Posts Tagged ‘Wesley Clark’

An excerpt from an email to my Member of Parliament on October 10, 2014, on what every Canadian Member of Parliament should be aware of in lieu of Parliament’s vote to support air strikes against ISIS. Consider passing on this information to your Member of Parliament, and as things escalate according to plan, some may begin to raise questions behind closed doors and consider whether these military interventions are truly in the Canadian national interest.

I wanted to draw your attention to the remarks of former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Gen. Wesley Clark, that indicate these latest events may all be part of a bigger plan being played out by others who have no Canadian national interest, as he appeared on the program Democracy Now! in 2007 (transcript here) and described his meeting with a General at the Pentagon in 2001 after the start of bombing in Afghanistan, and he was told “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”

The timeline hasn’t held up, but since then, Iraq was invaded in 2003, Sudan was broken up in 2005 with South Sudan proclaiming independence in 2011, Lebanon’s former Prime Minister was assassinated in 2005, the U.S. has been continuing air strikes against Somalia to this day, Libya was taken over in 2011, the U.S. has since officially been providing military support to rebels against Assad in Syria, and Israel has repeatedly been saying that it will not hesitate to respond militarily to Iran’s ongoing nuclear program regardless of the international process through the IAEA.

Read Full Post »

Flag of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation

Given the increasing drumbeat for military intervention against Syria and Iran, I thought I would share my February 27, 2012 reflection on John Esposito’s, “The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality?”

In reading John Esposito’s critical examination of what some call, “The Islamic Threat,” several important points came to mind.

He pointed out how the Cold War conflict was portrayed as a conflict between good and evil, with the Soviet Union labeled an “evil empire.”

Particularly interesting, was how he pointed out that it was good for the bottom line of the U.S. Military Industrial Complex.

After the end of the end of the Cold War, the Military Industrial Complex needed a new enemy on the scale of the Soviet Union. A hyped-up threat of “Islamic extremism” fit the bill.

This is all the more relevant since the event of 9/11, which provided the justification for a 10-year and counting war in Afghanistan, and the war on Iraq. Former NATO Supreme Commander Wesley Clark came out in 2007 revealing how, shortly after 9/11, one of his Pentagon contacts said the George W. Bush administration planned to take out seven countries in five years. (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran) (http://www.salon.com/2011/11/26/wes_clark_and_the_neocon_dream/)

The U.S. has gone into Iraq and Libya, has broken up Sudan, is talking about arming the opposition in Syria, and the current administration is stoking the fear of Iran imminently obtaining a nuclear weapon, despite a former head of Israel’s spy agency, the Mossad, saying they wouldn’t obtain such a capability before 2018 (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,796320,00.html), assuming they are actually trying to pursue one — which is completely unproven.

Another important factor Esposito pointed to is the gross distortion of Islam and Muslims in the Western mass media. He specifically pointed to one article that featured a picture of a Muslim wearing a turban, whose eyes had stars from the American flag in it.

I agree with his assertion that the intention of such a depiction is to give Americans a distorted picture of Islam and Muslims. Most Muslims don’t wear turbans, but that didn’t stop the editors of the article from depicting a Muslim wearing one. I agree with his assertion that it was intentionally done to portray Muslims in conflict with modernity.

Since 9/11, the new boogeyman the U.S. mass media had was Osama bin Laden. Another turban-wearing Muslim who lived in a cave in Afghanistan, while comparatively downplaying the fact that the bin Laden family is the one of the richest and most influential families in Saudi Arabia, and how they had business deals with the Bush family, as documented in the book, House of Bush, House of Saud.

Also, similar to the pattern Esposito outlined with U.S. mass media portrayals in the 1990s, since 9/11, they are failing to provide balance and context as to why there is conflict between “Islam and the West.”

The attack of 9/11 was portrayed as an attack by Arab “Muslim extremists” while conveniently ignoring some of the grievances that were cited as contributing to the conditions that led to the justifications that extremists used for the attack, including U.S. military occupation of the country with two of Islam’s most holy sites, and America’s ultimately unqualified support for Israel in its occupation of the Palestinians.

It’s sad how what Esposito wrote in his 1995 edition of his book rings even more true today in 2012, but it should serve as a wakeup call of the unfolding plan before it’s too late to stop “people (on our side and on theirs) who want to turn this into a holy war between two civilizations — as if that could produce anything but death or lasting misery, for millions.” — William Pfaff (Esposito, 188)

Read Full Post »

Syrian GirlGeorge Whitehurst-Berry interviewed Syrian Girl about things other hosts dare not ask her, on the March 23, 2012 episode of Crash! Are You Ready?

Before you start getting any ideas, guys, they were:

1) About Libya, Syria and Iran having something in common besides being on the same hit-list, and that is their public central banks free from the Bank for International Settlements private banking cartel. That is, what Libya had before the “rebels” established a private central bank before even fending off an attempt to quell their Western banking establishment-funded opposition, as Lord James of Blackheath alluded to on November 1, 2010 when he told his shocked Members of British Parliament (from the official Hansard transcript):

My biggest terrorist client was the IRA and I am pleased to say that I managed to write off more than £1 billion of its money. I have also had extensive connections with north African terrorists, but that was of a far nastier nature, and I do not want to talk about that because it is still a security issue. I hasten to add that it is no good getting the police in, because I shall immediately call the Bank of England as my defence witness, given that it put me in to deal with these problems.”

2) The plan for Eretz Israel — that is, the plan for a Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates, as called for in the Hebrew Bible. Leading neocon warmongers such as Irving Kristol, William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Mortimer Zuckerman, David Horowitz, Frank Gaffney, Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Pamela Geller, Daniel Pipes, Richard Pearle, David Wurmser, Douglas Feith, Eliot Cohen and Robert Spencer aren’t Arab, Muslim, Russian or Chinese.

Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, General Wesley Clark, revealed in 2007 how the Bush administration, under the influence of many of these neocon warmongers, were planning to use 9/11 and the U.S. military to take out seven countries in five years (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran).

Note that they are all Muslim-majority countries with public central banks that are not members of the privately-owned and inviolable Bank for International Settlements, unlike Saudi Arabia and the UAE, whose human rights abuses have been conveniently overlooked during this Arab Spring.

Iraq was taken out in 2003 under false pretences, with Rumsfeld saying they “knew” Saddam was hiding WMDs around Tikrit. Southern Sudan has been split up, Libya has been bombed and taken over by global private banking cartel interests, and they are currently talking about arming the opposition in Syria. Israel is talking about their so-called right to a pre-emptive strike on Iran, which, unlike Israel, is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and there is no evidence of them even trying to acquire nuclear weapons, unlike Israel, which reportedly has several hundred nuclear warheads.

Tune in while George Whitehurst-Berry is still able to broadcast a true alternative perspective, such as his Truth in Money Series, where he has read from suppressed books from the 19th and early 20th centuries, which expose the fraudulent Rothschild gold standard, and how the same talking points about “sound money” and “honest money” are still being employed by gold standard proponents today to divert you away from true sound, honest, interest-free, sovereign money by the people and their true representative governments.

Read Full Post »