-- SPECIAL REPORT. Another 9/11 waiting to happen....

June 16, 2008 -- SPECIAL REPORT. Another 9/11 waiting to happen

Roland "Tony" Carnaby, the one-time CIA station chief for the Southeast Region slain by Houston police on April 29, was an advocate of increasing "HUMINT" resources in and around the sprawling Houston port complex, from Houston to Galveston. Houston is the largest port in the United States for foreign tonnage.

Carnaby had in his possession the morning of April 29 information that someone wanted and wanted badly enough to order the Houston police to treat the well-known former CIA clandestine agent and president of the local chapter of the Association for Intelligence Officers (AFIO) as a dangerous armed criminal. After an extensive investigation, WMR has learned that those who ordered the "hit" on Carnaby were part of a team, including smugglers tied to the Russian-Israeli mob, who were involved in terrorist planning activities in the greater Houston area.

Carnaby and his intelligence and federal and county law enforcement associates were concerned about the potential for a "9/11-like" false flag attack on either Houston's port facility, airports, or all of them in and around the Memorial Day and Independence Day weekends.

WMR has learned that at a meeting of tugboat captains last week in Houston, the possibility of an imminent terrorist attack on the Houston port was discussed.

Carnaby's belief in HUMINT as a determinant of terrorist plans likely caused him to believe that Houston was in imminent danger for an attack. WMR spoke to Carnaby's intelligence and law enforcement colleagues who share his concerns.

Suspiciously, the Houston police, in violation of US Judge Keith Ellison's order to preserve all evidence related to Carnaby's shooting by the Houston police, admitted that it disposed of the evidence. Moreover, after having secured Carnaby's Blackberry, which is known to contain contact numbers for CIA and other federal agents, as well as their informants, was returned to the custody of the Houston police by Secret Service Special Agent R. Jennings, the reported SAC (Special Agent in Charge) of the Houston office.

Jennings has been accused by Carnaby's colleagues of cooperating with the very same elements, including individuals connected to Israeli intelligence activities in the Houston area and their well-placed moles inside the Houston Police Department, who wanted access to Carnaby's contacts and other information. The compromise of Carnaby's information represents a potentially devastating compromise of national security and are in direct violation of the National Security Act of 1947, according to Carnaby's colleagues.

It still remains unknown what happened to Carnaby's Mac laptop computer as well as a number of other cell phones, including an I-Phone and a Bang and Olufsen mobile phone in Carnaby's possession at the time of his shooting. Carnaby's colleagues revealed that Carnaby possessed a number of cell phones because some were dedicated to activating video and camera systems placed in strategic locations in and around Houston's ports and airports and downloading images to his phones and eventually to his laptop. At least three phones in Carnaby's possession on the morning of April 29 were used to activate cameras and download photos and videos from sites in and around Houston. One mobile phone number was reportedly used for this surveillance activity -- 713 208-0000.

The spot on Houston's West Loop where CIA agent Roland "Tony" Carnaby was gunned down by Houston police in a pre-planned "hit" on April 29. The shooting of Carnaby took place close to former President George H. W. Bush's Tanglewood residence.

On May 16, 2008, WMR reported: "The CIA was concerned that details of Carnaby's classified and covert work for the CIA in the Port of Houston, as well as his non-official cover Carnaby Shipping Company Ltd. and American Global Enterprise contacts in the United States and Lebanon may have been compromised to Israeli Mossad agents who have infiltrated the Houston Police Department primarily through blackmail techniques. The Israeli Consulate General in Houston is reportedly at the center of the Israeli influence and intelligence ring in the fourth largest city in America and the home to the largest port for imports in the United States."

The evening before Carnaby was shot, a man approached Carnaby and two friends at Houston's Capital Grille, a favorite meeting spot for Houston's business elite. A man, pretending to be inebriated, went up to Carnaby and acted as though he was an old friend. He was carrying an open bag, the type in which "to go" food orders are usually placed. Carnaby reportedly reached for his concealed handgun and told the man he had never seen him or met him before. The man apologized, quickly left the restaurant, and drove off in a car with diplomatic license plates. Carnaby's associates now believe the man was assigned to the Israeli Consulate General in Houston.

The I-Phone and Mac in Carnaby's possession were officially owned by American Global Enterprise. Carnaby's American Global cover firm operated a warehouse in the Houston port area, a reported center from which traffic from the port into Mexico and outbound via the ship channel was monitored. The actual security for the Port of Houston is maintained not by the Houston Police Department but by the Harris County Sheriff. The jurisdictional problems affected Carnaby's relationship with both agencies. Whereas the Harris County Sheriff's office was usually cooperative, the Houston Police was generally not as willing to work on increasing the security of the port.

Pasadena, Texas liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal along the Houston ship channel, where LNG tankers are loaded and off-loaded. This area is one of the most vulnerable targets in the Houston port complex and is located next to San Jacinto Battlefield Monument and Park, also the location of the battleship USS Texas.

Carnaby's fear about lax port security was borne out when this editor easily gained access through the main gate into the Port of Houston in a rental car. Although containers in bound and out bound from the port are x-rayed and checked for radioactive materials, the overall security is poor and that prompted Carnaby into calling for a better HUMINT program. However, better HUMINT would also result in the arms, drugs, and auto theft activities of the Russian-Israeli mob, Israeli intelligence assets, and their allies in the pro-Mojahedin e Khalq (MEK) Iranian expatriate community in Houston being identified by federal authorities.

For example, WMR learned from US intelligence and customs agents that the 1998 terrorist bombings of the US embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania had a Houston connections. The terrorist attacks were blamed on Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The two trucks used in the two East Africa bombings were stolen vehicles that were shipped from Houston via Guatemala. In addition, the bombs used passed though the same Guatemalan smuggling route. In 1998, Israel's Mossad and Guatemala's intelligence services continued to enjoy a close relationship and the Central American nation's successive military juntas could count on the support of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and other Israeli lobbying organizations in Washington.

Carnaby also had under surveillance a widespread vehicle smuggling ring that operated out of Houston, location of one of the largest vehicle import port facilities in the United States. One of Carnaby's law enforcement colleagues revealed that a network of body shops in Houston have been used to strip and smuggle stolen vehicles out of the United States, mostly to Mexico. Some of the theft operations operate under cover of "import-export" businesses and one operation has laundered $250 million in proceeds from the vehicle thefts. These illegal enterprises have been linked to Middle East expatriates linked to Israeli intelligence operations, including the Iranian MEK terrorist group and far right Lebanese Phalangists allied with Israel who are supported by the Israeli Lobby in Washington.

Houston's vulnerable ship channel. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is opposed to increasing HUMINT collection in this area lest the operations of his Israeli friends become exposed. In one Emergency Rapid Deployment exercise carried out by the US Coast Guard, an unmarked Zodiac raft with an outmoded machine gun with two US Coast Guardsmen on board, sailed up the ship channel from Galveston to Houston without anyone challenging them. Chertoff wold prefer to keep "security" for Houston this way, but for what purpose?

One of WMR's colleagues, German journalist Jurgen Cain Kulbel, has been imprisoned in Berlin for reporting that the UN chief investigator of the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, Detlev Mehlis, was once employed by the Israeli intelligence front organization, Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP). Mehlis steered UN investigators away from the real assassins of Hariri, Israeli intelligence who hired a number of rogue agents from Syrian intelligence, Lebanon's Druze and Christian Phalangist communities, and Palestinian refugees. Kulbel's imprisonment is a direct result of pressure from Washington and Jerusalem on the German government.

Some of Carnaby's associates were also critical of the security contract for the Houston that involved ex-British commando Tim Spicer, whose Aegis Defense Services, the recipient of a number of private military contracts from the Defense Department and the former U.S.-run Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. Spicer, in 2002, managed to convince Per Christiansen, a retired Norwegian naval officer whose Hudson Maritime won a Homeland Security Department to secure various American ports, including Houston, to bring him on as a partner. Thus was born Hudson Trident (the Trident being Spicer's interest in the firm). However, Spicer's work on Houston's port security was soon criticized by the government, including Carnaby and his associates. Spicer, who had previously received a port security contract in Haiti around the time of the U.S.-sponsored coup against democratically-elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, a coup that saw a number of weapons enter Haiti's ports illegally. Spicer's lack of performance on the Houston port security contract soon saw him lose out on similar port contracts for Morocco and Chittagong, Bangladesh, according to sources with whom WMR spoke in Houston. A U.S. intelligence source in Houston said, "Spicer fucked up the ship channel contract," adding, "this guy merely did plausible deniability work for MI6 and MI5," Britain's foreign and domestic intelligence services, respectively.

A closer view of Pasadena's LNG terminal. An attack here would have devastating and deadly results and bottle up the ship channel, affecting the entire United States.

It is clear that a number of Carnaby and his intelligence colleagues are skeptical about the "official version" of 9/11 and fear another such attack, possibly during the upcoming Fourth of July holiday. WMR can also report that a close friend of former President George H. W. Bush has taken a keen and supportive interest in our reports on the Carnaby shooting. Bush is the honorary president of the Houston William Buckley Chapter of AFIO, for which Carnaby served as president at the time of his death. Carnaby was also close to the former President, who has reportedly been outraged at the wanton killing of his friend. Carnaby was also reportedly close to Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who has made no public comment on the death of Carnaby.

----

Note: It is clear that WMR's reporting on the Carnaby shooting is irritating certain "quarters," also known as the "usual suspects" and the "amen corner." WMR's contacts with Carnaby's friends has resulted in a number of other doors on "cold cases" being opened. They extend from Dallas in November 1963, to the fate of the US merchant vessel "SS Poet" in 1980, Mena, Arkansas and Nicaraguan contra drug smuggling in the 1980s, and the back doors used to corrupt the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and North American Defense Command (NORAD) computers and networks on the morning of 9/11. WMR will continue to report on these and other stories regardless of the pressure that is being exerted, mostly not from the right-wing but from the usual "left-wing" gatekeepers and their dubious web sites. The very same gatekeepers who have been keeping the wool over the eyes of the American people, most notably, since the events of 9/11....

Related Articles:

• June 29 - July 1, 2007 -- SPECIAL REPORT. The CIA's "Family Jewels" file shows that things have not changed much since the 1960s and 70s
• July 5, 2007 -- After "Family Jewels" and Colby's revelations, Bush returned the CIA to lying.
• June 13-15, 2008 -- Carnaby was master of Arabic dialects and disguises

***********************************************************************************

'''Elie Hobeika''' ,(1956–24 Jan 2002)(Arabic:وعــــد: إيلي حبيقة) is a Phalangist and Lebanese Forces militia commander during the [[Lebanese Civil War]] trained and supplied by USA and Israel. He turned later to a popular politician and government minister in the post-war period, best known for creating a political party called "Wa3ad", meaning : Nationalism, Laic, Democtratic. وعــــد , bent on a complete overhaul of the confessional Republic, in order to build a modern, laic and effective civil form of government and constitutional reforms.

== The Tripartite Agreement ==

http://ddc.aub.edu.lb/projects/pspa/conflict-resolution.html

The Syrians still interfered in the parliamentary elections of 2000 in order to defeat Mr. Elie Hobeika. As a result, many of their traditional allies, including Prime Minister Salim Al-Hoss and Maronite MP and ex-minister Mr. Elie Hobeika, were defeated at the polls.

He has been mentioned by the CIA2 KILLERS, for an alleged role in the Sabra and Shatila massacre in 1982 and for allegations that the atrocities were committed in collusion with Para-military authorities occupying west Beirut in September of 1982. "The 760 civilians were murdered by a combination of IDF Sayyeret Metkals, SLA militias of SAAD Haddad, brought on the scene by IAF C130 Hercules to BIA, and some LF militias]. Before his assassination Mr. Hobeika called a press conference. "I am in possession of evidence of my innocence concerning Sabra and Shatila. And I have evidence of what actually happened at Sabra and Shatila which will throw a completely new light on the Kahan commission report." [http://univercia.blogspot.com/]

(For the full text of the agreement see Toksoz 1986, 82-83; see also Sirhal 1990, 131-148.)1985/86: " وعــــد ".

Most of the points agreed upon in these talks found their way into the Taif Agreement of 1989 (Salem 1992a).

== Lebanese Civil War ==

Over the next few years as support for the Lebanese Forces declined, and in 1984, Samir Geagea, Karim Pakradouni, and Elie Hobeika forced the resignation of the then commander of the Lebanese Forces, Fuad Abu Nader. Fouad Abu Nader was considered too close to Amine Gemayel (he was Gemayel's nephew). Amine, unlike his brother Bachir was disliked by all the LF leaders. Elie Hobeika was named head of the LF after Abou Nader's removal.[http://univercia.blogspot.com/]

On January 15, 1986, Oliver North led a coup, from the American Embassy in Beirut that removed Elie Hobeika from Lebanese Forces command, mainly due to Hobeika signing the Tripartite Accord(For the full text of the agreement see Toksoz 1986, 82-83; see also Sirhal 1990, 131-148.) with Nabih Berri and Walid Jumblat in full coordination with all forces in Lebanon, active politically, including the Maronite Patriarch. Hobeika was besieged in his Qarantina headquarters by Geagea's men (Elias el Murr was trapped with Hobeika in the same building) and was evacuated by Michel Aoun after strong American pressures. He and his supporters fled to Paris. They returned to Lebanon as a pro-Laic LF faction and were stationed in Zahle. In 1990 Hobeika supported the parliamentary faction against Syria in the war initiated by Michel Aoun.

After the civil war ended in 1990 Hobeika became Minister for the Displaced. In October 1992 he was appointed Minister for Social Affairs and the Handicapped. He was reassigned to the Ministry of Electricity and Water in 1996, a period which saw massive power projects in Baddawi and Zahrani, Zouk And Baalbeck, and massive electrical grid installation and distribution throughout Lebanon, including the outlying areas still in turmoil with Israeli Forces in the south, hence the progress was too slow compared to the massive increase in the Megawatts needed, since little electricity projects were accomplished over 18 years of civil unrest, mainly because of the Israeli operation Grapes of Wrath. In 1998, General Emile Lahoud became president of Lebanon and appointed Selim Hoss Prime Minister.In 2000 Hobeika lost his parliament seat, due to Syrian active interference in the Polls against Hobeika . In June 2001, Chebli Mallat, a left-wing Maronite lawyer, filed a case against Ariel Sharon in Belgium under a law that permitted to sue foreigners for crimes against humanity.Just before his death, Elie Hobeika publicly declared his intention to testify against Ariel Sharon about his involvement in the Sabra and Shatila massacre in a Belgian court's trial for crimes against humanity. A Belgian senator, Josy Dubie, was quoted as saying that Hobeika had told him several days before his death that he had "revelations" to disclose about the massacres and felt "threatened". When Dubie had asked him why he did not reveal all the facts he knew immediately, Hobeika is reported to have said: "I am saving them for the trial".

== Assassination January 24th 2002 ==

The role of Assef Shawqat's covert operatives has been evident since the January 24, 2002 car bombing in Beirut of Lebanese Member of Parliament, ex-Minister and Popular Christian political leader Mr. Elie Hobeika. The car bombings by Shawkat's operatives gave critical plausible deniability to the CIA and Mossad. Hobeika was, according to our intelligence sources, aware of the links between Shawqat, Iran, the United States, and Israel. That knowledge, and the fact mentioned in earlier intelligence reports, that he adamantly refused offers, inducing him to join this covert US strategy , since the latter part of the 1990s, and because it is a given, for people "in the know", that had he been alive today, he would be able to decipher with great ease, all these covert links, was considered dangerous in some circles in Damascus, Jerusalem, and Washington... [http://univercia.blogspot.com/]


== Eulogy ==

Nurturing, compassionate, generous, noble,courageous, heroic, unparalleled,
Mr. Elie Hobeika.

With tears in their eyes and flowers in their hands people paid tribute to
their national hero. Sad at the loss, which can not be compensated yet pride
was all over their faces,sacrificed their son of the soil. His was a death
for a noble cause of dying for one's own country. Such men are not born
everyday, they belong to the rare class of humanity, who are an example in
themselves, and they are the ones who set precedents. And they themselves
are unprecedented... [http://univercia.blogspot.com/]

Since January 24th 2002, I have only awakened to a nightmare--the nightmare
of life without you Elie, and this I cannot bear. The memories showing your
pictures non stop... in my mind; you are so alive and tangible that I can
almost touch you, but it is only "almost" because already I cannot.

Elie Hobeika, you were the pillar of fire before the camp and now we are
left as only the camp, alone, in the dark, and it is so cold and sad for us
all. I know we are talking in terms of a national tragedy, but how can you
try to comfort an entire people or include them in your personal pain, when
many do not stop crying, and we are mute, feeling the enormous void that is
left only by your absence?

Few truly knew you. They can still talk a lot about you, but I feel that
they know nothing about the depth of the pain, the disaster and, yes, this
terrible void, for us, the family and the friends, who are left only as the
camp, without you, our pillar of fire.

Elie, you were, and still are, our hero. I want you know that in all I have
ever done, I have always seen you before my eyes. Your esteem and love
accompanied us in every step and on every path, and we lived in the light of
your values. You never abandoned us, and now "they" have abandoned you, my
eternal hero--cold and lonely--and I can do nothing to save you, you who are
so wonderful.

People greater than I have already eulogized you, but none of them was
fortunate like myself [to feel] the caress of your warm, soft hands and the
warm embrace that was just for us, or your smiles which will always say so
much, the same smile that is no more, and froze with you. I have no feelings
of revenge because my pain and loss are so big, too big. The ground has
slipped away from under our feet, and we are trying, somehow, to sit in this
empty space that has been left behind, in the meantime, without any
particular success. I am incapable of finishing, but it appears that a
strange Cabal..., a miserable person, has already finished for me. Having no
choice, I part from you, a hero, and ask that you rest in peace, that you
think about us and miss us, because we here, down below, love you so much...
our only consolation is our complete faith in our God's special place for
you, up there with him for ever, and that he will know how to take care of
the "assassins" in time...

To the angels of heaven that are accompanying you now, I ask that they watch
over you, that they guard you well, because you deserve such a guard. We
will love you Elie Hobeika, always, till the end of Time.

The secret of selling yourself is to have a product you truly believe in.
Elie Hobeika is the perfect embodiment of these words. He is a kind,
nurturing, compassionate, generous, noble,courageous, heroic, unparalleled,
unmatched, dependable, supportive, humorous, intelligent, clever, sometimes
hilarious, talented, amazing, entertaining, proud, disciplined, profoundly
interesting man. He gave me my deeply appreciated "knowledge...," and along
with tons of documents and more... . The world was my oyster as we traveled
from town to town, city to city, country to country, with the greatest man
ever, Elie Hobeika. [http://univercia.blogspot.com/]

Karl Rove's White House "Murder Inc."

By Wayne Madsen.
Online Journal Contributing Writer.

SEP, ......- On September 15, 2001, just four days after the 9-11 attacks, CIA Director George Tenet provided President [sic] Bush with a Top Secret "Worldwide Attack Matrix"-a virtual license to kill targets deemed to be a threat to the United States in some 80 countries around the world. The Tenet plan, which was subsequently approved by Bush, essentially reversed the executive orders of four previous U.S. administrations that expressly prohibited political assassinations.

According to high level European intelligence officials, Bush's counselor, Karl Rove, used the new presidential authority to silence a popular Lebanese Christian politician who was planning to offer irrefutable evidence that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon authorized the massacre of hundreds of Palestinian men, women, and children in the Beirut refugee camps of Sabra and Shatilla in 1982. In addition, Sharon provided the Lebanese forces who carried out the grisly task. At the time of the massacres, Elie Hobeika was intelligence chief of Lebanese Christian forces in Lebanon who were battling Palestinians and other Muslim groups in a bloody civil war. He was also the chief liaison to Israeli Defense Force (IDF) personnel in Lebanon. An official Israeli inquiry into the massacre at the camps, the Kahan Commission, merely found Sharon "indirectly" responsible for the slaughter and fingered Hobeika as the chief instigator.

The Kahan Commission never called on Hobeika to offer testimony in his defense. However, in response to charges brought against Sharon before a special war crimes court in Belgium, Hobeika was urged to testify against Sharon, according to well-informed Lebanese sources. Hobeika was prepared to offer a different version of events than what was contained in the Kahan report. A 1993 Belgian law permitting human rights prosecutions was unusual in that non-Belgians could be tried for violations against other non-Belgians in a Belgian court. Under pressure from the Bush administration, the law was severely amended and the extra territoriality provisions were curtailed.

Hobeika headed the Lebanese forces intelligence agency since the mid- 1970s and he soon developed close ties to the CIA. He was a frequent visitor to the CIA's headquarters at Langley, Virginia. After the Syrian invasion of Lebanon in 1990, Hobeika held a number of cabinet positions in the Lebanese government, a proxy for the Syrian occupation authorities. He also served in the parliament. In July 2001, Hobeika called a press conference and announced he was prepared to testify against Sharon in Belgium and revealed that he had evidence of what actually occurred in Sabra and Shatilla. Hobeika also indicated that Israel had flown members of the South Lebanon Army (SLA) into Beirut International Airport in an Israeli Air Force C130 transport plane. In full view of dozens of witnesses, including members of the Lebanese army and others, SLA troops under the command of Major Saad Haddad were slipped into the camps to commit the massacres. The SLA troops were under the direct command of Ariel Sharon and an Israeli Mossad agent provocateur named Rafi Eitan. Hobeika offered evidence that a former U.S. ambassador to Lebanon was aware of the Israeli plot. In addition, the IDF had placed a camera in a strategic position to film the Sabra and Shatilla massacres. Hobeika was going to ask that the footage be released as part of the investigation of Sharon.

After announcing he was willing to testify against Sharon, Hobeika became fearful for his safety and began moves to leave Lebanon. Hobeika was not aware that his threats to testify against Sharon had triggered a series of fateful events that reached well into the White House and Sharon's office.

On January 24, 2002, Hobeika's car was blown up by a remote controlled bomb placed in a parked Mercedes along a street in the Hazmieh section of Beirut. The bomb exploded when Hobeika and his three associates, Fares Souweidan, Mitri Ajram, and Waleed Zein, were driving their Range Rover past the TNT-laden Mercedes at 9:40 am Beirut time. The Range Rover's four passengers were killed in the explosion. In case Hobeika's car had taken another route through the neighborhood, two additional parked cars, located at two other choke points, were also rigged with TNT. The powerful bomb wounded a number of other people on the street. Other parked cars were destroyed and buildings and homes were damaged. The Lebanese president, prime minister, and interior minister all claimed that Israeli agents were behind the attack.

It is noteworthy that the State Department's list of global terrorist incidents for 2002 worldwide failed to list the car bombing attack on Hobeika and his party. The White House wanted to ensure the attack was censored from the report. The reason was simple: the attack ultimately had Washington's fingerprints on it.

High level European intelligence sources now report that Karl Rove personally coordinated Hobeika's assassination. The hit on Hobeika employed Syrian intelligence agents. Syrian President Bashar Assad was trying to curry favor with the Bush administration in the aftermath of 9-11 and was more than willing to help the White House. In addition, Assad's father, Hafez Assad, had been an ally of Bush's father during Desert Storm, a period that saw Washington give a "wink and a nod" to Syria's occupation of Lebanon. Rove wanted to help Sharon avoid any political embarrassment from an in absentia trial in Brussels where Hobeika would be a star witness. Rove and Sharon agreed on the plan to use Syrian Military Intelligence agents to assassinate Hobeika. Rove saw Sharon as an indispensable ally of Bush in ensuring the loyalty of the Christian evangelical and Jewish voting blocs in the United States. Sharon saw the plan to have the United States coordinate the hit as a way to mask all connections to Jerusalem.

The Syrian hit team was ordered by Assef Shawkat, the number two man in Syrian military intelligence and a good friend and brother in law of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Assad's intelligence services had already cooperated with U.S. intelligence in resorting to unconventional methods to extract information from al Qaeda detainees deported to Syria from the United States and other countries in the wake of 9-11. The order to take out Hobeika was transmitted by Shawkat to Roustom Ghazali, the head of Syrian military intelligence in Beirut. Ghazali arranged for the three remote controlled cars to be parked along Hobeika's route in Hazmieh; only few hundred yards from the Barracks of Syrian Special Forces which are stationed in the area near the Presidential palace , the ministry of Defense and various Government and officers quarters . This particular area is covered 24/7 by a very sophisticated USA multi-agency surveillance system to monitor Syrian and Lebanese security activities and is a " Choice " area to live in for its perceived high security .... [Courtesy of the Special Collections Service.]

SCS... ; CIA & NSA & DIA....

The plan to kill Hobeika had all the necessary caveats and built-in denial mechanisms. If the Syrians were discovered beforehand or afterwards, Karl Rove and his associates in the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans would be ensured plausible deniability.

Hobeika's CIA intermediary in Beirut, a man only referred to as "Jason" by Hobeika, was a frequent companion of the Lebanese politician during official and off-duty hours. During Hobeika's election campaigns for his parliamentary seat, Jason was often in Hobeika's office offering support and advice. After Hobeika's assassination, Jason became despondent over the death of his colleague. Eventually, Jason disappeared abruptly from Lebanon and reportedly later emerged in Pakistan.

Karl Rove's involvement in the assassination of Hobeika may not have been the last "hit" he ordered to help out Sharon. In March 2002, a few months after Hobeika's assassination, another Lebanese Christian with knowledge of Sharon's involvement in the Sabra and Shatilla massacres was gunned down along with his wife in Sao Paulo, Brazil. A bullet fired at Michael Nassar's car flattened one of his tires. Nassar pulled into a gasoline station for repairs. A professional assassin, firing a gun with a silencer, shot Nassar and his wife in the head, killing them both instantly. The assailant fled and was never captured. Nassar was also involved with the Phalange militia at Sabra and Shatilla. Nassar was also reportedly willing to testify against Sharon in Belgium and, as a nephew of SLA Commander General Antoine Lahd, may have had important evidence to bolster Hobeika's charge that Sharon ordered SLA forces into the camps to wipe out the Palestinians.

Based on what European intelligence claims is concrete intelligence on Rove's involvement in the assassination of Hobeika, the Bush administration can now add political assassination to its laundry list of other misdeeds, from lying about the reasons to go to war to the torture tactics in violation of the Geneva Conventions that have been employed by the Pentagon and "third country" nationals at prisons in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay.

Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist and columnist. He served in the National Security Agency (NSA) during the Reagan administration and wrote the introduction to Forbidden Truth. He is the co-author, with John Stanton, of "America's Nightmare: The Presidency of George Bush II." His forthcoming book is titled: "Jaded Tasks: Big Oil, Black Ops, and Brass Plates."

Ever since this story came Online, there was a tremendous interest in
reading this Blog, by very noteworthy INTELLIGENCE agencies....,
as outlined below:


This is some of the evidence for you and for the World...article&sid=1052
************************************************************************************************
~encrypted/logs/access ====>> INTELLIGENCE Agencies Servers footprints.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Not to mention hundreds of private companies and governments........!

See Below : INTELLIGENCE Agencies , INTELLIGENCE. :
************************************************************************************************

Lines 10-36 of my logfiles show a lot of interest in this article: =1052
# grep sid=1052 /encrypted/logs/access_logawk '{print$1,$7}'sed-n'10,36p'.
spb-213-33-248-190.sovintel.ru /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
Soviet/Russian Intelligence services...
ext1.shape.nato.int /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
NATO Intel.
server1.namsa.nato.int /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
Nato Intel.
ns1.saclantc.nato.int /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
Strategic Air Command US Intel.
bxlproxyb.europarl.eu.int /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
European Parliament Intel. Unit
wdcsun18.usdoj.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
USA Department of Justice...
wdcsun21.usdoj.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
USA Department of Justice...
tcs-gateway11.treas.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
USA Treasury Department
tcs-gateway13.treas.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
USA Treasury Department
relay1.ucia.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
CIA2 Langley
relay2.cia.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
CIA2 Langley
relay2.ucia.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
CIA Langley
n021.dhs.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
USA Department of Homeland security Intel.
legion.dera.gov.uk /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
British Intel.
gateway-fincen.uscg.mil /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
Pentagon US.
crawler2.googlebot.com /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
Intel....
crawler1.googlebot.com /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
Intel.....
gateway101.gsi.gov.uk /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
British Intel.
gate11-quantico.nmci.usmc.mil /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
USA Marine Corps Quantico Virginia Intel.
gate13-quantico.nmci.usmc.mil /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
USA Marine Corps Quantico Virginia Intel.
fw1-a.osis.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
US Intel SIS.
crawler13.googlebot.com /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
Intel....
fw1-b.osis.gov /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
US Intel. OSIS.
bouncer.nics.gov.uk /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
British Intel.
beluha.ssu.gov.ua /modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052
Ukrainian Intelligence.
zukprxpro02.zreo.compaq.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1052....
Intel....


== Links ==


1|[1] [http://globalfire.tv/nj/04en/politics/rove.htm] http://globalfire.tv/nj/04en/politics/rove.htm |National Journal]]
* [http://univercia.blogspot.com/] | [ univercia; [http://univercia.blogspot.com/] ]
2|http://anaconda-manifesto.blogspot.com/]|Special Report]]

3|http://phoeniciaphoenix.blogspot.com/]|Special Investigation]]

4|http://lebaneseresistance.blogspot.com/]|Special Digest]]

5|http://echkelon.blogspot.com/]|Special Analysis]]

6[1]http://hobeika.blogspot.com/ | [ Life] |

7[http://americanassassination.blogspot.com/] [ Special White Paper ]

8[http://newhk.blogspot.com/][ Legacy] |

9[http://wiredlebanon.blogspot.com/][ http://wiredlebanon.blogspot.com/ ] HK.|

10 [http://elie-hobeika.blogspot.com/] [ elie-hobeika ] |

11 [http://hk-elie-hobeika.blogspot.com/] [ elie-hobeika/ Heroes' Hero ] |

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

اللبنانيون نصفهم مسيحيون والطائف وثيقة نفاق سياسي. كميل مبارك للشهادة للحق.

• 
  
  

شهادة للحق:
- أنا كاهن للأبد ولا يستطيع أحد أن ينزع هذه الصفة عنّي.
- إعادة التوازن ضرورة في الكيان اللبناني في السلطة والإدارة والجيش.
- لا مانع لدينا من اجراء احصاء سكاني، وبعض المأجورين يريدون كسر ارادة المسيحيين.
- تراجع النفوذ المسيحي مرده اتفاق الطائف لأنّه وثيقة النفاق الوطني.
إنّه الأب كميل مبارك، هكذا عرفه المؤمنون من ابناء رعيته، وهكذا يعرفه الطلبة المتشوقون لسماع حديثه، بعضهم يقول عنه "صوت صارخ في البريّة اللبنانية" وبعض آخر يقول عنه "صوت صارخ في الكنسية". لا محرمات على الإطلاق في حديثه الاّ الإلتزام بالحقيقة.
.

"بين الإحصاء السياسي والإحصاء العددي من قال انّ المسيحيين أقلية"، قول شهير لحضرتكم، الى ما يستند قولكم هذا؟
الواقع العددي للديمغرافيا اللبنانية ليس واضحاً ولا ثابتاً، ومع كثرة المقالات أيام الإحتلال السوري وقبله وبعده، ونتيجة الضغوطات السورية والعربية خصوصاً السعودية منها، هناك محاولات حثيثة لإقناع المسيحيين أنّهم أقلية، ومع كثرة دفع المال من بعض الجهات لبعض الصحفيين إمتلأت صفحات الجرائد بالتنظير غير الواقعي عن الموضوع. "حاولت التدقيق في الموضوع علنّي أصل الى الحقيقة، وبعد التدقيق بسجلات النفوس منذ عام 1992 وتمحيص احصاءات القطاع الخاص كالمدارس والجامعات وما شابه وبعض إحصاءات القطاع العام في مجالات القطاع الوظيفي كالجيش وقوى الأمن... وجدت أنّ الأرقام التي تعطى للصحف وتقال في الوسائل الإعلام المختلفة هي أرقام خيالية ومبتكرة غايتها سياسية وليس إحصائية، بغية كسر ارادة المسيحيين وإخضاعهم للأمر الواقع، وبالتالي يتسنّى اخذ كلّ المواقع الاساسية في السلطة من يد المسيحيين واعطائها للطوائف الإسلامية الأخرى".

يفهم من كلامكم أنّ لا خوف على المسيحيين لا عددياً ولا وجودياً؟
لا خوف على الإطلاق على المسيحيين، نحن اليوم أفضل من البارحة، الإحصاء الذي قمت به تناول القطاعين العام والخاص وقد شمل اللبنانيين المغتربين منذ ثلاثين عاماً، فالمسيحيون هم أكثر من نصف سكان لبنان، ومن يدّعي غير ذلك إمّا جاهل أو متواطئ، وهنا يجب القول: "إن كان الإحصاء مبنياً على تكهنات سياسية بامكاننا وضع الأرقام التي نريد، امّا إذا أردنا إحصاءً علمياً صحيحاً فعلينا المباشرة به، وطالما هذا الأمر غير متوفر لا يمكننا الركون الى أي شيء. إنّ السبب في عدم إجراء إحصاء علمي يعود الى ثلاثة أمور: الأول، التستّر على عدد المجنسين الذين اكتسبوا الجنسية زوراً في عصر القحط السياسي، قد نسمع أحياناً أنّ هذا العدد يراوح بين 160 و350 ألفاً والفرق شاسع بينهما. وهذه الجنسيات أعطيت لأرباب العائلات وليس للأفراد. الثاني، عدم وجود احصاء دقيق هدفه التستّر على القطاع الوظيفي داخل الدولة، "إتفاق الطائف الأسود الذكر والسيء الطالع أطاح بمنطق "ستة وستة مكررّ" ومنطق المناصفة بين المسيحيين والمسلمين، ففي زمن الطائف والعهد السوري الحقت معظم الوظائف المسيحية بالمسلمين، لتبقى في حينها المقاومة المسيحية السياسية تطالب بالعدالة داخل المجتمع والمناصفة انطلاقاً من التعددية الطائفية والميثاقية، لكن وللأسف وقع المحظور والخلل لحق مؤسسات الجيش والقوى الأمنية والقضاء والإدارة وغيرها. اليوم إن كنّا صادقين مع انفسنا علينا اعادة التوازن الى هذه المؤسسات ولأننا مسيحيون بالفعل لا نبغي ابعاد أي شخص من أيّ طائفة إنتمى، لكن وفق منطق العدالة يجب تصحيح الأمور بتكملة العدد من خلال توظيف المسيحيين، حتى يتمّ ضرب المشروع الإسلامي الذي يريد قضم لبنان المتعدد والمتنوع.
الثالث، هو الحلم الذي يراود بعض المسلمين كما بعض المسيحيين انطلاقاً من المثل الشائع "لغاية في نفس يعقوب": منطق القبول بالآخر وتلاقي الحضارات يقابله منطق رفض للآخر وتناحر الحضارات، هاذان التياران يتصارعان في لبنان، وللأسف بعض الساسة المسيحيين يريدون تنفيذ مشاريعهم الخاصة كما بعض الساسة المسلمين يريدون الإيحاء والقول أنّ الديمغرافيا العددية هي لصالح المسلمين اللذين يقولون "نحن الأكثرية" وبالتالي الحكم يجب أن يكون بيدنا، وهذا ما فعله الطائف فعلياً، لأنه نقل السلطة من يد رئيس الجمهورية الى مجلس الوزراء بشخص رئيسه، والوزراء المسيحيون وللأسف يخضعون له إمّا عن ترهيب وإمّا عن ترغيب. "سبب رئيسي لتراجع النفوذ المسيحي هو اتفاق الطائف وما يسمّونّه وثيقة وفاق وطني هي اشبه بوثيقة نفاق وطني".

لماذا الكنيسة طيلة هذه الفترة لم تحرّك ساكناً؟
يبدو أنّ الكنيسة كان مغلوباً على أمرها، فالقرار لم يكن لديها، وهذا الأمر آتى من قوى محلية أو خارجية، في ذلك الوقت لم يكن بمقدورها مقاومة الواقع، فاكتفت بالإعتراض وإداء الرأي والمطالبة بتصحسح الوضع، وبالفعل هذا الأمر غير كافٍ لأنّه يجب أن يتبع الإعتراض الكلامي بتدابير واقعية وعملية مع الوزارات المعنية.

كيف تقيمون وثيقة الطروحات المسيحية التي أقامها العماد عون مع المرجعيات السياسية المسيحية في الرابية، خصوصاً لجهة التفاعل بين الأكثرية والأقلية داخل النطام أو إحترام حقوق المسيحيين داخل النظام من خلال التوازن والمشاركة؟
الأمر الحسن الذي ظهر في هذه الوثيقة أولاً انّه آتٍ من سلطة مدنية ومن مجموعة من المتنفذّين من اهل الوطن والمفكرين الواعين لمستقبل هذا البلد وهم بأكملهم من العلمانيين، وعندما يأتي العلماني بوجهة نظر مسيحية صحيحة يعني أنّ العماد عون والتيار الوطني الحرّ وأثمثالهم في بعض المواقع، هم من الجماعات المؤمنة في هذا البلد، فهم لا ينظرون الى مستقبلهم الشخصي بل الى مستقبل وطنهم، وهذه الثوابت نحن نباركها كلّ يوم، وخلافاً لما يعتقده كثيرون، أقرَّت الوثيقة بمرجعية بكركي الوطنية والدينية، وعلى الجميع الإقرار بفضلهم في هذا الأمر سواء أحبّوا الجماعة أم لا. أمّا في ما يتعلّق بعلاقة الأكثرية والأقلية ضمن المسيحيين فانّ الوثيقة أخذت بمبدأ التنوّع داخل الطائفة واحترمت منطق الديمقراطية، وهي بذلك فتحت باب الحوار في العقل والمنطق والحجّة وليس بالشارع او البندقية.

إعتبرتم في مناسبات عديدة أنّ الخطر الأول على لبنان ينتج عن الخطر الفلسطيني المسلّح، الا ترى بعد معركة نهر البارد أنّ هذا الخطر تحوّل الى الأصولية السنية المتمثلة بالقاعدة ومتفرعاتها؟

إنّ الأصوليات الدينية من ايّ جهة أتت هي مصدر قلق للمجتمعات السليمة، لكن الوجود الفلسطيني هو الخطر الأول على لبنان فهو يعرّض الكيان اللبناني للخطر خصوصاً مع بعض الأحلام التي تراود بعض السياسيين اللبنانيين من قادة مسلمين سنة أو قادة مسيحيين قلّة بهدف توطينهم في لبنان، "وهذا الأمر إن حصل سيكون مقبرة للبنانيين لأنّ التوطين يخلّ في الديمغرافيا اللبنانية ويقطع العلاقة بين الوطن وأبنائه، فاي توطين للفلسطينيين يعني بما يعنيه القضاء على المجتمع اللبناني بجناحيه المسلم والمسيحي".

تتهمّون بعض الجهات الداخلية بالسعي لتمرير التوطين، لكنّ الجميع ينكر ذلك علناً بماذا تردّون؟

طبعاً اتهم بعض من في الداخل بسعيه لتوطين الفلسطينيين، والكذب الكبير يظهر في نكرانه، لأنّه كما يقول المثل الشعبي "العشّي الماهر لا يجعلك تشتمّ رائحة طبخه قبل ان ينضج"، وهذا المثل ينطبق على بعض الساسة المسيحيين والمسلمين، وللأسف الشديد، المسيحيون منهم قد يكونون على ضلال لعدم معرفتهم بخطورة الموضوع، أو هم فريسة سهلة لسلاح المال.

لكن الأميركيين طمأنوا رئيس الهيئة التنفيذية د. سمير جعجع من عدم التوطين، الا يطمئنكم هذا القول؟

إنّ الأميركيين طمأنوا المسيحيين في العراق وطمأنوا الرئيس كميل شمعون عام 1958 أنّهم سيساندونه، وطمأنوا الملك حسين كما طمأنوا شاه إيران، أين نصرف هذه التطمينات، إن لم يقتنع هؤلاء المطمئنين من السياسة الأميركية أنّه لا يمكن الركون لتقلبات السياسة الأميركية لأنها تسعى لتحقيق مصالحها وليس مصالح الشعوب وهذا أمر واقعي. عندما يكون هناك تشويشفي تفكير بعض الساسة، عليهم ان يتعظوا من المقولة القديمة على الصغار عدم اللعب مع الكبار.

لكن هل يمكن للقوات اللبنانية التي ناضلت تاريخياً للدفاع عن الوجود اللبناني الحرّ أن تتخلى عن قضيتها المحورية الدفاع عن لبنان، وتقبل بتوطين الفلسطينيين؟

جميعنا ناضل في ذلك الوقت، ولا يجوز التنكر لما قامت به القوى المسيحية التي قدمت الشهداء بالآلاف دفاعاً عن لبنان. حالياًن ما نأسف له هو استرخاص دم الشهداء الذين سقطوا، بدأت الحرب في لبنان بين المسيحيين والفلسطينيين ليليها فيما بعد سقوط كلّ اللبنانيين في آتون الحرب العبثية، واخطرها كان من بعض المسلمين الذين وللأسف اعتبروا انّ جيشهم هو السلاح الفلسطيني.

بعد انتهاء معركة نهر البارد وانتصار الجيش اللبناني فيها، هل إنتهت محاولات ضرب الجيش البناني؟

لا نستطيع التكهّن بخفايا الأمور، لكن ما نلاحظه في الواقع أنّ كلّ الدول التي تدّعي صداقتها للبنان أغدقت علينا بالوعود منذ عشرات السنين بتقوية الجيش وبتسليحه، لكن ما نراه ليس الاّ بعض المساعدات البسيطة، الجيش سلاحه ليس "جيباً ولا كميوناً بل طائرات وآليات وذخائر". وطالما تسليح الجيش مقتصر على هذا المستوى فسياسة إضعافه مستمرّة.

البعض يقول "الأب كميل مبارك" صوت صارخ في البرية السياسية اللبنانية، وبعض آخر يقول صوت صارخ في الكنيسة؟ أيهما صحيح.

أنا مع الحقيقة، وكلامي التزام بها، منذ بداية نشاطاتي الرعوية والتوجيهية وقفت وسأبقى الى جانب الحقيقة، وإن خرج عنها البعض لا يكون الأب كميل مبارك ضدّهم، بل هم ضدّ الحقيقة.

تهاجمون السلطة الفاسدة، وتعتبرون حق مواجهتها حق مقدّس، لا بل واجب على المواطنين. هذا القول الا يتعارض مع مساندة الكنيسة للسلطة؟

قولي هذا يستند الى الكتاب المقدّس، فالرسول بولس قال: "أيها الناس أطيعوا رؤساءكم ومدبريكم لأنّ السلطة هي من عند الله، وهي تسهر على الخير العام، لكن إذا جحدت هذه السلطة وابتعدت عن إرادة الله وفعل الخير العام ألزمنا بمقاومتها، وهذا الكلام للقديس بولس وليس كلام الأب كميل مبارك. أمّا حول علاقة بكركي بالسلطة المدنية فلا يمكنني التكهّن بها، ولا أعرفها، فكما يقول المثل الشائع، روما من فوق ليست كما هي من تحت، فكلامي أضمّنه التوجّه المبدئي فقط، مبدئي هو رفض للطغيان وهذا ما كرّسه البابا يوحنا بولس الثاني في غدانسك في بولونيا عندما أسقط النظام السوفياتي قبل آوانه بالسلم، وبالإعتصام.

كيف تقيمون السنوات الثلاث الأخيرة في لبنان؟

لا يوجد سلطة في لبنان، ونحن كنّا ندعو الى اسقاط هذه السلطة المترهّلة دائماً.

لكم سؤال وجهتموه الى السلطة، ماذا فعلتم بالإتفاقات اللبنانية السورية من أجل تصحيحها؟ الامَ تلمّحون؟

نعم من يهاجم سوريا من لبنان يبدو أنّه مع سوريا عبد الحليم خدام ويريد إعادة ربط لبنان بالقاطرة السورية، العلم السياسي الواقعي يفرض ابطال كلّ المعاهدة السابقة والقائمة على الإكراه. نسأل الحكومة اللبنانية التي تجاهر بعدائيتها لسوريا علناًً لماذا لم تسقط هذه الإتفاقيات؟ يبدو أنّهم لا يجرؤون على فعل ذلك، لأنّ داعميهم من التيارات السورية المناهضة للنظام الحاكم هم أيضاً مع هذه الإتفاقيات، وهم يريدون ربط لبنان بالنظام السوري الجديد في حال وصوله الى الحكم.

انتقدتم إتفاق الطائف الذي جرى أيام الإحتلال السوري، لكن هذا الإتفاق نال مباركة بكركي؟ هل أنتم مع تعديل أو تطوير إتفاق الطائف؟

لقد رأت بكركي في الطائف مخرجاً نحو السلام دون أن تراه مثالياً، وهي تعرف أنه لم يطبق بكامله ولن يطبق. وحالياً أنا مع تعديله، نحن نفضل الإتفاق على اللااتفاق طبعاً، لكن إذا اردنا ان نكون دولة محترمة علينا تجديد ميثاقنا لتحسين العلاقات بين اللبنانيين. اتفاق الطائف بحدّ ذاته هو مرحلة من مراحل الإنحطاط اللبناني، ولو وافق عليه كلّ سكان لبنان أنا شخصياً لا أوافق عليه، هو من مرحلة الذل المسيحي أولاً واللبناني ثانياً، هذا النظام الهجين الذي ليس معروفاً اصله من فصله، وبنهاية المطاف تًرك الحكم للخارج ليبتّ بكلّ شاردة وواردة، وهذا الأمر حصل بارادة سورية ورضى أميركي وبركة سعودية ونكهة حريرية، أسأل بعد تحررّ لبنان من النظام السوري، لماذا لا نتحررّ من النظام الذي جعل لبنان تحت وصايته؟ "إنّ إحدى الشوائب الكبرى فيه هي عدم وجود حكم أو مرجع قادر على بتّ الخلافات بين مختلف السلطات، وقبول بكركي به كان نتيجة تضليل بعض القادة المسيحيين، وقد تكون موافقتها للخروج من المآزق القتالي الذي حصل، وغالباً ما ترى الكنيسة في السلام ولو على مضض مرحلة أفضل من استمرار الحرب، انطلاقاً من لم يكن بالإمكان أفضل ممَّا كان.

أنتم متهمّون بأنكم تأخذون بالخطاب الـ"عوني" على غيره من الخطابات السياسية في المناطق المسيحية، ما هو ردّكم؟

الأب كميل مبارك لا يتبنّى موقف أحد من السياسيين، كلّ ما افعله هو الشهادة من أجل الحق، وكلّ من يقول الحق سواء كان صديقاً أم لا ألتقي معه، ولقاء بعض الخطب مع خطابات التيار الوطني الحرّ وزعيمه الجنرال ميشال عون يعني أنّ لقاءنا هو شهادة للحق، وهذا يمكن أن يكون مع غيره من الذين يسعون الى الحقيقة.

هل يخشى الأب مبارك على موقعه الديني بسبب مواقفكم الوطنية الجريئة؟

عندما رسمني المطران زيادة كاهناً، أخذنا شعار "أقسم الله ولن يندم أنّك أنت كاهناً الى الأبد". وأنا اقول "أنا كاهن الى الأبد، ولا يستطيع أحد ان ينزع هذه الصفة عنّي طالما أنا شاهد على الحقيقة".

الى ماذا يعود الحماس الشعبي تجاه خطبك الدينية؟ هل هي فشّة خلق؟

الناس تريد الحقيقة وتحبّها، فعندما يسمعونها كما هي، يرون أن هذا الصوت يعبّر عن آرائهم، وهذا بالفعل ما يحصل فبعد بعض الخطب التوجيهية أتلقّى مئات الإتصالات من المناطق الداعمة كافة وهي بالمناسبة ليست عاطفية لأني لا أعرفهم، بكل بساطة ما يجمعني معهم هو قول الحقيقة.

************************************************************************

Osama Bin Laden Created by the US and CIA2/MOSSAD/ISI/MI6
. 'Bin Laden is a product of the U.S. spy agencies, according to an article
in the Tribune de Genève by Richard Labévière, writer of the book Les
dollars de la terreur, les États Unis et les islamistes.

The first contact with Bin Laden was in 1979, when the new graduate from the
Univ. of Jedah got in touch with the U.S. embassy in Ankara, Turkey. With
the help of the CIA and the U.S. Armed Forces intelligence services he began
to organize in the early 1980s and network to raise money and to recruit
fighters for the Afghan mujahidins that were fighting the Soviets. He did
this from the city of Peshawar in Pakistan, bordering Afghanistan.

Part of these activities were financed with the production and sale of
morphine, the base of heroin. This was the beginning of today Al Qaida (the
base) network led by Bin Laden. Indeed the chickens are coming home to roost
for the CIA and U.S. bosses.

http://www.timesofindia.com/today/07euro1.htm

LONDON [IANS]: The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) worked in tandem with
Pakistan to create the "monster" that is today Afghanistan's ruling Taliban,
a leading US expert on South Asia said here.

"I warned them that we were creating a monster," Selig Harrison from the
Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars said at the conference here
last week on "Terrorism and Regional Security: Managing the Challenges in
Asia."

Harrison said: "The CIA made a historic mistake in encouraging Islamic
groups from all over the world to come to Afghanistan." The US provided $3
billion for building up these Islamic groups, and it accepted Pakistan's
demand that they should decide how this money should be spent, Harrison
said.

Harrison, who spoke before the Taliban assault on the Buddha statues was
launched, told the gathering of security experts that he had meetings with
CIA leaders at the time when Islamic forces were being strengthened in
Afghanistan. "They told me these people were fanatical, and the more fierce
they were the more fiercely they would fight the Soviets," he said. "I
warned them that we were creating a monster."

Harrison, who has written five books on Asian affairs and US relations with
Asia, has had extensive contact with the CIA and political leaders in South
Asia. Harrison was a senior associate of the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace between 1974 and 1996.

Harrison who is now senior fellow with The Century Foundation recalled a
conversation he had with the late Gen Zia-ul Haq of Pakistan. "Gen Zia spoke
to me about expanding Pakistan's sphere of influence to control Afghanistan,
then Uzbekistan and Tajikstan and then Iran and Turkey," Harrison said. That
design continues, he said. Gen.Mohammed Aziz who was involved in that Zia
plan has been elevated now to a key position by Chief Executive, Gen. Pervez
Musharraf, Harrison said.

The old associations between the intelligence agencies continue, Harrison
said. "The CIA still has close links with the ISI (Pakistan's Inter-Services
Intelligence)."

Today that money and those weapons have helped build up the Taliban,
Harrison said. "The Taliban are not just recruits from 'madrassas' (Muslim
theological schools) but are on the payroll of the ISI (Inter Services
Intelligence, the intelligence wing of the Pakistani government)." The
Taliban are now "making a living out of terrorism."

Harrison said the UN Security Council resolution number 1333 calls for an
embargo on arms to the Taliban. "But it is a resolution without teeth
because it does not provide sanctions for non-compliance," he said. "The US
is not backing the Russians who want to give more teeth to the resolution."

Now it is Pakistan that "holds the key to the future of Afghanistan,"
Harrison said. The creation of the Taliban was central to Pakistan's
"pan-Islamic vision," Harrison said. It came after "the CIA made the
historic mistake of encouraging Islamic groups from all over the world to
come to Afghanistan," he said. The creation of the Taliban had been
"actively encouraged by the ISI and the CIA," he said. "Pakistan has been
building up Afghan collaborators who will sustain Pakistan," he said. (IANS)

More On The Taliban And Other "Monsters" Of The CIA:
For more details on the CIA's role in creating the Taliban, and dozens of
other terrorist organizations around the world, refer to the latest issue of
COAT's magazine, Press for Conversion!.

This issue (#43) is on the theme: "A People's History of the CIA: The
Subversion of Democracy from Australia to Zaire." It is available
(full-text) at our web site http://www.ncf.ca/coat/

Anatomy of a Victory: CIA's Covert Afghan War

By: Steve Coll, Washington Post, July 19, 1992

"In all, the United States funneled more than $ 2 billion in guns and money
to the mujaheddin during the 1980s, according to U.S. officials. It was the
largest covert action program since World War II."

A specially equipped C-141 Starlifter transport carrying William Casey
touched down at a military air base south of Islamabad in October 1984 for a
secret visit by the CIA director to plan strategy for the war against Soviet
forces in Afghanistan.

Helicopters lifted Casey to three secret training camps near the Afghan
border, where he watched mujaheddin rebels fire heavy weapons and learn to
make bombs with CIA-supplied plastic explosives and detonators.

During the visit, Casey startled his Pakistani hosts by proposing that they
take the Afghan war into enemy territory -- into the Soviet Union itself.

Casey wanted to ship subversive propaganda through Afghanistan to the Soviet
Union's predominantly Muslim southern republics. The Pakistanis agreed, and
the CIA soon supplied thousands of Korans, as well as books on Soviet
atrocities in Uzbekistan and tracts on historical heroes of Uzbek
nationalism, according to Pakistani and Western officials.

"We can do a lot of damage to the Soviet Union," Casey said, according to
Mohammed Yousaf, a Pakistani general who attended the meeting.

Casey's visit was a prelude to a secret Reagan administration decision in
March 1985, reflected in National Security Decision Directive 166, to
sharply escalate U.S. covert action in Afghanistan, according to Western
officials.

Abandoning a policy of simple harassment of Soviet occupiers, the Reagan
team decided secretly to let loose on the Afghan battlefield an array of
U.S. high technology and military expertise in an effort to hit and
demoralize Soviet commanders and soldiers. Casey saw it as a prime
opportunity to strike at an overextended, potentially vulnerable Soviet
empire.

Eight years after Casey's visit to Pakistan, the Soviet Union is no more.
Afghanistan has fallen to the heavily armed, fraticidal mujaheddin rebels.

The Afghans themselves did the fighting and dying -- and ultimately won
their war against the Soviets -- and not all of them laud the CIA's role in
their victory. But even some sharp critics of the CIA agree that in military
terms, its secret 1985 escalation of covert support to the mujaheddin made a
major difference in Afghanistan, the last battlefield of the long Cold War.

How the Reagan administration decided to go for victory in the Afghan war
between 1984 and 1988 has been shrouded in secrecy and clouded by the
sharply divergent political agendas of those involved. But with the triumph
of the mujaheddin rebels over Afghanistan's leftist government in April and
the demise of the Soviet Union, some intelligence officials involved have
decided to reveal how the covert escalation was carried out.

The most prominent of these former intelligence officers is Yousaf, the
Pakistani general who supervised the covert war between 1983 and 1987 and
who last month published in Europe and Pakistan a detailed account of his
role and that of the CIA, titled "The Bear Trap."

This article and another to follow are based on extensive interviews with
Yousaf as well as with more than a dozen senior Western officials who
confirmed Yousaf's disclosures and elaborated on them.

U.S. officials worried about what might happen if aspects of their
stepped-up covert action were exposed -- or if the program succeeded too
well and provoked the Soviets to react in hot anger. The escalation that
began in 1985 "was directed at killing Russian military officers," one
Western official said. "That caused a lot of nervousness."

One source of jitters was that Pakistani intelligence officers -- partly
inspired by Casey -- began independently to train Afghans and funnel CIA
supplies for scattered strikes against military installations, factories and
storage depots within Soviet territory.

The attacks later alarmed U.S. officials in Washington, who saw military
raids on Soviet territory as "an incredible escalation," according to Graham
Fuller, then a senior U.S. intelligence official who counseled against any
such raids. Fearing a large-scale Soviet response and the fallout of such
attacks on U.S.-Soviet diplomacy, the Reagan administration blocked the
transfer to Pakistan of detailed satellite photographs of military targets
inside the Soviet Union, other U.S. officials said.

To Yousaf, who managed the Koran-smuggling program and the guerrilla raids
inside Soviet territory, the United States ultimately "chickened out" on the
question of taking the secret Afghan war onto Soviet soil. Nonetheless,
Yousaf recalled, Casey was "ruthless in his approach, and he had a built-in
hatred for the Soviets."

An intelligence coup in 1984 and 1985 triggered the Reagan administration's
decision to escalate the covert progam in Afghanistan, according to Western
officials. The United States received highly specific, sensitive information
about Kremlin politics and new Soviet war plans in Afghanistan. Already
under pressure from Congress and conservative activists to expand its
support to the mujaheddin, the Reagan administration moved in response to
this intelligence to open up its high-technology arsenal to aid the Afghan
rebels.

Beginning in 1985, the CIA supplied mujaheddin rebels with extensive
satellite reconnaissance data of Soviet targets on the Afghan battlefield,
plans for military operations based on the satellite intelligence,
intercepts of Soviet communications, secret communications networks for the
rebels, delayed timing devices for tons of C-4 plastic explosives for urban
sabotage and sophisticated guerrilla attacks, long-range sniper rifles, a
targeting device for mortars that was linked to a U.S. Navy satellite,
wire-guided anti-tank missiles, and other equipment.

The move to upgrade aid to the mujaheddin roughly coincided with the
well-known decision in 1986 to provide the mujaheddin with sophisticated,
U.S.-made Stinger antiaircraft missiles. Before the missiles arrived,
however, those involved in the covert war wrestled with a wide-ranging and
at times divisive debate over how far they should go in challenging the
Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

Roots of the Rebellion In 1980, not long after Soviet forces invaded
Afghanistan to prop up a sympathetic leftist government, President Jimmy
Carter signed the first -- and for many years the only -- presidential
"finding" on Afghanistan, the classified directive required by U.S. law to
begin covert operations, according to several Western sources familiar with
the Carter document.

The Carter finding sought to aid Afghan rebels in "harassment" of Soviet
occupying forces in Afghanistan through secret supplies of light weapons and
other assistance. The finding did not talk of driving Soviet forces out of
Afghanistan or defeating them militarily, goals few considered possible at
the time, these sources said.

The cornerstone of the program was that the United States, through the CIA,
would provide funds, some weapons and general supervision of support for the
mujaheddin rebels, but day-to-day operations and direct contact with the
mujaheddin would be left to the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence
agency, or ISI. The hands-off U.S. role contrasted with CIA operations in
Nicaragua and Angola.

Saudi Arabia agreed to match U.S. financial contributions to the mujaheddin
and distributed funds directly to ISI. China sold weapons to the CIA and
donated a smaller number directly to Pakistan, but the extent of China's
role has been one of the secret war's most closely guarded secrets.

In all, the United States funneled more than $ 2 billion in guns and money
to the mujaheddin during the 1980s, according to U.S. officials. It was the
largest covert action program since World War II.

In the first years after the Reagan administration inherited the Carter
program, the covert Afghan war "tended to be handled out of Casey's back
pocket," recalled Ronald Spiers, a former U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, the
base of the Afghan rebels. Mainly from China's government, the CIA purchased
assault rifles, grenade launchers, mines and SA-7 light antiaircraft
weapons, and then arranged for shipment to Pakistan. Most of the weapons
dated to the Korean War or earlier. The amounts were significant -- 10,000
tons of arms and ammunition in 1983, according to Yousaf -- but a fraction
of what they would be in just a few years.

Beginning in 1984, Soviet forces in Afghanistan began to experiment with new
and more aggressive tactics against the mujaheddin, based on the use of
Soviet special forces, called the Spetsnaz, in helicopter-borne assaults on
Afghan rebel supply lines. As these tactics succeeded, Soviet commanders
pursued them increasingly, to the point where some U.S. congressmen who
traveled with the mujaheddin -- including Rep. Charles Wilson (D-Tex.) and
Sen. Gordon Humphrey (R-N.H.) -- believed that the war might turn against
the rebels.

The new Soviet tactics reflected a perception in the Kremlin that the Red
Army was in danger of becoming bogged down in Afghanistan and needed to take
decisive steps to win the war, according to sensitive intelligence that
reached the Reagan administration in 1984 and 1985, Western officials said.
The intelligence came from the upper reaches of the Soviet Defense Ministry
and indicated that Soviet hard-liners were pushing a plan to attempt to win
the Afghan war within two years, sources said.

The new war plan was to be implemented by Gen. Mikhail Zaitsev, who was
transferred from the prestigious command of Soviet forces in Germany to run
the Soviet war in Afghanistan in the spring of 1985, just as Mikhail
Gorbachev was battling hard-line rivals to take power in a Kremlin
succession struggle. Cracking the Kremlin's Strategy

The intelligence about Soviet war plans in Afghanistan was highly specific,
according to Western sources. The Soviets intended to deploy one-third of
their total Spetsnaz forces in Afghanistan -- nearly 2,000 "highly trained
and motivated" paratroops, according to Yousaf.

In addition, the Soviets intended to dispatch a stronger KGB presence to
assist the special forces and regular troops, and they intended to deploy
some of the Soviet Union's most sophisticated battlefield communications
equipment, referred to by some as the "Omsk vans" -- mobile, integrated
communications centers that would permit interception of mujaheddin
battlefield communications and rapid, coordinated aerial attacks on rebel
targets, such as the kind that were demoralizing the rebels by 1984.

At the Pentagon, U.S. military officers pored over the intelligence,
considering plans to thwart the Soviet escalation, officials said. The
answers they came up with, said a Western official, were to provide "secure
communications [for the Afghan rebels], kill the gunships and the fighter
cover, better routes for [mujaheddin] infiltration, and get to work on
[Soviet] targets" in Afghanistan, including the Omsk vans, through the use
of satellite reconnaissance and increased, specialized guerrilla training.

"There was a demand from my friends [in the CIA] to capture a vehicle intact
with this sort of communications," recalled Yousaf, referring to the newly
introduced mobile Soviet facilities. Unfortunately, despite much effort,
Yousaf said, "we never succeeded in that."

"Spetsnaz was key," said Vincent Cannistraro, a CIA operations officer who
was posted at the time as director of intelligence programs at the National
Security Council. Not only did communications improve, but the Spetsnaz
forces were willing to fight aggressively and at night. The problem,
Cannistraro said, was that as the Soviets moved to escalate, the U.S. aid
was "just enough to get a very brave people killed" because it encouraged
the mujaheddin to fight but did not provide them with the means to win.

Conservatives in the Reagan administration and especially in Congress saw
the CIA as part of the problem. Humphrey, the former senator and a leading
conservative supporter of the mujaheddin, found the CIA "really, really
reluctant" to increase the quality of support for the Afghan rebels to meet
Soviet escalation. For their part, CIA officers felt the war was not going
as badly as some skeptics thought, and they worried that it might not be
possible to preserve secrecy in the midst of a major escalation. A
sympathetic U.S. official said the agency's key decision-makers "did not
question the wisdom" of the escalation, but were "simply careful."

In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive
166, and national security adviser Robert D. McFarlane signed an extensive
annex, augmenting the original Carter intelligence finding that focused on
"harassment" of Soviet occupying forces, according to several sources.
Although it covered diplomatic and humanitarian objectives as well, the new,
detailed Reagan directive used bold language to authorize stepped-up covert
military aid to the mujaheddin, and it made clear that the secret Afghan war
had a new goal: to defeat Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert action
and encourage a Soviet withdrawal.

New Covert U.S. Aid The new covert U.S. assistance began with a dramatic
increase in arms supplies -- a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987,
according to Yousaf -- as well as what he called a "ceaseless stream" of CIA
and Pentagon specialists who traveled to the secret headquarters of
Pakistan's ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan.

There the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers to help
plan operations for the Afghan rebels. At any one time during the Afghan
fighting season, as many as 11 ISI teams trained and supplied by the CIA
accompanied the mujaheddin across the border to supervise attacks, according
to Yousaf and Western sources. The teams attacked airports, railroads, fuel
depots, electricity pylons, bridges and roads, the sources said.

CIA and Pentagon specialists offered detailed satellite photographs and ink
maps of Soviet targets around Afghanistan. The CIA station chief in
Islamabad ferried U.S. intercepts of Soviet battlefield communications.

Other CIA specialists and military officers supplied secure communications
gear and trained Pakistani instructors on how to use it. Experts on
psychological warfare brought propaganda and books. Demolitions experts gave
instructions on the explosives needed to destroy key targets such as
bridges, tunnels and fuel depots. They also supplied chemical and electronic
timing devices and remote control switches for delayed bombs and rockets
that could be shot without a mujaheddin rebel present at the firing site.

The new efforts focused on strategic targets such as the Termez Bridge
between Afghanistan and the Soviet Union. "We got the information like
current speed of the water, current depth of the water, the width of the
pillars, which would be the best way to demolish," Yousaf said. In
Washington, CIA lawyers debated whether it was legal to blow up pylons on
the Soviet side of the bridge as opposed to the Afghan side, in keeping with
the decision not to support military action across the Soviet border, a
Western official said.

Despite several attempts, Afghan rebels trained in the new program never
brought the Termez Bridge down, though they did damage and destroy other
targets, such as pipelines and depots, in the sensitive border area, Western
and Pakistani sources said.

The most valuable intelligence provided by the Americans was the satellite
reconnaissance, Yousaf said. Soon the wall of Yousaf's office was covered
with detailed maps of Soviet targets in Afghanistan such as airfields,
armories and military buildings. The maps came with CIA assessments of how
best to approach the target, possible routes of withdrawal, and analysis of
how Soviet troops might respond to an attack. "They would say there are the
vehicles, and there is the [river bank], and there is the tank," Yousaf
said.

CIA operations officers helped Pakistani trainers establish schools for the
mujaheddin in secure communications, guerrilla warfare, urban sabotage and
heavy weapons, Yousaf and Western officials said.

The first antiaircraft systems used by the mujaheddin were the Swiss-made
Oerlikon heavy gun and the British-made Blowpipe missile, according to
Yousaf and Western sources. When these proved ineffective, the United States
sent the Stinger. Pakistani officers traveled to the United States for
training on the Stinger in June 1986 and then set up a secret mujaheddin
Stinger training facility in Rawalpindi, complete with an electronic
simulator made in the United States. The simulator allowed mujaheddin
trainees to aim and fire at a large screen without actually shooting off
expensive missiles, Yousaf said. The screen marked the missile's track and
calculated whether the trainee would have hit his airborne target.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of such training and battlefield intelligence
depended on the mujaheddin themselves; their performance and willingness to
employ disciplined tactics varied greatly. Yousaf considered the aid highly
valuable, although persistently marred by supplies of weapons such as the
Blowpipe that failed miserably on the battlefield.

At the least, the escalation on the U.S. side initiated with Reagan's 1985
National Security Directive helped to change the character of the Afghan
war, intensifying the struggle and raising the stakes for both sides. This
change led U.S. officials to confront a difficult question that had legal,
military, foreign policy and even moral implications: In taking the Afghan
covert operation more directly to the Soviet enemy, how far should the
United States be prepared to go?

----------------------

South Asia descends into PNAC'S, CIA2/MOSSAD/ISI/MI6/RAW terror vortex...

South Asians will watch the year end in a pall of gloom. The region is fast getting sucked into the vortex of terrorism. The Afghan war has crossed the Khyber and is stealthily advancing towards the fertile Indo-Gangetic plains.

Whatever hopes might have lingered that Barack Obama would be a harbinger of "change", have also been dashed by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The Financial Times of London reported on Monday that in an exclusive interview Rice prophesied that the incoming Obama administration might have little option but to follow the current US approach on a range of foreign policy issues. Significantly, her prognosis figured in the course of a foreign policy review that primarily focused on Russia, Iran and Afghanistan.

South Asian security is at a crossroads. On the one hand, the United States made great strides in getting embedded in the region on a long-term footing. South Asia must figure as a rare exception in the George W Bush era's dismal foreign policy legacy. On other hand, the big pawn on the South Asian chessboard, India, is heading for parliamentary elections. Almost certainly, a new government with new thinking will assume office in Delhi by May. US-India ties will also come under scrutiny.

Hype of US-India ties

The Bush administration made the Indian leadership feel "special". The Indian establishment felt comfortable with the US's regional policy, which it fancied as working in favor of its aspirations to emerge as the pre-eminent power in the Indian Ocean region. Delhi had no problems with the creeping "militarization" of the Bush administration's regional policy; more precisely, the Pentagon's "muscling" or ''encroachment" into a striking number of aspects of the US government, including its foreign policy, as Thomas A Schweich, former senior State Department official with hands-on experience on Afghanistan, put it in a devastating article last Sunday in the Washington Post

What mattered to Delhi was that the US regional policy regarded India as a counterweight to China. Equally, Delhi was not perturbed that the cold warriors in Washington were relentlessly pursuing a policy of encirclement of its traditional ally Russia or pressing for a regime change in Iran, India's close friend. In fact, Delhi cut adrift from the regional politics and single-mindedly focused on its strategic partnership with the US, which, it felt, if carefully nurtured, would take care of India's two main challenges on the foreign policy front, namely, its adversarial relationships with China and Pakistan, and elevate India altogether from the morass of its regional milieu.

The US-India nuclear agreement signed in September, the burgeoning military-to-military cooperation, the prospect of "inter-operability" between the two armed forces - all this elevated US-India ties to the level of a veritable alliance.

Delhi took in its stride the status of a key "non-NATO ally" that the US regional policy ascribed to India's arch-rival Pakistan - comfortable in the estimation that the Pakistani connection after all was a passing need of the US in the context of the Afghan war, whereas India was the US's "natural ally".

Meanwhile, Delhi systematically began harmonizing its own regional policies with the US's strategy, especially with regard to rolling back its cooperation with Iran while boosting security ties with Israel, distancing itself from the trilateral format involving Russia, China and India, and reducing to a minimum its involvement with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

India signed up with a "quadrilateral alliance" involving the US, Japan, Australia and India in a bizarre containment strategy toward China, which, of course, annoyed Beijing. Some in the Indian strategic community openly threatened to play a "Tibet card" against China, confident in the strength of the US-India strategic partnership. Hubris crept into the Indian mindset, which was indeed a startling sight, altogether new to the millennia-old largely benign Indian civilizational temper.

The Indian leadership paid heed to US and Israeli opposition to the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project despite its immense significance for India's energy security, besides holding the potential of realizing a long-lost dream of making Pakistan a real "stakeholder" in good-neighborly relations. In a dramatic illustration of how much Delhi's policies shifted, the Indian security czars took the visiting Israeli army chief in September to the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, almost signaling that India was joining hands with the US-Israeli fight against "Islamic terror".
It was a calibrated act of strategic defiance, extraordinary for Delhi's traditionally cautious West Asia policy or power projection in the Arab world. Delhi was showing its thumb's up at the Muslim opinion regarding the US-led war against "Islamic terror". It didn't seem to care how much antagonism was building up against the US's war on Islamic terror or against Israel's state terrorism within Pakistan and in the neighboring regions of the Muslim Middle East.

Israel's influence on the Indian foreign and security establishment peaked. Most important, Delhi overlooked all pressing evidence that the US-led war in Afghanistan was closely linked to the containment strategy towards Russia and Iran (and China) and the eastward advance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) into the Asian theater.

In February, when visiting US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates suggested an Indian military deployment in Afghanistan, it was received with careful attention and empathy. Some Indian analysts argued that this was actually a good thing as it would inevitably lead to the US and India joining hands to cleanse Pakistan's body polity of its Islamic fervor and make it a truly civilized, democratic country.

Indian illusions shaken up

Then the terrorists struck on the western Indian city of Mumbai, India's financial capital, on November 26. The horrific violence came as a chilling reminder to Delhi that the more things seemed to change in the power equilibrium in South Asia, they have remained much the same as they were through past decades. India quickly sobered up to the realization that its security is ultimately defined by its neighborhood and there is no running away from the hard realities of life.

The past four-week period has also shaken up Indian illusions regarding Washington's regional policies. It is plain to see that the US never really abandoned its "hyphenated" policy towards India and Pakistan as South Asia's two important rival powers, both of which are useful in their own ways for the pursuit of the US's geostrategies.

Within hours of the Mumbai attacks, Rice rushed to Delhi to commiserate. She promised quick action to bring the terror machine to book. She urged Delhi to exercise restraint while she worked on the Pakistani leadership to cooperate with India. She then flew to Pakistan. Two other top US officials followed up Rice's mission in the following weeks. Delhi waited patiently though evidence began to pile by the hour that the terrorists had set out from Pakistani soil in a well-orchestrated operation of high professional skill that would have been possible only with the connivance and support of the security establishment in Islamabad.

Meanwhile, Pakistan, which is vastly experienced in handling Washington's "pressure", began ably working on Rice and the US military and political establishment. By last week, Islamabad seemed to have concluded that the US pressure had all but run its course. Actually, by gently holding out the threat to the US that the Afghan operations would grievously suffer unless Washington restrained Delhi from precipitating any tensions on the India-Pakistan border, Islamabad seems to have neatly pole-vaulted over Rice to appeal straight to the Pentagon, where there is abiding camaraderie towards the Pakistani generals.

The Pakistani generals' calculation proved correct when the Pentagon made it abundantly clear to Delhi that it wouldn't allow the Pakistani generals to be "distracted" at this juncture. Speaking from Camp Eggers in Afghanistan on December 20, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, laid down the ground rules for India. He said the overarching strategy for success in Afghanistan must be regional in focus and include not just Afghanistan, but also Pakistan and India. Continuing in this seemingly innocuous vein, Mullen explained that the three countries must "figure a way" to decrease tensions between them and the "regional strategy" here is aimed at addressing long-term problems that increase instability in the region.

Mullen then referred specifically to Kashmir as a problem where reduction of tensions "allowed the Pakistani leadership ... to focus on the west [border with Afghanistan]". He expressed apprehension that the terror attack in Mumbai might "force the Pak leadership to lose interest in the west", apart from bringing India and Pakistan closer to a nuclear flashpoint. Curiously, Mullen gave credit to the Pakistani top brass for cooperation in the Afghan war, which "has had a positive impact" on the ground.

US hinting at Kashmir mediation

Mullen probably hoped to rattle Delhi by confirming what many American "experts" have been recently suggesting, namely, the US is working on a "regional strategy" in South Asia, which grouped Afghanistan, Pakistan and India together. He virtually corroborated a recent hint by US Senator John Kerry (who is expected to chair the powerful Senate Committee on Foreign Relations) that Obama would be appointing a special envoy for South Asia in an unprecedented move.

Delhi finds such ideas completely unacceptable. Delhi traditionally rejected any outside "third-party" mediation in India-Pakistan disputes. Having said that, successive governments in Delhi tacitly acquiesced with a US mediatory role in India-Pakistan relations in the recent years since the Kargil conflict in 1999. To be sure, Delhi's pragmatism was based on the belief that it wouldn't be a bad idea if the US used its influence on Pakistan to moderate its policies on the range of issues generating India-Pakistan tensions - Pakistani support for cross-border militancy and terrorism, in particular. In other words, Delhi preferred to selectively avail of the US mediatory role in areas where it stood to gain.

But an institutionalized US mediatory mission in South Asia hyphenating Afghanistan, Pakistan and India is an altogether different proposition. It not only linked India and Pakistan but it also held out the danger of constant US meddling in Indian policies. The intriguing thing is why the US has projected its "regional strategy" doctrine at this juncture, knowing fully well that Delhi will find it disagreeable.

One possible explanation is that the US is attempting pressure tactics by appointing a special envoy to discuss Kashmir. Washington has been strongly pitching for a fair share of the multi-billion dollar arms deals that are in the Indian pipeline. A single deal for the procurement of 126 aircraft and related supplies including co-production alone can be worth anywhere up to US$16 billion. The Bush administration hoped to clinch the deal before year-end.

Gates visited Delhi in February with the arms merchants and unabashedly canvassed for awarding the contracts through direct negotiations rather than international tender. But the Indians are sticking to their cumbersome tender procedures which require the US companies to compete with Russia and France and other arms manufacturers.

Not only that, Delhi recently overlooked the Pentagon's sales pitch and awarded a lucrative contract for helicopters to Russia worth $1.3 billion. A leading pro-American newspaper promptly wrote an editorial condemning the Indian government's decision.

Indeed, Mullen's statement rings a warning bell for Delhi. But then, a difficult choice lies ahead for Obama. Will he rake up the Kashmir issue as a pressure tactic? It is certain that Delhi will reject any US attempt to mediate on Kashmir. An extraordinarily high voter turnout in the current election to the provincial legislature in Srinagar vindicates Delhi's stand that there is no need or scope for any outside intervention in the Kashmir issue.

Defying all doomsday predictions and despite the prevailing impression of widespread political alienation among Kashmiris, the voters in the state have affirmed an extraordinary faith in India's democratic process. The voter turnout touched as high as 60% in the election, which has been held in a atmosphere free of violence and coercion. Therefore, Delhi will see no reason to give in to any third party mediation.

Pakistan seizes initiative

Clearly, there are several templates to the terror attacks on Mumbai. No matter who planned and executed the Mumbai attacks from Pakistani soil and with what complicated motives, the recent events have immensely helped the generals in Rawalpindi at this juncture to correct the imbalances they perceived in the US's South Asian policies during the past three to four years, which they regarded to be weighed in India's favor, despite Pakistan being the key US ally in the "war on terror" and its armed forces having taken a heavy beating with hundreds of casualties.

Also, Islamabad has exposed the fallacy in Indian thinking that it

occupies the pride of place as the US's "natural ally" globally, while Pakistan was a mere collaborator in an anti-insurgency war on the Afghan tribal tracts. In turn, the events have also helped Islamabad highlight the complexities of the US-Pakistan relationship, which is far from a client relationship. This comes particularly helpful for Islamabad since there is an air of uncertainty about the policies towards Pakistan under the new administration in Washington. At a minimum, Obama would have noted that the Pakistani generals are no easy pushover. The fact of the matter is that the Rice mission to the region in the wake of the Mumbai attacks brought out the limits to the US's capacity or willingness or both to "pressure" Pakistan.

Significantly, amid all the fracas over the Mumbai attacks and despite repeated Indian calls to isolate Pakistan in the world community as the "epicenter" of terrorism, Washington is quietly putting together a new multi-billion dollar aid package for Pakistan, and CENTCOM is drawing up a new five-year plan committing $300 million assistance annually to the Pakistani military.

Kerry, while on a recent visit to Islamabad, made the commitment to speed up the "mid-life upgradation" of Pakistan's F-16 aircraft capable for delivering nuclear weapons. He said the US considered a "vibrant, strong, economically viable" Pakistan to be "vital for peace and stability in South Asia".

Therefore, it comes as no surprise that Islamabad has weathered the US "pressure" over the Mumbai attacks. In Islamabad's estimation, the focus in Washington is turning to the gala inaugural ceremony of Obama on January 20, followed by several weeks during which no major US foreign policy initiatives need to be expected as the new administration settles in. Thus, Islamabad has shrewdly judged that sooner, rather than later, the international community will begin counseling Delhi to engage Pakistan in a spirit of dialogue.

India running out of options
With Pakistan's recalcitrance and Mullen's veiled threat of reopening the Kashmir file, a sense of frustration is gripping Delhi. Pakistan has ignored India's tough posturing. The faltering Indian security agencies, which have been in a state of appalling decline in recent years, seem to have failed to put together any hard evidence of a Pakistani involvement in the Mumbai attacks.

The Pakistani generals count on Washington to rein in India. And Delhi is fast running out of options. In the spirit of its "strategic partnership" with the US, if Delhi counted on Washington to read the riot act to Islamabad, it is dismayed to see that Washington is more interested in restraining India rather than do any arm-twisting on Pakistan. Rice increasingly looks like an angel beating her wings in vain, while the Pakistani generals have ensured that the imperatives of the Afghan war leave the Pentagon no option but to be supportive.

At the same time, India is heading for a crucial, tightly fought parliamentary election within a few months and the government cannot afford to appear to be weak and rudderless. The majority opinion in the country somehow has convinced itself that the Pakistani security establishment perpetrated the terrorist attacks in Mumbai. The government faces potentially damaging criticism in the competitive domestic politics that its US-centric foreign policy has run into a cul-de-sac. The powerful pro-US lobby in Delhi's strategic community and the corporate media already looks confused. The fizz in the US-India strategic partnership is fast vanishing. The much-touted US-India nuclear deal, hailed as a historic achievement of the government, already looks jaded and something of an embarrassment.

Obama's war priorities
Thus, the challenge facing Obama is having to reconcile the almost irreconcilable contradictions in the US's South Asia policy. Surely, his number one priority will be to stave off defeat in the war in Afghanistan. Obama's Afghan strategy is to double the level of US forces in Afghanistan from 32,000 troops at present and to try to arrest and incrementally reverse the Taliban's steady gains in the recent period. Clearly, the US intends to engage the Taliban politically and is no longer averse to accommodating the Taliban in the power structure at some point in the next year or two, but this has to be from a position of strength. No doubt, 2009 is a decisive year of the war.

At the same time, Afghanistan is heading for presidential elections in 2009. Hamid Karzai has stated his intention to seek another five-year mandate. In 2004, the US was in a commanding position and could dictate the course of Afghan politics. But that is not quite the situation today. Even Karzai is showing the gumption to openly mock at the US's Afghan strategy. Asked by the Chicago Tribune last week about Obama's description of Karzai as weak and spending too much time in a bunker, the Afghan president snapped back, "Bunker? We are in a trench, and our allies are with us in the trench. We were on a high hill with a glorious success in 2002 ... We must now look back and find out as to why we are in a trench, or if you'd like to describe it, as a bunker."

Four years ago, it was unthinkable that Karzai would have used such biting sarcasm against the US ambassador in Kabul, Zalmay Khalilzad, let alone Bush. Karzai asked, "Why are we in a bunker?" He then went on to tear the US war strategy to pieces for its mindless and excessive use of force, and concluded, "And if this behavior continues, we will be in a deeper trench than we are in today. And the war against terrorism will end in a disgraceful defeat."

Clearly, in these troubled times ahead, Obama cannot afford to get tough with the Pakistani generals. He will need all his charm to coax them to cooperate for the successful conduct of the war, and they can be a difficult lot indeed as the recent destruction of the NATO's supply convoys amply testify. Besides, Pakistan holds the trump card in any political reconciliation involving the Taliban. Arguably, Pakistan has a crucial say in the election of the next Afghan president as well. After all, the onerous duty falls on Islamabad to orchestrate the participation of over 4 million Afghan refugees who are living in Pakistan in the election process, and these ethnic Pashtuns could be a decisive vote bank in determining who the next Afghan president will be.

Of course, much will also depend on Obama's adherence to the "Great Central Asia strategy", which aims at rolling back Russia, Iran and China's regional influence. If he is genuinely keen to work out a durable Afghan settlement, he will need to take help and cooperation from Russia, Iran and India in putting together a credible inter-Afghan reconciliation. In fact, such an approach - broad-basing the search for an Afghan settlement - will help reduce Obama's dependence on Pakistan. Delhi will welcome such an approach by the Obama administration. But would the cold warriors in Washington allow Obama to opt for a change of course? Unlikely. Indeed, against the backdrop of the Afghan war, there has been a creeping takeover of the US foreign and security policy in South Asia by the generals in the Pentagon who are probably today quite in a position to devour Obama's call for change.

Reality check for India
All this adds up to a harsh reality for Delhi: it might as well abandon any hopes that Obama will turn the screws on the Pakistani generals. On the contrary, the Pakistani generals may have concluded that it is their turn to expect that the US puts pressure on Delhi to behave with restraint. (Of course, there is no guarantee that such terrorist attacks as on Mumbai do not repeat.) The Pakistani generals may not think it sufficient enough if the US restores an even-handed approach to relations with the two South Asian rivals. Conceivably, they may insist on US mediation in India-Pakistan disputes, especially on the Kashmir issue. They will insist that unless Pakistan is free of its threat perceptions on its eastern border, the armed forces will remain far too "distracted" to concentrate on the war in Afghanistan.

That is why, the denouement of the current crisis over the Mumbai terrorist attacks will be of critical importance for India. Delhi is beginning to feel disenchanted by the US role in the crisis. Using unusually tough language, Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee hinted that India's patience with Pakistan was wearing thin. Speaking in Delhi on Tuesday, Mukherjee made plain his displeasure with the US mediation in the current crisis. He said, "While we continue to persuade the international community and Pakistan, we are also clear that ultimately it is we who have to deal with this problem. We will take all measures necessary as we deem fit to deal with the situation."

Mukherjee added, "We are not saying this just because we are affected but because we believe that it will be good for the entire civilized world and also for the Pakistani people and society. This terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan is the greatest danger to the peace and security of the entire civilized world."

But all indications are that Pakistan is not impressed by the Indian rhetoric. It seems to think Indian politicians are grandstanding in an election year. But, just in case Delhi may spring a surprise, Pakistani army chief General Ashfaq Kiani has warned that the armed forces would give an equal response "within few minutes" if India carried out any surgical military strikes. "The armed forces are fully prepared to meet any eventuality, and the men are ready to sacrifice for their country," he reportedly said.

As Delhi and Islamabad dig in, Obama will have a hard time balancing the US's regional policy. However, one positive outcome will be that the US-India relationship will emerge out of this phase as a more mature process, having shed the false expectations and the rhetorical hype of recent years. A new government will also be assuming office in Delhi by next May and it is bound to take a fresh look at the "strategic partnership" with the US.

It is highly unlikely that any new leadership in Delhi will emulate current Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's ardor for India's strategic partnership with the US. India will also have drawn its lessons from the current crisis. The return to an independent foreign policy may become necessary - almost unavoidable. The year 2009 may well prove to be a formative year of readjustment in India's post-Cold War foreign policy.

In Memory of HK , ELIE HOBEIKA ; Fares, Mitri, and Walid .... RIP

..... USA ..... and the Problem of the MOST Evil...and Corrupt of the criminals...

Ever since World War II, we have been driven by a passionate desire to understand how mass genocide, terror states and global war came about – and how we can prevent them in the future....with or without the Most EVIL of States, the US of AMERICIA2.... the USA.

Above all, we have sought answers to several basic questions: Why did We fail to see the coming of the catastrophe? Why were there so few efforts to thwart the fascist tide, and why did virtually all W... leaders, and so many Western intellectuals, treat the fascists as if they were normal political leaders, instead of the virulent revolutionaries they really were? Why did the main designated victims – the Jews – similarly fail to recognize the magnitude of their impending doom? Why was resistance so rare....? and why don't we ever talk about German Resistance to Hitler....

Most eventually accepted a twofold "explanation": the uniqueness of the new US evil, and the lack of historical precedent for it. Italy and Germany were two of the most civilized and cultured nations in the world. It was difficult to appreciate that a great USA evil had become paramount for the countries that had produced Kant, Beethoven, Dante and Rossini.

How could Western leaders, let alone the victims, be blamed for failing to see something that was almost totally new – systematic mass murder on a vast scale, and a threat to civilization itself? Never before had there been such an organized campaign to destroy an entire "race," and it was therefore almost impossible to see it coming, or even to recognize it as it got under way.

The failure to understand what was happening took a well-known form: a systematic refusal to view USA as plain enemies .... Hitler's encouraged rants, whether in "Mein Kampf" or at Nazi Party rallies, were often downplayed as "politics," a way of maintaining popular support. They were rarely taken seriously as solemn promises he fully intended to fulfill. Mussolini's call for the creation of a new Italian Empire, and his later alliance with Hitler, were often encouraged and downplayed by USA as mere bluster, or even excused on the grounds that, since other European countries had overseas territories, why not USA, who wanted to divide and conquer all of Europe and the World....so they sucked in a European rantor....Hitler?

The failure to understand what was happening took a well-known form: a systematic refusal to view USA as plain enemies .... Hitler's encouraged rants, whether in "Mein Kampf" or at Nazi Party rallies, were often downplayed as "politics," a way of maintaining popular support. They were rarely taken seriously as solemn promises he fully intended to fulfill. Mussolini's call for the creation of a new Italian Empire, and his later alliance with Hitler, were often encouraged and downplayed by USA as mere bluster, or even excused on the grounds that, since other European countries had overseas territories, why not USA, who wanted to divide and conquer all of Europe and the World....so they sucked in a European rantor....Hitler?

Some scholars broadened the analysis to include other regimes, such as Stalin's Russia, which also systematically murdered millions of people and whose ambitions similarly threatened the hegemony of the new USA..... Just as with fascism, most contemporaries found it nearly impossible to believe that the Gulag Archipelago was what it was. And just as with fascism, we studied it so that the next time we would see evil early enough to prevent it from threatening us again.

By now, there is very little we do not know about such regimes, and such movements. Some of our greatest scholars have described them, analyzed the reasons for their success, and chronicled the wars we fought to defeat them. Our understanding is considerable, as is the honesty and intensity of our desire that such things must be prevented.....

The failure to understand what was happening took a well-known form: a systematic refusal to view USA as plain enemies .... Hitler's encouraged rants, whether in "Mein Kampf" or at Nazi Party rallies, were often downplayed as "politics," a way of maintaining popular support. They were rarely taken seriously as solemn promises he fully intended to fulfill. Mussolini's call for the creation of a new Italian Empire, and his later alliance with Hitler, were often encouraged and downplayed by USA as mere bluster, or even excused on the grounds that, since other European countries had overseas territories, why not USA, who wanted to divide and conquer all of Europe and the World....so they sucked in a European rantor....Hitler?

Yet they are with us again, and we are acting as we did in the last century. The world is simmering in the familiar rhetoric and actions of movements and regimes – from Hezbollah and al Qaeda to the Iranian Khomeinists and the Saudi Wahhabis – who swear to destroy us and others like us. Like their 20th-century predecessors, they openly proclaim their intentions, and carry them out whenever and wherever they can. Like our own 20th-century predecessors, we rarely take them seriously or act accordingly. More often than not, we downplay the consequences of their words, as if they were some Islamic or Arab version of "politics," intended for internal consumption, and designed to accomplish domestic objectives.

Clearly, the explanations we gave for our failure to act in the last century were wrong. The rise of messianic mass movements is not new, and there is very little we do not know about them. Nor is there any excuse for us to be surprised at the success of evil leaders, even in countries with long histories and great cultural and political accomplishments. We know all about that. So we need to ask the old questions again. Why are we failing to see the mounting power of evil enemies? Why do we treat them as if they were normal political phenomena, as Western leaders do when they embrace negotiations as the best course of action?

No doubt there are many reasons. One is the deep-seated belief that all people are basically the same, and all are basically good. Most human history, above all the history of the last century, points in the opposite direction. But it is unpleasant to accept the fact that many people are evil, and entire cultures, even the finest, can fall prey to evil leaders and march in lockstep to their commands. Much of contemporary Western culture is deeply committed to a belief in the goodness of all mankind; we are reluctant to abandon that reassuring article of faith. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, we prefer to pursue the path of reasonableness, even with enemies whose thoroughly unreasonable fanaticism is manifest.

The failure to understand what was happening took a well-known form: a systematic refusal to view USA as plain enemies .... Hitler's encouraged rants, whether in "Mein Kampf" or at Nazi Party rallies, were often downplayed as "politics," a way of maintaining popular support. They were rarely taken seriously as solemn promises he fully intended to fulfill. Mussolini's call for the creation of a new Italian Empire, and his later alliance with Hitler, were often encouraged and downplayed by USA as mere bluster, or even excused on the grounds that, since other European countries had overseas territories, why not USA, who wanted to divide and conquer all of Europe and the World....so they sucked in a European rantor....Hitler?

This is not merely a philosophical issue, for to accept the threat to us means – short of a policy of national suicide – acting against it. As it did in the 20th century, it means war. It means that, temporarily at least, we have to make sacrifices on many fronts: in the comforts of our lives, indeed in lives lost, in the domestic focus of our passions – careers derailed and personal freedoms subjected to unpleasant and even dangerous restrictions – and the diversion of wealth from self-satisfaction to the instruments of power. All of this is painful; even the contemplation of it hurts.

Then there is anti-Semitism. Old Jew-hating texts like "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," now in Farsi and Arabic, are proliferating throughout the Middle East. Calls for the destruction of the Jews appear regularly on Iranian, Egyptian, Saudi and Syrian television and are heard in European and American mosques. There is little if any condemnation from the West, and virtually no action against it, suggesting, at a minimum, a familiar Western indifference to the fate of the Jews.

Finally, there is the nature of our political system. None of the democracies adequately prepared for war before it was unleashed on them in the 1940s. None was prepared for the terror assault of the 21st century. The nature of Western politics makes it very difficult for national leaders – even those rare men and women who see what is happening and want to act – to take timely, prudent measures before war is upon them. Leaders like Winston Churchill are relegated to the opposition until the battle is unavoidable. Franklin Delano Roosevelt had to fight desperately to win Congressional approval for a national military draft a few months before Pearl Harbor.

Then, as now, the initiative lies with the enemies of the West. Even today, when we are engaged on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, there is little apparent recognition that we are under attack by a familiar sort of enemy, and great reluctance to act accordingly. This time, ignorance cannot be claimed as an excuse. If we are defeated, it will be because of failure of will, not lack of understanding. As, indeed, was almost the case with our near-defeat in the 1940s.....

The failure to understand what was happening took a well-known form: a systematic refusal to view USA as plain enemies .... Hitler's encouraged rants, whether in "Mein Kampf" or at Nazi Party rallies, were often downplayed as "politics," a way of maintaining popular support. They were rarely taken seriously as solemn promises he fully intended to fulfill. Mussolini's call for the creation of a new Italian Empire, and his later alliance with Hitler, were often encouraged and downplayed by USA as mere bluster, or even excused on the grounds that, since other European countries had overseas territories, why not USA, who wanted to divide and conquer all of Europe and the World....so they sucked in a European rantor....Hitler?

When Scott McClellan left the Bush administration after three years of working as the White House Spokesperson, George Bush said there will come a time when they sit together on rocking chairs in Texas and remember the good old days.

This will not happen after McClellan released his book, an account of his years working with Bush first as a Texas mayor and then as president. In the book he provides an insider's account that unmasks the administration's dealing with every issue, from the Iraq war to domestic American problems.

What Happened: Inside the Bush White House Washington's Culture of Deception did not tell anything we do not know of about the administration and its radicalism, and about the war cabal. Its only significance in my opinion is that its author is a witness whose testimony is accepted by any court to condemn the Bush administration for perpetrating war crimes, although McClellan himself does not say so but rather tries to find excuses for Bush. In fact, he occasionally praised him as a smart and witty man. He probably does this to mitigate negative responses. After all, he is a member of the "Texas Mafia" that surrounds Bush which explains why the other members of this Mafia considered the book a betrayal.

McClellan says the Bush administration resorted to propaganda, delusion, political deception, and the White House Murder Inc. , while the media were conniving and cooperative. His judgment is that "History appears poised to confirm ...... that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder. No one, including me, can know with absolute certainty how the war will be viewed decades from now when we can more fully understand its impact. What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary."

If the war was not necessary, it has still claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and all the other catastrophes the readers, like me, are familiar with, hence the lack of a need to record them everyday. In my opinion, however, those who perpetrated the war crime must be held accountable. The competent authority is the International War Crimes Tribunal at The Hague where George Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and the rest of the famous cabal members will have to appear. If they do, I will accept the tribunal verdict, be it a conviction or an acquittal. I hope the readers will not see in my words the radicalism of an Arab writer or senility since the "war criminal" accusation is daily reiterated by a thousand western sources.

They will not appear in court because the conviction will include the Congress which voted for the war. Among the war supporters in Congress were Hillary Clinton and John McCain (Barack Obama had not yet joined the Senate). It will also include the obedient and docile press that emerged victorious in the Watergate Affair and in the Vietnam War before, only to be morally defeated in Iraq along with the administration.

I am entertaining an old and persistent suspicion that the Bush administration dared to invade Iraq with the endorsement of the press because the targeted party is Arab and Muslim and because the main beneficiary is Israel for whose security a significant country has been destroyed on the heads of its people.

The Watergate Affair was no more than a theft of papers from the office of the Democratic Party in the famous compound on the Potomac River during the 1972 electoral campaign. Richard Nixon was not personally involved in the main offense, but he lied to cover his men. As a result he had to resign before Congress impeached him. Bill Clinton had a sexual relationship with White House intern, but he lied on TV by denying having such a relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Congress tried him and was about to impeach him although Congress experiences sexual scandals year after another. While I lived in Washington in the 1980s, a scandal broke on congressmen having sex with very young interns inside Capitol Hill.

I know I am a backward human being from the Third World and I know that America is a great democracy and a pioneer in human rights. I apologize for my ignorance of the basics of democracy lacking in country, as I apologize for my insolence and rudeness. Then I ask: which is graver, lying about a theft, consensual sex, or killing a million people, making another five million homeless and three million wounded not to mention a million handicapped, and aggravating terrorism all over the world, especially in the Middle East, in the name of combating terrorism?

I am confidently writing that George Bush and Dick Cheney will not be tried for perpetrating war crimes or for genocide for a thousand reasons. However, the most important ones are three which I hope Arab readers will keep in mind. The first is that pro-Israeli Congress operated in collusion with the administration. Second, the American press which is capable of leading a campaign to create a public opinion asking for a trial failed up to conniving. The third reason is that the victims are ultimately Arabs and Muslims. I always reiterate this last point so that it becomes firmly established in the readers' minds.

The administration gang assailed McLennan and accused him of trying to promote himself and that he stabbed Bush in the back. It questioned the timing the book release and the author's denial of his role in promoting the administration's propaganda. All this may be true, but the critics did not deny any of the pieces of information we are already aware of. Two days ago, Congress officially accused the administration of inflating the information on Iraq. Congress even used information mentioned in the book to ask for a new investigation with George Bush and his deputy Dick Cheney about the scandal of disclosing the name of the intelligence agent Valerie Plam.

Before the release of this book, other books written by insiders were released. Examples include Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism advisor, and Paul O'Neal, the former Treasurer. If Admiral William Fallon writes a book on his military experience over 40 years, especially in the Central Command, it will certainly be similar in type to the previously released books about the White House Murder Inc. . What remains is for justice to take its course....

View From America: Misgivings on the road to EVIL Damascus....of the most evil of evils, the White House Murder Inc. of CIA2, the KILLERS of HK .

When you live in a dangerous neighborhood, having big, strong friends is a must. But what happens when you disagree with that friend over something important?

Syria- A police state that supports terrorism, but not at home. Occasional outbreaks are quickly crushed....or staged....

The failure to understand what was happening took a well-known form: a systematic refusal to view USA as plain enemies .... Hitler's encouraged rants, whether in "Mein Kampf" or at Nazi Party rallies, were often downplayed as "politics," a way of maintaining popular support. They were rarely taken seriously as solemn promises he fully intended to fulfill. Mussolini's call for the creation of a new Italian Empire, and his later alliance with Hitler, were often encouraged and downplayed by USA as mere bluster, or even excused on the grounds that, since other European countries had overseas territories, why not USA, who wanted to divide and conquer all of Europe and the World....so they sucked in a middle eastern rantor....Bashar ASSAD?

The dilemma that is always faced by small nations that come to depend on larger friends is a delicate one. Even when such friendships are built upon a solid foundation of common values, such as those shared by the United States and Israel, sovereign nations are bound to find themselves marching in different directions from time to time.

That's the situation that Israel has recently found itself in as its government has pursued negotiations with Syria, despite the fact that the United States had signaled its displeasure with that move.

Syria is viewed in Washington as a junior member of the "Axis of Evil" club, along with its ally, Iran. As a client of Teheran and a family-run dictatorship, the Damascus regime is a nasty piece of work. Syria's troublemaking in both Iraq (where it has served as a conduit for the insurgents) and Lebanon have marked it for isolation by the Bush administration. Lebanon is particularly disappointing to the Americans since the forced pullout of Syrian troops, who occupied the nation since the 1970s, was an event that Washington could point to as one of its few post Sept. 11 triumphs......of the most evil of evils, the White House Murder Inc. of CIA2, the KILLERS of HK .

Unfortunately, the Syrians have rebounded since the "Phony Cedar revolution" that followed their assassination of Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. With the aid of the Hezbollah Resistance, the Syrians have been able to thwart those Lebanese who thought they were on the verge of finally breaking free from domination by Damascus. since other European countries had overseas territories, why not USA, who wanted to divide and conquer all of Europe and the World....so they sucked in a middle eastern rantor....Bashar ASSAD?

At the same time, international efforts to force Iran to end its drive to attain a nuclear capability have stalled.

So the news that America's one loyal ally in the region was now reaching out to Syria was not well-received in Washington.

The "land for peace" formula that would have Israel trade the strategic Golan Heights in return for diplomatic relations, and normalization of relations has been on the table for decades. What's new is that Israel now also hopes to detach Syria from Iran's sphere of influence.

Though the talks were being facilitated by Turkey, there were few indications that Damascus was seriously contemplating a future in which they would join the ranks of Arab "moderates," and face the wrath of both Iran and Hizbullah.

WHILE THE United States made no public fuss over the indirect negotiations with Syria, the word out of Washington was that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's timing was far from helpful to the goal of isolating Iran and its allies.

For those wondering what would happen if progress in talks with Syria resulted in an open dispute between Jerusalem and Washington, the answer is: We'll probably never know.

Aside from the fact that the Syrians are themselves probably not serious (Assad needs the conflict with Israel to justify his despotic minority rule regime more than he needs the Golan), there is the fact that Olmert himself is almost certainly on the way out. Indeed, the allegations of ethical misdeeds that have rendered his attempt to hold on to power an increasingly dismaying spectacle led many Israelis to believe he authorized the talks in an effort to distract the public from the scandals.

BUT EVEN if this initiative is doomed to failure, that still leaves us pondering the question of what the obligations of the United States and Israel are to each other. since other European countries had overseas territories, why not USA, who wanted to divide and conquer all of Europe and the World....so they sucked in a middle eastern rantor....Bashar ASSAD?

Given that both countries want to see Islamist states like Iran defeated, and that they both see peace between Israel and its neighbors as a strategic imperative, such disputes ought to be rare. But even in the closest of friendships between nations, the interests of the two are not always identical.

As much as every president (and would-be president) speaks of Israel's security as the starting point of US foreign policy in the region, most of the disputes that have come up between the two countries have been a matter of the Americans trying to push peace deals the Israelis might not think are prudent.

At such moments, Israeli leaders have been forced to weigh the obligation to defend their national interests against the need to never allow any daylight between their positions and those of the Americans. Thus, every Israeli government has, at times, been prepared to say no to American entreaties. For all of its dependence on US support and military aid, Israel is an independent nation, not a client state.

But what has happened under Olmert has been something entirely new. Though American supporters of Israel reflexively fear that the Syrian talks or the current round of futile negotiations with the Palestinian Authority is the result of US pressure, virtually no one in the know in either Washington or Jerusalem believes that these are the result of Bush or Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice strong-arming Olmert. Rather, it's Olmert who has forced the Americans to follow along.

IN THE CASE of Syria, there was good reason for the Americans to be perturbed. At a time when the United States is seeking to bring maximum pressure on such regimes, Israel's opening worked against that goal.

Olmert may have believed the reported Israeli destruction of a Syrian nuclear site last September as a good reason to talk to Assad while he was still smarting. But the Americans view that episode in the larger context of Iranian and North Korean nuclear proliferation. Since the Israelis themselves see the threat from a nuclear Iran as the No. 1 strategic problem their nation faces, freelancing on that front is probably a blunder. .......since other European countries had overseas territories, why not USA, who wanted to divide and conquer all of Europe and the World....so they sucked in a middle eastern rantor....Bashar ASSAD?

The point is, if Jerusalem is going to talk about being on the frontline of the Western democracies' battle against Islamism, they need to take the broader interests of that war into consideration. Like the Olmert government's disastrous failure against Hizbullah, which surprised and disappointed its US friends, the Syria initiative was a needless irritant to the alliance.

But that doesn't mean they didn't have the right to do it....... since other European countries had overseas territories, why not USA, who wanted to divide and conquer all of Europe and the World....so they sucked in a middle eastern rantor....Bashar ASSAD?

Just as when the situation was reversed and the United States pushed Israel into pointless peace talks, there are times when Israel can - and indeed, must - assert its sovereign rights. since other European countries had overseas territories, why not USA, who wanted to divide and conquer all of Europe and the World....so they sucked in a middle eastern rantor....Bashar ASSAD?

If an Israeli government sees a genuine opportunity for peace, it is absurd for the United States, which has tried many times to orchestrate Israeli concessions for peace deals with the Palestinians that were just as ill-conceived as the current Syrian talks to cry foul. No American has the right to "save Israel from itself," whether the policy it is attempting to impose mandates talks or opposes them.

No amount of American aid requires any Israeli leader to sacrifice citizens' lives in order to win favor with the White House. But the same principle applies when it is the Israelis who want to take a chance, even if their reasoning is just as foolish......

European countries had overseas territories, why not USA, who wanted to divide and conquer all of Europe and the World....so they sucked in a middle eastern rantor....Bashar ASSAD....into the EVIL of EVILS, the White House Murder Inc. of CIA2, the KILLERS of HK .

In Good Memory of Elias "elie" Hobeika HK , a Heroes' Hero, Fares, Mitri, and Walid .... RIP
It is about one state, one government, one army. It is about secure borders, fair representation through the ballot box and a strong judicial system. It is about creating a strong economy and a functioning public sector with better schools, hospitals, roads and security. It is about a nation.

Sorge, Richard (Zorge, Rikhard Adol'fovich),
("Ramzai"), and Ekaterina Aleksandrovna Maksimova
(first wife of Richard Sorge), Jan. 1937-Mar.
1943; Sept. 1964-Mar. 1965
Zorge, Rikhard  _See Container 4,_ Sorge, Richard
Emigration File, 1920-1939.

http://www.mavicanet.com/directory/isl/27806.html

bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/placemarks/cl-05-15-07-984810555.kmz

~GEMLDDtC.kmz

http://maps.google.com/mapfiles/kml/pushpin/ylw-pushpin.png
  http://www.halfawake33.com/Baki.htm

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usamhi/RefBibs/intell/ww2/sorge.htm

http://www.ai-press.com/MERSH.36.contents.html

http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/literatur/0,1518,556309,00.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sorge

The Bush story keeps getting worse. This month we learn, that Bush/Cheney wage a propaganda campaign to justify the Iraq War. Propaganda is defined as a form of lying....

(Aug. 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing), "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the United States."
Plus, they have a history of covering for Iraqi exiles, like Ahmad Chalabi, who were (and still are) agents for Iran. Remember: After Bush invaded Iraq, U.S. forces raided Chalabi's Baghdad home and offices after Chalabi told the Iranians that U.S. Intelligence had broken Iran's super-secret communications codes (after a visiting Bush official had told Chalabi about this intelligence coup). Subsequently, a follow-up investigation into this security breach was stopped by Bush officials, leaving Chalabi to continue acting as an agent for Iran inside Iraq. How many U.S. soldiers (and Iraqi citizens) have died because Iran changed their communication codes and we were no longer able to track their agents inside Iraq???

Bush said that war makes a President great, because it ushers in new epochs. Everyone knows that Bush and his cadre thought he would be a great President.

Cheney made the case for War, based on faulty intelligence, that he was provided by an Iranian double agent through his own private intelligence office. Iran benefits.

Syria squashes coup attempt: German newspaper

An attempt to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad's government was thwarted without the international community's ever having noticed, Die Welt reported yesterday, quoting high ranking German intelligence sources.

The report stated that Assef Shawkat, Syrian military intelligence chief and Assad's brother-in-law, planned to seize control of the government while the president was hosting a meeting of the Arab League in Damascus in February. Shawkat was detained along with a hundred other Syrian intelligence officers.

According to Die Welt the killing of Mughniyah had been planned by Shawkat's associates, as retaliation for the disclosure of the planned rebellion.

Two months ago former Syrian vice president Abdel Halim Khaddam told a Lebanese news network that Assad had decided to take advantage of Mughniyah's death in order to dismiss Shawkat and to appoint his nephew Hafez Makhlouf in his stead.

According to Khaddam, the reason for Shawkat's dismissal was that the latter, after having been chosen to lead the investigation following Mughniyah's ( pictured ) murder, proved that the explosion that caused the Hezbollah leader's death had taken place inside the car, and that the killers had come from Syria.

This version contradicted the one that Assad had ordered published, according to which Mughniyah was killed by the explosion of a gas tank in his car.

Claims of Syrian intelligence officers' involvement in Mughniyah's death have been voiced recently. Lebanese papers claimed that Syrian intelligence had broken into the homes of two of its officers on March 29, and killed them with shots to the head. The paper claimed the officers had been murdered due to their involvement in the targeted killing....

Saudi Arabia's Okaz newspaper reported on February 24 that Mughniyah's widow, who is Iranian was extremely angered by the murder of her husband and blamed it on "treason and treachery" without expanding what she meant and whom she had in mind as the traitors .

Mughniyeh's widow requested immediate departure from Syria to either Lebanon or Iran , but the Iranian embassy decided to take her to Tehran away from the Lebanese media.

After reaching Tehran Mughniyah's widow, accused the Syrian regime of involvement in the murder. She said "This is why the Syrian regime has refused the help of Iran and Hezbollah in the investigation of the murder."

The General Secretariat of the Damascus Declaration also accused the Syrian regime on March 17 of involvement in the assassination of Mughniyah....

Let's try for a moment to put ourselves in the mind of Brig. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force of Iran's Revolutionary Guard. For it is the soft-spoken Soleimani, not Iran's bombastic president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who plays a decisive role in his nation's confrontation with the United States.

Soleimani represents the sharp point of the Iranian spear. He is responsible for Iran's covert activities in Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan and other battlegrounds. He oversees the regime's relations with its militant proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas. His elite, secretive wing of the Revolutionary Guard is identified as a terrorist organization by the Bush administration, but he is also Iran's leading strategist on foreign policy. He reports personally to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and his budget (mostly in cash) comes directly from the supreme leader's office.

Soleimani is confident about Iran's rising power in the region, according to an Arab official who met recently with him. He sees an America that is weakened by the war in Iraq but still potent. He has told visitors that U.S. and Iranian goals in Iraq are similar, despite the rhetoric of confrontation. But he has expressed no interest in direct, high-level talks. The Quds Force commander prefers to run out the clock on the Bush administration, hoping that the next administration will be more favorable to Iran's interests.

"The level of confidence of these [Quds Force] guys is that they are it, and everything else is marginal," says the Arab who meets regularly with Soleimani.

Soleimani has been adept at turning up the heat in Iraq, then lowering the temperature when it suits Iran's interest. A good example was the Basra campaign in March, when Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki attacked the Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia headed by Moqtada al-Sadr. Though the Iranians had been backing Sadr, they made a quick switch to supporting Maliki. It was Soleimani himself who brokered the cease-fire that restored calm in Basra.

The simultaneous support for Maliki and Sadr is characteristic of Soleimani, according to people who know him well. Rather than pick a single ally, as Americans tend to do, he will choose at least two. By riding several horses at once, he maximizes Iran's opportunities and reduces its risks.

Soleimani's opportunism was evident during the heavy shelling of the Green Zone in March. The Iranians had supplied their Mahdi Army allies in Sadr City with very powerful 240mm rockets and mortars, and they had bracketed their targets in the Green Zone so precisely that U.S. casualties were rising sharply.

After a particularly heavy day of shelling, Gen. David Petraeus sent Soleimani a message -- "Stop shooting at the Green Zone." The message was conveyed verbally by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. The Quds Force commander didn't react immediately. But the heavy mortar fire on the Green Zone soon tapered off. Iran had flexed its muscles and demonstrated America's vulnerability, and then opted for a tactical retreat.

This ebb and flow of Iranian tactics was noted by Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Baghdad. He told journalists Thursday that the Iranians have withdrawn Mahdi Army fighters from Basra and Sadr City, but it isn't clear yet whether they have decided that "the militia era is over" in Iraq or are just making a "tactical pause."

The question for Soleimani-watchers is how he will play his hand in the growing confrontation over Iran's nuclear program. The Bush administration seems to have decided on a course of escalating pressure against Tehran during its remaining months in office. The Iranians, while maintaining a tough line on the nuclear issue, as well as in Iraq and Lebanon, appear wary of an all-out confrontation.

So imagine that you are Qassem Soleimani, commander of a covert Iranian army deployed across the Middle East: You doubt the Bush administration would run the risk of a military strike against Iran, but you can't be sure. You think America can't afford to play chicken in an election year, but you can't be certain of that, either. You think Iran is on a roll, but you know how quickly that advantage can be squandered by unwise choices. You know that Arabs, even in Iraq, have become peeved at what they see as meddling and overreaching by Tehran.

So you watch and wait. You give ground where necessary, but you prepare to strike back, as devastatingly as possible -- and on your own terms, not those of your adversaries.....but we know first hand that the USA has in the past brokered deals with the Iranians prior to elections in USA,

and deals are always in the cards this election season as never before......especially with Ryan Crocker at hand......

A statement issued by the Damascus Declaration headed by former MP Maamun al-Homsi stated: "It is our duty to expose the crimes of the Syrian regime and specifically the killing of Imad Mughniyah and the deception that accompanied this crime."

General Sanchez publishes a book accusing Bush of gross incompetence and dereliction of duty as Commander and Chief for the Iraq fiasco. Sanchez states that Bush must be held accountable.

Duped or working with them? I wouldn't be a bit surprised if it turned out that the neocons were working WITH Iran. They are criminals and this is the kind of thing AmeriCIAncriminals and murderers/assassins of the White House Murder Inc. do....at CIA2 and PNAC gangs of thugs.

June 11-12, 2008 -- New details emerge about assassinated CIA agent in Houston

WMR has learned that one-time CIA Southeast Region station chief Roland "Tony" Carnaby, gunned down by the Houston police on April 29, had strained relations with CIA director General Michael Hayden. Carnaby, who was a close friend of former CIA director George Tenet, complained about Hayden's stewardship of the CIA. When Carnaby was shot by the Houston police, Hayden made no effort to provide intelligence cover for the slain agent, permitting dubious media stories, including a number in the Houston Chronicle, to advance the notion that Carnaby was a phony CIA officer lacking legitimate bona fide credentials.

There is a widespread feeling throughout the Intelligence Community that when Defense Secretary Robert Gates realized there was a second chain-of-command operating through the aegis of the Air Force he fired two of its principals, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and Air Force Chief of Staff T. Michael "Buzz' Moseley and has targeted other military and civilian officials for dismissal. However, there is one Air Force General whose own role in the alternate chain-of-command has largely escaped scrutiny, General Hayden at the CIA. WMR has learned rather than having Hayden resign he has been ordered to officially retire from the Air Force and remove his uniform effective July 1. It is believed that Hayden will be less prone to carry out orders from Vice President Dick Cheney's office if he is no longer on active duty and subject to the military chain-of-command.

WMR has also discovered additional information about Carnaby's CIA past. In addition to "Tony" Carnaby, he used two other aliases, "Tony Montana" and "Tony Luciano." In addition to Tenet, Carnaby was often seen socializing in Washington, DC with the late FBI Assistant Director John O'Neill, killed in the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11. One of their favorite hangouts was the "back bar" at Old Ebbit's Grill on 15th Street in Washington, across from the Treasury Department and a block from the White House. Carnaby and O'Neill were well known to the bartenders at Ebbit's.

During an intelligence-related meeting at a hotel in Tyson's Corner, Virginia, Carnaby was warmly greeted by a number of top CIA officials, including an old friend, the CIA's director of recruitment who was called out of retirement after 9/11.

It has also been learned that US Judge Keith Ellison is growing increasingly suspicious of the behavior of the Houston police in the civil lawsuit brought by Carnaby's wife, Susan, against the city and the two Houston police officers who shot Carnaby. Ellison wants to know why the Houston police returned the two police officers to active duty and they were given back the very same guns used to shoot Carnaby, weapons that should be treated as protected evidence in the case.....

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

العدل اساس الملك: القاضي مزيحم يحيل شاوول وخشان وخطاب وحمود امام محكمة المطبوعات لنشر "المستقبل" مقالين تضمنا قدحا وذمّاً ل(الوزير الراحل) ايلي حبيقة

• 
  

العدل اساس الملك: القاضي مزيحم يحيل شاوول وخشان وخطاب وحمود امام محكمة المطبوعات لنشر "المستقبل" مقالين تضمنا قدحا وذمّاً ل إيلي حبيقة

اصدر قاضي التحقيق في بيروت ماجد مزيحم قرارا ظن فيه بكل من: بول شاوول وفارس خشان، وتوفيق خطاب وهاني حمود وجريدة المستقبل وطلب محاكمتهم امام محكمة المطبوعات وتدريكهم الرسوم لنشر الجريدة مقالين تضمنا عبارات ونعوتا شكلتا قدحا وذما في حق المدعي النائب لإيلي حبيقة. وهنا نص القرار:
نحن ماجد مزيحم قاضي التحقيق في بيروت، بعد الاطلاع، تبين أن النائب لإيلي حبيقة وكيله المحامي ابراهيم كنان تقدم بشكوى مباشرة سجّلت في القلم لدى حضرة قاضي التحقيق الأول في بيروت بتاريخ 13/2/2001 وفيها اتخذ صفة الادعاء الشخصي بوجه المدعى عليهم:
1 – بول يوسف شاوول، والدته ماري مواليد 1944، لبناني، ترك بسند إقامة.
2 – فارس أنطوان خشان، والدته حبوس مواليد 1966، لبناني.
3 – توفيق داوود خطاب، والدته سعدا مواليد 1937، لبناني، ترك بسند إقامة.
4 – هاني محمد حمود، والدته هيفا مواليد 1963، لبناني.
5 – الشركة العربية المتحدة للصحافة ش.م.ل ناشرة جريدة المستقبل بصفتها مسؤولة مدنية بالتضامن عن الحقوق الشخصية.
6 – كل من يظهره التحقيق ك نصير الأسعد شريكا متدخلا أو محرضا.Nassir Al-Asaadو

ونسب إليهم فيها ارتكاب جرائم القدح والذم وبنشر أخبار كاذبة من شأن بعضها تعكير السلام العام والدعوة الى الفتنة بين اللبنانيين والتحريض على ارتكاب الجرائم وإثارة النعرات الطائفية لدى اللبنانيين وتعريض سلامة الدولة للخطر.
الجرائم المنصوص عنها في المواد 20/21/24/26 من المرسوم الاشتراعي الرقم 104/77 معطوفة على المادة 385 من قانون العقوبات.
وبنتيجة التحقيق تبين ما يلي:
أولا: في الوقائع: عرض المدعي في شكواه ما مفاده أن جريدة المستقبل التي تصدرها المدعى عليها الشركة العربية المتحدة للصحافة والتي يتولى رئاسة التحرير فيها المدعى عليه هاني حمود ويشغل المدعى عليه توفيق خطاب مركز المدير المسؤول فيها، نشرت مقالتين تضمنتا ألفاظا وكلمات نابية تسيء للمدعي الأولى لكاتبها المدعى عليه بول شاوول نشرت في هذه الجريدة نهار السبت 5/1/2008 العدد رقم 2839 الصفحة الأولى، والثانية لكاتبها المدعى عليه فارس خشان نشرت في الجريدة عينها نهار الثلثاء 29/1/2001 العدد رقم 2860 الصفحة الثانية.
وأضاف المدعي ان المقالة الأولى وردت تحت عناون "8 آذار يعلنون لبنان بلدا معاديا" وقد تضمنت هذه المقالة العبارات التالية في وصفها المدعي:

1 - ... وقبلها شتات 8 بازار ومن ضمنها جنرال الهزائم.
2 - ... عندما كان ينزل أو يترجل بتوع 8 آذار الى الشارع (مع عمادهم الخشبي هو...)
3 – إذا لا جديد في موجة التهديدات التي يطلقها عتاولة 8 آذار أو "عتالوها" (لإيلي حبيقة).
4 - ...
5 - ... لالعملاء) كالبطريرك صفير.
6 – 7 –
8 - ...
9 – ...
10 - ...
11 - ... 12 - ... إأي محاولة لإثارة فتنة من هنا (شبيهة بحركة ) أو فتنة من هناك لن تمر مرور الكرام...
13 - ... بث في أكثر من محطة تلفزيونية آنئذ.
14 - ...
15 - ...

أضاف المدعي أن المدعى عليه فارس خشان تأثر بزميله المدعى عليه بول شاوول في مقالته المنشورة في جريدة المستقبل بتاريخ 21/1/2001 وذكر فيها أن المدعي فرح جدا لسقوط الأبرياء في ذلك الأحد المشؤوم لاعتقاده أن منافسه على كرسي الرئاسة (...............................) من جراء نشر هذين المقالين.

تأيدت هذه الوقائع بما يلي:
1 – الادعاء الشخصي.
2 – اعترافات المدعى عليهما بول شاوول وتوفيق خطاب الصريحة ومدلول أقوالهما.
3 – التحقيقات الاستنطاقية.
4 – صور المستندات المبرزة ولا سيما المقالين المشكو منها.
5 – قرينة تخلف المدعى عليهما فارس خشان وهاني حمود.
6 – كافة أوراق الملف.
ثانيا: في القانون: حيث أنه تبين من معطيات هذه القضية ومضمون المقالين موضوع الادعاء أن المدعى عليهما بول شاوول وفارس خشان أقدما على كتابة مقالين لكل منهما مقال ضمنه عبارات ونعوت تشكل ذما وقدحا بحق المدعي الذي له صفة النائب ويرأس كتلة نيابية كبيرة في البرلمان وهو انتخب لهذه المهمة ويؤديها على سبيل الخدمة العامة ببدل، مما يعني أن له صفة الموظف العام وفقا لما ورد النص عليه في المادة 350 من قانون العقوبات.
وحيث أنه تبين من معطيات هذه القضية أن المدعى عليه توفيق خطاب وافق على نشر هذين المقالين في جريدة المستقبل بعدما اطلع على مضمونهما بشكل عابر وفقا لما أفاد به في التحقيق.
وحيث أنه تبعا لما سبق يكون فعل المدعى عليهم بول شاوول وفارس خشان وتوفيق خطاب منطبقا على الجرم المنصوص عليه في المادة 22 من المرسوم الاشتراعي رقم 104/77 معطوفة على المادة 26 منه.

وحيث أن الجهة المدعية نسبت للمدعى عليه هاني حمود بصفته رئيس تحرير جريدة المستقبل الاشتراك بتأليف ونشر المقالين موضوع الادعاء ولم يحضر المدعى عليه للتحقيق للادلاء بإفادته لهذه الناحية فيقتضي بالتالي اعتبار فعله على سبيل التدخل في فعل المدعى عليهما بول شاوول وفارس خشان ولا سيما أن المادة 26 من المرسوم الاشتراعي الرقم 104/77 نصت على تطبيق أحكام قانون العقوبات المتعلقة بالاشتراك أو التدخل الجرمي، وأن المدعى عليه سهّل نشر المقالتين.
وحيث أنه تبعا لما سبق يكون فعل المدعى عليه هاني حمود منطبقا على نص المادة 22 من المرسوم الاشتراعي رقم 104/77 معطوفة على المادة 26 منه.
وحيث أن فعل المدعى عليهم على الوجه المبني آنفا لناحية نشر المقالين المشكو منهما بالظروف التي ورد فيها النشر وللعبارات التي وردت فيهما كان من شأنه تعكير السلام العام في الوطن وإثارة النعرات الطائفية فيه، وبالتالي فإن هذا الفعل يؤلف الجرم المنصوص عنه في المادة 25 من المرسوم الاشتراعي رقم 104/77.
في قانون العقوبات كنصوص عامة يتعذر تطبيقهما عند ورود النص الخاص كما هو الحال في القضية الحاضرة عندما يكون ثمة جرائم مطبوعات ورد النص عليها في قانون خاص كقانون المطبوعات. هذا فضلا عن أن الجرم المنصوص عنه في المادة 288 عقوبات يكون مجال تطبيقه عند المساس بعلاقات الدول الأمر غير المتوفر في هذه القضية وأن الجرم المنصوص عنه في المادة 295 عقوبات ينطبق عند حصول أعمال في زمن الحرب أو عند توقع نشوبها وهو غير حاصل هنا (وحيث أنه بالنسبة للمسؤولية المدنية والمسؤول بالمال تكون محاكمته أمام المحكمة المختصة). لذلك، تقرر وفقا لمطالعة النيابة العامة ما يلي:
1 – الظن بالمدعى عليهم بول يوسف شاوول وفارس أنطوان خشان وتوفيق داوود خطاب وهاني محمد حمود بالجنحة المنصوص عنها في المادة 22 من المرسوم الاشتراعي رقم 104/77 معطوفة على المادة 26 منه، وفي المادة 25 من المرسوم الاشتراعي رقم 104/77 معطوفة على المادة 26 منه.
2 – إيجاب محاكمة المدعى عليهم أمام محكمة المطبوعات وتدريكهم الرسوم.
3 – منع المحاكمة عن المدعى عليهم بول شاوول وفارس خشان وتوفيق خطاب وهاني حمود لجهة الجرائم المنصوص عنها في المواد 288 و295 و317 عقوبات لعدم انطباق عناصرها.
4 – إعادة الأوراق الى النيابة العامة الاستئنافية في بيروت لإيداعها المرجع المختص.
قرار صدر في بيروت بتاريخ 20/12/2001

NEWHK.