April 20, 2016

Maurice Strong at Root of Global Warming Scam

Canadian oil billionaire Maurice Strong, Secretary General at the Rio de Janeiro United Nations 1992 Conference on Environment and Development, expressed the goal of Sustainable Development by declaring a partial list of what is not sustainable:
“...current life-styles and consumption patterns of the affluent middleclass [e.g. Americans]—involving high meat intake [e.g. cattle production], use of fossil fuels [e.g. air and auto travel, industrial and consumer products], appliances [e.g. refrigeration] home and work air-conditioning and suburban housing are not sustainable.”
The UN Divides the World into 10 'Regional Groupings'

Godfather of Global Green Thinking Steps Out of Shadows at Rio+20

By George Russell Published, FoxNews.com
Originally published on June 20, 2012

Godfather of global environmentalism resurfaces

Maurice Strong, the godfather of global environmentalism and organizer of the United Nations' 1992 Rio environmental Earth Summit, is making a quiet comeback to the limelight on the eve of that meeting’s successor, the Rio + 20 summit on "sustainable development," which starts June 20 in Brazil [home of the third temple].

Strong, 82, has been taking part in a variety of conference side-events prior to the three-day meeting of some 130 top-level international leaders, part of a growing wave of hoopla and promotion that will climax at the summit leadership sessions. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is leading the U.S. delegation there.

His appearance at Rio + 20  is also the latest stage in a Long March through controversy that has kept Strong, a native Canadian who is widely deemed to be one of the key instigators of the global environmental movement, living a low-profile life in China for the past half-decade.

Now Strong is back on one of the stages where he feels most comfortable--a global U.N. conference on the environment--though the role he may play in the leaders' sessions is not known. Questions sent by Fox News to the Rio + 20 conference organizers on Monday about his role had not been answered before this article was published.

Nonetheless, on Monday evening, Strong was introduced as a "very special guest of honor" at a "Corporate Sustainability Forum" organized by the U.N. Global Compact, a corporate group that has signed onto a variety of U.N. social and development goals. In a brief address, Strong lauded the assembled executives as "the most important meeting of Rio + 20," and noted the number of corporate representatives attending from "the country where I live, which is called China."
"If we are going to achieve the world we want, and not just the world we are going to get if we stay on the same course, it's got to be led by the business community," he said. "The real actors, the people who are going to make the change are the people in this room."
While Strong's presence is low-key, there is no doubt the U.N. has brought him to Rio in an official capacity, if nothing else as a living relic of the successful 1992 Earth Summit, where Strong served as conference secretary general. Strong has recently described himself as a "senior advisor to the secretary general" of the Rio + 20 conference, a high-level Chinese bureaucrat named Sha Zukang, who is also a top member of the U.N. Secretariat.

Documents examined by Fox News show that the Beijing office of the United Nations Development Program has paid Strong's way, with a $13,000 round-trip air ticket from Beijing to New York to Rio and back. His hotels and living expenses are also being picked up, in what amounts to a three-week Rio + 20 junket.

Along the way, Strong has stirred up controversy, after he stopped off in Canada late last month to slam the incumbent Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, as a man whose "ideology seems to over-ride his understanding" on issues of climate change. Many Canadians were dismayed by the comments.

Conservative Party leader Harper withdrew Canada late last year from the Kyoto Protocol on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, citing its crippling costs. Betwixt and between his many U.N. postings, Strong has been associated with the opposition Liberal Party. 

Controversy, along with radical environmental and economic views, is what Strong has long been known for. He took up residence in Beijing in 2005, after serving as the U.N.'s special envoy to North Korea, when investigators of the Oil for Food scandal uncovered the fact that he had cashed a check for nearly $1 million from Tongsun Park, a South Korean political fixer later convicted of conspiring to bribe U.N. officials on behalf of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

Strong was never accused of any wrongdoing, and said his move to China at that time was no more than a coincidence.

Since then Strong, an avowed life-long socialist, has been engaged, in low-key fashion, in a number of business deals involving the Chinese government. He also served as a director of the Chicago Climate Exchange, one of the first attempts to create a commercial cap-and-trade market in the U.S. Recently, he has also taken part in preliminary walk-up meetings for Rio + 20 in China, though without official title.

Giving Strong one last star turn on a U.N. environmental stage, despite his past brushes with scandal, is an interesting gambit for the U.N, though it has apparently approached the matter cautiously.

The fact is that Strong is the closest thing to global environmentalism’s patron saint--or, to conservative critics, the foremost grey eminence of the movement to expand "global environmental governance"--which is once more on the international agenda at Rio + 20. His presence adds another dimension of historical luster among fervent environmentalists, something that has been lacking as the gathering bogged down in negotiating acrimony in its preliminary stages.

Rio + 20 conference: Negotiators producing a mammoth, messy and expensive grab bag of regulations and demands

Three of the continuing, controversial themes of Strong's long U.N. career, are uppermost at Rio + 20: 
  1. strong support for China as a world power, 
  2. a greater role for global regulation of the environment, and 
  3. a radical overhaul of the world’s economic system.
All three will be on prominent display in Rio, where Sha Zukang serves as conference secretary general, "global environmental governance" is a conference theme, and developed and developing countries are battling over wealth transfers worth trillions in the context of "sustainable development" and measures to establish a new, "global green economy."

For his part, Strong has been publicly arguing the need for urgent action on the Rio + 20 conference agenda, extolling the need for a  revitalized greenhouse gas suppression agenda and a "revolution" in the world economy in, a June 4 article in Latin America that used his senior advisor title.
"Rio+20 must reinforce international efforts to reach agreement and renewal of the Climate Change Convention and its implementation," he declared.
The Environmental and Economic Crises Share the Same Cause

The article was published by a news service, Tierramerica, which says it is a joint project of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), and the World Bank. Strong has been writing similar pieces for Tierramerica for a number of years.

Using a UNEP-created news agency as the vehicle for an article by a former UNEP executive director to further the cause of greater global sway for UNEP is the kind of inventive but also self-aggrandizing public relations thinking that Strong has long brought to the U.N., and that played no small part in his long ascent to prominence.

Strong has spent nearly half of his life promoting a U.N.-centered vision on environmental issues. In 1972, he served as secretary-general of the U.N.'s Conference on the Human Environment--which, in turn, helped to spawn the United Nations Environmental Program later that year--whereupon Strong became its first executive director.

After filling a number of business roles back in his native Canada, Strong returned to run the Earth Summit, which gave global environmentalism another huge boost. He became a close advisor to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, helping him to generate a still unfulfilled blueprint for U.N. reform.

Maurice Strong on climate 'conspiracy', Bilberberg and population control

Maurice Strong Speaks To Journalists At Beijing International Airport

Photograph: Wilson Chu/Reuters/Corbis Leo Hickman

Former UNEP boss and environmentalist Maurice Strong's interview with Leo Hickman
June 23, 2010

What's your reaction to how your name has been used and abused over the years?

I've got used to criticisms and, naturally, I try to make sure I don't listen to the more extreme ones because most of the people who have taken their rightwing extremist view of my life are people that I've never met. Most of my supporters are people who actually know me. I just continue to do the best I can and I don't bother to try and respond to every little bit because the best response is just to keep on doing what you think is right.

Is this a phenomenon that has happened over the past decade or so during the internet age, or have you attracted criticism all your career stretching back to the 1960s?

Way back when I headed the Stockholm Conference on the Environment in 1972, I was roundly criticised then. I learn something from criticism because when it comes from sources you respect you always examine it and learn. However, the extreme criticism and attacks exclusively come from people I don't know who have an ideological basis for their criticism, and, most often, very little factual basis. I remember years ago the rightwing magazine in the US, the National Review, had me on their cover saying something like Maurice Strong is not a household name, but it perhaps the most dangerous person around, but they didn't interview me or anything. But I've had my positives too. Just recently I was in the Netherlands receiving the Franklin Roosevelt Freedom award.

Some of the criticism, particularly in this internet age, can be like a virus, going completely unchallenged…

If I spent my time responding to it I'd be doing nothing else. The best thing is just to keep doing what you think is right. I have a website for people to get some factual information about me. That is a type of response, I suppose. Anyone who is seriously interested in me would usually do a little more homework and realise that the extreme criticisms are almost exclusively ideologically based. And they don't bother with facts, they just distort or misrepresent the facts. They haven't silenced me.

Are you now retired?

I passed retirement age at the UN long ago. I left after the role I was in most recently which was Kofi Annan's representative in the North Korean issue. But North Korea withdrew their support for the UN and, incidentally, I drew some negative comments about why I left the UN, too. But it just happened that my contract expired and I was already over retirement age.

So there's nothing in the allegations about your involvement in the oil-for-food scandal?

There was lots of controversy about it, but very little attention was paid when it become clear that I didn't [have any involvement]. I had nothing to do with the oil-for-food scandal and there was an enquiry that made this clear. But I did have a relationship with one of the people involved with helping me on North Korea, who came from North Korea itself. That gave rise to some controversy and then when there was a report on it that made clear that I had not done any of those things there was very little publicity for that.

I am retired from all my official roles, but I am still very active. I have close relationships at the UN. I don't have any role at the UN, but I'm still quite cooperative with a number of UN activities, in particular to China and that region. I don't have any government responsibilities or formal role. I continue to be active, though.

Have you wound down your business interests?

I don't do very much. My son is the main shareholder of my company and I help him explore some of those opportunities that are related to things I know about, such as energy and the environment. But I'm active because I can't think of anything else to do in my so-called retirement.

A lot of the criticism you seem to attract is founded on the belief that, via your extensive portfolio of business interests and bureaucratic roles, you are somehow plotting to establish a new world order. How do you respond to this accusation?

I think it exaggerates my influence, my power and my intention. Anyone who wants to look at the record over the years can see that I've been subjected to that kind of criticism, but I've always made it clear that I do not believe that global government is either necessary of feasible. What I do believe is that we need a system of global governance through which nations can cooperate and deal with issues they cannot deal with alone. Maybe that statement is too sophisticated for some but it shouldn't be.

The ultimate example is climate change. I prepared a piece recently on what I call the "Survival Agenda", pointing out that the UN agenda has something like 150 items on it and it is impossible to get an item off the agenda due to the constituencies that keep them on there. However, many just don't need to be on there. They can be dealt with by other organisations, or are no longer relevant compared to when they were put on the agenda. What we need is to give special priority to those issues that affect our actual survival and I've boiled this down to about seven issues. We've got to realise that we blithely assume that life will continue no matter what because it always has. But it's not correct that it always has.

Look at the history of planet earth – there's only a minute moment of time when the conditions have been conducive to human life. We are literally altering those conditions and my motivation is to alert people to this. I believe that we need a degree of cooperation on these issues that goes beyond anything we've ever seen before. During a war we get a lot of co-operation, but we also get a lot of rivalry. In the second world war, nations co-operated. There are examples of co-operation during periods of special need. But things are happening now that could really affect the future of humanity and that's what drives me. It doesn't mean I'm right about everything, but that is my purpose.

A common cry among your critics is that you are a socialist, a communist. Your links to China and North Korea give rise to that view with some. This, they argue, is all part of some secret agenda to create a totalitarian, unelected world government. Is this something you recognise? Are you – or have you ever been – a communist?

I've certainly never been a communist. [Laughs.] It doesn't mean that I don't look critically at all systems. The capitalist system has proved itself not able to deal with all of society's problems. In terms of socialism, yes, I've been accused of that. My belief is that the purpose of economic life is to meet the social needs of people.

My kids sometimes ask me: "Are you a socialist or a capitalist?" I'm a socialist only in the sense that I believe that the purpose of economic life is to meet the social needs of people. I'm a capitalist in that I believe that's the best way to do so. Capitalism is not an end in itself but a means of creating and managing wealth to help meet social objectives. To me some people define socialism as the ownership of enterprises by governments on behalf of society. Well, sometimes that is very necessary.

In Canada, we've never had a socialist government at the federal level, but we've had state corporations, or what we call crown corporations. There are times when every government has state involvement in the economy. In the US, take a look at the single biggest industry – the defence industry. It is very much state-controlled. I believe that the government is actually a very poor owner of enterprise. I've run enterprises in Canada that were owned by government and never believed that government was the best owner of enterprise.

Is the concept of a free market, given the environmental challenges we face, a dangerous concept for humanity?

It's not free and never has been. Just look at the level of subsidies that every government provides. Even today, governments continue to subsidise fossil fuels or other things that are environmentally counter-productive. The market economy has seldom ever been free and we've seen recently the dangers of an unregulated, unrestrained market economy. I think even those who believe in the market economy must accept that it produces some unwelcome by-products and economic winners and losers. It demonstrates that a totally free market economy simply isn't workable.

So an ever freer market is a wrong-headed goal in your view? And increased regulation is preferable?

Up to a point. There are extremes of regulation. There has to be a balance. The democratic system, in theory, permits this constant re-examination of this relationship between government and enterprise.

Given your understanding of China, what in your view is the better model in the decades ahead – the Chinese model or the Western model?

I don't think there is any perfect model anywhere. We know already that the US model is not working. With the bail-outs and takeovers some of the US's main companies are now controlled by the government. We know that pure capitalism hasn't worked. In China, they have used their system – which they call a socialist market economy – quite well to achieve their objectives. It's also in a continuous process of evolution. I've had a working relationship with China nearly all my adult life. I've seen the remarkable progress they've made and are still making. They're quick learners. They tend to be among the best in terms of business and industry. They have learned how to use the methods of capitalism to meet their own goals of socialism. China is among the best managed countries today. Not perfectly managed, of course

Where would you instinctively rather live? In China, or in the US or Canada?

I've spent a lot of time in China and, with my environmental interests, China is about as good a place to be at the moment. China was pretty slow at the beginning. [The environment] was a side issue compared to the economy. But China has now recognised that undermining the environment is one of the risks to development. They have become very environmentally minded.

After the Copenhagen summit there were lots of accusations that China had pulled the rug out from any agreement…

I was there, but didn't have any influence. That is a lame excuse for the West. China is actually doing more than most other countries in the world to reduce its emissions. For example, its automobile emissions standards are tighter than those of the United States. The problem is the economy is growing so fast. The Chinese will continue to do more on their own emissions than an international agreement asks them to do, but they are not prepared to do them under an international agreement unless and until those who created the problem in the first place, and brought us up to these thresholds of danger, are doing what they've got to do. China's position is very consistent.

What most people missed about Copenhagen was there was no agreement in prospect. But what it did do is underscore that China must be accorded the kind of political status that its economy now demands. It's interesting that the final statement at Copenhagen was a statement between two countries – China and the US. That in itself is very significant. China has its own internal dangers, of course, but it has never been one to take over its neighbours. It has boundary disputes. It could easily overrun its neighbours, but it doesn't do that and I don't think it is likely to. But China is on track to be the largest economy in the world and, with it, it has a growing political influence.

Does this please or displease you?

I would say neither of those things. It's a perfectly proper objective for it to pursue. It has already lifted more of its own people out of poverty than any other single nation. Whether it will work in the future, as it has done in recent times, I'm not sure, but I don't see any signs that China increasing its power is a great threat.

It sounds as if your heart and sympathies are more with China at the current time than with the West. Is that correct?

I wouldn't say that. I'm a westerner, but I believe that the rise of China is good. It's not a danger and it will be a benefit to create a little more balance in the world where it's not dominated by one country. The US will continue to be a major force in the world, and that's good, but it's not going to be exclusively dominant as it has been in the past. The rise of China, and others in Asia, means the centre of gravity in world geopolitics has now moved towards Asia. My sympathies are with the East to the extent that I believe that it's inevitable – and should be good – that the power structure of our world community is accommodating of the fact that Asia is the largest region in economic and population terms. I can see how it could go wrong, too, but Western leaderships haven't always provided the ideal world we all hoped for. We are still a minority in the west. We can't continue to have it all our own way.

One of the strongest criticisms that you face is that, because you have had a varied career involving business interests and roles at the UN, you somehow created the climate change issue to profiteer from your business interests via, say, cap-and-trade and the Chicago Climate Exchange. Or that it is all a Trojan horse for you to advance your political objectives. How to respond to this?

It shouldn't take anyone too long to understand that it would be pretty difficult for a single person to mount a conspiracy that involves most of the world's [climate] scientists and to get them all to join this conspiracy. I'm not a scientist, but I've been close to science and seen that scientists don't reach consensus very easily. There's a tremendous process of dialogue and differences. To see climate scientists reach the level of consensus that they have is a major thing and couldn't be the result of a conspiracy that one person could ever engineer.

And what about the idea that you are somehow profiteering from climate change? That it's a device for you to make money through cap-and-trade?

I was on an MIT panel on climate change in 1968, I think it was, before the Stockholm Conference. But I was lucky enough to have already made enough money from business at that time. It's true that I do get a modest fee from Chicago Climate Exchange, which I helped Richard Sandor to found, because I believe the cap-and-trade system, while not perfect, is one of the best ways to ensure that people have the incentive to reduce their emissions at the lowest cost. That's a long way from suggesting that I could invent the climate change issue to make profit. People call me very rich. I'm rich in experience, but most of my money has always been spent on the causes I'm interested in. No one should feel sorry for me for being poor, but I'm certainly not very rich.

You're painted as this billionaire figure who strides all these global institutions reaping profits from the so-called cap-and-trade "scam" and your interests in China. Do you just laugh this off?

Well, it's just not true. You can check my credit report and see that I'm credit worthy - but just barely [laughs] - and I've never been anywhere close to being a billionaire. Also, it's never been my main purpose in life. I have business interests, but they are pretty modest and I believe that business has to contribute to the solutions. To do that, they have to be profitable. If people think I shouldn't have ever made a living, then perhaps I should have just passed the hat around to keep my affairs going. But I think if you look at my business record you will see that not everything I have ever done has been successful, by any means, but I have fought to contribute to the solutions of these problems.

Will the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico help President Obama push through his climate-change legislation?

I don't have an inside track, but I think it could help and probably should help. But the oil industry has lobbyists and the power of money has tremendous influences. No other industry has more than the oil industry. It's a good industry and I was in it myself. I was jeered when I set up Canada's national oil company – Petro-Canada – because I made every proposal that came to management have to have an environmental assessment. People in the industry at that time laughed at it and that was another source of criticism for my crazy ideas. The oil industry is very important, but it, too, has its excesses and the BP disaster is demonstrating the tremendous consequences of its excesses. We have to move away from oil now – and are at the very early stages of doing so – not because the oil is running out, but because of the economic and environmental consequences.

Some of your critics claim that you are part of a shadowy elite who gather together and work out how to run the world. Your name has been linked to the Bilderberg Group, the Illuminati, and, with your connection to the Rothschilds on the record, the "Jewish banking conspiracy". What are your connections to these groups?

I have got lots of connections, but they're not among them. I've never been a member of the Bilderberg. I don't have any special relationship with the Rothschilds. I knew Edmund Rothschild at one stage. He's passed away now, but was a very creative fellow who took an interest in Canada. I don't think I've ever done a piece of business with the Rothschilds. I've been on various foundations: the Rockefeller Foundation, and I worked with Ted Turner in helping him to set up the UN Foundation. But I got off most of those things because I got a little older and attending all the formal meetings was difficult physically because I've had health problems. What was the other one?

Illuminati - a group that has its origins in 17th Century Bavaria and is said to be planning a new world government.

[Laughs] Well, I've certainly never had any contact with anyone from that organisation, or that I knew was connected to that group. Maybe someone I knew had a connection with it, but I certainly don't have any relationship with it. And I'm not in favour of a world government, as I've said. It's not even feasible. I do believe that governments have to work together. That's one of things that really concerns me about the future. I really do believe that our future is in doubt.

So are you pessimistic about the state of the world?

Analytically, I'm pessimistic. I believe the odds are against us for making the changes we need to make in time. But, operationally, I'm optimistic because I believe that it is still possible. Tougher the longer we delay it. That's why I'm trying all these things because I believe we should still be trying as long as it is still possible. My pessimism is based on whether I think we will actually make these changes. At the Rio Summit, which I ran, a group of enterprises prepared a report called "Changing Courses". These were not environmentalists, they were CEOs of major companies and they said our present industrial civilisation is not viable unless it changes course. That was back in 1992. The need to change the course – not to replace it with some communist system – on which we are now embarked was absolutely imperative way back then. Now we have more companies agreeing with us, but we also have more opposition. I do believe that we are at risk.

Your name is often associated with terms such as eugenics and population control. What is your definitive position on the human population? Do we need to radically reduce the number of people on this planet? If so, how?

There is no question that growth in the world population has increased the pressures on the Earth's resources and life-support systems. Now that doesn't mean that the Earth can't support this number of people. There are much more stringent and disciplined ways of supporting the increase in population. The increase in population is occurring today mostly in countries without the resources to look after these populations.

China's one-child policy is not a perfect policy by any means, but, on the other hand, how do you control growth in your population? China has done a remarkable job in increasing the well-being of one of the largest populations in the world, but it's not easy.

There's no question that if you look at the growth in population and the growth of the economy that the pressure on the environment and resources of the Earth have come not from the increase in population, but rather the impacts of the existing population.

All the people on the Earth aspire to a better life. If all of them enjoyed the same patterns of consumption that we in the West do, then we would have an unsustainable situation, and we're actually on the way to that now. We are in a situation that is unsustainable. In some of the densest city states, such as Singapore and Hong Kong, you see that it's possible to have a decent life, but only by reaching out to the rest of the world for supplies and support.

So they are financially successful, but they require a disproportionate share of the world's resources. On a global basis, that would inevitably create an unsustainable world.

So, with a global population approaching 7 billion and predicted to reach 9 billion by 2050, do we just let this rise happen, or, in the West, do we have to start thinking along China's lines by introducing rules and regulations about how many children people can have?

There is quite a lot of evidence to suggest that China's one-child policy hasn't been the only form of population control in that country. As the economy helps people in their lives, they tend to have fewer children.

So one child in the US, could equal the consumption levels of 10 children in Africa or India?

That's what I believe. It may be possible that the Earth can sustain a larger population, and seems inevitable with current trends, but it will require better constraint and discipline. It will be hard to enforce, therefore. The increase in population will create a huge dilemma and sources of conflict. For example, population growth in places like Europe used to be balanced by emigration, but today the borders of the world are closing and the pressures on Europe, for example, will grow. The combination of population growth and the growth in consumption is a danger that we are not prepared for and something we will need global cooperation on.

This is the toughest issue of all, surely. How do you go to someone - unless you live in a totalitarian government such as China's - and say to them that they must limit the number of children they have?

Nature will provide solutions much tougher than we could ever provide if we don't do something ourselves. Secondly, I was deputy minister in the Canadian government at a very young age and I made a speech in Canada in which I said that, with a growing global population, we will have to recognise that having children is not just a personal issue but a societal issue and at a certain point we may be faced with a need to have a permit to have a child. My minister was getting all sorts of calls from archbishops saying, "what is he saying?" I had to explain that I wasn't advocating this, just that this is what might happen if we don't find better ways of doing it. That was controversial and I've been used to controversy ever since. Over the years, I've also noticed that this is one way of getting attention. For example, you'd probably never heard of me if people weren't always attacking me. It is, perhaps, a peripheral benefit that the attacks call attention to the issue.

You don't lose sleep when Glenn Beck dedicates a show to attacking you?

You know what? I haven't actually seen that show. But we wouldn't be having this conversation if he hadn't attacked me. I'm never going to be immune from criticism. I've always had lots of it and the internet has given it a proliferation of dissemination. I don't respond to it all, but I listen to it. My family gets irritated by it, but it's something that's been part of my life for so long that at my age I'm philosophical. I concentrate on the positives such as being honoured with a professorship seven or eight times. I could just fade away and, at my age, to some degree I am, but I'm not going to fade away any more than I have to.

Click here for more on Maurice Strong and the global warming conspiracy.


April 3, 2016

Turkey, a Sunni-majority country, has pursued an aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East in recent years in an effort to expand its influence and to position itself as the region’s leader of Sunni Islam.

Why would the USA give refuge to Islamist Fethullah Gulen and even provide high level officials to attest for him?

Turkey (Asia Manor) is located right in the middle of Europe, Asia and Middle East. Old Soviet bloc countries in Central Asia have two common grounds with Turkey: ethnicity and religion. Many of them are Turkic and Muslim.

Turkey being a NATO member for 61 years and on the side of U.S.A. since the Korean War of 1950s, has proven to be a trusted ally to US, willing to do whatever it takes to further American interests. Turkey is to U.S.A. in the Central Asia is what Israel is to U.S.A. in the Middle East.

Central Asia (with its vast natural resources, including a lot of oil) is being turned into another Middle East by Islamists with the covert support of U.S.A., against the Godless China. Not only because Central Asia is rich in natural resources and oil, but also geopolitically is a great buffer zone next to China and Russia… Plus, ‘War on Terror’ excuse can be used to invade more and more countries as we did in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We did not invade those countries to squash terror; that was the excuse used for the public, not the real intent. And that same excuse can and will be used again and again for more invasions or interventions. Therefore it is in the best interest of U.S.A. to fuel it, manage it and use it as needed. [Source]

Map of Central Asia

Turkish Intel Chief Exposes CIA Operations via Islamic Group in Central Asia

“In the 1990s Gulen’s Madrasas sheltered 130 CIA agents" in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan”

By Sibel Edmonds, Boiling Frogs Post
January 6, 2011

Yesterday Washington Post’s Jeff Stein published a very interesting but incomplete story regarding a recently published memoir by former Turkish Intelligence Chief Osman Nuri Gundes. Here is the title of his post: Islamic group is CIA front, ex-Turkish Intel chief says.

For those of you familiar with my case and what I’ve been covering here at Boiling Frogs Post, this exposé is ‘old news’ but nonetheless a vindication. As for those who are first-timers here or not that familiar with my case, this is an opportunity for a bit of background and to learn a few important points and facts that you won’t be getting from this ‘half-picture’ presented by the Washington Post.

In his memoir, Gundes claims that Fethullah Gulen’s worldwide Islamic movement based in Pennsylvania has been providing cover for the CIA since the mid-1990s, and that in the 90s, the movement "sheltered 130 CIA agents" at its schools in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan alone.

Now, as I’ve done before, I am going to praise Jeff Stain, whom I know and like, for his solid journalistic talent and background and give him a few credits for actually covering this story (it is one of those ‘thou shall not cover’ areas in an agreement between the US mainstream media and the US government), before I bash the piece, its half-a..  coverage, incomplete background, and it’s incredibly lenient treatment of a shady-dubious-charlatan, a major player in this operation yet a major denier when confronted by Stein; Graham Fuller. Again, as before, I am going to blame it on the unfortunate situation of ‘having to sell your journalistic soul to earn your living.’

Let’s start with Gulen. The only background provided on Gulen is the following with only one link which takes you to Gulen’s marketing site:
…an influential former Turkish imam by the name of Fethullah Gulen, has 600 schools and 4 million followers around the world.

The imam left Turkey in 1998 and settled in Saylorsburg, Pa., where the movement is headquartered. According to Intelligence Online, he obtained a residence permit only in 2008 with the help of Fuller and George Fidas, whom it described as head of the agency’s outreach to universities.

There is no mention of Gulen’s decade-long ‘wanted’ status in Turkey (until recently), no mention of the ban on Gulen and his Madrasas in several Central Asian countries, no mention of various investigations of Gulen by other western countries, no mention of the unknown sources of his billions of dollars…As we all know except for a very few, and by that I mean a number in 100s if that, no one in this country has ever heard of this guy with his billions, with his castle in Pennsylvania, his hundreds of Madrasas, now hundreds of US charter schools, his dubious businesses….Yet, for an article as serious as this (Madrasas and mosques as CIA operation centers in Central Asia), the central figure in the story has been given one sentence; no history, no relevant facts…

Those of you who have not read our previous commentaries and updates on this topic can check them out here,  here, here, and here, and below is a list of a few Gulen related facts totally (mysteriously?) absent from Washington Post piece:
-In 1999 Gulen defected to the US shortly before his scandalous speech, where he is heard calling on his supporters to "work patiently and to creep silently into the institutions in order to seize power in the state", became public. Turkish prosecutors demanded a ten-year sentence for Gülen for having "founded an organization that sought to destroy the secular apparatus of state and establish a theocratic state". Mr. Gulen has not left the United States since.
-The Netherlands has taken major steps to cut funding to all Gülen associated organizations and is investigating his operations. The Turkish Fethullah Gülen movement is really an Islamic fundamentalist group, claims Rotterdam council member Anita Fähmel (Leefbaar Rotterdam) on the basis of her own study of the Turkish movement.
-The Russian government has banned all Gülen schools and the activities of the Nur sect in Russia. Over 20 Turkish followers of Gulen were deported from Russia in 2002-2004.
-In 1999 Uzbekistan closed all Gulen’s Madrasas and shortly afterward arrested eight journalists who were graduates of Gulen schools, and found them guilty of setting up an illegal religious group and of involvement in an extremist organization.
-In Turkmenistan, government authorities have placed Gulen’s schools under close scrutiny and have ordered them to scrap the history of religion from curriculums.
Now, back to the story and its other major short coming:

Apparently Mr. Stein was not able to reach Gulen for comment, so he moved on to his CIA sources with ‘long ties to Central Asia.’ First he quotes his first source, Former CIA operative Robert Baer, chief of the agency’s Central Asia and Caucasus operations from 1995 through 1997, who called the allegations bogus. However, Mr. Baer added: “It’s possible that the CIA turned around this ship after I left.”

I don’t have a problem with Baer’s response. Based on what I personally know, US Islamization Operations in Central Asia via Gulen started in late 1997, early 1998. That brings me to what truly set me off, Stein’s second source and actually a character who is pointed to by the new memoir’s author - Graham Fuller:
Graham Fuller, a former CIA station chief in Kabul and author of “The Future of Political Islam,” threw cold water on Gundes’s allegations about Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan.

“I think the story of 130 CIA agents in Gulen schools in Central Asia is pretty wild,” Fuller said by e-mail.

“I should hasten to add that I left CIA in 1987 -- nearly 25 years ago -- and I have absolutely no concrete personal knowledge whatsoever about this. But my instincts tell me the claim is highly improbable.”
Next, Jeff Stein very gently confronts Fuller with the fact that according to the memoir and related media coverage Gulen obtained his US residence permit with his (Fuller’s) help, and Fuller denies it and says that’s ‘wrong,’:
“What I did do,” Fuller explained, “was write a letter to the FBI in early 2006 …at a time when Gulen's enemies were pressing for his extradition to Turkey from the U.S. In the post 9/11 environment, they began spreading the word that he was a dangerous radical. In my statement to the FBI I offered my views…that I did not believe he posed a security threat of any kind to the U.S. I still believe that today, as do a large body of scholars on contemporary Islam.”
First of all, there have been tens if not hundreds of articles establishing Graham Fuller as one of Gulen’s official references to the court for his residency, you can view some of these here, here, here. This quote comes from Foreign Policy Journal:
Fethullah Gulen became a green card holder despite serious opposition from FBI and from Homeland Security Department. Former CIA officers (formally and informally) such as Graham Fuller and Morton Abromovitz were some of the prominent references in Gulen's green card application.
Next is the question of why. Why and in what capacity has Fuller been this active, this supportive, of Gulen? I am talking about this voluntary ‘I wrote a letter to the FBI on Gulen’ line:
…was write a letter to the FBI in early 2006 …at a time when Gulen's enemies were pressing for his extradition to Turkey from the U.S. In the post 9/11 environment, they began spreading the word that he was a dangerous radical. In my statement to the FBI I offered my views…that I did not believe he posed a security threat of any kind to the U.S. I still believe that today, as do a large body of scholars on contemporary Islam.
And Stein let that slide?! I’d quickly ask: ‘how often do you write to the FBI on people you think have been unfairly targeted or treated by them?!’

Last but not least on Graham Fuller is my own on-the-record, more accurately, on-the-album, naming of individuals implicated (criminally) in my case, thus protected via invocation of the State Secrets Privilege:
Coinciding with the publication of the first article in a series in Britain’s Sunday Times covering some of her allegations, former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds posts a gallery of 18 photos of people and three images of question marks on her website, justacitizen.com. The 21 images are divided into three groups, and the page is titled “State Secrets Privilege Gallery.”… “The third group includes people who all appear to work at think tanks—primarily WINEP, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy”: Graham E. Fuller—RAND Corporation, David Makovsky—WINEP, Alan Makovsky—WINEP, ? (box with question mark), ? (box with question mark), Yusuf Turani (president-in-exile, Turkestan), Professor Sabri Sayari (Georgetown, WINEP), and Mehmet Eymur (former head of the Turkish intelligence agency MIT).
I am going to leave you with the following excerpts from my interview with Phil Giraldi for the Am Con Magazine in 2009, on Gulen, CIA Central Asia operations & the use of Islam and Mujahideen there-1997-2001:
GIRALDI: You also have information on al-Qaeda, specifically al-Qaeda in Central Asia and Bosnia. You were privy to conversations that suggested the CIA was supporting al-Qaeda in central Asia and the Balkans, training people to get money, get weapons, and this contact continued until 9/11…
EDMONDS: I don’t know if it was CIA. There were certain forces in the U.S. government who worked with the Turkish paramilitary groups, including Abdullah Çatli’s group, Fethullah Gülen.
GIRALDI: Well, that could be either Joint Special Operations Command or CIA.
EDMONDS: Maybe in a lot of cases when they said State Department, they meant CIA?
GIRALDI: When they said State Department, they probably meant CIA.
EDMONDS: Okay. So these conversations, between 1997 and 2001, had to do with a Central Asia operation that involved bin Laden. Not once did anybody use the word “al-Qaeda.” It was always “mujahideen,” always “bin Laden” and, in fact, not “bin Laden” but “bin Ladens” plural. There were several bin Ladens who were going on private jets to Azerbaijan and Tajikistan. The Turkish ambassador in Azerbaijan worked with them. There were bin Ladens, with the help of Pakistanis or Saudis, under our management. Marc Grossman was leading it, 100 percent, bringing people from East Turkestan into Kyrgyzstan, from Kyrgyzstan to Azerbaijan, from Azerbaijan some of them were being channeled to Chechnya, some of them were being channeled to Bosnia. From Turkey, they were putting all these bin Ladens on NATO planes. People and weapons went one way, drugs came back.
GIRALDI: Was the U.S. government aware of this circular deal?
EDMONDS: 100 percent. A lot of the drugs were going to Belgium on NATO planes. After that, they went to the UK, and a lot came to the U.S. via military planes to distribution centers in Chicago and Paterson, New Jersey. Turkish diplomats who would never be searched were coming with suitcases of heroin.
Wikileaks cables shed some light on the larger picture: Turkey cable:
In response, we will take additional steps to protect local contacts and stay vigilant against regime efforts to track our interactions with them, while redoubling efforts to expand the range of Turkey-based contacts willing to share Iran-related insights.

Turkish-Iranian Business Council cautioned him that the TIBC needs to be more careful in ensuring that its Iranian partners are not given a reason “to doubt our commitment to expanding bilateral commerce while staying out of politics.” This contact pledged to try to help set up a meeting for us with the TIBC executive board, but declined an offer to meet socially in the near-term. U.S. Consul General Sharon Anderholm Wiener.

Second Turkey cable: On missile defense, we will look for the Secretary’s help in advancing our work with Turkey to persuade the Turks to allow a AN/TPY-2 radar system to be based here. The Turks are struggling to define what they will need in terms of NATO political cover to lessen the high cost – both in terms of domestic politics and in relations with Iran – that Erdogan’s government believes it will have to pay should they agree. Our advocacy support for Raytheon and Sikorsky on sales of air defense systems and utility helicopters.

The Gulen Movement’s operations in tandem with the CIA in Central Asia.

Much has been written about this CIA and Gulen connection in our native Turkiye. Here is an excerpt of what Dr. Mizell a Kurdish writer has to say:

Why does America support Gülen’s missionaries in Central Asia and around the globe and even in the US? After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the balance of power in the world changed and more than 15 countries got their independence from the Soviet Union. There was a gap in power in the region seeking to be filled.

Additionally, most of these newly independent countries such as Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan were rich with the underground resources of oil, gas, gold, and other materials.

However, a void for religion developed as well, so there was a competition among an Iranian brand of Islam, a Saudi Arabian version of Islam, and Gülen’s missionaries to fill the void. The US government gave its support to Gülen because it mistakenly believed that Gülen‘s missionaries were less harmful compared to the Iranian Islamic movement Hezbollah, Saudi‘s brand of Islam Wahhbism, or other fundamentalist groups. The US thought that Gülen’s movement could be managed in the right way by using it to suit America’s purposes.

Because many naively believe that Gülen’s preaches nonviolence and dialogue between the Western and Muslim worlds, they let their guard down and fail to see behind his proclaimed agenda. They fail to understand that he is incrementally moving toward a return of the Islamic state such as the Ottoman Empire undertook.

That is why when Gülen applied for a green card, [but] he could not get it. Then some ex-CIA officers gave him reference letters for his application to demonstrate that he was a safe immigrant. Prior to this attempt, when Gülen could not get a green card the first time, he was looking for a place to go; if the US did not grant him a visa, he would have gone to China to continue his undercover operation. Gülen’s missionaries are trying to build the same platform as he used in Central Asia in the US by opening many NGOS, charter schools…..

Read the entire study at this link: http://www.kurdmedia.com/article.aspx?id=16439
According to the source below, included in these Bosnian and Central Asian Islamic fighters were 11 or more of the alleged 9/11 hijackers. And if  “elements in the US Government” supported these fighters for some agenda, this seems a lot closer to 9/11 than the 80s in Afghanistan. With regard to what the agenda might have been for these “elements” for the NATO Bosnian war, where these fighters fought the same enemies of NATO, was an interview with Prof. Chomsky who says that the justification for this war to “stop a genocide” was wrong, the genocides pointed to by his reading of the media at the time started after the NATO bombing. The real reason for this war in his opinion is that Serbia “was the last corner of Europe which has not subordinated itself to the US-run neoliberal programs, so it had to be eliminated.” A definite alternate agenda seems likely if he is right about the genocide starting after the bombings even if his opinion on the reasoning for the war is wrong.



Court Documents Shed Light on CIA Illegal Operations in Central Asia Using Islam & Madrassas

Sibel Edmonds State Secrets Gallery Connects Pipeline Politics, Madrassas & the Turkish Proxies

By lukery.blogspot.com
July 10, 2008

In a recent immigration court case involving Turkish Islamic Leader, Fetullah Gulen, US prosecutors exposed an illegal, covert, CIA operation involving the intentional Islamization of Central Asia. This operation has been ongoing since the fall of the Soviet Union in an ongoing Cold War to control the vast energy resources of the region - Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan - estimated to be worth $3 trillion.

Court Case

The scene for these dramatic disclosures was an application for a Green Card in the Eastern District Court in Philadelphia by "controversial Islamic scholar" Fetullah Gulen. Gulen, who has been living in the United States since 1998, argued that he qualified for the Green Card as "an extraordinarily talented academic."

The court case was covered extensively by the Turkish press. Leading Turkish newspaper Hurriyet reported:
"Gülen's financial resources were detailed in the public prosecutor's arguments, which claimed that Saudi Arabia, Iran, the Turkish government, and the Central Intelligence Agency, or CIA, were behind the Gülen movement. It stated that some businessmen in Ankara donated 10 to 70 percent of their annual income to the movement and that it corresponded to $20,000 to $300,000 per year per person. It added that one businessman in Istanbul donated $4-5 million each year and that young people graduating from Gülen's schools donated between $2,000 and $5,000 each year."
Another leading Turkish newspaper reported (translated by Rastibini)
Among the reasons given by the US State Department's attorneys as to why Gülen's permanent residence application was refused, is the suspicion of CIA financing of his movement.
[ . . . ]
"There is even CIA suspicion"

"Because of the large amount of money that Gülen's movement uses to finance his projects, there are claims that he has secret agreements with Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Turkic governments. There are suspicions that the CIA is a co-payer in financing these projects," claimed the attorneys.
[ . . . ]
Among the documents that the state attorneys presented, there are claims about the Gülen movement's financial structure and it was emphasized that the movement's economic power reached $25 billion. "Schools, newspapers, universities, unions, television channels . . . The relationship among these are being debated. There is no transparency in their work," claimed the attorneys."
Who is Gulen?

Fetullah Gulen is "a 67-year-old Turkish Sufi cleric, author and theoretician," according to a recent profile in the UK's Prospect magazine. Prospect ran a public poll last month to find the world's greatest living intellectual. Gulen 'won' the poll after his newspapers alerted readers to the poll's existence. Gulen is also the leader of the so-called 'Gulen Movement' which claims to have seven million followers worldwide. The Gulen Movement has extensive business interests, including "publishing activities (books, newspapers, and magazines), construction, healthcare, and education."

Gulen and the CIA

The fact that the prosecutors in the court cite documents that claim that Gulen has been financed in part by the CIA is remarkable for a number of reasons, even though there have been strong suspicions about the CIA's involvement in the Gulen Movement for years. The Russian intelligence agency, the FSB, has repeatedly taken action against the Gulen movement for acting as a front organization for the CIA. In December 2002, Turkish newspaper Hurriyet reported:
"Russian secret service claims: Turkish religious brotherhood works for CIA

The FSB, the Russian intelligence organization formerly called the KGB, has claimed that the 'Nurcus' religious brotherhood in Turkey has engaged in espionage on behalf of the CIA through the companies and foundations it has founded. FSB head Nikolay Patrushev has mentioned the names of these companies and foundations, saying, 'The brotherhood engages in anti-Russian activities via two companies, Serhad and Eflak, as well as foundations such as Toros, Tolerans and Ufuk.' Patrushev has accused the brotherhood of conducting pan-Turkish propaganda, of trying to convert Russian youths to Islam by sowing the seeds of enmity, and of engaging in certain lobbying activities. These companies and foundations have turned up in the internet site of Fethullah Gulen [alleged leader of the Nurcu religious community currently living in the United States who is a defendant in several court cases in Turkey, accused of engaging in anti-secularist activities.]""
Russia has banned all of Gulen's madrassas, and in April of this year, banned the Nurcu Movement completely.

Gulen's Madrassas

The Gulen Movement founded madrassas all over the world in the 1990's, most of them in the newly independent Turkic republics of Central Asia - Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan - and Russia.

These madrassas appear to be used as a front for enabling CIA and State Department officials to operate undercover in the region, with many of the teachers operating under diplomatic passports.

Why Central Asia?

Central Asia, with its vast energy wealth, is of major interest to US oil and gas companies. The region is also of key strategic interest in the 'Great Game' as Russia, China and the US compete for dwindling energy supplies. The US government has been using Turkey as a proxy to gain control over Central Asia via Pan-Turkic nationalism and religion.

Sibel Edmonds Case

Twenty six people wrote reference letters supporting Gulen's application for a Green Card - most notably ex-CIA agent George Fidas, former Turkish ambassador Morton Abramowitz, and former CIA Deputy Director Graham Fuller who appears in Sibel Edmonds' State Secrets Privilege Gallery.

I called Sibel Edmonds to comment on the latest revelations. She said:
You've got to look at the big picture. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the super powers began to fight over control of Central Asia, particularly the oil and gas wealth, as well as the strategic value of the region.

Given the history, and the distrust of the West, the US realized that it couldn't get direct control, and therefore would need to use a proxy to gain control quickly and effectively. Turkey was the perfect proxy; a NATO ally and a puppet regime. Turkey shares the same heritage/race as the entire population of Central Asia, the same language (Turkic), the same religion (Sunni Islam), and of course, the strategic location and proximity.

This started more than a decade-long illegal, covert operation in Central Asia by a small group in the US intent on furthering the oil industry and the Military Industrial Complex, using Turkish operatives, Saudi partners and Pakistani allies, furthering this objective in the name of Islam.

This is why I have been saying repeatedly that these illegal covert operations by the Turks and certain US persons dates back to 1996, and involves terrorist activities, narcotics, weapons smuggling and money laundering, converging around the same operations and involving the same actors.

And I want to emphasize that this is "illegal" because most, if not all, of the funding for these operations is not congressionally approved funding, but it comes from illegal activities.

And one last thing, take a look at the people in the State Secrets Privilege Gallery on my website and you will see how these individuals can be traced to the following: Turkey, Central Asia, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia - and the activities involving these countries.
Many of the people in Sibel's State Secrets Privilege Gallery are closely connected to Gulen, and each other, as well as the operations that Sibel mentions. Many of them have actively advocated for using Muslims to further their own needs - from Turkistan to Albania and Central Asia.

Marc Grossman, former State Department #3 and former Turkish ambassador, and one of the key named individuals in Sibel's case, is currently receiving $1.2 million per annum from Ihlas Holding, a Gulen-linked Turkish conglomerate. Sibel has previously referred to Ihlas as 'semi-legitimate' and 'alleged shady' - and emphasized that Grossman's current payoff is a result of services performed while he was in office.

Grossman's predecessor as ambassador in Turkey was Morton Abramowitz - in fact, Grossman actually worked under Abramowitz in Ankara for a number of years. During that period, the US opened an espionage investigation into activities at the embassy involving Major Douglas Dickerson, a weapons procurement specialist for Central Asia. Dickerson and his wife, an FBI translator, later became famous when they tried to recruit Sibel to spy for this criminal network.

Abramowitz, who is not listed in Sibel's State Secrets Privilege Gallery, wrote a letter in support of Gulen for his immigration case. He has long advocated the use of Islamic fighters in furtherance of US interests, including the Afghan mujaheddin against the Soviets and the Kosovo Liberation Army during the war in the Balkans, acting as an advisor to the Kosovar Albanians.

Another player from Sibel's Gallery is Enver Yusuf Turani - Prime Minister of East Turkistan, a 'country' recognized by only one country, the United States. East Turkistan, aka Xinjiang, is officially a part of China, and home to the Uyghur people and the "Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement," a UN-nominated terrorist organization "funded mainly by Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network and received training, support and personnel from both the al-Qaeda and the Taliban regime of Afghanistan." In fact, the Uyghurs constitute a significant percentage of detainees - at least 22 - at Guantanamo Bay since 2001. Five of those have been set free, and were eventually sent to Albania, amid much controversy.

According to TurkPulse:
"One of the main tools Washington is using in this affair in order to get Turkey involved in the Xinjiang affair is some Turkish Americans, primarily the Fetullah Gulen team who are prosecuted in absentia in Turkey for trying to found a theocratic State order in this country because he runs his activities from the United States, his protégé. Another Turk used in this affair is Enver Yusuf Turani, who is the self styled Foreign and Prime Minister of the East Turkistan Government in exile. He has been an American citizen since 1998. Enver Yusuf is in close cooperation with Fetullah Gulen... Their activities for the government in exile are based on a report entitled “the Xinjiang Project” drafted by Graham Fuller in 1998 for the Rand Corporation and revised in 2003 under the title “the Xinjiang Problem.” It emphasises the importance of the Xinjiang Autonomous region in encircling China and provides a strategy for it."
In fact, Abramowitz and Fuller were key players in the establishment of 'East Turkistan,'
"proclaiming the government in exile within 4-5 months, starting in May (2004) and completing the proclamation in mid- September. The ceremony was held at Capitol Hill under American flags in Washington."
Two others from Sibel's gallery, Sabri Sayari and Alan Makovsky, have been similarly involved with Gulen, Fuller, and Abramowitz - co-authoring books and articles, making joint appearances, dinners etc.

Illegal Operations

Earlier I quoted Sibel saying
"And I want to emphasize that this is "illegal" because most, if not all, of the funding for these operations is not congressionally approved funding, but it comes from illegal activities."
Where does this funding come from? Narcotics trafficking, nuclear black market, weapons smuggling, and terrorist activities.  

As Sibel makes clear in her The Highjacking of a Nation article, the management of the heroin industry from the farms in Afghanistan to the streets of London and elsewhere "requires highly sophisticated networks," from the protection of the convoys from Afghanistan through Central Asia to their final destination, to the laundering of the billions of dollars in proceeds in Central Asian casinos and financial institutions in Dubai and Cyprus. "So, who are the real lords of Afghanistan’s poppy fields?" Sibel asks. The heroin trade finances al-Qaeda and the Taliban, but they aren't the real lords of the poppy fields. Journalist Ahmed Rashid, author of "Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia " and other similar books about these issues recently noted on Democracy Now that a "cartel" controls Afghanistan's heroin, which supplies 93% of global heroin supply.

Sibel has been trying to tell us about these operations for years, but has been gagged by the State Secrets Privilege which was invoked citing certain 'sensitive foreign diplomatic and business relationships.' These 'sensitive relationships' have now been exposed to a degree, thanks to the immigration case against Mr Gulen - one of the Turkish operatives who have been fronting for the CIA in the Islamization of Central Asia, incorporating drug trafficking, money laundering, and the nuclear black market, and the convergence with terrorism.

One Last Question

At the end of our interview, Sibel asked me to leave you with this question:
"After 911, the US Government engaged in mock investigations and shut down many small Islamic charities and organizations, giving the appearance of action in the so-called 'War on Terror.' Why did they harbor, support and resource Fethullah Gulen's $25 billion madrassa-and-mosque-establishment efforts throughout the Central Asian region and the Balkans?"

The Illuminati is Fomenting World War Three by Stirring Up Conflict Between Political Zionists and the Leaders of the Muslim World; Their End Goal is the Destruction of Both Christianity and Atheism and the Universal Manifestation of the Doctrine of Lucifer

Go to The Lamb Slain Home Page