The Tonka Report

Real News In A Changing World

Archive for the ‘Yemen’ Category

Syria Intervention Inevitable As The Greater World War Draws Near

leave a comment »

April 30, 2011: Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer / Activist Post – April 30, 2011

Bangkok, Thailand April 30, 2011 –

Regime change in Syria was a foregone conclusion as early as 1991.

General Wesley Clark in a 2007 speech in California relayed a 1991 conversation between himself and then Under Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. Wolfowitz indicated that America had 5-10 years to clean up old Soviet “client regimes,” namely Syria, Iran, and Iraq, before the next super power rose up to challenge western hegemony.

The “next super power” includes ironically Russia, recovering from the treasonous attempted sellout by oligarchs like Mikhail Khodorkovsky, and of course a rising China.

Setting The Stage

The entire “Arab Spring” was a preplanned, meticulously engineered foreign-funded operation that began as early as 2008, with the West’s imperial network of “civil society” and NGOs in place for decades. The New York Times has recently admitted as much in their article, “US Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprising,” implicating the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute, the National Endowment for Democracy, Movements.org, and Freedom House for their roles in recruiting, training, and supporting the unrest.

As this plot unfolds, we see in hindsight that each destabilization was triggered and nurtured with a specific order in mind. Tunisia and Egypt were collapsed on either side of Libya while the tremors of destabilization shook the entire region in general, including in Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

The newly “reordered” Middle East would be extorted into backing Western military intervention in Libya, which was targeted next. The vulnerable governments of Tunisia and Egypt began serving as conduits for weapons and supplies to reach US-backed rebels in their bid to oust Qaddafi. Likewise, the grand prize in the Middle East being Iran, Syria is being systematically picked apart first to further weaken and isolate Tehran.

Iran itself has been under siege for years by covert operations including US special forces and intelligence operating inside Iran, training, arming and supporting terrorist organizations in activity against the government of Iran, as well as assassinations and sabotage of Iranian infrastructure. All of this has been meticulously documented, planned, and prepared amongst the pages of Brookings Institute’s “Which Path to Persia?” report.

The corporate-financier funded think-tanks have reached the general consensus that their unipolar world order of “international law,” and “international institutions” have primacy over national sovereignty and the time has come to assert such primacy or lose it. This was stated quite clearly within the corporate lined Brookings Institute report titled, ” “Libya’s Test of the New International Order” back in February 2011. In it they overtly state that intervening in Libya “is a test that the international community has to pass. Failure would shake further the faith of the people’s region in the emerging international order and the primacy of international law.”

The globalist International Crisis Group, whose trustee Mohamed ElBaradei played a direct, hands-on role in overthrowing the government of Egypt on behalf of foreign interests, recently reiterated Brookings’ sentiments in an article titled, “The Rise and Fall of International Human Rights,” where once again “international law” and “international citizenship” is held above national sovereignty.

The “responsibility to protect (R2P)” is cited as the impetus to assert such “international law.” Considering that R2P is called on after foreign-funded sedition and violence is created within a target nation, we can see “international law” as the poorly dressed euphemism for imperial invasion that it is. The term “international” in fact describes the evolution of the Anglo-American empire as it absorbs and dismantles nation-states across the globe.

The Build-Up Against Syria

Syria is not only a defiant nation unwilling to participate in “globalization,” it is also an integral part of both Iran’s and Russia’s growing counterbalance throughout the region, in direct contrast to Western hegemony. The Syrian port city of Tartus is being renovated and is set to host heavy Russian warships in a bid to establish a significant presence in the Mediterranean. This would counteract NATO’s expansion along Russia’s borders as well as keep in check Western fleets north of the Suez.

Syria has long served this purpose, with the Tartus facility having originally been opened in 1971 through an agreement with the Soviets. When Paul Wolfowitz was referring to Soviet “client regimes” in his 1991 conversation with Wesley Clark, this sort of challenge to Western hegemony was what he was referring to.

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Clark was again passed plans drawn to implement regime change throughout the Middle East, specifically to attack and destroy the governments of 7 countries; Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Iran, Lebanon and Libya. In 2002, then US Under Secretary of State John Bolton, would add Syria to the growing “Axis of Evil.”

In a recent CNN article, acting State Department spokesman Mark Toner stated, “We’re not working to undermine that [Syrian] government. What we are trying to do in Syria, through our civil society support, is to build the kind of democratic institutions, frankly, that we’re trying to do in countries around the globe. What’s different, I think, in this situation is that the Syrian government perceives this kind of assistance as a threat to its control over the Syrian people.”

Toner’s remarks come after the Washington Post released cables indicating the US has been funding Syrian opposition groups since at least 2005 under the Bush administration and was continued under Obama. As we can see, the campaign against Syria transcended presidential administrations for nearly two decades.

In a recent AFP report, Michael Posner, the assistant US Secretary of State for Human Rights and Labor, stated that the “US government has budgeted $50 million in the last two years to develop new technologies to help activists protect themselves from arrest and prosecution by authoritarian governments.”

The report went on to explain that the US “organized training sessions for 5,000 activists in different parts of the world. A session held in the Middle East about six weeks ago gathered activists from Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon who returned to their countries with the aim of training their colleagues there.” Posner would add, “They went back and there’s a ripple effect.”

The ripple effect of course are the uprisings themselves, facilitated by yet more aid, equipment, and the complicity of the corporate owned media, disingenuously portraying the events as “spontaneous,” “genuine,” and “indigenous.” Recent calls have been made by US Senators Mark Kirk and Richard Blumenthal for a “non-military intervention” in Syria, while warmongering puppets Nicolas Sarkozy of France and US Senator Joe Lieberman used Libya’s bombardment as a warning aimed specifically at Assad of Syria.

The Intervention Is Beginning

Now, in calls that echo the build-up to Libya’s bombardment, US Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Joe Lieberman have made a joint statement that Assad has “lost the legitimacy to remain in power in Syria.” They continued by stating, “Rather than hedging our bets or making excuses for the Assad regime, it is time for the United States, together with our allies in Europe and around the world, to align ourselves unequivocally with the Syrian people in their peaceful demand for a democratic government.”

The level of deception behind these comments is almost unimaginable, after the US State Department openly admitted to funding, training, organizing, and supporting this unrest to begin with. Compounding the intellectual dishonesty from which these three senators have made their treasonous comments from is the fact that each of them, in addition to their role as “elected representatives,” are members of unelected, shadowy organizations that receive funding directly from US tax payers as well as corporate-financier interests to undermine and destroy foreign governments.

Senator Lieberman: US Should Intervene In Syria Next

 

McCain and Graham are both members of the International Republican Institute, openly implicated by the New York Times for their role in funding the “Arab Spring.” Lieberman is a member of the Neo-Conservative war profiteering lobbying firm deceptively named, the “Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD).”

FDD features many Project for a New American Century (PNAC) signatories including William Kristol, Richard Perle, James Woolsey, and Paula Dobriansky, as well as CFR members Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer, along with the disingenuous “War on Terror” paid propagandist Bill Roggio of the “Long War Journal.”

Shockingly, this cabal of warmongering liars, many of whom are responsible for reckless and disingenuous war propaganda films such as “Iranium” openly admits to being funded in part by the US State Department. It is amongst unelected, unaccountable organizations like the IRI and FDD that US foreign policy reaches foregone conclusions, with propaganda like “Iranium” left to sell these conclusions to an unwitting, immensely ignorant public.

The chatter amongst the corporate funded think-tanks such as the Brookings Institute has reached a crescendo in their calls for Assad to step down. As in Libya, the calls are based on unverified, purposefully ambiguous reports of violence squarely blamed on the ruling regime. Regardless of reports of armed groups working amongst the protesters, the corporate owned media and the think-tanks that hand them their talking points maintain that the protests are peaceful and that crackdowns are “repressive.”

In Brookings’ latest piece, “In Syria, Assad Must Exit the Stage” the cycle of violence initiated by “mysterious gunmen” targeting funerals is cited as the line Assad had crossed which now requires his departure from power. The article states, “With the cycle of ever-increasing protests met by regime violence and then more funerals intensifying in all areas of the country, it is time for Assad, the “Hamlet” of the Arab world, to consider his future. It is time for him and those who influence him abroad to search for a swift and orderly exit.”

As evidence begins to trickle out confirming Assad’s accusations of armed elements amongst the protesters, as well as possible foreign gunmen being employed to create broader unrest, just as in Libya, the West rushes forward to initiate irreversible intervention.

The Greater World War

With the broad level of openly engineered destabilization aimed not only at the Middle East but at Moscow, Beijing and their peripheries as well, there is little chance the West will call off their gambit now. There is no retreat or return to normalcy for a world now locked in increasingly aggressive confrontation between the Anglo-American empire and the remaining nation-states.

It is an all or nothing gambit being executed by a financially and strategically precarious West rushing to complete an agenda at least 2 decades in the making. Syria and ultimately Iran will not escape this campaign without confronting and confounding the real force behind the destabilization.

George Bush: “New World Order”

 

This is not an isolated, regional conflict, this is the first step toward greater world war. The destabilization extends from Tunisia to Thailand, from Belarus to Beijing. There are rumblings of confrontation and the positioning of strategic pieces well beyond the current “Arab Spring.”

The rest of the world, including the people of the West who will bear the brunt of the West’s failure or success with equal destitution, must recognize and reject this megalomania-fueled self-serving campaign. We must begin generating a new consensus based on individual and national sovereignty, reclaim the responsibilities we have pawned off to these mega-corporate-financier interests along with the terrible power they now wield because of our continued complicity, apathy, and ignorance.

After Syria and Iran, comes Moscow and Beijing. It is unlikely such conflicts will remain confined to far off regions of the world pictured on our TV screens – just as unlikely those that initiated this confrontation will pay with their own blood and treasure before we the people are all thrown into the crucible of war and consumed entirely.

The New American Century (2009) – FULL LENGTH

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: The outstanding documentary above is a must see for all people– SJH 

Link to original article below…

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/04/syria-intervention-inevitable-and.html

The Logic Of Imperial U.S. Insanity And The Road To World War III

with 3 comments

January 15, 2011: Andrew Gavin Marshall / Global Research – January 14, 2011

Defining The Imperial Stratagem

In the late 1990s Brzezinski wrote up the design for America’s imperial project in the 21st century in his book, “The Grand Chessboard.” He stated bluntly that, “it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America,” and then made clear the imperial nature of his strategy: “To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.”[1]

He further explained that the Central Asian nations (or “Eurasian Balkans” as he refers to them): “…are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold.”[2]

Brzezinski emphasizes “that America’s primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it.”[3]

Obama As A Rabid Imperialist

Obama wasted no time in rapidly accelerating America’s imperial adventures. While dropping the term “War on Terror” from usage, the Pentagon adopted the term, “overseas contingency operations.”[4] This was to be the typical strategy of the Obama administration: change the appearance, not the substance. The name was changed, but the “War on Terror” remained, and not only that, it was rapidly accelerated to a level that would not have been possible if undertaken by the previous administration.

The current expansion of American imperialism globally has been rapidly accelerated since Obama became President, and seems intent on starting and expanding wars all over the world. When Obama became President, America and its Western allies were engaged in a number of wars, occupations and covert destabilizations, from Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, to the Congo, and Obama took office in the midst of Israel’s brutal assault against Gaza. From the beginning of his presidency, Obama immediately justified Israel’s vicious attack against innocent Palestinians, rapidly accelerated the war and occupation of Afghanistan, expanded the war into Pakistan, started a new war in Yemen, and supported a military coup in Honduras, which removed a popular democratic government in favour of a brutal dictatorship. Obama’s administration has expanded covert special operations throughout the Middle East, Central Asia and the Horn of Africa, and is paving the way for a war against Iran.[5] In fact, the Obama administration has expanded Special Operations forces into 75 countries around the world (compared with a height of 60 during the Bush regime). Among the many countries with expanded operations are Yemen, Colombia, the Philippines, Somalia, Pakistan, among many others.[6] Further, in recent months, the Obama administration has been saber rattling with North Korea, potentially starting a war on the Korean Peninsula. With the creation of the Pentagon’s Africa Command (AFRICOM), American foreign policy on the continent has become increasingly militarized.

No continent is safe, it seems. America and its NATO cohorts are undertaking a seemingly insane foreign policy of dramatically accelerating overt and covert military imperialism. This policy seems to be headed for an eventual confrontation with the rising eastern powers, in particular China, but potentially India and Russia as well. China and America, specifically, are headed on an imperial collision course: in East Asia, South Asia, Central Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America. The competition for access to resources is reminiscent of the ‘Great Game’ of the 19th century, of which Afghanistan was a central battlefield.

One would think that in the midst of a massive global economic crisis, the worst the world has ever seen, the major nations would scale back their imperial over-reach and militarism in order to reduce their debts and preserve their economies. However, there is an ‘imperial logic’ behind this situation, and one that must be placed within a wider geopolitical context.

Conceptualizing The Rise Of China

First, we must properly address the nature of China’s rise in the world order. What we are witnessing is an historically unique situation. For the first time, the rise of a ‘new’ power is taking place not in the context of rising against the hegemonic powers of the time, but within the hegemonic order. In short, China’s rise has not been a rise against America, but rather a rise within the American world order. Thus, China has risen as much as the West has allowed it to rise, but that does not mean that China will not seek to serve its own interests now that it has accumulated significant global status and power. China has risen by integrating with the Western-dominated economic system, and in particular the Western banking and central banking systems. China and America are economically dependent upon one another, as America purchases China’s cheap products, and China funds America’s debt. In effect, China is also funding America’s imperial adventurism.

Thus, we are presented with a unique situation: one of mutual dependence and competition. While China and America are dependent upon one another, they are also each other’s greatest competitors, specifically in terms of access to and control over resources. For example, China supports both Iran and Sudan. These two nations are major targets of American imperial ambitions, not because of any humanitarian or anti-terrorism concerns (although that is the propaganda espoused most often), but because of the significant resources and strategic relevance of these nations. As they are not subservient to the West and specifically America, they are considered ‘enemy nations’, and thus the media focus on demonizing these nations so that the public is supportive of military or other means of implementing “regime change.” China supports these nations because of its access to their resources, and as a counter to American influence.

Global Governance

To add another complex feature to this story, we must place this conflicting relationship in the context of the global economic crisis and the world response to it. The G20 is the principle forum for ‘global governance,’ in which the nations of the world are working together to increasingly integrate their governance approaches on a global scale. The economic crisis has provided the impetus to spur on calls for and the implementation of plans to construct a system of global economic governance: a global central bank and global currency. So, as China and America are seeking to further integrate economically and globally, they are also competing for access to and control over resources.

The logic behind this is that both powers want to be able to negotiate the process of constructing a system of global governance from a more secure standpoint. While it is generally acknowledged that the world is witnessing “the rise of the East,” in particular with China and India, we see the center of global power moving from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Several commentators for years have been analyzing and discussing this issue; however, the fact that power has been centered in the Atlantic for the past 500 years means that it will not be so easily moved to the Pacific. In fact, the Western powers not only acknowledge the rise of the East, but that the East has risen because they have allowed it to and aided it in this process. The Western powers have done this not out of some benevolent design, but because the organized intellectual powers of the West (namely, the principle think tanks and banking interests) have sought to create a perfect global system of governance, one in which power does not sway from nation to nation, or West to East, but rather that power is centralized globally. This is obviously a long-term project, and will not (if ever) be realized for several more decades. Yet, it is through crises – economic, political, and social – that this process of global governance can be rapidly accelerated. See: “Crisis is an Opportunity”: Engineering a Global Depression to Create a Global Government

Understanding Imperial Dynamics

There is another dynamic to this complicated relationship that must be addressed, that of the internal dynamics between the political, economic and military elite of the dominant nations. For the sake of time, I will focus on the two principle nations: America and China. America’s national security apparatus, namely the Pentagon and intelligence services, have long worked in the service of the economic elite and in close cooperation with the political elite. There is a network that exists, which President Eisenhower called the “military-industrial complex” where the interests of these three sectors overlap and thus America is given its imperial impetus.

It is within the major think tanks of the nation, specifically the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), where cohesion between these sectors is encouraged and managed. The think tanks, and the CFR most especially, are the policy-makers of the American Empire. Think tanks bring together elites from most power sectors of society – the military, political, corporate, banking, intelligence, academia, media, etc. – and they discuss, debate and ultimately produce strategy blueprints and recommendations for American foreign policy. Individuals from these think tanks move in and out of the policy-making circles, creating a revolving door between the policy-planners and those that implement them. The think tanks, in this context, are essentially the intellectual engines of the American Empire.

Still, we must not assume that because they are grouped together, work together, and strategize together, that they are identical in views or methods; there is significant debate, disagreement and conflict within and between the think tanks and policy-making circles. However, dissent within these institutions is of a particular nature: it focuses on disagreement over methods rather than aims and objectives. To elaborate, the members (at least the powerful members) of think tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations do not disagree on the cause of empire and supporting American hegemony, that is a given, and is not often even discussed. That is the environment in which the elite operate.

What is up for debate and discussion is the methods used to achieve this, and it is here where significant conflicts arise between elites. Bankers and corporations seek to protect their financial and economic interests around the world. Military officials are concerned with preserving and expanding American hegemony, and are largely focused on potential rivals to American military power, and tend to favour military options of foreign policy over diplomatic ones. Political representatives must be concerned with the total influence and projection of American power – economically, militarily, politically, etc. – and so they must weigh and balance these multiple interests and translate it into a cohesive policy. Often, they lean towards the use of military might, however, there have been many incidents and issues for which political leaders have had to reign in the military and pursue diplomatic objectives. There have also been instances where the military has attempted to reign in rabidly militaristic political leaders, such as during the Bush administration with the neo-conservatives pushing for direct confrontation with Iran, prompting direct and often public protests and rebuttals from the military establishment, as well as several resignations of top-ranking generals.

These differences are often represented directly within administrations. The Kennedy years, for example, saw a continual conflict between the military and intelligence circles and the civilian leadership of John Kennedy. His brief term as President was marked by a constant struggle to prevent the military and intelligence services of America – particularly the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CIA – from starting wars with Cuba, Vietnam and the Soviet Union. The Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved only after Robert Kennedy, JFK’s brother and the Attorney General, convinced the Russians that Kennedy was at risk of being overthrown in a military coup, which would result in a direct nuclear war against the USSR. See: The National Security State and the Assassination of JFK

Thus, within the key policy circles – namely the think tanks and presidential cabinets – there is always a delicate balancing act of these various interests. Fundamentally, with American power, they all rest and support American corporate and banking interests. Diplomacy, especially, is concerned with supporting American corporate and financial interests abroad. As the Wikileaks diplomatic cables have revealed in a number of cases, diplomats directly intervene on behalf of and work with various corporate interests. US diplomats acted as sales agents to foreign governments promoting Boeing planes over European competitors, they pressured the government of Bangladesh to reopen a widely-opposed mine in the country operated by a British company, they lobbied the Russian government directly on behalf of the interests of Visa and Mastercard, engaged in intelligence sharing with Shell in Nigeria, and in the Central Asian republic of Kyrgyzstan, US diplomats worked with major British business interests and British Prince Andrew, who stated that, “the United Kingdom, Western Europe (and by extension you Americans too,” were “back in the thick of playing the Great Game,” and that, “this time we aim to win!”[7]

The military, in turn, acts in the interests of the corporate and financial elite, as those countries that do not submit to American economic hegemony are deemed enemies, and the military is ultimately sent in to implement “regime change.” Strategic concerns are de facto economic concerns. The military is concerned with preserving and expanding American hegemony, and to do so they must be focused on threats to American dominance, as well as securing strategic locations in the world. For example, the war in Yemen, a country with very little to offer economically, has a lot to do with strategic-economic interests. The ‘threat’ in Yemen is not in the form of al-Qaeda, though that is what is most propagandized, but rather it is the fact that the long-supported dictatorship of President Saleh, who has been in power since 1978, is threatened by a rebel movement in the North and a massive secessionist movement in the South, as the central government controls barely one-third of the country. In short, Yemen is on the verge of revolution, and thus, America’s trusted ally and local despot, President Saleh, is at risk of being usurped. Thus, America has heavily subsidized Yemen’s military, and has even directly launched cruise missiles, sent in Special Forces and other forms of assistance to help Yemen’s dictator suppress, repress and ultimately crush these popular people’s movements for independence and liberty.

Now why is this a strategic-economic concern to America, for a country that has little dwindling resources to offer? The answer is in Yemen’s geographic location. Directly below Saudi Arabia, a revolutionary government that would be highly antagonistic towards America’s trusted Saudi proxy state would be a threat to America’s interests throughout the entire Middle East. It would be likely that Iran would seek to ally itself and aid such a government, allowing Iran to expand its own political influence in the region. This is why Saudi Arabia is itself taking direct military action in Yemen against the rebels in the North, along its border. The Saudi elite are fearful of the rebellious sentiments spreading into Saudi Arabia itself. No wonder then, that America recently signed off on the largest arms deal in U.S. history with Saudi Arabia, totaling $60 billion, in an effort to support operations in Yemen but principally to act as a counter to Iranian influence in the region. Further, Yemen sits atop the Gulf of Aden, directly across from the Horn of Africa (namely Somalia), connecting the Black Sea to the Arabian Sea, which is itself one of the major oil transport routes in the world. Strategic control over the nations lining the Gulf of Aden is of primary interest to American imperial strategists, whether they are military, political or economic in nature.

Yemen is also directly across the water from Somalia, another country ravaged by the American war machine. As the diplomatic cables confirmed, in 2006, “the Bush Administration pushed Ethiopia to invade Somalia with an eye on crushing the Union of Islamic Courts,” which is exactly what happened, and Somalia has been a ‘failed state’ mired in civil war ever since.[8] The piracy that has exploded in the waters off of Somalia are a result of the massive toxic waste dumping and over-fishing done by European and American and other major shipping lines, and have served as an excuse for the militarization of the waters. In this context, it would be unacceptable from a strategic standpoint to allow Yemen to fall from American influence. Thus, America is at war in Yemen. See: Yemen: The Covert Apparatus of the American Empire

China, alternatively, does not have such direct cohesion between its political, economic and military sectors. China’s military is intensely nationalistic, and while the political elite are more cooperative with U.S. interests and often work to achieve mutual interests, the military sees America as a direct challenge and antagonistic (which of course, it is). China’s economic elite, specifically its banking elite, are heavily integrated with the West, so much so that it is very difficult to separate the two. There is not such an integration between the Chinese and American military establishments, nor is there an internal dynamic within China that reflects the American system of empire. The divisions between military, political and economic circles are more pronounced within China than in America. The Chinese political leadership is put into a very challenging situation. Determined to see China advance economically, they must work with America and the West. However, on key political issues (such as with Taiwan), the political leadership must adhere to an intensely nationalistic approach, which is counter to U.S. interests, and supportive of Chinese military interests. Increasing military superiority is seen as a key aspect and objective of China’s increasing political dominance in the world scene. As one top Chinese General stated in 2005, “China should use nuclear weapons against the United States if the American military intervenes in any conflict over Taiwan.” The General cited “war logic” which “dictates that a weaker power needs to use maximum efforts to defeat a stronger rival.” His view suggested that elements within the Chinese military are ‘determined’ to respond with extreme force if America intervenes in any potential conflict over Taiwan, saying that, “We Chinese will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all the cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.”[9]

The Logic Of Competitive Co-Operation

The Chinese military must be ready to protect its economic interests abroad if it is to have control over its own economic growth and thus maintain international power. Thus, China’s political impetus to support and increase its international influence is very conflicting. On the one hand, this means actively cooperating with America and the West (primarily in economic matters, as we see with the G20, where China is engaging in the dialogue and the implementation of global governance arrangements); and on the other hand, China must also challenge America and the West in order to secure its own access to and control over vital resources necessary for its own economic and political growth. China is placed in a paradoxical situation. While working with the West to construct the apparatus of global governance, China does not want to be dictated to, and instead wants a strong negotiating position in these arrangements. So while engaging in discussions and negotiations for the construction of a system of global governance, China must also actively seek to increase its control over key strategic resources in the world in order to strengthen its own negotiating position. It is often the case that when warring parties come to the table for negotiations, the on-the-ground operations are rapidly accelerated in order to strengthen the negotiating position of the respective party.

This was the case during the Rwandan Civil War, where throughout the Arusha Peace Process, the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), heavily supported by America against the Rwandan government (which was supported by France and Belgium), rapidly accelerated its military campaign, thus gaining the upper hand during negotiations, which worked in its favour, ultimately resulting in the Rwandan genocide (which was sparked by the RPF’s assassination of the Rwandan president), and the RPF usurped power in Rwanda.  This is also the case in Israel-Palestine “peace” negotiations, such as during the Oslo process, where Israel rapidly accelerated its expansion of settlements into the occupied territories, essentially ethnically cleansing much of the Palestinian populations of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This expanded process of ethnic cleansing is what the Western political leaders and media call a “peace process.” Thus, when Palestinians react to this ethnic cleansing and expansion of the settlements (which is an inherently violent process), or a suicide bombing or mortar attack takes place in reaction to this expansion of settlements, Western political leaders and media blame the Palestinians for breaking a period of “relative peace” or “relative calm.” Apparently, it is considered to be “relative peace” if only Palestinians are being killed. Thus, Israel always ensures that through any negotiation process, its interests are met above all others.

So we see this logic with China and America today. While not directly at war with one another, they are each other’s greatest competition. This competition is prevalent in Central Asia, where America is seeking dominance over the region’s enormous natural gas reserves, thus depriving China of access to and control over these vital strategic resources. It is also heavily present in Africa, where China has presented an alternative to going to the World Bank and IMF for African governments to get loans and support in exchange for resource access. In this context, America established its newest Pentagon command, Africa Command (AFRICOM) to merge American diplomatic, civil society and military policy in Africa under command of the Pentagon. In the Middle East, America is primarily dominant, thus leaving China pushed to ally itself with Iran. In South America, China is allying itself with the somewhat progressive governments which rose in opposition to American military and economic hegemony over the region.

This logic holds for both America and China. Both seek to secure a dominant position while engaging in discussions and the implementation of a global governance apparatus. This leads both powers to seek cooperation and mutual benefit, yet, simultaneously, compete globally for control of resources. This is magnified by the global economic crisis, which has revealed the weaknesses of the global economy, and indeed the global monetary and banking systems. The world economy is on the verge of total collapse. The next decade will be scarred by a new Great Depression. This provides a further impetus for both of these powers to rapidly accelerate their control over resources and expand their military adventurism.

The American Empire is in decline, and is utterly bankrupt; however, its elites, which are in fact more global than national in their ideology and orientation, are seeking to not simply have American power disappear, or be replaced with Chinese power, but rather to use American power to construct the apparatus of a new global structure of authority, and that the American Empire will simply fade into a global structure. This is a delicate balancing act for the global elite, and requires integrating China and the other dominant powers within this system. It also inherently implies the ultimate domination of the ‘global south’ (Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia). This is an entirely new process being undertaken. Empires have risen and fallen throughout all of human history. This time, the fall of the American Empire is taking place within the context of the rise of a totally new kind of power: global in scope, structure and authority. This will no doubt be one of the defining geopolitical events of the next several decades.

Historically, periods of imperial decline are marked by a rapid acceleration of international conflict and war, as the declining power seeks to control as much as it can as fast as it can (thus we see America’s seemingly insane expansion of war, conflict and militarization everywhere in the world), while rising powers seek to take advantage of this decline in order to accelerate the collapse of the declining power, and secure their position as the next dominant power. Yet, in this geopolitical landscape of the 21st century, we are faced with this entirely new context, where the decline of one empire and the rise of a new power are taking place while both seek to integrate and construct an entirely new system and structure of power, yet both seek to secure for themselves a dominant position within this new structure. The potential for conflict is enormous, possibly resulting in a direct war between America and China, or in a mass of global proxy wars between them.

This new century will indeed be an interesting one. The prospects of a new global war are increasing with every accelerated military adventure. The primary antagonist in this theatre of the absurd is without a doubt, the United States. If the world is headed for World War III, it is because America has made such a situation inevitable. One cannot preclude that for many global elites, such a result may be desirable in and of itself. After all, World War I provided the impetus for the formation of the League of Nations, and World War II provided the push for the United Nations to “secure peace between nations.” In a world largely run by global strategists, it would be naïve to assume that it has not occurred to some that a new world war could be precisely the event they need to convince the people of the world to accept their desired system of global governance; no doubt to secure ‘world peace.’ At least, I am sure it will be sold under that pretense.

The New American Century (Part 1/10)

Watch full documentary here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3776750618788792499#

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: Great article and an outstanding documentary. Watch in full– SJH 

Link to original article with notes below…

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22781

WikiLeaks Is A Zionist Psy-Op: Deconstruction Of A Myth Revealed

leave a comment »

December 15, 2010: Jonathan Azaziah / Mask Of Zion.com – December 15, 2010

Whistleblowing the whistleblower! This is an incredible article. – SJH

Not since Zionist warmonger Barack Obama’s ‘ascension’ to the US presidency, has there been such a hysteria in the anti-war/anti-Zionist community as there is with Julian Assange and his organization, Wikileaks.

Just like Obama, whose smooth-talker persona duped millions of awakened individuals, lulling them into a false sense of security with lies and trickery…

Wikileaks has pulled the wool over the eyes of average people and distinguished activists and writers alike with its ‘whistleblower’ image…

Michael Moore And Other “High Profile” Idiots Offer Support To Assange

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20101215/ts_yblog_thelookout/michael-moore-other-high-profile-individuals-offer-support-to-assange 

[Added by TTR]

Even after Obama’s Zionist roots were exposed, in which powerful pro-Israel figures like Abner Mikva, Joel Sprayregen, Newton Minow, Bettylu Saltzman of the dynastic Saltzman family, Rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf, Lester Crown of the vastly wealthy Crown household and Penny Pritzker of the Pritzker dynasty nurtured his rise to political stardom in Chicago (1), the current puppet of the Zionist entity was no less supported and no less loved by his starry-eyed followers.

After Obama was designated the democratic ‘candidate’ for president, he delivered a speech at AIPAC and announced to his masters that the United States has an ‘unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security (2).’ Still, the opinions of his followers remained unchanged.

And not even after Obama maintained utter silence during Operation Cast Lead (3), in which the usurping Tel Aviv regime murdered 1,440 innocent Palestinians in illegally besieged and occupied Gaza, including 431 children, did his legions of drones realize that the slogans of hope and change they so vehemently believed in, were really just smoke and mirrors.

Only recently, due to Obama spreading the Zionist Bush administration’s ‘Project for a New American Century’ to Yemen, expanding the murderous drone strikes in Pakistan, as well as increasing the genocides in occupied Iraq and occupied Afghanistan, have some of his once seemingly mind-controlled supporters snapped out of their trance. Plenty of them still continue their blindness however.

Assange and Wikileaks make the Zionist-fueled Obama hype look minuscule; like rain drops in an ocean. Wikileaks, touted and fully endorsed by the Zionist media, has become the peak of resistance and dissidence. The greatest whistleblower in the history of whistleblowing.

Assange has been elevated to god status, eclipsing rock stars and movie stars. Wikileaks cannot be questioned. Assange cannot be investigated. Everything the organization does is for the good of the people, and everything Assange says is absolute 100% fact.

Though it may come as a shock to those who have bought into the absurdity of Wikileaks, everything aforementioned is a morbid delusion. Wikileaks is no whistleblower. Assange is no hero. And the leaks, which have been hailed across the globe, aren’t even leaks. Wikileaks isn’t just toxic Zionist poison, it is a full-blown US-Zionist intelligence operation… [Read this entire mind-boggling article at the link below.]

WikiLeaks Is Working For Israel

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: After watching this video interview with Gordon Duff of Veterans Today, I urge you to continue reading this outstanding article. WikiLeaks, without question, is a Zionist psy-op! – SJH 

Link to entire article with footnotes below…

http://www.maskofzion.com/2010/12/wikileaks-is-zionist-poison-ii.html

Obama White House: Child Soldiers Allowed If Fighting Terrorists!

leave a comment »

November 16, 2010: Michelle Chen / Color Lines.com – November 15, 2010

“You cannot be completely happy with all these wounds—both in your body and in your mind.” 15 year-old child soldier

The phenomenon of child soldiers, like genocide, slavery and torture, seems like one of those crimes that no nation could legitimately defend. Yet the Obama administration just decided to leave countless kids stranded on some of the world’s bloodiest battlegrounds.

The administration stunned human rights groups last month by sidestepping a commitment to help countries curb the military exploitation of children.

Josh Rogin at Foreign Policy reported that President Obama issued a presidential memorandum granting waivers from the Child Soldiers Prevention Act to four countries: Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan and Yemen. The memo instructed Secretary of State Hilary Clinton that it is in our “national interest” to continue extending military aid to those countries, despite their failure to comply with the rules Congress passed and George W. Bush signed in 2008. 

A thumbs-up for child soldiers from the pen of President Obama? Whitehouse spokesperson P.J. Crowley explained it was a strategic decision to ease the 2008 law. The rationale is that on balance, it’s more effective for the U.S. to keep providing military assistance that will help countries gradually evolve out of the practice of marshaling kids to the battlefield, rather than isolating them.

According to the Christian Science Monitor, Crowley argued, “These countries have put the right policies in place… but are struggling to correctly implement them.” The New York Times reported that administration spokespeople also cited the countries’ crucial role in global counter-terrorism efforts. 

Strategically granting certain countries a pass on child rights reflects Washington’s warped attitude toward the global human rights regime. The U.S. has failed to ratify, or simply ignored, numerous human rights protocols, and our ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child has languished. Human Rights Watch points out, “Only the United States and Somalia, which has no functioning national government, have failed to ratify the treaty.” (Although we did ratify two optional protocols in 2002, relating to child soldiers and other forms of exploitation.)

Somalia, by the way, is one of just two countries that the White House allowed to be sanctioned under the 2008 law; the second was Burma. Presumably this is because Somalia is not receiving direct military funding, reports the Monitor. Yet the U.S. continues to support Somali government forces as they fight Islamic insurgents—with the help of a large force of child soldiers. (To their credit, Somalia has at least promised the U.N. they”ll stop arming kids eventually, according to the Washington Post).

Maybe you could argue that the U.S. is so “advanced” it needn’t bother with rules about children’s rights to education and whatnot. Obama’s waivers might be seen as realpolitik in areas like Yemen, whose military we support as part of our sprawling counter-terrorism operations. But the bottom line is that the administration has carved out an exception to a law intended to ethically guide the flow of U.S. aid money around the world.

According to the Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, which holds America to the same scrutiny that countries like Uganda and DRC routinely face in the media, we benefit indirectly and directly from the exploitation of child fighters:

“In 2006 the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) registered 59 children in detention during 16 visits to five places of detention or internment controlled by the USA or the UK in Iraq. US soldiers stationed at the detention centres and former detainees described abuses against child detainees, including the rape of a 15-year-old boy at Abu Ghraib, Iraq, forced nudity, stress positions, beating and the use of dogs.

“Following US troop increases in Iraq in early 2007, US military arrests of children there rose from an average of 25 per month in 2006 to an average of 100 per month. Military officials reported that 828 were children held at Camp Cropper by mid-September, including children as young as 11. A 17-year-old was reportedly strangled by a fellow detainee in early 2007.

“In August 2007 the USA opened Dar al-Hikmah, a non-residential facility intended to provide education services to 600 detainees aged 11-17 pending release or transfer to Iraqi custody. US military officials excluded an estimated 100 children from participation in the program, apparently on the grounds that they were “extremists” and “beyond redemption.””

Omar Khadr, the young Canadian detainee at Guantanamo Bay, remains trapped in a Kafkaesque quasi-judicial system without regard to the fact that he was a child when captured. Rights advocates like Monia Mazigh in Ottowa have called for Khadr to be recognized as a child soldier, but the administration seems to think securing a conviction in Kangaroo Court takes precedence over international law. And because Khadr, like the other Gitmo prisoners, is identified with that faceless dark horde the U.S. has branded “terrorists,” Americans aren’t even inclined to see him as a human being, let alone as a juvenile soldier deserving of sympathy.

So America’s hypocrisy on children in war has many layers. Obama condemns the practice in theory, then undermines federal law by issuing waivers for our partners in Africa and the Middle East. And of course, Washington sees no problem with punishing child soldiers as adults when they’re aligned with the terrorists who are bent on destroying America.

UN Treaties alone obviously won’t demobilize all the world’s child soldiers, but their main role is to put down a legal placeholder. And it’s that moral guidepost that the U.S. undermines every time it waives parallel U.S. laws based on the “national interest.”

Obama’s memorandum may look jarring on paper, but it’s grimly consistent with Washington’s agenda of waging war indefinitely, without boundaries, against an enemy we can no longer really define. The U.S. supports warfare that uses children as weapons, warfare that kills civilian children indiscriminately, warfare that ultimately sends our own children to perish on foreign soil. And so America marches on in a world of conflict where the first casualty is innocence itself.

Darfur Child Soldiers – Sudan

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: “Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!” – Matthew 18:7 KJV 

Link to original article below…

http://colorlines.com/archives/2010/11/did_you_get_obamas_memo_white_house_selectively_okays_child_soldiers.html

Anwar al-Awlaki Reported Killed With 30 Al Qaeda In US Airstrike

with one comment

November 4, 2010: Mike Levine and AP Editors / Fox News.com – November 4, 2010

The radical Muslim imam linked to the rampage at Fort Hood reportedly is believed to have been killed in a Yemen airstrike that may have also taken out the region’s top Al Qaeda leader and 30 other militants.

The raid in Yemen’s east targeted an Al Qaeda leadership meeting held to organize terror attacks. U.S. officials believe radical cleric Anwar Awlaki was “probably” one of dozens of militants killed in the strike, a source confirmed to FOX News. “Awlaki is suspected to be dead [in the air raid],” Reuters quoted an unnamed Yemeni official as saying.

The head of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Nasser al-Wahishi and his deputy, Saeed al-Saudi Shahrani, were present at the meeting and are believed to have died, but their deaths could not immediately be confirmed. “The raid was carried out as dozens of members of Al Qaeda were meeting in Wadi Rafadh,” a source told AFP, referring to a rugged location about 400 miles east of the capital.

“Members of the group’s leadership, including Saad al-Fathani and Mohammad Ahmed Saleh al-Omir, were among those killed,” he was quoted as saying. “Saudis and Iranians at the Wadi Rafadh meeting were also among the dead,” said the source, without going into detail. LiveShots: Radical Cleric ‘Probably Killed’

Awlaki was once the imam at the prominent Dar al-Hijrah Mosque in Virginia, where the FBI says he had a close relationship with two of the 9/11 hijackers. He fled the U.S. in 2002, eventually returning to Yemen, where he promoted the Iraqi and Afghan insurgencies to a growing religious following in sermons and online.

In an interview posted on Al Jazeera’s Web site, Awlaki said he received an e-mail from Fort Hood gunman Maj. Nidal Hasan on Dec. 17, 2008, “asking for an edict regarding the [possibility] of a Muslim soldier [killing] colleagues who serve with him in the American army.”

Awlaki, who was born in Las Cruces, N.M., said subsequent e-mails “mentioned the religious justifications for targeting the Jews with missiles.” He told the Washington Post in an interview that Hasan eventually came to regard him as a confidant.

A Yemeni official, also speaking on condition of anonymity to AFP, said those attending the meeting “planned to launch terrorist attacks against economic installations in Yemen, in retaliation for Yemeni strikes launched last week.”

On Dec. 17, warplanes and security forces on the ground attacked what authorities said was an Al Qaeda training camp in the area of Mahsad in the southern province of Abyan. Saleh el-Shamsy, a provincial security official, said at least 30 suspected militants were killed. Witnesses, however, put the number killed at over 60 in the heaviest strike and said the dead were mostly civilians.

Much like the effort with Pakistan’s Frontier Corps, the U.S. military has boosted its counterterrorism training for Yemeni forces, and is providing more intelligence, which probably includes surveillance by unmanned drones, according to U.S. officials and analysts.

The Yemeni Interior Ministry said 25 suspected Al Qaeda members were arrested Wednesday in San’a and it has set up checkpoints in the capital to control traffic flow as part of a campaign to clamp down on terrorism.

The United States has repeatedly called on Yemen to take stronger action against Al Qaeda, whose fighters have taken advantage of the central government’s weakness and increasingly found refuge here in the past year. Worries over the growing presence are compounded by fears that Yemen could collapse into turmoil from its multiple conflicts and increasing poverty and become another Afghanistan, giving the militants even freer reign.

The country was the scene of one of Al Qaeda’s most dramatic pre-9/11 attacks, the 2000 suicide bombing of the destroyer USS Cole off the Aden coast that killed 17 American sailors. The government allied itself with Washington in the war on terror, but U.S officials have complained that it often strikes deals with militants.

Canadian Bacon: American Foreign Policy

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: On a more serious note, I want you all to watch this video below, taking into account the recent airline bomb threats, the Tea Party election victories, the implementation of QE2, this reported “victory” in the manufactured “war on terror” and Obama’s upcoming visit to India, thus conveniently extricating him from the US mainland on November 6, 2010

False Flag Attack Predicted For November 6, 2010?

The occult numerology for 11/6/2010 = 2 (division), just as 9/11 did… 9+1+1 = 11, 1+1 = 2. Also, keep in mind that Anwar al-Awlaki is a CIA asset and double agent who was born where? New Mexico, USA! – SJH

The New York Times: Anwar al-Awlaki

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/a/anwar_al_awlaki/index.html

Link to original article below…

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2009/12/24/imam-linked-ft-hood-rampage-believed-al-qaeda-killed-airstrike/

CIA Stooge Anwar al-Awlaki Prime Suspect Behind Fake Bomb Plot

with 3 comments

November 1, 2010: Paul Joseph Watson / Prison Planet.com – November 1, 2010

Every scrap of evidence screams “false flag,” as authorities seek to crush resistance against invasive airport security measures, while Obama exploits the event for domestic and geopolitical gain.

The revelation that CIA stooge Anwar al-Awlaki, the Al-Qaeda leader who once dined with Pentagon top brass, is the supposed mastermind behind last week’s plane bomb plot, adds yet more weight to the already overwhelming evidence that the whole charade is another contrived false flag to both boost Barack Obama’s domestic and geopolitical agenda, while crushing the growing resistance against invasive airport security measures.

According to the London Guardian, Awlaki is now the “prime suspect” in the cargo plane bomb plot. He is also fingered as the mastermind by BBC News, and the London Telegraph amongst others. The man who allegedly made the ink toner cartridges that were later claimed to be deadly explosive devices was Saudi Arabian-born Ibrahim Hassan Al Asiri. Al Asiri is “in regular contact in Yemen with radical cleric Anwar Awlaki,” reports the Daily Mail.

As we reported last month, every indication points to American-born cleric Awlaki being a double agent working for US intelligence. He has been involved in almost every terror plot over the last couple of years, from directing the underwear bomber, who was allowed to board the plane by order of the US State Department aided by a well-dressed man who got Abdulmutallab on the airliner despite the fact that he was on a terror watchlist and had no passport, to advising Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Malik Hasan. Authorities have engaged in a cover-up of what happened at Fort Hood after they ordered Private Lance Aviles to delete cell phone footage of the attack.

Awlaki was also the spiritual leader of the alleged 9/11 hijackers, a fact that didn’t seem to concern Pentagon top brass who invited him to dine with them just months after the September 11 attacks despite the fact that he had personally colluded with the very hijackers who were alleged to have slammed Flight 77 into the Pentagon. The US Special Operations Command’s Able Danger program identified the hijackers and their accomplices long before 9/11, and would undoubtedly have also picked up Awlaki.

As Webster Tarpley has documented, Awlaki is “an intelligence agency operative and patsy-minder” and “one of the premier terror impresarios of the age operating under Islamic fundamentalist cover” whose job it is to “motivate and encourage groups of mentally impaired and suggestible young dupes who were entrapped into ‘terrorist plots’ by busy FBI and Canadian RCMP agents during recent years.” Any Awlaki connection to the latest alleged bomb plot is therefore a huge smoking gun that the entire story, as every other piece of evidence also indicates, is a manufactured political ploy.

In the rush to pin the blame on US geopolitical target Yemen, a Yemeni female student was hastily fingered as the perpetrator, a “set-up” according to her lawyer, and she was quickly released. Indeed, according to Mohammed al-Shaibah, Air Cargo Director for Yemenia Airways, “there is no evidence to prove that this package came through Yemen.” He said there were no UPS or DHL cargo flights from Yemen within a 48 hour period prior to the supposed terror attack.

In addition, the United Arab Emirates’ Civil Aviation Authority rejected claims by US authorities that Flight 201 from Dubai contained any suspicious packages. “The Emirates plane that arrived today in the United States from Dubai did not contain any packages from Yemen,” the official Emirati WAM news agency quoted an unnamed source with the country’s civil aviation body as saying.

Authorities in the UK initially confirmed that the package found on a plane at East Midlands Airport was an ink toner cartridge and contained no evidence of explosives. Similarly, CNN first reported that, “Investigators examined two UPS planes that landed at Philadelphia International Airport and another at Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey, said Mike Mangeot, a UPS spokesman. Authorities later gave the “all-clear” at the airport in Newark, U.S. and U.K. officials said.” However, within hours President Obama gave a speech claiming the packages did contain evidence of explosives.

Within the space of 24 hours, the story was completely reversed and inflated into a massive terror plot involving dozens of suspect packages supposedly bound for synagogues in Chicago. How could packages that after being tested for explosives were labeled duds, suddenly become ‘massive and powerful explosive devices’? This proves that the story was manipulated at an early stage so that it could be feverishly overblown and exploited for political purposes, just as a number of contrived terror alerts were issued for political gain by the Bush administration, as former Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge admitted.

The new plot’s supposed similarities to the Christmas Day attempt further cements this view. As we have documented, every single scrap of evidence regarding the underwear bomber plot has “false flag” written all over it, from the US government allowing Abdulmutallab to board the plane, to Abdulmutallab’s own patsy-like behavior suggesting he wasn’t even fully aware of his role, to FBI intimidation of eyewitnesses on the plane who reported events that contradicted the official story. The Christmas Day incident was hastily exploited to push naked body scanners which have proved to be a financial windfall for the same individuals who are now hyping this new plot as another reason for more expensive and invasive security measures at airports.

The plane bomb plot and how it has been swiftly exploited fulfills at least three political objectives…

1) Occurring less than a handful of days before what has been dubbed one of the most important mid-term elections for decades, the attack will serve to entice undecided voters back under the illusion of big government as protector, potentially saving a few key establishment Democrats their seats in the House and Senate. The fact that Obama completely reversed the initial announcements of security officials to claim that the ink toner cartridges did in fact contain explosives is a key indication that the White House is over hyping the story for political gain.

2) Resistance to stifling and pointless airport security measures has reached fever pitch in recent months, with naked body scanners taking flak from all sides as they are routinely abused. Dozens of countries are refusing to sign a binding agreement proposed by the Department of Homeland Security to mandate the use of the scanners globally. The backlash culminated in British Airways Chairman Martin Broughton attacking US authorities for the continuation of “completely redundant” airport security checks. These security checks are only going to become more invasive as a result of this staged event.

3) Blaming Yemen as the origin of the plot allows the US military-industrial complex to intensify drone attacks on a country that has become one of the prime targets for the next phase of the contrived war on terror. Just a day after the plane bomb charade, the New York Times aggressively pushed for more attacks on the country, citing the presence of CIA stooge Awlaki as a reason for doing so.

We are once again being manipulated and brainwashed into accepting draconian security measures through fear and lies. Only by exposing the fact that this chain of events was yet another false flag attack on the psyche of the American people and people globally can we hope to identify the real terrorists, those in positions of power, who are continually hyping the threat of terror to change our society for the worse.

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: Despite the U.S. government and corporate media whore’s onslaught of lies and deceptions concerning this obvious false flag non-event, we are far too wise at this stage of the game to fall for such an obvious ploy. Also see the article at the link below– SJH

Suspicious “Items” Were Headed For Chicago Religious Institutions

https://stevenjohnhibbs.wordpress.com/2010/10/29/suspicious-items-were-headed-for-chicago-religious-institutions/

Link to original article below…

http://www.prisonplanet.com/cia-stooge-awlaki-prime-suspect-behind-plane-bomb-plot.html