Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: End British-Saudi Sponsored Terrorism (9/11-Saudi Coverup Begins To Crumble)  (Read 8412 times)


  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3126

Drone ALERT: Protest Friday on Drone Construction in NH - Merrimack
From: Seacoast Area Peace Activist Mailing List  

Seacoast peace activists,

If you've followed recent years' developments in the ongoing "global war on terror," the conflicts in Palestine and  Afghanistan/Pakistan or especially the hearings on our new CIA director, you know that unmanned drones are increasingly being relied on to prosecute these so-called "wars."  Besides being the weapon of choice in extra-judicial killings and assassinations, they represent a new and potentially unlimited threat to civil liberties (like the right to live) both here and around the world.

April has been designated by a broad alliance nationally as Drone Awareness Month, or officially, "April Days of Action," and will call for a total halt to drone killing and surveillance. The one event scheduled in NH to address this threat is coming up this FRIDAY in Merrimack.  We know it's not a great time of day for most folks to participate, but the organizers wanted to get attention of passing motorists as well as the media for this critical issue.  We hope some of you can attend!

Live Drone Free or Die!

        When: Friday, April 5, 2013
        Time:  11:30 am until 1:30 pm
        Where: 220 Daniel Webster Highway Merrimack, NH

Due to limited parking on site, we have potential carpools from the Macy's parking lot (off Daniel Webster Highway/Rt. 3 in Bedford).

Elbit Systems in Merrimack, NH, an Israeli-owned company, manufactured most of the drones used to kill and maim Palestinians in Gaza in 2008-09 and in 2012.

The plant in Merrimack, the former Kollsman Instruments, makes electronic systems used in the Apartheid Walls in Occupied Palestine and for the Wall on the Us-Mexican border.

NH Palestine Education Network, NH Veterans For Peace and Seacoast Peace Response are sponsoring a vigil to call attention to what Elbit represents.

More info/directions/RSVPs on Facebook event page:
« Last Edit: December 24, 2013, 12:59:25 pm by Luck »


  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3126
Re: Portsmouth, NH War Tax Protest Monday April 15
« Reply #1 on: April 13, 2013, 11:28:30 am »

ACTION: War Tax "Penny Poll" Monday in Portsmouth

Seacoast Peace Folks,

Excuse the short notice on this, but we've put together another of our annual "penny polls" to educate engage folks on where their discretionary federal tax dollars are going this year (mostly for current, past wars and future wars), taking place on Tax Day, April 15th (of course) from 11 AM to 1 PM in Market Square, Portsmouth.

So if you happen to be in Portsmouth on Monday, please stop by, take the poll and help spread the word about how much we pay for war and what it could be better spent on! There's more information and links below, from our media release.

See you on the Square!

SPR Steering Committee


April 11, 2013

For more information contact:

Sandra Yarne – 603-436-2424,


Portsmouth NH – Seacoast Peace Response will conduct its Annual War Tax Education Penny Poll in Market Square on Monday, April 15, federal income tax day, from 11 AM to 1 PM.

This action is planned to call attention to the cost of the militarized federal budget. Literature will be available to people as the vote in the penny poll. The information is about how their tax dollars are being spent.

Obama's 2013 discretionary budget proposes that 57% of our tax dollars to be spent on defense. Only 5% is proposed for health and 6% for education. Seacoast Peace Response and N.H. Peace Action are participating in “Move the Money,” a national campaign to reduce military spending by at least 25% and to move the money into local programs to meet human needs. The Pentagon itself has proposed cuts greater than 25%. If the US military budget were cut by 80% it would still be the largest military budget in the world. Currently the U.S. spends more money on its military than all the countries on the planet combined.

The Penny Poll is a large display board with options for people to place pennies, provided by the group, in the categories they think the tax money should be spent in. Some spending options include: veterans benefits, environmental protection, housing, and health care. In last year's Penny poll, healthcare receives the most votes with environmental protection coming close behind.

Seacoast Peace Response, a community group based in Portsmouth, New Hampshire since 2001, is dedicated to promoting peace and justice worldwide. They oppose aggressive US foreign-policy including threats and acts of war, the use of drones for targeted assassinations, and seek to foster dialogue within the Seacoast community through public programs and nonviolent action. They offer resources, organizing, and inspiration to replace the inhumanity of war with global cooperation and equality.

For more information please contact Sandra Yarne at 603–436–2424 or see For more information specific to the U.S. national budget, see .


  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3126
Re: Obama's & Co's War on America
« Reply #2 on: April 27, 2013, 06:37:50 pm »

This suggests that Obama, Britain, Saudi Arabia et al are intentionally assisting Al Qaeda operatives to take over Muslim nations. So we have the drug wars and arms smuggling turning the U.S. and Europe into war zones and we have Imperialist interests promoting the overthrow of Muslim nations by ruthless terrorists, making both regions of the globe safe for totalitarianism, perhaps as bad as was the Soviet Union, or maybe worse.

Obama's War on America: 9/11 Two
« Last Edit: April 28, 2013, 10:24:34 am by Luck »


  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 91
  • The Resident Misanthrope
Re: Obama & Co's War on America
« Reply #3 on: April 28, 2013, 02:18:28 am »

Pertinent and relevant knowledge shouldn't cost money. Especially in this economy.


  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3126
Re: Obama, Britain & Saudis behind Terrorism - 1
« Reply #4 on: April 28, 2013, 10:19:44 am »

Over9T said: Pertinent and relevant knowledge shouldn't cost money. Especially in this economy.
I didn't have time yesterday to find free info, so I settled for just supplying the above link. But now I've looked up more info on the Obama - Britain - Saudi connection to Al-Qaeda from the same site. I'm posting below an article from Aug 2011. But here is a link to an article on Obama.
A Fact Sheet -- Obama/al-Qaeda Pact In Libya and Syria
by William Wertz
And here is a link to other related info at the same site:
It appears that Obama supports extremist Saudi Islamism, called Wahhabism, which Britain's ruling class supports in order to divide and weaken their enemies. The enemies of the global ruling class are those who support freedom for all.

How al-Qaeda Is a British-Saudi Project
by Ramtanu Maitra -- Aug. 8, 2011

In late July, the U.S. State Department issued a wordwide alert warning of potential terrorist attacks against U.S. citizens and interests overseas due to an enhanced potential for anti-American violence following the killing of Osama bin Laden in May. Current information suggests that al-Qaeda and affiliated organizations continue to plan terrorist attacks against U.S. interests in multiple regions, including Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. It is widely acknowledged that Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT (Lashkar-e-Taiba), and other terrorist groups, including Hamas. It is well know that Britain remains a haven for Islamist jihadis—but no actions have been taken against London, thus far. Any adequate protection of the population against terror requires a clear picture of the role of Britain and Saudi Arabia in protecting and nurturing al-Qaeda, and what purpose it serves. That is the purpose of this review.

Al-Qaeda and 9/11
There is no dearth of evidence to show that the al-Qaeda leaders and operatives who were eventually arrested, were functioning from Britain before 9/11. There are also documented reports which show the City of London’s laundering of narcotics-generated money of various terrorist groups, as well as the presence of a large number of Britons operating as terrorists in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border areas. Most of these exposés occurred following the 9/11 event, giving an impression that the terrorists had gathered strength, and were operating with impunity from various parts of the world, only after 9/11. However, looking back at the British role prior to the attacks, it becomes clear that the British and Saudis, each for their own purpose, had joined hands years ago to bring al-Qaeda into existence. Al-Qaeda’s targets of attack were American and Iranian interests.

After the Saudi-Pakistani military-backed Taliban had secured control over Kabul in 1996, al-Qaeda moved into Afghanistan to garner strength and secure control over the opium money—the age-old currency of the British empire—generated in Afghanistan. But years before the 9/11 event, in which the Saudi involvement is impossible to refute, al-Qaeda was in the process of formation. Al-Qaeda was never a consolidated group that functioned under a definite hierarchy, but was rather a loosely-assembled group of jihadists, most of whom were local, and dependent on money from the core group, known as al-Qaeda, that operated directly under the British-Saudi control. The only commonality among these groups, other than being terrorists, is that they considered America—and not the West as a whole—and the Shi’as, as their greatest enemies. While these two objectives had posed no problem to Britain, who had kept Iran at the top of its enemies list since the ouster of Reza Shah Pahlevi, the Saudi interest was not only to undermine Iran, but also to spread their virulent form of Islam, Wahhabism, throughout the Islamic world, and thus establish Saudi ownership of the Islamic nations. Although al-Qaeda was for setting up a caliphate from the Dardanelles to the Volga, it is also virulently anti-Shi’a—an indicator of its total dependence on Saudi Arabia.

All Clues, All Roads Lead to London
That Britain harbors terrorists of all colors and creeds, but particularly of the Islamic jihadi varieties, since the British Empire basically drew the map of the Islamic countries, and remained their “protector,” is well established by now. Some Americans, other than those who have become such hard-core anglophiles that they would blame someone else for criminal acts in order to protect Britain, and thus endanger many American lives, have spoken out against the British- harbored terrorists. One such individual is Bruce Riedel.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2013, 06:09:44 am by Luck »


  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3126
Re: Obama, Britain & Saudis behind Terrorism - 2
« Reply #5 on: April 28, 2013, 10:23:14 am »


How al-Qaeda Is a British-Saudi Project by Ramtanu Maitra
Irrefutable evidence, long in the public domain, has established the role of the British royals in harboring terrorists and protecting the City of London’s drug-money laundering. Likewise, the role of the Saudi royal family, notably former Ambassador to the U.S. and Bush family friend, Prince Bandar, particularly their involvement in the 9/11 attacks. Now, as the State Department warns of renewed potential terrorist attacks against U.S. targets, the time has come to shut down the British-Saudi terrorist apparatus. Riedel, a 29-year CIA veteran and counter-terrorism expert, told the London Sunday Telegraph in February 2009, that “the British Pakistani community is recognized as probably al-Qaeda’s best mechanism for launching an attack against North America. “The American security establishment believes that danger continues and there’s very intimate cooperation between our security services to monitor that.” Riedel, who served three Presidents as a Middle East expert on the White House National Security Council, added: “President Obama’s national security team are well aware that this is a serious threat.”

Why have even hard-core anglophile Americans felt pressure to name Britain as a potential terrorist threat? In a Feb. 14, 2002 London Guardian article, “Allies point the finger at Britain as al-Qaida’s ‘revolving door,’ ” writers Audrey Gillan, Richard Norton-Taylor, and John Hooper in Berlin, Jon Henley in Paris, and Giles Tremlett in Madrid, point out that “documents compiled in Madrid, Milan, Paris and Hamburg and seen by the Guardian indicate that most of the known attacks planned or executed by al-Qaida in the past four years had links to Britain. Investigating magistrates, police and intelligence officers in those cities believe that Islamist spiritual leaders based in Britain played a key role in the indoctrination and possibly even the authorization of terrorist operations.”

Since Britain is small geographically, its population is less than one-third of Pakistan’s, and it has Her Majesty’s fabled intelligence service, it is safe to assume that the terrorists are there because they are under the protection of the British authorities. The Guardian article noted that the investigators in France, Spain, Germany, and Italy are adamant that at least seven top bin Laden lieutenants have operated out of Britain in recent years. They claim that Muslim clerics, such as Abu Qatada, allowed to openly preach jihad in the U.K., were in fact spinning a “revolving door” to radical Islam and to terrorism. One source close to the French investigation told the Guardian that before the events of Sept. 11, “Britain acted—and, to some extent, may still act—as a kind of filter for parts of al-Qaeda. The main European centers for spiritual indoctrination were London and Leicester; any weak links were weeded out there. The new recruit would then be sent to suffer in the camps in Afghanistan. After passing both tests, the mojahid could take his place in the sleeper networks in Europe.” A senior German intelligence officer summed up the mood when he told the Guardian : “All the clues lead to London. All the roads lead to London.”

Here is a short list of those terrorists who prove that Britain was indeed the terrorists’ “revolving door.” Abu Qatada: A Spanish judge, Baltasar Garzon, has stated that Sheikh Abu Qatada, the London-based Muslim cleric who ran the Four Feathers Centre near Baker Street, is “the spiritual leader of mojahedin [holy warriors] across Europe.” Qatada was sentenced to death in absentia in Jordan and is accused by the U.S., Spain, France, and Algeria of being a key influence in the 9/11 attacks. Videos of his speeches were found in the Hamburg flat of Mohammad Atta, the hijackers’ ringleader. Djamel Beghal: Beghal, a French Algerian who was detained in Dubai, a Britain-controlled offshore banking and drug-and-gun-running center, who was questioned about his plot to bomb the American Embassy in Paris, told police he had been a follower of Qatada, who was a key figure in his radical conversion. Beghal moved from France to Leicester, U.K. where he worshipped at the Mosque of Piety, and travelled to London to listen to Qatada preach. Beghal is suspected of having recruited Zacarias Moussaoui, the former South Bank University student suspected of being part of the 9/11 plot; and Richard Reid, the alleged “shoe bomber,” who tried to blow up a Paris- Miami flight in transit to terrorist training camps in Afghanistan.

Kamel Daoudi: The Guardian also noted that French authorities point to the confession of Daoudi, who had been living in Beghal’s flat in Paris, was also found in Beghal’s other flat in Leicester. He is said to be the unit’s computer expert. Abu Abdallah: Daoudi told French police that he met an al-Qaeda guerrilla in Leicester called Abu Abdallah. Abdallah’s identity remains uncertain, but French investigators believe he may be among the 11 men arrested in Leicester in early 2002. In addition, Baghdad Meziane and Brahim Benmerzouga were arrested in Leicester in January 2002. Meziane is accused of “directing the activities of al-Qaida.” Abu Doha: Five months before the attacks on America, Italy’s special operations police produced a report which identified two al-Qaeda networks in Europe. Both were run by Islamist extremists based in Britain—“one made up principally of Algerians and led by Abu Doha; the second made up predominantly of Tunisians and led by the Tunisian Seifallah Ben Hassine. ” Spain points to four more British-based bin Laden lieutenants, identifying them by their pseudonyms in an indictment. Spanish police taped a series of cryptic phone calls from a caller in Britain using the codename “Shakur.” One of these, according to Judge Garzon, shows that Shakur knew of the upcoming Sept. 11 attacks. “In our classes, we have entered the field of aviation, and we have even cut the bird’s throat,” he said on Aug. 27. Pakistan has repeatedly reported the influx of British Muslims working hand-in-glove with the terrorists along the Afghan-Pakistan borders. Many of these terrorists are drug-runners and chemists refining opium into more expensive heroin. Pakistani intelligence has intercepted talks among these British Muslim terrorists, and the International Security Assistance Forces (ISAF) have recovered T-shirts carrying the logos of British soccer teams.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2013, 06:10:01 am by Luck »


  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3126
Re: Obama, Britain & Saudis behind Terrorism - 3
« Reply #6 on: April 28, 2013, 10:23:57 am »


Money To Be Made in Harboring Terrorists
In 2001, a French parliamentary report exposed the connection between the drug money laundered through the City of London and the narcoterrorists. In a Guardian article Oct. 10, 2001, John Henley, citing an exhaustive 180-page French report, wrote that up to 40 companies, banks, and individuals based in Britain can legitimately be suspected of maintaining direct or indirect relations with the narcoterrorists. The report is based on interviews with senior Metropolitan Police officers, leading City financial regulators, and European judges investigating cross-border financial crimes in Spain, Belgium, and France. According to a 70-page addendum, “The Economic Environment of Osama bin Laden,” compiled by an independent team of financial experts whose identity has not been revealed, and attached to the French report, the structure of bin Laden’s financial network bears a striking similarity to that used by the collapsed BCCI bank for its fraudulent operations in the 1980s. The report establishes numerous links between bin Laden and international arms and oil traders, and even members of the Saudi elite. It also pinpoints the relationship and its subsequent breakdown between bin Laden and his family’s holding company, the Saudi Binladin Group, and its multiple subsidiaries, investments, and offshoots in Europe.

The names of half a dozen former BCCI clients and officials, including Ghaith Pharaon, wanted by the U.S. authorities for fraud, and Khalid bin Mahfouz, a Saudi banker who was closely involved with the bank before it was closed down by the Bank of England in 1991, recur throughout the report, and are directly linked to Osama bin Laden through banks, holding companies, foundations, and charities, at least one of which, the International Development Foundation, is headquartered in London. “This document clearly shows the great permeability of the British banking and financial system and the fragility of the controls operated at its points of entry,” the French report concludes. Many of the individuals concerned, several with British connections, were also involved in various senior roles with BCCI, the now-defunct drug bank set up in the 1970s, the report says. Hundreds of banks and companies are mentioned, from Sudan, Geneva, and London, to Oxford, the Bahamas, and Riyadh, Henley wrote. “The convergence of financial and terrorist interests, apparent particularly in Great Britain and in Sudan, does not appear to have been an obstacle with regard to the objectives pursued [by bin Laden],” the report concludes. “The conjunction of a terrorist network attached to a vast financing structure is the dominant trait of operations conducted by bin Laden.”

Britain also spends some money in nurturing the terrorists. On June 7, 2011, The Guardian reported the admission by British Home secretary Theresa May, that the money from the £63 million anti-radicalization budget has been given to “the very extremist organizations that Prevent should have been confronting.” May conceded saying Operation Prevent, originally launched in 2007 to counter the growth of home-grown terrorism, “failed to tackle the extremist ideology that not only undermines the cohesion of our society, but also inspires would-be terrorists to seek to bring death and destruction to our towns and cities.”

The British-Saudi Nexus
The British intervention in Iraq in 2003 was, in reality, the continuation of the British effort to unleash Shi’a-Sunni violence, a Saudi project as well, that 40  that shortly before the Luxor massacre, on Oct. 8, 1997, the U.S. State Department, in compliance with the Anti- Terrorism Act of 1996, released a list of 30 Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) banned from operating on U.S. soil. Of the 30 groups named, six maintain headquarters in Britain. They are: the Islamic Group (Egypt), Al- Jihad (Egypt), Hamas (Israel, Palestinian Authority), Armed Islamic Group (Algeria, France), Kurdish Workers Party (Turkey), and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (Sri Lanka). . . . Similarly, the Algerian Armed Islamic Group (GIA), which was responsible for the assassination of Algerian President Mohamed Boudiaf on June 29, 1992, has its international headquarters in London. On Nov. 20, 1999, the Daily Telegraph admitted, following the release of the U.S. State Department’s updated list of FTOs, that “Britain is now an international center for Islamic militancy on a huge scale . . . and the capital is the home to a bewildering variety of radical Islamic fundamentalist movements, many of which make no secret of their commitment to violence and terrorism to achieve their goals.”

The Next al-Qaeda
Now that the al-Qaeda chief, a bag carrier for Britain and Saudi Arabia, Osama bin Laden, is no more, the elites of those two nations will put together another international Islamic terrorist organization to continue with their old objectives. Already, terrorist groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Hizb ut-Tahrir (HuT) among others, have graduated to become international terrorist outfits using Saudi money and British protection. Recently, the Obama Administration announced that al-Qaeda’s role in Afghanistan has faded after eight years of war. Gone is the once-formidable network of camps and safehouses where bin Laden and his mostly Arab operatives trained thousands of young Muslims to wage a global jihad. The group is left with fewer than 100 core fighters, the statement added. Despite what the anglophile Obama Administration may say to mislead the American people and protect the British-Saudi nexus of terrorists, there is no reason to believe that the demise of al-Qaeda will end the British-Saudi-organized terrorist operations. Saudi money is pouring in, in the midst of what is called the Arab Spring, pursuing Saudi objectives, while London provides protection to the terrorists to meet their and the Saudis’ violent aspirations.

Reuters’ Alex Spillius, reporting on Dec. 5, 2010, cited a cable from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, dated Dec 30, 2009, which said: “It has been an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority. . . . Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.” In a recent interview with the Weekend Review in London, Sherard Cowper-Coles, the British Ambassador to Afghanistan from 2007 to 2009, and later promoted to the post of Britain’s Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan until 2010, when he left the Foreign Office, criticized Clinton’s recent statement calling for a regional solution to the Afghan conflict. During Cowper-Coles’ ambassadorship in Afghanistan, two of his MI6 moles, Michael Semple and Mervyn Patterson, had been summarily kicked out by President Karzai in 2009, when he learned that they were organizing and funding some “good Taliban” behind his back. ... Cowper-Coles is a close associate of Tony Blair’s protégé David Miliband. It is evident from what he said, that Britain wants the Saudis back in Afghanistan to set up another al-Qaeda, or some such terrorist outfit, to threaten Iran, Central Asia, China, India, and possibly Russia.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2013, 06:10:17 am by Luck »


  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3126
End British-Saudi Terrorism Coverup
« Reply #7 on: August 18, 2013, 12:13:46 pm »

Bust the London-Riyadh Global Terror Axis

[] The wellspring of all significant international terrorism today is the Anglo-Saudi imperial alliance, expressed most vividly in the 1985 Al-Yamamah arrangements between London and Riyadh that persist to this day.

Al-Yamamah ("The Dove") was ostensibly an arms-for-oil barter deal, first brokered by then-Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin-Sultan, and then-British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Under the cover of the arms-for-crude-oil deal, over the succeeding 28 years, hundreds of billions of dollars in cash have been squirreled into offshore bank accounts in such notorious havens as the British and Dutch Caribbean Islands, Switzerland, and Dubai.

Those funds have bankrolled nearly 30 years of global terrorism and coups d'état, dating back to late-1970s British and American sponsorship of the Afghan "mujahideen" which spawned al-Qaeda and every other Muslim Brotherhood offshoot now imposing a reign of terror across the entire Islamic world, and into Africa, Europe, and the Americas.

Beginning in the mid-1980s, Al-Yamamah slush funds bankrolled the Afghan "resistance," separatist wars in Africa, and the 1990s conflicts in the Balkans following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. An honest and thorough investigation—yet to be accomplished—would all-but-certainly reveal that Al-Yamamah funds bankrolled the 9/11 terrorists.

The existence of an Anglo-Saudi top-down command over al-Qaeda and every other jihadist front group is well known within some circles at the highest levels of the U.S. government—dating back decades. But the successive Bush (41 and 43) and Obama administrations have presided over a brutal coverup of this Anglo-Saudi treachery, making them complicit before, during, and after the fact, in terrorist atrocities that have claimed tens of thousands of lives globally, and provided the pretext for every police-state tyranny that has been wrought on the United States over the past dozen years.

The single most glaring case of coverup of the Anglo-Saudi terror is the refusal of the George W. Bush and Obama administrations to release the 28-page chapter from the final report of the Joint Congressional Inquiry probing the 9/11 attacks, which catalogued the roles of the Saudi Ministry of Defense and Aviation, Saudi Arabia's General Intelligence Directorate (GID), and then-Saudi Ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin-Sultan, in the financing and protection of teams of 9/11 hijackers (see accompanying documentation). []

    In 2010, Ian Johnson wrote a book-length account of the British and American intelligence services' long-running sponsorship of the Muslim Brotherhood, A Mosque in Munich, which catalogued the 1960s emergence of the Muslim World League as the international recruitment arm of the Saudi-funded global jihadist terror. The Johnson account demonstrated that the Anglo-Saudi intelligence "special arrangements" predated Al-Yamamah by decades.

    Also in 2010, British researcher Mark Curtis wrote another book-length account, Secret Affairs—Britain's Collusion With Radical Islam, based largely on declassified British Foreign and Commonwealth Office and MI6 documents, showing that the British Crown intelligence service has been the sponsor and controlling force behind the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and all of its even more violent offshoots, dating back to the organization's founding in the British-occupied Suez Canal Zone in Egypt in the 1920s.

    The History Commons, a little-known but important online archive ( ), has assembled over 20,000 news entries—all from public sources—detailing the Anglo-Saudi links to the 9/11 hijackers and other brutal acts of mass terror. It is an open secret, frequently publicized in the British media, that "Londonistan" is the capital of global jihadist terrorism. Despite the EIR effort in late 2000 to shut down the British Crown's transparent alliance with Saudi Arabia in sponsoring worldwide terrorism and separatist insurgency (Chechnya, Kurdistan, Kashmir, etc.), London remains the protector and recruitment hub for terrorism on every continent to this day. []

The suppressed 28 pages from the Congressional Joint Inquiry are the crucial entry point for exposing the true nature of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and all that followed. Open that door and the entire Anglo-Saudi war against civilization can be exposed. From Bandar to BAE to the British Crown, the true masterminds of the heinous crime of 9/11 can be revealed. Those in the United States who have been complicit in the coverup of that crime can and must, as well, be brought to justice—including those currently occupying the highest office in the land.


  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3126
End British-Saudi Sponsored Terrorism (End of Petrodollars Coming?)
« Reply #8 on: August 25, 2013, 04:47:47 pm »

[The following suggests that the Saudis may be unstable. That sounds good to me, but I wonder if the ruling class is planning that and something worse for us afterward. Nuclear war is about the worst thing I can think of. If God answers prayers, maybe we'll luck out and both our ruling class and the Saudis will lose power.]

Get Ready For The Death Of The Petrodollar

This article was written by Brandon Smith and originally published at

Even after seven years of writing macroeconomic analysis for the liberty movement and bearing witness to astonishing displays of financial and political stupidity by more "skeptics" than I can count, it never ceases to amaze me the amount of blind faith average Americans place in the strength of the U.S. dollar. One could explain in vast categorical detail the history of fiat currencies, the inevitable destruction caused by inflationary printing and the conundrum caused when any country decides to monetize its own debt just to stay afloat - often, to no avail.

Bank bailouts, mortgage company bailouts, Treasury bond bailouts, stock market bailouts, bailouts of foreign institutions: None of this seems to faze the gibbering bobbleheaded followers of the Federal Reserve cult.  Logic and reason and wisdom bounce like whiffle balls off their thick skulls. They simply parrot one of two painfully predictable arguments:

    Argument No. 1:
    There is no way foreign countries will ever dump the U.S. dollar because they are so dependent on American consumers to buy their export goods.
    Argument No. 2:
    There is no way the dollar's value will ever collapse because it is the dominant petro-currency, and the entire world needs dollars to purchase oil.

I have written literally hundreds of articles over the years dismantling the first argument, pointing out undeniable signals that include:

    China's subtle dumping of the dollar - using bilateral trade agreements with other developing nations and, more recently, major economic powers like Germany and Japan
    The massive gold-buying spree undertaken by China and Russia - even in the face of extreme market manipulation by JPMorgan Chase and Co. and CME Group Inc.
    The dumping of long-term U.S. Treasuries by foreign creditors in exchange for short-term Treasuries that can be liquidated at a moment's notice.
    The fact that bonds now are supported almost entirely by Fed stimulus. When the stimulus ends, America's ability to honor foreign debts will end and faith in the dollar will crumble.
    Blatant statements by the International Monetary Fund calling for the end of the dollar's world reserve status and the institution of special drawing rights (SDRs) as a replacement.

The second argument held weight for a short time, only because the political trends in the Mideast had not yet caught up to the financial reality already underway. Today, this is quickly changing. The petrodollar's status is dependent on a great number of factors remaining in perfect alignment, socially, politically and economically. If a single element were to fall out of place, oil markets would explode with inflation in prices, influencing the rest of the world to abandon the greenback. Here are just a few of the primary catalysts and why they are an early warning of the inevitable death of the petrodollar.

Egyptian Civil War

I was recently contacted by a reader in reference to an article I wrote concerning the likelihood of civil war in Egypt, a civil war which erupted only weeks later.

She asked why I had waited until this year to make the prediction and why I had not called for such an event after the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak, as many mainstream pundits had. The question bears merit. Why didn't Egypt ignite with violent widespread internal conflict after Mubarak was deposed? It seemed perfectly plausible, yet the mainstream got the timing (and the reasons) horribly wrong.

My response was simple: The Mideast is being manipulated by elitist organizations towards instability, and this instability is a process. The engineered Arab Spring, I believe, is not so much about the Mideast as it is about the structure of the global economy. An energy crisis would be an effective tool in changing this structure. Collapse in the Mideast would provide perfect opportunity and cover for a grand shift in the global paradigm. However, each political step requires aid from a correct economic atmosphere, and vice versa.

If you want to identify a possible trend within a society, you have to take outside manipulation into account. You have to look at how economic events work in tandem with political events and at how these events benefit globalization as a whole. The time was not right after Mubarak's overthrow. The mainstream media jumped the gun. If the target is the U.S. dollar and Egypt is the distraction, this year presented perfect opportunity with the now obvious failure of quantitative easing stimulus being exposed.
As the situation stands, the Egyptian military regime that overthrew Mohammed Morsi has completely cut the Muslim Brotherhood out of the political process and murdered at least 450 protesters, including prisoners already in custody.

Morsi supporters have responded by torching government buildings and shooting police personnel. But the real fighting will likely begin soon, as the current government calls for a ban on the Muslim Brotherhood itself. Simultaneously, hatred for the United States and its continued support of the Egyptian power base - regardless of who sits on the throne - is growing to a fever pitch throughout the region.  This is not healthy for the life of the petrodollar in the long run.

It is important for Americans to understand when examining Egypt that this is not about taking sides. The issue here is that circumstances are nearly perfect for war and that such a war will spread and will greatly damage oil markets. The Suez Canal accounts for nearly 8 percent of the world's ocean trade, and 4.5 million barrels of oil per day travel the corridor. Already, oil prices have surged due to the mere threat of disruption of the Suez (as I predicted). And this time, the nation is not going to recover. A drawn-out conflict is certain, given the nature of the military coup in place and the adamant opposition of the Muslim population.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2013, 04:54:00 pm by Luck »


  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3126
End British-Saudi Sponsored Terrorism (End of Petrodollars Coming?)
« Reply #9 on: August 25, 2013, 04:48:29 pm »


Strangely, there are still some in the mainstream arguing that the Suez will "never close" because "it is too important to the Egyptian economy," The importance of the Suez to the Egyptian government is irrelevant in the midst of all-out revolution. The Suez will close exactly because there will be no structure left to keep the canal open. In the meantime, oil prices will continue to rise and distrust of the United States will continue to fester.

Saudi Arabia Next? [Good idea?]

The relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia is at once symbiotic and parasitic, depending on how one looks at the situation. The very first oil exploration and extraction deal in Saudi Arabia was sought by the vast international oil cartels of Royal Dutch Shell, Near East Development Company, Anglo-Persian, etc., but eventually fell into the hands of none other than the Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company. The dark history of Standard Oil aside, this meant that Saudi business would be handled primarily by American interests. And the Western thirst for oil, especially after World War I, would etch our relationship with the reigning monarchy in stone.

A founding member of OPEC, Saudi Arabia was one of the few primary oil-producing nations that maintained an oil pipeline that expedited processing and bypassed the Suez Canal. (The pipeline was shut down, however, in 1983). This allowed Standard Oil and the United States to tiptoe around the internal instability of Egypt, which had experienced ongoing conflict which finally culminated in the civil war of 1952. Considered puppets of the British Empire at the time, the ruling elites of Egypt were toppled by the Muslim Brotherhood, leading to the eventual demise of the British pound sterling as the top petro-currency and the world reserve. The British economy faltered and has never since returned to its former glory.

On the surface, Saudi Arabia seems to have avoided the effects of the Arab Spring climate, but all is not as it seems. The defection of Saudi Prince Khalid Bin Farhan Al-Saud has brought up startling questions as to the true state of the oil producing giant.

Saudi prince defects: 'Brutality, oppression as govt scared of Arab revolts' (EXCLUSIVE)

I believe this defection is only the beginning of Saudi Arabia's troubles and that America's largest oil partner is soon to witness domestic turmoil that will disrupt oil shipments around the world. America's support for a monarchy that is so brutal to its population will only hasten the end of the dollar's use in global oil trade, especially if these puppet regimes are toppled.

For those who doubt that Saudi Arabia is in line for social breakdown, I would ask why the nation felt it necessary to pump billions of dollars into the new Egyptian military junta.

While the country is surely being used in some cases as a proxy by the West, the Saudi government itself is fearful that success of dissenting elements will spread to its own borders. Little do they understand that this is part of the globalist game plan. Without control over Saudi petroleum, the United States loses its last influential foothold in the oil market, and there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the dollar will fall as the petro-currency soon after. The desperation caused by such an energy crisis will make international markets beg for a solution, which global banking cartels led by the IMF are more than happy to give.

Iranian Wild Card

The U.S. government's outright creation of the Syrian insurgency and its funding and armament of al-Qaida agents have understandably angered numerous Mideast nations, including Iran. Iran sits on the most vital oil shipping lane in the world: the Strait of Hormuz. About 20 percent of the world's annual oil exports are shipped through Hormuz, and the narrow inlet is incredibly easy to block using nothing but deliberately sunken freighters. In fact, this tactic is exactly what Iran has been training for in order to frustrate a U.S./Israeli invasion.

A U.S. or NATO presence on the ground or in the air above Syria, Egypt or Iran will most likely result in the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, causing sharp rises in gasoline costs that Americans cannot afford.

Russia/China Oil Deal

Finally, just as most bilateral trade deals removing the dollar as world reserve have gone ignored by the mainstream media, so has the latest sizable oil deal between Russia and China. Russia has been contracted by the Chinese to supply 25 years of petroleum, and this deal follows previously established bilateral guidelines - meaning the dollar will not be used by the Chinese to purchase this oil.

I expect that this is just the beginning of a chain reaction of oil deals shunning the dollar as the primary trade mechanism. These deals will accelerate as the Mideast sees more internal strife and as the popular distaste for the United States becomes a liability for anyone in power.

The Dollar Is A Paper Tiger

Some might argue that oil discoveries in the Midwestern U.S. could be used to counter the disruption of oil pipelines in the Middle East, and certainly, there is much untapped oil in America.  However, to claim that this oil would somehow negate a crisis is naive, primarily because oil supply is not the ultimate issue; the dollar's petro-status IS the ultimate issue.  That status is dangerously reliant on the continued stability of Western friendly regimes in the East.  We can produce all the oil we want within our own borders, but if the dollar loses global standing as the world reserve, we will STILL see a massive debasement of our currency's value, we will still see collapse, and I guarantee, most of our domestic oil will end up being exported as payment to foreign creditors just to satisfy outstanding debts.

The dollar is no more invincible than any other fiat currency in history. In some ways, it is actually far weaker than any that came before. The dollar is entirely reliant on its own world reserve status in order to hold its value on the global market. As is evident, countries like China are already dumping the greenback in trade with particular nations. It is utterly foolish to assume this trend is somehow "random" rather than deliberate. Foreign countries would not be initiating the process of a dollar dump today if they did not mean to follow through with it tomorrow. All that is left is for a cover crisis to be conjured.  Existing tensions in the Mideast signal a pervasive crisis, most likely an energy crisis, in the near term.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2013, 04:59:22 pm by Luck »


  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3126

9/11-Saudi Coverup Begins To Crumble

Executive Intelligence Review

Dec. 23, 2013 (EIRNS)—With a major ruling by a federal appeals court, allowing the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and related entities to be sued for damages over the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the lid is now coming off of the 12-year coverup, perpetuated under both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, regarding the truth of what really happened in September 2001.

Combined with the burgeoning media coverage and public interest in Congressional efforts to declassify suppressed Congressional findings dealing with Saudi financing and support of the 9/11 hijackers, it is now the case, as Lyndon LaRouche declared on Dec. 20, that the truth about 9/11 can no longer be suppressed.

The bombshell court ruling—ignored by most of the "mainstream" press—came on Dec. 19, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned a 2005 Federal Court decision that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) was immune from civil lawsuits arising from the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, and at the same time, reversed its own 2008 ruling upholding that 2005 decision from the lower court. This now allows the 9/11 families and insurance companies to proceed with various civil actions against the Kingdom, after 8 years of being stalled.

'Sovereign immunity'

The KSA, various Saudi royals, and the Saudi High Commission, a government-established "charity," had been dismissed as defendants in 2005 by U.S. District Judge Richard Conway Casey, who said that the Saudi government and related individuals and entities were immune from civil suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. He also held that the the Saudi government's support for Islamist "charities" that supported al-Qaeda did not make it responsible for 9/11.

After the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court ruling, the plaintiffs sought review from the U.S. Supreme Court in 2009. Continuing the coverup in place from the Bush Administration, the Obama Administration intervened in the case to support the Kingdom, filing a brief in May 2009, urging the Supreme Court to refuse to review the case, and strongly arguing for immunity for the Saudis. One of the self-serving arguments made by the Obama Administration, was since Saudi Arabia has not been official designated at a "state sponsor of terrorism," therefore the "terrorism exception" to the sovereign immunity doctrine does not apply. Of course the fact that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is, in truth, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, cannot be admitted by the U.S. government, either, without blowing the lid off the 12-year coverup of 9/11, of which both the Bush and Obama Administrations are guilty.

What caused the Appeals Court to reverse its previous 2008 ruling, was another case, called Doe v. Bin Laden, in which the plaintiff had sued Afghanistan, among others, over the death of his wife in the 9/11 attacks. In that case, the federal district court in Washington D.C. had ruled that another exception to sovereign immunity, known as the "tort exception" could apply in that case, and that therefor the government of Afghanistan could be sued. That case was then transferred to the federal court in New York, to be consolidated with the other 9/11 cases, and so when that ruling was appealed, the appeal came to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. The 2nd Circuit upheld the right of the Doe plaintiff to sue Afghanistan—a ruling which contradicted its own previous ruling in the cases involving Saudi Arabia.

In its Dec. 19, 2013 ruling, the Appeals Court remedies this inconsistency, thereby allowing the cases against the Saudi Kingdom, various Saudi princes, and Saudi-controlled charities, to proceed. Stating that "the circumstances of this case are extraordinary," the Second Circuit reversed the district court ruling, and sent the case back to the lower court "for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

'A lot of Evidence'

The reaction from the families was immediate. "I'm ecstatic, because we have a lot of information and evidence," said William Doyle, whose son was killed in the attacks on the World Trade Center. He was likely referring to the mass of evidence concerning the Saudi role in financing the 9/11 attacks which has emerged over the past decade. "These people are getting off scot-free," Doyle added. "They didn't even get a slap on the wrist, and to this day we still have terrorism running rampant. We have to hold accountable the people who finance terrorism."

Included in the new evidence, would be the affidavits last year submitted by former U.S. Senators Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.), who co-chaired the two major official investigations of the 9/11 attacks, stating that a Saudi government agent, along with other Saudi officials, had played a key role during the lead-up to the attacks. "I am convinced that there was a direct line between at least some of the terrorists who carried out the September 11th attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia," Graham said in his 2012 affidavit, citing, among other things, the San Diego case of Saudi government Omar al Bayoumi, who provided direct assistance to two of the 9/11 hijackers.

Will Obama Defend Saudis Again?

The Obama Administration is about to be put to the test on the Saudis again. The Philadelphia Inquirer, in reporting the Dec. 19 ruling, also reported: "On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court asked the Obama Administration to weigh in on an appeal by Cozen [the law firm handling various 9/11 cases], asking for the reinstatement of another group of defendants— dozens of individuals and financial institutions accused of funneling money to al-Qaeda before the attacks. The request suggests that the court views the matter as having some importance and increases the odds that it may agree to hear the appeal."

EIR has confirmed that the Supreme Court did indeed issue such an order on Dec. 16, in the case of O'Neill, John P., et al. v. Al Rajhi Bank, et al., asking the U.S. Solicitor General to file a brief. John O'Neill was a former FBI supervisor who was killed in the World Trade Center collapse; his family and estate have brought a class action suit against numerous Saudi banks and charities. The Supreme Court's entry also states that "Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition."

This is undoubtedly because Associate Justice Elena Kagan, prior to Obama's appointing her to the U.S. Supreme Court, was Obama's Solicitor General in the Justice Department, from which she filed the 2009 brief, arguing that the Saudi Kingdom and Saudi princes are immune from lawsuit in the United States. At that time, Kristin Breitweiser, a leader of the 9/11 Families, denounced the Kagan brief as "reprehensible," and declared that "One would have hoped that the Obama Administration would have taken a different stance than the Bush Administration, and you wonder what message this sends to victims of terrorism around the world."


  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 147
    • New Hampshire Underground Forum

Lyndon LaRouche

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3126

LaRouche's critics never have intelligent criticisms.
Pages: [1]   Go Up