Archive | April 20th, 2012

CIA wants to expand campaign to kill men with guns and beards

NOVANEWS

by PAUL WOODWARD

In one of the first reports on the Obama administration’s use of so-called “signature strikes,” this is how they were described in the Wall Street Journal : “Signature strikes target groups of men believed to be militants associated with terrorist groups, but whose identities aren’t always known. The bulk of CIA’s drone strikes are signature strikes.”

To say men “whose identities aren’t always known,” sounds like the manicured language government officials always favor and journalists gladly regurgitate. Probably much more accurate would be to say men whose identities are almost always unknown.

Presidential authorization is not sought for such attacks — how indeed could such a request be couched? “We spotted a bunch of guys with beards and guns. Can we kill them?” The White House is only informed after the “fact” — that x number of “terrorists” were eliminated in a drone strike. The coordinates of the location of the attack are most likely the only indisputable facts in these cases.

“Roger”, chief of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center, who has been the driving force behind the escalation of these attacks and whose relentless approach is said to have meshed with President Obama’s mindset, gives this assessment of the scope of the campaign: “There is no end in sight .

The massive expansion of remote warfare may turn out to be among the most lasting legacy of a president who once declared that he didn’t just want to end the war in Iraq but also end the mindset that took us to war.

The Washington Post reports : The CIA is seeking authority to expand its covert drone campaign in Yemen by launching strikes against terrorism suspects even when it does not know the identities of those who could be killed, U.S. officials said.

Securing permission to use these “signature strikes” would allow the agency to hit targets based solely on intelligence indicating patterns of suspicious behavior, such as imagery showing militants gathering at known al-Qaeda compounds or unloading explosives.

The practice has been a core element of the CIA’s drone program in Pakistan for several years. CIA Director David H. Petraeus has requested permission to use the tactic against the al-Qaeda affiliate in Yemen, which has emerged as the most pressing terrorism threat to the United States, officials said.

If approved, the change would probably accelerate a campaign of U.S. airstrikes in Yemen that is already on a record pace, with at least eight attacks in the past four months.

For President Obama, an endorsement of signature strikes would mean a significant, and potentially risky, policy shift. The administration has placed tight limits on drone operations in Yemen to avoid being drawn into an often murky regional conflict and risk turning militants with local agendas into al-Qaeda recruits.

A senior administration official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive internal deliberations, declined to talk about what he described as U.S. “tactics” in Yemen, but he said that “there is still a very firm emphasis on being surgical and targeting only those who have a direct interest in attacking the United States.”

U.S. officials acknowledge that the standard has not always been upheld. Last year, a U.S. drone strike inadvertently killed the American son of al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki. The teenager had never been accused of terrorist activity and was killed in a strike aimed at other militants.

Some U.S. officials have voiced concern that such incidents could become more frequent if the CIA is given the authority to use signature strikes.

“How discriminating can they be?” asked a senior U.S. official familiar with the proposal. Al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen “is joined at the hip” with a local insurgency whose main goal is to oust the country’s government, the official said. “I think there is the potential that we would be perceived as taking sides in a civil war.”

There is however one dimension of this new era that has yet to unfold: a new kind of blowback that is surely inevitable.

Drones might have become the weapon of choice for “taking out” terrorists, but sooner or later they are destined to become deadly tools of terrorism.

A few months ago, Al Jazeera  had a show on drones in which the presenter and a producer demonstrated how easy small drones are to operate — though in the process they accidentally landed one on the roof of a federal building!

Josh Rushing, a former U.S. Marines captain and now AJ host, noted some of the implications about the location in Washington DC where the show’s producers were able to fly this small commercial drone:

Imagine the threat that this poses. If you look out of the window… we’re about two or three blocks from the US Capitol, about five, six blocks from the White House that way. So you’re right between the White House and the Capitol building. This has to be some of the most restricted airspace in the entire world and yet you were able to go out and fly this [drone] around without F-16s scrambling overhead.

Drones might currently frequently be deployed to target suspected terrorists, but it’s easy to imagine that a drone of the kind Al Jazeera flew could, with relatively minor adaptations, be modified into a remote-controlled weapon of assassination or a dirty bomb. Come that day, no one will be able to seriously claim, we could never have imagined this happening.

Posted in USAComments Off on CIA wants to expand campaign to kill men with guns and beards

Tens of thousands protest military’s rule in Egypt

NOVANEWS

By AYA BATRAWY

The Associated Press

CAIRO — Tens of thousands of protesters packed Cairo’s downtown Tahrir Square on Friday in the biggest demonstration in months against the ruling military, aimed at stepping up pressure on the generals to hand over power to civilians and bar ex-regime members from running in upcoming presidential elections.

Egyptian men pass by a wall graffiti depicting two members of the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, head of the military police Major General Hamdi Badin, framed right and Commander of the Central Military Zone Major General Hassan al-Rowini, framed left, with Arabic that reads “Down with the military rule,” in downtown Cairo, Egypt Wednesday, April 18, 2012. (AP Photo/Nasser Nasser)
Followers of Egyptian Muslim cleric and a former candidate for the Egyptian presidency Hazem Abu Ismail protest the disqualification of their leader outside the Presidential Election Committee in Cairo, Egypt, Wednesday , April. 18, 2012. (AP Photo/Fredrik Persson)?
The shadows of Egyptian activists are seen on a banner with pictures of Egyptian politicians and presidential hopefuls as it is being prepared for display, during a rally at Tahrir square, Cairo, Egypt, Friday, April 20, 2012. Pictures from right, Egyptian pro-democracy advocate Mohamed ElBaradei, presidential hopeful Abdel-Moneim Abolfotoh and presidential hopeful Hamdin Sabbahi. (AP Photo/Nasser Nasser)
An Egyptian street vendor displays T-shirts under a banner with crossed pictures of two Egyptian presidential hopefuls, former foreign minister Amr Moussa, left, and former Egyptian prime minister Ahmed Shafiq and Arabic that reads “No for the former regime candidates, no for article 28, the New Labor Party,” during a rally at Tahrir square, Cairo, Egypt, Friday, April 20, 2012. (AP Photo/Nasser Nasser)

Islamists and liberals turned out together in force for the protest to show the widespread anger at the military over the country’s political chaos ahead of the first presidential elections since the fall of Hosni Mubarak more than a year ago. The confusion has raised suspicions the generals ruling since Mubarak’s ouster are manipulating the process to preserve their power, ensure the victory of a pro-military candidate and prevent reform.

“Down with military rule,” protesters in Tahrir chanted, and banners draped around the sprawling plaza denounced candidates seen as “feloul,” or “remnants” from Mubarak’s regime.

Liberals and youth groups called for all factions to agree on an antimilitary “revolution” candidate in the presidential vote, but the powerful Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists — who have their own ambitions in the race — refused to sign on.

The Brotherhood, Egypt’s strongest political movement, has been frustrated that the military has prevented their domination of parliament from translating into real political power. The group was angered when the military-appointed election commission over the past week disqualified its initial candidate for president, along with nine other hopefuls.

In response, the Brotherhood is calling for a “second revolution.”

Liberals and the youth groups who led the revolt against Mubarak, however, are also skeptical, accusing the Brotherhood of abandoning the revolution to pursue their own quest to rule. The Brotherhood largely stayed out of antimilitary protests and accepted the generals’ running of the transition, betting that the process would pave their way to political power.

Nada al-Marsafi, a 21-year-old student protesting Friday in Tahrir, questioned the Islamists’ intentions.

“The Brotherhood is using this (rally) as a chance for self-promotion to campaign for their candidate,” she said.

Many in the secular camp demand the Brotherhood “apologize” for its actions over the past year and show it is not intent on monopolizing power.

“First they must make an apology for the revolution whose image they ruined,” says Amr Hamzawy, a liberal lawmaker.

Khaled al-Balshi, editor of the leftist el-Badeel news site, said he feared that Islamists are once again using the protests as a card to pressure the military council and would go back to striking deals with it again later.

“I am afraid that right now there is something being cooked,” he told Al-Jazeera television.

Another major force in the square were the ultraconservative Salafis, an Islamic movement that is more hard-line than the Brotherhood. Many of them are furious over the disqualification of their favored presidential candidate, Hazem Abu Ismail, who was barred from the race because his mother held American citizenship. Election rules bar a candidate’s close family from having dual citizenship. Many of his supporters accuse the military and election of commission of forging documents to force out the popular Abu Ismail.

His supporters marched through the square Friday carrying a long banner with Abu Ismail’s image, demanding that he be reinstated.

The presidential elections are scheduled for May 23-24. A new president will be announced on June. 21. The military council has pledged to transfer power to the elected civilian administration by early July.

Members of military council have said more than once over the past weeks that they don’t intend to postpone elections and are not in favor of any candidate.

But the council raised worries that they intend to push back the election and hold power longer when the generals said in a closed-door meeting with political parties that they believe the writing of Egypt’s new constitution should be finished before a president is seated. The constitution-writing process is already in turmoil, and few believe it could be completed in that time frame.

“Today we came to demand that presidential elections take place on time, without delay even for a single day,” Muslim cleric Muzhar Shahine told protesters in a Friday sermon in Tahrir. “Let’s forget the mistakes of each other … for the sake of our nation’s interest.”

Islamists captured nearly 70 percent of the seats in parliament in elections held late last year, with the Brotherhood alone capturing nearly half the legislature. Parliament then demanded the removal of the military-backed government headed by Prime Minister Kamal el-Ganzouri, which the Brotherhood hoped to replace with a government it would dominate. The military refused, however, and parliament has been unable to force the Cabinet’s ouster.

In retaliation, the Brotherhood reversed a previous promise not to field a presidential candidate from its own ranks and nominated its chief strategist, Khairat el-Shater. However, Egypt’s election commission on Wednesday disqualified el-Shater from presidential elections on legal grounds related to his past conviction and imprisonment.

At the same time, parliament created an Islamist-dominated assembly to write the constitution, angering secular forces and fueling the perception that the Brotherhood is trying to go it alone in determining the country’s future.

However, a court disbanded the 100-member panel, in a blow to the Brotherhood on that front as well.

The Brotherhood has a back-up candidate to run in the presidential election, its political party head Mohammed Morsi.

After what they see as the Brotherhood’s attempts to control every facet of Egypt’s future ruling system, some in the “revolution” camp have doubts over their sincerity in the new protests.

Mustafa el-Naggar, co-founder of the El-Adl Party, created after Mubarak’s fall, said he was boycotting Friday’s rally.

“I will not enter Tahrir square today because it doesn’t represent me,” he said, referring to the Islamists’ agenda.

Posted in EgyptComments Off on Tens of thousands protest military’s rule in Egypt

Obama’s dismal civil liberties record

NOVANEWS

Despite vows to increase transparency, the president has made the government ever more authoritarian and intrusive

Barack Obama

President Barack Obama speaks at a fundraising reception at The Henry Ford in Dearborn, Mich., Wednesday, April 18, 2012. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)  (Credit: AP)

When Barack Obama took office, he was the civil liberties communities’ great hope. Obama, a former constitutional law professor, pledged to shutter the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and run a transparent and open government. But he has become a civil libertarian’s nightmare: a supposedly liberal president who instead has expanded and fortified many of the Bush administration’s worst policies, lending bipartisan support for a more intrusive and authoritarian federal government.

AlterNet It started with the 9/11 attacks. Within a week, Congress, including many liberals, gave the White House blanket authority to wage a war on the terrorists. A month after that, Congress passed the USA Patriot Act, authorizing many anti-terrorism measure including expanded surveillance. By mid-November, the White House ordered creation of military tribunals to try terrorists who were not U.S. citizens.

Bush quickly expanded covert operations, creating a shadow arrest, interrogation and detention system based at Guantanamo that violated international law and evaded domestic oversight. While the Supreme Court eventually ruled that detainees have some rights, the precedent that the Constitution does not restrict how a president conducts an endless war against a stateless enemy was firmly planted. In response, groups like the American Civil Liberties Union proposed  reforms the newly elected president could make. What few anticipated was how he would embrace, expand and institutionalize many of Bush’s war on terror excesses.

President Obama now has power that Bush never had. Foremost is he can (and has) ordered  the killing of U.S. citizens abroad who are deemed terrorists. Like Bush, he has asked the Justice Department to draft secret memos authorizing his actions without going before  a federal court or disclosing them. Obama has continued  indefinite detentions at Gitmo, but also brought the policy ashore by signing the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which authorizes the military to arrest and indefinitely detain anyone suspected of assisting terrorists, even citizens. That policy, codifying  how the Bush administration treated Jose Padilla, a citizen who was arrested in a bomb plot after landing at a Chicago airport in 2002 and was transferred from civil to military custody,upends  the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878’s ban on domestic military deployment.

Meanwhile, more than a decade after the 9/11 attacks, Washington’s wartime posture has trickled down into many areas of domestic activity — even as some foreign policy experts say the world is a much safer place than it was 20 years ago, as measured by the growth in free-market economies and democratic governments. Domestic law enforcement has been militarized — as is most visibly seen by the tactics used against  the Occupy protests and also against  suspected illegal immigrants, who are treated with brute force and have limited access to judicial review before being deported.

One of Bush’s biggest civil liberties breaches, spying on virtually all Americans via their telecommunications starting  in 2003, also has been expanded. Congress authorized  the effort in 2006. Two years later, itgranted  legal immunity to the telecom firms helping Bush — a bill Obamavoted  for. The National Security Agency is now building its largest data processing center ever, which Wired.com’s James Bamforth reports  will go beyond the public Internet to grab data but also reach password-protected networks. The federal government continues to require that computer makers and big websites provide  access for domestic surveillance purposes. More crucially, the NSA is increasingly relying on private firms to mine data , because, unlike the government, it does not need a search warrant. The Constitution only limits the government searches and seizures.

The government’s endless wartime footing is also seen in its war on whistle-blowers . Obama has continued cases brought by Bush, such asgoing after  the “leaker” in the warrantless wiretapping story broken by the New York Times in 2005 , as well as the WikiLeaks  case, prosecution of Bradley Manning , and others for allegedly mishandling classified materials related to the war on terrorism. Its suppression of war-related information given to journalists extends overseas, where the State Department this month has blocked a visa for a Pakistani critic  from speaking in the U.S. The White House also recently pressured  Yemen’s leader to jail the reporter who exposed U.S. drone strikes. Meanwhile, the administration has stonewalled  Freedom of Information Act requests, particularly the Justice Department, which has issued the secret wartime memos.

How bad is it? Anthony Romero, the ACLU executive director, exclaimed in June 2010 that Obama “disgusted ” him. Meanwhile, the most hawkish Bush administration officials have defended and praised Obama.

Last summer, liberal lawyer-journalist Glenn Greenwald tallied  a list of Bush warrior endorsements. Jack Goldsmith, the former DOJ officials who approved the torture and domestic spying efforts, wrote  in the New Republic in May 2009 that Obama actually was waging a more effective war on terror than Bush.

“The new administration has copied most of the Bush program, has expended some of it, and has narrowed only a bit,” Goldsmith wrote. “Almost all of the Obama changes have been at the level of packaging, argumentation, symbol and rhetoric.” Bush’s final CIA director, Gen. Michael Hayden — whose confirmation Obama opposed as a senator — told CNN there was a “powerful continuity between the 43rd and 44th presidents.” And in early 2011 Vice President Dick Cheney told NBC News, “He’s learned that what we did was far more appropriate than he ever gave us credit for while he was a candidate.”

All of these civil liberties issues — executive authority to order assassination of citizens, unlimited detention without charges at Guantanamo, authority to deploy the military domestically to arrest and indefinitely detail terrorism suspects, a parallel “due process” that is outside the judicial branch, the expansion of the surveillance state, the increased militarization of local police and federal agencies especially ICE, the increasingly punitive treatment of protesters including strip searches, the war on whistle-blowers, and others — are very complicated. The details are filled with shades of gray.

Bradley Manning’s harsh treatment, for example, is thought to be tied to the White House’s fear that the vast WikiLeaks cache contained references to the pursuit of Osama Bin Laden before his assassination — and could have alerted al-Qaida. Better data mining and analysis could have detected the 9/11 attacks, the Patriot Act’s defenders past and present have repeatedly argued. But from a civil liberties perspective, Obama has more than chipped away at freedom from federal intrusion. The underlying problem is the tactics and values forged in foreign war have seeped into domestic policing.

“We are witnessing the bipartisan normalization and legitimization of a national security state,” Jack Balkin, a liberal Yale University Law School professor, told  the New Yorker in a 2011 feature about a prominent NSA whistle-blower. “The question is not whether we will have a surveillance state in the years to come, but what sort of state we will have,” he wrote in a prescient law review article  published early in Obama’s presidency.

The larger dangers, Balkin said, was that the government is creating a “parallel track of preventative law enforcement that bypasses traditional protections in the Bill of Rights.” Moreover, he worries “traditional law enforcement and social services will increasingly resemble the parallel track.” And because the Constitution only restricts government actions, not “private parties, government has increasing incentives to rely on private enterprise to collect and generate information for it.”

“The major defining feature of the Obama administration on this issue is the eagerness with which it embraced the stunning evisceration of civil rights and liberties that was a hallmark of the Bush administration, and then deepened those outrageous programs,” said Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, executive director of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, who is an attorney representing many Occupy protesters swept up in last fall’s mass arrests. “He has successfully counted on the acquiescent silence of the liberals.”

Eric Holder, the Defender

The biggest difference between Bush and Obama on civil liberties and the war on terror is the Obama administration is more attuned to the optics of trying to appear reasonable as it conducts much of the same policies. To be fair, Obama has not kidnapped innocent people en masse in Afghanistan and warehoused them in Cuba, as Bush did. But he has launched drone strikes in numerous counties, where the victims include children.

In 2010, the ACLU and New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, which has represented many Guantanamo detainees, filed  a suit asking a federal court to set legal standards when the government could use lethal force against a U.S. citizen who was overseas but not on an active battlefield. That suit was dismissed. But Eric Holder, perhaps giving a victory  to critics who have condemned the administration’s secrecy, gave a speech this March at Chicago’s Northwestern University School of Law explaining  Obama’s wartime actions and authority. The speech was exactly what Goldsmith had described a year earlier in the New Republic — nearly identical on substance to Bush administration policy, but with more attention to the packaging for the public.

“In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger,” Holder began, quoting President John F. Kennedy’s inaugural  at the height of the Cold War. “But just as surely as we are a nation at war, we are also a nation of laws and values,” Holder continued, saying, “Our actions must always be grounded on the bedrock of the Constitution.”

Holder explained the challenge for government was what to do after someone is found who is suspected of participating in a terrorist plot against the United States. He said the federal courts have done an excellent job in dealing with suspected terrorists since 9/11—and those who claim otherwise “are simply wrong.” But then Holder built the case for using a “reformed” military commission system—granting foreign detainees a right to counsel, a right to see evidence against them, and a right to cross-examine witnesses.

Moreover, Holder defended the administration’s right to transfer a terrorism suspect from civilian courts to military custody “based on the considered judgment of the President’s senior national security team.” And he said that in a “war with a stateless enemy” that the federal government has a right an obligation “to target specific senior operational leaders of Al Qaeda and associated forces,” just as the military shot down the plane with the top Japanese Admiral who led the Pearl Harbor attacks in World War II. “It is important to explain these legal principles publicly,” Holder said. “The Constitution does not require the President to delay action until some theoretical end stage of planning—when the precise time, pace and manner of an attack become clear.”

Holder then said there is no constitutional requirement that the president “get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qaida or associated forces. This is simply not accurate. ‘Due process’ and ‘judicial process’ are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.”

Holder’s arguments  sound reasonable until you stop and ask where it ends up. The U.S. is still involved in dubious warfare efforts overseas — particularly Afghanistan. But the full wartime powers invoked by Obama to endlessly fight stateless terrorists, which are on par  to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s suspension of civil liberties in World War II, arguably are disproportionate to the scope of military actions. Moreover, people like Obama who are schooled in constitutional law know there are reasons why the foundation of American democracy is based on being a nation of laws — not arbitrary decisions by men — and are expected to respect that distinction and govern with due deference and restraint.

Those who understand Obama’s civil liberties failing best include lawyers serving in the military, like David Frakt, a lawyer in the Air Force and Barry University School of Law professor. He recently wrote  on Jurist.org that Obama’s targeted assassinations — a word Holder rejected in the speech — was the foreign policy equivalent of the domestic “stand your ground” laws that led to Trayvon Martin’s killing.

“During the Bush administration, we developed the rule of ‘we can kill you, but you can’t kill us,’” Frakt wrote. “Now, under the Obama administration, we have added a corollary … namely, ‘you can’t kill us, only we can kill us,’” referring to killing U.S. citizens abroad where “capture is not feasible.” The stand your ground laws “are the logical domestic criminal counterpart to our nation’s aggressive pre-emptive self defense doctrine, under which we have gone to war on the same flimsy suspicions that George Zimmerman acted upon.”

The problem — as seen with more than 600 innocent  people taken to Guantanamo — is that the White House can make mistakes. Cheney famously called them  “the worst of the worst,” but by 2009 only one in seven  were seen as being enemy combatants. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., responding to Holder’s talk, said  that, “Based on what I’ve heard so far, I can’t tell whether or not the Justice Department’s legal arguments would allow the president to order intelligence agents to kill an American inside the United States.”

Domestic civil liberties are fragile. They are not the same as a World War II battlefield where a grunt shoots first and asks questions later. Civil liberties take years to create and accrue, whereas a domestic terrorist attack can occur in a flash and then unwind those protections quickly and for many years. What started under Bush and has continued under Obama are battlefield values that have been conflated with domestic policing.

Just as stand your ground laws turn every American going about their lives into a threat that needs to be measured, so too does a growing surveillance state encroach on privacy and specific constitutional rights, such as freedom from warrantless searches, judicial review and other constitutional checks and balances.

The question, as Balkan noted at the start of the Obama presidency, is not whether we will have a growing surveillance and police state, but what that state will be like. Obama has begun to wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But he hasn’t begun to roll back the most extreme civil liberties abuses tied to the earliest phases of that war. Liberals expected otherwise from a former constitutional law professor and candidate who campaigned against the excesses of the Bush administration.

Posted in USAComments Off on Obama’s dismal civil liberties record

The Zionist Infestation Of Africa: Zimbabwe To Uganda, Congo To Somalia And Beyond

NOVANEWS
 

Africa has been infiltrated 
and infested by international
Zionism; its resources
are being bled dry by a guild
of Jewish criminals.
(graphic by Skulz Fontaine)

by Jonathan Azaziah

It isn’t matter of debate, on any level, that historically, Africa has been the most tormented and tortured of the planet’s continents and regions. Ravaged by centuries of colonialism and its bastard child, the Transatlantic Slave Trade, imperialism, civil wars instigated by foreign intelligence agencies, the plundering of natural resources and faux “humanitarian” interventions en masse, it seems that Africa just cannot find the salaam it undeniably and screamingly deserves. Much has been written about Africa’s plight being a product of Western aggression and Western racism but this is only a partial truth, as is so often the case when a discussion of world events and world history is initiated in the modern era of media domination, manipulation and disinformation. There are hidden hands behind every bit of genocide and suffering in Africa, past and present alike.

In the groundbreaking works The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews: Volume OneThe Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews: Volume Two – How Jews Gained Control of the Black American Economy and Jews Selling Blacks: Slave Sale Advertising by American Jews, the Historical Research Department of the Nation of Islam, based 100% on Jewish (oftentimes rabbinical) and philo-Semitic sources, unequivocally demonstrates that the torturous, inhuman and genocidal Transatlantic Slave Trade was an endeavor dominated by Jews, going back to the very beginnings of it in Brazil and Surinam. Despite a systematic smear campaign still going on to this day, the Jewish-Zionist Power Configuration has failed miserably in refuting the scholarly volumes because of the meticulous sourcing. What makes this revelation all the more intriguing, as well as disturbing, is that this hegemony wasn’t only material and physical, with Jews operating as both slave owners and slave traders; it was also ideological, with Jews passing down their dehumanizing religious beliefs to their Anglo partners in human misery.

 

The Talmud: 
Judaism’s holiest book,
where anti-Gentile hatred is emphatic;
it is here where the anti-African 
fable known as the “Curse of 
Ham” was born.

In the Jewish religion, as ordained by the Babylonian Talmud, Blacks are eternally cursed through the channel known as “The Curse of Ham.” Though the curse originated in Chapter 9 of Genesis in the Bible, no racial identity was applied to Ham, son of the prophet Noah, and there was certainly no anti-Black prejudice. The racist origins of The Curse of Ham originated within the ‘wise’ rabbinic pages of the Talmud, which damned Blacks to an infinite existence of enslavement. Stated the rabbis, “Ham is told by his outraged father that, because you have abused me in the darkness of night, your children shall be born black and ugly; because you have twisted your head to cause me embarrassment, they shall have kinky hair and red eyes; because your lips jested at my expense theirs shall swell; and because you neglected my nakedness, they shall go naked (1).” Moses Maimonides, Judaism’s most celebrated rabbinic ‘sage,’ has written that Blacks are “irrational animals” who are “below mankind but above monkeys (2).” 

Maimonides’ views are central to the overall Jewish view of Black people, as his name among Jews is an infallible and holy one. Talmudic rabbis have deepened The Curse of Ham over time, attributing bestiality as a regular engagement among Blacks, concocting depraved sexual fantasies of Ham fornicating with dogs and ravens and thus, having his skin damned with even more blackness for his perversion (3). Sick would be an understatement; demented wouldn’t even begin the description. And when the usurping Zionist regime’s policies towards Ethiopian Jews are examined in depth, and they are nothing short of emphatically deplorable, as well as Jewish discrimination against Blacks in the United States due to the disproportionate Jewish accumulation of wealth (4), it is as clear as the sky is dark when the sun falls that these hideous Talmudic beliefs are very much intact today, in the main blocs of Jewish life.

The Rothschild family, the infamous and monstrously powerful Jewish dynasty of bankers, socialites and philanthropists who are rightly considered to be the godfathers of the criminal Zionist entity, are also linked to profiting from the Transatlantic Slave Trade (5). The Rothschild family was also fervently Talmudist, a tradition dating back to the family’s grandsire, Mayer Amschel himself, who was described by one S.J. Cohen in an unofficial, albeit accurate, admiring and authoritative biography of the Jewish financier entitled, “The Exemplary Life of The Immortal Banker Mr. Mayer Amschel Rothschild,” as a “zealous believer in the Talmud and chose it alone as the guiding principle of all his actions (6).”Therefore, it shouldn’t be one bit astonishing that the Rothschild family would take part in such a cruel, murderous practice as slavery, as their Jewish beliefs dictated to them that it was perfectly okay to do so; their halfwit, nonsensical apologies notwithstanding. The Rothschild dynasty’s beliefs are also intrinsic to the spread of British and French colonialism throughout the African continent.

 

The House of Rothschild:
Talmudist Jewish banking
dynasty that financed the
colonial rape of Africa.

As the courageous polemical poet and hero Ezra Pound once said, “Until you know who has lent what to whom, you know nothing whatever of politics, you know nothing whatever of history, you know nothing of international wrangles.” The British and French governments would have not have carried out and could not have carried out their blood-soaked colonial adventures in Africa without an elephantine amount of money, which they indeed did receive from their central banks in London and Paris respectively, as is properly acknowledged by history. What isn’t discussed or dare it even be said, what is ignored for fear of what lies beneath the surface, is that the these central banks, according to a cornucopia of Jewish sources, were under Rothschild dominion, with James Mayer in Paris and Nathan Mayer, described frequently in his time as “King of the Jews,” in London.Millionaires of Jewish extraction were very much the power of France’s financial scene and all of them were surrogates of the House of Rothschild. Jews of socialist, imperialist and republican political backgrounds all worked for the same cause: the furtherance of Rothschild power. As for Britain, the vast majority of the imperial power’s financial transactions were handled by the Rothschild dynasty (7).

To be clear, the House of Rothschild did not have a mere lackadaisical connection to colonial imperialism, as if they were a fantastical caricature of financial greed, sitting in the lap of luxury while their “money worked for them.” These were Jewish fanatics who sincerely believed in subjugating the planet according to their tribal holy books, plundering the wealth of the goyimas they were meant to do as “God’s chosen people,” as confirmed so hatefully and vividly by this Babylonian Talmud excerpt, BT Baba Bathra 54b, “Property of gentiles is like the desert; whoever among the Jews gets there first, owns it (8).”  The Rothschilds were the active disseminators of colonialism and imperialism and there is no clearer evidence of this than Cecil Rhodes, perhaps the most famous advocate of British world domination and considered to be a pioneer of the British colonial enterprise. This assessment however is quite deceptive as since the early 1880s, Cecil Rhodes was nothing but a proxy for the Rothschild family, who had a “substantial financial hold” over him. Rhodes, who with Rothschild capital established supremacy over the African diamond trade, reported directly to Nathan Mayer himself (9). 

It was the Rothschild frontman Cecil Rhodes who, in accordance with the hegemonic plans of his Talmudist masters, established the genocidal colony of Rhodesia, just north of South Africa, setting off a century of tumultuous conflict and unnecessary bloodshed. Rhodesia would go from colony of the Rothschild Empire, to the sadistic apartheid regime of Ian Smith from 1965-1980, to the nation known today as Zimbabwe, and it is here, where the introduction will end and the study shall begin. The Jewish exploitation of Africa has not ended; it has simply changed faces from the Talmudic financial expansionism of the House of Rothschild to the Zionism of the usurping Jewish entity in Palestine.

 

Ruth Feigenbaum and Rabbi
Moshe Silberhaft: Zionist agents
attempting to impose Jewish
cultural imperialism on Zimbabwe.

Infiltrated Zimbabwe: Cultural Zionism Spreads Under The Guise Of “Humanitarianism”

On March 1st, 2012, a curious article appeared in the Jewish Telegraph Agency (JTA), the self-described “Global News Service of the Jewish People,” entitled, “In face of desperate African poverty, Ruth Feigenbaum provides a beacon of hope (10).” Feigenbaum, according to the JTA, became involved in human rights activities in Zimbabwe after her gardener (read: servant) was diagnosed with HIV and subsequently passed away three days later. The entire ordeal “deeply upset” Feigenbaum. Described as a “major player” in Zimbabwe, Feigenbaum used her “international Jewish connections” to build up charities inside Bulawayo, Zimbabwe’s second largest city.

One such group that assisted her was the World Jewish Relief of London, an organization with a heavy hand in Africa and funded by a who’s who of Zionist consulting firms and Jewish fashion magnates including, but by no means limited to, Marks and Spencer, PO Ltd and Paula Ohrenstein Ltd, Lucy Wernick and Associates, Barry Finer, Majesta Ltd and the Jacobson Group (11). Some of the World Jewish Relief of London’s notable partners are B’nai B’rith, the institution of exclusively Jewish Freemasonry that the Zionist spy nest known as the Anti-Defamation League is intrinsically attached to, the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, a group originally founded as a distribution channel for funds used in the Jewish-Zionist plot to steal Palestine, Lyceum Shaalavim, an Orthodox Jewish school that specializes in Talmudist teachings and the Jewish Forum of Ukraine, a group tied to Zionist fundraising groups throughout the Eastern European nation (12). 

Apart from the alarming connections of the World Jewish Relief of London to the international Zionist criminal network and the racist core of Orthodox Jewry, the real reason why Feigenbaum is bouncing around Zimbabwe is revealed by her words, and it isn’t “humanitarianism.” Feigenbaum, referring to Zimbabwean children that she works with, said, “They have learned something about Jews and Judaism from me (10).” Assuredly, what these precious, innocent and unsuspecting children “learned” wasn’t the Curse of Ham or the teachings of Maimonides.

Furthermore, Feigenbaum was assisted in her efforts by a South African rabbi named Moshe Silberhaft, who provided her with books for the children that she works with and who a library in her community would be named after. The JTA report noted that, “In her work with local Zimbabweans, Feigenbaum has introduced some Jewish teachings. During the library dedication, she had tears in her eyes watching the orphans sing songs in the two main indigenous Zimbabwean languages, Shona and Ndebele, as well as in English and Hebrew.” Feigenbaum also made mention that, “They greet me on every visit with a ‘shalom’ and thank me by saying ‘todah rabah.’ At Pesach time, with the matzah sent to us by Rabbi Moshe, I arrange a third seder so they can learn a little about our customs (10).”

 

The African Jewish Congress
is an outpost of Zionism that
is vital to “Israeli” hegemony
over the African continent.

What was conspicuously absent from the JTA report, information that confirms who Feigenbaum really is and what her truly sinister intentions are is that she is a member of the African Jewish Congress (13), a Zionist Lobby group which helps African Jews “retain their links with World Jewry” and which maintains organizational goals of “fighting anti-Semitism” and promoting the interests of the usurping Zionist entity. The African Jewish Congress is an affiliate of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies and the World Jewish Congress (14), one of the most powerful Jewish-Zionist groups on the planet. The executive director of the African Jewish Congress is none other than Rabbi Moshe Silberhaft, Feigenbaum’s partner in Zimbabwe,who was rabbinically ordained in occupied al-Quds and is a citizen of the criminal Zionist entity (15). To repeat, Feigenbaum is no “humanitarian,” no “human rights activist”; she is a cultural Zionist imposing cultural Zionism (also known as Jewish cultural imperialism) on a native population.

The legendary Nigerian revolutionary and musical renegade Fela Kuti famously declared that European cultural imperialism was the biggest enemy of the African and was the thing most vital for him to fight against. In this spirit, an addendum should be added that Jewish cultural imperialism (Cultural Zionism) is an enemy just as deadly to the African if not more so due to Jewish religious teachings and Zionist occupation policy (which is rooted in Judaic “wisdom”) both being inherently anti-Black. Cultural Zionism will install in its African victims a brutal cognitive dissonance in which they vehemently despise racism but also love Zionists, despite their abyssal and ancient supremacist beliefs, specifically in regards to the African, who, in their Judaic worldview, is eternally damned to slavery and “blackness” because of the Curse of Ham.

 

Asher Zvi Hirsch Ginsberg:
Jewish supremacist and
founder of Cultural Zionism.

Cultural Zionism was created and developed by Jewish supremacist and educated Talmudist Ahad Ha’am (real name: Asher Zvi Hirsch Ginsberg), who viewed the criminal Zionist project as a means of founding a “spiritual center for World Jewry (16),”the indigenous Palestinian people be damned. What Africans need to know is that at the very heart of Cultural Zionism is the destruction of everything that is not Jewish for the furtherance of Jewish interests, as evidenced by the “Greater Israel” doctrine (17). Ruth Feigenbaum’s advances in Zimbabwe are merely the beginning of something far more sinister, far more dangerous, like the early Jewish-Zionist settlers in Palestine before her, advancing Jewish cultural imperialism slowly and cunningly.

An integral part of Cultural Zionism is spying and reconnaissance, understanding the indigenous culture before encroaching upon it and destroying it, and fifth columnists for the usurping Zionist entity is exactly what Feigenbaum, Silberhaft and the African Jewish Congress are. It is not coincidental that their activities have heightened at a time not too long after the Zimbabwean government of President Robert Mugabe stood defiantly against international Zionism and its proxies in Washington D.C. and London by vowing to provide the Islamic Republic of Iran with uranium for its peaceful program, despite crippling economic aggression. Indeed, Zimbabwean Foreign Minister Simbarashe Mumbengegwi pointedly declared,“Restrictions against the two countries {Zimbabwe and Iran} are not accidental. Western states follow the approach of sanction towards countries which do not yield to their domination and act against their interest (18).” 

The cruel sanctions against the Islamic Revolution are well-known. The Western economic war against Mugabe’s Zimbabwe however is a hidden truth, the root cause of the hardships currently being struggled against by the Zimbabwean people and one that was also deliberately absent from the JTA report on Fiegenbaum and her Zionist “activism.”

From the moment of Zimbabwean independence from the Rothschild Empire, Mugabe, himself imprisoned by the apartheid regime for a decade (1964-1974), initiated a program of land reform aimed at redistributing the land confiscated by the Rhodesian settlers back to their rightful owners: native Zimbabweans. The British government, an agent for Rothschild interests, entered into an agreement with Mugabe that it would take care of the Rhodesian settlers. Typically, it reneged, in a deliberate attempt to break the back of the Zimbabwean government and send the country into chaos. Mugabe, who built excellent programs of national health care and education, resulting in a literacy rate of 95% among indigenous Zimbabweans, the highest in Africa, as compared to an abysmal 39% during the apartheid years, resisted in the name of his people. And as a result of his sincere resistance to the Western plot, the American and British governments, as well as the IMF, an institution dominated by Zionist Jewry, imposed devastating sanctions on his country. The sanctions have prevented the Mugabe government from importing raw materials, laying the agricultural and industrial sectors of Zimbabwe to waste (19). 

 

Robert Mugabe has been
steadfast in defending
his nation from Western
aggression and Jewish
exploitation.

Because of Mugabe’s historical principled stance on Palestine, andhis courageous efforts to stop Jewish monopolization of Zimbabwe’s clothing and textile sectors (20), the usurping “Israeli” regime has joined in the economic aggression against the southern African nation of Resistance. The Zionist regime’s Industry, Trade and Labor Ministry, along with the Kimberley Process, an “Israeli”-run forum that fronts as a “human rights” group interested in stopping the flow of blood diamonds onto global markets, and Human Rights Watch, the notorious NGO funded by billionaire Zionist mega criminal George Soros to the tune of $100 million (21), teamed up to punish Zimbabwe for alleged (read: non-existent) human rights abuses and corruption (22). 

The utter egregiousness aside, what makes the matter so pathetically farcical and so laughably hypocritical, is that the largest exporter of diamonds in the world is “Israel,” and every diamond it produces is a blood diamond due to the fact that it stands accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, genocide, apartheid and extrajudicial executions inside and outside of its (ever-expanding) territory. The Zionist entity uses the money it procures from its blood diamonds to fund the criminal 64-year occupation of Palestine (23). And, in a stunning twist of fateful irony, just recently, an“Israeli” pilot named Shmuel Kainan Klein was caught by Zimbabwean immigration officials in an attempt to smuggle diamonds to Tel Aviv (24). The Zionist assault on the Zimbabwean people isn’t a new phenomenon either. While Mugabe was fighting the Rhodesian apartheid regime of Ian Smith, “Israel” was advising it, assisting it and arming it, with its patented “Uzi” machine guns and refurbished US helicopters (25). 

With reports abound in the Zionist media about Mugabe’s failing health, all of which, for the record, are false and likely planted by enemy intelligence agencies (26), the African Jewish Congress’ Ruth Feigenbaum still operating and his nation’s relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran gaining more ground with each passing day, it is certain that for the foreseeable future, Zimbabweans will not know peace, as they haven’t since the first day the Rothschild stooge Cecil Rhodes illegally stepped foot on their land.

 

The Kony2012
campaign just 
unbearably reeks
of Zionist propaganda.

A Zionist Plot In Uganda: Kony2012 Sensationalism and Disinformation Galore

On March 5th, 2012, the worldwide web was set ablaze by a glossy, emotional and deceptive video called “Kony2012” about a Central African rebel group known as the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) and its leader Joseph Kony. Produced by a group called Invisible Children, the Kony2012 campaign attracted celebrities from across the (Jewish-run) Hollywood spectrum and garnered major attention from the Zionist media. If these weren’t suspect enough, the red flags were solidified upon examining the campaign poster, which featured Joseph Kony alongside Osama Bin Laden and National Socialist Germany’s Adolf Hitler.

Slamming a leader as “Hitler,” his country as “Germany” and his people as “Nazis” is a common, tiresome, ad hominem and reprehensibly slanderous attack that the Jewish Power Matrix has utilized incessantly since the horrific fall of National Socialism at the hands of the genocidal Allied Axis during WW2, most specifically against the German people themselves, Palestinians and Iraqis. And Osama Bin Laden of course, has been the boogeyman used by international Zionism to justify its ongoing Orwellian “war on terror.” The matter was quite reminiscent of the “Save Darfur” farce, a campaign that began as an exclusive project of the American Jewish community, with hardline Zionist groups like the American Jewish World Service and Jewish Community Relations Council leading the way in the propagandistic assault on the government of Sudan. More than half of the $100 million raised ended up in “Israeli” banks to fund illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank (27). 

Kony2012 is no less fraudulent as Joseph Kony is wrongfully depicted as this supremely influential warlord who has built up a massive, murderous army through the widespread physical, psychological and sexual abuse of child soldiers. Nowhere in the video does it mention that Kony’s LRA was originally comprised of the Acholi people, an ethnic group repressed and enslaved by the Rothschild-financed British colonialists. Nor does it mention that the LRA was formed to combat discrimination and resist the military dictatorship of Yoweri Museveni, who receives $45 million yearly from the US government to assist the fight against Al-Shabab, the Islamic Resistance of occupied Somalia. Conveniently, it also doesn’t mention that the LRA hasn’t been active in Uganda or anywhere else in Central Africa since 2006 and Kony himself has been AWOL for some time. The video is a con, pure and simple, and a dangerous one at that, as it attempts to create a pretext (capturing Kony) to justify American military aggression against Uganda and deepen the already-troublesome presence of AFRICOM on the continent (28).

 

Invisible Children is a 
proxy of USAID, the 
odious next of spies
and organ of international
Zionism.

Despite all of the hype however, Kony2012 is now in shambles. Jason Russell, co-founder of Invisible Children and the driving force behind the viral video, has brought disgrace to the initiative after melting down in public by swearing and screaming to himself, behaving lasciviously and pounding the sidewalk with both hands, all while being in the nude (29).Moreover, Invisible Children has been caught spying for the brutal Museveni regime and backing US-intelligence-led Ugandan military operations that left scores of innocent men, women and children dead (30). In the most devastating blow, and what is now absolute corroboration of previous analytical deductions that pegged Invisible Children as an organ of the arrogant powers, it has been revealed that the NGO is being funded and supported through the Northern Uganda Transition Initiative of USAID (31), the State Department apparatus so often associated with CIA-type operations and spying, as evidenced most recently by its activities of infiltration in educational institutions across Lebanon (32).

And it is here where the Zionist ball of yarn seriously and uncontrollably unravels. The Deputy Administrator of USAID is Donald Steinberg, a lifetime diplomat who has served in multiple high-level positions in the US government including, most notably, Director for African Affairs at the National Security Council (1994-95) and senior advisor to President Clinton on all African issues, as well as Principal Deputy Director of Policy Planning for the US State Department (2001-2003), where he intimately assisted Secretary of State Colin Powell with the reconstruction of occupied Afghanistan. Steinberg is also a devoted Zionist who has played a key role in maintaining the status quos of the criminal occupations of Palestine and Kashmir through the Zionist-dominated “peace process” and its ugly sister, “conflict resolution (33).” 

 

USAID chief
Donald K.
Steinberg:
lifelong
devotee of
imposing the
Zionist agenda
upon Africa.

Steinberg is hated across the African continent for his role in the Rwandan Genocide, in which he advised the Jewish-run, philo-Semitic, war criminal Clinton administration to ignore the terrible bloodshed that would unfold. Steinberg now serves as Deputy President of the International Crisis Group (34), a mightily influential Zionist think tank founded by neoconservative hawk Morton Abramowitz and the aforementioned George Soros. Despite his “humanitarian credentials,” it is clear from his positions and associates that Steinberg is a top rank agent of the Cultural Zionism project in Africa. And as a commander of the powerful USAID, there is no doubt that Steinberg ensures a policy that grants loans only to those groups who are willing to pursue the Zionist agenda.

Ugandan dictator Yoweri Museveni is also deeply involved with the usurping Zionist regime, hence why he receives tens of millions in aid from the Zionist-occupied United States government, which never compromises “Israeli” interests when in comes to setting up client regimes. He made his first visit to Jewish-occupied Palestine in 2003 when he met with the genocidal mass murderer Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (real name: Ariel Scheinermann) and psychotic hardliner Foreign Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (real name: Benjamin Mileikowsky) for the purpose of securing arms. His most recent visit, in November 2011, with Netanyahu and massacrer of Qana Shimon Peres (real name: Szymon Perski), was in regards to more arms and amplification of economic aid. The meeting was organized by Rafi Eitan, the infamous former Palmach commander and Mossad operations director, who is now setting up business operations in Uganda (undoubtedly for further “Israeli” penetration) with the help of Museveni (35). 

It must be stated that it is quite possible, nay, quite highly probable that Yoweri Museveni wouldn’t be in power today if wasn’t for the Zionist entity due to the usurping regime’s intimate involvement in the downfall of former Ugandan leader, the misunderstood and demonized Idi Amin, who reigned from 1971-1979. During the opening months of his presidency, Amin had close ties with the Jewish supremacist entity, forging economic and military alliances with it. “Israeli” military advisors set up training camps for the Ugandan air force and infantry and there were routine meetings between Zionist occupation and Ugandan officials. The Zionist entity sold Amin jets, tanks and guns of all kinds, while its companies became involved in building Uganda’s infrastructure, including houses and roads. In exchange, Amin agreed to assist Zionist efforts to fragment Sudan (36). 

 

After turning against
the usurping Zionist
entity in 1972, Ugandan
leader Idi Amin became
a target that had to be
“dealt with.”

“Israel” however, despite the vast involvement it already had in Uganda, was not living up to the agreements it had made with Amin and he began to look elsewhere in the region for assistance. His breakthrough came with none other than Muammar al-Qadhdhafi, the fallen Libyan leader who had been a thorn in the side of international Zionism from the very beginning of his reign. Qadhdhafi “berated” Amin for collaborating with Zionism and told him that the assistance was his as long as he promised to end his ties with the occupier of Palestine. Amin agreed and within two weeks, he had already taken measures to remove all Zionist Jews from Uganda and began issuing calls at the UN for “Israel” to be removed as a member and for “Israelis” to be expelled from Palestine back to Britain which he (rightly) viewed as responsible for helping birth the criminal Jewish “state.” He also began actively aiding the Palestinian Resistance. Right on queue, like clockwork, the Zionist media began depicting Amin as an “anti-Semite” and “brutal dictator” who ran a “terror regime” that “murdered hundreds of thousands of Ugandans belonging to tribes that opposed” it (36).

It was the “Entebbe Crisis,” which lasted from June 27th, 1976 to July 4th, 1976, that ultimately led to the disintegration of Idi Amin’s regime, tarnishing his image internationally and weakening him internally. Out of the ashes of what the Zionists would call “Operation Entebbe,” President of Tanzania Julius Nyerere would take action against Idi Amin at a time when he viewed the Ugandan leader and his army as weak. Nyerere would send 40,000 troops into the Ugandan capital of Kampala in April 1979, the culmination of three years of conflict, where the Tanzanian forces would emerge victorious drive Amin into exile (36). What isn’t known about these two events, other than that they are indeed connected, is that the Zionist entity fomented and manipulated both of them.

 

The “Israeli” internal
security service, Shin Bet,
orchestrated the Entebbe 
false flag hijacking 
to bring down Idi Amin and
weaken the PLO.

The Entebbe Crisis began when the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) allegedly hijacked a plane in Athens and subsequently flew the plane into Entebbe; 98 persons, most of them “Israeli” Jews, were held hostage. The operation was reported worldwide as an act of terrorism, with Idi Amin being a “state sponsor of terror.” This narrative, like every other narrative of the Jewish-Zionist media, is a lie. In truth, the hijacking was a false flag attacked staged by the “Israeli” internal security service, Shin Bet (or Shabak), who had infiltrated the PFLP and planted “all sorts of wild elements” within the organization’s mix. The intention of the operation, other than to undermine Idi Amin, was to weaken the PLO in the eyes of France and the United States. The crisis came to a close when elite “Israeli” occupation commandos raided Entebbe Airport, bringing the Zionist false flag theater to its closing act and rescuing the hostages. “Israeli” Prime Minister Netanyahu’s brother, Yonatan, died during the raid (37). 

Tanzania, led by Julius Nyerere from 1961 until his retirement in 1985, was an“Israeli” client state from the moment of its independence in 1964, establishing uninterrupted security, diplomatic and economic ties (38). Most recently, the Zionist entity has taken a substantial portion of control of Tanzania’s vast mining operations, with the Engelinvest mega corporation of “Israeli” moneyman Jacob Engel taking hold of three mines, and securing dominion over Tanzanian gold, copper, nickel and other metals (39). Nyerere himself was not only an ally of the Jewish occupation regime but a devoted supporter of the Zionist cause, once ridiculously and insultingly declaring that war criminal Golda Meir (real name: Golda Mabovich) was the “mother of Africa.” Nyerere personally (and nonsensically, for that matter) believed that any enemy of the Jews (“Israel”) was an enemy of the Blacks (Africa). The relations between Tanzania and “Israel” were of a special kind and there is no doubt that this was due to the ideological veneration of Nyerere (40), which was highly peculiar for a Third World leader of his stature.

Amin’s heroic intransigence made his removal a prime Zionist objective in Africa, and with these revelations regarding the bond between Tanzania and Zionism now in context, there can be doubt there was an “Israeli” hand in Nyerere’s crippling of Amin and his government. The Ugandan people, now being ruled by the pro-“Israel” dictator Museveni, can only wonder “what if…” in regards to what has transpired since that fateful 1976 summer in Entebbe; “what if…” Amin emerged triumphant over “Israel.”

 

The tentacles of international
Zionism extend throughout
the globe and deep into the
continent of Africa.

Conclusion: Welcome To Africa, Where Zionist Tentacles Extend Throughout The Continent

On November 23rd 2010, an important story reported in the Hebrew press of the Zionist entity, then picked up by the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Press TV, revealed a rather bothersome development. A retired “Israeli” colonel by the name of Avi Sivan had died in a helicopter crash near Yaounde, the capital of the Central African nation of Cameroon. Sivan was responsible for training the Cameroonian presidential guard and was also the head of the Jewish supremacist entity’s military delegation to Cameroon (41). The question was, “if the Zionist entity’s tentacles in Africa had penetrated a nation as geopolitically obscure as Cameroon, where else was it reaching?” To be blunt, the answer is, “everywhere.” On the books, the usurping Jewish regime has intelligence contacts in Eritrea, Kenya, Malawi, Zaire, Nigeria, Ivory Coast, Egypt and Morocco (42). 

Off the books, the list is even more extensive and thus, a brief but precise overview is necessary. Firstly, it must be understood that even America’s policies towards Africa, in fact, its entire geopolitical network of stratagems for the continent, are shaped by the Zionist regime itself and its plethora of think tanks (43). Secondly, the pestilential plan of senior “Israeli” foreign policy advisor Oded Yinon, “A Strategy For Israel In The 1980s,” a plot discussed on numerous occasions here at Mask of Zion, which features the fragmentation and dissolution of Sudan and Libya as prominent points, has been exported by the Zionist regime across the African continent. “Yinon Africa” is being assisted by the Ugandan dictatorship of Museveni, the corrupt regime in Kenya and the longtime marionette of Zionism, Ethiopia. The objectives of “Yinon Africa” are to balkanize the continent on three lines: ethno-linguistics, skin color and religion. Additionally, the concept of a US Military Central Command in Africa (AFRICOM), was designed and promoted by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), the same Zionist think tank that produced the infamous “Clean Break” papers (44). 

 

The usurping Jewish 
supremacist entity
and the apartheid regime
in South Africa were so
intertwined before the fall
of Pretoria that it appeared
they were a singularity.

The malevolent apartheid regime of South Africa is perhaps where the Jewish supremacist entity’s ties were the strongest. In South Africa, Jews benefited and thrived under the racist regime’s protection, maintaining and strengthening their ties with the Zionist entity. The Board of Deputies of South African Jewry, a major Zionist Lobby front on the African continent, declared “neutrality” in regards to apartheid so Jewish interests weren’t compromised. The “Israeli” security establishment saw the relationship with South Africa so vital in fact that, it actually believed the ties saved the Jewish “state” from extinction. The Zionist entity didn’t just provide a plethora of arms to the apartheid regime, it “created the South African arms industry.” Zionist occupation officers also assisted Pretoria with its operations (read: atrocities) in Angola and, from the illegal Jews-only colony of Kibbutz Beit Alfa, “Israel” developed a profitable industry selling anti-riot vehicles to the apartheid regime. Most astoundingly, Zionism provided South Africa with nuclear technology and expertise, helping it build its own miniature nuclear arsenal (45). Needless to say, every drop of South African blood spilled by the apartheid regime, especially in its last days, is on the hands of “Israel.”

Speaking of Angola, where the Zionist entity was active with South African forces, it should be mentioned that Angolan warlord Jonas Savimbi, the seemingly eternal darling puppet of America’s Jewish Lobby, the neoconservative establishment and “Israel,” was assassinated by Zionist special forces when he no longer served a purpose (46). 

Nowhere has the usurping and criminal Zionist entity been more successful in executing destruction than Sudan, a prime target of the Yinon Plan in its past and current incarnations. Oil-rich Sudan has been cracked in half, its unity split and destroyed. The Zionist dragon’s military-intelligence apparatuses designed this balkanization, instigated it, funded the players and from Uganda to Ethiopia, it still maintains agents and assets to uphold the new fragmented Sudanese status quo. “Israel” has already entered the new, fabricated nation-state of ‘South Sudan.’ The deceptive and dangerous IsraAID, backed by Zionist Lobby organizations like the American Jewish Committee and United Jewish Appeal, is on the ground. The newly-created Zionist puppet state has opened its doors to “Israeli” companies to do business in the fields of agriculture, infrastructure, security and medicine, business worth hundreds of millions of dollars. South Sudan views this gesture as gratitude for the Zionist dragon’s committed military and intelligence support to its ‘rebellion.’ And now, to make the relationship between South Sudan and Zionism globally legitimate, full diplomatic relations have been established between the two entities so Tel Aviv can officially take control of South Sudan’s oil-rich economy (47).

“Israel” has been exceedingly active in Ethiopia for decades upon decades but 1990 is where relations hit new peaks. The Zionist regime fueled the Ethiopian Civil War as a testing ground for what it could do with its real enemies, Iraq, Syria and Iran. “Israel” supplied the regime of war criminal and collaborator Mengistu Haile Mariam with cluster bombs, several hundred IOF military trainers to guide the Ethiopian Army, 150,000 bolt-action rifles and an unknown number of its patented “Uzi” machine gun (48). The assistance has continued under the rule of Ethiopian Prime Minister and horrific human rights abuser Meles Zenawi Asres, in power since the fall of Mariam, with the most recent development being the purchase of murderous drones from the “Israeli” firm, Bluebird (49).

 

Kenya and the Jewish
“state” are united in the
Zionist war against the
people of occupied Somalia.

Kenya has been dear to the heart of the Jewish “state” since its assistance to Mossad and Aman during Operation Entebbe (50). In late November, the Kenyan regimesigned a security pact that would have “Israeli” security consultants sent to the East African nation to govern its assault against the Islamic Resistance of occupied Somalia, Al-Shabab. The Somali Resistance assailed the Kenyan regime for the traitorous move, slamming the deal as an attack on Islam (51). The Zionist entity has provided Kenya with weapons in the past and this pact will significantly expand the existent ties, which is promising for “Israeli” arms firms; as usual, the innocent civilians already being butchered in the Zionist proxy war are of no concern to the Jewish “state” (52), considering that the civilians are of African origin and therefore “cursed” in Zionist eyes.

The “Israel”-Kenya dirty deal is already “bearing fruit,” as Kenya has allowed the usurping Jewish entity to house 5 drones in a Kenyan military base on the border with Somalia in exchange for a stash of heavy weaponry and 13 “Israeli” military advisors making their home in Kenya. The Zionist drones have illegally taken to the skies in Somalia and launched hellish missile attacks, with the latest one murdering at least 17 innocents and wounding more than 60 others (53). A 53-year old IAF engineer named Hanoch Miller, who founded a defense firm called Radom Aviation which has worked with “Israeli” Aerospace Industries, has been caught attempting to smuggle weapons to the pathetic puppet regime in Somalia, which is fully complicit in the crimes against the Somali people carried out by the US-backed UN-AU occupation. Though Miller appears to be acting independently, this is highly suspect due to his elite status in the IAF and the fact that the Zionist entity wants to establish relations with the regime (54). Only because of the steadfast Resistance of Al-Shabab has Somalia not been colonized, but it is indeed in the sights of the Merhav Group of “Israel,” a powerful Mossad-run consortium headed by elite Mossad agent Yosef A. Maiman that has already taken over the energy interests of occupied Afghanistan (55). 

 

Libyan leader Muammar al-Qadhdhafi, 
June 1942 – October 20th, 2011;
murdered in a Zionist conspiracy
to fragment Libya.

Libyan leader Muammar al-Qadhdhafi, a revolutionary and four-decade resistor of Zionism and Western domination loved dearly by his people, is dead. In an operation led by NATO and its rebels, Qadhdhafi was sodomized and tortured before he was murdered. The invasion, which took place on the Jewish revenge holiday of Purim, like Iraq before it, was designed by the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), the renamed Jewish-Zionist “Cabal” once known as the Project for a New American Century, and the despicable lies of “human rights violations” and “impending genocide” used by the Zionist media to sell the invasion to the world were generated by UN Watch, a Zionist affiliate of AIPAC’s foreign policy wing, the American Jewish Committee, and headed by “Israeli” citizen Hillel Neuer. Qadhdhafi was planning to introduce a gold dinar into the African economy for oil trade, a move that would have devastated Jewish-Zionist financial domination of the continent (56). The NATO rebels are not only willing to recognize the usurping Zionist regime, they are prepared to let it establish a base in eastern Cyrenaica on a 30-year lease (57). Qadhdhafi is spinning in his grave.

Another African revolutionary life that “Israel” ended was that of Mehdi Ben Barka, routinely described as the “Moroccan Che Guevara” and, “the Frantz Fanon of Morocco.” The Zionist entity’s Mossad kidnaped the great revolutionary theoretician and murdered him in cold blood (58). 

 

After penetrating the
security forces of Nigeria,
the Zionist entity’s Mossad,
with the help of the CIA, is 
tearing the oil-rich West African
nation apart.

Nigeria as of late has been rocked by an unrelenting campaign of violent car bombings, including a horrific attack on Christmas Day, which the Zionist media blames on an Islamic group known throughout the capital of Abuja and other cities for its social services, Boko Haram.Nigerian Muslims view the attacks as a means of instigating a religious war to divide the country on ethno-sectarian lines (59), as per one of the directives of “Yinon Africa,” and Nigerian Muslims also reject the idea that Boko Haram is behind the sophisticated attacks, saying it is far beyond their scope and antithetical to their agenda. They say that Boko Haram has become a “boogeyman” used by the Goodluck Jonathan regime to obtain Western grants (60). It is not by luck of any sort that the bombings in Nigeria began right around the same time that the Jonathan regime brought in a team of Mossad and CIA operatives, overseen by “Israeli” Ambassador to Nigeria Moshe Ram, to probe (read: run) its security services (61). The Zionist entity is attempting to break up Nigeria using the same successful methods it used in Sudan and it couldn’t be any clearer.

“Israeli” activity has even been found as far as the tiny island state of Madagascar, where an “illegal commando unit” of Zionist mercenaries led by 60-year old Joseph Akiva from the illegal Jewish settlement of Netanya were involved in a savage crackdown that left dozens of protesters dead. Akiva and his band of goons were suppressing rivals of former Madagascar President Marc Ravalomanana. Despite business interests on the Indian Ocean island involving construction, Akiva has been extradited back to occupied Palestine for his murderous criminal activity (62). 

One of the most unknown examples of Zionist puppetry in Africa was “Emperor” of the Central African Republic, Jean-Bédel Bokassa. The closest friend of the megalomaniacal Bokassa was one of the usurping Jewish entity’s “famous generals,” General Shmuel Gonen-Gorodish. The “Israeli” general, in addition to his military and security advice, built up the public relations of Bokassa throughout the globe. Gonen-Gorodish also embezzled large amounts of taxes and customs from the state treasury. Though their relationship didn’t last long, when a military coup ousted Bokassa from power,Gonen-Gorodish helped him flee to the Ivory Coast, where, ironically enough, the luxury hotels, palaces of the rulers and monopolistic companies were all built with the close assistance of the private firms and racist Histadrut of the Zionist entity (63).

The coastal West African nation of Sierra Leone has been pillaged by some of the most vile elements of International Jewry. From the Brooklyn neighborhood of Brighton Beach, the small, troubled and diamond-rich Sierra Leone was “virtually run” by Marat Balagula, the Ukranian-Jewish mob boss of the most powerful criminal organization on earth, the Red Mafiya. Sierra Leone’s president, Joseph Momoh, didn’t have any problem with the Jewish syndicate setting up global smuggling and money laundering operations in Freetown because Balagula’s associates, in return, bankrolled Momoh’s 1985 presidential campaign. The Jewish ultra-gangster’s main contact in Sierra Leone was a Mossad agent named Shabtai Kalmanovitch, who trained Momoh’s presidential guard and assisted in the crushing of an attempted coup in 1986. Balagula and Kalmanovitch were introduced by Rabbi Ronald Greenwald, a frontman for the interests of Marc Rich (64),the famous billionaire Jewish criminal pardoned by Bill Clinton. This revelation shows a clear nexus between the “Israeli” entity and organized crime, united in the ancient Jewish hatred of the Black man, working together for the furtherance of Jewish interests.

 

Dan Gertler: 
the Chabadnik
Zionist and Jewish
“merchant of death”
responsible for 
drowning the Congo
in blood.

In the Congo, where a catastrophic genocide has been occurring since 1996, in which up to 10 million people have died at a maddening rate of 1,500 a day, the profiteers of this downright insidious humanitarian disaster are almost exclusively Jewish and intimately linked to the larger network of international Zionism has been responsible for every major conflict of the last century. Led by Dan Gertler, the grandson of Moshe Schnitzer, an Irgun terrorist known throughout the Zionist entity as “Mr. Diamond” and for founding the “Israel” Diamond Exchange in Tel Aviv in 1960, which today brings the usurping regime $14 billion annually in blood business, there is a Jewish-Zionist network in the Congo so interlocked, so powerful and so domineering, that it can truly make one’s head spin (65). 

Gertler, a member of the influential Chabad Lubavitch supremacist gangster cult and guided by Rabbi Chaim Yaakov Leibovitch, is in bed with Jewish diamond dynasties that include the families of Templesman, Oppenheimer, Mendell, Blattner, Hertzov and Steinmetz, his main partner. The Chabadnik criminal bought off the Congolese government in exchange for high-level “Israeli” defense and intelligence assistance. The endeavors of Gertler and Beny Steinmetz, one of the richest Jews in the Zionist entity, have proliferated and today, they are have a monopoly over Congo’s diamonds, a dominant stake in Congo’s copper and the largest cobalt-mining company in the world.And all of this blood money ties into Jewish organized crime, “Israeli” arms dealers, multiple Chabad houses and the Zionist occupation itself all the way up to Netanyahu’s office (65). Gertler, a Jewish supremacist of the highest order, revels in sucking the Congo’s blood and he’s so sadistically thirsty for it, he just won’t stop his criminality until there is nothing left but millions more dead.

If the late Mehdi Ben Barka was the “Moroccan Che Guevara,” then Thomas Isidore Noël Sankara, the Burkinabé revolutionary, Pan-Africanist and righteous leader of Burkina Faso from 1983-1987, was certainly the “Che Guevara of Africa.” Sankara was known for his incorruptibility and radical (and successful) policies that included land reform, women’s rights, literacy promotion, education, famine prevention, resource nationalization, anti-neoliberalism, anti-Zionism, anti-imperialism, public health care, social justice and legal punishment for all previous oppressors, colonialist and collaborator alike. Thomas Sankara was nothing short of remarkable. Unfortunately however, his extraordinary and pristine life came to an end on October 15th, 1987, when he was overthrown and executed in a coup d’état by incumbent Burkinabé president, Blaise Compaoré. It

Posted in Africa, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on The Zionist Infestation Of Africa: Zimbabwe To Uganda, Congo To Somalia And Beyond

Religious racist Zio-Nazi rabbi: Moroccan Jews ‘can’t match Ashkenazi knowledge’

NOVANEWS

Rabbi is father-in-law of Zio-Nazi Lt. Col. Shalom Eisner, who was filmed striking a Danish pro-Palestinian activist,  quoted in a pamphlet distributed on the Sabbath in Jerusalem synagogues.

Haaretz

A high-profile religious-Zionist rabbi – and the father-in-law of the IDF officer who hit a protester with his rifle last week – says Jews from North Africa and the Middle East are “purer” than European Jews but are no match for them intellectually.

Yehoshua Zuckerman – father-in-law of Lt. Col. Shalom Eisner, who was filmed striking a Danish pro-Palestinian activist – granted an interview to a pamphlet distributed on the Sabbath in Jerusalem synagogues. He tried to explain the difference between Sephardi and Ashkenazi Jews.

“A Moroccan Jew can’t say anything about faith in the Western discourse. They can’t match Ashkenazi knowledge,” he told the pamphlet. “So what do they do? They connect to simple nationalism and vote Likud.” Zuckerman taught for years at Mercaz Harav, religious Zionism’s most prominent yeshiva.

“Sephardi Jews are more natural and purer than Ashkenazim because, unlike the Ashkenazim who went as far as Europe, the Sephardi Jews didn’t move that far away, didn’t live among Christians and studied the Zohar,” he said, referring to the key work in Jewish mystical thought.

Zuckerman added that Sephardi Jews didn’t study the Zohar “extensively or deeply, so they lack a well-founded opinion.”

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Religious racist Zio-Nazi rabbi: Moroccan Jews ‘can’t match Ashkenazi knowledge’

JFK Special 2: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!

NOVANEWS

By Ralph Cinque and Clare Kuehn (with Jim Fetzer)

This is a sequel to “JFK Special: Oswald was the Man in the Doorway, after all!” (25 January 2012), which was co-authored by two of us.  We are going to look further at the Altgens photo and the reasons why the evidence shows that Doorman has to have been  Lee Harvey Oswald and could not have been Billy Lovelady.  But, we are also going to look further at the images of Billy Lovelady that were taken after the assassination, and it will show clearly that manipulation, alteration, and fakery were involved.  Billy Lovelady even masqueraded as Doorway Man, and it was a concerted effort, for which he had help.

To a great extent, this analysis is based on the new observations of K.D. Ruckman, a Canadian researcher, who was interviewed for two hours by Dr. Fetzer recently on his internet radio program, “The Real Deal, 20 February 2012. That program has been archived at radiofetzer.blogspot.com.  We will begin with the work of Ralph Cinque and add discussion of the contributions of K.D. Ruckman as appropriate, especially in the final three sections of this study.  Clare Kuehn, who is another Canadian student of JFK, authored several sections beginning with “Multiple Versions of the Altgens”.  Those who have not read the earlier article may not appreciate the evidence that has already been presenting that establishes proof that the man in the doorway was Lee Oswald and not Billy Lovelady, especially based on analysis of the shirts they were wearing.

So, let’s begin by going back to the doorway of the Book Depository as seen in the Altgens photo.  This image, by Robert Groden, may be the clearest one we have.  Some say that the face of Doorman is that of Billy Lovelady, but even the House Subcommittee on Assassinations wasn’t sure. They said:

“Due to the blurred quality of the enlargements of the spectator’s image in the Altgens photograph, it was not possible either to identify or exclude positively Lovelady or Oswald.”

They also went on to say that there was a greater probability that It was Lovelady than Oswald, and that was based on very small “anthropometric “ measurements such as facial length, lower jaw breadth, nasal breadth, forehead breadth, and such, which were based on feature of the face, which we believe to have been superimposed on Oswald’s body.  If Lovelady’s face was superimposed, those features would be Lovelady’s.

It’s the shirt, stupid! (with Ralph Cinque)

But, that was ridiculous because they looked at those tiny elements while ignoring the big, looming elements in the picture, such as the vee-neck t-shirt which was a match to Oswald not Lovelady, the form and fit of the outer shirt which was a match to Oswald not Lovelady, and the manner of dress (unbuttoned) which was a match to Oswald not Lovelady, and the slender build of the man which was a match to Oswald not Lovelady.  If tiny facial measurements were a match to Lovelady while the big, visible, physical elements of the picture were a match to Oswald, isn’t that suspicious? So, how did they deal with it? Simple; they didn’t. They just ignored the large, physical elements.

But, notice that the face is surrounded by murky darkness, almost completely, while the junction of Doorway Man and Black Tie Man is also murky. That face has an island quality to it, and it looks like it could have been super-imposed- pasted in there.  It was the reverse of the backyard photos, which Jim Fetzer has explored with Jim Marrs, “Framing the Patsy: The Case of Lee Harvey Oswald”, in which Oswald’s face was imposed over that of another man. This time, it was another man’s face imposed above Oswald’s body.

Doorman’s clothing are a perfect match to Oswald’s, and that includes the right collars, the v-shaped t-shirts, the left lapels, the loose fit, and the major unbuttoning, all of which powerfully confirm that it’s Oswald standing there. The only aspect of the clothing that has ever been linked to Lovelady is the shirt pattern, but that’s not true.  Doorman’s shirt pattern is not identical to Lovelady’s–far from it. For instance, Lovelady’s shirt only had white lines, whereas Doorman’s has white blotches. Lovelady’s shirt had pattern and contrast all the way up to the collar, whereas Doorman’s right collar–and the whole upper right side of his shirt- is completely devoid of pattern.  It simply looks GRAINY–like Oswald’s shirt.  Here, take a look:

Which one is the odd man out? It’s obvious that someone tried to impose some pattern and contrast to other parts of Doorman’s shirt, but they did a crude, sloppy, inadequate job of it. Again, look: are these the same shirts?  This isn’t horseshoes or hand-grenades.  Close doesn’t count. The weak, shoddy imitation of Lovelady’s shirt pattern should sound an alarm that it is just another fakery in a long list of fakeries.

No Match to Lovelady

So again, there is absolutely nothing about the clothing that is a match to Lovelady–not even the shirt pattern. The entire clothing ensemble is a match to Oswald, and so is the slender build of Doorway Man, and that means that- geographically speaking–at least 80% of Doorway Man matches Oswald, and only 20% or less of him  (the face–that extracted face in a sea of murkiness) is a match to Lovelady.  So, considering that imbalance in proportionality, was it ever reasonable to say that Doorman leaned more towards looking like Lovelady? I hardly think so.

Where did the face of Lovelady come from to superimpose on Doorway Man? We suspect it came from  “Obfuscated Man”–so named by Dr. Fetzer.  Look to Doorman’s left, which is our right.  Do you see that big white splotch which looks like a cloud? Surrounding it, you can see the outline of a man’s head. And below it you can see, in black, the outline of his torso as it merges with the afro hairdo of the woman with the radiant smile who is in front of and below him.  That whole man was obfuscated- his face in white and his body in black–and that is why Dr. Fetzer refers to him as “Obfuscated Man”. He may have been the real Lovelady.

 Obfuscated Man

In this image, K.D. Ruckman has highlighted the features of the Altgens that have been obfuscated.  He agrees with me about the other anomalous figures, including “Black Tie Man”, who seems to be fused to Doorman, and although he is standing behind him, he is also overlapping him. The word “overlap” is Kelly’s choice of word, and it’s a good one.

Black Tie Man definitely looks like he was inserted there in a forged placement.  There is also the faceless Black Hole Man with his arms up shading his eyes from the sun–except that his face is in complete, utter darkness. So, why is he doing that? And concealing the right arm of Doorway Man is the face of a black man, to whom we may refer as “the Black Profile Guy” as follows.

The Black Profile Guy

So let’s discuss someone whom I have not mentioned previously but whom Kelly Ruckman noticed: the African-American man who is right in front of and below Doorman.   Is he supposed to be sitting or standing? I presume he is sitting. But, how can he be comfortable with Doorman wrapping his arm under his chin and breathing down his neck like that?

That’s what you call encroaching on someone’s “personal space.”  It’s odd for Doorman to be doing it, and it’s odd for the black guy to be OK with it.  It goes against everything we know about normal human boundaries. And where is the black guy looking?  Not at Kennedy- that’s for sure.  He is looking off in the opposite direction. But why?

So, is the black guy another super-imposed figure in the photograph? We suspect he is.  And we believe the purpose of putting him there was to hide the tattered condition of Oswald’s shirt, particularly on his left side, which you can see in the picture below.  I thank Kelly Ruckman for pointing this out.

Doorman’s position encircling the black guy’s head is, of course, way too close for comfort. Nobody would be content to have their personal space so infringed upon. But, let’s remember that Doorman’s position with his arm swung over like it is to the inside of his body is very unnatural, abnormal, and uncomfortable- for him, even without the black guy being there. If you try to duplicate his position yourself, you’ll see how uncomfortable it is to hold your arm swung-over like that to the inside. All your instincts will tell you to let it go, to just drop your arm and let it dangle.

Is Doorman leaning on something, such as a railing? There was no railing there in 1963. Could he have been leaning on the molding of the pillar? That’s theoretically possible, but it’s a strange thing to do. Who does such a thing? I have never done it or seen anybody do it. Why would anyone do it? What is practical about it? What is comfortable about it? Nothing.

Fedora Hat Man

Before we leave this picture of the doorway, I want to mention my uneasiness with the Fedora Hat Man, the fact that he is turned and looking directly at Doorman instead of at Kennedy. Why is he more interested in Doorman? And what about that woman and child who are in front of him? How is she supporting the weight of that child? The boy seems perfectly vertical, and he’s not that small, and she’s not that big. So, how is she able to hold him up so seemingly effortlessly? And how exactly is she holding him? How is she keeping him from falling? We can’t see her arm around him nor his arm around her. And how is he perched so perfectly straight? To me, it looks like he is standing on something, and she is standing next to him. But, there is nothing there that he could be standing on. And why is the boy wearing a winter wool cap pulled down over his ears when other people nearby are in short-sleeves or t-shirts? It was reportedly an unseasonably warm day for November.

I want to elaborate about this because I think it is important. Recall when you have seen a mother holding a child; not a baby, but a child. Recall that often the mother does things to lessen the load. Sometimes, she will have the child straddle her hip bone, sitting on her, which transfers the load from her relatively weak arms to her relatively strong legs. Or, she may lean back so that the child is lying on her chest, and by leaning back it causes passive structures, such as the ligaments and spinal facet joints, to bear some of the load, taking the strain off her arms. And, there are other shifts she could make to ease the burden. But, this woman isn’t reacting to the weight at all, even though he is a rather big kid for such a tiny woman to support. Yet, she looks totally unfazed. Take a look:

So, the question is: was the image of the boy and his mother put there to cover up Jack Ruby’s face? We know from reading Jim Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable (2008), that Jack Ruby was in Dealey Plaza that day. So, was that Jack Ruby in the Fedora hat? If so, it’s understandable that he’d be looking at Oswald. After all, the patsy was not supposed to be standing outside in plain view. I’m sure that was not part of the plan.  Note that even if he were facing the right direction–towards Kennedy–he would hardly be able to see anything. His orientation is very peculiar. It makes no sense for him to be standing behind that woman and child.

Another TSBD employee, Vicki Adams, was on the 4th floor when the shots rang out. She ran down the stairs- the same stairs that Oswald was supposedly bolting down at the same time, but of course, she didn’t see him- and when she reached the ground floor, she saw Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady standing together by the elevator, and when she went outside, she saw Jack Ruby. She said he was asking questions and ordering people around “like a cop.” So, that places Ruby outside the TSBD, and it makes it even more likely that Fedora Hat Man was Jack Ruby. Barry Ernest has just published book about Vicki Adams, which is titled, The Girl on the Stairs (2010).

Billy and the FBI

Now, let us move on to Billy Lovelady, and we are going to compare his FBI image from March 1964 (which definitely was him) to his alleged image from the day of the assassination at the Dallas PD. But first, let me remind you that there is controversy about which shirt he wore on 11/22/63. He first claimed to have worn a red and white striped short-sleeve shirt. He told that to the FBI he wore that shirt, and he told the same to at least one reporter: Jones Harris. But, the Dallas PD Lovelady was wearing a plaid checkered shirt, and that is the one that became part of the official story.

But first take a look at this official letter from the FBI to the Warren Commission stating that Lovelady claimed to have worn the red and white striped shirt.  The exact wording is: “He stated he was wearing a vertical red and white striped shirt and blue jeans,” which has been underlined at the end of the second paragraph:

And notice that in the pictures taken in March 1964 (below), they had him pose with his shirt unbuttoned- like Doorman. But, why would they do that if he was wearing a different shirt? What would be the point of it? Obviously, they thought at the time that he was wearing the shirt from 11/22. And notice how differently his unbuttoned shirt sprawls open compared to Doorman’s.  It’s a totally different look, and that’s because every shirt is different and behaves differently.  It is obviously not the same presentation that we saw on Doorman.  Notice also that the shirt is short-sleeved, whereas Doorman’s shirt was long-sleeved. So they had to do something pronto to get him out of that shirt.

Comparing the “Lovelady”s

 

But before we go on, let’s observe how well the layout of the unbuttoned shirts matches between Doorman and Oswald. And you can compare them to what you see on Lovelady above, especially in the above left.  I consider what you see below to be very comparable spreads. Would anyone care to differ?

Kelly makes the interesting observation that both shirts bulge a little where the lapel folds over, except that it’s higher on Oswald than on Doorman. On Oswald, you see the bulge right at the middle of the lapel whereas on Doorman, the bulge is at the bottom above where the shirt is finally buttoned.  Remember that it was a rough fold and not really following a crease, so at times, it bulged. But, that’s still the same behavior of the same material, and it doesn’t matter that it bulged in different places at different times. So, you are looking at the same guy wearing the same shirt.

But now, let’s compare the images of FBI Lovelady from March 1964 to that of DallasPD Lovelady from 11/22/63, which they crucially needed in order to place Lovelady in a long-sleeved shirt, supposedly like Doorman.  Here they are side by side.

Kelly Ruckman noticed the following comparative differences:

First, DallasPD Lovelady’s head (right) is wider from front to back than is FBI Lovelady’s (left). Second, the slope of FBI Lovelady’s head is more vertical, and the angle of his forehead with the top of his head is more rectangular. On DallasPD Lovelady, there is no angle at all, rather there is just a long, gentle, slope, like a ski slope, and it reminds me of the images we have seen of Cro-Magnon Man or Neanderthal. Third, FBI Lovelady seems to have a longer nose, and DallasPD Lovelady seems to have a shorter, stubbier nose. Fourth, the hairlines are different. FBI Lovelady’s hairline at the temple seems to go straight up whereas DallasPd Lovelady’s hairline angles back more.Fifth, the ears look different, with the real Lovelady’s on the left being longer and narrower. Remember that ears are very distinctive, like fingerprints.

Thank you Kelly Ruckman for pointing out the above. But there is a difference between the two of them which jumps out even more at me: their necks. DallasPD Lovelady (on the right) has a condition known as FORWARD NECK SYNDROME. Any orthopedist or chiropractor can see it- at a glance. Instead of going up, his neck is going forward.

FBI Lovelady (on the left) has a much more vertical neck. The basic, fundamental direction that it is going is UP. But on DallasPd Lovelady (on the right), his neck isn’t going up so much. His neck is going more FORWARD, and that has the effect of shortening his neck. And that is something we can measure. Take a ruler and measure the length of the visible neck on each of them, going from the bottom of the ear to wherever the vertical line reaches the shirt. As I measure it, I get a full inch of neck length on FBI Lovelady, but only 2/3 inch on DallasPd Lovelady. So, from the perspective of DallasPd Lovelady, FBI Lovelady has 50% more length in his neck.

Next, I want you to drop a plumb line on each of them. And the way you can do it is to take a ruler and place it right behind the ear, and holding it vertical, track it down and see where it goes. With good posture, the ear should not be too much in front of the sagittal plane of the shoulder, and FBI Lovelady is doing quite well in that respect. His isn’t bad alignment. I like what I’m seeing. But DallasPd Lovelady’s ear is much farther forward than that; his plumb line is well forward of his shoulder. He is really quite contorted, and he’s the kind of guy who is destined to have osteoarthritis of the neck.

In holding his neck forward like that, he has to do something to maintain his eyes level, that is, parallel with the ground, and what he’s doing is cocking his head back sharply at the very top of his neck. You may not be able to see it as well as I can, but if you were to see it on an x-ray, it would jump out at you. So, his neck is going forward, and at the very top of his neck, his head is rocking back on his neck. And that is like putting a heavy weight on a spring, compressing it. And that puts pressure on all the cervical joints, and over time, they wear out from it. The compressed cervical discs thin out until they are practically non-existent. Cervical disc herniations are also possible with this kind of posture.

Another Proof of their Differences

Here’s another way you can tell the difference: look at the axis of FBI Lovelady’s ear. It’s pretty much vertical: straight up and down. Not perfectly so, but close. But, on DallasPd Lovelady, the ear is rocked back more. It’s got more pitch to it. The line of greatest length through the ear is more diagonal, with the upper part back and the lower part forward. Again, it’s rocked back, and the reason it’s rocked back is because the whole head is rocked back. This is a very rigid, locked, dysfunctional posture that compromises mobility, flexibility, and coordination.

As a chiropractor, it’s a pleasure for me to look at FBI Lovelady because he has such nice lengthening in his neck and that translates into freedom of motion, lightness of being, and a generally expansive state of the body, which is what you want. But, it’s very distressful for me to look at DallasPd Lovelady because he looks solid, rigid, steeped in stiffness, and destined for pain.

Is there any chance that Lovelady was just standing and comporting himself differently on the two days? No. There is absolutely no chance of that. Postural habits are deeply ingrained. They are the MOST deeply ingrained of all the habits you’ve got. It’s extremely hard to break them- even if you try, and there is no reason to think Lovelady was trying. And the reason that it’s so hard to change them is because your habitual way of carrying yourself is the only thing you know; it’s the only thing that feels right to you; anything else would feel way out of balance, terribly wrong, like you were going to fall. It’s like your own little world that you’re living in- your way of responding to gravity and other forces- and it’s the only one you can even conceive of.

Having been a chiropractor for 36 years, I can tell you that this one factor of the FORWARD NECK SYNDROME on DallasPD Lovelady and its absence on FBI Lovelady completely eliminates any possibility that the two of them were the same man. It clinches it like different dental x-rays. It is not just a different position that DallasPD Lovelady is holding his neck; he is anatomically fixed that way. He could not make his neck look like FBI Lovelady’s no matter what he did. It would be anatomically impossible.

Now, let us compare DallasPD Lovelady with later known pictures of Lovelady from 1971 and 1978. ’71 Lovelady, in the middle, looks thinner, and he definitely does not have Forward Neck Syndrome, and there is no chance that it went away in the man on the left.  ’78 Lovelady, on the right, looks a lot older, but he doesn’t have Forward Neck Syndrome either.  Apparently,  Lovelady shed a lot of weight after the assassination.  But notice that the shirt still fits him. Shouldn’t that shirt be hanging on him after having lost all that weight? And notice that the pocket with the big flap that you see on DallasPD Lovelady (on the left) was not present when he was photographed in 1971 and 1978.

So, what is with that? How can a shirt continue to fit snugly after a man drops a lot of weight? Did he have the shirt altered, taken in? But, that’s a major job to reconstruct the shoulders and the core dimensions of a shirt. It is rarely ever done.  Shortening the sleeves is one thing, but taking in the shoulders and the core width of the shirt is too much work. Who does such a thing? Nobody.

But, if he did have the shirt altered, maybe it was necessary to remove the pocket because it no longer took up the right place. And rather than relocate the pocket, they just got rid of it completely. Of course, the other option is that it’s a totally different shirt- one that did not come with a pocket.

The Dallas PD Lovelady

Now let’s look at Dallas PD Lovelady as a still taken from some newsreel footage.  As Kelly puts it:

“Since the impostor got caught on camera, they got stuck with the plaid shirt. Lovelady tells the truth at the start, but later recants and begins his role of playing Doorman in plaid shirts similar to the one the impostor wore, until his mysterious death in 1979.”

But, I would add that they really had no choice but to go with the plaid shirt because Lovelady’s real shirt- the one he actually wore- was short-sleeved, whereas Doorman’s was long-sleeved, being Oswald’s shirt.  So, they needed to come up with a long-sleeved shirt, and that’s why they were forced to go with this guy in plaid.

But, it’s Kelly Ruckman who deserves credit for first recognizing that DallasPD Lovelady was a fake. And think about what it means:  It means that just as there was an Oswald double floating around Dallas on November 22, there was also a Lovelady double.  To learn about the Oswald double, you only have to read JFK and the Unspeakable (2008) by James Douglass. Douglass covers the Oswald double in detail, including his being smuggled out of the state on an Air Force cargo plane hours after the assassination, as reported by Air Force Officer Robert Vinson who rode with him on the plane.  It took decades for Vinson to muster the courage to come forward and reveal what happened, but he did so in his 1993 book, Flight from Dallas.

Kelly makes another interesting point about the Altgens photo–that the area around Doorman comprises about 2.5% of the total photo, yet all of the anomalies and strange, beguiling figures happen right there and nowhere else in the picture. The rest of the vast picture is completely straight-forward, photographically speaking, with no weird, inscrutable stuff. Why should everything that is puzzling and questionable be happening to and around Doorman?  It is a rhetorical question directed at those who proffer “photographic compression”, “emulsion bleeding” or other such pseudo-technical excuses for the strange occurrences that are concentrated in that one small area.

But, the bottom line about Billy Lovelady is that he was engaged in an enormous and elaborate fraud.  Not only did he pose in a different shirt from the one he wore on November 22, 1963- but he knew very well that he was not the Doorway Man.  No doubt, he was in the Altgens photo, but he was not the man standing next to the pillar in the loose-fitting, unbuttoned, long-sleeved shirt over a vee-neck t-shirt.  Why did he do it? Money may have been a factor. Billy Lovelady was a warehouse worker who suddenly had the financial means to start his own trucking company in Denver, Colorado shortly after the assassination. And fear may have been a factor- fear for his life. He did, after all, die suddenly of a first and fatal “heart attack” in 1979 at the tender age of 41. Billy never even testified before the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA).

Multiple Versions of the Altgens (with Clare Kuehn)

Dr. Ralph Cinque has done much, with Dr. Fetzer, to elaborate on the simpler observations of Penn Jones, Jr. from the 1980s, about how Oswald’s shirt matches Doorway Man’s.  Cinque has also remarked that the male figure wearing a hat and standing behind the woman and a child in front of the TSBD and to the right side of the doorway (to our left, viewing the photograph), might have a Fedor and could be Jack Ruby. His face and most of his body, after all, are covered by a child whose comfortable spinal posture would be erect, yet the child is otherwise positioned as if it belonged with the woman, implicitly being held by her.  It is not straining to get straight up and is not tipping in any way from being held in an arm.  It could more reasonably be standing on a platform, based upon its posture, but there was no platform of that height. Could he have been Jack Ruby?

As Ralph Cinque has observed, there were two men in Fedoras can be observed in the Altgens, one of whom is dark-complected, the other of whom has his face sufficient obscured to be indeterminate, but where you can see some part of his forehead, which also seems to be dark in complexion.  It is very odd to seem to have two men in Fedoras, both of whom are black:

Ralph observes that the person in question is the man in the Fedora to the far left. But K.D. and Clare have another candidate in mind:  Black Tie Man, who is standing just behind Doorway Man and to his immediate left. Vicki Adams’ testimony makes it likely that Jack Ruby was there, but he could still have been either of these candidates.

Mr. Kelly Ruckman has noticed that there is a significant early close-up of the region of the Altgens showing Doorway man in a documentary based upon Mark Lane’s famous early work on the assassination, Rush to Judgement (1966). In this version, the high contrast area of Black Tie Man’s suit is clearly evident. With little definition in the blacks and in the whites, whatever was light and survived the contrasting could not have been medium toned originally.  On Black Tie Man’s left breast is a significant white line, fairly thick, enough for a kerchief in a breast pocket. In this version, and this version only, of the Altgens there is this feature which could not be taken away by mere changes in contrast of one print or another. It would not simply disappear unless taken out. This means that more than one VERSION of the Altgens appeared in print somewhere, for Lane to have included it.

Not only this, but Ruby was known to be a natty dresser, who often wore a kerchief in his pocket. At the Friday night press conference, he is dressed just as Black Tie Man was, in Mark Lane’s 1967 documentary,  where the Altgens (shown here) is complete with white handkerchief. Was Black Tie Man Ruby? Even if not, the Altgens we have from the extant newspapers was provably touched up in one area: the area of the breast pocket of a figure in the doorway: Black Tie Man. Perhaps  some newspapers got an early version of the image, and Lane included it. Will Mark please come forward with that version now, if he has it? Or anyone else who has early Altgens images?

 

The impossible posture of head, hips and shoulder

Mr. Kelly Ruckman noticed some other odd things in later photographs of Lovelady. Before covering them directly, we will have to describe an optical illusion which occurs when we look at Doorway man in different blow-up levels. Once we see how the optical illusion happens, we can be careful to notice the elements in its occurrence, even at lower magnification. Then we can move on to Ruckman’s discovery and why what he discovered was done. The following is also the first discussion on record of exactly how the wrong posture of Doorway man comes to set itself in our mind, as if accurate and inaccurate at the same time, and is thus important in its own right.

An optical illusion can occur in different ways. Sometimes, as in many playful perspective images by the artist M.C. Escher, we cannot have the image resolve properly into one perspective rationally.

Our minds can see the box or column set, or stairway as, in or out, up or down, alternately, but the whole image cannot resolve both interpretations. A simpler problem, using a cube only, is presented here, and it’s called the “Impossible Cube”, with good reason:

We understand this rationally but cannot see the total at one time in our mind. We can redraw it or re-image it in our mind linearly, but it will always remain one or the other impression as a total object picture. This is what we have with Doorway man’s left arm width, left hip and side, versus the width of his shoulder and upper arm and his shoulder line.

In the most general sense, many have noticed that in the Altgens photo, Doorway man has an awkward posture. This is, in fact, due to an optical illusion which, we will see, is in turn due to a botched paint job.

We may choose the line of the arm which extends not far beyond the lighter grey portion. This matches the width of the shoulder area. The arm is too long and forces us to the conclusion, as well, that the man is lunging. His hip area then recedes to the darker grey shadowy area around the Black Profile Guy’s face. The rest of the grey area becomes basically one tone in our mind, then, and even can seem to be the suit jacket and pants of Black Tie Man. Black Tie Man’s true black suit jacket then looks like a shadow from a lapel. It is not his true suit line, which does extend a bit beyond, but for the moment, our mental impression ignores that.

This interpretation is reinforced by the line of the back of the head of the African American person below and in front of Black Tie Man. If, alternately, we try to incorporate this generalized grey area as Doorway man’s left side, the lunge of the shoulders and the matching beginning, anyway, of the light grey arm area, we are left with a very awkward posture overall, where the arm is crossed almost violently (and too long) and the rest of the body is erect. We could call it “a Goiter Hip”: he lunges from the lighter arm area and shoulder, but his hip still looks straight. But the conclusion that this is not a natural body is further deepened with a different impression, one from the fuller facts of the arm. The actual, true lower arm extends in a wide arc, below the lighter grey elbow area. In fact, though it is harder to see in lower resolution, it is possible to see that there is more definition below the light grey arm … far below it. This true arm line is due to blotchy striped-check blobs in dark-middle and middle grey. Once we take this line for the arm, and it is the true arm line, we see that the lower arm is a Flat Fat shape, and thus way too thick for the body. As well, the arm would have to be broken to sit like that. The lunge is missing then, the arm even longer by implication, and the true middle grey area begins lower. Now it really is not Black Tie Man’s suit, but a kind of straighter posture for this now completely wrong arm. Goiter Hip is back.

We cannot reconcile the new information, the fuller arm line, with our wishful thinking from the lighter arm line. This is like Escher’s games with perspective. We must ignore – in the sense of allide, conjoin and eliminate or not notice – certain features of some of his “objects” in order to see an object in each and when we include new information we would have to drop or conjoin aspects of the image we saw before and know also to be there, in order to hold the new object image information in mind.

Reconciling the Shoulders and the Hips

Many have attempted to reconcile the posture by using the shoulders and hips, saying the man is somehow twisted to look lunging yet straight up. They have not realized that the reason for the “awkward” arm is that an impression of lunge comes only from the light grey arm and shoulder – matching in width with each other, where the rest of the body below might be Black Tie Man’s body, or be only glossed over in our mind (the way the irreconcilable aspects of one view of Escher’s images forces us to ignore or partly generalize what’s going on in the rest, while we  – but the impression of straight posture comes only from a too-fat lower arm (Flat Fat arm) and distinct grey area for hip (Goiter Hip). The full image information cannot be reconciled in the visual mind, because it derives from seeing one aspect of the arm (the light grey) and then finding out the full arm width extends to the man’s lower belly, and remains that thick. It hangs there, way beyond the normal thickness of the arm from the shoulder.

In fact, it even extends out in a blob beyond the “left side” (our right) of Doorway man’s goiter hip, as if it were an elbow or fold, but is actually bad paint. This blob clearly goes beyond the arm, to match with the line of Black Tie Man’s black suit line. An elbow would be up higher, more where the light grey arm implies. It was likely from a paintbrush painting too far. It thus looks like a broken lower extremity from the general width of that lower arm and looks flattened for the same reason, but also has an incongruous botched paint job beyond the arm. This paint job fools you: it goes as far as Black Tie Man’s waist. The lighter, slenderer arm of Doorman in the light grey area plus some of the dark grey, puts the elbow much higher. The grey outcropping, putatively a lighter striped-check part of the sleeve again, no longer matches the shoulder and upper arm direction to where the inner elbow and width are reasonable.

Notice how Black Tie Man relates to Doorway Man’s left shoulder.  Many have thought Black Time Man’s image overlaps his left shoulder, which would be blatant proof of fakery by itself, but the situation appears to be just a bit more subtle than that. Doorway Man’s wider lower arm implies a wider shoulder; we then see the shoulder as too narrow, when it is the lower arm which drags too wide and too low. The shoulder matches the thinner lighter arm, and the rest is a widening below it, a paint job of extra-stripey checks. If you put your finger over the mid-grey stripes of the lower side and bottom of the arm, you will see that the lighter arm area width matches the real shoulder roundness. The illusion is optical, and due to a botched paint job.  Compared to the shoulder width and its matching light grey arm

impression, the lower arm’s far greater thickness, and very low, almost broken angle for the shoulder, making a gentle sweep too low, be due to a huge, hanging shirtsleeve? No. Of course, a person might wear or fashion such a shirtsleeve. Remember, our comparison size here is the light grey arm and shoulder area, perhaps adding a bit for shadowed curvature, not the Goiter Hip dimensions of an erect posture which does not fit the shoulder size and lighter arm.

How do we know it wasn’t just a very very wide sleeve? We have the later images of Lovelady in a putatively identical shirt, and it does not fit his shoulders and then swell off his lower arm, nearly double the size. Do we have situations where a shirt could look similar to this without being a lower balloon? Well, if one places any used shirt flat on a surface, it can look roughly rounded and wide in its outer curve, around the elbow area and on down. But these impressions come from different real-world physical processes than a) a man wearing a relatively tight regular shirt, as was claimed for this check-striped shirt, and b) a shirt with no person in it, where the material flattens out and looks wider in two dimensions than when curved, even a bit loosely, around an arm.  And the light grey or medium grey arm itself is always too long (along with the addition of Black Profile Guy). This was clearly partly to cover the bottom of Oswald’s nearly open shirt, which was in tatters at the bottom. The medium extent of the true grey lower arm is also kind of broken looking, once one notices its relation to the shoulder and narrower light grey arm. Hence my allusion to the impossible cube. We now return to Ruckman’s own work.

Three wrongs don’t make a right left arm!

After looking at the “generally awkward” left arm in the Altgens – an arm whose true medium-grey outline is too low and “broken”-looking, but which looks awkward even as a light grey arm, when compared to hips and shoulder and head position – Ruckman noticed that when the House-Senate Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) received images of Lovelady in the 1970s, his left arm was altered in the recent images! The arm of the Altgens is too long and broken, whereas the new alterations were mostly shatter-broken (cut in multiple places) or outrightly shortened; this would seem to contrast with the Altgens literally, but it achieves a similar impression, that is, that something is wrong with the arm.

“Keep on moving! Nothing to see here!” might be the motto of these doctorers, but by fearing the Altgens botch job so much that they did more weird edits to new images and actually left MORE evidence of their handiwork for those willing to notice. We see him in the check-striped shirt he supposedly wore (but claimed to the FBI he did not), posing for a CBS interview and in photos by Robert Groden. In some of these, his left arm check-stripes are actually compressed without a rounded fold. They have been cut and shortened in the Jackson ’71 and Groden ’76 copies. (What does this imply about Groden? Did he realize this was done to his images?) Here is the full set of Groden photos, as submitted to the HSCA (House Select Committe on Assassinations):

Here is the Jackson ’71 photo, available only in a collage by what Ruckman calls the “notorious disinfo-agent John MacAdams”. This is a different doctoring than the others, which were simple cuts in multiple places. This image relies on the impression that a shoulder muscle on the uppermost arm leaves a strong shadow on a naked, buff man, when appropriately lit and high contrast is wanted in the image. Instead, we have really a cut-paste job in the uppermost arm of this image, for the lighting source is front-top and no bend occurs in a human arm at that point, fabric drapes with gravity and flattens out vertically – a spurious fold can only occur under such conditions in that part of an arm and leave other evidence of itself. The putative wrap-around fold disappears into the front upper arm impossibly, cut off by the dark gash. There is no fold at the point of the dark gash. And the arm’s general position is more of a flat-on view, as if it was from a side image, or as if the arm were twisted around to the front face. In the case of such a twist, however, the shoulder would be even flatter, for the side of the arm would become the front. But in this image the arm is also shorter, and in that respect it fits with the Groden fakes.

The thing to remember here is not that these images shorten the arm, but rather that they make the arm wrong. In the latter, not in the former sense, they are like the Altgens.  Now we noticed that the light grey arm on Doorway man is too long, and the full real arm image is way too long and wide, so why shorten the arm of Lovelady? The impression of SOMETHING wrong with the arm and the broken look of the full lower arm image including the non-light portions, must have led the cover-up to continue. But it’s such an obvious break in the image that one might conclude it isn’t a break, but a fold, or something else. Would they risk our seeing how broken the arm image is in these later stills?

 

Indeed. For if the left arm always looks a bit “funny”, as the English say, it seems as if there’s less wrong with the Altgens arm. This is subconscious: hide a man in a mask among others with masks. Mr. Ruckman noticed the cropped-and-pasted arms for the first time. He had not analyzed exactly what was wrong with the Altgens arm illusion, but he noticed the simpler job done on the later images and they are obvious once one notices them. Folds will not do there. So why? The Altgens is not cut in such a way, but the true arm width extends past the elbow, lowers widely and Fat Flat. In low resolution and interpretation from the light grey arm’s general impression, however, we don’t see that lower arm shape properly. When we do, the arm is even more broken for the body. No, it is not a simple cut-paste there, but it is awkward, and moreso even would have to be broken and flattened on a real body. The general impression of “something”’s being wrong with the arm was maintained in a cover-up into the 1970s.

One of the mistakes that happened that day is their man, the Man in Plaid  was caught on film , not once but twice. Since he was doubling Lovelady, they were stuck with the plaid shirt. In the same sense that Oswald’s face had to be covered up with the superimposed face of Lovelady, Oswald’s shirt had to be painted over with white splotchy lines to mimic the plaid shirts checkered pattern.  For more of K.D. Ruckman’s work, visit his blog about Billy and Lee.

Lovelady stuck to the truth at the start, shying away from the media and refusing to have his picture taken. Later he must have been “gotten to”. By 1967 he recants and begins his role as Doorway man in Plaid shirts similar to the one the Man in plaid wore, again in 1971 and lastly for Groden in 1976. He suffered a fatal heart attack in 1979–or else in 1984 by some accounts. Just another mysterious death at the bottom of a long list of dead JFK assassination witnesses.

What about Bill Shelly? (with Ralph Cinque)

Let’s close by looking at Bill Shelley.  Oswald told Detective Fritz that he was “out in front with Bill Shelley.” Yet, Bill Shelley denied it. In fact, he made an emphatic statement that:  “At no time during the shooting did I see Lee Harvey Oswald.” It seems odd that he would use three names to refer to someone he knew and worked with.  But, it turns out

 

that Shelley knew Oswald well and long before Lee came to work at the TSBD, insofar as they were both involved in the Texas/Louisiana Civil Air Patrol. That was an organization that was founded by the owner of the TSBD building, David Byrd. So, why didn’t Shelley mention to the Warren Commission that he knew Oswald from the CAP? Didn’t he think it was relevant? The truth is that Bill Shelley was a career CIA man. He worked for Army Intelligence during WWII, and when the CIA was launched in 1947, he immediately got immersed in it.  On the morning of the assassination, Bill Shelley spent hours on the 6th floor directing a crew of men who were laying flooring. So, how did he miss seeing the arrangement of the boxes of books that were organized into the “sniper’s nest”?  Alarm bells should be going off about Bill Shelley.

It is very clear now that, from the beginning, the Altgens photo was the weakest link in the official JFK story.  And one can even imagine that the conspirators breathed a sigh of relief when all people wanted to talk about was the “magic bullet”, the timeline, the Zapruder film, and other things–because all of that paled in comparison to the photograph of Oswald standing in front of the building while the shooting was going on. It may be that it was always their worst nightmare that the focus would someday return to the Altgens photo.

Well, that someday has arrived, because the focus has returned to the Altgens photo.   The Doorman is back! And now we can point to visible evidence that the Doorman was definitely wearing Oswald’s clothes. And that means that he WAS definitely Oswald. There is no longer any doubt about it. Oswald was outside watching while President Kennedy was being gunned down.  It can’t be reasonably denied, where this simple fact makes a complete mockery of all the official lies concerning the murder of JFK and its cover-up.  These lies can no longer endure.

Posted in USAComments Off on JFK Special 2: Oswald was in the doorway, after all!

Littlewood : Good for Günter!

NOVANEWS
‘What Must Be Said’ is spot-on! Amen Brother Gunter! Graphic credit: brainflashes.com

Everyone and his dog now knows Israel is the problem

 

by Stuart Littlewood

 

Can’t say I’m crazy about the German Nobel laureate’s poetry. Much is lost in translation, of course. But the sentiment expressed in ‘What Must Be Said’ is spot-on.

And now that the dust has settled we can marvel at how the avalanche of outraged squawks and screeches sent the needle clean off the Richter Scale of Zionist paranoia.

Brave Günter Grass should wear the insults like a badge of honour.

 

The Jewish Chronicle reported Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu as saying: “His [Gunter’s] declarations are ignorant and shameful and every honest person in this world must condemn them.”

The sole purpose of non-Jews is to serve Jews, according to Spiritual leader and Shas Party member Rabbi Ovadia …Eli Yishai, Israel’s interior minister and Shas party chief, seated right of Bibi in the picture.

What constitutes an “honest person” in Netanyahu’s eyes?

Does he know any?

Would Eli Yishai, Israel’s interior minister, be one of them?

Yishai lost no time blacklisting Grass and said he could no longer enter Israel.

“If Gunter wants to spread his twisted and lying works, I suggest he does this from Iran, where he can find a supportive audience.”

No need, Eli. He already has a huge and appreciative audience here in the West.

Yishai is boss of Israel’s Shas party. Shas opposes any freeze in Israel’s illegal settlement activity in the West Bank. In other words, he’s all for land theft and ethnic cleansing. Not surprisingly Shas is a magnet for freaks and crooks. Several of the party’s MKs have been convicted of offences such as fraud and forgery. Its former leader was indicted on corruption charges. The party’s founder called Palestinians “evil” and said “God should strike them with a plague….”

As for Arabs generally, “it is forbidden to be merciful to them. You must send missiles to them and annihilate them. They are evil and damnable.”

Shas has a real down on homosexuals too. One Shas MK accused gays of being “a plague as toxic as bird flu”.

The party is also against dividing Jerusalem and wants the Temple Mount for Jews only, regardless of irrefutable Muslim claims.

As if that weren’t enough, The Zionism and Israel Encyclopedic Dictionary tells of “unscrupulous election practices that include distributing amulets against the evil eye and rabbinical blessings in return for promises to vote for Shas, and apparently, voting by deceased persons. In several Shas districts in 1999, over 100% of those registered participated in the elections.”

And is Yishai any good as a minister? “Yishai is a bad interior minister,” according to Israeli newspaper Haaretz. “It seems the job simply doesn’t interest him. Perhaps even worse, that hasn’t hurt his political reputation, because the people of Israel don’t realize it.”  So Gunter Grass needn’t lose any sleep over the mouthings of this third-rater.

In any case, Günter in his poem only expresses what truly honest men have been saying for decades…

Yet why do I forbid myself

To name that other country

In which, for years, even if secretly,

There has been a growing nuclear potential at hand

But beyond control, because no inspection is available?

Actually inspection is available but Israel claims exemption, which is dutifully granted by our subservient international élite.

That the nuclear power of Israel endangers

The already fragile world peace?

Because it must be said

What even tomorrow may be too late to say…

 

Israel frantically points the finger at Iran… but for what? To distract attention from the fact that Israel itself is the one with the runaway nuclear weapons programme that menaces the region and beyond.

UN Security Council resolution 487, in 1981, called on Israel “urgently to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards”. Israel hasn’t done so. Its huge arsenal of weapons of mass destruction – nuclear, chemical and biological – is obviously what’s undermining the “fragile world peace”.

In 2009 the IAEA again called on Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty, open its nuclear facilities to inspection and place them under comprehensive IAEA safeguards. Again Israel did not comply.

Everyone and his dog now knows that Israel is the problem. It is the only state in the region not party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (Iran is). It has signed but not ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. As regards biological and chemical weapons, Israel has not signed the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. It has signed but not ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Netanyahu needs to explain all this before getting heavy with other people.

With nimble lips calling it a reparation, declares

A further U-boat should be delivered to Israel,

Whose specialty consists of guiding all-destroying warheads to where the existence

Of a single atomic bomb is unproven,

But as a fear wishes to be conclusive,

I say what must be said.

Two months ago Defence Industry Daily reported how Christian Schmidt, Germany’s secretary of state for defence, had signed a contract with Israel to supply a sixth Dolphin-class submarine with the German taxpayer chipping in a huge subsidy. This latest U-boat will be fitted with a new type of propulsion system. Schmidt reportedly said that Germany was looking to increase its defense co-operation with Israel and “was specifically interested in learning from the IDF about training and military doctrine”.

Ye gods!

The German government must be mental to have provided any subs, let alone half a dozen. Dolphins are diesel-electric attack subs that can fire torpedoes and missiles from their tubes and carry out underwater surveillance. Germany donated two of these killer vessels to the Israeli navy in the early 1990s. Israel then bought a third submarine for $350 million – half price – with the German taxpayer paying the other half. In 2006 a deal was done for two more at a total of $1.27 billion, with the Germans picking up 1/3 of the tab.

DOLPHIN SUBMARINE — Now the two countries have agreed that Israel may buy the sixth submarine, with Germany helping to finance a third of the whopping $528-million price tag that makes the vessel one of the world’s most expensive war machines. LA /TIMES

These Dolphins have 10 bow torpedo tubes, four of which have a 650mm diameter for launching the larger cruise missiles.

Rumour has it that Israel tested a nuclear-capable version of its medium-range “Popeye Turbo” cruise missile from those tubes.

It’s the stuff of nightmares when you see the lethal idiots whose fingers are all over the buttons.

Angela Merkel needs a good spanking for this lunacy. Any volunteers?

 

It is to be hoped

That this will free many from silence,

That they may prompt the perpetrator of the recognized danger

To renounce violence and

Likewise insist

That an unhindered and permanent control

Of the Israeli nuclear potential

And the Iranian nuclear sites

Be authorized through an international agency

By the governments of both countries.

Amen, Brother Günter.

Posted in CampaignsComments Off on Littlewood : Good for Günter!

What Propelled Vietnam War?

NOVANEWS

History Repeated, Was What.

 

by Tom Valentine

 

An E-mail debate about of the details of the Vietnam war crossed my mail via Dick Fogut a noteworthy octogenarian patriot and friend responding to Kevin Barrett. Who wrote, among other things:

“I researched public opinion data long ago and discovered that the vast majority of the Vietnamese people wanted to re-unite under Ho – which is obvious from the fact that a tiny country defeated a gigantic superpower. The South Vietnamese regime was just a French-created, US maintained front of quislings, traitors and whores.”

Fogut responded at length:

“Kevin, I was very “busy” back then, attempting to refute the media lies about Diem. Diem was NOT a creature of the French so far as I understood. When he set up his government in the South, he DISMISSED all the Toady officers who had served under the corrupt French. It was from among those that foolish Kennedy paid to overthrow Diem (Kennedy having believed the propaganda from the New York Times and TV networks that demonized Diem as a prudish and anti-Buddhist man, very unpopular with the people, so couldn’t win the war. Diem WAS unpopular with those in Saigon, but just the opposite out in the villages, despite what you’ve apparently read).

“Be practical…the proposal of having the entire populace of BOTH halves choose between Diem and Ho, would have been a farce back then. North Vietnam (allowing no international observers) would produce a 100% vote for Ho (no matter what its people actually desired.) The democratic vote in the South, observed by UN people and media, would have been divided. Even if a majority in the South voted FOR Diem (recall, several million Catholics fled south after Ho took the North from the French), the combination of a minority vote in the South and 100% in the North, would have “won” for Ho.

“Diem did NOT want the American “advisors” Kennedy desired (and did insert)! He wanted our military aid, but NOT us “taking over” his country — as Kennedy’s Gung-ho advisors wanted to do. He reluctantly caved to Kennedy’s demands.

“As Marguerite Highness [and others) reported, a relatively limited guerilla war between Ho and Diem, was suddenly escalated into a full scale blood bath as our immense American firepower increased AFTER Diem was murdered — and our military took full command, inserting hundreds of thousands of our troops into then demoralized South Vietnam.”

“You may dispute the truth of what I wrote that Higginss said the Viet Cong leaders told her later, that the 15,000 each month defections of Viet Cong to Diem’s side, had convinced Ho he could not win the south by FORCE. He was privately conferring with Diem about a cease fire. Did Higgins LIE?

“Our Zionist dominated major media even back then, (behind the scene) “philosophically” sided with the Communist/Marxist side winning. Their Bolshevik “brethren” had not yet been completely shoved aside in Russia by native born, non-Jewish Russian Communists.

“Every public demonstration here in America against “OUR side” in Vietnam, no matter how small, was massively publicized by the TV networks. (The favorable, pro-American – “musical” demonstrations – at the same time, by Moral Rearmament, often to much larger crowds, received not a moment of reporting by the same media). This is the same treatment as we observed about Iraq and now Iran, whom the media owners want destroyed. The media Zionists, (no longer concentrating on favoring Zionist Marxism), are busy promoting the agendas of their cherished “homeland,” the state of Israel.

“As RENA VALE (the FBI’s plant in the Hollywood Communist Party who exposed the “Hollywood Ten” to Congressional committees) told me in 1952 when I was stationed with the Air Force near Detroit, MOST of the leaders (the “royalty”) of the American Communist Party she had personally met in America, were American Jews. (I illustrated the cover of her 1952 book about them, titled: “THE RED COURT.”)

“When the old Bolsheviks and their children, were forced out of power in Russia (MANY emigrating to Israel) the Party leaders here, also Zionists, abandoned Communism, to became full time advocates for Zionist Israel.”

There is enough to chew on in those paragraphs to keep old vets remembering things our history liars never told for a long time.

I jumped in because my authority is the author of two books that explained the entire Vietnam era/experience more thoroughly and honestly than any writer, and I am surprised at how few have read up on it. Vietnam was Iraq and Afghanistan rolled into one financial orgy, Col. Fletcher Prouty provided details where I learned how powerless JFK was in the face of the Secret team that grew out of the OSS during the final years of WW2.

Prouty observed the physical start for the planned new wars (Korea and Vietnam) while flying above Okinawa in 1945, and he had already witnessed the political beginnings as a pilot who flew delegates to the famed Tehran conference of really big wheels (banker puppets) Churchill, Chiang, FDR and Stalin in 1944. hCol. Fletcher Prouty, Witness to Power, History, and Corruption

The more things change, the more they stay the same!

The British Empire ran the world on behalf of bankers and investors for nearly 300 years through the high cabals of finance in The City of London, about which I have written much. History of Money, War—All damned Lies! Part One:

It bears repeating. The financial cabal types under British Israel/ Masonic philosophy never stopped licking their chops after they saw all the debt/financing money they could count on from wars.

The “military/Industrial complex” they had installed in the various sovereign states never took time off. These moneychangers put their lobby to work on their selected puppet leaders and constructed the great “cold war” scam of the 20th century.

Mammon’s greed formed the uterus that birthed all the war money bubbles of the last century. Elections and political leaders were for show and tell only.

In Vietnam as always, investment opportunities were the driving forces. Prouty relates how a representative of First Bank of Boston came to his office in the Pentagon to query about the use of helicopters in the “next” war.

And after learning that thousands of choppers were planned, the bankers invested in the manufacturers of these flying targets. We, the enslaved American producers/taxpayers, lost more than 5000 such craft in Vietnam, so the investment paid off, big time.

The two-party system churned up the lying propaganda without missing a beat, and we are still in the costly rut.

In 1954, my ship The USS Bexar APA 237 went up the river to Hanoi to evacuate Americans, so somebody knew damned well what was planned.

It is “common knowledge” among the somewhat informed, that Eisenhower seriously considered dropping an atomic bomb on the “communists in Laos back in 1947. He declined to follow up.

And this incident may have helped his speech writers come up with his famous warning agains the Military Industrial complex, Who knows? Ike was certainly not a “good guy’ based on what took place in Germany with so many “other Losses” among Germans interred; and we must not forget his double cross of the Hungarian freedom fighters.

Is this too much information?

Somebody gave the order to ship millions of dollars worth of war materials (cannons, tanks, planes even, and ammunition galore) off to both Korea and Vietnam back in 1945 just as the Japanese were signing the surrender aboard the USS Missouri.

Mammon is insatiable. Investment returns must never stop. Let the people eat cake, pay through nose, get drafted to die, consume tons of cheap crap and think they run the greatest country in the history of the world. The money games must go on; only a few knew it was funny money, and nobody seemed to care.

We had housing booms, lots of jobs and could not be bothered to get off the dance floors.

For the really sick details on how “the secret team” pulled everything off, get a copy of Fletch’s first book, The Secret Team then read the horror story of Vietnam in his JFK book.

History lessons like these were never in the curricula of the bleeping establishment. It’s the job of us old fart veterans to teach the kids.

If they don’t learn from history, they may just follow the pied pipers of war and false Gods all the way to Iran. Then hell.

 

Related Posts:

Posted in Far EastComments Off on What Propelled Vietnam War?

Justice for Rachel Corrie Delayed

NOVANEWS

by Stephen Lendman

Rachael Corrie, 23, from Olympia, Wash., a member of the ‘International Solidarity Movement,’ burn a mock U.S. flag during a rally in the southern Gaza Strip (news-web sites) ton of Rafah in this Feb. 15 2003 file photo

 

Delay may end up denial. More on that below.

On March 16, 2003, an Israeli bulldozer driver murdered Rachel in cold blood.

Trying to stop a Rafah refugee camp home demolition, eye witnesses said she climbed atop the giant Caterpillar tractor, spoke to the driver, climbed down, knelt 10 – 20 meters in front in clear view, and blocked its path with her body.

With activists screaming for it to stop, the soldier-operator deliberately crushed her to death. To be sure, he ran over her twice.

Rachel’s family wants justice. So should everyone. The Rachel Corrie Foundation for Peace & Justice (RCFPJ) supports it. Its mission and guiding principles state:

The Foundation continues what Rachel began. It reflects “her vision, spirit, and creative energy….” It supports “build(ing) understanding, respect, and appreciation for differences, and that promote cooperation within and between local and global communities.”

“The foundation encourages and supports grassroots efforts in pursuit of human rights and social, economic, and environmental justice, which we view as pre-requisites for world peace.”

Its guiding principles include:

  • challenging injustice and resisting oppression;
  • teaching justice and peacemaking skills;
  • advancing “human rights and social, economic, and environmental justice for all….;”
  • seeking creative ways to achieve these goals; and
  • committing to people and places the way Rachel did, especially those most disadvantaged and repressed.

Rachel was 23 when murdered. She believed in nonviolent direct action. She supported oppressed Palestinians. It became her life’s struggle. She gave it doing what’s right. What greater sacrifice than that!

In her own words, she said:

“I’m here for other children.

I’m here because I care.

I’m here because children everywhere are suffering and because forty thousand people die each day from hunger.

I’m here because those people are mostly children.

We have got to understand that they dream our dreams and we dream theirs.

We have got to understand that they are us. We are them.

My dream is to stop hunger by the year 2000.

My dream is to give the poor a chance.

My dream is to save the 40,000 people who die each day.

My dream can and will come true if we all look into the future and see the light that shines there.

If we ignore hunger, that light will go out.

If we all help and work together, it will grow and burn free with the potential of tomorrow.”

Her dedication and humility came out in comments like “I can’t be Picasso. I can’t be Jesus. I can’t save the planet single-handedly. I can wash dishes.”

From Occupied Palestine, he emailed often. Her comments showed dedication. They’re inspirational for others. They reflect a spirit vital to be kept alive. The Foundation, Rachel’s family, friends, and kindred spirits do it.

What better life’s mission than supporting peace and justice. Rachel died for it. It bears repeating. What greater sacrifice than that!

Rachel’s Family Lawsuit

In 2005, representing Rachel’s family, attorney Hussein abu Hussein sued the State of Israel. It bears full responsibility for her death.

On March 10, 2010, oral testimonies began. Fifteen court hearings were held. Twenty-three witnesses testified. They included four International Solidarity Movement (ISM) activists with Rachel when she died. They saw what happened close up. Over 2,000 court transcript papers were produced.

US embassy officials attended each hearing. So did Rachel’s family members, as well as numerous international legal and human rights organization observers.

On July 11, 2011, proceedings concluded. Judge Oded Gershon scheduled dates for both sides to present written summations and closing arguments. He also set April 23, 2012 for his ruling. Multiple delays along the way postponed it.

Rescheduling hasn’t been set. The longer it’s delayed, the more likely justice will be denied. Whatever the ruling, Rachel’s lost life can’t be restored.

In her absence, her inspirational spirit motivates others to continue her important work. Helping others and pursuing justice defines it. The Rafah City/Rafeh refugee camp Rachel Corrie Clinic and Children’s Centerperforms vital services in her name.

The Rachel Corrie Memorial web site provides information about her and what everyone can do. The best way to honor her is follow her example. Support peace and justice issues. What’s more important than those.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, Human RightsComments Off on Justice for Rachel Corrie Delayed

ZIONIST DANCING WITH ZIONIST

NOVANEWS

Saudi Arabia: Dancing to Israel’s Tunes

By Kourosh Ziabari

 

The fact that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has joined the vicious triangle of the United States, Israel and Britain to destabilize the Islamic Republic of Iran and put pressure on Tehran over its nuclear program is not a secret anymore. The Saudi officials have openly stated their opposition to Iran’s access to peaceful nuclear energy and even have boastfully promised to make up for the amount of crude oil which the EU member states will be losing after imposing a multilateral oil embargo against Iran which is seen as an effort to force Iran into giving up its nuclear rights.

The Saudis are officially considered to be among the Muslim states which don’t recognize the Israeli regime; however, they haven’t hesitated to publicize their ties with the Israeli officials during the recent years, especially when it comes to their cooperation with Tel Aviv against Iran.

Allying with the Zionist regime and betraying a Muslim friend with which it had long maintained sound and reasonable ties can be considered as a manifestation of Saudis’ miscalculations and their erroneous analyses about the position of Iran in the international community; a position which has been bolstered with the unexpectedly massive participation of Iranians in the recent parliamentary elections in early March, showing people’s solidarity and steadfastness in the face of harsh economic sanctions and paralyzing political pressures.

Recent WikiLeaks reports suggest that Saudi officials have been working closely with Mossad to step up pressure against Iran and gathering intelligence about the country’s nuclear program.

In the Stratfor (a Texas-based global intelligence firm) emails leaked by WikiLeaks and obtained by the Beirut-based Al Akhbar newspaper, it was revealed the Saudi Arabia reached out to the Mossad, which assisted the Kingdom with, as Al Akhbar reports, “intelligence collection and advice on Iran.”

According to a source quoted in the emails, “Several enterprising Mossad officers, both past and present, are making a bundle selling the Saudis everything from security equipment, intelligence and consultation.”

There are also credible reports indicating that Mossad chief has recently visited Saudi Arabia and talked to Saudi officials about the possible plans for attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities and the role the Arab nation can play in this dangerous anti-Iranian scenario.

As written by Haaretz, “the talks conducted in Saudi Arabia with the head of Israel’s espionage agency dealt with Iran and its nuclear program. The account follows a series of recent reports on increasing secret cooperation between Israel and the Saudis, including defense coordination on matters related to possible military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities.”

Another report by the Times of London revealed that in 2010 and during the course of a Saudi military exercise, air defense system operations were halted for a few hours to rehearse a scenario whereby Israeli fighter planes would cross Saudi Arabian air space en route to an attack on Iran.

Other independent media reports also confirmed that Israeli air force planes and helicopters have recently landed in Saudi Arabia for the purpose of positioning warfare and equipment there to be used in a possible military assault on Iran. Actually, it’s one of the plans of the Israeli officials to use the airspace of Saudi Arabia, Iran’s southwestern neighbor, for launching an attack against the country’s nuclear installations and seemingly, the Saudis are not reluctant for giving a green light to Tel Aviv in this regard.

In retrospect, the Saudi officials have expressively and explicitly denounced Iran’s nuclear program and called on the U.S. and its European officials to tighten the noose of economic sanctions around their Muslim neighbor as if they’re unaware of the fact that several IAEA and NIE reports have confirmed that Iran is not, and has not been after nuclear weapons and has never diverted from the path of using nuclear technology for peaceful ends.

Two years ago, in a joint press conference with his American counterpart, the Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saudi al-Faisal said that economic sanctions cannot guarantee that Iran will retreat from its nuclear program and a more effective solution is needed for the “threats posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions.”

Al-Faisal described sanctions as a long-term solution and said the perceived threat coming from Iran is more pressing. “We see the issue in the shorter term because we are closer to the threat. We need immediate resolution rather than gradual resolution,” he said. The Saudi prince did not specify any short-term resolution, but it seems that his implied option, which he did not rule out, is a military intervention in Iran.

The Saudis are also trying to convince the U.S. and Europe that Iran’s nuclear program poses a threat to their security and should be hindered as soon as possible. That’s why many U.S. and European officials state in their bilateral meetings with the Saudi officials that a “nuclear-armed Iran” is harmful to the security of the Persian Gulf.

“I understand the Arab world cannot allow that Iran continues to develop nuclear weapons,” said Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the leader of opposition party in the German parliament and former foreign minister in a February meeting with the Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal.

The Saudi kingdom’s hostility toward Iran, however, has gone beyond the pale. In the recent months that war rhetoric and economic sanctions against Tehran have been swaying in the sky, the Saudi officials have sent signals that they’re ready to offset any shortfall that may happen in the crude oil market after the EU member states’ foreign ministers reached an agreement to impose an oil embargo on Iran which will come into effect in early July.

According to an Associated Press report, Saudi Arabia’s oil minister said on March 14 that his country and other oil exporters are ready to offset any shortfalls in supply because of market volatility, an apparent reference to showdowns with Iran over its nuclear program.

At any rate, the stance which Riyadh has adopted against Tehran is absolutely in line with the anti-Iranian policies of the Israeli regime. They’re dancing to Israel’s tune and performing what Tel Aviv desires the most: isolating Iran, ramping up pressure against the people and creating discord between them to persuade them to rise against the government. However, what is clear is that such pressures cannot bring Iranians to their knees and will only unveil the true face of the enemies of this nation. Over the course of three decades since the victory of Islamic revolution, Iran has been constantly the target of enmity and belligerence by the global superpowers and their allies, so the recent antagonistic policies and hostilities of Saudi Arabia are nothing new or surprising.

Posted in Saudi ArabiaComments Off on ZIONIST DANCING WITH ZIONIST

Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING

April 2012
M T W T F S S
« Mar   May »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30