REPOST: Bin Ladin's Message; GW Bush Admitted WAR FOR EXXON; History of EXXON; Providing Justification for Iraq War
Reposted by Amelia Gora (2021) from 2003
The following are important articles posted in 2003, etc.:
the following message came off of the delphi forums as message 20038.15 dated 26 May:
'There is one secret order that is trying to either bring down or at least disrupt and annoy the Bilderbergers order.
this secret order is called 'Al-Qaida'...in an Audio lecture given by Bin Laden in 1997 he spoke about the dangers of the western secret orders such as the 'Bilderbergers', 'The Skulls', 'The Free Masons' and 'The Knight Timplars'.....he said the only way for Muslims to throwout the power of these western secret orders over their affairs is by establishing a Muslim counter secret order to fight back against such orders and think tanks.
and the maine mission of such a Muslim secret order in Bin Ladin's view is to attack the not very well protected economic centers of power in the west, the source of wealth and power for the western secret orders.
A year after this lecture Bin Ladin started his war, not on the west, but on these western secret orders.'
aloha.
ps. just rediscovered the printout in my stack of papers and thought many would find this interesting............GW Bush and family are part of the 'Skull' also known as the 'Skull and Crossbones Society' a connection of the 'Illuminati' secret society, etc.
Discussion:
If Bin Ladin intended to attack those groups, then, GW Bush and FRIENDS appear to be using government resources, American taxpayers resources/expenses to battle with issues that have been targeted against his or other secret society members PERSONAL interests.....perhaps more pondering is necessary to get a fuller picture and answer such questions as WHAT?, WHY?, WHEN?, BECAUSE?, etc. etc.
2)The following was an e mail from Greg Palast:
THE BROWN STUFF
by Greg Palast
September 4, 2003
I couldn't make this up. This morning, the US Department of the
Interior is turning over the Mall in front of the Washington Monument to
Pepsi-Cola Corporation to promote their new 'Pepsi Vanilla.'
This has gotten the Washington Post's liberal columnists' knickers in a
twist. But they don't know the half of it.
Beyond renting the Monument grounds to Pepsi, President Bush has agreed
to re-name the looming recession, 'The Pause That Refreshes.'
Furthermore, as part of a larger 're-brand America' campaign, the
National Institute for Health has announced that the fourth new food group
in the 'nutrition pyramid' after dairy foods, meat and fiber will be,
Fizzy Brown Stuff.
The Bush Administration has moved swiftly to respond to objections to
the commercialization of the nation's heritage sites. The complaints,
from Pepsi rival Coca Cola, will be addressed by re-naming the Bill of
Rights. Attorney General John Ashcroft is expected to announce today
that, 'those ten outdated amendments will be called 'Bill of Rights
Classic,' while the post-PATRIOT Act version will henceforth be called, 'New
Rights Lite.'' A spokesman for Mr. Ashcroft added that Anne Coulter will
be renamed, simply, 'Lite.'
Mr. D*i*c*k Cheney, the nation's Vice-President for Marketing, has angrily
rejected accusations that photos released by the Defense Department of
Saddam Hussein drinking Diet Dr. Pepper were fabricated for the purpose
of winning public support for our entry into the cola wars. Cheney has
turned down repeated requests to produce notes of his several meetings
with soda-pop executives.
A spokesman at the Park Service indicates the agency has nixed
proposals for a monument to the 'Spirit of the Pioneers' – referring to those
who have given more than $100,000 to Bush family electoral campaigns.
However, the plaque at the Lincoln Monument has been updated 'for
accuracy' at the request of the National Association of Manufacturers to read,
'this government of the lobbyists, by the lobbyists and for the
lobbyists shall not perish from this earth.'
There was a muted response from Senate Democrats who did not want to be
seen as disagreeing with the popular president's rent-a-star program
replacing the American flag's former design with peel-off coupons for a
Pepsi, McMuffin and a large fries.
Bush spokesmen brushed aside government watchdog groups complaints that
several federal agencies had encouraged civil servants in the
Washington area to take the day off to attend festivities. 'Heck,' said Elaine
Chao, Secretary of Labor, 'That's nothing. Today, we're announcing that
the President has given more than NINE MILLION Americans the day off
from work … maybe they'll get the whole year!'
Speaking from his golf cart at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, a
confident President Bush reassured reporters, 'Despite the nay-sayers and
doom-sayers, the Pepsification of America is proceeding as planned.' Noting
that the Pepsi Vanilla extravaganza will be coordinated with the launch
of the 2003 National Football League season, the President said, 'It's
time to stop the quibbling and support our boys in uniform.'
'And, hey,' the confident commander-in-chief added, 'if we can go to
war for Exxon, what's the big deal about renting the Mall to Pepsi?'
******************************
Greg Palast is author of the New York Times bestseller, The Best
Democracy Money Can Buy. Subscribe to his writings for Britain's Observer and
Guardian newspapers, and view his investigative reports for BBC
Television's Newsnight, at www.GregPalast.com.
To subscribe to Greg's investigative reports email list, please click
here http://www.gregpalast.com/
*****
the following is a
Brief research compiled by Amelia Kuulei Gora
09/07/03.
EXXON
1882. John D. Rockefeller incorporated Standard Oil Company of New Jersey , "Jersey Standard" and Standard Oil Company of New York, "SOCONY".
1911. The U.S. Supreme Court ordered dissolution.
1920. SOCONY registered the trademark "Mobiloil".
The name MOBIL was used for worldwide use.
Corporations like "EXXON, 75 percent of whose revenues come from outside the United States… can no longer simply be regarded as "national" companies."
1975. EXXON operations "were nationalized." EXXON returned to Venezuela.
1989. March 24: "the giant oil supertanker EXXON VALDEZ" strayed off course and slammed the rocks. "Some 11 million gallons of crude oil leaked from the ship, fouling 1,056 miles of shoreline in one of the most ecologically sensitive areas in the world and killing an estimated 580,000 birds and 5,500 otters.
"Exxon was fined $100 million, spent some $2 billion on the ongoing cleanup and paid $5 billion in punitive damages to Alaskan fisherman."
"The accident was one of the worst environmental disasters of the century."
1992. EXXON "opened a Caracas office to pursue joint ventures with companies in the region."
References: www.exxon.com
GLOBAL PARADOX (1994) by John Naisbitt, Avon Books
GREAT EVENTS of THE 20th CENTURY (1997) by Times
WAR AND ANTI-WAR (1993) by Alvin and Heidi Toffler, Little
Brown and Company
3) looking for reasons to war:
What's Left
January 8, 2003
Ex-Bush speechwriter: I was to provide a justification for war
By Stephen Gowans
In late December 2001, chief presidential speechwriter Mike Gerson 'was parcelling out the components of the forthcoming State of the Union speech. His request to me,' recalls David Frum in his new book The White House in The Right Time: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush, 'could not have been simpler: I was to provide a justification for a war.'
And so was born the phrase 'the axis of evil.'
A year later, the impending all-out assault on Iraq is spinned as 'a war of liberation.' And there's a certain truth to the claim.
It will be a war that could liberate up to 500,000 Iraqis of their lives, according to the British healthcare group, Medact.
It will be a war that could liberate 200,000 Iraqis of their homes, and 10 million of their security against hunger and disease, according to a new UN report.
And, above all, it will be a war that will liberate Iraq of its oil wealth and put America more wholly in charge.
It will indeed be a war of liberation.
And one long in the making.
Key Bush cabinet members had been pushing for a take-over of Iraq and its oil fields for some time.
In September, 2000, D*i*c*k Cheney, now vice-president, along with his current chief of staff Lewis Libby, and Donald Rumsfeld, now Secretary of Defense, along with his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, laid out a plan to create a new American century, in which the United States would be supreme in the world, the first truly global empire.
The plan adumbrated regime change in Iraq, that is, the installation of a US puppet regime in Baghdad.
The events of 9/11 were pressed into service to provide the trigger.
Within hours of hijacked jets careening into the World Trade Centre and Pentagon, Rumsfeld was ordering his staff to find something that could be used to pin the blame on Iraq.
National Security advisor Condoleeza Rice ordered her staff to consider the opportunities 9/11 provided, as if the grim events of that day were a sliver lining that could justify the vigorous extension of US hegemony.
In his book, Frum recounts how he spent two days dreaming up a pretext for 'going after Iraq,' eventually hitting on the 'axis of evil' idea, which he originally conceived of as the 'axis of hatred' but which Gerson changed 'to use the theological language that Bush' (mirroring Osama bin Laden) 'had made his own since Sept. 11.'
While Frum denies the decision to launch a ground invasion had been made when he was asked to 'sum up in a sentence or two our best case for going after Iraq,' the events leading up to Frum's inventing a pretext for the mass murder suggest the decision had been made long before that.
But more revealing is Frum's attack on the antiwar camp, for in dismissing its arguments, Frum lets slip the real reasons for the impending slaughter: American control of the Middle East.
'I knew that opponents of action against Iraq relied on two main points,' Frum writes. 'First, they say there was no direct, conclusive proof that Saddam Hussein aided the Sept. 11 terrorists.'
This, Frum does not deny, but says Iraq, Iran, Hezbollah and al-Qaeda are linked in 'resenting the power of the West,' his rationale for drawing all four into an axis. (North Korea was added at the last minute, he explains, because 'it needed to feel a stronger hand.')
'Saddam Hussein was certainly a very bad man, so was Stalin,' Frum acknowledges. 'We had relied on deterrence, not war, to contain him; why should we not do so with Saddam, who after all controlled a much weaker state than the old Soviet Union?'
Actually, it was less Stalin, and more Washington, with its insatiable appetite for meddling in Central and South America, in Africa, in Indochina, that needed to be contained, but lay that aside. In reply, Frum says this argument is nothing more that resentment of American power.
'An American-led overthrow of Saddam Hussein...and a replacement of the radical Baathist dictatorship with a new government more closely aligned with the United States--would put America more wholly in charge of the region than any power since the Ottomans. People who resent American power...very understandably dreaded such an outcome.'
In Frum's view, there's a lot of resenting going on, all having to do with Washington's throwing its weight around to 'more wholly take charge,' and while it's no doubt true that Washington's jackbooting around the world occasions considerable resentment (as the Nazi's did), it's clear that Frum regards the resenting as somehow illegitimate.
Certainly, in the case of countries or organizations, resenting a US take-over is sufficient to earn your way onto Washington's hit-list; resentment is the tie that binds set upon countries into an axis.
Frum's views are entirely consistent with the tacit doctrine that holds sway among his journalistic colleagues in North America and the UK (Frum now writes for Canada's viciously right-wing, Washington-aligned The National Post) that the United States is now the legitimate world ruler, whose authority must be obeyed. Under this regime, ideas of national sovereignty are illegitimate, for all countries (at least the weakest ones, unable to fight back) are to consider themselves subordinate, and are to make way for Washington to manoeuvre itself into a position where it can be 'more wholly in charge.'
Emblematic of this thinking is the way North Korea is presented in the Anglo-American media: as defiant, for refusing to be bound by an international agreement Washington long ago abandoned, but has commanded Pyongyang to comply with. The very act of asserting one's national sovereignty or right of self-defense in the face of American edicts is considered a defiant act, as if Washington's power to compel compliance rests on legitimate authority and not simply the threat of force or economic warfare.
On the other hand, Washington can unilaterally rip up as many international agreements as it likes, undermine some (such as the International Criminal Court), refuse to be bound by others, and brazenly thumb its nose at international conventions (such as those established at Nuremberg,) and this veridical rogue behavior is regarded as perfectly legitimate, the actions of a sovereign.
Stripped of its verbiage, Frum's account reduces to this: 'I was asked to provide a justification for a war that would put Washington more wholly in charge of the region that any power since the Ottomans.'
For Frum, and the velociraptors plotting mass murder in the name of strengthening American primacy, there can be no cause higher than service to Washington's imperial ambitions. Inventing justifications for mass murder, are, therefore, wholly justifiable.
Pity those who resent it.
Frum's book is being excerpted in The National Post. His recounting of his inventing a pretext for going after Iraq appears in the January 8, 2003 edition.
...
You may re-post this article, providing the text remains unchanged.
Join our e-mail list. Send an e-mail to sr.gowans@sympatico.ca and write 'subscribe' in the subject line.
What's Left
No comments:
Post a Comment