Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,124 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 672,712
Pageviews Today: 791,302Threads Today: 101Posts Today: 2,038
05:42 AM

Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing

Terrorist ; A forbidden word at the UN

Offer Upgrade

User ID: 50601
United States
08/15/2006 06:08 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Terrorist ; A forbidden word at the UN
~~~~~ The ROOTS OF TERRORISM ~~~~~

There is something decidedly wrong with the current ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon. First and foremost is the fact that one of the combatants, the Hezbollah, are not a party to the UN resolution. They are not even mentioned and not a signatory. Thus it would seem the current ceasefire is a planned pause before a much bigger conflagration. But how much bigger?

The actual planning is coming right from the UN. The UN cannot write a resolution about Hezbollah since the UN only recognized countries, such as Lebanon. It does not recognize political parties within countries. And Hezbollah claims to be a major political party in Lebanon. And they are armed to the teeth with weapons provided by Iran, and also paid for by money supplied by the UN. Yes, the UN is a terrorist organization.

But the UN cannot and does not recognize terrorist organizations. The reason is that the UN official dictionary has no word for "terrorist." Many years ago, it was attempted to put the word "terrorist" in the official UN dictionary, the dictionary used by all UN translators for making translations in all those headphones on the floor of the UN. But when definitions of "terrorist" included examples such as Hezbollah or the PLO, the Islamic nations all balked and refused. To them, Hezbollah and the PLO were "freedom fighters." The committee designated to fix the terms or definitions for "terror" or "terrorist" finally gave up. Thus, today there is no translatable word in the UN dictionary for "terrorist."

So when the US ambassador to the UN, Bolton, gives a speech to the Security Council and denounces Hezbollah as a "terrorist" organization, what do all the other delegates hear translated in their headphones. Well, "terrorist" is simply translated as a pause or a blank in the text. And "Hezbollah" is simply a "Lebanese recipient of UN funding." That's right Hezbollah is only recognized as a place were UN money is going, but not identified as to whom, where, or for what. Is there something wrong here? How did the world get into such a complicated mess?

To answer that question we need to go back 250 years to the first use of "terror tactics" by a modern state. It was in north America just before the founding of the United States. The 13 British Colonies, later to become the US, were at war with the French. The French were mostly in Canada around the city of Quebec. But they also held a large tract of land later called the Louisiana Purchase. This land stretched from Quebec all the way down the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers to present-day Louisiana, named after French King Louis.

The British colonists in 1750 found themselves being surrounded and hemmed in by Frenchies in Ohio and Pennsylvania. The French even built numerous forts to claim that property. Thus began the French and Indian War. The French were using Cree Indians as proxies to attack the British colonists. The Brits decided to attack back. They hired local Iroquois or Seneca Indians to attack the Cree. But how do you get Indians to attack Indians? The Brits cut a deal with the local Indians. They will pay for every dead Cree Indian. But rather than bring in the whole body, simply bring in the scalp with the long distinctive hair of the Cree. Yes, it was the Brits who instituted that fine art of "scalping" in 1750.

I have been on archaeological digs in North America, digging up thousand year old native American sites. I have studied archeology for decades. I find no evidence that the North American natives, the Indians, every did anything like "scalping" prior to 1750 during the French and Indian War. It was not an Indian invention. The "lifting of the hair" was uniquely British. This was a scare tactic or "terrorism" to scare the European Frenchies and their proxies, the Cree, out of the Ohio Valley in 1750. It worked. The French retreated back to Quebec, and that ended the French and Indian War. A British military officer in that war was George Washington. He had many Indian scouts. He knew well the British military tactic called "scalping." He ran the program. You won't find that fact in the standard American "school textbooks." But check the history, and you can confirm the fact. Scalping was a successful British "terrorist" military tactic.

Now we fast-forward about 200 years, to about 1947. At the end of World War II, the whole middle east was arbitrarily divided into the modern states of Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Iran. Prior to that, the whole region was a single British colony or protectorate. That came from the "spoils of war" following World War I. Prior to the first World War, the whole of the middle east was one huge Islamic empire called the Ottoman Empire. This was the remnant of the even earlier Muslim Empire which covered most of Africa, most of Spain, and into Europe into Poland, Germany and most of Greece. That Empire even stretched eastward to India.

At the end of World War one, that Ottoman Empire was divided into Turkey on the north, Egypt on the south and India on the east with the Mediterranean Sea on the west. Everything in between those countries, the modern-day middle east was ceded to the British. India had been a British Colony or Raj for nearly 200 years but at the end of World War II, the Brits declared India a separate state, with one notable exception. All the Indians in India were all also British citizens. That's why during the bloody separation of Hindus and Muslims, into India and Pakistan around 1947, many of the displaced people simply emigrated to England to avoid the war. Why not? They were all British citizens. That's why there are so many hundreds of thousands of Indians and Pakistanis living in London today.

In 1945, at the end of World War II, the British had a problem with the region called Palestine. Millions of Jews who had escaped the Nazi ovens, were getting on boats and heading toward Jerusalem. They claimed it was in a book somewhere that was their "home." but Jerusalem has no port, so where did they go? The nearest big seaport was a town called Haifa. But Haifa was already a key military port for the British. It played a pivotal role in World War II.

In 1940, German General Rommel had led the Nazi army across Africa from west to east aiming at the Suez Canal. Why? Almost all the world's oil in the middle east from the Mesopotamia and Persian regions was sent through the Suez Canal. If the Nazis held the canal, they could cutoff the fuel for the British in England and the British army and they could be easily defeated. The Nazis would also then have access to all the oil they needed.

As Rommel neared the Suez Canal, the Brits had a counter-plan. If the Germans did sweep across Egypt and take the canal, the Brits would retreat to the nearby British city of Haifa. With the large Haifa port, all of the British army with its tanks and heavy weapons could be sent to Haifa and unloaded within days. The Brits could fight on from Haifa. And Haifa was also a solution to the oil problem if the Germans held the Suez Canal. During the war, the Brits had built a pipeline from northern Mesopotamia (present-day Iraq) from the oilfields at Mosul and Kirkuk. Oilfields and pipelines even still be fought over today.

The British plan was to send the Mosul and Kirkuk oil by pipeline to Haifa on the Mediterranean Sea coast. There the Brits built a huge oil refinery which could supply England and even the British Army in Haifa with enough oil to beat the Germans through the rest of World War II. That refinery still exists today. That pipeline also still exists. but is in the hands of Iraq and Jordan, and is temporarily stopped. But it could be opened again, and then Haifa becomes the largest oil supplier to Europe. The reason is that oil from Haifa does not need to go through the militarily critical and dangerous Straits of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, nor through the bottleneck of the Suez Canal. In other words Haifa is the military key to the middle east.

But in 1946, that key port city, Haifa, was being flooded with Jews. The Brits were about to lose control of their important oil facility. The Brits wanted all those poor starving Jews to just go away, please. It wasn't that the Brits were anti-semitic, it was simply the massive rush of immigrants was causing complete chaos in Haifa. Boatload after boatload of starving immigrants were disgorging European Jews every day into Haifa. The British government in Haifa was inundated and on the verge of collapse. They could even lose the oil refinery. What were the British to do? How do you scare the Jews away from Haifa?

Well, the Brits turned back a few pages in their military history to the days in 1750 when they "scared" the Frenchies out of Ohio and back to Quebec. But the Brits didn't have any British Captain George Washington to carry out the terror campaign in Haifa. Who could they hire to do the job?

During World War II, the Germans had many spies and guerrilla groups operating behind the lines in the middle east, to attack the British and Americans. These were mostly a group of Muslims called the Muslim Brotherhood. This group started in the 1930's as Nazi collaborators in Europe, but spread throughout the middle east a Nazi agents during the war. At the end of the war, in 1945, these skilled middle eastern Nazi agents were unemployed. Who would hire them?

British military intelligence is divided into several groups. The MI5, or Military Intelligence 5, handles internal affairs and is equivalent to the US FBI. External affairs or MI6, is similar to the US CIA. So in 1945, British MI6 hired the "unemployed" ex-Nazi agent for Egypt, Yassir Arafat. Arafat's Nazi group were trained demolition experts. They had used explosives to destroy British and American ports, railroads, and facilities. Could he do the same for the Brits?

From 1945 to 1947 he was hired to provide random dynamite blasts to "scare" or "terrorize" the incoming Jewish immigrants. Haifa was to be an unwelcome place for the Jews, and maybe they would simply go back home - maybe all the way to Quebec for all the Brits were concerned. Thus in 1945, began the terrorist goal of "driving the Jews back into the sea." A goal which remains and is stated repeatedly even to today. But the "terrorists" have changed their names and who pays for them several times.

In 1945, it was British MI6, which paid for the terror campaign against the Jews. In 1947, the US CIA was founded. Under Operation Paperclip, most of the ex-Nazi eastern European spies were hired into the CIA as spies against the Soviets. At the same time, all of the ex-Nazi Muslim Brotherhood agents in the middle east were also transferred into the central core of the CIA. Why would Yassir Arafat switch from British MI6 to American CIA? Simple, they paid more money, and the Muslim Brotherhood were mercenaries, soldiers of fortune, who go for the highest bidder. So from 1947 to 1979, the CIA ran the "Brotherhood" in its campaign against the Jews.

You thought the United States supported Israel. Wrong. That's only the "public face" of the US government. You've been fooled. The Israeli intelligence group, Mossad, formed in 1951, has never cooperated with the CIA. They are deadly enemies and spy on each other. The 1985 Jonathan Pollard Affair, was a clear example. He was an Israeli who had discovered that the CIA was spying on the Mossad. He was arrested as a traitor and imprisoned for life, to cover up the whole affair. This was at the behest of the CIA not the Mossad. At risk, was exposure of the ties between the CIA and Muslim Brotherhood, or the Yassir Arafat group, the PLO.

From 1947 to 1979, the CIA used paid Muslim mercenary agents in its goal to take control of all oil fields and trans-shipments through pipelines and shipping ports in the middle east. Most of those agents were ex-Nazi Muslim Brotherhood groups. Then suddenly everything changed in 1979. Ayatollah Khomeini took control of Iran. He discovered the Cold War secret that the Soviets and the US were cooperating to ship Soviet oil out through Tehran to the US at sub-market prices. It was a sweetheart deal, only to benefit Standard Oil which was at the center of the CIA. With that knowledge, Iran began a war, a terror campaign against the US. Actually it was not against Americans in general, but those insiders inside the CIA who had been running the Cold War oil scam. I call it the "Empire of Energy." You can read about the "Empire" in the book excerpt "Black Gold Hot Gold" on the BroJon Gazette front page.

So in 1979, the face of "terrorism" changed. It was no longer run from CIA headquarters in Virginia, it was now being run from Tehran, Iran. It was at that time, the Muslim Brotherhood groups took on new names, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Gaza. Why? As before -- Simple, Iran paid more money, and the Muslim Brotherhood were mercenaries, soldiers of fortune, who go for the highest bidder. There was one notable exception. The PLO and Yassir Arafat, remained working for the CIA. That's why during the Clinton Administration, Yassir and his wife, Suha, got to sleepover in the Lincoln Bedroom so many times. And why Hilliary and Suha were all kissyface during the 1990's. They both worked for the same group, the CIA insiders group called the "Empire of Energy." That's how Suha got to be one of the richest women in the world, since she didn't have to pay any Palestinian taxes, so she's richer than Bill Gates. And that's also why Hillary Rodham gets to have anything she wants.

But if you notice, about a year ago, when Arafat died, there was a battle between the PLO and Hamas. What was that all about? Hamas finally won. They were both "terrorist" political groups. But the PLO worked out of CIA Langley, while Hamas worked out of Tehran, Iran. It's simply a matter of paychecks, but the terror tactic was the same, explosive demolishion. It was always about the same. In the 1940's it was army bags filled with sticks of dynamite. In the 1950's plastic explosives. In the 1970's explosives with metal shrapnel. In the 1990's strap on suicide belts with plastic explosives and shrapnel.

And then even today, doing about the same damage as all of those, a Katyusha rocket which can deliver the same amount of explosives with shrapnel. The Katyusha is about the same as an army bag filled with dynamite, but you can "toss it over the fence" about six miles before you need to turn and run. It's still a random explosion designed to kill people and scare them away. It is not a military weapon to destroy military equipment or facilities. In the last month, most northern Israeli's ran away to the safety of southern cities or ran to bomb shelters, as in Haifa. The Hezbollah tactic was a "scare" tactic or "terrorism."

And Ariel Sharon's decision to have Israel pull out of Gaza about a year ago, and the political win by Hamas, marked the beginning of the "Final Solution." That's how I knew that the "kidnapping" of the Israeli soldier in Gaza and two soldiers near Lebanon a month ago, was only the trigger on a very big gun. A massive war was about to begin between the CIA and Iran. A war that had actually been an active war since 1979, but mostly hidden from you under the rubric "terrorism."

But the UN doesn't know the word "terrorism." The UN can't do anything about "terrorism." The "terrorist" war between the CIA and Iran is about to explode. If the UN needs some help understanding the problem, they need only look to the British and their "terror" campaign against the Jews in Haifa in 1946 for a proper definition. And for further historical etymology to find the "Roots of Terrorism," the UN need only look again to the British tacticians as they sip tea and discuss that fine British military art called, the "lifting of the hair"....
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 131129
United Kingdom
08/15/2006 06:17 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Terrorist ; A forbidden word at the UN
Interesting post!

User ID: 115428
United Kingdom
08/15/2006 11:11 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Terrorist ; A forbidden word at the UN
Another one is Christian.