Filed under: 9/11 Truth, al-qaeda, blackops, CIA, Coup, False Flag, inside job, Islamabad, marine, Military, Pakistan, qatar, Saudi Arabia, State Sponsored Terrorism, suicide bombing, Taliban, Troops, uav, USMC, War On Terror | Tags: hotel bombing, marriott hotel, pakistan bombing, Rehman Malik, soldiers, truck bombing, u.s. soldiers
Pakistan Investigating US Marine Activity Inside Marriott Hotel Days Before Huge Bombing
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
September 24, 2008
A view of a deep crater caused by Saturday’s massive truck bombing at Marriott hotel in Islamabad, Pakistan Sunday, Sept. 21, 2008. The bombing devastated the luxury hotel in Pakistan’s capital, killing some 60 people and injuring more than 250
Pakistani authorities investigating last Saturday’s huge bombing of the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad are looking into evidence that US marines were occupying two floors just days prior to the blast and were witnessed unloading a truckload of steel cases inside.
“The authorities want to ascertain if it was a routine exercise or part of some special mission that does not have the approval of the government of Pakistan,” Pakistan’s largest newspaper The News reported.
The reports of the mysterious activity first surfaced in the Pakistani media on Sunday.
According to the accounts, several witnesses, including Pakistani government officials, described seeing a US embassy truckload of steel boxes unloaded while all entrances to and from the hotel were locked down at around midnight on the 16th September.
The cases were not taken through security scanners in the hotel’s lobby, but were shifted directly to the fourth and fifth floors, the same floors that fire broke out on after the truck bombing on Saturday.
“Already, the government has got information that several rooms on the fourth floor of the Marriott were in permanent use of the US authorities. Three of these rooms were said to be inter-connected and contained some intelligence equipment and other material allegedly used for espionage,” The News also reported.
The reports have also been picked up in the press in Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
A US embassy statement said that the marines were a routine team of support personnel that often precede and/or accompany certain US government officials, and that the cases contained communication equipment.
Further rumours that several senior officers of the CIA were staying at the hotel at the time of the attack were also strenuously denied by the US embassy statement as “inaccurate, irresponsible, baseless and completely without any foundation whatsoever.”
“Al Qaeda” was quickly portioned with the blame once more just hours after the dust had settled, while the Taliban have also been touted as suspects.
Meanwhile new claims have surfaced linking the bombing to an Islamic fundamentalist group based in Iran.
In our leading article earlier this week which has since been picked up by the Pakistan Daily, we detailed how Pakistan’s new leadership were due to dine at the hotel, but changed the venue at the last minute, according to a senior government official.
This raises the question, whether it be “Al Qaeda”, the Taliban or some other group of anti-American “terrorists”, why would they want to decapitate the new anti-US administration of Pakistan?
Pakistan hotel bombing kills at least 60
AFP
September 21, 2008
A suicide bomber detonated a truck packed with explosives at the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad on Saturday, killing at least 60 people in a brazen attack in the heart of the Pakistan capital.
Around 200 people were wounded, some critically, and there were fears more dead would be found in the fiery wreckage of the hotel, a popular gathering place for politicians, foreigners and the Pakistan elite.
Officials said they were worried the building, engulfed in flame after the blast ruptured a gas pipeline, would collapse. A security official said many people leapt to their deaths from upper floors rather than be burnt alive.
The bombing came shortly after new President Asif Ali Zardari, who faces a struggle to rein in Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants, delivered his inaugural address to parliament only a few hundred metres away.
It was one of the deadliest attacks in an increasingly bloody campaign by militants in Pakistan, a vital ally in the US-led “war on terror,” and presented Zardari with a major challenge just days after he took office.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/why-..-in-pakistan.html
Pakistan probes mystery of US Marines’ steel boxes in Marriott
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Stor..%27+steel+boxes+&strParent=strParentID
“U.S. drone” crashes in northwest Pakistan
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080924/tpl-uk-pakistan-drone-81f3b62.html
Zardari ‘was target of bomb plot’
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/itn/20080922/twl-zardari-was-target-of-bomb-plot-41f21e0.html
Pakistan blames US raids for hotel bombing
http://www.independent.co.uk/ne..r-hotel-bombing-938952.html
Filed under: 9/11, Britain, Censorship, Dictatorship, Empire, Europe, european union, global police force, Globalism, gulf, kosovo, kuwait, media blackout, middle east, Military, military base, Military Industrial Complex, muslims, nation building, New World Order, occupation, Pentagon, permanent military bases, philippines, Police State, qatar, rome, Russia, Saudi Arabia, south korea, Soviet Union, Troops, United Kingdom, Vietnam, Washington D.C., world police force | Tags: soldiers, u.s. soldiers, ussr
761 U.S. Military Bases Across the Planet
Alternet
September 8, 2008
Here it is, as simply as I can put it: In the course of any year, there must be relatively few countries on this planet on which U.S. soldiers do not set foot, whether with guns blazing, humanitarian aid in hand, or just for a friendly visit. In startling numbers of countries, our soldiers not only arrive, but stay interminably, if not indefinitely. Sometimes they live on military bases built to the tune of billions of dollars that amount to sizeable American towns (with accompanying amenities), sometimes on stripped down forward operating bases that may not even have showers. When those troops don’t stay, often American equipment does — carefully stored for further use at tiny “cooperative security locations,” known informally as “lily pads” (from which U.S. troops, like so many frogs, could assumedly leap quickly into a region in crisis).
At the height of the Roman Empire, the Romans had an estimated 37 major military bases scattered around their dominions. At the height of the British Empire, the British had 36 of them planetwide. Depending on just who you listen to and how you count, we have hundreds of bases. According to Pentagon records, in fact, there are 761 active military “sites” abroad.
The fact is: We garrison the planet north to south, east to west, and even on the seven seas, thanks to our various fleets and our massive aircraft carriers which, with 5,000-6,000 personnel aboard — that is, the population of an American town — are functionally floating bases.
And here’s the other half of that simple truth: We don’t care to know about it. We, the American people, aided and abetted by our politicians, the Pentagon, and the mainstream media, are knee-deep in base denial.
Now, that’s the gist of it. If, like most Americans, that’s more than you care to know, stop here.
Where the Sun Never Sets
Let’s face it, we’re on an imperial bender and it’s been a long, long night. Even now, in the wee hours, the Pentagon continues its massive expansion of recent years; we spend militarily as if there were no tomorrow; we’re still building bases as if the world were our oyster; and we’re still in denial. Someone should phone the imperial equivalent of Alcoholics Anonymous.
But let’s start in a sunnier time, less than two decades ago, when it seemed that there would be many tomorrows, all painted red, white, and blue. Remember the 1990s when the U.S. was hailed — or perhaps more accurately, Washington hailed itself — not just as the planet’s “sole superpower” or even its unique “hyperpower,” but as its “global policeman,” the only cop on the block? As it happened, our leaders took that label seriously and our central police headquarters, that famed five-sided building in Washington D.C, promptly began dropping police stations — aka military bases — in or near the oil heartlands of the planet (Kosovo, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait) after successful wars in the former Yugoslavia and the Persian Gulf.
As those bases multiplied, it seemed that we were embarking on a new, post-Soviet version of “containment.” With the USSR gone, however, what we were containing grew a lot vaguer and, before 9/11, no one spoke its name. Nonetheless, it was, in essence, Muslims who happened to live on so many of the key oil lands of the planet.
Yes, for a while we also kept intact our old bases from our triumphant mega-war against Japan and Germany, and then the stalemated “police action” in South Korea (1950-1953) — vast structures which added up to something like an all-military American version of the old British Raj. According to the Pentagon, we still have a total of 124 bases in Japan, up to 38 on the small island of Okinawa, and 87 in South Korea. (Of course, there were setbacks. The giant bases we built in South Vietnam were lost in 1975, and we were peaceably ejected from our major bases in the Philippines in 1992.)
Filed under: Ahmadinejad, airstrikes, Coup, Credit Crisis, Dollar, Economic Collapse, economic depression, Economy, energy, False Flag, gas prices, Great Depression, Greenback, gulf, Inflation, Iran, Iraq, middle east, Military, military strike, Nuke, Oil, Petrol, Preemptive Strike, preemptive war, qatar, Saudi Arabia, Shock and Awe, Tehran, US Economy, War On Terror, WW3, ww4
Attacking Iran? How Does $300 Oil Sound?
The Nation
July 2, 2008
Last week the Middle East Policy Council held an interesting and important discussion of what to do about Iran. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to attend it, but the MEPC has helpfully posted the transcript of that event. Led by the astute Chas Freeman, a former American ambassador to Saudi Arabia, the discussion was a very thoughtful effort to analyze the consequences of an American and/or Israeli attack on Iran. If you have the time, read it.
An important aspect of the idea of war with Iran is how it would be viewed by the Arab Gulf states and Iraq. Freeman, who is well connected in the Arab Gulf, made this rather scary point, which I haven’t heard anywhere else:
Because logistics require cooperation from countries in the region, they cannot avoid a measure of complicity with a U.S. operation against Iran, and the word in the region is that Iran has already told Qatar, for example, that if there is such an attack, the Qatari regime is toast.
Qatar, of course, is where the U.S. Central Command has its local headquarters.
Jean-Francois Seznec, a professor at the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies at Georgetown University, goes on to suggest a point of possible conflict between Iran and Qatar involving huge gas fields. Qatar and Iran are two of the world’s largest powers in natural gas. Says Seznec:
The Iranians are very worried about the enormous development on the Qatar North Dome Field. You know, it’s the largest gas field in the world. Qataris are developing it like crazy right now. And the Iranians are upset by that because they own half of that field, and they feel that the Qataris are really stealing their gas at this point. And they’ve mentioned that, because they have not been able to develop that field for lack of money, mostly, and lack of technology from overseas.
Seznec suggests that oil would go to $300 a barrel if Iran is attacked, and gasoline to $10 a gallon here at home.
Concludes Freeman:
It’s fairly obvious that [military] strikes won’t solve the problem, will create additional problems, would lead to a wider threat against American and other interests, and would lead to a war with no obvious end. But aside from that, a military strike on Iran is a splendid idea. There is a chance in the next six months that we will find out just how splendid it is. For my part, I hope not.
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080702114938.aspx
Filed under: CFR, Economic Collapse, economic depression, Economy, Euro, gas prices, Great Depression, gulf, Iran, monetary union, Oil, OPEC, petrodollar, petroeuro, qatar, Saudi Arabia, single currency, UAE, US Economy, Venezuela
CFR: Considering the PetroEuro
CFR
December 6, 2007
Easily missed amid the rising outcry over oil prices is the fact that they have only been skyrocketing in dollar terms. Priced in euros—or yen, or pounds sterling—the cost of a barrel of oil has risen much less over the past decade. At recent meetings of OPEC, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, ministers disputed whether oil should be sold in euros instead of dollars (WashPost), in light of the dollar’s recent decline. Officials from Venezuela, Iran, and Algeria called for a switch. But Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, both of which hold huge dollar reserves, urged caution, and the bloc concluded the meetings saying it would further study (FT) the impact of the falling dollar on its member states.
If oil were priced in euros, what would the effect be? On the surface, possibly not much, experts say. “Whether they’re selling in dollars or euros, they can make their currency conversions,” says Peter J. Robertson, vice chairman of Chevron Corporation, in an interview with CFR.org. The fact that major currencies are easily exchanged means that oil producers don’t sustain any immediate monetary loss by accepting payment in one currency or another. Yet a currency switch could bring a slew of more subtle changes. First, there is the psychological impact. Robertson says a shift would send a clear signal that oil producers “didn’t have as much confidence in the future of the United States”—a sentiment that could deeply undermine investor confidence.
This, in turn, could further hamper the strength of the dollar. As Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister says “the mere mention that the OPEC countries are studying the issue of the dollar is itself going to have an impact,” adding that a dollar collapse could take a severe toll on OPEC (UK Telegraph) economies. Indeed, several of the main oil-exporting nations would be among the most vulnerable parties, globally, should the dollar’s value decline. Having accepted dollars in payment for years, countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates have compiled massive dollar reserves (Economist), rivaling those held by China. They have a compelling interest in keeping those dollar piles as valuable as possible. Other countries, including Iran, have already diversified away (Gulf News) from the dollar, which explains the sharp differences of opinion within OPEC.
Beyond its effect on the dollar, OPEC shifting to the euro could also bring substantial benefits to European countries and companies by reducing currency risk (Guardian) currently built into their trade with oil states. More broadly, an OPEC shift to the euro could bring an overall reduction in global demand for the dollar, taking away one of the main ways in which the United States has financed large budget and trade deficits, as CFR’s Brad W. Setser notes in a recent interview.
The pressing question, then, is whether OPEC will switch. Here, expert opinion is mixed. Pressure from Saudi Arabia, OPEC’s heavyweight, seems likely to keep any immediate switch at bay. Two Lehman Brothers economists write on the website of the Financial Times that Riyadh’s stockpile of petrodollars binds its prospects to the health of the currency. Still, it seems all but certain that more oil states will follow Iran’s lead in diversifying their holdings away from the dollar. Riyadh has substantial support (Bloomberg) in defending the dollar, but Nigeria and Angola, two of Africa’s major oil exporters, are making new efforts to diversify their currency reserves.
Gulf States to Discuss Single Currency Plan by 2010
http://in.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idINIndia-30787820071202
Filed under: Euro, Greenback, gulf, Iran, monetary union, Oil, petrodollar, petroeuro, qatar, Saudi Arabia, single currency, UAE, Venezuela
6 Oil-Exporting Gulf States planning to develop a monetary union with a Euro-like single currency by 2010
Reuters
December 2, 2007
DOHA (Reuters) – Gulf Arab finance ministers will discuss a plan to speed up a delayed monetary union project before their rulers meet on Monday, the secretary general of Gulf Cooperation Council economic bloc said on Sunday.
The finance ministers will prepare the agenda for the summit, which is under intense market scrutiny after the United Arab Emirates, the bloc’s second largest economy, called for an end to region’s currency pegs to the tumbling dollar.
“The ministers will discuss the GCC single currency,” Abdul-Rahman al-Attiyah told Reuters on the sidelines of the meeting in Qatar’s capital Doha.
Asked whether there was any plan to speed up the project, he said: “Yes.” The plan would be designed to meet the 2010 deadline for monetary union, he said.
The minister would also discuss a customs union, monetary union and creating a common market in the world’s biggest oil exporting region, Attiyah said.
He declined to comment on whether dollar weakness and market speculation about the demise of the region’s dollar pegs were on the agenda.
Filed under: 2008 Election, 9/11, al-qaeda, bin laden, CIA, False Flag, FBI, Ground Zero, Keith Olbermann, qatar, Rudy Giuliani, Saudi Arabia, State Sponsored Terrorism
Olbermann exposes Giuliani’s Ties to Terror Sheikh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oL8d35g9nE0
Rudy’s Ties to a Terror Sheikh
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0748,barrett,78478,6.html