Saddam is dead, but Saddam's hanging had nothing to do with Saddam. Saddam is dead, but his death had nothing to do with how many people he killed or caused to die. All aboard, friends, Saddam's death is just one stop on this long Israeli train of Arab holocaust. What exactly happened in that execution chamber? Inquiring people wanted to know. Who was there and what did they say? Was it Muqtada Al sader's people? Was it the Americans? Was it the Shiites? The inquiry goes on and on . The Media - TV, Radio, Print, Internet, and a plethora of talking heads all are concentrating on what will happen now between the Sunnis and Shiites. The Arab media is to be blamed before the Western media. The real story got buried in the sensational details of what took place during the hanging and the case was used to yet inflame sectarian violence amongst the Iraqi people. Saddam, was hanged for Aldujail issue where 148 Iraqi Shiites lost their lives after an assassination attempt on his life while he was the president of Iraq, which occurred in the middle of the Iran-Iraq war: a war in which some of those arrested, tried, and condemned to die by a court of law admitted to being Iranian agents. Granted, it was a court system that was under Saddam's regime, but that was the only court system in the country at that time and the World accepted it. What about the other atrocities committed by Saddam's regime? And, by the way, that regime should not be singled out, because most regimes in the area will condemn to death those who try to assassinate their leaders. What about Halabjah and the gassing of the Kurds? Don't you think the Kurds wanted to try him for that too? As a matter of fact, Saddam was hanged in the middle of another trial known as Al-anfal issue. What about the war with Iran, the invasion of Kuwait, the killing of Al-Sader, the killings of his own son-in-law and other relatives? After twenty-five years of Saddam's rule over Iraq, there was not even one question to Saddam about the handling of the affairs of Iraq under his rule. What could Saddam have said about all that? What would he have said about his dealings with the US and the CIA throughout his reign of power? The United States occupation forces that setup the kangaroo court and even approved the judges, and removed judges, who were deemed friendly to Saddam, tell us that it was a purely Iraqi decision to hang Saddam on the first day of Eid Al-adha, where, in fact, Iraqi laws prohibit the execution of anyone on that particular day. I am sure the Americans could have kept him for one more day if they wanted to. But hanging him on that day played well in the script of why we went to war against Iraq in the first place. So, why did we go over to Iraq destroyed the country, and killed its President? The US army could have killed Saddam when they "captured" him, and that would have given Bush an extra feather in his hat, which he needed desperately at the time. But instead they kept him, for a much better use later. They took him out of the rat hole all drugged up and disoriented: I am not sure how he went in there to start with? Probably couple of marines had to use their boots to squeeze him down the hole, but that's another story. So, they brought him out and fed him well; all the American Raisin Bran, Cheetos, and Doritos he wanted. He hated Fruit Loops, and wouldn't touch Cheetos after he found Doritos. They gave it to him by the bag full, and as a good boy he would go into a corner of his cell and eat it all, in ten minutes. Robert Ellis was a military nurse with one wartime assignment. "Make sure he stays alive" Ellis was told by his superiors. " That was my job: to keep him alive and healthy, so they could kill him later." Ellis said. Saddam once asked Ellis" Why did the Americans invade Iraq?" And that is the tragedy of Arab leaders. A president of what once was the strongest and most technological Arab country had no clue why he was invaded and his country destroyed. How many other Arab leaders have no clue of what's coming to them? Saddam's hanging had nothing to do with Saddam. Chew on the following: In his Complete Diaries, Vol. II. p. 711, Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, says that the area of the Jewish State stretches: "From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates." Rabbi Fischmann, member of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared in his testimony to the U.N. Special Committee of Enquiry on 9 July 1947: "The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon." I will discuss four documents of interest here, which should shed some lights on this long Israeli night train to Pandemonium. The first was translated by Israel Shahak from Hebrew back in 1982 entitled " A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties" Shahak wrote: "This strategy paper plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states." This document is a detailed document of Israel's strategy for the Middle East, which is based on breaking up Arab countries into small, weak, and ethnically structured states. The Document stated: " The existence, prosperity and steadfastness of the Jewish state will depend upon its ability to adopt a new framework for its domestic and foreign affairs." "All the Arab States east of Israel are torn apart, broken up and riddled with inner conflict." "Iraq is, once again, no different in essence from its neighbors, although its majority is Shi'ite and the ruling minority Sunni. Sixty-five percent of the population has no say in politics, in which an elite of 20 percent holds the power. In addition there is a large Kurdish minority in the north, and if it weren't for the strength of the ruling regime, the army and the oil revenues, Iraq's future state would be no different than that of Lebanon in the past or of Syria today. The seeds of inner conflict and civil war are apparent today already, especially after the rise of Khomeini to power in Iran, a leader whom the Shiites in Iraq view as their natural leader." "Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power, which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi'ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north. It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization." As you see here in simple English Israel planned along time ago to break up Iraq. Now we move to Israel's plan of attack. Since Israel was unable to accomplish the task of breaking up Iraq on its own therefore, it had to give the job to a surrogate power. That power of course is the U.S. The second document was prepared back in 1992 by the Cheney Defense Department under the administration of George H.W.Bush and came to be known publicly as the Defense planning Guidance (DPG), crafted then by would be infamous, I. Lewis Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, and Zalmay Khalilzad. James Mann,author of the 2004 book: The Rise of the Vulcans, reported that these men were given the task of devising the DPG, a classified document that outlines U.S. military strategies and provides a framework for developing the defense budget. Libby and Wolfowitz were given the task of devising a new framework for the U.S. policy in the post cold-war era. Khalilzad, a long time aid to Wolfowitz was given the task of drafting the report, probably just to have a Muslim in the midst of this complicated policy paper. Other participants in this project were Richard Pearle, and Albert Wohlstetter who was credited by many to be Wolfowitz and Pearle mentor. The main points of this document were: Massive increase in defense spending, the U.S. is the only superpower in the World, prevent any regional power from challenging the U.S., the use of preventive or preemptive force to protect U.S. interests, and interfering in disputes throughout the World even when the U.S. is not involved in these disputes. They stated that the United States should â¤retain the preeminent responsibility for addressing selectively those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends, or which could seriously disrupt international relations. Israel is referred to as an ally and a friend of the U.S. by most government officials in America every chance they get. Just keep this in mind as you follow this plan, which took 10 years to implement. When news of the plan was first leaked out to the public in 1992, the White House publicly rejected it and distanced itself from the people who worked on it. Interestingly enough the men who were an outcast during the rein of Bush the father, became the rulers of the White House during the rein of Bush the son, who also thinks of himself as the holy ghost. In 1996 another document was prepared by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies by the "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000" Wolfowitz and Pearle among others drafted the document entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" this document was a straight forward strategy paper or a plan of what Israel should do to become the only regional power in the Middle East. The document stated: "Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq â¤" an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right-" This clearly proves that the removal of Saddam Hussein from power is an Israeli plan that took place long before September 11, 2001. It was also written: "Israel can make a clean break from the past and establish a new vision for the U.S.-Israeli partnership based on self-reliance, maturity and mutuality - not one focused narrowly on territorial disputes - Israel's 'new strategy' based on a shared philosophy of peace through strength. In other words its time for Israel to step up and claim "what is rightfully hers", the foreign policy of the United States based on the premise that AIPAC is in total control of Congress, and other institutions such as JINSA are in control of policy. Israel no longer needs to operate behind the scenes. This document was written specifically for then Israeli Prime-minister, Benjamin Netanyahu as a guide for Israeli foreign policy. When presented to then President Clinton, he did not accept it and refused to make a move in the removal of Saddam. It was no surprise that most of these so called neocons, Zionist Jews, ended up securing the Realm in George W Bush's administration making the decision on their own to remove Saddam. Douglas Feith who ended up running the office of Special Plans at the Pentagon under Wolfowitz, who was Rumsfeld's Deputy Secretary of Defense in the first G. W. Bush administration. This occurred during the run-up to the war on Iraq where the Niger Uranium story was fabricated and used as one of the pretences to attack Iraq. There were other well known Zionists with sensitive policy making positions such as David Wurmser, who was appointed by Vice-president Cheney as Middle East Advisor, and James Colbert, Communication Director of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. You might wonder how these Zionists sold the idea of destroying Iraq for Israel to others in the United States who may not be as enthusiastic about making such a decision for Israel's benefit. This is not the problem it might appear to be. There are always other documents of a similar nature that could be churned up to fit the U.S. psyche. This brings us up to the fourth document that was prepared by the same cabal, The Project for the New American Century This document was based on the 1992 Defense planning Guidance(DPG) and renewed few months before Bushâ¤s regime was installed in 2000 by a single manâ¤s vote in the 5-4 supreme court decision. Like the old 1992 document this one called for: An attack on Iraq and the removal of Saddam regime, huge increase in military budget, establishing new American military bases all over the world, stressing the concept of "pre-emptive war" and unilateral action as a strategic policy by circumventing the UN. As you can see the plan to attack Iraq was planned years before the planes hit the towers and at a time when Bin Laden was an American asset. As you can see this plan looks pretty good for the American appetite for world hegemony. Looking at the list of signatories to the Project for the New American Century makes one understand better what happened in Florida in 2000 with the presidential election. These people had to win in order for 9/11 to take place, Iraq and Saddam destroyed, and the rest of the Arab countries to start the count down to capitulation to Israel. Here is a partial list of signatories to this document, and the positions they held at the start of the war: Dick Cheney, became Vice-President, Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense, I. Lewis Libby, Chief of Staff to Dick Cheney, Peter Rodman, Assistant to Secretary of Defense, Elliot Abrams, Bush's National security advisor, Richard Perle, member of Bush's Defense policy Board, Jeb Bush, the president's brother, Paula Dobriansky, Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs, Peter Rodman, Rumsfeld's Assistant for International Security Affairs, Randy Scheunemann, Advisor to Rumsfeld in Iraq, and others. I don't know why we call them neocons, they are old cons. There is one striking similarity between these people: The vast majority of them are Jewish, and all of them are Likudnics who think of Israel's welfare before that of the U.S. These people have been planning this for over a quarter of a century, and when the time was right, they all got in their predefined positions and executed the plan perfectly. Once they started the domino effect of sectarian violence in Iraq, they can sit back and watch the rest of the Arab World follow suit, or that is what they hoped would happen? Some people might say, "Here we go again, blaming everything on the Zionist Jews". I say, they are wrong. The documents, the people, their ideology, the positions they held, their hatred, their ambitions, and their names say so; I am just making words out of alphabets. But I will leave you with what representative James Moran of Virginia, who lost his Democratic leadership post, told supporters that the "Jewish community" was responsible for the war. The Realm is secured. http://heshamtillawi.wordpress.com/2007/01/22/all-aboard- |
