America, Land of Zionist Liars Home of wimps...

America, Land of Zionist Liars Home of wimps...Philip Zelikow's re-appointment to the "President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board" (PFIAB) is testimony to the utter corruption in Washington and the FULL intent of covering-up the barbaric crimes of the inside Job of 9/11 for ever....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nbak9KOINgo&feature=player_embedded

http://www.virginia.edu/uvatoday/newsRelease.php?id=15988

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FC31Aa01.html

The sorcerer, back in the star chamber to work his magic...

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Opinion/Columnist/2011/Oct-08/150754-has-anyone-seen-the-us-in-the-mideast.ashx#axzz1aDWp5Hdr

Philip Zelikow's re-appointment to the "President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board" (PFIAB) is testimony to the enduring power of AIPAC in Washington and the enduring BOND of the Siamese twins, CIA/MOSSAD.... On this board Zelikow, A dual citizen, is A MOSSAD seat.... will have access to ALL the deepest secrets of the US intelligence community....and its infamous White House Murder INC,....

The tragedy of the Jews, so my father and his Jewish friends told me is that they always go one step too far - relying on Chutzpah....

No one has yet tied our current global financial crisis with Israeli interests. If that connection is achieved, even if it is untrue, then God help the Jewish people.

A quiet invasion:
"The collapse of Soviet power in 1989-91 contributed to the Arabs’ disarray, as did the huge success of pro-Israeli Americans in penetrating almost every institution of the American government, whether at state or federal level, most notably the U.S. Congress. The message these advocates conveyed was that the interests of America and Israel were identical and their alliance ‘unshakable.’"

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/09/22/the-middle-east%e2%80%99s-new-geopolitical-map/

The current President is beneath contempt. He has placed the interests of another country before our own. He disgraced himself, his office and any damn fool who placed any hope in his perfectly cadentic, bullshit laden rhetoric ...

It was not enough for Israel to be assured of a US veto at the UN.

Israel required even more--the public humiliation of the United States as the president bent down on one knee and pledged fealty to all things Zionist.

The good news is that the day is nearer when Israel will overplay its hand with the US public...

http://stenchofzion.blogspot.com/p/israel-did-911-all-proof_28.html

Philip Zelikow (Dual Citizen of Israel) - 911's Cover Up Man Zelikow was appointed the executive director of the 9/11 commission -- the most powerful position of the committee. This criminal Zionist Jew is responsible for concocting the contrived fiction that was presented to us as the 9/11 Commission Report (i.e. official story). This work of fairy-tale fiction speaks of magical explosion-proof paper passports, building collapses violating the laws of physics without explosive assistance, and cave-dwelling, box-cutter wielding Arabs with super-human piloting skills -- all the while completely omitting blatant anomalous events such as the self-demolition of Building 7 at 5:20 pm. At first Henry Kissenger was appointed as exec director of the 9/11 commission but surrendered the post after enormous protest. This paved the way for Zionist operative Zelikow to take his stead. Zelikow has numerous conflicts of interest that clearly inhibited his ability to tell the truth to the American people about the 9/11 terror attacks. Zelikow was a Bush Admin insider, having been on the transition team in early 2000. In 1989-91 Zelikow worked with Condoleezza Rice on the National Security Council for the Bush Sr. Administration. In 1995, Zelikow and Rice wrote a book together. From 1996-98 Zelikow is director of the Aspen Strategy Group which also included people such as Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz as fellow members. After George W. Bush took office, Zelikow was named to a position on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board [PFIAB], and worked on other task forces and commissions as well. In 2004 Zelikow skews the investigation into 9/11 by deciding which topics would or would not be investigated. He was also secretly in contact with one of Bush's close advisers -- Karl Rove....

http://northerntruthseeker.blogspot.com/2010/09/israel-did-9-11-all-proof-in-world.html

http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com



The Two Jewish-led Globalist Camps, In Competition For Global Control

By James Miller, PhD

There are two distinct ideological globalist camps, both led by Jews -- each
camp competes with the other for global control:

1) THE LIBERAL CAMP

2) THE NEOCON CAMP (the term "New World Order" generally refers to this
globalist camp, and usually not the liberal camp)

It is critical to understand that each ideological camp was created,
developed, and fine-tuned by Jewish intellectuals. Without Jewish
intellectuals, there would be no radical liberal school of thought
(Communism, Socialism, Trotskyism, and all their supporting
submovements/ideas such as feminism, gay rights, political correctness,
etc.). Similarly, without Jewish intellectuals, there wouldn't be a Neocon
school of thought.

The liberal Jewish camp is primarily composed of Trotskyite Jews (or just
very left leaning Jews, plus their Gentile followers) who want a borderless
world with a global government based on the United Nations concept (or even
the UN itself). These are the "do-gooders" who naively dream of a John
Lennon "Imagine" type world. They feel they can "love their way" to global
power (though they can become violent against anyone who opposes their
worldview). In the 1960's they were called the "New Left" (e.g., Abbie
Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Max Horkheimer, Saul Alinsky, etc).

The Neocon Jewish camp (plus their Gentile followers) also want a borderless
world but with a global government revolving around a NY-DC-LONDON-JERUSALEM
axis. These are the exploitative-type Jews, the Super-Elite, who want 95% of
global wealth in their hands and the rest of humanity in a "global
plantation" type condition. They feel they can bomb their way to global
power. Incidentally, the cold war Gentile warriors (e.g., Nixon, Reagan,
Bush Sr., etc) and their Jewish globalist handlers (e.g., Henry Kissinger,
Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Milton Friedman, etc) fall in this camp.

Pick almost any influential globalist Jew and they'll rather neatly fit into
either the liberal camp or the Neocon camp. However, it should be noted that
occasionally you'll find a Jew who is primarily in the liberal camp but with
one foot in the Neocon/Zionist camp (out of "tribal" loyalty to Israel).

THE FOLLOWING ARE SOME GLOBALIST JEWS, ORGANIZATIONS, PUBLICATIONS, ETC
SHOWING WHICH CAMP THEY FIT IN.
NOTE: Some people on this list are not Jews. However, they are often
referred to as "Jew-think Gentiles", i.e., they subscribe to and advance the
globalist Jewish agenda (knowingly or unknowingly).
NOTE: Many listed below are fully aware of the globalist agenda they are
involved in. Others, however, are unaware and thus are simply "pawns",
"tools", or "cogs in the machinery" of the globalist agenda they are
(unknowingly) advancing.

.

Goodbye, America

http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/576354/

Shekhar Gupta

The talk among global leaders now is all about “exiting”. Except this is not about exiting from the economic stimulus packages governments unveiled in the 2008-9 downturn. It is about exiting from Afghanistan, or more accurately, the Af-Pak quicksand.... http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_5567.shtml

This question overshadowed the minds, and discussions, at two global meetings of top leaders last week, the Afghanistan conference in London and the World Economic Forum in Davos. On all evidence, it would now be safe to conclude that the big powers have decided in principle on the issue of whether to exit or not. The questions that now remain are, when, and how. Public opinion in Britain and even in the US is tiring of the war. Clearer indication of this came from a statement made by UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband at the London conference that this war had already gone on longer than World War II. So the implication is, it cannot become just a war without end or purpose. So time has come to fix “realistic” targets and objectives or, rather, devise a new definition of victory.

This is what India needs to think and worry about. More importantly, we now have to start thinking about the sequence of events that may unfold as the US-led forces fight, talk, negotiate and bribe their way out of Afghanistan.

The clearest indication that they had thrown in the towel already came in the London conference when an idea so far whispered in off-record briefings was stated publicly: the need to find “good” Taliban to share power with. Even Hamid Karzai was made to endorse it. Nobody was talking of winning that “war” any more, but only of bringing it to a stage where a large “moderate” section of the Taliban can be persuaded to break rank and agree to a power-sharing arrangement. Of course, the funniest moment in that conference was Karzai announcing with a straight face that the Americans will now help him fight corruption in his country.

Theoretically, there are four ways Obama could begin his withdrawal middle of next year, or maybe a little later, but in this presidential term for sure:

* With a clear-cut military victory with the annihilation of the Taliban and the ceding of all Pashtun loyalty to a West-supported government in Kabul. This is a near impossibility given the military realities and tribal divisions. More importantly, this is an outcome that suits Pakistan least of all, and they will ensure it does not come to pass. Also, the modern history of big-power military expeditions tells you that such decisive military-political outcomes are impossible.

* With a total defeat for the US-led forces and a humiliating retreat as in the case of Vietnam. This is an impossibility too. Military realities of Afghanistan are very different from Vietnam where the Soviet-Chinese bloc was actively aiding the Viet Cong and where, even domestically in the US, the justification of terrorist threat was not available. That war was purely ideological. This is also about self-preservation.

* A withdrawal after a division of Afghanistan, much on the pattern of the Koreas, leaving the south-eastern, mostly Pashtun regions under a different, Talibanised local leadership “supervised” by Pakistan, and securing the rest with a friendly regime of the northern tribes. This would have been a possibility if the Americans were sure of the Pakistanis being able to keep this Pashtun government in control. Chances are even the Pakistanis will fear this as a Pashtun government in Kandahar would make their hold on their own Frontier districts untenable.

* The fourth scenario is the Americans being able to declare some kind of a victory and get out, leaving power to a friendly and “protected” government in Kabul much on the pattern of Iraq. This is the most likely and, from the Western powers’ point of view, the most desirable of all prospects. But it can only be achieved in collaboration with Pakistan. The Pakistanis will have to help broker some kind of peace, and a power-sharing arrangement with the Taliban that promises, besides other things, that their territories will no longer be available to Al Qaeda. The signals from policy-makers in both London and Davos last week were clear: a new thrust was now being launched to reach this outcome. This was no longer going to be a military war to the finish.

This is what India has to prepare for, and there is no time to lose. In the course of a war that has gone longer than World War II already, while we have harped non-stop on the dangers next door, we have also become complacent. This is the kind of smug complacence that sets in when, to use an Americanism, you know that there is a fire tender parked permanently next to your door. Translated, it means, yes, there is trouble in the Pak-Afghan region but the Americans and their drones are dealing with it so we can wait and watch. This is going to change soon.

Even the progress to that outcome will challenge us. As Pakistan’s role in such a “settlement” becomes more pronounced, it is bound to pressure its Western allies to lean on India to “resolve” the Kashmir issue as well.

Already, frustrated at their failure to control terrorism, many Western leaders are whispering that Kashmir too is a major cause of pan-Islamic radicalisation. As their own notion of military non-success (if not defeat) in Af-Pak grows, they will be more inclined to join the Pakistanis in pressing for a more “comprehensive” solution for “the most dangerous region in the world”. Except, now they will add India to that region, even if as the country most exposed, and vulnerable to jehadi terror.

The game is now beginning to change and we have no choice but to play to new rules. Soon enough, we and Pakistan may pretty much be on our own. The comfort of an almost permanent Western military presence on Pakistan’s west will eventually go and we will watch very carefully for what replaces it, and if we have any leverage with that successor. Even more challenging is to guess what kind of a regime will be ruling Pakistan by then. It is, therefore, even more imperative that we continue to engage with whoever calls the shots in Pakistan in coming months. We cannot be lazy because, as they often say, objects in this mirror are far closer than you think.