Author Topic: NLE10 / Bilderberg False Flag Car Dud exposed  (Read 142078 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bigron

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
  • RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012
Re: NLE10 / Bilderberg False Flag Car Dud exposed
« Reply #400 on: May 17, 2010, 06:04:54 am »
Obama's Slippery Slope.

Ginning-Up the "Terror" Threat, Shredding the Constitution


by Tom Burghardt

http://uruknet.info/?p=m66047&hd=&size=1&l=e

Antifascist Calling..., May 16, 2010

When Faisal Shahzad, a naturalized American citizen and 30-year-old son of a retired senior Pakistani Air Force officer was arrested in the failed plot to detonate a car-bomb in Times Square May 1, U.S. counterterrorism officials and their stenographers in the corporate media proclaimed a "connection" between Shahzad and the far-right jihadi outfit, the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP).

Never mind that such "evidence" relies on the thinnest of reeds: that Shahzad had recently traveled to Pakistan, was allegedly in "contact" with the TTP and had even received "training" from a sectarian, clan- and tribal-based organization wary of outsiders who nevertheless, allegedly "approved" of an ill-conceived plan to kill hundreds of New Yorkers.

Last week on NBC's "Meet the Press," U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder claimed, "We know that they [TTP] helped facilitate it. We know that they helped direct it. And I suspect that we are going to come up with evidence which shows that they helped to finance it. They were intimately involved in this plot."

Holder's "evidence"? Why statements by former CIA torture-enabler and current Obama counterterrorism adviser, John O. Brennan, "confirming" the administration's threadbare assertions.

The New York Times reported that Brennan "appeared to say even more definitively than Mr. Holder did that the Taliban in Pakistan had provided money as well as training and direction."

"He was trained by them," the former CEO of The Analysis Corporation (TAC) and Chairman of the security industry lobby shop, the Intelligence and National Security Alliance (INSA) said. "He received funding from them. He was basically directed here to the United States to carry out this attack."

According to media reports however, Shahzad's motivation for attempting to murder citizens of his adopted country was the cold-blooded killing of his former countrymen by the United States--specifically, the CIA's escalating drone war that has killed nearly a thousand Pakistanis since 2006.

The New York Times reported May 16, that one relative told reporters that "he was always very upset about the fabrication of the W.M.D. stunt to attack Iraq and killing noncombatants such as the sons and grandson of Saddam Hussein." The torture of Guantánamo Bay and other prisoners by the former and current administration was also a source of anger; a message on a Google Groups e-mail list bearing the photos of handcuffed and crouching detainees bore the words, "Shame on you, Bush. Shame on You."

In other words, the catalyst for the aborted attack was not our "freedom" but American policies, specifically the invasion and occupation of Central Asian and Middle Eastern states to secure strategic resources that inconveniently belong to other people.

Despite a new round of drone attacks in Waziristan May 11, that killed 14 alleged militants in a barrage of 18 missiles fired by CIA Predator and Reaper drones, the third since the attempted bombing, Pakistani officials dismissed the notion that the TTP were capable of reaching the "next level."

McClatchy Washington Bureau investigative journalist Saeed Shah reported May 11, the same day of the drone barrage, that "the inept construction of the failed bomb also raised doubts over whether the Pakistani Taliban could have trained Shahzad. They have expertise in explosives and were connected to the devastating strike on a CIA base in Afghanistan at the end of last year."

In an earlier report, McClatchy disclosed that "six U.S. officials had said there was no credible evidence that Shahzad received serious terrorist training from the Pakistani Taliban or another radical Islamic group."

In all likelihood, the insular TTP would not have viewed Shahzad as a potential recruit but rather as an American or Pakistani spy and he probably would have shared the fate of former ISI officer and Taliban supporter, Khalid Khawaja, who was gunned down in May by a militant faction despite close ties to Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar.

Even within the murky world of America's public-private secret state, not everyone is buying the administration's "TTP trained Shahzad" tale.

McClatchy reported that the private intelligence outfit, Stratfor, said that "the lack of tradecraft in Shahzad's device is compelling evidence that whatever 'contacts' or 'training' he might have received in northern Pakistan was largely confined to physical training and weapons handling, not the far more sophisticated skill set of fashioning improvised explosive devices."

But with Obama's "AfPak" adventure going off the rails, perhaps the most compelling question not being asked by the media is this: was the failed May 1 attack, like the Christmas Day plot to blow up Flight 253 over Detroit, a "product" to be exploited by the administration and their allies in Congress for wholly domestic purposes, one having very little to do with the specter of international terrorism?

Bring in the Clowns

Even before the smoke cleared in Times Square, congressional Democrats and Republicans were calling for a new round of repressive measures to "keep us safe."

Senators Joseph Lieberman (ID-CT) and former nude pin-up boy, Scott Brown (R-MA), introduced the Terrorist Expatriation Act that would allow the State Department to revoke the citizenship of people suspected of providing support to terrorist groups.

Lieberman told a May 6 press conference, "If the president can authorize the killing of a United State's citizens because he is fighting for a foreign terrorist organization, in this case Al Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula, that is involved in attacking America and killing Americans, we can also have a law that allows the U.S. government to revoke a locked-in citizenship."

The grammar-challenged senator from Massachusetts told the press, "This isn't a knee-jerk reaction. It reflects the changing nature of war in recent events. War has moved into a new dimension. Individuals who pick up arms, this is what I believe, have effectively denounced their citizenship. This legislation simply memorializes that effort."

In keeping with the repressive tenor of the times, House Speaker Nancy "impeachment is off the table" Pelosi (D-CA), said she supported the "spirit" of the bill.

But while we may dismiss the political theatrics of these clowns, more attacks on our rights and liberties are on the way.

During last week's appearance on "Meet the Press," Holder claimed that Justice Department interrogators "needed greater flexibility" to question terrorism suspects and that the administration now seeks to "carve out a broad new exemption to the Miranda rights established in a landmark 1966 Supreme Court ruling."

According to that precedent, prosecutors are barred from using statements made by suspects before they have been warned that they have a right to remain silent and to consult with an attorney.

That ruling was based on decades of evidence that police, including federal gumshoes, had coerced false confessions from suspects and then used their tainted statements in order to secure convictions and prison sentences--whether or not the individual was actually guilty of a crime.

Investigative journalist Charlie Savage reported May 10 in The New York Times that the "change" regime, providing a new, Orwellian twist to the meaning of the word, will ask Congress to loosen Miranda requirements against a "backdrop of criticism by Republicans who have argued that terrorism suspects--including United States citizens like Faisal Shahzad, the suspect in the Times Square case--should be imprisoned and interrogated as military detainees, rather than handled as ordinary criminal defendants."

In other words, far from being a proposal that will "keep us safe," the administration's tinkering with constitutional protections is a cynical political calculation by spineless Democrats, caricatured by their Republican colleagues as "soft on terrorism," to deflect criticism in an election year.

While the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) questioned Holder's move saying that "gradually dismantling the Constitution will make us less free, but it will not make us more safe," Salon columnist and constitutional law scholar Glenn Greenwald, was far less circumspect in his criticism of the administration. Greenwald wrote May 13:



What's most amazing about all of this is that even 9 years after the 9/11 attacks and even after the radical reduction of basic rights during the Bush/Cheney years, the reaction is still exactly the same to every Terrorist attack, whether a success or failure, large- or small-scale. Apparently, 8 years of the Bush assault on basic liberties was insufficient; there are still many remaining rights in need of severe abridgment. Even now, every new attempted attack causes the Government to devise a new proposal for increasing its own powers still further and reducing rights even more, while the media cheer it on. It never goes in the other direction. Apparently, as "extremist" as the Bush administration was, there are still new rights to erode each time the word Terrorism is uttered. Each new incident, no matter how minor, prompts new, exotic proposals which the "Constitution-shredding" Bush/Cheney team neglected to pursue: an assassination program aimed at U.S. citizens, formal codification of Miranda dilutions, citizenship-stripping laws, a statute to deny all legal rights to Americans arrested on U.S. soil. ...

It really is the case that every new Terrorist incident reflexively produces a single-minded focus on one question: which rights should we take away now/which new powers should we give the Government? (Glenn Greenwald, "New targets of rights erosions: U.S. citizens," Salon, May 13, 2010)

As if this weren't bad enough, the administration will soon propose new legislation to Congress "to allow the government to detain terrorism suspects longer after their arrests before presenting them to a judge for an initial hearing," The New York Times reported May 15.

"If approved," the Times disclosed, "the idea to delay hearings would be attached to broader legislation to allow interrogators to withhold Miranda warnings from terrorism suspects for lengthy periods, as Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. proposed last week."

It was unclear how long a "delay" the regime is seeking but in order to circumvent Supreme Court rulings barring the indefinite detention of suspects, "several legal specialists" according to the Times said that the "court might be more willing to approve modifications if lawmakers and the executive branch agreed that the changes were necessary in the fight against terrorism."

One such "specialist," Benjamin Wittes of the Brookings Institution said that while the Miranda proposals were generating publicity, a "presentment" hearing "is even more likely to disrupt an interrogation because it involves transporting a suspect to a courtroom for a formal proceeding."

In a May 14 Washington Post op-ed, Wittes argued that "the presidency badly needs more political and legal latitude when authorities capture a suspect in an ongoing plot." All the more relevant when that "plot" is one hatched in the shadows to destroy the constitutional rights of the American people.

As a "safeguard" Wittes told the Times, "Congress could require a high-level Justice Department official to certify that delaying the suspect's initial appearance in court was necessary for national-security reasons."

But as with administration assertions of the "state secrets privilege" to derail lawsuits challenging the government's imperial right to illegally spy on their citizens, such Justice Department avowals wouldn't be worth the paper their written on.

In testimony Thursday before the House Judiciary Committee, Holder claimed that administration proposals would effect only a minute number of "terrorism" cases.

Holder told the Committee: "We now find ourselves in 2010 dealing with very complicated terrorism matters. Those are certainly the things that have occupied much of my time. And we think that with regard to that small sliver--only terrorism-related matters, not in any other way, just terrorism cases--that modernizing, clarifying, making more flexible the use of the public safety exception would be something beneficial."

Really?

Would the "public safety exception" only apply to "terrorism" cases that involved the Afghan-Arab database of disposable Western intelligence assets known as al-Qaeda?

Or, as is likely, would a more expansive reading of the statute be viewed as a splendid means by this, or future administrations, to subject domestic dissidents, rebranded as "terrorists," to citizenship-stripping administrative detention, which after all is just another day at the office for that "beacon of democracy," America's stationary aircraft carrier in the Middle East, Israel?

What with preemptive policing that already targets antiwar, antiglobalization and environmental activists for "special handling" by federal, state and local "counterterrorism" agencies, fusion centers and various Pentagon spy shops, it's a sure bet that "what happens in Vegas" won't stay there.

As Patrick Martin pointed out May 10 on the World Socialist Web Site, "In practical terms, the Obama administration no longer distinguishes between citizens and non-citizens in its counterterrorism policies. Both alike can be targeted for surveillance, arrest, indefinite detention, even assassination."

Martin writes that the introduction of an expanded "public safety exemption" when coupled with the administration's indefinite detention proposal "would go far beyond the Bush administration, translating what were measures to be taken on executive authority, supposedly in emergency conditions, into the standard operating procedures of the US government and police agencies at every level."

What was it again the terrorists hated us for?

 


Offline bigron

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
  • RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012
Re: NLE10 / Bilderberg False Flag Car Dud exposed
« Reply #401 on: May 17, 2010, 03:07:18 pm »
May 17, 2010
http://counterpunch.com/ayesha05172010.html


Demons, Scapegoats and the Pakistani Connection

The Case of Faisal Shahzad



By AYESHA IJAZ KHAN

When British Pakistani, Amir Khan, rose to fame as a promising young boxer, overnight he became the symbol of a modern multicultural Britain.  This is unsurprising.  Everyone likes to own a good thing.  But the equally British (born and bred) 7/7 bombers, Mohammed Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer and Hasib Hussain, were quickly disowned by Britain and passed off as Pakistani.  Though their links to Pakistan were tenuous, a few stamps on the passport signifying infrequent visits to relatives, just as Amir Khan, Baroness Syeda Warsi, or any other member of an immigrant or expatriate family would have, the Pakistan connection was nevertheless played up.   

The case of Faisal Shahzad, the inexpert Times Square bomber, has once again raised the spectre of the Pakistan connection.  A recently naturalized US citizen, Faisal Shahzad has more links to Pakistan than the 7/7 bombers.  Nevertheless, he has lived in America for the last several years, was educated there, married a woman who was brought up in America and had as many links to his new country as he did to the old.  Whether or not he was trained in Pakistan’s tribal areas is yet to be conclusively confirmed.  Reports differ with Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton focusing on a strong possibility of a Pakistan connection, General David Petraeus rejects the claim however, suggesting that Faisal was acting as a “lone wolf”.     

If I were to hazard a guess, I would agree with General Petraeus for the simple reason that had he been trained in Waziristan, most likely the bomb would have worked.  Ask the Pakistanis who suffer such murderous explosions on a regular basis.  The only ones that have failed to result in large civilian casualties are the ones where courageous Pakistani policemen, suspecting suicide missions, apprehended the bombers prior to detonation, thus taking the brunt of the bombing at the police check posts and giving their own lives to protect ordinary citizens.  This is not to suggest that a potential link to Waziristan should be overlooked or prematurely dismissed.  All leads must be pursued and any incident which threatens innocent life deserves to be thoroughly investigated.  Pakistan must cooperate in the inquiry process, as it is doing, however the element of increased home-grown terrorism merits equal scrutiny.

It is no secret that radical clerics based in Europe and America have played a part in recruiting disgruntled youth to the cause of terrorism.  American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, assumed to have inspired the Christmas Day underwear bomber as well as the Fort Hood shooter, may be the most notorious of the home-grown militant clerics, but certainly cannot be the only one.  Just as Pakistan has neglected to regulate what is being preached in its mosques and madrassas, Britain and the US are also guilty of disinterest in the communal development of their immigrant Muslim communities.  As a result, oil-rich Muslim countries have stepped in to fund mosques and Islamic centres that encourage preaching suitable to their culture and interests, often at the expense of relegating women to secondary status and transferring much of the anti-American/anti-western sentiment found on the Muslim street to these communal places of worship.

I have prayed in mosques around the world and in non-Arabic speaking Muslim countries, like Pakistan or Turkey, it would be unheard of to broadcast the sermon ahead of the Friday prayer in any language other than the local one.  So, for example, in Pakistan, the sermon is in Urdu, in Turkey, it is in Turkish, but at Regent’s Park Mosque in Central London or at Paris’ Grand Mosque, the sermon is in Arabic.  Not only does this deprive the non-Arabic speaking Muslim community of participating fully in the religious service, but it also prevents adequate oversight of what is being said in the sermon.  Instead of encouraging their respective Muslim communities to become a part of mainstream society, Europe, in particular, facilitates their marginalisation.  America, on the other hand, may be slightly better at including its Muslims into the mainstream, primarily because of the fact that the average Muslim immigrants to the US have historically been much better educated than the ones in Europe, but after 9/11, the most harrowing cases of profiling against Muslims coupled with a foreign policy that resulted in mass destruction of Muslim life and property has led Muslims in America to be far more fearful, reserved, suspicious and resentful of the country in which they live.

Terrorism is a global problem and solutions too must be global in their reach.  America and Britain have already alienated their growing Muslim populations by going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Further name-calling, such as referring to Pakistan as the “epicentre of global terrorism,” or browbeating a country that is suffering tragically from terrorism to “do more” is not looked upon positively within Pakistan or within its large immigrant populations in Britain and America.

In spite of the generous Kerry-Lugar aid package, anti-Americanism is on the rise in Pakistan as well as its immigrant communities.  And although sentiments in Pakistan may be more fervently against America, they are by no means unique.  According to a Pew Global Research poll, less than 30% of the population held a favourable image of the US in five key Muslim countries, namely Indonesia, Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan and Turkey.  Anti-Americanism can stem from several different factors, including America’s historic support for dictatorial regimes and monarchies in Muslim countries, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, human rights violations at Guantanamo Bay and other detention centres set up at the behest of the US around the world, profiling and harassment of Muslims within the US, denial of visas to students and visitors without refunding exorbitant visa fees charged in the process, as well as envy of a superpower.  And thus even though the US has provided extensive aid to Pakistan, Jordan and Egypt as part of governmental agreements and also helped rather generously in times of natural calamities like the 2005 earthquake in Pakistan or the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia, this good seems to have been overshadowed by the bad.

The good news is that anti-Americanism alone cannot lead to violence.  Many passionately anti-American Muslims will never pick up a gun, much less explode a bomb in Times Square.  A propensity for violence requires either a criminal mind or serious indoctrination and training.  But while the centres for indoctrination and training are sought out and eliminated both in places like Pakistan as well as in Europe and America, it is enormously important not to alienate the Muslim community at large.  Each case must be taken on its own facts and while links and connections must be explored, it must also be remembered that cooperation from Muslim countries and immigrant communities may be a lot more forthcoming if the US is willing to accept its own shortcomings by apologizing for them and compensating those who were wrongfully detained at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.  Moreover cases in which former CIA operatives may have switched sides, such as the December 2009 bombing in Khost where a Jordinian double agent took the lives of 8 CIA personnel, necessitate greater transparency and probity.

Pakistan is generally not averse to investigating terrorist links and there has been good cooperation between Pakistan and the US/Britain in not just pursuing leads from terrorist activities but also in preventing potential terrorism.  However, it is very unfortunate that in cases when terror suspects from Pakistan are found to be innocent, as in the case of the four boys who had been apprehended in England last year, no apology is forthcoming.  Not only were the four Pakistani boys whose parents had spent their life savings on sending their sons to Britain for a good education wrongly held but also deported without being allowed to complete their studies once it was found that they were innocent of the charges held against them.

Such incidents naturally fuel anti-western sentiment and play very well for those who like to quote the Quran out of context and claim that Muslims will never get a fair deal from the non-Muslim West, thus giving rise to far-fetched conspiracy theories.  It is equally disturbing however that a large section of the press in Europe and America does not seem to care about fostering greater understanding and cooperation on these issues and is more focused on creating demons and scapegoats.

The writer is a London-based political commentator and has previously worked for American and Pakistani law firms.  Website:  www.ayeshaijazkhan.com

 

 


Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: NLE10 / Bilderberg False Flag Car Dud exposed
« Reply #402 on: May 17, 2010, 08:39:59 pm »
they are all inbred rockefeller fundamentalist domestic terrorists. they have been commiting terrorist acts against the people of the US for over 100 years



The Rockefeller File by Gary Allen
http://www.voxfux.com/features/rockefeller/ch1-4.html

The Great Oil Octopus
1911
(255 pages)
http://books.google.com/books?id=IdRHAAAAIAAJ

The Rockefeller Family (Part 1)
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2009/08/rockefeller-family-part-1.html

Monday, August 17, 2009
The Rockefeller Family (Part 1)

On Sept. 23, 1994 at a UN Ambassadors’ dinner, David Rockefeller said, “This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long. We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”

The financier and original owner of the World Trade Center complex was none other than David Rockefeller. The United Nations (new world order government) exists on land donated by his father.

Three days after the 9/11 attacks, CFR member Gary Hart said, "There is a chance for the President of the United States to use this disaster, to carry out a phrase that his father used ... and that is a New World Order."

Back in 1976, Congressman Larry P. McDonald said, "The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control.... Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent." He was later killed in a Korean Airlines 747 that was shot down under suspicious circumstances

The first notable member of the family, William Avery Rockefeller, was a con man, thief and indicted child molester who eventually deserted his wife and six children to marry a twenty year-old (Nelson Rockefeller later did the same abandoning his wife of 31 years for Happy Fitler Murphy). Author William Hoffman tells us that “The thing the children most remembered about their father [William Avery] was the delight he took in getting the better of them in business deals. He would con them out of something they considered important, then lecture them on the necessity of always being alert.”

“William ‘Big Bill’ Rockefeller, who sold cancer ‘cures’ from a medicine wagon, taught him to leap into his arms from a tall chair. One time his father held his arms out to catch him but pulled them away as little John jumped. The fallen son was told sternly, ‘Remember, never trust anyone completely, not even me.’” -Jim Marrs, Rule by Secrecy (46-7)

His son John D. Rockefeller was often called the most ruthless American and was the world’s first billionaire. He was a civil war profiteer who by 1870 owned Standard Oil, the largest corporation in the country, which by 1880 controlled 95% of the oil production in America.

“When John D. founded Standard Oil, it was just one of the 27 other refineries in the Cleveland area, and by no means the biggest. But the ambitious businessman – who once declared that ‘competition is a sin’ – soon devised a plan to take on or destroy his competitors. The simplicity, audacity, and ruthlessness of his scheme is breathtaking. He bribed and coerced the railroads serving the oil producing region to give him a kickback, or rebate, not only on his own shipments, but also on every barrel his competitors sent by rail. The more they shipped, the more he made! Rockefeller’s rebate formula enabled him to reduce his own prices and drive the other oil refineries out of business using their own money!” -Gary Allen, "The Rockefeller File"

“As the history of Standard Oil by any author, pro or con, clearly shows, Rockefeller was of a deeply conspiratorial, scheming nature, always planning years ahead with a clarity of vision that went far beyond anything any of his associates had to offer." -Ferdinand Lundberg, "The Rich and Super-Rich"

In 1872 his reputation was further blemished by a conspiratorial scandal between the refiners and the railroads with South Improvement Company. By 1881 he controlled a near monopoly of the petroleum industry in America. By 1888 Standard Oil had expanded into the markets of Asia, and Western Europe, selling more oil oversees than in the US. This same year the New York Senate committee launched an investigation and lawsuit into Standard Oil’s questionable business practices. In 1896 Standard Oil contributed $250,000 to Republican William McKinley’s campaign for president against antitrust legislation supporter Democrat William Jennings Bryan. By 1907 there were seven different lawsuits pending against Standard Oil, arguing, among other things, contempt of court for disobeying an 1892 suit to dissolve the trust. Also that it was twenty times the size of its closest competitor.

"U.S. Supreme Court on May 15, 1911, couched its decision in these clear terms: 'Seven men and a corporate machine have conspired against their fellow citizens. For the safety of the Republic we now decree that this dangerous conspiracy must be ended by November 15th." -Jim Marrs, Rule by Secrecy (48)

In the dissolution, Standard Oil broke into eight other companies, which have since consolidated right back into what we now know as Amoco, Chevron, and Exxon/Mobil.


“The real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over city, state and nation. Like the octopus of real life, it operates under cover of a self created screen … At the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller Standard Oil interests and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as international bankers. The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both political parties.” -NY Mayor John F. Hylan, 1922

Also...


The Prize - The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power (PBS TV 1992 - 1993)



An eight-part documentary series about the struggle for wealth and power that has always surrounded oil -- from the drilling of the first well in 1859 through the Persian Gulf War.

On youtube
1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6ukFYi4k8U
2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E9qjDtBM-c
3 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi_YxEOKO9c
4 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REBDHDorokc
5 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEFB9IPfgH8
6 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeuQyiIXZZA


From the book



By Daniel Yergin
ISBN13: 9781439110126

Description
Now with a new epilogue that speaks directly to the current energy crisis, The Prize recounts the panoramic history of the world’s most important resource: oil. Daniel Yergin’s timeless book chronicles the struggle for wealth and power that has surrounded oil for decades and that continues to fuel global rivalries, shake the world economy, and transform the destiny of men and nations. This updated edition categorically proves the unwavering significance of oil throughout the twentieth century and into the twenty-first by tracing economic and political clashes over precious “black gold.”

With his far-reaching insight and in-depth research, Yergin is uniquely positioned to address the present battle over energy, which undoubtedly ranks as one of the most vital issues of our time. The canvas of his narrative history is enormous — from the drilling of the first well in Pennsylvania through two great world wars to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Operation Desert Storm, and now both the Iraq War and climate change. The definitive work on the subject of oil, The Prize is a book of extraordinary breadth, riveting excitement, and great value — crucial to our understanding of world politics and the economy today — and tomorrow.


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline Freeski

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,706
Re: NLE10 / Bilderberg False Flag Car Dud exposed
« Reply #403 on: May 17, 2010, 08:44:10 pm »
Thanks - don't think I've seen that.
"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: NLE10 / Bilderberg False Flag Car Dud exposed
« Reply #404 on: May 28, 2010, 12:29:48 am »

Another detained in Times Square probe
By the CNN Wire Staff
May 27, 2010 -- Updated 1832 GMT (0232 HKT)

Humbal Akhtar is among 11 people being held in Pakistan who are suspected of having ties to the Times Square suspect.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

    * Police raid house in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, last week
    * Humbal Akhtar among 11 detained in connection with Times Square bombing attempt
    * They haven't been charged but are suspected of having ties to Faisal Shahzad, officials say
    * Akhtar's wife says he doesn't belong to religious group, has anti-U.S. views



Islamabad, Pakistan (CNN) -- Another person has been taken into custody in Pakistan in connection with the failed bombing attempt in New York's Times Square, a senior intelligence official said Thursday.

Police in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, raided the house of Humbal Akhtar on May 17 and took him into custody, the official said. He is among 11 people detained for questioning in connection with the case.

Akhtar and the others have not been arrested and charged, but they are suspected of having links to Times Square car bombing suspect Faisal Shahzad, officials have said.

Akhtar's wife, Rahila, told CNN that she received a phone call from an unknown person saying her husband would be back soon.

Rahila said her husband has links to two other detained people -- Shoaib Mughal and Muhammad Shahid Hussain.

She said Akhtar is a childhood friend and classmate of Mughal's, who was the main organizer of their wedding. Hussain is a good friend of Mughal's and has met and visited Akhtar frequently.

Rahila said Akhtar is 32, with three sons -- ages 5, 3 and 1 month old.

She said he has a masters of business administration degree and received his education from Preston University in Islamabad. After completing his studies, he worked at the National University of Science and Technology in Islamabad and later started a business as a multimedia project manager.

Rahila said her husband doesn't belong to any religious organization. She described her husband as critical of U.S. policies.

But she asserted that such a point of view doesn't make him a criminal and that every Pakistani is critical of American policies.

Of the 11 people in custody, three were detained in Karachi, and the others were taken into custody in the Islamabad-Rawalpindi area.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/05/27/pakistan.times.square.arrest/index.html


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline bigron

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
  • RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012
Re: NLE10 / Bilderberg False Flag Car Dud exposed
« Reply #405 on: June 23, 2010, 07:59:34 am »
Hornberger’s Blog
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2010-06-22.asp

Case Closed on Terrorist Motivation

by Jacob G. Hornberger

Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, U.S. officials, from President Bush on down, went on the offensive with respect to what, they claimed, had motivated the terrorists to kill Americans. It was all because the terrorists hated America for its “freedom and values.” The mantra was steadfastly adhered to for the 7 remaining years of the Bush administration, after which it was then embraced by President Obama and his cohorts.

Perhaps realizing the ridiculous nature of that claim, advocates of America’s pro-empire, pro-intervention foreign policy came up with a variation on this theme. They said that the terrorists were motivated by the Koran and the Muslim religion. They said that religious dictates required Muslims to conquer the world and kill all the Christians and Jews.

On the other hand, libertarians have been steadfastly maintaining, since even before 9/11, that the root of the problem lay in U.S. foreign policy. The reason that people in the Middle East were determined to commit terrorist acts against the United States was because the U.S. government had done — and was continuing to do — very bad things to people in the Middle East.

In other words, libertarians said, the terrorists were simply retaliating for what the U.S. government was doing over there. The only way to stop this threat of retaliation, we have consistently argued, is to stop the U.S. government’s pro-empire, pro-interventionist foreign policy in the Middle East.

To make our case, we pointed to the many bad things that the U.S. government has done in the Middle East, especially since the fall of the Soviet Union, when the U.S. military and the military-industrial complex were panicked that the American people were going to call for major reductions in military spending and taxes: the support of brutal dictators in the Middle East (including Saddam Hussein); the Persian Gulf intervention; the intentional destruction of Iraq’s water-and-sewage treatment plants; the brutal sanctions that contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children; U.S. official Madeleine Albright’s statement that the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children from the sanctions were “worth it”; the stationing of U.S. troops near Islamic holy lands; the deadly no-fly zones over Iraq; the invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan; and the unconditional financial and military aid provided the Israeli government.

Yesterday, the court hearing in which the man who recently tried to set off a bomb in Times Square pled guilty closes the case on terrorist motivation. Statements made by the Times Square terrorist, Faisal Shahzad, to the judge during that hearing confirm, once again, that libertarians have been right on motivation from the get-go and that the pro-empire, pro-intervention crowd has been wrong.

According to the New York Times, “Mr. Shahzad was unapologetic, characterizing himself as ‘part of the answer to the U.S. terrorizing the Muslim nations and the Muslim people.’”

Nothing about hating America for its “freedom and values” in that statement, right? And nothing about the Koran requiring Muslims to conquer the world, right?

“I want to plead guilty, and I’m going to plead guilty 100 times over,” Shahzad said, “because until the hour the U.S. pulls out its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, and stops the drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen and in Pakistan, and stops the occupation of Muslim lands, and stops killing the Muslims, and stops reporting the Muslims to the government, we will be attacking U.S., and I plead guilty to that.”

It’s hard to get any clearer than that, isn’t it? Nothing about “freedom and values.” Nothing about killing for the Koran. It’s all about U.S. foreign policy, specifically in the Middle East.

When Federal Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum pointed out that the victims in Times Square would have been civilians, including children, Shahzad replied, “Well, the drone hits in Afghanistan and Iraq, they don’t see children; they don’t see anybody. They kill women, children. They kill everybody. It’s a war. And in war, they kill people. They’re killing all Muslims.”

Shahzad’s angry tirade is no different in principle from the angry tirade delivered in 1995 to another federal judge by 1993 World Trade Center terrorist bomber Ramzi Yousef at his sentencing hearing. Yousef angrily pointed directly to U.S. foreign policy to explain his motivation, including the killing of the innocent Iraqi children with the brutal sanctions against Iraq.

So, there you have it. Case closed on motivation. As Ron Paul succinctly put it in that famous exchange with Rudy Guliani during the 2008 Republican presidential debates, “They attacked us because we’ve been over there.”

Of course, this is not what those who glorify the federal government — those who take the position of “My government, never wrong in foreign affairs” — those who have elevated the federal government to the status of a god — those who believe that foreigners, especially people in the Middle East, have a moral duty to submit peacefully and enthusiastically to the violent will of the U.S. Empire — want anyone to hear. They want everyone to continue nodding robotically and loyally whenever they repeat their ludicrous mantras regarding America’s terrorist woes.

Is it all worth it? Is it worth the constant the threat of terrorist retaliation, the ever-increasing loss of civil liberties, the cowardly refusal of the Supreme Court to protect our rights and freedoms, and the ever-growing threat of financial bankruptcy? Is a pro-empire, pro-intervention foreign policy really worth all that? Is it that important to the American people that their government continue killing, torturing, maiming, humiliating, dominating, dictating, invading, occupying, sanctioning, and dominating the people of the Middle East?

Libertarians say: No, it’s not worth it and, more important, it’s all founded on immoral principles, principles that violate the laws of God. It’s time to dismantle America’s overseas military empire and end the U.S. government’s interventionist foreign policy. It’s the only way to restore morality, rationality, peace, prosperity, and harmony to our land. Otherwise, continue bracing yourself for the worst.

Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation