Alex Jones Announces Loose
Change Role
Founding Father of 9/11 Truth Movement is an
executive producer for Final Cut, David Ray Griffin on board as script editor
and consultant
Prison Planet | May 18, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson
Alex Jones has publicly announced his role as an executive producer for Loose Change: Final Cut as Dylan Avery, Corey Rowe and Jason Bermas gear up for their much anticipated appearance on The View with Rosie O'Donnell next week.
Alex will also reveal on his show today that he has been helping with financing the production and release of the film.
Professor David Ray Griffin was also enlisted as a script editor and fact checker, ensuring the final release will be absolutely watertight and immune to the debunking attempts that will inevitably follow.
Actor Charlie Sheen is also involved and will narrate the documentary.
Tune in to the Alex Jones Show today for full details on what is shaping up to be a very exciting few months as the movie nears its expected cinema release.
The Loose Change crews will feature on ABC's The View on Thursday May 24th, it was announced yesterday. William Rodruigez will also appear on the show. 9/11 truthers will not go head to head with debunkers, but it is expected that the pioneers of yellow journalism, Hearst Publishing's Popular Mechanics, will be given an opportunity to spew their deceit at a later date, though this has not been scheduled as yet.
==============================================================================================
Colbert Knows Why Pro-Torture Responses Got Loud Applause at GOP Debate
Crooks
And Liars
Friday May 18, 2007
Colbert adds his two cents in as to why the GOP candidates' answers on torture were so warmly received and slams McCain for being soft on "enhanced interrogation techniques."
==============================================================================================
Dick Cheney ex-director of CFR talks to David Rockefeller
===============================================================================================
Microchips + EU = New World Order?
===========================================================================================
Verichip microchips
Cops
spied on hippies, hip-hoppers
NYPD eyed everyone from stars to pols before '04 GOP
bash in city
BY THOMAS ZAMBITO
NY
Daily News
Friday May 18, 2007
The NYPD kept tabs on the biggest names in hip hop as well as peaceniks, anarchists, anti-war bloggers, a city councilman and at least one hippie pie-tosser as cops girded for protests at the 2004 Republican National Convention.
The list of the spied upon was revealed yesterday in 600 pages of secret NYPD intelligence files released by the New York Civil Liberties Union, which is suing the city on behalf of hundreds of demonstrators arrested during the convention.
Sean (Diddy) Combs, Jay-Z, LL Cool J and Alicia Keys were among the notables the NYPD monitored in the months before the convention arrived in New York. Each was expected to attend a protest rally during the convention staged by the Hip Hop Summit Action Network.
Among the activists eyed by the NYPD was Aron Kay, aka the Yippie Pie Man, who earned his moniker by tossing pies into the faces of authority for more than two decades.
Mostly, the NYPD intelligence squad crisscrossed the Internet, peeking in on Web sites like one for Camp Shut Down that urged viewers to Resist the GOP and offered advice for those caught up in an NYPD dragnet.
The cops kept tabs on anti-Bush groups like Cabbies Against Bush and Bands Against Bush, as well as Billionaires for Bush, a group not really for Bush at all.
Police also were watching City Councilman Charles Barron (D-Brooklyn), a onetime mayoral candidate who was expected to demand that the GOP hold the convention elsewhere "unless the RNC indicates that it is willing to address issues of the impoverished, such as HIV/AIDS, housing and welfare."
The NYCLU says cops went too far in their surveillance of lawful political activism, while the city says the work of the intelligence unit justified the cops' high profile during the convention.
"The surveillance spanned the globe," said Donna Lieberman, director of the New York Civil Liberties Union.
But Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said, "I think a close examination of those documents will show the NYPD did an outstanding job of protecting the city during the convention."
The city tried unsuccessfully to block the documents' public release. Two weeks ago, Manhattan Federal Judge James Francis dismissed city claims that potential jurors in the NYCLU case will be prejudiced by their release.
The NYPD posted all of the documents, as well as a 26-page overview, on its Web site last night.
=================================================================================================
FOX's Gibson Stretched
Thin Over Rosie's 'Imagination'
O'Donnell Allegedly Pushing Phony Numbers for
Iraqi Deaths, Found Guilty for Not Believing in Bogeymen "Terrorists"
and 'Imagining' Government-Sponsored False-Flag Attacks by U.S.
Rosie
is attacked by FOX's John Gibson for making more provocative statements about
government-sponsored terrorism yesterday on The View . Gibson objected to the
insinuation that the United States has engaged in state-sponsored terrorism and
considered absurd Rosie's statement that "most Americans don't fall for the
trick of the bad 'terrorists' anymore" as she emphasized the word
'terrorists' by making a quote mark gesture.
Gibson and his guest also accuse her of using bad figures for the number of Iraqis killed, though the real number is much higher than the 655,000 estimate Rosie quoted-- which was based on an MIT study that mainstream-media TV news and the Bush Administration tried to refute. That number itself now more than 6 months old.
In addition Documents obtained by the BBC under a Freedom Of Information Act request have proven that despite public dismissal of last year's Iraq Death Toll study, published in The Lancet Medical Journal, British Government officials actually backed the methods used by scientists who concluded that more than 600,000 Iraqis have been killed since the invasion.
============================================================================================
Get Ready USA, Amnesty is on the Way
Conservative
Voice | May 18, 2007
Craig Chamberlain
Here we are in the immediate aftermath of the attempted attack on Fort Dix, an attack that was being planned by men who immigrated illegally to the United States, and the Senate is getting ready to support another amnesty of illegal immigrants. This is just a much larger replay of the amnesty that was enacted in 1986. In that amnesty three million illegals were legalized, with false promises of a Democratic Congress to enact strict border security. Somehow they never got around to that part.
This time they want to legalize twelve million people who broke the law, and they give us more empty promises of border security. It is probably an inevitability that this becomes law. Senate Republicans will cave, vainly believing that something will actually be done on enforcement, and Congressional Democrats will gleefully open up the border to every criminal, terrorist, and parasite all to continue the balkanization of America and get themselves more votes.
Call it what you will, but I call it America's elected leaders selling out Americans. Apparently foreigners, esepecially foreigners that broke the law in coming here, are now more important than citizens. They violate immigration law, and usually they violate many other laws once they're here(don't believe the stories for one second that they are just honest hard working people looking for a better life. If that were true they would come into this country legally.) and we reward their criminal behavior. I can't see any other group of people getting a free pass on breaking the law. But since Democrats see votes in legalization, and Republicans see cheap labor they are williing to go for it. Maybe we can solve the overcrowding of American prisons the same way. Instead of arresting people we can legalize the criminals so long as they vote Democrat, and work cheaply for corporations. Why not? Once we've got the ball rolling why try to stop it?
Every year over one million people enter this country illegally. That is one million too many. Instead of rewarding the lawbreakers we must secure the border, first and only. We don't bother to assimilate our new arrivals any more. While it should come as no surprise that immigrants bring their old culture with them it should outrage us that they retain their old allegiances. For example, many Mexicans don't think of themselves as Americans who came from, or who can trace their ancestry to, Mexico. They just think of themselves as Mexicans who live in the United States with their loyalty to Mexico City and not to Washington. Muslims think of themselves as Muslims first. They are willing to take advantage of everything this country has to offer them, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and the right to vote, things they won't find in their own countries, but they are more loyal to Islam than to America. We give Mexicans( and other hispanics) bi lingual education, we let Muslim cab drivers refuse to pick up people who are carry alcohol, and give them seperate facilities.
This is Balkanization, where a person is more loyal to ethnicity, religion, or their old nationality, over the United States. There is no room for any flag but the American flag, no room for any loyalty but loyalty to the United States. We can't even bring ourselves to ask that immigrants learn English, is it any wonder that we can't get them to see America as their country?
What was once the melting pot has now become divide and conquer, and we have reached critical mass. Yet, Washington, led by President Bush(who should no better) is bound and determined to keep pushing things. America simply can't take any more of the worlds poor and huddled masses. We need a freeze on immigration to give us time to deal with the millions that are here, amnesty is not the way to do that. It will only invite more immigrants, most of whom will come illegally. Flaunting our laws and stealing the jobs of American citizens.
We can't afford amnesty. If there are any patriots left in Congress they need to remember that, and stop it before it's too late.
================================================================================================
Jon Stewart's faux report on Fox GOP debate
Raw
Story
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Jon Stewart does a Daily Show take on Fox News' recent Republican debate.
In a clip from the start of the debate, Fox's Brit Hume intones, "This event is being sponsored by Fox News and the South Carolina Republican Party." Quips Stewart, "Isn't that redundant?"
==============================================================================================
Lou Dobbs: Amnesty Bill Rammed Through Without Being Read
You
Tube
Friday, May 18, 2007
Lou Dobbs reports on an amnesty bill that may be passed without giving time for anyone to read it thoroughly.
===============================================================================================
Massive New Senate Amnesty Bill Uses "Big Lie" Technique Again
Donald
A. Collins
Friday, May 18, 2007
On Tuesday, May 15, 2007, Grassfire's website has summarized a copy of a
leaked plan for a new 'comprehensive immigration reform' proposal being
developed behind closed doors by the Bush Administration and some Republicans in
the Senate. Its dreary points confirm the same old, same old, only with greater
cost and less likely scrutiny.
These open border Senators will sell us out in a New York minute and constantly keep hoping that by using the old Nazi propaganda expert Joseph Goebbels' technique of telling the Big Lie over and over that they can hornswoggle voters into thinking they have made a silk purse from a sow's ear.
They can't because you have heard all these tired, bad ideas (e.g. lies) before.
Examples from the Grassfire summary of the Bush plan, it calls the "Z" Amnesty Plan:
Provides guaranteed three-step path to citizenship for 12-20 million illegals.
Immediately creates a legal status for 12-20 million illegal aliens.
Allows current illegals to stay legally in our country indefinitely.
Does not require a "touch back" to obtain Z-visa (only for Green Card
app).
Gives illegals healthcare/education benefits and back credit for Social Security
wages.
Here are the Grassfire details, again simply hyping the same old song at more
cost to American Citizens:
Key Points Of Bush's Proposal In More Detail
Z Visa for Illegals. Under the proposal being floated by the Bush
Administration, a new classification of visas, the "Z Visa," would be
created for all illegal aliens living in the United States at a certain point in
time.
Instant Legalization for illegals. As a first step toward receiving the Z Visa,
illegals would have 12 months to come "out of the shadows" and receive
a probationary card, which in essence grants them transitionary legal status in
the country. No "touchback" to home country required to obtain
probationary card. It is unclear if they must pay fines or fees at this point.
After "Triggers", Z Visas Issued. After certain "triggers"
are met (border security, fence, background check, etc), those with probationary
cards would be issued "secure long-term Z visas." $2,000 fine and
$1,500 fee due every three years. No "touchback" to home country
required to obtain Z Visa.
Taxpayer-Funded Benefits. Z-visa holders are eligible for medical care and
primary/secondary education. Illegals would also be eligible for SS wages for
wages earned as illegal if they used their own SSN. No "touchback" to
home country required to obtain benefits.
Long-Term Legal Status. Z visa holders can stay legally in our country on an
indefinite basis as long as they re-up every three years for $3,500. No
"touchback" to home country required to stay in country indefinitely
under Z Visa.
Direct Path to Citizenship. Z visa holders would then be able to apply for a
Green Card, paying a $2,000 fine and an $8,000 application fee. Head of
household would then have to "touch back" to home country, with
guaranteed re-entrance on Z-visa.
This latest effort levies heavy environmental, cultural, and economic costs, which are again being happily hoisted by these special interest power blocks on us citizens. These evil amnesty promoters know this and yet they rush ahead. We can only pray a few level heads like Senator Jeff Sessions can keep this from getting through. As a Democrat, I am clearly ready to vote in the future for anyone from either party or an independent who can show me promise of real reform, not these hackneyed regurgitations from the bellies of the greedy.
Folks, how long are we going to keep dogs like these in office? We have no choice on Bush, since no one has the guts to impeach him, but surely in the next cycle anyone who signs on to this amnesty band wagon should be voted out of office. The same greedy employers, some religious leaders and the ethnic lobbies are trying to change the will of the vast majority of American citizens who for years have asked for real reform and gotten bad legislation and lip service promises of reform. Disgusting.
==================================================================================================
Media Pushes for Children to be Microchipped
Maddy nightmare gives establishment platform to promote
the tracking of every child
Tobias
Cunningham
Friday, May 18, 2007
Europe’s largest newspaper the London Times has come out with an
article that I and many others who have their eyes open to the New World Order
agenda have been expecting over the past 2 weeks since the tragic abduction of
four-year-old Leicestershire toddler Madeleine McCann.
That article is the imminent push for our children to have implantable microchips embedded under their skin.
Click here to read the Guardian’s article in full.
The majority of the British public and indeed that of the wider international community, particularly those with children will willingly take in what the press subconsciously tells us when these kinds of seemingly caring journalists step up and ask questions such as “Would an implanted chip help to keep my child safe?”.
People with children are going to answer yes to this question. The majority of those without children are still going to answer yes to this question. The reason for this is that they fail to see the underlying motives behind the seemingly rational suggestion that we should all know where our children are and therefore ensure they are safe.
Of course we want our children to be safe. Of course we want them to be kept well away from the grips of an abductor such as the person or persons who have taken young Madeleine in Praia da Luz and of course we want these kinds of people brought to swift justice, but microchipping the entire child population is certainly not the answer and it simply never will be.
As Aaron Russo revealed on the Alex Jones show in January of this year, the true intentions of the global elite, in particular the Rockefeller family, is a microchipped society. A society where you have no privacy, nowhere to run, nowhere to hide, whether you’re innocent, guilty, indifferent or impaired. This is the true face of the London Times article quoted above and this is what we have to fight.
Let me make myself clear. On the surface this idea, be it for children only, is a good one. The reasoning sounds good, the media feeds it to you and your emotions lead you to believe that this is the way forward. But the notion that these chips are “just for children, to keep them safe” is a theory which will eventually evaporate if this plan comes to true fruition.
Hear this. Your child has been implanted with a microchip. You, the police and the government can track your child wherever he or she goes. Good idea? “Of course,” you think to yourself, “my child will never be lost again…and if the worst comes and my child is taken, the police can identify exactly where they are and locate them immediately.
But what about when your child grows up. Your child is now a teenager…they’re still chipped…they’re still trackable by the police and the government and they still lack the privacy and freedom that was so readily taken away from them in the name of safety when they were in their early years of life.
But that’s even if this system would work. The UK Government’s own research shows that CCTV is not a crime deterrent, yet here in the UK we have 1 camera for every 14 people and there are tonnes more going up all around us. We are the most surveilled nation on the planet, yet we have one of the biggest crime rates…and that is simply because the CCTV that plagues your everyday life…the CCTV that watches you almost every step you walk on every day of your life is not there to prevent crime or preserve public safety as the nice yellow stickers will have you believe. They are their to serve the purpose they were built for. To watch…watch YOU!
Make no mistake, the New World Order’s plan to microchip the entire human population will begin in this manner. With children. If it were ruled tomorrow that every child on the planet should be microchipped from this point on then where will Earth be in say 50 years down the line? An almost entirely microchipped population. Everyone trackable. This is what we have to fight, because it is wrong in every single way. There are better ways to help keep our children safe from the evils that lurk in our world.
I sincerely hope that the McCann family have their daughter returned to them safe and well as does the rest of our nation and the rest of the world who have seen this case unfold over the past fortnight.
=============================================================================================
Senator: "No Matter How You Spin It, This Is Amnesty"
Jim
DeMint
Thursday, May 17, 2007
May 17th, 2007 - Washington, D.C. - Today, U.S. Senator DeMint made the
following statement:
"I hope we don't take a thousand page bill written in secret and try to ram it through the Senate in a few days. This is a very important issue for America and we need time to debate it."
"But the little we do know about the bill is troubling. According to reports, the bill contains a new 'Z Visa' that allows those who entered our country illegally to stay here permanently without ever returning home. This rewards people who broke the law with permanent legal status, and puts them ahead of millions of law-abiding immigrants waiting to come to America. I don't care how you try to spin it, this is amnesty."
Senator DeMint is chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, a caucus of conservative senators that includes the majority of the Republican Conference.
================================================================================================
NY Times Attempts To Debunk
9/11 Truth; Fails Miserably
More mainstream coverage, more ignorance of the
facts
Infowars.net | May 17, 2007
Steve Watson
In a report detailing Rosie O'Donnell's confirmed plans to have 9/11 truthers
debate the attacks on The View before she leaves in June, The New York Times has
responded by penning an extremely
poor attack piece which cites previous shoddy debunking efforts while
completely ignoring key evidence often referred to by the many scientific
experts, ex government officials, whistleblowers and truthers in general that
have declared the event an inside job.
Skipping over the fact that some guys in a cave in Afghanistan were able to coordinate a total stand down of US air defenses, and completely ignoring the mountains of evidence of prior knowledge, the Times makes four main points in an effort to debunk solely the controlled demolition aspect of the 9/11 truth movement's assertions.
Here are those points with our counter points:
1. The buildings collapsed from the top down and because controlled demolitions are carried out from the bottom of buildings they were not controlled demolitions.
Many witnesses, including WTC janitor William Rodriguez and firefighters , reported explosions at the base of the buildings and white smoke was also seen emerging from the base of the north tower immediately prior to its collapse and after a boom shook cameras and registered on microphones. Initial reports cited FBI statements which suggested they believed some form of explosion had occurred at the base of the towers in addition to the plane impacts above. I posted videos of these reports in this recent article .
The Times also ignores the fact that all 3 buildings fell at almost free fall speed with no resistance whatsoever, a feat which defies the laws of physics.
2. The steel did not melt, it was weakened by fire which caused the buildings to gradually collapse.
Molten steel was found under all three collapsed buildings . Firefighters described "rivers of molten steel, like flowing lava". According to, among other experts, former Brigham Young Physics professor Steven Jones buildings not destroyed by explosives would have insufficient directed energy to produce the large quantities of melted melted that was discovered. The molten steel was found five days after the collapse, on Sept. 16, when the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) used an Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) to locate and measure the site's hot spots.
3. The reason 7 World Trade Center collapsed straight down was most likely the large amounts of diesel fuel stored in the building's lower levels. The fuel was meant to power emergency generators.
The idea that diesel fuel stored in Building 7 is to blame for the collapse was promoted by a New York Times article in 2002 and is pure speculation. According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), between 11:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. on 9/11, “No diesel smells [were] reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby areas” of WTC 7.
Fires were observed in Building 7 prior to its collapse, but they were isolated in small parts of the building, and were puny by comparison to other building fires. In any case raging fires could still not cause simultaneous and symmetric damage needed to produce a collapse with the precise symmetry of the vertical fall of building 7. This building had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns. In order to cause the building to sink into its footprint, all of the core columns and all of the perimeter columns would have to be broken in the same split-second.
4. Explosives would have had to have been pre-placed in the buildings and no witness has ever reported such suspicious activity taking place.
Yes they have . Power downs of both towers were reported the weekend before 9/11. In addition rescue workers , EMT's and witnesses on the ground were warned WTC 7 was going to be intentionally brought down by explosives.
The Times article, like any other poorly researched piece, cites Popular Mechanics, the now infamous Hearst Publishing yellow journalism rag that is edited by a tabloid TV critic as their bastion of credibility for standing up to 9/11 truthers, despite the fact that the magazine's 9/11 hit piece has been debunked over and over and is the target of Professor David Ray Griffin's new book , Debunking 9/11 Debunking.
Although it is easily countered, the Times exposure highlights the fact that 9/11 truth movement has exploded into the mainstream. It also underlines the fact that the debunkers are losing the battle to quell the public's desire to uncover the lies and discover what really happened on 9/11 as their line of argument becomes more diluted and weakened with each ill informed and poor researched attack piece they produce.
================================================================================================
Senators
Want CIA to Release 9/11 Report
Thursday May 17, 2007 10:16 PM
By KATHERINE SHRADER
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - A
bipartisan group of senators is pushing legislation that would force the CIA to
release an inspector general's report on the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11,
2001.
The CIA has spent more than
20 months weighing requests under the Freedom of Information Act for its
internal investigation of the attacks but has yet to release any portion of it.
The agency is the only
federal office involved in counterterrorism operations that has not made at
least a version of its internal 9/11 investigation public.
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and
two other intelligence committee leaders - chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.,
and senior Republican Kit Bond of Missouri - are pushing legislation that would
require the agency to declassify the executive summary of the review within one
month and submit a report to Congress explaining why any material was withheld.
The provision has been
approved by the Senate twice, but never made into law.
In an interview, Wyden said
he is also considering whether to link the report's release to his acceptance of
President Bush's nominations for national security positions.
``It's amazing the efforts
the administration is going to stonewall this,'' Wyden said. ``The American
people have a right to know what the Central Intelligence Agency was doing in
those critical months before 9/11.... I am going to bulldog this until the
public gets it.''
Completed in June 2005, the
inspector general's report examined the personal responsibility of individuals
at the CIA before and after the attacks. Other agencies' reviews examined
structural problems within their organizations.
Wyden, who has read the
classified report several times, wouldn't offer any details on its findings or
the conversations he has had with CIA Director Michael Hayden, former CIA
Director Porter Goss and former National Intelligence Director John Negroponte.
But he did say that
protecting individuals from embarrassment is not a legitimate reason for
protecting the report's contents from public review. He also said the decision
to classify the report has nothing to do with national security, but rather
political security.
Hayden declined to be
interviewed about the report. In a statement Thursday, his spokesman Mark
Mansfield said the CIA director wants the agency to learn from any past
mistakes, but doesn't want to dwell on them.
``Given the formidable
national security challenges our nation faces, now and down the road, General
Hayden believes it is essential for the Agency to move forward,'' Mansfield
said. ``That's where our emphasis needs to be.''
The agency's actions prior
to Sept. 11 have gotten renewed attention with the release of a memoir by former
CIA director George Tenet. He has been criticized for not doing more to warn
Bush about the al-Qaida threat.
In interviews about his
memoir, he has said instead he worked the bureaucracy beneath the president by
asking then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and others for action.
Bond said some intelligence
officials have dismissed the inspector general's report as ``ancient history,''
which he doesn't accept. He said the report has additional information which
would be useful to the public.
``We have no desire to
embarrass or throw cold water on the enthusiasm of the great men and women of
the CIA, but let's just take a clear and open look at what the IG found and see
if we have all of those problems corrected,'' Bond said.
In an October 2005
statement Goss said the officers involved in counterterrorism were ``stars who
had excelled in their areas'' singled out by the CIA to take on difficult
assignments. ``Unfortunately, time and resources were not on their side, despite
their best efforts to meet unprecedented challenges,'' he said.
Goss rejected a
recommendation from CIA Inspector General John Helgerson that the agency form
accountability review boards to examine any personal culpability. Bond said that
move was regrettable.
In his statement, Goss also
noted that the agency had received a Freedom of Information Act request for the
report, and that a review process was ongoing. But the CIA has not released any
documents to The Associated Press or other organizations that began requesting
the information at least 20 months ago.
The law requires agencies
to respond to requests within 20 days, but officials rarely meet those deadlines
and often blame lengthy backlogs.
Groups including the
National Security Archive have clashed with the agency over its FOIA policies.
Last year, the archive gave the CIA its prize for the agency with the worst FOIA
record. Called the ``Rosemary Award,'' it's named after President Nixon's
secretary, Rosemary Woods, who erased 18 minutes of a key Watergate conversation
on the White House tapes.
The citation noted that
CIA's oldest FOIA requests could apply for drivers' licenses in most states.
``CIA has for three decades been one of the worst FOIA agencies,'' archive
Director Thomas Blanton said this week.
Many of the individuals
highlighted in the inspector general's report are likely to have retired. But
some are believed still to be in senior government positions, making the
report's findings even more sensitive at the CIA and perhaps elsewhere within
the intelligence community.
The AP has reported that
the two-year review of what went wrong before the suicide hijackings harshly
criticized a number of the agency's most senior officials.
That includes Tenet, former
clandestine service chief Jim Pavitt and former counterterrorism center head
Cofer Black, according to individuals familiar with the report, who spoke in
2005 on condition they not be identified.
Yet the report also offered
some praise for actions of Tenet and others.
===================================================================================================
The Globalization of Military Power NATO Expansion
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Global
Research
Saturday May 19, 2007
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) did not fundamentally change its mandate after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the wake of the Cold War, NATO continued to expand. In 1999, before the NATO war against Yugoslavia, NATO expanded into Eastern Europe.
NATO is determined to expand its membership circle and to expand its mandate. Ultimately NATO is slated to become a global military force. Moreover, part of the objectives of NATO as a global military alliance is to ensure the “energy security” of its member states. What this signifies is the militarization of the world’s arteries, strategic pipeline routes, maritime traffic corridors used by oil tankers, and international waters.
NATO’s “Mutual Defence Clause” Used to Control Energy Resources?
U.S. Senator Richard Lugar has called for NATO to come to the aid of any member of the military alliance, such as the United States, whose energy sources may be threatened. The justification of such an intervention would be under NATO’s Mutual Defence Clause (Article 5). Senator Lugar’s idea has received strong support from the Eastern European members of NATO and the E.U., which are dependent on the Russian Federation for their energy supplies.
Senator Lugar was quoted as saying that, “[NATO] should recognize that there is little ultimate difference between a member being forced to submit to coercion because of an energy cutoff and a member facing a military blockade or other military demonstration on its borders.” [1]
Article 5 is the raison d’être of NATO. It construes any attack on one member as an attack on all NATO members. Article 5 of NATO’s charter is the basis for the formation of NATO, “mutual defence.” Any interpretation of the clause in regards to energy security would mean that any NATO member whose energy sources are cut off would be able to rely on assistance from the rest of the military alliance. Article 5 could also be interpreted to insinuate that the cutting off of energy to any NATO member would be defined as an act of aggression or an act of war. It should be noted that almost all NATO members lack their own energy resources.
It is no surprise that Russia has been greatly angered and unnerved by this strengthening energy security notion within NATO. If such a doctrine were adopted by NATO, it could be used as a justification for the imposition of economic and political sanctions against Russia and other energy producing countries. The clause could also provide a mandate for attacking Russia or any other energy exporting country, including Iran, Turkmenistan, Libya, and Venezuela, with a view to commandeering the energy and natural resources of such countries.
The E.U. Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson has also released a statement saying “Both [Russia and the E.U.] believe the other is using the energy weapon as an instrument of politics.” The E.U. Trade Commissioner also added that relations between the E.U. and Russia were at their worst levels in the post-Cold War era and that “Europe wants security of [energy] supply…” [2]
For this reason, amongst several others, Russia and her allies perceive the U.S. and NATO's global missile shield project as a means of commandeering Russian and global energy supplies and natural resources through the threat of force. Russia, like China and Iran, is also being encircled by a military frontier, which it sees as part of the efforts of NATO to surround it and its allies.
The Global Expansion-Integration of NATO as a Worldwide Military Alliance
“…NATO has been transforming from its Cold War and then regional incarnation of the 1990s into a transatlantic institution with global missions, global reach, and global partners. This transformation is most evident in Afghanistan where NATO is at work, but the line we've crossed is that that ‘in area/out of area’ debate that cost so much time to debate in the 1990s is effectively over. There is no ‘in area/out of area.’ Everything is NATO's area, potentially. That doesn't mean it's a global organization. It's a transatlantic organization, but Article 5 now has global implications. NATO is in the process of developing the capabilities and the political horizons to deal with problems and contingencies around the world. That is a huge change.”
-Daniel Fried, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs (April 17, 2007)
NATO is also contemplating a process of “global reach” which would transform
it into a global military force with member states outside of North America and
the European continent. Although not yet official, NATO has already initiated a
transition towards the “globalization” of its military forces and
operations. NATO is heavily involved in Afghanistan and is tangled in Central
Asia; NATO bases exist in Afghanistan, on the immediate borders of China and
Iran. NATO has also extended its presence in the Balkans (highlighted by its
involvement in the former Yugoslavia). NATO has also envisioned large military
operations in the Sudan and more generally in the African continent, under what
is referred to by its opponents as the “masquerade of peace-keeping.”
NATO is also involved on the ground in Lebanon, albeit informally. [3] A naval armada of NATO warships is also deployed in the waters of East Africa, the Red Sea, and the Arabian Sea. The naval forces of NATO countries such as Germany and Denmark are also present in the Eastern Mediterranean and can strike Syria in the event of war. [4]
Creeping towards Iran, NATO Expansion in the Persian Gulf: The “Gulf Security Initiative”
NATO has formally stepped into the Persian Gulf, even though in reality the forces of several NATO nations have been operating there since the Cold War. Kuwait’s Deputy Director of National Security Apparatus, Sheikh Thamer Ali Sabah Al-Salem Al-Sabah, announced that Kuwait signed a security agreement with NATO during a GCC-NATO Conference that took place from December 11 to December 12, 2006. The GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) which has been renamed The Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf includes Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the U.A.E., Qatar, Bahrain, and Oman. The GCC already has a military agreement amongst its members, the Gulf Shield Defence Force, and individual bilateral security agreements with the U.S. and Britain. NATO has been in dialogue with Qatar, Kuwait, and the other members of the GCC in pursuit of establishing a more formal NATO presence in the Persian Gulf and a new security arrangement against Iran.
This new regional balance in the Persian Gulf is part of a broader alliance in the Middle East that is linked to NATO. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Israel, the United States, Britain, and NATO, besides the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) are all part of this coalition in the Middle East. [5] This militiary alliance or coalition essentially represents an eastern extension of NATO’s “Mediterranean Dialogue.” The Middle Eastern members of this coalition, including Israel and Saudi Arabia, are labeled the “Coalition of the Moderate,” whereas Iran and Syria are said to lead a “Coalition of Radicals/Extremists.”
Aside from the implications of a confrontation with Iran, this cooperation between the GCC and NATO confirms that NATO is preparing to become a global institution and military force. The Middle East is an important geo-strategic and energy-rich area of NATO expansion. The vanguards of NATO in the region are Turkey and Israel.
The United States has also been building its missile arsenal in the Persian Gulf and transporting large amounts of military hardware and radar systems into the Persian Gulf. Originally, the justifications for the deployment of military hardware into the Persian Gulf was the “Global War on Terror,” then the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and now the new justification has become protecting America’s Persian Gulf allies, including the U.A.E., Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, against an Iranian ballistic missile threat.
The GCC-NATO Conference is mandated under the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative and will be held under the theme of “Facing Common Challenges,” which directly denotes Iran as the target of military-security cooperation between the GCC and NATO. [6]
Furthermore, the GCC-NATO Conference took place after military games were held in the Persian Gulf by GCC members, the United States, Britain, France, and Australia— which also demonstrates that cooperation between the two branches of NATO, the Franco-German entente and the Anglo-American alliance, was initiated before the historical 2006 NATO Conference in Riga, Latvia. [7]
The GCC agreements with NATO are also significant because they mean that the Persian Gulf is potentially being shared and divided by the Franco-German entente and the Anglo-American alliance.
Although Sheikh Thamer Ali Sabah Al-Salem Al-Sabah and Kuwaiti leaders have tried to play down the meaning of the cooperation between Kuwait and NATO, the cooperation between both sides gestures towards NATO expansion and likely confrontation with Iran. The Kuwaiti official also highlighted that the goal of the conference was to make use of NATO’s diverse experiences given its multinational composition.
With the Anglo-American military build-up and the extension of NATO into the Persian Gulf, the leaders of the GCC have been emboldened in their cooperation with the U.S. and British militaries. Recently the Defence Minister of Bahrain, Shaikh Khalifa bin Ahmed Al-Khalifa, has said that the Arab Sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf have “the capability to respond to any attack from neighbouring Iran,” and would “respond with force” if Iran blocked the Straits of Hormuz as a result of any U.S. military strikes or attack on Iran. [8] It is also no coincidence that the leaders of Kuwait have also declared that they are ready for an American-led attack against Iran and the eruption of war in the Middle East. [9]
It should be noted that any attacks by Iran on the Arab Sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf would be in response to their cooperation with the U.S. and their approval of the use of their airspaces, waters, and territories against Iran by the U.S. military and its allies. The leaders of these nations also supported the U.S. and Britain in their war and invasion of Iraq and are the hosts of large U.S. ground, air, and naval bases.
NATO’s ultimate goal: Encircling Russia, China, and their allies
"The first and most important area where change must come is in further developing our ability to project stability to the East”
-NATO Secretary-General Manfred Wörner
The February 7, 2007 Congressional testimony of the U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates, who was presenting the Pentagon’s 2008 military budget, confirms that the United States, aside from Iran, still considers China and Russia as potential adversaries. Secretary Gates told the U.S. Senate that both Russia and China posed threats to the United States: “In addition to fighting the ‘Global War on Terror,’ we also face (…) the uncertain paths of China and Russia, which are both pursuing sophisticated military modernization programs.” [10]
The real question is: are the Russians and Chinese a threat to the United States
or is it the reverse? Also, do China and Russia constitute an economic threat to
the United States?
The Russian Foreign Ministry and government almost immediately demanded for an official explanation from the White House for the threatening remarks.
The reaction of the Russians has steadily become more and more apprehensive as they realize that they are being encircled. It has been for quite some time that Russia, China, and their allies have slowly been surrounded. China faces a militarized eastern border in Asia, while Iran has virtually been surrounded, and Russia’s western borders have been infiltrated by NATO.
NATO expansion continues despite the end of the Cold War and promises from the military alliance that it would not expand. Military bases and missile facilities are encircling China, Iran, and the Russian Federation.
On February 2007 at the Munich Conference on Security Policy in Germany, President Vladimir Putin stated that NATO was targeting the Russian Federation and also reminded NATO that it had pledged that the military bloc would not move eastward. [11] The late Boris Yeltsin also made similar statements about NATO expansion in regards to the entry of the Baltic States into the military bloc. President Vladimir Putin’s speech was the most significant Russian statement yet and is a sign that Russia is beginning to feel the threat on its immediate borders, from the Russian Far East to the border with Georgia and in Eastern Europe.
From a Russian perspective, NATO is no longer committed to “peaceful co-existence.” General Yuri Baluyevsky, Chief of the Russian Armed Forces General Staff and First Deputy Minister of Defence, warned Russians that they now face even greater military threats than during the Cold War. Both the Russian President and General Baluyevsky have called for a new Russian military doctrine to respond to the growing and emerging threats from the U.S. and NATO. [12]
The military projects being propelled by the United States, several NATO allies in Europe (namely Britain, Poland, and the Czech Republic), and the Japanese for the establishment of two parallel missile shield projects, threatens both Russia and China. One missile shield will be located in Europe and the other missile shield in the Far East. These missile shields are being elevated under the pretext of hypothetical Iranian and North Korean threats to the United States, Europe, South Korea, and Japan.
“This [meaning the missile shields being planted on Russia’s borders] is
a very urgent and politically important issue, and could drag us into a new arms
race,” Colonel-General Yuri Solovyov, a commander of the Russian military has
commented in regards to the facilities that are part of the missile shield
project that are going to be set up near the Russian border in Eastern Europe.
[13]
There is also discussion of another missile shield being erected in the
Caucasus, or even possibly in the Ukraine. The Republic of Azerbaijan and
Georgia are potential candidates for housing the missile shield project in the
Caucasus.
“Our analysis shows that the placing of a radio locating station in the
Czech Republic and anti-missile equipment in Poland is a real threat to us
[Russia],” clarified Lieutenant-General Vladimir Popovkin, Commander of
Russia’s Space Forces, and additionally explained, “It’s very doubtful
that elements of the national U.S. Missile defence system in Eastern Europe were
aimed at Iranian missiles, as has been stated [by U.S. officials].” [14]
The U.S. missile project in the Czech Republic is also opposed by the majority
of the Czech population. [15] The wishes of the Czech people are being ignored,
just as the wishes of the American, British, Italian, Canadian, and Japanese
people are continuously being ignored by their respective governments. In other
words, these so-called democratic governments are extremely undemocratic when it
comes to military planning and foreign wars.
The borders of Russia and China are being militarized by NATO and the broader network of military alliances organized by the United States. Surprisingly, Turkey which is a Middle Eastern member of NATO, Iran’s direct neighbour and a logical choice for any missile shield facilities meant to protect against an alleged Iranian ballistic missile threat, has not been selected as a location for a missile defence shield. The fact that the missile shield project is being positioned in Poland and the Czech Republic rather than Turkey and the Balkans suggests that the project is not directed mainly against Iran, but against Russia.
The other missile shield project, in the Far East, aside from North Korea will be adjacent to China’s heavily populated eastern provinces and the resource-rich Russian Far East. This Asiatic missile shield will be roughly located in Japan, with the possibility of facilities in South Korea. Japan and the United States began a joint missile defense research project in 1999, coincidently the same year as NATO expansion and the NATO war against Yugoslavia. [16] Taiwan is also a vital link in the militarization of the frontier with China.
Once the formation of this international military network is completed, the genuine basis for the creation of the two parallel missile shield projects will be fully apparent. These two military projects are not separate but interlinked with each other. They are part of the globalization of NATO and a broader military alliance that is in the process of encircling Russia, China, and their allies.
Alongside the development of this global military network, NATO and the U.S. have started an endeavour to control the world’s oceans. The high seas, international trade, and maritime traffic are also the focus of a solidifying control regime spearheaded by the U.S. government.
Putting a Leash around China: The Importance of Strategic Maritime Oil Routes, Taiwan, and Singapore
The United States has strong military links with Taiwan because Taiwan provides a logistical hob for military engagement against China and Chinese energy security. Taiwan is geo-strategically important because the island is located between the South China Sea and the East China Sea. The U.S. puts the outmost importance on Taiwan’s position in regards to the critically important and strategic maritime shipping lanes that transport oil and other resources to China.
Much has been discussed about the important geo-strategic oil routes in Central Asia and about important land corridors, but attention should also be remunerated to the strategic maritime oil routes or international shipping lanes. Energy supplies are closely linked to Chinese national security, Chinese development, and Chinese military strength. Should China’s oil supplies be cut off in the event of a war or, more likely, delayed it would be vulnerable and could potentially be paralyzed and suffocated. A maritime cordon around China would serve such a purpose.
The Straits of Taiwan and Malacca are geo-strategically vital to transporting oil and resources to China. Whoever controls both straits controls the flow of energy to China under the present status quo. It would be a harsh blow to China, should the straits be blocked and the stream of oil tankers stopped or delayed, just as it would be a blow to the U.S. and E.U. should the Straits of Hormuz be blocked by Iran. It so happens that the U.S. Navy dominates these shipping lanes. Until China has a secure source of inflowing energy from a route that is not controlled by the United States it will continue to be vulnerable to the U.S. Navy which continuously monitors both the Straits of Taiwan and Malacca.
Both Taiwan and Singapore are close allies of the U.S. because of these realities. Also, Singapore and Taiwan are heavily militarized with a view to exerting control over these two vital straits. Should there be a war between China and the United States, both Singapore and Taiwan, in alliance with the U.S. Navy, have contingency plans to block oil traffic from reaching China.
Although the Straights of Malacca lie within the sovereign maritime territory of Malaysia, the rapid militarization of Singapore is aimed at controlling and, if need be, halting the flow of oil tankers from the Straits of Malacca. This would cut the flow of energy to China in the event of a war between the U.S. and China. The naval facilities of Singapore are also highly specialized to service warships and submarines and are heavily used by the U.S. Navy.
China knows that it is vulnerable to military invention against its energy supplies. This is why the Chinese have been developing their naval bases and pushing for oil terminals and energy corridors to be built over land routes directly from Central Asia and the Russian Federation to China. Chinese cooperation with Russia, Iran, and the republics of Central Asia serves the purpose of creating a trans-Asian energy corridor that would ensure a continuous flow of energy to China in the event of an American-led naval blockade of the high seas. Discussions are underway for developing a gas pipeline from Iran to Pakistan, India, and China with the collaboration of Russia. [17]
The Chinese have also objected to the proposals and initiatives being put forward on global warming. China argues that the climate debate is a calculated challenge to the economic growth of China and the Developing World. The Chinese believe the purpose of the U.S. and E.U. climate change initiative is to pressure them to cut their carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to such an extent that it would upset their industrial and economic drive. [18]
Naval build-up in the Indian Ocean and the Chinese Eastern Flank
There has been a gradual naval build-up around China. This includes an increase in the submarine squadrons of the Asia-Pacific region. An Australian report published by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) has warned that an Asiatic arms race is underway. The report writes; “In an arc extending from Pakistan and India through Southeast Asia and up to Japan there is a striking modernization and [military] expansion underway.” [19]
China has also been reported by Bill Gertz of The Washington Times to be “building up military forces and setting up bases along sea lanes from the Middle East to project its power overseas and protect its oil shipments, according to a previously undisclosed internal report prepared for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.” [20]
China has engaged in a proactive naval policy aimed at securing the East China Sea, the South China Sea, and the Indian Ocean. These bodies of water all correspond to the international energy maritime route(s) that transport African and Middle Eastern oil to China. The Chinese aim is to protect the Chinese energy lifeline from the U.S. Navy and its allies. The Pentagon refers to these naval bases as the “the string of pearls,” because of their geo-strategic importance to the balance of naval power in the Indian Ocean. [21]
Chinese naval facilities are being constructed all along this vital maritime corridor. The naval port of Gwadar in Pakistan, on the shore of the Arabian Sea, has been designed and constructed by the Chinese. An agreement has also been signed with Sri Lanka (Ceylon) that will give China access to the port of Hambatota on the southern edge of the island. [22]
China has also planned the construction of a naval port in Myanmar (Burma), a geo-strategically important Chinese ally. The creation of a port in Myanmar would terminate any need or threats from both the straits of Taiwan and Malacca. China borders Myanmar directly and a railroad network and transport route exists from the coast of Myanmar to Southern China. [23]
The United States has also been trying to obstruct any possible means of allowing oil to directly reach China through any trans-Asian oil cooperation aside from the traditional and vulnerable sea route(s), which are under the watchful eye of the U.S. Navy. Any trans-Asian energy arrangement, such as the Iran-Pakistan-India Pipeline, is detrimental to the Anglo-American and NATO agenda for controlling Eurasia.
The U.S. Pacific Fleet is also placing greater strategic importance on the island of Guam in the Pacific Ocean as the U.S. deepens its collaboration with Australia, Singapore, the Philippines, and Japan to militarily encircle China further. [24] The subject of North Korean ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons is presently being used as an ideal basis for further encircling China in the Far East. The Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) started by the Bush Jr. Administration in 2003, just after the invasion of Iraq, is also a means of controlling the movement(s) of international traffic and cutting energy supplies to China should a juncture of aggression against the Chinese arrive.
Control of Strategic Waterways, the Naval Cordon of the Seas, and a “Global Navy”
Controlling the high seas and trade is an additional line of attack being set up to envelop the Eurasian giants, China and Russia. This is precisely what the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), and the establishment of a “global naval force,” under the command of the U.S., has the objectives of accomplishing. China is in deeper danger from an ocean-based threat than Russia in this regard.
The naval network that is being created by NATO and NATO allies is beginning to emerge. Over 40 countries have been participating in naval movements in the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean. [25] This is a threat to Chinese energy supplies and international trade going through the Indian Ocean between Africa and Eurasia.
Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chief of U.S. Naval Operations, has stated that the U.S. seeks to craft and establish “a thousand-ship navy” to take charge of international waters. [26] This strategy outlined is the eventual amalgamation of NATO and allied navies in what has been termed by the U.S. Navy as a “global maritime partnership” which “unites navies, coast guards, maritime forces, port operators, commercial shippers and many other government and non-government agencies to address maritime concerns.” [27]
The initial areas where this new strategy is coming to play are the Persian Gulf, the waters of East Africa, and the Arabian Sea. Admiral Mullen also cited the existence of a predominately NATO group of 45 warships deployed in the Persian Gulf and around the waters of the Middle East as part of this global naval force. [28] The operations in the waters of the Middle East and in the Arabian Sea include Combined Task Forces (CTFs) 150 and 152. Combined Task Forces (CTF) 150 operates in the waters of the Gulf of Oman, the Gulf of Aden, the Red Sea and the North Arabian Sea, where several French warships are positioned. Combined Task Force (CTF) 152, which includes Italian, French, and German warships operates in the Persian Gulf and has its operational headquarters in Bahrain.
It is significant to note that Combined Task Force (CTF) 152, which is part of the group of 45 warships cited by Admiral Mullen as being part of the global naval force, is under the command of the U.S. Navy and CENTCOM. This includes the naval operations in the Persian Gulf and around the Middle East. Operation Iraqi Freedom in the Persian Gulf and Operation Enduring Freedom off the Horn of Africa are just two of the operations that these predominately NATO warships are actively operating under.
The growing naval armada is comprised of three primary coalition Combined Task Forces (CTFs) and seven supporting naval forces. Amongst the 45 ships that constitute the force of warships are those of France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands (Holland), Canada, Australia, Pakistan, and other NATO partners, aside from U.S. Navy and British warships.
The global naval force is mandated under the combined auspicious of NATO and the naval operations wing of CENTCOM. The formation of this large, and relatively unheard of, armada of warships is only possible with the consent of the Franco-German entente within the framework of NATO. These warships have gathered under the pretext of fighting the “Global War on Terror.”
Controlling International Waters, Movement, and Global Trade: The “Proliferation Security Initiative”
Aside from the global naval force being created by the U.S. and NATO, a strategy has been devised to control international trade, international movement, and international waters. The Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), under the mask of stopping the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) components or technology and the systems for their delivery (missile technology or components), sets out to control the flow of resources and to control international trade. The policy was drafted by John Bolton, while serving in the U.S. State Department as U.S. Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.
The strategy was initiated on May 31, 2003, by the White House and outlined authorizing an open violation of international law. Under international law the U.S. Navy or NATO warships are not allowed to board and search foreign merchant ships that they encounter in international waters. Under Part VII (7) of the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea the U.S. operations are internationally illegal, unless authorized by the home country the merchant ship originates from. Warships can only board and search or detain ships that are from the same country, unless a bilateral agreement has been signed with another nation granting the right to search merchant ships carrying their flag.
In international waters foreign ships can only be searched if polluting near the waters of a naval force’s home country or on the reasonable suspicion of piracy. Additionally, in international waters ships owned by a national government have immunity from stops, inspections, and seizures from the vessels of other countries. Under these international guidelines it would be illegal for the U.S. Navy to stop a vessel belonging to the government of North Korea or Syria or China in international waters. With the new international waters regime proposed and presently being exercised on North Korea by the U.S. government all this has started to change, especially in the waters of the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. The governments of several Asian nations have openly criticized and doubted the legality of the new operations, including the Malaysian government. [29]
China naturally was suspicious of the U.S. initiative for international waters and has refused to participate in the 2003 scheme. The Chinese see this as a way for the U.S. and its allies to further control international waters and international trade. Russia on the other hand joined the scheme because Moscow is not in a position, like China, where its lifeline is based on maritime traffic and international waters. Furthermore, the Russia Navy under the scheme can reciprocally halt and board U.S. merchant vessels.
It is no coincidence that Singapore, Japan, and the South China Sea, all in close proximity to China, have been picked as the main vicinities of the many naval exercises under the banner of this new scheme. The U.S., Britain, Japan, Australia, Canada, Singapore, France, Italy, and Germany, along with Russia all have taken part in the naval exercises under the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI).
Many North Korean vessels have been illegal halted and badgered since the initiation of the naval initiative, but China, like other countries, is also under threat too from the internationally illegal naval operations that are reminiscent of the internationally illegal “no-fly zones” forced over pre-invasion Iraq by the U.S., British, and French governments. The precedent has been set for one day stopping Chinese ships and maritime traffic going to China.
NATO Expansion and the March to Global Conflict
The global military standpoint and the geo-political ambitions of NATO increasingly underline and give a glimpse of NATO operations and military directives. The system of military alliances is tightening and its main targets seem to be the Eurasian giants; Russia, China, and possibly India. NATO expansion is not just limited to Europe and the former Soviet Union, but is in pursuit of a global characteristic. In Asia an Asiatic parallel sister-alliance to NATO is being formed from the network of existing military alliances in the Asia-Pacific Rim. [30] China, Russia, and Iran now are in the forefront of a reluctant Eurasian alliance that is taking shaping to oppose NATO and the United States. Ultimately it may be in the Middle East that the pace for NATO expansion will be established. If the Middle East falls under the total control of the Anglo-American alliance and NATO the stage will be set for a new phase of the “long war” that will lead all the way into the heart of Eurasia.
[1]
Judy Dempsey, U.S.
senator urges use of NATO defense clause for energy, International
Herald Tribune,
[2]
Mu Xuequan, Mandelson:
Mistrust between Russia, EU worst since Cold War ends, Xinhua
News Agency,
[3]
Pr. Michel Chossudovsky, Debating
“War and Peace” behind
Closed Doors: NATO’s Riga Security Conference, Centre for Research on
Globalization,
Debating
“War and Peace” behind Closed Doors: NATO's Riga Security Conference,
by Pr. Michel Chossudovsky, outlines the NATO program being discussed behind
closed doors and provides a comprehensive list of attendants and participants of
the Trans-Atlantic summit in Latvia.
[4]
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, The
March to War: Naval build-up in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean,
Centre for Research on Globalization
(
[5]
Kuwait
to sign NATO security agreement during Gulf conference next week, Kuwait
News Agency (KUNA),
[6]
Kuwait to sign NATO agreement, Op.
cit.
[7]
Pr.
Michel Chossudovsky, “Weapons
of Mass Destruction:” Building a Pretext for Waging War on Iran?, Centre
for Research on Globalization (
[8]
Gulf
states ‘can respond to attack,’ Gulf
Daily News, Vol. XXIX (29), No. 364,
[9]
B.
[10]
Robert M. Gates,
Posture
Statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee (Testimony,
Senate Armed Services Committee, Washington, District of Columbia,
[11]
Vladimir Putin, Speech
and the Following Discussion at the Munich Conference on Security Policy
(Address,
[12]
U.S.
Anti-Missile Systems in Europe Threatens Russia — General, MoscNews,
[13]
U.S.
Anti-missile Shield in Europe May Cause Arms Race — Russian General, MoscNews,
[14]
[15]
Mark John, U.S.
missile plan triggers NATO tensions, Reuters,
[16]
Sarah Suk, U.S.
admiral confident of missile shield effectiveness, Kyodo
News,
[17]
Atul Aneja, “Pipeline
should extend to China,” The
Hindu,
[18]
Chinese
object to climate draft, British
Broadcasting Corporation (
[19]
Andrew Davies, The
enemy down below: Anti-submarine warfare in the ADF, (
[20]
China
builds up strategic sea lanes, The
Washington Times,
“
[21]
[22]
Ibid.
[23]
Ibid.
[24]
[25]
Naval
chief: U.S. has no plan to attack Iran, Xinhua
News Agency,
[26]
Thom
Shanker, U.S.
and Britain to Add Ships to Persian Gulf in Signal to Iran,
The New York Times,
[27]
Ibid.
[28]
Ibid.
[29]
Malaysia
in no hurry to join U.S.-led security pact,
Reuters,
[30]
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global
Military Alliance: Encircling Russia and China, Centre
for Research on Globalization,
=================================================================================================
US to invest $205m in missile defense with Israel
Jerusalem
Post
Saturday May 19, 2007
The US House of Representatives authorized Friday night a sum of $205 million dollars for financing joint US-Israel missile defense system projects, Israel Radio reported.
205 million dollars will go to projects currently being developed in Israeli factories. According to the report, the defense systems are meant to be able to withstand missiles developed by Iran.
================================================================================================
YouTube Will Fight US Military Block
Read/Write
Web | May 18, 2007
Josh Catone
On Monday, the US Department of Defense announced that a number of social networking and media sites would be blocked on its network, citing bandwidth concerns. "This is a bandwidth and network management issue. We've got to have the networks open to do our mission. They have to be reliable, timely and secure," a US Strategic Command spokeswoman told Stars & Stripes. (Marshall Kirkpatrick has a good blog post summing up the reaction across the blogosphere.)
For their part, YouTube isn't accepting the ban without a fight. Today, YouTube told the Associated Press they would challenge the US Defense Department's decision. "Watching or uploading online video does use bandwidth and can slow or tie up a network, but [CEO Chad] Hurley expressed doubt that soldiers' use of YouTube could have any real effect on the military's massive network," reported the AP.
Hurley joked that since the Defense Department invented the Internet, bandwidth shouldn't be a problem. But he vowed to work with the military to figure out how to keep YouTube available to American soldiers. Hurley, and CTO Steve Chen seemed to believe that content was more likely the issue behind the ban. They said YouTube policies about violence already mean they remove most graphic videos being uploaded from Iraq and Afghanistan, but they would be willing to hear what sort of controls the Pentagon would require to keep the site up.
"We want to protect the [YouTube] community from being exposed to something violent, but at the same time, we want to educate people on what's happening around the world," Hurley said. "It's hard for us."
Even more baffling to YouTube was the apparent contradiction by the Pentagon, who a couple of weeks ago launched their "boots-on-the-ground" YouTube channel in order to present its own combat videos. In light of this, YouTube was "especially puzzled" by the block, said the AP.
What do you think about the US military's ban on YouTube, MySpace, Hi5, and other social networking and media sites? Do you think YouTube has a chance of getting the block lifted?
=============================================================================================
9/11 Debunkers Hide From Slam
Dunk Evidence Of Controlled Demolition
Electron microscope analysis of steel spheres
from WTC site proves thermate, proves collapse of twin towers was an act of
deliberate arson
Prison Planet | May 22, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson
Professor
Steven Jones presented brand new and compelling evidence for the controlled
demolition of the twin towers and WTC 7 recently, but the 9/11 debunkers and the
corporate media are loathe to tackle it because it represents a slam dunk on
proving the collapse of the buildings was a deliberate act of arson.
During a talk at the Rebuilding America's Senses event at the University of Texas last month, Jones laid out facts about steel samples recovered from the WTC site that Popular Mechanics dare not even attempt to debate. Debunkers are scared to even get near this information because the science behind it fundamentally contradicts the official story of what happened on 9/11.
Jones detailed his lab experiments in which he attempted to replicate NIST's conclusion that the lava like orange material flowing out of the south tower is aluminum from Flight 175, the plane that hit the building. Jones clearly documents the fact that liquid aluminum is silver and not orange as is seen in the video of the south tower, therefore the material cannot be aluminum. Jones then explains that the material is in fact a compound that can cut through steel like a hot knife through butter, thermite with sulphur added to make thermate.
The crux of the fresh evidence revolves around newly uncovered globules or spheres that were discovered at the WTC site that Professor Jones was able to obtain and run a electron microscope analysis on.
The spheres contained iron and aluminum, which would be expected in any steel sample, but also sulphur which is a by-product of a thermate reaction.
Prison
Planet.tv members can watch this groundbreaking presentation right now. Subscribe
here to get access to this and hundreds of other special video reports.
So having moved from a hypothesis that thermate was used to bring down the towers from using video footage and debunking the aluminum explanation of NIST, Jones now has empirical scientific proof, undertaken under laboratory