"Stephen Calkins"
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 05:08:27 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
American Hiroshima “ the next 9/11?

Steve Calkin's Note: I recently received the following article entitled: "American Hiroshima - the next 9/11?", 'supposedly' written by the Arab web site 'Al Jazeera'. Al Jazerra is supposedly a Middle Eastern 'Arab' news source, thus its stories are generally perceived to 'favor the viewpoints of Arab citizens'. However this article is very dangerous propaganda, designed to prepare Americans and the world public for a nuclear attack on America from Iran, followed by a US retaliation against Iran.
The article's title: "American Hiroshima - the next 911?" is clearly implying that: "another '911', (this time using nukes), is on its way." In fact the person being interviewed for this article, 'David Dionsi', is quoted as saying: "(he) is convinced that plans for a nuclear attack are under way."
David Dionisi is supposedly a 'former' intelligence officer, with direct personal connections to current and former CIA officers, according to the article. He claims to have been working as: "a business executive doing international volunteer work," in Liberia, (an oil rich country in West Africa, currently being sought out by American oil corporations for its mineral wealth. His connections to present and past CIA is highly suspicious, as well as his 'volunteer work' in Liberia.) The CIA often times uses charities, and non profit organizations as 'fronts' for their covert operations in foreign countries.
Prior to his 'volunteer' work, Dionisi says he: "was assigned to a unit focusing on implementing US foreign policy in central America. I was part of a rapid deployment team designed to go in and suppress forces working for social justice in places such as Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala." In other words, his job was to install dictatorships in Latin America!!
The article even contains a statement that: (The current), 'Bush administration attorneys concluded 'it', ('a prior treaty with Iran during the Reagan Administration'), was signed 'under duress' and therefore (is) 'not binding]. (Thus implying that it is legally O.K, for the US to attack Iran!!!) So it is obvious that the intent of this article is to prepare America's and others for a potential nuclear attack on America, as well as a suggestion that attacking Iran is legal.
I find it interesting that 'Warren Buffet' is quoted in this article, stating: 'the US can expect to be nuked'...
Warren Buffet has numerous connections to the events of 911. See : http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/buffett.html

(The webfairy article mentions that: Buffet's bank 'Sun Trust' is where 'most the Islamic 'hijackers' had their bank accounts'; and that, 'two of the flight schools that 'hijackers' attended were owned by Buffet'; and that, 'a jet owned by Buffet, was seen at the crash site of Flight 93 on 9/11, etc.) In order to open up bank accounts at Buffet's bank, the hijackers had to produce social security numbers that were valid. Where did they get them, or did someone at the bank let them register without this, and if so, why? (Over a third of a million dollars went through these SunTrust accounts to these 'hijackers'.)
So why is Warren Buffet, the world's second richest man, and 911 connected person, being quoted as suggesting a nuclear attack on America?
It is evident that, 911 was a covert intelligence operation, carried out by people located within the structure of the US government. (Countless firemen, policemen, reporters and WTC employees all witnessed demolitions going off in the WTC prior to their collapse:

http://www.911proof.com/ Video link: WTC Cutter Charges Clearly Visible http://www.rense.com/general63/cutt.htm

That Osama could have gotten by the US air defenses for close to 2 hours, unobstructed, is unlikely enough; let alone, getting into the WTC complex long enough to plant building wide demolitions, in three separate buildings, and not get caught. (WTC 7 was the FBI CIA headquarters in NYC, and was heavily guarded 24/7. The only people that could have gotten in that building had to be people that the CIA and FBI wanted to be in there, and for that purpose.)
The article below is to prepare America to be nuked and is suggesting the likely party. However, the people that are most likely to nuke us, are the ones that we know currently possess nukes, (the US government), and the ones with the open access to the American people. (Again the US government); and, are the same people that did the most recent 'terrorist' attack on America, on 911, (ie a covert intelligence operation.) Here is your daily dose of propaganda, (the following article), factually from the covert government, but hidden under the guise of 'Al Jazerra!', no less. Is Al Jazerra just being manipulated, or is the media that controlled?!!
Steve

Lady Broadoak's comments:

• Always keep your eyes on Israel. This article looks like a Mosad plant. Yes, Americans, Canadians and all sorts of "unlikely" people are in their service.
• The US is really building for a war in China. But they will try out any military tactics wherever, even if it means a bankrupt US treasury.
• The US military does not do well in desert combat, which they could have avoided, but there was no commitment on the part of Donald Rumsfield (for which he is pointing the finger at Bush (info on that from Washington Post) to win but now they are bogged down in it.
• The US IS pissed with Iran for starting the new oil Bourse, based on the Eurodollar.
• It seems as though the US would actually rather have a nice fiasco down in Venezuela and Columbia, as it is less expensive, easier to control and gives them more access to other valuable commodities besides oil.
• Warren Buffet (ditto: Bill Gates) is a big proponent of reducing the earth's population. Why not take everyone out real quick? Only he doesn't seem to grok the fact, his billions will not keep him alive after a nuclear confligration.
• US billionaires have already transferred "their" money into Eurodollars.
• Warmongers just love to divide people up and ignore that we are, literally, all ONE.
• I'd love to know where Dionisi went to school. It would be very revealing. School of the Americas, anyone?
• War, all war, sucks the Big One.
• We are going to need some Big Time extra-terristral help, angels and God to get out of the mess that's being set up!
• There is a war between the CIA and Bush that's been going on for a long time. They would love to discredit and humiliate him.
• The US has a dreadful history of knowing NUFFIN' about the Middle East and virtually no one in their employ who speaks Arabic. This is not true of the UK, so watch what THEY say and do.
• The long term security of the Middle East is the last concern of neocons. But they do get jumpy about all the prophecy stuff about Jerusalem.
• Federal US policians often get elected to office by using donations from Zionists. To expect that to change any time soon, is a form of DENIAL.
• If you still believe 9/11 wasn't an inside job, WAKE UP! I know it's hard, but pay attention.
• Holding the US government to account is part of the OLD paradigm. Just a waste of time at this point. It's "GO TIME" to plan our next (truly global) society.
• Who knows Al Jazeera's agenda?
• Stay tuned ....

American Hiroshima “ the next 9/11?

Author David Dionisi says the US faces a nuclear threat

By Shaheen Chughtai in London

27 November 2005

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D99265B2-4402-46FE-A905-1F086F513A3D.htm

When Australian police announced recently that eight men arrested on terrorism charges were planning a bomb attack against a nuclear reactor near Sydney, many security observers elsewhere were not surprised.
Officials and analysts in the United States have been warning that al-Qaida or associated groups are planning such attacks on American soil. Dubbed American Hiroshima, the plan apparently targets New York, Miami, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Chicago, San Francisco, Las Vegas, Boston and Washington, DC. Former US Defence Secretary William Perry says there is an even chance of a nuclear attack on the US this decade. Renowned investor Warren Buffet has predicted "a nuclear terrorist attack ... is inevitable". David Dionisi, a former US army intelligence officer, is convinced that plans for a nuclear attack are under way.
Once a conservative Republican, Dionisi enjoyed success as a Fortune 500 business executive after leaving the army. But he later rejected his political beliefs and now advocates peace, social justice and humanitarianism. In his new book, American Hiroshima, Dionisi argues decades of unjust US foreign policies will be largely to blame for sowing the seeds of hostility and vengeance which could lead to a nuclear catastrophe. Aljazeera's Shaheen Chughtai caught up with Dionisi in London.
Dionisi had just flown from Liberia where he helps run a Catholic orphanage.

Aljazeera.net: You were once a conservative Republican. What made you change your beliefs?

Dionisi: The transformation was a discovery process. When I joined the military, I had a very limited view of what the US was doing around the world. Through my experiences as a military intelligence officer and later as a business executive doing international volunteer work, I started to see our foreign policies were often hurting people and making the world more dangerous. One of the more dramatic moments in this process was when I was assigned to a unit focusing on implementing US foreign policy in central America. I was part of a rapid deployment team designed to go in and suppress forces working for social justice in places such as Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala.
You describe the US public as uninformed - why?
The major media outlets are owned by a handful of corporations interested in promoting advertising and pro-government messages. Anything that challenges the existing power structure very often fails to receive air time. I highlight Fox as an extreme example of the Republican propaganda machine.
But when your country is fighting a war, you have an obligation to understand what's really going on. If you don't, you can become an agent of injustice. If people can find the time to watch baseball or soccer etc, they can make an effort to read, travel, talk and not be limited to the messages of fear.
They also need to understand their history. In 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff presented a plan called Operation Northwood, which is now declassified. It proposed conducting mass casualty attacks on American targets and blaming it on Cuba to rally public support for war against Fidel Castro. President Kennedy rejected the plan. So we shouldn't just assume any future attack on our soil is the work of al-Qaida.
Your book condemns alliances with repressive regimes. Can't these be justified if they serve a greater cause?
History teaches us that when you form alliances that promote injustice, you can only expect injustice in the future. Kindness begets kindness and the inverse is also true.
The US fought the largest secret war in its history during the 1980s in Afghanistan - over $6bn was funnelled into that war. As a result, US collaboration with and responsibility for al-Qaida goes well beyond what most even informed Americans understand.
If you consider that there are over 500 prisoners in Guantanamo Bay from over 40 countries - though not a single one is from Iraq - and that the CIA recruited thousands of people from over 40 countries to be part of that war - none from Iraq - you can better understand how the US played a direct role in creating what became the Taliban and al-Qaida.
Bush supporters argue the removal of Saddam and the Taliban was beneficial and therefore justified military action.
That starts from an artificial premise. When the Bush administration says, "Well, it's great that Saddam's gone," it fails to acknowledge that Bush's father and President Ronald Reagan were key forces that helped create Saddam Hussein.
Looking at what happened in 1979 it can put a lot of this in perspective. As Reagan came into office, the US embassy hostages in Iran were released after 444 days in captivity. Americans don't know this wasn't a coincidence. The US had agreed in writing not to attack Iran and also paid Tehran $8bn. That's why that media event (of the hostages' release during Reagan's inauguration ceremony) occurred with such precise timing.
How do you know this?
These are facts that were subsequently published. The agreement with Iran was submitted for review by the current administration, (George W. Bush), to see if it would be binding and prevent an attack in the near future. (The current),Bush administration attorneys concluded it was signed under duress and therefore not binding. I know this from a former senior member of the Bush administration, a seasoned CIA officer named Ray Flynn.
The US felt humiliated; the Reagan administration wanted to hurt the Iranians but its hands were tied. So Saddam Hussein was used as the agent for that. He ended up invading Iran ... and you had this brutal war from 1980 to 1988 that killed over a million people.
What was the US role in that war?
By 1982, Iran had recaptured lost territory and Saddam asked the US for help. So President Reagan signed a National Security Decision Directive - NSDD 114 - to provide all means of support to Saddam Hussein. Donald Rumsfeld then went on a very sensitive mission to deliver satellite intelligence, other forms of intelligence and weapons of mass destruction (WMD). That's why the current Bush administration was so confident Saddam had chemical and biological weapons; they knew the US had supplied the ingredients in the 1980s.
Saddam broke with the US, however, when he found out we were selling weapons to Iran in the mid-1980s - the Iran-Contra affair. All this puts the invasion of Kuwait into perspective. Saddam got clear messages from the US saying he could invade; plus he felt the US owed him one after betraying him over Iran.
All these wars form a continuum of injustice. Look at the UN economic sanctions in the 1990s that the US and UK refused to lift: over a million Iraqis died, including 500,000 children. That's more than the number who died from the Nagasaki and Hiroshima atomic bombings.
You list numerous "unjust" actions that led to attacks on US targets - isn't that justifying terrorism?
I talked to the CIA's Michael Scheuer, head of the "find Bin Ladin" team, and he stresses that people in the Muslim world are not fighting us because of our freedoms or elections but our foreign policy. This is something the Bush administration constantly twists.
The basic principle is: if you hurt someone, they're going to want to hurt you. We need to ask questions like: Why did 9/11 happen? Bin Ladin has a very clear articulation of why he's at war with the US, Britain, Israel and others. If Americans read it, they'll see it's very clear about things such as US forces on Arab land.
And it's not just an Arab or Muslim issue. I learnt this in South Korea where the US has had troops since 1950. When you're there that long, it sends a powerful message that you're not there to liberate, you're there to occupy.
You describe the US as the biggest WMD proliferator. Why?
The US has spent $5 trillion on 70,000 nuclear weapons since 1945 - more than the rest of the world combined. A Congressional report in 1999 found the designs for every deployed nuclear warhead - and for some not built yet - had been stolen and passed to China. Israel acquired its programme from the US too.
Despite this, ordinary Americans are more concerned about the Bush administration's lies and hyped-up warnings about WMD in places such as Iraq.
Is Iran really a threat to the US? An alliance between Shia Iran and Sunni-led al-Qaida seems far fetched.
Iran will not attack the US if the US does not attack Iran. Congressman Curt Weldon (who accuses Tehran of plotting to attack the States) talks about attacking Iran but such talk makes the world more dangerous. If we were Iran, we'd develop nuclear weapons simply because Israel has them. So the US should facilitate a process whereby Israel eliminates its nuclear weapons.
As for the religious differences between Iran and al-Qaida, yes, that's been true - but Bush's War on Terror has been pushing the sects together. Intelligence reports indicate Bin Ladin's son Saad has been based in Iran. No, we can't be certain they're helping each other. But in any case, the Bush administration does not want peace with Iran.
You say "kindness begets kindness". What's your evidence?
After the first world war, the Treaty of Versailles punished Germany harshly, producing hardship and hostility that the Nazis exploited. But after the second world war, when the Marshall Plan helped rebuild Germany and Japan, the US did more to promote democracy than at any time during the Cold war.
To make the world a safer place, we must aggressively attack the causes of suffering and hostility. Imagine if Bush had said after 9/11: "People are capitalising on our mistakes in the Middle East. So, let's ensure there is no hunger, lack of clean water, lack of education etc in the Muslim world." We would have made more friends and drained support for our enemies.
If we can't expect US foreign policy to change soon, isn't it too late to stop an American Hiroshima?
It's not too late although your point is realistic. But we can still influence the US response. Far more people will die in the retaliation and the counter-retaliation.
If the US had the wisdom, we could make the world safer. The US military budget was over $420 billion in 2005. We could split that three ways: a third on economic development in the Middle East, especially Iraq; a third on tackling injustice at home, such as providing universal healthcare - and that would still leave us with the world's biggest military budget.
People have to become more involved. The anti-Vietnam war movement is an example - but it failed to hold government to account. If we had tried (former Defence Secretary) Robert McNamara or (former Secretary of State) Henry Kissinger for crimes such as the illegal bombing of Cambodia, it would have sent a powerful message to future leaders. The Bush government today wouldn't have been so bold.
Ultimately, Americans need to understand many of them will die and parts of their country will become uninhabitable unless they hold their government to account.