guerre civile ou intifada en europe?

.
http://www.checkpoint-online.ch/CheckPoint/Monde/Mon0114-FranceIntifada.html

(...)

"Sommes-nous donc à la veille d'une guerre civile en Europe ? Le terme peut paraître exagéré. Pourtant, l'évolution des violences urbaines montre qu'une situation de conflit existe déjà, et que le refus de la reconnaître ne contribue en aucun cas à éviter son extension. Avec plus de 9000 véhicules de police caillassés dans les dix premiers mois de l'année, la France est par exemple déjà entrée dans un conflit de basse intensité, une insurrection distribuée au niveau national et largement tue. Mais la pression populaire contraint les gouvernements à prendre des mesures sans cesse plus énergiques, et donc à affronter l'ennemi intérieur qu'ils préféreraient ignorer. Les chantres de la prévention ont eu leur chance: pour de nombreux pays, l'heure est désormais à la confrontation. Ce continent connaîtra bientôt un conflit dont il sortira transformé, et dont les premiers coups ont sonné. Ce sera une guerre différente, à la fois subversive et symbolique, déclarée et décentralisée, intermittente et intense, qui verra le chaos et l'intégrisme s'allier pour combattre la normalité. Une intifada communautaire et générationnelle, une succession d'affrontements ponctuels et épidermiques, greffés sur le lent corps-à-corps des identités. Une alternance de séismes assez intenses pour blesser profondément et assez espacés pour faire douter de leurs prochaines occurrences. Un duel que devront mener les Etats de droit pour préserver le contrôle du territoire, la stabilité de la société, la légalité des marchés et la liberté des esprits. Autant dire un défi mortel."

source : repris dans "Père Ubu" cette semaine à Bruxelles

CheckPoint - Site d'information militaire et stratégique suisse

www.checkpoint-online.ch

L'intifada française annonce-t-elle une guerre civile en Europe ?

20 novembre 2005

Les violences urbaines qu’a connues la France ont révélé une situation de conflit de basse intensité. La mise au défi des pouvoirs publics signifie que l'heure est à la confrontation, et qu’une guerre civile d’un nouveau genre est inévitable. Voitures incendiées par centaines, affrontements avec la police, saccage des transports publics ou destructions d'écoles : les images issues des banlieues françaises ces dernières semaines sont celles d'une rébellion longtemps redoutée, d'un embrasement qui trahit des ruptures et des antagonismes profonds. L’instauration de l’état d’urgence pour 3 mois, par l’activation d’une loi datant des « événements » d’Algérie puis par l'adoption d'un décret spécifique, souligne la gravité de la crise.
«... Ce continent connaîtra bientôt une guerre différente, une intifada communautaire et générationnelle, une succession d'affrontements ponctuels et épidermiques, greffés sur le lent corps-à-corps des identités. »

Pourtant, la France n'est pas le seul pays européen à connaître de telles violences, et le Danemark, la Suède, la Belgique ou encore la Grande-Bretagne subissent régulièrement des événements similaires dans leur déroulement, à défaut de l'être dans leur intensité. Et les implications de ce phénomène, qui se produit chaque jour à un seuil trop bas pour capter l’intérêt volatile des médias, doivent aujourd'hui être cernées.

A l’aube de la guerre

Sur le terrain, la situation a l'avantage d'être claire : des bandes souvent très jeunes, armées de projectiles divers, de cocktails Molotov et parfois d'armes à feu, se sont livrées à des razzias opportunistes qui ont occasionné des destructions considérables. Du 27 octobre au 18 novembre, 9071 véhicules ont été brûlés et au moins 2921 personnes interpellées, dont plus d’un tiers de mineurs ; au total, 655 individus ont été écroués, dont 115 mineurs, et 411 condamnations a de la prison ferme ont été infligées. Plus de 10'000 policiers et gendarmes ont été déployés pour leur faire face, et des réservistes de la gendarmerie – malgré une capacité opérationnelle limitée – ont même été mobilisés.

Les membres des forces de sécurité n’ont d’ailleurs pas eu la partie facile, et 126 d’entre eux ont été blessés, parfois dans de véritables embuscades. A Grigny, un contingent arrivé sur les lieux d’un incendie annoncé par un coup de téléphone anonyme a ainsi été attaqué à coups de fusils de chasse, d’armes incendiaires et de pierres par plus d’une centaine d’agresseurs qui ont démontré une volonté de blesser ou tuer. Utilisant le téléphone portable, les weblogs et le courrier électronique pour la préparation et la coordination de leurs actions, ces groupes sont souvent parvenus à se jouer des compagnies de CRS dépêchées pour reprendre le contrôle des quartiers dits difficiles. Les forces de sécurité au sens large, issues de la police, de la gendarmerie et même des corps de sapeurs-pompiers, sont d'ailleurs régulièrement prises à partie comme des forces d'occupation, comme des organisations illégitimes dont la présence à elle seule est une provocation. Les « territoires perdus de la République », qui trouvent leurs pendants dans presque chaque nation européenne, sont des zones où les lois et les valeurs de la France ont été remplacées par d'autres lois et d'autres valeurs ; des territoires étrangers où l'autorité se partage entre les « grands frères », les caïds et les imams, alors que le policier, le pompier ou encore l'instituteur ne sont plus que les figures méprisées d'un système rejeté en bloc. L'embrasement actuel des banlieues françaises n'est ainsi pas une surprise. Depuis les années 70, une succession d'erreurs, d'illusions et de lâchetés a abouti à la fabrication d'un véritable ennemi intérieur. Le laxisme en matière d'immigration, conjugué à une ségrégation physique et économique, a jeté des populations déracinées dans des ghettos bétonnés. Le déclin du civisme a permis à une économie souterraine illégale de parasiter ces ghettos et de consacrer ses comportements. Le mythe du métissage culturel a laissé une contre-culture hip-hop diffuser sans restriction des hymnes à la haine anti-française et des appels à l'insurrection armée. Enfin, le relativisme moral a donné aux organisations islamistes l'opportunité de promouvoir puis d'imposer leurs valeurs. De fait, la France compte aujourd'hui des dizaines de milliers de jeunes gens d'origine extra-européenne, en rupture totale avec la société qui a accueilli leurs parents, et dont la mentalité est celle d'enfants-soldats. La grande question est donc celle-ci : est-il possible de ramener ces individus dans une existence respectueuse des lois en vigueur ? Pour une partie d'entre eux, sans aucun doute ; pour tous, certainement pas. La voie de l'illégalité ou de la rébellion est celle qu'ils choisiront – indépendamment de tout ce que l'Etat peut faire pour eux. Et ils seront d'autant plus nombreux à le faire que cette existence apparaîtra gratifiante, étanchera leur soif de repères, satisfera leur besoin de reconnaissance. Sommes-nous donc à la veille d'une guerre civile en Europe ? Le terme peut paraître exagéré. Pourtant, l'évolution des violences urbaines montre qu'une situation de conflit existe déjà, et que le refus de la reconnaître ne contribue en aucun cas à éviter son extension. Avec plus de 9000 véhicules de police caillassés dans les dix premiers mois de l'année, la France est par exemple déjà entrée dans un conflit de basse intensité, une insurrection distribuée au niveau national et largement tue. Mais la pression populaire contraint les gouvernements à prendre des mesures sans cesse plus énergiques, et donc à affronter l'ennemi intérieur qu'ils préféreraient ignorer. Les chantres de la prévention ont eu leur chance: pour de nombreux pays, l'heure est désormais à la confrontation. Ce continent connaîtra bientôt un conflit dont il sortira transformé, et dont les premiers coups ont sonné. Ce sera une guerre différente, à la fois subversive et symbolique, déclarée et décentralisée, intermittente et intense, qui verra le chaos et l'intégrisme s'allier pour combattre la normalité. Une intifada communautaire et générationnelle, une succession d'affrontements ponctuels et épidermiques, greffés sur le lent corps-à-corps des identités. Une alternance de séismes assez intenses pour blesser profondément et assez espacés pour faire douter de leurs prochaines occurrences. Un duel que devront mener les Etats de droit pour préserver le contrôle du territoire, la stabilité de la société, la légalité des marchés et la liberté des esprits. Autant dire un défi mortel. Lt col EMG Ludovic Monnerat

911: flight 93 landed at cleveland airport

http://www.wanttoknow.info/911newsarticles-60-20

Plane Lands In Cleveland; Bomb Feared Aboard

2001-09-11, WCPO - Cincinnati's ABC Affiliate

http://www.wcpo.com/specials/2001/americaattacked/news_local/story14.html

Reported by: 9News Staff, 9/11/01 11:43:57 AM. A Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing Tuesday at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport due to concerns that it may have a bomb aboard, said Mayor Michael R. White. White said the plane had been moved to a secure area of the airport, and was evacuated. United identified the plane as Flight 93. The airline did say how many people were aboard the flight. United said it was also "deeply concerned" about another flight, Flight 175, a Boeing 767, which was bound from Boston to Los Angeles. On behalf of the airline CEO James Goodwin said: "The thoughts of everyone at United are with the passengers and crew of these flights. Our prayers are also with everyone on the ground who may have been involved. "United is working with all the relevant authorities, including the FBI, to obtain further information on these flights," he said.

Note: Remember that Flight 93 reportedly crashed in Pennsylvania on 9/11, with all aboard killed. This story was posted within hours of the 9/11 attacks. Click on the link above and you will see, "This story has been removed from WCPO.com. It was a preliminary AP story, and was factually incorrect." However, using the powerful Internet Archive, you can see the original article here. Click here and you can see the article continued to be posted for all dates through June 2004, and was only removed later. How can this be?

amman: israelis evacuated before explosions

Last update - 05:00 10/11/2005

Israelis evacuated from Amman hotel hours before bombings

By Yoav Stern, Haaretz Correspondent

A number of Israelis staying on Wednesday at the Radisson hotel were evacuated before the bombing by Jordanian security forces, apparently due to a specific security alert. They were escorted back to Israel by security personnel.

The Foreign Ministry stated Wednesday that no Israeli tourists are known to have been injured in the blasts. Representatives of Israel's embassy in Amman were in contact with local authorities to examine any report of injured Israelis, but none were received. There are often a number of Israeli businessman and tourists in Amman, including in the hotels hit Wednesday.

Israel's counter-terror headquarters on Wednesday recommended Israeli citizens not travel in Jordan. Travel warnings regarding Jordan were tightened a few months ago, but many Israelis still visit the country. Many also visit other regions such as the Jordanian Arava and the ancient city of Petra.

full text:http://www.rense.com/general68/quashed.htm

Scores Dead In Three
Amman Hotel Bombings
Israelis Evacuated Before Attack

By Yoav Stern and Zohar Blumenkrantz
Ha'aretz Daily - Israel
Nov. 10, 2005

Bombs rocked three hotels in Amman late last night, killing at least 57 people and wounding more than 115 in apparent suicide attacks. One of the hotels is known to be popular with Israeli tourists.

"There were three terrorist attacks on the Grand Hyatt, Radisson SAS and Days Inn hotels, and it is believed that the blasts were suicide bombings," police spokesman Major Bashir al-Da'aja told The Associated Press. He declined to elaborate.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attacks.

A police official said the attacks were simultaneous and hit minutes before 9 P.M. in two districts in the Jordanian capital, including the commercial area of Jebel Amman and Al-Rabiyeh, which houses the Israeli Embassy.

A number of Israelis staying yesterday at the Radisson SAS were evacuated before the bombing by Jordanian security forces, apparently due to a specific security alert. They were escorted back to Israel by security personnel.

The Foreign Ministry stated yesterday that no Israeli tourists are known to have been injured in the blasts. Representatives of Israel's embassy in Amman were in contact with local authorities to examine any report of injured Israelis, but none were received. There are often a number of Israeli businessman and tourists in Amman, including in the hotels hit yesterday.

Israel's counter-terror headquarters yesterday recommended Israeli citizens not travel in Jordan. Travel recommendations regarding Jordan were tightened a few months ago, but many Israelis still visit the country. Many also visit other regions such as the Jordanian Arava and the ancient city of Petra.

The first bomber, at 8:50 P.M. local time, struck the Grand Hyatt, completely shattering the stone entrance. An AP reporter saw at least seven bodies removed from the hotel and many more wounded carried out on stretchers.

CNN reported an eyewitness saying the Jordanian prime minister's car was at the Grand Hyatt at the time of the blast.

Police said a second explosion hit the nearby Radisson SAS hotel, where about 250 people were attending a wedding reception. At least five were killed and at least 20 wounded in that blast, believed to have been caused by a bomb placed in a false ceiling, police sources at the scene told Reuters.

The Radisson, in particular, is popular with Israeli tourists and was a target of several foiled Al-Qaida plots in the past.

Police also reported a third explosion at the Days Inn Hotel in Amman. There were also casualties at that hotel.

"The attacks carry the trademark of Al-Qaida," one police official said on condition of anonymity in line with police regulations. "However, it is not certain. We are investigating."

Ayman al-Safadi, editor of Jordan's Al-Ghad newspaper, told the Al-Arabiya satellite network that it was a "terrorist operation."

"Finally, the terrorists succeeded in breaking the security in Jordan," he said, referring to past success in foiling many terror plots.

Jordan's King Abdullah II condemned the attack, saying, "Justice will pursue the criminals" behind the Amman suicide attacks, CNN reported. Abdullah, who was on an official visit to Kazakhstan, cut short his trip and was returning home last night.

The Grand Hyatt and Radisson SAS hotels, in the commercial Jebel Amman district, are located about one kilometer apart and are frequented by American and European businessmen and diplomats. The Days Inn is located three kilometers away.

An American businessman who was at the Grand Hyatt when the explosion occurred said a "bomb that went off in the lobby." He declined to identify himself.

"It was a miracle that we made it out with a scratch," said a British guest at the Grand Hyatt.

"We thought it was fireworks for the wedding but I saw people falling to the ground," said Ahmed, a wedding guest at the

Radisson who did not give his surname. "I saw blood. There were people killed. It was ugly."

Jordan, a key ally of both the United States and Israel, had largely escaped the terror attacks that have hit other parts of the Middle East, and its sleepy capital, Amman, is viewed as a haven of stability in the region.

But Jordan has not been entirely immune: On Aug. 19, militants fired three Katyusha rockets at a U.S. Navy ship docked at the Red Sea resort of Aqaba, narrowly missing it and killing a Jordanian soldier.

Jordanian officials blamed that attack on Al-Qaida in Iraq, and there have been growing worries that the violence in Iraq could spill over into Jordan, where many Iraqi exiles have taken refuge from the violence.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/643691.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, November 11, 2005

Who died, and who didn't, in Jordan

There is an excellent summary of some peculiarities in the Jordan bombings in Xiaodong People, tying it to warnings given to Israelis in other recent 'terrorist' attacks (we might add the Odigo 9-11 warnings). The original story that the Israelis received warnings has been whitewashed, and the link replaced by a denial. There is, however, reported confirmation of advance warning from Amos N. Guiora, a former senior Israeli counter-terrorism official. You have to wonder why the Israelis chose not to share their wonderful intelligence with the Jordanians (in much the same way that you might wonder why they didn't go into more detail in their warnings to the United States on 9-11, particularly as their intelligence was apparently good enough and specific enough to be able to send Israeli agents to film the attack on the WTC, not to mention cheer it on). The attack did manage to kill the head of the Palestinian intelligence services (not to mention a Palestinian banker and a Palestinian commercial attache), and members of a delegation from China's University of National Defense, with whom the Palestinians might be assumed to be meeting (or at least the Israelis might have so assumed; see Kurt Nimmo on the Chinese connection). Since at least one of the bombs was pre-planted in a ceiling of the hotel, it would be very interesting to know who owned the hotel and could give access to bomb planters. The Jordanian reaction, to blame it all on the same dead man the Americans use as the scapegoat in Iraq, is probably a reflection of the extremely close ties between the CIA and Jordan's General Intelligence Directorate. I think we can probably chalk this one up to the continuing battle between the Israelis and the Palestinians over who gets to be protected by China after the American Empire collapses under the weight of trying to build the Israeli Empire.

bali bombing "mastermind", "escapes" us custody

Saturday, November 05, 2005

Bali bomb 'mastermind' al-Farouq allowed to escape?

Reportedly, Kuwaiti citizen Omar Al-Farouq played a part in the Bali bomb plot. http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1282108.htm

Al-Farouq was arrested in Bogor on June 5, 2002 and handed over to US authorities.

Former Indonesian State Intelligence Coordinating Board (BAKIN) chief A.C. Manulang was quoted by Tempo as saying that Al-Farouq is a CIA-recruited agent. http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2005/03/bali-bomb-and-military.html

If Al-Farouk was working for the CIA, then surely he would be allowed to escape.

Washington Post, "Pentagon: Top al-Qaida Operative Escaped", 1 November 2005.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101423.html

FORT BLISS, Texas -- A man once considered a top al-Qaida operative escaped from a U.S.-run detention facility in Afghanistan and cannot testify against the soldier who allegedly mistreated him, a defense lawyer involved in a prison abuse case said Tuesday. Omar al-Farouq was one of Osama bin Laden's top lieutenants in Southeast Asia until Indonesian authorities captured him in the summer of 2002 and turned him over to the United States. A Pentagon official in Washington confirmed Tuesday evening that al-Farouq escaped from a U.S. detention facility in Bagram, Afghanistan, on July 10. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information. An Army lawyer for Sgt. Alan J. Driver, a reservist accused of abusing Bagram detainees, asked Tuesday where al-Farouq was and what the Army had done to find him in time for Driver's court proceedings. Capt. John B. Parker, a prosecutor, said al-Farouq and three others escaped from the Bagram detention center and have not been found.
~

http://london-bombs.blogspot.com/2005/10/mohammed-sidique-khan-links-to.html

~posted by aangirfan at 5:36 PM

source: http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2005/11/bali-bomb-mastermind-al-farouq-allowed.html

towards a un controlled internet

Beware a 'Digital Munich'

Wall Street Journal

By NORM COLEMAN

November 7, 2005; Page A21

It sounds like a Tom Clancy plot. An anonymous group of international technocrats holds secretive meetings in Geneva. Their cover story: devising a blueprint to help the developing world more fully participate in the digital revolution. Their real mission: strategizing to take over management of the Internet from the U.S. and enable the United Nations to dominate and politicize the World Wide Web. Does it sound too bizarre to be true? Regrettably, much of what emanates these days from the U.N. does.

The Internet faces a grave threat. We must defend it. We need to preserve this unprecedented communications and informational medium, which fosters freedom and enterprise. We can not allow the U.N. to control the Internet.

The threat is posed by the U.N.-sponsored World Summit on the Information Society taking place later this month in Tunisia. At the WSIS preparatory meeting weeks ago, it became apparent that the agenda had been transformed. Instead of discussing how to place $100 laptops in the hands of the world's children, the delegates schemed to transfer Internet control into the hands of intrigue-plagued bureaucracies.

The low point of that planning session was the European Union's shameful endorsement of a plan favored by China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Cuba that would terminate the historic U.S. role in Internet government oversight, relegate both private enterprise and non-governmental organizations to the sidelines, and place a U.N.-dominated group in charge of the Internet's operation and future. The EU's declaration was a "political coup," according to London's Guardian newspaper, which predicted that once the world's governments awarded themselves control of the Internet, the U.S. would be able to do little but acquiesce.

I disagree. Such acquiescence would amount to appeasement. We cannot allow Tunis to become a digital Munich.

There is no rational justification for politicizing Internet governance within a U.N. framework. The chairman of the WSIS Internet Governance Subcommittee himself recently affirmed that existing Internet governance arrangements "have worked effectively to make the Internet the highly robust, dynamic and geographically diverse medium it is today, with the private sector taking the lead in day-to-day operations, and with innovation and value creation at the edges."

Nor is there a rational basis for the anti-U.S. resentment driving the proposal. The history of the U.S. government's Internet involvement has been one of relinquishing control. Rooted in a Defense Department project of the 1960s, the Internet was transferred to civilian hands and then opened to commerce by the National Science Foundation in 1995. Three years later, the non-profit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers assumed governance responsibility under Department of Commerce oversight. Icann, with its international work force and active Governmental Advisory Committee, is scheduled to be fully privatized next year. Privatization, not politicization, is the right Internet governance regime.

We do not stand alone in our pursuit of that goal. The majority of European telecommunications companies have already dissented from the EU's Geneva announcement, with one executive pronouncing it "a U-turn by the European Union that was as unexpected as it was disturbing."

In addition to resentment of U.S. technological leadership, proponents of politicization are driven by fear -- of access to full and accurate information, and of the opportunity for legitimate political discourse and organization, provided by the Internet. Nations like China, which are behind the U.N. plan to take control, censor their citizens' Web sites, and monitor emails and chat rooms to stifle legitimate political dissent. U.N. control would shield this kind of activity from scrutiny and criticism.

The U.S. must do more to advance the values of an open Internet in our broader trade and diplomatic conversations. We cannot expect U.S. high-tech companies seeking business opportunities in growing markets to defy official policy; yet we cannot stand idly by as some governments seek to make the Internet an instrument of censorship and political suppression. To those nations that seek to wall off their populations from information and dialogue we must say, as Ronald Reagan said in Berlin, "Tear down this wall."

Allowing Internet governance to be politicized under U.N. auspices would raise a variety of dangers. First, it is wantonly irresponsible to tolerate any expansion of the U.N.'s portfolio before that abysmally managed and sometimes-corrupt institution undertakes sweeping, overdue reform. It would be equal folly to let Icann be displaced by the U.N.'s International Telecommunication Union, a regulatory redoubt for those state telephone monopolies most threatened by the voice over Internet protocol revolution.

Also, as we expand the global digital economy, the stability and reliability of the Internet becomes a matter of security. Technical minutiae have profound implications for competition and trade, democratization, free expression and access to information, privacy and intellectual-property protection.

Responding to the present danger, I have initiated a Sense of the Senate Resolution that supports the four governance principles articulated by the administration on June 30:

• Preservation of the security and stability of the Internet domain name and addressing system (DNS).

• Recognition of the legitimate interest of governments in managing their own country code top-level domains.

• Support for Icann as the appropriate technical manager of the Internet DNS.

• Participation in continuing dialogue on Internet governance, with continued support for market-based approaches toward, and private-sector leadership of, its further evolution.

I also intend to seek hearings in advance of the Tunis Summit to explore the implications of multinational politicization of Internet governance. While Tunis marks the end of the WSIS process, it is just the beginning of a long, multinational debate on the values that the Internet will incorporate and foster. Our responsibility is to safeguard the full potential of the new information society that the Internet has brought into being.

Mr. Coleman is a Republican senator from Minnesota.

saudi neibourhood troubles on the petrol side

.
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/fr/fr050802_1_n.shtml

FOREIGN REPORT

AUGUST 04, 2005

Oil at heart of renewed UAE-Saudi border dispute

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has rekindled a long-standing territorial dispute with Saudi Arabia in a bid to grab a share of a giant border oilfield that contains nearly 1.5 per cent of the world's total crude resources.

Just eight months after the death of Sheikh Zayid bin Sultan al-Nahyan, its pragmatic leader and founder, the UAE surprisingly declared that a 31-year-old border pact with its giant neighbour was no longer in force. While analysts rule out a military confrontation, they acknowledge that such a declaration by a top royal figure could harm relations and increase tension between the two Gulf oil heavyweights.

A former UAE diplomat, who is close to the UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said: "As far as I know, I think it is the first time in this region that a senior official openly speaks about real border problems within the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC)." While such statements were strong, I do not think this means the two countries are bracing for war...but you can sense tension, and the demands made by the UAE will only put pressure on Saudi Arabia... In my opinion, the UAE chose this time because of Sheikh Zayid's death and global changes that limit Saudi Arabia's ability to dominate the Gulf."

After negotiations with Saudi Minister of Interior Prince Nayef bin Abd al-Aziz in Abu Dhabi in June, Sheikh Hamdan bin Zayid al-Nahyan, Deputy Premier and Minister of State for Foreign Affairs in the UAE, announced that the 1974 border accord with Saudi Arabia "is no longer practical or implementable" and that the UAE wanted it amended. Sheikh Hamdan is looking for a "satisfactory" agreement during further negotiations in Riyadh; however no date has yet been set for this visit.

Observers said Sheikh Hamdan's statements effectively annulled the 1974 agreement. ," One analyst said: "I am not saying it is a declaration of war but the current UAE leaders are getting really tough, completely different from the peaceful and conciliatory approach adopted by the late Sheikh Zayid."

Field of dreams

At the heart of the dispute is the giant Shaybah oilfield. Discovered in 1968, the field straddles the UAE-Saudi border and is believed to be one of the world's largest onshore oilfields, with current estimated proven reserves of 15.7 billion barrels.

Up until 25 December 2003, the field had yielded one billion barrels, however oil industry sources believe its recoverable oil potential could rise to 18 billion barrels in a few years with the deployment of new technology, such as horizontal drilling. Besides oil, the field contains in excess of 25 trillion cubic feet of associated gas, almost equivalent to Oman's total gas reserves.

An oil industry source said: "Shaybah is one of the most lucrative oilfields in the world...it contains billions of barrels of premium-grade 41.6 API sweet (nearly sulfur-free) crude oil. This explains the UAE's apparent bid to redraw the border map and get a share of that field."

Western diplomats say the UAE signed the 1974 Jeddah agreement under duress as it was forced to give up current and future claims to most of the Shaybah field. The agreement stipulated that "in case of oil findings along the common border, whether before or after the accord, ownership of the whole field will go to the country where the largest part of the field is located (Saudi Arabia)".

The UAE's long-standing resentment of the border pact was underscored when the UAE boycotted the inauguration ceremony for the field in 1998. Saudi Arabia though has so far invested around USD2.5 billion in developing the field, which is now producing more than 500,000 barrels per day. The field has more than 140 production wells and its output capacity could reach one million barrels per day (bbl/d).

It's all ours

Old Emiratis are convinced that Shaybah had totally belonged to the UAE before the two Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) countries signed the Jeddah border pact.

Mohammed Qabeesi, a 75-year-old national from Abu Dhabi's eastern fertile Liwa area, near Shaybah, claims: "I can assure you that all of it was ours. What happened I believe was that Saudi soldiers used to disguise [themselves] as Bedouins and come at night to push the barrels and barbed wire across the sand towards the UAE... they kept doing so for a long time until most of the field's area was inside Saudi Arabia. Our leaders knew about it, but could not do anything because they did not want any problems."

Facts: Saudi Arabia and the UAE

Saudi Arabia UAE

Oil reserves (billion barrels) 262 98

Gas reserves (trillion cubic metres) 6.7 6.06

Oil production (million barrels per day - May) 9.4 2.4

Gas production (billion cubic metres - 2003) 65 44.5

GDP (billion dollars - 2004) 247 80

Population (millions) 25 4

---

© 2005 Jane's Information Group

former german defence minister: cia hand in 911

Former German Defense Minister Confirms CIA Involvement in 9/11

Alex Jones Interviews Andreas Von Buelow

Please understand that this is a transcript made directly from a live radio interview. It may not conform to exeplary standards of grammar. Mr. Von Buelow's first language is German.

Alex Jones: All right my friends. We are already into the third and final hour of this global transmission against tyranny. And, in the last hour we had Hutton Gibson, expert on the New World Order and of course father of Mel Gibson, on talking about the different key issues. In this hour, we are joined by Andreas von Bulow and he was the federal Minister of Defense, or the equivalent of our Secretary of Defense, been in the German government since the 70s. And up until just a few years ago he was also the Minister of Technology and he has written a book that according to Reuters is the best seller in Germany that translates into ‘9 11 and the CIA.’ And he’s not the only German minister who has said we are looking at world fascism here and a powerful military industrial complex institution engineering terror attacks to scare us into submission. And, Andre von Bulow, err Andreas von Bulow, we are so honored to have a man of your stature and obvious intelligence and your courage on this show. Thank you for joining us.

Andreas von Bulow: Hello and it’s wonderful speaking, yes.

AJ: Uh, we’re going to break here in a few minutes and come back in a longer segment but for those who just joined us, tell us a little bit more about yourself and your book please.

AvB: Well I...I have spent over twenty-five years in politics and now I am out. And in the end I was Minister of Technology before I was Secretary of Defense. Then I had to deal in a commission on East-West transactions about the secret service of East Germany. And this was very interesting inside story because of the Western side doing deals violating the laws in Eastern Eur, err, East Germany, European Community and the United States. It was always two parts dealing with East and West and this bought me a lot of insights in the secret service business.

AJ: And in fact I remember reading about the huge investigations you did that was massive international headlines concerning the Stasi and how different governments had actually been working with these people. If you would like you are of course welcome to get into that as well. Again folks, the equivalent secretary of defense, minister of defense of Germany, and of course technology, the head of that. Just absolutely amazing. Your best selling book, and I wish there was an English translation because I would certainly buy one. My wife does read German. But please, tell us about your book.

AvB: Well I was writing another book and then 9 11 happened. And it was strange to me watching- we all were horrified what was going on and said well that’s impossible, how could a crew of people manage do such horrible things? At the first hours, we didn’t know who was it, then within hours it came out that probably Usama bin Laden and Al Qaeda was behind it. And then within two or three days these 19 people came out. And my objection was- my looking at it- to whom does it bring good? And I found out that it is rather damaging to the Islamic world and perhaps it might be not only be a terrorist attack but perhaps it might be a covert operation. I watched the scenery, what was going on, what the American government-

AJ: Minister, minister, we’ve got to break; we’ll be back in three minutes. Absolutely, we’ll go into this in great detail. We are honored to have you. We’re talking to Andreas von Bulow. We’ll be back. (Fade to bumper music)

(Commercial Break)

AJ: That’s right my friends it’s eight minutes ten seconds into this 3rd hour of global transmission. I am so honored to have on Andreas von Bulow former German defense minister, head of their defense department and of course until just a few years ago, head of their technology system which is, that is a very high level post, just as high level as defense minister there in Deutschland. And he’s written a best selling book and I’ve read some quotes out of it that have been translated into English. And the title translated is ‘911 and the CIA.’ And he lays out the evidence of the military-industrial complex carrying out the attacks. Also we have lined up Michael Micher. And he of course was the English environmental minister who resigned over Tony Blair’s fraud. He has written articles saying that if they didn’t carry it out, they certainly funded and allowed them to take place. So, if you’ve got a brain, it’s clear, and Mr. von Bulow, very intelligent individual has gone over this. So, sir, you’ve said that on the day of the event you began to look at it, you began to research it. And, from your specific expertise in intelligence and military and technology, you know heading up entire sectors of the world’s third largest economy. Please discuss for us your research and how you wrote the book and what really happened on 9 11.

AvB: Err, 9 11, I just watched the scenery. And I said there must have- gone something very [wrong]. I watched the TV for example and in the same minute that the TV showed the planes driving into the World Trade Center, you found these Palestinians dancing and laughing. And a few days later one could find out that this was fake. It was made by a TV crew of the defense ministry in Israel and they gave candies to the people and they laughed about it. And, nobody told it. And the question for me was who brought this TV stuff right in time into the national networks like CNN and CBS and so on and so on. And then we look for the, the story came out that this had been done by bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda and these 19 people of Muslim background, which did this. And you could watch the Persian journalist, and nobody showed up. Not one Arabic name was showing up there. And then one is interested to see video because all these 19 passengers must have passed the video, a lot of video cameras in Dallas, and New York, and Logan in Boston, and Portland in the North. You don’t get this stuff. And then we’re looking for the black boxes and we don’t get them. And the story how these, these World Trade Center buildings broke down, they were constructed against an approach by airplanes. And, the firemen of New York, they were able to come to the floor where the fires were burning, and they said, the fire commander said he needed two teams, small, to fight these fires and then it’s finished. So the heat, it is impossible that the heat was as high as it has been written in the papers and in all the media.
AJ: And then, and then the feds declared that all firefighter tapes malfunctioned, turns out that wasn’t true; we’ve got copies of them. And it did say that the firefighters said the fires were out or almost out. There is video of people standing in the holes of the buildings with no fire around them. And we’re going to go over the evidence that’s in your book, sir, and why you came to these educated conclusions.

AvB: Yeah.
AJ: But, first I want to ask you: have you heard the new developments, the owner of the World Trade Center slipped up on TV and said that they blew Building Seven up. The forty-seven story building that wasn’t even hit by an aircraft. This just broke two weeks ago, have you heard this?
AvB: Sure, I have heard this. I follow the whole scenery. Normally, it’s coming out in Germany, but it’s coming out in your country. It’s a fascinating background to, to do research via Internet because all this stuff is broadly spread over the Internet. So it’s very easy to follow, but in the main media you don’t get to hear about this.

AJ: Well tell you what, later this hour, it’s only three minutes of audio clips, we will air from the PBS documentary ‘America Rebuilding,’ where they admit they blew up WTC 7. Now, that’s important because they said that building fell from fire even though it wasn’t hit by a plane. And now, he slips up and says we decided to demolish it on 9-11, but then the mainstream media just ignores that. This is a public admission, sir.

AvB: Yeah, yeah especially that the CIA headquarters in New York was in, was within this building. I think the- how do you call it- the emergency center for the governor, the major, err, mayor was-

AJ: Mayor and governor.

AvB: -mayor was in this building. So, it was not hit by a plane, and the fire was very low. And the surrounding steel constructions were left over and didn’t collapse. But, the Building 7 collapsed in late afternoon at 5 o’ clock I think.

AJ: Well, from our internal sources, they were running the attacks sir, out of the building and so conveniently got rid of the evidence in one fell swoop.
AvB: This is one theory, it might be. It’s convincing but one has to get the whole proof. But the problem is that the elements for proof are destroyed.

AJ: Also-
AvB: You will find them in Japanese cars and in ships of the American Navy.

AJ: Also, sir, we have NORAD standing down for an hour and twenty five minutes but when we had the golfer Payne Stewart went off course for fifteen minutes, he was surrounded in eighteen minutes by five F-16s so why did NORAD stand down?
AvB: Well, this is a big question because it happened in 2001 more than 60 times. That, fighter[s] went up to clear what has been done to airplanes that showed some irregularities. At 9 11, four planes for two hours were able to drive around, fly around even one hour in the direction going toward the west and then turn around and then comeback. The military air force was not able to interdict them. It’s [un]imaginable. And the whole story is totally unclear what happened between the Federal Aviation Agency (Administration) and NORAD.

AJ: Absolutely, now I don’t know if you’ve seen the associated press but the CIA was running a drill 15 miles from the World Trade Center that day of flying jets into buildings in New York and DC. My internal sources inside the Pentagon, the lawyers who represent them have said on this show that they were told to stand down because it was quote ‘just a drill.’ That’s how you get the good military to stand down; you tell them it’s just a drill. And, that drill was going on at 830 in the morning. Is that not obvious, sir?

AvB: It’s quite obvious, yeah. It’s quite, it’s so strange and the most strange thing for me is that after two years you don’t have a white book which is documenting everything. If you are looking for the timetable for example you have to make a medium between two or three or five newspapers and radio and TV announcements. So everything is unclear. On the other hand, the American government is running as the call it a world war against possibly sixty nations without really showing the background of 9/11. It’s- for me, it’s impossible.

AJ: Now by that they admit that nine of the nineteen hijackers, the BBC says seven but it’s nine, are still alive. Bin Laden has not been convicted, bin Laden is known CIA, you’ve got [George H. W.] Bush meeting with the head bin Laden that morning in DC at the Ritz Carleton, you’ve got the General of Pakistan, the head of their intelligence, meeting with the House and Senate chairs of the intelligence committee at 8:30 that morning, his second trip in his life to the United States. You’ve got the FBI paying for the houses, the cars, the credit cards of the supposed hijackers. I mean, sir, you start- you’ve got public officials, Mayor Willie Brown, Joint Chiefs of Staff told not to fly to New York that day. That’s all admitted; what do you say to that?

AvB: Well, it’s all admitted. So for me, since the official version- it’s not credible at all, it’s totally incredible. The second solution for me is a covert operation. And this is a way to influence, to brainwash the American people into long, long, ongoing conflict with the Muslim world and all that you get to, for example the oil companies, the last oil reserves which we need for the next decades before the oil age is going out. And probably behind this is a geopolitical thinking that finally China has to be taken out. China is too big and you have to be able to- this is put down in the New American Century, which has been written by a lot of people who are now in government like Cheney, like Rumsfeld and others.

AJ: And now, sir, we’ve got to break. We’re going to get into the Project for a New American Century and Operation Northwoods. Were you aware of a US government plan to carry out 9 11 style attacks?

AvB: You mean, Northwoods?

AJ: Yes, sir.

AvB: Yeah sure I know.

AJ: Is that not a key piece of evidence?

AvB: Well, this is a key piece, a key piece of evidence of the thinking of probably the military in dialogue with politics. Probably, I think Kennedy decided not to do it but I think it was, it was all of the-

AJ: Tell you what, stay there. We’ve got to break; we’ll be right back folks. (Fade to music)

(Commercial Break)

AJ: All right my friends, I’m Alex Jones your host. For the rest of the hour we are honored to have Andreas von Bulow, former Defense Secretary and former head of technology, Department of Technology in Germany. And he’s just gotten out of government a few years ago and he’s just written a best selling book ‘9 11 and the CIA’ and we have info on that at Infowars.com and PrisonPlanet.com. We will also be posting this interview on the Website in the next few days as well. There are so many facets to this- Mr. von Bulow, continuing with you waking up to what happened on 9 11 and researching it, what are some of the other key points that clearly show that it is impossible that these nineteen people did this; we know that is a fraud. It is a conspiracy theory to say that they did it alone. From your intensive research and your understanding of high-level government activities, what do you think really happened on 9 11?

AvB: Well, nobody can prove what happened 9 11 directly because it has been a covert operation and you don’t find proof; you will find only indications. And one of the indications- the indication that everything is right with these nineteen people and Usama bin Laden is that the government is free to show all the prove that is on the table that is on the street that lays on the ground of the World Trade Center and so on and so on. If you have a covert operation the probability is always that the leftover pieces of proof are taken away immediately and a lot of secrecy, a band of secrecy, has taken over everything. And, this has happened with 9 11.

AJ: And that also happened- where you aware the New York Times and Chicago Tribune reported this in ‘93, the FBI cooked the bomb and trained the driver[s] and had an Egyptian security agent doing it for them, had two retarded Muslims, literally retarded, drive the truck and park it, let the bombing go forward. At Oklahoma City, the same company that destroyed the remnants of the World Trade Center, blew up the remnants of Oklahoma City [and] had that buried under machine gun guard at a private landfill to this day. And they hauled the rubble away from the W T C to China! They wouldn’t let you take photographs. Yes, exactly.

AvB: Yeah, then at the beginning the engineers weren’t allowed to go up to the steel truss [debris] and had a lot of problems- there was very scarce money. And you know, to clear up the story with Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, the Republican majority gave out sixty million dollars, I think it’s seventy now, and they started out with 600 000 dollars to try to figure out what happened on 9 11. And, they were taken away from doing research and so on and so on and they are upset. And, Fire Engineer Magazine said it was totally unbelievable what happened with this examination of 9 11.

AJ: Well, they say it was a criminal cover up and now, sir, we’ve turned into a police state. They can secretly arrest citizens, secretly execute us. They are building admitted prison camps all over the country, this is in our news. We’re turning into something like the Soviet Union here.

AvB: Well, I can’t comment on this but what’s going on in Guantanamo is like that. I think the problem is that if you put people, who ever you like in Guantanamo in Cuba, you take them away for one or two years without letting a lawyer to them, without showing them what you are reprising to them, without having contact from their family- they tell in all court processes what the FBI is wanting from them-

AJ: Well, sir-

AvB: And so you get fake evidence from these kinds of people, if you behave like that.

AJ: And sir, sir. Our mainstream news says that torture is good and they say they are torturing people, that’s the Washington Post. Is that a concern that our government now admits it’s torturing?

AvB: Well, I’m informed- I don’t know whether they are torturing, keeping them is a kind of a torture, but I am told there is an agreement with a lot of states to put these people to Egypt and other states where torture is accepted and is done and you get the final outcome of this torture and you can produce this in front of German courts and American courts and try to bring about final judgment.

AJ: Well that’s it. We’ll be back; long segment coming up and we’ll get more into your book. We’re honored to have you, Andreas von Bulow. Stay with us. (Fade)

(Commercial Break)

AJ: All right folks. We’re talking with Andreas von Bulow and to make this clear, up until about two years ago he was the head minister over the Department of Technology and before that he was the head of his party’s group on defense. Now, we’re going to take calls coming up here in just a few minutes, your chance to talk to Andreas von Bulow and the toll free number to join us on air is 1 800 259 9231. And if you read German, speak German, you can go online just type into a search engine or go to the Website and link though and buy a copy of ‘9 11 and the CIA.’ Now, if you want my videos, 9 11 Road to Tyranny, Masters of Terror, my book ‘9 11 Descent into Tyranny,’ go to Infowars.com, go to PrisonPlanet.com and get them. This story is so important that I authorize you to make copies of my films for not for profit, not for sale educational purposes. I want you to get them, I want you to make copies, I want you to put them on the Internet. If you’ve done that, I want you to air them on local community television stations which has happened on over four hundred now. Go to Infowars.com, PrisonPlanet.com, get 9 11 Road to Tyranny, get Masters of Terror, get my book ‘Descent into Tyranny,’ get Paul Watson’s book ‘Order Out of Chaos’ that I’ve published, they’re excellent. The toll free number to order is 1 888 253 3139. Because, if we don’t expose the Globalists who clearly carried the attacks out, they’re going to carry out more terror. And, they are setting up this police state; the survival of America and frankly the world is at stake because if the Globalists can use our military as their arm to attack sixty-three countries, it’s over. So again, that’s 1 888 253 3139. The films are 25.95 a piece, twenty buck if you buy three or more, my book is twelve dollars. Again: Inforwars.com or ‘net or 1 888 253 3139. Now, going back to Andreas von Bulow, sir, we were talking during the break and I said what are some of the other key points that you would like to go over. You mentioned the CIA and insider trading and the Anthrax attacks. Please discuss it.

AvB: Well, the insider trading, everybody knows that there [was] news about insider trading. I think altogether fifteen billion dollars. And, there was speculation about going down, of United Airlines and American Airlines; both airlines which were attacked by 9 11 and other things. So, normally you could find out because I think the American- the CIA together with the financial department, the Treasury, they developed this – watching the markets to find out speculation about going on terrorist attacks. So, they could immediately find out if there were something going on- and they could find out. And, in this case, they- 9 11- the NSA people which are the guys watching via satellites the whole of the transactions going on, on Earth, they said, they told the people to destroy the tapes. They had tapes about this interior trading and they said they had to destroy them so they are not any longer proof.

AJ: Now again, interior trading that’s a good term for it, insider trading. So again, insider trading or interior trading going on here and fifteen billion dollars, I think that’s a low estimate. It came out the first week, Germany reported on it, France reported on it, the US, ‘we’re going to catch them!’ Record put options against United and American; not against other airlines but specifically against these and it leads back to the CIA and suddenly they destroy the evidence. Again, again another smoking gun. Then, you get into anthrax attacks; Bush on Cipro, the most weaponized anthrax ever seen. Tell us about that.

AvB: Well, there the question just is who has the responsibility for this! You know, it overlaid the whole public debate of what was the background and reason for 9 11 for weeks because these attacks were going on for weeks and weeks and weeks. And, finally nothing came out. We have no report on who was responsible, who did it and this again is amazing. I think it belongs probably to the cover up of the psychological cover-up of the whole scenery. And then, the vice-President and the President asking Congress not to go into too much detail about the background of 9 11. What does this mean? And until now it’s what the President knew before 9 11 is a total secret. I think there is no secret service around the world which gave no hints to the American secret service community, the CIA, the DIA and so on and so on. They did nothing out of it. The most disturbing thing is that these guys that knew about something in coming up 9 11, were cutout before. I mean the local level of the FBI offices, they knew quite a lot and they tried to force the central organization to go into the details about Arabs taking lessons in flight schools and so on. And, the guy who decided on top, I think the second man who was in the FBI he [said] ‘no we don’t do this’ and he got promoted after 9 11.

AJ: By the way, the US embassies that allowed supposed Al- Qaeda back in got record cash bonuses. The FBI agents who ordered other FBI agents not to stop Al-Qaeda, they go bonuses. Bush signed W199I months before 9 11 ordering FBI not to stop Al-Qaeda. They threatened to arrest FBI Robert Wright if he tells us what he knows. I’ve interviewed his lawyer David Schippers who knew about the attacks beforehand. He went to Bush; Bush wouldn’t talk to him, Ashcroft wouldn’t talk to him. And you said something very astute, sir, you talked about the anthrax being a psychological cover-up of the scenery. That is, all these questions coming out in the early days about 9 11 got blacked out by the anthrax attacks and that’s absolutely why that happened. We’ve tracked that back to Fort Detrick, Maryland. And they said it wasn’t weaponized anthrax, it turned out it was the most weaponized ever seen.

AvB: Yeah, that’s absolutely correct and the wars which were reasoned to be fights against terrorism, the war against Afghanistan to put out the Taliban it was decided long before and I think in June before 9 11. The Afghanistan government- no, the Pakistan government and the Indian government [were] told there would be an intervention in October.

AJ: Also, 44 000 US troops, 18 000 US troops were in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, Bush had the battle launch orders on his desk two days before 9 11.

AvB: That’s exact, that’s exactly-

AJ: And sir, I want to digress back to torture for a minute because you have been, you’ve impressed by, I mean you know so much about this, you’ve researched it so well- On the torture issue, General Rick Baucus quit Guantanamo because he quote ‘refused to torture the people there’ and the CIA section chief bragged in the Washington Post that they fly them to foreign countries and then the CIA tortures them themselves so they do admit the torture.

AvB: (Pause) Sure. I can’t comment on this [but] it’s obvious; all the court proceedings against for example against Moussaui I think it was the 20th nominally- it was supposed in each aircraft to have five hijackers and this one was taken into prison by the FBI. I think the process was made in Alexandria, Virginia and I think the judge said that if you don’t give the proof [of] these guys who are running Al- Qaeda and give these people for cross-examination then I can deliver a judgment. The same is true in Germany; we have people who are related to Al-Qaeda-and probably Al-Qaeda is an artificial, err, [de]nomination of-

AJ: CIA fiction.

AvB:- a ruse of elements of Islamic people. In Hamburg, the trials are failing because the American government is not delivering the proof.

AJ: Absolutely and look, we’ve had military officers and many others on, it is clear that Al Qaeda is a CIA creation. A foggy boogie man so the military-industrial complex can carry out attacks and then pin it on them and I mean we know when bin Laden blows up a building supposedly, our government pays his family to rebuild it.

AvB: Yeah.

AJ: I mean there’s the payoff right out in the open.

AvB: Yeah, the whole background of- the whole personalities like bin Laden, like Al Qaeda, like Taliban, even Saddam Hussein, these are all figures that were handled by the CIA in former times. So probably they are recycled in the system now as bad guys. Before, they were the good guys taking away the Russians out of Afghanistan and dealing with this, getting money for this, getting paid for this now they are used as bad guys. Usama bin Laden has been, in ’95, in the Balkans in an operation the Americans were with the UKG in Albania. You find these guys all over; you find these guys in Chechnya for example. There are also ‘former Afghanis’ as they are called and they are [driven] in loaded planes of the CIA for example.

AJ: Absolutely so they provide the crisis so Big Brother could provide the police state solution. Andreas von Bulow it is clear that if we do not expose at least who stands to gain from this terror and who was involved in it, that is the large financial interests that own our government, they are going to be able to use America as the engine of quote imperial mobilization and world domination. As Zbigniew
Brzezinski and the PNAC documents said, how important is it to expose this for the future of free humanity?

AvB: I think it’s, for everybody outside of the United States it’s extremely important because it’s a question of whether democracy will survive and whether the state of law is kept up or we’ll be driven by public relations and financial interest. And I think the main thing for the Americans is who pays for all this. Because, if the oil companies get more cheap oil and make their money out of it, the American taxpayer has to pay for the military machine. The oil companies aren’t paying for that. It’s not the military-industrial complex paying for that, it is the American taxpayer so it’s extremely important.

AJ: Absolutely and now we are paying record amounts for fuel for petrol in this country while they have record supplies and the oil companies are posting record profits. I want to get into W T C 7 because I want people to hear these clips. These are from the PBS documentary, and this will just take a minute sir, and then I want to get your comment on it, where they describe how Building 7 fell and how they removed it first because quote ‘nobody died in it.’ It’s the owner, Larry Silverstein who pulled it, gave the order to demolish it on the afternoon of September 11th, so, Mark, go ahead and hit that clip for us please.

PBS Documentary (narrator): World Trade Center 7 had always been considered the starting point for rebuilding. Located north of the slurry wall, Building 7 had been cleared faster than the rest of the site. There had been no bodies to recover. Pelted by debris when the North Tower collapsed, Seven burned into the late afternoon allowing occupants to evacuate to safety.

PBS Documentary (Silverstein): I remember getting a call from the, err, Fire Department commander telling me that they were not sure they would be able to contain the fire. I thought we had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do was, was pull it, and they made the decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

AJ: We made the decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse. Now here’s Dan Rather, seconds after it collapses and this is what Dan Rather had to say and then we’ll get von Bulow’s comment.

(Voice of Dan Rather): What you are seeing are high shots, now here we’re going to show you a videotape of the collapse itself. Now we go to videotape of the collapse of this building. (Associate- ‘it’s amazing’) Amazing, incredible, pick your word. For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before when a building was destroyed by well-placed dynamite to knock it down.

AJ: Now, again, the seismographs show multiple explosions, the firefighters were told to get back. Von Bulow, how important is this piece of evidence?

AvB: The explosions, well the government has to explain it! They have to prove their case. They have to this conspiracy theory that these nineteen Muslims under the direction of Usama bin Laden. It’s not my business; it’s only ‘if there are explosions, if it’s true, can it be that the heat out of kerosene is able to destroy these huge buildings in a manner that they are collapsing in a…

AJ: Symmetrical.

AvB: …free-fall in a very short- in a few seconds, that they broke together. It’s nearly impossible. So everything that is on the table is telling that the government story is not true. And there must be another story and it must be explosions and the spikes in geological institutions in five states, 2.2 on the Richter scale, you have to find out what’s the background. And five or seven days later the temperature on the ground was five hundred degrees, or a little bit more than 450, if just fires were-

AJ: We’ve got to break. We’ll be right back.

(Commercial Break)

AJ: We’re talking with Andreas von Bulow. Former minister at the highest levels of the German government. Former Technology Minister. And I know we have a lot of callers but we only have time to take maybe one or two, Dan in Oklahoma. I just want to commend Andreas von Bulow for writing this book 9 11 and the CIA and I would hope a publisher would get a hold of it and translate it and publish it here because I would definitely carry it. You can find information on the book for those who read and speak German at Infowars.com and PrisonPlanet.com. Andreas von Bulow let’s take a call, let’s talk to Dan in Oklahoma. Dan, you’re on the air go ahead.

Dan: Yes, thanks Alex. Mr. von Bulow my question is following this disaster of 9 1 1, I understand Germany, France, and Russia and why they didn’t want to get involved because of the money they had invested with Iraq. With the military-industrial complex like it is, what do you understand the New World Order to be especially since they said they could us this event to-

AJ: Yes, who are, who are the forces behind government-sponsored terror?

AvB: Who are the forces behind government? I do not understand this.

AJ: Well we know this global government is forming. We know that powerful financial interests are engineering terror attacks, who are the forces behind the military industrial complex?

AvB: Well, it’s always interesting. If you look at who owns the munitions factory in the East-West conflict or the Near-East conflict, they are always trying to sell their material to both sides. And, they are always interested in conflict and they would like after the breakdown of the Soviet Union, the noble thing would be to cut down this military-industrial complex, which costs the American taxpayer a huge amount of money. Exactly the same time the Soviet Union breaks down, this new terror thing comes up. The first terrorist attacks were I think the World Trade Center one and you find out the leading guy of this bombing, this time an agricultural bomb, he was going immediately to FBI and saying ‘I’ll tell you everything about this’ and they agreed finally twenty-four hours before the attack in 1993, they would change the powder, the dangerous powder against the [non] dangerous powder and the FBI didn’t come up to do this so-

AJ: Yeah, they cooked the bomb and trained the drivers and that’s another patsy.

AvB:-people were [injured] and six people were dead. In Oklahoma you had nearly the same thing. You had two attacks. One was perhaps McViegh and this other guy but there was another attack much more strong than this agricultural bomb and there is an American general, an Air Force general who for I think ten years or fifteen years in charge of this explosive institute and he said never could this agrarian bomb bring about such damage. There must be something else and they found that within the building there were demolition charges.

AJ: Absolutely, Dan thanks for the call. I hope we can get you on in the future again, Andreas von Bulow, you’ve been so kind. You have such amazing courage to stand up and tell the truth and we’ve been honored to have you on the show from Germany. God bless you.

AvB: Thank you.

AJ: Thank you very much and have a good evening.

-----------------------------------------

Hear the interview, go to http://www.prisonplanet.com/020804vonbuelow.html

france: etat d'urgence

lundi 7 novembre 2005, 12h03 "En aucun cas il ne faut faire appel à l'armée", réaffirme l'UNSA-Police

PARIS (AP) - "En aucun cas il ne faut faire appel à l'armée. Nous ne sommes pas en guerre", a déclaré lundi à l'Associated Press le secrétaire général adjoint de l'UNSA-Police (Union nationale des syndicats autonomes-Police) Francis Masanet, au lendemain d'une onzième nuit de violences urbaines.

"En aucun cas il ne faut faire appel à l'armée. Nous ne sommes pas en guerre. La police nationale est là pour rétablir l'ordre sur le territoire, c'est son métier", a déclaré M. Masanet, dont le syndicat est majoritaire chez les policiers, avec notamment 73% des voix parmi les CRS aux dernières élections professionnelles.

Interrogé sur la situation actuelle, M. Masanet a expliqué qu'il y avait des "jeunes" se livrant à de la "surenchère" entre quartiers chaque nuit, parmi lesquels se trouve des "perturbateurs" qu'il faut extraire des cités et livrer à la justice.

"Parmi les jeunes, c'est à celui qui va faire le plus de conneries en voyant ce qui se passe ailleurs. Il y a de la surenchère entre cités", a-t-il dit. "Il y a tous les mineurs, et puis aussi des adultes, des meneurs qu'il faut qu'on retire de ces cités pour rétablir l'ordre".

Francis Masanet s'exprimait au lendemain d'une onzième nuit de violence urbaines, au cours de laquelle 1.408 voitures ont été incendiées, et une dizaine de policiers blessés à Grigny (Essonne) dont deux sérieusement par des tirs de fusil de chasse. AP

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

lundi 07 novembre 2005 (Reuters - 18:20)

PARIS - Eric Raoult, député maire UMP du Raincy (Seine-Saint-Denis), a instauré dans sa ville un couvre-feu pour les mineurs de 01h00 du matin jusqu'à l'aube.

Ce dispositif, pris par voie d'arrêté municipal, s'inscrit dans un plan de lutte contre les violences urbaines qui touchent le département de Seine-Saint-Denis depuis le 27 octobre, après la mort accidentelle de deux adolescents à Clichy-sous-Bois.

Sur son "blog", Eric Raoult a lancé avec la fédération UMP de Seine-Saint-Denis une pétition: "Stop violence - La Seine-Saint-Denis réclame le calme!".

Cette pétition, "réponse citoyenne de la majorité silencieuse face à la violence qui caricature ce département", réclame "une plus grande fermeté face à une infime minorité de délinquants qui terrorisent les quartiers afin de préserver leurs trafics lucratifs".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mardi 8 novembre 2005, 17h34

La justice ne peut faire face à l'état d'urgence, selon l'USM

PARIS (Reuters) - Les tribunaux français, notamment ceux de la région parisienne, sont dans l'incapacité matérielle de faire face aux conséquences d'une proclamation de l'état d'urgence dans les banlieues, estime l'Union syndicale de la magistrature (USM, majoritaire).

Les contrevenants au couvre-feu et aux autres restrictions imposées dans le cadre de l'état d'urgence sont passibles, selon la loi de 1955, d'un emprisonnement de huit jours à deux mois et d'une amende.

Selon Dominique Barella, président de l'USM, les tribunaux ne peuvent pas juger les personnes arrêtées dans ce cadre car ils sont déjà débordés par les procès des auteurs présumés des violences.

Le syndicat a déjà contacté les cabinets du Premier ministre Dominique de Villepin et du ministre de la Justice Pascal Clément pour leur faire part de ce problème, a-t-il indiqué.

"C'est ingérable par le système. On est en train de donner des missions de rétablissement de l'ordre public à la justice. On passe d'un dispositif de crise à un dispositif d'émeute alors que la justice n'est pas en capacité de faire face", a déclaré à Reuters Dominique Barella.

Selon lui, les tribunaux de banlieue comme Bobigny ou Créteil sont déjà totalement saturés par les procès des auteurs supposés de violences. Trois chambres correctionnelles de Bobigny ont ainsi siégé tout l'après-midi de lundi et une partie de la nuit. Le rythme des procès ne faiblit pas.

Par ailleurs, les parquets reçoivent des centaines de procédures par jour et doivent envoyer jour et nuit un magistrat à la cellule de commandement de la préfecture, selon une décision du ministère de la Justice.

Les procès pour infraction aux couvre-feux ne pourront juridiquement pas être traités en comparution immédiate mais par convocations devant les tribunaux, ce qui saturerait les audiences dans les prochains mois, estime l'USM.