NSA update

National Security Archive Update, August 17, 2005

State Department experts warned CENTCOM
before Iraq war about lack of plans for
post-war Iraq security

Planning for post-Saddam regime change
began as early as October 2001

http://www.nsarchive.org


--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

Russia opposes use of force against Iran

The following text is from Reuters:
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type
=worldNews&storyID=2005-08-17T120101Z_01_MCC741080
_RTRUKOC_0_UK-RUSSIA-IRAN.xml

strange thing: the Iranians have a nuclear power plant
called *Bushehr* !

---QUOTE---

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia opposes using force to stop Iran's nuclear programme, the Russian Foreign ministry said on Wednesday.

"We favour further dialogue and consider the use of force in Iran counter-productive and dangerous, something which can have grave and hardly predictable consequences," a statement posted on the ministry's web site www.mid.ru said.

The West fears that the ultimate goal of oil-rich Iran's project to develop its own nuclear power sector is to develop atomic weapons.

Iran angered the European Union and the United States by resuming work at a uranium conversion plant earlier this month, rejecting an EU incentives package offered in return for giving up its nuclear programme.

The ministry statement did not say where threats to use force had come from and referred to unspecified media reports.

Earlier this month U.S. President George W. Bush said military force remained a last resort to press Tehran to abandon its nuclear programme.

Russia, which has constructed a nuclear power plant for Iran and is hoping for more such contracts, has criticised Tehran for restarting the uranium conversion.

Moscow says that there was no technical need for Iran to convert its own uranium since Moscow had agreed to supply all necessary nuclear fuel for the Bushehr power plant due to go into operation next year.

But it has been traditionally opposed to applying blanket pressure against Tehran.

"We consider that problems concerning Iran's nuclear activities should be solved through political and diplomatic means, on the basis of international law and Tehran's close cooperation with International Atomic Energy Agency," the Russian statement said.

---QUOTE---


--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

First Sino-Russo wargames

First military exercise involving Russia and China starting.
See details in this article from Aljazeera:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/
E15F03BD-6A03-4C77-AB34-5FDD34764D26.htm


--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

No mastermind behind London bombs?

From Reuters RSS i received the following article. Makes you
think about certain other possibilities, doesn't it?
---

By Kate Holton

LONDON (Reuters) - Groups behind the July London bomb attack that killed 52 people and a failed attempt to strike again soon after appear to have been acting independently of an al Qaeda mastermind abroad, a newspaper reported on Saturday.

The Independent, quoting police and intelligence officials, said it was also likely that four July 7 suicide bombers were probably not linked to another group of four who failed to blow up explosives on buses and underground trains two weeks later.

But some of the report's conclusions were questioned by a terror analyst, who said it would be difficult for Islamic militants in Britain to prepare and set off explosive devices without some training in Pakistan, Afghanistan or elsewhere.

The newspaper said police and intelligence sources felt the fact there was no leader from abroad showed how other "self-sufficient" units could be hiding in Britain.

"All the talk about 'Mr Bigs' and al Qaeda masterminds looks like something from a film script at the moment," the newspaper quoted a police source as saying.

"Of course, things could change if new intelligence comes through, but it looks increasingly as if these people were largely working on their own. It is not something we expected."

Four young British Muslims blew themselves up on three London underground trains and a bus on July 7, killing 52 people. An apparent bid to repeat the attacks on July 21 failed and police have arrested four people they say were behind it.

The newspaper report quoted one counter-terrorist source as saying: "the key point is that the events were not connected. It appears they were self-contained, rather than being organised by some kind of mastermind."

The attacks have raised alarm in Britain that militants are living and operating in the country. Police have yet to establish whether they are acting alone or being directed by international networks like al Qaeda.

CRUDE DEVICES

A police spokesman said they were investigating several lines of inquiry and would not comment on the details of the newspaper report. He would not rule them out either.

But a terrorism expert who did not want to be named said it took time and knowledge to prepare such attacks, and would not rule out the involvement of a foreign-trained mastermind putting the plots together either, possibly from inside Britain.

"They're crude devices, but I think there is a mistaken belief that you can just go on the Internet and download these things," he said.

"It was possible that they (the two groups of bombers) are not linked, but it's inconceivable that you could just spontaneously get a group of people together in two weeks, get the material, build the devices and carry out the attacks."

He said that "the old al Qaeda" had been "shattered" after U.S. military action in Afghanistan and the crackdown on militant groups in neighbouring Pakistan since 2001.

But that did not mean that people who lived and trained in those countries could not now be operating in Britain.

He said both sets of men suspected of being behind the attacks were not particularly well educated and described them as "misfits".

"People like that generally aren't capable of building bombs. There is definitely someone who has catalysed them, who has given advice on materials, provided technical expertise and maybe paid for all this," he said.

"I wouldn't rush to discount the idea that there is a mastermind or puppet master somewhere, it just may not fit the traditional description.

"The ringleader may be someone who lives in this country and spent sometime in somewhere like Pakistan or Afghanistan where they honed these skills."



--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

Liberal Beatle John Lennon: "Woman is the nigger of the world"

The Conservative Intelligencer wrote:

"Bush War is for GOP Profit" wrote in
message news:1123900693.152181.186720@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

It was not written in that context you stupid ass, my God are you
stupid..

When have you liberals ever cared about context??? You take President
Bush's statements out of context all the time.

Besides, what "context" can be justified for such outrageous lyrics???


The Conservative Intelligencer

What context? Bush-statements typically sound like if they were
chosen more or less at random by a computer - without any
understanding of the world.


--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

'Sweet' Neo Cons Now Attacking Sir Mick Jagger

smutt butt wrote:

Neocon Oil Cheerleaders Wrote:

'Now the Fascists at Fox Are After Mick Jagger

Here we go again. First it was the Dixie Chicks,
then Eminem, then Bruce Springsteen, and then...
the list goes on and on. Now it's Mick Jagger's
turn to be slapped around.

According to Fox's Neil Cavuto, who saw fit to
air two segments about this looming crisis today
(August 9, 2005), Jagger took a 'big jab at the
White House' in a 'very controversial tune called
'Sweet Neo-Con' in which "Mick Jagger calls the
President a hypocrite and worse. A lot worse. . . .

.. . . Fox then showed a graphic with these lyrics:

You call yourself a Christian, I call you a hypocrite.
You call yourself a patriot.
Well, I think your are full of s**t!
How come you're so wrong, my sweet neo-con.'


source News Hounds
We watch FOX so you don't have to:
http://tinyurl.com/8gkfn


Be sure & BUY a copy of the new Stones CD

why would anyone care what elderly drug addicts from another country
think about anyone from america?

There are also some "anyones" living outside U.S.

Even "elderly drug addicts" have freedom of speech.

England is another *country* not another planet.

The President of USA isn't just "anyone" - he is the most
powerful idiot in history.

America is not just USA (I'm not Canadian).


--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

Nineteen Eighty Be4?

When war becomes literally continuous, it also ceases to be dangerous. When war is continuous there is no such thing as military necessity. Technical progress can cease and the most palpable facts can be denied or disregarded.

--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

Bush Appoints John Bolton as UN Ambassador

wrote:

Charles Farley posted:

Bush said that Bolton's nomination had been supported by a majority of
the Senate but that "because of partisan delaying tactics by a handful
of senators, John was unfairly denied the up-or-down vote that he
deserves."

As Bush concluded speaking, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, praised the
president for using his authority "to end the obstruction against John
Bolton."

phhhhht.


~~


If there's a positive side to President Bush's appointment of John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations yesterday, it's that as long as Mr. Bolton is in New York, he will not be wreaking diplomatic havoc anywhere else. Talks with North Korea, for instance, have been looking more productive since Mr. Bolton left the State Department, and it's hard not to think that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's generally positive performance in office is due, in part, to her canniness in dispatching Mr. Bolton out of Washington.

But the appointment is, of course, terrible news for the United Nations, whose diplomats have heard weeks of Senate testimony about Mr. Bolton's lack of respect for their institution and his deeply undiplomatic, bullying style of doing business. Senator George Voinovich, the Ohio Republican who became one of Mr. Bolton's strongest critics, said yesterday that he planned to send the new ambassador a book on how to be an effective manager. It couldn't hurt, but this may be the first time a world superpower has used its top United Nations post as a spot for the remedial training of a troublesome government employee.

And maybe the *last* time a superpower does that? It seems to me
Bush is doing what he can to make USA weaker as a superpower.
That is probably not the intention, so the conclusion must be
that he is the worst president at the worst possible time, not
only for americans but for the whole world - since his faulty
decisions have severe consequences for us all.


--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

Why Did Two Republican Adminstrations Fund UBL?

Haximus wrote:

Glen Hallick wrote:

Why did TWO Republican administrations fund Osama bin Laden??? Seems to
me the GOP were the ones that created the monster. Not surprising GOP
lapdogs are trying to lay blame elsewhere.

Foreign policy during Reagan was "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." America trained and armed the Mujihadeen, along with bin Laden, to repel
the Soviets from Afghanistan. America also took Iraq off the list of
states sponsoring terrorism, and gave him billions of dollars, while Saddam
was fighting Soviet prospect Iran. I guess the big lesson America should
learn from this is "the enemy of my enemy IS NOT my friend."

I think you have a point there, in that it is a serious mistake
to say that the enemy of your enemy is your *friend*

But it is often clever strategy to help, cooperate with, or even
make a (temporary) alliance with a minor enemy against a major
one. A clear example of this is WW2, where USA+UK made a
necessary alliance with USSR against Nazi Germany.

Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda probably did much the same:
first to cooperate with the americans in order to throw the
russians out of Afghanistan - and then attack the enemy USA.

In order to calculate these things correctly, you need to
understand the world as it is. This is where Bush & co. is simply
incompetent.


--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

Got the Bastards (4)

Joe Delphi wrote:

"Mogens Michaelsen" wrote in message
news:42ec2d2a$0$7374$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net...

Joe Delphi wrote:

Sound like you are at war with all the muslims in the world?

No, just the extremists. But its getting harder to tell the extremists from
the rest of the Muslim world. Based on the events of the past few years,
it is starting to seem like many more Muslins are extremists than I first
thought.

JD

Just made me reflect on my first and only visit to London. It was
back in the summer of 1982 - in the middle of the Falkland war.

One thing you can say about that war: it was extremely easy to
identify the enemy, and to see what should be done - very unlike
the situation now. Of course this uncertainty frustrates people.


--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

Got the Bastards (3)

Leo wrote:

Mogens Michaelsen wrote:

Anon wrote:

Now that they have caught the 4 would be bombers, what should be done with
them after trial and conviction?

1. Jail for 5 - 10 years
2. Deported and never allowed back in the UK
3. Life in jail
4. Beheaded on TV with a dull sword.

5. Exactly what they are sentenced to by the court.

Well said! But it's a sad state of affairs when Vikings have to remind
Brits about civilised behaviour as regards the law.

Well, the oldest democracy in the world is Iceland - home of
Vikings from Norway, which for a very long period was a part of
Denmark öö

I must admit though, that the British *parlament* is the oldest
one in the world :-)


--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

Got the Bastards (2)

Joe Delphi wrote:

"Anon" wrote in message
news:vaqdnc1QJo_IR3bfRVn-sQ@giganews.com...

Now that they have caught the 4 would be bombers, what should be done with
them after trial and conviction?

1. Jail for 5 - 10 years
2. Deported and never allowed back in the UK
3. Life in jail
4. Beheaded on TV with a dull sword.

Regarding Option #1:

I don't know what goes on in the UK prison system, but in the US prisons
Islam is alive and well. It is not at all uncommon for a prisoner to enter
incarceration either as a Christian or non-demoninational and then exit the
prison system as a devout Muslim. In other words, there is a lot of
Islamic "recruiting" going on in the prisons. So I think that sending
someone to jail for 5-10 years so that they can come out even more Muslim
than when they went in, is probably not the best answer for British society
or anyone's society for that matter. They will just leave prison more
determined than ever to pick up where they left off, except this time not
screw it up.

I think either Option #3 or Option #4 is the way to go, although if Option
#4 is chosen, then I think they should allow each family member of a person
who was killed in the 07/07 bombings to get one good hack.

JD

Sound like you are at war with all the muslims in the world?
The 4 would be bombers will be punished for what they have *done*
and nothing else. It is not illegal to be a muslim in the UK
because it is a free and democratic country - unlike Islamic
states, which is probably the 4 would be martyrs ideal.


--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

Got the Bastards

Anon wrote:

Now that they have caught the 4 would be bombers, what should be done with them after trial and conviction?

1. Jail for 5 - 10 years
2. Deported and never allowed back in the UK
3. Life in jail
4. Beheaded on TV with a dull sword.

5. Exactly what they are sentenced to by the court.


--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

What do the terrorists want? (5)

Topaz wrote:

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 13:06:05 +0200, Mogens Michaelsen
wrote:

Bush? FDR was clever enough to see that the Nazis was a severe
danger for USA too, because he was able to analyze the situation.
Which is what Bush & co. is lacking to a degree that is dangerous
not only for USA, but for the whole world.

An article by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, November 30, 1941
Mr. Roosevelt Cross-Examined
by Joseph Goebbels
"On 28 October, more than a month ago, U.S. President Franklin D.
Roosevelt gave a radio speech which apparently had as its goal
plunging the American people into uncertainty and panic and thus to
prepare gradually for the fateful intervention which the American
president desires, regardless of American public opinion. The speech
differed from all of his previous speeches in that Roosevelt did not
limit himself to the almost traditional and unconscionable and
slanderous attacks on the Führer and National Socialist Germany. This
time he made concrete accusations against the policies of the Reich,
which he attempted to prove though compromising documents he allegedly
possessed.
Mr. Roosevelt claimed that he had proof in his hands that the Axis
powers were planning to reorganize South and Central America. They
were planning to transform the existing fourteen countries into five
states that would be under their control. His proof was a secret map
allegedly produced by the Reich government. The American government
also claims to possess another Reich document. According to it, the
Reich government plans, once it has won the war, to abolish the
existing religions of the world-Catholicism, Protestantism,
Mohammedism, Hinduism. Buddhism and Judaism. They are to be replaced
by an international National Socialist church, the cross by the
swastika and God by the Führer. That is what he claims.
It is clear to us that Mr. Roosevelt needed this grand swindle to whip
up American public opinion. He needed the heaviest possible
ammunition, since the American people are at the moment more
intelligent than their government and want absolutely nothing to do
with the war in Europe. We really are not all that interested in Mr.
Roosevelt's opinion of the intelligence of his people nor in what he
thinks them capable of believing, and normally would see no need to
reply to his bald-faced and outrageous lies which so clearly bear the
signs of fabrication. In this case, however, it is a matter of a
political falsification which seems to us to have a clear and ominous
purpose, and gave us such an easy chance to show up the liars to the
entire world that we could hardly let the opportunity pass. We had to
overcome our moral scruples, however, to confront the liar and ask him
where he got these alleged documents from, where they can be found,
and if he was ready to show them to the public.
Things went as we expected. Mr. Roosevelt, the president of a nation
of 130 million, dodged our questions. He claimed the authenticity of
the documents was unassailable; he had them. They could not be
published, however, since they were secret and publishing them would
reveal the source. And the map in question that carved up Central and
South America had markings in pencil which could compromise the source
that provided them. He, Roosevelt, did not want to cause any
difficulties for the poor chap who passed them along.
Would that we had such a president! He is a well-meaning soul who
cares for his scoundrels. Given his speeches and actions, he would not
hesitate to send hundreds of thousands of soldiers to the battlefield,
even perhaps sacrificing them in service to his crazy plans of
conquest, but the thought of causing a fine and honorable traitor any
trouble breaks his heart. As one can imagine, Roosevelt's answer was
not very convincing proof of his hair-raising allegations either at
home or abroad. Our tough questions bore fruit. We used the press and
radio to propose to the American president that he might publish the
incriminating map of Central and South America, perhaps either erasing
the ominous pencil markings or covering them up with paper, and to at
least publish the text of our notorious plan to begin a campaign
against all the world's religions once the war was over, from Jehovah
to Confucius to Christ.
Mr. Roosevelt sank into silence, saying nothing at all. Only one of
his creatures, the former Argentinean bordello-owner and pimp Taborda,
who happened to be visiting him at the time, said that he had been
able to sneak a look at the map, and that all was as Mr. Roosevelt
said. More he could not say, since he had given his word of honor.
One can understand our reluctance to consider the word of honor of so
dubious an underworld figure as absolutely convincing. We looked
further, and since we could learn nothing more given the stubborn
silence of the accuser, we attempted to lure him into a response by
massive attacks. Alas, the normally talkative gentleman seemed to have
forgotten how to speak. Even the attempts of the American press to
learn something more as he visited one of the famous skyscrapers were
in vain.
The Reich government published two formal denials on 1 November, which
boxed Roosevelt's ears so strongly that he had to chose between
revealing his documents or proving himself a forger and liar to the
entire world. He chose the latter. The U.S. press gave headline
treatment to the German denials and asked for a response. Mr.
Roosevelt accepted the blows, rubbed his checks and said nothing. We
made every conceivable suggestion to ease the publication of the
documents, but the U.S. president preferred to be thought a liar and
forger than to prove his absurd accusations.
That's the way things are. We do not flatter ourselves by believing
that we have some way to force Mr. Roosevelt to speak. He apparently
has every reason to hope the matter will be forgotten. When he made
his charges, one could perhaps generously grant that he believed them.
It was at least possible that he had been the victim of some sort of
swindle and had believed in the documents' authenticity. That is no
longer possible, for if he had been acting honestly he would have
provided the evidence supporting his accusations. He has not done so.
That is sufficient proof that he was not the victim of a forgery,
rather that he himself was directly or indirectly involved. This is a
matter of war and peace, and the American public has every right to
examine its president and his actions, to ask him about these
documents, why Mr. Roosevelt has not published them. whether he still
stands by his speech of 28 October, and what he plans to do to restore
the damage done to his reputation by the two German denials that
accuse him of forgery.
One always feels the need to wash one's hands after being forced to
deal with the methods of U.S. interventionism. It is so unpleasant and
filthy that one shudders. One hears the pious nonsense of the
Jewish-ruled world plutocracy over the radio or reads them in the
press, one need only to look behind the scenes to feel pity for the
miseries of mankind. That such a man has the impudence to judge us, to
call on God and the world as his witnesses of the purity of his deeds,
to incite war and send innocent people singing "Onward Christian
Soldiers" to battle for his filthy financial interests can only fill
anyone with even the most primitive sense of decency with the deepest
horror. Were there only such people in the world, one would have to
despise humanity..."


www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com

OK, that is the honorable Mr. Goebbels opinion about FDR.
I for my part think he was a "good guy" because he probably saved
USA from *loosing* a war with Nazi Germany at a later time. It is
also my impression that this is the real reason why you and other
Nazis hate him that much.

--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

What do the terrorists want? (4)

Topaz wrote:

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 13:06:05 +0200, Mogens Michaelsen
wrote:

Bush? FDR was clever enough to see that the Nazis was a severe
danger for USA too, because he was able to analyze the situation.
Which is what Bush & co. is lacking to a degree that is dangerous
not only for USA, but for the whole world.

An article by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, November 30, 1941
Mr. Roosevelt Cross-Examined
by Joseph Goebbels
"On 28 October, more than a month ago, U.S. President Franklin D.
Roosevelt gave a radio speech which apparently had as its goal
plunging the American people into uncertainty and panic and thus to
prepare gradually for the fateful intervention which the American
president desires, regardless of American public opinion. The speech
differed from all of his previous speeches in that Roosevelt did not
limit himself to the almost traditional and unconscionable and
slanderous attacks on the Führer and National Socialist Germany. This
time he made concrete accusations against the policies of the Reich,
which he attempted to prove though compromising documents he allegedly
possessed.
Mr. Roosevelt claimed that he had proof in his hands that the Axis
powers were planning to reorganize South and Central America. They
were planning to transform the existing fourteen countries into five
states that would be under their control. His proof was a secret map
allegedly produced by the Reich government. The American government
also claims to possess another Reich document. According to it, the
Reich government plans, once it has won the war, to abolish the
existing religions of the world-Catholicism, Protestantism,
Mohammedism, Hinduism. Buddhism and Judaism. They are to be replaced
by an international National Socialist church, the cross by the
swastika and God by the Führer. That is what he claims.
It is clear to us that Mr. Roosevelt needed this grand swindle to whip
up American public opinion. He needed the heaviest possible
ammunition, since the American people are at the moment more
intelligent than their government and want absolutely nothing to do
with the war in Europe. We really are not all that interested in Mr.
Roosevelt's opinion of the intelligence of his people nor in what he
thinks them capable of believing, and normally would see no need to
reply to his bald-faced and outrageous lies which so clearly bear the
signs of fabrication. In this case, however, it is a matter of a
political falsification which seems to us to have a clear and ominous
purpose, and gave us such an easy chance to show up the liars to the
entire world that we could hardly let the opportunity pass. We had to
overcome our moral scruples, however, to confront the liar and ask him
where he got these alleged documents from, where they can be found,
and if he was ready to show them to the public.
Things went as we expected. Mr. Roosevelt, the president of a nation
of 130 million, dodged our questions. He claimed the authenticity of
the documents was unassailable; he had them. They could not be
published, however, since they were secret and publishing them would
reveal the source. And the map in question that carved up Central and
South America had markings in pencil which could compromise the source
that provided them. He, Roosevelt, did not want to cause any
difficulties for the poor chap who passed them along.
Would that we had such a president! He is a well-meaning soul who
cares for his scoundrels. Given his speeches and actions, he would not
hesitate to send hundreds of thousands of soldiers to the battlefield,
even perhaps sacrificing them in service to his crazy plans of
conquest, but the thought of causing a fine and honorable traitor any
trouble breaks his heart. As one can imagine, Roosevelt's answer was
not very convincing proof of his hair-raising allegations either at
home or abroad. Our tough questions bore fruit. We used the press and
radio to propose to the American president that he might publish the
incriminating map of Central and South America, perhaps either erasing
the ominous pencil markings or covering them up with paper, and to at
least publish the text of our notorious plan to begin a campaign
against all the world's religions once the war was over, from Jehovah
to Confucius to Christ.
Mr. Roosevelt sank into silence, saying nothing at all. Only one of
his creatures, the former Argentinean bordello-owner and pimp Taborda,
who happened to be visiting him at the time, said that he had been
able to sneak a look at the map, and that all was as Mr. Roosevelt
said. More he could not say, since he had given his word of honor.
One can understand our reluctance to consider the word of honor of so
dubious an underworld figure as absolutely convincing. We looked
further, and since we could learn nothing more given the stubborn
silence of the accuser, we attempted to lure him into a response by
massive attacks. Alas, the normally talkative gentleman seemed to have
forgotten how to speak. Even the attempts of the American press to
learn something more as he visited one of the famous skyscrapers were
in vain.
The Reich government published two formal denials on 1 November, which
boxed Roosevelt's ears so strongly that he had to chose between
revealing his documents or proving himself a forger and liar to the
entire world. He chose the latter. The U.S. press gave headline
treatment to the German denials and asked for a response. Mr.
Roosevelt accepted the blows, rubbed his checks and said nothing. We
made every conceivable suggestion to ease the publication of the
documents, but the U.S. president preferred to be thought a liar and
forger than to prove his absurd accusations.
That's the way things are. We do not flatter ourselves by believing
that we have some way to force Mr. Roosevelt to speak. He apparently
has every reason to hope the matter will be forgotten. When he made
his charges, one could perhaps generously grant that he believed them.
It was at least possible that he had been the victim of some sort of
swindle and had believed in the documents' authenticity. That is no
longer possible, for if he had been acting honestly he would have
provided the evidence supporting his accusations. He has not done so.
That is sufficient proof that he was not the victim of a forgery,
rather that he himself was directly or indirectly involved. This is a
matter of war and peace, and the American public has every right to
examine its president and his actions, to ask him about these
documents, why Mr. Roosevelt has not published them. whether he still
stands by his speech of 28 October, and what he plans to do to restore
the damage done to his reputation by the two German denials that
accuse him of forgery.
One always feels the need to wash one's hands after being forced to
deal with the methods of U.S. interventionism. It is so unpleasant and
filthy that one shudders. One hears the pious nonsense of the
Jewish-ruled world plutocracy over the radio or reads them in the
press, one need only to look behind the scenes to feel pity for the
miseries of mankind. That such a man has the impudence to judge us, to
call on God and the world as his witnesses of the purity of his deeds,
to incite war and send innocent people singing "Onward Christian
Soldiers" to battle for his filthy financial interests can only fill
anyone with even the most primitive sense of decency with the deepest
horror. Were there only such people in the world, one would have to
despise humanity..."


www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com

OK, that is the honorable Mr. Goebbels opinion about FDR.
I for my part think he was a "good guy" because he probably saved USA from *loosing* a war with Nazi Germany at a later time. It is also my impression that this is the real reason why you and other Nazis hate him that much.

--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

What do the terrorists want? (3)

* US * wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 01:07:02 +0200, Mogens Michaelsen wrote:

... what would
have happened if USA had not entered the war?...

The Russians would still have defeated Hitler.

That's with all the help the Bush crime family
could give the Nazis, too.

The Nazis were too corrupt not to self-destruct,

Yes, I agree to that. Even if they had taken the whole world,
their empire wouldn't have lasted long (no Martians to attack!)
But millions upon millions of humans massacred.

but the whole world was glad to see them go,

Right you are!

except for the Bush family and others who
are wimpy and mentally defective.

--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

What do the terrorists want? (2)

* US * wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 01:07:02 +0200, Mogens Michaelsen wrote:

... what would
have happened if USA had not entered the war?...

The Russians would still have defeated Hitler.

I don't think so, for these reasons:

1. USSR was actually relatively weak (military & economy)

2. Nazi Germany wouldn't have had to fight on two fronts

3. USA would hardly have helped USSR with military equipment

But of course the question is highly hypothetical - no one knows.

That's with all the help the Bush crime family
could give the Nazis, too.

Bush? FDR was clever enough to see that the Nazis was a severe
danger for USA too, because he was able to analyze the situation.
Which is what Bush & co. is lacking to a degree that is dangerous
not only for USA, but for the whole world.

--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

What do the terrorists want?

Topaz wrote:

" Franklin Delano Roosevelt, dragged America into World War Two on
the wrong
side. FDR was one of the most personally corrupt politicians in world
history. John Toland, a famous author on World War Two, wrote a book
called "Infamy" detailing how FDR had prior knowledge of the
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

I have heard that story before, and of course it would have been
problematic if it were true. But on the other hand: what would
have happened if USA had not entered the war? A possible scenario
could be this:

1. Nazi Germany defeats UK and occupies most of Europe.

2. Nazi Germany defeats and occupies USSR (Russia).

3. Nazi Germany signs a peace treaty with USA.

4. Nazi Germany concentrate on getting stronger and developing
new interesting weapons (nuclear etc.)

6. A single nuclear bomb is dropped on Washington D.C. and U.S.
military ordered to surrender.

Concept

On this blog I will publish a copy of my postings on various News Groups.