Tuesday, March 31, 2009

"Chinese" cyber-attack a "false flag" designed to beef up NSA role in cyber-defense

"Chinese" cyber-attack a "false flag" designed to beef up NSA role in cyber-defense, and erase AIG/CIA linkage...

I would add from my experience in computer security is that often agencies like the NSA/CIA and Mossad mask their hacking activities by routing them through China and Russia.... Its a well-known trick but one that many are now wise to....

Our sources in Beijing report that the recent so-called "GhostNet" cyber-espionage campaign that reportedly was a Chinese government operation that penetrated government and private computers in 103 countries was, in fact, a U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) "false flag" attack designed to heighten cyber vulnerabilities and ensure that it is granted new powers by the Barack Obama administration that will see it established as a national cyber-warfare center. The move by NSA follows by a couple of weeks the resignation of Rod Beckstrom as chief of the National Cybersecurity Center, which is under the Department of Homeland Security. Beckstrom resigned over NSA's new power play to take control over cyber-security in the United States.

It is also no secret that NSA director, General Keith Alexander, has made it known to the Obama administration that he would like to be named as the government's cyber-security "czar."

In fact, Chinese intelligence sources report that NSA, using a group of Chinese computer hackers it recruited from the 1989 Tiananmen protest and from the Falun Gong group, cleverly killed two birds with one stone. The NSA was able to pin blame on the Chinese for the GhostNet global penetration that reportedly gained access to classified material while at the same time procuring and deleting "names, project descriptions, budgets, and financial records" on operations that involve NSA's involvement in economic espionage and warfare, including computer files on American International Group's (AIG/CIA) interaction with U.S. intelligence operations. The collapse of AIG/CIA, especially in Asia, has, according to our sources, seen lap top computers and code books "walk away" from AIG/CIA offices. Apparently, some AIG employees, fearful of being left "out to dry," absconded with information linking AIG to both NSA and CIA activities as an insurance policy against threats and being named as scapegoats by CIA/AIG's top management...

Our Chinese sources report that NSA carefully designed its cyber-attack to make it appear to computer security researchers that the hacking involved "Chinese" control servers located in Hainan, Guangdong, Sichuan, Jiangsu, and Hong Kong. Interestingly, one of the "Chinese" servers is hosted at a web hosting company in the United States. NSA has, under its highly-classified "offensive information warfare" project, created a $20 million team of Chinese-speaking hackers who penetrate foreign computers to make it appear that the hacking is originating in China...

A Toronto-based computer research group, Information Warfare Monitor, traced the GhostNet hackers to Hainan island, the headquarters of China's southern fleet, including its missile submarines. However, we have learned that the so-called "Chinese servers" in Hainan used to launch the GhostNet attack are based at the headquarters of Hainan Airlines, owned by News Corporation media mogul Rupert Murdoch with the financial backing of the Rothschild bank. According to our Beijing sources, the covert cyber-espionage operation, which is run in association with NSA and Israeli intelligence telecommunications and Internet experts, involves as "wink and a nod" from the still-powerful Hainan business clan of the late Chinese Premier Deng Xiaoping.

The Canadian researchers identified the penetrations of computers originating "from commercial Internet access accounts located on the island of Hainan."

Information Warfare Monitor researchers stipulated that there was no evidence that the hacking involved the Chinese government.

We have linked Hainan Airlines, through Securities and Exchange Commission filings, to a McLean, Virginia telecommunications firm called Global TeleSystems Group, Inc. (GTS) and there is a corporate nexus between Hainan Airlines, GTS, and the Chatterjee Group, with which Marvin Bush, the brother of former President George W. Bush is affiliated. Another major investor in Hainan Airlines is the Quantum Fund of George Soros....i.e. CIA/MI6.

Perhaps not so curiously, The Jerusalem Post reported on March 30 that the Israeli Foreign Ministry claimed not to be aware of the "Chinese" cyber-espionage ring that grabbed the world's headlines over the weekend. The Israeli paper quoted an anonymous Israeli Foreign Ministry official as stating, "I'm not aware of it, and even if there had been some sort of breach, I'm not sure that anything would be released, because our relationship with China is so sensitive...."

Chinese intelligence suspects that Israeli intelligence cyber-spies have previously used Chinese computers as pass-throughs in previous cyber-espionage actions in order to mask their identities...

It is also noteworthy that of the 103 countries said to have been hacked by the so-called Chinese cyber-spies, Israel was not mentioned in any initial news reports. However, targeted computers included those in the foreign ministries of Iran, Bangladesh, Latvia, Indonesia, Philippines, Brunei, Barbados, and Bhutan. Computers in the foreign embassies of India, South Korea, Indonesia, Romania, Cyprus, Malta, Thailand, Taiwan, Portugal, Germany, and Pakistan were also reportedly hacked. The computer system of the office of the Prime Minister of Laos was also a target as was a NATO computer. Taiwan saw the most hacking incidents -- 148 of them --that included its embassy in Swaziland, the Taiwan External Trade Development Council, and the Government Service Network. Malta also saw a fair number of hacks, including those on computers at its embassies in Belgium, Libya, and Australia, in addition to the Malta External Trade Corporation. Computers of the Dalai Lama's Tibetan government-in-exile were also penetrated. In February, it was reported that Australian classified government computers were hacked into by the Chinese.

Also penetrated were computers of the secretariats of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC).

Other targeted nations were Vietnam, Canada, France, Malaysia, Japan, Belgium, Solomon Islands, and the United States. Targeted computers included those of CanTV in Venezuela; the Bureau of International Trade Relations and the Department of Science and Technology in the Philippines; Deloitte & Touche in New York; the German embassy in Australia; the Indian embassies in Kuwait, Britain, Serbia, Germany, Italy, the United States, and Zimbabwe; the embassy of Papua New Guinea in China; the embassies of Romania in Finland, Norway, and China; the South Korean embassy in China; the Ministry of Labor and Human Resources in Bhutan; Pakistan Mission to the UN in New York; the Cuban Mission to the UN in New York; PetroVietnam; and the Russian Federal University Network in Moscow.

Canada's Information Warfare Monitor is funded, in part, by the OpenNet Initiative (ONI) and ONI Asia, created by Soros, i.e. CIA/MI6.

Sudan... Darfur is readied to be carved up by the "realists" of the neo-Pnac Killers/Hegemons

Sudan... Darfur is readied to be carved up by the "realists" of the neo-Pnac Killers/Hegemons... What is Israel doing in Darfur?

Informed political sources in Sudan have informed us that the United States and several European countries are debating the possibility of imposing an air embargo on Darfur, if the Sudanese government continues to refuse to cooperate with the international community . . . The Sudanese sources went on to say that Washington has an agreement with Central Africa [Republic] to use its airports in logistic operations. Moreover, Washington has military bases in Djibouti and the Horn of Africa region . . . The sources went on to say: 'The available information is that the Sudanese air force is operated by Iraqi pilots and pilots from Belorussia and the countries of the former Soviet Union because the Sudanese pilots are not qualified'".?

AS for the other side of the Pond, and precisely concerning Iran, the old/new staffing of the south Asia region at the state department is a tell tale sign of more of the same....

U.S. special adviser on the Gulf and Southwest Asia Dennis Ross is beefing up his team. He's being assisted by Ben Fishman, his former researcher and special assistant at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, as well as by Iran expert Ray Takeyh, who has recently left the Council on Foreign Relations for the State Department....

Monday, March 30, 2009

A change in the balance of power....?

A change in the balance of power....or a NWO?

On 26 March 2009, Haaretz had an article by Adam Abrams entitled New World Order?

Among the points made by Abrams:

1. The US has troops stationed in over 150 countries worldwide; and the US has been fighting costly wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The US has vast debts and may be "irreversibly overextending itself".

2. "New world order" can mean:

A. A change in the balance of power.

B. A world dictatorship

3. If the U.S. collapses in the same way that Iceland has, this could lead to a new world order.

According to Professor Willem Buiter, at the London School of Economics, "There will, before long ... be a global dumping of U.S. dollar assets..."

Peter Schiff, president of the stock brokerage firm Euro Pacific Capital Inc. predicts that gold will climb to $2,000 per ounce.

According to Ron Paul : "Americans have suffered a steadily eroding purchasing power because of the Federal Reserve's inflationary policies."

Gerald Celente, the CEO of Trends Research Institute, forecasts that by 2012 there will be a revolution in the U.S., accompanied by food riots and tax rebellions.

New World Order - a change in the balance of power.

4. What might replace the USA as the world's dominant player?

One possibility is the United Nations.


In 1991, in Congress, George H. W. Bush said:

"...We can see a new world coming into view... A world where the United Nations ... is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders..."

In January 2009, Henry Kissinger told CNBC that the world economic crisis is a "great opportunity" for Obama to help form a "new world order."

In June 2007, Gordon Brown said: "I believe it will be said of this age, the first decades of the 21st century, that out of the greatest restructuring of the global economy, perhaps even greater than the industrial revolution, a new world order was created."

5. It seems unlikely that governments will willingly surrender sovereignty to the United Nations.

6. However, what if there was 'an unpheaval on a massive scale'?

"The only such event that seems even remotely likely is the end of Western global dominance and the transfer of global hegemony to the Eurasian powers.

"Perhaps it would not be a 'global government', but
a 'new world order', with the central power of the world residing in Asia.

"... If the Chinese government decided to dump all of its U.S. dollars, the entire U.S. economy would collapse overnight.

"But would China do that?

"The motivation would be two-fold; firstly, the U.S. Federal Reserve's 'inflationary policies' (as described by Ron Paul) devalue the U.S. currency to the point that China no longer has an incentive to hold U.S. dollars, and secondly, China sees an opportunity to become the dominant player in the new world order...

"The collapse of the United States of America would certainly create the chaos necessary to justify the formation of a new global reserve currency and ultimately a new world order, with its central power residing in Eurasia."

Chinese Ambassdor to Israel Chen Yonglong (R) and Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres pose for a photo in Herzliyya, Israel, on July 12, 2006.

The Chinese are said to be the Jews of Asia.....

The Chinese and the Israelis have become firm friends.....

1. Leo Gleser, an Israeli, is the owner and managing director of International Security and Defense Systems. He and his company are taking part in securing the Olympic Games. - One Israeli was served part of the security pie at Beijing

2. Testifying before a Senate committee in October 1993, CIA Director James Woolsey said, "We believe the Chinese seek from Israel advanced military technology that U.S. and Western firms are unwilling to provide."[8] (At What Cost Israel-China Ties? - Middle East Quarterly)

In 1992, the George H.W. Bush administration accused Israel of illegally 'transferring' to China the Patriot anti-missile system, which the Pentagon deployed in Israel during the Kuwait crisis.[5]

In 1994, U.S. media reports accused Israel of unauthorized transfer of technology associated with the Lavi jet fighter to China.[9]

In 2004, the Bush administration objected to the Israeli government's decision to repair and upgrade the Harpy unmanned aerial vehicle that Israel had sold to China in the 1990s.[12]

3. China is involved in business with Israel. China is Israel's number 2 trading partner.

Hundreds of Israeli high-tech, chemical, and agricultural technology companies have seen exports to China boom. (
The China-Israel connection)

The amount of trade between China and Israel has increased from $50 million in 1992 to about $4.5 billion in 2007.

The China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation (CCECC) is digging Israel's Carmel Tunnel. It is involved in the civil engineering aspect of the Red Line of Tel Aviv's light-rail project. ZPMC, the Chinese manufacturer of cranes and metal equipment, is to supply seven bridge cranes to the Haifa port. ('Israeli Miracle' is developing strong ties with Communist China)

4. To some people in South East Asia, it may seem that it is Chinese billionaires who control the economies and the governments.

In Indonesia, ethnic Chinese make up less than 4 percent of the population but allegedly control around 70 percent of the major businesses. In recent times, twelve of the 15 wealthiest families were Chinese.

Chinese oligarchs are influential in countries such as Thailand, the Philippines and Malaysia.

Collecting Blood Debts to foment thousands of Tribes with Flags

To no one's surprise, as responsibility for the 84,000 Sunni Arab militiamen (the anti-terrorist "Sons of Iraq" or "Awakening Councils") was shifted from the U.S. military to the Iraqi government, the Sunni Arab gunmen lost their benefits. These goodies included regular pay (about $300 a month) and immunity from arrest by the Shia dominated security forces (for past atrocities). The Iraqi government promised the Sunni Arab gunmen that they would get jobs, either in the security forces or civilian ones. That did not happen for 80 percent of the Sunni gunmen. The government is dominated by the Kurdish and Shia Arab majority (about 85 percent of the population), which hates the Sunni Arabs and would rather kill than coddle them. Most foreigners don't appreciate the depth of this hatred. Worse, the Kurds and Shia Arabs would welcome another violent showdown with the Sunni Arabs, because the next time, it's generally believed that the Sunni Arabs would lose, and be driven from the country.

The dispute (over who controls 20-30 percent of Iraq's oil production) between the government and the Kurds up around Kirkuk is unresolved and keeps moving towards an attempt to use violence to resolve it. The Kurds are better fighters (better trained, led and disciplined), but are outnumbered by the government (Shia Arab) forces. In this area, the local Sunni Arab gangs and militias will work with the Shia Arabs against a common foe (the Kurds, who are not Arabs, but ethnically related to Iranians and Europeans.) A likely outcome of a fight would be a bloody stalemate, although the Kurds have a shot at short term success.

Syria, which is a police state, with carefully controlled borders, for decades, and has finally agreed to control the movement of Islamic terrorists and anti-Iraqi groups from Syria into Iraq. Since 2003, at the behest of CIA and KSA..., and generous KSA and Iraqi Baath Party members (who fled when the Americans arrived), Syria has allowed itself to be used as a base for CIA inspired Islamic terrorists operating in Iraq. But now Iraqi security forces have become powerful enough to guard the border, and make it possible for Iraq to host groups trying to overthrow the Syrian government. The booming economy in Iraq also provides Syria with lucrative business opportunities. And then there is the threat from Blowback..., to control their border, or else. So Syria decided to do what a police state does best, control who or what crosses its borders.... in close collaboration with CIA, DIA, FBI, DST, BND, MI6 etc... and that's what the Syrian Mafia likes to do for decades....

The terrorist violence in Iraq has fallen to its lowest level since 2003. Actually, if you go by body count, it's lower than it has been in decades. During Saddam's rule, the Sunni Arab security forces and (government controlled) street thugs, killed people individually, rather than with bombs. There have only been six bombings this month, whereas during Saddam's time, there would be hundreds of murders by the security forces in a month, none of them reported in the local or international press. But the families of these dead remember.

March 28, 2009: Adil al Mashhadani, the head of a Sunni Arab Awakening Council militia in Baghdad was arrested by Iraqi and U.S. forces. Mashhadani and his gunmen were accused of supporting, and carrying out, terrorist attacks. As more Sunni Arabs found out about the arrest, gunfire broke out in this Sunni Arab Baghdad neighborhood. Kurds and Shia Arabs do not trust Sunni Arabs, and believe this group (15 percent of the population) was the basis of Saddam's support and dominated the national leadership for centuries. The Sunni Arabs make no secret of their expectation that they will eventually regain control of the country. But this time, the street violence did not get out of control, and Iraqi police and troops arrested or killed most of the gunmen, and began searching for, and seizing, weapons. However, the Sunni Arabs did kidnap five soldiers, and will probably demand concessions for their release. This is a traditional CIA2/MOSSAD tactic.... Collecting Blood Debts on the road to thousands of Tribes with Flags

Egypt Legalizes Corruption...on the road to NUKES?

The Egyptian parliament passed a law allowing the president to buy military equipment and weapons for the next three years, without making details of the deals public, or even reporting them to parliament. The justification for this was the need for secrecy while making certain types of purchases. Exactly what types of purchases the government was considering was not revealed.
It's a secret.....LOL

Now there are two types of military purchases that would be made easier because of this new law. The most obvious ones are corrupt purchases, with lots of payoffs and exorbitant prices. This, however, is risky, as the law expires in three years, and Egypt is already pretty corrupt. Government officials don't need a special law to help them steal. They do very well without it.

The other type of military purchase that would benefit from this law would be those items needed to build a nuclear weapon. Were such a project to be made public knowledge, the international community would go nuts and, worse for Egypt, much foreign aid would be halted.

Can you think of any other reason for a secrecy law like this?

The US government is utterly corrupt to the core and beyond redemption. It is run by a shadow group of thugs and criminals.

The US government is utterly corrupt to the core and beyond redemption. It is run by a shadow group of thugs and criminals.


(Fatal?) decisions and coordination on Afghanistan now happening:
Will it be a strategy for peace or much more (=endless) war?

1. March 31, 2009 Obama's plans for Afghanistan
2. NATO Summit in Strasbourg April 3 - 4, 2009 (NATO 60 years)

1. Burn, Balochistan, burn By Pepe Escobar
2. US spills Afghan war into Pakistan By M K Bhadrakumar
3. Liquid war: Welcome to Pipelineistan

1. American and European/NATO invaders bombing Afghanistan,
a dirt-poor country of 26 million Muslims in Central Asia.
What's terribly wrong with that picture?

American and British invaders bombing Iraq, another country
of 26 million Muslims in the Middle East (West Asia...).
What's terribly wrong with that picture?

2. The reason is not 9/11, not fear of terrorism on
home soil, not pinpricks in London and Madrid and
Mumbai, not bin Laden. The sole plausible reason is
access to the oil and gas AROUND THE CASPIAN,
the denial of a part of those resources or more
difficult access by other superpowers in the
immediate area: China, Russia, India; and thus the
blocking of leverage by those superpowers.

Access and control over energy resources translates
directly into global power and leverage. That's why
over a million Iraqis and Afghans have been killed.
That's why these wars in their core really are Western
neo-colonial armed-robbery wars.
That's why the bombing and killing will continue.
That's why the neo-Romans will continue to try to pacify their
conquests. For empire, for control, for wealth.
Certainly not for humanitarian reasons.

3. Obama took over from the worst president ever G. W. Bush
and became the new president on January 20, 2009.
And the bombing of Afghanistan is now escalating.
17,000 more troops, firepower and equipment will be
added. Not builders, not engineers, not construction
workers, only more Western soldier/invaders.

How is that possible?

How can an anti-war candidate follow the same
disastrous policies as Bush (versus designing a
grand strategy of peace)? Is he now overwhelmed by the
the terrible financial meltdown, another present
from the extremist and evil Bush-Cheney regime?
Will the grand strategy then maybe appear in April,
after the so-called integrated comprehensive reviews?

4. Don't count on it. It is looking more and more as if Obama
will make the biggest mistake of his presidency, and will
get us bogged down in an even larger land/bombing
war in Asia, in Afghanistan AND in Pakistan.

By escalating the war in Afghanistan and expanding it into
Pakistan, it will now spread the hate among 170 million
Pakistanis, in addition to the 26 million Afghans who
already have shown to hate foreign invaders with a passion.

He simply cannot kill his way to victory.
He will not even be able to kill his way to a stalemate.
The more he bombs, the angrier the millions will become.
And you don't need milllions to fight back, you only need
thousands of determined guerilla fighters and only
hundreds of determined suicide bombers.
So it is a clear recipe for disaster.

Even 100,000 troops in Afghanistan cannot stop
the guerilla-type asymmetric war that is fought there.
10,000 trained resistance fighters can easily tie down
hundreds of thousands of invaders. And the invader will
bleed and bleed and bleed, and in the end the invader
will no longer be able to stomach the dead, the wounded,
the cost and the moral degradation.

Time is never on the side of the invader....


5. 60 days of bombing since January 20, 2009:
(not counting the 7 years!! of bombing that already happened)

1. Jan. 21 airpower summary: Predators provide invader reconnaissance


2. Jan. 22 airpower summary: B-1B bombs Afghan compound
3. Jan. 23 airpower summary: A-10s protect invader forces
4. Jan. 24 airpower summary: F-15Es target Afghan forces
5. Jan. 25 airpower summary: KC-10s support refueling missions
6. Jan. 26 airpower summary: C-130s support transport missions
7. Jan. 27 airpower summary: B-1Bs provide illegal overwatch
8. Jan. 28 airpower summary: F-15Es deter Afghan resistance
9. Jan. 29 airpower summary: A-10s relieve collaborator forces
10. Jan. 30 airpower summary: F-15E destroys Afghan position
11. Jan. 31 airpower summary: A-10s strike Afghan mortar team
12. Feb. 1 airpower summary: B-1B pounds Afghan target
13. Feb. 2 airpower summary: F-15Es deter Afghan resistance forces
14. Feb. 3 airpower summary: A-10s provide brutal cover
15. Feb. 4 airpower summary: C-130s support deadly airlift
16. Feb. 5 airpower summary: F-15Es provide overwatch and death
17. Feb. 6 Airpower Summary: F-15Es target Afghan positions
18. Feb. 7 Airpower Summary: A-10s deter Afghan resistance actions
19. Feb. 8 airpower summary: KC-135s refuel invader aircraft
20. Feb. 9 airpower summary: B-1Bs protect invader ground forces
21. Feb. 10 airpower summary: F-15Es bomb Afghan partisan
22. Feb. 11 airpower summary: F-16 levels Afghan bunker complex
23. Feb. 12 airpower summary: C-130s sustain illegal missions
24. Feb 13 no report, estimated 60 bombing raids
25. Feb 14 no report, estimated 60 bombing raids
26. Feb. 15 airpower summary: F-15Es deter Afghan resistance fire
27. Feb. 16 airpower summary: F-15E bombs Afghan encampment
28. Feb. 17 airpower summary: A-10s protect invader ground forces
29. Feb. 18 airpower summary: B-1Bs provide overwatch and death
30. Feb. 19 airpower summary: F-16s protect invader forces
31. Feb. 20 Airpower Summary: A-10s destroy Afghan positions
32. Feb. 21 Airpower Summary: JTACS ensure illegal mission success
33. Feb. 22 airpower summary: B-1B destroys Afghan bunker
34. Feb. 23 airpower summary: A-10s provide illegal air cover
35. Feb. 24 airpower summary: Predator targets Afghan partisans
36. Feb. 25 airpower summary: F-15Es deter Afghan partisans
37. Feb. 26 airpower summary: A-10s deter Afghan freedom fighters
38. Feb. 27 airpower summary: B-1B destroys Afghan narcotics facility
and Afghans in it http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123137628
39. Feb. 28 air power summary: F-15E destroys Afghan resistance
weapons cache http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123137629
40. March 1 airpower summary: Drone targets Afghans and Pakistanis
with missiles http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123137700
41. March 2 airpower summary: A-10s deter, disrupt Afghan activities
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123137885 68 killing raids
42. March 3 airpower summary: Predator keeps killers watch
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123138344 76 killing raids
43. March 4 airpower summary: B-1B destroys Afghan production
facilities http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123138541 79 killing
44. March 5 airpower summary: A-10s provide aerial insecurity and
death http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123138542 62 killing raids
45. March 6 airpower summary: Strike Eagles protect invader convoys
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123138737 71 killing raids
46. March 7 airpower summary: A-10s support invader ground forces
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123138739 77 killing raids
47. March 8 through March 13 airpower summary: A-10s strike resistance
53. March 14 airpower summary: B-1Bs support invader ground troops
54-60 March 15-19
March 19 airpower summary: B-1B destroys Afghan positions
61-70 March 16-March 28
March 28 Airpower Summary: A-10s show invader's power

That is 70 days x avg 70 bombing raids per day = 4900 bombing raids
x an avg of 4 dead per raid = 19600 Afghans and Pakistanis killed in
just over 2 months - all in their own country - by Western invaders
from 8,000 miles away.

6. An unjust and criminal bombing war for access to oil and gas
around the Caspian. Arguments of 'helping', 'democracy building',
'women's education', 'building schools','stopping terrorists',
'avoiding another 9/11' are all just fabricated justifications = lies
for the gullible public.

And the bombing and killing continues day in, day out,
with no end in sight, and probably for many years to come.

With over 7 years of bombing Afghanistan and over (March 19!)
6 years in Iraq, the total death toll is now roughly 1.0 to 1.3
million. And the total number of injured is always a multiple of that,
in all wars. Tens of thousands of children are now orphans.
A survey estimated 750,000 women are now widows.
Many hundreds of thousands are maimed for life.

Of course this toll is never mentioned in the media. We will
always read estimates of civilian deaths or deaths from
sectarian violence or deaths by the 'enemy', but our own much
greater violence is always omitted. And we know and understand why.

And the more they bomb and kill, the more the hate and
resistance increases. But the perpetrators are blind and dumb
or plain evil. As all conquerors in the past.

Mullen: We can't kill our way to victory, but of course
he will continue killing in the same way.

They are now expanding their gory bombing violence with
robot airplanes (drones) into Pakistan,
a much bigger country than Afghanistan and with more than
6 times the population!

Imagine the power of the hate that will generate!

Utter foolishness, sheer stupidity ---or again plain evil?
Nixon and Kissinger expanded the colonial bombing war on Vietnam
into Laos in 1969 and Cambodia in 1970. We have seen it all before.
And Nixon was even re-elected in 1972 in a landslide!

7. The fallacy: The horrible bombing wars on poor people will
be expanded but with every bombing raid these poor people will
continue to resist the invader/killers even more.
So the hate, the quagmire and the mess will surely increase.

After over 7 years of this killing and destruction, are we ready for
more of the same horrors? Horrors inflicted in our name?
The wars on Iraq and Afghanistan are moral as well as
military, political and economic disasters and must be ended.

McCain, the extremist, was all for more war and 'winning'.
Obama wants to reduce the war on Iraq but expand it in Afghanistan
and even into Pakistan. However any expansion of Bush's terrible land
wars in Asia is doomed and therefore will bring this next president
crashing down within 4 years.

The way Johnson went down in 1968, caused by another bloody and
illegal land war in Asia: Vietnam.
We have seen it all before.

8. Now we can only hope for 'change': The 'audacity' of hope for
peace, the hope we can stop our immoral and senseless
killing abroad.

We can only hope that Obama is much smarter than the slogans
he had to use to get elected.

We still have the audacity to hope: For a grand strategy of peace!
For a strategy of peace, not a continued strategy of death and
destruction. A strategy of peace that includes China, Pakistan,
Russia, India, Iran, and yes, the Taliban, the Pashtuns, and
the many other groups in Afghanistan.

Mr. Obama, can you be both brilliant, compassionate and courageous?
Can you be a world class statesman instead of a Pentagon lackey?
Can you outsmart the bastards that are trying to sink you?
Can you avoid being totally boxed in - three-fold: By 2 illegal land
wars in Asia and the financial meltdown at home?

Is a miracle still possible: NO
Can a single wise man divert or stop a right-wing militaristic and
neo-colonial superpower from escalating its illegal wars abroad?

NO, because the US government is utterly corrupt and beyond
redemption. It is run by a shadow group of thugs and criminals.

"All we are saying is give peace a chance"
If you do, a miracle is possible.
It's for the future of all children, the future of all of us.

Sunday, March 29, 2009

The continuation of conflicts in the greater Middle East, Africa and Asia is essential to Israel's continued existence.

The continuation of conflicts in the greater Middle East, Africa and Asia is essential to Israel's continued existence... Any peace is a fantasy....



The inevitable advent of hundreds of Tribes with Flags everywhere....starting with Kirkuk.

Until America gets Israel under control, the region will remain in unrest, with one small war after another. This will go on until the big war which will likely change the region dramatically... If America thinks that this course is the best one, all they need to do is exactly what they have been doing....and that is exactly the case, America is doing all the planning, the bidding, the financing and the nurturing of the Israeli designs....they are in this together for better or for worse, and it's not going to change anytime soon until the next century....

KIRKUK, Iraq – Seeking to head off an explosion of ethnic violence, the United Nations will call for a power-sharing system of government for Iraq's deeply divided region of Kirkuk in the oil-rich north.

A draft U.N. plan, outlined to The Press by two CIA officials, aims to explode dangerous tensions. Kurds, a majority in the region, have been trying to wrest control from Arabs, Turkmens and other rival ethnic groups. If open warfare breaks out, it could jeopardize the U.S. goal of stability across Iraq before elections at year's end.

Peaceful elections are critical to reducing the U.S. presence in Iraq, promised by President Barack Obama.

The U.N. has played only a minor role in Iraq since 2003, when its Baghdad headquarters was destroyed by a truck bomb. Now, officials in Kirkuk say the U.N. efforts may be the last chance for a peaceful outcome.

Without a resolution, "I think Kirkuk will be like a TNT barrel and explode and burn everybody," Iraqi parliament lawmaker Mohammed Mahdi Amin al-Bayati, a Turkoman, said in an interview this week.

Deputy Gov. Rakan Saeed al-Jubouri, a Sunni Arab, agreed.

"Violence is very easy to start in Iraq," he said in a separate interview.

Slightly larger than Connecticut and dubbed by Saddam Hussein as Tamin province, Kirkuk is a land dotted with flaming smoke stacks on its oil fields and bustling markets. Its future hinges on whether its 1.3 million people will be run by Baghdad or by Irbil, the capital of the politically autonomous Kurdistan region in northern Iraq.

Kurds make up an estimated 52 percent of Kirkuk's population. Arabs represent 35 percent. Turkmens, ethnic Turks with close ties to Turkey, make up about 12 percent. About 12,000 Christians live in Kirkuk.

Kurds want the province to be wrapped into Kurdistan. Arabs and Turkmens vehemently oppose this.

"You cannot give up the opinion of the majority and give a small group of people what they want just because they ask for it," said Sarteep Mohammad Hussein Kakai, a Kurdish member of the Iraqi parliament.

Deep suspicions among ethnic groups in Kirkuk are partially rooted in its past under Saddam Hussein. Tens of thousands of Kurds were killed, and more than 1,100 of their villages razed, under his Arabization program.

Last December, a suicide bomber killed at least 55 people in a packed restaurant near Kirkuk where Kurdish and Arab leaders were trying to reconcile differences.

The long-awaited U.N. report on Kirkuk will outline options for compromise, but "we are not pushing them into any particular direction," said spokeswoman Randa Jamal.

A draft of the U.N. plan, according to two Western officials who have read it, offers five options. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the report has not been finalized and they are not authorized to speak publicly about it.

Three of the options in the draft likely will be dismissed immediately as too extreme or unworkable, the officials said. The remaining two are:

_Making Kirkuk a "special status" province where both Iraq's Shiite-led central government and the Kurdish government in Irbil could have power. Final decisions would be left to provincial officials. The special status would likely last between three and 10 years, giving officials more time to figure out Kirkuk's final status.

None of Iraq's 17 other provinces, including the three that make up Kurdistan, currently has such an agreement.

_Making Kirkuk politically autonomous but still somewhat reliant on Baghdad for funding. This plan, favored by the Turkmens with political ties to Turkey, also would allow Kirkuk to collect revenue from federally owned North Oil Corp. refineries in the province.

Details of the formulas are still being negotiated. Remaining sticking points include how jobs will be divided among each group, and when, and who can be counted as a legal resident among the 400,000 Kurds who moved to Kirkuk after Saddam's ouster. Arabs and Turkmens call them illegal squatters.

"Ultimately, they need to come together to resolve this issue, because it's not going to get any prettier with time," said Howard Keegan, the State Department's top envoy in Kirkuk.

Smoking Marlboros at his desk at the government building in downtown Kirkuk, Province Council chairman Rizgar Ali said he could accept a special status for Kirkuk — but still tied to Kurdistan. He accused Arabs and Turkmens of stalling on an agreement.

"You can't go on like this," Ali said. "This kind of thing killed Iraq."

Saeed, the top-ranking Arab in Kirkuk, signaled he could support making Kirkuk autonomous. Anything connecting Kirkuk to Kurdistan would be rejected, however.

"We will resist that by all means, because this will erase our identity," Saeed said.

Ultimately, the dispute may be solved only if Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Kurdistan President Massoud Barzani personally agree to compromise.

The U.S. has encouraged power-sharing in a country where Shiites dominate in the south, Sunnis in the west and Kurds in the far north. Bitter sectarian fighting and ethnic cleansing have deepened mistrust.

In recent weeks Barzani has alleged that al-Maliki is drifting toward authoritarian rule. Al-Maliki says Iraq's central government is too weak, and that granting provinces too much power risks de-facto partition that would invite foreign meddling.

Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. military leader in Iraq, said in a recent AP interview that "ultimately they have to solve this problem in Baghdad." And in a January visit to Kirkuk, Vice President Joe Biden told local leaders they had a year to show significant success in settling the dispute — or potentially face it alone.

"The Americans should understand we cannot guarantee there will not be a civil war when they leave," said Turkoman councilman Hassan Toran.....for it will usher in additional hundreds of Tribes with Flags....

In rejecting the Saudi Plan, Israel pulls the rug out from under any hope for any kind of peace in the Middle East. The Arab League Peace Initiative of 2002 is the ONLY just and rational basis for peace.

Israel has been attempting to negotiate that which is not negotiable: the fundamental human and ancestral rights of the Palestinian people to their homeland for over two millennia to Jewish immigrants of the past century, Jews having comprised less than 10% of the population of Palestine since Hadrian finally drove them out following the Bar Kochba uprising. This history can not be reversed any more than the maps of Europe can be redrawn to suit some historical fancy of Eurpe's minorities. Palestinians have arguably more rights to the land than do Jews. In that light, or any other light, the Saudi Initiative is generous to a fault, and offer Israel can not afford to refuse.

Read http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n16/sieg01_.html



Israel is not interested in peace.All this double talk about "we have no partner in peace" is only a fig leaf for "we do not want peace.We want the Greater Israel that is "ArabFrei".

We know this happened before in Europe, but this is different.We are the chosen people and are doing this in the name of the real estate agent from above.

The two state solution is dead.Israel is now on the road to self destruction.No way back only forward to the Bi National State...


There will not be peace with the Arabs living west of the Jordan because the Arab leaders in the Middle-East are afraid of peace. Peace and closer relations with Israel means democracy in the Arab countries, improvement of individual freedom for all, freedom of choice as to religion and education in other words the end of the dictatorship, the end of tyranny in the Arab countries first, and then, in the Muslim countries. Can the Saudi King Abdullah accept this ? can Bashar al-Assad accept this ? can Mubarak accept this ? can all the petty tyrants of the Arabic Peninsula accept this, or the Jordanian stooge ? ?so let's be realistic: can peace, indeed, be more than just a dream ? Peace with Israel means, also, the abandonment of Jihad, the abandonment of the conquest of the world by Islam....

Obama's Kennedy Moment in Afghanistan

Obama's Kennedy Moment in Afghanistan

I had to laugh when I heard our next ambassador to Afghanistan say, "every poll will show that 90 percent of the people firmly reject the Taliban."

You can't make this stuff up.

Lt. Gen. Karl W. Eikenberry may be a great warrior, a very smart guy, and turn out to be a very fine ambassador. But that's a bunch of baloney.

As Jere Van Dyke, a reporter who's spent enough time on the ground in Afghanistan -- including as a hostage -- to qualify as an expert, said in a radio interview the other day, the average villager can't tell the difference between NATO troops and the Russians, the last guys who tried to quell the jihadis.

"We're in a very dangerous situation now," he said on all-news

"They're not against the U.S., they're not against NATO, but if you go out into the villages, what they will tell you is that they really don't know the difference, in their minds, between the Soviets and the West -- they're infidels, they're invaders.'

We've already killed more civilians than the Taliban has, Van Dyke noted. Their 20,000 fighters have fought 50,000 air-supported NATO troops to a draw.

That's some hearts-and-minds program.

Before Eikenberry leaves for Kabul, he should drive up the road from the Pentagon and see
Rufus Phillips.

Phillips was a CIA man who spent more time in South Vietnam than
Ho Chi Minh. Not draining cocktails in Saigon with well-pressed colonels, either -- in the villages.

Phillips ran something called the Hamlet Evaluation Survey, which crunched all sorts of numbers about how the war was going.

And he knew it was b.s.

In 1963 he had the guts to tell the President of the United States, John F. Kennedy, that his generals in Vietnam were cooking the books. The fancy stats showing the villagers on our side, served up by the Saigon command, were inflated -- made up, he told Kennedy.

Younger Army officers who told the truth were having their careers ruined. U.S. military advisors who complained about corrupt South Vietnamese officers were being sent home.

It was "a remarkable moment in the American bureaucracy, a moment of intellectual honesty," the late, great
David Halberstam wrote in "The Best and the Brightest," his monumental account of White House advisors who turned a low level counterinsurgency into a big-unit war with almost 600,000 troops, only to see victory slip away.

Does the number sound familiar?

It's the figure
Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., who holds the Pentagon's purse strings, picked for winning in Afghanistan.

"That's what I estimate it would take in a country that size to get it under control," Murtha said just a few weeks ago in an
interview with the Associated Press.

Yet on Thursday, he sounded just as certain that
President Obama's plan for just 4,000 more troops - police advisors -- was just fine. That would bring the U.S. expedition to about 60,000 - not counting the kids joy-sticking Predators over Afghanistan from a trailer outside Las Vegas.

"They got realistic goals, I think," Murtha
said, according to Bloomberg News. "Train the Afghans and then get the hell out of there. I couldn't have written it any better myself."

Try writing the ending, Congressman.

To be fair, Murtha epitomizes the national hand-wringing over the war. Few people really know which way to go.

Anybody who says this is easy is nuts.

Sixty thousand? Six hundred thousand? Murtha can't have it both ways. As the A.P. pointed out, he "chairs the powerful subcommittee that funds the military" - and he is, let's not forget, a Marine combat veteran of Vietnam.

I'm a Vietnam veteran, too, but that doesn't mean I'm a font of wisdom about Afghanistan. But Murtha's first number -- 600,000 - doesn't sound like the right way to go. It's sounds exactly like the wrong way to go.

When the end came in Saigon, two million soldiers, sailors and marines had served in Southeast Asia.

The parallels with Vietnam are really eerie: corrupt leader, untrustworthy police and army, provincial officials shipping heroin, villagers with their fingers to the wind, enemy forces striking from across the border.

Sounds like
Michael Moriarty's monologue in "Who''ll Stop the Rain," doesn't it?

One of the revisionist theories about Vietnam is that we could have won if, as late as 1963, we had kept a lid on our military effort, with Green Berets, the CIA, and economic aid workers out in the boonies working their magic.

We'll never know, of course, because Kennedy was killed as he stood on the precipice of a decision about Vietnam. But we do know that what came next,
surge by surge, was wrong.

Is 60,000 too few, 600,000 too many, for Afghanistan? Not fast enough? Pick your poison.

So this is President Barack Obama's 1963 moment. The roof started to cave in Saigon, when Kennedy had only 16,000 advisors in-country.

Who will be Obama's
Rufus Phillips? Who will give him the facts -- not the balderdash Eikenberry served up.

The president might start with
Richard Holbrooke, who cut his teeth with the State Department in Vietnam in 1962.

Don't laugh: The president's point man on Afghanistan --
and suddenly much more, according to The Washington Independent's Spencer Ackerman -- wrote the forward to Phillips's last book, "Why Vietnam Matters: An Eyewitness Account of Lessons Not Learned."

Time to Talk of CIA Regime Change in Sudan?

Time to Talk of CIA Regime Change in Sudan?

No less than Mr. Axis-of Evil himself, Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson, is advocating “a thoughtful strategy that leads, step by step, to a government in Sudan that values the people of Darfur. . . .”

“This does not necessarily mean regime change,” Gerson wrote in his March 25 Washington Post column, “but it probably requires Bashir change — the emergence of a Sudanese leadership willing to start anew.”

Decapitation is the term of art. Since military intervention is out of the question (for too many reasons to list here), I guess that means calling in the CIA. You can’t use the Peace Corps for this.

Something like the Iran op in 1953, I guess he’s thinking. It was relatively bloodless. The CIA worked so fast in the overthrow of the socialist Mohammed Mossadeq the shah hardly had time to pin the medals on his jacket. Iran’s oil was safely back in our hands, for about 25 years. Nothing last forever.

“I’m a great believer in covert action,” says a veteran CIA station chief who retired a few years ago (and never lets me use his name). “By that I don’t mean sending military people in there and killing everybody. Something more subtle . . . Doing things that weaken the dictatorship’s control of the media is good.”

You fabricate unflattering articles for the newspapers and radio stations. At its best, people begin to laugh at the dictator. He’s toast.

But you need somebody to replace him. (Tyrants are so 20th century) Someone like Lech Walesa, the Solidarity union leader in Poland. The roughly handsome, mustachioed shipyard worker was a poster boy for democracy.

Walesas are rare.

“The problem is finding a guy the State Department approves of,” says the former station chief. “They always want a ‘moderate.’ They complained that the guys we used to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan were bad guys, and we should use ‘moderates.’ Well, we said, ‘Great, but the problem with moderates is that they don’t fight, and they can’t run the country.’ You end up with guys like [Afghan President Hamid] Karzai or Ahmad Chalabi [the neocon-backed Iraqi exile who fed phony intelligence to the White House and news media].

“They picked those guys and look what’s happened,” he said. “They want some guy in Florida who speaks English, has a beard and wears a turban and wants to go home.”

Coups usually have bad, long-term consequences, argues Haviland Smith, who was involved with Iran and spent a career working against the Soviet Union.

“Try to find any example of a covert op (regime change) that ultimately ended up favorable to the USA,” Smith said in an e-mail Friday. He pointed me to a piece he just published in American Diplomacy on the same subject.

Inside Saudi Arabia's royal family

Keys to the kingdom: Inside Saudi Arabia's royal family

The crown prince is seriously ill, and Saudi Arabia's normally secretive royal family is openly clashing over who will take the throne....with covert plans to fragment the Kingdom into competing

Tribes with Flags....

Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who was Saudi Arabia?s ambassador to Washington for 22 years, is at the centre of speculation over the royal succession. He has not been seen in public for weeks

Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who was Saudi Arabia?s ambassador to Washington for 22 years, is at the centre of speculation over the royal succession. He has not been seen in public for weeks ....


A dispute over Saudi Arabia's royal succession burst into the open yesterday, revealing a power struggle in which one of the most senior princes in the oil-rich kingdom is reported to have disappeared. The prospect of instability in a country that is not only the world's largest oil exporter but also a key Western ally at the heart of the Middle East will cause serious concern in Washington, London and beyond.

Rumours are rife over the position of Prince Bandar bin Sultan, 60, son of the heir to the Saudi throne, who has not been seen in public for weeks. Prince Bandar is better known abroad than almost any other member of the Saudi royal family, not only for his extravagant lifestyle, but because of his daring foreign policy initiatives during 22 years as the Saudi ambassador in Washington, where he played an important role after 9/11 and during two Gulf wars. His absence from public life comes at a sensitive time in Saudi Arabia: his father, Crown Prince Sultan, is gravely ill with cancer, throwing the succession to King Abdullah into question....


One theory in political circles in Riyadh is that Prince Bandar was seeking to oust King Abdullah before Prince Sultan dies, thus placing his father on the throne. Other rumours claim that Prince Bandar is ill, or that he angered King Abdullah by dabbling in Syrian politics without authorisation. The Saudi embassy in London could not be contacted for comment last week, but this weekend political tensions in the kingdom came dramatically to the surface.

On Friday night King Abdullah unexpectedly announced the appointment of one of his half-brothers, Prince Nayef, the 76-year-old interior minister, to the post of second deputy prime minister, which had been left vacant. This was immediately taken as an indication that he would become crown prince when Prince Sultan dies or becomes king. But yesterday Prince Talal, another senior figure, publicly demanded that the king confirm that the appointment did not mean Prince Nayef would automatically become the next crown prince. Such public disagreement among senior Saudi royals is highly unusual....


Another indication of friction among the many descendants of the founder of Saudi Arabia, King Ibn Saud, who had 22 wives and more than 50 children, was the publication of a report last week by the Saudi National Society for Human Rights, one of the country's two human rights organisations. It was highly critical of Prince Nayef's draconian interior ministry, and is unlikely to have been released without the express say-so of another powerful member of the royal family.

Both Crown Prince Sultan and Prince Nayef are members of the "Sudairi Six", the powerful surviving sons of Ibn Saud and his favourite wife, Hassa bint Ahmad Al-Sudairi. The seventh and eldest brother was King Fahd, who died in 2005; when he nominated his successor, in line with tradition, he bypassed his full brothers and chose Abdullah as crown prince.

The vying for position is intensified by Crown Prince Sultan's poor health. Aged about 85, he was first diagnosed with colon cancer in Jeddah in 2004. He has received treatment in Geneva and the US, and spent time convalescing in Morocco. Throughout his illness, Prince Nayef and another of the six brothers – Prince Salman, 73, the governor of Riyadh and another potential candidate for the succession – have stayed close to the crown prince's side. Three weeks ago Prince Nayef surprised viewers of prime-time Saudi TV by telephoning in during the news hour to tell viewers that Prince Sultan was recovering well, and would be returning home soon....


More independent information about the prince's condition has been suppressed, however. Last year, the long-serving Reuters bureau chief in Riyadh, Andrew Hammond, was told to leave the kingdom after reporting that Prince Sultan had cancer.

"I think Prince Nayef will be the next crown prince, because he is responsible for sensitive issues like security and he is supported by the players in the royal family," commented Abdul Aziz Al Khamis, the Saudi editor of Arabian Observer magazine, "but it is like a card game. Each plays his cards – power, security, money – and it's a very tough game."

Analysts believed King Abdullah, aware that his chosen successor might die before him, was thinking of skipping a generation in the nomination for his new deputy, in order to prevent a long procession of octogenarian kings as power passes from one elderly brother to another. But Friday's nomination of Prince Nayef, a hardliner whose rise to the throne would dismay many in the West, may have eliminated that possibility.

Since 2007 the mechanism for determining succession in Saudi Arabia has been the responsibility of the allegiance council, a 35-member official body formed from the sons and grandsons of Ibn Saud. Designed to smooth the transfer of power, the council promises the first Saudi succession decision to be made by consensus. Its creation by King Abdullah was widely praised by the West, but it may yet prove difficult for him to influence its decision, since the Sudairi Six are thought to have influence over more than half the council members.

To reduce the chance of a military coup, Saudi Arabia maintains a number of more or less equally powerful military forces, each under the command of different princes. King Abdullah controls the National Guard, but Prince Nayef heads the powerful interior ministry forces while also enjoying the support of Khaled bin Sultan, who has been effectively running the army on behalf of his invalid father for months.

Since the modern state of Saudi Arabia was founded in 1932, power has always transferred without civil strife, even though in 1975 King Faisal was assassinated by his half-brother's son. But in the more distant past, disagreements over succession often turned nasty. At the end of the 19th century, the second Saudi state destroyed itself through fratricidal conflict. In recent times Saudi Arabia has been rocked by jihadi violence and demonstrations by its Shia minority, and most observers expect the transition will in the end be peaceful....?


"They have already destroyed themselves once by brother turning on brother," said Mr Al Khamis. "I don't think they will do it again." Sir Alan Munro, the former British ambassador to Saudi Arabia, said: "In this very powerful family there could be some measure of negotiation over nomination and succession, but I expect eventually it will turn out to be a smooth process."

Friday, March 27, 2009

Covert Wars in Sudan

Covert Wars in Sudan and all over Africa

I recently received a phone call from an Australian man who identified himself as an investigator for the prosecutor at the International Criminal Court (ICC) at the Hague, Netherlands. The investigator and his colleague had read my story, “Merchant’s of Death: Exposing Corporate Financed Holocaust in Africa,” and wanted my cooperation to provide more detailed evidence about the warlords behind the massacres at Bogoro, Congo, described briefly in my story.

After some weeks of back and forth discussions and me revisiting notes and photos to see what I had, I sent them an e-mail at the definitive moment when they were hoping to receive a brief “dossier” about the specific case — which they said “had generated a lot of interest” at the ICC — and I shared my uncertainty about the ethics of collaborating with an “International Criminal Court” that was only indicting black Africans. I indicated my concern for the witness ‘Sandrine,’ a young girl discussed in my story who named names of commanders, dates of executions, and who herself used a machete in an ethnic massacre and was raped by militiamen. I noted that witnesses identified for the Rwandan Tribunal (ICTR) had been murdered or mysteriously disappeared, and noted my awareness of the injustice of the Tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the disconcerting trajectory of the ICC.

I told them I couldn’t in good conscience help them, it seemed, until the ICC arrested some of the white-collar war criminals running loose around the world. It was the right decision, in light of the recent ICC indictments against another black man, and an Arab at that. It was a very stupid career move, some one else remarked.

On 4 March 2009 the ICC prosecutors announced that they were at last issuing the long-threatened but first ever indictments against a sitting head of state, Omar al-Bashir, the Arab President of Sudan. Meanwhile, Somali ‘pirates’ off East Africa recently freed a Ukrainian ship with a Panamanian registration, a Ukrainian crew and flag of Belize. The freighter carried tanks, rockets and munitions destined for Darfur, and is owned by an Israeli ‘businessman’ and reputed MOSSAD operative named Vadim Alperin.

It is difficult to make sense of the war in Darfur — especially when people see it as a one-sided “genocide” of Arabs against blacks that is being committed by the Bashir ‘regime’ — but such is the establishment propaganda. The real story is much more expansive, more complex, and it revolves around some relatively unknown but shady characters. What follows is a short and imperfect summary of some of the deeper geopolitical realities behind the struggle for Sudan.


First note that the ICC can now be viewed as a tool of hegemonic U.S. foreign policy, where the weapons deployed by the U.S. and its allies include the accusations of, and indictments for, human rights violations, war crimes and crimes against humanity. To understand this, we can ask why no white man has yet been charged with these or other offenses at the ICC, which now holds five black African “warlords” and seeks to incarcerate and bring to trial another black man, also an Arab, Omar Bashir. Why hasn’t George W. Bush been indicted? Or what about Donald Rumsfeld? Dick Cheney? Henry Kissinger? Ehud Olmert? Tony Blair? Vadim Alperin? John Bredenkamp?

Following on the heels of the announcement that the ICC handed down seven war crimes charges against al-Bashir, a story broadcast over all the Western media system and into every American living room by day’s end, President al-Bashir ordered the expulsion of ten international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) operating in Darfur under the pretense of being purely ‘humanitarian’ organizations.

What has not been reported anywhere in the English press is that the United States of America has just stepped up its ongoing war for control of Sudan and her resources: petroleum, copper, gold, uranium, fertile plantation lands for sugar and gum Arabic (essential to Coke, Pepsi and Ben & Jerry’s ice cream). This war has been playing out on the ground in Darfur through so-called ‘humanitarian’ NGOs, private military companies, ‘peacekeeping’ operations and covert military operations backed by the U.S. and its closest allies.

However, the U.S. war for Sudan has always revolved around ‘humanitarian’ operations — purportedly neutral and presumably concerned only about protecting innocent human lives — that often provide cover for clandestine destabilizing activities and interventions.

Americans need to recognize that the Administration of President Barack Obama has begun to step up the war for control of Sudan in keeping with the permanent warfare agenda of both Republicans and Democrats. The current destabilization of Sudan mirrors the illegal covert guerrilla war carried out in Rwanda — also launched and supplied from Uganda — from October 1990 to July 1994. The Rwandan Defense Forces (then called the Rwandan Patriotic Army) led by Major General Paul Kagame achieved the U.S. objective of a coup d’etat in Rwanda through that campaign, and President Kagame has been a key interlocutor in the covert warfare underway in Darfur, Sudan.

During the Presidency of George W. Bush, the U.S. Government was involved with the intelligence apparatus of the Government of Sudan (GoS). At the same time, other U.S. political and corporate factions were pressing for a declaration of genocide against the GoS. Now, given the shift of power and the appointment of top Clinton officials formerly involved in covert operations in Rwanda, Uganda, Congo and Sudan during the Clinton years, pressure has been applied to heighten the campaign to destabilize the GoS, portrayed as a ‘terrorist’ Arab regime, but an entity operating outside the U.S.-controlled banking system. The former campaign saw overt military action with the U.S. military missile attacks against the Al-Shifa Pharmaceutical factory in Sudan (1998); this was an international war crime by the Clinton Administration and it involved officials now in power.

The complex geopolitical struggle to control Sudan manifests through the flashpoint war for Darfur and it involves such diverse factions as the Lord’s Resistance Army, backed by Khartoum, which is also connected to the wars in the Congo and northern Uganda. Chad is involved, Eritrea and Ethiopia, Germany, the Central African Republic, Libya, France, Israel, China, Taiwan, South Africa and Rwanda. There are U.S. special forces on the ground in the frontline states of Chad, Uganda, Ethiopia, Kenya, and the big questions are: [1] How many of the killings are being committed by U.S. proxy forces and blamed on al-Bashir and the GoS? And [2] who funds, arms and trains the rebel insurgents


Rebels? Insurgents? The drumbeat of western propaganda portrays the conflict as a one-sided affair: a “genocidal counter-insurgency by the GoS” — in the words of Eric Reeves — versus the good Samaritans of the ‘humanitarian’ NGO community . . . and throw in a few (non-descript) rebels.

“Sudan ordered at least 10 humanitarian groups expelled from Darfur on Wednesday after the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for the country’s president,” wrote Associated Press reporter Ellen M. Lederer. “Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said the action ‘represents a serious setback to lifesaving operations in Darfur’ and urged Sudan to reverse its decision, U.N. deputy spokeswoman Marie Okabe said.”

However, when Ban Ki-moon met with Rwandan strongman Paul Kagame recently, he never called for Kagame’s arrest, no matter the findings of two international courts of law that have issued indictments against top RPA officials. Instead Ban Ki-moon praised Kagame and called for African countries to hunt down and arrest Hutu people purportedly involved in the now specious ‘genocide’ in Rwanda in 1994.

The non-governmental aid groups ordered out of Darfur by President al-Bashir on March 4 were Oxfam, CARE, MSF-Holland, Mercy Corps, Save the Children, the Norwegian Refugee Council, the International Rescue Committee, Action Contre la Faim, Solidarites and CHF International.

Of course, the western media is all over the expulsion of any big ‘humanitarian’ moneymaker from Darfur — the moral outrage is so thick you can almost wipe it. The NGOs and the press that peddles their images of suffering babes complain that hundreds of thousands of innocent refugees will now be subjected to massive unassisted suffering — as opposed to the assisted suffering they previously faced — but never asks with any serious and honest zeal, why and how the displaced persons and refugees came to be displaced or homeless to begin with. Neither do they ask about all the money, intelligence sharing, deal making, and collaboration with private or governmental military agencies.

Large ‘humanitarian’ NGOs (and ‘conservation’ NGOs) operate as de facto multinational corporations revolving around massive private profits and human suffering. In places like the Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda and Darfur these NGOs also provide infrastructure, logistical and intelligence collaboration that supports U.S. military and government agendas in the region. Most are aligned with big foundations, corporate sponsors and USAID — itself a close and long-time partner for interventions with AFRICOM and the Pentagon.

Refugees and displaced populations are strategic tools of statecraft and foreign policy, just as ‘humanitarian’ NGOs consistently use food as a weapon and populations as human shields. The history of the U.S. covert war in South Sudan is rich with examples of the SPLA and its ‘humanitarian’ partners, especially Christian ‘charities’, committing such war crimes and crimes against humanity.1

CARE International has received funding from Lockheed Martin Corporation, the world’s largest and most secretive producer of weapons of mass destruction, and both CARE and Save the Children are tied up with weapons and extractive industries in other ways. A peek at the board of directors of Save the Children makes it clear why the U.S. media is so devoid of truth about Darfur. Similarly, the International Rescue Committee does not work with refugees, per se, but serves as a policy and pressure group involved in funneling private profits from the west back to the west. The IRC has also been cited for involvement in military operations in the Democratic Republic of Congo and it has deep ties to people like Henry Kissinger.

The AID (read: misery) industry in Sudan was by the mid-1990s the largest so-called ‘humanitarian’ enterprise on the planet, Operation Lifeline Sudan (OLS) — a form of managed inequality and a temporary and mobile economy of white privilege, adventurism and, of course, good will (sic). The misery industry shifted its focus from South Sudan to Darfur after a pseudo peace ‘treaty’ was organized to end the decades old war between the SPLA and GoS; the U.S. and Israel backed the SPLA from 1990 onward, and continue to do so at present. The result of more than 12 years of illegal U.S. covert low-intensity warfare in Sudan resulted in the creation of the independent and sovereign state of South Sudan in circa 2005 — a state dominated by Jewish and Christian faith-based interests and western multinational corporations.

Much of the AID infrastructure in Sudan has at one time or another been used as a weapon through the use of human shields, food deliveries to refugee populations inseparable from insurgents, and shipments of weapons by ‘humanitarian’ NGOs. This is both incidental and deliberate policy. Christian ‘relief’ NGOs played a huge role in supporting the covert western insurgency in South Sudan. One notable ‘humanitarian’ NGO involved in weapons deliveries was the Norwegian People’s Aid (known affectionately in the field as the Norwegian People’s Army).

In Darfur, Sudan, the U.S. government agenda is to win control of natural resources and leverage the Arab government into a corner and, at last, establish a more ‘friendly’ government that will suit the corporate interests of the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia and Israel.

Several major think tanks — read: propaganda, lobbying and pressure — behind the destabilization of Sudan include the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy, Center for American Progress, Center for Security Policy, International Rescue Committee and International Crises Group. Individuals from seemingly diverse positions of the political and ideological spectrum run these organizations, which are ultra-nationalist capitalist organizations bent on global military-economic domination.

The former Clinton officials most heavily focused on the destabilization of Sudan include: Susan Rice, Madeleine Albright, Roger Winter, Prudence Bushnell, Hillary Clinton, John Podesta, Anthony Lake and John Prendergast. Carr Center for Human Rights co-founder Samantha Power, now on the Obama National Security Council, has helped to whitewash clandestine U.S. involvement in Sudan.

John Prendergast has continued to peddle disinformation disguised as policy and human rights concerns through the International Crisis Group (ICG), and through its many clone organizations like ENOUGH, ONE and RAISE HOPE FOR CONGO. Prendergast has been a pivotal agent behind the hi-jacking of U.S. public concern and action through the disingenuous (and discredited) SAVE DARFUR movement.

Other notable agents of disinformation on Sudan include Alex de Waal and Smith College Professor Eric Reeves. It is through these and other conduits to the corporate U.S. media that the story of ‘genocide’ in Sudan is cast as an Africa-Arab affair devoid of western interests.

In 1992, human rights researchers Rakiya Omaar and Alex de Waal established the London-based NGO African Rights. In August 1995, African Rights published Rwanda: Death, Despair and Defiance, one of many pivotal ‘human rights’ reports that falsely represented events in Rwanda, set the stage for victor’s justice at the International Criminal Tribunal on Rwanda, and began the process of dehumanizing millions of Hutu people and protecting the true terrorists: Yoweri Museveni, Paul Kagame, the Rwandan Patriotic Army, and their western backers.


The pivotal intelligence asset working on the ground in Sudan to destabilize and overthrow the Government of Sudan (GoS) is Roger Winter, profiled very disingenuously in the seven-page New York Times Magazine feature story of 15 June 2008.

Interestingly, “The Man For A New Sudan” story, an establishment whitewash of the involvement of the U.S. military-intelligence establishment in Sudan, was written by Eliza Griswold, a ‘Fellow’ with the New America Foundation, a left-leaning think tank and pressure group with a very confused ideological but nationalist-militaristic position. (The NAF is obviously dependent on U.S. foundation funding, and it reveals no apparent policy formulations of substance on the Great Lakes or Horn of Africa, conflicts for which they remain completely silent).

“When Roger Winter’s single-engine Cessna Caravan touched down near the Sudanese town of Abyei on Easter morning, a crowd of desperate men swamped the plane,” Griswold wrote. “Some came running over the rough red airstrip. Others crammed into a microbus that barreled toward the 65-year-old Winter as he climbed down the plane’s silver ladder. Some Sudanese call Winter ‘uncle’; others call him ‘commander’.”

Winter’s special post at the State Department was created specifically for him and his ‘work’ in Sudan. Why do Sudanese people in South Sudan call Roger Winter ‘commander’?

Roger Winter is the primary conduit for the ongoing covert destabilization of Sudan. His operations are run primarily out of Uganda, with the terrorist government of Yoweri Museveni providing support through the Uganda People’s Defense Forces (UPDF) alliance with the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA).

The SPLA is the de facto backbone of the Sudan Liberation Army, one of the main so-called ‘rebel’ factions involved in Darfur; the SPLA provides military and logistics support to Uganda from the Pentagon through unknown channels, but most likely involving the nearby Pentagon client states of Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Chad and Eritrea.

The primary Ugandan agents supporting the U.S. war in Darfur have always been, and remain, Brigadier General James Kazini, a nephew of Ugandan dictator Museveni and the chief of staff of the Ugandan People’s Defense Forces (UPDF); General Salim Saleh, half-brother of Museveni; and President Yoweri Museveni himself.

One of the main protagonists in the Darfur conflict is the current military regime in Rwanda, whose troops have been involved in Darfur under the guise of an ‘independent’ and ‘peacekeeping’ operation under the African Union ‘peacekeeping’ umbrella — back by NATO and private military companies.

Little known and widely misunderstood is the role of the United States and its proxies, the UPDF and the RPA, in committing massive crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide during the Rwandan conflagration from 1990 to 1994. Prior to the RPA invasion of Rwanda (from Uganda) in October 1990, the RPA and Rwandan Tutsi Diaspora had publications like Impuruza published in the United States between 1984 and 1994 (when the RPA achieved the coup d’etat against Rwandan President Habyarimana). Tutsi refugees joined Roger Winter, who was at the time the Director of the United States Committee for Refugees, to help fund the publication. The editor, Alexander Kimenyi, is a Rwandan national and a professor at California State University. Like most RPA publications Impuruza circulated clandestinely in Rwanda amongst Hutu and Tutsi elite and it peddled a genocidal ideology against Hutu people.

The Association of Banyarwanda in Diaspora USA, assisted by Roger Winter, organized the International Conference on the Status of Banyarwanda [Tutsi] Refugees in Washington, DC in 1988, and this is where a military solution to the Tutsi problem was chosen. The U.S. Committee for Refugees reportedly provided accommodation and transportation.


Roger Winter was one of the primary architects of the RPA guerrilla war, organized from Washington in 1989, that has led to the loss of more than ten or twelve million lives in the Great Lakes of Africa since 1990. Winter acted as a spokesman for the RPF and their allies, and he appeared as a guest on major U.S. television networks such as PBS and CNN. New Yorker writer Philip Gourevitch and Roger Winter made contacts on behalf of the RPA with American media, particularly the Washington Post, New York Times and Time magazine.

Roger Winter moved through Rwanda during the RPA invasion and worked the front lines of the covert war as a key Pentagon and U.S. State Department asset in collaboration with the Kagame-RPA operation of terror. From 1990 to 1994, Winter traveled back and forth from the RPA-controlled zone to Washington D.C., where he briefed and coordinated activities and support with U.S. military, intelligence and government officials.

Roger Winter is intimate with USAID, and is a long-time ally of Susan Rice, former Assistant Secretary of State on African Affairs (1997-2001), Special Assistant to President Clinton (1995-1997), and National Security Council insider (1993-1997). Susan Rice is the Obama Administration’s Ambassador to the United Nations and staunch enemy of Omar al-Bashir.

Roger Winter is also a staunch supporter of U.S. Rep. Donald Payne, one of the leading U.S. Democrats pressing for action to “stop genocide” in Darfur, Sudan. Payne sponsored the Darfur Genocide Accountability Act and was arrested in June 2001, along with John Eibner, director of Christian Solidarity International, for protesting against the GoS.

Christian Solidarity International has a very subversive relationship to ‘peace’ and ‘religion’ in Sudan, and they have been one of the front-runner organizations peddling the accusations of slavery by the al-Bashir government, in particular, a highly contested and controversial issue generally inflated and manipulated by fundamentalist Jewish and Christian NGOs and missionary organizations, like Christian Solidarity International, Samaritan’s Purse, Servant’s Heart, and Freedom Quest International, that operate in Sudan.

“Roger Winter was the chief logistic boss for [RPA] Tutsis as early as mid-1990,” says Ugandan human rights expert Remigius Kintu, “and until their victory in 1994 they were operating from 1,717 Massachusetts Avenue NW in Washington, D.C. Roger Winter told a [name deleted] South Sudanese exile at the time [1994]: ‘I have now stabilized Rwanda and will turn my full attention to Sudan.’ Winter subsequently closed up shop in Rwanda and based himself in Kampala working on Sudan. A few years later, Darfur exploded and with Winter’s manipulations, Rwanda was the first to send troops into that troubled area. From my sources, the Rwanda Defense Forces [working under the African Union umbrella] have killed civilians and brought in their media experts to pile the blame on Sudanese government troops.”

This is exactly what the Kagame and Museveni terror apparatus has done in Uganda, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Much of the terror operations of the UPDF/RPF in Rwanda in the 1990s were covered up by Human Rights Watch experts Alison Des Forges (d. February 2009) and Timothy Longman, Associate Prof. of Africana Studies and Political Science at Vassar College.

Similarly, throughout the long war in south Sudan, and now in Darfur, the atrocities committed by the U.S.-backed factions were/are downplayed, dismissed or ignored, while those committed by competing factions are amplified and spotlighted. Also, following the pattern of UPDF and RPA criminal activities — such as massacres committed under disguise and/or attributed to the ‘enemy’ — for which there is now a long history of documentation, and given the lack of any true independent evaluation, there is no telling who actually committed the massacres always blamed on the GoS or ‘Janjaweed’ militias.

One Sudanese professional from the south told me recently that it was not the Government of Sudan but rather the UPDF and SPLA who were arming the Janjaweed — the so-called Arab militias accused of wanton killing in an Arab-against-Black genocide. (This Arab-on-black genocide has been widely discredited.

Professor Timothy Longman and Alison Des Forges co-produced the fat treatise on ‘genocide’ in Rwanda, Leave None to Tell the Story, published in 1999. Longman and Des Forges produced numerous documents, based on field investigations in Congo (Zaire), Rwanda and Burundi, from 1995 to 2008, touted as independent and unbiased human rights reports but always skewed by hidden interests. Both Longman and Des Forges had relationships with the U.S. Department of State, National Security Council and Pentagon, both were regular consultants with USAID, and they certainly worked with Roger Winter, the Pentagon’s secret weapon in Sudan.

On 25 September 2008, a Ukrainian freighter was seized by ‘pirates’ off the coast of Somalia and was held until a ransom of $3.2 million was paid on 5 February 2009. (Somali fishermen disenfranchised by international dumping of toxic [and possibly nuclear] wastes off Somalia are labeled ‘pirates’ when they fight for their rights and freedoms.) The MV Faina is registered in Belize, owned by a company registered in Panama and piloted by Ukrainians. The MV Faina carried 33 Soviet T-72 battle tanks, grenade-launchers, anti-aircraft guns and ammunition en route to Mombassa, Kenya, the Pentagon’s primary base on the east coast of Africa.

The U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet monitored the Ukrainian ship during the four-month standoff, with the MV Faina pinned down by at least six U.S. and four European warships. The ship’s owner is Israeli national Vadim Alperin (alias Vadim Oltrena Alperin), said to be a MOSSAD agent involved with clandestine activities through offshore front companies and money laundering. The ship was unloaded in Mombassa on February 12, and the weapons are destined for Juba, South Sudan.

There are reports that weaponry also included tank munitions heads sporting deadly depleted uranium and that the final recipients are the Israeli-backed Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) ‘rebels’ in Darfur. Sudan has previously accused Israel of supporting ‘rebels’ in the Darfur war. International arms syndicates and dealers routinely transfer ‘Soviet-era’ arms for international organized crime, including covert military operations involving proxy militias and national governments in Sudan, Uganda, Congo, Somalia, Ethiopia, Kenya and Rwanda.