Bin Laden’s Latest Video–Harbinger for Wider Islamo-Christian War?

Bin Laden’s Latest Video–Harbinger for Wider Islamo-Christian War?
March 26, 2008

‘Perhaps you do not yet see that the worst is awaiting your kind in the face of the coming Islamo-Christian War, from which my kind will arise victorious. Perhaps G-d will find it suitable that a terrorist attack will end your misery. I shall personally pray for it to be so.”–Orri Joseph Avraham, an Israeli Citizen in an email to this writer

**********************************************************************************************

Like distant thunder and lightning that warn of an approaching storm, recent events strongly suggest a false-flag attack on the Catholic Church–either in the form of an assassination on the Pope himself or a terrorist attack on the Vatican–may soon be in the works for those wishing to widen the present ‘clash of civilizations’ between the Christian and Muslim worlds for Israel’s benefit.

Like most of the moves Israel makes in her great game of chess, events are thought out–not just minutes in advance, but sometimes decades. In her drive to become the dominant power (first in the Middle East and then in the world) the necessity of knocking all competing powers out of the game–be they political, religious, or both–is obvious. This being the case, the fact that the followers of Islam and Christianity together encompass over ½ of the world’s 6 billion people means they represent a clear and present danger to the hegemonic designs of Zionism, which means they must be brought down, and given the fact that Israel cannot win a war against such overwhelming numbers, the best way to achieve this is having the 2 sides wipe each other out while the Jewish state sits back and watches from the sidelines.

The ‘clash of civilizations’ idea is nothing new. Militant, bigoted and irrational Israel-firsters such as Daniel Pipes, Normon Podhoretz, Martin Kramer and many others acting as unregistered agents for the Jewish state have been piling up the cordwood of an Islamo-Christian holocaust now for many years. At first generalized to non-Catholic denominations (meaning fundamentalist, apocalyptic-minded Protestants who found favor with Twilight Zone ideas such as the rapture and other poorly-interpreted passages from the Book of Revelations) now the agenda seems to be centered on bringing the Catholics into the battle for Israel’s benefit as well.

The reasons and benefits for doing so are obvious. The Catholic church–despite dealing with declining numbers in recent years–still has over a billion followers world-wide who swear obedience and loyalty to the Pope. In addition, the church and the countries that are principally Catholic in their orientation have not been as ‘enthusiastic’ as Tel Aviv and Washington DC would like when it comes to fighting the ‘war on terror.’ The previous Pope, John Paul II, as much as he is faulted by conservative elements within the Catholic laity, was nevertheless outspoken in his opposition to the war in Iraq.

How then does a creature such as Israel go about changing the minds of a billion Catholics worldwide and induce them into signing on to a new crusade against over a billion Muslims? Well, borrowing a catch-phrase used by Jewish interests in suckering the American people into going to war in Iraq for Israel’s benefit, it would be a ‘cakewalk’, meaning the simple matter of a well-placed bullet or a well-placed bomb. The Pope being shot by a Muslim fanatic with ties to Al Qaeda, Hezbollah or Hamas or a bomb going off in the headquarters of the Catholic church (St. Peter’s in Rome) and within minutes there would be 1,000 million Catholics world-wide calling for a new crusade against Islam, goaded along of course by a Zionist media and its now-infamous mouthpieces. The Israeli prime minister and his entire cabinet would be in front of every camera around the world, wiping crocodile tears from their eyes, denouncing the tragedy and promising to assist in whatever way possible with what the Church needed in ‘dealing’ with the situation. Rabbis everywhere (taking a break from their Talmudic studies that describe Jesus as a sorcerer and his mother a prostitute) who in recent years have been working feverishly trying to confuse Christians about the truly demonic, anti-Christian and anti-Gentile nature of Zionism and its ugly Frankenstein child Israel would take center stage in the western media, shaking their heads and saying ‘tsk, tsk, tsk…what a tragedy…Well, now you Catholics know what we Jews have been dealing with for years’. Protestant ministers, who centuries ago ‘decoded’ all the end-times prophecies and concluded that the Vatican and its leader are the predicted anti-Christ would put such inflammatory statements to the wayside in favor of bringing their fellow hell-bound Catholics into the anti-Islamic/pro-Zionist fold.

Those who would scoff at such a scenario, saying no evidence for such a plan exists should pay better attention to the news, both past and present. Keep in mind that this was already tried once before with the failed assassination of John Paul II by Mehmet Ali Agca, a ‘crazed Muslim fanatic’ (said by Israel’s intelligence service Mossad to be working for Iran) right in the heart of St. Peter’s Square. As the old saying goes, ‘if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again,’ and just as in the case of the USS Liberty and Israel’s unsuccessful attempt in bringing the US onboard as hired gun for the Jewish state, 9/11 went off without a hitch, and ‘the rest is history,’ as they say.

More important than this however is the recent past, and particularly the history of the last 2 years. The publishing of the now-infamous ‘Mohammed cartoons’ throughout ‘Christian’ Europe a few years ago was no accident, nor was it all about ‘freedom of speech’. In every country they appeared, laws exist making the ‘incitement’ of racial and religious hatred a crime. Hundreds are rotting in prisons throughout Europe at this very moment for telling the ugly truth as it pertains to Israel, Zionism, Judaism, Jewish influence or the sancta sanctorum, the Holocaust. The cartoon depictions of the prophet Mohammed were insulting enough, as Islam forbids such caricatures, but the image of him with a lit fuse coming out of his Turbin-clad head cannot be seen in any other light other than one of deliberate provocation.

Now, as if all the uproar weren’t enough the first time around and as if there weren’t anything more newsworthy to report, these same ‘Christian’ countries recently decided to re-print these cartoons in February 2008. Of the more important reactions emanating from all of this this was a taped message from none other than former CIA asset Osama Bin Laden himself where he calls for jihad on Europe and mentions Pope Benedict XVI by name, saying the reprinting of the cartoons came “in the framework of a new Crusade in which the pope of the Vatican has played a large, lengthy role’ . He further warned of ‘severe’ reprisals from the Muslim community, saying ‘The response will be what you see and not what you hear, and let our mothers bereave us if we do not make victorious our messenger of God.’

Important in this latest development is that the organization doing the translating for this latest message was none other than SITE–the ‘Search for International Terrorist Entities’ Institute based in Bethesda, Maryland. Long known to be an Israeli intelligence associated group, SITE was co-founded by Rita Katz, daughter of a convicted Israeli spy hanged by Saddam Hussein who herself moved to Israel. Upon coming to America she took up shop with the likes of Steven Emerson, arch-Neocon and slavish supporter of Israel who makes his living lecturing on the dangers of ‘militant Islam’. It should be remembered that–almost as if Emerson had a crystal ball hooked up to Mossad headquarters in Tel Aviv–he predicted an attack on America shortly before 9/11 by–surprise, surprise–Osama Bin Laden.

Besides the publication and re-publication of the cartoons, there is the Regensberg incident taking place September 2006 where Benedict XVI read a speech on Islam resulting in what became an international uproar. Benedict was quoted saying ‘Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.’ Although quoting someone else’s words in the speech, nevertheless agents in the Zionist media–eager to create as much heat from this event as possible–made the most of it for weeks. In the ensuing uproar, death threats were issued against his person by individuals claiming to be Muslims. Priests and nuns were killed around the world. In the West Bank and Gaza, 6 Christian churches were set on fire. Palestinian Christians living near the churches said it was not the work of Muslims, but rather Jews who obviously wanted to blame the Muslims.

In Iraq, once home to one of the largest Christian communities in the Middle East, several churches were bombed. A previously unknown group calling itself Kataab Ashbal Al Islam Al Salafi threatened to kill all Christians in Iraq if the Pope did not apologize to Muhammad within three days. The Iraqi militia Jaish al-Mujahedin (Holy Warriors’ Army) announced its intention to “destroy their cross in the heart of Rome… and to hit the Vatican.“

Recently (and suspiciously) the Zionist media took an obvious extreme interest in the elevation of Iraqi Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho to the College of Cardinals (the body responsible for electing a new pope) by Pope Benedict XVI in November. In an age where the only thing one hears from the Jewish press concerning the Catholic Church are the lurid stories of priest sex abuse cases and subsequent cover-up by the Vatican, the amount of attention paid to this story was unusual, to say the least. Shortly thereafter and following a noticeable amount of press coverage concerning him, he was kidnapped and later found dead and, naturally, Osama Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda was blamed. It is interesting to note that those who knew Rahho said he was a vocal opponent of the war and occupation of his country.

Finally, there is the recent ‘baptism’ by Benedict XVI of Magdi Allam, Egyptian-born critic of Islam and pro-Israel spokesman. Allam, as deputy director of Corriere Della Sera newspaper has made a name for himself in recent years for his lambasting of Islam (which he calls inherently violent and backwards) and for his praise of the Jewish state in his book ‘Long Live Israel’. Pretending to abandon Islam (which he admitted to never practicing) and choosing as his baptismal name ‘Christian’, the service was performed during Easter mass at the Vatican and was televised around the world a mere 2 days after the message from Bin Laden was made public. Muslim groups in Italy were puzzled as to why so much attention was put on the event and why so much secrecy surrounded it beforehand. He has since received death threats for his ‘conversion’ and the fact that Benedict XVI performed the ritual only adds to the image the Zionists are trying to paint of the head of the Catholic church as an enemy of Islam.

Mention the word ‘Fatima’ and Catholics worldwide understand its significance. It is the event in the early 1900’s where 3 peasant children in Portugal claimed to have received warnings from the Virgin Mary about an apocalyptic future. The first 2 warnings were revealed, but the third appeared to have been altered to fit a particular political agenda before being released many decades later. When it was finally released a few years prior to 9/11, it warned that the Pope would be shot down and killed. Some prophecy-wonks immediately seized on the previous attempted assassination of John Paul II, despite the fact that he lived through it in contravention of the prediction. There is little doubt then that if indeed Benedict is killed, the Zionist media will make the most of this third warning, using it to add even more noise to the anti-Muslim war drums that will be pounding within the Catholic world. Further, they will be sure to point out the fact that ‘Fatima’ was the name of the daughter of Mohammed, the founder of the same religion with which the ‘Christian West’ finds itself at war today.

In sum what exists here are all the ingredients for a major false-flag attack taking place against Rome by some ‘Middle Eastern’ group tied to Osama Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda with the end result being an enraged and highly-polarized Catholic world marching headlong into George Bush’s ‘Crusade against terrorism’. If there is anything than can be said about the Zionists and how they do business, it is that there is a certain amount of predictability to it all. They lay the groundwork…The stage is set perfectly and they go to great lengths in preparing the public for any soon-to-take-place changes through a program of subtle yet powerful media conditioning.

With this in mind then, the one phrase all people should call to mind if and when these events come to fruition is not necessarily the ‘I told you so’ all are destined to hear coming from media mouthpieces in the aftermath, but rather the motto of Israel’s intelligence service Mossad that has made assassinations, bombings and false flag attacks its tricks of the trade which is ‘By way of deception, thou shalt do war.’

© 2008 by Mark Glenn, Contributing Editor, American Free Press Newspaper

Why George W. Bush is the World’s Leading Terrorist

Why George W. Bush is the World’s Leading Terrorist
Reggie – TV News Lies March 24, 2008

Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. US Federal Bureau of Investigation

Read the sentence carefully. You didn’t hear it on any corporate media newscast since 9/11. It’s the official US FBI definition of terrorism. In its official definition, the FBI does not limit terrorism to stateless individuals or groups. In its official definition, the FBI does not suggest that terrorism cannot be perpetrated by the leader of a nation state. But even more amazing is that the official FBI definition of terrorism describes exactly what George Bush did in the aftermath of the attacks of 9/11!

APPLYING THE DEFINITION

• George W. Bush, in his unprovoked attack against the sovereign nation of Iraq, openly violated the UN Charter, to which the US is a signatory. The Charter’s core principles contained in Article 2(4) and Article 51 prohibit one nation from attacking another except in self-defense or with the authority of the U.N. In effect, George Bush launched an unlawful use of force against persons and property.

• The invasion launched by George W. Bush was heralded by the most frightening and powerful use of force and military violence in recent history. His Shock and Awe bombardment of Baghdad was designed to intimidate and coerce the government as well as the civilian population of that nation to change its existing leadership. That, in itself, was a political objective.

• The purpose of the invasion and ensuing occupation of Iraq was to replace the existing dictatorship with an American-backed form of democracy that would not permit the emergence of a government headed by the majority Shia religious leadership. These motives were unquestionably political and social.

So, what part of the FBI definition of “terrorism” do the voters of the United States not understand? And what acts of terrorism as defined by the FBI do the voters of the United States not recognize? Is there any doubt at all that the Bush administration committed acts of terrorism when it unlawfully used force and violence against the nation of Iraq to intimidate and coerce its government and the civilian population, in furtherance of the Bush/PNAC political and social objectives.

Therefore, by any definition, if George W. Bush is guilty of terrorism, he can accurately be identified as a TERRORIST. And if he is truly a terrorist, it is only fitting that George W. Bush be scrutinized in terms of his success in that capacity. What is his standing among the other murderous terrorist activity in the world today? Is it possible that George W. Bush actually has claim to being the very BEST at something during his reign in office?

It is our contention that George Bush is the most successful terrorist alive today, big time. Let’s look at the figures.

MIRROR, MIRROR ON THE WALL - WHO’S THE LEADING TERRORIST OF ALL?

THE CONTEST

EVERYONE ELSE: Despite the protestations of George W. Bush to the contrary, we are NOT safer now by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, according to the Terrorism Knowledge Base, the number of deaths from terrorist attacks throughout the entire world prior to the invasion of Iraq was 6,680. That included the nearly 3,00 deaths in the US on 9/11! Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the number of terrorist-related casualties worldwide has reached 36,174!

More than 27,000 of those deaths were in Iraq, where the identity of ‘terrorists’ is vague and undefined. However, for the sake of argument, we will attribute all of these deaths to so-called terrorists.

Repeat: The total number of deaths in the entire world caused by terrorists since George W. Bush declared a War on Terror, amounts to approximately 40,000.

GEORGE W. BUSH: In pursuit of his arrogant and PNAC-driven political and social objectives in Iraq, George W. Bush has the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians on his hands. To cover his guilt, early in the war, the US government ordered the Iraqi Ministry of Health to stop counting civilian deaths, and forbade them from releasing any totals previously gathered. The image of a surgical war, dominated by smart bombs and resulting in very few civilian casualties was televised to the American public throughout the hostilities.

As a result, the number of civilian casualties in Iraq is probably vastly under-estimated. According to Human Rights Watch, many of the civilian deaths were the direct result of weapons that should never have been used in populated areas. Among these were nearly 2 million submunitions which fail to explode immediately and killed people long after the initial conflict had ended. In addition, the strategy of decapitation bombing killed many civilians while it failed to kill a single Iraqi military leader in 50 attempts.

In January of 2008, a joint UN World Health Organization and the Iraqi government study concluded that between 104,000 and 223,000 Iraqis had died violently since the invasion. In 2006, the respected British journal The Lancet reported that 654,965 (at least 392,979 and as many as 942,636) Iraqi civilians had been killed in the occupation, in addition to deaths expected from Iraq’s normal death rate. Whatever count you accept, George W. Bush is far ahead, big time..

If we go with the low ball figure of 104,000, the lowest estimate of Iraqi civilians killed as a direct result of the unlawful invasion and occupation of the country, George W. Bush still wins the title of the LEADING TERRORIST alive today, big time.

No matter how you look at it, George W. Bush wins, big time.

And that doesn’t include the estimated 3,485 civilian deaths in Afghanistan, - the country to which we sent only 11,000 troops to fight the Taliban. George W. Bush claimed victory in Iraq in his acceptance speech. What utter nonsense. The country is dangerous and explosive, and in the hands of the same warlords and Taliban chieftains who ruled before 9/11. Revisionist history by this administration is never challenged by the media. The list of Big Lies prevails.

And it doesn’t include the military deaths on all sides, or the kidnappings, or the contractor deaths or the wounded or the dying. It doesn’t count the deaths to come from the depleted uranium shells or the permanently maimed and psychologically affected.

George W. Bush, his handlers and his administration can be proud. The dubious title of LEADING TERRORIST now belongs to the most powerful man in the world who seeks another term of office to continue what he has begun.

The American corporate media refuse to address the totals. Doing so might result in an accusation of being unpatriotic or un-American. Doing so would challenge directives from the WH such as those that keep the nation from seeing the draped coffins of their 4,000 military dead or hearing about the deaths of other coalition forces. Terrorists also injure and mutilate their victims. The number of US seriously wounded troops is far into the tens of thousands. Still, we rarely, if ever, are told of the unbearable injuries that will scar the lives of so many young Americans for their lifetimes.

After all, doing so might influence the outcome of the upcoming election.

How utterly shameful that is for this ill-informed country and how tragic it is for the world.

http://tvnewslies.org/tvnl/index.php/editorial/reggies-commentary/20-regs-thoughts/750-why-george-w-bush-isthe-worlds-leading-terrorist

Where Are the Iraqis in the Iraq War?

Where Are the Iraqis in the Iraq War?
Ramzy Baroud, Aljazeera.net English.

Five years following the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, the mainstream media is once more making the topic one of intense scrutiny and analysis. The costs and implications of the war are endlessly covered from all possible angles, with one notable exception — the cost to the Iraqi people themselves.

Through all the special coverage and exclusive reports, very little is said about Iraqi casualties, who are either completely overlooked or hastily mentioned and whose numbers can only be guesstimated. Also conveniently ignored are the millions injured, internally and externally displaced, the victims of rape and kidnappings who will carry physical and psychological scars for the rest of their lives.

We find ourselves stuck in a hopeless paradigm, where it feels necessary to empathize with the sensibilities of the aggressor so as not to sound “unpatriotic,” while remaining blind to the untold anguish of the victims. Some actually feel the need to go so far as to blame the Iraqis for their own misfortune. Both Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have expressed their wish for Iraqis to take responsibility for the situation in their country, with the former saying, “We cannot win their civil war. There is no military solution.”

It would have been helpful if Clinton had reached her astute conclusion before she voted for the Senate’s 2002 resolution authorizing President Bush to attack Iraq. For the sake of argument, let’s overlook both Clinton’s and Obama’s repeated assertions that all options, including military, are on the table regarding how to “deal” with Iran’s alleged ambition to acquire nuclear weapons. But to go as far as blaming the ongoing war on the Iraqis’ lack of accountability is yet a new low for the “antiwar” candidates.

Is it still a secret, five years on, that the war on Iraq was fought for strategic reasons, to maintain a floundering superpower’s control over much of the world’s energy supplies and to sustain the regional supremacy of Israel, the US’ most costly ally anywhere?

Of course, there are those who prefer to imagine a world in which a well-intentioned superpower would fight with all of its might to enable another smaller, distant nation to enjoy the fruits of liberty, democracy and freedom. But it is nothing short of ridiculous to pretend that Iraqis are capable of controlling the parameters of the conflict, and the government whose election and operation is entirely under the command of the US military is capable of taking charge and assuming responsibilities. Equally absurd is the insinuation that the civil war in Iraq is an exclusively Iraqi doing, and that the US military has not deliberately planted the seeds of divisions, hoping to reinterpret its role in Iraq from that of the occupier to that of the arbitrator, making sure the “good” guys prevail over the “bad.”

The idea of the US making an immediate exit from Iraq or taking full financial and legal responsibility for the devastation and genocide — yes, genocide — that occurred in the last five years is simply unthinkable from the viewpoint of the corporate US media, which still relates to the war only in terms of American (and never Iraqi) losses.

There are very few commentators who are actually arguing that the reasons for war were entirely self-serving, without an iota of morality behind them. Would Bush employ the same logic he used to justify Saddam Hussein’s execution — suggesting this was warranted by the Iraqi president’s violence against his own people — when dealing with those responsible for the deaths of over a million Iraqis as a result of this war?

And indeed Iraqis are dying in numbers that never subside regardless of the media and official hype about the “surge.” Just Foreign Policy says the number of dead Iraqis has surpassed a million, while a survey by the British polling agency ORB estimates the number at over 1.2 million. But the plight of Iraqis hardly ends at a death count, since those left behind endure untold suffering: soaring poverty, unemployment between 40-70 percent (governmental estimates), total lack of security in major cities, and, according to Oxfam International, 4 million in need of emergency aid.

“Baghdad has become the most dangerous city in the world, largely as a result of a US policy of pitting various Iraqi ethnic and sectarian groups against one another. Today Baghdad is a city of walled-off Sunni and Shiite ghettoes, divided by concrete walls erected by the US military,” reports Dahr Jamail, one of the a few courageous voices that honestly relayed the horrendous outcomes of the war.

Indeed, there seem to be no promising statistics coming out of Iraq. Even under the previous regime and the debilitating sanctions imposed by the US and the UN, Iraqis were much better off prior to the war. Now, Iraqis are relevant only as pieces of the endless US government propaganda. From the viewpoint of Bush, McCain and Cheney, they are the victims of Al-Qaeda, which must be fought at all costs. From the viewpoint of Clinton and Obama, they need to fight their own wars and take responsibility for them, as if Iraqi “irresponsibility” is the main problem.

In yet another “surprise” visit to Iraq by a US official, Vice President Dick Cheney declared that Iraq was a “successful endeavor.” Considering the exorbitant contracts granted to selected corporations, the war has indeed succeeded in making a few already rich companies and individuals a lot richer.

Meanwhile, Shlomo Brom, a senior fellow at Tel Aviv University’s Institute for National Security Studies and former head of the Israeli Defense Force’s Strategic Planning Division, sees things from a slightly different angle. “Any Iraq will be better than Iraq under Saddam, because the Iraq of Saddam had the ability to threaten Israel,” he was quoted as saying in the Christian Science Monitor.

In considering such skewed logic, one can only hope that Cheney’s successful experiment will end soon, and that Israel’s desire for security is now sated. The people of Iraq cannot tolerate any more “success.”