FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Diana's Murder - Latest / Analysis
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Cracrocrates



Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 12:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dilbert_g wrote:
the Pentagon reported that Iraq was NOT interested in aggression against it's neighbors.

Perhaps because Iraq had a hard enough time just keeping the Iraninans from invading back after Iraq instigated the first war. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't mainstream history say that the US even sold weapons to the IRANIANS during the Iran-Iraqi war? US was interested in balancing the region...at least after (possibly) realizing that there was no way in hell Iraq was going to win a war against Iran.

Quote:
Iraq (Saddam) had outlived it's usefulness, once it was no longer destroying Iran.

I disagree. A Sunni-led Iraq helped hold a tenuous balance in the region. Problem is, Saddam's old and there is no reasonable (US-approved) choice for a line of succession. Problem is that the Iran-Iraqi war radicalized Iran. After the First Gulf War, the US left Saddam in power, but also 1) weakened Iraq with sanctions BUT 2) essentially guarded the country by air from Iran.

Quote:
Iraq was a more apt choice for a foothold for "Seizing Arab Oil" as the article is titled.

I disagree. From a businessman's perspective, the risk of doing business in an unstable country with poor property rights is spending BILLIONS of dollars in capital costs and having the state later appropriating your investment for nothing. Venezuela?

But what exactly is the breakdown of oil revenues that Iraq would keep...from my understanding, there is at least an open competition for contracts among the entire world's oil companies, including Russia and France(not just Exxon). 20 years from now, Iraq should be sharing in oil revenues as much as the Saudis are today. And even if the ratio is less than the Saudis, the region should be much better off than it was in the 1980s or 1990s.

No one is stealing anything. The important thing is that the oil comes out of the ground in the first place and is used SOMEWHERE in the world to do useful work. The margins (in US dollars at least) on oil are good now, but they were crap in the 1990s. If there was a risk that an oil rich region was basically holding back severely or holding the world at blackmail, that is something the industrialized world would be pretty pissed off about because world depressions lead to world wars...not to mention huge paper losses, lost income, and much worse quality of life for EVERYBODY.

Quote:
But the problem was how to force non-aggressive Iraq to become aggressive again.

I don't think this makes any sense. I'm assuming your coming from the angle that Iraq was made violent to increase oil prices and hence oil profits.
I'm assuming that oil margins are much better now than before 2003...but a lot (maybe 50% ?) of the higher oil price is JUST IN THE US because of a WEAKER DOLLAR because of the high war expenditures and rock-bottom interest rates.IN EUROPE & ASIA, OIL PRICE HIKES ARE NOT AS SEVERE BECAUSE THEIR CURRENCIES APPRECIATED RELATIVE TO THE DOLLAR. Look at practically every currency, from the Euro to whatever Pakistan uses, and see that their oil price increases were nowhere close to the doubling or tripling of price in the US. IN EUROPE, THE OIL HIKE IS EVEN LESS SEVERE BECAUSE OF HIGH OIL TAXES.

The record high oil profits of US oil companies are reported (of course)in US DOLLARS, but the 2007 dollar is only worth, what 65% of a 1999 dollar? The record high profits aren't as incredible as most people are making them out to be. The headlines are just to sell newspapers.

I know a little bit about construction costs in the US for small businesses. Building a new building in 2007 would cost LIKELY DOUBLE the amount in US Dollars as building the same building in 1999...at a minimum, the cost would be 50% higher today...but doubling any cost in 1999 is a pretty good ballpark estimate. And the costs are about 50% higher than just 2003...before the Iraqi war.

_________________
" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."


--Cracrocrates
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cracrocrates wrote:
dilbert_g wrote:
the Pentagon reported that Iraq was NOT interested in aggression against it's neighbors.

Perhaps because Iraq had a hard enough time just keeping the Iraninans from invading back after Iraq instigated the first war. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't mainstream history say that the US even sold weapons to the IRANIANS during the Iran-Iraqi war? US was interested in balancing the region...at least after (possibly) realizing that there was no way in hell Iraq was going to win a war against Iran.

There's a long hidden history. Israel was friends with the Shah, but then Israel secretly funnelled weapons to post-revolutionary Iran, according to Ari Ben Menashe and others, when Iran was on the US hostage and post-hostage shitlist. Iran was "our enemy", "radical Muslims". Israel was our friend. Ollie North et al. was opening up a 2nd arms pipeline to Iran in the late 70's or 1980 to compete with Israel, and Bush's CIA hacks were meeting with the Mullahs to arrange things, which *included* keeping the hostages until after the election.

So "the West" supported Iran, mostly secretly. (Did Jimmy Carter, of the Tri-Lateral Commission, not know that Bush Sr., of the Tri-Lateral Commission, and the CIA, was secretly negotiating with Iran during the hostage crisis? Did they really keep Carter in the dark? Or was he a willing accomplice, like Al Gore in 2000?)

But "the West" ALSO supported Iraq, openly. Someone wrote that different factions in the US govt were supporting Iraq/Iran, but I don't know about that.

US Gov pushed their little puppet Saddam to invade Iran. Saddam apparently saw the Shah's regime as an equal US partner to him, a rival for US attention perhaps. They were calling Saddam "our policeman", "our cop on the beat". But Saddam probably saw the Shiite Revolution as a threat .. maybe .. or at least the US convinced him Iran was a threat, and dangled a few carrots in front of Saddam to go invade. The US the coached Saddam to seize an oil-rich province of Iran.

Saddam didn't attack Iran on his own volition. No fucking way. (He didn't invade Kuwait on his own volition, not without approval from Washington.) Rumsfeld's ostensible platform of experience for his possible presidential run included his work securing weapons deals for Saddam, many which were paid for by US taxpayers (or at least our debt), and Bush Sr. broke several US laws and subverted investigations to provide Iraq with weapons and money (via the Dept of Ag and the Ex-Im Bank which are NOT to be used for foreign policy in terms of weapons and wars).


Quote:
Iraq (Saddam) had outlived it's usefulness, once it was no longer destroying Iran.

I disagree. A Sunni-led Iraq helped hold a tenuous balance in the region. Problem is, Saddam's old and there is no reasonable (US-approved) choice for a line of succession. Problem is that the Iran-Iraqi war radicalized Iran. After the First Gulf War, the US left Saddam in power, but also 1) weakened Iraq with sanctions BUT 2) essentially guarded the country by air from Iran.

Probably true on the tenuous balance, but Cooperativeresearch (CIA fake or not) exposed a 1991 News article in it's timeline, Bush ordered the CIA in 1991 to begin a PR campaign to remove Saddam, regime change. That's a decade of planning and simmering. The CIA hired the Rendon Group in London, to blast PR to the world and back to the US. The Rendon Group hired a guy named Brooks something as a consultant, PR wiz. They had some $40,000 per month, or maybe that was his salary. He bragged about how successful they were. He created the Iraq National Congress, democratic Iraq in exile, and appointed Chalabi (convicted embezzler) to head it. Brooks eventually manuvered Chalabi towards the Neo-Cons and JINSA.

They could have found someone to run Iraq, but it takes time to formulate big plans like that, to get political approval. Bush Sr. was not a "just do it" guy, like Bush Jr. He probably could not have pulled it off. People TOLD him occupying Iraq would be a disaster. Bush Jr. got the justification ---- Sept 11 --- and his displays of sheer arrogance, political manipulation. Bush Jr. is a pretty good political hard baller, from what I understand. He's good at making allies and FUCKING enemies, and lining up the ducks to do so.

Saddam was normally a *willing* partner of the US, but not a complete toady. He nationalized Iraqi National Petroleum and made it an Iraqi State-owned company, similar to some of what Chavez has done. Saddam sold oil, but he did not let BP-Chevron-Exxon-Unocal-Total-Whomever to reap the full profits. He wanted the profits BOTH for himself personally and for his "legacy", building up Iraq into a first world nation and moving on from there. Big ambitions. Not really anti-US ambitions, but he set an example by expropriating Iraq National Petroleum, which had been previously expropriated or "strong-armed" from Iraq. (Of course the CIA put Saddam in power in the first place, in Intelligence (assassinations) in the late 50's, 60's.)

Venezuela offered Exxon a 49% stake in it's oil fields, i think undeveloped or underdeveloped fields. Venezuela was willing to sign a contract. Venezuela is NOT known to welch on contracts with others, including a Canadian gold mining company in which one of my friends had invested some cash. They just negotiate stiff TERMS -- like environmental protection, and a FAIR share of the profits. They threaten/promise to rescind said contracts IF terms are not met. No one-sided contracts. Western business does not like to operate strictly on those contracts and agreements, especially in Latin America -- or inside the US for that matter. They like a free hand to pilage, unilaterally change or defy terms, steal, with no undue restrictions, just hand a payoff to corrupt leaders. Payoffs and threats.

Saddam was a brutal bastard with his enemies, and suspected enemies, but he spent a lot of money on development in Iraq, electrifying most of the country, even some rural areas. It was like the crown jewel of the Middle East in terms of modernization. And he was secular.

He was maybe similar to Nixon -- part total bastard, part domestic liberal. Nixon liked private profit-making HMO's but he also instituted a little bit of "war on poverty" and he sought to decriminalize the drug war for practical reasons. I read somewhere that he even proposed a minimum govt income for Americans like Harold Channer talked about --- welfare for everyone, based on productivity -- to buy off public support I guess -- but that was shot down by Congress. I don't know if that's true.


Quote:
Iraq was a more apt choice for a foothold for "Seizing Arab Oil" as the article is titled.

I disagree. From a businessman's perspective, the risk of doing business in an unstable country with poor property rights is spending BILLIONS of dollars in capital costs and having the state later appropriating your investment for nothing. Venezuela?

"Seizing Arab Oil" was an opinion piece by a Pentagon official (later a neo-con) under a pseudonym. It was published in Harper's, recently republished. It was detailed plans about creating the Casus Belli for flying in to Saudi Arabia from Israel, landing in the remote oil regions, and literally seizing Saudi oil. (Baker and others wrote similar articles, starting in 75 before the Vietnam war ashes had cooled. It was not a one-off article.)

My argument is that, given the politics and money, Iraq was an easier target for people to agree on politically, than the Saudi kingdom. For one, the Bush family has a lot of lucrative relationships in S.A. As a matter of fact, Bush Sr. may have purposely set up Iraq as the fall guy to take the heat off his S.A. business partners.


But what exactly is the breakdown of oil revenues that Iraq would keep...from my understanding, there is at least an open competition for contracts among the entire world's oil companies, including Russia and France(not just Exxon). 20 years from now, Iraq should be sharing in oil revenues as much as the Saudis are today. And even if the ratio is less than the Saudis, the region should be much better off than it was in the 1980s or 1990s.

Why kill a million people? How long before enough of a generation dies off to forgive US actions and Iraqis *willing* to strike a deal. According to Muslim/Arabic/Iraqi culture, (some say) revenge is forever. A hundred years, multi-generational, even. It did not have to be this way.

Saddam was perfectly willing to sell oil. He *was* selling it. He objected to Kuwait (with secret US backing) tapping into oil inside Iraq's territory then dumping $14 billion onto world markets, breaking OPEC agreements, creating a glut, dropping prices, at a time when Iraq needed it for both reconstruction and LOAN PAYMENTS. These LOAN OBLIGATIONS were a big part of how WW2 was started, Allies payments to the US, and extracting reparations from Germany to do so.

Now, PERHAPS if Saddam had finished developing Iraq, *THEN* he could have become more popular and expanded Pax Arabia or whatever it's called. After consolidating power, *THEN* perhaps he could have charged *market* (i.e. high) prices for sweet crude. Then he could have had a monopoly with no competition, similar to now anyhow with the collaborating oil cartel companies.

This war was strategically to create a large base foothold in the region, secure reserves for the "free market" i.e. western oil companies on THEIR terms, be able to menace other countries, and be able to prevent other powers (Russia, China) from moving in without going through us. The ability to dictate terms. Power politics, the same kind that led to WW2.


No one is stealing anything. The important thing is that the oil comes out of the ground in the first place and is used SOMEWHERE in the world to do useful work. The margins (in US dollars at least) on oil are good now, but they were crap in the 1990s. If there was a risk that an oil rich region was basically holding back severely or holding the world at blackmail, that is something the industrialized world would be pretty pissed off about because world depressions lead to world wars...not to mention huge paper losses, lost income, and much worse quality of life for EVERYBODY.

No one is stealing anything??? Bush's terms he's trying to force Iraq's ministers to implement (one reason they are not so popular and many seen as US lackeys) is the privatization of Iraq's reserves. I.e., open season for western companies to TAKE OWNERSHIP of 80% of Iraq's oil at a time when Iraq is destroyed and cannot really compete.

Nobody was holding back or blackmailing. Apparently Bush is now, driving up prices. They're pumping LESS than during the embargo. Bushco is causing a global depression. Palast -- fake or not -- said he was faxed a 350p State Dept doc for Iraq saying "don't pump oil". I've not seen the entire thing, but he quoted it.

Risk? The Carter Doctrine says that if any nation in the Middle East has too much power, then they are a de facto threat. They *COULD* blackmail the industrialized nations. Therefore, stability and prosperity and having a military is seen as a threat. (I think S.A. only has a small US-trained cadre that protects the rulers.)

"Al-Qaeda" is doing a great job of destabilizing civilized countries.


Quote:
But the problem was how to force non-aggressive Iraq to become aggressive again.

I don't think this makes any sense. I'm assuming your coming from the angle that Iraq was made violent to increase oil prices and hence oil profits.
I'm assuming that oil margins are much better now than before 2003...but a lot (maybe 50% ?) of the higher oil price is JUST IN THE US because of a WEAKER DOLLAR because of the high war expenditures and rock-bottom interest rates.IN EUROPE & ASIA, OIL PRICE HIKES ARE NOT AS SEVERE BECAUSE THEIR CURRENCIES APPRECIATED RELATIVE TO THE DOLLAR. Look at practically every currency, from the Euro to whatever Pakistan uses, and see that their oil price increases were nowhere close to the doubling or tripling of price in the US. IN EUROPE, THE OIL HIKE IS EVEN LESS SEVERE BECAUSE OF HIGH OIL TAXES.

They needed to push Iraq to attack Kuwait, to justify a US counterattack. Ralph Schoenman laid it out, and I checked some of his facts. Saddam did not want to attack Kuwait. Negotiations went on for at least a year. Kuwait -- with US backing -- was bluffing Saddam, provoking him. US officials were whispering to Saddam's officials to attack Kuwait. It took a step-by-step escalation of support for Saddam from various State Dept officials before Saddam felt bold enough to invade Kuwait. Joseph Wilson, one or more Congressmen who stood up and said on TV that America had no interests in matters in the Middle East (refuting the Carter Doctrine), and a show with Barbara Walters with April Glaspie defending Saddam. The final move was April Glaspie -- an employee of James Baker -- meeting DIRECTLY with Saddam to tell him to his face that the US had no interests, only concerns, about his plans for Kuwait.

PNAC wrote to the US business sector that it was necessary to sacrifice now for a future US empire to secure future long-term profits. PNAC actually had to buck the business community, which did NOT want to pay for an expensive war. They needed to be sold on the idea of looking past the next quarter. (There's only one line about that in "Rebuilding America's Defenses", but it would not be in there if not needed. Even tho only a tiny remark, you can imagine the PNAC rats going around arm-twisting big business/political people on that argument. Sept 11 was to convince THEM, as much as convince us unwashed masses.)

Biz at least wanted to know that there would be a worthwhile future payoff, in this "investment". Varying interests need to be brought on board. That's politics. Apparently, Bush found that a sufficient number of these interested business persons and groups could be brought on board to support their goals (and fuck the rest of them), which were to serve Israel and the Military Complex and Intelligence/Security and future US hegemony over oil, vs. other foreign competition.


The record high oil profits of US oil companies are reported (of course)in US DOLLARS, but the 2007 dollar is only worth, what 65% of a 1999 dollar? The record high profits aren't as incredible as most people are making them out to be. The headlines are just to sell newspapers.

I know a little bit about construction costs in the US for small businesses. Building a new building in 2007 would cost LIKELY DOUBLE the amount in US Dollars as building the same building in 1999...at a minimum, the cost would be 50% higher today...but doubling any cost in 1999 is a pretty good ballpark estimate. And the costs are about 50% higher than just 2003...before the Iraqi war.


Sure, but the additional $2+ Trillion National Debt (expected) (unless they totally fuck over veterans) is not peanuts.
Back to top
Cracrocrates



Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:56 pm    Post subject: The Least Bad Option Reply with quote

Gary,

Let me explain my attitude/presumptions.

1) I think the military conceals information in wartime that, if revealed publicly, would create domestic support for a policy that the military believes is detrimental to long-term peace (my main example of this is from Michael Lind's book about Vietnam, where the US concealed that opposition planes that were shot down were often being flown by Soviet pilots dressed in VC uniforms...the US wanted a limited war ONLY, not a World War with the Soviets AND Chinese)

2) There is a serious shitload of either disinfo AND just plain partisan politics information everywhere it seems. It's difficult to sort out the history of events that took place even in the recent 1980s..The partisan stuff I've been made more aware of during this election year, seeing candidates or their staff bicker at the opposition. Some gripes are legit, others are as phony as John McCain's black baby. Dubya, for example, was not a draft dodger, but did probably get preferential treatment to get into the guard. My point is...some of the incredibly hard to verify SLANDERS out there that seem difficult to prove (I'm thinking of Tarpley's Bush book), if even 10% true, I would think would get a candidate's ass kicked in any public election. Like you mentioned above in Iran-Iraq politics, maybe there were competing sides in the American goverment on who to support...so there are DISAGREEMENTS and biases among any group of people...meaning if the slanders were TRUE, some opposition candidate or even opposition business interest SHOULD make it public sometime in the DECADES of public office running it takes to become a senator or higher.

3) The US military and gov., like any other organization, can make mistakes or there can be unforeseen consequences. Sometimes, short term sacrifices are necessary for long-term stability (Korea, Vietnam is debatable)

4) If the US gov were so corrupt, this should have filtered down into the public and there should be seriously MORE OPPOSITION AND DISSENT than just a bunch of damn people in a parade since WWII. Turns out that almost all of America's military interventions since WWII are POPULAR AMONG THE POPULATION and their loss of support occurs ONLY due to escalating fatalities. Michael Lind wrote that public support for the Vietnam War followed the exact same trend as the dropoff of support for the Korean War. That's why even George W. Bush was RE-ELECTED in 2004. He hasn't been impeached because, generally, the public, the military, and the Pentagon deemed it necessary to invade Iraq. If there was a way to politically capitalize,seriously, even the impotent Democratic Party should have made a stronger case to get out of the war in 2004...except there wasn't one. Notice how the candidate with the most anti-war rhetoric in 2004 - Howard Dean - practically sabatoged himself with his YEARRGHH! but also became head of the DNC.

5) Besides some semi-public bickering, the world's leaders are behind the United States. If they weren't the civilized world would stop funding the US debt. Instead, like I researched months ago here and on my blog, shows that US share as a global reserve currency has remained very very strong by historical standards
.................................................................................................

WHAT THIS MEANS IS...I'M TRYING TO GUESS WHAT'S ACTUALLY GOING ON BY LOOKING AT ACTIONS SINCE PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS ARE INCOMPLETE OR DISINFO. THE ACTIONS ARE REAL BUT THE EXPLANATIONS FOR THEM ARE CRAP.

In late 2002, some ROTC kid told me that the US was gearing up to invade Iraq. I told him "That's CRAZY." It sounded retarded to me. The mainstream news in 2003 basically spit out dogshit from J. Miller/New York Times from some military "source." But there was no, or little opposition from ANYWHERE...even business interests who know the economy turns towards recession during difficult military ventures.

Looking back, the only way I see EVERYBODY, including the Pentagon, on board for this Iraqi War is if there was an IMMINENT THREAT FROM IRAN (dissidents?)or IRAN-SUPPORTED FIGHTERS. Iran probably has its own doves and hawks. What if the hawks were about to go to war or overthrow Saddam? THAT'S A SCENARIO WORTH GOING TO WAR FOR IN THE US, EVEN KNOWING THE BAD CONSEQUENCES.

Problem in this scenario is (guessing here), the US/Pentagon would in no fucking way want to admit that Iran (or crazy dissidents in Iran) are responsible for the US going to war, because then there would be domestic support to go invade Iran...which is an unwinnable war for all sides concerned. There's animosity concerning Iran, this "Real Men Go to Tehran" meme that is out there....but NOTHING CONCLUSIVE like "iranian bombs are blowing up American soldiers" right now. Funny huh? Because if the military (supposedly) lies to us about everything so the US continues this so-called "imperialist" agenda, one would have thought this type of propaganda would have been in our heads CONSTANTLY since 2003. Which it hasn't.

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

The US knew there was a strong chance this war would drag on. Why? Because the minority Sunnis (which the US probably trained at times in the past) controlled the government and the Iraqi military, and there was little chance of peace right off the bat. (Just think of all the examples of the British Empire leaving Asia or Africa...yes the divisions and the partitions sucked, but the people left - like in Iraq - SHOULD have worked together if acting in their best interests...people don't always act in their best interests).

THAT'S WHY PAPPY BUSH LEFT SADDAM IN POWER. SOMETHING HAD TO HAVE CHANGED SINCE THEN...AND THE ONLY THING I CAN THINK OF IS A THREAT FROM LONG-TIME IRAQI ADVERSARY AND NEIGHBOR IRAN. I DON'T BUY THE "PSYCHOLOGICAL" EXPLANATION OF ARROGANCE AS EXPLAINING US/DUBYA ACTIONS. Reading ThomasPMBarnett and watching his presentations, the Pentagon to me looks like this "battle of briefs" or a "battle of ideas". They run through possible scenarious dozens of times with dozens of researchers over many many years, and decide on a "least bad outcome" if shit hits the fan.

Why do you think the public has been taught to think of "Al-Qaida" as Afghani or Iraqi or even Saudi or occasionally in Africa, but HARDLY EVER Iranian ? Iran's part of the "Axis of Evil" but not Al-Qaida?

Quote:
Why kill a million people? How long before enough of a generation dies off to forgive US actions and Iraqis *willing* to strike a deal. According to Muslim/Arabic/Iraqi culture, (some say) revenge is forever. A hundred years, multi-generational, even. It did not have to be this way.


My best example is that if Truman had not further involved the US during the Korean War (which was technically an illegal action), World War II would have essentially continued between the Chinese, South Koreans, and spread to the Japanese within ten years. I HAVE NO DOUBT IN MY MIND OF THIS. Just look at a map of the region. Tens of Millions would have died without the "least bad option"..the lasting military presence of the US in South Korea since the 1950s that remains today.

The war in 2003 was relatively short. But it's unfair to blame factional rivalries/hatred/bombings since "Mission Accomplished" on the US. The US isn't sponsoring suicidal bombers or truck bombers or blowing up refineries. Many of the bombers are probably being either blackmailed or promised that their families will be taken care and to do it for "God." The sides that are preaching hate are NOT the US. Look at how minimal the racism against muslims in AMERICA has been since the six years after 9/11, in official policy or among the general population. LIKE IN MY COMMENTS EARLIER ABOUT "WHO KILLED DI" AND THE "UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY" OF PEACE, THERE ARE SIDES WHO WANT TO BENEFIT BY INSTIGATING HATRED. THE US (generally) SINCE WWII HAS A BETTER TRACK RECORD THAN THAT.

Yes, Iraq is a clusterfuck. HOWEVER, the war may have also been the "least bad option." It's the only way the political and business leadership (even oppositional factions in competing industries)of the US and the World either never opposed the war, or did it very very meekly.

Quote:
Sure, but the additional $2+ Trillion National Debt (expected) (unless they totally fuck over veterans) is not peanuts.


Yes, but the world is supporting US deficits.
Historically, the world's economy has NEVER been better.
Production has never been this good or supported this many people before.

And I'll take the current US recession (and probably a falloff in Asia) during the next two years to avoid much worse outcomes.


---Crac

_________________
" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."


--Cracrocrates
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
PatrickSMcNally



Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 846

PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:58 pm    Post subject: Re: The Least Bad Option Reply with quote

Cracrocrates wrote:
My best example is that if Truman had not further involved the US during the Korean War (which was technically an illegal action), World War II would have essentially continued between the Chinese, South Koreans, and spread to the Japanese within ten years.

The Korean War occurred because of after 5 years of US-supported raids from South Korea into North Korea Kim Il Sung thought that he could quickly mop the matter up. In the months before the North Korean move a statement was issued which drew a defense perimeter for the US that did not include South Korea and this was why Moscow approved the North Korean invasion of South Korea. There was no plan of invading Japan by either Moscow or Peking. If MacArthur had stopped after advancing to the original North-South division line then China would never have entered the war at all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cracrocrates



Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:43 pm    Post subject: Re: The Least Bad Option Reply with quote

PatrickSMcNally wrote:
The Korean War occurred because of after 5 years of US-supported raids from South Korea into North Korea Kim Il Sung thought that he could quickly mop the matter up. In the months before the North Korean move a statement was issued which drew a defense perimeter for the US that did not include South Korea and this was why Moscow approved the North Korean invasion of South Korea.


Uh, the 5 years of raids should have tipped the diplomats that words are cheap...at least compared to FIVE YEARS OF RAIDS. Diplomacy is funny that way. (I think the statement you're referring to was mentioned in Kennan's Strategies of Containment..some NSC doc...Korea wasn't on the list, but the paper didn't just come out and say "we're getting the hell out of Korea" either)

Quote:
There was no plan of invading Japan by either Moscow or Peking.

Plan? You've got to be kidding me. Who needs a plan?
The tip of South Korea is a hop skip and a jump to Japan.
(think Cuba and Florida)

If the US had left South Korea, China/Soviet Union occupy South Korea, or at least are the two 500-pound gorillas that heavily influence Korea.

The US would have continued to protect Japan, but you can't seriously tell me that defending Japan would not have become a hell of a lot more difficult after losing South Korea. All those Soviet/Chinese resources used to achieve the mere stalemate in Korea would have been used elsewhere. A Navy was only a matter of time as long as high fatality counts were accepted (which generally were by the Soviets and Chinese).

If they had kicked the US off the continent:
    the Chinese hate the Japanese (justifiably for raping ASia),
    the Soviets hate the Japanese (regional competitor), and hell even
    the Koreans hated the Japanese (ditto raping),

your telling me that *long-term* this isn't a wider war just waiting to happen from the point of view of any grand strategist after WWII?

If not 10 years, within 20 years certainly.
If the Soviets had ANY world ambitions (even Indonesia was communist for a while), Japan *from the point of view of the Pentagon after WWII ended* vacating South Korea would have appeared as a huge mistake considering the possible consequences.

Quote:
If MacArthur

That's why he was publicly, even embarrassingly, fired by Truman.
Even if the US theoretically (but unofficially) had supported MacArthur's actions, the public firing of one of the US's most revered and decorated war heroes should have gotten the point across that the US would NOT do anything as stupid that might lead to world war in the region. It worked.

_________________
" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."


--Cracrocrates
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
PatrickSMcNally



Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 846

PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 11:43 pm    Post subject: Re: The Least Bad Option Reply with quote

Cracrocrates wrote:
If the US had left South Korea, China/Soviet Union occupy South Korea, or at least are the two 500-pound gorillas that heavily influence Korea.

No, North Korea would have extended it's governing authority over the south. The two halves of Korea had been gearing up for war for quite some time. For several years there was a civil war in the south as the US reinstalled former Japanese collaborators. The government of Seoul had carried on raids into the north and Kim Il Sung had bided his time until he got Stalin's AOK for an invasion of the south, but Stalin had no interest in carrying on a war for the sake of taking the south. He simply agreed to Kim Il Sung's urgings when it seemed that the US had drawn a defense perimeter which left Korea out of the loop.

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/ACFB76.pdf

Cracrocrates wrote:
If the Soviets had ANY world ambitions (even Indonesia was communist for a while), Japan *from the point of view of the Pentagon after WWII ended* vacating South Korea would have appeared as a huge mistake considering the possible consequences.

Indonesia had a broad Communist Party, but they wasted whatever chance they had of gaining power by playing up to Sukarno the same way that in Chile they played up to Allende. A classic example of how Moscow's wish to play down revolutionary aims for the sake of diplomacy played into the hands of the Right-wing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cracrocrates



Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 1:14 am    Post subject: Re: The Least Bad Option Reply with quote

PatrickSMcNally wrote:

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/ACFB76.pdf

I scanned part of that report by Kathryn Weathersby. Patrick, I think I see where you are coming from...but to any American at the time (without the benefit of the Russian archives revealed 40 years later) the intentions of the Soviet Union would have been less than clear. Even with the Russian archives, there is some ambiguity. Without the archives, the report mentions that there are varying opinions among scholars about the beginnings of the Korean War.

On one hand, there's this passage:
Quote:
With regard to the question of Soviet expansionist objectives in Korea, the documentary
evidence indicates very strongly that from February 1945 to April 1950 Stalin did not aim to gain
control over the entire peninsula. Instead, he pursued the pre-1905 Russian policy toward Korea,
which was to maintain a balance of power on the Korean peninsula, preventing any single power
from gaining complete control over it. However, the nature of the Soviet political system made it
impossible for Moscow to cooperate with other powers to maintain a l9th century-style balance of
power. Instead, Stalin attempted to accomplish this aim by a crude division of the country,
retaining the artificial division of the peninsula at the 38th parallel that had been initially proposed
by the United States as a temporary measure.


On the other, there's:
Quote:
“in the interests of the USSR the political and economic influence
of Japan in Korea must be liquidated. Japan must be given only the possibility of trade with
Korea on the basis of usual relations; it must not have the right to industrial or any other concessions.”
...
It is clear, therefore, that the Soviet government keenly appreciated the history of Korea
as a focus of great power competition in northeast Asia and as a springboard for Japanese
expansion onto the Asian continent. Moscow consequently considered it vital for the security of
the Soviet Far East that Korea not be in hostile hands. The report does not advocate annexation
of the peninsula but rather that the government established there have “friendly and close
relations” with the USSR. It should be noted that the authors mention U.S. and Chinese interests
in Korea but continue to view Japan as the primary threat. As will be discussed below, this focus
on the Japanese threat continued throughout the occupation period and even through the first year
of the Korean War.
...
Though the Soviet occupation command tightly sealed the 38th parallel against the
movement of supplies, it did little to curb the flow of people from north to south, most of whom
were returning to their original homes in the south from forced labor camps at industrial sites in
Manchuria and northern Korea. According to U.S. records, approximately 1,600,000 persons
moved into the southern zone during the fall of 1945; about 500,000 came from northern Korea,
the rest from Manchuria.25 Allowing the exodus of those who opposed Soviet occupation
policies (primarily large landowners, Christians, and Koreans who had collaborated with the
Japanese) greatly eased the process of establishing political control over northern Korea, though
at the cost of losing the most highly skilled sector of the population.26


So...neither side (US or Soviet) had faith enough that Korea would be left alone. The US may have considered leaving altogether, but then there was continuing/heightened tension between North and South Korea (debatable about who started what) and the US stayed. I can see how the Soviet Union and the US were comfortable with the permanent stalemate; the Soviet Union was assured that Japan would not invade and that Japanese influence on the Soviet Union would be kept to a minimum.
................

Among all the tension-filled stuff mentioned already, could buried treasure have affected policy? It's been years since I read Gold Warriors by the Seagrams. I've been debating where the entire book is disinfo...about jacked gold stolen by the Japanese during WWII and stashed all over southeast asia, especially the Philippines. Which became a slush fund for US political/military interests until Nixon gave it back to the Japanese in return for campaign contributions. Wild stuff, possibly disinfo...Dave Emory interviews Peggy Seagram here:
http://www.wfmu.org/listen.ram?show=26024&archive=40492
(streaming)
..............
Wow, this thread has strayed a bit from Lady Di.

_________________
" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."


--Cracrocrates
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Cracrocrates



Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 1:25 am    Post subject: Wait, what? Reply with quote

Wu Li wrote:
Isn't Prince Charles a muslim now or am I mistaken?


Wait, what?
http://catsnstuff.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/dude-wait-what.jpg

_________________
" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."


--Cracrocrates
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
PatrickSMcNally



Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 846

PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/119

Is Prince Charles a Convert to Islam?
by Daniel Pipes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kathy
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Posts: 727
Location: Surfing The Waves

PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:30 am    Post subject: Princess Diana unlawfully killed Reply with quote

Quote:
Princess Diana unlawfully killed



Princess Diana was unlawfully killed due to the "gross negligence" of driver
Henri Paul and the paparazzi, an inquest jury has found.

The jury reached the same verdict for her companion Dodi Al Fayed.

The jury also specified that Mr Paul's drink-driving and the fact that neither
Mr Fayed nor Diana were wearing seatbelts contributed to their deaths.

The inquest into the 1997 Paris crash that killed them and Mr Paul lasted
six months.

The jury returned joint verdicts of unlawful killing through grossly
negligent driving - or gross negligence manslaughter
.

Princes Diana was killed when Mr Paul crashed a hired Mercedes into a
pillar in the Alma underpass in Paris in the early hours of 31 August, 1997.

Mr Fayed's father Mohamed al Fayed left the High Court without
commenting as did Diana's sister Lady Sarah McCorquodale.

In a statement read on Mr al Fayed's behalf, he said the verdicts would
come as a blow to "millions" of his supporters around the world .

But former Metropolitan Police commissioner Lord Stevens welcomed the
verdicts as a "justification" of the inquiry he led into the deaths.

Coroner Lord Justice Scott Baker thanked the jury for their "considerable
devotion" to duty over the past six months and said it was "almost
astonishing" that they had been present on every day without having any
absences.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7328754.stm



Quote:
Diana and Dodi: the questions that remain

There are two Tom Bakers of note. One has spent the past six months as
a time traveller in a parallel universe revisiting the Paris of a decade ago.
The other is a tubby actor who played Doctor Who in a long woolly scarf.

Sir Thomas Scott Gillespie Baker, Lord Justice of Appeal, allowed the
marathon inquiries into the deaths of Diana and Dodi to wander down
endless byways, cul-de-sacs and dead ends that sometimes took the
action a very long way indeed from the Alma tunnel on the expressway by
the Seine. There were times when he was moved to ask Michael Mansfield
and his colleagues on the Fayed legal team exactly where their
cross-examinations were supposed to be going.

In the end he instructed the inquest jury to ignore all thoughts of a
conspiracy to murder the couple, as not one of 252 witnesses had offered
a shred of evidence to support it. Even Mr Mansfield, hired by Mohamed
al-Fayed to stand up the far-fetched notion, gave up believing it in the end.

Conspiracy theories are a popular pastime, and generate hundreds of
websites on the internet. Their adherents still argue whether it was the
Mafia or his own Democrat colleagues who engineered the death of John F.
Kennedy in 1963; more recently, 9/11 has proved particularly fertile
ground for fanciful speculation. Despite the coroner's comprehensive
dismissal, the death of Diana will continue to generate conspiracy theories
for as long as people remember her and beyond.

Lord Justice Scott Baker allowed the inquests to roam far and wide and
explore every conceivable avenue in the hope that, after a full French
inquiry and an exhaustive 800-page report by Lord Stevens of
Kirkwhelpington, the retired Metropolitan Police Commissioner, the British
inquests would provide the definitive closing of the book.

Yet several questions still hang in the air, and the answers to them may
never be known:

1. What exactly caused Henri Paul to lose control of the Mercedes has
never been made clear
, although the likeliest theory is the swarm of
paparazzi buzzing around the car like wasps at a jampot. The white Fiat
Uno - of which much was made but which has never been found - may or
may not have been a factor, and it is still unclear whether there was
another blocking vehicle which got in Paul's way and then sped off.

The only survivor of the crash, Trevor Rees, the bodyguard, suffered
severe injuries in the front passenger seat, and the jury heard that as a
result his memory of events is seriously impaired.

2. Why Dodi chose to have the car driven by Henri Paul, who was the
acting head of security at the Ritz and not a professional driver, when fully
qualified chauffeurs were available, has never been satisfactorily
explained.

Serious doubts still cloud the question of how much Paul had had to drink,
as much of his evening remains unaccounted for. With suspicious speed,
the French authorities rushed out a statement that he had been three
times over the French drink-driving limit.

The possibility remains that the blood samples from the autopsy were
switched, whether by accident or design.
Professor Robert Forrest, an
expert toxicologist from Sheffield University, told the jury that the French
routines for safeguarding samples and sending them for analysis were
slack by British standards.

3. Would Diana have survived if medical procedures had been different?
Whereas the normal British practice at serious road accidents is to whisk
the victims to hospital with the utmost dispatch, the French prefer to try
and treat them — or at least stabilise them — at the scene.

The Princess was in a deeply serious condition; her heart stopped as
rescuers removed her from the car and had to be massaged back to life.
She suffered another cardiac arrest in the ambulance on her way to
hospital, and from crash to operating theatre took nearly two hours. It was
a full hour before they even managed to get her out of the car.

4. With Dodi killed instantly there is no one left to say what his true
intentions were towards Diana, despite the best efforts of the warped
Fayed publicity machine to paint them as a couple on the verge of
engagement with every intention of marriage. One of the great red
herrings of the inquests — and there many of those — was a ring that Dodi
had bought the previous afternoon.

Even Michael Cole, Mr al-Fayed's spokesman, had to admit shortly after
the accident that no one would ever know what the ring meant. He was
quickly contradicted by Mr al-Fayed, who then spent the next ten years
peddling the pregnancy and engagement line.

5. The final question, which could have influenced the outcome
dramatically, is why neither back-seat passenger was wearing a seat belt;
witnesses testified that Diana was normally punctilious about buckling up.

Had she clunk-clicked that fateful night, she would probably still be with us
today. And the only Tom Baker we would have heard of is the one that
used to travel by Tardis.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3700719.ece


.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 7733

PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I suppose the outcome was always predictable, considering the coroner
stacked the witness list; attacked al-Fayed all through the inquest, and
then dismissed the 'conspiracy theories' --specifically instructing the jury
that they could not bring in a verdict along the Al-Fayed lines.

Outrageous ideeed. But then a travesty of justice is a first step.

Mohammed Al-Fayed thinks so. And he thanks the jury and those
around the world who have believed that questions remain and the
official story is a thin cover-up:

Quote:
Mr al Fayed said the jury had "found that it wasn't just the
paparazzi that caused the crash but unidentified following vehicles.


"Who they are and what they were doing in Paris is still a mystery."

Sky's royal correspondent Sarah Hughes said his lawyer's case was that
"there was perhaps a blocking vehicle employed to get in the way of the
Mercedes and that may have had something to do with the crash."

Mr al Fayed said it was "shocking" that French police, senior officials,
paparazzi and pathologists refused to give evidence at the inquest.

He said he "always believed that Prince Philip and the Queen holds
valuable evidence that only they know.

"They were not even questioned but they should have been.
Nobody should be above the law."
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1312078,00.html


Quote:


BBC Video:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/avdb/news/uk/video/164000/bb/164304_16x9_bb.ram?ad=1&ct=50

BFN audio of the above BBC Video:
http://breakfornews.com/bfn3/Al-Fayed-on-Diana-Inquest-April08.mp3


Quote:
The Scapegoats:
"We were served up"
-Photographer

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2288050629836277278&hl=en
At 40 mins - British Intel burgle photographers home


Quote:
MI6 & The Lying Game: Rosa Monckton and the Oxbridge spooks...

I/Ops news-alliance.com

In December 2003, Daily Mail journalist Sue Reid, with whom we have worked in the past investigating the alleged ‘suicide’ of Dr David Kelly, quoted a source, who insisted on remaining anonymous, saying that Diana went to a leading London hospital to undergo a pregnancy scan, days before she joined Dodi on holiday. The result is unknown and the test was conducted in the utmost secrecy.

But then Diana’s self-confessed ‘best friend’ Rosa Monckton, claims that Diana menstruated only a week before the crash, while they were on holiday in Greece. It is clear that Monckton believes she cannot be challenged on this issue but former MI6 officer Richard Tomlinson alleges that Rosa’s husband, Dominic Lawson, former editor of the Sunday Telegraph newspaper and Spectator magazine, provided journalistic cover for MI6 officers while he was editor of The Spectator.

Rosa’s brother, the Honourable Anthony Leopold Colyer Monckton, a diplomat, was also an MI6 spy according to Tomlinson. It should be noted that Dominic Lawson has never sued any publication or person for alleging he was an MI6 stringer. Dominic Lawson, is of course, the son of former Tory Chancellor Nigel Lawson and brother of famous TV ‘kitchen goddess’ Nigella Lawson. The very same Nigel Lawson who detested Mohamed Al Fayed for besmirching his beloved Tories.

Tomlinson alleges that Dominic Lawson provided cover for an agent named ironically ‘Spencer’, who was put on the case of a young Russian diplomat, Pluton Obukhov, in Tallin, capital city of Estonia. In an excerpt from Tomlinson’s ‘banned’ book (The Big Breach) published in Pravda, it was revealed that Spencer, returning from a visit to Information Operations (I/Ops), which plants stories or propaganda in the British press, remarked, “Flippin’ outrageous. They’ve got the editor of the Spectator magazine on the books. He’s called ‘smallbrow’. He’s agreed to le me go to Tallin undercover as a freelancer for his magazine. The only condition is that I have to write an article which he’ll publish if he likes it’, the cheeky bastard wants a story courtesy of the taxpayer.”

The allegations that Dominic Lawson was a paid asset of MI6 have also been made in parliament but he has always denied ever having been an agent. How likely is it that he would admit it? Again, we reiterate that Lawson has brought no libel action against any publication alleging he was an MI6 asset, or a ‘stringer’ planted on newspapers by the spooks to further their covert propagandist agenda.

Other disturbing aspects of the unlikely ‘friendship’ between Diana and Rosa were raised by Paris-based journalist Jane Tawbase in a EuroBusiness investigation into Monckton and Lawson. She wrote: ‘Rosa Monckton, a generation older, made an odd friend for the often unhappy princess. A svelte sophisticate and a wealthy working woman, her first relationships and loyalties lay, almost from when she was born, with the Queen. She was a regular visitor to the royal household all her life and was, for that reason, more given to loyalty to the crown than to an unhappy and disruptive outsider, one who was seriously damaging the public image of the royal family.’

On closer inspection, the relationship between Monckton and the ‘disruptive’ Diana, is somewhat inexplicable, perhaps just very odd. Diana was a fashion goddess and fitness fanatic who delighted in shopping and modern music. Monckton, by contrast, is a highly cerebral woman of the world, married to a man with links to MI6 that no journalist or newspaper editor should ever have.

Jane Tawbase also raises two further questions on this murky subject and throws more light on the matter than most before or after her. She wrote: ‘Whether Rosa Monckton introduced her brother to the princess and whether he was part of the MI6 operation. It was almost unthinkable that he was not.’ In her second point she wrote: ‘Did MI6 ask Rosa Monckton to do the key job of moving into the princess’s inner circle and become her confidante? It would certainly have made the job easier.’

Dissident MI6 officer, Richard Tomlinson, who has been harassed for years by the French and British authorities, is certain that Monckton’s brother is a spy. It should be noted that Anthony and Rosa’s grandfather worked for Edward VIII and kept a close watch on him for the security services throughout the abdication and beyond. Like Diana, the British Establishment were determined to rid themselves of Edward VIII. The Queen Mother, however, said that Diana was a greater threat to the House of Windsor than Wallis-Simpson and Edward VIII put together. Tawbase concludes that, ‘It would indeed be ironic if history had repeated itself and Rosa Monckton performed the same role for MI6 with regard to Princess Diana.’

In these circumstances, it is perhaps understandable that Rosa Monckton declared that Diana was not pregnant. It must also be noted that no one else can give witness to Monckton’s suggestion that Diana menstruated while they holidayed in Greece, nor should her statement be regarded as fact, it is opinion. Monckton simply expects everyone to believe her version of events because she was Diana’s ‘friend’. And again, it must be stated that Diana abhorred everything to do with the State and was convinced that hired assassins were trying to kill her. It is puzzling why Diana formed a friendship with Monckton.

We must turn to the testimony of Richard Tomlinson, who has been deliberately ignored by the French authorities. His affidavit to judge Herve Stephan was dismissed. Stephan showed no interest in Tomlinson’s affidavit but the British certainly did and MI6 led a campaign of arrests and harassment against its dissident officer across the world to disrupt his life and attempt to silence him….

Tomlinson also revealed that during his time with MI6, he discovered that there was an informal but direct link between certain MI6 officers of senior rank and royal courtiers. St James’s Palace and Buckingham Palace are easy access points for the spooks through the back-channel process. Many of these ‘men’ share an Oxbridge background with royal courtiers and the relationship continues for life. They would all have known of the CIA eavesdropping operation against Diana and certainly shared the intel ‘product’.

In the Paget Report, Sir John Stevens alleges that MI6 and MI5 were not aware of the CIA operation. Indeed, he salaciously goes as far to say that the CIA were only interested in Diana’s ‘contacts’ and prime among which were Mohamed Al Fayed and his murdered son Dodi Fayed. By definition, if the CIA were watching Diana’s contacts, then Diana was also being watched. Obviously, Sir John Stevens, the faithful Establishment plod, knows this but at the same time, he must presume the general public to be completely stupid. His tale is defeated with elementary logic.

British Intelligence certainly would have been told of the surveillance operation on Diana and her contacts and highly likely also, they would have been given access to the product of the eavesdropping. It is also perfectly clear to anyone with experience of modern surveillance that Diana would have been tracked through the signal from her mobile phone. Such signals allow the target to be pinpointed to within a metre of their location. The same is also true of Dodi Fayed, Wingfield, Rees-Jones and Henri Paul etc.

As a ‘reward’ for his indiscretions, Tomlinson was arrested at gunpoint by the French DST (Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire) at his home. He suffered a broken rib in the operation against him despite the fact that he has no record of violence. The DST agents were ordered to go in hard to teach him a lesson. The whole arrest was designed to shake him to the core and think better of opening his mouth in future. And this is an interesting point which requires further analysis.

By their very nature, ‘fantasists’ or people who make things up, are ignored, not arrested at gunpoint and violently assaulted. Again, if Tomlinson was at least mistaken, or indeed lying about the matters he revealed, there would have been no need to arrest him and he could simply have been dismissed as a former employee with a furtive imagination. The fact he was arrested in such brutal fashion, proves conclusively that Tomlinson has revealed too many truths that powerful people would prefer to remain buried. It is also noteworthy that Tomlinson has not been accused of being a ‘conspiracy theorist’ by his detractors.

In the event, Tomlinson was questioned for over eighteen hours at the Paris HQ of the DST to discourage him from giving evidence to the Stephan inquiry. But he did appear before Stephan and told him, “As long as they [MI6] can get away with doing something then that’s their only limit about what they will do. This includes assassination.”

Diana’s decision to embrace Islam and highly likely produce a mixed-race brother or sister to the heirs to the throne of England, and her anti-landmines campaign were enough to warrant her elimination. But there is more still in the shape of the ‘secrets’ she held in her little box of treasures at Kensington Palace.

Paul Burrell, often referred to as ‘Diana’s rock’ was aware of the box and most, if not all of its contents. Following his arrest on the grounds that he unlawfully took over 300 items from Kensington Palace, after the princess’s funeral, he was interrogated again and again by Scotland Yard detectives, who shook him up quite badly but failed to break him.

In his book A Royal Duty, he relates his experience of the arrest and what the political police were looking for: ‘Then DS Milburn asked me two bizarre questions: “Do you have a manuscript of the memoirs you are writing?” If there was one moment when I knew the officers were stabbing in the dark, that was it. No such manuscript existed.’

Burrell then explains the events of the following morning: ‘The next morning, DS Roger Milburn returned. On instructions from Andrew Shaw, I said nothing to his volley of questions. Again, his curiosity seemed to focus more on the contents of a box, sensitive paperwork and a manuscript.’

Burrell’s trial was a landmine for the monarchy and the Queen could not risk her former butler, revealing some of what he saw. In open court, just before the trial collapsed, a truly revealing encounter took place that gave the world some insight of what was in Diana’s box of treasures.

Burrell wrote: ‘The full picture emerged with the judge’s approval. Scotland Yard was looking for a signet ring given to the princess by Major James Hewitt; a resignation letter from her private secretary Patrick Jephson; letters from Prince Philip to the princess; and a tape, which became known after the trial as the Rape Tape.

It was a recording made by the princess in 1996 when she informally interviewed former KP orderly and ex-Welsh Guardsman George Smith. He had alleged that after a night of heavy drinking he had been raped in 1989 by a male member of staff who worked for Prince Charles. It all came to a head because George who had worked at Highgrove, St James’s Palace and KP, had been suffering nightmares, was drinking heavily, and his marriage was falling apart. He blamed it all on an incident that he said he was bottling up.’

‘The princess knew the member of staff in question. From that moment on she loathed him. “I know what that evil bugger did. I know what he did to George, and I will never forgive him for that,” she seethed, after her futile attempts to bring about justice. He [George Smith] never returned to work, and accepted a settlement [Fiona Shackleton] at the end of his employment of around £40,000.’

‘The princess ensured that the tape never saw the light of day. But the mystery of its whereabouts, and the threat its contents posed, emerged during the police investigation of my case. Lady Sarah McCorquodale had asked that Scotland Yard ‘ascertain’ the contents of the box. In court, DS Milburn said: “I was looking for the contents of that box. All of a sudden, the undertones behind the raid on my home became clear.’

As the trial wore on it was obvious Burrell would have to take the stand. The prospect of ‘Diana’s rock’ hurling highly explosive stones at the British Establishment was enough to prompt the Queen to recall a conversation she had with Burrell in December 1997 at Buckingham Palace in which Burrell told her that he was taking a number of the princess’s items into safekeeping.

The exchange was a chilling encounter for Burrell. He wrote of it: ‘As the meeting neared its end, the Queen said one more thing to me. Looking over her half-rimmed spectacles, she said: “Be careful, Paul. No one has been as close to a member of my family as you have. There are ‘powers’ at work in this country about which we have no knowledge,’ and she fixed me with a stare where her eyes made clear the ‘do you understand?’.

‘She [Queen] might have been referring to the domestic intelligence service MI5 because, have no doubt, the Queen does not know of its secret work and ‘darker practices’ but she is aware of the power it is capable of wielding. Like the royal household, the intelligence services are given carte blanche to act in whatever way is considered to be in the best interests of state and monarchy.’

‘At my December 1997 meeting with the Queen and as my statement had made clear: ‘I feared at the time of the princess’s death that there was a conspiracy to change the course of history, and erase certain parts of her life from it. Mrs Frances Shand Kydd spent two weeks shredding personal correspondence and documents.’

Piers Morgan in his own memoir, The Insider, explains that he tried to help Burrell and have the quasi-case against him dropped, he wrote: -

17 January 2001 – I rang Mark Bolland at the Palace.
‘You guys are mad, Mark. Burrell could say anything in the stand.’
‘I know, I know,’ he replied despondently.
‘It’s a mess.’
‘Well, end it now, before it’s too late.’
‘We can’t, the police are running the case now.’

A cornered Burrell could be a very dangerous beast. This will go on for weeks, and can only be damaging to the Royal Family. They must be mad allowing Burrell to potentially take the stand. Cornered and desperate, he might say anything, and he knows the lot because he was there. There’s also no way he stole Diana’s stuff, anyone who knows him knows that. He could make more money from what’s in his mind than he ever could from a few of her trinkets.

The Establishment were again courting disaster by trying to silence Burrell. In reality, the tactic worked in reverse, virtually ensuring that Burrell, facing five years in prison if convicted, would open up before the glaring eyes of the world to save his own skin.

By 16 September 1997, bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones had opened his eyes. The worry for the British Establishment was the strong possibility that he would remember what happened in the moments before the Mercedes crashed. Rees-Jones can certainly remember fastening his seatbelt just seconds before the car crashed but claims that he cannot remember anything after that. But again, damning further clarification comes in the shape of Piers Morgan and his memoir The Insider.

Morgan wrote: ‘Tuesday, 16 September 1997 – I had a brief chat with Fayed today and he said that Rees-Jones is awake, and having flashbacks of the crash. ‘Can we have the first interview?’ Fayed was anxious. ‘He needs to tell us what happened first, that is the most important thing. Then perhaps he can talk to you. But we must be careful Piers, he is in a very bad way.’ To this day, Al Fayed has not told the world what Rees-Jones said to him!

Naturally, Rees-Jones, who suffered terrible injuries, claims that he can remember nothing. Can he remember coming round in the hospital in the presence of Al Fayed and having ‘flashbacks of the crash’? We do not wish to be offensive to Rees-Jones, particularly given the injuries he suffered, but we do not think his story holds up in the slightest under examination. He can remember some things but not others, selective memory loss not amnesia.

For instance, Rees-Jones can remember leaving the Ritz Hotel on the rue Cambon and that a white Fiat Uno was tailing them. He then recounts that he saw a white Fiat Uno again on the approach to the Alma Tunnel. He also recalls that he fastened his seatbelt and encouraged the others to do the same moments before impact. At the very moment he fastened his seatbelt, the white Fiat Uno was careering into the path of the Mercedes but Rees-Jones does not remember that....

His memory falls apart when it comes to events in the Alma Tunnel. He can remember belting up, not verbally at that time, but cannot remember seeing the white Fiat Uno in the tunnel nor a blinding white flash. If he can remember fastening his seatbelt, he can remember what happened in the very next seconds involving the white Fiat Uno and the blinding flash of light and the escaping motorbike.

It is little wonder that the majority of people do not believe Rees-Jones. We will go further and state that he is lying about not being able to remember the juicy bits, the crucial events immediately before the Mercedes crashed. Either that, or he has made it all up about seeing a white Fiat Uno and fastening his seatbelt and encouraging the others to do the same. But then, why would he do that? This man wants his cake and to eat it but the majority of people do not swallow his 'sweetened' version of events.

Rumours are rife in the media world that Rees-Jones has been threatened by British intelligence. If he opens his mouth and suddenly remembers what happened in the crucial seconds to impact, he might not be so lucky a second time. Rees-Jones is also still subject to the Official Secrets Act and government lawyers can make that mean whatever they want it to mean. Theoretically, the OSA should apply only to the period one was in service but the strictures of the Act apply for the rest of one’s life and Rees-Jones knows this only too well.

There is also the fact that in Northern Ireland, Rees-Jones, a former paratrooper with experience of putting enemy targets under surveillance, worked closely at times with British Army Intelligence and he will know only too well what the Force Research Unit, MI6 and The Increment are capable of. On his testimony that he cannot remember the vital seconds before I impact, Rees-Jones should not be believed. The claim is that he suffers from amnesia, only in part mind you, and that we should have sympathy for him.

We genuinely sympathise with the fact that he suffered terrible injuries in the crash but one must remain logical and rational and not succumb to emotional impulses. In his book, The Bodyguard’s Story, he repeats the same old tale, over and over again: he cannot remember the ‘juicy bits’ but has no problem dishing out all the old crumbs of information he wants us to know. And we know people in the media world, who are certain that Rees-Jones has been silenced by British Intelligence.

An important note to end this article on comes in the form of a quote from former MI6 officer, Richard Tomlinson: “There is an arrogant faction in MI6, part of the Oxbridge clique, which doesn’t try to hide dedication to the royal family and their self-appointment as defenders of the realm.” And spooks excel at the lying game, as par for the course of their ‘training’ and ethics by prerequisite, are irrelevant.…

http://www.news-alliance.com/mi6__the_lying_game.html

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
john23



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 114

PostPosted: Mon May 26, 2008 6:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anderson bullet hole http://www.news-alliance.com/_another_suicide.html

Also he used diesel not petrol, which as anyone knows isn't stuff that catches fire easily

James Andanson worked for MI6 British Intelligence as an informant
Daily Express | Sep 3, 2007 http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/18086/Diana-Vital-new-evidence-blows-apart-police-case
The development could support the theory that Andanson was murdered by the security services.
By Cyril Dixon
THE mystery over Princess Diana’s fatal car crash took another twist yesterday when startling new evidence emerged about the death of a key witness.
The Daily Express has uncovered dramatic new information which undermines the French police claim that photographer James Andanson doused himself and his black BMW with petrol and set himself alight.
Andanson was found dead in his burnt-out car three years after the smash which killed Diana, her lover Dodi Fayed and driver Henri Paul.
Andanson, suspected of causing the crash by driving a white Fiat Uno into their Mercedes, was said officially to have committed suicide.
But investigators have uncovered a receipt which shows that although Andanson, 54, did buy a substantial amount of fuel on the day he died, it was diesel, not petrol.
Unlike petrol, diesel is not highly inflammable at normal temperatures and would not have ignited if he had struck a match.
You would not be able to set light to diesel with a match.
He used his credit card to buy more than 100 litres of diesel on a visit to a hypermarket near Nant, southern France.
Sceptics would say it is far more likely that the experienced paparazzo bought it to fill up his car for the 400-mile journey back to his home in central France.
They would also think it unlikely for him to prepare his car for a long trip if he planned to kill himself just a few miles away.
The development could support the theory that Andanson was murdered by the security services.
Dodi’s father Mohamed Al Fayed believes he was on the intelligence payroll and that he was killed to stop him exposing a plot to assassinate his son and the Princess.
The Harrods owner’s belief is supported by the evidence of a new witness, a policeman, who said he saw what looked like a bullet hole in the dead photographer’s head.
The officer backs up claims by Christophe Pelat, the fireman who discovered the body, that Andanson had been shot in the head.
Two months ago, Pelat said: “I saw him at close range and I’m absolutely convinced that he had been shot in the head.”
Yesterday’s revelation came just days after the police officer who ran the initial inquiry into how Diana died in Paris’s Alma tunnel blamed the Fiat driver.
Jean Claude Mules said he had compelling evidence that the black Mercedes collided with the Fiat seconds before it ploughed into a pillar. He said his officers would have “had their killer” if they had succeeded in tracing the driver.
Andanson was found dead on May 4 2000 in woodland alongside a country road near Nant, in the Aveyron region of France.
He had apparently left his wife Elizabeth, 45, at their farmhouse in Lignieres, 170 miles south of Paris, and driven 400 miles south to Nant.
A police spokesman said at the time: “He took his own life by dousing himself and the car with petrol and then setting light to it.”
But Andanson’s credit card records show he went into a Géant hypermarket just a few miles away from where he was found dead.
He bought more than 100 litres of diesel and spent almost 600 francs.
Investigators are not certain what he did with the fuel. But his BMW 3 series’ saloon would hold only 60 litres and he may have filled up and transported the surplus in cans. Critically, experts say that it is inconceivable that Andanson would buy diesel to set himself alight.
Ray Holloway, of the Petrol Retailers Association, said: “With petrol it is the vapour that is the risk. It’s very different with diesel.
“Diesel is warmed andcompressed to make it fire. You wouldn’t be able to set light to diesel with a match. It would just go out.
“The flashpoint for diesel, that is the temperature it would need to get to, is something like 63C.
“You would need to warm diesel up with something like a blow torch to have any hope of igniting it, and even then you wouldprobably have to be in a confined space.
“People often get burnedwhen using petrol because they try setting light to the liquid.But what happens is the vapour ignites first.”
The riddle of Andanson’s death will be looked at by Lord Justice Scott Baker, the judge appointed to oversee Diana’s inquest. He has produced a list of 20 questions about the accident which most people assumed had been answered but which must now be re-examined.
Andanson, who worked for the Sipa agency, was famous for his celebrity portraits, including one of Greek shipping tycoon Aristotle Onassis on his death-bed.
But he is also rumoured to have been working for the security services. Former MI6 officer Richard Tomlinson once alleged they use the paparazzi because they are good at tracking the whereabouts of high profile “targets”.
In the summer before the accident, when Diana and Dodi cruised the Mediterranean on his father’s yacht Jonikal, they were plagued by paparazzi. Andanson was one of the biggest players on that scene and was never far away from the couple.
Mr Al Fayed believes Diana, 36, and Dodi, 42, were murdered in a conspiracy driven by the Royal Family and carried out by the security services in August 1997.
He claims they had fallen in love after spending the summer together and planned to marry.
Mr Al Fayed claims the Royals objected to their romance because they did not want Prince William to have a stepfather who was non-white and a Muslim.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 6 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.