had been kept
in solitary confinement for 40 days.

Immediately following the attacks, the Zionist controlled media was
filled with stories linking the attacks to Bin Laden. TV talking-heads
and scribblers of every stripe spoon-fed a gullible American public a
steady diet of the most outrageous propaganda imaginable. We were told
that the reason in Laden attacked the USA was because he hates our
"freedom" and "democracy". The Muslims were "medieval" and they wanted
to destroy us because of our wealth. But Bin Laden strongly denied any
role in the attacks and suggested that Zionists orchestrated the 9-11
attacks:

"I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor
did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a
government within the United States. The United States should try to
trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who
want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and
Christianity. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out
the attacks . The American system is totally in control of the Jews,
whose first priority is Israel, not the United States."

To date, the only shred of "evidence" to be uncovered against Bin Laden
was a highly suspicious, barely audible amateur video, that the Zionist
dominated Pentagon just happened to find "lying around" in Afghanistan.
Though there is no evidence, be it hard or circumstantial, to link the
Al Qaeda "terrorist network" to these acts of terror; there is in fact a
mountain of evidence, both hard and circumstantial, which suggests that

the Zionists have been very busy framing Arabs for terror plots against
America.

WHO WAS REALLY FLYING THOSE PLANES ON 9-11?

Hours after the 9-11 attacks, authorities began to find clues
conveniently left for them to stumble upon. The Boston Globe reported
that a copy of the Koran, instructions on how to fly a commercial
airplane, and a fuel consumption calculator were found in a pair of bags
meant for one of the hijacked flights that left from Logan.

Authorities also received a "tip" about a suspicious white car left
behind at Boston's Logan Airport. An Arabic-language flight training
manual was found inside the car.

How fortunate for investigators that the hijackers "forgot" to take
their Koran and Arab flight manuals with them! Within a few days, all
"19 hijackers" were "identified" and their faces were plastered all over
our television screens.

Then, like a script from a corny "B" spy movie, the officials story gets
even more ridiculous. The passport of the supposed "ringleader" Mohammed
Atta, somehow managed to survive the explosion, inferno, and smoldering
collapse to be oh-so-conveniently "found" just a few blocks away from
the World Trade Center.

It is obvious that this "evidence" was planted by individuals wishing to
direct the blame towards Osama bin Laden. How is it possible that Arab
students who has never flown an airplane could take a simulator course
and then fly jumbo jets with the skill and precision of "top-gun"
pilots? It is not possible and the fact is, the true identities of the
9-11 hijackers remain a mystery. In the fays following the disclosure of
the "hijackers" names and faces, no less than 7 of the Arab individuals
named came forward to protest their obvious innocence.

That's right! Seven of the nineteen "hijackers" are alive and well. They
were victims of identity theft, some of whom had their passports stolen.
They were interviewed by several different new organizations, including
the Telegraph of England. Here's an excerpt from David Harrison's
Telegraph story entitled:

"Revealed: The Men With Stolen Identities

"Their names were flashed around the world as suicide hijackers who
carried out the attacks on America. But yesterday four innocent men told
how their identities had been stolen.

"The men, all from Saudi Arabia ? spoke of their shock at being
mistakenly named by the FBI as suicide terrorists. None of the four was
in the United States on September 11 and all are alive in their home
country.

"The Telegraph obtained the first interviews with the men since they
learnt that they were on the FBI's list of hijackers who died in the
crashes in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

"All four said they were outraged to be identified as terrorists. One
has never been to America and another is a Saudi Airlines pilot who was
on a training course in Tunisia at the time of the attacks. Saudi
Airlines said it was considering legal action against the FBI for
serious damaging its reputation and that of its pilots."

The story of these identity thefts was also briefly reported by ABC and
BBC (England). The FBI does not deny this. Nobody denies the fact
because it is easily verifiable. Instead, the US media and government
just ignore this inconvenient little fact and keep right on repeating
the monstrous lie that the hijacker identities are known and that 15 of
them were Saudis.

CNN revealed that FBI director Robert Mueller openly admitted that some
of the identities of the 9-11 hijackers are in question due to identity
theft. Here's what CNN reported on September 21:

FBI Director Robert Mueller has acknowledged that some of those behind
last week's terror attacks may have stolen the identification of other
people, and, according to at least one security expert, it may have been
"relatively easy" based on their level of sophistication.

This opens up a whole Pandora's box of unanswered questions. First and
foremost of which is this: why would Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi Arabian
"cave man", attempting to cover his tracks, steal the identities of .
fellow Saudi Arabians??? What would be the point? Why go through the
trouble of stealing identities that would point back to you. Why not
steal Greek identities, or Brazilian identities, or Turkish ones? A much
more logical conclusion is that non-Arabs stole these identities as part
of a "false flag" operation designed to point the blame at Arabs, and
Saudi Arabia in particular.

What kind of a character is FBI boss Mueller? He initially admitted that
false identities were involved with 9-11, but then he allows the media
to keep naming these innocent, and alive, Arabs as the hijackers? Why
doesn't he correct them? .

Now I'm really going to rock your faith in the false religion of 9-11.
In February of 2000, Indian intelligence officials detained 11 members
of what they thought was an Al Qaeda hijacking conspiracy. It was then
discovered that these 11 "Muslim preachers" were all Israeli nationals!
India's leading weekly magazine, The Week, reported:

"On January 12, Indian intelligence officials in Calcutta detained 11
foreign nationals for interrogation before they were to board a
Dhaka-bound Bangladesh Biman flight. They were detained on suspicion of
being hijackers. 'But we realized they were tabliqis, so we let them go'
said an intelligence official.

"The eleven has Israeli passports but were believed to be Afghan
nationals who had spent a while in Iran. Indian intelligence officials,
too, were surprised by the nationality profile of the eleven. 'They say
they have been on tabligh in Indian for two months. But they are Israeli
nationals from the West Bank,' said a Central Intelligence official. He
claimed that Tel Aviv 'exerted considerable pressure' on Delhi to secure
their release. 'It appeared that they could be working for a sensitive
organization in Israel and were on a mission to Bangladesh,' the
official said.

What were these 11 Israeli nationals doing trying to impersonate Al
Qaeda men? Infiltrating? Perhaps. Framing? More likely. But the
important precedent to understand is this: Israeli agents were once
caught red handed impersonating Muslim hijackers!

This event becomes even more mind boggling when we learn that it was
Indian Intelligence that helped the US to so quickly identify the "19
hijackers"! On April 3, 2002, Express India, quoting the Press Trust of
India, revealed:

"Washington, April 3: Indian intelligence agencies helped the US to
identify the hijackers who carried out the deadly September 11 terrorist
attacks in New York and Washington, a media report said here Wednesday."

Did you catch that? The Indian intelligence officials who were duped
into mistaking Israeli agents for Al Qaeda back in 2000, were the very
same clowns telling the FBI who it was that hijacked the 9-11 planes!
Keep in mind that Indian intelligence has an extremely close working
relationship with Israel's Mossad because both governments hate the
Muslim nation of Pakistan.

Now about Mohamed Atta . the so-called "ring leader". There are a number
of inconsistencies with that story as well. Like some of the 7 hijackers
known to be still alive, Atta also had his passport stolen in 1999,
(perhaps the same passport that miraculously survived the WTC explosion
and collapse?), making him an easy mark for identity theft. Atta was
known to all as a shy, timid and sheltered young man who was
uncomfortable with women. The 5 foot 7 inch, 150 pound architecture
student was such a "goody two shoes" that some of his university
acquaintances in Germany refrained from drinking or cursing in front of
him. How this gentle, non-political momma's boy from a good Egyptian
family suddenly transformed himself into the vodka drinking, go-go girl
groping terrorist animal described by the media, has to rank as the
greatest personality change since another classic work of fiction, Dr
Jekyll and Mr Hyde.

Atta, or someone using Atta's identity, had enrolled in a Florida flight
school in 2001 and then broke off training, making it a point to tell
his instructor he was leaving for Boston, In an October 2001 interview
with an ABC affiliate in Florida, flight school president Rudi Dekkers
said that his course does not qualify pilots to fly jumbo jets. He also
described Atta as "an asshole" Part of the reason for Dekker's dislike
for Atta stems from a highly unusual incident that occurred at the
beginning of the course. Here's the exchange between ABC producer
Quentin McDermott and Dekkers:

MCDERMOTT: "Why do you say Atta was an asshole?"

DEKKERS: "Well, when Atta was here and I saw his face on several
occasions in the building, then I know that they're regular students and
then I try to talk to them, it's a kind of PR ? where are you from? I
tried to communicate with him. I found out from my people that he lived
in Hamburg and he spoke German so one of the days that I saw him, I
speak German myself, I'm a Dutch citizen, and I started in the morning
telling him in German, "Good morning. How are you? How do you like the
coffee? Are you happy here?", and he looked at me with cold eyes, didn't
react at all and walked away. That was one of my first meetings I had."

That is easily similar to the way in which Zacharias Moussaoui (the so-
called "20th hijacker") became "belligerent" when his Minnesota flight
instructor tried to speak to him in French (his first language) at the
beginning of that course. The Minnesota Star Tribune reported on
December 21, 2001:

"Moussaoui first raised eyebrows when, during a simple introductory
exchange, he said he was from France, but then didn't seem to understand
when the instructor spoke French to him. Moussaoui then became
belligerent and evasive about his background, Congressman Oberstar and
other sources said. In addition, he seemed inept at basic flying
procedures, while seeking expensive training on an advanced commercial
jet simulator."

It truly is an amazing twist of fate that both Atta and Moussaoui had
American flight instructors who spoke German and French respectively.
Even the great Mossad could not have foreseen such a coincidence! The
real Atta would have been able to respond to his instructor's German
small talk and the real Moussaoui would have been able to respond to his
instructor's French small talk. Atta just walked away and Moussaoui
threw a fit! Neither responded because neither could. They were
impostors, whose faces were probably disguised by a make up artist.
Their mission was to frame the two innocent Arabs who were probably
targeted by the Mossad at random.

The imposter was able to create a new Atta by using Atta's stolen
passport from 1999 ? the same passport that floated safely to the ground
with a few burnt edges on 9-11. These strange inconsistencies tend to
give support to Mohammed Atta's father's claim that he spoke over the
phone with his son on September 12th, the day after the attacks. Could a
group of professionals have abducted and killed the real Atta in the
days following the 9-11 attacks? Mossad agents, posing as "art students"
were arrested after conducting some kind of operation in Hollywood,
Florida, the same town that Atta stayed in! So what happened to the real
Mohammed Atta? To quote his grief stricken father: "Ask Mossad!"

So who, if not the "19 Arabs" was on those planes? That's the million
dollar question! There are a number of alternative scenarios. Could some
Israelis have been fanatical enough to have volunteered for such a
suicide mission? Odd as that may sound at first, it is not out of the
realm of possibility. The fact is, hard-core Zionist extremists have
proven themselves to every bit as fanatical ( and more so) than Arab
extremists.

A nation which can produce thousands of bloodthirsty Zionist extremists,
Irgun war criminals, Mossad terrorists who blow up occupied buildings,
assassins who kill Israeli Prime Ministers in full view of policemen,
and crazed killers who have conducted sickening massacres of Arab women
and children, would surely be capable of recruiting a few fanatics
willing to sacrifice for "the cause." The theory becomes even more
plausible when we consider that only the pilots would have needed to
know that the planes were on a suicide mission. .

One has to wonder if some of [Baruch] Goldstein's admirers were flying
those planes on 9-11. There is one interesting side note here which may
or may not be of any significance. One of the two Israelis who died
aboard the hijacked planes was Daniel Lewin ? who was aboard the first
plane to crash into the Twin Towers. The Ha'aretz News Service of Israel
revealed that Lewin was a one time officer in the Israeli Defense Forces
Sayaret Matkal commando unit. Oddly enough, Lewin's name is missing from
CNN's comprehensive September 11 Memorial website. .

-----

Emailed to you by:

Libertarian Socialist News ATTN: Bill White, Editor

Post Office Box 1224 Silver Spring, MD 20908

http://www.overthrow.com bwhite@mail.overthrow.com ==


--
Peter Myers, 21 Blair St, Watson ACT 2602, Australia
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers          ph +61 2 62475187
to unsubscribe, reply with "unsubscribe" in the subject line

(1) Asset-focused monetary tightening

(2) GATS requires that all tenders be WORLD WIDE

(3) Putin to expand strategic partnership with China, by Sergei Blagov

(4) Prof. A. K. Dewdney examines the 9/11 cover-up

(5) "When the world stopped seeing us losers on trains to the death
camps"

(6) "In Atheism Yahweh has driven his rivals, the gods of the
Goyim-peoples, from the field" - Horst Mahler

(1) Asset-focused monetary tightening

Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 22:55:50 -0500 From: "David Chiang"
<chiang.d@worldnet.att.net>

Stymied

Stephen Roach (New York)
http://www.morganstanley.com/GEFdata/digests/20040308-mon.html

America's monetary policy conundrum is as excruciating as I can ever
remember it. On the one hand, vigor from the standpoint of GDP growth
begs for a normalization of short-term interest rates. Yet, at the same
time, the lingering fragility of a jobless recovery argues for ongoing
monetary accommodation. The Fed, in effect, is stymied -- caught in the
cross-fire between the forces of inflation and deflation. For
ever-frothy financial markets, that's as good as it gets -- an
opportunity to exploit a central bank that is frozen at the switch. Is
there a way out?

The case for interest-rate normalization is grounded in one of the most
basic principles of stabilization policy: Ammunition is to be used in
bad times and then replenished in good times. Based on the Federal
Reserve's own assessment of recent and prospective vigor of US economic
growth, it is now time to reload the monetary cannon. A failure to do so
and keep the policy rate at 1% in nominal terms and "zero" in real terms
is a recipe for a never-ending outbreak of asset bubbles. Early warning
signs of such bubbles are now increasingly evident (see my 5 March
dispatch, "A Time for Courage"). Largely for that reason, I have urged
the Fed to raise the federal funds rate immediately to 3% (see "An Open
Letter to Alan Greenspan" published in the March 1 edition of Newsweek
International).

Yet the pitfalls of America's jobless recovery -- a scenario I have long
embraced -- seem to argue against such a policy shift. And once again,
the consensus mantra of "hiring is just around the corner" has been
dealt a cruel blow by the reality check of the monthly labor market
surveys. February's anemic pace of job creation (+21,000) plus downward
revisions to the prior two months is just another in a long string of
extraordinary disappointments on the hiring front. By our calculations,
for a US economy that has now completed 27 months of so-called recovery,
private nonfarm payrolls are running about 8.2 million workers below the
path that would have been occurred in a more normal upturn. This hiring
shortfall has led to an enormous leakage of wage income generation --
more than $400 billion in foregone growth in real wage and salary
disbursements when this expansion is compared with the profile of the
six prior cycles. Lacking in the internal support of earned labor
income, consumers have drawn support from "toxic" sources of growth,
such as open-ended tax cuts, reduced saving, extracting purchasing power
from over-valued assts such as homes, and going deeply into debt to
lever their assets. As long as the US remains hiring short and income
deficient, goes the argument, a rate hike is the very last thing an
overly-leveraged American consumer needs.

Then there is the political angle -- considerations that independent
central banks are loathe to concede they ever contemplate. But they do,
of course. After all, even central bankers can suffer from the humanlike
faults of political animals. Two milestones in Alan Greenspan's long
career are especially noteworthy in that regard -- the first being an
overly restrictive policy stance in 1991 that ended up being a serious
complication in the failed re-election campaign of the first Bush
Administration. The second came in the spring of 1997, on the heels of
the March 25 rate hike that was aimed to tame the "irrational
exuberance" of equity markets. Greenspan such took flak on this assault
on markets, that he not only reversed course but then went on to preach
a New-Economy message that effectively precluded any rate hikes for more
than two years.

These considerations are very relevant in this year's increasingly
contentious election climate. My guess is that a politically-sensitive
Fed will do everything in its power to avoid becoming an issue in
America's upcoming presidential campaign. That means that policy moves
are likely to be avoided in the heat of electioneering -- namely, in the
July 4 to November 2 window. That also means that any monetary
tightening that needs to occur would have to be squeezed into the next
three and a half months before the political window slams shut this
summer. The latest employment survey certainly throws cold water on that
possibility. Indeed, in the aftermath of this latest "surprise" on the
jobs front, fixed income markets have moved to take out all but 40 bp of
Fed tightening between and now and yearend -- a view our US team now
endorses as well (see "Fed on Hold Until December" by Messrs. Berner and
Greenlaw in today's Global Economic Forum).

Largely for those reasons, the scales have tipped very much in favor of
an accommodative Fed that delivers in accordance with both versions of
its recent policy rhetoric -- in effect, remaining "patient for a
considerable period." For liquidity-driven financial markets, there's no
greater moment to seize. This is a classic "green light" for investors
and speculators, alike. The persistence of a jobless recovery encourages
the Fed all the more to let asset markets rip -- drawing on wealth
effects in order to offset ever-anemic income effects as drivers of
economic growth. Excess leverage is not judged to be important in a
climate when the central bank is committed to underwriting low nominal
interest rates for the foreseeable future.

None of this alleviates the concerns I have expressed recently about the
increasingly reckless stance of the Fed. Sure, a monetary tightening at
this juncture -- especially the outsize 200 bp move I have recommended
-- runs the risk of a recessionary relapse. And it would also run very
much against the grain of political correctness in this election year.
But those are the tough choices that independent central banks need to
make. In my view, the perils of another burst asset bubble far outweigh
the costs of another recession. With only 100 bp left in its policy
arsenal, the Fed is running a huge risk if it lets another asset bubble
form. Yet no one seems to care -- even as bubbles now build in property
and fixed in come markets (again, see my 5 March dispatch, "A Time for
Courage").

There is a way out of this mess, in my view. If the Fed is reluctant to
tinker with its principal policy instrument, then it should give active
consideration to secondary instruments that it has at its disposal.
These include increasing margin requirements on equity lending, raising
reserve requirements on real estate lending, and figuring out a way to
challenge the "carry trades" that are currently taking fixed income
markets to excess. America's central bank is always hyper-defensive when
suggestion such as this are made -- claiming that that there is little
or no empirical evidence on the efficacy of such measures. It's hard to
accept the credibility of such assertions. Indeed, the minutes of FOMC
meetings in the fall of 1996 show very clearly that Alan Greenspan knew
full well that changes in margin requirements would bite (see my 27
February 2002 dispatch, "Smoking Gun"). And that's precisely the point.
In a low nominal interest rate climate, an asset-driven US economy needs
to be put on notice that the central bank is still in charge. The
signaling impact of asset-focused monetary tightening would go a long
way in achieving this important objective, in my view.

The Fed needs to do more than play with words. America cannot afford to
let its central bank be stymied by problems of its own making. This week
marks the fourth anniversary of Nasdaq 5000 (a March 10 close of 5049).
Have we learned anything?

(2) GATS requires that all tenders be WORLD WIDE

Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1997 02:42:33 +1100 From: "Olga Scully"
<oscully@tassie.net.au>

Senator Len Harris as reported in National Interest issue no. 32 page 2b
tonypitt@bigpond.com http://www.tonypitt.info

Working as a Team

I would like to believe that a single political party that is loyal to
Australia could turn the tables on the major parties who seem determined
to sell us out, but I don't.

I see these big parties taking over $60 Million in corporate donations,
$31 M to the ALP $22 M to the Liberals $7 M to the NPA plus some
admitted to by others.

Sadly, being in parliament has shown me that one or the other of the
major parties always win government in the election. They have so much
money and get so much help from government and corporate media that they
can't lose.

Then [after the election] the spin doctors who gave grateful politicians
funds to get re-elected, come knocking at the politicians' doors asking
for the old Mafia style REPAYMENT IN KIND.

All legislation drafted by the major parties either disadvantages
Australians or gives advantage to foreign corporations.

The 1953 International Tax [Double Tax] agreement gave tax exemption to
all foreign companies operating in Australia. This is just one example.

The US, UK etc had their companies operating here but we had few if any
companies in the US, Asia or Europe. It was a one sided deal. We lost.

The General Agreement on Tariff and Trade [GATT] allowed other countries
to dump here. The multinationals, with factories in Asia, paid imitation
tradesmen $10 a day or less.

Nobody would buy goods MADE IN AUSTRALIA by $600 a week skilled
Australians. Australian factories closed or were forced to relocate to
Asia. They created trade competitors who destroyed what was left of
Australian owned industry.

The General Agreement on Trade in Services [GATS] is even worse. Gats
requires that all tenders be WORLD WIDE and only the cheapest tender can
be accepted. Is there any worker who would accept such terms?

The Great Depression was created when foreign firms realized they could
sell furniture to Australians, made by Asian Slave Labour, for a tenth
of the price of local products. They sold it at half price and
profiteered.

The workers fought back. Every piece of furniture made here was stamped
to identify that we made it. BUT the media never told the buyers. SOUND
FAMILIAR?

If we cannot get ALL groups loyal to Australian people to unite to get
rid of the politicians who betray our laws, our economy, our society and
their own children, then we are lost.

There are at least 350 such groups of loyal Australians. Some agree on
many points. Some differ BUT at the end of the day all are loyal to
Australia.

I seek to unite such groups. I don't seek to make them subservient to my
will - rather the opposite, I want them to tell me how I can best
re-present their will in the Senate.

Senator Len Harris [One Nation] senator.harris@aph.gov.au ==

More from this website:

60,000 Farmers to get the chop

http://www.users.bigpond.com/tonypitt/id69.htm

Three out of four farmers to GO. Are you one?

Federal and State politicians of all major parties know that 60,000 of
85,000 farmers will lose all and GO to the wall because they intend to
MAKE IT HAPPEN. It won't be a pleae government will "compensate" the
losers. Deputy PM, John Anderson, said they only needed 25,000 farmers
at a public meeting in Mareeba. Those farmers who heard his statement
went into lynch mode. They knew they or their children would all wear
(the job losses and financial hardship that goes with that many
bankruptcies and/or foreclosures. Farmers and readers must make up their
minds as to whether NOW is the time to act. Those with the brains to
realise that apathy and inactivity will spell disaster for the farmers,
and all Australians really need to warn and wake the dozy ones.

There are those who make things happen, some who watch things happen,
and the others who wonder what happened. In this edition, Senator Len
Harris offers a chance to save your livelihood. NO FARMER WILL BE FREE.
THERE WILL BE REGULAR VISITS BY INSPECTORS, WATER POLICE, LAND USAGE
COMPLIANCE OFFICERS, ETC. FARMERS WILL KOW TOW TO THE BUREAUCRATS OR
SUFFER.

(3) Putin to expand strategic partnership with China, by Sergei Blagov

 Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 20:15:43 -0500 From: "David Chiang"
<chiang.d@worldnet.att.net>

Putin to expand strategic partnership with China By Sergei Blagov

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/FC12Ag01.html

MOSCOW - President Vladimir Putin, certain of re-election to a second
term, evidently intends to expand Russia's strategic ties with China in
military sales and economic cooperation between the two Asian giants.
Still, some divisive issues remain, such as the likely awarding of a
major Siberian oil pipeline to Tokyo, not Beijing. The United States is
watching closely and warily as the former communist allies forge
powerful new ties in Asia and view Washington as a potential menace.

In Sunday's election, Putin is expected to sweep to a second four-year
term and move ahead briskly with improving ties between Moscow and
Beijing.

Once China and Russia were closely allied, but later the Sino-Soviet
split opened and the United States took advantage of the bitter division
to forge new diplomatic relations with China, sidelining the Soviets.
Now the situation is very different, as both Russia and China espouse
capitalism and have resolved many of their differences in the face of
what they perceive to be a common rival - the US.

Last month, the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) said the United
States might anticipate potential problems with both China and Russia,
although the US currently has good relations with the two countries. The
US effort to seek bases in Central Asia - strategically important to
both Moscow and Beijing - is one of many causes of concern, as well as
US unilateralism in its foreign policy.

Testifying before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on
February 25, Vice Admiral Lowell E Jacoby, director of the DIA, said
Beijing "likely fears a long-term US presence on its borders", while
Russia is improving its relations with some countries, most notably
China, in pursuit of a multipolar world and to enhance its arms sales.

China the top customer for Russian arms

During Putin's first term, China consolidated its position as the top
customer for Russia's arms industry, purchasing billions of dollars'
worth of jet aircraft, missiles, submarines and other military hardware.

Russia and China were both disturbed by the Iraq war - especially the US
decision to attack without broad international support - and Moscow and
Beijing protested what they viewed as a rejection of the rules of the
international game. They still back the primacy of the United Nations
Security Council in resolving international crises, and they support the
principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign
states.

Apart from shared concerns about US dominance in the Middle East, Asia
and elsewhere, the two nations have other common interests and mutually
reinforcing needs. They are weary of - and alarmed by - militant Islamic
groups in their border regions, and want stability in Central Asia.

Russia and China have said they hope to increase bilateral trade to
US$20 billion a year, from the current $12 billion.

Last June, Chinese President Hu Jintao, leader of the world's most
populous nation, visited Russia on his first trip abroad and signed a
strategic energy pact with President Putin. Hu's speeches in Moscow
emphasized the importance of a multipolar world and the need for the UN
to play a central role in Iraq.

China, Russia now pledge eternal friendship

Last week, Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing announced that
presidents Hu and Putin would meet in Beijing in the second half of this
year. Li also noted that the two nations share a 4,300-kilometer border
- once the site of major troop deployments and occasional skirmishes -
and pledge to be eternal friends. He also announced that chairman Wu
Bangguo of China's National People's Congress as well as Premier Wen
Jiabao would visit Russia this year to discuss enhancing their strategic
partnership based on common political, economic and military interests.

Russia's ongoing government reshuffle has sent some positive signals to
China. In an apparent reiteration of their shared belief in the primacy
of the UN in conflict resolution, Putin appointed UN Ambassador Sergei
Lavrov to be Moscow's new foreign minister. Putin also retained Defense
Minister Sergei Ivanov, a close ally who also has been mentioned as a
possible heir to the Kremlin leader in 2008. Ivanov has considerable
China experience; last year he and his Chinese counterpart, General Cao
Gangchuan, agreed to strengthen their defense cooperation. That will
continue.

When Putin sacked the government of Mikhail Kasyanov on February 24, the
new prime minister, Mikhail Fradkov, pledged to pledged to develop the
oil sector and boost Russia's crude-oil output to ports in Asia.

However, some bilateral economic issues could prove divisive. Putin's
cabinet reshuffle eclipsed - but not in Beijing - the announcement this
month that Moscow would probably exclude China and accept a
Japanese-backed plan to build a new oil pipeline to Nakhodka. A formal
decision has not been announced. China and Japan have been competing for
Russian crude - both trying to reduce their dependence on Middle East
oil - and each has been backing rival pipeline routes. China National
Petroleum Corp is backing a US$2.8 billion link to China's northeastern
city of Daqing. Tokyo has offered to fund a $6 billion pipeline to the
port of Nakhodka on Russia's Pacific coast.

Last May, Russia and China signed a non-binding contract that involves
the eventual expansion of oil exports to China, up to 220.6 million
barrels (30 million tons) a year. Russia's major oil corporation Yukos
and China's National Petroleum Corp (CNPC) have signed a $150 billion
deal for a pipeline to China to ship up to 700 million tons of oil from
2005 to 2030. Under the agreement, CNPC would buy up to 5.13 billion
barrels of Russian oil, worth $150 billion, between 2005 and 2030. The
$2.5 billion pipeline will run from Russia's Western Siberian field in
Angarsk to to China's Daqing oilfield and refinery.

Russia to hike oil exports to China by rail

In late February, Putin supported plans of the state-owned Russian
Railways Co (RZD) to boost oil exports to China. "Using railway routes
for oil supplies to China is a good idea," Putin said.

The RZD said it would boost oil exports to China by rail. Shipments to
China would rise to 110,000 barrels per day (bpd) in 2005 from 88,000
bpd this year, according to the company, and by 2006, oil supplies to
China by rail would be running at 200,000 bpd. RZD also said it was
technically feasible to boost rail shipments to China even sixfold to
600,000 bpd. An increase in rail deliveries across the border, however,
makes up only a fraction of the planned pipeline deliveries.

Beijing has been viewing the Angarsk-Daqing pipeline as an important way
to reduce its growing dependence on oil shipped from the Middle East. As
China has been pursuing this and other oil and gas projects in the
former Soviet republics, Russian pledges to boost rail shipments of
crude oil to China could hardly be viewed as an alternative to
Angarsk-Daqing.

Nonetheless, this month China Petroleum & Chemical Corp, the Sinopec
Group, reiterated its interest in extracting Russian oil and gas.
Sinopec is also willing to consider ventures in hydrocarbon refining
with Russian companies. Sinopec is engaged in talks to set up joint
ventures with Russia's two top oil producers, LUKoil and Yukos, the
Chinese company's vice president, Wang Jiming, told Russia's Interfax
news agency.

Putin, when visiting Khabarovsk in Russia's Far East last month,
described the Angarsk-Nakhodka oil pipeline as a strategic project.
Earlier in February, Russia's government said it wanted to build the
3,900km Angarsk-Nakhodka crude oil pipeline. The rival proposal to build
a pipeline to Daqing and give China exclusive access to the oil might be
abandoned, then-energy minister Igor Yusufov said.

Japan also wants to explore for oil in Russia's Far East

On the other hand, Japan Petroleum Exploration Co, a state-owned oil
explorer, said it might join a research project to explore oil reserves
in Russia's Far East and in Eastern Siberia, which have been estimated
at as much as 100 billion barrels. Japan Petroleum Exploration would be
the first Japanese company to join an oil-reserve survey in this part of
Russia.

Meanwhile, last year Russia Petroleum agreed with consumers in China and
South Korea to start supplies from 2008, gradually rising to 30 billion
cubic meters of natural gas per year. Tyumen Oil Co-British Petroleum
(TNK-BP) also plans to build Russia's first gas pipeline to Asia, also
going to China and South Korea. Kovykta field in Irkutsk region, eastern
Siberia, is estimated to contain some 2 trillion cubic meters of gas
reserves. The $4 billion project calls for the installation of a 3,700km
pipeline between Kovykta field, 400km north of Irkutsk near Lake Baikal,
and China's Pacific coast port of Lianyunggang, via Ulan Bator in
Mongolia.

This month TNK-BP oil company announced plans to invest $650 million to
develop the major Kovykta gas field in eastern Siberia from 2004-09.
TNK-BP controls 63 percent of Russia Petroleum, whose main asset is the
giant Kovykta field. BP owns a 50 percent stake in TNK-BP.

The Russian government has said it projects crude output growth of up to
441 million barrels (60 million tons) in Eastern Siberia and up to 147
million barrels (20 million tons) at offshore oilfields around Sakhalin
Island by 2020. According to the Russian estimates, the development of
untapped oil reserves in Eastern Siberia would require some $55 billion
of investments in the next 25 years. Given the scale of the projected
growth, Chinese and Japanese hydrocarbon interests could be eventually
reconciled in Siberia.

In the meantime, both Russia and China have been recently subject to US
criticism. The State Department censured Russia and China for their poor
human-rights records in a report on February 25. And the DIA has said
there are reasons to anticipate potential problems with Russia and
China, despite good relations with both nations at this time.

The US criticism and shared concerns in Beijing and Moscow about
Washington's dominance could provide further impetus for Russia and
China to overcome differences and unite on a variety of international
issues.

(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd.

(4) Prof. A. K. Dewdney examines the 9/11 cover-up

Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 02:20:12 +0000 From: "vyzygoth IV"
<vyzygoth@hotmail.com>

i interviewed dewdney last week. the audio can be accessed at

http://vyzygothsgrassyknoll.org/index_files/page0001.htm

(5) "When the world stopped seeing us losers on trains to the death
camps"

Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 20:01:19 -0800 From: Jeff Blankfort
<jblankfort@earthlink.net>

Excellent article on Israel's repression of the Palestinians and
anti-Semitism. From the British Guardian. Written by a former editor of
the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Telegraph.

Ed Corrigan

A grotesque choice

Israel's repression of the Palestinian people is fuelling a resurgence
of anti-semitism

Max Hastings Thursday March 11, 2004 The Guardian

It is impossible to doubt that genuine anti-semitism - racial antipathy
towards Jews - is resurgent in Europe and even, in some circles,
becoming respectable. A few years ago, my wife and I found ourselves at
a dinner party that included several Austrian guests. Mischievously, I
asked a female member of the Vienna government sitting opposite me how
her country was coping with the Nazi embarrassments of its president,
Kurt Waldheim.

She stiffened. "President Waldheim is a fine and good man, who has been
grossly traduced by a conspiracy of Jews," she said severely. Her
husband interjected: "My father always told me that most of the things
the Jews say about the war are lies." Our English host added
supportively: "Jews cause most of the trouble in the world, what?"

At this point, the Hastingses departed without explanation. In the car,
still shaking with rage, my wife said: "They weren't just pretending to
be anti-semitic, were they? They were the real thing." It is rare to
encounter such unashamed malevolence at a modern English dinner table,
and thus all the more shocking when it happens.

Before the second world war, such sentiments were commonplace, not least
in the "Clubland Hero" thrillers of Buchan, Sapper and Dornford Yates.
"Bolshevik Jews" were responsible for many of the villainous
conspiracies frustrated by Richard Hannay, Bulldog Drummond and Jonah
Mansell, before they gave the culprits a good flogging.

It has often been observed that Hitler did the British ruling classes a
favour by making anti-semitism no longer respectable. Yet as late as
September 1944, a Foreign Office official named Arminius Dew minuted:
"In my opinion, a disproportionate amount of the time of the Office is
wasted on dealing with these wailing Jews." Only in April 1945, when the
concentration camps were revealed to the world, did the historic sea
change in sentiment take place.

I would suggest that the first stirrings of renewed animosity towards
Jews in Europe emerged in the 70s. When I made this point to an Israeli
acquaintance, he observed sourly: "Yeah, when the world stopped seeing
us losers on trains to the death camps." For it is, of course, the issue
of Israel that has provoked some change of sentiment.

Many of the remarks that Jewish critics denounce as anti-semitic are, in
reality, criticisms of Israel or its government. Five years ago, when I
was editing the Evening Standard, the Board of Deputies of British Jews
asked to send a delegation to my office to protest at our coverage of
the Middle East. I refused, saying that I would meet at any time to
discuss matters pertaining to British Jews, but that Israeli affairs
were the province of the Israeli ambassador.

A month or so later, I was lunching with Vere Rothermere, then chairman
of the family newspaper company. "I had a visit on your account
yesterday," he said with a quixotic grin. "From the Board of Deputies.
They said you wouldn't see them. They say you are anti-semitic. They
warned me that the Israeli Likud wants to organise a boycott of the
Evening Standard."

I asked how he had responded. "I told them that such a boycott would be
a very good story for the Standard," said Lord Rothermere, which helps
to explain why, as an editor, I held his family in such respect as
proprietors.

In general, across the British media, managerial attitudes are less
robust. Several proprietors are fervent Zionists, while rather more take
the cynical view that the Middle East is an intractable issue of no more
interest to their readers than Northern Ireland. Palestinians present an
unsympathetic face to the western world. Given the ferocity with which
some Jewish readers respond to criticism of Israel, many executives
perceive sceptical coverage of Israel's excesses as more trouble than it
is worth.

In this country, only the Guardian and Independent deal thoroughly with
what is taking place, and display real sympathy for the plight of the
Palestinians. Elsewhere a lot of space is given to apologias for Israeli
conduct, some of which reveal a contempt for Palestinian human rights
that invites the most baleful of historical comparisons.

It is a tribute to Israeli propaganda success that many commentators
seem happy to regard as just a possible peace deal that would leave
Israel in control of settlements and strategic roads in a Palestinian
state. It is a measure of how far matters have gone that when Ariel
Sharon announced the closure of some settlements in Gaza, it was hailed
as a historic breakthrough.

In the eyes of some of us, even the Oslo accords promised no realistic
prospect of a viable Palestinian society. They represented the outer
limit of what Israeli liberals believed they could sell to their own
nation, but they offered the Palestinians no chance of economic, social
or political lift-off because the terms denied any hope of self-respect.

I reply to every reader's letter accusing me of anti-semitism because
the issue seems so important. They make the cardinal error of
identifying the Jewish people with the Israeli government, wilfully
confusing anti-semitism and anti-Zionism. Often, they seem to demand
that the behaviour of Israel should be judged by a special standard,
that allows the likes of Sharon and Netanyahu a special quota of
excesses, in compensation for past sufferings.

For many years, Israelis in debating difficulties have played a decisive
trump: "You have no right to criticise our actions, because of the
Holocaust." Ruthless exploitation of the Holocaust card has been
successful in deflecting much international criticism, especially from
European democracies.

Charges of anti-semitism are not infrequently levelled against the
growing number of Jews who express dismay about the behaviour of the
Israeli government; they are "self-hating Jews", who betray their own
kin. Yet surely it is those who make such cruel allegations who bring
shame upon themselves.

Jewish genius through the centuries has been reflected in the highest
intellectual standards. Attempts to equate anti-Zionism, or even
criticism of Israeli policy, with anti-semitism reflect a pitiful
intellectual sloth, an abandonment of reasoned attempts to justify
Israeli actions in favour of moral blackmail. In the short run, such
intimidation is not unsuccessful, especially in America. Yet in the long
term, grave consequences may ensue. In much of the world, including
Europe, a huge head of steam is building against Israeli behaviour.

More than a few governments are cooperating less than wholeheartedly
with America's war on terror because they are unwilling to be associated
with what they see as an unholy alliance of the Sharon and Bush
governments. One of Germany's most distinguished postwar leaders
expressed to me a few months ago his frustration that, as a German, he
is unable to vent his feelings about the wickedness of what is being
done in Israel's name.

I feel a commitment to the Jewish people, founded on awareness partly of
their history, partly of their genius. Yet I see no reason why this
should prevent me from asserting that the policies of Sharon and
Netanyahu bring shame upon Israel.

It is ironic that Israel's domestic critics - former intelligence chiefs
and serving fighter pilots - have shown themselves much braver than
overseas Jews. If Israel persists with its current policies, and Jewish
lobbies around the world continue to express solidarity with repression
of the Palestinians, then genuine anti-semitism is bound to increase.
Herein lies the lobbyists' recklessness. By insisting that those who
denounce the Israeli state's behaviour are enemies of the Jewish people,
they seek to impose a grotesque choice.

The Israeli government's behaviour to the Palestinians breeds a despair
that finds its only outlet in terrorism. No one can ever criticise the
Jewish diaspora for asserting Israel's right to exist. But the most
important service the world's Jews can render to Israel today is to
persuade its people that the only plausible result of their government's
behaviour is a terrible loneliness in the world.

· Max Hastings is a former editor of the Daily Telegraph and the London
Evening Standard comment@guardian.co.uk

(6) "In Atheism Yahweh has driven his rivals, the gods of the
Goyim-peoples, from the field" - Horst Mahler

There are different kinds of Atheism. Buddhism, Taoism and variants of
Hinduism substitute an impersonal principle for a personal divinity, but
these are acceptable kinds of non-theism, because they involve
submission to that principle. Mahler's target, in the following paper,
is the notion that "Man is self-defined (Humanism)". I would call it
Nihilism rather than Atheism per se.

Note that Mahler, as well as opposing Judaism, opposes "the biological
racism of historic National Socialism, which reduces the human being to
his animal impulses ... Conservatism and historic National Socialism
have, in their way, destroyed the spirituality of Man"

Left? Right? Horst Mahler on the 1968 Cultural Revolution

http://www.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/mahler/partone.html

... Horst Mahler was ... joint founder of the Socialist German Student
Federation (SDS) and a member of the terrorist Red Army Faction (RAF).
Last weekend he applied to join the neo-fascist National Democratic
Party of Germany (NPD).

... The joint founder of the RAF had already become one of its critics
during his detention. In 1977 he wrote that this had come from his
"inner liberation from the dogmatic revolutionary theory of
Marxism-Leninism". But his conversion went even further. In 1998, after
10 years of relative calm, Mahler surprised the public with a submission
to the right-wing newspaper Junge Freiheit, in which he revealed his new
beliefs. In this article he drew a connection between the radical 1968
movement and the development of a new völkisch (German-nationalist)
ideology .

"The 1968 generation destroyed tradition and religion as world-shaping
conceptions ... and brought our people a step nearer to maturity. The
ground is only now ready for completing this enlightenment, which will
simultaneously mean their surmounting. We experience this result of the
cultural revolution of 1968 as Hell, since along with tradition and
religion our moral substance has departed.... As a cultureless Volk
[people] we live in a second Stone Age. It requires some effort of
thought to really extinguish the mental vacuum - this condition of
absolute negativity, which threatens to destroy us now as humans and as
a Volk - and recognise as something positive, and in this sense as an
historical service of the 1968 generation.... Let us be warriors of
thought! Let us argue together - for God and our forefathers' country!"
...

On the basis of a conspiracy theory of "Jewish financial capital",
Mahler speaks of the "secret government" by the "directors of the global
economic and financial system"

... Marxism, according to Mahler today, divides the people, and that is
basically false. "Resistance should particularly be directed against
American supremacy and come from the völkischen Einheit [unity of the
people]".

{end}

Horst Mahler's paper, prepared for the cancelled International
Revisionist Conference, Lebanon, 3 April 2001

Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 17:51:56 +1030 From: "Adelaide Institute"
<info@adelaideinstitute.org>

Final Solution of the Jewish Question

Discovery of God instead of Jewish Hatred

by Horst Mahler

Keinmachnow, 25 March 2001

http://www.regmeister.net/kolleg/h_mahler.htm

... On 17 March 2001, I found remarkable news on the Internet. The World
Jewish Congress, the Anti-Defamation League, the Simon Wiesenthal
Center, Representatives of the U.S. Congress as well as the U.S.
government were reported to have intervened with the Lebanese government
to prevent this Conference.

With that, I have come to the theme of my presentation.

Ambassador Stuart E. Eizenstat, U.S. Under-Secretary for economic,
commercial, and agricultural affairs -- a Jew -- in a speech held on 21
May 1998 before graduates of Yeshiva University, proudly claimed:

The people of Israel represent genuine power exercised by Jews for the
first time since the destruction of the Second Temple

He spoke of the "remarkable transition of the Jews from the margins into
the center of American life, in whose center Jews would once again be
standing, who esteemed the traditional Jewish values as highly as
American values"

We have to find this prospect unpleasant, especially since this power
hides itself behind the smoke-screen of fine-sounding words like
"enlightenment," "tolerance," "emancipation," "Modernism," "human
rights," "free trade," and "Globalism," and attacks and destroys nations
and peoples from its place of concealment.

In order not to put the onus of responsibility for the machinations of
this power upon the people living in the U.S., it is essential to give
it a name of its own. Let us call it, as did the old Chancellor Helmut
Kohl, the "East Coast."

After two thousand years of dispersion among other peoples, the tribes
of Israel have attained Welthirtschaft (Oberlercher) [The German word
die Hirtschaft has no English equivalent; it connotes the mastery a
herdsman has over a flock of sheep, and of course Welthirtschaft
indicates that the range of this mastery is world-wide]. As was feared
by George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, by using piggy-back tactics,
they have acquired for themselves the power of the United States of
America -- the mightiest power the world has ever seen. ...

The ascent of the Jews to world power is not to be explained on the
basis of biology. The attribution of history to "iron Laws of Nature"
leaves us blind where the works of the spirit and mind are there to be
examined.

It is the Jewish religion -- therefore a concrete form of spirit --
which has kept the Jews, dispersed over the whole sphere of the earth
through the millennia, in an awareness of being the Chosen People of
Yahweh. ...

The significance of the religion for the Welthirtschaft of Jewry should
alert us to the fact that the religion is no slight matter and that most
important, it should not be regarded as a private matter. That the Goyim
accept this idea as an imperative of Tolerance is the secret of Jewish
superiority.

This consciousness of being chosen by Yaweh allows the Jews to conceive
of themselves as a Nation, although they are not. ...

In order to maintain this condition of defenselessness, the East Coast
does all that it can to make the Jewish Question a taboo. Wherever signs
of a critical view of Jewry begin to make themselves noticeable, the
Jewish organizations are ready at hand -- as we have just seen -- to
extinguish the fire. ...

The religious Jews themselves see themselves in their sacred scriptures
as a negative and undermining element among other peoples. They name
their sacred mountain "Mount Sinai": "This is a mountain from which
hatred toward the peoples of the world has descended." They also name it
"Mount Horeb," "because from there destruction has come down upon the
peoples of the world."

We would be ashamed of this negativity. Because, according to Christian
teaching, all peoples are the beloved creatures of God, the idea that we
bring destruction to other peoples would be painful to us. The Jews are
different. They believe that [for] Yahweh "his fury and indignation is
upon all heathens, whom he will deliver unto slaughter, that the stink
of their corpses shall ascend and the mountains will flow with their
blood." (Isaiah 34: 2-3).

Devout JEWS are able to enjoy the thought of the ruin of the GOYIM. They
embrace their role as destroyers of other peoples.

They bring, with thorough consistency, even their destiny of persecution
into connection with this negativity, for it is merely the obverse of
their chosenness. In the Vulgate of the Book of Esther (StzuEst 1, 4) we
read about a measure taken by the great Persian King Artaxerxes against
the Jews living in his kingdom:

We perceive therefore, that a single people opposes all the world, keeps
perverse laws and is disobedient to our commands, by which it does great
injury and disturbs peace and unity in our kingdom. ...

This power makes use of lies as weapons. But it is not based upon lies.
Rather, their power is based upon their belief in being the Chosen
People, and upon the spiritual weakness of the Goyim-Peoples, who no
longer believe in God.

Atheism is the Extermination of the Goyim-Peoples by Yahweh

The belief that there is no God, that Man is self-defined (Humanism),
that the World is realizable without recourse to the concept of the
Absolute Spirit (God), is the triumph of Judaism over other peoples. In
Atheism Yahweh has driven his rivals, the gods of the Goyim-peoples,
from the field. On this basis alone these peoples are then delivered
defenselessly up to Globalism and ordained to destruction.

{I would use the word "nihilism" rather than "atheism". A religion can
be atheistic, e.g. Buddhism, which nevertheless sees people as subject
to forces such as karma, and therefore not self-defined. Impersonal
depictions of cosmic law such as Maat and Tao function as impersonal
concepts of divinity, in contrast to anthropomorphic concepts which
envisage divinity as being like a man, with emotions and tribal
favouritism. An impersonal concept of divinity is more advanced because
not made-in-the-image-of-man.}

But this victory over the gods of the Goyim is simultaneously the defeat
of Judaism. The peoples who have been robbed of their gods -- the German
people first before all others -- suffer, in the death of God, the death
of the people. This folk-death, however, is only the transition point to
new life. It is the resurrection of the peoples in the spirit of
idealistic philosophy. This is conceptually religion -- and thereby the
conquest of all religious contradictions. ...

The claim to validity of Atheism is refutable with one simple
reflection:

Blaise Pascal correctly remarked that the non-existence of God is just
as little to be proved as his existence. Therefore opting for the
proposition: "God does not exist" is just as much a resolution of faith
as the choice of the proposition: "There is a God -- eternal,
everlasting, all-powerful, all-knowing, and everywhere present."

This insight lies in the realm of proof: In the traditional sense,
something which at first appears uncertain, is considered validly proven
when it can be compellingly and logically imported into an existing
certainty (extinguishing of doubt). But since there is no certainty
"before" or "about" God, from which God or his non-existence might be
developed, any talk of proof of God (and/or of the proof of the
non-existence of God) in the meaning understood here, is senseless. ...

{end}

Christian missionaries did to tribal peoples what Jews are doing to
Christians. However, they left them with a religious substitute - the
Christian religion - and these Third World peoples are now the bastion
of Christianity, in the face of the nihilistic West.

--
Peter Myers, 21 Blair St, Watson ACT 2602, Australia
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers          ph +61 2 62475187
to unsubscribe, reply with "unsubscribe" in the subject line