GOV/MIL British military insider: World War III is being staged; starting with Israel / Iran

British military insider: World War III is being staged; starting with Israel and Iran
February 18, 9:07 PMLA County Nonpartisan ExaminerCarl Herman

http://www.examiner.com/x-18425-LA-...is-being-staged-starting-with-Israel-and-Iran


We hold these Truths as self-evident...

US “leadership” and their corporate media minions are pushing juvenile-level propaganda for war with Iran; lies that anyone can verify with a few moments’ attention. If you haven’t already confirmed the Orwellian-level disinformation, stop and read the above two links now.
Many people hypothesize the confirmed lies for wars with Iraq and Afghanistan, and a final war with Iran, is to control oil. Connected is the theory that US political and economic “masters” are so confident in their propaganda, and so correct in their conclusion that the critical mass of humanity is too feeble to stop them, that they brazenly move forward for global hegemony.

This article provides a different explanation of the facts; with heightened urgency to prevent war with Iran, as it is a planned step to begin a Third World War.

http://projectcamelot.org/index.html is a world-renowned safe-haven for whistle-blowers on the inside of the military and economic “Big Lies” that millions of Americans are discovering. Below is Bill Ryan’s video explanation of his interview with a vetted British military insider discussing the planning of manipulated global war (transcript here).

The highlights from Bill Ryan in five bullet-points and nine paragraphs:

• There is a planned Third World War, which will be nuclear and biological. Our source believes that this is on track to be initiated within the next 18-24 months.

• It is planned to begin with a strike by Israel on Iran. Either Iran or China will be provoked into a nuclear response. After a brief nuclear exchange, there will be a ceasefire. The world will be thrown into fear and chaos - all carefully engineered.

• The extreme state of tension will be used to justify heavy social and military controls in all western first world nations. Plans are already in place for that.

• During the nuclear ceasefire, there is planned to be a covert release of biological weapons. These will initially be targeted against the Chinese. As our source chillingly told us, "China will catch a cold". Biological warfare will spread further, to the west. Infrastructure will be critically weakened.

• This is intended to be just the beginning. After this, a full nuclear exchange would be triggered: the "real" war, with widespread destruction and loss of life. Our source tells us that the planned population reduction through these combined means is 50%. He heard this figure stated in the meeting.

This horrific scenario has been planned for generations. The first two world wars were part of the set-up for this final apocalypse - as is the centralization of financial resources that was precipitated with the equally well-planned financial collapse of October 2008.

As if all this were not enough, our source speculates this is all set against the backdrop of a coming "geophysical event" - the same kind of event as was experienced by our ancestors approximately 11,500 years ago. If this event occurs - not necessarily expected in 2012, but sometime in the next decade - it would destroy civilization as we know it, dwarfing even the effects of a nuclear war.

I asked the question to our source: If there's an expected catastrophe, then why initiate a Third World War? His answer, for the first time to me, made terrible sense.

The real goal, he explained, is to set up the post-catastrophic world. To ensure that this "New World" [note the term] is the one the controllers want, totalitarian control structures need to be in place when the catastrophe occurs - with an excuse that the populace will accept and demand them. Martial law in the right, carefully chosen countries before the catastrophe occurs will enable the "right" people to survive and prosper in the post-catastrophic world, and the beginning of the next 11,500 year cycle. What may have been carefully planned on a covert global scale, for the last several generations, is nothing less than who will inherit the Earth.

Who are the "right" people? The white Caucasians. This may be why the name of this project is The Anglo-Saxon Mission. Hence the justification for the planned genocide of the Chinese people - so that the New World is inherited by "us", not "them".

Our source was not informed about the planned fate of the second and third world countries such as those in South America, Africa and Asia. But he presumes that these would be allowed to fend for themselves and probably not survive well - or maybe not at all. The totalitarian military governments of the western, white, people are set to be the inheritors.

This is a plan so evil, so racist, so diabolical, so huge, that it almost defies belief. But it all aligns with what many commentators, researchers and whistleblowing insiders have been identifying for some years now. For me personally, it's the clearest picture yet of why the world is the way it is, and why the secrets are protected so fiercely: it may be all about racial supremacy. The Fourth Reich is alive and well.

Astonishingly, our source was not pessimistic. He stressed, as do we and many other researchers and commentators, that consciousness is awakening rapidly all over the planet and that THESE PLANNED EVENTS ARE NOT INEVITABLE. If ever there was a reason to work closely together to raise awareness of the real threat to us all, this is it.

Watch this video, listen carefully to the strong message of hope and encouragement, and spread it far and wide. We plan to create subtitles in many languages - including Chinese. We stand for the potential magnificence of a united humanity that knows no racial boundaries or distinctions. Whether or not the catastrophe occurs - and many, including ourselves, maintain that it will not - we must co-create our own future, claim our power, and do whatever we can to alert people to the dangers around us... so that we can be stronger together, for the sake of our descendants and for the heritage of all living beings on Planet Earth."

Please share this article with all who can benefit. If you appreciate my work, please subscribe by clicking under the article title (it’s free). Please use my archive of work to help build a brighter future.

I appreciate your attention to these facts and encourage your further study and action consistent with your own self-expression. My recommendations:

Policy response: Gandhi and Martin Luther King advocated public understanding of the facts and non-cooperation with evil. I’m among hundreds who advocate:


1. Understand the laws of war. These were legislated after WW2 and are crystal-clear that only self-defense, in a narrow legal meaning, can justify war. The current US wars are not even close to being lawful. Those involved with US military, government, and law enforcement have an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution, not the fascist “always place the mission first.” To fulfill their oath they must immediately refuse and end all orders associated with unlawful wars and military-related constant violation of treaties.
2. End the transfer of trillions of American taxpayer money to banksters and admitted as “lost” by our military. End poverty through global cooperation to achieve the UN Millennium Goals by developed countries investing 0.7% of their income (not that the UN is serious for their accomplishment, but the goals are what we should invest to produce). Support global security through cooperation, dignity, justice, and freedom. Create a US Department of Peace to help.
3. Communicate. Trust your unique, beautiful, and powerful self-expression to share as you feel appropriate. Understand that while many people are ready to embrace difficult facts, many are not. Anticipate that you will be attacked and prepare your virtuous response in the spirit of competition, just as you do in other fields.
4. Prosecute the war leaders for obvious violation of the letter and spirit of US war laws. Because the crimes are so broad and deep, I recommend Truth and Reconciliation (T&R) to exchange full truth and return of stolen US assets for non-prosecution. This is the most expeditious way to understand and end all unlawful and harmful acts. Those who reject T&R are subject to prosecution.


Local perspective: Part of my professional duties as a teacher of economics and government is to produce competent adult citizenry. This includes realization that our nation’s policies and money are managed at a broad community level, and these issues have tremendous local impact. Of course, we all want human beings to be individually successful and enjoy their unique, beautiful and powerful self-expressions. Concurrently, we recognize our commitment to local success is strongly dependent upon the success of the community, and that government policy and economics are drivers.

Our status in early 21st Century human history is that we suffer from a long history in government and money of human interrelationship well-described as vicious antagonism. Governments frequently use war as a foreign policy, despite its illegality and dependent upon public ignorance, with horrific consequences. Economic policy is still created within a “Robber Baron” paradigm to concentrate money to an elite few families. Two examples:

1. National taxes effect you dearly, especially the tax to pay interest on the national debt. This costs the American public over $400 billion every year. This is $4,000 per year for every $50,000 of income. Do the math to understand your household’s tax burden for a monetary policy invented by banks for banks to create our money supply as debt. Your competence in this area contributes to our collective voice to simply shift monetary policy to easily pay the national debt, enjoy full employment, collectively save us over a trillion dollars every year, and finally realize what our brightest American minds have been advocating for centuries beginning with Benjamin Franklin. This would have unprecedented local benefits, and requires collective power to accomplish.
2. Ending poverty everywhere on our planet would cost just 0.7% of our income and save a million children’s lives every month. This human accomplishment will cause unimaginable joy at our local level.

To consider:

"If we are to have peace on earth, our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Our loyalties must transcend our race, our tribe, our class, and our nation; and this means we must develop a world perspective. No individual can live alone, no nation can live alone and as long as we try, the more we are going to have war in the world. Now the judgment of God is upon us and we must either learn to live together as brothers or we are all going to perish together as fools."
--Inscription on Dr. Martin Luther King’s statue, Moorehouse College, Atlanta

"The day that hunger is eradicated from the earth, there will be the greatest spiritual explosion the world has ever known. Humanity cannot imagine the joy that will burst into the world on the day of that great revolution." -- poet Federico García Lorca

Comments policy: I welcome questions and comments that are civil and pertain to the article topic. Impolite and impertinent comments will be deleted.

Please consider that I’m among hundreds of writers who have documented our own government’s disclosure of propaganda programs to support their wars. I suspect my articles are under such propagandistic attack from comments that use typical rhetorical fallacies to distract readers from the facts. I invite readers to sharpen their ability to discern such propaganda. They are characterized by a combination of: never addressing the facts, diverting attention through unsubstantiated belief in an alleged expert, irrelevant data, straw-man attack that distorts the facts, ad hominem attack of insults to the messenger, vile comments to repulse readers, and lies of omission and commission.

I will use such comments to point-out the propaganda or delete them at my discretion. Again, all relevant and polite questions, and factually accurate comments are welcome. As a professional educator I’m in agreement with my experience and research: we learn best from multiple perspectives in mutual commitment to understand the facts, see those facts from diverse points-of-view, and consider various policy proposals of what we should do.

For those involved in support of US government-sponsored disinformation, I invite you to consider the quality of human relationships you wish to work toward. National security and a brighter future is not a function of fear, manipulation, and control. Our best security follows cooperation, justice under the law, dignity, and freedom. Working for your best imagined self-expression of virtue may include a unique contribution from the inside of your agency. Public attraction to the stories of Star Wars and the Harry Potter books/movies recognize that our society’s jump to civilized relations for all of us might require support from people within the “dark side” acting as covert agents for building a brighter future. Another option is becoming a whistle-blower; Project Camelot is a popular venue for people in sensitive positions. Ultimately, I recommend a Truth and Reconciliation process to exchange full truth for no prosecution, explained in detail at the link. Please consider the wisdom of your own “Scrooge conversion” to act for the benefit of all humanity rather than your self-proclaimed controlling, manipulating, and loveless “masters.”

“Scrooge was better than his word. He did it all, and infinitely more; and to Tiny Tim, who did not die, he was a second father. He became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man, as the good old city knew, or any other good old city, town, or borough, in the good old world. Some people laughed to see the alteration in him, but he let them laugh, and little heeded them; for he was wise enough to know that nothing ever happened on this globe, for good, at which some people did not have their fill of laughter in the outset; and knowing that such as these would be blind anyway, he thought it quite as well that they should wrinkle up their eyes in grins, as have the malady in less attractive forms. His own heart laughed: and that was quite enough for him.”

Are US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan well-intended mistakes? What we now know from the evidence
September 9, 6:21 PMLA County Nonpartisan ExaminerCarl Herman

http://www.examiner.com/x-18425-LA-...intentions-What-we-now-know-from-the-evidence


Some Americans justify the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well-intended interventions for the good of their people, and the security of our nation and the world. They believe that the President MUST have had evidence of national security risk before taking the last and dire step of invasion.

This is a crucial point. If there was credible evidence of imminent threat to US national security, then the wars were justified under the UN Charter for self-defense. However, if the evidence was not credible, or fabricated, then these wars are illegal Wars of Aggression. So which is it?

Americans and the world no longer need BELIEVE anything; the specific evidence used to justify invading two countries is now public knowledge. All we have to do is match the government's claims to the exact evidence and you can decide for yourself. This article lays it out.

First, as you may recall, there were four basic claims of fact presented by political "leadership" to invade Iraq:

1. Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), a scary-sounding name for specific chemical and biological weapons.

2. The US intercepted aluminum tubes that could only be used to refine nuclear material; irrefutable evidence that Iraq had restarted a nuclear weapons program.

3. Saddam had attempted to purchase enriched uranium from Niger; more evidence that Iraq had reconstituted nuclear weapons development.

4. Saddam had links to Al Qaeda, the alleged terrorists who attacked the US on 9/11.

Here's what we know about the evidence from which those claims were made. This is the summary; for my complete briefing, read here, here, and browse here.

1. George Tenet, Director of the CIA, acknowledged that all US intelligence agency reports "never said there was an imminent threat." This was based on a long history of intelligence reports, the facts that the chemical and biological weapons under consideration were relatively weak without a delivery system, and that Iraq was highly motivated NOT to use them against the US given their understanding such use would provoke war with the world's most powerful military.

2. The Bush administration claim of aluminum tubes that could only be used as centrifuges to refine fissionable material for nuclear weapons is directly refuted by the best expert witnesses available, the US Department of Energy (DOE) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Their conclusion is that the tubes in question had diameters too small, the tubes were too thick, using aluminum as the material would be “a huge step backwards,” and the surface was anodized that made them impossible to serve this purpose. They also found that the tubes were easily explained for conventional use, as the specifications perfectly matched tubing for other purposes. The Senate Committee on Intelligence agreed that this claim had no basis from any available evidence. See also here.

3. This claim, repeated by President Bush in the 2003 State of the Union Address, was based on the "Niger documents." These papers were written in grammatically poor French, had a “childlike” forgery of the Niger President’s signature, and had a document signed by a foreign minister who had been out of office for 14 years prior to the date on the document. The forgeries showed-up shortly after the Niger embassy in Rome was robbed, with the only missing items being stationery and Niger government stamps. The same stationery and stamps were used for the forged documents. The CIA warned President Bush on at least three occasions to not make the claim due to the ridiculous evidence. In addition, if Saddam really was making an illegal uranium purchase, it’s likely that both Saddam and the Niger government officials would insist on not having a written record that would document the crime. Republican US Ambassador to Niger, Joseph Wilson, confirmed this information and reported in detail to Vice President Cheney’s office and the CIA.

4. As to the claim of a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, all US intelligence agencies reported that no such relationship existed (and here).
Some war liars argue that UN Security Council Resolution 687 from 1991 authorizes resumption of force from the previous Gulf War. This resolution declared a formal cease-fire; which means exactly what it says: stop the use of force. The resolution was declared by UNSC and held in their jurisdiction; that is, no individual nation has authority to supersede UNSC’s power to continue or change the status of the cease-fire (further explanation here). The idea that the US and/or UK can authorize use of force under a UNSC cease-fire is as criminal as your neighbor shooting one of your family members and claiming that because police have authority to shoot dangerous people he can do it.


Perhaps this analogy will help in one paragraph of allegorical history, one paragraph of allegorical legal history, and one paragraph of legal analysis:

Tony and his Uncle Sam had a Machiavellian history of 40 years with Saddam; a history that included mutually-agreed political assassinations and business transactions worth billions in profits. Sam supplied material assistance to Saddam in attacking his neighbor, Mahmoud, from 1980-1988 after Mahmoud refused further dictatorship from Sam over billions in product profits. Sam and Tony had previously unlawfully taken over Mahoud’s business from 1953-1979. After further complex history between Sam and Saddam, Saddam began selling his product for currencies other than exclusively for Sam’s currency.

In response, Tony and Sam claimed Saddam has deadly weapons with the intent to use them. Saddam had a previous conviction and was forbidden to possess such weapons, but had refused to be searched after Sam made public statements that “someone” should assassinate Saddam. When Sam and Tony threatened to attack Saddam because of his alleged weapons and refusal to be legally searched, Saddam agreed to be searched. While the police were searching Saddam, with no weapons found and when the search was almost complete, Tony and Sam shoot and kill Saddam.

Tony and Sam claim legal self-defense. They claim that the law allows the police to shoot dangerous people with weapons. They say because they had “credible intelligence” Saddam had weapons he was certain to use, Tony and Sam are justified in killing Saddam and “making the world a safer place.” The facts that Saddam was being searched by the police, that the police have the authority to do the shooting and not Tony and Sam (unless they are under reasonable imminent threat of Saddam shooting, which both agree was not the case) is immaterial. Tony says Saddam was a psychopath and a monster. Sam says people like Saddam hate Tony and Sam “for our freedoms.”

Looking further, Sam and then Tony threaten to attack Mahmoud because they claim he has secret deadly weapons with the intent to use them. The police regularly search Mahmoud and have never found evidence of any weapon. Tony and Sam also say Mahmoud threatens to destroy his friend, Benjamin, to “wipe him off the map.” The source of the accusation is a speech Mahmoud made about Benjamin’s abuses of his neighbor, with the transcript proving Mahmoud made no threat, that Sam apparently is again looking for unlawful control over Mahmoud’s business, and that Tony and Sam are obviously lying. Despite the facts, Tony and Sam continue their allegations that Mahmoud is dangerous, saying “the clock is ticking,” and the time for talk is coming to an end.


As for Afghanistan, after the attacks of 9/11, the US government requested the cooperation of the Afghanistan government for extradition of Osama bid Laden to be charged with the 9/11 attacks. The Afghan government agreed, as per usual cooperative international law, as soon as the US government provided evidence of bin Laden’s involvement.The US government refused to provide any evidence. The Afghan government refused US troops entering their country and extradition until evidence was provided, and made their argument to the world press for the rule of law to apply to the US extradition request. The US invaded Afghanistan without providing evidence and without UN Security Council approval. President Bush stated, “There’s no need to discuss evidence of innocence or guilt. We know he’s guilty.”

My analysis: as you may know, Nazi Germany invaded Poland in 1939 under the lie of self-defense, staging a false-flag attack. A false-flag attack is when you attack yourself disguised as an enemy you want to create public opinion to attack. This was called Operation Himmler. The only difference between now and then is that the US false-threat invasion has not yet resulted in another world war.

And for those of you with "hope" for "change," please answer: are the Democratic "leadership" ignorant of their own Congressional committee reports spelling-out the documentation cited in this article? That's impossible, yes? Then the reason President Obama and majority of Dems do not communicate the above facts to the American public is....?

Did you answer "criminal complicity?" Since both parties are in way too deep to prosecute, my policy suggestion is Truth and Reconciliation. This can peel-away the people wanting a "Scrooge conversion" and make the best deal possible for all: we get the truth, an end to criminality, an end to our paying trillions for destruction (this needs application into high finance, also), return of stolen assets, and the least risk of bloodshed. The criminals get to live out whatever's left of their lives in peace.

Below is the best artistic video I've found describing the above documentation. Warning: brief adult language.

As always, please share this article with all who say they want to be competent citizens. If you appreciate my work, please subscribe by clicking under the article title (it's free).

Wars of Aggression: Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran
August 9, 7:42 PMLA County Nonpartisan ExaminerCarl Herman
Previous Next

http://www.examiner.com/x-18425-LA-...-Wars-of-Aggression-Iraq-Afghanistan-and-Iran

"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."
- Voltaire, Questions sur les miracles (1765)

Senator Lieberman, Secretary of State Clinton, and former UN Ambassador John Bolton have resumed rhetoric of a United States attack upon Iran. This article will define “War of Aggression” and explain when a war is justifiable under US and international law. Laws are meant to be understood and obeyed. Among the most important for governments and citizens to understand is when war is authorized, and when responses other than war are required. If we wish to call ourselves civilized, we MUST understand the rule of law before we threaten a nation for destruction, death, and cruel physical, emotional and mental agony.
It is edited from my brief, “War with Afghanistan and Iraq, rhetoric for war with Iran”; found here.

Note: this information is in context of Iraq and Afghanistan. A war against Iran is equally illegal, as they have not attacked the US, there is no imminent threat from their legal action for nuclear energy (full explanation in the brief and my article, “Iran, nuclear weapons, nuclear energy and the law”) and the UN Security Council has not authorized force. For a war to be justified, there are only two acceptable conditions: being under attack (or imminent threat of attack) or UN Security Council authorization. That’s it. Any other war is legally classified as a War of Aggression. For our political “leadership” and mainstream media to NOT MAKE THIS CLEAR, their mutual intent is obfuscation and war without being labeled as criminal mass murderers. On to the section of the brief:

Iraq’s WMD were chemical and biological weapons. Assuming that the US was concerned about these weapons that the US originally supplied Saddam during his invasion of Iran from 1980-1988,[1] the conservative first option should have been the UN Security Council voting for the UN WMD agency, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to directly request Saddam to submit to OPCW’s authority. The Director-general of OPCW, Jose Bustani, was in talks with Saddam to do so. Instead of supporting this reasonable alternative to war, the US promised to withhold its funding of the UN (22% of the UN’s budget) until Bustani was fired. The US called Bustani’s talks with Saddam an “ill-considered initiative.” The US request was honored; the US then paid its 2002 UN dues in April 2002; less than one year before the US invasion of Iraq. This was the first time in UN history where the Director of an international program was fired.[2] By the way, the US does not cooperate with the OPCW to ensure US compliance with International Laws of chemical and biological WMD.

The US Congressional authorization for military force in Iraq relied heavily upon the Bush administration’s claims of Saddam’s WMD. On November 3, 2002, Iraq submitted to the UN an 11,800 page report of its history of WMD. The US requested that over 8,000 pages of the report be removed for US “national security.” The US media complied, but not the international media. What these redacted pages documented was US supplying Iraq with all elements of the WMD program in support of Saddam’s dictatorship and Iraq’s War of Aggression against Iran.[3] The US was one of many countries supplying these materials.

CIA Director George Tenet explicitly stated that the October 2002 CIA National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) reported that Iraq was not an imminent threat to the US because any attack would cause war with the world’s most powerful military.[4] This assessment was subsequently repeated in official reports from several agencies.[5] However, the October NIE remained classified to Congress before their vote to authorize President Bush to use our military against Iraq. Instead, the Bush Administration declassified a “White Paper” that changed language to escalate the appearance of threat from Iraq and removed the language that Iraq was not an imminent threat to US security.[6] The White Paper for Congress was titled, “Iraq’s Continuing Programs for WMD.” Again, because we know that all of the alleged evidence was known to be false at the time it was reported, the title of this “report” is misinformation. Republican chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), understated this conclusion: "[T]oday we know these assessments were wrong. And, as our inquiry will show, they were also unreasonable and largely unsupported by the available evidence."[7]

Congress passed the “Joint Resolution Authorizing Use of Force Against Iraq” in October 2002 (the Iraq Resolution)[8] that authorized President Bush to act pursuant to the War Powers Act of 1973 (WPA) regarding military action in Iraq. This legal authorization, H.J. Resolution 114, states in Section 3 (c) (2): “Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.”

The WPA[9] states in Section 8 (d) (1): “Nothing in this joint resolution-- (1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties.” The applicable treaties are the UN Charter[10] and the Nuremburg Charter.[11] As a consequence of humanity’s experience of two global wars, all country-initiated warfare was declared illegal except defensive wars when under direct attack. Iraq did not attack the US. The NIE found no evidence of imminent danger of attack upon the US. To date, President Bush has not presented such evidence. Therefore, the military campaign failed to meet the prima facie legal requirement of defensive war and is illegal under US and international law.[12] Specifically, the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are Wars of Aggression.[13]

No evidence of WMD was found in Iraq either before the war with UN inspections from November 2002 to March 2003, or after the war.[14] The Bush administration attacked Iraq even though weapons inspections were in full progress.

War Crimes and War of Aggression in Iraq: A War of Aggression is defined as a non-defensive war for territorial gain and unauthorized by the UN Security Council. The US legal argument that the “War on Terror” is not a War of Aggression is that the US actions against Iraq and Afghanistan were defensive. Saddam was in the process of executing an attack against the US, and Osama bin Laden was being protected by the Afghan government, which made them co-terrorists. This legal opinion of “defensive action” supersedes the opinion of the UN Security Council.

Because we now know that the principle claims of Saddam’s threat to the US were known to be false at the time they were told to the American public, as documented in the first part of this paper, there is no legal defense for the war in Iraq that I see except the following: the US attacked Iraq legally because when we’re afraid that somehow, someday, they might decide to commit suicide by attacking the most powerful military country in the world, it is self-defense to lie about reasons they might attack us and then attack them even though we know we fabricated claims of their aggression. Unless you find this argument of defense compelling, the US war in Iraq is a War of Aggression.[15]

An analogy might help: someone shoots and kills a person. The defendant claims self-defense because the victim was about to use a lethal weapon against the defendant. No lethal weapon was found on the victim’s body (you could add that the victim was being searched at the time he was shot). The defendant claims that he had “good intelligence” that the victim was about to attack with deadly force. After these claims are made, investigation shows that the defendant’s information was not credible. The defendant still claims innocence because the world is a better place without the victim.

Sometimes people discuss that the US invasion of Iraq was legal due to UN Security Council Resolution 1441 that demanded Saddam’s full cooperation to account for any WMD or face “serious consequences.”[16] This claim is legal nonsense because the US does not speak and act for the UN Security Council. The US only has authority for military force when they have the votes from the Security Council. In this instance, the US specifically chose not to call for a vote authorizing force because they didn’t have the votes. As a revealing sidelight, US leadership used the NSA (National Security Agency) to spy on Security Council diplomats to gain information that might have been helpful to influence their votes in favor of invading Iraq.[17] The purpose of the NSA is to access secret information.

UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, asserted, “I have indicated it (the invasion of Iraq) was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal.”[18]

War Crimes and War of Aggression in Afghanistan: Let’s review the history of the US invasion of Afghanistan. After the attacks of 9/11, the US government requested the cooperation of the Afghanistan government for extradition of Osama bid Laden to be charged with the 9/11 attacks. The Afghan government agreed, as per usual cooperative international law, as soon as the US government provided evidence of bin Laden’s involvement.[19] The US government refused to provide any evidence. The Afghan government refused US troops entering their country and extradition until evidence was provided, and made their argument to the world press for the rule of law to apply to the US extradition request. The US invaded Afghanistan without providing evidence and without UN Security Council approval. President Bush stated, “There’s no need to discuss evidence of innocence or guilt. We know he’s guilty.”[20] Seven years later, despite promises to do so, the US has not provided any evidence that bin Laden was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Indeed, the FBI does not seek bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks, stating “there is no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”[21] Some of you might have heard of a bin Laden “confession video.” The Pentagon’s “official translation” seems to indicate foreknowledge of the attacks, but independent translations show that the “official” version is a manipulation and an accurate translation shows no evidence of involvement.[22] Apparently, the FBI is in agreement with the independent translations. Indeed, Princeton professor of International Law Richard Falk articulates doubts concerning many aspects of the government’s explanation of 9/11.[23] This view of a counter-government explanation is now shared by over 1,000 reputable scholars and professionals with academic training and professional experience that qualify them as experts in their testimonies.[24]


[1] US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs: Second Staff Report on U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq and The Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the War. May 25, 1994: http://www.gulfwarvets.com/arison/banking.htm , DemocracyRising.US. Arming of Iraq and the Iraq-Iran War: http://democracyrising.us/content/view/30/74/ , National Security Archive. Battle, J. Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein. Feb. 25, 2003: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ , and Wikipedia background summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war .
[2] Wanttoknow.info. Burks, F. Key move made quietly in 2002 set the stage for war with Iraq: http://www.wanttoknow.info/iraqwarsetup .
[3] Project Censored. Lough, T. & Brage, L. #3 in top 25 censored stories for 2004: US illegally removes pages from Iraq UN report: http://www.projectcensored.org/top-...-illegally-removes-pages-from-iraq-un-report/ .
[4] Information Clearing House. Bugliosi, V. The prosecution of George W. Bush for murder. May 10, 2008: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19903.htm and Democracy Now! CIA’s Tenet: Iraq posed no imminent threat: http://www.democracynow.org/2004/2/6/cias_tenet_iraq_posed_no_imminent .
[5] Center for American Progress. Neglecting intelligence, ignoring warnings. Jan. 29, 2004: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b24889.html .
[6] Information Clearing House. Bugliosi, V. Ibid. FAS.org. Levin, C. Opening statement of Senator Carl Levin at the Senate Armed Services Committee with DCI Tenet and DIA Director Jacoby. March 9, 2004. http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_cr/levin030904.html , and excerpts from Vincent Bugliosi’s book, The prosecution of George W. Bush for murder. Indictment for dummies: http://ralphlopezworld.com/vince.html .
[7] The National Security Archive. CIA whites out controversial estimate on Iraq weapons. July 9, 2008: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/index.htm .
[8] THOMAS (Library of Congress): http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:5:./temp/~c107F27y2K:: .
[9] Avalon Project. The War Powers Act: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp .
[10] United Nations: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/ ; Articles 2, 33, 39, and 51.
[11] ICRC. International Humanitarian Law: Principles Nuremburg Tribunal 1950: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/390?OpenDocument .
[12] The Modern Tribune. Young, D. L. Accountability for an illegal war. Jan. 14, 2005: http://www.themoderntribune.com/iraq_war_violating_the_war_powers_act.htm .
[13] For commentary, consider Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression .
[14] BBC. Report Concludes no WMD in Iraq. Oct. 7, 2004: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm , GWU. Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction. National Security Archive Briefing Book #80. Updated Feb. 11, 2004: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/ , Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction .
[15] Peterson, E.A. Sept. 17, 2004. Was The Iraq War Legal, Or Illegal, Under International Law? http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6917.htm .
[16] One of many: Armscontrol.org. Disarming Saddam – a chronology of Iraq and UN weapons inspections from 2002-2003. July, 2003: http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iraqchron .
[17] Huffington Post. Solomon, N. NSA spied on U.N. diplomats in push for invasion of Iraq. Dec. 27, 2005: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/norman-solomon/nsa-spied-on-un-diploma_b_12927.html .
[18] Guardian. MacAskill, E., Borger, J. Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan. Sept. 16, 2004: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq .
[19] Global Research. Rudmin, F. Military oaths confront the Constitution: the Omar Khadr case. Nov. 11, 2008: http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10899 .
[20] The Guardian: Bush Rejects Taliban Offer to Hand bin Laden Over. Oct. 14, 2001: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5 .
[21] Project Censored. Top 25 Censored Stories for 2008. #16: No Hard Evidence Connecting bin Laden to 9/11: http://www.projectcensored.org/top-...o-hard-evidence-connecting-bin-laden-to-9-11/ .
[22] 911 Review.org. Bin Laden Confession: http://911review.org/Wiki/BinLadenConfession.shtml and Lederman, R. German Media: bin Laden 'Smoking Gun' Tape Translation Inaccurate. Jan. 1, 2002: http://www.rense.com/general18/inac.htm .
[23] The Journal. Falk, R. 9/11: more than meets the eye. Nov. 9, 2008: http://www.journal-online.co.uk/article/5056-911-more-than-meets-the-eye and http://www.911blogger.com/node/18483.
[24] Patriots for 9/11 Truth: http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html

CC, sounds just like the book of Revelation, however, the outcome they are planning will be totally different.

How funny for mankind to think they are in total control....

Yes Jean B it is going that way. Once it starts it will move so fast people will be in shock.

Man on his own doesn't have the drive for such destruction. There has got to be a devil.


.................................................................


http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=125778

WND Exclusive GLOBAL JIHAD
Iran steps up training of Hamas retaliation force
Tehran fears Israeli raid against nuke sites this year
Posted: February 21, 2010
8:53 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2010 WorldNetDaily


Iranian Revolutionary Guard

JERUSALEM – Iran has increased exponentially its training of Hamas gunmen both in the Gaza Strip and abroad, a senior Egyptian security official told WND.

The official said Iran believes there will be a confrontation with Israel this year over Tehran's nuclear facilities and has thus stepped up training of Hamas, whose gunmen will be instrumental in carrying out retaliatory attacks against the Jewish state during any future war.

The official said the training is taking place both in Gaza, where Iran has militants stationed, and in other countries, particularly in Lebanon and Iran itself.

He said an explosion in Lebanon last month that the Iranian-backed Hezbollah group blamed on Israel actually was part of a work accident during training exercises between Hezbollah and Hamas. Two Hamas members were killed in that attack, which Hamas claimed was targeting Hamas's representative in Lebanon, Osama Hamdan.



Last month, WND published early reports that, according to a senior Egyptian intelligence official, Iranian Revolutionary Guard units were actively working to train Hamas gunmen in the Gaza Strip.

The official also said Egypt is concerned that neighboring Gaza could become a major center of al-Qaida activity in the region.

The Egyptian official said those factors were central in his country's decision to build a steel wall under the Egypt-Gaza border as part of efforts to isolate Hamas and stem weapons smuggling into Gaza.

The official also said Egypt has information that Hamas and the Iranian-backed Hezbollah group for the first time formed a joint operations room from which the two groups exchange knowledge, coordinate efforts and work on obtaining weapons.

The Egyptian intelligence official said recent information as well as interrogations of arrested suspects in Egypt indicate Iranian-backed groups are working with al-Qaida in the Gaza Strip even though the two groups have different points of view and conflicting religious ideology. The official pointed to similar cooperation in Yemen, where he said Iranian agents and al-Qaida have been working against the Yemeni government.

Reports that Iranian agents have been operating in Gaza are not new.

In 2007, WND first reported security forces associated with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party captured seven Iranian military trainers – including a general of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard – at a purported Hamas training facility in the Gaza Strip.

During Israel's military incursion in Gaza last year, Israeli newspapers reported an "Iranian Unit" of Hamas – members of the group's military wing trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard – had been destroyed.

Can they really keep the status quo going for 18-24 months? That would surprise me. But I have been surprised by less.

Nuclear weapons seem so passe. I don't think any of the mojor powers have any interest in rendering areas unlivable. Biological weapons would perhaps be the "solution," wiping out the population while preserving the habitat.

The US tested a laser weapon recently, as was also reported here. I think there is a great deal more going on in that area than we know about. I expect the may be energy weapons which could be directed at whole cities and kill the population.

Anyway, we don't live in an infinite system. The population cannot continue to grow unchecked without war and the attendant misery ensuing. And all those male Chinese with zero chance of ever having a family, due to the lack of women, will not stand idly by. I think we will see war soon, planned or unplanned.

Top Russian General: An American Attack on Iran would lead to US Collapse;
Wants to Block It;
Kremlin Rejects Crippling Sanctions

It appears that, the International Atomic Energy Agency is at least allowing for the possibility that documents allegedly found on a laptop some years ago --but discounted by the US Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency as of dubious provenance and incompatible with other intelligence gathered in Iran -- point to a nuclear weapons program that no one has been able to locate. Some close observers have concluded that the laptop documents are forgeries. A new IAEA report that declines to dismiss the alleged documents will certainly cause the war lobby in the United States to redouble its efforts to get up an attack on Iran.

Forged documents on the supposed purchase of yellowcake uranium by Iraq from Niger were used by George W. Bush to promote a war on Iraq. It was at that time the Intelligence and Research division of the Department of State that attempted to throw cold water on these "documents," but was ignored by the president. Then head of the IAEA, Mohammed Elbaradei, was able to show them false in one afternoon.

The UN inspectors have a right to be frustrated with Iran, which has allowed inspections of its Natanz nuclear enrichment site, but which has not been completely transparent or adhered to the letter of its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But the sum of those frustrations does not point to a nuclear weapons program, unlike the disputed laptop documents. In statements to the press this fall, US intelligence officials have said that they stand behind the conclusions first reached in 2007, that Iran has no nuclear weapons program.

The Obama administration wants stricter sanctions on Iran, and the Sarah Palin/ Daniel Pipes lunatic fringe wants a military attack on Iran.

But Russia's General of the Army Nikolay Makarov, Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, warned that an American attack on Iran now, when the US is bogged down in two wars, might well lead to the collapse of the United States. He said that such an attack would roil the region and have negative consequences for Russia (a neighbor of Iran via the Caspian Sea). And, he said, the Russian military is taking steps to forestall such an American strike on Iran. Makarov made the remarks in Vzglyad on Friday, February 19, 2010, and they were translated or paraphrased by the USG Open Source Center:

'Makarov also commented on the recent rumors about the possibility of an attack upon Iran by the United States. In his opinion, this would be complete madness on the part of the American military. He said: "Admiral Michael McMullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently said that, in the United States, there is a plan for carrying out strikes against Iran but the United States clearly understands that now, when it is conducting two military campaigns, one in Iraq and the other in Afghanistan, a third campaign against Iran would simply lead to a collapse. It would not be able to withstand the strain.".....(snip)

see entire article...

http://www.juancole.com/2010/02/top-russian-general-american-attack-on.html

China Connection;

You never cease to surprise.

Imagine that! 2 Camelot readers on TB2K.
"Madness takes its toll"

I read the full interview the night it was posted.

Those interested can read the whole thing here:
http://projectcamelot.org/anglo_saxon_mission_interview_transcript.html

I found it a bit chilling myself. No, there aren't any "great revelations in it, but there are some very familiar themes put forth; but from a unique source.

This is not someone re-stating "copy/paste" material. They did not sound like they learned it all 2 weeks ago from an all-night Google session on conspiracies (the term I like for that junk is Google-de-goop).

If I may backfill a bit... This paragraph contained a link to a video:

Watch this video, listen carefully to the strong message of hope and encouragement, and spread it far and wide. We plan to create subtitles in many languages - including Chinese. We stand for the potential magnificence of a united humanity that knows no racial boundaries or distinctions.

Click to expand...

which is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNp7eOEYYtk

Enjoy

Fred

Can they really keep the status quo going for 18-24 months?

Click to expand...

BlueNewton, I don't think so. I will be surprised if we get through the summer. Iran will be getting the S-300 next month. I wonder if Israel will move before then.

Fredkc Youtube is blocked completely here in China. About a couple of years now that it has been blocked.

ChinaC.;

A couple of work-arounds:

1. You can get a transcript of the Video here:
http://projectcamelot.org/lang/en/anglo_saxon_mission_presentation_transcript_en.html

and you might try Dloading it in mp4 format here:
http://projectcamelot.org/anglo_saxon_mission.mp4

"Where theres a will...."

Fred