Archive | July 11th, 2015

DEATH OF ZIO-WAHHABI PUPPET

NOVANEWS

Zio-Wahhabi Turki Al Faisal

Zio-Wahhabi Turki Al Faisal was born on the 15th of February, 1945 in Makkah, Saudi Arabia, the eighth and last son of the late Saudi Zio-Wahhabi King Faisal. He began his schooling at the Taif Model Elementary and Intermediate School. When he was fourteen, he was sent by his father to study at Lawrenceville School, a prep school in New Jersey. He then graduated in 1963 from Lawrenceville School in New Jersey. Subsequently, he pursued his undergraduate studies at Georgetown (Class of ’68). After he left Georgetown, he did some studies in Britain, and then went back to work in the Kingdom. He is 100% Zionist educated.

Zio-Wahhabi Turki was appointed an Advisor in the Royal Court in 1973. From 1977 to 2001, he served as the Director General of the General Intelligence Directorate (GID), the Kingdom’s main Foreign intelligence service [aka Istakhbarat].

C.I.A puppet Usama Bin Ladin met the head of the Zio-Wahhabi security service, Zio-Wahhabi Turki Ibn Faisal Ibn Abdelaziz in 1978. Bin Laden had begun to associate with Islamic radicals who played on his feelings of inner religious crisis and growing isolation from his family to lead him towards becoming an extremist. He was introduced to local members of the Muslim Brotherhood, who only drove Usama further towards extremism. In 1979 Usama Bin Ladin went to Zio-Wahhabi Turki for advice after he became infuriated by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Following Zio-Wahhabi Turki’s suggestion that Bin Ladin use his financial assets to aid the Afghan resistance, Usama traveled to neighboring Pakistan to wage jihad on the Soviet Union.

Speaking in 2002, he recalled that “In 1976, after the Watergate matters took place here, [the American] intelligence community was literally tied up by Congress. It could not do anything. It could not send spies it could not write reports, and it could not pay money. In order to compensate for that, a group of countries got together in the hope of fighting communism and established what was called the Safari Club. The Safari Club included France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and Iran. The principle aim of this club was that we would share information with each other and help each other in countering Soviet influence … The main concern of everybody was that the spread of communism was taking place while the main country that would oppose communism was tied up. Congress had literally paralyzed the work of not only of the US intelligence community, but of its foreign service as well. And so, the Kingdom, with these countries, helped in some way, I believe, to keep the world safe at the time when the United States was not able to do that. ….. In 1980, when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, we in the Kingdom, with the United States, initiated a program of countering the Soviet invasion and helping the Mujahideen to repel the Soviets. I was directly involved in that situation … if you read the Wall Street Journal, you would think that I invented Bin Laden, and it’s not true. When I met him in these functions, he seemed to be a relatively pleasant man, very shy, soft spoken, and, as a matter of fact, he didn’t speak much at all. … [in 1998] I was sent to Afghanistan by King Fahd and Crown Prince Abdullah to try to get Mullah Omar to hand bin Laden to us…. “

In early 1996 Sudan had offered to extradite bin Laden to Saudi Arabia. President Clinton, hoping the Saudis would take bin Laden and swiftly execute him, called Zio-Wahhabi Turki bin Faisal, to consider the plan. Soon left Sudan for Afghanistan.

Zio-Wahhabi Turki followed up in meetings during the summer of 1998 with Mullah Omar and other Taliban leaders. Employing a mixture of possible bribes and threats, he received a commitment that Bin Ladin would be handed over.

By some accounts a moderate group within the Taleban wanted to get rid of Osama bin Laden and establish relations with the United States. Under their pressure, Mullah Omar made a secret agreement to send the al-Qaida leader to Saudi Arabia to stand trial for treason. Zio-Wahhabi Turki bin Faisal, then head of Saudi intelligence, says it was a done deal – soon to be undone.

After the Embassy bombings in August 1998, Vice President Gore called Riyadh again to underscore the urgency of bringing the Saudi ultimatum to a final conclusion. After the al-Qaida bombing of two US embassies in Africa, the Clinton administration retaliated with a missile attack on a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan and alleged terrorist camps in Afghanistan. That put an end to Taleban moderation.

In September 1998 Zio-Wahhabi Turki, joined by Pakistan’s intelligence chief, had a climactic meeting with Mullah Omar in Kandahar. Omar reneged on his promise to expel Bin Ladin. When Turki angrily confronted him, Omar lost his temper and denounced the Saudi Zio_Wahhabi regime rnment. The Saudis and Pakistanis walked out.

On 31 August 2001 Zio-Wahhabi Turki departed from the Wahhabi Intelligence Services. The official announcement stated that “Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Fahd bin Abdulaziz yesterday relieved Prince Turki Al-Faisal bin Abdulaziz, upon his own request, from his post as Chief of General Intelligence.” The resignation came to some as a surprise, though others familiar with the Minister’s situation expected the resignation eventually, after a quarter of a century on the job. The precise timing was said to derive from [unstated] circumstances in the Minister’s immediate family. The surprise departure came only four months after Zio-Wahhabi King Fahd had issued a Royal Decree reconfirming him in the post for four more years. His close ties to Zio-Wahhabi Abdallah made him a useful ally and a bulwark against Zio-Wahhabi Sultan’s influence.

Other speculation focused on the fact that his departure came a few days before September 11th. One conjecture suggested that Turki had found out about the planned attacks and was trying to dissuade bin Laden. His failure to do so, or his failure to report his prior knowledge, could have precipitated his dismissal as intelligence chief.

A few days after 9-11, an aircraft carrying 31 Saudi nationals departed the United States. Some reports claim that among the passengers was Zio-Wahhabi Turki bin Faisal. One of his brother was also said to be on board the flight.

In November 2001 the Arab station MBC carried an unusual hourlong interview with Zio-Wahhabi Turki bin Faisal. He voiced support for the American effort in Afghanistan. “America is not there to occupy Afghanistan,” he said. “It is there to fulfill a certain purpose stemming from the events that occurred over a month ago.”

In November 2001 Zio-Wahhabi Turki bin Faisal told the New York Times that while Saudi Arabia country regarded Saddam Hussein as one of the world’s most active terrorists, it would not support any attack on Iraq by coalition forces. “You target Saddam Hussein, and no one will object”  he said.

On 15 August 2002, he was one of three Saudi Zio-Wahhabi  sued for allegedly helping to finance the terrorist attacks of 11th September 2001, the other two being Zio-Wahhabi Sultan bin Abdul Aziz and Zio-Wahhabi Mohammed bin Faisal. The lawsuit sought damages from members of the Saudi royal family, Zio-Wahhabi banks and Saudi Zio-Wahhabi corporations, who had extensive financial holdings in the US. Among the defendants were two prominent members of the Saudi Zio-Wahhabi family, Zio-Wahhabi Sultan bin Abdelaziz al-Saud, the defense minister, and Zio-Wahhabi Turki bin Faisal, Saudi ambassador to Britain. The suit alleges that Zio-Wahhabi Sultan “publicly supported and funded several Islamic charities that were sponsoring Osama bin Laden” and that Zio-Wahhabi Turki negotiated a deal in which Al Qaeda agreed to end efforts to subvert the Saudi monarchy in exchange for a Saudi promise not to extradite terrorist leaders.

During the consultations with official agencies investigating 11 September attacks, Sheikh Dr Abdullah bin Abdul Mohsin Al Turki [no relation], secretary general of the World Islamic League and former Zio-Wahhabi religious affairs minister, stated that “those in authority (the wulat al-amr) are the ulema and the political leaders”, appearing to equate the royal family and the religious establishment.

Zio-Wahhabi Turki Al Faisal responded that ” … the Sheikh’s comment struck me as strange. Never before has such an opinion been expressed in our country. In the Shi’ite world this is the equivalent of Imam Khomeini’s questionable teachings about velayat-e faqih. But I do not subscribe to this view, since power resides in the political leadership, and the ulemaserve solely in an advisory capacity.”

Zio-Wahhabi Turki commented in Zio-Wahhabi regime, English-language, Arab News (18 September 2002): “Saudi Arabia has worked with the United States for the past 70 years. Both countries have benefited from this enduring partnership. Remember that we face the same threat: Bin Ladin targeted Saudi Arabia before he targeted America. Al-Qa’ida has thousands of followers from more than 60 countries, including those of many U.S. allies. That he chose 15 Saudis for his murderous gang, many of whom, he boasted, did not even know the ultimate goal of their mission, can only be explained as an attempt to disrupt the close relationship between our two countries…. There are those in America who condemn all Saudi Arabians as uncivilized, close-minded and barbaric. But such blanket accusations are not worthy of the American people…. Let us deny extremists the victory of undermining our partnership. Instead, let us remain strong, and, whatever shortcomings we see in each other, let us confront them and overcome them together in a spirit of mutual respect and openness.”

In 2002, he was appointed the Ambassador of The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and took up his post on 28 January 2003.

In March 2004 it was reported that information assembled by German intelligence analysts revealed that a pair of private Saudi Zio-Wahhabi companies linked with suspected Al Qaeda cells in Germany and in Indonesia also had connections to the Saudi Zio-Wahhabi intelligence agency and its longtime chief, Zio-Wahhabi Turki bin Faisal.

On 19 January 2005 a US federal judge dismissed Saudi Zio-Wahhabi  from 9/11 suits. Richard Casey ruled that ” Saudi Arabia, Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan Prince Turki al-Faisal, and the country’s ambassador to Britain HRH Prince Turki Al-Faisal, all had immunity from the litigation” .

On 20 July 2005 Zio-Wahhabi King issued his orders to start the process of nominating Zio-Wahhabi  Turki Al-Faisal for the post of Ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the United States of America.

He is Chairman of the board of The Prince Charles Visual Islamic and Traditional Arts Centre as well as the co-chair of the C100 Group which is affiliated with the World Economic Forum since 2003. ( and that is joke )

 

 

Posted in Saudi ArabiaComments Off on DEATH OF ZIO-WAHHABI PUPPET

Conspiracy against Syria & Iran initiated in 2007

NOVANEWS

Iran_Isis_cartoon

Introduction by Brandon Martinez 

Here are excerpts from a 2007 report from award winning journalist Seymour Hersh. His report, published in the New Yorker under the heading “The Redirection,” outlines in clear language that the conspiracy to topple the governments of Syria and Iran, specifically by sponsoring terrorist groups as mercenaries against them, was conceived and initiated during the Bush years, and began to take shape in earnest in 2007.

In the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, the Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations, has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The “redirection,” as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran.The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

The new American policy, in its broad outlines, has been discussed publicly. In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that there is “a new strategic alignment in the Middle East,” separating “reformers” and “extremists”; she pointed to the Sunni states as centers of moderation, and said that Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah were “on the other side of that divide.” (Syria’s Sunni majority is dominated by the Alawi sect.) Iran and Syria, she said, “have made their choice and their choice is to destabilize.”

Some of the core tactics of the redirection are not public, however. The clandestine operations have been kept secret, in some cases, by leaving the execution or the funding to the Saudis, or by finding other ways to work around the normal congressional appropriations process, current and former officials close to the Administration said.

The policy shift has brought Saudi Arabia and Israel into a new strategic embrace, largely because both countries see Iran as an existential threat. They have been involved in direct talks, and the Saudis, who believe that greater stability in Israel and Palestine will give Iran less leverage in the region, have become more involved in Arab-Israeli negotiations.

The new strategy “is a major shift in American policy—it’s a sea change,” a U.S. government consultant with close ties to Israel said. The Sunni states “were petrified of a Shiite resurgence, and there was growing resentment with our gambling on the moderate Shiites in Iraq,” he said. “We cannot reverse the Shiite gain in Iraq, but we can contain it.”

This time, the U.S. government consultant told me, Bandar and other Saudis have assured the White House that “they will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their message to us was ‘We’ve created this movement, and we can control it.’ It’s not that we don’t want the Salafis to throw bombs; it’s who they throw them at—Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran.”

In the past year, the Saudis, the Israelis, and the Bush Administration have developed a series of informal understandings about their new strategic direction. At least four main elements were involved, the U.S. government consultant told me. First, Israel would be assured that its security was paramount and that Washington and Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states shared its concern about Iran.

Second, the Saudis would urge Hamas, the Islamist Palestinian party that has received support from Iran, to curtail its anti-Israeli aggression and to begin serious talks about sharing leadership with Fatah, the more secular Palestinian group. (In February, the Saudis brokered a deal at Mecca between the two factions. However, Israel and the U.S. have expressed dissatisfaction with the terms.)

The third component was that the Bush Administration would work directly with Sunni nations to counteract Shiite ascendance in the region.

Fourth, the Saudi government, with Washington’s approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria. The Israelis believe that putting such pressure on the Assad government will make it more conciliatory and open to negotiations. Syria is a major conduit of arms to Hezbollah.

Posted in Iran, SyriaComments Off on Conspiracy against Syria & Iran initiated in 2007

Libya: Chaos – The Result of Western Intrusion

NOVANEWS
Global Research
Flag_of_Libya.svg

Why is it that whatever the West touches rots to the flesh within seconds? Why is it that the West always manages to choose the wrong side, the side of terrorism, dictators, Fascism, lobbies, forces which oppresses the people, holds them down and makes their lives misery? Welcome to Libya which the West destroyed in 2011, without any consequences.

The events of 2010 are well known. The French installed themselves in Benghazi, which had long had separatist tendencies away from the capital Tripoli to the west and the plans were drawn up with the other willing members of the FUKUS Axis (France-UK-US). And on cue in 2011 with the eastern and western borders secured in Tunisia and Egypt (two other countries rapidly spinning out of control), Hillary Clinton, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy gave the nod to the involvement of their countries in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation, using terrorist forces on their own lists of proscribed groups.

Not one of them has been hauled before a court of law, meaning that the legal systems of the United States of America, the United Kingdom and France are travesties of justice, their proceedings flawed and their due process partial, subjective and unconstitutional.

Libya: Chaos - The result of Western intrusion. 55732.jpeg

And so the most prosperous country in the African Continent, the country with the highest Human Development Index in Africa, the country whose leader Muammar al-Qathafi was to receive a prize from the United Nations Organization for his humanitarian projects, the country with the best women’s rights in the Arab World, the country which donated millions to pan-African development projects such as e-learning and tele-medicine, was blasted back to the dark ages by warplanes firing at government soldiers who were fighting terrorists.

Clinton, Cameron and Napoleon

What sterling work by Hillary Clinton, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy, a sorry trio and Heaven forbid if Hillary Clinton gets anywhere near the Presidency.

Four years on, ordinary Libyans are unable to travel from one end of their country to the other, most are unable to leave the confines of the city in which they live. Gone are the social benefits of the Jamahiriya which provided services at heavily subsidized costs or for free.

Ten per cent of the population is classified as internally displaced, people are dying of hunger in the streets and to date there has been no legal process undertaken against the monsters who colluded with Hillary Clinton, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy during the so-called “Rebellion” which was in fact an act of terrorism in which children were impaled on stakes, women had their breasts sliced off them in the streets and society was destroyed. Today, Libya is crawling with Islamic State operatives.

Where was the Security Council ?

The Security Council talks about a Government of National Accord and the need for a political solution to the crisis. Where was the Security Council when the FUKUS Axis was planning and implementing this atrocity, where was the Security Council when UNSC Resolutions 1970 and 1973 (2011) were being breached? What action has been taken against the parties responsible for this outrage? Libya would not be in this state if Obama/Clinton, Cameron and Sarkozy had not interfered in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation.

Where was the Security Council, where were the lawmakers when forces loyal to Obama/Clinton, Cameron and Sarkozy breached the UNSC Resolutions, breached the UN Charter, breached international law, breached the Geneva Conventions and committed acts of murder while supporting terrorists?

Where was the Security Council, where were the lawmakers when forces loyal to Obama/Clinton, Cameron and Sarkozy breached UNSC Resolutions 1970 and 1973 (2011), the UN Charter, Chapter VII, Article 46; UNSC Resolution 2131 (XX) of 21 December 1965; Resolutions 31/91 of 14 December 1976, 32/153 of 19 December 1977, 33/74 of 15 December 1978, 34/101 of 14 December 1979 and 35/159 of 12 December 1980; Article 3 of the Statute of The Hague International Penal Court; UN Charter, Chapter VI, Article 33; Chapter VII, Article 51; UNSC Resolution 1973 (2011), in its Chapter on Protection of Civilians, paragraph 4?

Read also: Law Case of the Century: Indictment against NATO’s political and military leadership

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/06-11-2011/119534-indictment_nato-0/

Posted in LibyaComments Off on Libya: Chaos – The Result of Western Intrusion


Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING