Northwest Flight 253 - Another Classic False Flag Operation

Body scanners would have missed the "underwear bomb", so of course Homeland Insecurity will buy thousands of them.  To meet an imaginary threat, we have imaginary protection. That is the grim truth behind "aviation security" in the 21st century.

According to the official story from the Obama administration and regurgitated by the managed media, the various components of the US national homeland security that costs taxpayers $75 billion to employ was incapable of bringing together the following known facts:

* In May, the British government withdrew its student visa for Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a young Nigerian who had studied at University College, London, and placed him on a watch list, barring him from re-entering the country.

* In August, US intelligence agencies learned of Al Qaeda discussions of an operation against a US target to be organized from Yemen, using a "Nigerian."

* On November 19, the father of Abdulmutallab, a prominent Nigerian banker, visited the US embassy in Abuja and told State Department and CIA personnel that his son had fallen under the influence of radical Islamists, gone to join them in Yemen, and broken off contact with his family.

* Based on the father's report, State Department and CIA officer sat the embassy informed Washington on November 20 and a security file was opened on Abdulmutallab at the National Counter-Terrorism Center, the main Washington clearinghouse for terrorism information.

* On December 16, Abdulmutallab visited a ticket office in Ghana and paid $2,831 in cash for a ticket on a Northwest Airlines flight from Lagos through Amsterdam to Detroit, landing on Christmas Day.

* On December 25, Abdulmutallab boarded the flight in Amsterdam with only a carry-on bag for a trans-Atlantic journey ending in Detroit. Following standard procedure, the US Department of Homeland Security was notified at least an hour before departure that he was a passenger on the flight.

The claim that US intelligence agencies were unable to detect the bomb plot, despite so many warnings months in advance, is simply not credible.

The official discussion repeats the same rhetorical trope employed to cover up the role of US intelligence agencies before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001... that they failed to "connect the dots." This metaphor suggests a highly abstruse process in which many small details, each seemingly innocent in itself, are correlated through sophisticated analysis by experts familiar with the patterns of terrorist operations.

No such operation was required to detect the Northwest Airlines bomb plot. The facts listed above were a series of fire alarms, each sufficient in itself to give the alert. To stop Abdulmuttalab from boarding the US-bound jetliner was a routine police matter, one that would ordinarily be executed without difficulty by the government of any middle-sized country, let alone by the most powerful military/intelligence apparatus on the planet.

If the Nigerian was allowed to board the jet in Amsterdam, it was because at some level within the US military/intelligence apparatus, the decision was made to allow him to do so.

The real failure to "connect the dots" is the refusal to draw any conclusions from the inaction of the US/Israeli intelligence. 

• Who made the decision not to act?
  

• Why did they make this decision? 

• Was the intention that the would-be bomber succeed or fail? 

• Was it a deliberate attempt to undermine the Obama administration? Was it a deliberate attempt to provide a pretext for further US military action in the Middle East? 

• Why isn't there an investigation into ICTS, the Israeli owned security company that's supposed to protect passengers at airports from such events? 

• How did a sand-monkey with an explosive used since WWI bypass a $75 billion dollar high-security fortification, and why do we never hear about these breaches of security at Israel airports? According to Israeli leaders, many would like to wipe their country off the face of the map, so it's not as if there isn't a motive against the state.

In the world's major intelligence agencies - the Russian FSB, the British MI-5, the French SGDN, China's Second Intelligence Department - these are the questions that are being asked, along with a further question: Is the Obama administration in control of its own national security department? These agencies undoubtedly dismiss the official US account of the abortive Christmas Day bombing for what it is: disinformation generated to delude American public opinion.

If these legitimate concerns are ruled out in advance, as is the case now in the American media, the result must inevitably be a whitewash, as with the official "investigations" into the 9/11 attacks.

Typical in this respect is the editorial published Saturday in the New York Times, under the headline, "Why Didn't They See It?" The editorial swallows whole the claim of a failure on the part of the intelligence and homeland security bureaucracy to put together the information about Abdulmutallab.

"No doubt sorting through heaps of information and determining what is urgent or even worthy of follow-up is daunting," the Times commented. "Still, it is incredible, and frightening, that the government cannot do at least as good a job at swiftly updating and correlating information as Google."

Actually, it is literally "incredible," i.e., not credible. And it is doubtful that even the editors of the Times believe it, although they are constrained from saying so by the informal but virtually complete self-censorship of the American capitalist media.

There have also been reports that the father supplied US representatives with the number of his son's Nigerian passport, which was communicated to the National Counter-Terrorism Center. However, neither the State Department nor the NCTC checked whether the younger Abdulmutallab had a valid US visa-a fact readily determined from internal US government databases - or made any effort to rescind it.

US officials had warning a month ahead of time about the specific target of attack.

Time magazine, citing a "source close to the family" of the bomber, wrote that "it was an alleged threat to blow up an American plane that apparently alarmed his parents and supposedly resulted in his father going to warn the US embassy." 

Newsweek magazine reported that the Saudi counter-terrorism chief, Muhammad bin Nayaf, gave a briefing to Brennan in the White House sometime last fall about the specific technique used by the Northwest bomber, concealing PETN explosive in his undergarments, which was used in a failed Al Qaeda attempt to assassinate bin Nayaf himself.

As in the case of the 9/11 attacks, no confidence can be placed in any agency of the US government or in the American media to provide an honest or probing account of what has taken place. This fact testifies to the continued erosion of democratic rights in the United States, and the enormous danger this represents to the American people and the people of the world.

Noam Chomsky has stated that the US is ruled by a "Fascism Lite" form of government. That regime is slowly turning into something more closely resembling true Fascism as described by Mussolini. It's the elites ultimate goal -- create a Fascist oligarchy that controls almost all aspects of every beings’ life.  

click for full story   Body Scanners a Danger to Health

 
       There could be other complications as well...

click for full story  ISRAEL SECURITY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALLOWING TERRORIST ACTS INCLUDING 9/11 

Israel Admits Harvesting Palestinian Organs

Palestinians have feared for many years that Israeli Occupation Forces in the West Bank and Gaza have targeted them for organ harvest.

Israel now shares a monstrous distinction with China. It illegally harvests organs from the dead. The former head of Israel’s Abu Kabir forensic institute has admitted the ghoulish practice, according to a reported published by The New Zealand Herald. Abu Kabir’s forensic pathologists harvested organs from dead bodies, primarily Palestinians, without the permission of their families.

In August it was reported by Aftonbladet, Sweden’s largest circulation daily, that Israeli troops killed Palestinians specifically to harvest their organs. The report appeared after an American Jew was arrested in the United States for illicit organ trafficking. The story made news in Israel, where some commentators compared it to medieval libels that Jews killed Christian children for their blood. Daniel Seaman, who heads Israel’s government press office, said the article played on “vile anti-Semitic themes,” according to the Associated Press.

The Swedish newspaper reported that Israeli soldiers targeted Palestinians specifically in order to harvest their organs.

Journalist Donald Bostrom wrote in the article that Palestinians “harbor strong suspicions against Israel for seizing young men and having them serve as the country’s organ reserve – a very serious accusation, with enough question marks to motivate the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to start an investigation about possible war crimes.”

An Israeli official called Bostrom’s story “hate porn” and the American magazine Commentary wrote that the story was “merely the tip of the iceberg in terms of European funded and promoted anti-Israel hate.”

“The fact is, however, that substantiated evidence of public and private organ trafficking and theft, and allegations of worse, have been widely reported for many years. Given such context, the Swedish charges become far more plausible than might otherwise be the case and suggest that an investigation could well turn up significant information,” writes Alison Weir, executive director of If Americans Knew.

The latest accusation was revealed in connection to the Swedish report. The former head of Abu Kabir forensic institute, Dr Jehuda Hiss, was interviewed in 2000 by an American academic who released the interview because of the report in Aftonbladet and the denials of the Israeli government. “We started to harvest corneas,” Hiss told the academic. “Whatever was done was highly informal. No permission was asked from the family.”

“We’d glue the eyelid shut,” Hiss added. “We wouldn’t take corneas from families we knew would open the eyelids.”

Israel’s Channel 2 TV aired parts of the interview over the weekend.

In addition to corneas, skin, heart valves, and bones were taken from the bodies of Israeli soldiers, Israeli citizens, Palestinians and foreign workers, often without permission from relatives.

Hiss also said skin was taken from the backs of dead Palestinians and the families of the dead never discovered the theft because they did not examine the bodies before burial. Muslim custom dictates that the deceased be buried as soon as possible after death, avoiding the need for embalming or otherwise disturbing the body.

After the interview aired on television, the Israeli military admitted the macabre practice.

In an article published in the Washington Report on Middle East Affair, Mary Barrett reports on the killings of young Palestinians. Her report contains an interview with Dr. Hatem Abu Ghazalch, the former chief health official for the West Bank under Jordanian administration and director of forensic medicine and autopsies. Barrett asks Ghazalch about “the widespread anxiety over organ thefts which has gripped Gaza and the West Bank since the intifada began in December of 1987.”

“There are indications that for one reason or another, organs, especially eyes and kidneys, were removed from the bodies during the first year or year and a half,” Ghazalch responded. “There were just too many reports by credible people for there to be nothing happening. If someone is shot in the head and comes home in a plastic bag without internal organs, what will people assume?”

In 2000, Nancy Scheper-Huges characterized organ harvesting as a form of modern cannibalism. “Today, China stands alone in continuing the use of organs of executed prisoners for transplant surgery,” she wrote.

Now Israel joins China as an international outlaw in this gruesome practice.

Organ harvesting will now be added to the list of Israel’s war crimes and human rights violations in the Occupied Territories. (link below)

Israeli cluster bomb

WATCH NOW> ISRAELI WAR CRIMES

Zionism and the Israeli-Palestine Conflict

Benjamin Freedman was an Ashkenazic Jew who was highly placed in the American government in the early to middle part of the twentieth century and had rather free access to presidents and statesmen up to the Kennedy Administration.

Mr. Freedman, once a wealthy Jewish businessman, became disillusioned with his Jewish heritage after learning of their origins and their political machinations worldwide. Breaking with organized Jewry he spent the majority of his great wealth in attempts to reveal to the world the true driving force behind the establishment of the nation of Israel by the United Nations as well as other historical misconceptions concerning the Khazarian roots of modern Judaism.

In a compelling narrative of the world history of that era, Freedman relates the fomenting of the treachery he witnessed in the manipulation of the outcome of WWI. Germany, according to Freedman and other historians, was apparently winning, and had virtually won, the war, when they made, in the summer of 1916, a very surprising and magnanimous offer to Great Britain. England was in a very precarious position at that time; essentially out of ammunition with food supplies for about one week remaining, to be followed by national starvation; German submarines, taking the Allies completely by surprise, had cut off all shipping convoys. Then came the most unexpected of all -- Germany offered terms for peace.

"At that time," says Freedman, "the French army had mutinied. They had lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting, they were picking up their toys and going home, they didn't want to play war anymore, they didn't like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed.

"Not a shot had been fired on German soil" Freedman continues. "Not one enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany" yet they offered peace. And not the ordinary peace of the conqueror to the conquered. The Germans proposed a status quo ante peace settlement, meaning that both sides would return to the same status as before the initiation of hostilities.

With the enticement of such an offer, and with all other options effectively eliminated, Britain had little choice but to accept. However, there arose another offer, much more attractive to the British ego, which would bring about a victory heretofore impossible.

While Germany was attempting to end the war in a more-than-equitable manner, German Zionists, representing Zionists from Eastern Europe, approached the British War Cabinet and offered them an alternative to merely pretending that a war had never happened.

At this point, it would be well to define "Zionist". Those were (and are) Jews whose dominant purpose was the establishment of a "Jewish Homeland", a proposition that the majority of Jews at that time did not endorse. Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines "Zionism" as "an international movement orig. for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel."

At the time that the United Nations decreed Israel to be a legitimate state, May 14, 1948, the most conservative of Jewish sects, the Hasidim, strongly opposed the establishment of a secular state of Israel, claiming that it was wrong to do so apart from Messiah's coming.

The offer made the British at the time of Germany's near total victory, consisted of a proposal to bring the United States into the war on Britain's side and thus insure an Allied victory. This was contingent on the British, after the defeat of Germany, agreeing to secure a large section of Palestine as a Jewish homeland -- keeping in mind that this cabal was being created by those who had no connected ancestry, whatever, to the Semitic tribes of ancient Israel, and therefore no ancestral right to fabricate even a remote claim to the region.

Freedman makes the observation that England had no more right to promise Palestine to the Jews than "the United States would have to promise Japan to Ireland" -- but that is precisely what they did. This promise resulted in the drafting of a small historical document called The Balfour Declaration. The following is the text, in its entirety, of this short and concise historical document:

Foreign Office

November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet. "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur James Balfour

Note the second sentence which claims that "that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine". Was it perhaps not considered at that time that the forcible dispossession of other persons from their land and property -- namely the Palestinian Arabs -- was a violation or prejudicial to their "civil and religious rights"? That does seem a bit of a stretch.

An interesting point in Freedman's presentation is that the German Jews were very well treated in their land, many of them having fled persecution from Russia and other Eastern European countries. As Freedman puts it, "the Jews had never been better off in any country in the world than they had been in Germany." Nearly all of the great industrial giants of that time, the Rathenaus, the Balins, Bleichroder, the Warburgs, and of course, the Rothchilds (to whom the Balfour letter is addressed), were Jews and resided in Germany.

What the Zionists did was nothing less than a classical "sell out" of their German homeland. The methods used to bring the United States into the war against Germany also appear to be classical in that it was a pattern for many other such inducements for the US to enter wars it had no business fighting. As with the Serbian conflict and many others of this age, where fabricated atrocities against ethnic minorities, women and children were used to gain the agreement of the American Congress and citizens, so also was that device used to bring the US into WWI.

Freedman notes that the American media, which prior to that had been somewhat pro-German, began reporting that the Germans were engaged in the commission of atrocities which, it was later proven, were utterly false: atrocities such as the shooting of Red Cross nurses and cutting off babies hands, etc.

During Freedman's involvement with matters of state he attended the Paris Conference in 1919, where Germany was presented with demands for reparations. In that conference, according to Mr. Freedman, there were 117 Jews present, being represented by Bernard Baruch, presenting their demands for the partitioning of Palestine as a Jewish homeland.

As to what made it possible for the actual establishment of the State of Israel as opposed to a mere political declaration by the United Nations, Mr. Freedman expounds. "It is a well-established and an undeniable historic fact," he writes, "that the active participation of the United States in the conquest of Palestine, on behalf of the Zionists, was the factor responsible for the conquest of Palestine by the Zionists. Without the active participation of the United States," Freedman reemphasizes, "it is certain that the Zionists would never have attempted the conquest of Palestine by force of arms."

The rest, as it is said, is history.

When one considers all of that history which has been involved in shaping the world and especially the Middle East as it is today, it becomes less of a mystery as to why the Palestinian Muslims are possessed of such an animosity and hatred of those who, according to all that has been presented here, literally stole their lives and lands. It also seems to remove the mystery from the question the American president asked as to why they hate America as much as they do -- America, who has been the chief military supplier and financier of Gog and Magog in the Khazarian usurpation of Palestine. As Mr. Bush has said, "If you support terrorists, you are a terrorist;" so also can it be said by the Muslims, "If you support our enemies who steal our land and our dignity and our history, you are also our enemies."

That message should have rung loud and clear on September 11, 2001 when even two of America's top Christian evangelists (Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell) claimed that the act was Divine retribution for the sins of America. They, of course, abandoned that unpopular position when public sentiment turned against them. One would have to ask if, in that instance, those two men had effectively defined the terms conviction and commitment for the followers of their brand of "Christianity".