Research Discussion: I'm Sorry ... Very Sorry.

I'm Sorry ... Very Sorry.
Posts: 10

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1   (First | Last)

2010-03-28 20:29:13 EST

"Sir Gilligan Horry" <> wrote in message
> I'm Sorry ...
> ______________________
> ###################
> This is China !!!
> This is America !!!

Horry, have you taken one of ChuckWeasel's stupid pills ???

_//!! _//!!
2010-03-28 20:44:35 EST

"Hagar" <hagen@sahm,name> wrote in message
> "Sir Gilligan Horry" <> wrote in message
>> I'm Sorry ...
>> ______________________
>> ###################
>> This is China !!!
>> This is America !!!
> Horry, have you taken one of ChuckWeasel's stupid pills ???

Unlike you, Hagar, he/she/it, Sir Gilligan Horry, has a Conscious.



--- news:// - complaints: ---

2010-03-28 21:15:30 EST

"_//!! _//!!" <> wrote in message
> "Hagar" <hagen@sahm,name> wrote in message
>> "Sir Gilligan Horry" <> wrote in message
>>> I'm Sorry ...
>>> ______________________
>>> ###################
>>> This is China !!!
>>> This is America !!!
>> Horry, have you taken one of ChuckWeasel's stupid pills ???
> Unlike you, Hagar, he/she/it, Sir Gilligan Horry, has a Conscious.
> *Hallelujah*
> *Amen*
First off, my little ignorant flower, Horry is conscious ... but he also
may possess a conscience ... there is a subtle difference, which ignorant
sluts like you usually don't perceive.

But, I have a conscience too, my little kumquat ...
it's a little stiff just now ... wanna get it on ???


_//!! _//!!
2010-03-28 21:34:02 EST

"Hagar" <hagen@sahm,name> wrote in message
> "_//!! _//!!" <> wrote in message
> news:hoot6d$2pie$
>> "Hagar" <hagen@sahm,name> wrote in message
>>> "Sir Gilligan Horry" <> wrote in message
>>>> I'm Sorry ...
>>>> ______________________
>>>> ###################
>>>> This is China !!!
>>>> This is America !!!
>>> Horry, have you taken one of ChuckWeasel's stupid pills ???
>> Unlike you, Hagar, he/she/it, Sir Gilligan Horry, has a Conscious.
>> *Hallelujah*
>> *Amen*
> First off, my little ignorant flower, Horry is conscious ... but he also
> may possess a conscience ... there is a subtle difference, which ignorant
> sluts like you usually don't perceive.
> But, I have a conscience too, my little kumquat ...
> it's a little stiff just now ... wanna get it on ???
> *666*

There you go again, Dumbing Down & Sexing Up, it's a Losers' Formula!



--- news:// - complaints: ---

Sir Gilligan Horry
2010-03-28 23:13:16 EST

I'm Sorry ...



This is China !!!
This is America !!!

Sir Gilligan Horry
2010-03-29 00:18:22 EST
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 01:44:35 +0100, "_//!! _//!!"
<*> wrote:

>"Hagar" <hagen@sahm,name> wrote in message
>> "Sir Gilligan Horry" <> wrote in message
>>> I'm Sorry ...
>>> ______________________
>>> ###################
>>> This is China !!!
>>> This is America !!!
>> Horry, have you taken one of ChuckWeasel's stupid pills ???
>Unlike you, Hagar, he/she/it, Sir Gilligan Horry, has a Conscious.

i am a bit dizzy today.
Have i broken Your remote neural monitoring alien device ?
i've just put on my wizzard hat, that should fix things.

WIZZ WIZZ ... I feel better now ...

"Christopher Walken"

2010-03-29 09:32:56 EST

"_//!! _//!!" <> wrote in message
> "Hagar" <hagen@sahm,name> wrote in message
>> "_//!! _//!!" <> wrote in message
>> news:hoot6d$2pie$
>>> "Hagar" <hagen@sahm,name> wrote in message
>>>> "Sir Gilligan Horry" <> wrote in message
>>>>> I'm Sorry ...
>>>>> ______________________
>>>>> ###################
>>>>> This is China !!!
>>>>> This is America !!!
>>>> Horry, have you taken one of ChuckWeasel's stupid pills ???
>>> Unlike you, Hagar, he/she/it, Sir Gilligan Horry, has a Conscious.
>>> *Hallelujah*
>>> *Amen*
>> First off, my little ignorant flower, Horry is conscious ... but he also
>> may possess a conscience ... there is a subtle difference, which ignorant
>> sluts like you usually don't perceive.
>> But, I have a conscience too, my little kumquat ...
>> it's a little stiff just now ... wanna get it on ???
>> *666*
> There you go again, Dumbing Down & Sexing Up, it's a Losers' Formula!

But, my little kumquat, you did your very own "dumbing down" of
the English language. If you don't know how to spell, then STFU.

Now here's your last chance to buck up and pay me "lip service",
if you know what I mean ....

Yours forever,


Paul Joseph Watson Is CIA
2010-03-30 05:21:44 EST
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:13:16 +1000, Sir Gilligan Horry
<*> wrote:

>I'm Sorry ...


How about now?

Obama Campaign Linked To Chechen Terrorism

Grant Of Taxpayer-Funded U.S. Asylum For Chechen Terror Envoy Gave
Obama Foreign Policy Guru Zbigniew Brzezinski “One Of The Happiest
Days Of My Life”

“I am glad [Brzezinski] is a “former” national security adviser.
Hatred cannot drive foreign policy.” Russian UN ambassador (now
Foreign Minister) Sergei Lavrov, Charlie Rose program, March 25, 1999
“How would Americans feel if Russia offered sanctuary to Osama bin
Laden?” –

By Webster G. Tarpley

If the American public were generally aware that the “foreign
minister” of one of the most murderous terrorist organizations in the
world, a man whose extradition on terrorism charges is sought by at
least one UN Security Council permanent member, is living openly in
Washington DC, they might be indignant. If Americans knew that this is
the “foreign minister” of a terrorist group specializing in killing
women and children, first in a hospital, then in a school, and later
defenseless civilians in a theater, their indignation might grow into
rage. If they knew that this envoy for terrorists is living in the
comfortable Woodley Park neighborhood of Washington DC with a
lifestyle most Americans could not afford, with an office, a
secretary, a travel budget, and a public relations budget all paid for
at the expense of the US taxpayers, with State Department checks
signed by Condoleezza Rice, they might be furious. If they knew that
this ambassador for terrorists had been set up in his current
all-expenses-paid, taxpayerfunded lifestyle by a man who is the main
image adviser and the main foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama,
their view of the Illinois senator and his qualifications for the
presidency might well undergo a radical change.

And yet, all this is reality. The terrorist organization in question
is the Chechen rebel group associated with the names of two of the
greatest butchers of our time, Aslan Maskhadov and Shamil Basayev,
both deceased even though the organization they built fights on. The
foreign minister and ambassador for this terrorist group is Ilyas
Khamzatovich Akhmadov (????? ?????????? ???????, born December 19,
1960), who was granted political asylum in the United States in 2003.
Akhmadov’s patron is none other than Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former
head of the National Security Council during the Jimmy Carter
administration and, before that the co-founder with David Rockefeller
of the Trilateral Commission in 1973. Zbigniew Brezezinski in turn is
not only the main foreign policy adviser to the Barack Obama
presidential campaign; Zbigniew is in many ways the creator of the
public relations image profile now being used by Obama in his quest
for the White House, an image that is developed in Zbig’s latest book,
Second Chance. Zbigniew’s son Mark Brzezinski, a veteran of the NSC
under Clinton, is another key foreign policy adviser for Obama. Mika
Brzezinski, daughter to Zbigniew and sister to Mark, churns out a
propaganda line slanted in favor of Obama every morning on the MSNBC
Morning Joe program. Ian Brzezinski, another son of Zbigniew, is busy
poisoning US relations with Russia from his post as Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Europe and Russia in the Bush Pentagon. Yet
another member of the clan, Zbigniew’s nephew Matthew Brzezinski
serves as a de facto public relations representative for Akhmadov,
whitewashing this envoy for Chechen terrorists in the pages of the
Washington Post. The entire crew is made up of petty Polish
aristocrats notable mainly for their fanatical, consuming hatred of
Russia and Russians. The family project is to hitch the remaining
military power of the United States to their monomania of hatred. If
they are allowed to succeed, the bloody excesses of the neocons in the
Middle East will seem like schoolyard games by comparison, since the
Brzezinski gang wants to court all-out confrontation with a
first-class thermonuclear power that is moving well ahead of the US in
certain crucial types of strategic weaponry. The now-infamous neocons
have been careful to pick on powers with little or no strategic
retaliatory potential. Brzezinski lacks this faculty of
discrimination. This is the reality behind the messianic edification
and utopian platitudes dished up by Obama. Under an Obama
administration, Americans will risk getting a reminder of what real
war looks like, and they may discover that it is a two-way street.

Voters who may be wondering what the foreign policy of a future Obama
administration might look like need to learn from recent painful
experience with George W. Bush and look closely at the foreign policy
advisers around the candidate, since it is these figures who will
prepare the policy options and, by so doing, will determine the course
of a new administration. For Bush, these advisers were the self-styled
“Vulcans,” figures like Wolfowitz, Condi Rice, Rumsfeld, Colin Powell,
and Cheney, most of them neocons and most of them chosen by George
Shultz, who created the disaster of the Afghan and Iraq wars. Even
though Bush might have been a blank slate in foreign policy, it was
evident from the presence of these neocon warmongers which direction
the new regime would choose. Who then are the corresponding figures
around Obama? A cursory look reveals that in foreign affairs and not
just foreign affairs, Obama is the creature of the Brzezinski machine.
“He’s A Terrorist, There Is No Doubt About It”

The country that wants Akhmadov extradited into their custody to stand
trial for multiple murder charges is the Russian Federation, which has
repeatedly requested that Akhmadov not be allowed to stay in
Washington. Russia has been demanding Akhmadov’s extradition since
2003. “He’s a terrorist, there is no doubt about it,” commented
Aleksander Lukashevich, senior political counselor at the Russian
Embassy in Washington. “We have proof . . . . Our foreign minister has
made Russia’s position on extradition quite clear.” “Harboring
terrorists, their henchmen and sponsors undermines the unity and
mutual trust of parties to the antiterrorist front,” Russian Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov stated in an address to the U.N. General
Assembly in 2004. Russian President Vladimir Putin commented during a
visit to India in December 2004, “We cannot have double standards
while fighting terrorism, and it cannot be used as a geopolitical
game.” Akhmadov’s presence in Washington is thus already a major
irritant in US-Russia relations. Seen in this context, Akhmadov
emerges as pawn in the Brzezinski clan strategy to set the United
States and Russia on a confrontation course, a strategy they plan to
impose on Obama, who is their clueless puppet in international

Voters may remember the Chechen terrorists for their greatest
atrocity, the September 2004 attack on a school in Beslan, North
Ossetia, located in the ethnically diverse trans- Caucasus region of
southern Russia. At that time, Chechen terrorists took hundreds of
hostages in an elementary school. Before the terror attack was
finished, more than 300 persons, mainly school children and women, had
been massacred. The responsibility for this atrocity was claimed in a
formal statement by the terrorist leader Shamil Basayev, a reputed CIA
agent later killed by Russian troops. This infamous Basayev, one of
the fiercest terrorists of our own or any other time, is generally
acknowledged to have been the direct superior officer, mentor, and
friend of Ilyas Akhmadov, the protégé of Zbigniew Brzezinski now
living at US taxpayer expense. Akhmadov himself admits his close
relationship to Basayev, whom he first met in 1992. In 1994, when the
Chechen secessionist rebellion began, Akhmadov was quick to join an
infantry unit commanded by Basayev operating near the Chechen capital
of Grozny. Akhmadov’s other great terrorist sponsor was the Chechen
rebel “president” Maskhadov, who named Akhmadov to the job of foreign
minister which he still claims to hold, despite his claims to disagree
with the terrorist policies of the government he continues to
represent. Maskhadov was killed by Russian forces. Akhmadov, who
demands Sam Adams on draft, not in bottles when he is thirsty, told
Zbigniew’s nephew Matthew that he no longer approves of what Basayev
and Maskhadov did, but his complicity is beyond doubt. (See Matthew
Brzezinski, “Surrealpolitik: How a Chechen terror suspect wound up
living on taxpayers’ dollars near the National Zoo,” Washington Post
Magazine, March 20, 2005.
1995 Budyonnovsk Hospital Massacre By Akhmadov’s Friends

In 1995, a group of 150 Chechen terrorist fighters commanded by
Basayev attacked a Russian hospital in Budyonnovsk, about 100 miles
north of the Chechen border. Basayev and his terrorist commandos took
more than 1,000 hostages at the hospital, leading to a siege by
Russian forces which lasted a week. Basayev’s Chechen terrorist
fighters used the defenseless Russian patients and staff as human
shields. In the ensuing fighting, more than 100 Russian hostages,
including many women and children, perished. These are the forces
which Akhmadov has represented and continues to represent, with the
American taxpayer footing the bill.

Akhmadov’s track record is so horrendous that even some important
Republican Congressmen resisted granted him asylum in the US. The 2003
House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner
(R-Wisconsin), and the chairman of the Immigration and Border Security
subcommittee, John Hostettler (R-Indiana) jointly demanded that the
then Attorney General John Ashcroft review the ruling that granted
Akhmadov political asylum. “If the United States had evidence that Mr.
Akhmadov was involved in terrorist activities, it is unclear why he
was not barred from asylum as a terrorist and as a danger to the
security of our nation,” they told Ashcroft in September 2004.
Zbigniew: “One Of The Happiest Days Of My Life”

“In July 2004 . . . after running up legal fees that (if he had had to
pay them) would have set him back $250,000, Akhmadov received the
final decision. He could stay in America,” writes Matthew Brzezinski.
He does not make clear who footed the bill for Akhmadov’s quarter
million dollars of lawyers’ expenses. Was it the American taxpayer? In
any case, there is no doubt that the pro-Akhmadov lobbying was
spearheaded by Zbigniew Brzezinski and his faction of Russia haters.
When Akhmadov was granted permanent asylum, it was apparently Zbigniew
Brzezinski who called to give him the news: “I’m not exaggerating when
I say that one of the happiest days of my life was when I called Ilyas
to tell him that he would be able to stay in America,” said Zbigniew
Brzezinski, as quoted by his own nephew, Matthew. (Washington Post,
March 20, 2005)

Akhmadov was later given a Reagan-Fascell grant by the State
Department. This provides him with a generous stipend for living
expenses, an office at the National Endowment for Democracy complete
with private secretary, plus extra money for travel and public
relations purposes – all courtesy of the American taxpayer. Would an
Obama administration, with an anti-Russian foreign policy dictated by
Zbigniew Brzezinski and his clan, bring Chechen and terrorists in
large numbers to this country, provided that they were anti-Moscow?
Would these terrorists get Reagan-Fascell grants from the State
Department, so that they could live and operate at US taxpayer
expense? What impact might that have on US-Russian relations? If these
terrorists were to orchestrate a huge atrocity in Russia that had
their fingerprints all over it, what might the Russian response be? Do
we really want to go down this road in deference to the psychotic
obsessions of an aging revanchist and Russophobe like Zbigniew

Especially after the publication of Matthew Brzezinski’s whitewash of
Akhmadov, the presence of an ambassador for such a terror organization
being maintained by the US taxpayers in Washington DC became a public
scandal. The scandal came out in the pages of Johnson’s Russia List,
the scholarly clearing house for information about Russia. Professor
Robert Bruce Ware of Southern Illinois University offered the
following facts to challenge the Matthew Brzezinski article, which had
claimed that Akhmadov was now a penitent for the actions of the
Chechen terrorist regime: “On August 2 and September 5, 1999, the
Russian Republic of Dagestan was invaded by about 2,000 terrorists
from al- Qaeda-connected bases in Chechnya. Dozens of innocent
Dagestani men, women, and children were murdered. According to figures
furnished by the UNHCR, 32,000 people were driven from their homes.
The invasions were potentially genocidal in that they exposed to
direct attack the entire ethnic territories, and all villages,
inhabited by some of Dagestan’s smaller ethno-linguistic groups, such
as the Andis. During these months Illyas Akhmadov was serving as
Chechnya’s foreign minister. He did not resign from that position. I
have been able to find no evidence that Akhmadov issued any public
statement repudiating the invasions of Dagestan during the six weeks
that they were in progress. During interviews with Dagestanis since
that time, I have been able to find no one in Dagestan who is aware of
any public statement issued either by Illyas Akhmadov or Chechen
President Aslan Maskhadov repudiating the invasions while they were in
progress, let alone offering to assist the people of Dagestan in
resisting them.” (Robert Bruce Ware, “Response to Brzezinski,”
Johnson’s Russia List, March 20, 2005.

Professor Ware challenged the Brzezinski cabal to justify their
support for Akhmadov and the Chechen terrorists, especially in the
light of Bush’s posturing that those who harbor terrorists are
themselves to be classified as terrorists: “We Americans can easily
imagine how we would feel if we were to discover that Mullah Omar, or
any other important Taliban official, had been granted political
asylum in Russia. . . . Now here are my first questions for Illyas
Akhmadov, the Brzezinski clan, . . . and everyone else cited in the
Brzezinski article: If the United States was correct to declare the
entire Taliban government a terrorist organization, then why isn’t the
Russian government correct to declare Chechen government, including
Aslan Maskhadov and Illyas Akhmadov, to be a terrorist organization?
If we would think it wrong of Russia to grant political asylum to
Mullah Omar, then why do we not think that it is wrong for the United
States to grant political asylum to Illyas Akhmadov? Why didn’t Illyas
Akhmadov resign from the Chechen government when Dagestan was invaded?
Why didn’t Illyas Akhmadov resign from the Chechen government when
Aslan Maskhadov refused to extradite the leaders of the invasion of
Dagestan? During the months of August and September 1999, Illyas
Akhmadov was shuttling between Moscow and Grozny in order to negotiate
these points with Russian officials. During those months did Illyas
Akhmadov personally refuse, or convey refusals, of requests such as
these? Exactly what record is there that Illyas Akhmadov ever issued a
public statement repudiating the invasions of Dagestan while those
invasions were in progress, or supporting the extradition of the
invasions’ leaders? (Robert Bruce Ware, “Response to Brzezinski,”
Johnson’s Russia List, March 20, 2005)
“Achmadov Should Be Asked To Leave The United States”

Professor Ware’s conclusion was that Akhmadov needed to be deprived of
his State Department funding and kicked out of the United States: “If
the 9/11 [attacks] made Bin Laden a terrorist, and if the Oklahoma
City blast made McVeigh a terrorist, then why didn’t his public
acceptance of responsibility for the Ingushetia raids make Aslan
Maskhadov a terrorist? And if his public acceptance of responsibility
for those raids made Maskhadov a terrorist, then why doesn’t it
implicate those who represented him, such as Illyas Akhmadov, in
charges of terrorism? And if it does make Illyas Akhmadov a terrorist
then why is he enjoying political asylum and a prestigious
professional position at the expense of the American taxpayer? . . .
Akhmadov should be asked to leave the United States as soon as
possible.” (Robert Bruce Ware, “Response to Brzezinski,” Johnson’s
Russia List, March 20, 2005). Better yet, Akhmadov should be handed
over to Russia, which would get him off the back of the US taxpayer.
At the very least, Akhmadov should be indicted for terrorism and put
on trial in Washington.
Brzezinski Supported Pol Pot

Zbigniew Brzezinski’s support for Chechen terrorism, no matter how
dangerous this policy may be for the United States, is exemplary for
his entire approach to world affairs, which he calls “geostrategy.” In
practice, this means Russophobia, the hatred of Russia. So fanatical
is Zbigniew’s hatred for Russia that he is willing to embrace any
lunatic adventure, no matter what the potential for blowback and
damage to the United States, as long as he thinks that Moscow may be
harmed in the process. A good example is his support of the genocidal
Pol Pot regime in Cambodia during the time he ran foreign policy
during the Carter Administration. Pol Pot was supported by the
Chinese, and the Chinese at that time were the key to Brzezinski’s
version of the China card policy, which was to play Beijing against
Moscow in the hopes of weakening both. This is another very dangerous
idea that he hopes to duplicate under a future Obama regime. Here is
Brzezinski’s confession that he backed Pol Pot, which makes him an
accessory to one of the greatest crimes against humanity in the
twentieth century. The Pol Pot regime slaughtered between two and
three million of its own people, a greater proportion of the target
population than that attained by any other genocide in our time. But
this was no impediment to Zbigniew: “In 1981, President Carter’s
national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, said, ‘I encouraged
the Chinese to support Pol Pot.’ The US, he added, ‘winked publicly’
as China sent arms to the Khmer Rouge through Thailand.” Even after
the Pol Pot regime had been defeated on the battlefield by the forces
of Hanoi, it continued to occupy the Cambodian seat at the United
Nations, thanks largely to the support of the Carter administration
which was ordered by Zbigniew Brzezinski as a Cold War measure and as
a part of his China Card anti-Russian rapprochement with Beijing. By
this time, it was clear that the Pol Pot regime had indeed committed
genocide. (John Pilger, “The Long Secret Alliance: Uncle Sam and Pol
Pot,” Fall 1997, online at:, citing Elizabeth
Becker, When the War was Over, New York: Simon and Shuster, 1986, p.

Brzezinski also set the United States on the course that has led to
the First Gulf War and the current Iraq and Afghanistan debacles. In
1980, Brzezinski was the author of the Carter Doctrine, which stated
that the United States was determined to dominate the Persian Gulf
against all comers. Two subsequent wars have done nothing more than
play out the logic of that committment, which Zbigniew intended to
favor a collision between Washington and Moscow.
Brzezinski Boasts Of Starting The Afghan War

Brzezinski was also the great promoter of Islamic fundamentalism,
which he celebrated as the greatest bulwark against Soviet Russian
communism. Using the Islamic faundamentalists, Brzezinski hoped to
make the entire region between the southern border of the USSR and the
Indian Ocean into an “arc of crisis,” from which fundamentalist
subversion would radiate into Soviet territory, first and foremost
into the five Soviet republics of central Asia, Azerbaijan, etc. It
was in the service of this Islamic fundamentalist card that Brzezinski
first helped overthrow the Shah of Iran, and then insisted that the
replacement could be no one else than Ayatollah Khomeini. To magnify
the impact of Khomeini, Brzezinski sent subversion teams into
Afghanistan during the summer of 1979 to undermine the pro-Soviet
forces there and induce Moscow to intervene. When the USSR invaded
Afghanistan at Christmas 1979, Moscow claimed that they were
responding to earlier aggressive moves into that country by the US. In
an interview about ten years ago, Brzezinski conceded that this had
been true: Zbig had indeed sent subversion and terror teams into
Aghanistan at least six months before the Soviet invasion, as is clear
from this excerpt from that interview:

Brzezinski: … According to the official version of history, CIA aid to
the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet
army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly
guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3,
1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid
to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day,
I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my
opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But
perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to
provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to
intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that
they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United
States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was
a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea.
It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you
want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the
border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of
giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years,
Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a
conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup
of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic
fundamentalists, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The
Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems
or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic
fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

Brzezinski: Nonsense! . . . (Le Nouvel Observateur, January 15-21,
1998, p. 76, translated from the French by Bill Blum, From today’s perspective,
a greater irresonsibility and adventurism could hardly be imagined.
The First Gulf War, the disastrous Iraq War, and the looming Iran War
are the direct fruits of Zbigniew’s adventurous precedents. If Zbig
now argues that he did not mean to go so far in this theater, that
changes nothing in this picture.
The Brzezinski Plan For Russia

The leaders in Moscow have Zbigniew’s number – he has been ranting
against them for fifty years and more. They are well aware of the
existence of a Brzezinski Plan, a confidential design to break up the
Russian Federation and partition European Russia along the lines of
what occurred during the Russian Civil War in the wake of World War I
and the Bolshevik Revolution. In those days the White Armies were led
by figures like Wrangel, Deinkin, Kolchak and the rest, with US forces
landing at Murmansk. Today, the reactionary armies are led by the
megalomaniac Zbigniew, who deludes himself that he can go as a victor
to Moscow, where Napoleon and Hitler failed.

Brzezinski’s aggressive plans are notorious among Russian leaders. As
the Russian government minister Ivanov remarked: “Russia has to remain
strong culturally, economically and politically,” he was quoted as
saying by ITAR-Tass. “Otherwise, the ‘Brzezinski plan’ may prove a
reality.” The wire explained that “[t]he ‘Brzezinski plan’ is a term
used by Russian political figures since at least the mid-1980s to
describe alleged Western plots to destabilize the Soviet Union and
later Russia.” (Douglas Birch, “Kremlin Powers May Be Split After
Putin,” AP, June 26, 2007)

Another news article related that by 2002 pro-Russian forces in
Ukraine “have increasingly given credence to a ‘Brzezinski plan’
conspiracy that was first aired by Russian sources close to President
Vladimir Putin. The ‘Brzezinski plan’ is supposedly an elaborate plan
concocted by a group of U.S. policymakers to overthrow President
Kuchma [then the president of Ukraine] and replace him with [NATO
puppet] Yushchenko in a ‘bloodless revolution.’ An analogy is drawn
with the overthrow of Slobodan Milosovic in Serbia in October 2000.
Yushchenko’s alleged allies in this plot are the two wings of the
radical anti-Kuchma opposition, [kleptocrat] Yuliya Tymoshenko, his
former deputy prime minister, and Socialist leader Oleksandr Moroz.”
(Taras Kuzio, “Russia Gives Ukraine a Helping Hand in Its Elections,”
RFE/RL, January 22, 2002, This is of course the
scenario that played out under Brzezinski’s command, with great and
continuing danger to the peace of Europe and the world, at the end of
2004. The Yushchenko pro-NATO regime in Kiev was installed by the
November-December 2004 CIA people power coup or color revolution
cynically orchestrated by Zbigniew and Mark Brzezinski, with the help
of Mark Penn.
Obama: A Face Lift For Imperialism

The terms of Zbig’s endorsement of his own protégé are very revealing.
Obama “recognizes that the challenge is a new face, a new sense of
direction, a new definition of America’s role in the world,”
Brzezinski remarked during an interview on Bloomberg Television’s
“Political Capital with Al Hunt.” “Obama is clearly more effective and
has the upper hand,” Brzezinski said. “He has a sense of what is
historically relevant, and what is needed from the United States in
relationship to the world.” Brzezinski dismissed Hillary Clinton as
totally inadequate: “Being a former first lady doesn’t prepare you to
be president. President Truman didn’t have much experience before he
came to office. Neither did John Kennedy,” Brzezinski said. Clinton’s
foreign-policy approach is “very conventional,” Brzezinski added “I
don’t think the country needs to go back to what we had eight years
ago.” “There is a need for a fundamental rethinking of how we conduct
world affairs,” he continued. “And Obama seems to me to have both the
guts and the intelligence to address that issue and to change the
nature of America’s relationship with the world.” (Bloomberg,
“Zbigniew Brzezinski Endorses Barack Obama,” Friday, August 24, 2007,

In other words, US imperialism needs a face lift and a dose of
steroids to be able to address the question of finally eliminating any
challenger powers and attaining a permanent US-UK Universal Monarchy,
the real content of the shopworn phrase, “New World Order.”
Brzezinski’s latest book, Second Chance, is widely viewed as the user
manual for an Obama puppet regime. Here Zbig argues that there is a
worldwide political awakening going on. This is true, and in the real
world the content of this awakening is the demand for national
independence, no more IMF conditionalities, economic progress, modern
science, modern industry, modern technology, and rising standards of
living. This awakening is clearly expressed in the world-wide demand
for peaceful nuclear power reactors which is currently sweeping the
planet, and which the Bush administration has been powerless to block,
despite their efforts at confrontation with Iran over precisely this

Here is Zbigniew’s prescription in a nutshell: “The price of failing
to implement . . . [my] strategy is twofold. First, the US will spur
Russia and China among others to form a rival axis of power that could
tip the world toward larger imperial wars. Second, it will antagonize
the emerging populist rebellion against global inequality. This
widening inequality is producing “revolutionaries-in-waiting … the
equivalent of the militant proletariat of the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries … [The] political awakening is now global in geographic
scope, comprehensive in social scale…, strikingly youthful in
demographic profile and thus receptive to rapid political
mobilization, and transnational in sources of inspiration because of
the cumulative impact of literacy and mass communications. As a
result, modern populist passions can be aroused even against a distant
target, despite the absence of a unifying doctrine such as Marxism. .
. . Only by identifying itself with the idea of universal human
dignity—with its basic requirement of respect for culturally diverse
political, social, and religious emanations—can America overcome the
risk that the global political awakening will turn against it.”

As a perceptive reviewer summed it up, “Brzezinski’s book is a liberal
manifesto for rehabilitating imperialism. But it relies on a
fundamental, faulty assumption that the world’s nations, both great
powers and war torn nations, can be led by the US as a global
commonweal.” Ashley Smith, “Rehabilitating US Imperialism: Review of
Zbigniew Brzezinski’s Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis
of American Superpower,” Zbig’s book is thus a
thinly veiled call for more and better color revolutions and CIA
people power coups on the model of those of Belgrade, Kiev, and
Tiflis, all stressing the rights of subject nationalities to secede
from larger entities – a perfect recipe for chaos and war in the
ethnic labyrinth of the Caucasus and Trans-Caucasus, which the madman
Brzezinski regards as one of the keys to world domination because of
the potential he sees there to destabilize and dismember the Russian
Federation. Brzezinski’s ancestors worked with the British to incite
the subject nationalities of the Russian, Austro-Hungarian, and German
Empires to rebel against St. Petersburg, Vienna, and Berlin, not in
their own interests, but rather for the greater glory of London. Now
Zbigniew wants to pose as the modern Mazzini, who wanted to make Italy
turbulent – which was bad for Vienna – without making her united and
strong, which would have posed problems for the imperial lifeline to
India through the central Mediterranean. Brzezinski’s method would
lead quickly to an economically depressed, impoverished and desolate
world of squabbling, impotent petty states, presided over by
Anglo-American finance oligarchs and their allmportant eastern
European emigre advisers.

Naturally, Zbigniew is a fanatical opponent of third world economic
development; he once said that the US would never tolerate any more
Japans in Asia – in other words, no more successful transitions from
backwardness to a modern full-set economy. A basic tenet of
counter-insurgency is that when you are confronted with broadly
supported economic and political demands, play the card of divide and
conquer in the form of local control, tribal, racial, ethnic, and
religious divisions, etc. Zbig claims that the real goal of the
world-wide awakening is “dignity.” By dignity he means respect for
every minute parochial or particularist trait of every real or
imagined ethnic group and sub-group. It is the kind of dignity that
reduces those who enjoy it from the status of independent nations to
mere ethnographic material. Such dignity as Zbig imagines it can only
be attained by the smallest possible political units – by the thorough
balkanization, partition, and subdivision of the existing national
states. It is the kind of dignity the British Empire had in mind when
it played the Mazzini card of national self-determination against the
Austro-Hungarian, Russian, and Ottoman Empires. Woodrow Wilson played
the same card at Versailles. This kind of dignity is congenial and
compatible with the Bernard Lewis Plan for carving and balkanizing
every nation in the Middle East – three Iraqs, six or seven Irans,
four or five Pakistans, two Sudans, multiple Lebanons, with Turkey,
Syria, and other mutilated and chopped up as well. Think of the
current tragic status of Iraqi Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites, and you
will see the kind of dignity that Zbig is selling. Zbig obviously
intends to apply this recipe in the ethnic labyrinth of the Caucasus
and Trans-Caucasus with a view to starting the ethnic disintegration
of all of Russia – a lunatic ploy if there ever was one. Another
obvious flashpoint is Kosovo, where attempts to declare unilateral
independence by the terrorist gun-runner and narcotics dealers of the
KLA could come as soon as February 2008 – this month. Russia has
already announced unspecified countermeasures to deal with such a
unilateral declaration of independence, which is illegal under
international law because of the Helsinki CSCE treaty of 1975 which
finally put an end to World War II by fixing all European borders as
of that date as permanent, except for changes mutually agreed to by
the concerned parties. Zbig, one of the cheerleaders for the bombing
of Serbia in the spring of 1975, cares as little about international
law as any neocon.
Obama Wants To Attack Pakistan

Writing in the Atlantic Monthly, pro-Obama swooner Andrew Sullivan
pointed to the massive soft power – understood as the ability to dupe
and deceive the masses of the developing sector – that would accrue to
the United States by making the Illinois senator with his lofty
utopian and messianic platitudes the new face of US imperialism. He
illustrates this by imagining a young Pakistani Moslem who sees
Obama’s inauguration on his television screen, and presumably rushes
off to join in the pro-Obama swoon of the corrupt and decadent US
media whores. This is an ironical choice, since Pakistan is the one
country that Obama has talked of attacking and bombing. Will Obama’s
magical charisma still be able to dupe the Pakistanis when the bombs
begin to fall?

Another issue that worries the imperial apologist Sullivan is the deep
partisan divide in US public life which is the heritage of Bush and
his gaggle of neocon fascist madmen. Sullivan is concerned that the
raging resentment against Bush & Co. may undermine the ability of the
US ruling elite to manipulate and control public opinion by means of
false flag terror operations. Here Sullivan sees the potential for a
Spanish-style anti-terrorism backlash, on the model of Madrid in March
of 2004, which punished and ousted the neofascist prime minister
Aznar, who had tried to ride the terror attacks into a permanent
personal dictatorship by suspending the national elections. Obama is
seen by Sullivan as the key to restoring the unity of a nation of
sheep and dupes that will have a uniform Pavlovian reaction to the
next false flag terror provocation:

“Perhaps the underlying risk is best illustrated by our asking what
the popular response would be to another 9/11-style attack. It is hard
to imagine a reprise of the sudden unity and solidarity in the days
after 9/11, or an outpouring of support from allies and neighbors. It
is far easier to imagine an even more bitter fight over who was
responsible (apart from the perpetrators) and a profound suspicion of
a government forced to impose more restrictions on travel,
communications, and civil liberties. The current president would be
unable to command the trust, let alone the support, of half the
country in such a time. He could even be blamed for provoking any
attack that came.” Andrew Sullivan, “Good-Bye to All That,” Atlantic
Monthly, December 2007, p. 46)

With Obama in the White House and the partisan divide papered over,
the way would be clear to unleash new false flag provocations as
needed, and the entire Anglo-American oligarchy could breathe easier.
In addition to his call for an attack on Pakistan, Obama has also
demanded the addition of 93,000 more combat troops to the permanent US
regular army. This demand puts him in the company of the some of the
most extreme hawks. Obama stated: “To defeat al Qaeda, I will build a
twenty-first-century military and twenty-first-century partnership as
strong as the anticommunist alliance that won the Cold War to stay on
the offense everywhere from Djibouti to Kandahar.” Barack Obama (Fred
Hiatt “Stay-the-Course Plus: Obama, Romney and Foreign Engagement on
Steroids,” Washington Post, June 4, 2007)
Max Hastings: Will We Have To Fight Russia In This Century?

The idea of inevitable war with Russia is now looming large in the
pathological imagination of the corrupt and incompetent Anglo-American
ruling elite; it has assumed the proportions of a new twilight of the
gods. The British ruling class has been leading the charge, with their
absurd charges about the Politkovskaya and Litvinenko assassinations,
and their ham-handed provocations during the dispute about the status
of the subversive British Council in Russia. The influential British
oligarchical spokesman Max Hastings summed up this mood in the London
Daily Mail last summer in an article entitled “A blundering Bush, Tsar
Putin, and the question: will we, in this century, have to fight

“We should hope that George Bush’s successor as U.S. President is less
appallingly clumsy, in provoking Moscow with promised missile
deployments a few miles from her border. But the notion of Western
friendship with Russia is a dead letter. The best we can look for is
grudging accommodation. The bear has shown its claws once more, as so
often in its bloody history, and its people enjoy the sensation. We
may hope that in the 21st century we shall not be obliged to fight
Russia. But it would be foolish to suppose that we shall be able to
lie beside this dangerous, emotional beast in safety or tranquility.”
(Max Hastings, “A blundering Bush, Tsar Putin, and the question: will
we, in this century, have to fight Russia?” Daily Mail, June 5, 2007) _page_id=1770
Zbig’s Grand Strategy For 2009-2013: Play China Against Russia

Given the ongoing breakdown crisis and disintegration of the US-UK
currency and banking systems, these powers are impelled to try to
consolidate their world domination while there is still a chance of
doing so. Single superpowers do not last very long, as history shows.
The Spanish Empire of Phillip II seemed close to universal monarchy
after the Turkish naval defeat at Lepanto in 1571 and the outbreak of
the religious civil wars in France, but by the treaty of Vervins in
1598, it was clear that the resurgent France of Henry IV was once
again capable of checkmating and balancing the Spanish. The France of
Louis XIV appeared close to universal domination at the time of the
Peace of the Pyrenees with Spain in 1659, at the end of the Thirty
Years War. But by 1689 William of Orange had assembled his grand
alliance against the French Sun King, and by Rijswijk in 1697 it was
clear that the French domination was weakening. Today’s grand alliance
against US-UK pretensions to universal empire is the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization (SCO), composed of China, Russia, and most of
the central Asian republics, with new members knocking at the door. It
is this SCO which Brzezinski is determined to smash, with Obama as his
chief operative.

In June, 2007 Bush the elder and Bush the younger co-hosted Vladimir
Putin at their compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, in the so-called
lobster summit. The goal here was to detach Russia from the SCO and
play it against China as an Anglo-American kamikaze. This was of
course wrapped up in platitudes about preserving US-Russian
friendship, but the reality was the attempt to use Russia as a dagger
against Beijing. Putin was of course far too intelligent to accept
such a degrading and suicidal role, despite the many false friends who
were urging him to accept. In reality, the Russian nyet had already
been delivered six months earlier by Foreign Minister Lavrov in his
essay on the catastrophic Russian experience as a member of the
British-dominated triple entente during World War I. Lavrov’s
retrospective led to the conclusion that Russia would never again be
duped into the role of pawn for anybody’s imperialism. Since Putin
declined to go to work for the US-UK against China, Washington-Moscow
relations have steadily deteriorated, with Bush threatening world war
three in both October and November 2007.

Since the Bushies had failed to play Russia against China, Zbig now
proposes to play China against Russia. In a recent op-ed, he argued in
veiled language that China’s energy needs could be manipulated in such
a way as to direct Chinese expansionism and dynamism on eastern
Siberia, thereby setting up China for a direct military conflict with
Russia – an old cold war dream that has circulated in Zbig’s
revanchist circles since the 1950s. Zbig delicately summed up China’s
energy vulnerability as follows in a late November 2007 Washington
Post op-ed: “I recently visited China, where I had the opportunity to
engage Chinese leaders in wide-ranging private conversations. I
returned with two strong impressions regarding China’s attitude toward
the Iranian problem. The first is that the magnitude of China’s
internal transformation makes it vulnerable to global political and
economic instability.” The second is that China does not want the US
to attack Iran, which is a major oil supplier.

In Samuel Huntington’s work on the clash of civilizations in the
mid-1990s, the assumption was that China and the Arab/Islamic world
were the main challengers to the US-UK world system. Now Zbig wants to
revise that, putting China among the supporters of the status quo and
Russia at the top of the list of the rebels against the Anglo-American
yoke: “Thus China, despite its meteoric rise toward global
preeminence, currently is geopolitically a status quo power.” By
contrast, “. . . Russia is an increasingly revisionist state, more and
more openly positioning itself to attempt at least a partial reversal
of the geopolitical losses it suffered in the early 1990s. Cutting off
direct U.S. access to Caspian and Central Asian oil is high on the
Kremlin’s list.” A US attack on Iran is to be rejected, because it
would alienate China while making Moscow stronger, Zbig argues:
“Moreover, longer-term geopolitical threats are seen by Moscow’s elite
as involving potential Chinese encroachments on Russia’s empty but
mineral-rich eastern areas and American political encroachments on the
populated western areas of Russia’s recently lost imperial domain. In
that context, the outbreak of a political conflict in the Persian Gulf
may not be viewed by all Moscow strategists as a one-sided evil. The
dramatic spike in oil prices would harm China and America while
unleashing a further wave of anti-American hostility. In that context,
Europe might distance itself from America while both Europe and China
would become more dependent on Russia’s energy supplies. Russia would
clearly be the financial and geopolitical beneficiary.” (Washington
Post, November 30, 2007) In other words, an attack on Iran is useless
and self-destructive, since it would help Russia and open the eyes of
the slumbering Europeans. Better to address the Russian challenge
directly, Zbig hints.

What this doubletalk points to in the real world is the need to turn
away from confrontation with Iran in the short run, allowing the
Chinese to increase their dependence on Middle East oil that must come
across waters controlled by the US-UK fleets. An unspoken but obvious
corollary is that the US must do everything possible to prevent the
Chinese from developing access to oil sources in Africa or in central
Asia. The African side of this effort is easily visible in the US-UK
agitation around Darfur: the attempt to orchestrate an attack on Sudan
has nothing to do with humanitarianism (by the butchers of Baghdad!),
and everything to do with the fact that Sudan is one of the key oil
suppliers to China, and will become an even bigger supplier as time
goes on. The new US-AFRICOM, now in Stuttgart but soon to move to
Ethiopia, is a key aspect of the US mobilization in many African
countries to deprive China of future oil sources in that continent.
About a year ago, the US-UK successfully played off Ethiopia against
Somalia, severely weakening both. The new US deal with Libya is
another aspect of the same effort. In recent months, terrorist actions
by al Qaeda in Algeria and the other countries of the north African
Maghreb have indicated that Algeria, a large oil producer, will be
subject to US-UK destabilization as part of the same anti-Chinese
campaign. The destabilization of Kenya has everything to do with this
same thrust. If the Chinese can be kept out of Africa, their
dependence on the Middle East will increase. As this is written, there
is word of large-scale destabilization in Chad. At some future time,
London and Washington could close the Middle East oil spigot, and
China might conclude that the only alternative would be to seize the
oil wells of sparsely populated eastern Siberia, as Brzezinski’s
article suggests. That way one could get rid of both China and Russia,
Zbig suggests. Hare-brained “geostrategic” scheming of this sort was
an important cause of World War II. The advantages offered by Obama
for a campaign of large-scale subversion in Africa are obvious. The
detailed work would be done by Susan Rice, Clinton’s assistant
Secretary of State for African affairs, and manifestly a proponent of
an early US attack on Sudan, among other targets.

The mere thought that Trilateral Commission founder Brzezinski clan
may be getting close to the nuclear button thanks to an Obama puppet
presidency has already elicited rumblings from Moscow. General Yuri
Baluyevsky, the Russian chief of staff, announced in January 2008 that
Russia was now shifting its nuclear doctrine to include first use of
nuclear weapons in certain situations. An AP report quoted Baluyevsky
as stating: “We have no plans to attack anyone, but we consider it
necessary for all our partners in the world community to clearly
understand . . . that to defend the sovereignty and territorial
integrity of Russia and its allies, military forces will be used,
including preventively, including with the use of nuclear weapons,’
Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky said. . . . Baluyevsky identified no specific
nations or forces that threaten Russia. According to the ITAR-Tass
news agency, however, he said threats to global security include ‘the
striving by a number of countries for hegemony on a regional and
global level’ – a clear reference to the United States – and
terrorism.” (AP, January 19, 2008)

Around the same time, a group of retired NATO generals led by John
Shalikashvili of the United States and Klaus Naumann of Germany
proposed that NATO also shift its doctrine to frank reliance on the
first use of nuclear weapons – a shift that the United States has
already made for its own forces. General Ivashov, the former chief of
staff of the Russian forces, replied from Moscow that the collapse of
the US dollar was spurring the US and NATO to court “nuclear
Armageddon.” Every vote for Obama is a vote to make these matters
worse by bringing Zbigniew Brzezinski’s fingers closer to the nuclear

--- news:// - complaints: ---

_//!! _//!!
2010-03-30 08:48:14 EST

"Hagar" <> wrote in message
> "_//!! _//!!" <> wrote in message
> news:hop03d$30qv$
>> "Hagar" <hagen@sahm,name> wrote in message
>>> "_//!! _//!!" <> wrote in message
>>> news:hoot6d$2pie$
>>>> "Hagar" <hagen@sahm,name> wrote in message
>>>>> "Sir Gilligan Horry" <> wrote in message
>>>>>> I'm Sorry ...
>>>>>> ______________________
>>>>>> ###################
>>>>>> This is China !!!
>>>>>> This is America !!!
>>>>> Horry, have you taken one of ChuckWeasel's stupid pills ???
>>>> Unlike you, Hagar, he/she/it, Sir Gilligan Horry, has a Conscious.
>>>> *Hallelujah*
>>>> *Amen*
>>> First off, my little ignorant flower, Horry is conscious ... but he also
>>> may possess a conscience ... there is a subtle difference, which
>>> ignorant
>>> sluts like you usually don't perceive.
>>> But, I have a conscience too, my little kumquat ...
>>> it's a little stiff just now ... wanna get it on ???
>>> *666*
>> There you go again, Dumbing Down & Sexing Up, it's a Losers' Formula!
> But, my little kumquat, you did your very own "dumbing down" of
> the English language. If you don't know how to spell, then STFU.
> Now here's your last chance to buck up and pay me "lip service",
> if you know what I mean ....
> Yours forever,
> *666*

What's worse? A spelling mistake or calling someone an "ignorant slut" who
you don't know from Adam, & for which you don't have a shred of evidence
to support your allegation.

You're not only completely out of order, Hagar, but a complete Arrogant
and NO Thanks to paying you "lip service" and "Yours forever,"!




--- news:// - complaints: ---

Dr P
2010-03-30 12:59:09 EST
In message <hoot6d$2pie$>, _//!! _//!!
<*> writes
>"Hagar" <hagen@sahm,name> wrote in message
>> "Sir Gilligan Horry" <> wrote in message
>>> I'm Sorry ...
>>> ______________________
>>> ###################
>>> This is China !!!
>>> This is America !!!
>> Horry, have you taken one of ChuckWeasel's stupid pills ???
>Unlike you, Hagar, he/she/it, Sir Gilligan Horry, has a Conscious.

'has a Conscious' ?????????

as usual, you are blabbering gobbledegook

dr p
Page: 1   (First | Last)

2020 - | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron