Watch this video to understand whats coming in theatre near you. The big war is inevitable.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Parti Politik Baru di Malaysia....DAPAS...
22 tahun dahulu aku tidak menyangka akan terjumpa permandangan seperti ini. Aku tidak membangkang, tidak juga menyokong. Bagi aku ini semua dinamik, kita semua umpama campuran bahan kimia yang bertindakbalas antara satu sama lain, tindak balasnya akan jadi stabil setelah ia bertemu 'equilibrium point'nya. Aku harap semuanya akan berakhir dengan kebaikan.
Sebagai Islam/Melayu yang melihat dari tepi gelangang..aku dah terasa ngilu!
Thursday, May 13, 2010
The Burqa war
The basic fear of immigrant exist everywhere in the world. The will to preserve the 'culture of the land' exist in every society. But the hypocrisy is nauseating. When the third world made the same move it is labelled as oppressing freedom of expression, when they do it it is labelled to maintain freedom of expression.
FRANCE
The law: In 2004, France instituted a controversial ban on the wearing of religious symbols and clothing in schools -- a law that was widely interpreted as targeting Islamic headscarves. More recently President Nicolas Sarkozy's UMP party has begun a push to also ban the burqa (a garment that covers a woman's entire face and body, leaving only a screen for the eyes) and the niqab (a veil for the face that leaves the area around the eyes open) in all public spaces in France. The parliament passed a nonbinding resolution on May 11 in support of such a ban.
The debate: France is the European country with the largest Muslim minority population (6 percent, or 4 million citizens). The proposed burqa ban has opened difficult questions about national identity and the place of religion in society. Sarkozy was quoted in June 2009 as saying "the burqa is not welcome in France" and has since argued that it is a tool for the suppression of women.
A parliamentary commission, which concluded earlier this year, recommended a partial ban in spaces like hospitals and on public transportation. In an attempt to minimize the controversy surrounding the legislative effort, Jean-François Copé, leader of the UMP party in parliament, argued last week that the ban is based on security concerns ("the visibility of the face in the public sphere ... is essential to our security and is a condition for living together"), not religious discrimination.
Earlier this year, Prime Minister Francois Fillon asked the Council of State, a body that provides legal advice to the executive branch, to examine whether a full ban would be constitutional. The council found that such a law would most likely violate the French Constitution and could be challenged in court. However, it also found that a partial ban on face-covering garments could stand in certain "high-risk" places for security reasons. (A similar law is already on the books in Italy, where a woman was recently fined 500 euros for wearing a niqab in public.) Nonetheless, Copé says he will continue to pursue a full ban of the burqa in France.
BELGIUM
The law: Belgium has taken great steps toward a ban on face-covering veils. On April 29, the lower house of parliament approved a bill that bans burqas and niqabs; the bill is expected the pass the upper house of parliament later this year. Human rights groups such as Amnesty International have forcefully condemned the bill. The new law would impose a fine of 15 to 25 euros, or jail time of one to seven days.
The debate: If the ban is approved, Belgium will become the first country in Europe to completely outlaw face-covering veils. Although Belgium has an estimated Muslim population exceeding 600,000, legislators estimate that only a small percentage, 300 to 400 women, wear the burqa. Opponents of the bill therefore argue that the root issue is Islamophobia in a country with a rapidly growing Muslim population.
Meanwhile, in making the case for the ban, the head of the Liberal Party, Daniel Bacquelaine, told National Public Radio: "To forbid the veil as a covering is to give [Muslim women] more freedom. I'm proud Belgium is the first country to do that."
Amnesty International's John Dalhuisen, an expert on religious discrimination in Europe, counters, "The Belgian move to ban full-face veils, the first in Europe, sets a dangerous precedent. Restrictions on human rights must always be proportionate to a legitimate goal. A total ban on full-face veils would not be."
GERMANY
The law: Half of Germany's 16 states have passed laws restricting the wearing of religious clothing and symbols, including the burqa and hijab (headscarf), in schools. (Meanwhile, five of these states have made exceptions for Christian items.) Throughout Germany, women are not allowed to drive while wearing the burqa, allegedly for safety purposes.
The debate: This month Silvana Koch-Mehrin, a German representative in the European Parliament, called for a Europe-wide ban on face-covering veils, saying "the burqa is a massive attack on the rights of women. It is a mobile prison."
In the wake of moves toward bans in Belgium and France, as well as Koch-Mehrin's statement, German Muslim leaders such as Aiman Mazyek, chairman of the Central Council of Muslims, have voiced their disapproval of a similar national ban in Germany, calling it a "a completely senseless debate. It would only further widen the gap between Muslims and non-Muslims." German politicians like Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere agree with Mazyek, calling a ban "inappropriate and therefore unnecessary."
THE NETHERLAND
The law: Geert Wilders, leader of the Party for Freedom and well-known anti-immigration politician, has been at the forefront of the international movement to ban burqas and veils. In 2006, he introduced legislation before the Dutch parliament to ban burqas, but worries that a ban would breach religious freedom laws together with personnel changes in the Dutch cabinet stopped it from being voted into law.
The debate: Because of concerns over freedom of religion and offending the country's growing Muslim community, Dutch lawmakers have been especially reticent about a burqa ban in recent years. Yet 66 percent of the population would support it, according to a February 2007 opinion poll. Wilders attempted to once again put forward legislation banning the burqa in public places in 2008, but concerns about religious freedom have elevated the political opposition.
Wilders's party gained in recent local elections, and with general elections scheduled for June, he will probably gain more seats in parliament. Last fall, Wilders suggested a 1,000 euro excise tax on headscarves, which he dubbed a "head-rag tax."
TURKEY
The law: Turkey is officially a secular state; the wearing of veils almost vanished after Mustafa Kemal Ataturk launched his modernization drive in 1923. Headscarves were practically nonexistent in Turkey's big cities by the 1960s, but this trend reversed thanks to a religious revival in the 1970s.
Today, all veils are banned in universities and public buildings. The ban was introduced after Turkey's 1980 military coup; further restrictions were enacted in 1997. In November 2005, the European Court of Human Rights upheld the university headscarf ban against challenges, setting a precedent for current legislative efforts in Europe.
The debate: More recently, the election of Islamic-leaning parties such as Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Justice and Development Party (AKP) has led to enforcement of the ban being relaxed somewhat. Still, every year thousands of women -- such as Leyla Sahin, the plaintiff in the European Court of Human Rights case -- find themselves in trouble for refusing to remove their headscarves.
Lawmakers have made several attempts in the last decade to lift the ban, but all have been unsuccessful. Despite the growing influence of religious parties in government, the headscarf ban is unlikely to be overturned anytime soon; Turkish military leaders see themselves as protectors of Turkey's secular status and remain fierce critics of religion entering the public space.
link click here
FRANCE
The law: In 2004, France instituted a controversial ban on the wearing of religious symbols and clothing in schools -- a law that was widely interpreted as targeting Islamic headscarves. More recently President Nicolas Sarkozy's UMP party has begun a push to also ban the burqa (a garment that covers a woman's entire face and body, leaving only a screen for the eyes) and the niqab (a veil for the face that leaves the area around the eyes open) in all public spaces in France. The parliament passed a nonbinding resolution on May 11 in support of such a ban.
The debate: France is the European country with the largest Muslim minority population (6 percent, or 4 million citizens). The proposed burqa ban has opened difficult questions about national identity and the place of religion in society. Sarkozy was quoted in June 2009 as saying "the burqa is not welcome in France" and has since argued that it is a tool for the suppression of women.
A parliamentary commission, which concluded earlier this year, recommended a partial ban in spaces like hospitals and on public transportation. In an attempt to minimize the controversy surrounding the legislative effort, Jean-François Copé, leader of the UMP party in parliament, argued last week that the ban is based on security concerns ("the visibility of the face in the public sphere ... is essential to our security and is a condition for living together"), not religious discrimination.
Earlier this year, Prime Minister Francois Fillon asked the Council of State, a body that provides legal advice to the executive branch, to examine whether a full ban would be constitutional. The council found that such a law would most likely violate the French Constitution and could be challenged in court. However, it also found that a partial ban on face-covering garments could stand in certain "high-risk" places for security reasons. (A similar law is already on the books in Italy, where a woman was recently fined 500 euros for wearing a niqab in public.) Nonetheless, Copé says he will continue to pursue a full ban of the burqa in France.
BELGIUM
The law: Belgium has taken great steps toward a ban on face-covering veils. On April 29, the lower house of parliament approved a bill that bans burqas and niqabs; the bill is expected the pass the upper house of parliament later this year. Human rights groups such as Amnesty International have forcefully condemned the bill. The new law would impose a fine of 15 to 25 euros, or jail time of one to seven days.
The debate: If the ban is approved, Belgium will become the first country in Europe to completely outlaw face-covering veils. Although Belgium has an estimated Muslim population exceeding 600,000, legislators estimate that only a small percentage, 300 to 400 women, wear the burqa. Opponents of the bill therefore argue that the root issue is Islamophobia in a country with a rapidly growing Muslim population.
Meanwhile, in making the case for the ban, the head of the Liberal Party, Daniel Bacquelaine, told National Public Radio: "To forbid the veil as a covering is to give [Muslim women] more freedom. I'm proud Belgium is the first country to do that."
Amnesty International's John Dalhuisen, an expert on religious discrimination in Europe, counters, "The Belgian move to ban full-face veils, the first in Europe, sets a dangerous precedent. Restrictions on human rights must always be proportionate to a legitimate goal. A total ban on full-face veils would not be."
GERMANY
The law: Half of Germany's 16 states have passed laws restricting the wearing of religious clothing and symbols, including the burqa and hijab (headscarf), in schools. (Meanwhile, five of these states have made exceptions for Christian items.) Throughout Germany, women are not allowed to drive while wearing the burqa, allegedly for safety purposes.
The debate: This month Silvana Koch-Mehrin, a German representative in the European Parliament, called for a Europe-wide ban on face-covering veils, saying "the burqa is a massive attack on the rights of women. It is a mobile prison."
In the wake of moves toward bans in Belgium and France, as well as Koch-Mehrin's statement, German Muslim leaders such as Aiman Mazyek, chairman of the Central Council of Muslims, have voiced their disapproval of a similar national ban in Germany, calling it a "a completely senseless debate. It would only further widen the gap between Muslims and non-Muslims." German politicians like Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere agree with Mazyek, calling a ban "inappropriate and therefore unnecessary."
THE NETHERLAND
The law: Geert Wilders, leader of the Party for Freedom and well-known anti-immigration politician, has been at the forefront of the international movement to ban burqas and veils. In 2006, he introduced legislation before the Dutch parliament to ban burqas, but worries that a ban would breach religious freedom laws together with personnel changes in the Dutch cabinet stopped it from being voted into law.
The debate: Because of concerns over freedom of religion and offending the country's growing Muslim community, Dutch lawmakers have been especially reticent about a burqa ban in recent years. Yet 66 percent of the population would support it, according to a February 2007 opinion poll. Wilders attempted to once again put forward legislation banning the burqa in public places in 2008, but concerns about religious freedom have elevated the political opposition.
Wilders's party gained in recent local elections, and with general elections scheduled for June, he will probably gain more seats in parliament. Last fall, Wilders suggested a 1,000 euro excise tax on headscarves, which he dubbed a "head-rag tax."
TURKEY
The law: Turkey is officially a secular state; the wearing of veils almost vanished after Mustafa Kemal Ataturk launched his modernization drive in 1923. Headscarves were practically nonexistent in Turkey's big cities by the 1960s, but this trend reversed thanks to a religious revival in the 1970s.
Today, all veils are banned in universities and public buildings. The ban was introduced after Turkey's 1980 military coup; further restrictions were enacted in 1997. In November 2005, the European Court of Human Rights upheld the university headscarf ban against challenges, setting a precedent for current legislative efforts in Europe.
The debate: More recently, the election of Islamic-leaning parties such as Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Justice and Development Party (AKP) has led to enforcement of the ban being relaxed somewhat. Still, every year thousands of women -- such as Leyla Sahin, the plaintiff in the European Court of Human Rights case -- find themselves in trouble for refusing to remove their headscarves.
Lawmakers have made several attempts in the last decade to lift the ban, but all have been unsuccessful. Despite the growing influence of religious parties in government, the headscarf ban is unlikely to be overturned anytime soon; Turkish military leaders see themselves as protectors of Turkey's secular status and remain fierce critics of religion entering the public space.
link click here
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Gergaji Bermata dua
Aku tersenyum dengan kontroversi seorang blogger yang terkenal yang mendakwa dia di beri RM 4 juta untuk menjalankan satu aktivtiti perang saraf bagi menimbulkan persepsi buruk kepimpinan Pak Lah.
Hakikat bahawa ada pihak sanggup membazirkan sebegitu banyak wang untuk mewujudkan persepsi yang memang sudah menjadi persepsi umum. Sudah terang lagi hendak disuluh.
Sekarang ini Kumpulan ini sedang menghadapi masalah persepsi akibat blogger upahan mereka kini sudah berpaling tadah. Jika dahulu blogger ini diberi empat juta untuk bekerja bagi pihak yang satu itu, ada kemungkinan juga kini beliau juga diberi peruntukkan untuk memjalanakan satu gerak saraf bagi melemahkan pihak yang pernah menggajinya..tak gitu?
Aku terfikir juga berapa juta agaknya dibelanjakan untuk menimbulkan persepsi buruk tehadap Datuk Seri Najib? agaknya siapakah pula yang diberi peruntukkan berjuta-juta untuk menjalanakan perang saraf sebegini?
Dalam tulisan terbaharu beliau, beliau mendakwa seorang exco kanan kerajaan PAS Kelantan ada membacakan hadis yang yang membawa maksud boleh memfitnah musuh jika ia dilakukan untuk kebaikan...wah kalau macam tu Machiavelli pun akan tabik dengan exco ini.
Blogger tersebut juga di tarbiahkan dengan kisah Nabi Hidir yang melakukan perkara diluar kebiasaan. Maknanya boleh melakukan kerja diluar batas kebiasaan untuk melemahkan musuh...Setahu aku nabi Hidir melakukan perkara-perkara kerana ketinggian ilmu laduni beliau ...Wah banyak sungguh Nabi Khidir Dalam PAS...
Kalau begitu satu perkara yang aku belajar..banyak benda boleh dihalalkan dalam Islam jika tujuannya betul..begitukah?
Sekali lagi Machiavelli tertawa bergolek2 dalam kuburnya....
Hakikat bahawa ada pihak sanggup membazirkan sebegitu banyak wang untuk mewujudkan persepsi yang memang sudah menjadi persepsi umum. Sudah terang lagi hendak disuluh.
Sekarang ini Kumpulan ini sedang menghadapi masalah persepsi akibat blogger upahan mereka kini sudah berpaling tadah. Jika dahulu blogger ini diberi empat juta untuk bekerja bagi pihak yang satu itu, ada kemungkinan juga kini beliau juga diberi peruntukkan untuk memjalanakan satu gerak saraf bagi melemahkan pihak yang pernah menggajinya..tak gitu?
Aku terfikir juga berapa juta agaknya dibelanjakan untuk menimbulkan persepsi buruk tehadap Datuk Seri Najib? agaknya siapakah pula yang diberi peruntukkan berjuta-juta untuk menjalanakan perang saraf sebegini?
Dalam tulisan terbaharu beliau, beliau mendakwa seorang exco kanan kerajaan PAS Kelantan ada membacakan hadis yang yang membawa maksud boleh memfitnah musuh jika ia dilakukan untuk kebaikan...wah kalau macam tu Machiavelli pun akan tabik dengan exco ini.
Blogger tersebut juga di tarbiahkan dengan kisah Nabi Hidir yang melakukan perkara diluar kebiasaan. Maknanya boleh melakukan kerja diluar batas kebiasaan untuk melemahkan musuh...Setahu aku nabi Hidir melakukan perkara-perkara kerana ketinggian ilmu laduni beliau ...Wah banyak sungguh Nabi Khidir Dalam PAS...
Kalau begitu satu perkara yang aku belajar..banyak benda boleh dihalalkan dalam Islam jika tujuannya betul..begitukah?
Sekali lagi Machiavelli tertawa bergolek2 dalam kuburnya....
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Mestikah Ahli Politik Malaysia Masuk Longkang untuk Berpolitik?
Aku sebenarnya dengan sengaja memilih untuk tidak menulis tentang politik Malaysia kerana aku amat kecewa dengan situasi dan cara berpolitik di Malaysia apabila kebanyakkan ahli politik dan pendukung-pendukung masing-masing memilih untuk berpolitik dengan cara yang amat memualkan.
Meskipun kumpulan masing-masing mempunyai falsafah perjuangan yang tersendiri. falsafah yang molek dan mulia jika dilihat pada perlembagaan masing-masing namun pada hakikatnya ia telah tenggelam oleh kemabukan untuk berkuasa. Semua nilai-nilai yang mulia yang di perjuangkan (kononnya) tenggelam oleh keinginan untuk bekuasa.
Masing-masing kini menabur fitnah dan tuduhan-tuduhan yang tidak berasas dan tanpa fakta sehingga pada satu peringkat kita tidak tahu siapa yang hendak kita percaya. Tidak ada sesiapa yang terkecuali.
Kini pergeseran ini sudah mula melibatkan pihak-pihak yang dahulunya kelihatan berkecuali dan sepatutnya terasing dari percakaran ideologi. Kini akibat sikap tidak hormat kepada sesiapa kecuali kepada kehendak dan kumpulan sendiri, maka percakaran ini akhirnya akan menjadi punca kepada perpecahan yang kekal.
Sikap taksub dan tidak terbuka kepada perbezaan pendapat akan menyebabkan keruntuhan nilai-nilai sosial. Kini tidak ada lagi ahli politik yang bersifat budiman. Tidak ada lagi ahli politik yang mementingkan kepentingan masyarakat melebihi kepentingan sendiri.
Kini kita ada banyak ahli politik yang tidak menyumbang apa-apa kepada masyarakat sebaliknya menanam bibit perpecahan dan resah gelisah. Kita sudah menghampiri cara berpolitik benua afrika, dimana sesiap yang tidak bersetuju akan dihapuskan tanpa belas kasihan.
Malang sekali kerana kita semua akan jatuh kedalam gaung jika semua ini tidak berubah...
Salam untuk yang resah gelisah
Meskipun kumpulan masing-masing mempunyai falsafah perjuangan yang tersendiri. falsafah yang molek dan mulia jika dilihat pada perlembagaan masing-masing namun pada hakikatnya ia telah tenggelam oleh kemabukan untuk berkuasa. Semua nilai-nilai yang mulia yang di perjuangkan (kononnya) tenggelam oleh keinginan untuk bekuasa.
Masing-masing kini menabur fitnah dan tuduhan-tuduhan yang tidak berasas dan tanpa fakta sehingga pada satu peringkat kita tidak tahu siapa yang hendak kita percaya. Tidak ada sesiapa yang terkecuali.
Kini pergeseran ini sudah mula melibatkan pihak-pihak yang dahulunya kelihatan berkecuali dan sepatutnya terasing dari percakaran ideologi. Kini akibat sikap tidak hormat kepada sesiapa kecuali kepada kehendak dan kumpulan sendiri, maka percakaran ini akhirnya akan menjadi punca kepada perpecahan yang kekal.
Sikap taksub dan tidak terbuka kepada perbezaan pendapat akan menyebabkan keruntuhan nilai-nilai sosial. Kini tidak ada lagi ahli politik yang bersifat budiman. Tidak ada lagi ahli politik yang mementingkan kepentingan masyarakat melebihi kepentingan sendiri.
Kini kita ada banyak ahli politik yang tidak menyumbang apa-apa kepada masyarakat sebaliknya menanam bibit perpecahan dan resah gelisah. Kita sudah menghampiri cara berpolitik benua afrika, dimana sesiap yang tidak bersetuju akan dihapuskan tanpa belas kasihan.
Malang sekali kerana kita semua akan jatuh kedalam gaung jika semua ini tidak berubah...
Salam untuk yang resah gelisah
Thursday, April 29, 2010
9-11 was a Mossad Operation
How Ehud Barak Pulled Off 9-11
Christopher Bollyn – Bollyn.net April 28, 2010
IT IS ONE HUNDRED PERCENT CERTAIN that 9-11 was a Mossad operation - period.
- Dr. Alan Sabrosky, former director of Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College
“And how can it be profitable for a person’ immorality to go unnoticed and unpunished? The consequence of a criminal getting away with his crimes is that he becomes a worse person.”
- Socrates in Plato’s Republic, "Happiness and Unhappiness"
Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak talks with Minister of Pensioner Affairs Rafi Eitan as Prime Minister Ehud Olmert waits to start the weekly cabinet meeting May 25, 2008 in Jerusalem. Eitan is wanted by the FBI for his role as the spymaster of Jonathan Pollard while Olmert was in New York City on 9-11.
Ehud Barak, Israel's defense minister, is currently in the United States for a week of meetings and speeches. He is, in my opinion, the key suspect of being the mastermind of the false-flag terror attacks of 9-11. To help understand how Barak pulled off 9-11 I am providing this brief article to explain how I think he did it. It should be noted that Barak was Israel's minister of defense during Israel's assault on the Gaza Strip in 2008-2009. Based on the findings of the U.N. Factfinding Report written by Justice Richard Goldstone, Barak is responsible for a host of war crimes committed during that assault. The United States and other states are obliged to arrest Ehud Barak based on the findings of that report.
Socrates point that unpunished criminals become worse is the story of modern Israel. The most serious criminals of the Zionist state have never been punished in any meaningful way by the international community - or the United States. This has enabled and emboldened the worst and most unscrupulous criminals to rise to the top of the Israeli government, where they sit today. The criminal audacity of Israel's leaders is hardly sustainable for it endangers the state of Israel, its citizens, and supporters. Zionist Jews and Israelis living in America will find themselves in a very uncomfortable position when millions of Americans realize that Israel and its supporters are behind the mass murder of 9-11 and the cover-up of the truth, as Dr. Alan Sabrosky, former director of the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College, has warned. It seems to be only a matter of time before this uncomfortable situation becomes a reality. It should be noted that the Israeli prime minister at the time of the attacks was Ariel Sharon, a Zionist extremist who believes that American Jews should live in Israel. Sharon had a dream of one million American Jews emigrating to Israel, while in reality more Israelis choose to live in America. Was 9-11 designed to force Jews to move to Israel?
Ehud Barak was prime minister of Israel from July 1999 until March 7, 2001, when he was replaced by Ariel Sharon. I attended an event at the Chicago campus of the University of Illinois where both Barak, then prime minister, and Sharon were involved, shortly before the election that brought Sharon to power. The fact that Barak and Sharon had travelled to Chicago together illustrated the utter fakeness of their rivalry.
Previous positions held by Barak include Head of Defense Planning and Budgeting, Head of the Israeli Intelligence Community, Chief of the General Staff of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), Minister of the Interior in Prime Minister Itzhak Rabin's cabinet, Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Shimon Peres cabinet, and Labor Party Chairman. If Israel is involved in 9-11, as Dr. Alan Sabrosky says and which the evidence strongly indicates, Barak certainly knows all about it.
When Sharon assumed power in March 2001, Barak came to America. He supposedly came to the United States to work as a special advisor for Electronic Data Systems and as a partner with SCP Partners, a private equity company focused on "security-related" work - but this was only his cover. His real assignment was to oversee the terror attacks of 9-11. As a partner with SCP Partners Barak was well placed to supervise the false-flag terror operation. The complex false-flag terror attacks of 9-11 required that the mastermind of the operation be in the country to oversee the critical details.
Chips of super-thermite found in the dust of the World Trade Center by Dr Steven Jones
One of the key aspects of 9-11 was the production and application of an advanced form of super-thermite, an extremely powerful explosive produced using nano-technology. In 2001, SCP Partners happened to have a suitable company in their portfolio, a private company called Metallurg Holdings, Inc., which has its office in Wayne, Pennsylvania. Today, SCP has another company called Advanced Metallurgical Group, N.V. (AMG) in its portfolio. AMG and Metallurg share the same phone number and address at 435 Devon Park Drive in Wayne. AMG has several subsidiaries, one that specializes in the production of atomized aluminum (a crucial component of super-thermite) and others which manufacture specialized coatings of nano-composites. SCP Partners, which included Ehud Barak from 2001 until 2007, clearly owns companies that are well suited to making nano-composite explosives like the super-thermite used to pulverize the World Trade Center on 9-11.
Rafi Eitan, the octogenarian Mossadnik who ran a spy operation against the United States using Jonathan Pollard, fled to Israel after Pollard was caught in 1985. Eitan was then offered the position as head of state-owned Israel Chemicals Corporation, which has production facilities in the United States. In 1978, when Israeli intelligence began planning the false-flag terror operation of 9-11 (according to the comments of senior Mossadnik Isser Harel), Eitan served as Menachem Begin's advisor on terrorism. This is the real reason that Rafi Eitan remained in the Israeli security cabinet until 2009 - he is one of the architects of 9-11.
Rafi Eitan was also involved in the 1968 theft and illegal smuggling of nearly 600 pounds of plutonium from a plant in Pennsylvania to Israel for the production of nuclear weapons. As the Pittsburgh Tribune reported in a series of articles about the stolen plutonium, Eitan is the key suspect:
Four other Israelis visited NUMEC on Sept. 10, 1968, and met with Shapiro [then-NUMEC President Zalman M. Shapiro, a staunch supporter of Israel] to "discuss thermoelectric devices (unclassified)," according to a Sept. 12, 1968, letter from Bruce D. Rice, NUMEC security manager, to Harry R. Walsh, director of AEC security and property management, seeking AEC approval for the visit.
The four visitors were: Avraham Hermoni, Ephraim Beigon, Abraham Bendor and Raphael (or, Rafael) Eitan.
In their 1991 book, "Dangerous Liaison," Andrew and Leslie Cockburn wrote, "At the time of his visit to Apollo in 1968, Eitan was acting as an agent for Mossad on special assignment to LAKAM ... a shadowy intelligence agency ... born in the 1950s with the express purpose of acquiring nuclear technology by any means."
Soon after the men's visit, 587 pounds of weapons-grade uranium reportedly went missing from NUMEC, according to Udall's papers.
In a recent article entitled "America’s Loose Nukes in Israel," Grant Smith wrote: "To date, all of the uranium-diversion masterminds, financiers, and beneficiaries have escaped criminal prosecution, even as U.S. taxpayers fund a nuclear waste cleanup at the (now defunct) NUMEC Apollo facility."
Eitan's unscrupulous character can be seen in a comment he made to the wife and lawyer for Jonathan Pollard, the captured spy he had managed:
"Eitan told us the only thing he regrets about the Pollard affair is that he did not 'finish the job' before leaving the States. We asked him what he meant by this. Eitan replied, "If I had been at the embassy when Pollard came to seek asylum, I would have put a bullet through his head. There would have been no Pollard affair."
- Esther Pollard, Maariv, March 30, 2006
At SCP Partners Barak worked closely with another Mossadnik named Eitan - Yaron I. Eitan. Although Yaron Eitan looks very much like Rafi Eitan, the relationship between the two Eitans is not known. Rafi Eitan was actually born Raphael Hantman in Mandate Palestine to Noah Hantman from Minsk, Byelorussia. Rafi reportedly has three children, named Yael, Sharon, and Yuval.
Sources and Recommended Reading:
"America’s Loose Nukes in Israel", by Grant Smith, April 14, 2010
http://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2010/04/13/americas-loose-nukes-in-israel/
"Government agencies investigated missing uranium, NUMEC", by Mary Ann Thomas and Ramesh Santanam, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, August 25, 2002
www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/specialreports/buriedlegacy/s_87948.html
Source: www.bollyn.com/index.php#article_12131
Christopher Bollyn – Bollyn.net April 28, 2010
IT IS ONE HUNDRED PERCENT CERTAIN that 9-11 was a Mossad operation - period.
- Dr. Alan Sabrosky, former director of Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College
“And how can it be profitable for a person’ immorality to go unnoticed and unpunished? The consequence of a criminal getting away with his crimes is that he becomes a worse person.”
- Socrates in Plato’s Republic, "Happiness and Unhappiness"
Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak talks with Minister of Pensioner Affairs Rafi Eitan as Prime Minister Ehud Olmert waits to start the weekly cabinet meeting May 25, 2008 in Jerusalem. Eitan is wanted by the FBI for his role as the spymaster of Jonathan Pollard while Olmert was in New York City on 9-11.
Ehud Barak, Israel's defense minister, is currently in the United States for a week of meetings and speeches. He is, in my opinion, the key suspect of being the mastermind of the false-flag terror attacks of 9-11. To help understand how Barak pulled off 9-11 I am providing this brief article to explain how I think he did it. It should be noted that Barak was Israel's minister of defense during Israel's assault on the Gaza Strip in 2008-2009. Based on the findings of the U.N. Factfinding Report written by Justice Richard Goldstone, Barak is responsible for a host of war crimes committed during that assault. The United States and other states are obliged to arrest Ehud Barak based on the findings of that report.
Socrates point that unpunished criminals become worse is the story of modern Israel. The most serious criminals of the Zionist state have never been punished in any meaningful way by the international community - or the United States. This has enabled and emboldened the worst and most unscrupulous criminals to rise to the top of the Israeli government, where they sit today. The criminal audacity of Israel's leaders is hardly sustainable for it endangers the state of Israel, its citizens, and supporters. Zionist Jews and Israelis living in America will find themselves in a very uncomfortable position when millions of Americans realize that Israel and its supporters are behind the mass murder of 9-11 and the cover-up of the truth, as Dr. Alan Sabrosky, former director of the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College, has warned. It seems to be only a matter of time before this uncomfortable situation becomes a reality. It should be noted that the Israeli prime minister at the time of the attacks was Ariel Sharon, a Zionist extremist who believes that American Jews should live in Israel. Sharon had a dream of one million American Jews emigrating to Israel, while in reality more Israelis choose to live in America. Was 9-11 designed to force Jews to move to Israel?
Ehud Barak was prime minister of Israel from July 1999 until March 7, 2001, when he was replaced by Ariel Sharon. I attended an event at the Chicago campus of the University of Illinois where both Barak, then prime minister, and Sharon were involved, shortly before the election that brought Sharon to power. The fact that Barak and Sharon had travelled to Chicago together illustrated the utter fakeness of their rivalry.
Previous positions held by Barak include Head of Defense Planning and Budgeting, Head of the Israeli Intelligence Community, Chief of the General Staff of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), Minister of the Interior in Prime Minister Itzhak Rabin's cabinet, Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Shimon Peres cabinet, and Labor Party Chairman. If Israel is involved in 9-11, as Dr. Alan Sabrosky says and which the evidence strongly indicates, Barak certainly knows all about it.
When Sharon assumed power in March 2001, Barak came to America. He supposedly came to the United States to work as a special advisor for Electronic Data Systems and as a partner with SCP Partners, a private equity company focused on "security-related" work - but this was only his cover. His real assignment was to oversee the terror attacks of 9-11. As a partner with SCP Partners Barak was well placed to supervise the false-flag terror operation. The complex false-flag terror attacks of 9-11 required that the mastermind of the operation be in the country to oversee the critical details.
Chips of super-thermite found in the dust of the World Trade Center by Dr Steven Jones
One of the key aspects of 9-11 was the production and application of an advanced form of super-thermite, an extremely powerful explosive produced using nano-technology. In 2001, SCP Partners happened to have a suitable company in their portfolio, a private company called Metallurg Holdings, Inc., which has its office in Wayne, Pennsylvania. Today, SCP has another company called Advanced Metallurgical Group, N.V. (AMG) in its portfolio. AMG and Metallurg share the same phone number and address at 435 Devon Park Drive in Wayne. AMG has several subsidiaries, one that specializes in the production of atomized aluminum (a crucial component of super-thermite) and others which manufacture specialized coatings of nano-composites. SCP Partners, which included Ehud Barak from 2001 until 2007, clearly owns companies that are well suited to making nano-composite explosives like the super-thermite used to pulverize the World Trade Center on 9-11.
Rafi Eitan, the octogenarian Mossadnik who ran a spy operation against the United States using Jonathan Pollard, fled to Israel after Pollard was caught in 1985. Eitan was then offered the position as head of state-owned Israel Chemicals Corporation, which has production facilities in the United States. In 1978, when Israeli intelligence began planning the false-flag terror operation of 9-11 (according to the comments of senior Mossadnik Isser Harel), Eitan served as Menachem Begin's advisor on terrorism. This is the real reason that Rafi Eitan remained in the Israeli security cabinet until 2009 - he is one of the architects of 9-11.
Rafi Eitan was also involved in the 1968 theft and illegal smuggling of nearly 600 pounds of plutonium from a plant in Pennsylvania to Israel for the production of nuclear weapons. As the Pittsburgh Tribune reported in a series of articles about the stolen plutonium, Eitan is the key suspect:
Four other Israelis visited NUMEC on Sept. 10, 1968, and met with Shapiro [then-NUMEC President Zalman M. Shapiro, a staunch supporter of Israel] to "discuss thermoelectric devices (unclassified)," according to a Sept. 12, 1968, letter from Bruce D. Rice, NUMEC security manager, to Harry R. Walsh, director of AEC security and property management, seeking AEC approval for the visit.
The four visitors were: Avraham Hermoni, Ephraim Beigon, Abraham Bendor and Raphael (or, Rafael) Eitan.
In their 1991 book, "Dangerous Liaison," Andrew and Leslie Cockburn wrote, "At the time of his visit to Apollo in 1968, Eitan was acting as an agent for Mossad on special assignment to LAKAM ... a shadowy intelligence agency ... born in the 1950s with the express purpose of acquiring nuclear technology by any means."
Soon after the men's visit, 587 pounds of weapons-grade uranium reportedly went missing from NUMEC, according to Udall's papers.
In a recent article entitled "America’s Loose Nukes in Israel," Grant Smith wrote: "To date, all of the uranium-diversion masterminds, financiers, and beneficiaries have escaped criminal prosecution, even as U.S. taxpayers fund a nuclear waste cleanup at the (now defunct) NUMEC Apollo facility."
Eitan's unscrupulous character can be seen in a comment he made to the wife and lawyer for Jonathan Pollard, the captured spy he had managed:
"Eitan told us the only thing he regrets about the Pollard affair is that he did not 'finish the job' before leaving the States. We asked him what he meant by this. Eitan replied, "If I had been at the embassy when Pollard came to seek asylum, I would have put a bullet through his head. There would have been no Pollard affair."
- Esther Pollard, Maariv, March 30, 2006
At SCP Partners Barak worked closely with another Mossadnik named Eitan - Yaron I. Eitan. Although Yaron Eitan looks very much like Rafi Eitan, the relationship between the two Eitans is not known. Rafi Eitan was actually born Raphael Hantman in Mandate Palestine to Noah Hantman from Minsk, Byelorussia. Rafi reportedly has three children, named Yael, Sharon, and Yuval.
Sources and Recommended Reading:
"America’s Loose Nukes in Israel", by Grant Smith, April 14, 2010
http://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2010/04/13/americas-loose-nukes-in-israel/
"Government agencies investigated missing uranium, NUMEC", by Mary Ann Thomas and Ramesh Santanam, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, August 25, 2002
www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/specialreports/buriedlegacy/s_87948.html
Source: www.bollyn.com/index.php#article_12131
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Ada apa dengan Natrah?
Maka hebohlah satu Malaya tentang kisah cinta Natrah. Dibukukan, diteaterkan dan malah dengarnya novelnya dicadangkan akan diajarkan di sekolah-sekolah Malaya.
Soalnya ada apa dengan Natrah, apakah yang signifikannya dengan Natrah atau ia hanya menjadi satu lagi acara PR yang akan padam dimakan masa?
Apakah yang cuba digambarkan secara halus? bahawa jikalau kita hidup dibawah kekuasaan orang lain, anak-anak kita boleh di rampas seperti pihak berkuasa Singapura merampas Natrah?
Natrah adalah tragedi orang Islam Singapura, ia kisah kehidupan rakyat singapura. Biarlah ia mejadi kisah rakyat Singapura. Tak usah kita sibuk-sibuk cuba menjadikannya tragedi rakyat Melayu. Nanti kita dituduh mencuri lagi...
Banyak kisah tragedi umat Islam yang boleh kita ketengahkan. Saudara-saudara Islam kita di Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan dan kini Iran akan menjadi sedang dan akan menjadi mangsa permainan kuasa-kuasa barat. Kisah Natrah terlalu kecil jika dibandingkan dengan tragedi yang sedang dan bakal menimpa umat Islam kita.
Masalahnya dengan pemimpin politik Melayu kita adalah mentaliti yang terlalu kecil atau terlalu 'grandios'. Kita tidak melihat perkara-perkara yang berlaku didunia ini dengan perspektif yang betul. Kita terlalu banyak melihat dari mata tempurung dan tidak dari mata burung.
Kita terlalu taksub untuk mengekalkan kuasa atau merebut kuasa sedangkan kuasa yang ada semakin mengecil. Tidak ada seseiapa yang melihat kuasa yang ada akan menjadi tidak signifikan jika kita memecah-mecahkanya untuk menjadi raja dalam kelompok kecil. Itu sebab kita ada sampai sembilan Raja. Sebab masing-masing hendak menjadi ketua walaupun kelompok hanya sekangkang kera.
Atau mungkin kisah Natrah sebenarnya bayangan yang akan menimpa kita sedikit masa lagi???
Soalnya ada apa dengan Natrah, apakah yang signifikannya dengan Natrah atau ia hanya menjadi satu lagi acara PR yang akan padam dimakan masa?
Apakah yang cuba digambarkan secara halus? bahawa jikalau kita hidup dibawah kekuasaan orang lain, anak-anak kita boleh di rampas seperti pihak berkuasa Singapura merampas Natrah?
Natrah adalah tragedi orang Islam Singapura, ia kisah kehidupan rakyat singapura. Biarlah ia mejadi kisah rakyat Singapura. Tak usah kita sibuk-sibuk cuba menjadikannya tragedi rakyat Melayu. Nanti kita dituduh mencuri lagi...
Banyak kisah tragedi umat Islam yang boleh kita ketengahkan. Saudara-saudara Islam kita di Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan dan kini Iran akan menjadi sedang dan akan menjadi mangsa permainan kuasa-kuasa barat. Kisah Natrah terlalu kecil jika dibandingkan dengan tragedi yang sedang dan bakal menimpa umat Islam kita.
Masalahnya dengan pemimpin politik Melayu kita adalah mentaliti yang terlalu kecil atau terlalu 'grandios'. Kita tidak melihat perkara-perkara yang berlaku didunia ini dengan perspektif yang betul. Kita terlalu banyak melihat dari mata tempurung dan tidak dari mata burung.
Kita terlalu taksub untuk mengekalkan kuasa atau merebut kuasa sedangkan kuasa yang ada semakin mengecil. Tidak ada seseiapa yang melihat kuasa yang ada akan menjadi tidak signifikan jika kita memecah-mecahkanya untuk menjadi raja dalam kelompok kecil. Itu sebab kita ada sampai sembilan Raja. Sebab masing-masing hendak menjadi ketua walaupun kelompok hanya sekangkang kera.
Atau mungkin kisah Natrah sebenarnya bayangan yang akan menimpa kita sedikit masa lagi???
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
