http://www.buyandhold.com/bh/en/education/history/2000/boesky.html
Archives
Ivan Boesky
Brian Trumbore
President/Editor, StocksandNews.com
I started my Wall Street career in November of 1982, which, since the Bull Market began in August of that year, makes me a Bull Market baby. Oh, to think that the market was around 770 that summer. Also in 1982, an arbitrageur by the name of Ivan Boesky decided that he didn't exactly always have the magic touch in selecting deals to invest in so he switched tactics, thus earning his place in the annals of Wall Street History.
Boesky was the son of a Detroit bar owner who had come to the Street in 1975. Setting up shop in relative obscurity and having attended a law school no one on the Street had ever heard of, Boesky used his family's money to enter the arbitrage business. He quickly built a reputation for himself as a shrewd operator.
Boesky used to bet on takeover situations, mostly after a deal had been announced, thereby assuring the arb of a profit if the deal went through at the announced price. For example, Co. X announces a takeover of Co. Y at $70 a share. Co. Y stock, which had been $40 before the announcement, climbs to $65. An arb may step in at that point (or as it is climbing to that level) and place a heavy bet that the deal gets done at the announced $70 a share, thereby assuring him a $5 profit. Now if you leverage that bet, the percentage gain could be much greater than the simple $5 and sometimes a competing offer would enter the picture at, let's say, $75 or higher. All the better for the arb.
But there were other times when the announced deal would fall through. In these cases the arb could get squeezed. This was the case in May of 1982 when Gulf Oil's announced takeover attempt of Cities Service failed. Boesky lost $24 million on this deal. And it was this loss that apparently led Ivan to build a secret network of investment bankers and brokers, simply to improve his odds. This network would then supply Boesky with insider information. Two of the key figures were Martin Siegel of Kidder Peabody and Dennis Levine of Drexel, Burnham, Lambert - both old and respected firms.
Using inside information supplied by Siegel, Boesky made $28 million from Nestle's acquisition of Carnation in 1984. They were heady times for many on Wall Street. It was the time of "Master's of the Universe," and much cruder labels. The big money guys on the Street worked hard. "Lunch is for wimps," said Gordon Gekko in the movie "Wall Street," a great depiction of that era. Boesky was one who worked 21-hour days. Hard work, a product of the trader culture, came to replace play as the motif of the super-rich.
It was also the time when the LBO, or leveraged buyout, took off. LBO's were ways to make money by taking public companies private. Companies would float bonds to buy up a controlling interest in the stock and then use the company's cash flow to finance the debt. The secret was forecasting out the company's cash flow, the measure of how much debt it could support.
Dennis Levine of Drexel and Boesky became fast friends by 1986. Boesky had opened an investment fund called the Hudson Fund. Drexel agreed to raise over $600 million for him through a junk offering provided that it was paid almost $24 million fees. And later, even the notorious Charles Keating of Lincoln S&L fame contributed $100 million to Boesky's arbitrage partnership.
Boesky began to work some deals but he was building an empire built on tips more than doing his homework. And he invested a portion of his gains in ways that only enhanced his reputation. For example, Boesky owned the Beverly Hills Hotel in L.A., site of Michael Milken's Predator's Ball which spoke of the virtues of junk bonds as dozens of politicians and academics feasted on sumptuous dinners amid a bevy of Trump-like arm candy. (Even Bill Bradley found himself delivering a speech to Milken's audience.)
But during the course of 1986, the Fed's were growing increasingly leery of the trading activity in some of the deals that Boesky was investing in. He was soon indicted on a variety of charges in an insider-trading scandal that was to stain the industry for the rest of the decade.
The most notorious of the Boesky allegations involved an engineering company, Fischbach, that had been subject to a hostile raid by a Drexel client. As described in Charles Morris' book, "Money, Greed, and Risk," the deal went down like this:
"(Fischbach) bought back the raider's stock, and negotiated a standstill agreement, barring another takeover attempt unless some new raider acquired a 10% stock position in the company. Boesky later acquired a 10% position in Fischbach, allegedly at the behest of Michael Milken, and made a takeover declaration, opening the door to an eventual takeover by another Milken client. Milken allegedly guaranteed Boesky against any losses, which would have been illegal. Milken said he never made any such guarantees, that he merely advised Boesky that Fischbach was a great opportunity, but that he never made guarantees. Boesky's testimony went like this."
Q: O.K. And did Milken say to you in that conversation that he would guarantee you against loss?
A: These were not the words, never were the words.
Q: It's the code you were talking about, the Wall Street code?
A: I never used that word either. It was an understanding.
Q: O.K. What were the words you remember Milken using?
A: "Just buy it, don't worry about it," something to that effect…I've forgotten the exact language of the conversation.
Officials at Fischbach ended up being indicted for bid rigging. A deal eventually went through but not at the level that Boesky had even paid. Allegedly, Boesky had bought the stock at $50 with the final sale being at $45 compared with current market value of $40.
Boesky admitted to numerous offenses and then turned state's evidence, primarily against Milken. He received a 3 1/2 year prison sentence and $100 million fine after admitting to the charges and reached a plea bargain with Rudy Giuliani, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of N.Y. Giuliani was to draw criticism because Ivan was allowed to unload his holdings before his indictment was officially announced, realizing profits from it before being convicted. Others considered the sentence and fine as being too light. But Giuliani and company was after a much bigger fish, namely Milken.
As Boesky left federal court in 1987, he proclaimed, "Greed is all right…everybody should be a little greedy." The man who once paid for secret information with a suitcase full of cash was off to the slammer.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Ivan Boesky - The Symbol of Greed
http://law.jrank.org/pages/12164/Boesky-Ivan-symbol-greed.html
In 1985 the SEC began an investigation after detecting suspicious activity on the stock market. With insiders trading privileged information, various company stocks were being purchased in a dramatic fashion just before a major announcement about a merger or sale of the company was made. The Southern District of New York also conducted an investigation at the same time as the SEC. The prosecutor in charge of the case was U.S. attorney and future mayor of New York City Rudolph "Rudy" Giuliani (1944–).
In 1986 the SEC investigation trail led to Dennis Levine. As a result, Levine made a deal with authorities and turned in his partner, Ivan Boesky. With solid evidence that Boesky was trading insider information, he entered a guilty plea on November 14, 1986. Boesky struck a bargain with Giuliani and the SEC that included a $100 million fine and a three-year prison sentence, served mostly at California's Lompoc Federal Prison Camp. As part of the deal, Boesky agreed to act as a government informer to help break up the illegal activities of others on Wall Street.
Because of Boesky's cooperation, subpoenas (court orders requiring testimony in court) were issued to some of America's wealthiest financiers, including Michael Milken. Boesky himself went from being one of the wealthiest and most successful figures on Wall Street to being banned from the securities industry. His name would forever be linked with scandal and corruption. Following his prison time Boesky continued living on his great wealth but avoided public attention.
Many saw Boesky as the visible symbol of the greed and excess of the 1980s. Oliver Stone directed a movie called Wall Street, inspired by the financial crimes of the decade. The script's main character was a high-powered financier who steals a line from Ivan Boesky himself when he announces that "greed is good."
Citing this material
Please include a link to this page if you have found this material useful for research or writing a related article. Content on this website is from high-quality, licensed material originally published in print form. You can always be sure you're reading unbiased, factual, and accurate information.
Highlight the text below, right-click, and select “copy”. Paste the link into your website, email, or any other HTML document.
Ivan Boesky - The Symbol Of Greed
In 1985 the SEC began an investigation after detecting suspicious activity on the stock market. With insiders trading privileged information, various company stocks were being purchased in a dramatic fashion just before a major announcement about a merger or sale of the company was made. The Southern District of New York also conducted an investigation at the same time as the SEC. The prosecutor in charge of the case was U.S. attorney and future mayor of New York City Rudolph "Rudy" Giuliani (1944–).
In 1986 the SEC investigation trail led to Dennis Levine. As a result, Levine made a deal with authorities and turned in his partner, Ivan Boesky. With solid evidence that Boesky was trading insider information, he entered a guilty plea on November 14, 1986. Boesky struck a bargain with Giuliani and the SEC that included a $100 million fine and a three-year prison sentence, served mostly at California's Lompoc Federal Prison Camp. As part of the deal, Boesky agreed to act as a government informer to help break up the illegal activities of others on Wall Street.
Because of Boesky's cooperation, subpoenas (court orders requiring testimony in court) were issued to some of America's wealthiest financiers, including Michael Milken. Boesky himself went from being one of the wealthiest and most successful figures on Wall Street to being banned from the securities industry. His name would forever be linked with scandal and corruption. Following his prison time Boesky continued living on his great wealth but avoided public attention.
Many saw Boesky as the visible symbol of the greed and excess of the 1980s. Oliver Stone directed a movie called Wall Street, inspired by the financial crimes of the decade. The script's main character was a high-powered financier who steals a line from Ivan Boesky himself when he announces that "greed is good."
Citing this material
Please include a link to this page if you have found this material useful for research or writing a related article. Content on this website is from high-quality, licensed material originally published in print form. You can always be sure you're reading unbiased, factual, and accurate information.
Highlight the text below, right-click, and select “copy”. Paste the link into your website, email, or any other HTML document.
Ivan Boesky - The Symbol Of Greed
The Importance of Edward Mandell House
http://www.gemworld.com/EdMandellHouse.htm
Edward Mandell House
In 1913, Colonel Edward Mandell House helped to pick the charter members of the original Federal Reserve Board.
Edward Mandell House (originally “Huis” which became “House”) was born July 26, 1858 in Houston, Texas. He became active in Texas politics and served as an advisor to President Woodrow Wilson, particularly in the area of foreign affairs. House functioned as Wilson's chief negotiator in Europe during the negotiations for peace (1917-1919), and as chief deputy for Wilson at the Paris Peace Conference. He died on March 28, 1938 in New York City.
Edward and his father had friends in the Ku Klux Klan. The Klan dispensed vigilante justice after the Civil War. In 1880 a new legitimate group was in charge of dispensing justice in Texas -- the Texas Rangers. Many of the Texas Rangers were members of the Klan. Edward was the new master. Edward gained their loyalty by stroking their egos. Edward would use his money and influence to try and make them famous. Edward eventually inherited the Texas Ku Klux Klan.
Edward Mandell House helped to make four men governor of Texas: James S. Hogg (1892), Charles A. Culberson (1894), Joseph D. Sayers (1898), and S. W.T. Lanham (1902). After the election House acted as unofficial advisor to each governor. Hogg gave House the title "Colonel" by promoting House to his staff.
Edward wanted to control more than Texas, Edward wanted to control the country. Edward would do so by becoming a king maker instead of a king. Edward knew that if he could control two or three men in the Senate, two or three men in the House; and the President, he could control the country.
Edward would influence the candidate from behind the scenes. The people would perceive one man was representing them, when in reality; an entirely different man was in control. House didn't need to influence millions of people; he need only influence a handful of men. Edward would help establish a secret society in America that would operate in the same fashion -- the Council on Foreign Relations.
Edward Mandell House was instrumental in getting Woodrow Wilson elected as President. Edward had the support of William Jennings Bryan and the financial backing of the House of Rockefeller's National City Bank. Edward became Wilson's closest unofficial advisor.
Edward Mandell House and some of his schoolmates were also members of Cecil Rhodes Round Table group. The Round Table Group, the back bone of the Secret Society, had four pet projects, a graduated income tax, a central bank, creation of a Central Intelligence Agency, and the League of Nations.
Between 1901 and 1913 the House of Morgan and the House of Rockefeller formed close alliances with the Dukes and the Mellons. This group consolidated their power and came to dominate other Wall Street powers including: Carnegie, Whitney, Vanderbilt, Brown-Harriman, and Dillon-Reed. The Round Table Group wanted to control the people by having the government tax people and deposit the peoples money in a central bank. The Group would take control of the bank and therefore have control of the money. The Group would take control of the State Department and formulate government policy, which would determine how the money was spent. The Group would control the CIA which would gather information about people, and script and produce psycho-political operations focused at the people to influence them to act in accord with Round Table Group State Department policy decisions. The Group would work to consolidate all the nations of the world into a single nation, with a single central bank under their control, and a single International Security System. Some of the first legislation of the Wilson Administration was the institution of the graduated income tax (1913) and the creation of a central bank called the Federal Reserve. An inheritance tax was also instituted. These tax laws were used to rationalize the need for legislation that allowed the establishment of tax-exempt foundations. The tax-exempt foundations became the link between the Groupmember's private corporations and the University system. The Group would control the Universities by controlling the sources of their funding. The funding was money sheltered from taxes being channeled in ways which would help achieve Round Table Group aims.
Edward Mandell House had this to say in a private meeting with President Woodrow Wilson:
“[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will effect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer being unable to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions.
Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud which we will call “Social Insurance.” Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner, every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America.”
Edward Mandell House
In 1913, Colonel Edward Mandell House helped to pick the charter members of the original Federal Reserve Board.
Edward Mandell House (originally “Huis” which became “House”) was born July 26, 1858 in Houston, Texas. He became active in Texas politics and served as an advisor to President Woodrow Wilson, particularly in the area of foreign affairs. House functioned as Wilson's chief negotiator in Europe during the negotiations for peace (1917-1919), and as chief deputy for Wilson at the Paris Peace Conference. He died on March 28, 1938 in New York City.
Edward and his father had friends in the Ku Klux Klan. The Klan dispensed vigilante justice after the Civil War. In 1880 a new legitimate group was in charge of dispensing justice in Texas -- the Texas Rangers. Many of the Texas Rangers were members of the Klan. Edward was the new master. Edward gained their loyalty by stroking their egos. Edward would use his money and influence to try and make them famous. Edward eventually inherited the Texas Ku Klux Klan.
Edward Mandell House helped to make four men governor of Texas: James S. Hogg (1892), Charles A. Culberson (1894), Joseph D. Sayers (1898), and S. W.T. Lanham (1902). After the election House acted as unofficial advisor to each governor. Hogg gave House the title "Colonel" by promoting House to his staff.
Edward wanted to control more than Texas, Edward wanted to control the country. Edward would do so by becoming a king maker instead of a king. Edward knew that if he could control two or three men in the Senate, two or three men in the House; and the President, he could control the country.
Edward would influence the candidate from behind the scenes. The people would perceive one man was representing them, when in reality; an entirely different man was in control. House didn't need to influence millions of people; he need only influence a handful of men. Edward would help establish a secret society in America that would operate in the same fashion -- the Council on Foreign Relations.
Edward Mandell House was instrumental in getting Woodrow Wilson elected as President. Edward had the support of William Jennings Bryan and the financial backing of the House of Rockefeller's National City Bank. Edward became Wilson's closest unofficial advisor.
Edward Mandell House and some of his schoolmates were also members of Cecil Rhodes Round Table group. The Round Table Group, the back bone of the Secret Society, had four pet projects, a graduated income tax, a central bank, creation of a Central Intelligence Agency, and the League of Nations.
Between 1901 and 1913 the House of Morgan and the House of Rockefeller formed close alliances with the Dukes and the Mellons. This group consolidated their power and came to dominate other Wall Street powers including: Carnegie, Whitney, Vanderbilt, Brown-Harriman, and Dillon-Reed. The Round Table Group wanted to control the people by having the government tax people and deposit the peoples money in a central bank. The Group would take control of the bank and therefore have control of the money. The Group would take control of the State Department and formulate government policy, which would determine how the money was spent. The Group would control the CIA which would gather information about people, and script and produce psycho-political operations focused at the people to influence them to act in accord with Round Table Group State Department policy decisions. The Group would work to consolidate all the nations of the world into a single nation, with a single central bank under their control, and a single International Security System. Some of the first legislation of the Wilson Administration was the institution of the graduated income tax (1913) and the creation of a central bank called the Federal Reserve. An inheritance tax was also instituted. These tax laws were used to rationalize the need for legislation that allowed the establishment of tax-exempt foundations. The tax-exempt foundations became the link between the Groupmember's private corporations and the University system. The Group would control the Universities by controlling the sources of their funding. The funding was money sheltered from taxes being channeled in ways which would help achieve Round Table Group aims.
Edward Mandell House had this to say in a private meeting with President Woodrow Wilson:
“[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will effect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer being unable to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions.
Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud which we will call “Social Insurance.” Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner, every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America.”
Indian View: Cover-up in Mumbai
Sandhya Jain
1 December 2008
While stock-taking has only just begun, it already appears as if some things are being covered up. In these circumstances, the retention of Narayanan who was invisible during the entire crisis though he was too visible in the hated Indo-US nuclear deal does nothing to inspire confidence. In an atmosphere when media hype persistently reminds us of the Twin Towers tragedy in New York, one can only think of the success of Prince Bandar in escorting all well-connected Saudi youth out of America in the immediate aftermath of 11 September 2001.
Some things deserve an immediate answer – how many terrorists were there actually; how did they reach their respective destinations inland; and is it possible that "super-terrorists" simply walked out with the real survivors after having utilised the "mercenaries" to the hilt, just as they had murdered the navigators of the boats that brought them to Mumbai?
Current media reports and government sources say that the terrorists came by sea, landing near the Gateway of India or Colaba. This certainly explains the attacks on the sea front hotels like Taj, Oberoi and the Nariman House. But the question remains – how did they get to the CST station, Cama Hospital, and other places inland? Someone must have provided transport and back-up.
By no logic can anyone believe that nine separate sites in a city could be held to ransom by just 10 men. It is particularly difficult to believe that gigantic hotels like the Taj could be ruined and scores of guests killed or injured by just two men (sometimes the figure goes to six). Even two men per floor could not have caused the kind of death and destruction that did happen. A small place like Nariman House, yes, but Taj and Oberoi – I don't believe it. And if there were six persons at Taj and at least two at Nariman House, that means only two persons destroyed the Oberoi?
Rediff.com has interviewed the doctors who conducted the post-mortems on the dead hostages and terrorists, and it is their expert opinion that a battle of attrition took place over three days at the Oberoi and Taj hotels. The mutilation of the bodies was unlike anything they had seen in their careers in forensics.
For one, the bodies of the victims bore horrible signs of torture. Now this is understandable if the victims are being tormented by half-human beasts, but it seems strange that two terrorists could simultaneously fight and keep Indian commandos at bay for 62 hours, and also have the time to torture their victims. Yet the doctors were emphatic that:
"It was apparent that most of the dead were tortured. What shocked me were the telltale signs showing clearly how the hostages were executed in cold blood."
To my mind, it seems apparent that the terrorists who kept the NSG commandos engaged and those who tortured and killed the hotel staff and guests were two separate groups.
This suspicion is intensified by the startling revelation that the terrorists also did not meet a clean death. Doctors who conducted the post-mortem said the bodies of the terrorists – especially their faces - were beyond recognition. The security forces identified the bodies as those of terrorists [on TV they said it was because of the presence of weaponry near the bodies].
One terrorist was shot through either eye (i.e., both eyes!!!). As the NSG commandos never got to such close range with the terrorists, and nobody commits suicide by shooting both his own eyes, it follows that the killers were somebody else. Since none of the hotel guests could have the kind of weaponry used in the conflict, this suggests the presence of a mysterious third party, making the terrorists the victims of a classic double-cross – the stuff of spy thrillers. Actually, it reminds one of the convenient murder of the alleged killer of President John F. Kennedy.
Hence it would be entirely in order to closely interrogate each and every guest, especially the foreign guests, before allowing them to leave the country. Without false emotionalism, we should also fingerprint them for the future; who knows what Interpol cooperation may throw up.
Top Russian counter-terrorism expert, Vladimir Klyukin, an Afghan war veteran, opines that the Mumbai attackers were not "ordinary terrorists" and were probably trained by the special operations forces set up in Pakistan by US intelligence prior to the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. In his view, the nature of the Mumbai events suggests the signature of the 'Green Flag' special operations forces created by the Americans in Pakistan, just a year before the Soviet withdrawal.
Guerrilla operations of the Mumbai kind require at least two-three years of preparatory work with experienced instructors. Raw trainees cannot hold four huge complexes in a city to ransom for so long. The Russian Interfax news agency reported the former KGB veteran as surmising the involvement of at least 50 terrorists, given the geography and sheer scale of the attacks. This seems like a legitimate estimation.
What is more, the only way 9 coordinated attacks can occur simultaneously is by using Global Positioning Systems (GPS) or live maps for communication and control. These are not normally owned by private parties. Initial investigations also suggested that as many as seven terrorists included mostly British-born Pakistanis, and one does hope that these leads are not covered up. The reports also suggested some gunmen were captured, but later media reports highlighted that only one terrorists was caught alive at the railway station. So there is a lot of confusion here that needs to be cleared up.
Certainly the hints about British involvement, openly asserted by the outspoken Lyndon LaRouche, need investigation.
Media has been heavily criticized in some quarters for airing visuals of NSG commandos dropping on the hotel roofs from helicopters, and thus giving operational secrets away to the militants watching TV inside. If the criticism is to be valid, however, we will have to accept that the terrorists had more men inside who could be deployed to watch TV and give information which would enable them to react and rebuff the aerial assault. There is no way 2 to 6 terrorists could torture victims sadistically and kill them brutally, watch TV, fight and keep the security forces at bay for 62 hours, and then kill themselves or each other in impossible ways.
The death of terrorists points to a clear double-cross and also the possibility of the involvement of more than one religious denomination. That the terrorists did not prepare for death by carrying potassium cyanide is well known; nor did they simply intend to blow themselves up like the usual suicide bombers. The surviving terrorist has revealed that they were told of an escape plan – and no doubt that plan was used by those who killed their fellow terrorists and walked out free!
This writer has consistently stated that modern, late 20th-21st century jihad is qualitatively different from the medieval jihad in which Muslim armies led by generals or kings ran over much of the world in Europe, North Africa, and Asia. Contemporary jihad is a mercenary tool of Western colonialism, serving a colonial intent with devout slavishness, and this seems borne out by the events of Mumbai.
What remains to be seen, however, is whether or not the Islamic world wakes up to the reality of its own self-enslavement. India on its part has demonstrated that no matter how long it takes to get operational, no matter the cost in terms of life and property, the territory of Bharat Mata will be protected.
It is more than likely that Pakistan was rebuked by its British and American 'friends' (read Masters) for agreeing to send the ISI chief to assist in the investigations, and forced to backtrack on a solemn assurance. The teams from Scotland Yard and America, ostensibly coming to assist India in the probe, are more likely trying to ascertain the extent of evidence with India.
It is pertinent that the recovery of a satellite phone from the trawler abandoned with the body of the Gujarati captain revealed that the trawler had been hijacked to Karachi Port, and while there, calls were made even to Australia (where the CIA has a famous outpost!)
Interestingly, General Leonid Ivashov, who was Chief of Staff of the Russian armed forces when the Twin Towers tragedy happened on 11 September 2001, insists that there is no such thing as international terrorism and that "the September 11 attacks were the result of a set-up. What we are seeing is a manipulation by the big powers; this terrorism would not exist without them." Instead of faking a "world war on terror", the best way to reduce such attacks is through respect for international law and peaceful cooperation among countries and their citizens [http://www.voltaire net.org/article1 33909.html]
Globalization creates the conditions for the emergence of this terror. It seeks to design a new world geo-strategic map; appropriate the resources of the planet; erase cultural identities; and subjugate States before a global oligarchy. Thus, terrorism, according to Gen. Ivashov, is an instrument of world politics, "a means to install a unipolar world with a sole world headquarters, a pretext to erase national borders and to establish the rule of a new world elite. It is precisely this elite that constitutes the key element of world terrorism, its ideologist and its "godfather".
Contemporary international terrorism combines the use of terror by State and non-State political structures to attain political objectives through intimidation of people, psychological and social destabilization, elimination of resistance inside power organizations, and the creation of appropriate conditions for the manipulation of the countries' policies and the behaviour of people. Media complicity helps. But terrorism is not possible without the support of political and business circles that wield the funds to finance it – and Pakistan is notoriously bankrupt.
More pertinently, only secret services and their current or retired chiefs have the ability to plan and execute an operation of such complexity and scale. It is secret services that create, finance and control extremist organizations.
Is it possible that M.K. Narayanan has been retained by the current pro-Western dispensation to "help" the Western secret services (State actors) in the current mess, to facilitate their long-term agenda by manipulating and misleading the nation and the people? We deserve an answer; we demand to know.
The author is Editor, www.vijayvaani. com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seven Questions
Neelabh Mishra
After various conjectures, speculations and angry or anguished advice had eaten up miles of footage and reams of newsprint in the wake of the nightmarish Mumbai carnage, a colleague still asked, ‘So, what is your conspiracy theory about these horrible happenings?’ Conspiracy theory I have none, but I do have a set of seven questions that have elicited no definitive answer in the current chatter and intrigue me no end. Here they are.
How many terrorists struck Mumbai on the fateful night of November 26? We are sure about minimum 10 as the security personnel managed to slay nine in fierce encounters and capture one alive. But the police claim to have found 15 sets of blankets and winter jackets on the speedboat that witnessed the murder of its crew members and is supposed to have been hijacked by the terrorists for transporting themselves to Mumbai from Porbandar in Gujarat. Besides, News Channel Aaj Tak telecast the interview of a supposedly rescued victim Sajan Kapur, who claimed he was sent to the Taj hotel by ATS officer Vijay Salaskar and had seen around 17 terrorists there and not just four as claimed the security agencies. Will anyone explain these different figures?
Coming to Sajan Kapur, a friend points out in a write up on the web that this guy just vanished from the scene after the Aaj Tak telecast. No other channel or newspaper pursued him nor did Aaj Tak follow up on his claims. Why this blackout? Did he prove to be a phony witness who gave a misleading account? If so, with what intent? Or was he whisked away by the security agencies for investigation and they are keeping it hush-hush?
Kapur’s account on Aaj Tak was interesting. He claimed to have overheard an exchange between two of the terrorists, who openly flaunted their Pakistani links, in which one asked how much money these Indian politicians had and the other replied what is that to do with you as you have received your amount. Did Kapur imply that the attackers were Pakistanis paid off by Indian politicians? With Kapur vanishing from the scene, there is nobody to explain this part of his story either or his credibility or motive.
Coming to the hijacked boat, the police account reported in the media suggests a mystery in the nature of its ownership and control. The legal owner Masani disclaims any knowledge about its actual operations as he had handed over its control to his brother through a power of attorney. The brother had in turn sublet it to somebody else who hired other people to run it. What is this mystery of legal ownership being at four removed from the people who operated the boat? And what kind of operations was the boat usually involved in?
The boat’s hijacking at Porbandar in Gujarat testifies to a local support structure for the terrorists. Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi does not tire of continuously claiming to have generally rolled up terrorist networks in his state. He has also been very vehement in blaming the center and the Maharashtra government for the attackers being able to reach Mumbai unhindered. He also claims to have warned the Maharashtra government about the possibility of an attack on Mumbai launched from the sea. How come the terrorists found themselves bold enough to launch the attack from the coast of Gujarat, a state he rules with an iron hand?
The question of the strange coincidence of Pakistani terrorists finishing off the top leadership, including Hemant Karkare, of the ATS involved in probing a supposedly Hindutva terrorist cell whose avowed aim was to retaliate violently against Pakistan sponsored terrorism is also intriguing and needs explanation. I am not suggesting that the Hindutva extremists hired Pakistanis to do their hatchet job and in the process gave them the bonus of additional carnage to satisfy their murderous instincts but wondering about the circumstances of ATS leadership being led into a position of extreme vulnerability to terrorist fire.
And finally, how is it that whenever the Hindu rightist extreme seems to be in dire straits as with the current Sadhvi-Purohit- Pandey terror investigations, some violent action undertaken supposedly on behalf of Muslims or Pakistan, as the case may be, comes to their aid and also vice versa? For instance, recent Delhi blasts overshadowed the violence against Christians by Hindutva extremists in Orissa, burning of karsevaks on a train in Godhra and Akshardham attack respectively helped Narendra Modi in elections. And Kargil had helped both the BJP and Musharraf in their bid for power in their respective countries. Who plays whom or is there another unseen puppeteer?
Indian View: Cover-up in Mumbai
Sandhya Jain
1 December 2008
While stock-taking has only just begun, it already appears as if some things are being covered up. In these circumstances, the retention of Narayanan who was invisible during the entire crisis though he was too visible in the hated Indo-US nuclear deal does nothing to inspire confidence. In an atmosphere when media hype persistently reminds us of the Twin Towers tragedy in New York, one can only think of the success of Prince Bandar in escorting all well-connected Saudi youth out of America in the immediate aftermath of 11 September 2001.
Some things deserve an immediate answer – how many terrorists were there actually; how did they reach their respective destinations inland; and is it possible that "super-terrorists" simply walked out with the real survivors after having utilised the "mercenaries" to the hilt, just as they had murdered the navigators of the boats that brought them to Mumbai?
Current media reports and government sources say that the terrorists came by sea, landing near the Gateway of India or Colaba. This certainly explains the attacks on the sea front hotels like Taj, Oberoi and the Nariman House. But the question remains – how did they get to the CST station, Cama Hospital, and other places inland? Someone must have provided transport and back-up.
By no logic can anyone believe that nine separate sites in a city could be held to ransom by just 10 men. It is particularly difficult to believe that gigantic hotels like the Taj could be ruined and scores of guests killed or injured by just two men (sometimes the figure goes to six). Even two men per floor could not have caused the kind of death and destruction that did happen. A small place like Nariman House, yes, but Taj and Oberoi – I don't believe it. And if there were six persons at Taj and at least two at Nariman House, that means only two persons destroyed the Oberoi?
Rediff.com has interviewed the doctors who conducted the post-mortems on the dead hostages and terrorists, and it is their expert opinion that a battle of attrition took place over three days at the Oberoi and Taj hotels. The mutilation of the bodies was unlike anything they had seen in their careers in forensics.
For one, the bodies of the victims bore horrible signs of torture. Now this is understandable if the victims are being tormented by half-human beasts, but it seems strange that two terrorists could simultaneously fight and keep Indian commandos at bay for 62 hours, and also have the time to torture their victims. Yet the doctors were emphatic that:
"It was apparent that most of the dead were tortured. What shocked me were the telltale signs showing clearly how the hostages were executed in cold blood."
To my mind, it seems apparent that the terrorists who kept the NSG commandos engaged and those who tortured and killed the hotel staff and guests were two separate groups.
This suspicion is intensified by the startling revelation that the terrorists also did not meet a clean death. Doctors who conducted the post-mortem said the bodies of the terrorists – especially their faces - were beyond recognition. The security forces identified the bodies as those of terrorists [on TV they said it was because of the presence of weaponry near the bodies].
One terrorist was shot through either eye (i.e., both eyes!!!). As the NSG commandos never got to such close range with the terrorists, and nobody commits suicide by shooting both his own eyes, it follows that the killers were somebody else. Since none of the hotel guests could have the kind of weaponry used in the conflict, this suggests the presence of a mysterious third party, making the terrorists the victims of a classic double-cross – the stuff of spy thrillers. Actually, it reminds one of the convenient murder of the alleged killer of President John F. Kennedy.
Hence it would be entirely in order to closely interrogate each and every guest, especially the foreign guests, before allowing them to leave the country. Without false emotionalism, we should also fingerprint them for the future; who knows what Interpol cooperation may throw up.
Top Russian counter-terrorism expert, Vladimir Klyukin, an Afghan war veteran, opines that the Mumbai attackers were not "ordinary terrorists" and were probably trained by the special operations forces set up in Pakistan by US intelligence prior to the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. In his view, the nature of the Mumbai events suggests the signature of the 'Green Flag' special operations forces created by the Americans in Pakistan, just a year before the Soviet withdrawal.
Guerrilla operations of the Mumbai kind require at least two-three years of preparatory work with experienced instructors. Raw trainees cannot hold four huge complexes in a city to ransom for so long. The Russian Interfax news agency reported the former KGB veteran as surmising the involvement of at least 50 terrorists, given the geography and sheer scale of the attacks. This seems like a legitimate estimation.
What is more, the only way 9 coordinated attacks can occur simultaneously is by using Global Positioning Systems (GPS) or live maps for communication and control. These are not normally owned by private parties. Initial investigations also suggested that as many as seven terrorists included mostly British-born Pakistanis, and one does hope that these leads are not covered up. The reports also suggested some gunmen were captured, but later media reports highlighted that only one terrorists was caught alive at the railway station. So there is a lot of confusion here that needs to be cleared up.
Certainly the hints about British involvement, openly asserted by the outspoken Lyndon LaRouche, need investigation.
Media has been heavily criticized in some quarters for airing visuals of NSG commandos dropping on the hotel roofs from helicopters, and thus giving operational secrets away to the militants watching TV inside. If the criticism is to be valid, however, we will have to accept that the terrorists had more men inside who could be deployed to watch TV and give information which would enable them to react and rebuff the aerial assault. There is no way 2 to 6 terrorists could torture victims sadistically and kill them brutally, watch TV, fight and keep the security forces at bay for 62 hours, and then kill themselves or each other in impossible ways.
The death of terrorists points to a clear double-cross and also the possibility of the involvement of more than one religious denomination. That the terrorists did not prepare for death by carrying potassium cyanide is well known; nor did they simply intend to blow themselves up like the usual suicide bombers. The surviving terrorist has revealed that they were told of an escape plan – and no doubt that plan was used by those who killed their fellow terrorists and walked out free!
This writer has consistently stated that modern, late 20th-21st century jihad is qualitatively different from the medieval jihad in which Muslim armies led by generals or kings ran over much of the world in Europe, North Africa, and Asia. Contemporary jihad is a mercenary tool of Western colonialism, serving a colonial intent with devout slavishness, and this seems borne out by the events of Mumbai.
What remains to be seen, however, is whether or not the Islamic world wakes up to the reality of its own self-enslavement. India on its part has demonstrated that no matter how long it takes to get operational, no matter the cost in terms of life and property, the territory of Bharat Mata will be protected.
It is more than likely that Pakistan was rebuked by its British and American 'friends' (read Masters) for agreeing to send the ISI chief to assist in the investigations, and forced to backtrack on a solemn assurance. The teams from Scotland Yard and America, ostensibly coming to assist India in the probe, are more likely trying to ascertain the extent of evidence with India.
It is pertinent that the recovery of a satellite phone from the trawler abandoned with the body of the Gujarati captain revealed that the trawler had been hijacked to Karachi Port, and while there, calls were made even to Australia (where the CIA has a famous outpost!)
Interestingly, General Leonid Ivashov, who was Chief of Staff of the Russian armed forces when the Twin Towers tragedy happened on 11 September 2001, insists that there is no such thing as international terrorism and that "the September 11 attacks were the result of a set-up. What we are seeing is a manipulation by the big powers; this terrorism would not exist without them." Instead of faking a "world war on terror", the best way to reduce such attacks is through respect for international law and peaceful cooperation among countries and their citizens [http://www.voltaire net.org/article1 33909.html]
Globalization creates the conditions for the emergence of this terror. It seeks to design a new world geo-strategic map; appropriate the resources of the planet; erase cultural identities; and subjugate States before a global oligarchy. Thus, terrorism, according to Gen. Ivashov, is an instrument of world politics, "a means to install a unipolar world with a sole world headquarters, a pretext to erase national borders and to establish the rule of a new world elite. It is precisely this elite that constitutes the key element of world terrorism, its ideologist and its "godfather".
Contemporary international terrorism combines the use of terror by State and non-State political structures to attain political objectives through intimidation of people, psychological and social destabilization, elimination of resistance inside power organizations, and the creation of appropriate conditions for the manipulation of the countries' policies and the behaviour of people. Media complicity helps. But terrorism is not possible without the support of political and business circles that wield the funds to finance it – and Pakistan is notoriously bankrupt.
More pertinently, only secret services and their current or retired chiefs have the ability to plan and execute an operation of such complexity and scale. It is secret services that create, finance and control extremist organizations.
Is it possible that M.K. Narayanan has been retained by the current pro-Western dispensation to "help" the Western secret services (State actors) in the current mess, to facilitate their long-term agenda by manipulating and misleading the nation and the people? We deserve an answer; we demand to know.
The author is Editor, www.vijayvaani. com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seven Questions
Neelabh Mishra
After various conjectures, speculations and angry or anguished advice had eaten up miles of footage and reams of newsprint in the wake of the nightmarish Mumbai carnage, a colleague still asked, ‘So, what is your conspiracy theory about these horrible happenings?’ Conspiracy theory I have none, but I do have a set of seven questions that have elicited no definitive answer in the current chatter and intrigue me no end. Here they are.
How many terrorists struck Mumbai on the fateful night of November 26? We are sure about minimum 10 as the security personnel managed to slay nine in fierce encounters and capture one alive. But the police claim to have found 15 sets of blankets and winter jackets on the speedboat that witnessed the murder of its crew members and is supposed to have been hijacked by the terrorists for transporting themselves to Mumbai from Porbandar in Gujarat. Besides, News Channel Aaj Tak telecast the interview of a supposedly rescued victim Sajan Kapur, who claimed he was sent to the Taj hotel by ATS officer Vijay Salaskar and had seen around 17 terrorists there and not just four as claimed the security agencies. Will anyone explain these different figures?
Coming to Sajan Kapur, a friend points out in a write up on the web that this guy just vanished from the scene after the Aaj Tak telecast. No other channel or newspaper pursued him nor did Aaj Tak follow up on his claims. Why this blackout? Did he prove to be a phony witness who gave a misleading account? If so, with what intent? Or was he whisked away by the security agencies for investigation and they are keeping it hush-hush?
Kapur’s account on Aaj Tak was interesting. He claimed to have overheard an exchange between two of the terrorists, who openly flaunted their Pakistani links, in which one asked how much money these Indian politicians had and the other replied what is that to do with you as you have received your amount. Did Kapur imply that the attackers were Pakistanis paid off by Indian politicians? With Kapur vanishing from the scene, there is nobody to explain this part of his story either or his credibility or motive.
Coming to the hijacked boat, the police account reported in the media suggests a mystery in the nature of its ownership and control. The legal owner Masani disclaims any knowledge about its actual operations as he had handed over its control to his brother through a power of attorney. The brother had in turn sublet it to somebody else who hired other people to run it. What is this mystery of legal ownership being at four removed from the people who operated the boat? And what kind of operations was the boat usually involved in?
The boat’s hijacking at Porbandar in Gujarat testifies to a local support structure for the terrorists. Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi does not tire of continuously claiming to have generally rolled up terrorist networks in his state. He has also been very vehement in blaming the center and the Maharashtra government for the attackers being able to reach Mumbai unhindered. He also claims to have warned the Maharashtra government about the possibility of an attack on Mumbai launched from the sea. How come the terrorists found themselves bold enough to launch the attack from the coast of Gujarat, a state he rules with an iron hand?
The question of the strange coincidence of Pakistani terrorists finishing off the top leadership, including Hemant Karkare, of the ATS involved in probing a supposedly Hindutva terrorist cell whose avowed aim was to retaliate violently against Pakistan sponsored terrorism is also intriguing and needs explanation. I am not suggesting that the Hindutva extremists hired Pakistanis to do their hatchet job and in the process gave them the bonus of additional carnage to satisfy their murderous instincts but wondering about the circumstances of ATS leadership being led into a position of extreme vulnerability to terrorist fire.
And finally, how is it that whenever the Hindu rightist extreme seems to be in dire straits as with the current Sadhvi-Purohit- Pandey terror investigations, some violent action undertaken supposedly on behalf of Muslims or Pakistan, as the case may be, comes to their aid and also vice versa? For instance, recent Delhi blasts overshadowed the violence against Christians by Hindutva extremists in Orissa, burning of karsevaks on a train in Godhra and Akshardham attack respectively helped Narendra Modi in elections. And Kargil had helped both the BJP and Musharraf in their bid for power in their respective countries. Who plays whom or is there another unseen puppeteer?
1 December 2008
While stock-taking has only just begun, it already appears as if some things are being covered up. In these circumstances, the retention of Narayanan who was invisible during the entire crisis though he was too visible in the hated Indo-US nuclear deal does nothing to inspire confidence. In an atmosphere when media hype persistently reminds us of the Twin Towers tragedy in New York, one can only think of the success of Prince Bandar in escorting all well-connected Saudi youth out of America in the immediate aftermath of 11 September 2001.
Some things deserve an immediate answer – how many terrorists were there actually; how did they reach their respective destinations inland; and is it possible that "super-terrorists" simply walked out with the real survivors after having utilised the "mercenaries" to the hilt, just as they had murdered the navigators of the boats that brought them to Mumbai?
Current media reports and government sources say that the terrorists came by sea, landing near the Gateway of India or Colaba. This certainly explains the attacks on the sea front hotels like Taj, Oberoi and the Nariman House. But the question remains – how did they get to the CST station, Cama Hospital, and other places inland? Someone must have provided transport and back-up.
By no logic can anyone believe that nine separate sites in a city could be held to ransom by just 10 men. It is particularly difficult to believe that gigantic hotels like the Taj could be ruined and scores of guests killed or injured by just two men (sometimes the figure goes to six). Even two men per floor could not have caused the kind of death and destruction that did happen. A small place like Nariman House, yes, but Taj and Oberoi – I don't believe it. And if there were six persons at Taj and at least two at Nariman House, that means only two persons destroyed the Oberoi?
Rediff.com has interviewed the doctors who conducted the post-mortems on the dead hostages and terrorists, and it is their expert opinion that a battle of attrition took place over three days at the Oberoi and Taj hotels. The mutilation of the bodies was unlike anything they had seen in their careers in forensics.
For one, the bodies of the victims bore horrible signs of torture. Now this is understandable if the victims are being tormented by half-human beasts, but it seems strange that two terrorists could simultaneously fight and keep Indian commandos at bay for 62 hours, and also have the time to torture their victims. Yet the doctors were emphatic that:
"It was apparent that most of the dead were tortured. What shocked me were the telltale signs showing clearly how the hostages were executed in cold blood."
To my mind, it seems apparent that the terrorists who kept the NSG commandos engaged and those who tortured and killed the hotel staff and guests were two separate groups.
This suspicion is intensified by the startling revelation that the terrorists also did not meet a clean death. Doctors who conducted the post-mortem said the bodies of the terrorists – especially their faces - were beyond recognition. The security forces identified the bodies as those of terrorists [on TV they said it was because of the presence of weaponry near the bodies].
One terrorist was shot through either eye (i.e., both eyes!!!). As the NSG commandos never got to such close range with the terrorists, and nobody commits suicide by shooting both his own eyes, it follows that the killers were somebody else. Since none of the hotel guests could have the kind of weaponry used in the conflict, this suggests the presence of a mysterious third party, making the terrorists the victims of a classic double-cross – the stuff of spy thrillers. Actually, it reminds one of the convenient murder of the alleged killer of President John F. Kennedy.
Hence it would be entirely in order to closely interrogate each and every guest, especially the foreign guests, before allowing them to leave the country. Without false emotionalism, we should also fingerprint them for the future; who knows what Interpol cooperation may throw up.
Top Russian counter-terrorism expert, Vladimir Klyukin, an Afghan war veteran, opines that the Mumbai attackers were not "ordinary terrorists" and were probably trained by the special operations forces set up in Pakistan by US intelligence prior to the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. In his view, the nature of the Mumbai events suggests the signature of the 'Green Flag' special operations forces created by the Americans in Pakistan, just a year before the Soviet withdrawal.
Guerrilla operations of the Mumbai kind require at least two-three years of preparatory work with experienced instructors. Raw trainees cannot hold four huge complexes in a city to ransom for so long. The Russian Interfax news agency reported the former KGB veteran as surmising the involvement of at least 50 terrorists, given the geography and sheer scale of the attacks. This seems like a legitimate estimation.
What is more, the only way 9 coordinated attacks can occur simultaneously is by using Global Positioning Systems (GPS) or live maps for communication and control. These are not normally owned by private parties. Initial investigations also suggested that as many as seven terrorists included mostly British-born Pakistanis, and one does hope that these leads are not covered up. The reports also suggested some gunmen were captured, but later media reports highlighted that only one terrorists was caught alive at the railway station. So there is a lot of confusion here that needs to be cleared up.
Certainly the hints about British involvement, openly asserted by the outspoken Lyndon LaRouche, need investigation.
Media has been heavily criticized in some quarters for airing visuals of NSG commandos dropping on the hotel roofs from helicopters, and thus giving operational secrets away to the militants watching TV inside. If the criticism is to be valid, however, we will have to accept that the terrorists had more men inside who could be deployed to watch TV and give information which would enable them to react and rebuff the aerial assault. There is no way 2 to 6 terrorists could torture victims sadistically and kill them brutally, watch TV, fight and keep the security forces at bay for 62 hours, and then kill themselves or each other in impossible ways.
The death of terrorists points to a clear double-cross and also the possibility of the involvement of more than one religious denomination. That the terrorists did not prepare for death by carrying potassium cyanide is well known; nor did they simply intend to blow themselves up like the usual suicide bombers. The surviving terrorist has revealed that they were told of an escape plan – and no doubt that plan was used by those who killed their fellow terrorists and walked out free!
This writer has consistently stated that modern, late 20th-21st century jihad is qualitatively different from the medieval jihad in which Muslim armies led by generals or kings ran over much of the world in Europe, North Africa, and Asia. Contemporary jihad is a mercenary tool of Western colonialism, serving a colonial intent with devout slavishness, and this seems borne out by the events of Mumbai.
What remains to be seen, however, is whether or not the Islamic world wakes up to the reality of its own self-enslavement. India on its part has demonstrated that no matter how long it takes to get operational, no matter the cost in terms of life and property, the territory of Bharat Mata will be protected.
It is more than likely that Pakistan was rebuked by its British and American 'friends' (read Masters) for agreeing to send the ISI chief to assist in the investigations, and forced to backtrack on a solemn assurance. The teams from Scotland Yard and America, ostensibly coming to assist India in the probe, are more likely trying to ascertain the extent of evidence with India.
It is pertinent that the recovery of a satellite phone from the trawler abandoned with the body of the Gujarati captain revealed that the trawler had been hijacked to Karachi Port, and while there, calls were made even to Australia (where the CIA has a famous outpost!)
Interestingly, General Leonid Ivashov, who was Chief of Staff of the Russian armed forces when the Twin Towers tragedy happened on 11 September 2001, insists that there is no such thing as international terrorism and that "the September 11 attacks were the result of a set-up. What we are seeing is a manipulation by the big powers; this terrorism would not exist without them." Instead of faking a "world war on terror", the best way to reduce such attacks is through respect for international law and peaceful cooperation among countries and their citizens [http://www.voltaire net.org/article1 33909.html]
Globalization creates the conditions for the emergence of this terror. It seeks to design a new world geo-strategic map; appropriate the resources of the planet; erase cultural identities; and subjugate States before a global oligarchy. Thus, terrorism, according to Gen. Ivashov, is an instrument of world politics, "a means to install a unipolar world with a sole world headquarters, a pretext to erase national borders and to establish the rule of a new world elite. It is precisely this elite that constitutes the key element of world terrorism, its ideologist and its "godfather".
Contemporary international terrorism combines the use of terror by State and non-State political structures to attain political objectives through intimidation of people, psychological and social destabilization, elimination of resistance inside power organizations, and the creation of appropriate conditions for the manipulation of the countries' policies and the behaviour of people. Media complicity helps. But terrorism is not possible without the support of political and business circles that wield the funds to finance it – and Pakistan is notoriously bankrupt.
More pertinently, only secret services and their current or retired chiefs have the ability to plan and execute an operation of such complexity and scale. It is secret services that create, finance and control extremist organizations.
Is it possible that M.K. Narayanan has been retained by the current pro-Western dispensation to "help" the Western secret services (State actors) in the current mess, to facilitate their long-term agenda by manipulating and misleading the nation and the people? We deserve an answer; we demand to know.
The author is Editor, www.vijayvaani. com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seven Questions
Neelabh Mishra
After various conjectures, speculations and angry or anguished advice had eaten up miles of footage and reams of newsprint in the wake of the nightmarish Mumbai carnage, a colleague still asked, ‘So, what is your conspiracy theory about these horrible happenings?’ Conspiracy theory I have none, but I do have a set of seven questions that have elicited no definitive answer in the current chatter and intrigue me no end. Here they are.
How many terrorists struck Mumbai on the fateful night of November 26? We are sure about minimum 10 as the security personnel managed to slay nine in fierce encounters and capture one alive. But the police claim to have found 15 sets of blankets and winter jackets on the speedboat that witnessed the murder of its crew members and is supposed to have been hijacked by the terrorists for transporting themselves to Mumbai from Porbandar in Gujarat. Besides, News Channel Aaj Tak telecast the interview of a supposedly rescued victim Sajan Kapur, who claimed he was sent to the Taj hotel by ATS officer Vijay Salaskar and had seen around 17 terrorists there and not just four as claimed the security agencies. Will anyone explain these different figures?
Coming to Sajan Kapur, a friend points out in a write up on the web that this guy just vanished from the scene after the Aaj Tak telecast. No other channel or newspaper pursued him nor did Aaj Tak follow up on his claims. Why this blackout? Did he prove to be a phony witness who gave a misleading account? If so, with what intent? Or was he whisked away by the security agencies for investigation and they are keeping it hush-hush?
Kapur’s account on Aaj Tak was interesting. He claimed to have overheard an exchange between two of the terrorists, who openly flaunted their Pakistani links, in which one asked how much money these Indian politicians had and the other replied what is that to do with you as you have received your amount. Did Kapur imply that the attackers were Pakistanis paid off by Indian politicians? With Kapur vanishing from the scene, there is nobody to explain this part of his story either or his credibility or motive.
Coming to the hijacked boat, the police account reported in the media suggests a mystery in the nature of its ownership and control. The legal owner Masani disclaims any knowledge about its actual operations as he had handed over its control to his brother through a power of attorney. The brother had in turn sublet it to somebody else who hired other people to run it. What is this mystery of legal ownership being at four removed from the people who operated the boat? And what kind of operations was the boat usually involved in?
The boat’s hijacking at Porbandar in Gujarat testifies to a local support structure for the terrorists. Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi does not tire of continuously claiming to have generally rolled up terrorist networks in his state. He has also been very vehement in blaming the center and the Maharashtra government for the attackers being able to reach Mumbai unhindered. He also claims to have warned the Maharashtra government about the possibility of an attack on Mumbai launched from the sea. How come the terrorists found themselves bold enough to launch the attack from the coast of Gujarat, a state he rules with an iron hand?
The question of the strange coincidence of Pakistani terrorists finishing off the top leadership, including Hemant Karkare, of the ATS involved in probing a supposedly Hindutva terrorist cell whose avowed aim was to retaliate violently against Pakistan sponsored terrorism is also intriguing and needs explanation. I am not suggesting that the Hindutva extremists hired Pakistanis to do their hatchet job and in the process gave them the bonus of additional carnage to satisfy their murderous instincts but wondering about the circumstances of ATS leadership being led into a position of extreme vulnerability to terrorist fire.
And finally, how is it that whenever the Hindu rightist extreme seems to be in dire straits as with the current Sadhvi-Purohit- Pandey terror investigations, some violent action undertaken supposedly on behalf of Muslims or Pakistan, as the case may be, comes to their aid and also vice versa? For instance, recent Delhi blasts overshadowed the violence against Christians by Hindutva extremists in Orissa, burning of karsevaks on a train in Godhra and Akshardham attack respectively helped Narendra Modi in elections. And Kargil had helped both the BJP and Musharraf in their bid for power in their respective countries. Who plays whom or is there another unseen puppeteer?
Hawaii is not legally a state/The Bayonet Constitution
http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/hawaii-petition/
EXCERPT:
Between September 11 and October 2, 1897, the two groups collected petition signatures at public meetings held on each of the five principal islands of Hawaii. The petition, clearly marked "Petition Against Annexation" and written in both the Hawaiian and English languages, was signed by 21,269 native Hawaiian people, or more than half the 39,000 native Hawaiians and mixed-blood persons reported by the Hawaiian Commission census for the same year.
>>>>>>>>>>
Hawaii is not legally a state!
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/HAWAII/hawaii.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1887_Constitution_of_the_Kingdom_of_Hawaii
The 1887 Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi stripped the Hawaiian monarchy of much of its authority, disenfranchising most of the native population and initiating a transfer of power to American, European and native Hawaiian elites. It became widely known as the Bayonet Constitution, due to the use of intimidation by the armed militia which forced King Kalākaua [1] to sign it or be deposed. The document created a constitutional monarchy like Great Britain's, stripping the King of most of his personal authority, empowering the Legislature and establishing cabinet government.
The Constitution, dated July 6, 1887, was written by Lorrin A. Thurston and imposed on the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi and its monarch David Kalākaua by the armed militia of the Honolulu Rifles and politicians who later formed the Reform Party of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Most were also associated with a secret society called the Hawaiian League, which was in favor of annexation to the United States.
At the time Kalākaua had been forced to sign the constitution under threat of arms, military rifles were commonly fixed with bayonets[1].
[edit] Provisions
Asians, including subjects who previously enjoyed the right to vote, were specifically denied suffrage simply on the basis of race. Only Hawaiian, American, and European males in Hawaiʻi were granted full voting rights if they met the economic and literacy thresholds. At the time this constitution came into effect, native Hawaiians, both full and part, accounted for less than one-half of the total population, yet enjoyed significant electoral advantage because of the disenfranchisement of Asians.
At the end of the Kingdom, about 75% of ethnic Hawaiians could not vote at all because of the gender, literacy, property, and age requirements. However, because of the racial disenfranchisement of Asians, ethnic Hawaiians still amounted to about two-thirds of the electorate for representatives and about one-third of the electorate for Nobles. (Kuykendall, Hawaiian Kingdom at 453. The rest of the voters were male residents of European or American ancestry.)
The 1887 Constitution imposed a very strict threshold for voter eligibility, by requiring that individuals generate annual income of at least US$600, or own private property worth at least US$3000. This rule was very effective in limiting voter eligibility to wealthy businessmen and landowning Hawaiian elites. The 1887 Constitution also removed the monarch's power to appoint members of the House of Nobles (the upper house of the Hawaiian legislature).
A comparison between the 1864 and 1887 Constitutions is illustrative:
1864 Constitution
Article 62.
Every male subject of the Kingdom, who shall have paid his taxes, who shall have attained the age of twenty years, and shall have been domiciled in the Kingdom for one year immediately preceding the election; and shall be possessed of Real Property in this Kingdom, to the value over and above all incumbrances of One Hundred and Fifty Dollars or of a Lease-hold property on which the rent is Twenty-five Dollars per year—or of an income of not less than Seventy-five Dollars per year, derived from any property or some lawful employment, and shall know how to read and write, if born since the year 1840, and shall have caused his name to be entered on the list of voters of his District as may be provided by law, shall be entitled to one vote for the Representative or Representatives of that District. Provided, however, that no insane or idiotic person, nor any person who shall have been convicted of any infamous crime within this Kingdom, unless he shall have been pardoned by the King, and by the terms of such pardon have been restored to all the rights of a subject, shall be allowed to vote.
1887 Constitution
ARTICLE 59.
Every male resident of the Hawaiian Islands of Hawaiian, American or European birth or descent, who shall have attained the age of twenty years, and shall have paid his taxes, and shall have caused his name to be entered on the list of voters for Nobles for his District, shall be an elector of Nobles, and shall be entitled to vote at any election of Nobles, provided:
First: That he shall have resided in the country not less than three years, and in the district in which he offers to vote, not less than three months immediately preceding the election at which he offers to vote;
Second: That he shall own and be possessed, in his own right, of taxable property in this country of the value of not less than three thousand dollars over and above all encumbrances, or shall have actually received an income of not less than six hundred dollars during the year next preceding his registration for such election;
Third: That he shall be able to read and comprehend an ordinary newspaper printed in either the Hawaiian, English or some European language:
Fourth: That he shall have taken an oath to support the Constitution and laws, such oath to be administered by any person authorized to administer oaths, or by an Inspector of Elections;
Provided, however, that the requirements of a three years residence and of ability to read and comprehend an ordinary newspaper, printed in the Hawaiian, English or some European language, shall not apply to persons residing in the Kingdom at the time of the promulgation of this Constitution, if they shall register and vote at the first election which shall be held under this Constitution.
EXCERPT:
Between September 11 and October 2, 1897, the two groups collected petition signatures at public meetings held on each of the five principal islands of Hawaii. The petition, clearly marked "Petition Against Annexation" and written in both the Hawaiian and English languages, was signed by 21,269 native Hawaiian people, or more than half the 39,000 native Hawaiians and mixed-blood persons reported by the Hawaiian Commission census for the same year.
>>>>>>>>>>
Hawaii is not legally a state!
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/HAWAII/hawaii.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1887_Constitution_of_the_Kingdom_of_Hawaii
The 1887 Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi stripped the Hawaiian monarchy of much of its authority, disenfranchising most of the native population and initiating a transfer of power to American, European and native Hawaiian elites. It became widely known as the Bayonet Constitution, due to the use of intimidation by the armed militia which forced King Kalākaua [1] to sign it or be deposed. The document created a constitutional monarchy like Great Britain's, stripping the King of most of his personal authority, empowering the Legislature and establishing cabinet government.
The Constitution, dated July 6, 1887, was written by Lorrin A. Thurston and imposed on the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi and its monarch David Kalākaua by the armed militia of the Honolulu Rifles and politicians who later formed the Reform Party of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Most were also associated with a secret society called the Hawaiian League, which was in favor of annexation to the United States.
At the time Kalākaua had been forced to sign the constitution under threat of arms, military rifles were commonly fixed with bayonets[1].
[edit] Provisions
Asians, including subjects who previously enjoyed the right to vote, were specifically denied suffrage simply on the basis of race. Only Hawaiian, American, and European males in Hawaiʻi were granted full voting rights if they met the economic and literacy thresholds. At the time this constitution came into effect, native Hawaiians, both full and part, accounted for less than one-half of the total population, yet enjoyed significant electoral advantage because of the disenfranchisement of Asians.
At the end of the Kingdom, about 75% of ethnic Hawaiians could not vote at all because of the gender, literacy, property, and age requirements. However, because of the racial disenfranchisement of Asians, ethnic Hawaiians still amounted to about two-thirds of the electorate for representatives and about one-third of the electorate for Nobles. (Kuykendall, Hawaiian Kingdom at 453. The rest of the voters were male residents of European or American ancestry.)
The 1887 Constitution imposed a very strict threshold for voter eligibility, by requiring that individuals generate annual income of at least US$600, or own private property worth at least US$3000. This rule was very effective in limiting voter eligibility to wealthy businessmen and landowning Hawaiian elites. The 1887 Constitution also removed the monarch's power to appoint members of the House of Nobles (the upper house of the Hawaiian legislature).
A comparison between the 1864 and 1887 Constitutions is illustrative:
1864 Constitution
Article 62.
Every male subject of the Kingdom, who shall have paid his taxes, who shall have attained the age of twenty years, and shall have been domiciled in the Kingdom for one year immediately preceding the election; and shall be possessed of Real Property in this Kingdom, to the value over and above all incumbrances of One Hundred and Fifty Dollars or of a Lease-hold property on which the rent is Twenty-five Dollars per year—or of an income of not less than Seventy-five Dollars per year, derived from any property or some lawful employment, and shall know how to read and write, if born since the year 1840, and shall have caused his name to be entered on the list of voters of his District as may be provided by law, shall be entitled to one vote for the Representative or Representatives of that District. Provided, however, that no insane or idiotic person, nor any person who shall have been convicted of any infamous crime within this Kingdom, unless he shall have been pardoned by the King, and by the terms of such pardon have been restored to all the rights of a subject, shall be allowed to vote.
1887 Constitution
ARTICLE 59.
Every male resident of the Hawaiian Islands of Hawaiian, American or European birth or descent, who shall have attained the age of twenty years, and shall have paid his taxes, and shall have caused his name to be entered on the list of voters for Nobles for his District, shall be an elector of Nobles, and shall be entitled to vote at any election of Nobles, provided:
First: That he shall have resided in the country not less than three years, and in the district in which he offers to vote, not less than three months immediately preceding the election at which he offers to vote;
Second: That he shall own and be possessed, in his own right, of taxable property in this country of the value of not less than three thousand dollars over and above all encumbrances, or shall have actually received an income of not less than six hundred dollars during the year next preceding his registration for such election;
Third: That he shall be able to read and comprehend an ordinary newspaper printed in either the Hawaiian, English or some European language:
Fourth: That he shall have taken an oath to support the Constitution and laws, such oath to be administered by any person authorized to administer oaths, or by an Inspector of Elections;
Provided, however, that the requirements of a three years residence and of ability to read and comprehend an ordinary newspaper, printed in the Hawaiian, English or some European language, shall not apply to persons residing in the Kingdom at the time of the promulgation of this Constitution, if they shall register and vote at the first election which shall be held under this Constitution.
Gentleness/A fruit of the Spirit in you
http://www.spirithome.com/gentleness.html
Gentleness
A fruit of the Spirit in you
ver.: 06 November 2008
This harvest of spiritual fruit is ripe for the picking :
love (agape);
joy (chara);
peace (eirene);
patience (makrothumia);
kindness (chrestotes);
goodness (agathosune);
faithfulness (pistis);
self-control (egkrateia).
Gentleness
Gentleness : [ < href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+5:22" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Galatians 5:22 is prautes, which is about mildness or meekness of spirit, taking care not to cause harm. The Hebrew word is 'anî, which refers mostly to the poor and the humble.
The Bible says this about gentleness:
Jesus was gentle
when restoring a follower to the fellowship
way of life within a marriage
pursue it!
how God treats us by forgiving us
Gentleness As A Fruit
'Gentleness' is an interesting fruit of the spirit. It has a direct tie-in to Jesus, too, for didn't he speak of the meek inheriting the earth? In the Revelation, John looks for a lion but finds a Lamb. Like the other spiritual fruit, gentleness is an aspect of God's character which God's followers take on as they follow Christ. The fruit of 'gentleness' isn't about being wishy-washy, indecisive, unassertive, or just plain wimpy. Instead, it's a refusal to use power to harm anyone, an unwillingness to cut and slash at people, wounding them for vengeance, spite or control. Gentleness is a desire that no harm be done. There are gentle ways to be bold, non-violent ways to stand up for what is right, and non-manipulative ways to lead and to convince. But it is not human nature to be gentle. It goes beyond 'instinct', or 'education', or 'society's influence'. We are simply not gentle creatures. Certainly not males, despite the term 'gentleman'. Males are quick with the fists and the guns. Women have historically been more gentle, but that's a relative matter; they have their own ways of being vicious and destructive. Today's world gives rewards to hostility and going to a extreme. If we are to bear the fruit of gentleness, we need the Spirit to give us the ability to be gentle when it's hardest to be that way.
Gentleness is when you care enough to choose not to be harsh, rash, angry, or rough. Gentleness is when you know and use the best way to hold an egg or a butterfly. A gentle person knows better than to harm others, and so chooses to act in a way that does not. A gentle person does not seek to make other people angry. Gentleness may lose battles, but it helps win the overall struggles. A gentle response tends to create fewer enemies, and more friends.gently go to top
top
Gentleness
A fruit of the Spirit in you
ver.: 06 November 2008
This harvest of spiritual fruit is ripe for the picking :
love (agape);
joy (chara);
peace (eirene);
patience (makrothumia);
kindness (chrestotes);
goodness (agathosune);
faithfulness (pistis);
self-control (egkrateia).
Gentleness
Gentleness : [ < href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+5:22" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Galatians 5:22 is prautes, which is about mildness or meekness of spirit, taking care not to cause harm. The Hebrew word is 'anî, which refers mostly to the poor and the humble.
The Bible says this about gentleness:
Jesus was gentle
when restoring a follower to the fellowship
way of life within a marriage
pursue it!
how God treats us by forgiving us
Gentleness As A Fruit
'Gentleness' is an interesting fruit of the spirit. It has a direct tie-in to Jesus, too, for didn't he speak of the meek inheriting the earth? In the Revelation, John looks for a lion but finds a Lamb. Like the other spiritual fruit, gentleness is an aspect of God's character which God's followers take on as they follow Christ. The fruit of 'gentleness' isn't about being wishy-washy, indecisive, unassertive, or just plain wimpy. Instead, it's a refusal to use power to harm anyone, an unwillingness to cut and slash at people, wounding them for vengeance, spite or control. Gentleness is a desire that no harm be done. There are gentle ways to be bold, non-violent ways to stand up for what is right, and non-manipulative ways to lead and to convince. But it is not human nature to be gentle. It goes beyond 'instinct', or 'education', or 'society's influence'. We are simply not gentle creatures. Certainly not males, despite the term 'gentleman'. Males are quick with the fists and the guns. Women have historically been more gentle, but that's a relative matter; they have their own ways of being vicious and destructive. Today's world gives rewards to hostility and going to a extreme. If we are to bear the fruit of gentleness, we need the Spirit to give us the ability to be gentle when it's hardest to be that way.
Gentleness is when you care enough to choose not to be harsh, rash, angry, or rough. Gentleness is when you know and use the best way to hold an egg or a butterfly. A gentle person knows better than to harm others, and so chooses to act in a way that does not. A gentle person does not seek to make other people angry. Gentleness may lose battles, but it helps win the overall struggles. A gentle response tends to create fewer enemies, and more friends.gently go to top
top
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
