----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Myers" myers@cyberone.com.au
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 4:49 AM
Subject: The New Pearl Harbor, by David Ray Griffin - review by Rosemary Ruether



Dr Robert John, of ICHEE, is the author of Palestine Diary, and also of
Behind the Balfour Declaration. He informs me that he knew Benjamin
Freedman well, and heard him speak on a number of occasions.

A few days ago, Dr John forwarded a report "Israel's Threat To World
Peace by Brigadier General James J. David". Then, he forwarded an
apology, because a respondent had informed him that the report was
bogus, that there was no such Brigadier David, that the report
originally came from a Hizbollah website.

Dr John has now located the said Brigadier David, and forwarded a
vindicating email from him.


(1) Israel's Threat To World Peace by Brigadier General James J. David

(2) Retired Brigadier U.S. General/we apologize/more

(3) Retired Brigadier U.S. General/source

(4) The New Pearl Harbor, by David Ray Griffin - review by Rosemary Ruether

(5) Gold Standard


(1) Israel's Threat To World Peace by Brigadier General James J. David

Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 15:01:31 EST From: Ichee@aol.com

 Israel's Threat To World Peace

by Brigadier General James J. David

December 24 2003


It seems that the entire world is praising American and British
diplomacy for its efforts in convincing Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi in
announcing that Libya would cease work on its programs to develop
nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. This is quite an
accomplishment, considering that Libya has been listed for more than
17years by the U.S. State Department as one of the major countries
supporting state terrorism.

As wonderful as this news may be, the United States needs to concentrate
its efforts towards the real obstacle to world peace. Libya was no
threat to world peace, and neither was Iraq. If the United States
devotes as much effort in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as
they did with Libya's weapons of mass destruction then maybe the
American people could rest a bit easier.

According to a recent poll by the Anti-Defamation League, forty-two
percent of the American people consider Israel as a threat to world
peace. What's even more astonishing is the result of a recent European
poll that found 59 percent of Europeans considered Israel as the major
threat to world peace with the United States coming in second. Libya
wasn't even mentioned.

Libya has never been a threat to the United States, and for that matter,
Iraq was never a threat to the United States. The only threat Iraq or
Libya posed was a threat to Israel's dominance of nuclear weapons in the
Middle East.

While Iraq failed to obey one UN resolution fast enough, Israel has
steadfastly refused to obey not just one UN resolution, but an
incredible 69 UN resolutions. Israel's actions have brought outrage from
a majority of the UN's member states on 69 separate occasions. They have
condemned Israel for the destruction of Arab villages, for the murder of
innocent women and children, for making war on neighboring states, for
refusing to withdraw from invaded and occupied territory, for killing
protesting students, for killing civilians protesting being expelled
from their homes, for a transcontinental bombing raid against Tunisia,
and for dozens of other violations. And on 29 other occasions, UN
resolutions with real teeth in them, calling for Israel to withdraw from
stolen land and allow self-determination for the Palestinian people
among other things, would have been adopted but were vetoed by the one
dissenting vote of the United States. When it comes to the exercising of
any kind of real power against those who violate UN resolutions, it
seems that some countries are "more equal than others."

Israel gets away not only with an expansionist foreign policy, but with
repeatedly and endlessly violating the most elementary human rights of
her subject peoples. Although Israel's PR men would have us believe that
Israel is an island of Western values in the Middle East, the truth is
quite the opposite. Not only does Israel violate the most fundalmental
human rights laws but Israel is also guilty of assassination,
kidnapping, expulsion, detention without charges or trial, land
confiscation, and collective punishment - not to mention Israel's
long-standing practice of espionage against the United States, its
principal benefactor and the attack on the USS Liberty that killed 34
American sailors and injured another 171.

Hardly a day goes by without the Israelis killing innocent Palestinian
men, women, and children. Today they killed 8 Palestinians and wounded
an estimated 300. Three days ago they killed a 6-year-old Palestinain
boy just hours before a 13-year-old Palestinian boy died from a gunshot
to his head. Twenty Palestinians have been killed in the past two weeks
even though there hasn't been even one suicide bombing in over two
months. And just last week the Israelis shot and killed a 21-year-old
pregnant Palestinian mother trying to take her young son to the
hospital. The Israelis have killed more than 500 women and children in
the past 3 years. They have demolished more than 3000 Palestinian homes,
causing more than 17,000 homeless, including 2300 children.

These stories never make the Headline News or the front pages of your
local newspapers. You don't see President Bush or Condoleezza Rice out
on the front lawn of the White House condemning the Israelis for killing
innocent men, women, and especially children. The United States talks
about a balanced Middle East Policy but just look at what we actually
practice. We have one standard for the treatment of Israelis that is so
high they cannot be criticized no matter what grisly crimes they commit.
Then we have a second standard for the treatment of Palestinians that is
so low we publicly finance their ethnic cleansing and torture.

President Bush may refer to Israeli policies as obstacles to peace but
when it comes time for a vote in the U.N. Security Council on the
illegal settlements, or the apartheid wall, or on assassinations, or any
of the other Israeli criminal acts, the United States vetoes every move
to condemn Israeli aggression. The United States could not even bring
itself to condemn the Qana Lebanese refugee camp massacre of 1996 in
which 103 innocent Lebanese civilians were killed. Is it any wonder the
Arab world hates us? Is it any wonder America was attacked? How can the
United States strive for world peace when Israel is allowed to do
whatever it pleases? Supporting Israel may be politically correct, but
the more we look the other way, the more violence there will be.

American politicians jump on the Zionist bandwagon simply because they
know that is where the power is. The Jewish Anti-Defamation League and
the Jewish Lobby and Jewish interest groups have effectively silenced
any politician who is critical to Israeli policy.

Is the Israeli lobby and the Jewish control of our American politicians
so powerful that our elected officials have lost all sense of moral
right? Evidently, former President Jimmy Carter thought so when he was
prompted to say, after he left office of course, that no politician
dared to oppose its demands, because to do so would be "political
suicide." They take our money, we fight and die in their wars, and,
since both political parties are in their pocket, the American people
don't have any choice in the matter. Sheilding Israel is an
international embarrassment and places U.S. citizens in danger around
the world, let alone danger to our own nation.

It is time for the American people to face the fact that supporting
Israel's criminal activities is the greatest threat facing America
today. Disguising America's threat with anything else is nothing more
than political spin and a decoy used as a means of savings one's career.
Placing the blame on Israel would end one's political career.

The recent decision by Libya to abandon its weapons of mass destruction
is just one step towards world peace. The bigger step would be for
Israel to do the same. It is time for the United States to free itself
from the grips of the Jewish lobby and to take a stand on the side of
human mankind. It is time to use our foreign aid as leverage and to
insist on Israel to abandon its weapons of mass destruction and to abide
by International Law. It is time we stop fooling the American people. It
is time to get tough with Israel. After all, Israel is the biggest
threat to world peace.



(2) Retired Brigadier U.S. General/we apologize/more

Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 03:10:48 EST From: Ichee@aol.com

To: Ichee@aol.com Sent from the Internet (Details)

You know its actually more complex than it seems - I just looked at the
US army website, it has a searchable archive - there is no reference to
any officer named James J. David. There are discussion forums for
veterans from this 101 airborn that he was supposed to serve with in
Vietnam, I wrote to one of them to see if he actually knows of a
commander by that name from 69 - 70. Let's see what he says.

On the other hand it seems that this information you sent originally
came from a hizbollah website... hardly an objective source of

I guess this just underlines again how careful you need to be with the
material you choose to forward - otherwise you will end up being a tool
for something you probably don't mean to be affiliated with in any way.

Best regards, Anton

-----Original Message----- From: Ichee@aol.com [mailto:Ichee@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 4:06 PM To: Ichee@aol.com Subject: Re:
Retired Brigadier U.S. General/we apologize

Subj: Re: Retired Brigadier U.S. General/we apologize

Date: 12/27/2003 3:45:54 PM Eastern Standard Time From: Ichee To:
info@.com In a message dated 12/27/2003 3:36:13 PM Eastern Standard
Time, info@.com writes:

 is absolutely crucial to take time to analyze the material you pass out
to see if it is a genuinely constructive or is some form of bigotry and
rhetoric. Otherwise it becomes the same sort of misleading propaganda
that US press is already //



(3) Retired Brigadier U.S. General/source

Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 12:15:21 EST From: Ichee@aol.com Subject: Fwd:
FW: Retired Brigadier U.S. General/source
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 10:40:41 EST From: BGJDAVID@aol.com To:
RePorterNoteBook@aol.com, Ichee@aol.com,
virginia.abernathy@mcmail.vanderbilt.edu, info@e-flux.com, info@.com

These people can try to attack my character and credentials all they
want but in the end I have all the proof I need. I will be happy to send
anyone a copy of my Appointment as Brigadier General on the State
Retired list of the National Guard of Georgia, and a copy of my U.S.
Army promotion to Colonel USA, and my latest copy of retired pay
December, 2003, prepared by the Department of Defense, Finance and
Accounting Service. In addition I will also be happy to send a copy of
my DD 214 showing my one year service in Vietnam as a Company Commander
with the 101st Airborne Division and the award of the Bronze Star by the
President of the United States presented and signed by the Secretary of
the Army, Stanley R. Resor, for my service in ground operations against
hostile forces in the Republic of Vietnam in 1969 and 1970. I will also
send a copy of my diploma from the U.S. Army's Command and General Staff
College, and my award as the Honor Student of my class. And finally, I
will also be happy to send a copy of my diploma from the National
Defense University, Washington, D.C.

It is always the same tactic that these zionists always rely on. In
their attempts to silence any critic of Israel, these people prefer to
smear the character of the critic. Instead of attacking the message,
they attack the messenger. It's time we start attacking this tactic.
They have gotten away with it too long.

James J. David Brigadier General, retired, Georgia Army National Guard
Colonel, USA (RET)


(4) The New Pearl Harbor, by David Ray Griffin - review by Rosemary

Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 21:43:05 -0800 From: "tom ascher"
From: "Eric Walberg" <eric@albatros.uz> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003
7:49 PM Subject: yet more 911

Book Review: The New Pearl Harbor

Was the Bush Administration Complicit in 9/11?

by Dr. Rosemary Radford Ruether

Until recently I dismissed the suggestions that the Bush administration
might have been complicit in allowing 9/11 to happen as groundless
"conspiracy theory." I regarded the federal investigative bureaucracies
as suffering from a "lock the barn door after the horse has escaped"
syndrome. American government agencies seemed to me to be full of
repressive energy and exaggerated overreach after some atrocity had
occurred, but remarkably incompetent when it came to preventing
something in advance. There is no question that the Bush administration
has profited greatly from the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and
the Pentagon, but I did not imagine that they could have actually known
they were being planned and deliberately allowed them to happen.

Thus it was with some skepticism that I agreed to read the new book
written by David Ray Griffin, a process theologian from the Claremont
School of Theology (Claremont, California), that argues the case for
just such complicity. This book, The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing
Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11, is due for release in
January, 2004. Griffin admits that he too was skeptical toward such
suggestions until he began to actually read the evidence that has been
accumulated by a number of researchers, both in the United States and
Europe. As he became increasingly convinced that there was a case for
complicity, he planned to write an article, but this quickly grew into a

The first startling piece of evidence that Griffin puts forward is
establishing the motive among leaders in the Bush administration for
allowing such an attack. Already in 2000 the right-wing authors of the
"Project for the New American Century: Rebuilding America's Defenses,"
opined that the military expansion they desired would be difficult
unless a "new Pearl Harbor" occurred. They had outlined plans for a
major imperial expansion of American power that included a greatly
increased military budget and invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq,
primarily to secure oil supplies, but also to control the region
generally. But they believed that the American people would not have the
will for such actions without some devastating attack from outside that
would galvanize them through fear and anger to support it. In short,
they had already envisioned facilitating a major attack on the United
States in order to gain the public support for their policy goals.

Griffin then shows the considerable evidence that the Bush
administration knew in advance that such an attack was being planned,
despite claims by the administration that such an attack was completely
unanticipated. As early as 1995 the Philippine police conveyed to the
U.S. information found on an Al-Queda computer that detailed "Project
Bojinka" that envisioned hyjacking planes and flying them into targets,
such as the World Trade Center, the White House and the Pentagon. By
July of 2001 the CIA and the FBI had intercepted considerable
information that such an attack was planned for the Fall. Leaders of
several different countries, including the Taliban in Afghanistan, as
well as leaders of Russia, Britain, Jordan, Egypt and Israel, conveyed
information to the United States that such an attack was being planned.
It appears not only that all these warnings were disregarded, but that
investigations into them were obstructed.

The actual events of September 11 leave many puzzling questions.
Standard procedures for intervention when a plane goes off course were
not followed in the case of all four airplanes. Within ten minutes of
evidence that a plane has been hyjacked standard procedures call for
fighter jets to intervene and demand that the plane follow it to an
airport. If the plane fails to obey, it should be shot down. There was
time for this to happen before the plane was over New York City in the
case of the first jet and more than ample time in the case of the
second. Moreover when the order was finally given to intervene, it was
not to McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey, seventy miles from New York
City, but from Otis Air National Guard in Cape Cod.

Griffin also examines unexplained issues about the other two planes. Eye
witnesses and on-site evidence suggests that a missile or guided fighter
aircraft, not a large commercial plane, crashed into the Pentagon.
Moreover the part of the Pentagon that was hit was not where high
ranking generals were working, but an area under repair with few
military officials. Flight #93 was the only plane shot down, although
only after it appeared passengers were on the verge of taking control.
Griffin also examines the conduct of President Bush on that day, giving
considerable evidence that he knew of the first crash immediately after
it happened, but delayed his response for some half a hour, nonchalantly
continuing with a photo op with elementary school children.

These are only a few details of the myriad data that Griffin assembles
to show that, not only did the Bush administration have detailed
information that such attacks were going to occur on September 11 and
failed to carry through protective responses in advance, but that they
also obstructed the standard procedures to intervene in these events on
the actual day it happened.

Griffin concludes the book with some considerable evidence of the way
the Bush Administration has obstructed any independent investigation of
9/11 since it occurred, both withholding key documents and insisting
that the official investigation, when it was set up, limit itself to
recommendations about how to avoid such an event in the future, and not
focus on how it actually was able to happen. Griffin writes in a precise
and careful fashion, avoiding inflammatory rhetoric. He argues for a
high probability for the Bush Administration's complicity in allowing
and facilitating the attacks, based not on any one conclusive piece of
evidence, but the sheer accumulation of all of the data. He concludes by
calling for a genuinely independent investigative effort that would
examine all this evidence. He himself plans to send the book to the Kean
Commission presently charged with that task, even though he has doubts
about its real independence.

I personally found Griffin's book both convincing and chilling. If the
complicity of the Bush Administration to which he points is true, then
Americans have a far greater problem on their hands than even the more
ardent anti-war critics have imagined. If the administration would do
this, what else would they do to maintain and expand their power? ======

(Dr. Rosemary Radford Ruether has been a pioneer Christian feminist
theologian for over three decades and is among the most widely read
theologians in the world. Her book, Sexism and God-Talk, a classic in
the field of theology, remains the only systematic feminist treatment of
the Christian symbols to date. With wide-ranging scholarship, Dr.
Ruether has written and edited over thirty books and hundreds of
articles and reviews.)


(5) Gold Standard

Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:50:46 +0800 From: "Max" <Max@mailstar.net>

> Nobody noticed that Rothschild replaced the 100% gold standard against
> 10% standard. That enabled the mafia to create money out of thin air -

> and the last curtain fell 1971 when Nixon was ordered to drop this
> standard entirely. Since they own the FED and BIS they can play with
> money at will. If countries want to create international value for
> national currencies the Central Banks are forced to deposit with BIS
> 'currency reserves' in their mafia currency. The mafias MNCs trade all

> resources also in their mafia currency. Like this all global wealth is

> converted into their dollar. ...
> {end}
> REPLY (Peter M):
> Max,
> Talk of "mafia" when you mean "bank" only confuses the issue.

The Elders of Zion are alive and they are the God factor bind all
happenings. They are the mafia. They are organized behind companies like
mentioned in this link
http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/whofed.html Zionist are only
interested in 2 subjects. 'Money' which equals power and the 'Promised
Land' !!! We need to take their power tool away from them.

Normal banks - even central banks - have to play this monopoly game by
the rules of the mafia as your correspondent in the first contribution
of this letter "(1) "high-powered money" and the Chinese economy"

> And you have not addressed the question of who owns the world's gold.
> Nor have you considered whether restoring the Gold Standard would give

> the Rothschilds just as much control over us as at present.
> You have the Islamic Gold Dinar in mind as a model. But Iraq had Oil
> that not akin to a currency?), and that didn't save it; why should a
> Gold currency save other Islamic countries?

The total gold reserves today are estimated to be a block of the size of
33x33x33 feet and is probably owned 2/3rd in form of jewelry mostly by
Asians who use this as dowry. Also around 2/3rd of the gold mines are
located in third word country, they are exploited by mafia owned
corporates who leave only the poisonous mining-by-product 'mercury'
there. There are tons of links who look at gold from different
perspectives. We might be only interested in who is manipulating gold
and this is naturally the "gold cartel" involving the usual mafiosies
J.P. Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, the Bank for
International Settlements (BIS), the U.S.Treasury and the Federal
Reserve see this link here

I find it less interesting of 'who owns todays gold' as I find the
prospect of 'gold as a global currency standard' will end the mafias
ability to issue 'money out of thin air'. That's why 100% metal backing
is essential.

Lietaer and all leading moneytary experts agree in condemning the
dependency on a single national currency. Switching from a $ to ? makes
no differences as BIS and FED are controlling today any intl.currency
and will benefit all the time from it. Therefore if we had a 100% metal
based currency like gold, the worlds national currency would not depend
on any other national currency - hence the 'gold dinar' is the smart
answer out of dependencies and away from the mafias fangs.

FED has abolished the gold standard in 1971 and BIS has abolished it
this year in April 2003 see http://www.bis.org/banking/balsheet.htm . I
can be assumed that the mafia has substantial deposits in its vaults. If
they have to hand out real coins for their credits without collateral
and they can no longer obtain interests as their monopoly is broken and
all honest business people and citizens can live with this rule, as it
means no difference to their today's dealings. Today they all have to
deliver to each other real value without collateral and interest free,
as interest is usually not part of the business transaction or exchange.
The design for future money is simple and I say it again - money should
be 100% metal-based, interest-free and without collateral.

That way money appreciates in value - while losing its speculative

> You wrote, < Banks create money also for interest>
> But Lietaer wrote (at
> http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/cc/Lietaer.html):
> <Money is created when banks lend it into existence (see article by
> Thomas Greco on page 19). When a bank provides you with a $100,000
> mortgage, it creates only the principal, which you spend and which
> circulates in the economy. The bank expects you to pay back $200,000
> over the next 20 years, but it doesn't create the second $100,000 -
> interest. Instead, the bank sends you out into the tough world to
> against everybody else to bring back the second $100,000.>

The banks have to adhere to the monopoly rules of the mafia. Only the
mafia creates 'money out of thin air' and charge 'interest'. This
principle is also inherited by normal banks who have to however back
their debits at a low rate with the central banks. On the retail side
they insist at the same time on collateral. If the creditor is unable to
repay, they will get the government as their legal agents to collect
payment for them. When they are impoverished, they will fall burden to
the community. i.e. taxes go up to pay for social dependants but the
rich are excluded and are given tax exemptions and benefits to hunt for
new victims and opportunities to repeat the game.

> Hotson wrote, in Financing Sustainable Development (at
> http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/money.html):
> {p. 4} When a bank makes a loan to an individual, business, or
> government, the principal of the loan is created and added to the
> borrower's bank balance. However, the borrower has promised to repay
> loan plus interest and no money was created with which to pay the
> interest. Therefore unless indebtedness continually grows it becomes
> impossible for all loans to be repaid as they come due. Furthermore,
> during the life of a loan some of the money will be saved and relent
> savings banks, insurance companies etc. These loans do not create
> (chequing accounts) but they do create debt. Thus we use only one
> mechanism to create money (bank loans) but several mechanisms to
> debt, making it inevitable that debt will grow faster than money with
> which to pay debt. This leads inevitably crash and debt repudiation
> depressions. The world is in such a depression at present, and has
> since about 1980. {endquote}

Peter I took the trouble and went to your above mentioned link and find
it most confusing, partially contradicting and incorrect whats written
there. Because it is so long, it appears as a science - which it is not
- it is a extortion game with a simple rule-set that shifts any national
wealth eventually to the mafia.

The mafia owns and controls the FED and BIS and if any national currency
wants to obtain interchangeability with other national currencies they
have to agree to the terms of BIS.

They give certain nations the right to issue money according to their
terms. Typically countries with large resources (oil producers) or high
productivity (China) have a surplus of worthless dollars. That leads to
a deflation as described in your [1] contributions of todays letter and
becomes a political tool which the mafia will eventually always win.

No government can create money above the GNP or else they experience a
inflation of their currency. Since most of them need always funds above
their GNP they need to take loans from the FED or BIS or their Zionist
owners listed under this link

They will than create this money 'out of thin air' and charge 'interest'
which is than never created and hence cannot be repaid. Who ever your
smart source for this essay was forgot that money can only be created

debt printing resources

forget those national banks - they are also caged into the system
created by the Zionist mafia and who issues the monopoly rules for all.
Their game can only be spoiled by returning the original purpose to
money to serve as a 'medium of exchange and storage' and remove the
speculative part from it. i.e. again - money should be 100% metal-based,
interest-free and without collateral.

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

Top of Page | Home Page

©-free 2003 Adelaide Institute