WhoIsZbigniewBrzezinski

http://inlnews.biz/BrezinskiTellsCFRControl.html

BrezinskiTellsCFRControl

Zbigniew Brzezinski - Easier to kill a million people than to control them.

//www.youtube.com/watch? v=lkOOBo45TZU&feature=player_ embedded#

Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin engages Brzezinski in a game of chess at Camp David
U.S. President Jimmy Carter with Brzezinski and Cyrus Vance at Camp David in 1977
The Iranian Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, meeting with Arthur Atherton, William H. Sullivan, Cyrus Vance, President Jimmy Carter, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, in 1977

Zbigniew Brzezinski - Easier to kill a million people than to control them.

//www.youtube.com/watch? v=lkOOBo45TZU&feature=player_ embedded#

Zbigniew Brzezinski Obama's Top Foreign Policy Advisers, Professor of American Foreign PolicyStrategic Analysis and Foreign Policy  National  

Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, worked for Ronald Regan as Intelligence advisor, founder and trustee of the Trilateral Commission, a member of the Council For Foreign Relations (CFR) and Council for Strategic and International Studies, analysis, mastermind behind the creation of Ben Ladin and the terrorist  Al Quieda organisation, international advisor for a number of major corporations, an associate of Henry Kissinger, co-chairman of the Bush Advisory Security Task Force in 1988 ...what a guy...  

states the following belief, conviction and effective advice to Barrack Obama and to Barrach Oboma and 

Zbigniew Brzezinski's employers and bosses...Jacob and Evilyn Rothchold and the rest Rothschild International Banking Family and their other evil and criminally insane International Baking Partners and Business associates and elite families

In a Speech Made on November 17th 2008


For the first time in human history  ,.,.for the first time in all of human history.....almost all of mankind is politiclaly awake... andthese new and old major powers...face and yet another .... a novel reality...in some respect unprecidented ... and it is that while the lethality ..the lethality of their power is greater that ever.... their capacity to propose control  ove rthe politicsally awakened masses of the world is at an all time low   an unprecidented    alll time low... I once put it rather pungently ... and I was flatered that the British Foreign Secretary repeated this...as follows ... namely in ealier times ...'.It was easier to control a million people literally...it was easiet to control a million people that physicly to kill a million people ... today it is infinitely easy to kill a million people than control a million people ..it is easier to kill that ot control...

Michael Ruppert gives a lecture of Zbigniew Brzezingski's 1997 book : The Grand Chessboard.

Rupert says, " Now if you want to get really.... really ...really angry .... go buy this book.. it's called the Grand Chess Board ....  American Primacy and it's Neo Stratigic Objectives...   written by  Zbigniew Brzezingski in 1997 ...I am going to read you some quotes from that book ...
"The last decades in American History has seen a Titanic Shift in World Affairs... for the first time a non Eurasion Power has emerged not only as a key arbiter of Eurasian Relations but also as the world's paramount power with the defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union as the final step in the rapid ascendance of a  Western Hemisphere power with the United States as the first   and indeed as the first truly global super power ...(This is in the preface of the book) 
It is imperative that no Eurasian challenger (Note: by that he means Russia of China) ( Note: Eurasia is everything to the eats of Germany all the way south to the Pacific Ocean .... south through the Indian Sub Continent and includes the middle east..)
emerges that is capable of dominating Eurasia and thus capable of challenging America ....the formulation of a comprehensive and intergrated Eurasian Geo Strategy   is therefore the purpose of this book .... The attitude of the American Public towards the external projection of American Power has been much more ambivelent ...the public support of the American engagement in World War Two was largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour   (Pearl Harbour was another manipulated event just like 9-11, Al Qiueda which have all been  masterminded by Zbigniew Brzezinski with the Rothschild Family behind the scenes who have most to gain as they make their money lending to all countries on all sides of an external and/or internal war and/or conflict).'It get's worse' ....
 for America's the chief Geo Physical Prise is Eurasia ...   and a non Eurasian Power  is pre-eminent and now  America's Global Primacy  ('Isn't that arrogant") America's Global Primacy   is directly dependent on how long and effective is the pro-ponderence on the Eurasian  continent in sustained..('What he is saying is that if America wants to stay top dog it has to control Eurasia ... ')
America's withdrawal from the war ... or because on a sudden emergence of a successful rival would produce  massive international instability ..it would prompt Global Anarchy ...
(Do you know what he is saying there?... actually global anarchy would probably a good thing right now ....what he is saying here there is ... if we don't control the world by whatever means necessary ...
 (the world's going to miserable ... he didn't ask my opinion... Did he ask yours? OK)  
.. in that context ..how American manages Eurasia?  
(Do we manage people around the world ..Is that our job?   ... )
Is critical    Eurasia is the world's largest continent and is Geo Physically Active and a power that controls Eurasia will control two of the world's  three most advanced and economically productive regions  and a mere glance at the map the control of Eurasia would almost automaticly entail Africa's subordination   ..rendering the Western Hemisphere  and Oceania (That's Australia for all you non-academics)   geo-politically proliferal to the worlds central continent ... about 75% of the world's population live in Eurasia   and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well ..both in enterprises and  underneath it's soil   ....Eurasia accounts for 60% of the world's GNP and three fourths of the world's  known energy resources ...  two basic steps are thus required ... first to identify  the strategic dynamic Eurasian states ...that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals  of the respected political elite  and the likely consequences of their seeking to obtain them ...
second ... to formulae specific US policies to offset co-opt and/or control the above..
(The man is talking about co-opting controlling managing subverting nations peoples and economies  ..)
 to put i in a terminology  that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires ..
(please listen to this) 
the three grand imperative  geo strategy are to prevent collusion     and mantain security dependence among the vassels  
... to keep tributaries pliant and protected  and to keep the barbarians form coming together. 
(That's on page 40 ..I'm telling you ..you've got to buy the book )


offset ... co-opt and to control 
which holds     of the worlds natural resources that

 

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." nZbigniew Brzezingski

Comments

1. Obama has to be mind controlled. just watch him when he doesnt? have a telepromter. can anyone help confirm this?

2. They said the same thing about? Bush. Same teleprompter thing. Have you heard of MkULTRA?

3.  Yeh, he's retarded.? He doesn't even know how many states are in the US

4. Tells u a lot about OBAMA that he would align himself w/ this Vulture who said ' THE SUBORDINATION OF AFRICA , WOULD FOLLOW " & " CONTROL OF EURASIA " .
A black man , Obama? stabbing his motherland in the back , its beyond disgraceful , that he would participate in the U.S. militarization OF AFRICA and "Subordination of Africa HE SAID IT , he presents the plans to Obama and this heartless , greedy for power Obama would put his people on their knees bcs of U.S. desire for CONTROL HW ds he sleep

5. No one controls anyone. People make laws with a pen and funding. People force people out of homes, jobs, etc... with the power of the purse but control? no... even a man in irons has his own mind and till people come to know their assault on their fellow man only makes slaves who in time will be the owners by natural change the chain? of abuse continues Having the purse only means power is in cycle. Break the cycle, by letting go of the thoughts of control. The illusion fills the purse w/ death.

6. I have only one heroes. Michael C. Ruppert. You changed my political view forever. Thanks? for that. Enjoy the rest of your life!

7. who is Brzezinski going to get to fight these wars? Not my me? or any of my family.

8.  If it got to that point you wouldn't have a choice, you'd be forced into fighting or forced into jail, or camps they? will have set up all over amercia, or killed. it's crazy..i know

9. Copy and? paste all over...... "Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." nZbigniew Brzezingski


10. WAKE UP? AMERICA, WORLD

11. Communism was funded by the Central Banks, the same people? that control the US today.


Brzezinski during his White House years
Zbigniew Brzezinski
December 2010 photo

10th United States National Security Advisor


U.S. President Reagan supportively meeting with Afghan Mujahideen at the White House, to highlight Soviet atrocities in Afghanistan.

Three mujahideen in Asmar, 1985.

Spetsnaz troops interrogate a captured mujahideen with Western weapons in the background, 1986

An Afghan mujahideen fighter demonstrates the use of a hand-held SA-7 surface-to-air missile

George Crile III with Charlie Wilson in Afghanistan.

A German database showing the channeling of the money and weapons, provided by ISI officer Mohammad Yousaf in his book: Afghanistan – The Bear Trap: The Defeat of a Superpower
In office
January 20, 1977 – January 20, 1981
President Jimmy Carter
Deputy David L. Aaron
Preceded by Brent Scowcroft
Succeeded by Richard V. Allen
Personal details
Born Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski
March 28, 1928 (age 84)
Warsaw, Poland
Political party Democratic
Alma mater McGill University
Harvard University
Profession Politician, critic
                                                                                                                         
                                                                                           
                     Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski



Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski
(Polish: Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzeziński, pronounced [ˈzbʲiɡɲɛf kaˈʑimʲɛʐ bʐɛˈʑiĩ̯skʲi]; born March 28, 1928) is a Polish American political scientist, geostrategist, and statesman who served as United States National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981.

Major foreign policy events during his term of office included the normalization of relations with the People's Republic of China (and the severing of ties with the Republic of China); the signing of the second Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT II); the brokering of the Camp David Accords; the transition of Iran from an important U.S. client state to an anti-Western Islamic Republic, encouraging dissidents in Eastern Europe and emphasizing human rights in order to undermine the influence of the Soviet Union;[1] the financing of the mujahideen in Afghanistan in response to the Soviet deployment of forces there[2] and the arming of these rebels to counter the Soviet invasion; and the signing of the Torrijos-Carter Treaties relinquishing overt U.S. control of the Panama Canal after 1999.

Brzezinski is currently Robert E. Osgood Professor of American Foreign Policy at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and a member of various boards and councils. He appears frequently as an expert on the PBS program The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, ABC News' This Week with Christiane Amanpour, and on MSNBC's Morning Joe, where his daughter, Mika Brzezinski, is co-anchor. In recent years, he has been a supporter of the Prague Process.[3]

Iranian Revolution
Return of Ayatollah Khomeini from exile

Articles

Soviet war in Afghanistan

The Soviet war in Afghanistan was a nine-year war during the Cold War fought by the Soviet Army and the Marxist-Leninist government of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan[20] against the Afghan Mujahideen guerrilla movement and foreign "Arab–Afghan" volunteers. The mujahideen received wide military and financial support from Pakistan,[21] also receiving direct and indirect support by the United States[2][3][4] and China.[22][23] The Afghan government fought with the intervention of the Soviet Union as its primary ally.[21]

The initial Soviet deployment of the 40th Army in Afghanistan began on December 24, 1979 under Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev.[24] The final troop withdrawal started on May 15, 1988, and ended on February 15, 1989 under the last Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev. Due to the interminable nature of the war, the conflict in Afghanistan has sometimes been referred to as the "Soviet Union's Vietnam War" or "the Bear Trap".[25][26][27]

Soviet war in Afghanistan
Part of the Cold War and the Afghan civil war
Mortar attack on Shigal Tarna garrison, Kunar Province, 87.jpg
Mujahideen, 1987
Date December 24, 1979 – February 15, 1989
(9 years, 1 month, 3 weeks and 1 day)
Location Democratic Republic of Afghanistan
Result Geneva Accords (1988)
Belligerents
Soviet Union Soviet Union

Afghanistan D.R. Afghanistan

Mujahideen

Supported by:
 Pakistan

 United States of America[2][3][4][5]
 People's Republic of China
 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia[3][4][6][7]

Commanders and leaders
Soviet Union Leonid Brezhnev
Soviet Union Yuri Andropov
Soviet Union Konstantin Chernenko
Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev
Soviet Union Dmitriy Ustinov
Soviet Union Sergei Sokolov
Soviet Union Dmitriy Yazov
Soviet Union Valentin Varennikov
Soviet Union Igor Rodionov
Soviet Union Boris Gromov
Afghanistan Babrak Karmal
Afghanistan Mohammad Najibullah
Afghanistan Abdul Rashid Dostum
Afghanistan Abdul Qadir Dagarwal
Afghanistan Shahnawaz Tanai
Afghanistan Mohammed Rafie
Ahmad Shah Massoud
Abdul Haq
Abdullah Azzam
Ismail Khan
Gulbuddin Hekmatyar
Jalaluddin Haqqani
Mullah Naqib
Abdul Rahim Wardak
Fazal Haq Mujahid
Burhanuddin Rabbani
Osama bin Laden
Flag of the Pakistani Army.svg General Zia-ul-Haq [8]
Coat of arms of Pakistan.svg Akhtar Abdur Rahman [8]
Strength
Soviet Forces:

Afghan Forces:

Mujahideen:

200,000–250,000[11][12][13]

Casualties and losses
Soviet Forces:

14,453 Killed (total)

  • 9,500 killed in combat[14]
  • 4,000 died from wounds[14]
  • 1,000 died from disease and accidents[14]

53,753 Wounded[14]

312 Missing[15]

Afghan Forces:

18,000 killed[16]

Mujahideen:

75,000–90,000 killed, 75,000+ wounded (tentative estimate)[17]

Civilians (Afghan):

600,000–2,000,000 killed[18]

5 million refugees outside of Afghanistan

2 million internally displaced persons

Around 3 million Afghans wounded (mostly civilians)[19]

Civilians (Soviet):

Around 100 dead


Early years

Zbigniew Brzezinski was born in Warsaw, Poland, in 1928. His family, members of the nobility (or "szlachta" in Polish), bore the Trąby coat of arms and hailed from Brzeżany in Galicia. This town is thought to be the source of the family name. Brzezinski's father was Tadeusz Brzeziński, a Polish diplomat who was posted to Germany from 1931 to 1935; Zbigniew Brzezinski thus spent some of his earliest years witnessing the rise of the Nazis. From 1936 to 1938, Tadeusz Brzeziński was posted to the Soviet Union during Joseph Stalin's Great Purge.[citation needed]

In 1938, Tadeusz Brzeziński was posted to Canada. In 1939, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was agreed to by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union; subsequently the two powers invaded Poland. The 1945 Yalta Conference between the Allies allotted Poland to the Soviet sphere of influence, meaning Brzezinski's family could not safely return to their country.[citation needed] The Second World War had a profound effect on Brzezinski, who stated in an interview; "The extraordinary violence that was perpetrated against Poland did affect my perception of the world, and made me much more sensitive to the fact that a great deal of world politics is a fundamental struggle."[4]

Rising influence

After attending Loyola High School in Montreal – where he met Bora Karaman, one of his lifetime fellows and also mentors -[5] Brzezinski entered McGill University in 1945 to obtain both his Bachelor and Master of Arts degrees (received in 1949 and 1950 respectively). His Master's thesis focused on the various nationalities within the Soviet Union.[6] Brzezinski's plan for doing further studies in Great Britain in preparation for a diplomatic career in Canada fell through, principally because he was ruled ineligible for a scholarship he had won that was open to British subjects. Brzezinski then attended Harvard University to work on a doctorate, focusing on the Soviet Union and the relationship between the October Revolution, Vladimir Lenin's state, and the actions of Joseph Stalin. He received his doctorate in 1953; the same year, he traveled to Munich and met Jan Nowak-Jezioranski, head of the Polish desk of Radio Free Europe. He later collaborated with Carl J. Friedrich to develop the concept of totalitarianism as a way to more accurately and powerfully characterize and criticize the Soviets in 1956.

As a Harvard professor, he argued against Dwight Eisenhower's and John Foster Dulles's policy of rollback, saying that antagonism would push Eastern Europe further toward the Soviets. The Polish protests followed by Polish October and Hungarian Revolution in 1956 lent some support to Brzezinski's idea that the Eastern Europeans could gradually counter Soviet domination. In 1957, he visited Poland for the first time since he left as a child, and his visit reaffirmed his judgment that splits within the Eastern bloc were profound.

In 1958 he became a United States citizen. Despite his years of residence in Canada and the presence of family members there, he never became a Canadian citizen.

When in 1959 Brzezinski was not granted tenure at Harvard, he moved to New York City to teach at Columbia University.[7] Here he wrote Soviet Bloc: Unity and Conflict, which focused on Eastern Europe since the beginning of the Cold War. He also became a member of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York and attended meetings of the Bilderberg Group.

During the 1960 U.S. presidential elections, Brzezinski was an advisor to the John F. Kennedy campaign, urging a non-antagonistic policy toward Eastern European governments. Seeing the Soviet Union as having entered a period of stagnation, both economic and political, Brzezinski correctly predicted the future breakup of the Soviet Union along lines of nationality (expanding on his master's thesis).[6]

Brzezinski continued to argue for and support détente for the next few years, publishing "Peaceful Engagement in Eastern Europe" in Foreign Affairs,[8] and supporting non-antagonistic policies after the Cuban Missile Crisis, on the grounds that such policies might disabuse Eastern European nations of their fear of an aggressive Germany and pacify Western Europeans fearful of a superpower condominium along the lines of the Yalta Conference.[clarification needed]

In 1964, Brzezinski supported Lyndon Johnson's presidential campaign and the Great Society and civil rights policies, while on the other hand he saw Soviet leadership as having been purged of any creativity following the ousting of Khrushchev. Through Jan Nowak-Jezioranski, Brzezinski met with Adam Michnik, then a communist party member and future Polish Solidarity activist.

Brzezinski continued to support engagement with Eastern European governments, while warning against De Gaulle's vision of a "Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals." He also supported the Vietnam War. From 1966 to 1968, Brzezinski served as a member of the Policy Planning Council of the U.S. Department of State (President Johnson's October 7, 1966, "Bridge Building" speech was a product of Brzezinski's influence).

Events in Czechoslovakia further reinforced Brzezinski's criticisms of the right's aggressive stance toward Eastern European governments. His service to the Johnson administration, and his fact-finding trip to Vietnam, made him an enemy of the New Left, despite his advocacy of de-escalation of the United States' involvement in the war.

For the 1968 U.S. presidential campaign, Brzezinski was chairman of the Hubert Humphrey Foreign Policy Task Force. He advised Humphrey to break with several of President Johnson's policies, especially concerning Vietnam, the Middle East, and condominium with the Soviet Union.

Brzezinski called for a pan-European conference, an idea that would eventually find fruition in 1973 as the Conference for Security and Co-operation in Europe.[9] Meanwhile he became a leading critic of both the Nixon-Kissinger détente condominium, as well as McGovern's pacifism.[10]

In his 1970 piece Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era, Brzezinski argued that a coordinated policy among developed nations was necessary in order to counter global instability erupting from increasing economic inequality. Out of this thesis, Brzezinski co-founded the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller, serving as director from 1973 to 1976. The Trilateral Commission is a group of prominent political and business leaders and academics primarily from the United States, Western Europe and Japan. Its purpose was to strengthen relations among the three most industrially advanced regions of the capitalist world. Brzezinski selected Georgia governor Jimmy Carter as a member.

Government

Jimmy Carter announced his candidacy for the 1976 presidential campaign to a skeptical media and proclaimed himself an "eager student" of Brzezinski.[citation needed] Brzezinski became Carter's principal foreign policy advisor by late 1975. He became an outspoken critic of the Nixon-Kissinger over-reliance on détente, a situation preferred by the Soviet Union, favoring the Helsinki process instead, which focused on human rights, international law and peaceful engagement in Eastern Europe. Brzezinski has been considered to be the Democrats' response to Republican Henry Kissinger.[11] Carter engaged Ford in foreign policy debates by contrasting the Trilateral vision with Ford's détente.[12]

After his victory in 1976, Carter made Brzezinski National Security Advisor. Earlier that year, major labor riots broke out in Poland, laying the foundations for Solidarity. Brzezinski began by emphasizing the "Basket III" human rights in the Helsinki Final Act, which inspired Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia shortly thereafter.[13]

Brzezinski had a hand in writing parts of Carter's inaugural address, and this served his purpose of sending a positive message to Soviet dissidents.[14] The Soviet Union and Western European leaders both complained that this kind of rhetoric ran against the "code of détente" that Nixon and Kissinger had established.[15][16] Brzezinski ran up against members of his own Democratic Party who disagreed with this interpretation of détente, including Secretary of State Cyrus Vance. Vance argued for less emphasis on human rights in order to gain Soviet agreement to Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT), whereas Brzezinski favored doing both at the same time. Brzezinski then ordered Radio Free Europe transmitters to increase the power and area of their broadcasts, a provocative reversal of Nixon-Kissinger policies.[17] West German chancellor Helmut Schmidt objected to Brzezinski's agenda, even calling for the removal of Radio Free Europe from German soil.[18]

The State Department was alarmed by Brzezinski's support for East German dissidents and objected to his suggestion that Carter's first overseas visit be to Poland. He visited Warsaw, met with Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski (against the objection of the U.S. Ambassador to Poland), recognizing the Roman Catholic Church as the legitimate opposition to communist rule in Poland.[19]

By 1978, Brzezinski and Vance were more and more at odds over the direction of Carter's foreign policy. Vance sought to continue the style of détente engineered by Nixon-Kissinger, with a focus on arms control. Brzezinski believed that détente emboldened the Soviets in Angola and the Middle East, and so he argued for increased military strength and an emphasis on human rights. Vance, the State Department, and the media criticized Brzezinski publicly as seeking to revive the Cold War.

Brzezinski advised Carter in 1978 to engage the People's Republic of China and traveled to Beijing to lay the groundwork for the normalization of relations between the two countries. This also resulted in the severing of ties with the United States' longtime anti-Communist ally the Republic of China. Also in 1978, Polish Cardinal Karol Wojtyła was elected Pope John Paul II – an event which the Soviets believed[citation needed] Brzezinski orchestrated. President Carter told reporters that the new Pope was a friend of Dr. Brzezinski.

1979 saw two major strategically important events: the overthrow of U.S. ally the Shah of Iran, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Iranian Revolution precipitated the Iran hostage crisis, which would last for the rest of Carter's presidency. Brzezinski anticipated the Soviet invasion, and, with the support of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the People's Republic of China, he created a strategy to undermine the Soviet presence. See below under "Major Policies – Afghanistan."

Using this atmosphere of insecurity, Brzezinski led the United States toward a new arms buildup and the development of the Rapid Deployment Forces – policies that are both more generally associated with Ronald Reagan now. In 1980, Brzezinski planned[citation needed] Operation Eagle Claw, which was meant to free the hostages in Iran using the newly created Delta Force and other Special Forces units. The mission was a failure and led to Secretary Vance's resignation.

Brzezinski was criticized widely in the press and became the least popular member of Carter's administration.[citation needed] Edward Kennedy challenged President Carter for the 1980 Democratic nomination, and at the convention, Kennedy's delegates loudly booed Brzezinski.[citation needed] Hurt by internal divisions within his party and a stagnant domestic economy, Carter lost the 1980 presidential election in a landslide.

Brzezinski, acting under a lame duck Carter presidency, but encouraged that Solidarity in Poland had vindicated his style of engagement with Eastern Europe, took a hard-line stance against what seemed like an imminent Soviet invasion of Poland. He even made a midnight phone call to Pope John Paul II – whose visit to Poland in 1979 had foreshadowed the emergence of Solidarity – warning him in advance. The U.S. stance was a significant change from previous reactions to Soviet repression in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968.

In 1981 President Carter presented Brzezinski with the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

After power

Brzezinski left office concerned about the internal division within the Democratic party, arguing that the dovish McGovernite wing would send the Democrats into permanent minority.

He had mixed relations with the Reagan administration. On the one hand, he supported it as an alternative to the Democrats' pacifism[clarification needed],[citation needed] but he also criticized it as seeing foreign policy in overly black-and-white terms.

He remained involved in Polish affairs, critical of the imposition of martial law in Poland in 1981, and more so of Western European acquiescence to its imposition in the name of stability. Brzezinski briefed U.S. vice-president George H. W. Bush before his 1987 trip to Poland that aided in the revival of the Solidarity movement.

In 1985, under the Reagan administration, Brzezinski served as a member of the President's Chemical Warfare Commission. From 1987 to 1988, he worked on the U.S. National Security CouncilDefense Department Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy. From 1987 to 1989 he also served on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.

In 1988, Brzezinski was co-chairman of the Bush National Security Advisory Task Force and endorsed Bush for president, breaking with the Democratic party. Brzezinski published The Grand Failure the same year, predicting the failure of Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev's reforms and the collapse of the Soviet Union in a few more decades. He said there were five possibilities for the Soviet Union: successful pluralization, protracted crisis, renewed stagnation, coup (by the KGB or Soviet military), or the explicit collapse of the Communist regime. He called collapse "at this stage a much more remote possibility" than protracted crisis. He also predicted that the chance of some form of communism existing in the Soviet Union in 2017 was a little more than 50% and that when the end did come it would be "most likely turbulent". In the event, the Soviet system collapsed totally in 1991 following Moscow's crackdown on Lithuania's attempt to declare independence, the Nagorno-Karabakh War of the late 1980s, and scattered bloodshed in other republics. This was a less violent outcome than Brzezinski and other observers anticipated.

In 1989 the Communists failed to mobilize support in Poland, and Solidarity swept the general elections. Later the same year, Brzezinski toured Russia and visited a memorial to the Katyn Massacre. This served as an opportunity for him to ask the Soviet government to acknowledge the truth about the event, for which he received a standing ovation in the Soviet Academy of Sciences. Ten days later, the Berlin Wall fell, and Soviet-supported governments in Eastern Europe began to totter.

Strobe Talbott, one of Brzezinski's long-time critics, conducted an interview with him for TIME magazine entitled Vindication of a Hardliner.

In 1990 Brzezinski warned against post–Cold War euphoria. He publicly opposed the Gulf War,[citation needed] arguing that the United States would squander the international goodwill it had accumulated by defeating the Soviet Union and that it could trigger wide resentment throughout the Arab world. He expanded upon these views in his 1992 work Out of Control.

However, Brzezinski was prominently critical of the Clinton administration's hesitation to intervene against the Serb forces in the Bosnian war.[20] He also began to speak out against Russia's First Chechen War, forming the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya. Wary of a move toward the reinvigoration of Russian power, Brzezinski negatively viewed the succession of former KGB agent Vladimir Putin after Boris Yeltsin. In this vein, he became one of the foremost advocates of NATO expansion. He later came out in support of the 1999 NATO bombing of Serbia during the Kosovo war.[21]

Present Day

After the September 11 attacks in 2001, Brzezinski was criticized for his role in the formation of the Afghan mujaheddin network. He countered that blame ought to be laid at the feet of the Soviet Union's invasion, which radicalized the relatively stable Muslim society.

Brzezinski was a leading critic of the George W. Bush administration's "war on terror". In 2004, Brzezinski wrote The Choice, which expanded upon The Grand Chessboard but sharply criticized George W. Bush's foreign policy. He defended the book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy and was an outspoken critic of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[22]

In August 2007, Brzezinski endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. He stated that Obama "recognizes that the challenge is a new face, a new sense of direction, a new definition of America's role in the world."[23] – also saying, "What makes Obama attractive to me is that he understands that we live in a very different world where we have to relate to a variety of cultures and people."[24] In September 2007 during a speech on the Iraq war, Obama introduced Brzezinski as "one of our most outstanding thinkers," but some pro-Israel commentators questioned his criticism of the Israel lobby in the United States.[22] In a September 2009 interview with The Daily Beast, Brzezinski replied to a question about how aggressive President Obama should be in insisting Israel not conduct an air strike on Iran, saying: "We are not exactly impotent little babies. They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?"[25] This was interpreted by some supporters of Israel as supporting the downing of Israeli jets by the United States in order to prevent an attack on Iran.[26][27] In 2011, Brzezinski supported the NATO intervention against the forces of Muammar Gaddafi in the Libyan civil war, calling non-intervention "morally dubious" and "politically questionable".[28]

Personal life

Brzezinski is married to Czech-American sculptor Emilie Benes (grand-niece of the second Czechoslovak president, Edvard Beneš), with whom he has three children. His son, Mark Brzezinski (b. 1965), a lawyer who served on President Clinton's National Security Council as an expert on Russia and Southeastern Europe and who was a partner in McGuire Woods LLP, serves as the US ambassador to Sweden. His daughter, Mika Brzezinski (b. 1967), is a television news presenter and co-host of MSNBC's weekday morning program, Morning Joe, where she provides regular commentary and reads the news headlines for the program. His son Ian served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Europe and NATO and was a principal at Booz Allen Hamilton. Ian Brzezinski is a Senior Fellow in the International Security Program and is on the Atlantic Council’s Strategic Advisors Group. Key highlights of his tenure as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Europe and NATO Policy (2001–2005) include the expansion of NATO membership in 2004, the consolidation and reconfiguration of the Alliance’s command structure, the standing up of the NATO Response Force and the coordination of European military contributions to U.S.- and NATO-led operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans.[29]

As Carter's National Security Advisor

President Carter chose Zbigniew Brzezinski for the position of National Security Adviser (NSA) because he wanted an assertive intellectual at his side to provide him with day-to-day advice and guidance on foreign policy decisions. Brzezinski would preside over a reorganized National Security Council (NSC) structure, fashioned to ensure that the NSA would be only one of many players in the foreign policy process.

Brzezinski's task was complicated by his (hawkish) focus on East-West relations in an administration where many cared a great deal about North-South relations and human rights.

Initially, Carter reduced the NSC staff by one-half and decreased the number of standing NSC committees from eight to two. All issues referred to the NSC were reviewed by one of the two new committees, either the Policy Review Committee (PRC) or the Special Coordinating Committee (SCC). The PRC focused on specific issues, and its chairmanship rotated. The SCC was always chaired by Brzezinski, a circumstance he had to negotiate with Carter to achieve. Carter believed that by making the NSA chairman of only one of the two committees, he would prevent the NSC from being the overwhelming influence on foreign policy decisions it had been under Kissinger's chairmanship during the Nixon administration. The SCC was charged with considering issues that cut across several departments, including oversight of intelligence activities, arms control evaluation, and crisis management. Much of the SCC's time during the Carter years was spent on SALT issues.

The Council held few formal meetings, convening only 10 times, compared with 125 meetings during the 8 years of the Nixon and Ford administrations. Instead, Carter used frequent, informal meetings as a decision-making device, typically his Friday breakfasts, usually attended by the Vice President, the secretaries of State and Defense, Brzezinski, and the chief domestic adviser. No agendas were prepared and no formal records were kept of these meetings, sometimes resulting in differing interpretations of the decisions actually agreed upon. Brzezinski was careful, in managing his own weekly luncheons with secretaries Vance and Brown in preparation for NSC discussions, to maintain a complete set of notes. Brzezinski also sent weekly reports to the President on major foreign policy undertakings and problems, with recommendations for courses of action. President Carter enjoyed these reports and frequently annotated them with his own views. Brzezinski and the NSC used these Presidential notes (159 of them) as the basis for NSC actions.

From the beginning, Brzezinski made sure that the new NSC institutional relationships would assure him a major voice in the shaping of foreign policy. While he knew that Carter would not want him to be another Kissinger, Brzezinski also felt confident that the President did not want Secretary of State Vance to become another Dulles and would want his own input on key foreign policy decisions.

Brzezinski's power gradually expanded into the operational area during the Carter Presidency. He increasingly assumed the role of a Presidential emissary. In 1978, for example, Brzezinski traveled to Beijing to lay the groundwork for normalizing U.S.–PRC relations. Like Kissinger before him, Brzezinski maintained his own personal relationship with Soviet Ambassador Dobrynin. Brzezinski had NSC staffers monitor State Department cable traffic through the Situation Room and call back to the State Department if the President preferred to revise or take issue with outgoing State Department instructions. He also appointed his own press spokesman, and his frequent press briefings and appearances on television interview shows made him a prominent public figure, although perhaps not nearly as much as Kissinger had been under Nixon.

The Soviet military invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979 significantly damaged the already tenuous relationship between Vance and Brzezinski. Vance felt that Brzezinski's linkage of SALT to other Soviet activities and the MX, together with the growing domestic criticisms in the United States of the SALT II Accord, convinced Brezhnev to decide on military intervention in Afghanistan. Brzezinski, however, later recounted that he advanced proposals to maintain Afghanistan's independence but was frustrated by the Department of State's opposition. An NSC working group on Afghanistan wrote several reports on the deteriorating situation in 1979, but President Carter ignored them until the Soviet intervention destroyed his illusions. Only then did he decide to abandon SALT II ratification and pursue the anti-Soviet policies that Brzezinski proposed.

The Iranian revolution was the last straw for the disintegrating relationship between Vance and Brzezinski. As the upheaval developed, the two advanced fundamentally different positions. Brzezinski wanted to control the revolution and increasingly suggested military action to prevent Ayatollah Khomeini from coming to power, while Vance wanted to come to terms with the new Islamic Republic of Iran. As a consequence, Carter failed to develop a coherent approach to the Iranian situation. In the growing crisis atmosphere of 1979 and 1980 due to the Iranian hostage situation, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and a deepening economic crisis, Brzezinski's anti-Soviet views gained influence but could not end the Carter administration's malaise. Vance's resignation following the unsuccessful mission to rescue the American hostages in March 1980, undertaken over his objections, was the final result of the deep disagreement between Brzezinski and Vance.

Major policies

During the 1960s Brzezinski articulated the strategy of peaceful engagement for undermining the Soviet bloc and while serving on the State Department Policy Planning Council, persuaded President Johnson to adopt in October 1966 peaceful engagement as U.S. strategy, placing détente ahead of German reunification and thus reversing prior U.S. priorities.

During the 1970s and 1980s, at the height of his political involvement, Brzezinski participated in the formation of the Trilateral Commission in order to more closely cement U.S.–Japanese–European relations. As the three most economically advanced sectors of the world, the people of the three regions could be brought together in cooperation that would give them a more cohesive stance against the communist world.

While serving in the White House, Brzezinski emphasized the centrality of human rights as a means of placing the Soviet Union on the ideological defensive. With Jimmy Carter in Camp David, he assisted in the attainment of the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty. He actively supported Polish Solidarity and the Afghan resistance to Soviet invasion, and provided covert support for national independence movements in the Soviet Union. He played a leading role in normalizing U.S.–PRC relations and in the development of joint strategic cooperation, cultivating a relationship with Deng Xiaoping, for which he is thought very highly of in mainland China to this day.

In the 1990s he formulated the strategic case for buttressing the independent statehood of Ukraine, partially as a means to ending a resurgence of the Russian Empire, and to drive Russia toward integration with the West, promoting instead "geopolitical pluralism" in the space of the former Soviet Union. He developed "a plan for Europe" urging the expansion of NATO, making the case for the expansion of NATO to the Baltic states. He also served as William Clinton's emissary to Azerbaijan in order to promote the Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline. Subsequently, he became a member of Honorary Council of Advisors of U.S.-Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce (USACC). Further, he led, together with Lane Kirkland, the effort to increase the endowment for the U.S.-sponsored Polish-American Freedom Foundation from the proposed $112 million to an eventual total of well over $200 million.

He has consistently urged a U.S. leadership role in the world, based on established alliances, and warned against unilateralist policies that would destroy U.S. global credibility and precipitate U.S. global isolation.

Afghanistan

A 2002 article by Michael Rubin stated that in the wake of the Iranian Revolution, the United States sought rapprochement with the Afghan government—a prospect that the USSR found unacceptable due to the weakening Soviet leverage over the regime. Thus, the Soviets intervened to preserve their influence in the country.[30] According to Vance's close aide Marshall Shulman "the State Department worked hard to dissuade the Soviets from invading."[31] In February 1979, U.S. Ambassador Adolph "Spike" Dubs was murdered in Kabul after Afghan security forces burst in on his kidnappers. The U.S. then reduced bilateral assistance and terminated a small military training program. All remaining assistance agreements were ended after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Following the Soviet invasion, the United States supported diplomatic efforts to achieve a Soviet withdrawal. In addition, generous U.S. contributions to the refugee program in Pakistan played a major part in efforts to assist Afghan refugees.

Brzezinski, known for his hardline policies on the Soviet Union, initiated in 1979 a campaign supporting mujaheddin in Pakistan and Afghanistan, which was run by Pakistani security services with financial support from the Central Intelligence Agency and Britain's MI6.[32] This policy had the explicit aim of promoting radical Islamist and anti-Communist forces. Bob Gates, in his book Out Of The Shadows, wrote that Pakistan had been pressuring the United States for arms to aid the rebels for months, but that the Carter administration refused in the hope of finding a diplomatic solution to avoid war.[33] Brzezinski seems to have been in favor of the provision of arms to the rebels, while Vance's State Department, seeking a peaceful settlement, publicly accused Brzezinski of seeking to "revive" the Cold War. Brzezinski has stated that the United States provided communications equipment and limited financial aid to the mujahideen prior to the "formal" invasion, but only in response to the Soviet deployment of forces to Afghanistan and the 1978 coup, and with the intention of preventing further Soviet encroachment in the region.[34]

Years later, in a 1997 CNN/National Security Archive interview, Brzezinski detailed the strategy taken by the Carter administration against the Soviets in 1979:

We immediately launched a twofold process when we heard that the Soviets had entered Afghanistan. The first involved direct reactions and sanctions focused on the Soviet Union, and both the State Department and the National Security Council prepared long lists of sanctions to be adopted, of steps to be taken to increase the international costs to the Soviet Union of their actions. And the second course of action led to my going to Pakistan a month or so after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, for the purpose of coordinating with the Pakistanis a joint response, the purpose of which would be to make the Soviets bleed for as much and as long as is possible; and we engaged in that effort in a collaborative sense with the Saudis, the Egyptians, the British, the Chinese, and we started providing weapons to the Mujaheddin, from various sources again – for example, some Soviet arms from the Egyptians and the Chinese. We even got Soviet arms from the Czechoslovak communist government, since it was obviously susceptible to material incentives; and at some point we started buying arms for the Mujaheddin from the Soviet army in Afghanistan, because that army was increasingly corrupt.[35]

Milt Bearden wrote in The Main Enemy that Brzezinski, in 1980, secured an agreement from King Khalid of Saudi Arabia to match U.S. contributions to the Afghan effort dollar for dollar and that Bill Casey would keep that agreement going through the Reagan administration.[36]

The Soviet invasion and occupation resulted in the deaths of as many as 2 million Afghans.[37] In 2010, Brzezinski defended the arming of the rebels in response, saying that it "was quite important in hastening the end of the conflict," thereby saving the lives of thousands of Afghans, but "not in deciding the conflict, because....even though we helped the mujaheddin, they would have continued fighting without our help, because they were also getting a lot of money from the Persian Gulf and the Arab states, and they weren't going to quit. They didn't decide to fight because we urged them to. They're fighters, and they prefer to be independent. They just happen to have a curious complex: they don't like foreigners with guns in their country. And they were going to fight the Soviets. Giving them weapons was a very important forward step in defeating the Soviets, and that's all to the good as far as I'm concerned." When he was asked if he thought it was the right decision in retrospect (given the Taliban's subsequent rise to power), he said: "Which decision? For the Soviets to go in? The decision was the Soviets', and they went in. The Afghans would have resisted anyway, and they were resisting. I just told you: in my view, the Afghans would have prevailed in the end anyway, 'cause they had access to money, they had access to weapons, and they had the will to fight."[38] Likewise; Charlie Wilson said: "The U.S. had nothing whatsoever to do with these people's decision to fight ... but we'll be damned by history if we let them fight with stones."[39]

The supplying of billions of dollars in arms to the Afghan mujahideen militants was one of the CIA's longest and most expensive covert operations.[40] The CIA provided assistance to the insurgents through the Pakistani secret services, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), in a program called Operation Cyclone. At least 3 billion in U.S. dollars were funneled into the country to train and equip troops with weapons. Together with similar programs by Saudi Arabia, Britain's MI6 and SAS, Egypt, Iran, and the People's Republic of China,[41] the arms included Stinger missiles, shoulder-fired, antiaircraft weapons that they used against Soviet helicopters. Pakistan's secret service, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), was used as an intermediary for most of these activities to disguise the sources of support for the resistance.

No Americans trained or had direct contact with the mujahideen.[42] The skittish CIA had fewer than 10 operatives in the region because it "feared it would be blamed, like in Guatemala."[43] Civilian personnel from the U.S. Department of State and the CIA frequently visited the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area during this time.

With U.S. and other funding, the ISI armed and trained over 100,000 insurgents. On July 20, 1987, the withdrawal of Soviet troops from the country was announced pursuant to the negotiations that led to the Geneva Accords of 1988,[44] with the last Soviets leaving on February 15, 1989.

The early foundations of al-Qaida were allegedly built in part on relationships and weaponry that came from the billions of dollars in U.S. support for the Afghan mujahideen during the war to expel Soviet forces from that country.[45] However, scholars such as Jason Burke, Steve Coll, Peter Bergen, Christopher Andrew, and Vasily Mitrokhin have argued that Bin Laden was "outside of CIA eyesight" and that there is "no support" in any "reliable source" for "the claim that the CIA funded bin Laden or any of the other Arab volunteers who came to support the mujahideen."[46][47][48][49]

Iran

Facing a revolution, the Shah of Iran sought help from the United States. Iran occupied a strategic place in U.S. policy in the Middle East, acting as an important ally and a buffer against Soviet influence in the region. The U.S. ambassador to Iran, William H. Sullivan, recalls that Brzezinski "repeatedly assured Pahlavi that the U.S. backed him fully."[citation needed] These reassurances would not, however, amount to substantive action on the part of the United States. On November 4, 1978, Brzezinski called the Shah to tell him that the United States would "back him to the hilt."[citation needed] At the same time, certain high-level officials in the State Department decided that the Shah had to go, regardless of who replaced him.[citation needed] Brzezinski and U.S. Secretary of Energy James Schlesinger (formerly Secretary of Defense under Gerald Ford) continued to advocate that the U.S. support the Shah militarily. Even in the final days of the revolution, when the Shah was considered doomed no matter what the outcome of the revolution, Brzezinski still advocated a U.S. invasion to keep Iran under U.S. influence.[citation needed] President Carter could not decide how to appropriately use force and opposed another U.S.-backed coup d'état. He ordered the aircraft carrier Constellation to the Indian Ocean but ultimately allowed a regime change. A deal was worked out with the Iranian generals to shift support to a moderate government,[citation needed] but this plan fell apart when Ayatollah Khomeini and his followers swept the country, taking power on February 12, 1979.

China

Shortly after taking office in 1977, President Carter again reaffirmed the United States' position of upholding the Shanghai Communique. The United States and People's Republic of China announced on December 15, 1978, that the two governments would establish diplomatic relations on January 1, 1979. This required that the United States sever relations with the Republic of China on Taiwan. Consolidating U.S. gains in befriending communist China was a major priority stressed by Brzezinski during his time as National Security Advisor.

The most important strategic aspect of the new U.S.–Chinese relationship was in its effect on the Cold War. China was no longer considered part of a larger Sino-Soviet bloc but instead a third pole of power due to the Sino-Soviet Split, helping the United States against the Soviet Union.

In the Joint Communique on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations dated January 1, 1979, the United States transferred diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing. The United States reiterated the Shanghai Communique's acknowledgment of the PRC position that there is only one China and that Taiwan is a part of China; Beijing acknowledged that the United States would continue to carry on commercial, cultural, and other unofficial contacts with Taiwan. The Taiwan Relations Act made the necessary changes in U.S. domestic law to permit unofficial relations with Taiwan to continue.

In addition the severing relations with the Republic of China, the Carter administration also agreed to unilaterally pull out of the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty, withdraw U.S. military personnel from Taiwan, and gradually reduce arms sales to the Republic of China. There was widespread opposition in the U.S. Congress, notably from Republicans, due to the Republic of China's status as an anti-Communist ally in the Cold War. In Goldwater v. Carter, Barry Goldwater made a failed attempt to stop Carter from terminating the mutual defense treaty.

PRC Vice-premier Deng Xiaoping's January 1979 visit to Washington, D.C., initiated a series of high-level exchanges, which continued until the Tiananmen Square massacre, when they were briefly interrupted. This resulted in many bilateral agreements, especially in the fields of scientific, technological, and cultural interchange and trade relations. Since early 1979, the United States and the PRC have initiated hundreds of joint research projects and cooperative programs under the Agreement on Cooperation in Science and Technology, the largest bilateral program.

On March 1, 1979, the United States and People's Republic of China formally established embassies in Beijing and Washington. During 1979, outstanding private claims were resolved, and a bilateral trade agreement was concluded. U.S. vice-president Walter Mondale reciprocated vice-premier Deng's visit with an August 1979 trip to China. This visit led to agreements in September 1980 on maritime affairs, civil aviation links, and textile matters, as well as a bilateral consular convention.

As a consequence of high-level and working-level contacts initiated in 1980, U.S. dialogue with China broadened to cover a wide range of issues, including global and regional strategic problems, political-military questions – including arms control, UN and other multilateral organization affairs, and international narcotics matters.

Arab-Israeli conflict

On October 10, 2007, Brzezinski along with other influential signatories sent a letter to President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice titled 'Failure Risks Devastating Consequences'. The letter was partly an advice and a warning of the failure of an upcoming[50] U.S.-sponsored Middle East conference scheduled for November 2007 between representatives of Israelis and Palestinians. The letter also suggested to engage in "a genuine dialogue with Hamas" rather than to isolate it further.[51]



The shocking comment Barack Obama does not want you to hear!


The co-chairman for the Barak Obama campaign makes a disturbing racial remark. As far as we know, Obama has not fired him or even denounced the comment. Is Barack Obama a racist?

Audacity Hope Media Fox Jeremiah Wright Democrat Republican Vote 2008 Controversy Controversial Church Pastor Commentary Political Commercial Politics Analysis Grassroots Gotcha! Outreach News Change Primary Primaries Pennsylvania Guam Indiana North Carolina West Virginia Kentucky Oregon Puerto Rico Montana South Dakota Convention DNC November Guns Faith Bitter Cling
Category:  News & Politics
Tags: 



Zbigniew Brzezinski - Easier to kill a million people than to control them.

Zbigniew Brzezinski - Easier to kill a million people than to control them.

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkOOBo45TZU&feature=player_embedded#



Zbigniew Brzezinski Obama's Top Foreign Policy Advisers, Professor of American Foreign PolicyStrategic Analysis and Foreign Policy  National  

Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, worked for Ronald Regan as Intelligence advisor, founder and trustee of the Trilateral Commission, a member of the Council For Foreign Relations (CFR) and Council for Strategic and International Studies, analysis, mastermind behind the creation of Ben Ladin and the terrorist  Al Quieda organisation, international advisor for a number of major corporations, an associate of Henry Kissinger, co-chairman of the Bush Advisory Security Task Force in 1988 ...what a guy...  

states the following belief, conviction and effective advice to Barrack Obama and to Barrach Oboma and 

Zbigniew Brzezinski's employers and bosses...Jacob and Evilyn Rothchold and the rest Rothschild International Banking Family and their other evil and criminally insane International Baking Partners and Business associates and elite families

In a Speech Made on November 17th 2008


For the first time in human history  ,.,.for the first time in all of human history.....almost all of mankind is politiclaly awake... andthese new and old major powers...face and yet another .... a novel reality...in some respect unprecidented ... and it is that while the lethality ..the lethality of their power is greater that ever.... their capacity to propose control  ove rthe politicsally awakened masses of the world is at an all time low   an unprecidented    alll time low... I once put it rather pungently ... and I was flatered that the British Foreign Secretary repeated this...as follows ... namely in ealier times ...'.It was easier to control a million people literally...it was easiet to control a million people that physicly to kill a million people ... today it is infinitely easy to kill a million people than control a million people ..it is easier to kill that ot control...

Michael Ruppert gives a lecture of Zbigniew Brzezingski's 1997 book : The Grand Chessboard.

Rupert says, " Now if you want to get really.... really ...really angry .... go buy this book.. it's called the Grand Chess Board ....  American Primacy and it's Neo Stratigic Objectives...   written by  Zbigniew Brzezingski in 1997 ...I am going to read you some quotes from that book ...
"The last decades in American History has seen a Titanic Shift in World Affairs... for the first time a non Eurasion Power has emerged not only as a key arbiter of Eurasian Relations but also as the world's paramount power with the defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union as the final step in the rapid ascendance of a  Western Hemisphere power with the United States as the first   and indeed as the first truly global super power ...(This is in the preface of the book) 
It is imperative that no Eurasian challenger (Note: by that he means Russia of China) ( Note: Eurasia is everything to the eats of Germany all the way south to the Pacific Ocean .... south through the Indian Sub Continent and includes the middle east..)
emerges that is capable of dominating Eurasia and thus capable of challenging America ....the formulation of a comprehensive and intergrated Eurasian Geo Strategy   is therefore the purpose of this book .... The attitude of the American Public towards the external projection of American Power has been much more ambivelent ...the public support of the American engagement in World War Two was largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour   (Pearl Harbour was another manipulated event just like 9-11, Al Qiueda which have all been  masterminded by Zbigniew Brzezinski with the Rothschild Family behind the scenes who have most to gain as they make their money lending to all countries on all sides of an external and/or internal war and/or conflict).'It get's worse' ....
 for America's the chief Geo Physical Prise is Eurasia ...   and a non Eurasian Power  is pre-eminent and now  America's Global Primacy  ('Isn't that arrogant") America's Global Primacy   is directly dependent on how long and effective is the pro-ponderence on the Eurasian  continent in sustained..('What he is saying is that if America wants to stay top dog it has to control Eurasia ... ')
America's withdrawal from the war ... or because on a sudden emergence of a successful rival would produce  massive international instability ..it would prompt Global Anarchy ...
(Do you know what he is saying there?... actually global anarchy would probably a good thing right now ....what he is saying here there is ... if we don't control the world by whatever means necessary ...
 (the world's going to miserable ... he didn't ask my opinion... Did he ask yours? OK)  
.. in that context ..how American manages Eurasia?  
(Do we manage people around the world ..Is that our job?   ... )
Is critical    Eurasia is the world's largest continent and is Geo Physically Active and a power that controls Eurasia will control two of the world's  three most advanced and economically productive regions  and a mere glance at the map the control of Eurasia would almost automaticly entail Africa's subordination   ..rendering the Western Hemisphere  and Oceania (That's Australia for all you non-academics)   geo-politically proliferal to the worlds central continent ... about 75% of the world's population live in Eurasia   and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well ..both in enterprises and  underneath it's soil   ....Eurasia accounts for 60% of the world's GNP and three fourths of the world's  known energy resources ...  two basic steps are thus required ... first to identify  the strategic dynamic Eurasian states ...that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals  of the respected political elite  and the likely consequences of their seeking to obtain them ...
second ... to formulae specific US policies to offset co-opt and/or control the above..
(The man is talking about co-opting controlling managing subverting nations peoples and economies  ..)
 to put i in a terminology  that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires ..
(please listen to this) 
the three grand imperative  geo strategy are to prevent collusion     and mantain security dependence among the vassels  
... to keep tributaries pliant and protected  and to keep the barbarians form coming together. 
(That's on page 40 ..I'm telling you ..you've got to buy the book )


offset ... co-opt and to control 
which holds     of the worlds natural resources that

 

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." nZbigniew Brzezingski

Comments

1. Obama has to be mind controlled. just watch him when he doesnt? have a telepromter. can anyone help confirm this?

2. They said the same thing about? Bush. Same teleprompter thing. Have you heard of MkULTRA?

3.  Yeh, he's retarded.? He doesn't even know how many states are in the US

4. Tells u a lot about OBAMA that he would align himself w/ this Vulture who said ' THE SUBORDINATION OF AFRICA , WOULD FOLLOW " & " CONTROL OF EURASIA " .
A black man , Obama? stabbing his motherland in the back , its beyond disgraceful , that he would participate in the U.S. militarization OF AFRICA and "Subordination of Africa HE SAID IT , he presents the plans to Obama and this heartless , greedy for power Obama would put his people on their knees bcs of U.S. desire for CONTROL HW ds he sleep

5. No one controls anyone. People make laws with a pen and funding. People force people out of homes, jobs, etc... with the power of the purse but control? no... even a man in irons has his own mind and till people come to know their assault on their fellow man only makes slaves who in time will be the owners by natural change the chain? of abuse continues Having the purse only means power is in cycle. Break the cycle, by letting go of the thoughts of control. The illusion fills the purse w/ death.

6. I have only one heroes. Michael C. Ruppert. You changed my political view forever. Thanks? for that. Enjoy the rest of your life!

7. who is Brzezinski going to get to fight these wars? Not my me? or any of my family.

8.  If it got to that point you wouldn't have a choice, you'd be forced into fighting or forced into jail, or camps they? will have set up all over amercia, or killed. it's crazy..i know

9. Copy and? paste all over...... "Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." nZbigniew Brzezingski


10. WAKE UP? AMERICA, WORLD

11. Communism was funded by the Central Banks, the same people? that control the US today.

Zbigniew Brzezinski

The Grand Chessboard

American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives

Key Quotes From Zbigniew Brzezinksi's Seminal 1998 Book


Note: For highly revealing news articles on elite groups and secret societies in which Zbigniew Brzezinski is involved, click here.


"Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power."- (p. xiii)

"It is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book." (p. xiv)

"How America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)

"Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." (p.35)

"The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea." (p.125)

"In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last." (p.209)

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)




Zbigniew Brzezinski's Background


According to his resume, Zbigniew Brzezinski lists the following achievements:


Harvard Ph.D. in 1953

Counselor, Center for Strategic and International Studies

Professor of American Foreign Policy, Johns Hopkins University

National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter (1977-81)

Trustee and founder of the Trilateral Commission

International advisor of several major US/Global corporations

Associate of Henry Kissinger

Under Ronald Reagan - member of NSC-Defense Department Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy

Under Ronald Reagan - member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board

Past member, Board of Directors, The Council on Foreign Relations

1988 - Co-chairman of the Bush National Security Advisory Task Force.

Zbigniew Brzezinski is also a past attendee and presenter at conferences of the Bilderberg Group - a non-partisan affiliation of the wealthiest, most powerful families and corporations on the planet.




The Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brzezinski – More Quotes

"The last decade of the twentieth century has witnessed a tectonic shift in world affairs. For the first time ever, a non-Eurasian power has emerged not only as a key arbiter of Eurasian power relations but also as the world's paramount power. The defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union was the final step in the rapid ascendance of a Western Hemisphere power, the United States, as the sole and, indeed, the first truly global power." (p. xiii)

"The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor." (pp 24-5)

"For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia... Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia - and America's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained." (p.30)

"America's withdrawal from the world or because of the sudden emergence of a successful rival - would produce massive international instability. It would prompt global anarchy." (p. 30)

"Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them;... second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above..." (p. 40)

"To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." (p.40)

"Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America's status as a global power." (p.55)

"Uzbekistan, nationally the most vital and the most populous of the central Asian states, represents the major obstacle to any renewed Russian control over the region. Its independence is critical to the survival of the other Central Asian states, and it is the least vulnerable to Russian pressures." (p. 121)

[Referring to an area he calls the "Eurasian Balkans" and a 1997 map in which he has circled the exact location of the current conflict - describing it as the central region of pending conflict for world dominance] "Moreover, they [the Central Asian Republics] are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold." (p.124)

"The world's energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the U.S. Department of energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East. The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea." (p.125)

"Uzbekistan is, in fact, the prime candidate for regional leadership in Central Asia." (p.130)

"Once pipelines to the area have been developed, Turkmenistan's truly vast natural gas reserves augur a prosperous future for the country's people." (p.132)

"In fact, an Islamic revival - already abetted from the outside not only by Iran but also by Saudi Arabia - is likely to become the mobilizing impulse for the increasingly pervasive new nationalisms, determined to oppose any reintegration under Russian - and hence infidel - control." (p. 133).

"For Pakistan, the primary interest is to gain Geostrategic depth through political influence in Afghanistan - and to deny to Iran the exercise of such influence in Afghanistan and Tajikistan - and to benefit eventually from any pipeline construction linking Central Asia with the Arabian Sea." (p.139)

"Turkmenistan... has been actively exploring the construction of a new pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea..." (p.145)

"It follows that America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it." (p148)

"China's growing economic presence in the region and its political stake in the area's independence are also congruent with America's interests." (p.149)

"America is now the only global superpower, and Eurasia is the globe's central arena. Hence, what happens to the distribution of power on the Eurasian continent will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy and to America's historical legacy." (p.194)

"Without sustained and directed American involvement, before long the forces of global disorder could come to dominate the world scene. And the possibility of such a fragmentation is inherent in the geopolitical tensions not only of today's Eurasia but of the world more generally." (p.194)

"With warning signs on the horizon across Europe and Asia, any successful American policy must focus on Eurasia as a whole and be guided by a Geostrategic design." (p.197)

"That puts a premium on maneuver and manipulation in order to prevent the emergence of a hostile coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America's primacy." (p. 198)

"The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role." (p. 198)

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)

Note: This essay is drawn largely from the work of former LAPD narcotics investigator Michael Ruppert in his essay "A War in the Planning for Four Years: How Stupic Do They Think We Are?"





To order The Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brzezinski through amazon.com, click here

For revealing news articles on elite groups in which Brzezinski is involved, click here

To explore our reliable, verifiable two-page summary of the 9/11 cover-up, click here

To visit our reliable, verifiable ten-page summary of the 9/11 cover-up, click here

9/11 Information Center






Further Interviews with 

Zbigniew Brzezinski


Zbigniew Brzezinski on Iran

Should not try and crush modern Iran, it is not in the middle ages any more, 70% in Iran a young and pro western and in support of America



After Khamenei's speech. Takes on Republicans *and* Democrats who are criticizing Obama, saying they're playing into Ahmadinejad's hands.
Category:  News & Politics
Tags: 

Comments:
1. Brezezinski was one of the idiots whose theories turned Iran into a theocratic dictatorship. Now he has the audacity to express opinions on what is good for Iran. He doesn't care if thousands of people are killed by the regime in prisons without much publicity. But, he cares that if there is any kind of uprising against the? regime there will be a lot of bloodshed. He is an adviser to the present administration in the U.S. How dare he give interviews on the Iranian televisions?
2. Brezezinski makes me sick. He'd better? stop expressing opinions on Iran lest we will know more & more that he doesn't know anything. Tehran was not the only city where "death to dictators" was chanted. Major cities of Tabriz, Mashad, Isfahan, Shiraz, Ahwaz and many others engaged in demonstrations never publicized by the media here. Iran is not like Turkey. Iran without the Mullahs is hundred times better than Turkey.

Massive unemployment could lead to riots says Dr. Brzezinski


Michael Ruppert confronts CIA director about Drug Laundering


CIA Drug Operations :Armadaus, Watch Tower, 

Republican Senator Dixon speaking and Clinton's CIA Director John Deutch
Michael Ruppert from FromTheWilderness.com confronts Bill Clinton's CIA Director John Deutch about the CIA's involvement in cocaine smuggling. He goes further in this documentary in detail about how exactly drug money is laundered into Wall Street. He concludes that 9/11 was orchestrated as a pretense to further Wall Street's cause of laundering opium money from Afghanistan and America's conquest in securing the world's natural resources in the face of PEAK OIL.
Category:  News & Politics
Tags: 

Former CIA Official Exposes Bush Administration Fraud

Flynt Leverett worked as a senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council, the NSC, and he was a CIA analyst.
http://representativepress.blogspot.c...

The Bush Administration has committed fraud before. See background information on the fraud committed by the Bush Administration to get us into the Iraq War:

The Problem Was Not "Faulty Intelligence," the Problem Was Dishonestly Selecting And Omitting Intelligence
http://representativepress.blogspot.c...

Senate Hearing on Iraq Pre-War Intelligence
http://representativepress.blogspot.c...

US Intelligence About Iraq Didn't Really Fail, It Was Manipulated
http://representativepress.blogspot.c...

Beyond all reasonable doubt, the Bush Administration is guilty of the high crime of lying our nation into war.
http://representativepress.blogspot.c...

Read Dealing with Tehran by Flynt Leverett here:http://www.newamerica.net/publication... 

See video: Elliott Abrams is another NeoCon that doesn't respect the Constitution
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeB_gI...
Category:  News & Politics
Tags: 


Comments:
1. The U.S. gov. is the reason why we depend on oil to run everything. If they haven't held Nikola Tesla back from providing the whole with FREE wireless energy, Then there would be very little poverty (if not no poverty) in the world, no wars over oil, the mid-east wouldn't have made as? much money as they did from oil, and there would be no more third world countries
2. I would shoot you? just for being a fkn crying bitch that was sacked for bing a fucking big mouth and for being a twat, its cunts like you who would allow terrorists or people in the country to fuck us all up...your a fucking coward and a traitor Mr Leverett...i hope your kid dies in an ambulance because it ran out of fuel on the way there because dicks like you exposed to do gooders we went for the oil and we then had to pull out and our system fucks up..because you gave them the oil back.dick!
3. One more thing..go and live in Afganistan or Pakistan where there is no real system or society as we have and tell me you wouldnt invade Iraq to keep your kids? from starving to death or living in shit...losers like you lot wouldnt fight for your lives, you would hand them the gun that shoots you because your fucking idiots.people cant handle the truth, because when they find out like you have done, they go fkn barmy..go drive your car, oh and btw, thank those who? have died so you can do that.
4. look you fucking tossers....we need the fucking oil...The USA has none left, Sadam stuck the knife in after another superpower told him too, i wonder who that was...the UK and europe rely on Kuwait oil you fucking dicks...wake up, do you wanto be living in a world with no police, gangs killing everyone and no food, money or health...Yes its about? oil, but i dont think you fuckers know how it would? effect the west if we had none...wake up, this lie is for the doo gooders who fuck everything up
5. We need to get rid of all religions and ignorant racists on this planet. Those are the people that are holding humanity back. I love all these people that post on youtube with nothing intelligent to say. All I? see is ignorant people that can't spell or think out side of the box, and resort to a more redneck way of thinking. I hope for those peoples sake that they are dis informed children, b/c if they are Adults then they are truly lost in the abyss of ignorance
6. Israel's game is to frame Arabs and set them up as? targets for the United States.

Good Morning America learns that Bin Laden is CIA


















Ruppert about Brzezinski (2001) : part 1 of 2



//www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6iWom6R5Io&feature=related

Michael Ruppert gives a lecture of Zbigniew Brzezingski's 1997 book : The Grand Chessboard.
Category:  News & Politics

Ruppert about Brzezinski (2001) : part 2 of 2




Ruppert about Brzezinski (2001) : part 2 of 2






Why I know Barack Obama is a phony

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDpLK0e0QoU&feature=related

If Barack Obama knew anything about the problems plaguing this country, he would not accept Zbigniew Brzezinski as foreign policy advisor. Listen to Mike Ruppert's classic 2001 analysis of Brzezinski. Then go to google video and watch "The Truth and Lies of 9/11".

If you are so inclined, please upload your own german-accented Brzezinski quote and post it as a video response. Here is the infamous Brzezinski quote: "Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a concensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."
Category:  News & Politics
Tags: 



Ruppert about Brzezinski (2001) : part 1 of 2



//www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6iWom6R5Io&feature=related

Michael Ruppert gives a lecture of Zbigniew Brzezingski's 1997 book : The Grand Chessboard.
Category:  News & Politics




Ruppert about Brzezinski (2001) : part 2 of 2

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZB__Yy_2qQ&feature=related


Michael Ruppert gives a lecture of Zbigniew Brzezingski's 1997 book : The Grand Chessboard.
Category:  News & Politics


Zbigniew Brzezinski gets a tough question from 911 truther




//www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOimBHTNyAk&feature=related


PLEASE NOTE:

I DID NOT SHOOT THIS VIDEO, Please give all the props to Luke Rudkowski at WeAreChange NYC. Please get in touch with him @ wearechange.org

With only hours notice, CHANGE discovered that NWO Globalist Zbigniew Brzezinski was giving a speech at the YMCA in Manhattan. Luke was able to get in and ask some questions about his recent statements regarding false-flag terror attacks being staged by the Bush Administration, and his funding of the Taliban during the Afghan war with the Soviets. He was then directly confronted on the CFR's involvement in planning the attacks of 911.

WEARECHANGE.ORG
Tags: 
911  truth  brzezinski  rosie  o'donnell rudy  gdiuliani  the  view  abc  sheen alex  jones  new  world  order  iran 
 iraq bin  laden  luke  rudkowski wearechange







See all related videos






Iranian Revolution

Iranian Revolution
(Islamic Revolution,
1979 Revolution)
انقلاب اسلامی
1979 Iranian Revolution.jpg
Protesters in Tehran, 1979

Ruhollah Khomeini.

The Shah of Iran (left) meeting with members of the U.S. government: Alfred Atherton, William Sullivan, Cyrus Vance, Jimmy Carter, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, 197

Iranian Revolution
Return of Ayatollah Khomeini from exile

The Iranian Revolution (also known as the Islamic Revolution or 1979 Revolution;[3][4][5][6][7][8] Persian: انقلاب اسلامی, Enghelābe Eslāmi orانقلاب بیست و دو بهمن) refers to events involving the overthrow of the Pahlavi dynasty under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and its replacement with an Islamic republic under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the revolution.

Demonstrations against the Shah commenced in October 1977, developing into a campaign of civil resistance that was partly secular and partly religious,[9] and intensified in January 1978.[10] Between August and December 1978 strikes and demonstrations paralyzed the country. The Shah left Iran for exile on January 16, 1979 as the last Persian monarch and in the resulting power vacuum two weeks later Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Tehran to a greeting by several million Iranians.[11][12] The royal reign collapsed shortly after on February 11 when guerrillas and rebel troops overwhelmed troops loyal to the Shah in armed street fighting.[13][14] Iran voted by national referendum to become an Islamic Republic on April 1, 1979,[15] and to approve a new democratic-theocratic hybrid constitution whereby Khomeini became Supreme Leader of the country, in December 1979.

The revolution was unusual for the surprise it created throughout the world:[16] it lacked many of the customary causes of revolution (defeat at war, a financial crisis, peasant rebellion, or disgruntled military),[17] produced profound change at great speed,[18] was massively popular,[19] and replaced a westernising monarchy with a theocracy based on Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists (or velayat-e faqih). Its outcome—an Islamic Republic "under the guidance of an extraordinary religious scholar from Qom"—was, as one scholar put it, "clearly an occurrence that had to be explained" .

Causes

Iran was an overly centralized royal power structure state, which was heavily protected by a lavishly financed army and security services.[21][22][23] The revolution was in part a conservative backlash against the Westernizing and secularizing efforts of the Western-backed Shah,[24] and a liberal backlash to social injustice and other shortcomings of the ancien régime.[25]

International policies pursued by the Shah of Iran in order to increase national income through remarkable increases of the price of oil through his leading role in the Organization of Oil Producing Countries OPEC have been stressed as a major cause for a shift in Western interests and priorities. This led to a reduction of support for him reflected in the critical position of Western politicians and media, especially under the administration of U.S. President Jimmy Carter, regarding the question of human rights in Iran, and resulted in strengthened economic ties between the United States of America and Saudi Arabia in the 1970s.[26]

After the fall of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953, the Shah's popularity was seriously threatened. After protests in 1963 the Ayatollah Khomeini, who was an outspoken critic, was exiled. The Shah was seen by many as beholden to – if not a puppet of – an alien Western power (the United States)[27][28] whose culture was affecting that of Iran. The Shah's reign became oppressive, brutal,[29][30] corrupt, and extravagant;[29][31] it also suffered from basic functional failures – an over-ambitious economic program that brought economic bottlenecks, shortages and inflation.[32]

That the revolution replaced the monarchy and Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi with Islamism and Khomeini, rather than another leader and ideology, is credited in part to the spread of the Shia version of the Islamic revival that opposed Westernization, saw Ayatollah Khomeini as following in the footsteps of the beloved Shi'a Imam Husayn ibn Ali, and the Shah in those of Husayn's foe, the hated tyrant Yazid I.[33] Also thought responsible was the underestimation of Khomeini's Islamist movement by both the Shah's reign – who considered them a minor threat compared to the Marxists and Islamic socialists[34][35][36] – and by the secularist opponents of the government – who thought the Khomeinists could be sidelined.[37]

Historical background

Shi'a clergy (Ulema) have had a significant influence on most Iranians, who have tended to be religious, traditional, and opposed to any process of Westernization[citation needed]. The clergy first showed themselves to be a powerful political force in opposition to Iran's monarch with the 1891 Tobacco Protest boycott that effectively destroyed an unpopular concession granted by the Shah giving a British company a monopoly over buying and selling Tobacco in Iran.

Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Press conference on international oil policies. Niavaran Palace, Tehran, 1971.

Decades later, the monarchy and the clerics clashed again, this time monarchy holding the upper hand. Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi's father, Reza Shah, replaced Islamic laws with western ones, and forbade traditional Islamic clothing, separation of the sexes and veiling of women (hijab).[38] Police forcibly removed and tore chadors off women who resisted his ban on public hijab. In 1935 dozens were killed and hundreds injured when a rebellion by pious Shi'a at the most holy Shi'a shrine in Iran[39] was crushed on his orders.[40][41][42]

In 1941 Reza Shah was deposed and his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was installed by an invasion of allied British and Soviet troops. In 1953, foreign powers (American and British) again came to the Shah's aid—after the Shah fled the country, the British MI6 aided an American CIA operative in organizing a military coup d'état to oust the nationalist and democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh.

Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi maintained a close relationship with the U.S. government, both regimes sharing an opposition to the expansion of the Soviet Union, Iran's powerful northern neighbor. Like his father's government, the Shah's was known for its autocracy, its focus on modernization and Westernization and for its disregard for religious[43] and democratic measures in Iran's constitution. Leftist, nationalist and Islamist groups attacked his government (often from outside Iran as they were suppressed within) for violating the Iranian constitution, political corruption, and the political oppression by the SAVAK (secret police).

Rise of Ayatollah Khomeini

The post-revolutionary leader – Shia cleric Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini – first came to political prominence in 1963 when he led opposition to the Shah and his "White Revolution", a program of reforms to break up landholdings (including those owned by religious foundations) and allow religious minorities to hold government office.

Khomeini was arrested in 1963 after declaring the Shah a "wretched miserable man" who had "embarked on the [path toward] destruction of Islam in Iran."[44] Three days of major riots throughout Iran followed, with Khomeini supporters claiming 15,000 dead from police fire.[45] However, much lower estimates of 380 killed and wounded were later made.[46] Khomeini was released after eight months of house arrest and continued his agitation, condemning Iran's close cooperation with Israel and its capitulations, or extension of diplomatic immunity to American government personnel in Iran. In November 1964 Khomeini was re-arrested and sent into exile where he remained for 15 years, until the revolution.

Ideology of the Iranian Revolution

In this interim period of "disaffected calm"[47] the budding Iranian revival began to undermine the idea of Westernization as progress that was the basis of the Shah's secular reign, and to form the ideology of the 1979 revolution. Jalal Al-e-Ahmad's idea of Gharbzadegi – that Western culture was a plague or an intoxication to be eliminated;[48] Ali Shariati's vision of Islam as the one true liberator of the Third World from oppressive colonialism, neo-colonialism, and capitalism;[49] and Morteza Motahhari's popularized retellings of the Shia faith, all spread and gained listeners, readers and supporters.[48]

Most importantly, Khomeini preached that revolt, and especially martyrdom, against injustice and tyranny was part of Shia Islam,[50] and that Muslims should reject the influence of both liberal capitalism and communism with the slogan "Neither East, nor West – Islamic Republic!"

Away from public view, Khomeini developed the ideology of velayat-e faqih (guardianship of the jurist) as government, that Muslims – in fact everyone – required "guardianship," in the form of rule or supervision by the leading Islamic jurist or jurists.[51] Such rule was ultimately "more necessary even than prayer and fasting" in Islam,[52] as it would protect Islam from deviation from traditional sharia law and in so doing eliminate poverty, injustice, and the "plundering" of Muslim land by foreign non-believers.[53]

This idea of rule by Islamic jurists was spread through his book Islamic Government, mosque sermons, smuggled cassette speeches by Khomeini,[54] among Khomeini's opposition network of students (talabeh), ex-students (able clerics such as Morteza Motahhari, Mohammad Beheshti, Mohammad-Javad Bahonar, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Mofatteh), and traditional businessmen(bazaari) inside Iran.[54]

Opposition groups and organizations

Other opposition groups[55] included constitutionalist liberals – the democratic, reformist Islamic Freedom Movement of Iran, headed by Mehdi Bazargan, and the more secular National Front. They were based in the urban middle class, and wanted the Shah to adhere to the Iranian Constitution of 1906 rather than to replace him with a theocracy,[56] but lacked the cohesion and organization of Khomeini's forces.[57]

Marxists groups – primarily the communist Tudeh Party of Iran and the Fedaian guerrillas[58] – had been weakened considerably by government repression. Despite this the guerrillas did help play an important part in the final February 1979 overthrow[59] delivering "the regime its coup de grace."[60] The most powerful guerrilla group – the People's Mujahedin – was leftist Islamist and opposed the influence of the clergy as reactionary.

Many clergy did not follow Khomeini's lead. Popular ayatollah Mahmoud Taleghani supported the left, while perhaps the most senior and influential ayatollah in Iran – Mohammad Kazem Shariatmadari – first remained aloof from politics and then came out in support of a democratic revolution.

Khomeini worked to unite this opposition behind him (with the exception of the unwanted `atheistic Marxists`),[61][62] focusing on the socio-economic problems of the Shah's government (corruption and unequal income and development),[61][63] while avoiding specifics among the general public that might divide the factions,[64] – particularly his plan for clerical rule which he believed most Iranians had become prejudiced against as a result of propaganda campaign by Western imperialists.[65][66]

In the post-Shah era, some revolutionaries who clashed with his theocracy and were suppressed by his movement complained of deception,[67] but in the meantime anti-Shah unity was maintained.

1970–1977

Several events in the 1970s set the stage for the 1979 revolution:

The 1971 2,500th anniversary of the founding of the Persian Empire at Persepolis, organized by the government, was attacked for its extravagance. "As the foreigners reveled on drink forbidden by Islam, Iranians were not only excluded from the festivities, some were starving."[69] Five years later the Shah angered pious Iranian Muslims by changing the first year of the Iranian solar calendar from the Islamic hijri to the ascension to the throne by Cyrus the Great. "Iran jumped overnight from the Muslim year 1355 to the royalist year 2535."[70]

The oil boom of the 1970s produced "alarming" increase in inflation and waste and an "accelerating gap" between the rich and poor, the city and the country,[71] along with the presence of tens of thousands of unpopular skilled foreign workers. Many Iranians were also angered by the fact that the shah's family was the foremost beneficiary of the income generated by oil, and the line between state earnings and family earnings blurred. By 1976, the shah had accumulated upward of one billion dollars from oil revenue; his family—including sixty-three princes and princesses—had accumulated between five and twenty billion dollars; and the family foundation controlled approximately three billion dollars[72] By mid-1977 economic austerity measures to fight inflation disproportionately affected the thousands of poor and unskilled male migrants to the cities working construction. Culturally and religiously conservative,[73] many went on to form the core of revolution's demonstrators and "martyrs".[74]

All Iranians were required to join and pay dues to a new political party, the Rastakhiz party – all other parties being banned.[75] That party's attempt to fight inflation with populist "anti-profiteering" campaigns – fining and jailing merchants for high prices – angered and politicized merchants while fueling black markets.[76]

In 1977 the Shah responded to the "polite reminder" of the importance of political rights by the new American President, Jimmy Carter, by granting amnesty to some prisoners and allowing the Red Cross to visit prisons. Through 1977 liberal opposition formed organizations and issued open letters denouncing the government.[77]

That year also saw the death of the popular and influential modernist Islamist leader Ali Shariati. This both angered his followers, who considered him a martyr at the hands of SAVAK, and removed a potential revolutionary rival to Khomeini. Finally, in October Khomeini's son Mostafa died of a heart attack, his death also blamed on SAVAK. A subsequent memorial service for Mostafa in Tehran put Khomeini back in the spotlight.[78][79]

Outbreak

Start of demonstrations in late 1977

The first militant anti-Shah demonstrations were in October 1977, after the death of Khomeini's son Mostafa.[80] Khomeini's activists numbered "perhaps a few hundred in total", but over the coming months they grew to a mass of several thousand demonstrators in most cities of Iran.[81]

The first casualties suffered in major demonstrations against the Shah came in January 1978. Hundreds of Islamist students and religious leaders in the city of Qom were furious over a story in the government-controlled press they felt was libelous. The army was sent in, dispersing the demonstrations and killing several students (two to nine according to the government, 70 or more according to the opposition).[82][83]

According to the Shi'ite customs, memorial services (called Arba'een) are held forty days after a person's death. In mosques across the nation, calls were made to honour the dead students. Thus on February 18 groups in a number of cities marched to honor the fallen and protest against the rule of the Shah.

In May, government commandos burst into the home of Ayatollah Kazem Shariatmadari, a leading cleric and political moderate, and shot dead one of his followers in front of him. Shariatmadari abandoned his quietist stance and joined the opposition to the Shah.[84]

Shah and the United States

Facing a revolution, the Shah appealed to the United States for support.[citation needed] Because of Iran's history and strategic location, it was important to the United States. Iran shared a long border with America's Cold War rival, the Soviet Union, and was the largest, most powerful country in the oil-rich Persian Gulf. The Shah had long been pro-American, but the Pahlavi monarchy had also recently garnered unfavorable publicity in the West for its human rights record.[85] In the United States, Iran was not considered in danger of revolution. A CIA analysis in August 1978, just six months before the Shah fled Iran, had concluded that the country "is not in a revolutionary or even a pre-revolutionary situation."[86]

.


Anti-Shah demonstrators, marching near a shopping street in Tehran, Dec. 27, 1978.


The Shah of Iran (left) meeting with members of the U.S. government: Alfred Atherton, William Sullivan, Cyrus Vance, Jimmy Carter, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1977

Banisadr in 1958


The Shah and his wife left the country on 16 January 1979
Iranian prime minister Mehdi Bazargan was an advocate of democracy and civil rights. He also opposed the cultural revolution and US embassy takeover.

Mass demonstration in Tehran
Ayatollah Khomeini at Neauphle-le Chateau surrounded by journalists

Shah and the United States

Facing a revolution, the Shah appealed to the United States for support.[citation needed] Because of Iran's history and strategic location, it was important to the United States. Iran shared a long border with America's Cold War rival, the Soviet Union, and was the largest, most powerful country in the oil-rich Persian Gulf. The Shah had long been pro-American, but the Pahlavi monarchy had also recently garnered unfavorable publicity in the West for its human rights record.[85] In the United States, Iran was not considered in danger of revolution. A CIA analysis in August 1978, just six months before the Shah fled Iran, had concluded that the country "is not in a revolutionary or even a pre-revolutionary situation."[86]

According to historian Nikki Keddie, the administration of then President Carter followed "no clear policy" on Iran.[87] The U.S. ambassador to Iran, William H. Sullivan, recalls that the U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski “repeatedly assured Pahlavi that the U.S. backed him fully." On November 4, 1978, Brzezinski called the Shah to tell him that the United States would "back him to the hilt." But at the same time, certain high-level officials in the State Department and the White House staff believed the revolution was unstoppable but largely went unheard until Ambassador Sullivan issued the "Thinking the Unthinkable" telegram, which formally discussed policy options if the Shah were to fail to quell the fervor.[88][89] After visiting the Shah in the autumn of 1978, Secretary of the Treasury W. Michael Blumenthal complained of the Shah's emotional collapse, reporting, "You've got a zombie out there."[90] Brzezinski and Energy Secretary James Schlesinger were adamant in their assurances that the Shah would receive military support.

Sociologist Charles Kurzman argues that rather than being indecisive, or sympathetic to the revolution, the Carter administration was consistently supportive of the Shah and urged the Iranian military to stage a "last-resort coup d'etat" even after the government's cause was hopeless.[91]

Many Iranians believe the lack of intervention and the sympathetic remarks about the revolution by high-level American officials indicate the U.S. "was responsible for Khomeini's victory."[87] Another position asserts that the Shah's overthrow was the result of a "sinister plot to topple a nationalist, progressive, and independent-minded monarch."[92]

Summer

By summer 1978 the level of protest had been at a steady state for four months – about ten thousand participants in each major city (with the exception of Isfahan where protests were larger and Tehran where they were smaller). This amounted to an “almost fully mobilized ‘mosque network,’” of pious Iranian Muslims, but a small minority of the more than 15 million adults in Iran. Worse for the momentum of the movement, on June 17, 1978 the 40-day mourning cycle of mobilization of protest – where demonstrators were killed every 40-days as they mourned the dead of earlier demonstrations – ended with a call for calm and a stay-at-home strike by moderate religious leader Shariatmadari.[93] In an attempt to appease discontent the Shah made appeals to the moderate clergy, firing his head of SAVAK and promising free elections the next June.[94]

But by August protests had “kick[ed] ... into high gear,”[95] and the number of demonstrators mushroomed to hundreds of thousands.[96] Two factors were blamed.

In an attempt to dampen inflation the government cut spending, but the cutbacks led to a sharp rise in layoffs – particularly among young, unskilled, male workers living in city slums. By summer 1978, these workers, often from traditional rural backgrounds, joined the street protests in massive numbers.[97]

Abadan cinema fire

The other factor was the August 1978 Cinema Rex Fire in Abadan where over 400 people died. Movie theaters had been a common target of Islamist demonstrators[98][99] but such was the distrust of the government and effectiveness of its enemies' communication skills that the public believed SAVAK had set the fire in an attempt to frame the opposition.[100] The next day 10,000 relatives and sympathizers gathered for a mass funeral and march shouting, ‘burn the Shah’, and ‘the Shah is the guilty one.’[101]

Black Friday and its aftermath

A new prime minister, Jafar Sharif-Emami, was installed in late August and reversed some of the Shah's policies. Casinos were closed, the imperial calendar abolished, activity by political parties legalized – to no avail. By September, the nation was rapidly destabilizing, and major protests were becoming a regular occurrence. The Shah introduced martial law, and banned all demonstrations but on September 8 thousands of protesters gathered in Tehran. Security forces shot and killed dozens[citation needed], in what became known as Black Friday.

The clerical leadership declared that "thousands have been massacred by Zionist troops,"[102] but in retrospect it has been said that "the main casualty" of the shooting was "any hope for compromise" between the protest movement and the Shah's rule.[103] The troops were actually ethnic Kurds who had been fired on by snipers, and the post-revolutionary tally by the Martyrs Foundation of people killed as a result of demonstrations throughout the city on that day found a total of 84 dead.[104] In the meantime however, the appearance of government brutality alienated much of the rest of the Iranian people and the Shah's allies abroad.

y late summer 1978 the movement to overthrow had become "`viable` in the minds of many Iranians," boosting support that much more.[105] A general strike in October resulted in the paralysis of the economy, with vital industries being shut down,[97] "sealing the Shah's fate".[106] By autumn popular support for the revolution was so powerful that those who still opposed it became reluctant to speak out,[105] According to one source "victory may be dated to mid-November 1978."[105] A military government headed by General Gholam Reza Azhari replaced conciliatory prime minister Sharif Emami.

In an attempt to weaken Ayatollah Khomeini's ability to communicate with his supporters, the Shah urged Iraq to deport Khomeini. The Iraqi government cooperated and on October 3, Khomeini left Iraq for Kuwait, but was refused entry. Three days later he left for Paris and took up residence in the suburb of Neauphle-le-Château. Though farther from Iran, telephone connections with the home country and access to the international press were far better than in Iraq.[107]

Muharram protests

On December 2 during the Islamic month of Muharram, over two million people filled the streets of Tehran's Azadi Square (then Shahyad Square), to demand the removal of the Shah and return of Khomeini.[108]

A week later on December 10 and 11, a "total of six to nine million" anti-shah demonstrators marched throughout Iran. According to one historian, "even discounting for exaggeration, these figures may represent the largest protest event in history."[109]

More than 10% of the country marched in anti-shah demonstrations on December 10 and 11, 1978.[19]

By late 1978 the Shah was in search of a prime minister and offered the job to a series of liberal oppositionists. While "several months earlier they would have considered the appointment a dream come true," they now "considered it futile".[110] Finally, in the last days of 1978, Dr. Shapour Bakhtiar, a long time opposition leader, accepted the post and was promptly expelled from the oppositional movement."

Victory of the revolution and fall of the monarchy

Shah leaves

By mid-December the Shah's position had deteriorated to the point where he "wanted only to be allowed to stay in Iran." He was turned down by the opposition. In late December, "he agreed to leave the country temporarily; still he was turned down."[111] On January 16, 1979 the Shah and the empress left Iran. Scenes of spontaneous joy followed and "within hours almost every sign of the Pahlavi dynasty" was destroyed.[112]

Bakhtiar dissolved SAVAK, freed political prisoners, ordered the army to allow mass demonstrations, promised free elections and invited Khomeinists and other revolutionaries into a government of "national unity".[113] After stalling for a few days Bakhtiar allowed Ayatollah Khomeini to return to Iran, asking him to create a Vatican-like state in Qom and calling upon the opposition to help preserve the constitution.

Khomeini's return and fall of the monarchy

On February 1, 1979 Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Tehran in a chartered Air France Boeing 747.[114] The welcoming crowd of several million Iranians was so large he was forced to take a helicopter after the car he was being transported in from the airport was overwhelmed by an enthusiastic welcoming crowd.[115] Khomeini was now not only the undisputed leader of the revolution,[116] he had become what some called a "semi-divine" figure, greeted as he descended from his airplane with cries of 'Khomeini, O Imam, we salute you, peace be upon you.'[117] Crowds were now known to chant "Islam, Islam, Khomeini, We Will Follow You," and even "Khomeini for King."[118]

On the day of his arrival Khomeini made clear his fierce rejection of Bakhtiar's government in a speech promising 'I shall kick their teeth in.'

Khomeini appointed his own competing interim prime minister Mehdi Bazargan on February 4, 'with the support of the nation'[119] and commanded Iranians to obey Bazargan as a religious duty.

[T]hrough the guardianship [Velayat] that I have from the holy lawgiver [the Prophet], I hereby pronounce Bazargan as the Ruler, and since I have appointed him, he must be obeyed. The nation must obey him. This is not an ordinary government. It is a government based on the sharia. Opposing this government means opposing the sharia of Islam ... Revolt against God's government is a revolt against God. Revolt against God is blasphemy.[120][121]

As Khomeini's movement gained momentum, soldiers began to defect to his side. On February 9 about 10 pm a fight broke out between loyal Immortal Guards and the pro-Khomeini rebel Homafaran element of the Iranian Air Force, with Khomeini declaring jihad on loyal soldiers who did not surrender.[122] Revolutionaries and rebel soldiers gained the upper hand and began to take over police stations and military installations, distributing arms to the public. The final collapse of the provisional non-Islamist government came at 2 pm February 11 when the Supreme Military Council declared itself "neutral in the current political disputes… in order to prevent further disorder and bloodshed."[123][124] Revolutionaries took over government buildings, TV and radio stations, and palaces of the Pahlavi dynasty.

This period, from February 1 to 11, is celebrated every year in Iran as the "Decade of Fajr."[125][126] February 11 is "Islamic Revolution's Victory Day", a national holiday with state sponsored demonstrations in every city.[127][128]

Casualties

The number of protesters and revolutionaries killed during the Revolution range between 3,000 to 60,000. Ayatollah Khomeini stated that "60,000 men, women and children were martyred by the Shah's regime,"[129][130] but estimates compiled by a researcher (Emad al-Din Baghi) at the Martyrs Foundation (Bonyad Shahid)[131] come to only 2,781 killed in the 1978 and 1979 clashes between demonstrators and the Shah's army and security forces.[2][129][132][133]

Consolidation of power by Khomeini

From early 1979 to either 1982 or 1983 Iran was in a "revolutionary crisis mode". The economy and the apparatus of government had collapsed, military and security forces were in disarray. Yet, by 1982 Khomeini and his supporters had crushed the rival factions, defeated local rebellions and consolidated power. Events that made up both the crisis and its resolution were the Iran Hostage Crisis, the invasion of Iran by Saddam Hussein's Iraq, and the presidency of Abolhassan Banisadr.[134][135]

Conflicts among revolutionaries

Some observers believe "what began as an authentic and anti-dictatorial popular revolution based on a broad coalition of all anti-Shah forces was soon transformed into an Islamic fundamentalist power-grab,"[136] that except for his core supporters, the members of the coalition thought Khomeini intended to be more a spiritual guide than a ruler[137] – Khomeini being in his mid-70s, having never held public office, been out of Iran for more than a decade, and having told questioners things like "the religious dignitaries do not want to rule."[138][139]

Another view is Khomeini had "overwhelming ideological, political and organizational hegemony,"[140] and non-theocratic groups never seriously challenged Khomeini's movement in popular support.[141] Supporters of the new rule themselves have claimed that Iranians who opposed Khomeini were "fifth columnists" led by foreign countries attempting to overthrow the Iranian government.[142]

Khomeini and his loyalists in the revolutionary organizations implemented Khomeini's velayat-e faqih design for an Islamic Republic led by himself as Supreme Leader[143] by exploiting temporarily allies,[144] (such as Mehdi Bazargan's Provisional Government of Iran), and eliminating from Iran's political stage both them and their adversaries one-by-one.[145]

Organizations of the revolution

The most important bodies of the revolution were the Revolutionary Council, the Revolutionary Guards, Revolutionary Tribunals, Islamic Republican Party, and Revolutionary Committees (komitehs).[146]

While the moderate Bazargan and his government (temporarily) reassured the middle class, it became apparent they did not have power over the "Khomeinist" revolutionary bodies, particularly the Revolutionary Council (the "real power" in the revolutionary state),[147][148] and later the Islamic Republican Party. Inevitably, the overlapping authority of the Revolutionary Council (which had the power to pass laws) and Bazargan's government was a source of conflict,[149] despite the fact that both had been approved by and/or put in place by Khomeini.

This conflict lasted only a few months however. The provisional government fell shortly after American Embassy officials were taken hostage on 4 November 1979. Bazargan's resignation was received by Khomeini without complaint, saying "Mr. Bazargan ... was a little tired and preferred to stay on the sidelines for a while." Khomeini later described his appointment of Bazargan as a "mistake."[150]

The Revolutionary Guard, or Pasdaran-e Enqelab, was established by Khomeini on May 5, 1979 as a counterweight both to the armed groups of the left, and to the Shah's military. The guard eventually grew into "a full-scale" military force,[151] becoming "the strongest institution of the revolution."[152]

Serving under the Pasdaran were/are the Baseej-e Mostaz'afin, ("Oppressed Mobilization")[153] volunteers in everything from earthquake emergency management to attacking opposition demonstrators and newspaper offices.[154] The Islamic Republican Party[155] then fought to establish a theocratic government by velayat-e faqih.

Thousands of komiteh or Revolutionary Committees[156] served as "the eyes and ears" of the new rule and are credited by critics with "many arbitrary arrests, executions and confiscations of property".[157]

Also enforcing the will of the regime were the Hezbollahi (the Party of God), "strong-arm thugs" who attacked demonstrators and offices of newspapers critical of Khomeini.[158]

Two major political groups that formed after the fall of the shah that clashed with and were eventually suppressed by pro-Khomeini groups, were the moderate religious Muslim People's Republican Party (MPRP) which was associated with Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Kazem Shariatmadari, and the secular leftist National Democratic Front (NDF).

1979 uprisings

Following the events of the revolution, Marxist guerrillas and federalist parties revolted in some regions comprising Khuzistan, Kurdistan and Gonbad-e Qabus, which resulted in fighting between them and revolutionary forces. These revolts began in April 1979 and lasted between several months to over a year, depending on the region.

Establishment of Islamic republic government

Referendum of 12 Farvardin

On March 30 and 31 (Farvardin 10, 11) a referendum was held over whether to replace the monarchy with an "Islamic Republic" – a term not defined on the ballot. Khomeini called for a massive turnout[159] and only the National Democratic Front, Fadayan, and several Kurdish parties opposed the vote.[159] It was announced that 98.2% had voted in favor.[159]

Writing of the constitution

In June 1979 the Freedom Movement released its draft constitution for the Islamic Republic that it had been working on since Khomeini was in exile. It included a Guardian Council to veto un-Islamic legislation, but had no guardian jurist ruler.[160] Leftists found the draft too conservative and in need of major changes but Khomeini declared it `correct`.[139][161] To approve the new constitution and prevent leftist alterations, a relatively small seventy-three-member Assembly of Experts for Constitution was elected that summer. Critics complained that "vote-rigging, violence against undesirable candidates and the dissemination of false information" was used to "produce an assembly overwhelmingly dominated by clergy loyal to Khomeini."[162]

Khomeini (and the assembly) now rejected the constitution – its correctness notwithstanding – and Khomeini declared that the new government should be based "100% on Islam."[163]

In addition to the president, the new constitution included a more powerful post of guardian jurist ruler intended for Khomeini,[164] with control of the military and security services, and power to appoint several top government and judicial officials. It increased the power and number of clerics on the Council of Guardians and gave it control over elections[165] as well as laws passed by the legislature.

The new constitution was also reportedly approved overwhelmingly by referendum, but with more opposition[166] and smaller turnout.[167]

Hostage Crisis

Helping to pass the constitution, suppress moderates and otherwise radicalize the revolution was the holding of 52 American diplomats hostage for over a year. In late October 1979, the exiled and dying Shah was admitted into the United States for cancer treatment. In Iran there was an immediate outcry and both Khomeini and leftist groups demanding the Shah's return to Iran for trial and execution. On November 4, 1979 youthful Islamists, calling themselves Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line, invaded the embassy compound and seized its staff. Revolutionaries were reminded of how 26 years earlier the Shah had fled abroad while the Embassy-based American CIA and British intelligence organized a coup d'état to overthrow his nationalist opponent.

The holding of hostages was very popular and continued for months even after the death of the Shah. As Khomeini explained to his future President Banisadr,

This action has many benefits. ... This has united our people. Our opponents do not dare act against us. We can put the constitution to the people's vote without difficulty ...[168]

With great publicity the students released documents from the American embassy or "nest of spies," showing moderate Iranian leaders had met with U.S. officials (similar evidence of high-ranking Islamists having done so did not see the light of day).[169] Among the casualties of the hostage crisis was Prime Minister Bazargan and his government who resigned in November unable to enforce the government's order to release the hostages.[170]

The prestige of Khomeini and the hostage taking was further enhanced with the failure of a hostage rescue attempt, widely credited to divine intervention.[171]

It ended with the signing of the Algiers Accords in Algeria on January 19, 1981. The hostages were formally released into United States custody the following day, just minutes after the new American president Ronald Reagan was sworn in. The hostages had been held at the U.S. embassy in Tehran for 444 days.

Suppression of opposition

In early March Khomeini announced, "do not use this term, ‘democratic.’ That is the Western style," giving pro-democracy liberals (and later leftists) a taste of disappointments to come.[172]

In succession the National Democratic Front was banned in August 1979, the provisional government was disempowered in November, the Muslim People's Republican Party banned in January 1980, the People's Mujahedin of Iran guerrillas came under attack in February 1980, a purge of universities was begun in March 1980, and leftist Islamist Abolhassan Banisadr was impeached in June 1981.

After the revolution human rights groups estimated the number of casualties suffered by protesters and prisoners of the new system to be several thousand. The first to be executed were members of the old system – senior generals, followed by over 200 senior civilian officials,[173] as punishment and to eliminate the danger of coup d’État. Brief trials lacking defense attorneys, juries, transparency or opportunity for the accused to defend themselves,[174] were held by revolutionary judges such as Sadegh Khalkhali, the Sharia judge. By January 1980 "at least 582 persons had been executed."[175] Among those executed was Amir Abbas Hoveida, former Prime Minister of Iran.

Between January 1980 and June 1981, when Bani-Sadr was impeached, at least 900 executions took place,[176] for everything from drug and sexual offenses to `corruption on earth,` from plotting counter-revolution and spying for Israel to membership in opposition groups.[177] In the 12 months following that Amnesty International documented 2,946 executions, with several thousand more killed in the next two years according to the anti-regime guerillas People's Mujahedin of Iran.[178]

Newspaper closings

In mid August, shortly after the election of the constitution-writing assembly, several dozen newspapers and magazines opposing Khomeini's idea of theocratic rule by jurists were shut down.[179][180][181] When protests were organized by the National Democratic Front (NDF), Khomeini angrily denounced them saying, "we thought we were dealing with human beings. It is evident we are not."[182]

... After each revolution several thousand of these corrupt elements are executed in public and burnt and the story is over. They are not allowed to publish newspapers.[183]

Hundreds were injured by "rocks, clubs, chains and iron bars" when Hezbollahi attacked the protesters,[184] and shortly after, a warrant was issued for the arrest of the NDF's leader.[185]

Muslim People's Republican Party

In December the moderate Islamic party Muslim People's Republican Party (MPRP), and its spiritual leader Mohammad Kazem Shariatmadari had become a rallying point for Iranians who wanted democracy not theocracy.[186] Riots broke out in Shariatmadari's Azeri home region with members of the MPRP and Shariatmadari's followers seizing the Tabriz television station, and using it to "broadcast demands and grievances." The regime reacted quickly, sending Revolutionary Guards to retake the TV station, mediators to defuse complaints and activists to stage a massive pro-Khomeini counter-demonstration.[187] The party was suppressed[186] and in 1982 Shari'atmadari was "demoted" from the rank of Grand Ayatollah and many of his clerical followers purged.[188]

Islamist left

In January 1980 Abolhassan Banisadr was elected president of Iran. Though an adviser to Khomeini, he was a leftist who clashed with another ally of Khomeini, the theocratic Islamic Republic Party (IRP) – the controlling power in the new parliament.[189]

At the same time, erstwhile revolutionary allies of Khomeini – the Islamist modernist guerrilla group People's Mujahedin of Iran (or MEK) – were being suppressed by Khomeini's revolutionary organizations. Khomeini attacked the MEK as monafeqin (hypocrites) and kafer (unbelievers).[190] Hezbollahi people attacked meeting places, bookstores, newsstands of Mujahideen and other leftists[191] driving them underground. Universities were closed to purge them of opponents of theocratic rule as a part of the "Cultural Revolution", and 20,000 teachers and nearly 8,000 military officers deemed too westernized were dismissed.[192]

By mid-1981 matters came to a head. An attempt by Khomeini to forge a reconciliation between Banisadr and IRP leaders had failed[193] and now it was Banisadr who was the rallying point "for all doubters and dissidents" of the theocracy, including the MEK.[194]

When leaders of the National Front called for a demonstration in June 1981 in favor of Banisadr, Khomeini threatened its leaders with the death penalty for apostasy "if they did not repent."[195] Leaders of the Freedom Movement of Iran were compelled to make and publicly broadcast apologies for supporting the Front's appeal.[196] Those attending the rally were menaced by Hezbollahi and Revolutionary Guards and intimidated into silence.[197]

The MEK retaliated with a campaign of terror against the IRP. On the June 28, 1981, a bombing of the office of the IRP killed around 70 high-ranking officials, cabinet members and members of parliament, including Mohammad Beheshti, the secretary-general of the party and head of the Islamic Republic's judicial system. The regime responded with thousands of arrests and hundreds of executions.[198] Despite these and other assassinations[155] the hoped-for mass uprising and armed struggle against the Khomeiniists was crushed.

The MEK bombings were not the only violent opposition to the Khomeinist rule. In May 1979, the Furqan Group (Guruh-i Furqan) assassinated an important lieutenant of Khomeini, Morteza Motahhari.[199]

Impact

Views differ on the impact of the revolution.[200] For some it was "the most significant, hopeful and profound event in the entirety of contemporary Islamic history,"[201] while other Iranians believe that the revolution was a time when "for a few years we all lost our minds",[202] and which "promised us heaven, but... created a hell on earth."[203]

International

Internationally, the initial impact of the revolution was immense. In the non-Muslim world it changed the image of Islam, generating much interest in Islam – both sympathetic[204] and hostile[205] – and even speculation that the revolution might change "the world balance of power more than any political event since Hitler's conquest of Europe."[206]

The Islamic Republic positioned itself as a revolutionary beacon under the slogan "neither East nor West" (i.e. neither Soviet nor American/West European models), and called for the overthrow of capitalism, American influence, and social injustice in the Middle East and the rest of the world. Revolutionary leaders in Iran gave and sought support from non-Muslim causes in the Third World – e.g. the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, IRA in Ireland and anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa – even to the point of favoring non-Muslim revolutionaries over Islamic causes such as the neighboring Afghan Mujahideen.[207]

Persian Gulf and the Iran–Iraq War

In its region, Iranian Islamic revolutionaries called specifically for the overthrow of monarchies and their replacement with Islamic republics, much to the alarm of its smaller Sunni-run Arab neighbors Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the other Persian Gulf States – most of whom were monarchies and all of whom had sizable Shi'a populations. It was with one of these countries that the Iran–Iraq War, which killed hundreds of thousands and dominated life in the Islamic Republic for the next eight years, was fought. Although Iraq invaded Iran, most of the war was fought after Iran had regained most of its land back and after the Iraqi government had offered a truce. Khomeini rejected it, announcing the only condition for peace was that "the regime in Baghdad must fall and must be replaced by an Islamic Republic,"[208] but ultimately the war ended with no Islamic revolution in Iraq.

In September 1980 the Arab Nationalist and Sunni Muslim-dominated regime of Saddam Hussein of neighboring Iraq invaded Iran in an attempt to take advantage of revolutionary chaos and destroy the revolution in its infancy.[citation needed] Iran was "galvanized"[209] and Iranians rallied behind their new government helping to stop and then reversing the Iraqi advance. By early 1982 Iran regained almost all the territory lost to the invasion.

Like the hostage crisis, the war served in part as an opportunity for the regime to strengthen revolutionary ardour and revolutionary groups.[210] such as the Revolutionary Guard and committees at the expense of its remaining allies-turned-opponents, such as the MEK.[211][212] While enormously costly and destructive, the war "rejuvenate[d] the drive for national unity and Islamic revolution" and "inhibited fractious debate and dispute" in Iran.[213]

Western/U.S.-Iranian relations

Other countries

In the Mideast and Muslim world, particularly in its early years, it triggered enormous enthusiasm and redoubled opposition to western intervention and influence. Islamist insurgents rose in Saudi Arabia (1979), Egypt (1981), Syria (1982), and Lebanon (1983).[214]

Although ultimately only the Lebanese Islamists succeeded, other activities have had more long term impact. The Ayatollah Khomeini's 1989 fatwa calling for the killing of Indian-born British citizen Salman Rushdie had international impact. The Islamic revolutionary government itself is credited with helping establish Hezbollah in Lebanon[215] and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

On the other side of the ledger, at least one observer argues that despite great effort and expense the only countries outside Iran the revolution had a "measure of lasting influence" on are Lebanon and Iraq.[216] Others claim the devastating Iran–Iraq War "mortally wounded ... the ideal of spreading the Islamic revolution,"[217] or that the Islamic Republic's pursuit of an ideological rather than a "nationalist, pragmatic" foreign policy has weakened Iran's "place as a great regional power".[218]

Domestic

Internally, the revolution has brought a broadening of education and health care for the poor, and particularly governmental promotion of Islam, and the elimination of secularism and American influence in government. Fewer changes have occurred in terms of political freedom, governmental honesty and efficiency, economic equality and self-sufficiency, or even popular religious devotion.[219][220][221] Opinion polls and observers report widespread dissatisfaction, including a "rift" between the revolutionary generation and younger Iranians who find it "impossible to understand what their parents were so passionate about."[222]

Human development

Literacy has continued to increase under the Islamic Republic which uses Islamic principles,[223][224] By 2002 illiteracy rates dropped by more than half.[225][226] Maternal and infant mortality rates have also been cut significantly.[227] Population growth was first encouraged, but discouraged after 1988.[228] Overall, Iran's Human development Index rating has climbed significantly from 0.569 in 1980 to 0.732 in 2002, on par with neighbour Turkey.[229][230]

Politics and government

Iran has elected governmental bodies at the national, provincial and local levels. Although these bodies are subordinate to theocracy – which has veto power over who can run for parliament (or Islamic Consultative Assembly) and whether its bills can become law – they have more power than equivalent organs in the Shah's government. Iran's Sunni minority (about 8%) has seen some unrest.[231] While Iran's small non-Muslim minorities do not have equal rights, five of the 290 parliamentary seats are allocated to their communities.[232]

Definitely not protected have been members of the Bahá'í Faith, which has been declared heretical and subversive. More than 200 Bahá'ís have been executed or killed, and many more have been imprisoned, deprived of jobs, pensions, businesses, and educational opportunities. Bahá'í holy places have been confiscated, vandalized, or destroyed.[233][234] More recently, Bahá'ís in Iran have been deprived of education and work. Several thousand young Bahá'ís between the ages of 17 and 24 have been expelled from universities for no particular reason.[235]

Whether the Islamic Republic has brought more or less severe political repression is disputed. Grumbling once done about the tyranny and corruption of the Shah and his court is now directed against "the Mullahs."[236] Fear of SAVAK has been replaced by fear of Revolutionary Guards, and other religious revolutionary enforcers.[237] Violations of human rights by the theocratic regime is said by some to be worse than during the monarchy,[238] and in any case extremely grave.[239] Reports of torture, imprisonment of dissidents, and the murder of prominent critics have been made by human rights groups. Censorship is handled by the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance, without whose official permission, "no books or magazines are published, no audiotapes are distributed, no movies are shown and no cultural organization is established. All forms of popular music are banned. Men and women are not allowed to dance or swim with each other. "[240]

Women

Women – especially those from traditional backgrounds – participated on a large scale in demonstrations leading up to the revolution.[241] Since the revolution university enrollment and the number of women in the civil service and higher education has risen[242] (to the alarm of some regime authorities),[243][244] and several women have been elected to the Iranian parliament.

However, the ideology of the revolution opposes equal rights for women. Within months of the founding of the Islamic Republic the 1967 Family Protection Law was repealed, female government workers began to observe Islamic dress code, women were barred from becoming judges, beaches and sports were sex-segregated, the marriage age for girls was reduced to 9 and married women were barred from attending regular schools.[245] Women began almost immediately to protest[246][247] and have won some reversals of policies in the years since. Inequality for women in inheritance and other areas of the civil code remain. Segregation of the sexes, from "schoolrooms to ski slopes to public buses", is strictly enforced. Females caught by revolutionary officials in a mixed-sex situation can be subject to virginity tests.[248] All forms of physical contact in public is forbidden, resulting in imprisonments or even death. Women may also be sentenced to fines, beatings, or even death if they are found to be engaged in pre-marital sex, or recreational sex while being married, except for the sole purposes of reproducing, of producing children.[249]

Economy

CHADS economy has not thrived since the revolution. Dependence on petroleum exports is still strong.[250] Per capita income fluctuates with the price of oil – reportedly falling at one point to 1/4 of what it was prior to the revolution[251][252] and has still not reached pre-revolution levels. Unemployment among Iran's youth has steadily risen, with economic sanctions and internal corruption to blame.[253][254]

Gharbzadegi ("westoxification"), or Western culture, remains, brought by music recordings, videos, satellite dishes, fast food, and bacon products.[255] One post-revolutionary opinion poll found 61% of students in Tehran chose "Western artists" as their role models with only 17% choosing "Iran's officials."[256]



                                                                                                            The Soviet war in Afghanistan

During the 1950s–70s, when Afghanistan received a large amount of aid from the Soviet government, Kabul presented a picture of a Western-built city.
Afghan girl scouts, dressed up in Western clothing, managed by the local Russian authorities, 1950 c..

Afghan women and a man are seen dressing in Soviet-style Western clothing in a Russian music record store, 1950–79 circa.

"...We believe it would be a fatal mistake to commit ground troops. [...] If our troops went in, the situation in your country would not improve. On the contrary, it would get worse. Our troops would have to struggle not only with an external aggressor, but with a significant part of your own people. And the people would never forgive such things...."
...Alexei Kosygin, the Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers, in response to Taraki's request for Soviet presence in Afghanistan

Soviet infantry members at the time of deployment.

Soviet contingent forces after capturing some Mujahideen.

40th Army headquarters, Tajbeg Palace, 1986.

Soviet soldiers conducting training.

The headquarters of the Soviet 40th Army in Kabul, 1987. Before the Soviet intervention, the building was Tajbeg Palace, where Hafizullah Amin was killed.

Soviet ground forces in action while conducting an offensive operation against the Islamist resistance, the Mujahideen.
The Soviet intervention

Soviet paratroopers aboard a BMD-1 in Kabul
A mujahideen fighter in Kunar uses a communications receiver.

Mujahideen with two captured artillery field guns in Jaji, 1984

The Afghan village left in ruins after being destroyed by Soviet forces.

A Soviet Spetsnaz (special operations) group prepares for a mission in Afghanistan, 1988.

Mujahideen praying in Shultan Valley, 1987.

The areas where the different mujahideen forces operated in 1985.

Awards ceremony for the 9th Company
Soviet soldier in Afghanistan, 1988.

Soviet T-62M main battle tank withdraws from Afghanistan

Soviet troops withdrawing from Afghanistan in 1988

CGen of 40th Army, Boris Gromov, announcing the withdrawal of Soviet contingent forces.

A column of Soviet BTR armored personnel carriers departing from Afghanistan.

U.S. President Reagan supportively meeting with Afghan Mujahideen at the White House, to highlight Soviet atrocities in Afghanistan.

Three mujahideen in Asmar, 1985.

Spetsnaz troops interrogate a captured mujahideen with Western weapons in the background, 1986

An Afghan mujahideen fighter demonstrates the use of a hand-held SA-7 surface-to-air missile

George Crile III with Charlie Wilson in Afghanistan.
A German database showing the channeling of the money and weapons, provided by ISI officer Mohammad Yousaf in his book: Afghanistan – The Bear Trap: The Defeat of a Superpower


Afghans commemorating Mujahideen Victory Day.

U.S. military personnel (with civilian (far right, in suit) Pakistan Intelligence Bureau agent) assisting the Afghan Mujaheddin


Charlie Wilson (2nd left), D- T, dressing in Afghan clothing (armed with AK-47) with the local Afghan mujahideen.

A PFM-1 mine, often mistaken for a toy by children. The mine's shape was dictated by aerodynamics


Afghan guerrillas that were chosen to receive medical treatment in the United States, Norton Air Force Base, California, 1986.
Two Soviet T55 tanks left by the Soviet army during their withdrawal lie rusting in a field near Bagram Airfield, in 2002.

A Memorial to local soldiers killed in the War in Afghanistan in Yekaterinburg

Memorials



Soviet war in Afghanistan
Part of the Cold War and the Afghan civil war
Mortar attack on Shigal Tarna garrison, Kunar Province, 87.jpg
Mujahideen, 1987
Date December 24, 1979 – February 15, 1989
(9 years, 1 month, 3 weeks and 1 day)
Location Democratic Republic of Afghanistan
Result Geneva Accords (1988)
Belligerents
Soviet Union Soviet Union

Afghanistan D.R. Afghanistan

Mujahideen

Supported by:
 Pakistan

 United States of America[2][3][4][5]
 People's Republic of China
 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia[3][4][6][7]

Commanders and leaders
Soviet Union Leonid Brezhnev
Soviet Union Yuri Andropov
Soviet Union Konstantin Chernenko
Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev
Soviet Union Dmitriy Ustinov
Soviet Union Sergei Sokolov
Soviet Union Dmitriy Yazov
Soviet Union Valentin Varennikov
Soviet Union Igor Rodionov
Soviet Union Boris Gromov
Afghanistan Babrak Karmal
Afghanistan Mohammad Najibullah
Afghanistan Abdul Rashid Dostum
Afghanistan Abdul Qadir Dagarwal
Afghanistan Shahnawaz Tanai
Afghanistan Mohammed Rafie
Ahmad Shah Massoud
Abdul Haq
Abdullah Azzam
Ismail Khan
Gulbuddin Hekmatyar
Jalaluddin Haqqani
Mullah Naqib
Abdul Rahim Wardak
Fazal Haq Mujahid
Burhanuddin Rabbani
Osama bin Laden
Flag of the Pakistani Army.svg General Zia-ul-Haq [8]
Coat of arms of Pakistan.svg Akhtar Abdur Rahman [8]
Strength
Soviet Forces:

Afghan Forces:

Mujahideen:

200,000–250,000[11][12][13]

Casualties and losses
Soviet Forces:

14,453 Killed (total)

  • 9,500 killed in combat[14]
  • 4,000 died from wounds[14]
  • 1,000 died from disease and accidents[14]

53,753 Wounded[14]

312 Missing[15]

Afghan Forces:

18,000 killed[16]

Mujahideen:

75,000–90,000 killed, 75,000+ wounded (tentative estimate)[17]

Civilians (Afghan):

600,000–2,000,000 killed[18]

5 million refugees outside of Afghanistan

2 million internally displaced persons

Around 3 million Afghans wounded (mostly civilians)[19]

Civilians (Soviet):

Around 100 dead


"..We believe it would be a fatal mistake to commit ground troops. [...] If our troops went in, the situation in your country would not improve. On the contrary, it would get worse. Our troops would have to struggle not only with an external aggressor, but with a significant part of your own people. And the people would never forgive such things"

—Alexei Kosygin, the Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers, in response to Taraki's request for Soviet presence in Afghanistan


The Soviet war in Afghanistan was a nine-year war during the Cold War fought by the Soviet Army and the Marxist-Leninist government of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan[20] against the Afghan Mujahideen guerrilla movement and foreign "Arab–Afghan" volunteers. The mujahideen received wide military and financial support from Pakistan,[21] also receiving direct and indirect support by the United States[2][3][4] and China.[22][23] The Afghan government fought with the intervention of the Soviet Union as its primary ally.[21]

The initial Soviet deployment of the 40th Army in Afghanistan began on December 24, 1979 under Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev.[24] The final troop withdrawal started on May 15, 1988, and ended on February 15, 1989 under the last Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev. Due to the interminable nature of the war, the conflict in Afghanistan has sometimes been referred to as the "Soviet Union's Vietnam War" or "the Bear Trap".[25][26][27]

Background

"We should tell Taraki and Amin to change their tactics. They still continue to execute those people who disagree with them. They are killing nearly all of the Parcham leaders, not only the highest rank, but of the middle rank, too."..—Kosygin speaking at a Politburo session.

The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan was formed after the Saur Revolution on April 27, 1978. The government was one with a pro-poor, pro-farmer and socialistic agenda. It had close relations with the Soviet Union. On December 5, 1978, a friendship treaty was signed between the Soviet Union and Afghanistan. On July 3, 1979, United States President Jimmy Carter signed the first directive for covert financial aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul.[28]

During the 1950s–70s, when Afghanistan received a large amount of aid from the Soviet government, Kabul presented a picture of a Western-built city.

Russian military involvement in Afghanistan has a long history, going back to Tsarist expansions in the so-called "Great Game" between Russia and Britain. This began in the 19th century with such events as the Panjdeh Incident, a military skirmish that occurred in 1885 when Russian forces seized Afghan territory south of the Oxus River around an oasis at Panjdeh. This interest in the region continued on through the Soviet era, with billions in economic and military aid sent to Afghanistan between 1955 and 1978.[29]

In February 1979, the Islamic Revolution ousted the American-backed Shah from Afghanistan's neighbor Iran. The United States Ambassador to Afghanistan, Adolph Dubs, was kidnapped by Setami Milli militants and was later killed during an assault carried out by the Afghan police, assisted by Soviet advisers. The death of the U.S. Ambassador led to a major degradation in Afghanistan–United States relations.[30]

The United States then deployed twenty ships to the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea including two aircraft carriers, and there was a constant stream of threats of warfare between the US and Iran.[31]

March 1979 marked the signing of the US-backed peace agreement between Israel and Egypt. The Soviet leadership saw the agreement as a major advantage for the United States. One Soviet newspaper stated that Egypt and Israel were now "gendarmes of the Pentagon". The Soviets viewed the treaty not only as a peace agreement between their erstwhile allies in Egypt and the US-supported Israelis but also as a military pact.[32] In addition, the US sold more than 5,000 missiles to Saudi Arabia and also supplied the Royalist rebels in the North Yemen Civil War against the nasserist government. Also, the Soviet Union's previously strong relations with Iraq had recently soured. In June 1978, Iraq began entering into friendlier relations with the Western world and buying French and Italian-made weapons, though the vast majority still came from the Soviet Union, its Warsaw Pact allies, and China.

Democratic Republic of Afghanistan

The Saur Revolution

King Mohammed Zahir Shah ascended to the throne and reigned from 1933 to 1973. Zahir's cousin, Mohammad Daoud Khan, served as Prime Minister from 1954 to 1963. The Marxist PDPA's strength grew considerably in these years. In 1967, the PDPA split into two rival factions, the Khalq (Masses) faction headed by Nur Muhammad Taraki and Hafizullah Amin and the Parcham (Flag) faction led by Babrak Karmal.

Former Prime Minister Daoud seized power in a military coup on July 17, 1973, after allegations of corruption and poor economic conditions against the King's government. Daoud put an end to the monarchy and his time in power was widely popular amongst the general populace, but unpopular amongst PDPA supporters.

Intense opposition from factions of the PDPA was sparked by the repression imposed on them by Daoud's regime and the death of a leading PDPA member, Mir Akbar Khyber.[33] The mysterious circumstances of Khyber's death sparked massive anti-Daoud demonstrations in Kabul, which resulted in the arrest of several prominent PDPA leaders.[34]

On April 27, 1978, the Afghan Army, which had been sympathetic to the PDPA cause, overthrew and executed Daoud along with members of his family.[35] Nur Muhammad Taraki, Secretary General of the PDPA, became President of the Revolutionary Council and Prime Minister of the newly established Democratic Republic of Afghanistan.

Factions inside the PDPA

After the revolution, Taraki assumed the Presidency, Prime Ministership and General Secretary of the PDPA. The government was divided along factional lines, with President Taraki and Deputy Prime Minister Hafizullah Amin of the Khalq faction against Parcham leaders such as Babrak Karmal and Mohammad Najibullah. Within the PDPA, conflicts resulted in exiles, purges and executions of Parcham members.[36]

During its first 18 months of rule, the PDPA applied a Soviet-style program of modernizing reforms, many of which were viewed by conservatives as opposing Islam.[37] Decrees setting forth changes in marriage customs and land reform were not received well by a population deeply immersed in tradition and Islam, particularly by the powerful land owners who were harmed economically by the abolition of usury (though usury is prohibited in Islam) and the cancellation of farmers' debts. By mid-1978, a rebellion started with rebels attacking the local military garrison in the Nuristan region of eastern Afghanistan and soon civil war spread throughout the country. In September 1979, Deputy Prime Minister Hafizullah Amin seized power after a palace shootout that resulted in the death of President Taraki. Over two months of instability overwhelmed Amin's regime as he moved against his opponents in the PDPA and the growing rebellion.

Soviet-Afghan relations

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) had been a major power broker and influential mentor in Afghan politics, ranging from civil-military infrastructure to Afghan society.[38] In the 1980s, many Afghans were Russian language proficient.[38] Since 1947, Afghanistan had been under the influence of the Russian government and received large amounts of aid, economical assistance, military equipment training and military hardware from the Soviet Union.

The economical assistance and aide had been provided to Afghanistan as early as 1919, shortly after the Russian Revolution and when the regime was facing the Russian Civil War. Provisions were given in the form of small arms, ammunition, a few aircraft, and (according to debated Soviet sources) a million gold rubles to support the resistance during the Third Anglo-Afghan War. In 1942, the USSR again moved to strengthen the Afghan Armed Forces, by providing small arms and aircraft, and establishing training centers in Tashkent (Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic). Soviet-Afghan military cooperation began on a regular basis in 1956, and further agreements were made in the 1970s, which saw the USSR send advisers and specialists. The Soviet Union built an extensive amount of infrastructure, notably giving assistance building the Kabul University, Polytechnical institutes, hospitals, civilian infrastructure, power plants, and local schools. During the 1980s, Soviets established the universities in Blakhe, Herate, Takhar, Nangarhar and Fariyab provinces. The Russian faculty soon joined the universities, teaching Afghan students in proficient Russian languages.

In 1978, President Daud Khan began to take initiatives for building the massive military after witnessing the India's nuclear test, Smiling Buddha, to counter Pakistan's armed forces and Iranian military influence in Afghanistan's politics. A final pre-war treaty, signed in December 1978, allowed the PDPA to call upon the Soviet Union for military support.[39]

In 2009, the BBC republished a Soviet booklet on Afghanistan first published in 1987, giving vital tips to Internationalist soldiers and officers.[38]

Following the Herat uprising, President Taraki contacted Alexei Kosygin, chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers, and asked for "practical and technical assistance with men and armament". Kosygin was unfavorable to the proposal on the basis of the negative political repercussions such an action would have for his country, and he rejected all further attempts by Taraki to solicit Soviet military aid in Afghanistan.[41] Following Kosygin's rejection Taraki requested aid from Leonid Brezhnev, the general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and Soviet head of state, who warned Taraki that full Soviet intervention "would only play into the hands of our enemies – both yours and ours". Brezhnev also advised Taraki to ease up on the drastic social reforms and to seek broader support for his regime.[42]

In 1979, Taraki attended a conference of the Non-Aligned Movement in Havana, Cuba. On his way back he stopped in Moscow on March 20 and met with Brezhnev, foreign minister Andrei Gromyko and other Soviet officials. It was rumoured that Karmal was present at the meeting in an attempt to reconcile Taraki's Khalq faction and the Parcham against Amin and his followers. At the meeting, Taraki was successful in negotiating some Soviet support, including the redeployment of two Soviet armed divisions at the Soviet-Afghan border, the sending of 500 military and civilian advisers and specialists and the immediate delivery of Soviet armed equipment sold at 25 percent below the original price. However the Soviets were not pleased about the developments in Afghanistan and Brezhnev impressed upon Taraki the need for party unity. Despite reaching this agreement with Taraki, the Soviets continued to be reluctant to intervene further in Afghanistan and repeatedly refused Soviet military intervention within Afghan borders during Taraki's rule as well as later during Amin's short rule.[43]

Initiation of the insurgency

Afghanistan cemented regional problems with Pakistan, after Daoud pressed his hard-line Pashtunistan policies to Pakistan.[44] Pakistan retaliated, and Prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto authorized a covert operation under M.I.'s Major-General Naseerullah Babar.[44] In 1974, Bhutto authorized another secret operation in Kabul where the ISI and the AI extradited Burhanuddin Rabbani and Gulbadin Hekmatyar to Peshawar, amid fear that Rabbani and Hekmatyar may be assassinated by Daoud.[44] According to Baber, Bhutto's operation was an excellent idea and it had hard-hitting impact on Daoud and his government which forced Daoud to increase his desire to make peace with Bhutto.[44] Another part of this operation was to train hard-line Jamiat-e Islami militants against the Daoud's secular government.[44] However, this operation went into cold-storage after Bhutto was removed from power.[44]

In June 1975, militants from the Jamiat Islami party attempted to overthrow the government. They started their rebellion in the Panjshir valley (a part of the greater Parwan province), in the present day Panjshir province, some 100 kilometers north of Kabul, and in a number of other provinces of the country. However, government forces easily defeated the insurgency and a sizable portion of the insurgents sought refuge in Pakistan where they enjoyed the support of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's government, which had been alarmed by Daoud's revival of the Pashtunistan issue.[45]
In 1978 the Taraki government initiated a series of reforms, including a radical modernization of the traditional Islamic civil and especially marriage law, aimed at "uprooting feudalism" in Afghan society.[46] The government brooked no opposition to the reforms[36] and responded with violence to unrest. Between April 1978 and the Soviet Intervention of December 1979, thousands of prisoners, perhaps as many as 27,000, were executed at the notorious[47] Pul-e-Charkhi prison, including many village mullahs and headmen.[48] Other members of the traditional elite, the religious establishment and intelligentsia fled the country.[48]
Large parts of the country went into open rebellion. The Parcham Government claimed that 11,000 were executed during the Amin/Taraki period in response to the revolts.[49] The revolt began in October among the Nuristani tribes of the Kunar Valley in the northeastern part of the country near the border with Pakistan, and rapidly spread among the other ethnic groups. By the spring of 1979, 24 of the 28 provinces had suffered outbreaks of violence.[50][51] The rebellion began to take hold in the cities: in March 1979 in Herat, rebels led by Ismail Khan revolted. Between 3000 and 5000 people were killed and wounded during the Herat revolt. Some 100 Soviet citizens and their families were killed.[52][53] In 1979, the contentious law and order situation led to a serious diplomatic incident involving United States, Soviet Union and Afghanistan when U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Adolph "Spike" Dubs was kidnapped by four militants belonging to radical communist faction, Settam-e-Melli (lit. National Oppression).[54] The National Operation demanded the release of their communist leader Badruddin Bahes, which the Afghan government denied holding and refused categorically to negotiate with the militants, in spite of the US embassy's demands.[54] The U.S. increased pressure on the Afghan government and the Soviet Union forcefully demanding for peaceful negotiations for the release of their ambassador.[55

Dubs was held in Room 117 of the Kabul Hotel (now called Kabul Serena Hotel), the United States sent its embassy and diplomatic staff at the Kabul Serena Hotel where the negotiation with the communist faction and the U.S. was started.[54] During at this time, the Afghan security forces, accompanied by the Russian advisers swarmed the hallway and surrounding rooftops, but negotiations stalled, leading to an intense exchange of cross fire, after Russian advisers ordered an assault.[55] Documents released from the Soviet KGB bureau archives by Vasily Mitrokhin in the early 1990s clearly showed that the Afghan government clearly authorized the assault and that the KGB adviser on scene, Sergei Batrukihn, may have recommended the assault, as well as the execution of a kidnapper before U.S. experts could interrogate him.[56] All attempts were failed, and U.S. Ambassador Adolph Dubs was caught between the cross fire leading to his death.[55] Afterwards the United States formally expressed to Soviet Union its disapproval of the assault by the security forces, putting more stress on U.S.-Soviet relations.[57]

Despite these drastic measures, by the end of 1980, out of the 80,000 soldiers strong Afghan Army, more than half had either deserted or joined the rebels.[50]

1979: Soviet deployment

The Afghan government, having secured a treaty in December 1978 that allowed them to call on Soviet forces, repeatedly requested the introduction of troops in Afghanistan in the spring and summer of 1979. They requested Soviet troops to provide security and to assist in the fight against the mujahideen rebels. On April 14, 1979, the Afghan government requested that the USSR send 15 to 20 helicopters with their crews to Afghanistan, and on June 16, the Soviet government responded and sent a detachment of tanks, BMPs, and crews to guard the government in Kabul and to secure the Bagram and Shindand airfields. In response to this request, an airborne battalion, commanded by Lieutenant Colonel A. Lomakin, arrived at the Bagram Air Base on July 7. They arrived without their combat gear, disguised as technical specialists. They were the personal bodyguards for President Taraki. The paratroopers were directly subordinate to the senior Soviet military advisor and did not interfere in Afghan politics. Several leading politicians at the time such as Alexei Kosygin and Andrei Gromyko were against intervention.

After a month, the Afghan requests were no longer for individual crews and subunits, but for regiments and larger units. In July, the Afghan government requested that two motorized rifle divisions be sent to Afghanistan. The following day, they requested an airborne division in addition to the earlier requests. They repeated these requests and variants to these requests over the following months right up to December 1979. However, the Soviet government was in no hurry to grant them.

Based on information from the KGB, Soviet leaders felt that Prime Minister Hafizullah Amin's actions had destabilized the situation in Afghanistan. Following his initial coup against and killing of President Taraki, the KGB station in Kabul warned Moscow that Amin's leadership would lead to "harsh repressions, and as a result, the activation and consolidation of the opposition."[59]

The Soviets established a special commission on Afghanistan, comprising KGB chairman Yuri Andropov, Boris Ponomarev from the Central Committee and Dmitriy Ustinov, the Minister of Defence. In late April 1978, the committee reported that Amin was purging his opponents, including Soviet loyalists, that his loyalty to Moscow was in question and that he was seeking diplomatic links with Pakistan and possibly the People's Republic of China (which at the time had poor relations with the Soviet Union). Of specific concern were Amin's secret meetings with the US chargé d'affaires, J. Bruce Amstutz, which, while never amounting to any agreement between Amin and the United States, sowed suspicion in the Kremlin.[60]

Information obtained by the KGB from its agents in Kabul provided the last arguments to eliminate Amin. Supposedly, two of Amin's guards killed the former president Nur Muhammad Taraki with a pillow, and Amin was suspected to be a CIA agent. The latter, however, is still disputed: Amin repeatedly demonstrated official friendliness to the Soviet Union. Soviet General Vasily Zaplatin, a political advisor at that time, claimed that four of President Taraki's ministers were responsible for the destabilization. However, Zaplatin failed to emphasize this enough.[61]

Also during the 1970s, the Soviet Union reached the peak of its political influence in comparison to the U.S.[citation needed] as the SALT I treaty was created to cooperate in matters of nuclear weapons and technology between the two nations. A second round of talks between Soviet premier Brezhnev and President Carter yielded the SALT II treaty in June 1979. (The United States Senate failed to ratify the treaty). This process would eventually culminate and lead up to the buildup and intervention in Afghanistan in December 1979 to preserve, stabilize and militarily intervene on behalf of the communist regime there.[citation needed]

1979: Soviet intervention


"..Those hopelessly brave warriors I walked with, and their families, who suffered so much for faith and freedom and who are still not free, they were truly the people of God..."
 — Journalist Rob Schultheis, 1992.


"...To watch the courageous Afghan freedom fighters battle modern arsenals with simple hand-held weapons is an inspiration to those who love freedom..."
U.S. President Ronald Reagan, March 21, 1983

1979: Soviet intervention

On October 31, 1979 Soviet informants to the Afghan Armed Forces who were under orders from the inner circle of advisors under Soviet premier Brezhnev, relayed information for them to undergo maintenance cycles for their tanks and other crucial equipment. Meanwhile, telecommunications links to areas outside of Kabul were severed, isolating the capital. With a deteriorating security situation, large numbers of Soviet airborne forces joined stationed ground troops and began to land in Kabul on December 25. Simultaneously, Amin moved the offices of the president to the Tajbeg Palace, believing this location to be more secure from possible threats. According to Colonel General Tukharinov and Merimsky, Amin was fully informed of the military movements, having requested Soviet military assistance to northern Afghanistan on December 17.[62][63] His brother and General Dmitry Chiangov met with the commander of the 40th Army before Soviet troops entered the country, to work out initial routes and locations for Soviet troops.[62]

On December 27, 1979, 700 Soviet troops dressed in Afghan uniforms, including KGB and GRU special force officers from the Alpha Group and Zenith Group, occupied major governmental, military and media buildings in Kabul, including their primary target – the Tajbeg Presidential Palace.

That operation began at 19:00 hr., when the KGB-led Soviet Zenith Group destroyed Kabul's communications hub, paralyzing Afghan military command. At 19:15, the assault on Tajbeg Palace began; as planned, president Hafizullah Amin was killed. Simultaneously, other objectives were occupied (e.g. the Ministry of Interior at 19:15). The operation was fully complete by the morning of December 28, 1979.

The Soviet military command at Termez, Uzbek SSR, announced on Radio Kabul that Afghanistan had been liberated from Amin's rule. According to the Soviet Politburo they were complying with the 1978 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Good Neighborliness and Amin had been "executed by a tribunal for his crimes" by the Afghan Revolutionary Central Committee. That committee then elected as head of government former Deputy Prime Minister Babrak Karmal, who had been demoted to the relatively insignificant post of ambassador to Czechoslovakia following the Khalq takeover, and that it had requested Soviet military assistance.[64]

Soviet ground forces, under the command of Marshal Sergei Sokolov, entered Afghanistan from the north on December 27. In the morning, the 103rd Guards 'Vitebsk' Airborne Division landed at the airport at Bagram and the deployment of Soviet troops in Afghanistan was underway. The force that entered Afghanistan, in addition to the 103rd Guards Airborne Division, was under command of the 40th Army and consisted of the 108th and 5th Guards Motor Rifle Divisions, the 860th Separate Motor Rifle Regiment, the 56th Separate Airborne Assault Brigade, the 36th Mixed Air Corps. Later on the 201st and 58th Motor Rifle Divisions also entered the country, along with other smaller units.[65] In all, the initial Soviet force was around 1,800 tanks, 80,000 soldiers and 2,000 AFVs. In the second week alone, Soviet aircraft had made a total of 4,000 flights into Kabul.[66] With the arrival of the two later divisions, the total Soviet force rose to over 100,000 personnel.

International positions on Soviet intervention

Foreign ministers from 34 Islamic nations adopted a resolution which condemned the Soviet intervention and demanded "the immediate, urgent and unconditional withdrawal of Soviet troops" from the Muslim nation of Afghanistan.[67] The U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution protesting the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan by a vote of 104–18.[68]

Weapons supplies were made available through numerous countries; the United States purchased all of Israel's captured Soviet weapons clandestinely, and then funnelled the weapons to the Mujahideen, while Egypt upgraded their own army's weapons, and sent the older weapons to the militants, Turkey sold their World War II stockpiles to the warlords, and the British and Swiss provided Blowpipe missiles and Oerlikon anti-aircraft guns respectively, after they were found to be poor models for their own forces.[22] China provided the most relevant weapons, likely due to their own experience with guerrilla warfare, and kept meticulous record of all the shipments.[22]

December 1979 – February 1980: Occupation

The first phase began with the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan and their first battles with various opposition groups.[67] Soviet troops entered Afghanistan along two ground routes and one air corridor, quickly taking control of the major urban centers, military bases and strategic installations. However, the presence of Soviet troops did not have the desired effect of pacifying the country. On the contrary, it exacerbated a nationalistic feeling, causing the rebellion to spread further.[69] Babrak Karmal, Afghanistan's new president, charged the Soviets with causing an increase in the unrest, and demanded that the 40th Army step in and quell the rebellion, as his own army had proved untrustworthy.[70] Thus, Soviet troops found themselves drawn into fighting against urban uprisings, tribal armies (called lashkar), and sometimes against mutinying Afghan Army units. These forces mostly fought in the open, and Soviet airpower and artillery made short work of them.[71]

March 1980 – April 1985: Soviet offensives

The war now developed into a new pattern: the Soviets occupied the cities and main axis of communication, while the mujahideen, (which the Soviet Army soldiers called 'Dushman,' meaning 'enemy')[72] divided into small groups, waged a guerrilla war. Almost 80 percent of the country escaped government control.[73] Soviet troops were deployed in strategic areas in the northeast, especially along the road from Termez to Kabul. In the west, a strong Soviet presence was maintained to counter Iranian influence. Incidentally, special Soviet units would have[clarification needed] also performed secret attacks on Iranian territory to destroy suspected mujahideen bases, and their helicopters then got engaged in shootings with Iranian jets .[74] Conversely, some regions such as Nuristan, in the northeast, and Hazarajat, in the central mountains of Afghanistan, were virtually untouched by the fighting, and lived in almost complete independence.

Periodically the Soviet Army undertook multi-divisional offensives into mujahideen-controlled areas. Between 1980 and 1985, nine offensives were launched into the strategically important Panjshir Valley, but government control of the area did not improve.[75] Heavy fighting also occurred in the provinces neighbouring Pakistan, where cities and government outposts were constantly under siege by the mujahideen. Massive Soviet operations would regularly break these sieges, but the mujahideen would return as soon as the coast was clear.[25] In the west and south, fighting was more sporadic, except in the cities of Herat and Kandahar, that were always partly controlled by the resistance.[76]

The Soviets did not, at first, foresee taking on such an active role in fighting the rebels and attempted to play down their role there as giving light assistance to the Afghan army. However, the arrival of the Soviets had the opposite effect as it incensed instead of pacified the people, causing the mujahideen to gain in strength and numbers.[77] Originally the Soviets thought that their forces would strengthen the backbone of the Afghan army and provide assistance by securing major cities, lines of communication and transportation.[78] The Afghan army forces had a high desertion rate and were loath to fight, especially since the Soviet forces pushed them into infantry roles while they manned the armored vehicles and artillery. The main reason though that the Afghan soldiers were so ineffective was their lack of morale as many of them were not truly loyal to the communist government but simply collecting a paycheck. Once it became apparent that the Soviets would have to get their hands dirty, they followed three main strategies aimed at quelling the uprising.[79] Intimidation was the first strategy, in which the Soviets would use airborne attacks as well as armored ground attacks to destroy villages, livestock and crops in trouble areas. The Soviets would bomb villages that were near sites of guerilla attacks on Soviet convoys or known to support resistance groups. Local peoples were forced to either flee their homes or die as daily Soviet attacks made it impossible to live in these areas. By forcing the people of Afghanistan to flee their homes, the Soviets hoped to deprive the guerillas of resources and safe havens. The second strategy consisted of subversion which entailed sending spies to join resistance groups and report information as well as bribing local tribes or guerilla leaders into ceasing operations. Finally, the Soviets used military forays into contested territories in an effort to root out the guerillas and limit their options. Classic search and destroy operations were implemented using Mil Mi-24 helicopter gunships that would provide cover for ground forces in armored vehicles.

To complement their brute force approach to weeding out the insurgency, the Soviets used KHAD (Afghan secret police) to gather intelligence, infiltrate the mujahideen, spread false information, bribe tribal militias into fighting and organize a government militia. While it is impossible to know exactly how successful the KHAD was in infiltrating mujahideen groups, it is thought that they succeeded in penetrating a good many resistance groups based in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran.[80] KHAD is thought to have had particular success in igniting internal rivalries and political divisions amongst the resistance groups, rendering some of them completely useless because of infighting.[81] The KHAD had some success in securing tribal loyalties but many of these relationships were fickle and temporary. Often KHAD secured neutrality agreements rather than committed political alignment.[82] The Sarandoy, a KHAD controlled government militia, had mixed success in the war. Large salaries and proper weapons attracted a good number of recruits to the cause, even if they were not necessarily "pro-communist". The problem was that many of the recruits they attracted were in fact mujahideen who would join up to procure arms, ammunition and money while also gathering information about forthcoming military operations.[81]

In 1985, the size of the LCOSF (Limited Contingent of Soviet Forces) was increased to 108,800 and fighting increased throughout the country, making 1985 the bloodiest year of the war. However, despite suffering heavily, the mujahideen were able to remain in the field and continue resisting the Soviets.

1980s: Insurrection

In the mid-1980s, the Afghan resistance movement, assisted by the United States, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, Egypt,[6] the People's Republic of China and others, contributed to Moscow's high military costs and strained international relations. The US viewed the conflict in Afghanistan as an integral Cold War struggle, and the CIA provided assistance to anti-Soviet forces through the Pakistani intelligence services, in a program called Operation Cyclone.[83]

A similar movement occurred in other Muslim countries, bringing contingents of so-called Afghan Arabs, foreign fighters who wished to wage jihad against the atheist communists. Notable among them was a young Saudi named Osama bin Laden, whose Arab group eventually evolved into al-Qaeda.[84] [85] [86]

In the course of the guerrilla war, leadership came to be distinctively associated with the title of "commander". It applied to independent leaders, eschewing identification with elaborate military bureaucracy associated with such ranks as general. As the war produced leaders of reputation, "commander" was conferred on leaders of fighting units of all sizes, signifying pride in independence, self-sufficiency, and distinct ties to local communities. The title epitomized Afghan pride in their struggle against a powerful foe. Segmentation of power and religious leadership were the two values evoked by nomenclature generated in the war. Neither had been favored in the ideology of the former Afghan state.

Afghanistan's resistance movement was born in chaos, spread and triumphed chaotically, and did not find a way to govern differently. Virtually all of its war was waged locally by regional warlords. As warfare became more sophisticated, outside support and regional coordination grew. Even so, the basic units of mujahideen organization and action continued to reflect the highly segmented nature of Afghan society.[87]

Olivier Roy estimates that after four years of war, there were at least 4,000 bases from which mujahideen units operated. Most of these were affiliated with the seven expatriate parties headquartered in Pakistan, which served as sources of supply and varying degrees of supervision. Significant commanders typically led 300 or more men, controlled several bases and dominated a district or a sub-division of a province. Hierarchies of organization above the bases were attempted. Their operations varied greatly in scope, the most ambitious being achieved by Ahmad Shah Massoud of the Panjshir valley north of Kabul. He led at least 10,000 trained troopers at the end of the Soviet war and had expanded his political control of Tajik-dominated areas to Afghanistan's northeastern provinces under the Supervisory Council of the North.[87]

Roy also describes regional, ethnic and sectarian variations in mujahideen organization. In the Pashtun areas of the east, south and southwest, tribal structure, with its many rival sub-divisions, provided the basis for military organization and leadership. Mobilization could be readily linked to traditional fighting allegiances of the tribal lashkar (fighting force). In favorable circumstances such formations could quickly reach more than 10,000, as happened when large Soviet assaults were launched in the eastern provinces, or when the mujahideen besieged towns, such as Khost in Paktia province in July 1983.[88] But in campaigns of the latter type the traditional explosions of manpower—customarily common immediately after the completion of harvest—proved obsolete when confronted by well dug-in defenders with modern weapons. Lashkar durability was notoriously short; few sieges succeeded.[87]

Mujahideen mobilization in non-Pashtun regions faced very different obstacles. Prior to the intervention, few non-Pashtuns possessed firearms. Early in the war they were most readily available from army troops or gendarmerie who defected or were ambushed. The international arms market and foreign military support tended to reach the minority areas last. In the northern regions, little military tradition had survived upon which to build an armed resistance. Mobilization mostly came from political leadership closely tied to Islam. Roy convincingly contrasts the social leadership of religious figures in the Persian- and Turkic-speaking regions of Afghanistan with that of the Pashtuns. Lacking a strong political representation in a state dominated by Pashtuns, minority communities commonly looked to pious learned or charismatically revered pirs (saints) for leadership. Extensive Sufi and maraboutic networks were spread through the minority communities, readily available as foundations for leadership, organization, communication and indoctrination. These networks also provided for political mobilization, which led to some of the most effective of the resistance operations during the war.[87]

The mujahideen favoured sabotage operations. The more common types of sabotage included damaging power lines, knocking out pipelines and radio stations, blowing up government office buildings, air terminals, hotels, cinemas, and so on. From 1985 through 1987, an average of over 600 "terrorist acts" a year were recorded. In the border region with Pakistan, the mujahideen would often launch 800 rockets per day. Between April 1985 and January 1987, they carried out over 23,500 shelling attacks on government targets. The mujahideen surveyed firing positions that they normally located near villages within the range of Soviet artillery posts, putting the villagers in danger of death from Soviet retaliation. The mujahideen used land mines heavily. Often, they would enlist the services of the local inhabitants, even children.

They concentrated on both civilian and military targets, knocking out bridges, closing major roads, attacking convoys, disrupting the electric power system and industrial production, and attacking police stations and Soviet military installations and air bases. They assassinated government officials and PDPA members, and laid siege to small rural outposts. In March 1982, a bomb exploded at the Ministry of Education, damaging several buildings. In the same month, a widespread power failure darkened Kabul when a pylon on the transmission line from the Naghlu power station was blown up. In June 1982 a column of about 1,000 young communist party members sent out to work in the Panjshir valley were ambushed within 30 km of Kabul, with heavy loss of life. On September 4, 1985, insurgents shot down a domestic Bakhtar Airlines plane as it took off from Kandahar airport, killing all 52 people aboard.

Mujahideen groups used for assassination had three to five men in each. After they received their mission to kill certain government officials, they busied themselves with studying his pattern of life and its details and then selecting the method of fulfilling their established mission. They practiced shooting at automobiles, shooting out of automobiles, laying mines in government accommodation or houses, using poison, and rigging explosive charges in transport.

In May 1985, the seven principal rebel organizations formed the Seven Party Mujahideen Alliance to coordinate their military operations against the Soviet army. Late in 1985, the groups were active in and around Kabul, unleashing rocket attacks and conducting operations against the communist government.

By mid-1987 the Soviet Union announced it would start withdrawing its forces. Sibghatullah Mojaddedi was selected as the head of the Interim Islamic State of Afghanistan, in an attempt to reassert its legitimacy against the Moscow-sponsored Kabul regime. Mojaddedi, as head of the Interim Afghan Government, met with then Vice President of the United States George H. W. Bush, achieving a critical diplomatic victory for the Afghan resistance. Defeat of the Kabul government was their solution for peace. This confidence, sharpened by their distrust of the United Nations, virtually guaranteed their refusal to accept a political compromise.

April 1985 – January 1987: Exit strategy

he first step of the Soviet Union's exit strategy was to transfer the burden of fighting the mujahideen to the Afghan armed forces, with the aim of preparing them to operate without Soviet help. During this phase, the Soviet contingent was restricted to supporting the DRA forces by providing artillery, air support and technical assistance, though some large-scale operations were still carried out by Soviet troops.

Under Soviet guidance, the DRA armed forces were built up to an official strength of 302,000 in 1986. To minimize the risk of a coup d'état, they were divided into different branches, each modeled on its Soviet counterpart. The ministry of defence forces numbered 132,000, the ministry of interior 70,000 and the ministry of state security (KHAD) 80,000. However, these were theoretical figures: in reality each service was plagued with desertions, the army alone suffering 32,000 per year.

The decision to engage primarily Afghan forces was taken by the Soviets, but was resented by the PDPA, who viewed the departure of their protectors without enthusiasm. In May 1987 a DRA force attacked well-entrenched mujahideen positions in the Arghandab District, but the mujahideen held their ground, and the attackers suffered heavy casualties.[89] In the spring of 1986, an offensive into Paktia Province briefly occupied the mujahideen base at Zhawar only at the cost of heavy losses.[90] Meanwhile, the mujahideen benefited from expanded foreign military support from the United States, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other Muslim nations. The US tended to favor the Afghan resistance forces led by Ahmed Shah Massoud, and US support for Massoud's forces increased considerably during the Reagan administration in what US military and intelligence forces called "Operation Cyclone". Primary advocates for supporting Massoud included two Heritage Foundation foreign policy analysts, Michael Johns and James A. Phillips, both of whom championed Massoud as the Afghan resistance leader most worthy of US support under the Reagan Doctrine.[91][92][93]

January 1987 – February 1989: Withdrawal

The arrival of Mikhail Gorbachev on the scene in 1985 and his 'new thinking' on foreign and domestic policy was probably the most important factor in the Soviets' decision to leave. Gorbachev was attempting to change the stagnant years of Brezhnev and reform the Soviet Union's economy and image across the board with Glasnost and Perestroika. Gorbachev was also trying to ease cold war tensions by signing the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 1987 with the U.S. and withdrawing the troops from Afghanistan whose presence had garnered so much international condemnation. Gorbachev regarded confrontation with China and resulting military build ups on that border as one of Brezhnev's biggest mistakes.[citation needed] Beijing had stipulated that a normalization of relations would have to wait until Moscow withdrew its army from Afghanistan (among other things) and in 1989 the first Sino-Soviet summit in 30 years took place.[94] At the same time, Gorbachev pressured his Cuban allies in Angola to scale down activities and withdraw even though Soviet allies were faring somewhat better there.[95] The Soviets also pulled many of their troops out of Mongolia in 1987 where they were also having a far easier time than in Afghanistan and restrained the Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea to the point of an all out withdrawal in 1988.[96] This mass withdrawal of Soviet forces from contested areas shows that the Soviet government's decision to leave Afghanistan was based on a general change over in Soviet foreign policy.

In the last phase, Soviet troops prepared and executed their withdrawal from Afghanistan. They limited offensive operations, and were content to merely defend against mujahideen raids.[citation needed]

The one exception was Operation Magistral, a successful sweep that cleared the road between Gardez and Khost. This operation did not have any lasting effect, but it allowed the Soviets to symbolically end their presence with a victory.[97]

The first half of the Soviet contingent was withdrawn from May 15 to August 16, 1988 and the second from November 15 to February 15, 1989. In order to ensure a safe passage the Soviets had negotiated ceasefires with local mujahideen commanders, so the withdrawal was generally executed peacefully,[98] except for the operation "Typhoon".

General Yazov, the Defense Minister of Soviet Union, ordered the 40th Army to violate the agreement with Ahmed Shah Masood, who commanded a large force in the Panjshir Valley, and attack his relaxed and exposed forces. The Soviet attack was initiated to protect Najibullah, who did not have a cease fire in effect with Masood, and who rightly feared an offensive by Masood's forces after the Soviet withdrawal.[99] General Gromov, the 40th Army Commander, objected the operation, but reluctantly obeyed the order. "Typhoon" began on January 23 and continued for three days. To minimize their own losses the Soviets abstained from close-range fight, instead they used long-range artillery, surface-to-surface and air-to-surface missiles. Numerous civilian casualties were reported. Masood had not threatened the withdrawal to this point, and did not attack Soviet forces after they breached the agreement.[100] Overall, the Soviet attack represented a defeat for Masood's forces, who lost 600 fighters killed and wounded.[99]

After the withdrawal of the Soviets the DRA forces were left fighting alone and had to abandon some provincial capitals, and it was widely believed that they would not be able to resist the mujahideen for long. However, in the spring of 1989 DRA forces inflicted a sharp defeat on the mujahideen at Jalalabad, and as a result, the war remained stalemated.

The government of President Karmal, a puppet regime, was largely ineffective. It was weakened by divisions within the PDPA and the Parcham faction, and the regime's efforts to expand its base of support proved futile. Moscow came to regard Karmal as a failure and blamed him for the problems. Years later, when Karmal's inability to consolidate his government had become obvious, Mikhail Gorbachev, then General Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party, said:

"The main reason that there has been no national consolidation so far is that Comrade Karmal is hoping to continue sitting in Kabul with our help".
In November 1986, Mohammad Najibullah, former chief of the Afghan secret police (KHAD), was elected president and a new constitution was adopted.[citation needed] He also introduced in 1987 a policy of "national reconciliation," devised by experts of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and later used in other regions of the world.[citation needed] Despite high expectations, the new policy neither made the Moscow-backed Kabul regime more popular, nor did it convince the insurgents to negotiate with the ruling government.

Informal negotiations for a Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan had been underway since 1982.[citation needed] In 1988, the governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan, with the United States and Soviet Union serving as guarantors, signed an agreement settling the major differences between them known as the Geneva Accords. The United Nations set up a special Mission to oversee the process. In this way, Najibullah had stabilized his political position enough to begin matching Moscow's moves toward withdrawal. On July 20, 1987, the withdrawal of Soviet troops from the country was announced. The withdrawal of Soviet forces was planned out by Lt. Gen. Boris Gromov, who, at the time, was the commander of the 40th Army.[citation needed]

Among other things the Geneva accords identified the US and Soviet non-intervention in the internal affairs of Pakistan and Afghanistan and a timetable for full Soviet withdrawal. The agreement on withdrawal held, and on February 15, 1989, the last Soviet troops departed on schedule from Afghanistan.[citation needed]

Consequences of the war

International reaction

Carter placed a trade embargo against the Soviet Union on shipments of commodities such as grain and weapons. The increased tensions, as well as the anxiety in the West about tens of thousands of Soviet troops being in such proximity to oil-rich regions in the Persian Gulf, effectively brought about the end of détente.

The international diplomatic response was severe, ranging from stern warnings to a US-led boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow (in which Afghanistan competed). The intervention, along with other events, such as the Iranian revolution and the US hostage stand-off that accompanied it, the Iran–Iraq War, the 1982 Lebanon War, the escalating tensions between Pakistan and India, contributed to making the Middle East and South Asia extremely violent and turbulent regions during the 1980s. The Non-Aligned Movement was sharply divided between those who believed the Soviet deployment to be legal and others who considered the deployment an illegal invasion. Among the Warsaw Pact countries, the intervention was condemned only by Romania.[103] India, a close ally of the Soviet Union, refused to support the Afghan war.[104] though by the end of the hostilities offered to provide humanitarian assistance to Afghan government.[105][106][verification needed]

Foreign involvement and U.S. aid to the mujahideen

The Afghan Mujahideen were supported by a number of other countries, with the US and Saudi Arabia offering the greatest financial support.[2][3][4][7][108] United States President Carter insisted that what he termed "Soviet aggression" could not be viewed as an isolated event of limited geographical importance but had to be contested as a potential threat to US influence in the Persian Gulf region. The US was also worried about the USSR gaining access to the Indian Ocean by coming to an arrangement with Pakistan.

According to Cyrus Vance's close aide Marshall Shulman "the State Department worked hard to dissuade the Soviets from invading."[109] Following the Soviet intervention, the United States supported diplomatic efforts to achieve a Soviet withdrawal. In addition, generous U.S. contributions to the refugee program in Pakistan played a major part in efforts to assist Afghan refugees.

National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, known for his hardline policies on the Soviet Union, initiated in 1979 a campaign supporting mujaheddin in Pakistan and Afghanistan, which was run by Pakistani security services with financial support from the Central Intelligence Agency and Britain's MI6.[3] This policy had the explicit aim of promoting radical Islamist and anti-Communist forces. Bob Gates, in his book Out of the Shadows, wrote that Pakistan had been pressuring the United States for arms to aid the rebels for months, but that the Carter administration refused in the hope of finding a diplomatic solution to avoid war.[110] Brzezinski seemed to have been in favor of the provision of arms to the rebels, while Vance's State Department, seeking a peaceful settlement, publicly accused Brzezinski of seeking to "revive" the Cold War. Brzezinski has stated that the United States provided communications equipment and limited financial aid to the mujahideen prior to the "formal" invasion, but only in response to the Soviet deployment of forces to Afghanistan and the 1978 coup, and with the intention of preventing further Soviet encroachment in the region.[111]

Years later, in a 1997 CNN/National Security Archive interview, Brzezinski detailed the strategy taken by the Carter administration against the Soviets in 1979:

We immediately launched a twofold process when we heard that the Soviets had entered Afghanistan. The first involved direct reactions and sanctions focused on the Soviet Union, and both the State Department and the National Security Council prepared long lists of sanctions to be adopted, of steps to be taken to increase the international costs to the Soviet Union of their actions. And the second course of action led to my going to Pakistan a month or so after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, for the purpose of coordinating with the Pakistanis a joint response, the purpose of which would be to make the Soviets bleed for as much and as long as is possible; and we engaged in that effort in a collaborative sense with the Saudis, the Egyptians, the British, the Chinese, and we started providing weapons to the Mujaheddin, from various sources again – for example, some Soviet arms from the Egyptians and the Chinese. We even got Soviet arms from the Czechoslovak communist government, since it was obviously susceptible to material incentives; and at some point we started buying arms for the Mujaheddin from the Soviet army in Afghanistan, because that army was increasingly corrupt.[112]

Milt Bearden wrote in The Main Enemy that Brzezinski, in 1980, secured an agreement from King Khalid of Saudi Arabia to match U.S. contributions to the Afghan effort dollar for dollar and that Bill Casey would keep that agreement going through the Reagan administration.[113]

The supplying of billions of dollars in arms to the Afghan mujahideen militants was one of the CIA's longest and most expensive covert operations.[114] The CIA provided assistance to the fundamentalist insurgents through the Pakistani secret services, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), in a program called Operation Cyclone. At least 3 billion in U.S. dollars were funneled into the country to train and equip troops with weapons. Together with similar programs by Saudi Arabia, Britain's MI6 and SAS, Egypt, Iran, and the People's Republic of China,[115] the arms included Stinger missiles, shoulder-fired, antiaircraft weapons that they used against Soviet helicopters. Pakistan's secret service, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), was used as an intermediary for most of these activities to disguise the sources of support for the resistance.

No Americans trained or had direct contact with the mujahideen.[116] The skittish CIA had fewer than 10 operatives in the region because it "feared it would be blamed, like in Guatemala."[117] Civilian personnel from the U.S. Department of State and the CIA frequently visited the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area during this time.

Shortly after the intervention, Pakistan's military ruler General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq called for a meeting of senior military members and technocrats of his military government.[118] At this meeting, General Zia-ul-Haq asked the Chief of Army Staff General Khalid Mahmud Arif and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Muhammad Shariff to lead a specialized civil-military team to formulate a geo-strategy to counter the Soviet aggression.[118] At this meeting, the Director-General of the ISI at that time, Lieutenant-General Akhtar Abdur Rahman advocated for an idea of covert operation in Afghanistan by arming the Islamic extremist, and was loudly heard saying: "Kabul must burn! Kabul must burn!".[118] As for Pakistan, the Soviet war with Islamist mujaheddin was viewed as retaliation for the Soviet Union's long unconditional support of regional rival, India, notably during the 1965 and the 1971 wars, which led the loss of East Pakistan.[118]

After the Soviet deployment, Pakistan's military ruler General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq started accepting financial aid from the Western powers to aid the mujahideen.[citation needed] In 1981, following the election of US President Ronald Reagan, aid for the mujahideen through Zia's Pakistan significantly increased, mostly due to the efforts of Texas Congressman Charlie Wilson and CIA officer Gust Avrakotos.

US "Paramilitary Officers" from the CIA's Special Activities Division were instrumental in equipping Mujihadeen forces against the Soviet Army. Although the CIA in general and Charlie Wilson, a Texas Congressman, have received most of the attention, the key architect of this strategy was Michael G. Vickers, a young Paramilitary Officer.[6][dubious ] Michael Pillsbury, a senior Pentagon official overcame bureaucratic resistance in 1985–1986 and persuaded President Reagan to provide hundreds of Stinger missiles.[119][120] The U.S. policy of support for the mujahideen also drew support from the Heritage Foundation, which provided influential counsel to the Reagan administration on national security and foreign affairs matters. The Heritage Foundation's Michael Johns wrote that U.S. support for the mujahideen would not only place the Soviets on the defensive in Afghanistan but would also dispel the global perception that other Soviet military conquests around the world were irreversible.[121]

The United States, the United Kingdom, and Saudi Arabia became major financial contributors, the United States donating "$600 million in aid per year, with a matching amount coming from the Persian Gulf states."[122] The People's Republic of China also sold Type 59 tanks, Type 68 assault rifles, Type 56 assault rifles, Type 69 RPGs, and much more to mujahideen in co-operation with the CIA, as did Egypt with assault rifles. Most notably the CIA donated FIM-92 Stinger anti-aircraft missile systems, which caused notable changes to Soviet tactics. The Stinger missile locked on to infra-red emissions from aircraft, particularly engine exhaust, and was resistant to interference from decoy flares. Countermeasure flares and a missile warning systems were later installed in all Soviet Mi-2, Mi-8, and Mi-24 helicopters and Soviet fighter aircraft, giving pilots a chance to evade the missile. Heat dissipaters were also fitted to exhausts to decrease the Mi-24's heat signature. These reduced the Stinger threat but did not eliminate it.[123][124]

In March 1985, the US government adopted National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 166, which set a goal of military victory for the mujahideen. After 1985 the CIA and Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) placed greater pressure on the mujahideen to attack government strongholds. Similar ambitions and anti-Soviet sentiment also encouraged other states to play a role in the conflict, such as Israel. The Soviet intervention strengthened the complex relations of Israel and Pakistan.[125] According to Charlie Wilson's reference, Israel proliferated the sensitive and advance weapon technology to Pakistan, while reverse engineered the Soviet weapons after Israel had confiscated from PLO during the Lebanon war, and channeled these weapons to Mujahedin.[125][dubious ]

The early foundations of al-Qaeda were allegedly built in part on relationships and weaponry that came from the billions of dollars in U.S. support for the Afghan mujahideen during the war to expel Soviet forces from that country.[126] However, scholars such as Jason Burke, Steve Coll, Peter Bergen, Christopher Andrew, and Vasily Mitrokhin have argued that Osama Bin Laden was "outside of CIA eyesight" and that there is "no support" in any "reliable source" for "the claim that the CIA funded bin Laden or any of the other Arab volunteers who came to support the mujahideen."[127]

A German database showing the channeling of the money and weapons, provided by ISI officer Mohammad Yousaf in his book: Afghanistan – The Bear Trap: The Defeat of a Superpower
Pakistan's ISI and Special Service Group (SSG) were actively involved in the conflict. The SSG are widely suspected of participating in Operation Hill 3234, with the mujahideen, according the Soviet military intelligence.[

The theft of large sums of aid spurred Pakistan's economic growth, but along with the war in general had devastating side effects for that country. The siphoning off of aid weapons, in which the weapons logistics and coordination were put under the Pakistan Navy in the port city of Karachi, contributed to disorder and violence there, while heroin entering from Afghanistan to pay for arms contributed to addiction problems.[128] The Navy went into covert war and coordinated the foreign weapons into Afghanistan, while some of its high-ranking admirals were responsible for storing the weapons in the Navy depot, later coordinated the weapons supply to mujahideen.

In retaliation for Pakistan's assistance to the insurgents, the KHAD Afghan security service, under leader Mohammad Najibullah, carried out (according to the Mitrokhin archives and other sources) a large number of operations against Pakistan. In 1987, 127 incidents resulted in 234 deaths in Pakistan. In April 1988, an ammunition depot outside the Pakistani capital of Islamabad was blown up killing 100 and injuring more than 1000 people. The KHAD and KGB were suspected in the perpetration of these acts.[129] Soviet and Afghan fighters and bombers occasionally bombed Pakistani villages along the Pakistani-Afghan border. These attacks are known to have caused at least 300 civilian deaths and extensive damage. Sometimes they got involved in shootings with the Pakistani jets defending the airspace.[130] [131]

Pakistan took in millions of Afghan refugees (mostly Pashtun) fleeing the Soviet occupation. Although the refugees were controlled within Pakistan's largest province, Balochistan under then-martial law ruler General Rahimuddin Khan, the influx of so many refugees – believed to be the largest refugee population in the world[132][broken citation] – spread into several other regions.

All of this had a heavy impact on Pakistan and its effects continue to this day. Pakistan, through its support for the mujahideen, played a significant role in the eventual withdrawal of Soviet military personnel from Afghanistan.

During the Sino-Soviet split, strained relations between China and Soviet Russia resulted in bloody border clashes and mutual backing for the opponents enemies. China and Afghanistan had neutral relations with each other during the King's rule. When the pro Soviet Afghan Communists seized power in Afghanistan in 1978, relations between China and the Afghan communists quickly turned hostile. The Afghan pro Soviet communists supported China's enemies in Vietnam and blamed China for supporting Afghan anti communist militants. China responded to the Soviet war in Afghanistan by supporting the Afghan mujahideen and ramping up their military presence near Afghanistan in Xinjiang. China acquired military equipment from America to defend itself from Soviet attack.[133]

The Chinese People's Liberation Army trained and supported the Afghan mujahideen during the war. The training camps were moved from Pakistan into China itself. Anti-aircraft missiles, rocket launchers and machine guns, valued at hundreds of millions, were given to the mujahideen by the Chinese. Chinese military advisors and army troops were present with the Mujahidin during training.[134]

The British Government provided information support for the Mujahideen in its fight to remove the Red Army from Afghanistant. Information Department at the Foreign Office commissioned the Central Office of Information to produce a series of films about the Afghan refugee problem and related matters. Some of these films were shown at the White House and may have helped US Congressmen and officials to become more aware of what was happening in this theatre. Val Wake's novel When the Lions are Drinking give a fictional account in what was involved in this special information effort.

Soviet personnel strengths and casualties

Between December 25, 1979, and February 15, 1989, a total of 620,000[citation needed] soldiers served with the forces in Afghanistan (though there were only 80,000–104,000 serving at one time): 525,000 in the Army, 90,000 with border troops and other KGB sub-units, 5,000 in independent formations of MVD Internal Troops, and police forces. A further 21,000 personnel were with the Soviet troop contingent over the same period doing various white collar and blue collar jobs.

The total irrecoverable personnel losses of the Soviet Armed Forces, frontier, and internal security troops came to 14,453. Soviet Army formations, units, and HQ elements lost 13,833, KGB sub-units lost 572, MVD formations lost 28, and other ministries and departments lost 20 men. During this period 312 servicemen were missing in action or taken prisoner; 119 of these were later freed, of whom 97 returned to the USSR and 22 went to other countries.

Of the troops deployed, 53,753 were wounded, injured, or sustained concussion and 415,932 fell sick. A high proportion of casualties were those who fell ill. This was because of local climatic and sanitary conditions, which were such that acute infections spread rapidly among the troops. There were 115,308 cases of infectious hepatitis, 31,080 of typhoid fever, and 140,665 of other diseases. Of the 11,654 who were discharged from the army after being wounded, maimed, or contracting serious diseases, 10,751 men, were left disabled.[135]

Material losses were as follows:[14]{not in the source given}

Destruction in Afghanistan

Estimates of the Afghan deaths vary from 670,000[136] to 2 million.[136] 5–10 million Afghans fled to Pakistan and Iran, 1/3 of the prewar population of the country, and another 2 million were displaced within the country. In the 1980s, half of all refugees in the world were Afghan.[137]

Felix Ermacora, the UN Special Rapporteur to Afghanistan, said that heavy fighting in combat areas cost the lives of more than 35,000 civilians in 1985, 15,000 in 1986, and around 14,000 in 1987. Ermacora also noted that armed attacks by anti-government forces, such as rocket attacks on Kabul's residential areas, caused more than 4000 civilian deaths in 1987.[138] R.J. Rummel, an analyst of political killings, estimated that Soviet forces were responsible for 250,000 democidal killings during the war and that the government of Afghanistan was responsible for 178,000 democidal killings.[139]

Along with fatalities were 1.2 million Afghans disabled (mujahideen, government soldiers and noncombatants) and 3 million maimed or wounded (primarily noncombatants).[140]

Irrigation systems, crucial to agriculture in Afghanistan's arid climate, were destroyed by aerial bombing and strafing by Soviet or government forces. In the worst year of the war, 1985, well over half of all the farmers who remained in Afghanistan had their fields bombed, and over one quarter had their irrigation systems destroyed and their livestock shot by Soviet or government troops, according to a survey conducted by Swedish relief experts[137]

The population of Afghanistan's second largest city, Kandahar, was reduced from 200,000 before the war to no more than 25,000 inhabitants, following a months-long campaign of carpet bombing and bulldozing by the Soviets and Afghan communist soldiers in 1987.[141] Land mines had killed 25,000 Afghans during the war and another 10–15 million land mines, most planted by Soviet and government forces, were left scattered throughout the countryside.[142] The International Committee of the Red Cross estimated in 1994 that it would take 4,300 years to remove all the Soviet land mines in Afghanistan.[143]

A great deal of damage was done to the civilian children population by land mines.[145] A 2005 report estimated 3–4% of the Afghan population were disabled due to Soviet and government land mines. In the city of Quetta, a survey of refugee women and children taken shortly after the Soviet withdrawal found child mortality at 31%, and over 80% of the children refugees to be unregistered. Of children who survived, 67% were severely malnourished, with malnutrition increasing with age.[146]

There have also been numerous reports of chemical weapons being used by Soviet forces in Afghanistan, often indiscriminately against civilians.[147][148]

Critics of Soviet and Afghan government forces describe their effect on Afghan culture as working in three stages: first, the center of customary Afghan culture, Islam, was pushed aside; second, Soviet patterns of life, especially amongst the young, were imported; third, shared Afghan cultural characteristics were destroyed by the emphasis on so-called nationalities, with the outcome that the country was split into different ethnic groups, with no language, religion, or culture in common.[149]

The Geneva Accords of 1988, which ultimately led to the withdrawal of the Soviet forces in early 1989, left the Afghan government in ruins. The accords had failed to address adequately the issue of the post-occupation period and the future governance of Afghanistan. The assumption among most Western diplomats was that the Soviet-backed government in Kabul would soon collapse; however, this was not to happen for another three years. During this time the Interim Islamic Government of Afghanistan (IIGA) was established in exile. The exclusion of key groups such as refugees and Shias, combined with major disagreements between the different mujaheddin factions, meant that the IIGA never succeeded in acting as a functional government.[150]

Before the war, Afghanistan was already one of the world's poorest nations. The prolonged conflict left Afghanistan ranked 170 out of 174 in the UNDP's Human Development Index, making Afghanistan one of the least developed countries in the world.[151]

Once the Soviets withdrew, US interest in Afghanistan ceased. The US decided not to help with reconstruction of the country, instead handing the interests of the country over to US allies Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Pakistan quickly took advantage of this opportunity and forged relations with warlords and later the Taliban, to secure trade interests and routes. From wiping out the country's trees through logging practices, which has destroyed all but 2% of forest cover country-wide, to substantial uprooting of wild pistachio trees for the exportation of their roots for therapeutic uses, to opium agriculture, the ten years following the war saw much ecological and agrarian destruction.[152]

Captain Tarlan Eyvazov, a soldier in the Soviet forces during the war, stated that the Afghan children's future is destined for war. Eyvazov said, "Children born in Afghanistan at the start of the war... have been brought up in war conditions, this is their way of life." Eyvazov's theory was later strengthened when the Taliban movement developed and formed from orphans or refugee children who were forced by the Soviets to flee their homes and relocate their lives in Pakistan. The swift rise to power, from the young Taliban in 1996, was the result of the disorder and civil war that had warlords running wild because of the complete breakdown of law and order in Afghanistan after the departure of the Soviets.[153]

The CIA World Fact Book reported that as of 2004, Afghanistan still owed $8 billion in bilateral debt, mostly to Russia,[154] however, in 2007 Russia agreed to cancel most of the debt.[155]

Refugees

A massive total of 3.3 million Afghan refugees were housed in Pakistan by 1988, many of whom continue to live in the country up until today. Of this total, about 100,000 were based in the city of Peshawar, while more than 2 million were located in other parts of the northwestern province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (then known as the North-West Frontier Province).[156] At the same time, close to two million Afghans were living in Iran. Some also made their way into North America, the European Union, Australia, and other parts of the world. A few thousand Afghan refugees, mostly of Sikh and Hindu origin, settled in India and became Indian citizens over time.[157][158][159][160] The photo of Sharbat Gula placed on National Geographic cover in 1985 became a symbol both of the 1980s Afghan conflict and of the refugee situation.

Civil war

The civil war continued in Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal. About 400,000 Afghan civilians had lost their lives in the chaos and civil war of the 1990s.[161] The Soviet Union left Afghanistan deep in winter, with intimations of panic among Kabul officials. The Afghan mujahideen were poised to attack provincial towns and cities and eventually Kabul, if necessary.

Najibullah's regime, though failing to win popular support, territory, or international recognition, was however able to remain in power until 1992. Ironically, until demoralized by the defections of its senior officers, the Afghan Army had achieved a level of performance it had never reached under direct Soviet tutelage. Kabul had achieved a stalemate that exposed the mujahideen's weaknesses, political and military. But for nearly three years, while Najibullah's government successfully defended itself against mujahideen attacks, factions within the government had also developed connections with its opponents.

According to Russian publicist Andrey Karaulov, the main trigger for Najibullah losing power was Russia's refusal to sell oil products to Afghanistan in 1992 for political reasons (the new Yeltsin government did not want to support the former communists), which effectively triggered an embargo.[citation needed] The defection of General Abdul Rashid Dostam and his Uzbek militia, in March 1992, further undermined Najibullah's control of the state.[citation needed] In April, Najibullah and his communist government fell to the mujahideen, who replaced Najibullah with a new governing council for the country.

Grain production declined an average of 3.5% per year between 1978 and 1990 due to sustained fighting, instability in rural areas, prolonged drought, and deteriorated infrastructure.[citation needed] Soviet efforts to disrupt production in rebel-dominated areas also contributed to this decline. During the withdrawal of Soviet troops, Afghanistan's natural gas fields were capped to prevent sabotage.[citation needed] Restoration of gas production has been hampered by internal strife and the disruption of traditional trading relationships following the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Ideological impact

The Islamists who fought also believed that they were responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union. Osama bin Laden, for example, was asserting the credit for "the dissolution of the Soviet Union ... goes to God and the mujahideen in Afghanistan ..."[162]

Media and popular culture

Perception in the former USSR

Commemorating the intervention of December 25, 1979, in December 2009, veterans of the Soviet war in Afghanistan were honoured by the Duma or Parliament of the Russian Federation. On December 25, the lower house of the parliament defended the Soviet war in Afghanistan on the 30th anniversary of its start, and praised the veterans of the conflict. Differing assessments of the war "mustn't erode the Russian people's respect for the soldiers who honestly fulfilled their duty in implementing tasks to combat international terrorism and religious extremists".

Duma member Semyon Bagdasarov advocated that Russia had to reject Western calls for stronger assistance to the US-led ISAF-coalition in Afghanistan and also had to establish contacts with the "anti-Western forces"; the Taliban, in case they regain power.[163][164]

Memorials

See also

References

  1. ^ Borer, Douglas A. (1999). Superpowers defeated: Vietnam and Afghanistan compared. London: Cass. p. 216. ISBN 0-7146-4851-5.
  2. ^ a b c Barlett, Donald L.; Steele, James B. (May 13, 2003). "The Oily Americans". Time (magazine). Retrieved 2008-07-08.
  3. ^ a b c d e Interview with Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski-(13/6/97).
  4. ^ a b c d Charlie Wilson: Congressman whose support for the mujahideen helped force the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan
  5. ^ ""Reagan Doctrine, 1985," United States State Department". State.gov. Retrieved 2011-02-20.
  6. ^ a b c Crile, George (2003). Charlie Wilson's War: The Extraordinary Story of the Largest Covert Operation in History. Atlantic Monthly Press. ISBN 0-87113-854-9.
  7. ^ a b Saudi Arabia and the Future of Afghanistan
  8. ^ a b http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Muhammad_Zia-ul-Haq
  9. ^ Nyrop, Richard F.; Donald M. Seekins (January 1986). Afghanistan: A Country Study. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office. pp. XVIII–XXV.
  10. ^ Mark N. Katz (March 9, 2011). "Middle East Policy Council | Lessons of the Soviet Withdrawal from Afghanistan". Mepc.org. Retrieved July 28, 2011.
  11. ^ Maxime Rischard. "Al Qa'ida's American Connection". Global-Politics.co.uk. Retrieved July 28, 2011.
  12. ^ "Soviet or the USA the strongest" (in (Norwegian)). Translate.google.no. Retrieved July 28, 2011.
  13. ^ "Afghanistan hits Soviet milestone – Army News". Armytimes.com. Retrieved February 15, 2012.
  14. ^ a b c d e http://www.vfw.org/resources/levelxmagazine/0203_Soviet-Afghan%20War.pdf
  15. ^ DK289.A39 1992 Glazami marshala i diplomata : kriticheskiĭ vzgli︠a︡d na vneshni︠u︡i︠u︡ politiku SSSR do i posle 1985 goda / S.F. Akhromeev, G.M. Kornienko, p. 25
  16. ^ Russia's War in Afghanistan – David C. Isby, David Isby – Google Libros. Books.google.es. Retrieved February 15, 2012.
  17. ^ Antonio Giustozzi (2000). War, politics and society in Afghanistan, 1978–1992. Hurst. ISBN 1-85065-396-8. "A tentative estimate for total mujahideen losses in 1980-02 may be in the 150–180,000 range, with maybe half of them killed."
  18. ^ "Death Tolls for the Major Wars and Atrocities of the Twentieth Century". necrometrics.com. Retrieved September 24, 2012.
  19. ^ Hilali, A. (2005). US-Pakistan relationship: Soviet Intervention in Afghanistan. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Co. (p.198)
  20. ^ Emadi, Hafizullah, Culture and customs of Afghanistan, (Greenwood Press, 2005), 45.
  21. ^ a b Abdul Nasir Dotani. The Impact of Afghan crisis on Pakistani Society since 1979 till date. Paper Presented at the International Conference “mainstreaming education for sustainable development in Asia-Pacific region: Rethinking the human Linkage with Human Security” organized by Graduate School of Global Studies, Doshisha University, Kyoto, Japan. September 18–19, 2011. [1]
  22. ^ a b c Kinsella, Warren. "Unholy Alliances", Lester Publishing, 1992
  23. ^ Shichor 157–158
  24. ^ "Timeline: Soviet war in Afghanistan". BBC News. Published February 17, 2009. Retrieved March 22, 2009.
  25. ^ a b Yousaf, Mohammad & Adkin, Mark (1992). Afghanistan, the bear trap: the defeat of a superpower. Casemate. p. 159. ISBN 0-9711709-2-4.
  26. ^ Richard Cohen (April 22, 1988). "The Soviets' Vietnam". Washington Post. Retrieved December 22, 2011.
  27. ^ "Afghanistan was Soviets' Vietnam". Boca Raton News. April 24, 1988. Retrieved December 22, 2011.
  28. ^ From the Shadows, Pg. 146. Google Books. Retrieved July 28, 2011.
  29. ^ Rubin, Barnett R. The Fragmentation of Afghanistan. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995. p. 20.
  30. ^ Harrison, Selig; Cordovez, Diego (1995). Out of Afghanistan: The Inside Story of the Soviet withdrawal. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 34–35. ISBN 0-19-506294-9.
  31. ^ Valenta, Jiri (1980). From Prague to Kabul: The Soviet Style of Invasion.
  32. ^ Goldman, Minton (1984). Soviet Military Intervention in Afghanistan: Roots & Causes.
  33. ^ Bradsher, Henry S. (1983). Afghanistan and the Soviet Union. Durham: Duke Press Policy Studies. pp. 72–73.
  34. ^ Hilali, A. Z. (2005). "The Soviet Penetration into Afghanistan and the Marxist Coup". The Journal of Slavic Military Studies 18 (4): 709.
  35. ^ Garthoff, Raymond L. (1994). Détente and Confrontation. Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institute. p. 986.
  36. ^ a b The April 1978 Coup d'etat and the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan – Library of congress country studies(Retrieved February 4, 2007)
  37. ^ "Afghanistan Marxist Coup 1978". Onwar.com. Retrieved July 28, 2011.
  38. ^ a b c Press Release (February 13, 2009). "Tips for Soviet in Afghanistan". BBC, 1979. Retrieved March 2, 2012.
  39. ^ The Russian General Staff (2002). Lestwer W. Grau, Michael A. Gress. ed. The Soviet Afghan-War: How a Superpower Fought and Lost. University Press of Kansas. p. 10. ISBN 0-7006-1186-X.
  40. ^ Walker, Martin (1993). The Cold War and the Making of the Modern World. Fourth Estate. p. 253. ISBN [[Special:BookSources/978-1-85702-004-9|978-1-85702-004-9]].
  41. ^ Misdaq, Nabi (2006). Afghanistan: Political Frailty and External Interference. Taylor & Francis. p. 134. ISBN [[Special:BookSources/978-0-415-70205-4|978-0-415-70205-4]].
  42. ^ Grigory, Paul (2008). Lenin's Brain and Other Tales from the Secret Soviet Archives. Hoover Press. p. 121. ISBN [[Special:BookSources/978-0-8179-4812-0|978-0-8179-4812-0]].
  43. ^ Rasanayagam, Angelo (2005). Afghanistan: A Modern History. I.B.Tauris. pp. 86–88. ISBN [[Special:BookSources/978-1-85043-857-9|978-1-85043-857-9]].
  44. ^ a b c d e f Amin, Abdul Hameed (2001). "Remembering our Warriors: Major-General Baber and Bhutto's Operation Cyclone.". Pakistan Military Consortium and Directorate for the Military History Research (DMHR). Pakistan Defence Journal. Retrieved 2011.
  45. ^ Pakistan's Support of Afghan Islamists, 1975–79 – Library of congress country studies(Retrieved February 4, 2007)
  46. ^ Bennett Andrew(1999); A bitter harvest: Soviet intervention in Afghanistan and its effects on Afghan political movements(Retrieved February 4, 2007)
  47. ^ Kabul's prison of death BBC, February 27, 2006
  48. ^ a b Kaplan, Robert D.(2001), Soldiers of God: With Islamic Warriors in Afghanistan and Pakistan, New York, Vintage Departures, ISBN 1-4000-3025-0, p.115
  49. ^ "U.S. Library of Congress – "The April 1912 Coup d'etat and the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan"". Countrystudies.us. Retrieved July 28, 2011.
  50. ^ a b Goodson, Larry P.(2001), Afghanistan's Endless War: State Failure, Regional Politics, and the Rise of the Taliban, University of Washington Press, ISBN 978-0-295-98050-8, p. 56-57
  51. ^ The Rise and Fall of the Taliban, by Neamatollah Nojumi, published in "The Taliban and the Crisis of Afghanistan", ed by Robert D Crews and Amin Tarzi, pub by Harvard University Press, 2008
  52. ^ Tanner, Stephen. Afghanistan: A Military History from Alexander the Great.
  53. ^ Amstutz, J. Bruce. Afghanistan: The First Five Years of Soviet Occupation.
  54. ^ a b c Harrison, Selig; Cordovez, Diego (1995). Out of Afghanistan: The Inside Story of the Soviet withdrawal. New York: Oxford University Press, Cordovez, Diego. pp. 34–35. ISBN 0-19-506294-9.
  55. ^ a b c Harwood, William L. (December 28, 2001). "The Murder of Adolph Dubs". The New York Times, 2001. Retrieved February 28, 2012.
  56. ^ PDF wilsoncenter.org
  57. ^ Staff Release (February 26, 1979). "World: Death Behind a Keyhole". The Times, Monday, February 26, 1979. Retrieved February 28, 2012.
  58. ^ Harrison, Selig S.; Cordovez, Diego (1995). Out of Afghanistan: the Inside Story of the Soviet Withdrawal. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 36–37. ISBN [[Special:BookSources/978-0-19-506294-9|978-0-19-506294-9]].
  59. ^ Walker, Martin (1994). The Cold War – A History. Toronto, Canada: Stoddart.
  60. ^ Coll, Steven. Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet intervention to September 10, 2001. New York: Penguin Books, 2004. p. 48.
  61. ^ (Russian) ДО ШТУРМА ДВОРЦА АМИНА
  62. ^ a b Garthoff, Raymond L. (1994). Détente and Confrontation. Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institute. pp. 1017–1018.
  63. ^ Arnold, Anthony (1983). Afghanistan's Two-Party Communism: Parcham and Khalq. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press. p. 96.
  64. ^ The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan in 1979: Failure of Intelligence or of the Policy Process? – Page 7[dead link]
  65. ^ Ye. I. Malashenko, Movement to contact and commitment to combat of reserve fronts, Military Thought (military-theoretical journal of the Russian Ministry of Defence), April–June 2004
  66. ^ Fisk, Robert (2005). The Great War for Civilisation: the Conquest of the Middle East. London: Alfred Knopf. pp. 40–41. ISBN 1-84115-007-X.
  67. ^ a b "Moslems Condemn Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan", Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, January 29, 1980
  68. ^ "U.N. General Assembly Votes to Protest Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan", Toledo Blade, January 15, 1980
  69. ^ Roy, Olivier (1990). Islam and resistance in Afghanistan. Cambridge University Press. p. 118.
  70. ^ Russian General Staff, Grau & Gress, The Soviet-Afghan War, p. 18
  71. ^ Grau, Lester (March 2004). "The Soviet-Afghan war: a superpower mired in the mountains". Foreign Military Studies Office Publications. Retrieved September 15, 2007.
  72. ^ Schofield, The Russian Elite
  73. ^ Amstutz, J. Bruce (1986). Afghanistan: The First Five Years of Soviet Occupation. Washington D.C.: NDU Press, p. 127.
  74. ^ Gregory Feifer The Great Gamble, pp.169–170
  75. ^ Russian General Staff, Grau & Gress, The Soviet-Afghan War, p. 26
  76. ^ Roy. Islam and resistance in Afghanistan. p. 191.
  77. ^ Klass, Rosanne (1987). Afghanistan: The Great Game Revisited. Freedom House.
  1. p. 244.
  2. ^ Amstutz, J. Bruce (1986). Afghanistan: The First Five Years of Soviet Occupation. National Defense University Press. p. 43.
  3. ^ Amstutz, J. Bruce (1986). Afghanistan: The First Five Years of Soviet Occupation. National Defense University Press. pp. 144–149.
  4. ^ Urban, Mark (1990). War In Afghanistan. St. Martin's Press. p. 149.
  5. ^ a b Girardet, Edward (1985). Afghanistan: The Soviet War. St. Martin's Press. p. 129.
  6. ^ Girardet, Edward (1985). Afghanistan: The Soviet War. St. Martin's Press. p. 133.
  7. ^ "1986–1992: CIA and British Recruit and Train Militants Worldwide to Help Fight Afghan War". History Commons. Retrieved January 9, 2007.
  8. ^ [2] Sageman, Marc Understanding Terror Networks, chapter 2, University of Pennsylvania Press, May 1, 2004
  9. ^ "Did the U.S. "Create" Osama bin Laden?(2005-01-14)". US Department of State. Archived from the original on December 1, 2008. Retrieved March 28, 2007.
  10. ^ Marshall, Andrew (November 1, 1998). "Terror 'blowback' burns CIA (November 1, 1998)". The Independent (London). Retrieved July 1, 2010.
  11. ^ a b c d The Path to Victory and Chaos: 1979–92 – Library of Congress country studies(Retrieved Thursday 31, 2007)
  12. ^ The siege was ended only in November 1987 through the conduct of Operation Magistal'
  13. ^ Urban, War in Afghanistan, p. 219
  14. ^ Grau, Lester & Jalali, Ali Ahmad. "The campaign for the caves: the battles for Zhawar in the Soviet-Afghan War". GlobalSecurity.org. Retrieved March 29, 2007.
  15. ^ Sherk, James. ""Winning the Endgame in Afghanistan," by James A. Phillips, Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 181, May 18, 1992". Heritage.org. Retrieved February 15, 2012.
  16. ^ Johns, Michael (January 19, 2008). "Charlie Wilson's War Was Really America's War". Michaeljohnsonfreedomandprosperity.blogspot.com. Retrieved July 28, 2011.
  17. ^ ""Think tank fosters bloodshed, terrorism," ''The Daily Cougar'', August 25, 2008". thedailycougar.com. Retrieved July 28, 2011.
  18. ^ Maley, William and Saikal, Amin (1989). The Soviet Withdrawal from Afghanistan. Cambridge University Press. p. 127.
  19. ^ Urban, Mark (1990). War in Afghanistan. St. Martin's Press. p. 300.
  20. ^ Maley, William and Saikal, Amin (1989). The Soviet Withdrawal from Afghanistan. Cambridge University Press. p. 132.
  21. ^ Isby, War in a distant country, p.47
  22. ^ Urban, War in Afghanistan, p. 251
  23. ^ a b http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/Withdrawal.pdf Breaking contact without leaving chaos: the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, page 19
  24. ^ "Breaking contact without leaving chaos: the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan" (PDF). Retrieved July 28, 2011.
  25. ^ Schultheis, Rob. "Night Letters Inside Wartime Afghanistan", 1992. p. 155
  26. ^ Bergen, Peter, "Holy War, Inc.", 2001
  27. ^ "Nicolae Andruta Ceausescu". Moreorless.au.com. Retrieved July 28, 2011.
  28. ^ http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=evtXAAAAIBAJ&sjid=wvYDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6840,1286312&dq=india+afghanistan&hl=en
  29. ^ CROSSETTE, BARBARA (March 7, 1989). "India to Provide Aid to Government in Afghanistan". The New York Times. Retrieved December 5, 2011.
  30. ^ van Dijk, Ruud (2008). Encyclopedia of the Cold War, Volume 1. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-97515-8, 9780415975155.
  31. ^ Message on the Observance of Afghanistan Day by U.S. President Ronald Reagan, March 21, 1983
  32. ^ Timeline: Soviet war in Afghanistan
  33. ^ Alterman, Eric (October 25, 2001). "'Blowback,' the Prequel". The Nation. Retrieved December 30, 2010.
  34. ^ From the Shadows, by Bob Gates, Pg. 146. Google Books. Retrieved July 28, 2011.
  35. ^ “”. "Brzezinski and the Afghan War Pt2". YouTube. Retrieved July 10, 2010.
  36. ^ Full Text of Interview
  37. ^ Blackton, John Stuart (January 21, 2006). "The CIA on 'Did the CIA create Bin Laden?'". TPM Cafe. Retrieved January 27, 2012.
  38. ^ Time Magazine, May 13, 2003, "The Oily Americans," http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,450997-2,00.html
  39. ^ Interview with Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski – (June 13, 1997). Part 2.] Episode 17. Good Guys, Bad Guys. June 13, 1997.
  40. ^ Bergen, Peter. Holy War, Inc. New York: Free Press, 2001. Pg.66
  41. ^ The New Republic, "TRB FROM WASHINGTON, Back to Front" by Peter Beinart, October 8, 2001.
  42. ^ a b c d Yousaf, PA, Brigadier General (retired) Mohammad (1991). Silent soldier: the man behind the Afghan jehad General Akhtar Abdur Rahman. Karachi, Sindh: Jang Publishers, 1991. pp. 106 pages.
  43. ^ Heymann, Philip (2008). Living the Policy Process. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-533539-2.
  44. ^ Kuperman, Alan (1999). "The Stinger Missile and U.S. Intervention in Afghanistan". Political Science Quarterly 114 (2): 219–263. doi:10.2307/2657738.
  45. ^ "The Lessons of Afghanistan: Bipartisan Support for Freedom Fighters Pays Off", by Michael Johns, Policy Review, The Heritage Foundation, Spring 1987.
  46. ^ Kepel, Gilles (2002). Jihad. Cambridge: Belknap. p. 143. ISBN 0-674-01090-6.
  47. ^ "Hind Variants / Soviet Service". Vectorsite.net. Retrieved July 28, 2011.
  48. ^ "Snipers Paradise Interviews A Soviet SPETsNAZ Vet of the War". Militaryphotos.net. Retrieved July 28, 2011.
  49. ^ a b Editorial (July 31, 2003). "Tricky diplomacy". Jul 31, 2003. Retrieved January 4, 2012.
  50. ^ William D. Hartung (October 27, 2006). "We Arm The World". TomPaine.com. Retrieved 2008-11-21.
  51. ^ See Jason Burke, Al-Qaeda (Penguin, 2003), p59; Steve Coll, Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan and Bin Laden (Penguin, 2004), p87; Peter Bergen, The Osama bin Laden I Know (Free Press, 2006), pp60-1; Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, The Mitrokhin Archive II: The KGB and the World (Penguin, 2006), p579n48.
  52. ^ Kepel, Jihad, (2002), p.143-4
  53. ^ Kaplan, Soldiers of God, p.12
  54. ^ Weisman, Steven R. (May 2, 1987). "Afghans Down A Pakistani F-16, Saying Fighter Jet Crossed Border". The New York Times. Retrieved March 27, 2010.
  55. ^ "Pakistan Military Consortium". PakDef.info. Retrieved July 28, 2011.
  56. ^ Amnesty International file on Afghanistan Retrieved March 22, 2006
  57. ^ S. Frederick Starriditor=S. Frederick Starr (2004). Xinjiang: China's Muslim Borderland (illustrated ed.). M.E. Sharpe. p. 157. ISBN 0765613182. Retrieved May 22, 2012.
  58. ^ S. Frederick Starriditor=S. Frederick Starr (2004). Xinjiang: China's Muslim Borderland (illustrated ed.). M.E. Sharpe. p. 158. ISBN 0765613182. Retrieved May 22, 2012.
  59. ^ Krivosheev, G. F. (1993). Combat Losses and Casualties in the Twentieth Century. London, England: Greenhill Books.
  60. ^ a b "Death Tolls for the Major Wars and Atrocities of the Twentieth Century". necrometrics.com. Retrieved September 24, 2012.
  61. ^ a b Kaplan, Soldiers of God (2001) (p.11)
  62. ^ Sandy Gall. Afghanistan: agony of a nation. Bodley Head. 1988 p.3
  63. ^ 20th Century Democide Rudolph Rummel
  64. ^ Hilali, A. (2005). US-Pakistan relationship: Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Co. (p.198)
  65. ^ Kaplan, Soldiers of God (2001) p.188
  66. ^ Pear, Robert (August 14, 1988). "Mines Put Afghans in Peril on Return". New York Times: p. 9.
  67. ^ "Reversing the gun sights: transnational civil society targets land mines". International Organization. June 22, 1998.
  68. ^ McGrath, Rae (1998). Landmines: Legacy of Conflict: A Manual for Development Workers. pp. 39–40. ISBN 0-7881-3280-6.
  69. ^ "Gorbachev, The Iraqi War & Afghan Atrocities". Realnews247.com. Retrieved July 28, 2011.
  70. ^ Zulfiqar Ahmed Bhutta, H. (2002). Children of war: the real casualties of the Afghan conflict. Retrieved December 11, 2007
  71. ^ The Story of Genocide in Afghanistan Hassan Kakar
  72. ^ Report from Afghanistan Claude Malhuret
  73. ^ Hauner, M. (1989). Afghanistan and the Soviet Union: Collision and transformation. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. (p.40)
  74. ^ Barakat, S. (2004). Reconstructing war-torn societies: Afghanistan. New York: Palgrave Macmillan (p.5)
  75. ^ Barakat, S. (2004). Reconstructing war-torn societies: Afghanistan. New York: Palgrave Macmillan (p.7)
  76. ^ Panetta L. (2007) Collateral damage and the uncertainty of Afghanistan...[3] San Francisco: OpticalRealities. Retrieved August 17, 2009
  77. ^ Kirby, A. (2003). War 'has ruined Afghan environment.' Retrieved November 27, 2007, from [4], Zulfiqar Ahmed Bhutta, H. (2002). Children of war: the real casualties of the Afghan conflict. Retrieved December 11, 2007, from [5]
  78. ^ "USSR aid to Afghanistan worth $8 billion". Cia.gov. Retrieved February 15, 2012.
  79. ^ [6][dead link]
  80. ^ Pakistan Restricts Afghan Refugees by Donatella Lorch for the New York Times. November 16, 1988.
  81. ^ United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (February 20, 2008). "Afghan refugee teaches Hindi to tots in India". UNHCR. Retrieved February 15, 2012.
  82. ^ "Escape from War – The Times of India". The Times Of India (India).
  83. ^ United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. "Afghan refugees in India become Indian, at last". UNHCR. Retrieved February 15, 2012.
  84. ^ "A Thomson Reuters Foundation Service". AlertNet. Retrieved February 15, 2012.
  85. ^ "Life under Taliban cuts two ways". The Christian Science Monitor. September 20, 2001
  86. ^ Messages to the World, 2006, p.50. (March 1997 interview with Peter Arnett)
  87. ^ "Afghanistan: le Parlement russe rend hommage aux anciens combattants"
  88. ^ "Russian parliament hails Afghan war vets". Khaleejtimes.com. Retrieved July 28, 2011.

Further reading

External links




BrezinskiTellsCFRControl

http://inlnews.biz/BrezinskiTellsCFRControl.html

BrezinskiTellsCFRControl
HottestWebNews
Twitter //twitter.com/following
Comcast.net: News, Sports, Video, TV listings, Email and more!http://www.comcast.net/d/
www.facebook.com
Facebook is a social utility that connects people with friends and others who work, study and live around them. People use Facebook to keep up with friends,
//www.facebook.com/login.php
www.myspace.com/fringeshowshavetalent for entertaining fringe video clips
USA WEEKLY NEWS  EASY TO FIND HARD TO LEAVE 
Visit International News Limited for the best values on: 
domain names-domain transfers 
INLNews 
YahooMail  HotMail   GMail   AOLMail USA MAIL  

Click here to get you daily dose of  Real  Independent USA News with Amy Goodman at Domocracy Now
 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

GamingHarbor, Download Games to get 1000’s of Games!
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/events/all_star/y2009/fv/ballot.html
Make Money At Home Onlinehttp://www.howimadecash.com/a/
Mozilla Firefox Start Page//www.google.com/firefox?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:o...

Inspirational Quote
 "The beginning of love is to let those we love be perfectly themselves, and not to twist them to fit our own image. Otherwise we love only the reflection of ourselves we find in them.? Thomas Merton"
//www.google.com/firefox?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:o...
Your Daily Motivation from Inspiration Line Add Inspiring Daily Quotes to YOUR Website

Click Here For Your Up To Date World Live Sports Scores
INLNews  YahooMail  HotMail  GMail  AOLMail USA MAILMyWayMail 
 CNNWorld IsraelVideoNs INLNsNYTimes WashNs WorldMedia JapanNs AusNs World VideoNs WorldFinance ChinaDaily IndiaNs USADaily BBC EuroNsABCAust 
WANs NZNews QldNs MelbAge AdelaideNs 
TasNews ABCTas DarwinNsUSA MAIL


ABC News Video  FOX News Video  FOXBusiness Video  CNN Video  AP Video  BBC News Video  Reuters Video  AFP Video  CNET Video
CNBC Video  Australia 7 News Video   Rocky Mountain News Elections Video  CBC.ca Video  NPR Audio  
Kevin Sites in the Hot Zone Video
Richard Bangs Adventures Video  Charlie Rose Video   Expanded Books Video  Assignment Earth Video 
ROOFTOPCOMEDY.com Video 
Guinness World Records Video  weather.com Video  AccuWeather Video  You Witness News User Video

NPR Audio BY CATEGORY Top Stories  Politics  World  Business  Sports 
 
Technology  Health & Science  Arts  U.S. 

VIEW LOCAL VIDEO KVUE-TV Austin  WJZ 13 Baltimore  WBZ Boston 
 
WCNC Charlotte  CBS 2 Chicago

Video by Category
 
U.S. Business  World  Entertainment  Sports  Tech  Politics Science 
Health Environment Weather Opinion  Odd 

Video by Topic Campaign '08   Wall Street  Iraq  Gas Prices  Mideast Conflict 
 
Climate Change 

More INL News Video !Finance Sports


Hi there.welcome to
 YahooRealEstate.com.au  Yahoo!!!!!!!Click here for the cheapest real estate advertising on the internet
STUNTMAN: Jon Templeton will act as Hugh Jackman's stunt double in the film Australia. Picture: MEGAN  RAYLE
AP WORLD
AP NATIONAL
AP WASHINGTON
AP BUSINESS
AP ENTERTAINMENT
AP ON THE HOUR
AP HEADLINES
AP BREAKING
AP REUT PHOTO WIRE
AP AUDIO 
ABCNEWS 
ABCNEWS THE NOTE
AD AGE DEADLINE
BBC
BBC AUDIO
C-SPAN 
CHICAGO TRIB
CHICAGO SUN-TIMES
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE
CNN
CNN POLITICAL TICKER
DAILY SWARM
DAILY VARIETY
ECONOMIST
EDITOR & PUBLISHER
BILLBOARD 
BOSTON GLOBE
BOSTON HERALD 
BREITBART
CBS NEWS 
EMIRATES TODAY
FINANCIAL TIMES 
FORBES
FOX NEWS
FREE REPUBLIC
HOT AIR
HILL
HUMAN EVENTS
IAFRICA
INTERNATIONAL HERALD
INVEST BUS DAILY
JERUSALEM POST
JEWISH WORLD REVIEW
LA DAILY NEWS
LA TIMES 
MEDIA WEEK 
MSNBC
MSNBC FIRST READ 
NATIONAL REVIEW
NEW REPUBLIC
NEW YORK
NY DAILY NEWS
NY OBSERVER
NY POST
NY SUN 
NY TIMES
NEW YORKER
NEWSBUSTERS
NEWSBYTES 
NEWSMAX
NEWSWEEK
N. KOREAN NEWS
PHILLY INQUIRER
PHILLY DAILY NEWS 
POLITICO
R & R
RADAR 
REAL CLEAR POLITICS
REASON MAG
ROLL CALL
SAN FRAN CHRON 
SKY NEWS
SLATE
SMOKING GUN
SPLASH NEWS
SYDNEY HERALD
U.K. DAILY MAIL 
U.K.DAILY MIRROR
DAILY RECORD
UNDER THE RADAR
U.K.EVENING STANDARD
U.K.EXPRESS
U.K.GUARDIAN
U.K.INDEPENDENT 
U.K.LONDON PAPER 
U.K.NEWS OF THE WORLD
U.K.SUN
U.K.TELEGRAPH
U.K.TIMES
US NEWS
USA TODAY
VILLAGE VOICE
WASH POST
WASH TIMES
WEEKLY STANDARD
WORLDNETDAILY


 

World Liberal News Links
MARC AMBINDER
JONATHAN ALTER

PAUL BEDARD
GLORIA BORGER

DAVID BRODER

DAVID BROOKS
ELEANOR CLIFT
MARIE COCCO
RICHARD COHEN
JOE CONASON
DAVID CORN
CRAIG CRAWFORD
STANLEY CROUCH
DE BORCHGRAVE
MAUREEN DOWD
KEVIN DRUM
SUSAN ESTRICH
HOWARD FINEMAN
GEORGIE GEYER
ELLEN GOODMAN
MARK HALPERIN
PAUL KRUGMAN 
BILL PRESS
CARL HIAASEN
NAT HENTOFF
PEREZ HILTON
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS
AL KAMEN



Conservative News
BRENT BOZELL III 
PAT BUCHANAN
HOWIE CARR 
MONA CHAREN
LINDA CHAVEZ
ANN COULTER
LOU DOBBS
LARRY ELDER 
JOSEPH FARAH 
SUZANNE FIELDS 
JOHN FUND 
MAGGIE GALLAGHER
BILL GERTZ
JONAH GOLDBERG 
SEAN HANNITY 
HUGH HEWITT  
LARRY KUDLOW
DAVID LIMBAUGH 
RUSH LIMBAUGH 
HAL LINDSEY
RICH LOWRY
MICHELLE MALKIN
JOHN McCASLIN
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

BOB NOVAK
MARVIN OLASKY
GREG PIERCE
JIM PINDERTON 
WESLEY PRUDEN 
BILL O'REILLY
ROBERTS/ARGETSINGER
DICK MORRIS
MICHAEL SNEED 
JOE SOBRAN 
THOMAS SOWELL
MARK STEYN 
CAL THOMAS 
GEORGE WILL
WALTER WILLIAMS
PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY
 
  NEWS   NBA   NHL  Tennis   Golf   NFL   Soccer  NASCAR WORLD   LOCAL FINANCE    
More  Popular   Buzz  News 

Web Directory Listings of the top sites in each category.


 
 
 
 
 
  

Blog Web Discovery Machine

Brezinski admits CFR, Trilateral Groups Write Policy, Manipulate Affairs, Policy & Legislation
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzX62zhZjf8


US credit down graded is no problem !!!!!
Please see following comment.
If so who design all those crisis purposefully....!!!!



GREENSPAN: "U.S. CAJUST PRINT MONEY TO PAY IT'S DEBT" 8-7-2011




Also I saw Brzezinski said same things on tv news.
I recorded but Yusuke  erased . I searched You tube but could not found.

Zibgniew Brzezinski Denounces Global Awakening - NEWS ALERT



Brezinski admits CFR, Trilateral Groups Write Policy, Manipulate Affairs, Policy & Legislation

GREENSPAN: "U.S. CAN JUST PRINT MONEY TO PAY IT'S DEBT" 8-7-2011

//www.youtube.com/watch? v=jB0lcX-GtOU&feature=results_ main&playnext=1&list= PLD96289A98E58C190

Also I saw Brzezinski said same things on tv news.
I recorded but Yusuke  erased . I searched You tube but could not found.



Zibgniew Brzezinski Denounces Global Awakening - NEWS ALERT



Brezinski admits CFR, Trilateral Groups Write Policy, Manipulate Affairs, Policy & Legislation

Loading...
9,047

Top Comments

  • I'd love to punch that fucker in the mouth.
  • what a fucking lying bastard, lets kick the fuck out of these guys
see all

All Comments (48)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • hes disgusting..his wordds are full of shit and obvious lies
  • THE DEVIL HAS BEEN HERE FOR YEARS AND FINALLY SHOW HIS FACE, S.O.B.
  • Demon! Demon!
  • visit infowars.com to learn the truth
  • insidious influence? Laymens meaning"We run this world" This man and his elk are the reason the world is in the state it is, death to the NWO!
  • lying bastard.. advisor's like him and Kissinger have much more power than they show. even more than presidents.
  • oh okay, they just make suggestions. it's okay ppl ther'e nothing to worry about!
  • Z.B LIES !
    9/ 11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB. THEY PLOT FOR THE NEW WORLD ORDEEEER AND THE ANTICHRIST.
  • @chevelle3429 but even though they may be guilty if u had the jury and judge willing to hear a case , what real proof can you get that these ppl have done everything you you accuse them of? i mean do u really tihnk that a judge cares that a baner finances a country in times of war? or that a smart influential person in business is a a good friend to a president. or that infowars puts out new articles all the time mostly from websites they would deem "uncredable" ?
View all Comments »
          Next

Zbigniew Brzezinski is "Deeply Troubled"

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HFaJohG2vo&feature=related

WeAreChange Confronts Brzezinski 3rd Time

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcHEgyjS9Ws&feature=related

53,889
Uploaded by wearechange on 26 Sep 2008
SUPPORT THE RESISTANCE http://www.wearechange.org/?page_id=9453

Brian Kenny from WeAreChange confronts Zbigniew Brzezinski on the Brian Lehrer Radio Show, 9/26/08.
  • -- THIS guys created funded and helped Osama Bin Laden in 1000 ways. Bin Laden and this guy are friends.
    and now his TALIBAN friends are killing USA soldiers in Afganistan.
    AMERICANS you are dumbest people on EARTH. ARe you ?
    This guy is SCUM BAG.
  • Good questions. Questions, the pant shitting mainstream reporters would never ask in their useless lifetime.
see all

All Comments (221)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Impeach Obama now, the Fed's are on the run do not want to be audited they have moved their agenda up. They are scared of Ron Paul. I don't think we have to time to wait for an election impeaching Obama might slow them down and yes there is enough evidence to Impeach Obama.
  • @aviomaster I agree there are a lot of americans that are following the government propaganda and status quo like sick little sheep, but there are a lot of us that are awake. I spend every waking hour I am not busy trying to get people to see the light, so have some hope for us, i hope and you should hope that the spirit of revolution will spark here and we will have freedom and we will no longer interfere with the soveigrnty of other nations. Have hope.
  • Ive noticed that when you listen to Brzezinski speak, in its entirety instead of pulling sound bytes, he sounds pretty sensible and far less demonic. Just my perspective.
  • This bastardwas introduced to the world politic by David Rockefeler.Brezezinski's idea of the Islamic green belt on the suthern USSR border meant the overthrow of the progressive modernizer secular pro-western Shah of Iran in1979replacing him with the merciless jihadist anti-US terrorist Mullahs.As aid to Carter&32Yrs on this faggot cock sucker still supports the Mullahs&opposes regime change in Iran.Like Carter he has blood of millions of Iranis on his hands.Visit my UTUBE channel for the truth
  • Brzezinski, Whopidoodadey, Your a scum bag... Everything you said at The Sign of The Dove was taped. Even joking about Kissinger's new wife.... Scumbag Brzezinski.
  • wooooooo POWW WOW! HEEEE HEEE HEEE BLLAAAAAA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLAAAAAAAA
  • wooooooo POWW WOW! HEEEE HEEE HEEE
View all Comments »
              Next
16,429 views






Rothchild involved with MI5 CIA and Mossad part 3
ROTHSCHILD, Lord Nathanial Mayer Victor
Name: ROTHSCHILD, Lord (Nathaniel Mayer Victor)
NationalityBritishOccupation:BankerBorn:1910Died: 1990
The startling accusations against Rothschild is that he is the 'Fifth Man', not John Cairncross. According to Roland Perry's book 'The Fifth Man' published in 1994. That he is the dominant member of the Cambridge Spy Ring, not Philby, Blunt, Burgess of Maclean. That he is possibly the most important Soviet Spy of all. Soviet intelligence officer, Yuri Modin added. 'Just as the Three Musketeers were four, so the Cambridge five were six.'

Rothschild was the British head of the famous banking dynasty, which apart from prolific achievements in art, science, wine and charity. It had shaped recent history by such acts as the financing of the British army at the Battle of Waterloo and the purchasing of the Suez Canal for Great Britain and Prime Minister Disraeli. He was on intimate terms with many of the most senior members of the intelligence and security services Guy Liddell, Roger Hollis, Dick White, Stewart Menzies Maurice Oldfield, Robert Vansittart, the Permanent Under-secretary of State in the Foreign Office and many others.

It's largely accepted among MI5 officers that during the 1945 to 1963 period, the Soviets were receiving vital information which enabled them to thwart British operations run against the Soviet Embassy and the Intelligence service. MI5 had apparently been penetrated by someone. The inference was always that it had to be an insider. However, one of the leading Soviet double agents working for SIS (MI6), Oleg Gordievsky, who defected to Britain in 1985, denied that the Soviets had anyone of importance on the inside of M15 in the contentious years from around 1950 to 1963.

Rothschild had been in MI5 during World War Two and had been awarded a medal for outstanding bravery for disfusing a new type of German explosive munitions. The argument is that he was recruited for the Soviet cause in pre-war years by playing on his undoubted commitment to a future homeland for the Jews and his anti-Nazi beliefs. Later the fact that he had spied for the Soviets would have been used to blackmail him into continuing to do so, long after it became obvious that Jews were little better treated in the USSR as Nazi Germany. Fear of publicity was to be perhaps the driving force behind his supposed treachery and his later involvement in the Spycatcher affair.

In 1958, Rothschild's fostering of Peter Wright turned quickly to patronage on the basis that they were scientists who understood each other. Wright could have been an easy prey for the sophisticated peer. Although talented, Wright was not Oxbridge educated and therefore an outsider in a service which was run by the old-school ties. For the first time in his professional life, Wright felt wanted, understood and appreciated. In this atmosphere, Wright may have spilled everything of importance in his section of MI5. Rothschild offered help. He was in the oil group Shell overseeing scientific development. He seconded staff to MI5. Wright told him about every piece of espionage technology under development. Rothschild offered ideas of his own and actually devised some new technology himself. He made introductions to heads of major British organizations like the AWRE (Atomic Weapons Research Establishment), which led to further expansion of MI5's R & D.

Later when Wright was deeply involved in 'mole' hunting there were two Soviet code names, which in particular interested him: DAVID and ROSA. The messages decoded indicated that they had worked together, most likely as a married couple. The Soviet defector Golitsyn asked for the files of all MI5 officers who had been working for British Intelligence at the time of the Venona traffic. He studied the files and after a week asked Wright to come and see him in Brighton. Golitsyn pointed to two files on the desk in the study. 'I've discovered DAVID and ROSA,' he said 'My methodology has uncovered them.' Wright knew the names on the files well. They belonged to Victor and Tess Rothschild., both of whom had served in MI5. Wright told him not to be absurd, Rothschild, he informed the Russian, was one of the best friends this Service ever had. Golitsyn, however, was emphatic

Fortunately for Rothschild, his close companion and confidant, Wright had been the one informed and there was no further investigation.. Golitsyn had earlier informed Wright about a file marked 'Technics' in a safe at the Moscow Centre. It was basically a file on all the MI5 technical operations which Wright and his team had initiated. This proved to him that a mole had indeed been spying directly upon him and his activities. Wright never discussed with Golitsyn what he had told Rothschild. If he had, the Russian would have realized that his 'methodology' might have been accurate. According to an MI5 source, Rothschild was later fed information, which ended up 'in the wrong place' However, just as Philby had survived for so long, because his colleagues and the establishment simply couldn't accept his treachery, so the argument goes, Rothschilds charmed life continued.

Later, when Rothschild feared that journalists might link him to his close friend Anthony Blunt, he put a by now retired Wright and journalist Chapman Pincher in touch. The resulting series of collaborative books, 'Their Trade is Treachery;' and 'Too Secret Too Long' neatly deflected suspicion onto Roger Hollis and away from Rothschild. Wright's own book 'Spycatcher' would later reinforce the image that Hollis was the damaging 'mole'. Rothschild apparently quite alarmed about being implicated begged Wright to "write down every single point he could recall of the ways Rothschild had helped MI5" he added, "Things are starting to get rough" Rothschild also secretly channelled cash to Wright via a Swiss bank.

Rothschild was thought by many to be more loyal to his Jewish heritage than anything English. According to both CIA and Mossad sources, Rothschild was very useful to the Israelis in 'mending fences' with some neighbours in the Middle East after the disruption of the Six-Day conflict. For instance, he called on his old friend the Shah of Iran and suggested several 'crop breeding' ventures, which had been perfected in Israel and elsewhere. Some were adapted in Iran. To many observers Rothschild may have been an unwilling Soviet asset after the war until 1963, but their can be no doubt that he would have willingly spied for Israel. In fact Philby claims that on leaving MI5 in 1947, Rothschild had seized or copied all the six by four file cards listing known or supposed Soviet agents in Europe and elsewhere.

Rothschild must have certainly come under suspicion for it is believed that he was investigated and interviewed no less than eleven times by MI5, and when in 1986 he wrote a very public letter avowing his innocence, Mrs Thatcher's response was the famously terse "we have no evidence he was ever a Soviet agent". As a clearance it was less than fulsome. Though when Rothschild died in 1990, Thatcher attended the memorial. The publication of 'The Fifth Man' was greeted in dignified silence by Rothschilds family.

Rothschilds role in MI5 and within the scientific community is considerable, his role with Shell and later as Head of Prime Minister Edward Heath's 'Think Tank' in the early seventies makes him an important player in post war history. If eventually sufficient information became available to prove beyond doubt Roland Perry's belief in his treachery, then Rothschild will certainly have created history for himself, as the most important Soviet Spy in history.
CommentsThe original 2000 and 2002 Workbooks for Spy School were based on the information in "Spy Book, The Encyclopedia of Espionage, by Norman Polmar and Thomas B. Allen." and"Espionage, An Encyclopedia of Spies and Secrets by Richard Bennett ".
DISCLAIMER: THE POSTING OF STORIES, COMMENTARIES, REPORTS, DOCUMENTS AND LINKS (EMBEDDED OR OTHERWISE) ON THIS SITE DOES NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, IMPLIED OR OTHERWISE, NECESSARILY EXPRESS OR SUGGEST ENDORSEMENT OR SUPPORT OF ANY OF SUCH POSTED MATERIAL OR PARTS THEREIN.

BLOG ARCHIVE


ABOVE ALL ALL MEMBERS OF THE EVIL CRIMINALLY INSANE ROTHSCHILD FAMILY WHICH INCLUDE BARRON NATHAN ROTHSCHILD, BARRON ADOLPH ROTHSCHILD, BARRON ALOLPH HITLER-ROTHSCHILD AND BARRON LIONEL ROTHSCHILD


SUNDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2009

DO JEWS RUN THE SECURITY SERVICES?Britain's security service, MI6

On 8 October 2009, MI5's Jewish terrorism fear was reported on by The Jewish Chronicle

The Jewish Chronicle tells us that in his new book about Britain's security services, The Defence of the Realm, Professor Chistopher Andrew quotes one MI5 section head, John Marriot, as saying in 1955 that "our policy is to avoid recruiting Jews if possible." Andrew's book has one chapter on the threat from Jewish terrorists, such as the Irgun and Stern Gang which carried out attacks on British troops in Palestine. In 1947 the Colonial Office in London was targeted by a Stern Gang bomb. In 1947, the Stern Gang sent letter bombs to British politicians. In 1947, grenades and detonators were discovered, by his chauffeur, in the boot of the car of Harry Isaac Presman of north London.
Professor Andrew relates how British spy Kim Philby, one of the five Cambridge spies who worked for Russia, was recruited for the KGB by Arnold Deutsch, a Jew. In the 1970s MI5 was worried about the Jewish business cronies of Prime Minister Harold Wilson, Joseph Kagan, Rudy Sternberg and Harry Kissin. Kagan was linked to a KGB officer.

Victor Rothschild joined MI5 during the Second World War. In 1940 Rothschild suggested that Anthony Blunt should be invited to join the secret service. He also rented a house to his friend Guy Burgess. After the liberation of France Rothschild worked withDick WhiteKim Philby and Malcolm Muggeridge at theMI6offices established at the Rothschild family mansion in Paris.Edward Heath, in 1970, appointed him head of the government's Central Policy Review Staff. Later Margaret Thatcher appointed Rothschild as her unofficial security adviser.

In The Defence of the Realm, by Christopher Andrew we are told that until 1997 recruitment for the UK security services was based on personal recommendation. That could mean fascists choosing their fascist friends; or Zionists choosing their Zionist friends. We are led to believe that "right up to the mid-1970s, the post-war Service refused to recruit Jews on the grounds that a dual loyalty to both Britain and Israel might create a conflict of interest." (The Defence of the Realm by Christopher Andrew ) This is misleading. In 1951, the security services discovered that five of their top employees, recruited at Cambridge University in the 1930s, were spies for the Soviet Union, a country which exchanged secrets with Israel. At least one of the 'Cambridge Five' had links to Israel.

Reportedly, Kim Philby was assisted in obtaining safe haven in the Soviet Union by the Israeli Mossad (cf. Sunday Telegraph, April 16, 1989) CachedLord Victor Rothschild was allegedly one of the Cambridge spies;Guy Burgess was close to Rothschild.

According to ex-KGB Colonel 'F' and KGB officer Yuri Modin, Victor Rothschild was the key to most of the Cambridge ring's penetration of British Intelligence. According to Roland Perry, in his book The Fifth Man: "Burgess, at MI6 (and still on a retainer from Rothschild) recommended Philby for a job in Section D of MI6. "Rothschild, who had helped nudge Burgess into his position before the war, had been in turn recommended to MI5 by Burgess." "'Rothschild had the contacts,' Modin noted. 'He was able to introduce Burgess, Blunt and others to important figures in Intelligence such as Stewart Menzies, Dick White and Robert Vansittart, the Permanent Under-secretary of State in the Foreign Office, who controlled MI6.'" According to Perry, Rothschild "made sure Russia's scientists had the basics of every secret project from biological warfare to radar and the various types of potential nuclear bomb."



Soon after Israel was formed, Rothschild was allegedly involved with Chaim Weizmann in setting up a special nuclear physics department in a scientific institute in Rehovoth. In 1957, French engineers began building a nuclear reactor at Dimona on the edge of the Negev Desert. Perry believes that while "MI5 inventions and technical advances went on, Rothschild kept in contact with the key figures and digested the reports.
"This, coupled with his close contact with Dick White, other intelligence chiefs, Wright and the heads of the key research facilities in everything from weapons to radar, meant that Rothschild understood better than anyone in MI6 or MI5 every aspect of British Intelligence, from technical developments to their application in the field..."

In 1972, Rothschild played a major part in choosing the new head of MI5, Michael Hanley.According to the controversial Eustace Mullins (CHAPTER FIVE - The CIA - 3):

While CIA station chief in Rome, the CIA's Angleton "worked closely with the Zionist terrorists Teddy Kollek and Jacob Meridor, and later became chief of the Israeli desk at the CIA, helping Philby to set up the lavishly funded international Mossad espionage operation, all paid for by American taxpayers. "A senior CIA security official, C. Edward Petty, later reported that Angleton might be a Soviet penetration agent or mole, but President Gerald Ford suppressed the report. "Top secret files of the CIA and FBI were opened to Philby, despite widespread claims that he was a Soviet agent. "Although he helped Burgess and MacLean defect to Russia in 1951, he continued to work for SIS until 1956, under the protection of Harold MacMillan, who defended him publicly in parliamentary debate. "In 1962 and Englishwoman at a party in Israel said, “As usual Kim is doing what his Russian Control tells him. I know that he always worked for the Reds.” "Miles Copeland says that Philby placed a mole in deep cover in the CIA known as “Mother”. Philby was quoted as saying, “Foreign agencies spying on the U.S. Government know exactly what one person in the CIA wants them to know, no more and no less.”"Philby was finally exposed by a defector, Michael Goleniewski. "On Jan. 23, 1963, Philby left Beirut and defected to Moscow, where he became a Lt. Gen. in the KGB. "On June 10, 1984, Tad Szulc wrote in the Washington Post that Philby was never a Soviet agent, according to CIA memoranda introduced in a lawsuit, but that he was a triple agent. "This explains curious paradoxes in the supposed rivalry between the CIA and the KGB, when certain charmed souls float easily back and forth between the two services. "Agents of either service are “eliminated” when they find out more than is good for them about this odd arrangement."

Eustace Mullins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia POSTED BY ANON AT 5:30 AM
DISCLAIMER: THE POSTING OF STORIES, COMMENTARIES, REPORTS, DOCUMENTS AND LINKS (EMBEDDED OR OTHERWISE) ON THIS SITE DOES NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, IMPLIED OR OTHERWISE, NECESSARILY EXPRESS OR SUGGEST ENDORSEMENT OR SUPPORT OF ANY OF SUCH POSTED MATERIAL OR PARTS THEREIN

SUNDAY, JANUARY 23, 2005

MI5 and MI6

Britain's MI5 has been infiltrated.

Who now controls Britain? Or America? Or the world?

PART ONE - INFILTRATION BY RUSSIANS ONLY?
Peter Wright and Chapman Pincher pointed out that vast numbers of Britain's secrets ended up in the hands of the Soviets. Wright and Pincher even suggested that Roger Hollis, onetime head of MI5, was a spy for Russia.

Russia has turned out to be a country with an almost Third World economy and military.

Soviet defector Viktor Suvorov, in his book 'The Liberators: inside the Soviet Army', 1981, portrayed the Soviet armed forces as an "inefficient, cynical, farcical army of conscripts, skiving off at the first opportunity and doing their best to stay permanently smashed on anything they could smoke, drink or inject - the mirror image of wider Soviet society, in short; and about as threatening to NATO as the girl guides."

But, in the days of the Nazi-Soviet Pact and the Berlin Blockade, Russia was a dangerous enemy. So what about infiltration?

In 1961 high-ranking KGB officer Anatoli Golitsin defected to the West. Golitsin confirmed that the Soviets had agents within the British secret service, although Golitsin knew them only by their code names.

In 1968 Golitsin travelled to Britain and was shown documents which contained the code names of unidentified Soviet agents.

Two code names- David and Rosa - particularly interested Golitsin.

Golitsin studied the files of MI5 officers, picked out two, and then declared to MI5 Officer Peter Wright: "Your spies are here."

The files bore the names of Victor and Tess Rothschild.

Wright told Golitsin that he thought he had got it wrong as Rothschild was one of the best friends MI5 had ever had.

Wright, MI5's chief scientist and a personal friend of Rothschild, wrote in his book 'Spy catcher' (Heinemann, Australia, 1987) : 'Rothschild was fascinated by my plans for the scientific modernization of MI5...I soon realized that he possessed an enormous appetite for the gossip and intrigue of the secret world, and we were soon swapping stories about some of the more bizarre colleagues he remembered from the war.'

According to Wright's book, Rothschild, the former very close friend of Russian spies Philby, Burgess and Blunt, had access to most secrets and most of the top people in the Secret service.

Wright wrote: 'I doubt I have ever met a man who impressed me as much as Victor Rothschild. He is a brilliant scientist, a Fellow of the Royal Society, with expertise in botany and zoology, and a fascination for the structure of spermazotoa. But he has been much, much more than a scientist. His contacts, in politics, in intelligence, in banking, in the Civil Service, and abroad are legendary.'

In the book 'The Fifth Man', (by Roland Perry, Pan Books London 1994) Roland Perry puts the case that Ted Rothschild was a major spy for Russia and Israel, not the spy known as 'David' but one of the notorious 'ring of five.'

Ted Rothschild was Nathaniel Mayer VICTOR Rothschild (1910 to 1990), the third Lord Rothschild. He was the British head of the famous banking dynasty, which had financed the British army at the Battle of Waterloo and financed the purchase of the Suez Canal for Great Britain.

The Rothschilds had their own 'spy network' and knew that Napoleon had been defeated at Waterloo before this was known to the governments of Britain or France. The first Lord Rothschild, had been 'a powerful back-room manipulator of late Victorian politics.' He had taken an interest in the extension of Cecil Rhodes diamond empire and the attempts to destroy the Liberal Party.

The Rothschilds were perhaps seen as being the chief representatives of Zionism. In the famous Balfour Declaration of 1917, Britain's Foreign Secretary wrote the 'declaration' to Lord Walter Rothschild, Victor's uncle: "Dear Lord Rothschild,... His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object."

Why might Victor Rothschild have spied for foreign powers?

It has been speculated that Rothschild was "more loyal to his Jewish heritage than anything English."

In the 1930's one of his main concerns was how to help Jews who were being persecuted in Germany. He allegedly saw the Soviets as the only people who could ensure Hitler's defeat. Some have suspected that he helped the Soviet spy machine and did so because it was the enemy of Nazi Germany.

After World War II, Rothschild assisted in the creation of a homeland for the Jews. According to one critic: "When the British tried to thwart the birth of Israel, which would have upset its power base in the Middle East, Rothschild intrigued against British interests."

When Israel was established Rothschild allegedly helped Israel to gain the spy technology and nuclear weaponry which would defend it.

It has been suggested by Roland Perry that Rothschild was recruited by the soviet agent known as Otto. "Philby, Blunt and Burgess had warned Otto that Rothschild had to be reeled in on the Jewish, anti-Hitler line."

Rothschild was not a fan of Stalin; he knew that Russia also had its pogroms. But Otto could have pointed out to Rothschild that there was a danger that Britain might team up with Germany in order to defeat Stalin and communism.

In the 1930's there were many fans of Hitler among right-wing people in the City of London, in the British media and in parliament.

"Otto spoke of the financial, military and trade deals on-going between Germany and Britain."

According to ex-KGB Colonel 'F' and KGB officer Yuri Modin, Rothschild was the key to most of the Cambridge ring's penetration of British Intelligence.

According to Perry, "Burgess, at MI6 (and still on a retainer from Rothschild) recommended Philby for a job in Section D of MI6. Rothschild, who had helped nudge Burgess into his position before the war, had been in turn recommended to MI5 by Burgess."

'Rothschild had the contacts,' Modin noted. 'He was able to introduce Burgess, Blunt and others to important figures in Intelligence such as Stewart Menzies, Dick White and Robert Vansittart, the Permanent Under-secretary of State in the Foreign Office, who controlled MI6.'

In a Lords' debate on 'The Situation in Palestine' on 31 July 1946, Victor Rothschild indicated that "He would put the same fervour into setting up Israel as he had done in defeating Hitler.' Rothschild hoped that the powerful Jewish lobby in the USA, with which he had good contacts, would gain US support for a homeland.

But Rothschild may also have been hoping for some help from the Russians. According to Perry, 'The KGB were hoping that Rothschild could still help them as they geared up their efforts to steal Western bomb intelligence. He was secretly anti-American when it came to their drive to be the biggest military power and, like Oppenheimer, he was keen to do what he could to create a 'balance of terror', where each of the superpowers had the bomb as a deterrent to each other's aggression."

In 1946 Rothschild was lobbying with some success for more Jews to be allowed to travel from Russia to Palestine.

According to Perry, Rothschild "made sure Russia's scientists had the basics of every secret project from biological warfare to radar and the various types of potential nuclear bomb."

Soon after Israel was formed, Rothschild was allegedly involved with Chaim Weizmann in setting up a special nuclear physics department in a scientific institute in Rehovoth.

In 1956, Britain, France and Israel secretly worked out plans to invade Egypt so as to get back control of the Suez Canal from President Nasser.

It was after the Suez Affair that the French promised to supply Israel with a nuclear reactor and some uranium.

The secret deal was only known to about a dozen individuals, induding Rothschild.

In 1957, French engineers began building a nuclear reactor at Dimona on the edge of the Negev Desert.

Perry believes that while "MI5 inventions and technical advances went on, Rothschild kept in contact with the key figures and digested the reports. This, coupled with his close contact with Dick White, other intelligence chiefs, Wright and the heads of the key research facilities in everything from weapons to radar, meant that Rothschild understood better than anyone in MI6 or MI5 every aspect of British Intelligence, from technical developments to their application in the field...... Thanks to Rothschild the KGB knew of every development and were able to take steps to counter them. Furthermore, they used the technology themselves against Western agents."

And what about the CIA?

According to Wright, American top spook James Angleton "was already suspicious of Rothschild. He had first annoyed Jim on his patch. Jim had special connections with Israel and he felt the British [Intelligence] through Rothschild were interfering..."

Angleton also took note of Rothschild's support of Israel. In the 1940s it ran contrary to British interests. He was serving both MI5 and (what was to become) Mossad. If he was capable of serving two agencies, could he secretly serve a third? Angleton 'worried about Israel's left-wing politics when it was formed. He was concerned that some of the British agents [including Rothschild] had been happy with that. But not Jim. He wanted them to be a wholesome [laughs] anti-communist US satellite. That took a little time [laughs].'

In 1962, the year after Golitsin defected, Russian spy Kim Philby was working in the Middle East as a journalist for the Observer. His articles on Israel were seen as being 'anti-Israel' and did not please top friends of Israel such as Rothschild.

At a party at Weizmann's house in Israel, Rothschild met Flora Solomon, 'a Russian emigre Zionist', former close friend of Philby's, and executive of Marks and Spencer.

According to Wright, Solomon 'had obviously been in the thick of things in the mid-1930s, part inspiration, part fellow accomplice, and part courier for the fledgling Ring of Five, along with her friends Litzi Philby, and Edith Tudor Hart.'

Now Solomon and Rothschild suddenly announced that Solomon had decided to denounce Philby. "The reason? Philby's pieces in the Observer about Israel. She was saying that their anti-Israel slant had 'angered' her."

According to Perry: "In August 1962, a few months after British Intelligence planned to move against Philby but not put him on trial, Rothschild was in Rehovoth, Israel. He made contact with a fellow Mossad agent, who was despatched to Beirut to contact Philby and brief him on the latest attitude of White and Hollis towards him. They were now planning to interrogate him in Beirut. He would probably be offered immunity in exchange for a full confession."

According to Perry, it wasn't just Philby who was in difficulty.

Rothschild was interrogated by MI5 eleven times. Rothschild said, "I was questioned very extensively. The authorities, as I call them, said that they wished to talk to me and they talked in quite a friendly way. I have a feeling that they believed in me."

According to former MI6 agent James Rusbridger, Peter Wright and another MI5 source, Rothschild was fed information in 1962, which ended up 'in the wrong place' - namely with the KGB.

Perry writes: "This did not prove he had spied, for the data just conceivably could have been stolen from him. Yet it raised suspicions. However, Rothschild still managed to convince people that he and Tess were victims by association. Their friends Guy, Anthony, Kim, Michael, Leo and so on, with whom they dined, drank, studied, lived and worked, had duped them."

Rothschild was able to continue his links with MI5.

Wright did not suspect that Rothschild was a spy for Russia, but Wright did suspect that MI5 boss Hollis and prime minister Harold Wilson might be spies for the enemy.

In the US, the CIA.s Angleton was becoming yet more suspicious that Rothschild was a spy for the enemy. However, Rothschild improved his image with Angleton by emphasising his Mossad (Israeli secret service) links; Angleteon was always in favour of close CIA links to Mossad.

Rothschild also improved his image by doing work for MI6 induding running agents in China in the late 1960's.

In 1972, Rothschild played a major part in choosing the new head of MI5, Michael Hanley, a man whom Wright considered to be a disappointment.


PART TWO WHO CONTROLS BRITAIN?

In the 1960's, leading CIA agent James Angleton was worried about Harold Wilson and his links to Eastern European businessmen who might have had links to Russia and Israel.

An Israeli spy had suggested that Labour leader Gaitskell had been murdered by the KGB so that Wilson could become PM.

In 1965 Angleton, and President Johnson, decided to commission a report on Britain's secret services.

This report recommended sending more spies to Britain It seemed that the CIA was going to treat Britain like Indonesia or Pakistan.

In order to ensure that there was an elite which would support US interests, the CIA would try to gain control of MI5 and MI6, use dirty tricks to get rid of anti-American politicians, and place pro-American puppets into positions of power.

In 1996, in the Guardian, Martin Kettle suggested that New Labour was all about Britain being in with the Americans.

In a talk to Labour Party branches in 1996, Robin Ramsay (Lobster Magazine) pointed out some interesting links between New labour and the USA.

Jonathan Powell, Blair's top man in Downing Street, used to work in Britain's Washington embassy and is suspected by some of having been our spook liaising with the CIA.

Top Blair aid David Milliband did a degree at the USA's MIT and Brown's top aid Edward Balls went to Harvard.

Gordon Brown spent his holidays in the library at Harvard.

The US encouraged large numbers of Labour MPs to take free trips to America (Israel also invited a large number of Labour MPs to Israel).

In 1986 Tony Blair went on a US-sponsored trip to America and came back a supporter of the nuclear deterrent.

In 1993 Blair attended a Bilderberg Group meeting (secretive right wing organisation) and not long afterwards became Labour leader.

Four of the Blair cabinet have been members of the Anglo-American elite group the British American Project; three of the Blair cabinet have attended Bilderberg meetings.

Peter Mandelson become Chair of British Youth Council which began as the British section of the World Assembly of Youth, which was set up and financed by MI6 and then taken over by the CIA in the 1950s. By Mandelson's time in the mid1970s the British Youth Council was said to be financed by the Foreign Office or MI6. According to Ramsay, 'Peter Mandelson has been around MI6 since his early 20s'. Old Labour is the domestic economy; New Labour is the overseas British economy. In other words, the multinationals, the City of London, and the Foreign Office which represents their interests.'

And the unions?

According to Ramsay: "The CIA also ran the anti-communist international trade union movement, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, the ICFTU..By the mid 1950s nearly a quarter of the TUC's annual budget was going to the ICFTU, a CIA operation.

And the press?

According to Ramsay, the security services may be planting disinformation in the media. "Tomlinson told us about the 20-strong I/Ops - Information Operations - unit in that shiny building on the Thames."

And sometimes the information is confusing. Ramsay writes: "does Gaddafi have Taiwanese Scuds (MI5 story planted in the Sunday Times) or North Korean missiles (MI6 story planted in the Sunday Telegraph.... The Sunday Times was a serious, respectable newspaper until Andrew Neil became its editor in the mid-1980s and turned it into a mouth-piece for MI5 and the MOD to run their rubbish through. The Sunday Telegraph shows all the signs of going down the same dangerous path."

It looks like the Anglo-American-Israeli elite are in charge.

Now here is an interesting quote about what may be happening: 'There has been a gradual erosion of civil liberties, an increase in the influence of the army, and an acceptance of corruption among public servants. Vast fortunes have been accumulated by a small group who use their wealth to control the Senate.' That was a description of the Roman Empire, but it could equall y be a description of the present-day Britain, or the US Empire or the former Soviet Empire. It is conspiracies from within, rather than conspiracies from without, which often lead to the collapse of empires.

PART THREE - WHO RUNS AMERICA AND THE WORLD?

"We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."-- Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.

When Clinton was about to step down, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak asked President Clinton to grant a pardon to Marc Rich. Clinton granted the pardon. Marc Rich had been indicted in a US federal court of evading more than $48 million in taxes. He was also charged with 51 counts of tax fraud and with running illegal oil deals with Iran during the hostage crisis. He had also traded with Libya, South Africa and the USSR when there were embargos, with Iraq when there was conflict....

Is Israel in charge? No. But it could be the people who trade in oil, in guns, in drugs....

In 1991, Paul Henderson, managing director of machine tools company Matrix Churchill, was in court facing a seven year jail sentence for selling to Iraq materials that could be used for military purposes. Government ministers tried to prevent the court from discovering the truth - that Paul Henderson had been working for the British government as a secret agent for 17 years.

Eventually the truth about Henderson came out.

But why had we been helping Iraq? The July 29, 1991 issue of TIME MAGAZINE stated :"B.C.C.I. is the largest corporate criminal enterprise ever... the most pervasive money-laundering operation ...ever created for the likes of Manuel Noriega, Ferdinand Marcos, Saddam Hussein and the Columbian drugs lords." B.C.C.I. Got into the U.S. banking industry by secretly buying the shares of First American Bank, whose chairman is Clark Clifford- a founder of the CIA According to sources, "B.C.C.I. was engaged in international bribery, blackmail, and assassination of government officials at the highest levels.
The CIA used B.C.C.I. to facilitate funding of the Contras, illegal arms sales to Iran and Iraq as well as the arms supply to the Afghan resistance. The Justice Department began by obstructing the investigation. "B.C.C.I. maintained accounts for Contra leader Adolfo Calero and Sandanista leader, Daniel Ortega, as well as such disparate figures as Noriega, Saddam, Marcos, Adnan Khashoggi, the PLO, the Mossad and the governments of China, Argentina, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Peru."

The bank was seemingly financing both sides in a number of conflicts. Who gained? The arms and drugs industries. Cynics might say that wars help the ruling elites to stay in power. And here are some strange 'facts' picked up from various sources: The U.S. sold $50 billion dollars worth of weapons to Iraq before the gulf war. Libya was supplied with hundreds of Green Beret trainers and 42,000 lbs of C-4 plastic explosives prior to U.S. attacks on Libya.

The U.S financed the Kama River truck plant which produced the trucks for Russia's Afghanistan invasion and built the highways used by the Russian tanks. The day General McArthur signed the peace treaty with Japan half the weapons stored on Okinawa were shipped to Ho Chi Minh and General Giap who met these shipments at the docks of Hai Phong harbor with Lucien Conein, the CIA case officer for Diem. Jonathan Kwitny's book, The Crimes of Patriots, a True Tale of Dope, Dirty Money and the CIA, (Simon & Shuster 1987) is an expose of th e alleged role of the CIA in the drugs business. Kwitny refers to the Nugan-Hand Bank- an Australian money laundering operation set up to facilitate Golden Triangle heroin trafficking. Major officers of the bank "included Admiral Buddy Yates (President), General Erle Cocke, General Edwin Black, General LeRoy Manor, and ex-CIA Director, William Colby with other CIA affiliated persons too numerous to mention."
POSTED BY ANON AT 6:59 PM
nternational Intelligence
On Saturday night's program, Gordon Thomas, author of Secret Wars and Gideon's Spies, joined Ian for a discussion on international intelligence matters.

Thomas shared breaking news from Britain's MI5 and MI6 intelligence agencies about the possibility of attacks by terrorists during the upcoming G20 summit. Thomas said the threats against the UK are at the "top end of severe," which means an "attack is coming." According to Thomas, Britain is home to the largest number of homegrown jihadists in the world, trained and ready to launch Mumbai-style attacks when the G20 nations meet on April 2 in London. Preventing the attack may prove difficult, Thomas explained, as MI5 officials have been bogged down by spies from France and Germany sent into the country to bribe key workers in sensitive jobs who are having financial troubles.

Thomas reported on a ruthless group of government assassins known as Company 14, who he said are hunting down members of the IRA responsible for killing two British soldiers and a policeman in Northern Ireland. He also commented on the death of Dr. David Kelly. The position of his body, suspicious phone calls, and other puzzling details surrounding his apparent suicide suggest the weapons expert may have been murdered for his assessment of Iraq's WMD program, Thomas noted.
hat got me about this show was that he covered the relationships of MI5 - CIA and the MOSSAD and made it sound like a very cozy relationship. No reference to the Israeli spy ring in the U.S. following the "hijackers" and the DEA. or Amdoc's and NICE Systems.

Nor did he cover the spying and continuing attempts of the U.K. for over 100 years to control and subjugate the U.S.A.

Evidence points to breakdown in US / UK Relations 

Related Link on the history of the "Special Relationship"

Webster G. Tarpley Debunks Pearl Harbor Myths (Amongst Other Things) 

Something interesting : British Security Coordination (Propaganda) Spy Ring in the U.S. prior to Pearl Harbor

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/ 2006/aug/19/military. secondworldwar

It was 1940, the Nazis were in the ascendant, the Blitz at its deadliest, and Britain's last hope was to bring a reluctant United States into the war. So it was that the largest covert operation in UK history was launched. William Boyd sheds light on a forgotten spy ring.

William Boyd
The Guardian, Saturday 19 August 2006

"British Security Coordination". The phrase is bland, almost defiantly ordinary, depicting perhaps some sub-committee of a minor department in a lowly Whitehall ministry. In fact BSC, as it was generally known, represented one of the largest covert operations in British spying history; a covert operation, moreover, that was run not in Occupied France, nor in the Soviet Union during the cold war, but in the US, our putative ally, during 1940 and 1941, before Pearl Harbor and the US's eventual participation in the war in Europe against Nazi Germany.
...
One easily forgets this, in the era of our much-vaunted, so-called "special relationship", but at the nadir of Britain's fortunes, polls in the US still showed that 80% of Americans were against joining the war in Europe. Anglophobia was widespread and the US Congress was violently opposed to any form of intervention.
.... read the rest..
http://www.larouchepub.com/ other/2005/3232aipac_indict. html

This article appears in the August 12, 2005 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

Larry Franklin Case:
AIPAC Leaders Snared 

by Jeffrey Steinberg

On Aug. 4, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Paul McNulty, announced the indictment of two former top officials of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), on charges of "conspiracy to communicate national defense information to persons not entitled to receive it." The same indictment included new espionage charges against Pentagon desk officer and Air Force Reserve Colonel Lawrence Franklin, who has already been indicted in the Eastern District, as well as in West Virginia.

The two "ex"-AIPAC officials are Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman. Since 1982, Rosen has been AIPAC's Director of Foreign Policy Issues. Since 1993, Weissman has been Senior Middle East Analyst at AIPAC.

Before coming to work for AIPAC, Rosen had been employed from 1978-82 at the RAND Corporation. During that period, he worked on contract projects for the Central Intelligence Agency, and had top-level security clearances. Thus, Rosen signed written secrecy agreements with the U.S. government that remained binding after he went to work for AIPAC.

Far-Flung Espionage Network
The new indictments, which have been anticipated for several months, unveil an Israeli espionage network that has been functioning since at least April 1999, involving a number of Pentagon officials beyond Franklin, as well as at least three officials of the Israeli Embassy and a former senior Mossad officer, Uzi Arad, who now heads Israel's premier national security think-tank, the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center.[/color]

U.S. intelligence officials have told EIR that the AIPAC/Franklin case reveals a new modus operandi, adopted by Israel intelligence, in the aftermath of the disastrous Jonathan Pollard spy scandal of the mid-1980s. Pollard, a Naval intelligence analyst, was caught pilfering thousands of classified Pentagon and CIA documents and passing them on to an Israeli intelligence unit headed by former Mossad European operations director Rafi Eytan, a close ally of current Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

As the result of the blowback from the Pollard affair, according to the U.S. intelligence sources, Israel shifted its espionage operations targetted at the United States to think-tanks and lobbying organizations like AIPAC, which have ongoing "legitimate" contacts with American government officials.

What the Israelis and the AIPAC spooks did not anticipate was that their operations would be closely scrutinized by the FBI and other U.S. agencies, for at least the past six years, revealing numerous instances where the "legitimate" contacts crossed over into hard espionage.

The 26-page indictment is, in fact, a catalogue of scores of instances of classified information being passed from Pentagon officials to the two AIPAC men, on to Israeli Embassy personnel.

Franklin apparently walked into an ongoing FBI counterintelligence surveillance of Rosen and Weissman, when he held his first meeting with the two men on Feb. 12, 2003. According to the indictment, phone conversations that Rosen had en route to the first meeting with Franklin, were monitored by the FBI. From Feb. 12, 2003 until July 9, 2004, Franklin had dozens of phone discussions and meetings with the two AIPAC officials, and on at least one occasion, faxed a document from his Pentagon office to Rosen's home.

In June 2004, FBI agents confronted Franklin with evidence of his espionage activities, and Franklin agreed to cooperate with the government. His subsequent meetings with the two AIPAC officials were all controlled by the FBI, until Aug. 3, when the FBI visited both Rosen and Weissman. According to the indictment, even after the FBI visits, Rosen and Weissman continued to pass classified data provided by Franklin to select U.S. journalists and even to Israeli embassy officials.

Franklin's Network
Lawrence Franklin had his own problems with his dealings with Israeli intelligence officials, even before his assignment to the Pentagon in early 2001 as Iran desk officer at the Near East South Asia policy office, under Assistant Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith and Deputy Assistant Secretary William Luti, a transplant from the Office of Vice President Dick Cheney.

Back in the late 1990s, as an Air Force Reserve officer, Franklin had done two tours of duty at the U.S. Embassy in Israel, in the Air Attaché's Office. On his second tour, Franklin was kicked out of the country by the Air Attaché after a few months, after repeated incidents in which he held unauthorized meetings with Israeli intelligence officials.

It may have been these Israeli connections that landed Franklin his job at NESA—or perhaps his ties to then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, who was Dean of Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, D.C. when Franklin was a graduate student there.

Whatever his pathway to the Pentagon, Franklin, according to eyewitness sources, became a fixture at regular "brown bag lunches" at the private office of Doug Feith attended by leading Pentagon neo-cons, including Harold Rhode, Luti, Abraham Shulsky, Richard Perle, and occasionally Wolfowitz. Franklin's NESA boss, Luti, boasted frequently that he was working for "Scooter," a reference to Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby. (Libby, when he was not working for the government, was the personal attorney for Mossad frontman and international swindler Marc Rich. Well-informed U.S. intelligence officials believe that Rich, a Zug, Switzerland-based metal trader, was set up in business with Mossad funds.)

Franklin was also a traveling companion of Iran-Contra figure and self-professed "universal fascist" Michael Ledeen, in December 2001. Ledeen, Franklin, and Harold Rhode travelled to Rome for secret meetings with Iranian con-artist Manucher Ghorbanifar, another prominent Iran-Contra scandal figure who brokered Israeli missile sales to Iran in exchange for efforts to free American hostages in Lebanon.The scheme led to criminal indictments against a number of Reagan-Bush Administration officials and CIA officers, including Elliott Abrams and Duane Claridge.

The latest Franklin indictment threatens to snare some of these other leading neo-cons. The court papers filed in the Eastern District of Virginia identify several other Pentagon officials, along with at least three Israeli Embassy officials and Uzi Arad, as players in the extended Franklin spy operation.

The indictment of "Mr. AIPAC," Steven Rosen, also raises serious questions about the future of "America's Pro-Israel Lobby," as AIPAC's website describes the group. According to sources close to the Franklin probe, AIPAC may be forced, as a result of the Franklin case, to register as a foreign agent organization, thus losing its tax-exempt status and forcing much closer accounting of its finances and activities.

The Franklin case has not even come close to fully unraveling. And many leading Pentagon neo-cons are losing sleep over where this case will go next.

What makes matters even worse, the same basic cast of characters is tied up in the Valerie Plame Wilson leak probe, headed by independent counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, and a separate probe, headed by U.S. Attorney McNulty, into who was behind the forging of Niger government documents which purported to show that Iraq sought to buy "yellowcake" uranium from the African state to build nuclear weapons. The forged documents were used by Vice President Cheney and other Administration war hawks to win Congressional and public support for the invasion of Iraq. Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, was dispatched to Niger in 2002 to assess the validity of the Niger yellowcake charge, and returned to report that it was a hoax. His report was covered up, and the train of events was set into motion which led to his wife's "outing" as a covert CIA operative, by top Administration officials—a criminal offense.

There are allegations that the Ledeen-Rhode-Franklin trip to Rome in 2001 may have played a role in the circulation of the forged documents
http://www.larouchepac.com/ node/9423

Netanyahu Slaps U.S. in the Face with Spymaster Uzi Arad

March 6, 2009 (LPAC)--Israel's Prime Minister-designate Bibi Netanyahu brought the notorious spymaster Uzi Arad into the meetings with Hillary Clinton and George Mitchell, this week, reports the Israeli newspaper, Ha'aretz. Uzi Arad, is persona non grata in the United States because of his involvement with Pentagon spy, Larry Franklin, an analyst with the Office of Special Plans (OSP), the Dick Cheney-neo-conservative unit in the Pentagon that manufactured false intelligence to justify the Iraq war. Franklin was convicted in January, 2006, in a plea bargain, of stealing classified documents on Iran and other subjects from the Pentagon, and passing them on to Israeli government officials, in meetings arranged by the two top officials of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman). Arad, who is unable to come to the U.S. because of his involvement with Franklin, is reportedly going to be head of the Israeli National Security Council, Ha'aretz wrote.

Not only did Bibi include Arad in his first meeting with the top U.S. officials, but he kicked the Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., Sallai Meridor out the meeting. Ha'aretz reported that this insult from Netanyahu was the reason that Meridor resigned today.

Lyndon LaRouche said today that what Netanyahoo did was "a slap in the face to the U.S. And that if Netanyahoo breaks from the U.S., that represents Netanyahoo's plans for leaving earth."
So, does the Pentagon really have a great relationship with Mossad? i dont think so.

And who is really behind Netanyahu? a group of fascists in London that put Dick Cheney into office.
"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate … It will purge the rottenness out of the system..." - Andrew Mellon, Secretary of Treasury, 1929.
One thing the Brit's love is to have THEIR historians write THEIR history. And I think we can label Gordon Thomas one of THEIR's and a propagandist TOOL.


http://intelligencenews. wordpress.com/2009/03/21/01- 107/

...

The other two are an authorized history (from 1909 to 1949) of MI6 by Professor Keith Jeffery, of Queen’s University, Belfast, andGordon Thomas’ Secret Wars: One Hundred Years of British Intelligence, which intelNews has received and will be reviewing shortly. ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Gordon_Thomas

Thomas was born in Wales, in a cemetery keeper’s cottage where his grandmother lived. He had his first story published at nine years old in a Boys Own Paper competition. With his father in the RAF, he travelled widely and was educated at the Cairo High School, the Maritz Brothers in Port Elizabeth and, finally, at Bedford Modern.

His first book, completed at the age of seventeen, is the story of a British spy in Russia during World War Two, titled Descent Into Danger.He turned down the offer of a place at university in order to accompany a travelling fair for a year: those experiences became Bed of Nails. Since then his books have been published worldwide. He has been a foreign correspondent beginning with the Suez Crisis and ending with the first Gulf War. He was a BBC writer/producer for three flagship BBC programmes: Man Alive, Tomorrows World and Horizon. He is a regular contributor to Facta, the respected monthly Japanese news magazine, and helectures widely on the secret world of intelligence. He also provides expert analysis on intelligence for US and European television and radio shows.[1]

His Gideon’s Spies: Mossad’s Secret Warriors became a major documentary for Channel Four that he wrote and narrated: The Spy Machine. It followed three years of research during which he was given unprecedented access to Mossad’s key personnel. The documentary was co-produced by Open Media and Israfilm[2].

Gideon’s Spies: Mossad’s Secret Warriors has so far been published in 16 languages. The main source for this book is Ari Ben-Menashe, a self-described former Mossad agent. According to Charles Foster in Contemporary Review: "Writers who know their place are few and far between: fortunately Mr Thomas is one of them. By keeping to his place as a tremendous storyteller without a preacher's pretensions, he has put his book amongst the important chronicles of the state of Israel." [2]
Well, what he appears to be doing is scapegoating Mossad when everyone knows London built the Nation of Israel, hence their intelligence agencies are linked.
So he highlights what Mossad really did, but neglects to highlight the relationship of the Crown, MI6 and Mossad, and their potential Moles in the United States.

No one mentions Sykes - Picot EITHER, which is the main force behind the destabalization of the middle east right now and was the primary reason for World War I;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_ depth/middle_east/2001/israel_ and_the_palestinians/key_ documents/1681362.stm
undefined

The Sykes-Picot agreement is a secret understanding concluded in May 1916, during World War I, between Great Britain and France, with the assent of Russia, for the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire.
The agreement led to the division of Turkish-held Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine into various French and British-administered areas. The agreement took its name from its negotiators, Sir Mark Sykes of Britain and Georges Picot of France.

Some historians have pointed out that the agreement conflicted with pledges already given by the British to the Hashimite leader Husayn ibn Ali, Sharif of Mecca, who was about to lead an Arab revolt in the Hejaz against the Ottoman rulers on the understanding that the Arabs would eventually receive a much more important share of the territory won. 





US history is an interesting thing, and no one really highlights the REASON many intelligent souls traveled to the U.S.

The Reason was, Europe was infested with feudalist corruption and the idea was, the United States would be built up as a nation to keep Europe from destroying itself. Read about Benjamin Franklin, these people wanted to create a Nation free of Oligarchs and the European monetary system (Which in reality is dependence on Royal Gold Supplies for economic expansion). The European monetary system was controlled by the various royalties until the 1600's when the British Empire began to dominate more and more of Eurasia.

With the British ability to contract and limit Gold supplies, they had the ability to limit world wide growth hence, the ability to CONTROL the WORLD, by preventing any (NAVAL) force to grow stronger then theirs. Remember, in the 1700's there were no railways, NAVAL power was supreme...... So we can fastfoward to the mid 1800's when Lincoln took office, revived the Greenback and built the intercontintental railway......... what did this accomplish? it DESTROYED British control over US Trade routes by nullfying their NAVAL POWER. This lead to the industrialization of the United States into a power that even the British Empire could not tackle via conventional warfare.

The Continental Congress issued fiat currency for that exact reason as well, because the European Royalty could strangle the Nation of Currency if we were to use Gold as a currency.
This is what got my ear's up and my suspicion that there is something going on in the U.K. and the G20 coming up , plus the recent "IRA?" attack....

Ian p. asked no hard questions that I could discern and the callers were almost praising MI5 and the UK as being our beast friends... 

With this guy some of his lies are true.


http://snardfarker.ning.com/ profiles/blog/show?id=2649739% 3ABlogPost%3A37858&page=2# comment-2649739_Comment_37912

GREAT BRITAIN ON HIGHEST TERRORIST ALERT POSSIBLE!!!!

3-22-09 Critical Red Alert in Great Britain
Talk show Host Ian Punnett of Coast to Coast announced that sources have revealed that Britain is on highest-ever terror alert! This information was confirmed by Gordon Thomas who checked with his sources in the British Intelligence who spoke of information of a mumbi attacks.He was on the air speaking with Author Gordon Thomas who was discussing the history of the British Intelligence Services when this information came in as who has ties to British MI5 agents.

Gordon Thomas wrote the book: Secret Wars: One Hundred Years of British Intelligence inside MI5 and MI6 (US Edition) Inside British Intelligence: 100 Years of MI5 and MI6 (UK Edition) These agencies rank as two of the oldest and most powerful in the world, and Thomas’s recounts the roles that British intelligence played with insider information more startling than anything out of James Bond.

Gordon Thomas also wrote the book: Gideon’s Spies: The Secret History of The Mossad
which was republished to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948. Updating the data on events leading to the 9/11 Attacks and the aftermath.
In this book Gordon Thomas claims that; Bibi, Netanyahu's first wife, actually spied on Bill Clinton, and that Mossad had wire tapped the White House. Also that Princess Diana's driver Henry Paul was a Mossad agent.

More information to come with updates....

http://www.gordonthomas- author.com/
This guy really blows. Here he "covers" for the Mossad for spying on us. Oh right, that was a GOOD thing. Too bad WE didn't listen to them....

http://www.nlpwessex.org/docs/ gordonthomas.htm

The report below was published 21 May 2002 by the GLOBE-INTEL web site run by Gordon Thomas.
http://www.canadafreepress. com/writers/gordon-thomas.htm

Thomas is a recognised authority on the Israeli intelligence service Mossad, to which he is considered to have had exceptional journalistic access over the years. Thomas is the author of the book 'Gideon's Spies - The Secret History of the Mossad', which susequently became a major documentary for the UK's Channel 4 TV station. Thomas writes on intelligence subjects for the Sunday Express.

The URL of the 21 May 2002 report below by GLOBE-INTEL was http://www.gordonthomas. ie/104.html at the time of publication. The report is, however, no longer available at that address on the GLOBE-INTEL site. A mhtl copy dowloaded from the Internet Archive Wayback Machine (archive date Jun 15, 2007) is available here.

The Israeli spy-ring within the United States referred to by Thomas has been separately reported on by Fox News and the intelligence journal Jane's Security News (further references are available from the Antiwar.com web site and History Commons, 'The Complete 9/11 Timeline').

The Daily Telegraph has separately reported that Israeli intelligence had visited the CIA in August 2001 to warn of imminent terrorist attacks on America. An extract of this report is provided at the bottom of this page. A full copy of the GLOBE-INTEL report is also provided below

More information about the warnings the CIA received from the Israelis and Russians is available here.
http://www.btinternet.com/~ nlpwessex/Documents/ WATTenetsilence.htm

GLOBE-INTEL
***NEWS*****ANALYSIS**** COMMENTARY
EDITORS: GORDON THOMAS ***MARTIN DILLON***KEVIN DOWLING
------------------------------ ------------------------------ --------------------
NUMBER :- 104 DATE :- 21/05/02
BUSH: THE IGNORED WARNING THAT WILL COME TO HAUNT HIM

By Gordon Thomas.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon authorised the leak of sensitive documents which reveal America's spy agencies were warned about a terrorist strike weeks before September 11. The controversial move has now directly embroiled President George Bush in the 'how-much-did-he-know?' debate over the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Sharon's reaction is a calculated response to growing claims that Mossad has been running spy operations within the United States and also reveals a split in the special relationship between the two leaders.

Mossad chiefs insist the Israeli spy agency was tracking Osama Bin-Laden's terrorists in America before September 11 and that that the information was passed on to the CIA on Five separate occasions before the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon. As late asAugust 24, less than two weeks before the attacks, a Mossad warning, confirmed by German intelligence, BND, said that "terrorists plan to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture." The warning alert was passed to the CIA. 

The warning was also passed to MI6. The agency made its own checks and also informed the CIAFrustrated by its inability to alert the CIA to an impending attack, Mossad arranged on September 1, according to Tel Aviv sources last week, for Russian intelligence to warn Washington "in the strongest possible terms of imminent assaults on airports and government buildings."Mossad's fury at the failure of the US intelligence community to act has been compounded by the revelation that the Bush administration had ordered the FBI Only a Week Before the September attacks to curtail investigations on two of Osama Bin-Laden's close relatives living in the US
state of Virginia at the time.

Sharon's decision to allow the story of Bush's prior knowledge of the attack to be leaked comes at a time when Israel is smarting over what Sharon sees as Bush pressurising the Jewish state into an accommodation with Arafat.

The feeling in Tel Aviv is that Bush's much hyped war on terrorism does not actually fit into the aggressive policy Israel wants to pursue.

Sharon has already suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of his archrival, former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as the central committee of their Likud Party ruled out the establishment of a Palestinian state last Sunday.

The party's decision, formalized in a resolution backed by Netanyahu, directly contradicted Sharon's own stated acceptance of a Palestinian state as the eventual conclusion of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. It came as Sharon faces mounting domestic and international pressure to find a way to stop more than 19 months of bloodshed and launch talks with the Palestinians.

The support he was expecting from America failed to materialise, said a source close to Mossad. "Ariel Sharon is furious because he thinks Bush has not supported him as fully as he could. His coalition is falling apart, Netanyahu has sneaked ahead of him and the Israelis are generally fed up of living in fear. Sharon is quite clear where the blame lies - in the White House. "Now he has really stirred things up byputting Bush right at the centre of this storm by actively allowing these sensitive documents to be leaked to the world. He feels he needs to teach Bush a lesson and this will certainly complicate America's peace efforts in the region," he said.


According to similar documents shown to the Sunday Express, Mossad was running a round-the-clock surveillance operation on some of the September 11 hijackers. 

The details, contained in classified papers, reveal that a senior Mossad agent tipped off his counterpart in America's Central Intelligence Agency that a massive terrorist hit was being planned in the US. A handful of the spies had infiltrated the Al-Qaeda organisation while a staggering 120 others, posing as overseas art students, launched massive undercover operations throughout America. 

Other documents leaked to the Sunday Express from several intelligence agencies including the Drugs Enforcement Agency show that two Mossad cells of six Egyptian and Yemeni born Jews, trained at a secret base in Israel's Negev Desert on how to penetrate Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network.


One team flew to Amsterdam and were under the control of Mossad's Europe Station. This is based at Schipol Airport within the El Al complex. They later made contact in Hamburg with Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker on September 11.

The second group flew directly to New York. From there they travelled South to Florida and infiltrated the Bin laden organisation.

In August last year, the Mossad team in Europe flew with some of the Hamburg terrorists into Boston, a month before the attack on the twin towers.

By then the Mossad team had established an attack on the US was "imminent". It reported this to its Tel Aviv controller through the Israeli Embassy in Washington using a system of secure communications. In early September Mossad Chief Efraim Halevy sent a warning to the CIA of the possibility of such an attack. The warning was noted and acknowledged. But CIA chief George Tenet is understood to have described it as "too non-specific." The FBI was also informed.

Halevy sent a second alert to the CIA that reached Washington on or around September 7.

A spokesman for the FBI refused to discuss specific details of the Mossad operation but said: "There are Congressional hearings with regard to possible intelligence failures arising from September 11. We can't verify your information because it is part of an ongoing investigation."

Neither the DEA or the CIA would comment on the record, but a senior US intelligence source said: "Anyone can be wise after the event but it was extremely difficult to act on a non specific threat given in a couple of tips from Israeli intelligence. It would be interesting to know if they could have been more specific with their information.

''Their surveillance teams must have observed Atta and his accomplices going to flying schools. I guess we might never know the real truth." 

The spying operations first came to the attention of the DEA in January 2001 according to a classified 90-page dossier which has been seen by the Sunday Express. The names, passport details and other personal records of some of the Israeli-born spies are also detailed in the dossier.

(ends)
he sure does cover for Mossad.....

they were trying to help us right? by organizing a film crew to watch the towers collapse and cheering?.

The above article is a dynamite example of how foreign intelligence agencies insert moles into US Government power seats and use them to carry out operations.


Rothchild involved with MI5 CIA and Mossad part 3
ROTHSCHILD, Lord Nathanial Mayer Victor
Name: ROTHSCHILD, Lord (Nathaniel Mayer Victor)
NationalityBritishOccupation:BankerBorn:1910Died: 1990
The startling accusations against Rothschild is that he is the 'Fifth Man', not John Cairncross. According to Roland Perry's book 'The Fifth Man' published in 1994. That he is the dominant member of the Cambridge Spy Ring, not Philby, Blunt, Burgess of Maclean. That he is possibly the most important Soviet Spy of all. Soviet intelligence officer, Yuri Modin added. 'Just as the Three Musketeers were four, so the Cambridge five were six.'

Rothschild was the British head of the famous banking dynasty, which apart from prolific achievements in art, science, wine and charity. It had shaped recent history by such acts as the financing of the British army at the Battle of Waterloo and the purchasing of the Suez Canal for Great Britain and Prime Minister Disraeli. He was on intimate terms with many of the most senior members of the intelligence and security services Guy Liddell, Roger Hollis, Dick White, Stewart Menzies Maurice Oldfield, Robert Vansittart, the Permanent Under-secretary of State in the Foreign Office and many others.

It's largely accepted among MI5 officers that during the 1945 to 1963 period, the Soviets were receiving vital information which enabled them to thwart British operations run against the Soviet Embassy and the Intelligence service. MI5 had apparently been penetrated by someone. The inference was always that it had to be an insider. However, one of the leading Soviet double agents working for SIS (MI6), Oleg Gordievsky, who defected to Britain in 1985, denied that the Soviets had anyone of importance on the inside of M15 in the contentious years from around 1950 to 1963.

Rothschild had been in MI5 during World War Two and had been awarded a medal for outstanding bravery for disfusing a new type of German explosive munitions. The argument is that he was recruited for the Soviet cause in pre-war years by playing on his undoubted commitment to a future homeland for the Jews and his anti-Nazi beliefs. Later the fact that he had spied for the Soviets would have been used to blackmail him into continuing to do so, long after it became obvious that Jews were little better treated in the USSR as Nazi Germany. Fear of publicity was to be perhaps the driving force behind his supposed treachery and his later involvement in the Spycatcher affair.

In 1958, Rothschild's fostering of Peter Wright turned quickly to patronage on the basis that they were scientists who understood each other. Wright could have been an easy prey for the sophisticated peer. Although talented, Wright was not Oxbridge educated and therefore an outsider in a service which was run by the old-school ties. For the first time in his professional life, Wright felt wanted, understood and appreciated. In this atmosphere, Wright may have spilled everything of importance in his section of MI5. Rothschild offered help. He was in the oil group Shell overseeing scientific development. He seconded staff to MI5. Wright told him about every piece of espionage technology under development. Rothschild offered ideas of his own and actually devised some new technology himself. He made introductions to heads of major British organizations like the AWRE (Atomic Weapons Research Establishment), which led to further expansion of MI5's R & D.

Later when Wright was deeply involved in 'mole' hunting there were two Soviet code names, which in particular interested him: DAVID and ROSA. The messages decoded indicated that they had worked together, most likely as a married couple. The Soviet defector Golitsyn asked for the files of all MI5 officers who had been working for British Intelligence at the time of the Venona traffic. He studied the files and after a week asked Wright to come and see him in Brighton. Golitsyn pointed to two files on the desk in the study. 'I've discovered DAVID and ROSA,' he said 'My methodology has uncovered them.' Wright knew the names on the files well. They belonged to Victor and Tess Rothschild., both of whom had served in MI5. Wright told him not to be absurd, Rothschild, he informed the Russian, was one of the best friends this Service ever had. Golitsyn, however, was emphatic

Fortunately for Rothschild, his close companion and confidant, Wright had been the one informed and there was no further investigation.. Golitsyn had earlier informed Wright about a file marked 'Technics' in a safe at the Moscow Centre. It was basically a file on all the MI5 technical operations which Wright and his team had initiated. This proved to him that a mole had indeed been spying directly upon him and his activities. Wright never discussed with Golitsyn what he had told Rothschild. If he had, the Russian would have realized that his 'methodology' might have been accurate. According to an MI5 source, Rothschild was later fed information, which ended up 'in the wrong place' However, just as Philby had survived for so long, because his colleagues and the establishment simply couldn't accept his treachery, so the argument goes, Rothschilds charmed life continued.

Later, when Rothschild feared that journalists might link him to his close friend Anthony Blunt, he put a by now retired Wright and journalist Chapman Pincher in touch. The resulting series of collaborative books, 'Their Trade is Treachery;' and 'Too Secret Too Long' neatly deflected suspicion onto Roger Hollis and away from Rothschild. Wright's own book 'Spycatcher' would later reinforce the image that Hollis was the damaging 'mole'. Rothschild apparently quite alarmed about being implicated begged Wright to "write down every single point he could recall of the ways Rothschild had helped MI5" he added, "Things are starting to get rough" Rothschild also secretly channelled cash to Wright via a Swiss bank.

Rothschild was thought by many to be more loyal to his Jewish heritage than anything English. According to both CIA and Mossad sources, Rothschild was very useful to the Israelis in 'mending fences' with some neighbours in the Middle East after the disruption of the Six-Day conflict. For instance, he called on his old friend the Shah of Iran and suggested several 'crop breeding' ventures, which had been perfected in Israel and elsewhere. Some were adapted in Iran. To many observers Rothschild may have been an unwilling Soviet asset after the war until 1963, but their can be no doubt that he would have willingly spied for Israel. In fact Philby claims that on leaving MI5 in 1947, Rothschild had seized or copied all the six by four file cards listing known or supposed Soviet agents in Europe and elsewhere.

Rothschild must have certainly come under suspicion for it is believed that he was investigated and interviewed no less than eleven times by MI5, and when in 1986 he wrote a very public letter avowing his innocence, Mrs Thatcher's response was the famously terse "we have no evidence he was ever a Soviet agent". As a clearance it was less than fulsome. Though when Rothschild died in 1990, Thatcher attended the memorial. The publication of 'The Fifth Man' was greeted in dignified silence by Rothschilds family.

Rothschilds role in MI5 and within the scientific community is considerable, his role with Shell and later as Head of Prime Minister Edward Heath's 'Think Tank' in the early seventies makes him an important player in post war history. If eventually sufficient information became available to prove beyond doubt Roland Perry's belief in his treachery, then Rothschild will certainly have created history for himself, as the most important Soviet Spy in history.
CommentsThe original 2000 and 2002 Workbooks for Spy School were based on the information in "Spy Book, The Encyclopedia of Espionage, by Norman Polmar and Thomas B. Allen." and"Espionage, An Encyclopedia of Spies and Secrets by Richard Bennett ".
DISCLAIMER: THE POSTING OF STORIES, COMMENTARIES, REPORTS, DOCUMENTS AND LINKS (EMBEDDED OR OTHERWISE) ON THIS SITE DOES NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, IMPLIED OR OTHERWISE, NECESSARILY EXPRESS OR SUGGEST ENDORSEMENT OR SUPPORT OF ANY OF SUCH POSTED MATERIAL OR PARTS THEREIN.

BLOG ARCHIVE


ABOVE ALL ALL MEMBERS OF THE EVIL CRIMINALLY INSANE ROTHSCHILD FAMILY WHICH INCLUDE BARRON NATHAN ROTHSCHILD, BARRON ADOLPH ROTHSCHILD, BARRON ALOLPH HITLER-ROTHSCHILD AND BARRON LIONEL ROTHSCHILD


SUNDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2009

DO JEWS RUN THE SECURITY SERVICES?Britain's security service, MI6

On 8 October 2009, MI5's Jewish terrorism fear was reported on by The Jewish Chronicle

The Jewish Chronicle tells us that in his new book about Britain's security services, The Defence of the Realm, Professor Chistopher Andrew quotes one MI5 section head, John Marriot, as saying in 1955 that "our policy is to avoid recruiting Jews if possible." Andrew's book has one chapter on the threat from Jewish terrorists, such as the Irgun and Stern Gang which carried out attacks on British troops in Palestine. In 1947 the Colonial Office in London was targeted by a Stern Gang bomb. In 1947, the Stern Gang sent letter bombs to British politicians. In 1947, grenades and detonators were discovered, by his chauffeur, in the boot of the car of Harry Isaac Presman of north London.
Professor Andrew relates how British spy Kim Philby, one of the five Cambridge spies who worked for Russia, was recruited for the KGB by Arnold Deutsch, a Jew. In the 1970s MI5 was worried about the Jewish business cronies of Prime Minister Harold Wilson, Joseph Kagan, Rudy Sternberg and Harry Kissin. Kagan was linked to a KGB officer.

Victor Rothschild joined MI5 during the Second World War. In 1940 Rothschild suggested that Anthony Blunt should be invited to join the secret service. He also rented a house to his friend Guy Burgess. After the liberation of France Rothschild worked withDick WhiteKim Philby and Malcolm Muggeridge at theMI6offices established at the Rothschild family mansion in Paris.Edward Heath, in 1970, appointed him head of the government's Central Policy Review Staff. Later Margaret Thatcher appointed Rothschild as her unofficial security adviser.

In The Defence of the Realm, by Christopher Andrew we are told that until 1997 recruitment for the UK security services was based on personal recommendation. That could mean fascists choosing their fascist friends; or Zionists choosing their Zionist friends. We are led to believe that "right up to the mid-1970s, the post-war Service refused to recruit Jews on the grounds that a dual loyalty to both Britain and Israel might create a conflict of interest." (The Defence of the Realm by Christopher Andrew ) This is misleading. In 1951, the security services discovered that five of their top employees, recruited at Cambridge University in the 1930s, were spies for the Soviet Union, a country which exchanged secrets with Israel. At least one of the 'Cambridge Five' had links to Israel.

Reportedly, Kim Philby was assisted in obtaining safe haven in the Soviet Union by the Israeli Mossad (cf. Sunday Telegraph, April 16, 1989) CachedLord Victor Rothschild was allegedly one of the Cambridge spies;Guy Burgess was close to Rothschild.

According to ex-KGB Colonel 'F' and KGB officer Yuri Modin, Victor Rothschild was the key to most of the Cambridge ring's penetration of British Intelligence. According to Roland Perry, in his book The Fifth Man: "Burgess, at MI6 (and still on a retainer from Rothschild) recommended Philby for a job in Section D of MI6. "Rothschild, who had helped nudge Burgess into his position before the war, had been in turn recommended to MI5 by Burgess." "'Rothschild had the contacts,' Modin noted. 'He was able to introduce Burgess, Blunt and others to important figures in Intelligence such as Stewart Menzies, Dick White and Robert Vansittart, the Permanent Under-secretary of State in the Foreign Office, who controlled MI6.'" According to Perry, Rothschild "made sure Russia's scientists had the basics of every secret project from biological warfare to radar and the various types of potential nuclear bomb."



Soon after Israel was formed, Rothschild was allegedly involved with Chaim Weizmann in setting up a special nuclear physics department in a scientific institute in Rehovoth. In 1957, French engineers began building a nuclear reactor at Dimona on the edge of the Negev Desert. Perry believes that while "MI5 inventions and technical advances went on, Rothschild kept in contact with the key figures and digested the reports.
"This, coupled with his close contact with Dick White, other intelligence chiefs, Wright and the heads of the key research facilities in everything from weapons to radar, meant that Rothschild understood better than anyone in MI6 or MI5 every aspect of British Intelligence, from technical developments to their application in the field..."

In 1972, Rothschild played a major part in choosing the new head of MI5, Michael Hanley.According to the controversial Eustace Mullins (CHAPTER FIVE - The CIA - 3):

While CIA station chief in Rome, the CIA's Angleton "worked closely with the Zionist terrorists Teddy Kollek and Jacob Meridor, and later became chief of the Israeli desk at the CIA, helping Philby to set up the lavishly funded international Mossad espionage operation, all paid for by American taxpayers. "A senior CIA security official, C. Edward Petty, later reported that Angleton might be a Soviet penetration agent or mole, but President Gerald Ford suppressed the report. "Top secret files of the CIA and FBI were opened to Philby, despite widespread claims that he was a Soviet agent. "Although he helped Burgess and MacLean defect to Russia in 1951, he continued to work for SIS until 1956, under the protection of Harold MacMillan, who defended him publicly in parliamentary debate. "In 1962 and Englishwoman at a party in Israel said, “As usual Kim is doing what his Russian Control tells him. I know that he always worked for the Reds.” "Miles Copeland says that Philby placed a mole in deep cover in the CIA known as “Mother”. Philby was quoted as saying, “Foreign agencies spying on the U.S. Government know exactly what one person in the CIA wants them to know, no more and no less.”"Philby was finally exposed by a defector, Michael Goleniewski. "On Jan. 23, 1963, Philby left Beirut and defected to Moscow, where he became a Lt. Gen. in the KGB. "On June 10, 1984, Tad Szulc wrote in the Washington Post that Philby was never a Soviet agent, according to CIA memoranda introduced in a lawsuit, but that he was a triple agent. "This explains curious paradoxes in the supposed rivalry between the CIA and the KGB, when certain charmed souls float easily back and forth between the two services. "Agents of either service are “eliminated” when they find out more than is good for them about this odd arrangement."

Eustace Mullins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia POSTED BY ANON AT 5:30 AM
DISCLAIMER: THE POSTING OF STORIES, COMMENTARIES, REPORTS, DOCUMENTS AND LINKS (EMBEDDED OR OTHERWISE) ON THIS SITE DOES NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, IMPLIED OR OTHERWISE, NECESSARILY EXPRESS OR SUGGEST ENDORSEMENT OR SUPPORT OF ANY OF SUCH POSTED MATERIAL OR PARTS THEREIN

SUNDAY, JANUARY 23, 2005

MI5 and MI6

Britain's MI5 has been infiltrated.

Who now controls Britain? Or America? Or the world?

PART ONE - INFILTRATION BY RUSSIANS ONLY?
Peter Wright and Chapman Pincher pointed out that vast numbers of Britain's secrets ended up in the hands of the Soviets. Wright and Pincher even suggested that Roger Hollis, onetime head of MI5, was a spy for Russia.

Russia has turned out to be a country with an almost Third World economy and military.

Soviet defector Viktor Suvorov, in his book 'The Liberators: inside the Soviet Army', 1981, portrayed the Soviet armed forces as an "inefficient, cynical, farcical army of conscripts, skiving off at the first opportunity and doing their best to stay permanently smashed on anything they could smoke, drink or inject - the mirror image of wider Soviet society, in short; and about as threatening to NATO as the girl guides."

But, in the days of the Nazi-Soviet Pact and the Berlin Blockade, Russia was a dangerous enemy. So what about infiltration?

In 1961 high-ranking KGB officer Anatoli Golitsin defected to the West. Golitsin confirmed that the Soviets had agents within the British secret service, although Golitsin knew them only by their code names.

In 1968 Golitsin travelled to Britain and was shown documents which contained the code names of unidentified Soviet agents.

Two code names- David and Rosa - particularly interested Golitsin.

Golitsin studied the files of MI5 officers, picked out two, and then declared to MI5 Officer Peter Wright: "Your spies are here."

The files bore the names of Victor and Tess Rothschild.

Wright told Golitsin that he thought he had got it wrong as Rothschild was one of the best friends MI5 had ever had.

Wright, MI5's chief scientist and a personal friend of Rothschild, wrote in his book 'Spy catcher' (Heinemann, Australia, 1987) : 'Rothschild was fascinated by my plans for the scientific modernization of MI5...I soon realized that he possessed an enormous appetite for the gossip and intrigue of the secret world, and we were soon swapping stories about some of the more bizarre colleagues he remembered from the war.'

According to Wright's book, Rothschild, the former very close friend of Russian spies Philby, Burgess and Blunt, had access to most secrets and most of the top people in the Secret service.

Wright wrote: 'I doubt I have ever met a man who impressed me as much as Victor Rothschild. He is a brilliant scientist, a Fellow of the Royal Society, with expertise in botany and zoology, and a fascination for the structure of spermazotoa. But he has been much, much more than a scientist. His contacts, in politics, in intelligence, in banking, in the Civil Service, and abroad are legendary.'

In the book 'The Fifth Man', (by Roland Perry, Pan Books London 1994) Roland Perry puts the case that Ted Rothschild was a major spy for Russia and Israel, not the spy known as 'David' but one of the notorious 'ring of five.'

Ted Rothschild was Nathaniel Mayer VICTOR Rothschild (1910 to 1990), the third Lord Rothschild. He was the British head of the famous banking dynasty, which had financed the British army at the Battle of Waterloo and financed the purchase of the Suez Canal for Great Britain.

The Rothschilds had their own 'spy network' and knew that Napoleon had been defeated at Waterloo before this was known to the governments of Britain or France. The first Lord Rothschild, had been 'a powerful back-room manipulator of late Victorian politics.' He had taken an interest in the extension of Cecil Rhodes diamond empire and the attempts to destroy the Liberal Party.

The Rothschilds were perhaps seen as being the chief representatives of Zionism. In the famous Balfour Declaration of 1917, Britain's Foreign Secretary wrote the 'declaration' to Lord Walter Rothschild, Victor's uncle: "Dear Lord Rothschild,... His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object."

Why might Victor Rothschild have spied for foreign powers?

It has been speculated that Rothschild was "more loyal to his Jewish heritage than anything English."

In the 1930's one of his main concerns was how to help Jews who were being persecuted in Germany. He allegedly saw the Soviets as the only people who could ensure Hitler's defeat. Some have suspected that he helped the Soviet spy machine and did so because it was the enemy of Nazi Germany.

After World War II, Rothschild assisted in the creation of a homeland for the Jews. According to one critic: "When the British tried to thwart the birth of Israel, which would have upset its power base in the Middle East, Rothschild intrigued against British interests."

When Israel was established Rothschild allegedly helped Israel to gain the spy technology and nuclear weaponry which would defend it.

It has been suggested by Roland Perry that Rothschild was recruited by the soviet agent known as Otto. "Philby, Blunt and Burgess had warned Otto that Rothschild had to be reeled in on the Jewish, anti-Hitler line."

Rothschild was not a fan of Stalin; he knew that Russia also had its pogroms. But Otto could have pointed out to Rothschild that there was a danger that Britain might team up with Germany in order to defeat Stalin and communism.

In the 1930's there were many fans of Hitler among right-wing people in the City of London, in the British media and in parliament.

"Otto spoke of the financial, military and trade deals on-going between Germany and Britain."

According to ex-KGB Colonel 'F' and KGB officer Yuri Modin, Rothschild was the key to most of the Cambridge ring's penetration of British Intelligence.

According to Perry, "Burgess, at MI6 (and still on a retainer from Rothschild) recommended Philby for a job in Section D of MI6. Rothschild, who had helped nudge Burgess into his position before the war, had been in turn recommended to MI5 by Burgess."

'Rothschild had the contacts,' Modin noted. 'He was able to introduce Burgess, Blunt and others to important figures in Intelligence such as Stewart Menzies, Dick White and Robert Vansittart, the Permanent Under-secretary of State in the Foreign Office, who controlled MI6.'

In a Lords' debate on 'The Situation in Palestine' on 31 July 1946, Victor Rothschild indicated that "He would put the same fervour into setting up Israel as he had done in defeating Hitler.' Rothschild hoped that the powerful Jewish lobby in the USA, with which he had good contacts, would gain US support for a homeland.

But Rothschild may also have been hoping for some help from the Russians. According to Perry, 'The KGB were hoping that Rothschild could still help them as they geared up their efforts to steal Western bomb intelligence. He was secretly anti-American when it came to their drive to be the biggest military power and, like Oppenheimer, he was keen to do what he could to create a 'balance of terror', where each of the superpowers had the bomb as a deterrent to each other's aggression."

In 1946 Rothschild was lobbying with some success for more Jews to be allowed to travel from Russia to Palestine.

According to Perry, Rothschild "made sure Russia's scientists had the basics of every secret project from biological warfare to radar and the various types of potential nuclear bomb."

Soon after Israel was formed, Rothschild was allegedly involved with Chaim Weizmann in setting up a special nuclear physics department in a scientific institute in Rehovoth.

In 1956, Britain, France and Israel secretly worked out plans to invade Egypt so as to get back control of the Suez Canal from President Nasser.

It was after the Suez Affair that the French promised to supply Israel with a nuclear reactor and some uranium.

The secret deal was only known to about a dozen individuals, induding Rothschild.

In 1957, French engineers began building a nuclear reactor at Dimona on the edge of the Negev Desert.

Perry believes that while "MI5 inventions and technical advances went on, Rothschild kept in contact with the key figures and digested the reports. This, coupled with his close contact with Dick White, other intelligence chiefs, Wright and the heads of the key research facilities in everything from weapons to radar, meant that Rothschild understood better than anyone in MI6 or MI5 every aspect of British Intelligence, from technical developments to their application in the field...... Thanks to Rothschild the KGB knew of every development and were able to take steps to counter them. Furthermore, they used the technology themselves against Western agents."

And what about the CIA?

According to Wright, American top spook James Angleton "was already suspicious of Rothschild. He had first annoyed Jim on his patch. Jim had special connections with Israel and he felt the British [Intelligence] through Rothschild were interfering..."

Angleton also took note of Rothschild's support of Israel. In the 1940s it ran contrary to British interests. He was serving both MI5 and (what was to become) Mossad. If he was capable of serving two agencies, could he secretly serve a third? Angleton 'worried about Israel's left-wing politics when it was formed. He was concerned that some of the British agents [including Rothschild] had been happy with that. But not Jim. He wanted them to be a wholesome [laughs] anti-communist US satellite. That took a little time [laughs].'

In 1962, the year after Golitsin defected, Russian spy Kim Philby was working in the Middle East as a journalist for the Observer. His articles on Israel were seen as being 'anti-Israel' and did not please top friends of Israel such as Rothschild.

At a party at Weizmann's house in Israel, Rothschild met Flora Solomon, 'a Russian emigre Zionist', former close friend of Philby's, and executive of Marks and Spencer.

According to Wright, Solomon 'had obviously been in the thick of things in the mid-1930s, part inspiration, part fellow accomplice, and part courier for the fledgling Ring of Five, along with her friends Litzi Philby, and Edith Tudor Hart.'

Now Solomon and Rothschild suddenly announced that Solomon had decided to denounce Philby. "The reason? Philby's pieces in the Observer about Israel. She was saying that their anti-Israel slant had 'angered' her."

According to Perry: "In August 1962, a few months after British Intelligence planned to move against Philby but not put him on trial, Rothschild was in Rehovoth, Israel. He made contact with a fellow Mossad agent, who was despatched to Beirut to contact Philby and brief him on the latest attitude of White and Hollis towards him. They were now planning to interrogate him in Beirut. He would probably be offered immunity in exchange for a full confession."

According to Perry, it wasn't just Philby who was in difficulty.

Rothschild was interrogated by MI5 eleven times. Rothschild said, "I was questioned very extensively. The authorities, as I call them, said that they wished to talk to me and they talked in quite a friendly way. I have a feeling that they believed in me."

According to former MI6 agent James Rusbridger, Peter Wright and another MI5 source, Rothschild was fed information in 1962, which ended up 'in the wrong place' - namely with the KGB.

Perry writes: "This did not prove he had spied, for the data just conceivably could have been stolen from him. Yet it raised suspicions. However, Rothschild still managed to convince people that he and Tess were victims by association. Their friends Guy, Anthony, Kim, Michael, Leo and so on, with whom they dined, drank, studied, lived and worked, had duped them."

Rothschild was able to continue his links with MI5.

Wright did not suspect that Rothschild was a spy for Russia, but Wright did suspect that MI5 boss Hollis and prime minister Harold Wilson might be spies for the enemy.

In the US, the CIA.s Angleton was becoming yet more suspicious that Rothschild was a spy for the enemy. However, Rothschild improved his image with Angleton by emphasising his Mossad (Israeli secret service) links; Angleteon was always in favour of close CIA links to Mossad.

Rothschild also improved his image by doing work for MI6 induding running agents in China in the late 1960's.

In 1972, Rothschild played a major part in choosing the new head of MI5, Michael Hanley, a man whom Wright considered to be a disappointment.


PART TWO WHO CONTROLS BRITAIN?

In the 1960's, leading CIA agent James Angleton was worried about Harold Wilson and his links to Eastern European businessmen who might have had links to Russia and Israel.

An Israeli spy had suggested that Labour leader Gaitskell had been murdered by the KGB so that Wilson could become PM.

In 1965 Angleton, and President Johnson, decided to commission a report on Britain's secret services.

This report recommended sending more spies to Britain It seemed that the CIA was going to treat Britain like Indonesia or Pakistan.

In order to ensure that there was an elite which would support US interests, the CIA would try to gain control of MI5 and MI6, use dirty tricks to get rid of anti-American politicians, and place pro-American puppets into positions of power.

In 1996, in the Guardian, Martin Kettle suggested that New Labour was all about Britain being in with the Americans.

In a talk to Labour Party branches in 1996, Robin Ramsay (Lobster Magazine) pointed out some interesting links between New labour and the USA.

Jonathan Powell, Blair's top man in Downing Street, used to work in Britain's Washington embassy and is suspected by some of having been our spook liaising with the CIA.

Top Blair aid David Milliband did a degree at the USA's MIT and Brown's top aid Edward Balls went to Harvard.

Gordon Brown spent his holidays in the library at Harvard.

The US encouraged large numbers of Labour MPs to take free trips to America (Israel also invited a large number of Labour MPs to Israel).

In 1986 Tony Blair went on a US-sponsored trip to America and came back a supporter of the nuclear deterrent.

In 1993 Blair attended a Bilderberg Group meeting (secretive right wing organisation) and not long afterwards became Labour leader.

Four of the Blair cabinet have been members of the Anglo-American elite group the British American Project; three of the Blair cabinet have attended Bilderberg meetings.

Peter Mandelson become Chair of British Youth Council which began as the British section of the World Assembly of Youth, which was set up and financed by MI6 and then taken over by the CIA in the 1950s. By Mandelson's time in the mid1970s the British Youth Council was said to be financed by the Foreign Office or MI6. According to Ramsay, 'Peter Mandelson has been around MI6 since his early 20s'. Old Labour is the domestic economy; New Labour is the overseas British economy. In other words, the multinationals, the City of London, and the Foreign Office which represents their interests.'

And the unions?

According to Ramsay: "The CIA also ran the anti-communist international trade union movement, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, the ICFTU..By the mid 1950s nearly a quarter of the TUC's annual budget was going to the ICFTU, a CIA operation.

And the press?

According to Ramsay, the security services may be planting disinformation in the media. "Tomlinson told us about the 20-strong I/Ops - Information Operations - unit in that shiny building on the Thames."

And sometimes the information is confusing. Ramsay writes: "does Gaddafi have Taiwanese Scuds (MI5 story planted in the Sunday Times) or North Korean missiles (MI6 story planted in the Sunday Telegraph.... The Sunday Times was a serious, respectable newspaper until Andrew Neil became its editor in the mid-1980s and turned it into a mouth-piece for MI5 and the MOD to run their rubbish through. The Sunday Telegraph shows all the signs of going down the same dangerous path."

It looks like the Anglo-American-Israeli elite are in charge.

Now here is an interesting quote about what may be happening: 'There has been a gradual erosion of civil liberties, an increase in the influence of the army, and an acceptance of corruption among public servants. Vast fortunes have been accumulated by a small group who use their wealth to control the Senate.' That was a description of the Roman Empire, but it could equall y be a description of the present-day Britain, or the US Empire or the former Soviet Empire. It is conspiracies from within, rather than conspiracies from without, which often lead to the collapse of empires.

PART THREE - WHO RUNS AMERICA AND THE WORLD?

"We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."-- Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.

When Clinton was about to step down, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak asked President Clinton to grant a pardon to Marc Rich. Clinton granted the pardon. Marc Rich had been indicted in a US federal court of evading more than $48 million in taxes. He was also charged with 51 counts of tax fraud and with running illegal oil deals with Iran during the hostage crisis. He had also traded with Libya, South Africa and the USSR when there were embargos, with Iraq when there was conflict....

Is Israel in charge? No. But it could be the people who trade in oil, in guns, in drugs....

In 1991, Paul Henderson, managing director of machine tools company Matrix Churchill, was in court facing a seven year jail sentence for selling to Iraq materials that could be used for military purposes. Government ministers tried to prevent the court from discovering the truth - that Paul Henderson had been working for the British government as a secret agent for 17 years.

Eventually the truth about Henderson came out.

But why had we been helping Iraq? The July 29, 1991 issue of TIME MAGAZINE stated :"B.C.C.I. is the largest corporate criminal enterprise ever... the most pervasive money-laundering operation ...ever created for the likes of Manuel Noriega, Ferdinand Marcos, Saddam Hussein and the Columbian drugs lords." B.C.C.I. Got into the U.S. banking industry by secretly buying the shares of First American Bank, whose chairman is Clark Clifford- a founder of the CIA According to sources, "B.C.C.I. was engaged in international bribery, blackmail, and assassination of government officials at the highest levels.
The CIA used B.C.C.I. to facilitate funding of the Contras, illegal arms sales to Iran and Iraq as well as the arms supply to the Afghan resistance. The Justice Department began by obstructing the investigation. "B.C.C.I. maintained accounts for Contra leader Adolfo Calero and Sandanista leader, Daniel Ortega, as well as such disparate figures as Noriega, Saddam, Marcos, Adnan Khashoggi, the PLO, the Mossad and the governments of China, Argentina, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Peru."

The bank was seemingly financing both sides in a number of conflicts. Who gained? The arms and drugs industries. Cynics might say that wars help the ruling elites to stay in power. And here are some strange 'facts' picked up from various sources: The U.S. sold $50 billion dollars worth of weapons to Iraq before the gulf war. Libya was supplied with hundreds of Green Beret trainers and 42,000 lbs of C-4 plastic explosives prior to U.S. attacks on Libya.

The U.S financed the Kama River truck plant which produced the trucks for Russia's Afghanistan invasion and built the highways used by the Russian tanks. The day General McArthur signed the peace treaty with Japan half the weapons stored on Okinawa were shipped to Ho Chi Minh and General Giap who met these shipments at the docks of Hai Phong harbor with Lucien Conein, the CIA case officer for Diem. Jonathan Kwitny's book, The Crimes of Patriots, a True Tale of Dope, Dirty Money and the CIA, (Simon & Shuster 1987) is an expose of th e alleged role of the CIA in the drugs business. Kwitny refers to the Nugan-Hand Bank- an Australian money laundering operation set up to facilitate Golden Triangle heroin trafficking. Major officers of the bank "included Admiral Buddy Yates (President), General Erle Cocke, General Edwin Black, General LeRoy Manor, and ex-CIA Director, William Colby with other CIA affiliated persons too numerous to mention."
POSTED BY ANON AT 6:59 PM
nternational Intelligence
On Saturday night's program, Gordon Thomas, author of Secret Wars and Gideon's Spies, joined Ian for a discussion on international intelligence matters.

Thomas shared breaking news from Britain's MI5 and MI6 intelligence agencies about the possibility of attacks by terrorists during the upcoming G20 summit. Thomas said the threats against the UK are at the "top end of severe," which means an "attack is coming." According to Thomas, Britain is home to the largest number of homegrown jihadists in the world, trained and ready to launch Mumbai-style attacks when the G20 nations meet on April 2 in London. Preventing the attack may prove difficult, Thomas explained, as MI5 officials have been bogged down by spies from France and Germany sent into the country to bribe key workers in sensitive jobs who are having financial troubles.

Thomas reported on a ruthless group of government assassins known as Company 14, who he said are hunting down members of the IRA responsible for killing two British soldiers and a policeman in Northern Ireland. He also commented on the death of Dr. David Kelly. The position of his body, suspicious phone calls, and other puzzling details surrounding his apparent suicide suggest the weapons expert may have been murdered for his assessment of Iraq's WMD program, Thomas noted.
hat got me about this show was that he covered the relationships of MI5 - CIA and the MOSSAD and made it sound like a very cozy relationship. No reference to the Israeli spy ring in the U.S. following the "hijackers" and the DEA. or Amdoc's and NICE Systems.

Nor did he cover the spying and continuing attempts of the U.K. for over 100 years to control and subjugate the U.S.A.

Evidence points to breakdown in US / UK Relations 

Related Link on the history of the "Special Relationship"

Webster G. Tarpley Debunks Pearl Harbor Myths (Amongst Other Things) 

Something interesting : British Security Coordination (Propaganda) Spy Ring in the U.S. prior to Pearl Harbor

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/ 2006/aug/19/military. secondworldwar

It was 1940, the Nazis were in the ascendant, the Blitz at its deadliest, and Britain's last hope was to bring a reluctant United States into the war. So it was that the largest covert operation in UK history was launched. William Boyd sheds light on a forgotten spy ring.

William Boyd
The Guardian, Saturday 19 August 2006

"British Security Coordination". The phrase is bland, almost defiantly ordinary, depicting perhaps some sub-committee of a minor department in a lowly Whitehall ministry. In fact BSC, as it was generally known, represented one of the largest covert operations in British spying history; a covert operation, moreover, that was run not in Occupied France, nor in the Soviet Union during the cold war, but in the US, our putative ally, during 1940 and 1941, before Pearl Harbor and the US's eventual participation in the war in Europe against Nazi Germany.
...
One easily forgets this, in the era of our much-vaunted, so-called "special relationship", but at the nadir of Britain's fortunes, polls in the US still showed that 80% of Americans were against joining the war in Europe. Anglophobia was widespread and the US Congress was violently opposed to any form of intervention.
.... read the rest..
http://www.larouchepub.com/ other/2005/3232aipac_indict. html

This article appears in the August 12, 2005 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

Larry Franklin Case:
AIPAC Leaders Snared 

by Jeffrey Steinberg

On Aug. 4, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Paul McNulty, announced the indictment of two former top officials of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), on charges of "conspiracy to communicate national defense information to persons not entitled to receive it." The same indictment included new espionage charges against Pentagon desk officer and Air Force Reserve Colonel Lawrence Franklin, who has already been indicted in the Eastern District, as well as in West Virginia.

The two "ex"-AIPAC officials are Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman. Since 1982, Rosen has been AIPAC's Director of Foreign Policy Issues. Since 1993, Weissman has been Senior Middle East Analyst at AIPAC.

Before coming to work for AIPAC, Rosen had been employed from 1978-82 at the RAND Corporation. During that period, he worked on contract projects for the Central Intelligence Agency, and had top-level security clearances. Thus, Rosen signed written secrecy agreements with the U.S. government that remained binding after he went to work for AIPAC.

Far-Flung Espionage Network
The new indictments, which have been anticipated for several months, unveil an Israeli espionage network that has been functioning since at least April 1999, involving a number of Pentagon officials beyond Franklin, as well as at least three officials of the Israeli Embassy and a former senior Mossad officer, Uzi Arad, who now heads Israel's premier national security think-tank, the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center.[/color]

U.S. intelligence officials have told EIR that the AIPAC/Franklin case reveals a new modus operandi, adopted by Israel intelligence, in the aftermath of the disastrous Jonathan Pollard spy scandal of the mid-1980s. Pollard, a Naval intelligence analyst, was caught pilfering thousands of classified Pentagon and CIA documents and passing them on to an Israeli intelligence unit headed by former Mossad European operations director Rafi Eytan, a close ally of current Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

As the result of the blowback from the Pollard affair, according to the U.S. intelligence sources, Israel shifted its espionage operations targetted at the United States to think-tanks and lobbying organizations like AIPAC, which have ongoing "legitimate" contacts with American government officials.

What the Israelis and the AIPAC spooks did not anticipate was that their operations would be closely scrutinized by the FBI and other U.S. agencies, for at least the past six years, revealing numerous instances where the "legitimate" contacts crossed over into hard espionage.

The 26-page indictment is, in fact, a catalogue of scores of instances of classified information being passed from Pentagon officials to the two AIPAC men, on to Israeli Embassy personnel.

Franklin apparently walked into an ongoing FBI counterintelligence surveillance of Rosen and Weissman, when he held his first meeting with the two men on Feb. 12, 2003. According to the indictment, phone conversations that Rosen had en route to the first meeting with Franklin, were monitored by the FBI. From Feb. 12, 2003 until July 9, 2004, Franklin had dozens of phone discussions and meetings with the two AIPAC officials, and on at least one occasion, faxed a document from his Pentagon office to Rosen's home.

In June 2004, FBI agents confronted Franklin with evidence of his espionage activities, and Franklin agreed to cooperate with the government. His subsequent meetings with the two AIPAC officials were all controlled by the FBI, until Aug. 3, when the FBI visited both Rosen and Weissman. According to the indictment, even after the FBI visits, Rosen and Weissman continued to pass classified data provided by Franklin to select U.S. journalists and even to Israeli embassy officials.

Franklin's Network
Lawrence Franklin had his own problems with his dealings with Israeli intelligence officials, even before his assignment to the Pentagon in early 2001 as Iran desk officer at the Near East South Asia policy office, under Assistant Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith and Deputy Assistant Secretary William Luti, a transplant from the Office of Vice President Dick Cheney.

Back in the late 1990s, as an Air Force Reserve officer, Franklin had done two tours of duty at the U.S. Embassy in Israel, in the Air Attaché's Office. On his second tour, Franklin was kicked out of the country by the Air Attaché after a few months, after repeated incidents in which he held unauthorized meetings with Israeli intelligence officials.

It may have been these Israeli connections that landed Franklin his job at NESA—or perhaps his ties to then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, who was Dean of Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, D.C. when Franklin was a graduate student there.

Whatever his pathway to the Pentagon, Franklin, according to eyewitness sources, became a fixture at regular "brown bag lunches" at the private office of Doug Feith attended by leading Pentagon neo-cons, including Harold Rhode, Luti, Abraham Shulsky, Richard Perle, and occasionally Wolfowitz. Franklin's NESA boss, Luti, boasted frequently that he was working for "Scooter," a reference to Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby. (Libby, when he was not working for the government, was the personal attorney for Mossad frontman and international swindler Marc Rich. Well-informed U.S. intelligence officials believe that Rich, a Zug, Switzerland-based metal trader, was set up in business with Mossad funds.)

Franklin was also a traveling companion of Iran-Contra figure and self-professed "universal fascist" Michael Ledeen, in December 2001. Ledeen, Franklin, and Harold Rhode travelled to Rome for secret meetings with Iranian con-artist Manucher Ghorbanifar, another prominent Iran-Contra scandal figure who brokered Israeli missile sales to Iran in exchange for efforts to free American hostages in Lebanon.The scheme led to criminal indictments against a number of Reagan-Bush Administration officials and CIA officers, including Elliott Abrams and Duane Claridge.

The latest Franklin indictment threatens to snare some of these other leading neo-cons. The court papers filed in the Eastern District of Virginia identify several other Pentagon officials, along with at least three Israeli Embassy officials and Uzi Arad, as players in the extended Franklin spy operation.

The indictment of "Mr. AIPAC," Steven Rosen, also raises serious questions about the future of "America's Pro-Israel Lobby," as AIPAC's website describes the group. According to sources close to the Franklin probe, AIPAC may be forced, as a result of the Franklin case, to register as a foreign agent organization, thus losing its tax-exempt status and forcing much closer accounting of its finances and activities.

The Franklin case has not even come close to fully unraveling. And many leading Pentagon neo-cons are losing sleep over where this case will go next.

What makes matters even worse, the same basic cast of characters is tied up in the Valerie Plame Wilson leak probe, headed by independent counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, and a separate probe, headed by U.S. Attorney McNulty, into who was behind the forging of Niger government documents which purported to show that Iraq sought to buy "yellowcake" uranium from the African state to build nuclear weapons. The forged documents were used by Vice President Cheney and other Administration war hawks to win Congressional and public support for the invasion of Iraq. Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, was dispatched to Niger in 2002 to assess the validity of the Niger yellowcake charge, and returned to report that it was a hoax. His report was covered up, and the train of events was set into motion which led to his wife's "outing" as a covert CIA operative, by top Administration officials—a criminal offense.

There are allegations that the Ledeen-Rhode-Franklin trip to Rome in 2001 may have played a role in the circulation of the forged documents
http://www.larouchepac.com/ node/9423

Netanyahu Slaps U.S. in the Face with Spymaster Uzi Arad

March 6, 2009 (LPAC)--Israel's Prime Minister-designate Bibi Netanyahu brought the notorious spymaster Uzi Arad into the meetings with Hillary Clinton and George Mitchell, this week, reports the Israeli newspaper, Ha'aretz. Uzi Arad, is persona non grata in the United States because of his involvement with Pentagon spy, Larry Franklin, an analyst with the Office of Special Plans (OSP), the Dick Cheney-neo-conservative unit in the Pentagon that manufactured false intelligence to justify the Iraq war. Franklin was convicted in January, 2006, in a plea bargain, of stealing classified documents on Iran and other subjects from the Pentagon, and passing them on to Israeli government officials, in meetings arranged by the two top officials of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman). Arad, who is unable to come to the U.S. because of his involvement with Franklin, is reportedly going to be head of the Israeli National Security Council, Ha'aretz wrote.

Not only did Bibi include Arad in his first meeting with the top U.S. officials, but he kicked the Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., Sallai Meridor out the meeting. Ha'aretz reported that this insult from Netanyahu was the reason that Meridor resigned today.

Lyndon LaRouche said today that what Netanyahoo did was "a slap in the face to the U.S. And that if Netanyahoo breaks from the U.S., that represents Netanyahoo's plans for leaving earth."
So, does the Pentagon really have a great relationship with Mossad? i dont think so.

And who is really behind Netanyahu? a group of fascists in London that put Dick Cheney into office.
"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate … It will purge the rottenness out of the system..." - Andrew Mellon, Secretary of Treasury, 1929.
One thing the Brit's love is to have THEIR historians write THEIR history. And I think we can label Gordon Thomas one of THEIR's and a propagandist TOOL.


http://intelligencenews. wordpress.com/2009/03/21/01- 107/

...

The other two are an authorized history (from 1909 to 1949) of MI6 by Professor Keith Jeffery, of Queen’s University, Belfast, and Gordon Thomas’ Secret Wars: One Hundred Years of British Intelligence, which intelNews has received and will be reviewing shortly. ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Gordon_Thomas

Thomas was born in Wales, in a cemetery keeper’s cottage where his grandmother lived. He had his first story published at nine years old in a Boys Own Paper competition. With his father in the RAF, he travelled widely and was educated at the Cairo High School, the Maritz Brothers in Port Elizabeth and, finally, at Bedford Modern.

His first book, completed at the age of seventeen, is the story of a British spy in Russia during World War Two, titled Descent Into Danger.He turned down the offer of a place at university in order to accompany a travelling fair for a year: those experiences became Bed of Nails. Since then his books have been published worldwide. He has been a foreign correspondent beginning with the Suez Crisis and ending with the first Gulf War. He was a BBC writer/producer for three flagship BBC programmes: Man Alive, Tomorrows World and Horizon. He is a regularcontributor to Facta, the respected monthly Japanese news magazine, and he lectures widely on the secret world of intelligence. He also provides expert analysis on intelligence for US and European television and radio shows.[1]

His Gideon’s Spies: Mossad’s Secret Warriors became a major documentary for Channel Four that he wrote and narrated: The Spy Machine. It followed three years of research during which he was given unprecedented access to Mossad’s key personnel. The documentary was co-produced by Open Media and Israfilm[2].

Gideon’s Spies: Mossad’s Secret Warriors has so far been published in 16 languages. The main source for this book is Ari Ben-Menashe, a self-described former Mossad agent. According to Charles Foster in Contemporary Review: "Writers who know their place are few and far between: fortunately Mr Thomas is one of them. By keeping to his place as a tremendous storyteller without a preacher's pretensions, he has put his book amongst the important chronicles of the state of Israel." [2]
Well, what he appears to be doing is scapegoating Mossad when everyone knows London built the Nation of Israel, hence their intelligence agencies are linked.
So he highlights what Mossad really did, but neglects to highlight the relationship of the Crown, MI6 and Mossad, and their potential Moles in the United States.

No one mentions Sykes - Picot EITHER, which is the main force behind the destabalization of the middle east right now and was the primary reason for World War I;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_ depth/middle_east/2001/israel_ and_the_palestinians/key_ documents/1681362.stm
undefined

The Sykes-Picot agreement is a secret understanding concluded in May 1916, during World War I, between Great Britain and France, with the assent of Russia, for the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire.
The agreement led to the division of Turkish-held Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine into various French and British-administered areas. The agreement took its name from its negotiators, Sir Mark Sykes of Britain and Georges Picot of France.

Some historians have pointed out that the agreement conflicted with pledges already given by the British to the Hashimite leader Husayn ibn Ali, Sharif of Mecca, who was about to lead an Arab revolt in the Hejaz against the Ottoman rulers on the understanding that the Arabs would eventually receive a much more important share of the territory won. 





US history is an interesting thing, and no one really highlights the REASON many intelligent souls traveled to the U.S.

The Reason was, Europe was infested with feudalist corruption and the idea was, the United States would be built up as a nation to keep Europe from destroying itself. Read about Benjamin Franklin, these people wanted to create a Nation free of Oligarchs and the European monetary system (Which in reality is dependence on Royal Gold Supplies for economic expansion). The European monetary system was controlled by the various royalties until the 1600's when the British Empire began to dominate more and more of Eurasia.

With the British ability to contract and limit Gold supplies, they had the ability to limit world wide growth hence, the ability to CONTROL the WORLD, by preventing any (NAVAL) force to grow stronger then theirs. Remember, in the 1700's there were no railways, NAVAL power was supreme...... So we can fastfoward to the mid 1800's when Lincoln took office, revived the Greenback and built the intercontintental railway......... what did this accomplish? it DESTROYED British control over US Trade routes by nullfying their NAVAL POWER. This lead to the industrialization of the United States into a power that even the British Empire could not tackle via conventional warfare.

The Continental Congress issued fiat currency for that exact reason as well, because the European Royalty could strangle the Nation of Currency if we were to use Gold as a currency.
This is what got my ear's up and my suspicion that there is something going on in the U.K. and the G20 coming up , plus the recent "IRA?" attack....

Ian p. asked no hard questions that I could discern and the callers were almost praising MI5 and the UK as being our beast friends... 

With this guy some of his lies are true.


http://snardfarker.ning.com/ profiles/blog/show?id=2649739% 3ABlogPost%3A37858&page=2# comment-2649739_Comment_37912

GREAT BRITAIN ON HIGHEST TERRORIST ALERT POSSIBLE!!!!

3-22-09 Critical Red Alert in Great Britain
Talk show Host Ian Punnett of Coast to Coast announced that sources have revealed that Britain is on highest-ever terror alert! This information was confirmed by Gordon Thomas who checked with his sources in the British Intelligence who spoke of information of a mumbi attacks.He was on the air speaking with Author Gordon Thomas who was discussing the history of the British Intelligence Services when this information came in as who has ties to British MI5 agents.

Gordon Thomas wrote the book: Secret Wars: One Hundred Years of British Intelligence inside MI5 and MI6 (US Edition) Inside British Intelligence: 100 Years of MI5 and MI6 (UK Edition) These agencies rank as two of the oldest and most powerful in the world, and Thomas’s recounts the roles that British intelligence played with insider information more startling than anything out of James Bond.

Gordon Thomas also wrote the book: Gideon’s Spies: The Secret History of The Mossad
which was republished to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948. Updating the data on events leading to the 9/11 Attacks and the aftermath.
In this book Gordon Thomas claims that; Bibi, Netanyahu's first wife, actually spied on Bill Clinton, and that Mossad had wire tapped the White House. Also that Princess Diana's driver Henry Paul was a Mossad agent.

More information to come with updates....

http://www.gordonthomas- author.com/
This guy really blows. Here he "covers" for the Mossad for spying on us. Oh right, that was a GOOD thing. Too bad WE didn't listen to them....

http://www.nlpwessex.org/docs/ gordonthomas.htm

The report below was published 21 May 2002 by the GLOBE-INTEL web site run by Gordon Thomas.
http://www.canadafreepress. com/writers/gordon-thomas.htm

Thomas is a recognised authority on the Israeli intelligence service Mossad, to which he is considered to have had exceptional journalistic access over the years. Thomas is the author of the book 'Gideon's Spies - The Secret History of the Mossad', which susequently became a major documentary for the UK's Channel 4 TV station. Thomas writes on intelligence subjects for the Sunday Express.

The URL of the 21 May 2002 report below by GLOBE-INTEL was http://www.gordonthomas. ie/104.html at the time of publication. The report is, however, no longer available at that address on the GLOBE-INTEL site. A mhtl copy dowloaded from the Internet Archive Wayback Machine (archive date Jun 15, 2007) is available here.

The Israeli spy-ring within the United States referred to by Thomas has been separately reported on by Fox News and the intelligence journal Jane's Security News (further references are available from the Antiwar.com web site and History Commons, 'The Complete 9/11 Timeline').

The Daily Telegraph has separately reported that Israeli intelligence had visited the CIA in August 2001 to warn of imminent terrorist attacks on America. An extract of this report is provided at the bottom of this page. A full copy of the GLOBE-INTEL report is also provided below

More information about the warnings the CIA received from the Israelis and Russians is available here.
http://www.btinternet.com/~ nlpwessex/Documents/ WATTenetsilence.htm

GLOBE-INTEL
***NEWS*****ANALYSIS**** COMMENTARY
EDITORS: GORDON THOMAS ***MARTIN DILLON***KEVIN DOWLING
------------------------------ ------------------------------ --------------------
NUMBER :- 104 DATE :- 21/05/02
BUSH: THE IGNORED WARNING THAT WILL COME TO HAUNT HIM

By Gordon Thomas.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon authorised the leak of sensitive documents which reveal America's spy agencies were warned about a terrorist strike weeks before September 11. The controversial move has now directly embroiled President George Bush in the 'how-much-did-he-know?' debate over the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Sharon's reaction is a calculated response to growing claims that Mossad has been running spy operations within the United States and also reveals a split in the special relationship between the two leaders.

Mossad chiefs insist the Israeli spy agency was tracking Osama Bin-Laden's terrorists in America before September 11 and that that the information was passed on to the CIA on Five separate occasions before the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon. As late asAugust 24, less than two weeks before the attacks, a Mossad warning, confirmed by German intelligence, BND, said that "terrorists plan to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture." The warning alert was passed to the CIA. 

The warning was also passed to MI6. The agency made its own checks and also informed the CIAFrustrated by its inability to alert the CIA to an impending attack, Mossad arranged on September 1, according to Tel Aviv sources last week, for Russian intelligence to warn Washington "in the strongest possible terms of imminent assaults on airports and government buildings." Mossad's fury at the failure of the US intelligence community to act has been compounded by the revelation that the Bush administration had ordered the FBI Only a Week Before the September attacks to curtail investigations on two of Osama Bin-Laden's close relatives living in the US
state of Virginia at the time.

Sharon's decision to allow the story of Bush's prior knowledge of the attack to be leaked comes at a time when Israel is smarting over what Sharon sees as Bush pressurising the Jewish state into an accommodation with Arafat.

The feeling in Tel Aviv is that Bush's much hyped war on terrorism does not actually fit into the aggressive policy Israel wants to pursue.

Sharon has already suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of his archrival, former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as the central committee of their Likud Party ruled out the establishment of a Palestinian state last Sunday.

The party's decision, formalized in a resolution backed by Netanyahu, directly contradicted Sharon's own stated acceptance of a Palestinian state as the eventual conclusion of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. It came as Sharon faces mounting domestic and international pressure to find a way to stop more than 19 months of bloodshed and launch talks with the Palestinians.

The support he was expecting from America failed to materialise, said a source close to Mossad. "Ariel Sharon is furious because he thinks Bush has not supported him as fully as he could. His coalition is falling apart, Netanyahu has sneaked ahead of him and the Israelis are generally fed up of living in fear. Sharon is quite clear where the blame lies - in the White House. "Now he has really stirred things up byputting Bush right at the centre of this storm by actively allowing these sensitive documents to be leaked to the world. He feels he needs to teach Bush a lesson and this will certainly complicate America's peace efforts in the region," he said.


According to similar documents shown to the Sunday Express, Mossad was running a round-the-clock surveillance operation on some of the September 11 hijackers. 

The details, contained in classified papers, reveal that a senior Mossad agent tipped off his counterpart in America's Central Intelligence Agency that a massive terrorist hit was being planned in the US. A handful of the spies had infiltrated the Al-Qaeda organisation while a staggering 120 others, posing as overseas art students, launched massive undercover operations throughout America. 

Other documents leaked to the Sunday Express from several intelligence agencies including the Drugs Enforcement Agency show that two Mossad cells of six Egyptian and Yemeni born Jews, trained at a secret base in Israel's Negev Desert on how to penetrate Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network.


One team flew to Amsterdam and were under the control of Mossad's Europe Station. This is based at Schipol Airport within the El Al complex.They later made contact in Hamburg with Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker on September 11.

The second group flew directly to New York. From there they travelled South to Florida and infiltrated the Bin laden organisation.

In August last year, the Mossad team in Europe flew with some of the Hamburg terrorists into Boston, a month before the attack on the twin towers.

By then the Mossad team had established an attack on the US was "imminent". It reported this to its Tel Aviv controller through the Israeli Embassy in Washington using a system of secure communications. In early September Mossad Chief Efraim Halevy sent a warning to the CIA of the possibility of such an attack. The warning was noted and acknowledged. But CIA chief George Tenet is understood to have described it as "too non-specific." The FBI was also informed.

Halevy sent a second alert to the CIA that reached Washington on or around September 7.

A spokesman for the FBI refused to discuss specific details of the Mossad operation but said: "There are Congressional hearings with regard to possible intelligence failures arising from September 11. We can't verify your information because it is part of an ongoing investigation."

Neither the DEA or the CIA would comment on the record, but a senior US intelligence source said: "Anyone can be wise after the event but it was extremely difficult to act on a non specific threat given in a couple of tips from Israeli intelligence. It would be interesting to know if they could have been more specific with their information.

''Their surveillance teams must have observed Atta and his accomplices going to flying schools. I guess we might never know the real truth." 

The spying operations first came to the attention of the DEA in January 2001 according to a classified 90-page dossier which has been seen by the Sunday Express. The names, passport details and other personal records of some of the Israeli-born spies are also detailed in the dossier.

(ends)
he sure does cover for Mossad.....

they were trying to help us right? by organizing a film crew to watch the towers collapse and cheering?.

The above article is a dynamite example of how foreign intelligence agencies insert moles into US Government power seats and use them to carry out operations.


 
Rothchild involved with MI5 CIA and Mossad
 
ROTHSCHILD, Lord Nathanial Mayer Victor
 
 
 
Name: ROTHSCHILD, Lord (Nathaniel Mayer Victor)
Nationality British Occupation:Banker Born:1910 Died: 1990
 
The startling accusations against Rothschild is that he is the 'Fifth Man', not John Cairncross. According to Roland Perry's book 'The Fifth Man' published in 1994. That he is the dominant member of the Cambridge Spy Ring, not Philby, Blunt, Burgess of Maclean. That he is possibly the most important Soviet Spy of all. Soviet intelligence officer, Yuri Modin added. 'Just as the Three Musketeers were four, so the Cambridge five were six.'

Rothschild was the British head of the famous banking dynasty, which apart from prolific achievements in art, science, wine and charity. It had shaped recent history by such acts as the financing of the British army at the Battle of Waterloo and the purchasing of the Suez Canal for Great Britain and Prime Minister Disraeli. He was on intimate terms with many of the most senior members of the intelligence and security services Guy Liddell, Roger Hollis, Dick White, Stewart Menzies Maurice Oldfield, Robert Vansittart, the Permanent Under-secretary of State in the Foreign Office and many others.

It's largely accepted among MI5 officers that during the 1945 to 1963 period, the Soviets were receiving vital information which enabled them to thwart British operations run against the Soviet Embassy and the Intelligence service. MI5 had apparently been penetrated by someone. The inference was always that it had to be an insider. However, one of the leading Soviet double agents working for SIS (MI6), Oleg Gordievsky, who defected to Britain in 1985, denied that the Soviets had anyone of importance on the inside of M15 in the contentious years from around 1950 to 1963.

Rothschild had been in MI5 during World War Two and had been awarded a medal for outstanding bravery for disfusing a new type of German explosive munitions. The argument is that he was recruited for the Soviet cause in pre-war years by playing on his undoubted commitment to a future homeland for the Jews and his anti-Nazi beliefs. Later the fact that he had spied for the Soviets would have been used to blackmail him into continuing to do so, long after it became obvious that Jews were little better treated in the USSR as Nazi Germany. Fear of publicity was to be perhaps the driving force behind his supposed treachery and his later involvement in the Spycatcher affair.

In 1958, Rothschild's fostering of Peter Wright turned quickly to patronage on the basis that they were scientists who understood each other. Wright could have been an easy prey for the sophisticated peer. Although talented, Wright was not Oxbridge educated and therefore an outsider in a service which was run by the old-school ties. For the first time in his professional life, Wright felt wanted, understood and appreciated. In this atmosphere, Wright may have spilled everything of importance in his section of MI5. Rothschild offered help. He was in the oil group Shell overseeing scientific development. He seconded staff to MI5. Wright told him about every piece of espionage technology under development. Rothschild offered ideas of his own and actually devised some new technology himself. He made introductions to heads of major British organizations like the AWRE (Atomic Weapons Research Establishment), which led to further expansion of MI5's R & D.

Later when Wright was deeply involved in 'mole' hunting there were two Soviet code names, which in particular interested him: DAVID and ROSA. The messages decoded indicated that they had worked together, most likely as a married couple. The Soviet defector Golitsyn asked for the files of all MI5 officers who had been working for British Intelligence at the time of the Venona traffic. He studied the files and after a week asked Wright to come and see him in Brighton. Golitsyn pointed to two files on the desk in the study. 'I've discovered DAVID and ROSA,' he said 'My methodology has uncovered them.' Wright knew the names on the files well. They belonged to Victor and Tess Rothschild., both of whom had served in MI5. Wright told him not to be absurd, Rothschild, he informed the Russian, was one of the best friends this Service ever had. Golitsyn, however, was emphatic

Fortunately for Rothschild, his close companion and confidant, Wright had been the one informed and there was no further investigation.. Golitsyn had earlier informed Wright about a file marked 'Technics' in a safe at the Moscow Centre. It was basically a file on all the MI5 technical operations which Wright and his team had initiated. This proved to him that a mole had indeed been spying directly upon him and his activities. Wright never discussed with Golitsyn what he had told Rothschild. If he had, the Russian would have realized that his 'methodology' might have been accurate. According to an MI5 source, Rothschild was later fed information, which ended up 'in the wrong place' However, just as Philby had survived for so long, because his colleagues and the establishment simply couldn't accept his treachery, so the argument goes, Rothschilds charmed life continued.

Later, when Rothschild feared that journalists might link him to his close friend Anthony Blunt, he put a by now retired Wright and journalist Chapman Pincher in touch. The resulting series of collaborative books, 'Their Trade is Treachery;' and 'Too Secret Too Long' neatly deflected suspicion onto Roger Hollis and away from Rothschild. Wright's own book 'Spycatcher' would later reinforce the image that Hollis was the damaging 'mole'. Rothschild apparently quite alarmed about being implicated begged Wright to "write down every single point he could recall of the ways Rothschild had helped MI5" he added, "Things are starting to get rough" Rothschild also secretly channelled cash to Wright via a Swiss bank.

Rothschild was thought by many to be more loyal to his Jewish heritage than anything English. According to both CIA and Mossad sources, Rothschild was very useful to the Israelis in 'mending fences' with some neighbours in the Middle East after the disruption of the Six-Day conflict. For instance, he called on his old friend the Shah of Iran and suggested several 'crop breeding' ventures, which had been perfected in Israel and elsewhere. Some were adapted in Iran. To many observers Rothschild may have been an unwilling Soviet asset after the war until 1963, but their can be no doubt that he would have willingly spied for Israel. In fact Philby claims that on leaving MI5 in 1947, Rothschild had seized or copied all the six by four file cards listing known or supposed Soviet agents in Europe and elsewhere.

Rothschild must have certainly come under suspicion for it is believed that he was investigated and interviewed no less than eleven times by MI5, and when in 1986 he wrote a very public letter avowing his innocence, Mrs Thatcher's response was the famously terse "we have no evidence he was ever a Soviet agent". As a clearance it was less than fulsome. Though when Rothschild died in 1990, Thatcher attended the memorial. The publication of 'The Fifth Man' was greeted in dignified silence by Rothschilds family.

Rothschilds role in MI5 and within the scientific community is considerable, his role with Shell and later as Head of Prime Minister Edward Heath's 'Think Tank' in the early seventies makes him an important player in post war history. If eventually sufficient information became available to prove beyond doubt Roland Perry's belief in his treachery, then Rothschild will certainly have created history for himself, as the most important Soviet Spy in history.
 
Comments The original 2000 and 2002 Workbooks for Spy School were based on the information in "Spy Book, The Encyclopedia of Espionage, by Norman Polmar and Thomas B. Allen." and"Espionage, An Encyclopedia of Spies and Secrets by Richard Bennett ".
 
 
 
DISCLAIMER: THE POSTING OF STORIES, COMMENTARIES, REPORTS, DOCUMENTS AND LINKS (EMBEDDED OR OTHERWISE) ON THIS SITE DOES NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, IMPLIED OR OTHERWISE, NECESSARILY EXPRESS OR SUGGEST ENDORSEMENT OR SUPPORT OF ANY OF SUCH POSTED MATERIAL OR PARTS THEREIN.

BLOG ARCHIVE

 

ABOVE ALL ALL MEMBERS OF THE EVIL CRIMINALLY INSANE ROTHSCHILD FAMILY WHICH INCLUDE BARRON NATHAN ROTHSCHILD, BARRON ADOLPH ROTHSCHILD, BARRON ALOLPH HITLER-ROTHSCHILD AND BARRON LIONEL ROTHSCHILD


SUNDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2009

DO JEWS RUN THE SECURITY SERVICES?Britain's security service, MI6

On 8 October 2009, MI5's Jewish terrorism fear was reported on by The Jewish Chronicle

The Jewish Chronicle tells us that in his new book about Britain's security services, The Defence of the Realm, Professor Chistopher Andrew quotes one MI5 section head, John Marriot, as saying in 1955 that "our policy is to avoid recruiting Jews if possible." Andrew's book has one chapter on the threat from Jewish terrorists, such as the Irgun and Stern Gang which carried out attacks on British troops in Palestine. In 1947 the Colonial Office in London was targeted by a Stern Gang bomb. In 1947, the Stern Gang sent letter bombs to British politicians. In 1947, grenades and detonators were discovered, by his chauffeur, in the boot of the car of Harry Isaac Presman of north London.
Professor Andrew relates how British spy Kim Philby, one of the five Cambridge spies who worked for Russia, was recruited for the KGB by Arnold Deutsch, a Jew. In the 1970s MI5 was worried about the Jewish business cronies of Prime Minister Harold Wilson, Joseph Kagan, Rudy Sternberg and Harry Kissin. Kagan was linked to a KGB officer.

Victor Rothschild joined MI5 during the Second World War. In 1940 Rothschild suggested that Anthony Blunt should be invited to join the secret service. He also rented a house to his friend Guy Burgess. After the liberation of France Rothschild worked withDick WhiteKim Philby and Malcolm Muggeridge at the MI6offices established at the Rothschild family mansion in Paris.Edward Heath, in 1970, appointed him head of the government's Central Policy Review Staff. Later Margaret Thatcher appointed Rothschild as her unofficial security adviser.

In The Defence of the Realm, by Christopher Andrew we are told that until 1997 recruitment for the UK security services was based on personal recommendation. That could mean fascists choosing their fascist friends; or Zionists choosing their Zionist friends. We are led to believe that "right up to the mid-1970s, the post-war Service refused to recruit Jews on the grounds that a dual loyalty to both Britain and Israel might create a conflict of interest." (The Defence of the Realm by Christopher Andrew ) This is misleading. In 1951, the security services discovered that five of their top employees, recruited at Cambridge University in the 1930s, were spies for the Soviet Union, a country which exchanged secrets with Israel. At least one of the 'Cambridge Five' had links to Israel.

Reportedly, Kim Philby was assisted in obtaining safe haven in the Soviet Union by the Israeli Mossad (cf. Sunday Telegraph, April 16, 1989) CachedLord Victor Rothschild was allegedly one of the Cambridge spies; Guy Burgess was close to Rothschild.

According to ex-KGB Colonel 'F' and KGB officer Yuri Modin, Victor Rothschild was the key to most of the Cambridge ring's penetration of British Intelligence. According to Roland Perry, in his book The Fifth Man: "Burgess, at MI6 (and still on a retainer from Rothschild) recommended Philby for a job in Section D of MI6. "Rothschild, who had helped nudge Burgess into his position before the war, had been in turn recommended to MI5 by Burgess." "'Rothschild had the contacts,' Modin noted. 'He was able to introduce Burgess, Blunt and others to important figures in Intelligence such as Stewart Menzies, Dick White and Robert Vansittart, the Permanent Under-secretary of State in the Foreign Office, who controlled MI6.'" According to Perry, Rothschild "made sure Russia's scientists had the basics of every secret project from biological warfare to radar and the various types of potential nuclear bomb."



Soon after Israel was formed, Rothschild was allegedly involved with Chaim Weizmann in setting up a special nuclear physics department in a scientific institute in Rehovoth. In 1957, French engineers began building a nuclear reactor at Dimona on the edge of the Negev Desert. Perry believes that while "MI5 inventions and technical advances went on, Rothschild kept in contact with the key figures and digested the reports.
"This, coupled with his close contact with Dick White, other intelligence chiefs, Wright and the heads of the key research facilities in everything from weapons to radar, meant that Rothschild understood better than anyone in MI6 or MI5 every aspect of British Intelligence, from technical developments to their application in the field..."

In 1972, Rothschild played a major part in choosing the new head of MI5, Michael Hanley.According to the controversial Eustace Mullins (CHAPTER FIVE - The CIA - 3):

While CIA station chief in Rome, the CIA's Angleton "worked closely with the Zionist terrorists Teddy Kollek and Jacob Meridor, and later became chief of the Israeli desk at the CIA, helping Philby to set up the lavishly funded international Mossad espionage operation, all paid for by American taxpayers. "A senior CIA security official, C. Edward Petty, later reported that Angleton might be a Soviet penetration agent or mole, but President Gerald Ford suppressed the report. "Top secret files of the CIA and FBI were opened to Philby, despite widespread claims that he was a Soviet agent. "Although he helped Burgess and MacLean defect to Russia in 1951, he continued to work for SIS until 1956, under the protection of Harold MacMillan, who defended him publicly in parliamentary debate. "In 1962 and Englishwoman at a party in Israel said, “As usual Kim is doing what his Russian Control tells him. I know that he always worked for the Reds.” "Miles Copeland says that Philby placed a mole in deep cover in the CIA known as “Mother”. Philby was quoted as saying, “Foreign agencies spying on the U.S. Government know exactly what one person in the CIA wants them to know, no more and no less.”"Philby was finally exposed by a defector, Michael Goleniewski. "On Jan. 23, 1963, Philby left Beirut and defected to Moscow, where he became a Lt. Gen. in the KGB. "On June 10, 1984, Tad Szulc wrote in the Washington Post that Philby was never a Soviet agent, according to CIA memoranda introduced in a lawsuit, but that he was a triple agent. "This explains curious paradoxes in the supposed rivalry between the CIA and the KGB, when certain charmed souls float easily back and forth between the two services. "Agents of either service are “eliminated” when they find out more than is good for them about this odd arrangement."

Eustace Mullins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  POSTED BY ANON AT  5:30 AM
 
 
DISCLAIMER: THE POSTING OF STORIES, COMMENTARIES, REPORTS, DOCUMENTS AND LINKS (EMBEDDED OR OTHERWISE) ON THIS SITE DOES NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, IMPLIED OR OTHERWISE, NECESSARILY EXPRESS OR SUGGEST ENDORSEMENT OR SUPPORT OF ANY OF SUCH POSTED MATERIAL OR PARTS THEREIN

SUNDAY, JANUARY 23, 2005

MI5 and MI6

Britain's MI5 has been infiltrated.

Who now controls Britain? Or America? Or the world?

PART ONE - INFILTRATION BY RUSSIANS ONLY?
Peter Wright and Chapman Pincher pointed out that vast numbers of Britain's secrets ended up in the hands of the Soviets. Wright and Pincher even suggested that Roger Hollis, onetime head of MI5, was a spy for Russia.

Russia has turned out to be a country with an almost Third World economy and military.

Soviet defector Viktor Suvorov, in his book 'The Liberators: inside the Soviet Army', 1981, portrayed the Soviet armed forces as an "inefficient, cynical, farcical army of conscripts, skiving off at the first opportunity and doing their best to stay permanently smashed on anything they could smoke, drink or inject - the mirror image of wider Soviet society, in short; and about as threatening to NATO as the girl guides."

But, in the days of the Nazi-Soviet Pact and the Berlin Blockade, Russia was a dangerous enemy. So what about infiltration?

In 1961 high-ranking KGB officer Anatoli Golitsin defected to the West. Golitsin confirmed that the Soviets had agents within the British secret service, although Golitsin knew them only by their code names.

In 1968 Golitsin travelled to Britain and was shown documents which contained the code names of unidentified Soviet agents.

Two code names- David and Rosa - particularly interested Golitsin.

Golitsin studied the files of MI5 officers, picked out two, and then declared to MI5 Officer Peter Wright: "Your spies are here."

The files bore the names of Victor and Tess Rothschild.

Wright told Golitsin that he thought he had got it wrong as Rothschild was one of the best friends MI5 had ever had.

Wright, MI5's chief scientist and a personal friend of Rothschild, wrote in his book 'Spy catcher' (Heinemann, Australia, 1987) : 'Rothschild was fascinated by my plans for the scientific modernization of MI5...I soon realized that he possessed an enormous appetite for the gossip and intrigue of the secret world, and we were soon swapping stories about some of the more bizarre colleagues he remembered from the war.'

According to Wright's book, Rothschild, the former very close friend of Russian spies Philby, Burgess and Blunt, had access to most secrets and most of the top people in the Secret service.

Wright wrote: 'I doubt I have ever met a man who impressed me as much as Victor Rothschild. He is a brilliant scientist, a Fellow of the Royal Society, with expertise in botany and zoology, and a fascination for the structure of spermazotoa. But he has been much, much more than a scientist. His contacts, in politics, in intelligence, in banking, in the Civil Service, and abroad are legendary.'

In the book 'The Fifth Man', (by Roland Perry, Pan Books London 1994) Roland Perry puts the case that Ted Rothschild was a major spy for Russia and Israel, not the spy known as 'David' but one of the notorious 'ring of five.'

Ted Rothschild was Nathaniel Mayer VICTOR Rothschild (1910 to 1990), the third Lord Rothschild. He was the British head of the famous banking dynasty, which had financed the British army at the Battle of Waterloo and financed the purchase of the Suez Canal for Great Britain.

The Rothschilds had their own 'spy network' and knew that Napoleon had been defeated at Waterloo before this was known to the governments of Britain or France. The first Lord Rothschild, had been 'a powerful back-room manipulator of late Victorian politics.' He had taken an interest in the extension of Cecil Rhodes diamond empire and the attempts to destroy the Liberal Party.

The Rothschilds were perhaps seen as being the chief representatives of Zionism. In the famous Balfour Declaration of 1917, Britain's Foreign Secretary wrote the 'declaration' to Lord Walter Rothschild, Victor's uncle: "Dear Lord Rothschild,... His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object."

Why might Victor Rothschild have spied for foreign powers?

It has been speculated that Rothschild was "more loyal to his Jewish heritage than anything English."

In the 1930's one of his main concerns was how to help Jews who were being persecuted in Germany. He allegedly saw the Soviets as the only people who could ensure Hitler's defeat. Some have suspected that he helped the Soviet spy machine and did so because it was the enemy of Nazi Germany.

After World War II, Rothschild assisted in the creation of a homeland for the Jews. According to one critic: "When the British tried to thwart the birth of Israel, which would have upset its power base in the Middle East, Rothschild intrigued against British interests."

When Israel was established Rothschild allegedly helped Israel to gain the spy technology and nuclear weaponry which would defend it.

It has been suggested by Roland Perry that Rothschild was recruited by the soviet agent known as Otto. "Philby, Blunt and Burgess had warned Otto that Rothschild had to be reeled in on the Jewish, anti-Hitler line."

Rothschild was not a fan of Stalin; he knew that Russia also had its pogroms. But Otto could have pointed out to Rothschild that there was a danger that Britain might team up with Germany in order to defeat Stalin and communism.

In the 1930's there were many fans of Hitler among right-wing people in the City of London, in the British media and in parliament.

"Otto spoke of the financial, military and trade deals on-going between Germany and Britain."

According to ex-KGB Colonel 'F' and KGB officer Yuri Modin, Rothschild was the key to most of the Cambridge ring's penetration of British Intelligence.

According to Perry, "Burgess, at MI6 (and still on a retainer from Rothschild) recommended Philby for a job in Section D of MI6. Rothschild, who had helped nudge Burgess into his position before the war, had been in turn recommended to MI5 by Burgess."

'Rothschild had the contacts,' Modin noted. 'He was able to introduce Burgess, Blunt and others to important figures in Intelligence such as Stewart Menzies, Dick White and Robert Vansittart, the Permanent Under-secretary of State in the Foreign Office, who controlled MI6.'

In a Lords' debate on 'The Situation in Palestine' on 31 July 1946, Victor Rothschild indicated that "He would put the same fervour into setting up Israel as he had done in defeating Hitler.' Rothschild hoped that the powerful Jewish lobby in the USA, with which he had good contacts, would gain US support for a homeland.

But Rothschild may also have been hoping for some help from the Russians. According to Perry, 'The KGB were hoping that Rothschild could still help them as they geared up their efforts to steal Western bomb intelligence. He was secretly anti-American when it came to their drive to be the biggest military power and, like Oppenheimer, he was keen to do what he could to create a 'balance of terror', where each of the superpowers had the bomb as a deterrent to each other's aggression."

In 1946 Rothschild was lobbying with some success for more Jews to be allowed to travel from Russia to Palestine.

According to Perry, Rothschild "made sure Russia's scientists had the basics of every secret project from biological warfare to radar and the various types of potential nuclear bomb."

Soon after Israel was formed, Rothschild was allegedly involved with Chaim Weizmann in setting up a special nuclear physics department in a scientific institute in Rehovoth.

In 1956, Britain, France and Israel secretly worked out plans to invade Egypt so as to get back control of the Suez Canal from President Nasser.

It was after the Suez Affair that the French promised to supply Israel with a nuclear reactor and some uranium.

The secret deal was only known to about a dozen individuals, induding Rothschild.

In 1957, French engineers began building a nuclear reactor at Dimona on the edge of the Negev Desert.

Perry believes that while "MI5 inventions and technical advances went on, Rothschild kept in contact with the key figures and digested the reports. This, coupled with his close contact with Dick White, other intelligence chiefs, Wright and the heads of the key research facilities in everything from weapons to radar, meant that Rothschild understood better than anyone in MI6 or MI5 every aspect of British Intelligence, from technical developments to their application in the field...... Thanks to Rothschild the KGB knew of every development and were able to take steps to counter them. Furthermore, they used the technology themselves against Western agents."

And what about the CIA?

According to Wright, American top spook James Angleton "was already suspicious of Rothschild. He had first annoyed Jim on his patch. Jim had special connections with Israel and he felt the British [Intelligence] through Rothschild were interfering..."

Angleton also took note of Rothschild's support of Israel. In the 1940s it ran contrary to British interests. He was serving both MI5 and (what was to become) Mossad. If he was capable of serving two agencies, could he secretly serve a third? Angleton 'worried about Israel's left-wing politics when it was formed. He was concerned that some of the British agents [including Rothschild] had been happy with that. But not Jim. He wanted them to be a wholesome [laughs] anti-communist US satellite. That took a little time [laughs].'

In 1962, the year after Golitsin defected, Russian spy Kim Philby was working in the Middle East as a journalist for the Observer. His articles on Israel were seen as being 'anti-Israel' and did not please top friends of Israel such as Rothschild.

At a party at Weizmann's house in Israel, Rothschild met Flora Solomon, 'a Russian emigre Zionist', former close friend of Philby's, and executive of Marks and Spencer.

According to Wright, Solomon 'had obviously been in the thick of things in the mid-1930s, part inspiration, part fellow accomplice, and part courier for the fledgling Ring of Five, along with her friends Litzi Philby, and Edith Tudor Hart.'

Now Solomon and Rothschild suddenly announced that Solomon had decided to denounce Philby. "The reason? Philby's pieces in the Observer about Israel. She was saying that their anti-Israel slant had 'angered' her."

According to Perry: "In August 1962, a few months after British Intelligence planned to move against Philby but not put him on trial, Rothschild was in Rehovoth, Israel. He made contact with a fellow Mossad agent, who was despatched to Beirut to contact Philby and brief him on the latest attitude of White and Hollis towards him. They were now planning to interrogate him in Beirut. He would probably be offered immunity in exchange for a full confession."

According to Perry, it wasn't just Philby who was in difficulty.

Rothschild was interrogated by MI5 eleven times. Rothschild said, "I was questioned very extensively. The authorities, as I call them, said that they wished to talk to me and they talked in quite a friendly way. I have a feeling that they believed in me."

According to former MI6 agent James Rusbridger, Peter Wright and another MI5 source, Rothschild was fed information in 1962, which ended up 'in the wrong place' - namely with the KGB.

Perry writes: "This did not prove he had spied, for the data just conceivably could have been stolen from him. Yet it raised suspicions. However, Rothschild still managed to convince people that he and Tess were victims by association. Their friends Guy, Anthony, Kim, Michael, Leo and so on, with whom they dined, drank, studied, lived and worked, had duped them."

Rothschild was able to continue his links with MI5.

Wright did not suspect that Rothschild was a spy for Russia, but Wright did suspect that MI5 boss Hollis and prime minister Harold Wilson might be spies for the enemy.

In the US, the CIA.s Angleton was becoming yet more suspicious that Rothschild was a spy for the enemy. However, Rothschild improved his image with Angleton by emphasising his Mossad (Israeli secret service) links; Angleteon was always in favour of close CIA links to Mossad.

Rothschild also improved his image by doing work for MI6 induding running agents in China in the late 1960's.

In 1972, Rothschild played a major part in choosing the new head of MI5, Michael Hanley, a man whom Wright considered to be a disappointment.


PART TWO WHO CONTROLS BRITAIN?

In the 1960's, leading CIA agent James Angleton was worried about Harold Wilson and his links to Eastern European businessmen who might have had links to Russia and Israel.

An Israeli spy had suggested that Labour leader Gaitskell had been murdered by the KGB so that Wilson could become PM.

In 1965 Angleton, and President Johnson, decided to commission a report on Britain's secret services.

This report recommended sending more spies to Britain It seemed that the CIA was going to treat Britain like Indonesia or Pakistan.

In order to ensure that there was an elite which would support US interests, the CIA would try to gain control of MI5 and MI6, use dirty tricks to get rid of anti-American politicians, and place pro-American puppets into positions of power.

In 1996, in the Guardian, Martin Kettle suggested that New Labour was all about Britain being in with the Americans.

In a talk to Labour Party branches in 1996, Robin Ramsay (Lobster Magazine) pointed out some interesting links between New labour and the USA.

Jonathan Powell, Blair's top man in Downing Street, used to work in Britain's Washington embassy and is suspected by some of having been our spook liaising with the CIA.

Top Blair aid David Milliband did a degree at the USA's MIT and Brown's top aid Edward Balls went to Harvard.

Gordon Brown spent his holidays in the library at Harvard.

The US encouraged large numbers of Labour MPs to take free trips to America (Israel also invited a large number of Labour MPs to Israel).

In 1986 Tony Blair went on a US-sponsored trip to America and came back a supporter of the nuclear deterrent.

In 1993 Blair attended a Bilderberg Group meeting (secretive right wing organisation) and not long afterwards became Labour leader.

Four of the Blair cabinet have been members of the Anglo-American elite group the British American Project; three of the Blair cabinet have attended Bilderberg meetings.

Peter Mandelson become Chair of British Youth Council which began as the British section of the World Assembly of Youth, which was set up and financed by MI6 and then taken over by the CIA in the 1950s. By Mandelson's time in the mid1970s the British Youth Council was said to be financed by the Foreign Office or MI6. According to Ramsay, 'Peter Mandelson has been around MI6 since his early 20s'. Old Labour is the domestic economy; New Labour is the overseas British economy. In other words, the multinationals, the City of London, and the Foreign Office which represents their interests.'

And the unions?

According to Ramsay: "The CIA also ran the anti-communist international trade union movement, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, the ICFTU..By the mid 1950s nearly a quarter of the TUC's annual budget was going to the ICFTU, a CIA operation.

And the press?

According to Ramsay, the security services may be planting disinformation in the media. "Tomlinson told us about the 20-strong I/Ops - Information Operations - unit in that shiny building on the Thames."

And sometimes the information is confusing. Ramsay writes: "does Gaddafi have Taiwanese Scuds (MI5 story planted in the Sunday Times) or North Korean missiles (MI6 story planted in the Sunday Telegraph.... The Sunday Times was a serious, respectable newspaper until Andrew Neil became its editor in the mid-1980s and turned it into a mouth-piece for MI5 and the MOD to run their rubbish through. The Sunday Telegraph shows all the signs of going down the same dangerous path."

It looks like the Anglo-American-Israeli elite are in charge.

Now here is an interesting quote about what may be happening: 'There has been a gradual erosion of civil liberties, an increase in the influence of the army, and an acceptance of corruption among public servants. Vast fortunes have been accumulated by a small group who use their wealth to control the Senate.' That was a description of the Roman Empire, but it could equall y be a description of the present-day Britain, or the US Empire or the former Soviet Empire. It is conspiracies from within, rather than conspiracies from without, which often lead to the collapse of empires.

PART THREE - WHO RUNS AMERICA AND THE WORLD?

"We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."-- Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.

When Clinton was about to step down, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak asked President Clinton to grant a pardon to Marc Rich. Clinton granted the pardon. Marc Rich had been indicted in a US federal court of evading more than $48 million in taxes. He was also charged with 51 counts of tax fraud and with running illegal oil deals with Iran during the hostage crisis. He had also traded with Libya, South Africa and the USSR when there were embargos, with Iraq when there was conflict....

Is Israel in charge? No. But it could be the people who trade in oil, in guns, in drugs....

In 1991, Paul Henderson, managing director of machine tools company Matrix Churchill, was in court facing a seven year jail sentence for selling to Iraq materials that could be used for military purposes. Government ministers tried to prevent the court from discovering the truth - that Paul Henderson had been working for the British government as a secret agent for 17 years.

Eventually the truth about Henderson came out.

But why had we been helping Iraq? The July 29, 1991 issue of TIME MAGAZINE stated :"B.C.C.I. is the largest corporate criminal enterprise ever... the most pervasive money-laundering operation ...ever created for the likes of Manuel Noriega, Ferdinand Marcos, Saddam Hussein and the Columbian drugs lords." B.C.C.I. Got into the U.S. banking industry by secretly buying the shares of First American Bank, whose chairman is Clark Clifford- a founder of the CIA According to sources, "B.C.C.I. was engaged in international bribery, blackmail, and assassination of government officials at the highest levels.
The CIA used B.C.C.I. to facilitate funding of the Contras, illegal arms sales to Iran and Iraq as well as the arms supply to the Afghan resistance. The Justice Department began by obstructing the investigation. "B.C.C.I. maintained accounts for Contra leader Adolfo Calero and Sandanista leader, Daniel Ortega, as well as such disparate figures as Noriega, Saddam, Marcos, Adnan Khashoggi, the PLO, the Mossad and the governments of China, Argentina, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Peru."

The bank was seemingly financing both sides in a number of conflicts. Who gained? The arms and drugs industries. Cynics might say that wars help the ruling elites to stay in power. And here are some strange 'facts' picked up from various sources: The U.S. sold $50 billion dollars worth of weapons to Iraq before the gulf war. Libya was supplied with hundreds of Green Beret trainers and 42,000 lbs of C-4 plastic explosives prior to U.S. attacks on Libya.

The U.S financed the Kama River truck plant which produced the trucks for Russia's Afghanistan invasion and built the highways used by the Russian tanks. The day General McArthur signed the peace treaty with Japan half the weapons stored on Okinawa were shipped to Ho Chi Minh and General Giap who met these shipments at the docks of Hai Phong harbor with Lucien Conein, the CIA case officer for Diem. Jonathan Kwitny's book, The Crimes of Patriots, a True Tale of Dope, Dirty Money and the CIA, (Simon & Shuster 1987) is an expose of th e alleged role of the CIA in the drugs business. Kwitny refers to the Nugan-Hand Bank- an Australian money laundering operation set up to facilitate Golden Triangle heroin trafficking. Major officers of the bank "included Admiral Buddy Yates (President), General Erle Cocke, General Edwin Black, General LeRoy Manor, and ex-CIA Director, William Colby with other CIA affiliated persons too numerous to mention."
POSTED BY ANON AT  6:59 PM
 
 
 
 
 
nternational Intelligence
On Saturday night's program, Gordon Thomas, author of Secret Wars and Gideon's Spies, joined Ian for a discussion on international intelligence matters.

Thomas shared breaking news from Britain's MI5 and MI6 intelligence agencies about the possibility of attacks by terrorists during the upcoming G20 summit. Thomas said the threats against the UK are at the "top end of severe," which means an "attack is coming." According to Thomas, Britain is home to the largest number of homegrown jihadists in the world, trained and ready to launch Mumbai-style attacks when the G20 nations meet on April 2 in London. Preventing the attack may prove difficult, Thomas explained, as MI5 officials have been bogged down by spies from France and Germany sent into the country to bribe key workers in sensitive jobs who are having financial troubles.

Thomas reported on a ruthless group of government assassins known as Company 14, who he said are hunting down members of the IRA responsible for killing two British soldiers and a policeman in Northern Ireland. He also commented on the death of Dr. David Kelly. The position of his body, suspicious phone calls, and other puzzling details surrounding his apparent suicide suggest the weapons expert may have been murdered for his assessment of Iraq's WMD program, Thomas noted.
hat got me about this show was that he covered the relationships of MI5 - CIA and the MOSSAD and made it sound like a very cozy relationship. No reference to the Israeli spy ring in the U.S. following the "hijackers" and the DEA. or Amdoc's and NICE Systems.

Nor did he cover the spying and continuing attempts of the U.K. for over 100 years to control and subjugate the U.S.A.

Evidence points to breakdown in US / UK Relations 

Related Link on the history of the "Special Relationship"

Webster G. Tarpley Debunks Pearl Harbor Myths (Amongst Other Things) 

Something interesting : British Security Coordination (Propaganda) Spy Ring in the U.S. prior to Pearl Harbor

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/ 2006/aug/19/military. secondworldwar

It was 1940, the Nazis were in the ascendant, the Blitz at its deadliest, and Britain's last hope was to bring a reluctant United States into the war. So it was that the largest covert operation in UK history was launched. William Boyd sheds light on a forgotten spy ring.

William Boyd
The Guardian, Saturday 19 August 2006

"British Security Coordination". The phrase is bland, almost defiantly ordinary, depicting perhaps some sub-committee of a minor department in a lowly Whitehall ministry. In fact BSC, as it was generally known, represented one of the largest covert operations in British spying history; a covert operation, moreover, that was run not in Occupied France, nor in the Soviet Union during the cold war, but in the US, our putative ally, during 1940 and 1941, before Pearl Harbor and the US's eventual participation in the war in Europe against Nazi Germany.
...
One easily forgets this, in the era of our much-vaunted, so-called "special relationship", but at the nadir of Britain's fortunes, polls in the US still showed that 80% of Americans were against joining the war in Europe. Anglophobia was widespread and the US Congress was violently opposed to any form of intervention.
.... read the rest..
 
http://www.larouchepub.com/ other/2005/3232aipac_indict. html

This article appears in the August 12, 2005 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

Larry Franklin Case:
AIPAC Leaders Snared 

by Jeffrey Steinberg

On Aug. 4, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Paul McNulty, announced the indictment of two former top officials of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), on charges of "conspiracy to communicate national defense information to persons not entitled to receive it." The same indictment included new espionage charges against Pentagon desk officer and Air Force Reserve Colonel Lawrence Franklin, who has already been indicted in the Eastern District, as well as in West Virginia.

The two "ex"-AIPAC officials are Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman. Since 1982, Rosen has been AIPAC's Director of Foreign Policy Issues. Since 1993, Weissman has been Senior Middle East Analyst at AIPAC.

Before coming to work for AIPAC, Rosen had been employed from 1978-82 at the RAND Corporation. During that period, he worked on contract projects for the Central Intelligence Agency, and had top-level security clearances. Thus, Rosen signed written secrecy agreements with the U.S. government that remained binding after he went to work for AIPAC.

Far-Flung Espionage Network
The new indictments, which have been anticipated for several months, unveil an Israeli espionage network that has been functioning since at least April 1999, involving a number of Pentagon officials beyond Franklin, as well as at least three officials of the Israeli Embassy and a former senior Mossad officer, Uzi Arad, who now heads Israel's premier national security think-tank, the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center.[/color]

U.S. intelligence officials have told EIR that the AIPAC/Franklin case reveals a new modus operandi, adopted by Israel intelligence, in the aftermath of the disastrous Jonathan Pollard spy scandal of the mid-1980s. Pollard, a Naval intelligence analyst, was caught pilfering thousands of classified Pentagon and CIA documents and passing them on to an Israeli intelligence unit headed by former Mossad European operations director Rafi Eytan, a close ally of current Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

As the result of the blowback from the Pollard affair, according to the U.S. intelligence sources, Israel shifted its espionage operations targetted at the United States to think-tanks and lobbying organizations like AIPAC, which have ongoing "legitimate" contacts with American government officials.

What the Israelis and the AIPAC spooks did not anticipate was that their operations would be closely scrutinized by the FBI and other U.S. agencies, for at least the past six years, revealing numerous instances where the "legitimate" contacts crossed over into hard espionage.

The 26-page indictment is, in fact, a catalogue of scores of instances of classified information being passed from Pentagon officials to the two AIPAC men, on to Israeli Embassy personnel.

Franklin apparently walked into an ongoing FBI counterintelligence surveillance of Rosen and Weissman, when he held his first meeting with the two men on Feb. 12, 2003. According to the indictment, phone conversations that Rosen had en route to the first meeting with Franklin, were monitored by the FBI. From Feb. 12, 2003 until July 9, 2004, Franklin had dozens of phone discussions and meetings with the two AIPAC officials, and on at least one occasion, faxed a document from his Pentagon office to Rosen's home.

In June 2004, FBI agents confronted Franklin with evidence of his espionage activities, and Franklin agreed to cooperate with the government. His subsequent meetings with the two AIPAC officials were all controlled by the FBI, until Aug. 3, when the FBI visited both Rosen and Weissman. According to the indictment, even after the FBI visits, Rosen and Weissman continued to pass classified data provided by Franklin to select U.S. journalists and even to Israeli embassy officials.

Franklin's Network
Lawrence Franklin had his own problems with his dealings with Israeli intelligence officials, even before his assignment to the Pentagon in early 2001 as Iran desk officer at the Near East South Asia policy office, under Assistant Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith and Deputy Assistant Secretary William Luti, a transplant from the Office of Vice President Dick Cheney.

Back in the late 1990s, as an Air Force Reserve officer, Franklin had done two tours of duty at the U.S. Embassy in Israel, in the Air Attaché's Office. On his second tour, Franklin was kicked out of the country by the Air Attaché after a few months, after repeated incidents in which he held unauthorized meetings with Israeli intelligence officials.

It may have been these Israeli connections that landed Franklin his job at NESA—or perhaps his ties to then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, who was Dean of Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, D.C. when Franklin was a graduate student there.

Whatever his pathway to the Pentagon, Franklin, according to eyewitness sources, became a fixture at regular "brown bag lunches" at the private office of Doug Feith attended by leading Pentagon neo-cons, including Harold Rhode, Luti, Abraham Shulsky, Richard Perle, and occasionally Wolfowitz. Franklin's NESA boss, Luti, boasted frequently that he was working for "Scooter," a reference to Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby. (Libby, when he was not working for the government, was the personal attorney for Mossad frontman and international swindler Marc Rich. Well-informed U.S. intelligence officials believe that Rich, a Zug, Switzerland-based metal trader, was set up in business with Mossad funds.)

Franklin was also a traveling companion of Iran-Contra figure and self-professed "universal fascist" Michael Ledeen, in December 2001. Ledeen, Franklin, and Harold Rhode travelled to Rome for secret meetings with Iranian con-artist Manucher Ghorbanifar, another prominent Iran-Contra scandal figure who brokered Israeli missile sales to Iran in exchange for efforts to free American hostages in Lebanon.The scheme led to criminal indictments against a number of Reagan-Bush Administration officials and CIA officers, including Elliott Abrams and Duane Claridge.

The latest Franklin indictment threatens to snare some of these other leading neo-cons. The court papers filed in the Eastern District of Virginia identify several other Pentagon officials, along with at least three Israeli Embassy officials and Uzi Arad, as players in the extended Franklin spy operation.

The indictment of "Mr. AIPAC," Steven Rosen, also raises serious questions about the future of "America's Pro-Israel Lobby," as AIPAC's website describes the group. According to sources close to the Franklin probe, AIPAC may be forced, as a result of the Franklin case, to register as a foreign agent organization, thus losing its tax-exempt status and forcing much closer accounting of its finances and activities.

The Franklin case has not even come close to fully unraveling. And many leading Pentagon neo-cons are losing sleep over where this case will go next.

What makes matters even worse, the same basic cast of characters is tied up in the Valerie Plame Wilson leak probe, headed by independent counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, and a separate probe, headed by U.S. Attorney McNulty, into who was behind the forging of Niger government documents which purported to show that Iraq sought to buy "yellowcake" uranium from the African state to build nuclear weapons. The forged documents were used by Vice President Cheney and other Administration war hawks to win Congressional and public support for the invasion of Iraq. Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, was dispatched to Niger in 2002 to assess the validity of the Niger yellowcake charge, and returned to report that it was a hoax. His report was covered up, and the train of events was set into motion which led to his wife's "outing" as a covert CIA operative, by top Administration officials—a criminal offense.

There are allegations that the Ledeen-Rhode-Franklin trip to Rome in 2001 may have played a role in the circulation of the forged documents
 
http://www.larouchepac.com/ node/9423

Netanyahu Slaps U.S. in the Face with Spymaster Uzi Arad

March 6, 2009 (LPAC)--Israel's Prime Minister-designate Bibi Netanyahu brought the notorious spymaster Uzi Arad into the meetings with Hillary Clinton and George Mitchell, this week, reports the Israeli newspaper, Ha'aretz.  Uzi Arad, is persona non grata in the United States because of his involvement with Pentagon spy, Larry Franklin, an analyst with the Office of Special Plans (OSP), the Dick Cheney-neo-conservative unit in the Pentagon that manufactured false intelligence to justify the Iraq war. Franklin was convicted in January, 2006, in a plea bargain, of stealing classified documents on Iran and other subjects from the Pentagon, and passing them on to Israeli government officials, in meetings arranged by the two top officials of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman). Arad, who is unable to come to the U.S. because of his involvement with Franklin, is reportedly going to be head of the Israeli National Security Council, Ha'aretz wrote.

Not only did Bibi include Arad in his first meeting with the top U.S. officials, but he kicked the Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., Sallai Meridor out the meeting. Ha'aretz reported that this insult from Netanyahu was the reason that Meridor resigned today.

Lyndon LaRouche said today that what Netanyahoo did was "a slap in the face to the U.S. And that if Netanyahoo breaks from the U.S., that represents Netanyahoo's plans for leaving earth."
 
So, does the Pentagon really have a great relationship with Mossad? i dont think so.

And who is really behind Netanyahu? a group of fascists in London that put Dick Cheney into office.
 
"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate … It will purge the rottenness out of the system..." - Andrew Mellon, Secretary of Treasury, 1929.
 
One thing the Brit's love is to have THEIR historians write THEIR history. And I think we can label Gordon Thomas one of THEIR's and a propagandist TOOL.


http://intelligencenews. wordpress.com/2009/03/21/01- 107/

...

The other two are an authorized history (from 1909 to 1949) of MI6 by Professor Keith Jeffery, of Queen’s University, Belfast, and Gordon Thomas’ Secret Wars: One Hundred Years of British Intelligence, which intelNews has received and will be reviewing shortly. ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Gordon_Thomas

Thomas was born in Wales, in a cemetery keeper’s cottage where his grandmother lived. He had his first story published at nine years old in a Boys Own Paper competition. With his father in the RAF, he travelled widely and was educated at the Cairo High School, the Maritz Brothers in Port Elizabeth and, finally, at Bedford Modern.

His first book, completed at the age of seventeen, is the story of a British spy in Russia during World War Two, titled Descent Into Danger.He turned down the offer of a place at university in order to accompany a travelling fair for a year: those experiences became Bed of Nails. Since then his books have been published worldwide. He has been a foreign correspondent beginning with the Suez Crisis and ending with the first Gulf War. He was a BBC writer/producer for three flagship BBC programmes: Man Alive, Tomorrows World and Horizon. He is a regular contributor to Facta, the respected monthly Japanese news magazine, and he lectures widely on the secret world of intelligence. He also provides expert analysis on intelligence for US and European television and radio shows.[1]

His Gideon’s Spies: Mossad’s Secret Warriors became a major documentary for Channel Four that he wrote and narrated: The Spy Machine. It followed three years of research during which he was given unprecedented access to Mossad’s key personnel. The documentary was co-produced by Open Media and Israfilm[2].

Gideon’s Spies: Mossad’s Secret Warriors has so far been published in 16 languages. The main source for this book is Ari Ben-Menashe, a self-described former Mossad agent. According to Charles Foster in Contemporary Review: "Writers who know their place are few and far between: fortunately Mr Thomas is one of them. By keeping to his place as a tremendous storyteller without a preacher's pretensions, he has put his book amongst the important chronicles of the state of Israel." [2]
Well, what he appears to be doing is scapegoating Mossad when everyone knows London built the Nation of Israel, hence their intelligence agencies are linked.
So he highlights what Mossad really did, but neglects to highlight the relationship of the Crown, MI6 and Mossad, and their potential Moles in the United States.

No one mentions Sykes - Picot EITHER, which is the main force behind the destabalization of the middle east right now and was the primary reason for World War I;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_ depth/middle_east/2001/israel_ and_the_palestinians/key_ documents/1681362.stm
undefined

The Sykes-Picot agreement is a secret understanding concluded in May 1916, during World War I, between Great Britain and France, with the assent of Russia, for the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire.
The agreement led to the division of Turkish-held Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine into various French and British-administered areas. The agreement took its name from its negotiators, Sir Mark Sykes of Britain and Georges Picot of France.

Some historians have pointed out that the agreement conflicted with pledges already given by the British to the Hashimite leader Husayn ibn Ali, Sharif of Mecca, who was about to lead an Arab revolt in the Hejaz against the Ottoman rulers on the understanding that the Arabs would eventually receive a much more important share of the territory won. 





US history is an interesting thing, and no one really highlights the REASON many intelligent souls traveled to the U.S.

The Reason was, Europe was infested with feudalist corruption and the idea was, the United States would be built up as a nation to keep Europe from destroying itself. Read about Benjamin Franklin, these people wanted to create a Nation free of Oligarchs and the European monetary system  (Which in reality is dependence on Royal Gold Supplies for economic expansion). The European monetary system was controlled by the various royalties until the 1600's when the British Empire began to dominate more and more of Eurasia.

With the British ability to contract and limit Gold supplies, they had the ability to limit world wide growth hence, the ability to CONTROL the WORLD, by preventing any (NAVAL) force to grow stronger then theirs. Remember, in the 1700's there were no railways, NAVAL power was supreme...... So we can fastfoward to the mid 1800's when Lincoln took office, revived the Greenback and built the intercontintental railway......... what did this accomplish? it DESTROYED British control over US Trade routes by nullfying their NAVAL POWER. This lead to the industrialization of the United States into a power that even the British Empire could not tackle via conventional warfare.

The Continental Congress issued fiat currency for that exact reason as well, because the European Royalty could strangle the Nation of Currency if we were to use Gold as a currency.
 
This is what got my ear's up and my suspicion that there is something going on in the U.K. and the G20 coming up , plus the recent "IRA?" attack....

Ian p. asked no hard questions that I could discern and the callers were almost praising MI5 and the UK as being our beast friends... 

With this guy some of his lies are true.


http://snardfarker.ning.com/ profiles/blog/show?id=2649739% 3ABlogPost%3A37858&page=2# comment-2649739_Comment_37912

GREAT BRITAIN ON HIGHEST TERRORIST ALERT POSSIBLE!!!!

3-22-09 Critical Red Alert in Great Britain
Talk show Host Ian Punnett of Coast to Coast announced that sources have revealed that Britain is on highest-ever terror alert! This information was confirmed by Gordon Thomas who checked with his sources in the British Intelligence who spoke of information of a mumbi attacks.He was on the air speaking with Author Gordon Thomas who was discussing the history of the British Intelligence Services when this information came in as who has ties to British MI5 agents.

Gordon Thomas wrote the book: Secret Wars: One Hundred Years of British Intelligence inside MI5 and MI6 (US Edition) Inside British Intelligence: 100 Years of MI5 and MI6 (UK Edition) These agencies rank as two of the oldest and most powerful in the world, and Thomas’s recounts the roles that British intelligence played with insider information more startling than anything out of James Bond.

Gordon Thomas also wrote the book: Gideon’s Spies: The Secret History of The Mossad
which was republished to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948. Updating the data on events leading to the 9/11 Attacks and the aftermath.
In this book Gordon Thomas claims that; Bibi, Netanyahu's first wife, actually spied on Bill Clinton, and that Mossad had wire tapped the White House. Also that Princess Diana's driver Henry Paul was a Mossad agent.

More information to come with updates....

http://www.gordonthomas- author.com/
 
This guy really blows. Here he "covers" for the Mossad for spying on us. Oh right, that was a GOOD thing. Too bad WE didn't listen to them....

http://www.nlpwessex.org/docs/ gordonthomas.htm

The report below was published 21 May 2002 by the GLOBE-INTEL web site run by Gordon Thomas.
http://www.canadafreepress. com/writers/gordon-thomas.htm

Thomas is a recognised authority on the Israeli intelligence service Mossad, to which he is considered to have had exceptional journalistic access over the years. Thomas is the author of the book 'Gideon's Spies - The Secret History of the Mossad', which susequently became a major documentary for the UK's Channel 4 TV station. Thomas writes on intelligence subjects for the Sunday Express.

The URL of the 21 May 2002 report below by  GLOBE-INTEL was http://www.gordonthomas. ie/104.html at the time of publication. The report is, however, no longer available at that address on the GLOBE-INTEL site. A mhtl copy dowloaded from the Internet Archive Wayback Machine (archive date Jun 15, 2007) is available here.

The Israeli spy-ring within the United States referred to by Thomas has been separately reported on by Fox News and the intelligence journal Jane's Security News (further references are available from the Antiwar.com web site and History Commons, 'The Complete 9/11 Timeline').

The Daily Telegraph has separately reported that Israeli intelligence had visited the CIA in August 2001 to warn of imminent terrorist attacks on America. An extract of this report is provided at the bottom of this page. A full copy of the GLOBE-INTEL report is also provided below

More information about the warnings the CIA received from the Israelis and Russians is available here.
http://www.btinternet.com/~ nlpwessex/Documents/ WATTenetsilence.htm

GLOBE-INTEL
***NEWS*****ANALYSIS**** COMMENTARY
EDITORS: GORDON THOMAS ***MARTIN DILLON***KEVIN DOWLING
------------------------------ ------------------------------ --------------------
NUMBER :- 104         DATE :- 21/05/02
BUSH: THE IGNORED WARNING THAT WILL COME TO HAUNT HIM

By  Gordon Thomas.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon authorised the leak of sensitive documents which reveal America's spy agencies were warned about a terrorist strike weeks before September 11. The controversial move has now directly embroiled President George Bush in the  'how-much-did-he-know?' debate over the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Sharon's reaction is a calculated response to growing claims that Mossad has been running spy operations within the United States and also reveals a split in the special relationship between the two leaders.

Mossad chiefs insist the Israeli spy agency was tracking Osama Bin-Laden's terrorists in America before September 11 and that that the information was passed on to the CIA on Five separate occasions before the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon. As late asAugust 24, less than two weeks before the attacks, a Mossad warning, confirmed by German intelligence, BND, said that "terrorists plan to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture." The warning alert was passed to the CIA. 

The warning was also passed to MI6. The agency made its own checks and also informed the CIAFrustrated by its inability to alert the CIA to an impending attack, Mossad arranged on September 1, according to Tel Aviv sources last week, for Russian intelligence to warn Washington "in the strongest possible terms of imminent assaults on airports and government buildings." Mossad's fury at the failure of the US intelligence community to act has been compounded by the revelation that the Bush administration had ordered the FBI Only a Week Before the September attacks to curtail investigations on two of Osama Bin-Laden's close relatives living in the US
state of Virginia at the time.

Sharon's decision to allow the story of Bush's prior knowledge of the attack to be leaked comes at a time when Israel is smarting over what Sharon sees as Bush pressurising the Jewish state into an accommodation with Arafat.

The feeling in Tel Aviv is that Bush's much hyped war on terrorism does not actually fit into the aggressive policy Israel wants to pursue.

Sharon has already suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of his archrival, former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as the central committee of their Likud Party ruled out the establishment of a Palestinian state last Sunday.

The party's decision, formalized in a resolution backed by Netanyahu, directly contradicted Sharon's own stated acceptance of a Palestinian state as the eventual conclusion of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. It came as Sharon faces mounting domestic and international pressure to find a way to stop more than 19 months of bloodshed and launch talks with the Palestinians.

The support he was expecting from America failed to materialise, said a source close to Mossad. "Ariel Sharon is furious because he thinks Bush has not supported him as fully as he could. His coalition is falling apart, Netanyahu has sneaked ahead of him and the Israelis are generally fed up of living in fear. Sharon is quite clear where the blame lies - in the White House.  "Now he has really stirred things up byputting Bush right at the centre of this storm by actively allowing these sensitive documents to be leaked to the world. He feels he needs to teach Bush a lesson and this will certainly complicate America's peace efforts in the region," he said.


According to similar documents shown to the Sunday Express, Mossad was running a round-the-clock surveillance operation on some of the September 11 hijackers. 

The details, contained in classified papers, reveal that a senior Mossad agent tipped off his counterpart in America's Central Intelligence Agency that a massive terrorist hit was being planned in the US. A handful of the spies had infiltrated the Al-Qaeda organisation while a staggering 120 others, posing as overseas art students, launched  massive undercover operations throughout America. 

Other documents leaked to the Sunday Express from several intelligence agencies including the Drugs Enforcement Agency show that two Mossad cells of six Egyptian and Yemeni born Jews, trained at a secret base in Israel's Negev Desert on how to penetrate Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network.


One team flew to Amsterdam and were under the control of Mossad's Europe Station. This is based at Schipol Airport within the El Al complex. They later made contact in Hamburg with Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker on September 11.

The second group flew directly to New York. From there they travelled South to Florida and infiltrated the Bin laden organisation.

In August last year, the Mossad team in Europe flew with some of the Hamburg terrorists into Boston, a month before the attack on the twin towers.

By then the Mossad team had established an attack on the US was "imminent". It reported this to its Tel Aviv controller through the Israeli Embassy in Washington using a system of secure communications. In early September Mossad Chief Efraim Halevy sent a warning to the CIA of the possibility of such an attack. The warning was noted and acknowledged. But CIA chief George Tenet is understood to have described it as "too non-specific." The FBI was also informed.

Halevy sent a second alert to the CIA that reached Washington on or around September 7.

A spokesman for the FBI refused to discuss specific details of the Mossad operation but said: "There are Congressional hearings with regard to possible intelligence failures arising from September 11. We can't verify your information because it is part of an ongoing investigation."

Neither the DEA or the CIA would comment on the record, but a senior US intelligence source said: "Anyone can be wise after the event but it was extremely difficult to act on a non specific threat given in a couple of tips from Israeli intelligence. It would be interesting to know if they could have been more specific with their information.

 ''Their surveillance teams must have observed Atta and his accomplices going to flying schools. I guess we might never know the real truth." 

The spying operations first came to the attention of the DEA in January 2001 according to a classified 90-page dossier which has been seen by the Sunday Express. The names, passport details and other personal records of some of the Israeli-born spies are also detailed in the dossier.

(ends)
 
he sure does cover for Mossad.....

they were trying to help us right? by organizing a film crew to watch the towers collapse and cheering?.

The above article is a dynamite example of how foreign intelligence agencies insert moles into US Government power seats and use them to carry out operations.
 



Arron Russo speak about his conversation with Nick Rockefella Bilderberg Plans World Population Reduction Of 80%


//www.youtube.com/watch? v=o8ztmhONi4k&feature=related

http://prisonplanet.tv/ http:/ /www.infowars.com/http:// video.google.com/videoplay? doc... We Do Not Forget! We Do Not Forgive! We Are legions Expect Us ! ----Ae Dear Bilderbirg Group ,You Hide away in the Dark and plot to kill 80 percent of humans The world is awake We Will Defeat You Humanity Will Destroy You ,You Will Stop Your criminal activity's .Canada is awake to your infestation ,you hide away in the dark like evil we will destroy you. Age: 21 Click the link and it will take you to a documentary if you don,t know about The Bilderberg Group even if you do watch it the only way to help is to learn. Bilderberg Will Kill 80% of Humans Who made Them Our Gods Airplane, Auto, Boat, Motorcycle, Motor Sport, Train, Animation, Blooper, Improv, Parody, Pranks, Series, Short Film, Sketch, Spoof, Stand-up, Video Blog, Athletics, Business, Communications, Computer Science, Economics, Engineering, Health, Humanities, Language, Math, Media, Medicine, Performing Arts, Physical Science, Social Science, Visual Arts, Advertising, Commercials, Entertainment News, Performing Arts, Short Film, Trailer, TV, Video Game, Web Series, Animation, Anime, Art, Documentary, Experimental, Filmmaker Reel, Interview, Manga, Short Film, Trailer, Tutorial, Federal Government, Grassroots Outreach, Local Government, Nonprofit, Public Service Announcements, Regional Government, State Government, Arts & Crafts, Beauty, Dance, Drink, Finance, Fitness, Fashion, Food, Gardening, Health, Home, Music, Sports, Technology, Alternative, Blues, Classical, Country, Electronic, Folk, Hip-Hop, Indie, Jazz, Pop, R&B, Rap, Religious, Rock, Soul, Unsigned, World Music, Commentary & Analysis, Documentary, Gotcha!, Grassroots Outreach, News, Political Commercial
Category:  Music
Tags: 
pop 


Confession of a CIA Agent about FEMA - Important !!!!!!!


Confession of a CIA Agent about FEMA - Important !!!
Martial Law over America.
Leave America as fast as you
can!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!
Category:  News & Politics
Tags: 





Antichrist Illuminati Obama New World Order Agenda 2012 Exposed

//www.youtube.com/watch? v=Xld4P4nz5hA&feature=fvw



FEMA Trailer Workers Speak Out

//www.youtube.com/watch? v=UQQcT0Tgpp4&feature=related


New World Order Plans to Kill 90% of the Worlds Population


Proof that Prince Charles is the Antichrist



Bilderberg Group NWO Will Kill 80% Of Humans


//www.youtube.com/watch? v=TttU7u5iFyk&feature=related


Bilderberg Plans World Population Reduction Of 80%



Arron Russo speak about his conversation with Nick Rockefella Bilderberg Plans World Population Reduction Of 80%


//www.youtube.com/watch? v=o8ztmhONi4k&feature=related

http://prisonplanet.tv/ http:/ /www.infowars.com/http:// video.google.com/videoplay? doc... We Do Not Forget! We Do Not Forgive! We Are legions Expect Us ! ----Ae Dear Bilderbirg Group ,You Hide away in the Dark and plot to kill 80 percent of humans The world is awake We Will Defeat You Humanity Will Destroy You ,You Will Stop Your criminal activity's .Canada is awake to your infestation ,you hide away in the dark like evil we will destroy you. Age: 21 Click the link and it will take you to a documentary if you don,t know about The Bilderberg Group even if you do watch it the only way to help is to learn. Bilderberg Will Kill 80% of Humans Who made Them Our Gods Airplane, Auto, Boat, Motorcycle, Motor Sport, Train, Animation, Blooper, Improv, Parody, Pranks, Series, Short Film, Sketch, Spoof, Stand-up, Video Blog, Athletics, Business, Communications, Computer Science, Economics, Engineering, Health, Humanities, Language, Math, Media, Medicine, Performing Arts, Physical Science, Social Science, Visual Arts, Advertising, Commercials, Entertainment News, Performing Arts, Short Film, Trailer, TV, Video Game, Web Series, Animation, Anime, Art, Documentary, Experimental, Filmmaker Reel, Interview, Manga, Short Film, Trailer, Tutorial, Federal Government, Grassroots Outreach, Local Government, Nonprofit, Public Service Announcements, Regional Government, State Government, Arts & Crafts, Beauty, Dance, Drink, Finance, Fitness, Fashion, Food, Gardening, Health, Home, Music, Sports, Technology, Alternative, Blues, Classical, Country, Electronic, Folk, Hip-Hop, Indie, Jazz, Pop, R&B, Rap, Religious, Rock, Soul, Unsigned, World Music, Commentary & Analysis, Documentary, Gotcha!, Grassroots Outreach, News, Political Commercial
Category:  Music
Tags: 
pop 

The Rockefeller crime syndicate



Rockefeller neuroscience laboratories span the areas of molecular and cellular neurobiology, sensory neuroscience and the neurobiology of behavior. Topics of current investigation include, among many others: the control of gene expression in neurons; the formation and patterning of the embryonic vertebrate nervous system; circadian rhythms; olfaction; the effects of experience and hormones on brain plasticity; and the cortical mechanisms of visual perception.

http://www.rockefeller.edu/ research/a...
Category:  News & Politics

A Chilling Proposal by Barack Obama



The shocking comment Barack Obama does not want you to hear!


The co-chairman for the Barak Obama campaign makes a disturbing racial remark. As far as we know, Obama has not fired him or even denounced the comment. Is Barack Obama a racist?

Audacity Hope Media Fox Jeremiah Wright Democrat Republican Vote 2008 Controversy Controversial Church Pastor Commentary Political Commercial Politics Analysis Grassroots Gotcha! Outreach News Change Primary Primaries Pennsylvania Guam Indiana North Carolina West Virginia Kentucky Oregon Puerto Rico Montana South Dakota Convention DNC November Guns Faith Bitter Cling
Category:  News & Politics
Tags: 



Zbigniew Brzezinski - Easier to kill a million people than to control them.

//www.youtube.com/watch? v=lkOOBo45TZU&feature=player_ embedded#

Zbigniew Brzezinski Obama's Top Foreign Policy Advisers, Professor of American Foreign PolicyStrategic Analysis and Foreign Policy  National  

Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, worked for Ronald Regan as Intelligence advisor, founder and trustee of the Trilateral Commission, a member of the Council For Foreign Relations (CFR) and Council for Strategic and International Studies, analysis, mastermind behind the creation of Ben Ladin and the terrorist  Al Quieda organisation, international advisor for a number of major corporations, an associate of Henry Kissinger, co-chairman of the Bush Advisory Security Task Force in 1988 ...what a guy...  

states the following belief, conviction and effective advice to Barrack Obama and to Barrach Oboma and 

Zbigniew Brzezinski's employers and bosses...Jacob and Evilyn Rothchold and the rest Rothschild International Banking Family and their other evil and criminally insane International Baking Partners and Business associates and elite families

In a Speech Made on November 17th 2008


For the first time in human history  ,.,.for the first time in all of human history.....almost all of mankind is politiclaly awake... andthese new and old major powers...face and yet another .... a novel reality...in some respect unprecidented ... and it is that while the lethality ..the lethality of their power is greater that ever.... their capacity to propose control  ove rthe politicsally awakened masses of the world is at an all time low   an unprecidented    alll time low... I once put it rather pungently ... and I was flatered that the British Foreign Secretary repeated this...as follows ... namely in ealier times ...'.It was easier to control a million people literally...it was easiet to control a million people that physicly to kill a million people ... today it is infinitely easy to kill a million people than control a million people ..it is easier to kill that ot control...

Michael Ruppert gives a lecture of Zbigniew Brzezingski's 1997 book : The Grand Chessboard.

Rupert says, " Now if you want to get really.... really ...really angry .... go buy this book.. it's called the Grand Chess Board ....  American Primacy and it's Neo Stratigic Objectives...   written by  Zbigniew Brzezingski in 1997 ...I am going to read you some quotes from that book ...
"The last decades in American History has seen a Titanic Shift in World Affairs... for the first time a non Eurasion Power has emerged not only as a key arbiter of Eurasian Relations but also as the world's paramount power with the defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union as the final step in the rapid ascendance of a  Western Hemisphere power with the United States as the first   and indeed as the first truly global super power ...(This is in the preface of the book) 
It is imperative that no Eurasian challenger (Note: by that he means Russia of China) ( Note: Eurasia is everything to the eats of Germany all the way south to the Pacific Ocean .... south through the Indian Sub Continent and includes the middle east..)
emerges that is capable of dominating Eurasia and thus capable of challenging America ....the formulation of a comprehensive and intergrated Eurasian Geo Strategy   is therefore the purpose of this book .... The attitude of the American Public towards the external projection of American Power has been much more ambivelent ...the public support of the American engagement in World War Two was largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour   (Pearl Harbour was another manipulated event just like 9-11, Al Qiueda which have all been  masterminded by Zbigniew Brzezinski with the Rothschild Family behind the scenes who have most to gain as they make their money lending to all countries on all sides of an external and/or internal war and/or conflict).'It get's worse' ....
 for America's the chief Geo Physical Prise is Eurasia ...   and a non Eurasian Power  is pre-eminent and now  America's Global Primacy  ('Isn't that arrogant") America's Global Primacy   is directly dependent on how long and effective is the pro-ponderence on the Eurasian  continent in sustained..('What he is saying is that if America wants to stay top dog it has to control Eurasia ... ')
America's withdrawal from the war ... or because on a sudden emergence of a successful rival would produce  massive international instability ..it would prompt Global Anarchy ...
(Do you know what he is saying there?... actually global anarchy would probably a good thing right now ....what he is saying here there is ... if we don't control the world by whatever means necessary ...
 (the world's going to miserable ... he didn't ask my opinion... Did he ask yours? OK)  
.. in that context ..how American manages Eurasia?  
(Do we manage people around the world ..Is that our job?   ... )
Is critical    Eurasia is the world's largest continent and is Geo Physically Active and a power that controls Eurasia will control two of the world's  three most advanced and economically productive regions  and a mere glance at the map the control of Eurasia would almost automaticly entail Africa's subordination   ..rendering the Western Hemisphere  and Oceania (That's Australia for all you non-academics)   geo-politically proliferal to the worlds central continent ... about 75% of the world's population live in Eurasia   and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well ..both in enterprises and  underneath it's soil   ....Eurasia accounts for 60% of the world's GNP and three fourths of the world's  known energy resources ...  two basic steps are thus required ... first to identify  the strategic dynamic Eurasian states ...that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals  of the respected political elite  and the likely consequences of their seeking to obtain them ...
second ... to formulae specific US policies to offset co-opt and/or control the above..
(The man is talking about co-opting controlling managing subverting nations peoples and economies  ..)
 to put i in a terminology  that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires ..
(please listen to this) 
the three grand imperative  geo strategy are to prevent collusion     and mantain security dependence among the vassels  
... to keep tributaries pliant and protected  and to keep the barbarians form coming together. 
(That's on page 40 ..I'm telling you ..you've got to buy the book )


offset ... co-opt and to control 
which holds     of the worlds natural resources that

 

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." nZbigniew Brzezingski

Comments

1. Obama has to be mind controlled. just watch him when he doesnt? have a telepromter. can anyone help confirm this?

2. They said the same thing about? Bush. Same teleprompter thing. Have you heard of MkULTRA?

3.  Yeh, he's retarded.? He doesn't even know how many states are in the US

4. Tells u a lot about OBAMA that he would align himself w/ this Vulture who said ' THE SUBORDINATION OF AFRICA , WOULD FOLLOW " & " CONTROL OF EURASIA " .
A black man , Obama? stabbing his motherland in the back , its beyond disgraceful , that he would participate in the U.S. militarization OF AFRICA and "Subordination of Africa HE SAID IT , he presents the plans to Obama and this heartless , greedy for power Obama would put his people on their knees bcs of U.S. desire for CONTROL HW ds he sleep

5. No one controls anyone. People make laws with a pen and funding. People force people out of homes, jobs, etc... with the power of the purse but control? no... even a man in irons has his own mind and till people come to know their assault on their fellow man only makes slaves who in time will be the owners by natural change the chain? of abuse continues Having the purse only means power is in cycle. Break the cycle, by letting go of the thoughts of control. The illusion fills the purse w/ death.

6. I have only one heroes. Michael C. Ruppert. You changed my political view forever. Thanks? for that. Enjoy the rest of your life!

7. who is Brzezinski going to get to fight these wars? Not my me? or any of my family.

8.  If it got to that point you wouldn't have a choice, you'd be forced into fighting or forced into jail, or camps they? will have set up all over amercia, or killed. it's crazy..i know

9. Copy and? paste all over...... "Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." nZbigniew Brzezingski


10. WAKE UP? AMERICA, WORLD

11. Communism was funded by the Central Banks, the same people? that control the US today.


Web Hosting Companies