Webster Tarpley on current wave of false-flags & Islamophobia

Webster Tarpley will return to my radio show  Tuesday, December 15th, to discuss his important article Major Hasan of Ft. Hood: Patsy in a Drill Gone Live?, his diagnosis of expanding US false-flag bombings in Pakistan, and the question of whether all of this portends the long-awaited 911-2B.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-Y9Hl2TyC4

Historian Webster Tarpley talks with Dina Gusovsky of Russia Today in Washington DC about very plausible Taliban charges that the CIA and Blackwater are behind the recent bombing atrocity in Peshawar, Pakistan. This attack is coherent with the US policy of provoking all-out civil war in Pakistan to break up that country to prevent it from serving as an energy corridor between Iran and China. The Pakistani Taliban are a proxy of the CIA. If the government in Islamabad collapses completely, or especially if Taliban forces appear to be taking control of some of Pakistan's nuclear forces, Wall Street could also get something it would like very much: a spectacular world shock that could send the world's hot money fleeing into the supposed safe haven of the US dollar, which is otherwise near collapse. Inside the US, a wave of Islamophobia is being ginned up with the Fort Hood shootings, the KSM trial in New York CIty, the seizure of allegedly pro-Iranian mosques, the Zazi case, and the incendiary anti-Moslem statements of Pat Robertson, the patron of the new reactionary governor of Virginia. Obama is expected to announce another massive escalation of US forces in Afghanistan within days.

If a Wall Street-CIA Operation Safe Haven is indeed at hand, it could also include a coup in Saudi Arabia, or a clash between Saudi Arabia and Iran over the civil war in Yemen. An Israeli attack on Iran, although much discussed, remains the least likely variation, with Pakistan still at the top of the US hit list.

Webster G. Tarpley is the author of Surviving the Cataclysm:Your Guide Through the Greatest Financial Crisis in Human History (2009), Barack H. Obama: The Unauthorized Biography (2008), and Obama: The Postmodern Coup - The Making of a Manchurian Candidate (2008). All are available through tarpley.net.

Zionist war on Islam is also a war on America

From Asia Times:

"The other regional players [read China] are busily setting the stage for exploitation of Afghanistan's natural resources, while the US remains bogged down with the war. This should change," (former CIA Pakistan Station Chief Milton) Bearden said (to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee).

Two weeks ago, when the Associated Press broke the story, it quoted leading American think-tanker and author, Robert Kaplan, "The world isn't fair. A worse outcome to staying and helping the Chinese would be withdrawing and losing a great battle in the war against radical Islam."

Here we have two clashing views: the former American, the latter Zionist. The American, Milton Bearden, who oversaw the US-Islamist alliance against Soviet imperial-colonial repression of the Muslims of Central Asia during the 1980s, realizes that the war in Afghanistan, like the war in Iraq, is completely, self-destructively insane when considered from the standpoint of the U.S. national interest. The latter, Robert Kaplan, a Jewish Zionist agent who once wrote a virtual Mossad dossier on those Americans smart enough to learn Arabic and support the Arab anti-Zionist cause, doesn't care if the US destroys itself while destroying Af-Pak. The only thing Kaplan cares about is the "great battle in the war against radical Islam." That war, of course, is a war for Israel.

Anybody who has taken Geopolitics 101 knows that the prime US foreign policy objective is to prevent the rise of a nation or bloc that could dominate the Eurasian land mass. The rising nation today is China, a new superpower with a 10% growth rate. And the dangerous (to US interests) bloc is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which adds Russian energy resources and nuclear weapons to the mix.

If it were rationally pursuing its own interests, the U.S. would be trying to help other powers act as counterweights to the development of a potentially hostile Eurasian bloc. The only sensible way to do that would be to support "radical Islam," not fight it. Let me explain why.

When the Zionists and their dupes speak of "radical Islam," what they really mean is not the crazy, isolated terrorist groups, most of them run by Mossad and other Zionist-influenced intelligence agencies, that target their fellow Muslims. What the Zionists are mortally afraid of is the Islamic world becoming politically united and economically and technologically successful.

The movement to rebuild the Islamic nation, the umma, is supported by a strong majority of Muslims worldwide: "Two-thirds (of of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims) would even like to 'unify all Islamic counties into a single Islamic state or caliphate.'" (WorldPublicOpinion.org)

If the US really wants to support democracy in the Middle East, it should throw its support behind that majority of Muslims, and help pave the road to a newly-united Islamic umma. A newly-united caliphate would be the natural ally of the US, which would help it control and protect its energy resources against possible threats from energy-hungry China and nuclear-armed Russia and India. A newly-empowered, US-allied caliphate would use its oil wealth to become one of the world's top three superpowers, alongside the US and China, ahead of Russia and India. It would be a key stabilizing force in a peaceful multi-polar world order. And it would be, among the big powers, the closest US ally.

Why isn't the US actively helping the world's Muslims re-unite their umma? Why is the US in fact fighting a brutal and deceptive war to smash and destroy key parts of the Muslim world, and to prevent any such reunification and re-empowerment?

The answer is obvious: This war on Islam is being waged by a fanatical minority of Zionists who have used their power in finance, media, political money, and organized crime to essentially take over the US and turn it against its own interests, as well as the interests of the world's Muslims.

The Zionists know that if Muslims gain even a tiny fraction of the power they ought to have, relative to their proportion of the world's population, Israel as a Jewish apartheid state is finished.

That is why the heavily-Zionist-influenced media churns out Islamophobic fantasies 24/7/365. And that is why the Zionists have duped the U.S. into a war on Islam, disguised as a self-evidently-absurd "war on terror," launched by the 9/11 coup d'etat.

 It is time for patriotic Americans to rise up and overthrow the Zionist facist regime that overthrew our government and burned our Constitution on September 11th, 2001. And it is time for Americans to demand a rational foreign policy that takes account of American interests, rather than being subservient to the interests of Zionism.

Help Galileo give NIST the finger!

Facebook users: sign the petition to help Galileo give NIST the finger here. 

The recent discovery of Galileo's middle finger, chopped rudely from his corpse in 1737 and presumed lost since 1905, raises a thorny question: What should be done with the historic digit? Some say rebury it; some say put it in a museum. But I think that if Galileo were alive today, he would want to give it to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) -- by flipping it to them in the form of the digitus impudicus. 

NIST hasn't declared that the Sun revolves around the earth (not yet, anyway). But the NIST report on the Twin Towers, and the even more ludicrous one on World Trade Center Building 7, may be the most egregious examples of scientific fraud in history, dwarfing such cases as the phony stem cell research of a guy named Suk and his more than 15 accomplices. (If you think Suk's research sucks, wait till you see NIST's!) 

Galileo was endlessly annoyed by opponents who fallaciously argued from authority, refusing even to look through his telescope, while denying the existence of the moons of Jupiter. Likewise, NIST's case rests on authority ("would our leaders deceive us? we're scientists, believe us!") and the refusal to look at any of the overwhelming evidence for controlled demolition, including molten metal, unexploded nanothermite in the WTC dust, explosive ejections of multi-ton steel beams, and much more. 

One-upping Galileo's opponents, NIST even had the gall to claim that it had found no evidence for controlled demolition because -- it later admitted -- it didn't look for it! The only conceivable response to that argument is to give NIST Galileo's middle finger.   

Help give NIST the finger -- sign the petition!

Why KSM's Innocence Matters

By opting to try 9/11 patsy-in-chief Khaled Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court, the left wing of the 9/11 cover-up team has made a huge, high-stakes gamble. They are, as Obama absurdly blurted out, betting that KSM will be found guilty by a jury. But they are also betting that the 9/11 truth movement--which knows that KSM cannot possibly have demolished the World Trade Center with nanothermite, held the president in a known location in Florida reading about goats to kids during an alleged surprise attack, and ordered a stand-down of the US Air Force--will not use the case to draw attention to its cause.

If they win their bet and the KSM trial ends in a guilty verdict, with no visible protest from the 9/11 truth movement, the history books will record that "confessed 9/11 mastermind KSM was convicted by a jury and sentenced to death." For most Americans, that will mean "case closed." The official story will stand in the history books. "Finally, we have closure."

If, on the other hand, 9/11 truth-seekers--joined by Constitution supporters, anti-torture advocates, and honest journalists who understand that KSM was tortured into demonstrably false confessions--make a hugely visible stink about this grotesque miscarriage of justice, history's verdict will not be so cut-and-dried. And if KSM is found innocent, as he clearly will be if the jury follows the law and uses logic and evidence to arrive at their decision, the 9/11 case will suddenly be wide-open again.

That's why the psy-oppers in the front lines of the 9/11 cover-up team are terrified by Obama's decision to give KSM a jury trial. They are afraid that visible protests by the 9/11 truth, anti-torture, and Constitution movements, and/or a not-guilty verdict, could deal a mortal blow to their cover-up operation. That is why the decision to try KSM has aroused so much hysterical opposition, for example:


The mayor who oversaw rescue and recovery efforts in the wake of the attacks on lower Manhattan [9/11 criminal and fireman-murderer Rudy Giuliani, who admitted he was told in advance that the Towers would come down, then lied about it] told "Fox News Sunday" the president is only granting the "wish" of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad at the expense of the American people and that the conspirators should be tried in a military tribunal.

9/11 perp-in-chief Cheney's daughter is also whimpering hysterically at the prospect of a KSM trial, presumably at the thought of dear old dad's possible execution.

Those who want to see KSM convicted without visible protest, and the official 9/11 big lie sanctified for the history books, are trying to terrorize the 9/11 truth movement into shutting up.  The best-known 9/11 coverup propaganda website is, as usual, trying to scare truthers away from taking effective action, playing on fears and insecurities among those truthers who are hypersensitive about the verbal attacks they endure...but it's the coverup artists' own fear that shines through these lines:

I just hope the troofers finally put there money where their mouth is. I want to see a free KSM movement, just as powerful as the free Mumia nuts. If they really believe what they say they believe, they have no excuse not to do something. Perhaps Richard Gage and David Ray Griffin can appear as expert witnesses or something?

The traitor doth protest too much! Anybody with the faintest understanding of psychology can see that these lines are intended to PREVENT truth-seekers from supporting KSM's obvious and demonstrable innocence, by ridiculing the idea in a manner designed to play on truther insecurities and foster inaction. Anybody who thinks that this anti-truth propagandist really wants us to join Constitutionalists and anti-torture activists in a free KSM movement, and thus impede the sanctifying of the 9/11 big lie in the history books, is of questionable intentions and/or intelligence.

Interestingly, Jon Gold, who moved in on the family members shortly after 9/11, insulated them from such glaringly obvious truths as the controlled demolition of the WTC, fought long and hard against the controlled demolition evidence and other evidence proving that Muslims didn't do 9/11, and has been working overtime ever since to preserve the "evil Muslim terrorists" myth and obscure Zionist responsibility for 9/11, using such cointepro-style tactics as provoking flame wars and issuing vicious personal attacks, is now working overtime to stop the truth movement from joining the Constitutionalists and anti-torture activists in KSM's defense. Take a look at the email exchange below and draw your own conclusions.



Dave Slesinger writes to a list of 9/11 truth-seekers proposing leaflets citing evidence against the official story but saying we don't really know whether KSM is innocent or guilty. Subject header: Re: Draft proposal for presence in NYC for KSM trial
I respond:

Kevin Barrett:

Personally I think this is too weak a response to an outrage this extreme.

If someone is tortured into a demonstrably bogus confession, that person may safely be assumed to be innocent. And if the torturers then destroy the recordings of the torture sessions, the assumption should be upgraded to accepted fact.  That is essentially what Bob Baer says, only slightly between the lines:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1692518,00.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2007/031107Baer.htm

Here's my response, which is proportionate to the outrage.

In any case, the proposed leaflet should focus on the abundant evidence that KSM is innocent. The question of who is really guilty should be secondary. In other words, the nanothermite evidence should be cited primarily to clear KSM.  Remember, there is a  real chance that a jury will find KSM not guilty. If leaflets citing evidence of his innocence were distributed in mass quantities targeting the prospective jury pool, the likelihood of acquittal would rise -- and any response by the government would trigger useful publicity.

Saying "we're not sure KSM wasn't involved" is exactly like saying "we're not sure David Slesinger wasn't involved." The main difference is that the torture, along with other evidence, clears KSM, whereas no equally strong evidence has yet surfaced that clears Dave  ; )

Kevin

[Various emailers joke about "yeah, we should definitely torture Dave" and "I've had my suspicions about Dave for a long time" etc. etc.  Others support the position that we should defend KSM's innocence.]

Jon Gold:

We need a real criminal investigation into 9/11. I am not defending KSM, nor do I think people in the 9/11 Truth Movement should.

Jon

[emailer disagrees with Jon, who responds:]

We must NOT come across as "terrorist sympathizers." There are MANY in the 9/11 Truth Movement who would like us to do just that. That would be a PR DISASTER. My approach recognizes that 9/11 was a crime, and that there are MORE suspects than just the 5 being brought to NYC.

Here is the available evidence I know of against KSM.

http://home.comcast.net/~gold9472/d20080211chargesheet.pdf

http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/csrt_ksm.pdf

The "debunkers" are calling for us to do it.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/11/ksm-4-others-coming-to-new-york-for.html

It is important to note that KSM allegedly confessed to the crime before he was captured.

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=4400#a0402foudainterview

KSM IS a "terrorist."  Project Bojinka ring a bell to anyone?  It would be absolutely foolish for us to give our opponents ammunition to call us "terrorist sympathizers."  I am not a "terrorist sympathizer."  I would hate to be painted with a "terrorist sympathizer" brush because certain people are sympathizing with terrorists.

Jon


Kevin Barrett:

That's "evidence" against KSM?!  The guy they made a human vegetable through nonstop torture, then destroyed the interrogation tapes?! Please.

And "terrorist sympathizers"?! As my book Questioning the War on Terror explains and documents, even if we consider 9/11 a "terrorist attack," you are thirty times more likely to be struck by lightning, and ten times more likely to drown in your bathtub, than to be killed by an anti-government "terrorist." So "terrorism" in the sense of al-Qaeda, the Weathermen, the Puerto Rican freedom fighters, etc. is a complete non-issue. We need to ruthlessly mock the whole idiotic "fear the terrorists" meme -- not worry about being called a "terrorist sympathizer"!  Most of the people labeled terrorists, in fact, are heroes fighting against extreme injustice and government terrorism. We SHOULD sympathize with freedom-fighters fighting war criminals in Afghanstan, Iraq, and Palestine. If you don't, Jon, what the hell kind of human being are you?

Governments and their militaries, for their part, murdered roughly 100 million people during the 20th century, most of them civilians. They're the only terrorists that matter.

So I agree that we must not come across as "terrorist sympathizers" by showing any sympathy whatsoever with the US government, the biggest terrorist organization on earth.

And from a PR standpoint, it would be great to have Dave Slesinger carrying a huge sign reading "Torture me, I'll confess too!" in front of the courthouse where KSM is being tried, with hundreds of supporters with similar signs behind him.  A large, visible movement supporting KSM's obvious innocence would help annihilate the "we're all terrorist-hating patriots here" consensus hallucination the Zionist MSM and Jon want to impose on us.

Kevin


Jon Gold:

Kevin Barrett is not someone that should be taken seriously or trusted.  He obviously has an agenda which is not in the best interests of this cause.

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21271

Jon

P.S. I live in a world of reality.  I do not proclaim everything to be fake because it doesn't coincide with what I think happened on 9/11.  As I mentioned KSM allegedly confessed BEFORE being tortured.  I also pointed out that the 9/11 Commission was HEAVILY based on his tortured confessions.  An indication that the 9/11 Report isn't worth the paper it was written on.

* *  *

Okay, that's enough of Jon Gold. I'll spare you Jon's illiterate obscene grunts sent to me off-list, which I am used to by now. If I had a dollar for every four-letter-word Jon has emailed me since he started stalking me a few years ago...well, I wouldn't exactly be a rich man, considering the fall of the dollar, but I could at least buy everybody a cup of coffee!

Anyway, does Jon really believe "The 'debunkers' are calling for us" to defend KSM's innocence? Or is he working with those very "debunkers" to spread fear in the truth movement and PREVENT us from taking action? Feel free to post a comment voting either "yes he's stupid enough to believe it" or "no, he's working for the other side."

I'll let Sander Hicks, a brilliant yet cautious and meticulous researcher, have the last word.


Sander Hicks:

Jon Gold, you are wrong. Neo-Zionist ideology = ONE BIG ZERO.

Why are you trying to instill a fear in us?

Sorry, let them called me a "terrorist sympathizer." I have already been called worse. KSM deserves a legal defense. I hold that we activists of good faith need to assemble an "Amicus Brief" and file it through an attorney.

Kevin Barrett has more substance to his argument, on the basis of legal jurisprudence, common sense, morality, ethics, due process of law, standards of evidence, etc.

The USA's eagerness to violate international laws against evidence garnered under torture itself shows desperation. International legal scholars point out that the confession from torture is inadmissable: http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/17/2/349

It violates the UN Convention Against Torture, see Article 15
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

Yet, let's not place any hope in the NY Courts, we saw how quickly they dispatched 80,000 signatures from NYC CAN.

YES there IS a strange allegation that KSM "confessed" before his apprehension in Pakistan.

However, this "confession" was witnessed by only one source, the writer Yosri Fouda. His connections to the establishment media (and possible intelligence assocations) destroy Fouda's credibility. His book "Masterminds of Terror" is a lightweight flake of chaff. KSM says in an off hand way "yes we did it" at the end of a chapter. It's rather unclear: We did WHAT?

Look at Fouda on the History Commons timeline:

Financial Times states: “Analysts cited the crude editing of [Fouda’s interview] tapes and the timing of the broadcasts as reasons to be suspicious about their authenticity. Dia Rashwan, an expert on Islamist movements at the Al-Ahram Centre for Strategic Studies in Cairo, said: ‘I have very serious doubts [about the authenticity of this tape]. It could have been a script written by the FBI.’” [Financial Times, 9/11/2002] ... After being so reviled by al-Qaeda supporters, Fouda is later given a cassette said to be a bin Laden speech. [MSNBC, 11/18/2002] US officials believe the voice on that cassette is “almost certainly” bin Laden, but one of the world’s leading voice-recognition institutes said it is 95 percent certain the tape is a forgery. [BBC, 11/18/2002; BBC, 11/29/2002]

CIA torturers & nanothermite perps should be tried, convicted, and executed

Obama should call for the execution of the true 9/11 perps--not torture victim KSM

Obama says Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, who allegedly confessed under torture to masterminding 9/11 (as well as many other crimes he could not possibly have committed) will be tried, convicted, and executed.

If the President of the United States has abolished the presumption of innocence -- the bedrock on which our system of justice rests -- then he is the one who should be tried, convicted, and executed.

If the President of the United States has retroactively legitimized the denial of habeus corpus rights to a criminal suspect (and one who happens to be demonstrably innocent) then he is the one who should be tried, convicted, and executed.

If the President of the United States has retroactively legitimized torture, then he (and the rest of the political class guilty of legitimizing torture) should be tried, convicted, and executed.

If the President has approved the CIA's destruction of the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed torture tapes -- which would undoubtedly show the torturers forcing Mohammed to falsely take the blame for the 9/11 inside job, as former key CIA operative Robert Baer suggests --  than he should be tried, convicted, and executed.

All of these crimes against the Constitution of the United States of America are immeasurably more heinous than the crimes of which Khaled Sheikh Mohammed has been so preposterously accused. Blowing up three World Trade Center buildings with high-tech nanothermite explosives is a terrible crime -- but blowing up the Constitution of the United States of America is immeasurably worse.

But it isn't just the President, a mere puppet of the deep state, who should be brought to justice.

It is the CIA operatives who tortured Khaled Sheikh Mohammed into giving a demonstrably false confession to 9/11 and other crimes, including crimes committed while he was incarcerated, who should be tried, convicted, and executed.

It is the intelligence operatives, be they CIA, Mossad, or both, who blew up the World Trade Center with high-tech nanothermite explosives, then engineered a follow-up anthrax attack, who should be tried, convicted, and executed.

It is the rogue network operatives who lied us into war -- including folks like Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rove, Libby, Bush, and many more -- who should be tried, convicted, and executed.

I oppose capital punishment in principle. But the 9/11 coup d'etat against the Constitution, and the criminal wars of aggression that followed, taken together, are the worst crime ever committed on earth. Yes, Stalin and Hitler (not to mention Churchill and Roosevelt) murdered more people. But the Russian and German states they inherited were not all that great to begin with. Stalin and Hitler simply made bad situations worse.

The USA was once an anti-imperialist democratic republic -- an imperfect one to be sure, but one with a Constitution that guaranteed basic rights, a tradition of avoiding foreign wars and entanglements, and a political system that did not completely overlook the interests of its ordinary citizens. The 9/11 coup d'etat, and the criminal wars of aggression that followed, murdered that America.

Those murderers, unlike the lesser murderers who have disgraced this planet since time immemorial, ought to be tried, convicted, and--yes--executed.

* * *


From the "it only hurts when I laugh" department:

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Confesses To Confessing Under Torture

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Confesses: I Killed Jesus!

American Muslims To Fort Hood Shooter: 'Thanks A Lot, Asshole'

Warning! We're in the false-flag red zone for 911-2B

Here is the warning I just sent to my list:

Greetings,

As "9/11 conspiracy theorists" go I'm not much of an alarmist, but I do think that we are in the red zone right now for another potential 9/11 style false-flag event. Here's why.

Israel and its allegedly American cheerleaders are desperate to attack Iran ASAP, while Pentagon hawks are yearning to escalate the war in Afghanistan. In other words, the folks who brought us 9/11 and the 9/11 wars want a momentous escalation of those wars. And they want it NOW.

But the American people aren't on board. Polls show that the war on Afghanistan is more unpopular than ever. And the level of destruction unleashed by a Zio-American attack on Iran would make our current economic chaos look like the Golden Age.

To get people to accept this kind of massive escalation, another major false-flag event demonizing Muslims, and thereby legitimizing escalations against the Taliban and the Islamic Republic of Iran, may be in the works.

The Ft. Hood probable false-flag attack (see Jerry Mazza's article) seems to have been timed to coincide with the decision to try (the individual claimed to be) Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the 9/11 patsy-in-chief. All of this appears to have been orchestrated to evoke memories of 9/11 and reinforce the official story--a necessary preliminary to any 911-2B.  In other words, they may be softening us up for something big.

Remember folks, what we're dealing with here is a war on Islam and Muslims launched and sustained by a whole series of false-flag events, not just 9/11-anthrax but also the attacks on Bali, Madrid, London, Mumbai, and now (apparently) Ft. Hood. There is no reason to think these people are going to stop any time soon.

Please consider getting proactive by stockpiling "Inside Job" plastic roll banner signs, to be publicly deployed in the event of a major false-flag event.  I still have a couple of rolls of these, so please email me if you want some.  Also, don't forget that you can get ten copies of my book Questioning the War on Terror for only $50 to pass around.

Thanks for listening, and keep up your efforts for truth and justice.

Kevin

Nauseating Ft. Hood Wimpery on "Arab-American" Radio Show Almost Blows My Gasket...

...and nearly nets me a speeding ticket!

I was listening to the local Arab-American show "Salamat" on WORT a few hours ago while driving. Bad idea.

The hosts spent about ten minutes falling all over themselves piously and ultra-apologetically parroting the official story of the Ft. Hood shootings, endorsing the official story of 9/11 in the process. They even claimed that Nidal Hasan "killed innocent civilians." They wanted everyone to believe that Arab-Americans are just as patriotic as the next American war criminal.

My wife and I couldn't take it. We started ranting about the pathetic, cowardly lies being broadcast over an allegedly Arab-American radio show on an allegedly alternative radio station in this town of lying war criminals, in this nation of lying war criminals.

Suddenly a stroboscopic cherry-top exploded in my rear-view mirror. I pulled over, cursing my idiocy in letting pathetic, cowardly lies on the radio boil my blood and net me a speeding ticket.

I wanted to explain the whole thing to the officer, about how 9/11 was an inside job, and the 9/11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not only genocidal, but actually worse than genocidal, because they're wars of aggression, which is the worst crime a human being, or a nation, can commit.

"Do you have any idea why I pulled you over?" the cop asked politely. I said yes, I was driving too fast. But instead of explaining why, I just said we were heading for a Laos-Thai restaurant to celebrate my son's 15th birthday.

After running my license, he let me go with a warning, which was decent of him, since I had been going 50 in a 30 zone.

This cop, unlike the one that shot Jim Duensing, seemed like a nice guy. I suppose some of the war criminals who got shot at Ft. Hood were nice people too. Heck, even the US soldiers in Iraq who sodomized kids in front of their parents to torture the parents might have been nice people if they hadn't been conned by the 9/11 publicity stunt into giving up their humanity. It's really sad how so many decent folks in this country have been turned into war criminals, and enablers of war crimes, by the lying psychopaths who staged the 9/11 inside job, the bombings in Bali, Madrid, London, and Mumbai, and the false-flag friendly fire at Ft. Hood, among so many other crimes.

I'm going to contact the hosts of the Salamat radio show and tell them that their on-air lies are a traffic safety hazard, and that they need to check out these links ASAP:

Major Hasan of Ft. Hood: A Patsy in a Drill Gone Live? by Webster G. Tarpley

Fort Hood Shooting 'Oddities'
By Lori Price, www.legitgov.org Updated: 15 Nov 2009

* * *