IRAQ, IS IT ABOUT TO IMPLODE?
The Iraq War was over oil, not terrorism.
This is why no WMD were ever found. They were never there, as the UN inspectors were stating.
It was the oil fields.
Once Iraq was taken, Iran was to be next, and taking the Saudi fields would be a snap.
- ZetaTalk: Iraq Obsession, written Nov 9, 2002
- Korea has the nukes, but is left to quiet consultation and no war mongering. It has no oil. India and Pakistan are squabbling at their borders, and
both have nukes, but you don't hear about military exercises near them, as they don't have oil. Russia has nukes and poison gas and bioterrorism
means, but is an ally, because to take their oil from them would be difficult. Countries in Africa that find they have some oil are run like
dictatorship by US corporations, killing off villages that object without fear of prosecution. So what is the Bush administration, so snug with
Enron, with a history in the oil industry and utter lack of ethics such as Harken Energy, Haliburton, after in Iraq? Oil.
How much of the worlds proven oil deposits are in Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia or in neighboring lands?
- Greatest Oil Reserves by Country, in proven reserves, billions of barrels:
Saudi Arabia 1st with 261.9,
Canada 2nd with 178.81,
Iran 3rd with 125.8,
Iraq 4th with 115.0,
Kuwait 5th with 101.5,
United Arab Emirates 6th with 97.8,
Venezuela 7th with 77.2,
Russia 8th with 60.0,
Libya 9th with 39.0,
Nigeria 10th with 35.3
There was a rush, by the Bush administration, to invade before May 15, 2003, as the Zetas had warned the pole shift might happen shortly after that date.
They wanted to be in place, BY that date, in the center of the Middle East oil fields.
The Zetas had very cleverly worked the May 15, 2003 date into existing ZetaTalk, and May 15, 2003 was a date when the exact position and speed of Planet X
could not be determined, from the viewpoint of Earth.
- ZetaTalk: Why May 15?, written Oct 17, 2003
- All ZetaTalk information keyed to the May 15 date was part of the White Lie. This included the 7.3 weeks of naked eye visibility leading up to that
date, so that when naked eye viewing of a red light fading in and out at our coordinates became visible in very late March, this brought weight to
the May 15 date. All was designed to fool the establishment. We avoided, scrupulously, any efforts during the Spring of 2003 to pin us down to
distance, allowing humans to speculate on the distance from Earth instead. We also refused to address the exact speed of Planet X, preferring to
talk in general terms, stating it was a rapid approach to the outer edges of the solar system, and much slower when approaching the Sun due to
the Repulsion Force effect. Nancy has pointed out several clues that May 15 was not and could not have been the date, in that we have stated in
ZetaTalk that Planet X would dive 32° below the Ecliptic prior to passage and at May 15, 2003 our coordinates had only dropped to 7° below the
The goal was to get Bush to play his hand early, to go into the oil fields early, and have the debacle that occurred bring down this ambitious crowd.
Was the US, and the Bush administration, that important?
What should be born in mind is that the US Military is greater than the combined militaries of all other countries in the world.
The US Military has bases all around the world.
Thus, the Bush administration, those who insured by vote fraud that George W Bush was president going into 2003, expected to be King of the world after the
pole shift, controlling black oil, the new currency in the Aftertime.
Oil would heat homes, and could be used to blackmail those in cold countries.
Oil would fuel military equipment, create electricity, thus making the military machine powerful in the face of disaster.
Oil would allow one to rule.
What clues do we have that oil was the reason for the invasion of Iraq, and that the schedule was rushed to meet May 15, 2003?
Quoting from Frontline, the Lost Year in Iraq.
- Interview with Anthony Cordesman
July 18, 2006
- The mission that was given
was essentially the risk that Saddam might burn the oil fields, deny this wealthy country this key source of income,
or that the oil-for-food system might break down. There was no planning at all for the need to preserve continuity of government.
- Interview with Michael Gordon
Aug 10, 2006
- Well, there was a series of high-level meetings with President Bush and his senior aides and Cabinet-level officials. It was just a week or two
before the war. It's astoundingly late in the game for these sorts of high-level briefings with the president.
When the Iraq museum in Baghdad was looted, the Ministry of Oil was protected by US troops.
And what clues do we have that Bush administration was anticipating a possible pole shift shortly after May 15, 2003?
Shortly before May 15, 2003:
Operation TOPOFF was initiated to involve Seattle, Chicago, and Washington DC and over 100 agencies, including Canadian participation.
Other terrorism exercises followed, including Winter Sun in NYC and environs.
Operation Planet X was run on May 15 in Iraq.
On the Lou Gentile live radio show May 16, 2003, the Zetas gave specific dates of May 20-27, 2003.
Details such as the day a late sunset could be expected, rotation stoppage expected, and the exact number of days, in decimals, until the hour of the shift.
The week following May 16, 2003:
Terrorism exercises were scheduled for the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco.
Homeland Security went to level Orange, with no other excuse than recent attacks in other countries, though these attacks were not unusual.
Level Red, wherein citizens can be ordered to remain in their homes, was the next step.
The establishment steps in each instance when a specific date was given took steps contrary to the welfare of the common man, likewise continuing to dis-inform
and un-inform the public.
Going into Iraq was NOT to protect the American public from terrorism, it was an oil grab.
The Zetas made a number of predictions at the time the US was invading Iraq.
- ZetaTalk: Not Succeed, written Mar 22, 2003
- There will be no terrorist attacks [in the US], nor will the war progress to the point where a regime change occurs. What we are saying is that the
US public is being told a quick war will result in success, but the utter opposite will be the case. They have been warned that they will not succeed
as planned in their takeover of the Oil Rich region.
There can be no doubt that terror attacks within the US have not recurred since 911, a fact the Bush administration tries to take credit for, but as anyone delving
into 911 understands, this was more an inside job than anything done by 19 hijackers.
They took down TWA 800 in the past, by a missile, and blew up the Oklahoma city FBI building, with the help of some in the US Military, so why stop now?
The Council of Worlds, per the Zetas, has issued an edict that no WMD will be planted in Iraq, and no terror attacks incited by real terrorist or the Bush
administration, will be allowed.
- ZetaTalk: Interfering, written September 14, 2002
- We, and our brethren, were very busy on the 911 anniversary, preventing terrorist attacks predicted by the Bush Administration, as this would
have given them a stage to stand on for the UN bully session, when they in fact had no facts to stand on in demanding an attack on Iraq. Thus,
they downstaged the UN speech to a demand that the former UN sanctions be honored. Were terrorism attacks in Indonesia, and Europe,
planned? Indeed, and many hundreds of steps stopped dead in their tracks, to prevent this.
What about the Zetas predictions regarding a regime change?
Didn't Saddam Hussein get captured, and his sons killed?
In point of fact, it is NOT Saddam in the docket in Iraq, in the much publicized trial proceedings, nor were the bodies laid out for the media when his sons were
supposedly killed in a shootout, his sons!
The CIA may confirm DNA, and the DOD confirm the circumstances, but both these agencies report to the White House, and would they lie?
According to foreign news reports, when Saddam's wife was taken to visit her captured husband, her words were 'this is not my husband'.
Of course, the US media did not report this tidbit.
- Saddam Captured Alive
Dec 14, 2003
- Saddam Hussein has been caught alive in the northern Iraq stronghold of Tikrit.
But was this Saddam?
The Internet was abuzz with observations that this was NOT Saddam, but one of his doubles.
Specifically, his cousin, who had often been used as a double when Saddam was supposed to be out in public.
Compare eyebrows, eye distance, nose shape and angle, lips and jaw. Don't you ever wonder what happened to all his doubles?
The hairline is different, the nose is different, the brow bone is different.
I watched them catch Noriega and I watched them catch Milosevic, and I still say this looks orchestrated! Saddam is NOT acting like the
dictator of a nation whose life is now over. He is acting like he is following a freaking script.
DNA tests are only as reliable as the people telling you the results.
I notice in the film of the guy taking the mouth swab on Saddam, that he has a large mole over his left eyebrow, that would be hard to
fake. Are there any previous pics showing the large mole over his left eyebrow, I can't seem to find any.
Compare the height of the foreheads. It's a look-alike.
Look at his nose. Does not look the same as in the older pics of him.
- I collected photos of Saddam and his doubles and compared.
It was obvious.
The man captured at Tikrit had a fat nose, a more slender face without the cheeks like a chipmunk, had a lower forehead than Saddam, and had a mole on his
forehead which Saddam did not sport.
But the strongest indication that the REAL Saddam was not on trial in Iraq was the overbite.
The cousin had an overbite, where the lower jaw juts out so that the teeth on the lower jaw are in front of the teeth on the upper jaw.
Saddam had a normal bite.
Yet on TV broadcasting of Saddam's tirades, when the camera was to the side, it was obvious that the man on trial had an overbite.
Plastic surgery can be done on a too-broad nose, and moles can be removed, but an overbite cannot be corrected by surgery.
A similar substitution had been done during the supposed capture of Saddam's sons, Uday and Ousay.
- Uday & Qusay Hussein Forged Photos - Forensic Analysis
- Look carefully at the real Uday Hussein's fine nose and then compare it as best you can with the nose on the cadaver. As you can see, the two
noses do not match, not even approximately. Now draw a horizontal line from the top of Uday's left ear around to the front of his face. Mark this
reference point with a red felt-tip pen. Now do the same with the cadaver and you will find there is a variation of 2.5 millimeters. ... You are only
allowed to see the uppermost portion of the cadaver torso ... the real Uday has some very significant scars from the attempt on his life. ... Details
of [Qusay Hussein]'s ear are wrong and [seriously] mismatched between photograph and cadaver. The real Qusay has an upward kink in both
eyebrows, which is completely missing from the cadaver, as is the deep fleshy outcrop on Qusay's forehead. These two unknown men did not die in
a hail of gunfire and Hellfire missiles inside a Mosul villa. The massive bruising around and behind the eyes of both men proves that both were
beaten severely, [tortured] while still alive.
But the strongest indication these look-alike cadavers were simply taken from a body dump near an Iraqi torture chamber were photos of the bodies in the autopsy
The bare legs were exposed, and clearly showed raw rub marks above the ankles from metal ankle cuffs, by which those tortured in Iraqi prisons were routinely
hung, upside down from the ceiling,
while being banged around the head as they swung, upside down and helpless.
This would certainly explain all the bleeding from the ears the corpses showed.
During the August vacation month, in August of 2003, there were long faces at Crawford ranch.
Bush and his close advisers, Condi Rice, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld included, were gathered round,
all looking like they were attending a funeral.
What was going on?
The Zetas had warned of a military rebellion.
- ZetaTalk: Changing Captains, written July 11, 2003
- The US Military has lost respect, utterly, for the Commander in Chief. The military was reluctant to go into Iraq, its advice ignored and its
leadership treated like robots expected to follow orders without question. Rebellion, at the highest levels, is seething just under the surface.
The insider Sherman H. Skolnick soon had an explanation for the long faces at Crawford ranch.
July 31, 2003
- Eight days before Commander-in-Chief/President Nixon was stripped of all authority, the indication of it in the top most circles was that the
'football' was taken away from him. That is the term used for the nuclear code briefcase always carried next to the President by a Marine Guard.
In Nixon's case, White House Chief of Staff General Alexander Haig, was ordered to do so by a Jesuit relative. Thus the Pentagon could not carry
out the orders of President Nixon since he had been divested of all authority. On the same day that George W. Bush verbally announced that "we
are not leaving Iraq" a top group in the U.S. military has let it be known that Bush no longer has authority as Commander-in-Chief. Those well
informed on the subject contend that three symbols of his authority were shorn from Bush's presence.
The response by the Bush administration was to attempt to fire those responsible and to place the Navy,
as the sole loyal branch, per the Zetas, in charge.
Some examples of this shuffle hit the news.
- Acting Secretary of the Army Resigns
Oct 17, 2004
- Acting Secretary of the Army Les Brownlee submitted his resignation today effective December 3, 2004. Brownlee served as the Under Secretary
of the Army from November 2001 to May 2003, at which time he also assumed the duties as the Acting Secretary of the Army.
- Secretary of The Air Force James G. Roche Resigns
Nov 16, 2004
- Secretary James G. Roche today submitted his resignation as Secretary of the U.S. Air Force. Secretary Roche plans to depart January 20, 2005,
or sooner if his successor is confirmed by the Senate before then.
- North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command Public Affairs
Nov 5, 2004
- Navy Admiral Keating assumed command from General Eberhart in ceremonies November 5th. The former director of the Joint Staff is the first
non-Air Force officer to command NORAD since its creation in 1958. General Eberhart had been commander of NORTHCOM since its creation
following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, bringing together the four military branches -- including the reserve components -- and the U.S.
Coast Guard under one new command.
All this happening in short succession, October-November 2004.
The Zetas commented on this obvious shuffle:
- ZetaTalk: Military Shuffle, written Nov 18, 2004
- The US Military has been a sham, publicly, since August, 2003 when the football, the briefcase of nuclear codes, was taken from Bush, deemed a
highly unstable megalomaniac as the War in Iraq demonstrated. The Navy allied with Bush. The DOD purges after the 2000 coup of the White
House were aimed at placing political cooperatives at the helm, so the agency would not be professional as much as political. Hundreds of early
retirements occurred before the DOD finally rebelled, in horror at what the War in Iraq had brought. Those caught facing the public, in a sham,
had the uncomfortable position of having to pretend that Bush was the Commander-in-Chief, and to pretend that their orders had weight.
Did these maneuvers work?
By putting the Navy in charge of NORAD and NORTHCOM, had Bush done an end-around the Pentagon?
After all, the Navy had it's own nukes, in submarines, which could be ordered into the Persian Gulf to threaten Iran.
And indeed, warships have been moved into position near Iran.
Per the Zetas, the Navy moved in the other direction, in concert with other branches of the military.
And Bush was informed of this shortly after the Katrina disaster, when is was obvious the Bush administration gave a damn about the American public, and was
only ambitious for the oil fields of Iraq.
- US Northern Command and Hurricane Rita.
Sep 24, 2005
- Until the 24th of September, there was no indication, from official and/or media sources of Secretary Rumsfeld's participation in the NorthCom
meetings. It is now confirmed that a top level meeting was held under NorthCom auspices, which included the participation of President Bush,
Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld (through video call), DHS secretary Michael Chertoff and FEMA Director Vice Admiral Thad Allen (video call).
This meeting had been planned well in advance. US public opinion was not informed. It was not mentioned by president Bush at his September 23
Was Bush unaware, on Sep 23, the day before, that he would be attending such a high level meeting at NORTHCOM?
- ZetaTalk: Bush Counter-Coup, written Sep 26, 2005
- What happened to the swagger, the bravado, quips like 'bring em on' re the attacks against US soldiers in Iraq? Bush looks defeated, deflated,
depressed, and frankly scared. Is it the hurricanes? Even after Katrina, which embarrassed Bush as he has made himself so insulated that he was
frankly unaware of the damage the rest of the world was watching on TV, in horror, he did not lose his swagger. There have, of course, been
setbacks. The plans to invade Iran and Venezuela for their oil reserves, stymied because the US Military is needed at home, and is insisting it must
leave Iraq to attend to the home front, rather than securing and guarding oil reserves for the Bush crowd. But all these setbacks are not new. The
loss of his swagger is new, and has presented just since his visit to NORTHCOM on the day hurricane Rita hit, and military exercises simulating
Martial Law were in full swing around the nation. Is there a relationship? We have mentioned that the US Military revolted against Bush during
the vacation month of August 2003, removing the 'football' from his control, the nuclear codes, and relaying that he was no longer considered
their Commander-in-Chief. All branches of the US Military except the Navy were so inclined.
Bush was not invited to go to NORTHCOM for the exercises during the busy weekend when Rita was slamming the coast and VP Cheney was in
surgery, he was taken there, under arrest. The unmistakable change in his visage after being released a clue to what occurred. Scared, unable to
smile. Wearing the same shirt for days, even when appearing in public. Cowed, brought to heel. What happened at NORTHCOM? As we have
mentioned, the original Bush plan was to become dictator of the world, secure all the oil fields and guard them with the US Military, impose
Martial Law in the US using the existing statutes allowing FEMA to take control in emergencies and via the new and powerful Homeland Security
statutes, become dictator for life. Homeland Security reports to Bush, and FEMA reports to Homeland Security, thus, by assigning control over to
FEMA, the President has in essence given himself dictator powers. No more elections. No more Congress. Just Bush for life while controlling
federal, state, and local governments by the strong arm of the US Military. Or so went the plan. If the US Military was in revolt, except for the
Navy, find a way around the top brass, coming in the side door via NORTHCOM and Homeland Security. This all assumes that NORTHCOM and
the Navy continue to be willing to follow the dictates of Homeland Security. Oops. They have some bad news for Bush and company. They joined
the revolt. What now?
As has been amply demonstrated, FEMA and Homeland Security, without the US Military, are pathetic, and have no clout. Especially in the face
of real emergencies, such as Katrina, and these real emergencies are just starting. In the public relations dance that occurred after Katrina, it
seemed the US Military and Coast Guard were cooperating, subservient, but this belied the drama behind the scenes. It was either/or. Either we
had the Bush administration arm coming down through Homeland Security and FEMA, or we had the military. The range of control that Bush has
established, from himself and Cheney downward, is littered with incompetents, else Bush feels threatened. If one analyzes the agencies that now
ally with the Bush administration, or line up against, Bush has a weak field. The bulk of the people in the agencies want to do their duty, not
operate as the arm of another Hitler with megalomaniac tendencies. Resistance is broad and deep. Bush attempted a counter-coup by assigning an
Admiral to NORTHCOM, but this failed. The face of a frightened Bush tells all.
Meanwhile, back in Iraq, corruption ran rampant.
First, Haliburton, VP Cheney's old company.
- Republicans kill amendment to investigate Halliburton contract abuse
10 Nov. 2005
- For two years, the Republican-controlled Senate has resisted public calls for a formal investigation into Halliburton, once headed by Vice
President Dick Cheney, even though it is being investigated for numerous violations, including criminal bid-rigging, overcharging of taxpayers,
bribery and criminally profiting in a nation believed by President Bush to sponsor terrorism. Although Republicans maintain that the Special
Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction is conducting an investigation, the Senate has failed to provide its own oversight. The Army Corps of
Engineers' top civilian contracting official was demoted in August after blowing the whistle on the Corps and Halliburton. "I can unequivocally
state that the abuse related to contracts awarded to [Halliburton] represents the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed
during the course of my professional career," he said.
Then there was the corruption among Iraqis.
- The Mother Of All Heists
October 22, 2006
- One of the people praised in former U.S. Ambassador L. Paul Bremer's memoirs is a major suspect in the case. Ziad Cattan was in charge of
military procurement at a time when the ministry of defense went on a $1.2 billion buying spree. Allawi estimates that $750 to $800 million of that
money was stolen. Audio recordings obtained by 60 Minutes reveal Cattan talking to an associate in Amman, Jordan, in 2004 about the
distribution of Iraqi funds. According to two independent translations, he is discussing payoffs to Iraqi officials. 60 Minutes has learned that
Cattan is building himself a villa in Poland. Another suspect, Naer Jumaili, principal in a middle-man company that handled much of the $1.2
billion in Iraqi military contracts, is said to be buying real estate in Amman, Jordan, and building himself a large villa.
Meanwhile, the death count mounted, all the while underplayed by the media.
- Pollster Zogby '95 percent' sure of 650,000 Iraqi death toll
October 11, 2006
- Expert pollster John Zogby is "95 percent certain" that around 650,000 Iraqis civilians have died since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. A new
study by Iraqi physicians and Americans from Johns Hopkins University polled 1,800 Iraqis to calculate an approximate number of casualties
since the beginning of the war. In an interview on CNN International, Zogby explains that the methodology used in the study is very reliable. "The
methodology, from what I've seen of the survey, is quite good," he remarked. He is also in agreement with the study's estimate of 650,000
casualties, saying, "I can't vouch for it 100 percent, but I'll vouch for it 95 percent, which is as good as it gets in survey research." At a press
conference earlier in the day, President Bush said that he did not agree with the study's results, saying, "I think that methodology has been pretty
Were things falling apart in Iraq?
With no plan for what to do AFTER the invasion, and sitting on the oil fields, doing an oil grab, things were deteriorating.
And support in the US for the constant reports of death and disaster in Iraq, the immense cost of maintaining troops there, was showing up in the polls, both in the
US and in Iraq.
Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International.
Oct. 13-20, 2006.
- All in all, do you think the United States is making progress or losing ground in its efforts to establish security and democracy in Iraq? Losing
Ground 65% From what you know now, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or not? Not
Right Thing 54% Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq? Disapprove 64% Do you favor or
oppose the U.S. war in Iraq? Oppose 64%
Iraqi poll: Majority tells U.S. to leave
Sep 26, 2006
- A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq
more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers. In Baghdad, for
example, nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those
asked favoring an immediate pullout, according to polling results obtained by the Washington Post. Another new poll, scheduled to be released
today by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, found that 71 percent of Iraqis questioned want the Iraqi
government to ask foreign forces to depart within a year. The report was based on 1,870 face-to-face interviews conducted from June 26 to July
Was this mess predicted by the Zetas?
Indeed it was, as they stated that Iraq was going to be a disaster, under reported in the media, from the start.
This, from the Zetas, just weeks after the invasion.
- ZetaTalk: House of Cards, written Apr 5, 2003
- There has, from the start of the war in Iraq, been a presentation to the American people contrary to the facts. Other countries, with reporters on
the scene, report otherwise, but these discrepancies are not addressed during the sessions done by the American military or White House
spokesperson. Cities are reported to be secure, then over a week later the cities are still slowly becoming secure, day by day. The media reports
statements by the American generals, the Bush Administration, congratulating themselves. Where does the truth lie? As with public opinion polls,
which can be manipulated endlessly to show a support that never existed for this war, the facts can be manipulated. Select photos sessions,
showing starving children grabbing food from the hands of soldiers, can be interpreted as a welcoming gesture. Tanks and planes in the desert,
soldiers playing cards and cleaning their guns, are these victory photos? Of course the facts, the truth, are not being reported.
The so-called coalition which is in fact the US and Brits, had but a single small port to invade from. Overflights over Israel and Jordan are
allowed, but are limited elsewhere. Troops now spread all over Iraq are in essence isolated! Supply lines are stretched from Kuwait inland, across
hostile territory. Should the troops run into problems, the supply lines cut, the overflights be unable to discern what troops are what, what kind of
a situation might ensue? As the ambushes during sand storms showed, there is little to stop the angry Iraqis from retaliating. Supposed territory
seized is hardly in hands friendly to the invasion. The kingpin who asserts this rights, is arrogant, and has bombed the heck out of a country for no
reason except hunger for oil, is not held in esteem. Should problems ensue, where the supply lines that carry both food, water, and ammo be
disrupted, all around those sadly isolated military personnel, it could get very ugly. It is a house of cards.
This house of cards assumes that a win in Iraq, with oil flowing to the US like honey, will distract the American public from the reality of what has
just happened. More oil, suddenly cheaper, will boost the Stock Market, so the theory goes. Since wars cost money, all those bombs exploded upon
the heads of innocent civilians in Iraq need to be replaced, a market boost again. And the war mongers win, or so the theory goes! But what if the
house of cards collapses! Does not hold! The fear that this house of cards will collapse is why the invasion is talked endlessly as a success, a
fantastic success, congratulations in the media by the generals and the White House. My, my, would it not be wonderful if we all could
congratulate ourselves on being a success, and thus make it so!.
By early 2006, civil war was breaking out in Iraq.
- Gates of Hell are Open
Feb 25, 2006
- When the giant dome of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, the holiest Shia shrine in the country, fell, the inter-Islamic battles in Iraq reached a new
nadir. When the dictator Saddam strode the land, the Sunni minority walked with him, enjoying power and spoils that far outweighed their
numbers. Iraq's new constitution provides for a federal system to rule over three distinct ethnic minorities that would prefer not to co-exist.
Partitioning would confine the Shias to their homelands in the south and the Kurds to the north. Neither group would have cause to complain
because they would then be sitting atop the vast subterranean oil reserves at either end of the country. An entrenched civil war is precisely what
US military planners wanted to avoid. If, as expected, ethnic cleansing takes further hold, it will be very difficult for the 160,000 troops to stick to
the mooted wind-back later this year. Capitol Hill legislators face elections in November and some have already publicly said a protracted
campaign is an increasingly difficult sell to voters.
And in neighboring Saudi territory, a suspiciously timed simultaneous assault.
- Saudi oil facility evades attack
Feb 25, 2006
- Suicide bombers tried to blow up the world's largest oil-processing plant in Saudi Arabia on Friday. A Saudi statement said the attack caused only
a minor fire, which was immediately extinguished and didn't disrupt oil or gas production. But the assault on the Abqaiq compound near the
Persian Gulf, through which two-thirds of Saudi oil exports pass, was the first on a significant Saudi oil facility. Oil experts warned that other
attacks are likely.
What was afoot here, that simultaneous attacks occurred in Iraq and Saudi Arabia, seemingly by warring fractions of Islam.
Not what is seems, per the Zetas, who claim this was an attempt by the Bush administration to force the reluctant US Military to invade Iran.
- ZetaTalk: Iraq Civil War, written Feb 25, 2006
- We have often stated that the war in Iraq was part of a larger plan to commandeer the oil fields of the Middle East, to expand into Saudi Arabia
and Iran, and thence up into the oil fields of Russia via Pakistan. The stage for the current military action was set in the past, with the friendship
of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, who were considered allies by George Bush Sr. By allowing Saddam to remain in power at the end of the first
Gulf War, the stage was set for George Bush Jr. to insist on finishing his father's work. Of course, seeing the junior Bush into the Presidency at
this time, when the pole shift was anticipated, was in the plan. Thus we had Dubya inserted into the White House by Supreme Court fiat in 2000,
and by voter fraud in 2004. The group who took the White House by coup in 2000 are marching to the original plan, regardless of setbacks, but
are seeing their course changed by opposition, and have become desperate.
The military is slipping away, revolt endemic, so that orders from the White House cannot be presumed to be followed. The Congress is now in
revolt, likely to become a Democratic Congress in 2006, and with voter fraud warnings much in the news and the techniques used in 2004 well
publicized, a repeat of this fraud unlikely to succeed. The American public is up in arms, against Bush and company on all fronts except for his
stance on terrorism, and now with the UAE port deal well publicized, this has crashed also. International support, such as was required to attack
and invade Iraq, is lacking for an attack on Iran, so attempting a coalition is a lost cause before even being attempted. The funds required to
support the plan have run the US into a record deficit, so that printing money like a Banana Republic is the only option. Iran's plan to switch to
the Euro for oil, leading the way to dropping the dollar as the world's currency, will create a crisis for the US, as the bottom for funding the plan
will drop out from under the Bush crowd.
One option is to give up the plan, resign to being ousted from the Presidency and control of the Executive Branch, and go quietly into the night to
prepare as any other wealthy citizen might for the pole shift, with a well stocked and guarded bunker. Does this sound like the arrogant Bush
crowd? They hope, as we stated, to create terrorism attacks in the US, via the UAE port deal, which will allow Martial Law to be called in the US
with a mandatory call to service, a draft, imposed. With Bush as President for life, the plan would have new life, or so goes the thinking. Why else
is Bush so adamant about pushing the UAE deal forward, despite opposition on all sides and a drop in the polls? They are taking desperate
measures! Does this include inciting civil war in Iraq? What would the Bush crowd stand to gain, by increased violence in the Middle East? Note
the odd timing of a supposed Al Qaeda attack on a Saudi oil refinery, the first ever of this scope to be attempted, with civil war in Iraq. Why
would one incident incite the other? Al Qaeda does not identify with the Shia or Sunni, nor would the Saudi attack help either party. But there is a
nexus in the interests of Bush and company.
The only way for the US to incite war with Iran is for the chaos in Iraq to spill over the borders. This would include the border with Saudi Arabia,
who would require US forces to defend their oil reserves, so the story would go, and thus an occupation there would result. Will this play out as
Bush hopes, forcing the US Military to support an increased presence in the Middle East, an increased scope in the operation? This would be
placed in the context of a need to have a victory, to stay the course. Should this meet opposition, America's dependence on oil from the region
would be emphasized. Will these desperate measures go as planned? One should bear in mind that these affairs are in the hands of man, and a
cornered animal will jump in many directions. Our analysis of the outcome does not include a war with Iran, nor an occupation of Saudi Arabia,
but a gradual and secretive withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, which will split into factions as a result of their civil war. We predicted that there
would be no regime change in Iraq and indeed the Sunni hold the military might during the civil war. Saddam's guard was Sunni, the expertise of
war is the Sunni hands, and the man on trial as Saddam is not he, but his cousin, one of his doubles. In the end, the Bush crowd will be required to
go quietly into the night, but not before some dramatic games are played within the US itself.
The timing of the bombing of the Golden Mosque and Saudi attacks, dated Feb 25, 2006, relates to Iran's plans to open an oil bourse using Euro dollars rather
than US dollars.
This would be an extreme threat to the stability of the Bush regime, as the US dollar has only been used as the worlds base currency BECAUSE of a Saudi
The value of the US dollar is pinned, thus, to oil sales, and if unpinned, could plummet.
- Iran-USA, Beginning of a Major World Crisis
Feb 25, 2006
- On the one hand there is the Iranian decision of opening the first oil bourse priced in Euros on March 20th, 2006 in Teheran, available to all oil
producers of the region. On the other hand, there is the decision of the American Federal Reserve to stop publishing M3 figures (the most reliable
indicator on the amount of dollars circulating in the world) from March 23, 2006 onward. Iran's opening of an Oil Bourse priced in Euros at the
end of March 2006 will be the end of the monopoly of the Dollar on the global oil market. The immediate result is likely to upset the international
currency market as producing countries will be able to charge their production in Euros also. A strong fall of the Dollar would probably result in a
massive sale of the US Treasury Bonds held in Asia, in Europe and in the oil-producing countries. For some months already, M3 has significantly
increased, indicating that money printing has already speeded up in Washington, knowing that the new President of the US Federal Reserve, Ben
Bernanke, is a self-acknowledged fan of money printing.
With the US Military rebelling, invading Iran on schedule has not occurred, but the disaster in Iraq continues, a reaching a new level by October, 2006.
On Oct 10, 2006, a munitions depot, well guarded and housing up to 5,000 military personnel, was hit by missiles, creating a spectabular explosion that went on
The US immediately put a squelch on the media, under reporting the disaster, and claiming that no injuries occurred among coalition forces.
The foreign press, however, was not so suppressed, and reported the truth.
- Forward Base Falcon Disaster
Oct 11, 2006
- At the time of the attack, there were approximately 3000 men inside the camp, which also was filled with ammunition supplies, fuel, tanks and
vehicles. Iraqi contractors had assisted in the construction of the camp, which occupied nearly a square mile and was surrounded with guard
tower-studded high concrete walls. An after action report, issued by the Department of Defense, stated that: "no injuries were reported." When
the flames had been brought under control on the morning of the 11th of October, primarily because the entire camp had been gutted, nine large
American military transports with prominent Red Cross markings were observed by members of the foreign media taking off, laded with the dead
and the wounded. Over 300 American troops, including U.S. Army and Marines, CIA agents and U.S. translators were casualties and there also
were 165 seriously injured requiring major medical attention and 39 suffering lesser injuries.
- Insurgents Hit U.S. Base in Baghdad
Oct 11, 2006
- Falcon is located in a former commercial trucking depot in a sprawling industrial area at the southern entrance of Baghdad. It is near the
violence-torn district of Dora, where U.S. troops have been focusing in a 2-month-old sweep of the capital neighborhood-by-neighborhood aimed
at rooting out militants and weapons.
Does this indicate a new level of violence, or rebellion, where even the Green Zone in Baghdad might be demolished?
- ZetaTalk: Falcon Depot, written Oct 21, 2006
- The Iraq War has been in the hands of man, from the start, and thus as man has free will the course of this war has been impossible for us to
predict with certainty. Nevertheless, we have from the start predicted that terrorist attacks within the US would not succeed, that support for the
war would erode utterly, that the war would drag out and not succeed. We predicted months ago that the likely outcome in Iraq would be a
secretive withdrawal by the US Military and that Iraq would 'split into factions', a fact no longer denied by senior Republic advisors, as recent
news reports confirm. Though this is in the hands of man, we predict that Iraq will go the way it would have to begin with if the British had not
partitioned it to include warring factions in the past. It is no secret that Britain structured Iraq so as to prevent it from becoming strong and
resistant to Western control, grouping the Sunni and Shia and Kurds together in any impossible marriage. The US Military is no longer listening to
Bush or Rumsfeld, ignoring their orders, but is loathe to publicly defy Bush as then this must be explained to the public. Since Bush is adamantly
stating he will stay the course, where will this lead?
A secretive withdrawal from Iraq would be along the lines already used to deny the rising number of troop deaths. No media coverage, and lies
about the placement of troops and the forts deserted to be occupied by the enemy. As the Earth changes require US troops to be returned home,
where they will be desperately needed, this withdrawal from Iraq will hasten. We warned at the start of a non-specific incident that would be so
horrific is would be as though 'the breath had been taken out of the body'. If the main Iraq munitions depot, considered ultra safe, can be turned
into a holocaust, taking the US Military so by surprise that they claim 'no injuries' when hundreds were clearly fried instantly, has this taken their
breath away? The Falcon disaster certainly shows that no zones in Iraq are safe for the US Military, including the Green Zone in Baghdad where
the Bush administration likes to ferry in for photo ops. If the Falcon depot, just south of Baghdad, was not safe, is the Green Zone safe? Recent
speculation on how to resolve the mess in Iraq has suggested that Bush may have to bring back strongmen, forgoing Democracy, perhaps bringing
back the real Saddam Hussein who is certainly alive and not in the docket for the faked court proceedings being televised. Has the breath been
taken away yet, in the final gasp that will spell admitted defeat for Bush in Iraq? No yet, but the success at Falcon has certainly shown what is