Have A Last Stroke & Die (Oct.31, 2002 version)




A T.I.P. (Text In Progress) by


Adrian More




Hey Cheney!

On Sunday May 19 2002 you reportedly said more terrorist attacks on U.S. targets were "not a matter of if, but when":
how did you know?

Because U.S. intelligence agents reportedly had intercepted Al Qaeda communications not long before, pointing to 911-size or bigger attacks.

Now, that Qaeda would still be able to mount 911-size or bigger attacks is beyond the pale.

Because "U.S. analysts believe" that "given the military setbacks in Afghanistan and recent arrests of Qaeda personnel in Pakistan, North Africa, the Middle East and Europe… ‘morale among bin Laden�(TM)s dispersed network has gone relatively low�(TM)".

All of this according to a "senior administration official".
So how the hell can you be ranting, Cheney, that Qaeda is about to mount a 911-size or bigger attack?

Moreover, if Qaeda has grown stronger rather than weaker since 911, to the point that it�(TM)s capable of bigger-than-911 attacks, then your “war on terror” has been a total failure, Dick: you killed thousands of innocent Afghanis in vain; you gestapoized America with your terrorist terror laws in vain. So why don�(TM)t you step down right now?

Unless of course "Qaeda" is really Arab for "the u.s. establishment & its western allies".

Anyway, you gave no specifics, as usual. No time, place or methods. Reportedly, you Cheney don�(TM)t know when or where this next 911 is going to happen. How reassuring.

An anonymous "senior administration official" told the New York Times though that the intercepted intelligence relates to Europe, the Arabian Peninsula or the U.S.
So this official is flatly contradicting you, Cheney. Because you said you don�(TM)t know where.
Your official does. Europe, Arabia, U.S.
You don�(TM)t.
Strange.


On June 23, Al Jazeera played a recording, allegedly by Qaeda spokesman Suleiman Abu Ghaith, stating that Osama is ‘alive and well�(TM) and threatening new anti-American attacks.

I thought Bush and you, Cheney, had set out to destroy terrorists and those who harbor them.

So why haven�(TM)t you carpet-bombed Jazeera TV? They are harboring - no worse - they are mass-broadcasting Qaeda�(TM)s terror propaganda.

But you�(TM)ll never do that. Because Jazeera is nothing but a front for YOUR propaganda.
Nothing could help your terrorist tyranny and genocidal wars more than the "Qaeda" monster live on Jazeera.
How else can one explain the absurdity that Jazeera, a Qatar (U.S.-puppet, totalitarian state where the media are under total control) TV, would mass-broadcast terrorist stuff?

And the other absurdity that Abu Ghaith would announce to the world impending "Qaeda" strikes - thus risking to find the enemy on high alert and diminishing "Qaeda"�(TM)s own chances of success?

Downing Street (=Blair), in its Oct. 4, 2001 statement about 911-related "evidence" against Bin Laden (source 1 below), said that among "Qaeda"�(TM)s features was "ABSENCE OF WARNING": "AL-QAEDA GIVES NO WARNING OF TERRORIST ATTACK." (my caps).
Which would be the only logical modus operandi for terrorist plotters.
Now instead we see "Qaeda" allegedly trumpeting its next 911.
Who do you think you�(TM)re fooling, Cheney?

All this becomes plausible ONLY IF JAZEERA + QAEDA + GHAITH + OSAMA & THE REST OF THEM THUGS ARE REALLY WORKING FOR YOU CHENEY - BECAUSE YOU AND YOUR THUGS URGENTLY NEED A NEW 911 (possibly chemical/nuclear/bio) TO JUSTIFY YOUR PLANNED IRAQI HOLOCAUST.

Which implies that if osama�(TM)s really behind 911 then you too are, cheney.
Is this why you haven�(TM)t indicted osama at all, in absentia, for 911?
And it also implies that if "qaeda"�(TM)s behind the Bali massacre, then you too are, cheney.

Your state-terrorist colleague, defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, has already established the desired link next-911/qaida/Iraq:
source 11: "He [Rummy] said [...] al-Qaida leaders may have connections in other countries that already have the technological base for building nuclear weapons.
They have the money [...] Iraq could be such a supplier for al-Qaida or other [...] terrorist groups."

Source 22: "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld repeated earlier assertions about Al Qaeda�(TM)s presence in Iraq, but he declined to elaborate on the evidence." As usual. How timely are these alleged qaedas in Iraq. Right in time to justify another genocidal war on Iraq on behalf of criminal western oil/defense interests.

Iraq�(TM)s prime minister Aziz did confirm a qaeda presence in Iraq, but only in the northern, U.S.-backed Kurdish zone, outside of Saddam�(TM)s control. "Aziz questioned why American officials have not publicly raised the al-Qaida matter with those [U.S.-backed Kurdish] leaders." (Source 22).

Which is no surprise, since qaeda, again if it exists at all, is nothing but a smokescreen for the us/western terrorist regimes.

Rummy-provided evidence that qaida is shopping nuclear with Saddam: zero.
If instead he does have evidence, for example, that qaida has money, why doesn�(TM)t he freeze/seize that money? Not to mention the implication that Bush�(TM)s financial front of the terror war has utterly failed if qaida still has money for nuclear shopping - and 911-size attacks.


Let me just, in passing, reply to a few rhetorical questions by senators Joseph Biden (democrat) & Richard Lugar (republican) (Qs from source 19):

Q. "What threat does Iraq pose to our security?"
A. Proven threat: zero. That�(TM)s why cheney needs to launch the next-911, conveniently pinned on "qaeda"-who bought-the-weapons-of-mass-destruction-from-Saddam.

Q. "How immediate is the danger [to our security from Iraq]?"
A. Proven danger: zero. The only arguable danger to our security is cheney�(TM)s state terror.



The wonderful Dana Milbank of the Washington Post recently unmasked Bush's Iraq lies (source 28):

"President Bush, speaking to the nation this month [October 2002] about the need to challenge Saddam Hussein, warned that Iraq has a growing fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used 'for missions targeting the United States'."

Lie/fabrication.

"Further information revealed that the aircraft lack the range to reach the United States".

"On the matter of the aircraft, a CIA report this month [October 2002] suggested that the fleet was more of an 'experiment' and 'attempt' and labeled it 'a serious threats to Iraq's neighbors and to international military forces in the region' - but said NOTHING ABOUT IT HAVING SUFFICIENT RANGE TO THREATEN THE UNITED STATES." [my caps; caps always mine in subsequent Milbank quotes].

Again let's underscore: no Iraqi threat to the U.S. mainland.
And let's note that even the CIA report is dubious, first because it provides zero evidence; second because to assert that an "experiment" and "attempt" could be "a serious threat" to the region is self-contradictory.

On with Bush's Iraq lies, as reported by Dana Milbank.

"Last month [Sept. 2002], asked if there were new and conclusive evidence of Hussein's nuclear weapons capabilities, Bush cited a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency saying the Iraqis were 'six months away from developing a weapon.' [...] I don't know what more evidence we need."

Lie/fabrication.

"The IAEA did issue a report in 1998, [...] but THE REPORT MADE NO SUCH ASSERTION. It declared: 'Based on all credible information to date, the IAEA HAS FOUND NO INDICATION OF IRAQ HAVING ACHIEVED ITS PROGRAM GOAL OF PRODUCING NUCLEAR WEAPONS OR OF IRAQ HAVING RETAINED A PHYSICAL CAPABILITY FOR THE PRODUCTION OF WEAPON-USEABLE NUCLEAR MATERIAL OR HAVING CLANDESTINELY OBTAINED SUCH MATERIAL.' The report said Iraq had been six to 24 months away from nuclear capability before the 1991 Gulf War."

"The White House said that Bush 'was imprecise on this' and that the source was U.S. intelligence, not the IAEA."

But even if it were so, where's the evidence on which the "U.S. intelligence" assessment of Iraq being "six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon" is based?
Provided evidence: zero - as usual.

On with Dana Milbank's courageous report.
On with Bush's Iraq lies, this time in support of Rummy's baseless "Iraq/Qaeda" link.

"In the president's Oct.7 [2002] speech to the nation from Cincinnati [...] describing contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq, Bush cited 'one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year [...]".

"In the case of the al Qaeda leader receiving medical treatment, U.S. intelligence officials acknowledged that the terrorist, Abu Musab Zarqawi, was no longer in Iraq and that there was no hard evidence Hussein's government knew he was there or had contact with him."

A critical thinker should add that the evidence for Bush's original allegation of Zarqawi in Iraq is... need I say it?

"White House spokesmen said in response that it was 'unrealistic' to assume Iraq authorities did not know of Zarqawi's presence and that Iraq's unmanned aircraft could be launched from ships or trucks outside Iraq."

Bullshit.

First, again: provided evidence for Zarqawi in Iraq is none.

Second, even if Zarqawi had been in Iraq, one must prove beyond doubt that Saddam knew or one can't launch a war on speculation.

It's a lot more "unrealistic" to assume alleged 911 ringleader Mohamed Atta was in the US for 14 months & US authorities didn't know (see my "The Twin Cowards").

Unmanned aircraft launched from ships? Ludicrous! How could Iraq slip a ship w/ unmanned aircraft past the nose of that U.S. navy preserve - the Persian Gulf? Iraq doesn't even have direct access to the sea! And all Iraqi ship movements are under close US monitoring since 1990, and with the military buildup under way in the Gulf it's unrealistic to assume Iraq could slip an aircraft carrier (does it have one at all?) thru the US navy net + satellite/aircraft/intelligence surveillance, sail all the way to within range of the US, and fire off an unmanned aircraft!!!

As for trucks launching Iraqi unmanned aircraft:
- how the hell could such a truck (if it exists at all) arrive within range of the US??

Hey cheney - go tell Bush & his spokesparrots to go screw themselves.

On & on with Bush�(TM)s lies.

"Bush also stated [in his Oct.7 Cincinnati speech] that in 1998, ‘information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.�(TM) He added, ‘Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists�(TM), an alliance that ‘could allow Iraq to attack America without leaving any fingerprints�(TM)."

"Bush�(TM)s statement about the Iraqi nuclear defection, implying such information was current in 1998, was a reference to Khidhir Hamza. But Hamza, though he spoke publicly about his information in 1998, retired from Iraq�(TM)s nuclear program in 1991, fled to the Iraqi north in 1994 and left the country in 1995.
Finally, Bush�(TM)s statement that Iraq could attack ‘on any given day�(TM) with terrorist groups was at odds with congressional testimony by the CIA. The testimony, declassified after Bush�(TM)s speech, rated the possibility as ‘low�(TM) that Hussein would initiate a chemical or biological weapons attack against the United States but might take the ‘extreme step�(TM) of assisting terrorists if provoked by a US attack. "

Therefore the best way to prevent a chemical or biological attack on the US is not to attack Iraq.

Critical thinkers might add that CIA-provided evidence for Iraq possessing chemical or biological weapons amounts to…ya know, reader.


Summing it all up: proven danger to our security from Iraq: NONE.

THERFORE CRITICAL THINKERS MAY ONLY INFER THAT IF THRE�(TM)S A NEW 911 IN THE U.S. OR WESTERN EUROPE BETWEEN NOW (OCT.31, 2002) AND THE IRAQ WAR, IRAQ HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT AND THE MOST LOGICAL LINE OF INQUIRY SHOULD PRIMARILY INVESTIGATE THE US/WESTERN OIL+DEFENSE ESTABLISHMENTS.


Where will you hit this time around, Dick? I mean, after your Bali massacre? [See below for arguments for cheney�(TM)s responsibility for Bali].
Europe? (There�(TM)s too many anti-Iraq-war people still left there); the U.S. again? Both? I guess it depends on the approval ratings for the war - and they�(TM)re looking pretty soft currently, right dick?

Europe stands a good chance.
Judging from your satellite parrots over there, cheney.
Like Italy�(TM)s fascist defense minister Antonio Martino: "we know for sure" an attack will come, probably involving germ warfare.

Wonder how the hell HE knows. A hotline with "qaeda" maybe? Or with you cheney?

It�(TM)s not just about spreading psychosis/generating mass consensus for the end of this ghost of freedom.
It�(TM)s pre-empting post-attack criticism: "See, I told ya. But unfortunately, I couldn�(TM)t prevent it - no specifics."

A May 2001 Digos (=Italian counterterrorism) report mentioned a qaeda, Khalifa Moussa Ahmed, spotted casing St. Mark�(TM)s in Venice: why wasn�(TM)t he arrested there and then?
The Digos report cited qaeda plans to attack the Vatican or Venice, and now Italian "authorities are investigating whether those plans might be revived" - conveniently in time to stir up anti-Arab hatred and justify the 2nd Iraq war.
Digos has "an informant" or "informers" according to my source 9. So why have all these "qaedas" in Italy not been busted yet - after a year? Why do Italian authorities keep hypeing busts of Arab fishermen and other small fish? I mean, apart from procuring huge terroristic headlies on the massmedia that stick with the people because when the set-up smallfish mostly turn out to be innocent, and get released a few days after, it�(TM)s on page 8 or something - nobody gets to know so the masses will stay with the impression that the West is full of Arabs ready to kill us.


Source 14: according to them, Ucigos and Digos (2 Italian anti-terror state agencies) have got al "qaeda" in Italy under total control:
- they know WHERE the qaedas are ("Milano […], Torino, Roma e Napoli");
- they have been keeping qaeda "UNDER CONSTANT MONITORING FOR MONTHS";
- they have "A LIST OF SUSPECTS IN ITALY WHOSE MOVES ARE BEING FOLLOWED";
- they are "TAPPING PHONES";
- they have SINGLED OUT "INDIVIDUALS WHO…ARE WAITING FOR AN ORDER TO ACT" [my translation and caps].

Therefore:
1 - AGAIN: why are ALL of these Italy "qaedas" not in jail yet?
2 - since they�(TM)re ALL under control, there follows that IF THERE�(TM)S AN ALLEGED "QAEDA" STRIKE IN ITALY ONE OF THESE DAYS, IT CAN ONLY BE A STATE-TERROR ATTACK OR AT THE VERY LEAST A STATE-TERROR-ALLOWED ATTACK.



Yes I know you�(TM)ve reportedly been making a few arrests cheney - some arrests indeed.

Like the much-hyped arrest of smallfish Padilla, who�(TM)d been... surfing the net for nuke recipes.

Or the reported arrest of Omar Shishani, who was allegedly carrying $12 million in bogus checks.
How effective you�(TM)ve become.
And yet: how weird. Source 13: "Knowledgeable officials said the checks were extremely well made".

So much so that they bore "West America Bank, Pomona". West America does not have a Pomona branch. "Extremely well made"?

So much so that they bore "cashier�(TM)s check". West America uses "official check".
"Extremely well made"?
What a planted story. Not even a 6-year-old would have been fooled by those bogus bogus-checks.

Who do you think YOU are fooling, cheney?
Go tell your "knowledgeable officials" to go fuck themselves.

Your fake arrests are only meant, again:
- to keep the public terrorized into accepting stalinization (‘my God, if with a few bucks Qaeda did 911, go figure what they could do with 12 million!�(TM))
- to psychologically prepare it for the next 911 (‘my God, Qaeda is still present in the West!�(TM));
- to preempt post-attack criticism: ‘See, we made arrests, we improved, we did all we could - but we aren�(TM)t perfect, sorry�(TM).


More interesting would apparently seem the much-hyped arrest of Ramzi Binalshibh, one of the alleged 911 plotters of the alleged Hamburg "qaeda" cell.

Binalshibh was reportedly busted in Karachi, Pakistan on Sept.11, 2002 (what a timely present for Bush�(TM)s propaganda).

This would be some arrest, if indeed it ever happened and if indeed Binalshibh is who you allege he is, cheney.

And yet I can�(TM)t help but connect some dots here, since I happened to write another 911 essay called ‘The Twin Cowards�(TM) dealing with Atta & the ‘Hamburg cell�(TM):

THE ‘HAMBURG CELL�(TM) WAS UNDER SPANISH, GERMAN & AMERICAN SURVEILLANCE FROM AT LEAST 1997 [see my The Twin Cowards for sourcing/discussion of this]: SO WHY DID IT TAKE 5 YEARS [AND A 911] TO ARREST BINALSHIBH?

Moreover, cheney, your state-terrorist colleague condi rice rushed to tell us that the binalshibh arrest ain�(TM)t worth a damn because "qaeda" can function even without central command so even the arrest of a leader like (allegedly) binalshibh doesn�(TM)t decrease the (alleged) danger [source 24].

So Europe�(TM)s next too, right Dick?

My bet is you�(TM)re going to have the next 911 performed between now (Oct.31, 2002) and year�(TM)s end and thereafter attack Iraq in January or spring 2003 - with some interval in between to pretend you needed time for a military buildup that�(TM)s already happening - and has been for months - and for "exhausting all diplomatic avenues" or similar fake hypocrisy. I�(TM)ll pinpoint it more precisely: I think you�(TM)ll launch it between Nov.6 and the war, because democrats wouldn�(TM)t want it before the Nov.5 congressional elections since their only chance is for voters to focus on the bad economy where Bush is weak not on the war on terror where Bush is still half-strong.


To sum it all up once more thus far:

it is indeed extremely likely that a 911-size or bigger state-terror attack will be launched by the western establishments, in Europe or US or both, between now (Oct.31, 2002) and the start of the Iraq genocide (which will probably take place after the Nov.5 congressional elections in the U.S.).



The alleged Abu Ghaith on Jazeera also allegedly said that "98% of Al Qaeda leaders escaped unhurt", including Osama, Zawahiri and Mullah Omar.

In other words, again: your war on Afghanistan has failed miserably Cheney - 98% failure rate. Why don�(TM)t you step down?

Another of your fellow co-terrorists, senator Bob Graham, echoed Abu Ghaith by saying on Fox: "that bin Laden is still alive... That�(TM)s best assessment of U.S. intelligence".
Graham added that bin Laden is most likely in Western Pakistan.

How the hell does Graham know where Osama is?
He chairs the senate intelligence committee. So he presumably has evidence.

In which case: HOW COME OSAMA HASN�(TM)T BEEN CAPTURED OR KILLED YET?
SENATOR GRAHAM, TESTIFY!
UNDER OATH AND ON PRIME TIME FOX!

Graham has his own pet German parrot: August Hanning, the head of Germany�(TM)s foreign intelligence, bleated that Osama�(TM)s alive, resides between Afghanistan and Pakistan, "moves around little" and in secret.
So much so that you know about it, Hanning - God knows why you can�(TM)t do anything.
Hanning added "we must be prepared" for new attacks because there�(TM)s over 5,000 Qaedas and Talibans left in Afghanistan and Pakistan plotting with Osama.
How did you count them, Hanning?

And on July 30, 2002 we were told (source 15) that Osama�(TM)s eldest son, Saad bin Laden, 22, is ready to take over "qaeda"�(TM)s leadership and even if he doesn�(TM)t OBL has at least another 22 children so we�(TM)ll never get rid of the "qaeda" threat.

Who�(TM)s saying this? "U.S. counterterrorism officials" - anonymous deep throats as usual.

No word about existence of evidence - also as usual.

They know everything about Saad, even where he is (the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, as usual). But - once again - they don�(TM)t capture or kill him. Also as usual.

And bush & you, dick, are about to attack Iraq which hasn�(TM)t been a threat for 11 years instead of Pakistan that�(TM)s harboring Bin Laden, his terrorist off-spring and a good chunk of "5,000" talibs + qaedas! Or North Korea which has admitted to possessing nuclear weapons. How weird.


Let�(TM)s translate: "We, the western establishment, have planned the next sensational 911-size attack, this time (also) in Europe, Germany Italy at least. It�(TM)s comin�(TM) up so shit yourselves. We�(TM)ll pin it on "qaeda" again so we can keep on occupying Afghanistan. We have no intention of capturing/killing Osama & his clan because if we did we would run out of pretexts not only to stay in the Caspian region but also to finish gestapoizing the US and the world. We�(TM)ll do this upcoming next-911 nuclear/bio/chemical; we�(TM)ll also "prove" (giving no evidence as usual - national security, you know) that qaeda got its weapons of mass destruction from Iraq, so we�(TM)ll invade in self-defense".

This state-terror-orchestrated campaign of cheney trollers announcing the ‘inevitability�(TM) of the next 911 has been going on for over 5 months now.



In any case: what are you cheney (pretending to be) doing to prevent these imminent "qaeda" massmurders?

Your official said: "There�(TM)s just a lot of chatter in the system again. We are actively pursuing it". What does that mean?
Anyway, you Dick have already given up hope of prevention: "It�(TM)s not a matter of if, but when" you said.
You are sure it�(TM)s going to happen. You are sure it�(TM)s not preventable. God knows why.

Well, you are a liar cheney. And a traitor.

Because if what you said on May 19 2002 is true and not just a scarecrow diversion from then-recent attacks on bush for failing to heed 911 warnings - then there IS something you and your henchmen could do - if you only cared.

Qaeda is reportedly being "intercepted": this implies U.S. intelligence is able to pinpoint the LOCATION of the qaedas talking about future attacks.

How are they talking? "Interception" is the word being used by U.S. intelligence: that is, they�(TM)re eavesdropping on phone, email or radio messages.
Well, computers have IP addresses: we may know where these alleged terrorists are, or at least where they are emailing from. And who they are emailing to. Electronic surveillance of both senders�(TM) and addresses�(TM) mailboxes could be intensified.
Cell-phone users are pinpointable too. And phone numbers can be monitored and connected to subscribers/owners.
Radio signals of all kinds are traceable to their sources.

I won�(TM)t even mention private analog phones because if you�(TM)re listening to those it means you�(TM)re tapping the lines so you know exactly who and where these people are.

In other words - IF YOUR AGENTS ARE REALLY "INTERCEPTING" TALKS OF "QAEDAS" PLANNING THE NEXT 911: WHY ARE THESE PEOPLE NOT IN JAIL YET OR AT LEAST WHY HAVEN�(TM)T YOU LOCATED WHERE EXACTLY THEY ARE CALLING/EMAILING FROM? OR HAVE YOU?
IT�(TM)S BEEN "MONTHS".

Was it snail mail or messengers? Because if that�(TM)s what you�(TM)ve been intercepting, it means you�(TM)ve made arrests or you have infiltrated "qaeda": again, you�(TM)d know exactly WHO and WHERE they are.

One more time: if you have intercepts, then you must have suspects or at least their locations you could place under surveillance: why are these alleged "qaedas", allegedly planning for the next slaughter of Westerners, not in jail yet?

Or maybe should I ask: WHY ARE YOU, CRIMINAL DICK, AND THE REST OF YOUR GOVERNMENT OF TRAITORS AND STATE TERRORISTS NOT IN JAIL YET?


The State Department (=your co-terrorist chum Colin Powell) has been slightly more forthcoming.
Source 4: "[…] a worldwide [State Dept.] alert citing reports that ‘extremist individuals are planning additional terrorist actions against U.S. interests.
SUCH ACTIONS MAY BE IMMINENT AND INCLUDE SUICIDE OPERATIONS�(TM)." That alert expires April 8, 2003.

Again: if Powell has reports of imminent suicide attacks by April 8, 2003, how come he can�(TM)t arrest the planners? He knows about them! He even knows that they may be about to act!
MOREOVER: IF WE�(TM)RE ON WORLDWIDE ALERT OF IMMINENT STRIKES, WHY HASN�(TM)T BUSH CHANGED THE ALERT COLOR FOR THE U.S. FROM YELLOW TO AT LEAST ORANGE?
WHY ARE THE U.S. + EUROPE NOT ON MAXIMUM ALERT MODE YET?
And finally: since Powell issued his WORLDWIDE alert until April 8, 2003, why are European countries not listed among the countries included in the State Dept. travel warnings as of Oct.12, 2002 (travel.state.gov/warnings_list.html )?


So you started the 2002/03 state terror campaign with Bali, didn�(TM)t you dick?

At the very least, you Bush & the rest had foreknowledge of the Bali massacre, according to source 25.

Source 25 says that US officials gave Taiwanese premier Yu Shi-kun advance warning of an imminent attack in Southeast Asia, telling Yu TO KEEP IT SECRET!

This warning, with the hush-hush catch, was reportedly given to Yu on Friday, Oct.11, 2002 - the day before the Bali massacre.

As usual, it is claimed that the warning was not specific. What an amzing, timely coincidence… A non-specific warning of an imminent terror attack, given THE DAY BEFORE THE ATTACK!
But according to source 26, the warning, received by Yu "in the evening of 11 October", was indeed specific and concerned Bali.

Why did you cheney, if the above report is true, ask Taiwanese premier Yu Shi-kun to keep it secret?
That is: WHY DIDN�(TM)T YOU APPEAR ON LIVE CNN ON FRIDAY, OCT.11, 2002 AND WARN THE ENTIRE WORLD OF AN IMMINENT TERROR ATTACK IN SOUTHEAST ASIA?

Your negligence was criminal, cheney - you only warned, privately and secretly, Taiwanese premier Yu, instead of warning all of humanity right away, on live, prime-time CNN as you could easily have done in your position.

Therefore you cheney are at the very least co-responsible for the Bali massacre - maybe a Friday, Oct.11, 2002 warning would not only have given people in Bali a choice to be cautious or leave immediately - maybe if you�(TM)d rushed to CNN, the terrorists would have gotten cold feet and given up altogether.

You are a moral leper cheney.

You had Bali perpetrated yourself right? You needed some more western blood to hype your Iraq war right?
And to justify the keeping and expanding of U.S. military presence in Asia �" especially oil- and gas-rich Indonesia, strategic for control of major shipping lanes.

Not that Taiwan�(TM)s premier Yu isn�(TM)t a coward himself - he too could have rushed to TV and warned the world - but then again the bastard is nothing but your local henchman cheney. He obeyed your secrecy orders, he got family maybe.

The result is a reported couple hundred more state-terror dead on your account cheney - fuck Yu.

Instead, Bush has obviously pinned Bali on "qaeda", via its alleged Indonesian branch "jemaa islamiyah".

Evidence provided by Bush for this: zero, as usual.

Evidence that "jemaa islamiyah" even exists at all: guess, reader.

Source 27: "Washington appears convinced that the Bali attack was al-Qaida inspired and could have been triggered by a taped message from Ayman al-Zawahiri, the organization�(TM)s deputy leader and ideologue, broadcast earlier this month [October 2002] on the al-Jazeera satellite television channel."

There goes al-Jazeera again. And again: if you cheney are so convinced that it the was the al-Zawahiri tape on al-Jazeera that triggered the Bali massacre, why don�(TM)t you shut down al-Jazeera once and for all? It has just caused a reported couple hundred lives lost in Bali.

But no, again: you need the fake-Arab TV jazeera to show the world that "qaeda" exists & triggers terror acts with TV spots. All tolerated by the U.S. puppet state of Qatar.
Fuck Yu.

And by the way: how about tracking the source of the Zawahiri/Jazeera tape?


It�(TM)s not the allegedly "vague" details that "hamper defensive action" - it�(TM)s you cheney and your cohorts.

Do us all a favor. Have a last stroke & die.










P.S.
When, where & how is this next 911-size-or-bigger state-terror strike going to happen?
I think I can formulate a working hypothesis.
"When" is clear: between now (Oct.31, 2002) and the start of the Iraq war (most likely early 2003 or spring 2003, see above).

The "where" is sure to include the EU (see above). But I think I can be more specific: Germany Italy France at least (probably the UK too because a recent - August 2002 - opinion poll "showed that 52% of adults" there are against the Iraq war [source 20]).

Why? Because Germany Italy France are the 3 countries with the most powerful grassroots left and where the Iraq war is mostly opposed. A new 911 there would allow the already rampant fascists (Berlusconi Chirac) to pulverize whatever�(TM)s left of political freedoms and opposition. Not that Schroeder�(TM)s any better anyway: he helped out for 911 (see my essay ‘The Twin Cowards�(TM)). His electoral anti-war stance is that of a forked tongue.

How? I�(TM)ll venture a guess, based on International Herald Tribune, July 1, 2002, p.3: ‘Europe ports to get U.S. inspectors�(TM), by Marlise Simons (originally a New York Times article).
The U.S. + EU establishments have agreed on the presence of U.S. inspectors at EU ports like Rotterdam to inspect cargo containers, allegedly "to screen sea containers for possible weapons of mass destruction".

Could it be that these "inspectors" are really state terrorists sent to hide (dirty) bombs or canisters of bio/chemical agents in containers and then blow up ships or trucks or freight trains (with railway stations?) carrying those containers or release smallpox or whatever?

"The agreement […] will first involve the ports of Rotterdam in the Netherlands, Antwerp in Belgium, and Le Havre in France. Talks are under way with five other European ports, in Germany, Italy and Spain. A similar arrangement is already in place in Canada with the ports of Halifax, Montreal and Vancouver."

The alleged aim, more specifically, is to "learn more about cargo heading for the U.S.".

"As part of the European agreement, U.S. inspectors will be given access to shipping manifests […]. If any part of the cargo is deemed suspect, the containers will be scanned, inspected or even unpacked by the local port authorities."

That is: U.S. inspectors have been put in charge of container-screening in Europe. The first five of them are already at work in Rotterdam.

But this strangely intrusive and costly network of U.S. Customs officials is meant to become a worldwide one.

Source 21: "U.S. customs officials in the major ports around the world"; "In June [2002], Singapore became the first country to sign on to a container security initiative by the U.S. Customs Service"; "Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium and France have followed Singapore�(TM)s lead, and several other countries are thought to be close to signing on."

It is noteworthy that this very weird plan has baffled many professionals too: again source 21:

"MANY PORT OPERATORS AND SHIPPING COMPANIES REMAIN UNCONVINCED. THE PLAN WILL MEAN COSTLY DELAYS […]. JAPAN AND HONK KONG […] HAVE EXPRESSED RESERVATIONS ABOUT THE PROPOSAL�(TM)S INTRUSIVENESS AND COST." [my caps].

It is also worth reminding that "shipping companies mainly use Singapore as a transshipment hub, consolidating cargoes there on the way to other markets."

So welcome to the nightmare scenario of criminal "U.S. customs officials" loading a dirty bomb or sarin-gas-filled missile onto a EU-bound container in Singapore and setting it off upon its arrival at Rotterdam port or sending it on per truck or train and blowing it up at Berlin�(TM)s train station…

Wait a second.

Who�(TM)s screening the screeners?
Who�(TM)s running background checks on these U.S. inspectors?
Since when does Western Europe need U.S. supervisors to screen its cargo?
Why must the U.S. whittle down its already strained Customs to send staff to the Netherlands?
Could it be that these unscreened U.S. screeners are in Rotterdam to instead ALLOW WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN CONTAINERS TO SLIP THRU THE HANDS OF THE DUTCH ETC?

Just a working hypothesis - but worrying enough, since these U.S. inspectors are being sent by an arguably terrorist U.S. administration.


Connectable to the "cargo-inspectors" network is another weird news item dating from July 16, 2002 (source 12): that "New York police officials will deploy officers in at least five foreign countries in an ambitious effort to give the city�(TM)s police force a global reach in its anti-terrorist operations".

Hold on a sec.
Just what the heck is this all about?

SINCE WHEN HAS THE NYPD ANTI-TERRORISM DUTIES?

WASN�(TM)T ANTI-TERRORISM THE JOB OF THE FBI IN THE U.S. AND OF THE CIA ABROAD?

Furthermore, this astonishing global deployment of the NYPD is extremely worrisome, given the arguable, deep complicity of the upper echelon of the NYPD in 911 (see my essays Fuzzy Math and Rudy The Zero).

Again source 12:
"The department [the NYPD] is seeking to station officers in London, Toronto and Lyon, France, as well as cities in Israel and Germany. The positions will range from fellowship programs to intelligence gathering."

"INTELLIGENCE GATHERING"???
SINCE WHEN IS IT THE BUSINESS OF THE NYPD TO GATHER INTELLIGENCE? WHO ASSIGNED SUCH ALL-IMPORTANT NEW DUTIES TO THE NYPD WITHOUT DUE LEGAL PROCESS?

What are these alleged "NYPD officers" up to in countries the calibre of the UK, Canada, France, Germany? Given the 911 "failures", one would have maybe understood the reverse: French, German, British, Italian customs inspectors and antiterrorism officers deployed in the U.S. to teach Mueller & co. how to successfully deal with terrorism.

Could it be that these alleged "NYPD officers" in Lyon etc. are nothing but state-terrorists in disguise who, in tight coordination with the network of alleged "U.S. customs inspectors" abroad are about to execute the next 911?



Adrian More



Oct.31, 2002 version. I wrote the first version on May 21-22, 2002.



Sources:

1. BBC News, October 4, 2001, 12:25 GMT 13:25 UK: ‘The UK�(TM)s Bin Laden dossier in full�(TM), online: news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_1579000/1579043.stm
2. International Herald Tribune, May 20, 2002: ‘Bush�(TM)s critics backing off on Sept.11 clues�(TM), by Brian Knowlton, online at: www.iht.com/articles/58255.html
3. International Herald Tribune, May 20, 2002, p.3: ‘U.S. intercepts talks of new Qaeda attack�(TM), by James Risen and David Johnston (The New York Times), online at: www.iht.com/articles/58250.html
4. Associated Press, June 17,2002, 15:27 ET: ‘Terrorism Warnings May Dampen Summer�(TM), by Calvin Woodward;
5. International Herald Tribune, www.iht.com/articles/62331.html
6. International Herald Tribune, June 27, 2002, p.4: ‘U.S. believes Qaeda tape is authentic�(TM), by Walter Pincus (The Washington Post), online at: www.iht.com/articles/62717.html
7. Italy Daily, June 27, 2002, p.2: ‘Terror warning is branded as alarmist�(TM), by Reuters;
8. International Herald Tribune, July 6, 2002, p.1: ‘U.S. drafting 3-front attack against Iraq�(TM), by Eric Schmitt (The New York Times), online: www.iht.com/articles/63672.html
9. Italy Daily, July 11, 2002, p.1: ‘Digos says Al Qaeda wanted to strike Italy�(TM), by Associated Press;
10. Italy Daily, July 12, 2002, p.1: ‘Terror patrol guards Venice Ghetto�(TM), by Anne Ruderman;
11. Associated Press, July 14, 2002, 00:19 ET: ‘German Spies Say Bin Laden Is Alive�(TM);
12. International Herald Tribune, July 16, 2002, p.5: ‘Police to go abroad to fight terrorism�(TM) (originally an AFP dispatch);
13. Associated Press, July 18, 2002, 01:56 ET: ‘Al- Qaida Weapon Access Worries U.S.�(TM), by Robert Burns;
14. The Washington Post, July 20,2002, p.A01: ‘U.S. Holds Suspected Al Qaeda Trainee�(TM), by Douglas Farah and Allan Lengel, online: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34752-2002Jul19.html
15. La Repubblica, July 23, 2002, p.1 (cont. on p.10): "Il ‘milanese�(TM) pentito di Guantanamo", by Carlo Bonini;
16. La Repubblica, July 29, 2002, p.2: ‘Primi soldati in Iraq�(TM), by Riccardo Orizio, www.repubblica.it/online/esteri/iraqdue/iraqdue/iraqdue.html
17. Associated Press, July 29, 2002, 17:03ET: ‘Bin Laden�(TM)s Son Seen Gaining Power�(TM), by John J. Lumpkin;
18. La Repubblica, Aug.1, 2002, p.9: ‘Iraq, Bush ora rallenta/niente ‘sorpresa d�(TM)ottobre�(TM)�(TM), by Arturo Zampaglione;
19. International Herald Tribune; Aug,2, 2002, p.4: ‘Americans need a national discussion�(TM), by Joseph Biden & Richard Lugar, from A New York Times article, www.iht.com/articles/66446.html
20. International Herald Tribune, Aug.7, 2002, p.3: ‘Blair faces rising opposition to an attack on Iraq�(TM), by Glenn Frankel (originally a Washington Post article): www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52420-2002Aug6.html
21. International Herald Tribune, Aug.14, 2002, p.11: ‘Port operator in Singapore to aid terror fight�(TM), by Wayne Arnold (originally in the New York Times): query.nytimes.com/search/abstract
22. Associated Press, Aug.21, 2002, 08:28ET: ‘U.S. Focusing on New Extremists�(TM), by John Lumpkin;
23. International Herald Tribune, Aug.22, 2002, p.4: ‘Bush war plan could get boost from alleged Qaeda haven in Iraq�(TM), by Bradley Graham (originally a Washington Post article): www.iht.com/articles/68429.html
24. Associated Press, Sept.15, 2002, 11:49 ET: ‘U.S. to Seek Suspect From Pakistan�(TM).
25. www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0210/S00105.htm
26. www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0210/S00106.htm
27. www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,812006,00.html
28. The Washington Post, Oct.22, 2002, p.A01: ‘For Bush, Facts Are Malleable�(TM), by Dana Milbank: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61903-2002Oct21.html






No rights reserved. This material MAY be published, broadcast, rewritten and redistributed, as long as Adrian More is credited as author.





Other 911 T.I.P.s by Adrian More:

- Fuzzy Math
- The Pearl Harbor Lie And September 11
- Zac In The Bush
- Immoral Tenet & His Blind-Eye Surveillance
- The Twin Cowards
- Catch 9
- Shredding The Constitution!
- Air Farce One
- Mr Push, Where Is Your Wife?
- Willie Brown, You Talk Too Much
- Rudy The Zero