Zionism and History

by **AlicetheCurious** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 8:12 pm

DE, the Palestine conflict hasn't reached this catastrophic point because of differing points of view, both equally valid. Believe me, using your methods of analysis, if a criminal came tonight and murdered an entire family (God forbid), and people had to judge the case purely based on what the murderer says and on what the relatives of the victims are allowed to say, the court case could drag on for ever. But that's not the way courts work, is it? Courts have to base their judgements on the law, and on the evidence. In the case of Palestine, international law has been thrown out the window, because the criminal in this case has decided that he is above the law, and crucial evidence is suppressed. The police and the judge have conspired with the criminal, and the jury only gets to hear the murderer's sob story about how he was abused as a kid. Even worse, while the jury gets all teary-eyed about the murderer's tragic past, he is allowed to keep on killing, and killing, and rampaging through innocent people's lives. It may all seem very complex and confusing to you, DE, but that's because you (and your fellow Zionist "liberals") have a moral blind spot that's preventing you from seeing what is starkly obvious, if you would just accept that Palestinians are human beings, and that, according to the strictest legal definition, Israel is a rogue terrorist state. According to international law, the Zionists have no right to take over other people's land, expell them or herd them into camps, and build settlements for Jews only, all over the stolen land. According to international law, the Zionists have no right to prevent refugees from returning to their homes. According to international law, the Zionists have no right to build the land-grab wall that isolates Palestinians from their homes, from their fields, from their schools and universities, and prevents their freedom of movement. According to international law, the Zionists are not allowed to bomb or shoot at civilians, including children, nor are they allowed to pursue their policy of kidnapping, torturing and "targetted assassinations" against political leaders. According to international law, the Zionists are not allowed to prevent international humanitarian aid workers and human rights monitoring organizations from entering the occupied territories to carry out their work. I could go on, but I think my point is very clear. Demonizing the victim is a cheap trick, but it helps when you've got the world's superpower and its enormously influential media manufacturing enough racist images to make the word "Arab" immediately call the words "terrorist", "fanatic" and "alien" to mind, while the word "Israeli" makes Joe Q. Public feel all warm and fuzzy inside. While you're lost in your ideological house of mirrors, more and more people are waking up to the fact that we are talking about a series of crimes, and that laws exist that define them as crimes. The amazing thing about this mad state, is that its apologists are not satisfied with the fact that it continues to commit atrocities and war crimes with impunity. No, they demand that we also praise it for being "a light unto nations", for being "the only democracy in the Middle East", it must be congratulated for its "restraint" and for "placing a high value on human life". It's true that regulatory bodies such as the UN and the International Criminal Court have been paralysed and intimidated into abandoning their own principles and appear unable to enforce their own laws. But individuals can still avoid contributing to genocide and war crimes via non-violent actions such as boycotting Israeli goods and divestment campaigns demanding that Israel end the occupation and comply with international law, and by opening direct channels of communication with the besieged Palestinians, so that they can speak for themselves, rather than be filtered through the distorting lens of zionist propaganda. For the record, stopping a genocide and crimes against humanity does not equal supporting "an Islamic theocracy" -- using that logic, then your terrible Mufti would have been completely justified in rooting for the Nazis, no? Like him, you're trying to say, let him kill them all, so the Jews won't come and set up their Judeofascist state on our land and kill US... Thank goodness, those Leftists and Christians and Muslims and Jews who are defending the human rights of Palestinians are not motivated by the desire to set up an Islamic theocracy, but trying to stop the massacres of innocent people and see justice done. Re: "anti-Zionist" and "pro-Zionist" sources, you do know that Israel has effectively sealed off the occupied territories from the outside world, and shot, beaten and otherwise intimidated any foreigner who has tried to go there to see the facts for him or her self? Why do you think they've done that? So, you think it's a good idea to ignore or suppress the voices of those who are actually living under the occupation, and get all our information from the occupier? Nevertheless, a glance through the sources I HAVE used, will show that many of them are "pro-Zionist" including at least one I would characterize as Judeofascist. Although I am sure that you would prefer the Palestinians to be silenced altogether, I am happy to be able to bring their voices, and their news, to this board. It may not have the audience that FOX news has, but the aggregate IQ may very well be higher: From the Islamofascist News Desk: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Israeli Government dismisses direct hit on press vehicle because only Palestinian reporters injured  IMEMC & Agencies - Monday, 25 September 2006, 14:03 Instead of conducting an investigation as to why the Israeli Airforce deliberately targetted a clearly labelled Press vehicle with a missile on August 27th, the Israeli Government Press Office has chosen instead to focus on the fact that Palestinian journalists were in the vehicle -- leading them to conclude that 'terrorists' could be using press vehicles. The Israeli Government Press Office, an agency within the Prime Minister's office that acts as a mouthpiece for the Israeli government, and controls all domestic and international press, is apparently basing their conclusion on the idea that if a person is Palestinian, they are a terrorist, for there is absolutely no evidence that any press vehicle has ever been used in any act of violence. The Government Press Office is the only avenue by which foreign press can gain access to Israeli government officials, press conferences, and entry into the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank, has a long standing policy of harassing and intimidating news agencies who broadcast or print stories that the Office considers critical of Israel. In 2002, the Director of the Government Press Office, Danny Seaman, revoked the press cards of all Palestinian reporters "for security reasons". He also revoked the licenses of foreign reporters who he thought were reporting items that were critical of Israel, including Suzanne Goldenberg of The Guardian (UK), Lee Hockstader of the Washington Post, Sandro Contenta of the Montreal Star, and Gillian Findlay of ABC News. Instead of challenging Seaman's actions, which were clearly meant to intimidate and censor the foreign press, the news agencies of all four reporters decided to reassign them rather than risk their news agency being 'blacklisted' altogether by Israel. Rula Amin, an employee with CNN, was reassigned to Baghdad after the Israeli Government Press Office threatened CNN, and demanded that she be fired for perceived anti-Israel bias in her reporting of the daily violence of the Israeli occupation in the Palestinian territories. Since the Israeli 'Operation Summer Rains' began on June 27th, at least seven incidents of direct targetting of journalists have been reported. The Israeli Government Press Office justified the attack on the armored Reuters vehicle on August 27th by saying that the vehicle had not been licensed to be in Gaza. Reporters who wish to cover the conflict from inside the Gaza Strip are apparently expected to do so without armored vehicles or protection, as the Israeli government licenses for press vehicles allow them to be operated only within Israel, and its illegal settlements on Palestinian land. Apparently reporters are expected to report on the conflict taking place within the Palestinian Occupied Territories without ever entering the territories at all. Said Government Press Office Director Danny Seaman, "To the best of our knowledge, all of the vehicles' owners have been violating the conditions for a long time now, despite our requests. This is not the first time we are warning that these vehicles will be used by hostile agents to carry out a terror attack against Israel. The recent incident in Gaza only illustrates the danger." No investigation has been carried out as to why the press vehicle was targetted, and with the Government Press Office justifying the attack on the journalists, it appears unlikely that there will be any investigation into the attack. The Israeli missile strike on the Reuters vehicle has deterred reporters from entering the Gaza Strip to cover the conflict, which many reporters who have reported from Gaza say will give the world a one-sided view of the conflict by not showing the Palestinian side. Some have even gone so far as to say that is Israel's objective in its ongoing attacks on journalists. <a href="http://www.imemc.org/content/view/21660/1/">www.imemc.org/content/view/21660/1/</a><hr></blockquote>

by **Dreams End** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 9:29 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Lets hear what youre reasons are for the US doing what its currently doing in the ME<hr></blockquote> Seriously, slimmouse...you can't think of ANY reasons the US might have destroyed Iraq twice in the last 10 years? Not one? I wonder if this map of Iraqi oil fields created for the Cheney energy task force in May of 2001 might have anything to do with it? <img src="http://xs55.xs.to/pics/05463/Oilmap.gif" style="border:0;"/> Says Judicial Watch, the group, along with Sierra Club that sued to have the documents released: (You wanted some names, so I'm bolding names for you. Also, bolding corporation names since in the US, corporations are people.) <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Documented plans of occupation and exploitation predating September 11 confirm heightened suspicion that U.S. policy is driven by the dictates of the energy industry. According to Judicial Watch President, Tom Fitton, “These documents show the importance of the Energy Task Force and why its operations should be open to the public.” <a href="http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/8.html">link</a><hr></blockquote> Need some more names? Well, I only have the company names: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501842.html">link</a><hr></blockquote> Here's an example of how it works. It has SEVERAL PARAGRAPHS slimmouse, and I know that's hard for you, but if you are going to ask questions, you should read the answers. I'll start with a summary. In 1953 the US CIA overthrew the Iranian leader Mossadegh on behalf of US oil companies (actually a US/British cooperative company). For my own personal amusement, I rely on this summary by the Cato Institute. (If you are unfamiliar with Cato and therefore don't get my amusement...read the rest of the article. Most who are participating in this thread would agree with their version of events regarding Israel. In any event, I posted another, fairly similar version of events from William Blum's "Killing Hope" though Blum made the Rockefeller connection more explicit.) <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The British need not have invoked the Soviet threat to win over John Foster Dulles or his brother Allen Dulles , director of the Central Intelligence Agency; both were former members of the Wall Street law firm of Sullivan and Cromwell, which represented the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company .(34) Besides, there was ample evidence that Mossadegh was neither a Communist nor a communist sympathizer. Nevertheless, Operation Ajax was hatched--the brainchild of the CIA's Middle East chief, Kermit Roosevelt , who directed it from Tehran.(35) Also sent there was Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, whose job was to recruit anti-Mossadegh forces with CIA money.(36) The objective of Operation Ajax was to help the shah get rid of Mossadegh and replace him with the shah's choice for prime minister, Gen. Fazlollas Zahedi, who had been jailed by the British during World War II for pro-Nazi activities.(37) The covert operation began, appropriately enough, with assurances to Mossadegh from the U.S. ambassador, Loy Henderson, that the United States did not plan to intervene in Iran's internal affairs. The operation then filled the streets of Tehran with mobs of people--many of them thugs-- who were loyal to the shah or who had been recipients of CIA largess. In the ensuing turmoil, which included fighting in the streets that killed 300 Iranians, Mossadegh fled and was arrested. On August 22, 12 days after he had fled, the shah returned to Tehran. Mossadegh was sentenced to three years in prison and then house arrest on his country estate. Later, in his memoirs, Eisenhower claimed that Mossadegh had been moving toward the Communists and that the Tudeh party supported him over the shah. Yet a January 1953 State Department intelligence report said that the prime minister was not a Communist or communist sympathizer and that the Tudeh party sought his overthrow.(3<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> Indeed, Mossadegh had opposed the Soviet occupation after the war.(39) Author Leonard Mosely has written that "the masses were with him, even if the army, police, and landowners were not."(40) Eight years after his overthrow, Mossadegh, about 80 years of age, appeared before a throng of 80,000 supporters shouting his name.(41) Once restored to power, the shah entered into an agreement with an international consortium, 40 percent of which was held by American oil companies, for the purchase of Iranian oil. It was symptomatic of the postwar displacement of British by U.S. interests that the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was not restored to its previous dominance.(42) In succeeding years the United States regarded the shah as a key ally in the Middle East and provided his repressive and corrupt government with billions of dollars in aid and arms. <a href="http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-159.html">link</a><hr></blockquote> That's how I think the world works. US support of Israel has always been part of a strategy...but only one part...in the Middle East. I'll have to stop with that, as this is already too much for slimmouse to read.

by **slimmouse** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 6:53 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Seriously, slimmouse...you can't think of ANY reasons the US might have destroyed Iraq twice in the last 10 years? Not one?<hr></blockquote> Nope, I cant think of one - I can think of many, and therein perhaps lays the difference in our thinking. I also feel youre selling yourself short in your explanation, not to mention the naming of names. I can appreciate that this may be out of courtesy for my weak attention span, but believe me, it is only weak when it comes to listening to diatribe rather than arguments of substance - And besides that, I did ask you for a list. Any other reasons spring to mind, which Dont involve the Neocons, Zionists and Israel ? If not, then I have to say , the list is looking pretty loaded on the above side of the street.

by **hava1** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 7:14 am

alice, the issue you are arguing about (US policies) is distant from me. The reality here, i don't need a reminder. It appears to me though, that at least re israel-palestine, there are some rough plans that are being played out. While at it, i see a lot of new traffick between israel-egypt, lots of joint artistic events and forming of alliances between intellectuals here and there. We were informed here that last week, the government of egypt banned a few european newspapers. I am more interested in that now, sorry if that doesn't fit the nature of the debate here, to which I don't feel connected, although it talks about my country. I don't connect to arguments like "insane", or "mental illness" when applied to politics, i find it in total opposition to radial left analysis altogether. sorry, i cannot joing the "politico-medical discourse" you both agree on, and as I said, it might have to do with specific cultural habits of north america, which we here don't share. The jews, homosexuals etc. were categorized as "medically insane" which led to the final solution (Lifton shows the structural connections between the euthanesia discourse and the final solution, in fact the death camps were administratively under "medical corps"). This was in fact one of the reasons I stopped participating in the "Zionist" debate here, and I wrote about my reasons but I suppose that didn't ring a bell with anyone. I think that even ad hominem is better than clinical branding of political views, be it Shahak or zionists or mind controlled left wing moles. This is a dead end arguments, short of yelling "nazi" to one another, or a step before the end of a thread/argument. <a href="http://www.psychiatrie-erfahrene.de/eigensinn/open_letter_english.htm">www.psychiatrie-erfahrene...nglish.htm</a>

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:17 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Number two is whether any, some or all the forces who OPPOSE Zionism, regardless of our opinions on Zionism itself, are worthy of support. I'm sorry, Joe, but being an "underdog" is not a valid criterion. Would you have supported the Contras? UNITA?<hr></blockquote> In australia, being an underdog is actually a valid reason for supporting someone. Anyway De what you said about the left not knowing its own history... In Australia, the left is no longer the old school, like ole matey I was having a beer with earlier. people who know the real history of the union mavement in australia, especially pre 1945. there is no one in the young left like that, the young left evolves in elitew (private)high schools, and at Universities, where they plan protests and think they are radical. but Australia also has a large Lebanese population, who have copped a fair bit of shit in the media in the last 5 years, culminating in race riots (by non lebs) in december last year. Part of the anti israel attitude that grew out of their brutalisation of lebanon stems from the "here we go the Lebs are being shat on again" mentality that many people expressed. That may be cos of some unique factors about Australia tho not something that applies to the rest of the world. But I do understand what you are getting at about the anti Zionism thing being used by agent provocatuers in the left. In fact these days I am very over anti Zionism, just cos of that, tho it might not be so obvious here. I don't even wear my t shirt with the bombs falling on Palestian kids anymore, and I have had that shirt for 20 years. Tonight I started getting some postive responses to the 911 conspioracy thing at me local shop. but one of the guys, when he said Dancing Jews (not Dancing Israeli's), I immediately felt my inside going a bit cold. And this guys pretty nice. I just steered the conversation away from the word Jew.

by **Dreams End** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 10:19 am

Joe, There is so much of interest to me about Australian parapolitics. New Dawn magazine, for example, comes out of Australia and is an example of the spiritual version of the "left-right" alliance and is clearly an attempt to push the Eurasian ascendency theme which is also in large part about rightwing nationalism with some leftist trimmings. <a href="http://www.cecaust.com.au/">Larouche</a> also has a significant presence there. And, of course, is the fact that our CIA basically overthrew your Whitlam in the 70's. I don't know a lot about that but I just found this 6 part article as well as an interview with a former CIA operative on our national tv news magazine "60 minutes" about how all that went down. It's incredible. The guy who did it also was the CIA guy who put Suharto into power. I don't know anything about the author of the series but the 60 minutes interview is with a CIA operative who later was convicted of passing documents to the Soviets out of anger at what the CIA had been up to in Australia.<a href="http://www.cia.com.au/vic/cia.html">link</a> Actually, I'm sure Joe knows about all that already but others might find it of interest. Anyway, our CIA and I assume elements of your own military/intel types in cooperation has certainly shaped the Australian left in all kinds of ways. Manipulation of the economcy and media in order to bring down a sitting PM being just one of them. (Just noticing an article about Whitlam in "The Age". No mention of CIA tricks...is this not common knowledge in Australia? 60 Minutes is a very mainstream show here in the US.) In any event, I don't know enough about Australia to really say too much but I'm sure there's plenty of "fake left" forces there as well.

by **erosoplier** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 10:48 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>So how does one follow one's heart in this? I knew the local group was headed for this kinda b.s. but what am I going to do, say "Hey, that guy might be a mind control victim whose tasked with disrupting the organization?" <hr></blockquote> Don't want to get too far off track DE, but since you asked, my answer to your questions here would be, yes, you should broadcast your concerns to the group. Call your own bluff. In your heart, do you really believe the concerns you have aren't baseless? If so, then perhaps you have some kind of obligation to tell the truth as you see it. I haven't thought this through thoroughly, but it occurs to me that it's more important that the truth gets spoken than it is to know the identity of the person speaking the truth. So there you go - I even give you permission to do it anonymously. Somehow, using the same simple words you used to describe the situation to us, get the message out to the rest of your group that that is what someone who cares about the group and its goals thinks. My uncle died last year after a fairly brief battle with motor neurone disease. He was far from being a religious man, so it was interesting to see his response to his situation. He found a book which spoke to him, but didn't offend his athiestic/agnostic principles too greatly - Neale Donald Walsch's "Conversations With God" - and during his last years gave out copies to everyone he cared about . I just looked on Amazon, and out of the first 4 reviews, 2 of them are convinced that it wasn't God but Satan that Walsch was talking to, but anyways, one of his main dogmas is that telling the truth pretty much at all times brings you closer to God, and improves the universe. Taken from the Gospel of Thomas I think - "If you bring forth what is in you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you." Being a heathen who wishes to better know God myself, I liked the book. It's a bit schmalzy, but it has redeeming qualities. Most of it made perfect sense to me except, ironically, Walsch beats around the bush so much it's obvious that he himself is faltering at bringing forth the truth as he sees it. Obviously, you would go silly if you tried to "tell the honest truth" in every situation, but if you keep the idea in the back of your mind, over time you're sure to identify some important thoughts that you religiously withhold, and which amount to a deceit more than anything else, and the question arises: wouldn't everyone be better off if it were out in the open? Even if you are way off the mark with your suspicions, you have no idea what the consequences of airing them will be. You may learn something about yourself as a result, you may set the scene for some other thing to kick into action within the group. It may destroy the group, it may make it stronger than it's ever been. Who's to say which would be the better outcome in the long run? (My sermon for the day). (And fittingly perhaps, I'm a big truth-withholding hypocrite myself...) ------------------------- Thanks for that Whitlam link DE. We generally like to retell the story without any reference to the CIA, but I can vaguely remember hearing of "American interference" from the earliest times of hearing the story told. As a rule, we're too relaxed and comfortable over here to care - I'm sure there are many today who would think "Well if the situation was drastic enough that America intervened, then maybe it was for the best." Especially when the wronged party doesn't say boo about it themselves.

by **Dreams End** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 11:22 am

Thank your for that last post, erosplier, it was interesting and heartfelt. When I was involved with a much larger anti-war coalition in L.A. which was infiltrated (too strong a word...they were invited in by some very naive folks) police agents, we tried to oust them by speaking truth. However, there are different ways to speak truth and in my experience, accusations that someone is an "agent" (even an unwitting one) simply make things worse. The accuser is then called an agent, etc etc. The solution, actually, is to rigorously focus on behavior of the individual. However, in the case of this person, we could not prove she'd been, for example, stealing funds. I'd had it reported to me by a reliable person but that person had been threatened by her husband and couldn't say anything. Often, this sort of battle is exactly what they are trying to provoke in the first place. the battle to oust these folks in the LA coalition pretty much ran everyone off and ended the coalition. Since the war was basically over, maybe that wasn't such a big deal as no one could agree on next goals anyway. As for CIA in Australia...I'm reading some about CIA infiltration of labor unions as well...most all of this to protect Pine Gap in various ways. In general, anything considered too left and therefore potentially capable of ending the relationship regarding Pine Gap would be dealt with. Further info...the actuall dirty tricks were carried out by a secretive subgroup run by Office of Naval Intelligence called Taskforce 157, which seems to have been set up by Henry Kissinger. Anyway, it is one of the better documented case studies about how CIA will penetrate various levels in a country...guiding the rightwing but also infiltrating and attempting to control the opposition. The most frightening example of this, just so everyone remembers what they are capable of and with all this talk of "good coups" being possible, is Indonesia. In 1965 Suharto was placed in power by the CIA. It was done by engineering a fake coup in which Generals alligned with PM Suharno kidnapped and executed several harline, anti-communist Generals, but NOT Suharto. Then, with very little resistance, Suharto moved in and defeated the "counter coup" operatives. Not only was all of it done at CIA direction with CIA training, but the CIA ALSO released, as is infamous by now, a list of all Indonesians in the communist PKI to the Suharto government, resulting in the slaughter of AT LEAST 500,000 communists and leftists. This list was released by ambassador Marshall Green, who knew full well what the result would be. This same Green became Ambassador to Australia before the ousting of Whitlam. It's actually not to hard to decipher. In general, the CIA and other covert agencies of our government oppose genuine popular movements which are any kind of threat to our plans and interests in a region. It is usually done covertly. It is not done due to blackmail by Israel or moral concerns. It's real simple. Why overthrow Indonesia? Tin and tungsten. It's that simple.

by **Dreams End** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 11:36 am

Correction...I didn't realize there was an Australian 60 Minutes, and that's who the interview is with. Boyce, the one exposing the CIA games in Australia, was also scheduled to talk to the US 60 minutes. Here's an interesting snippet from the 6 part article on that site: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Kelly Johnson: Absolutely not. Boyce is under...he is in solitary confinement. He's been there for the last three years and will remain there for the duration of his term. He's also not permitted to have any contact with anybody who he didn't know prior to his original conviction. He has been permitted to do three interviews: one with Australia's 60 Minutes, one with America's 60 Minutes, and one with an Australian journalist. And it was following the interview with Australia's 60 Minutes that he was put into a locked room with half a dozen members of the Aryan Brotherhood who were a neo-nazi group within the prison and they established beatings and have actually got a contract on his life. <hr></blockquote>

by **Dreams End** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 1:34 pm

Here's a summary of how closely allied the US has been with our alleged enemies of Islamic radicals. It doesn't speak of Hezbollah but it does show quite clearly that the idea that the US is waging war against Islamic fundamentalists is a lie. We've been working with these groups and DIRECTLY WITH IRAN to arm Islamic movements like the Bosnian Muslim Army and the Kosovo Liberation Army that any theory that puts US solely on the side of Israel and opposed to righteous Islamic liberation movements is extremely naive at best. This isn't all there is, but the author is familiar around here and it's a good summary. He left out Wesley Clark's role with KLA though. "OSAMAGATE" <blockquote>Quote:<hr>by Michel Chossudovsky Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), Montréal Posted at globalresearch.ca 9 October 2001 Confronted with mounting evidence, the US Administration can no longer deny its links to Osama. While the CIA admits that Osama bin Laden was an "intelligence asset" during the Cold War, the relationship is said to "go way back". Most news reports consider that these Osama-CIA links belong to the "bygone era" of the Soviet-Afghan war. They are invariably viewed as "irrelevant" to an understanding of present events. Lost in the barrage of recent history, the role of the CIA in supporting and developing international terrorist organisations during the Cold war and its aftermath is casually ignored or downplayed by the Western media. Yes, We did support Him, but "He Went Against Us" A blatant example of media distortion is the so-called "blowback" thesis: "intelligence assets" are said to "have gone against their sponsors"; "what we've created blows back in our face."1 In a twisted logic, the US government and the CIA are portrayed as the ill-fated victims: The sophisticated methods taught to the Mujahideen, and the thousands of tons of arms supplied to them by the US - and Britain - are now tormenting the West in the phenomenon known as `blowback', whereby a policy strategy rebounds on its own devisers. 2 The US media, nonetheless, concedes that "the Taliban's coming to power [in 1995] is partly the outcome of the U.S. support of the Mujahideen, the radical Islamic group, in the 1980s in the war against the Soviet Union".3 But it also readily dismisses its own factual statements and concludes in chorus, that the CIA had been tricked by a deceitful Osama. It's like "a son going against his father". The "blowback" thesis is a fabrication. The evidence amply confirms that the CIA never severed its ties to the "Islamic Militant Network". Since the end of the Cold War, these covert intelligence links have not only been maintained, they have in become increasingly sophisticated. New undercover initiatives financed by the Golden Crescent drug trade were set in motion in Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Balkans. Pakistan's military and intelligence apparatus (controlled by the CIA) essentially "served as a catalyst for the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the emergence of six new Muslim republics in Central Asia." 4 Replicating the Iran Contragate Pattern Remember Ollie North and the Nicaraguan Contras under the Reagan Administration when weapons financed by the drug trade were channeled to "freedom fighters" in Washington's covert war against the Sandinista government. The same pattern was used in the Balkans to arm and equip the Mujahideen fighting in the ranks of the Bosnian Muslim army against the Armed Forces of the Yugoslav Federation. Throughout the 1990s, the Pakistan Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) was used by the CIA as a go-between -- to channel weapons and Mujahideen mercenaries to the Bosnian Muslim Army in the civil war in Yugoslavia. According to a report of the London based International Media Corporation: "Reliable sources report that the United States is now [1994] actively participating in the arming and training of the Muslim forces of Bosnia-Herzegovina in direct contravention of the United Nations accords. US agencies have been providing weapons made in ... China (PRC), North Korea (DPRK) and Iran. The sources indicated that ... Iran, with the knowledge and agreement of the US Government, supplied the Bosnian forces with a large number of multiple rocket launchers and a large quantity of ammunition. These included 107mm and 122mm rockets from the PRC, and VBR-230 multiple rocket launchers ... made in Iran. ... It was [also] reported that 400 members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (Pasdaran) arrived in Bosnia with a large supply of arms and ammunition. It was alleged that the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had full knowledge of the operation and that the CIA believed that some of the 400 had been detached for future terrorist operations in Western Europe. During September and October [1994], there has been a stream of "Afghan" Mujahedin ... covertly landed in Ploce, Croatia (South-West of Mostar) from where they have traveled with false papers ... before deploying with the Bosnian Muslim forces in the Kupres, Zenica and Banja Luka areas. These forces have recently [late 1994] experienced a significant degree of military success. They have, according to sources in Sarajevo, been aided by the UNPROFOR Bangladesh battalion, which took over from a French battalion early in September [1994]. The Mujahedin landing at Ploce are reported to have been accompanied by US Special Forces equipped with high-tech communications equipment, ... The sources said that the mission of the US troops was to establish a command, control, communications and intelligence network to coordinate and support Bosnian Muslim offensives -- in concert with Mujahideen and Bosnian Croat forces -- in Kupres, Zenica and Banja Luka. Some offensives have recently been conducted from within the UN-established safe-havens in the Zenica and Banja Luka regions. (...) The US Administration has not restricted its involvement to the clandestine contravention of the UN arms embargo on the region ... It [also] committed three high-ranking delegations over the past two years [prior to 1994] in failed attempts to bring the Yugoslav Government into line with US policy. Yugoslavia is the only state in the region to have failed to acquiesce to US pressure.5 "From the Horse's Mouth" Ironically, the US Administration's undercover military-intelligence operations in Bosnia have been fully documented by the Republican Party. A lengthy Congressional report by the Republican Party Committee (RPC) published in 1997, largely confirms the International Media Corporation report quoted above. The RPC Congressional report accuses the Clinton administration of having "helped turn Bosnia into a militant Islamic base" leading to the recruitment through the so-called "Militant Islamic Network," of thousands of Mujahideen from the Muslim world: Perhaps most threatening to the SFOR mission - and more importantly, to the safety of the American personnel serving in Bosnia - is the unwillingness of the Clinton Administration to come clean with the Congress and with the American people about its complicity in the delivery of weapons from Iran to the Muslim government in Sarajevo. That policy, personally approved by Bill Clinton in April 1994 at the urging of CIA Director-designate (and then-NSC chief) Anthony Lake and the U.S. ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith, has, according to the Los Angeles Times (citing classified intelligence community sources), "played a central role in the dramatic increase in Iranian influence in Bosnia. (...) Along with the weapons, Iranian Revolutionary Guards and VEVAK intelligence operatives entered Bosnia in large numbers, along with thousands of mujahedin ("holy warriors"<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> from across the Muslim world. Also engaged in the effort were several other Muslim countries (including Brunei, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Turkey) and a number of radical Muslim organizations. For example, the role of one Sudan-based "humanitarian organization," called the Third World Relief Agency, has been well documented. The Clinton Administration's "hands-on" involvement with the Islamic network's arms pipeline included inspections of missiles from Iran by U.S. government officials... the Third World Relief Agency (TWRA), a Sudan-based, phoney humanitarian organization ... has been a major link in the arms pipeline to Bosnia. ... TWRA is believed to be connected with such fixtures of the Islamic terror network as Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the convicted mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) and Osama Bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi émigré believed to bankroll numerous militant groups. [Washington Post, 9/22/96] 6 Complicity of the Clinton Administration In other words, the Republican Party Committee report confirms unequivocally the complicity of the Clinton Administration with several Islamic fundamentalist organisations including Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda. The Republicans wanted at the time to undermine the Clinton Administration. However, at a time when the entire country had its eyes riveted on the Monica Lewinsky scandal, the Republicans no doubt chose not to trigger an untimely "Iran-Bosniagate" affair, which might have unduly diverted public attention away from the Lewinsky scandal. The Republicans wanted to impeach Bill Clinton "for having lied to the American People" regarding his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. On the more substantive "foreign policy lies" regarding drug running and covert operations in the Balkans, Democrats and Republicans agreed in unison, no doubt pressured by the Pentagon and the CIA not to "spill the beans". From Bosnia to Kosovo The "Bosnian pattern" described in the 1997 Congressional RPC report was replicated in Kosovo. With the complicity of NATO and the US State Department. Mujahideen mercenaries from the Middle East and Central Asia were recruited to fight in the ranks of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) in 1998-99, largely supporting NATO's war effort. Confirmed by British military sources, the task of arming and training of the KLA had been entrusted in 1998 to the US Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) and Britain's Secret Intelligence Services MI6, together with "former and serving members of 22 SAS [Britain's 22nd Special Air Services Regiment], as well as three British and American private security companies".7 The US DIA approached MI6 to arrange a training programme for the KLA, said a senior British military source. `MI6 then sub-contracted the operation to two British security companies, who in turn approached a number of former members of the (22 SAS) regiment. Lists were then drawn up of weapons and equipment needed by the KLA.' While these covert operations were continuing, serving members of 22 SAS Regiment, mostly from the unit's D Squadron, were first deployed in Kosovo before the beginning of the bombing campaign in March. 8 While British SAS Special Forces in bases in Northern Albania were training the KLA, military instructors from Turkey and Afghanistan financed by the "Islamic jihad" were collaborating in training the KLA in guerilla and diversion tactics.9: Bin Laden had visited Albania himself. He was one of several fundamentalist groups that had sent units to fight in Kosovo, ... Bin Laden is believed to have established an operation in Albania in 1994 ... Albanian sources say Sali Berisha, who was then president, had links with some groups that later proved to be extreme fundamentalists. 10 Congressional Testimonies on KLA-Osama links According to Frank Ciluffo of the Globalized Organised Crime Program, in a testimony presented to the House of Representatives Judicial Committee: What was largely hidden from public view was the fact that the KLA raise part of their funds from the sale of narcotics. Albania and Kosovo lie at the heart of the "Balkan Route" that links the "Golden Crescent" of Afghanistan and Pakistan to the drug markets of Europe. This route is worth an estimated $400 billion a year and handles 80 percent of heroin destined for Europe. 11 According to Ralf Mutschke of Interpol's Criminal Intelligence division also in a testimony to the House Judicial Committee: The U.S. State Department listed the KLA as a terrorist organization, indicating that it was financing its operations with money from the international heroin trade and loans from Islamic countries and individuals, among them allegedly Usama bin Laden" . Another link to bin Laden is the fact that the brother of a leader in an Egyptian Jihad organization and also a military commander of Usama bin Laden, was leading an elite KLA unit during the Kosovo conflict. 12 Madeleine Albright Covets the KLA These KLA links to international terrorism and organised crime documented by the US Congress were totally ignored by the Clinton Administration. In fact, in the months preceding the bombing of Yugoslavia, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was busy building a "political legitimacy" for the KLA. The paramilitary army had --from one day to the next-- been elevated to the status of a bona fide "democratic" force in Kosovo. In turn, Madeleine Albright has forced the pace of international diplomacy: the KLA had been spearheaded into playing a central role in the failed "peace negotiations" at Rambouiillet in early 1999. The Senate and the House tacitly endorse State Terrorism While the various Congressional reports confirmed that the US government had been working hand in glove with Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, this did not prevent the Clinton and later the Bush Administration from arming and equipping the KLA. The Congressional documents also confirm that members of the Senate and the House knew the relationship of the Administration to international terrorism. To quote the statement of Rep. John Kasich of the House Armed Services Committee: "We connected ourselves [in 1998-99] with the KLA, which was the staging point for bin Laden..." 13 In the wake of the tragic events of September 11, Republicans and Democrats in unison have given their full support to the President to "wage war on Osama". In 1999, Senator Jo Lieberman had stated authoritatively that "Fighting for the KLA is fighting for human rights and American values." In the hours following the October 7 missile attacks on Afghanistan, the same Jo Lieberman called for punitive air strikes against Iraq: "We're in a war against terrorism... We can't stop with bin Laden and the Taliban." Yet Senator Jo Lieberman, as member of the Armed Services Committee of the Senate had access to all the Congressional documents pertaining to "KLA-Osama" links. In making this statement, he was fully aware that that agencies of the US government as well as NATO were supporting international terrorism. The War in Macedonia In the wake of the 1999 war in Yugoslavia, the terrorist activities of the KLA were extended into Southern Serbia and Macedonia. Meanwhile, the KLA --renamed the Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC)-- was elevated to United Nations status, implying the granting of "legitimate" sources of funding through United Nations as well as through bilateral channels, including direct US military aid. And barely two months after the official inauguration of the KPC under UN auspices (September 1999), KPC-KLA commanders - using UN resources and equipment - were already preparing the assaults into Macedonia, as a logical follow-up to their terrorist activities in Kosovo. According to the Skopje daily Dnevnik, the KPC had established a "sixth operation zone" in Southern Serbia and Macedonia: Sources, who insist on anonymity, claim that the headquarters of the Kosovo protection brigades [i.e. linked to the UN sponsored KPC] have [March 200<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/alien.gif ALT="0]"> already been formed in Tetovo, Gostivar and Skopje. They are being prepared in Debar and Struga [on the border with Albania] as well, and their members have defined codes. 14 According to the BBC, "Western special forces were still training the guerrillas" meaning that they were assisting the KLA in opening up "a sixth operation zone" in Southern Serbia and Macedonia. 15 "The Islamic Militant Network" and NATO join hands in Macedonia Among the foreign mercenaries now fighting in Macedonia (October 2001) in the ranks of self-proclaimed National Liberation Army (NLA), are Mujahideen from the Middle East and the Central Asian republics of the former Soviet Union. Also within the KLA's proxy force in Macedonia are senior US military advisers from a private mercenary outfit on contract to the Pentagon as well as "soldiers of fortune" from Britain, Holland and Germany. Some of these Western mercenaries had previously fought with the KLA and the Bosnian Muslim Army. 16 Extensively documented by the Macedonian press and statements of the Macedonian authorities, the US government and the "Islamic Militant Network" are working hand in glove in supporting and financing the self-proclaimed National Liberation Army (NLA), involved in the terrorist attacks in Macedonia. The NLA is a proxy of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). In turn the KLA and the UN sponsored Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC) are identical institutions with the same commanders and military personnel. KPC Commanders on UN salaries are fighting in the NLA together with the Mujahideen. In a bitter twist, while supported and financed by Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, the KLA-NLA is also supported by NATO and the United Nations mission to Kosovo (UNMIK). In fact, the "Islamic Militant Network" --also using Pakistan's Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) as the CIA's go-between-- still constitutes an integral part of Washington's covert military-intelligence operations in Macedonia and Southern Serbia. The KLA-NLA terrorists are funded from US military aid, the United Nations peace-keeping budget as well as by several Islamic organisations including Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda. Drug money is also being used to finance the terrorists with the complicity of the US government. The recruitment of Mujahideen to fight in the ranks of the NLA in Macedonia is implemented through various Islamic groups. US military advisers mingle with Mujahideen within the same paramilitary force, Western mercenaries from NATO countries fight alongside Mujahideen recruited in the Middle East and Central Asia. And the US media calls this a "blowback" where so-called "intelligence assets" have gone against their sponsors! But this did not happen during the Cold war! It is happening right now in Macedonia. And it is confirmed by numerous press reports, eyewitness accounts, photographic evidence as well as official statements by the Macedonian Prime Minister, who has accused the Western military alliance of supporting the terrorists. Moreover, the official Macedonian New Agency (MIA) has pointed to the complicity between Washington's envoy Ambassador James Pardew and the NLA terrorists. 17 In other words, the so-called "intelligence assets" are still serving the interests of their US sponsors. Pardew's background is revealing in this regard. He started his Balkans career in 1993 as a senior intelligence officer for the Joint Chiefs of Staff responsible for channeling US aid to the Bosnian Muslim Army. Coronel Pardew had been put in charge of arranging the "air-drops" of supplies to Bosnian forces. At the time, these "air drops" were tagged as "civilian aid". It later transpired --confirmed by the RPC Congressional report-- that the US had violated the arms embargo. And James Pardew played an important role as part of the team of intelligence officials working closely with the Chairman of the National Security Council Anthony Lake. Pardew was later involved in the Dayton negotiations (1995) on behalf of the US Defence Department. In 1999, prior to the bombing of Yugoslavia, he was appointed "Special Representative for Military Stabilisation and Kosovo Implementation" by President Clinton. One of his tasks was to channel support to the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), which at the time was also being supported by Osama bin Laden. Pardew was in this regard instrumental in replicating the "Bosnian pattern" in Kosovo and subsequently in Macedonia... Justification for Waging War The Bush Administration has stated that it has proof that Osama bin Laden is behind the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. In the words of British Prime Minister Tony Blair: "I have seen absolutely powerful and incontrovertible evidence of his [Osama] link to the events of the 11th of September." 18 What Tony Blair fails to mention is that agencies of the US government including the CIA continue to "harbor" Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda. A major war supposedly "against international terrorism" has been launched by a government which is harboring international terrorism as part of its foreign policy agenda. In other words, the main justification for waging war has been totally fabricated. The American people have been deliberately and consciously misled by their government into supporting a major military adventure which affects our collective future. This decision to mislead the American people was taken barely a few hours after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre. Without supporting evidence, Osama had already been tagged as the "prime suspect." Two days later on Thursday the 13th of September --while the FBI investigations had barely commenced-- President Bush pledged to "lead the world to victory". The Administration confirmed its intention to embark on "a sustained military campaign rather than a single dramatic action" directed against Osama bin Laden. 19 In addition to Afghanistan, a number of countries in the Middle East were mentioned as possible targets including Iraq, Iran, Libya and the Sudan. And several prominent US political figures and media pundits have demanded that the air strikes be extended to other countries "which harbour international terrorism." According to intelligence sources, Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda has operations in some 50 to 60 countries providing ample pretext to intervene in several "rogue states" in the Middle East and Central Asia. Moreover, the entire US Legislature --with only one honest and courageous dissenting voice in the House of Representatives-- has tacitly endorsed the Administration's decision to go war. Members of the House and the Senate have access through the various committees to official confidential reports and intelligence documents which prove beyond doubt that agencies of the US government have ties to international terrorism. They cannot say "we did not know". In fact, most of this evidence is in the public domain. Under the historical resolution of the US Congress adopted by both the House and the Senate on the 14th of September: The president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. Whereas there is no evidence that agencies of the US government "aided the terrorist attacks" on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, there is ample and detailed evidence that agencies of the US government as well as NATO, have since the end of the Cold War continued to "harbor such organizations". Patriotism cannot be based on a falsehood, particularly when it constitutes a pretext for waging war and killing innocent civilians. Ironically, the text of the Congressional resolution also constitutes a "blowback" against the US sponsors of international terrorism. The resolution does not exclude the conduct of an "Osamagate" inquiry, as well as appropriate actions against agencies and/or individuals of the US government, who may have collaborated with Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda. And the evidence indelibly points directly to the Bush Administration. (note: I don't get this last bit as the evidence also points to Clinton...all of the Balkans stuff was pre-Bush) <hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO110A.html">link</a>

by **erosoplier** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 2:29 pm

Hang on - are we talking The Falcon and the Snowman here? I've read part of that 60 Minutes interview (but I've got to get to bed!) and bells are starting to ring. I've read the book, I've seen the movie (starring Sean Penn, Timothy Hutton). I was there when it happened! Here we are: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Falcon_and_the_Snowman">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The...he_Snowman</a>

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 12:03 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Anyway, our CIA and I assume elements of your own military/intel types in cooperation has certainly shaped the Australian left in all kinds of ways. Manipulation of the economcy and media in order to bring down a sitting PM being just one of them.<hr></blockquote> Our union movement has been up shir creek since Hawke (Rhodes Scholar former ACTUnion boss who went to Canberra, joined the Labour party then proceded to rationalise the economy. Great union principles there. Hawke and the rise of the Labour right wing factions ended the power of the left as any sort of alternative to rampant capitalism. All of this happened post 75 and Hawke was actually elected in the early 80s. For a labour man and former unionist Hawke seemed to serve the US agenda quite well. mind you he had charisma in spades and a genuine likeable personality. he even held the world record for downing a yard glass of beer. But under his leadership the labour party moved significantly to the right. Hawke has to be seen (IMO) in the context of interference in the Australian left and a shift to centralise it. And also in the context of a massive shift to focussing on the US as a model for Australian Society. I have had more than a few run ins with sus people on the left. rarely in the context of everyday union activities tho. In Australia unions became increasingly irrelevent as our society developed a half decennt attitude and workers became valued. as a result the left lost its traditional base, and the majority of its energy started coming from uni's and intellectual leftists - with more of a focus on abstract and real social justice issues. In digenous, green, homosexual and womens issues came to dominate the agenda (probably not a bad thing in itself, but it was a bit weird the way the whole thing focussed on street protests (great place to meet chics, or guys for that matter, hear some great music and slap each opther on the back about how cool everyone was.)) I was at uni in 98 again, and began involved in a campaign to prevent the MAI (Multilateral Agreement on Investment), and I found the left movement at the uni had so forgotten its roots that many of its members would be looking down their noses at ordinary working people. I dunno if thats because intellectual left leanings are the province of the upper classes usually, and they haven't lost the "born to rule" menatality many of them are raised with. The actual need for an active left was no longer there in Australia till the 90s. Bloody hell you could go on the dole, get a home lone for ssome land and pay it off from your dole payments. We didn't need a radical left cos the place actually worked ok. Most [people were happy and free and had their needs taken care of. I am getting a bit off track here. Basically even the poorest in our society were in a position where it was easy to drag yourself up to one of the highest standards of living in the world. This is why the left failed and has since become a playground for wanna be rich kid wannabe commies wishing there was still a historical necessity for them. one of the thngs about Australia is that we are free. We live that way its in our psyche. "What the governments passed more drug laws, good for them irrelevant pricks" When cartoons about politics became potentially sedition, thanks to the anti terror legislation, every cartoonist in the country took that as a challange and got stuck into the gubberment in a way that no media text would come within cooee of. I guess the worst thing to happen to Australia was our affluence, cos when its all good you don't need to fight for anything. New Dawn, well i don't that much anymore... Much of the Witlam thing was about his decision to pull out of vietnam, and his increasing interest with creating ties with China (for trade Whitlam was ahead of his time, he made higher education free for any Australian who qualified, improved nationalised medical treatment and a brought ina whole bunch of classically socialist pollicies that basically freed up Australia as a country. Before Whitlam there was insane censorship, and the country was very right wing orientated. It was run by wowsers. Australia is incredibly important strategically - Pine Gap, nw Cape, That base in the Blue Mountains, the Omega station in gippsland and Nurringar are just some of the installations that the US used or operated in Australia. But this is drifting too far from this thread so I'll leave it with this. the left in Australia is probably made up of 50% infiltrators, all pushing various agenda's. But when it criticises Israel, it refers to Israel, the state, its rare to hear criticism of "Jews" or even the word zion in the left. you are more likely to hear the term Zion mentioned in a Bob Marley song than by people if you are hanging around them. Perhaps that has changed in the last year or so tho. John Pilger's book "A Secret Country" talks about the role of the CIA a bit, and various green and ultra leftist groups are aware of it, but its off the radar as far as mainstream Australian society. OT - Wow just heard the N Koreans may have done their test. I need to get a coffee into me and do some catch up reading before I can give a full accurate(ish) summary of the whole Whitlam fall/CIA/Asia Pacific/Nugen hand nexus. OT Yep confirmed about the test. N Korean Newsagencyy just confirmed it.

by **Dreams End** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 12:12 am

Joe, in the link I provided there is a very large portion about the infiltration of labor unions and how the CIA whisked labor leaders off to "leadership training" institutes...whined and dined them, etc. You should find it interesting as the names will mean a lot more to you. Also a lot about NZ as well. Obviously strayed off topic but I would be interested if such things happened in Israel in the 70's...if those sorts of things helped Likud come to power.

by **rain** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 12:36 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Much of the Witlam thing was about his decision to pull out of vietnam<hr></blockquote> No. the 'sacking' was solely over Pine Gap. Not that they weren't working it. They were. But the usual ways and means. You know, 'company' kids posing as long-haired, hooch-smokin' uni activitists lighting fires in rubbish bins and trying to start up other fracases during street marchs so the media, who just happened to be handily right there, could call grannies 'pack-raping bikies' All the rest could have been handled within the framework of the agenda. It was the 'nosiness' with P.G. that went 'snap'.

by **Joe Hillshoist** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:04 am

Rain I have heard that Whitlam had no intention of closing Pine Gap and made that clear to the US well before the Dismissal. And I have also read a ref to that somewhere. Or do you mean it was about not so much closing PG as trying to have more involvement and access and such.

Zionism and History

Re: fascinating

Re: Zionism and History

Not one ?

Re: 2 state

Re: fascinating

Re: fascinating

Re: fascinating

Re: fascinating

Re: Zionism and History

Re: Zionism and History

Re: CIA/Australia

Re: fascinating

Re: fascinating

Re: fascinating

Re: fascinating

Who is online