Friday, April 06, 2007


There is mounting evidence that plans are working to destabilise and un-nerve our confidence thereby allowing the Republican- type Upper class politicians to rule America uninterrupted. In my opinion the cruel acts of random terror attacks are carried out by Islamic militants but could be financed and orchectrated by maniacs amongst the Neo Cons.
When we think seriously of it , the Islamic militants have nothing to gain by attacking America. If you pay attention carefully you never hear the militants diffentiate between the ordinary Americans , working hard to serve their families, and Corporate America, who you might think they may feel , with the support of an aggressive White House and(former) Right wing Congress, are supporing policies against their people.

It is true that the developing world knows that American International policies mainly work against them and keep them from a faster rate of their national development. But these Islamic militants have no political identity, they operate like mercenaries, but for who and who is financing them. The original Islamic militants in Afghanistan were mercenaries financed by the Republicans and their leadership in the White House at the time. we also know that the forged letter that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq, was planted by operatives, working for presumably, Americans who were going to benefit from any reaction brought on by the the public declaration of the letter.

I could be wrong about this analysis but think about this .... the islamic militants who operated from within Afghanistan were enemies of Saddam Hussein and the Republican Corporate supporters wanted that country( Iraq), as much as the neo cons , in such a scenario there is room for collusion. It is these circumstances that allows deals to be made that can have an effect on our Constitutional freedoms placing the Upper Class in charge of "protecting" our national security ( for a long time) , whilst feeding our fears.

The following is an excerpt from an article written by Justin Raimondo of Anti War .com........
" The Bush administration, and its British enablers, seem hellbent on war in the Gulf, and it is only a matter of time before they provoke the Iranians into crossing the line. Such a disastrous outcome could be avoided, however, if we establish whether or not this most recent incident was a provocation. I agree, for once, with National Review, which is calling on the British government to repudiate the statements of its sailors and marines. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it, however: my guess is that the whole matter of who crossed into whose waters will be quietly dropped, at least by the British side, while the 15 former captives are muzzled or otherwise intimidated into silence. Unless, of course, there is an investigation, which can establish once and for all who is telling the truth – the fifteen sailors, or their government.

This is important, because if it was an incursion, then we get into the subject of whether it was intentional. And the only way to do that is to deepen the investigation, and find out whether – or, rather, to what extent – Western governments are trying to push us into war with Iran.

Speaking of provocations: now that the Democrats are in command of Congress, can they stop ladling out the pork long enough to look into Seymour Hersh's allegations that U.S. tax dollars are going to subsidize al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist groups in Lebanon and remote sections of Iran? Or is that too much to ask?

Word is out that the same "Office of Special Plans" gang that lied us into invading Iraq is now embarked on a new project, under a new name: the "Iran Directorate." Is there such a thing as congressional oversight anymore, or am I just dreaming of a halcyon and unrecoverable golden age of American politics?

We can stop the next war before it starts – but only if we catch the War Party at their game while they're playing it, and not after the fact, as in the case of Iraq. The Democrats are keen to cut off funding for a war that should never have started and could not have started without their cooperation: will they have the foresight and courage to defund the covert war against Iran before it becomes overt? I am not at all optimistic about this, but I'd be glad to be proven wrong.

This is being spun in the West as a "victory" for the Iranians, but it is nothing of the sort: a victory would mean an end to Western provocations, and a comprehensive settlement of outstanding issues – including the nuclear question – through diplomatic means. However, neither Washington nor London will permit this to happen, and so the Iranians have only been granted a short respite from the relentless assault on their sovereignty.

The regime-changers, after all, are still in charge: Bush is a lame-duck, but he's still the big duck, and Blair is leaving, but isn't yet gone. Together, these two can do a lot more damage before they're safely out of office – and, given half a chance, they will.

The War Party may be discredited, reeling with defections, and genuinely hated by the majority of the English-speaking peoples, but I wouldn't count them out quite yet. The drama of the fifteen captives was just the beginning: there are plenty more provocations where that came from. This one backfired, it's true, but the danger is not past, or even decreased – because the next one may well succeed in sparking a conflict that will make the Iraq war look like a picnic in the park."

Stay tuned as more investigations emanate from the Congress committees.

No comments: