|
from
SignOfTheTimes Website
Ethnic Weapons
We posted a story on the Signs page that David Kelly was
involved with
ultra secret work at Israel’s Institute for
Biological Research.
A report on November 15, 1998 by the Sunday Times suggests that this
Institute "is working on a biological weapon that would harm Arabs
but not Jews".
Israel planning ’ethnic’ bomb as Saddam
caves in
The London Times
November 15 1998
ISRAEL is working on a biological weapon that would harm Arabs
but not Jews, according to Israeli military and western
intelligence sources. The weapon, targeting victims by ethnic
origin, is seen as Israel’s response to Iraq’s threat of
chemical and biological attacks.
A scientist there said the task was hugely complicated because
both Arabs and Jews are of Semitic origin. But he added: "They
have, however, succeeded in pinpointing a particular
characteristic in the genetic profile of certain Arab
communities, particularly the Iraqi people."
It is widely accepted that Israel has
the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the region, and it is
assumed that this applies to their stockpiles of biological and
chemical weapons. A quick search on the web turned up a long list of
articles on the subject, including the following:
Report: Secret Israeli chemical tests kill
4, wound 25
Arabic News.Com
August 21 1998
Tests carried out by an Israeli secret laboratory recently
killed four persons and other 25 have been reported wounded in
Neis Zayouna district near Tel Aviv, an Israeli daily reported.
Israel flatly denied the report. "No person has ever been killed
in a work accident at the Biological Institute since its
inception 45 years ago," Prime Minister Netanyahu’s media
advisor stated today.
This just happens to be the Institute
cited above. And if these deaths were due to field tests, they
wouldn’t be "work accidents". But it is evidence that something is
going on in Israel that could be related to the development of these
types of weapons. There is also this comment from Ariel Sharon,
while he was still Foreign Minister. His attitude hasn’t changed in
the intervening years as his active sabotage of the so-called "Peace
Map" shows.
Report: Israel developing biological
weapons targeting Arabs
Regional-Israel, Military, 11/16/1998
Last year the Pentagon warned in a secret report against the
possibility of developing biological elements through genetic
engineering to manufacture new weapons of mass destruction.
Within the same context, Israeli Foreign Minister Ariel Sharon
reiterated that, "Israel reserves its right to repel any
possible Iraqi attack."
At the conclusion of his meeting on Sunday with the US secretary
of commerce, Sharon added: "Israel can defend itself and knows
how to prevent being attacked."
A different type of evidence is found in
the following written by the webmaster at
www.konformist.com who published a
good article on ethnic weapons in 2000 that we will look at later.
He is
discussing the reader response to the article:
What is interesting is that, though
I received quite a few Emails from the Zionist community, none
denied the accuracy of the story. Instead, they brashly admitted
it was true, then added it was necessary because Israel needed
to defend itself from its Arab neighbors. What is most telling
is that many letters included references to Arabs that were
derogatory and dehumanizing. That such a destructive philosophy
is accepted by so many uncritically in Israel explains much of
the vicious thuggery performed against the Palestinians over the
last four months (not to mention the last 33 years).
These comments are completely in keeping
with Sharon’s, so we can put a high probability that Israel is
developing something along these lines.
The progress on
the Human Genome
Project now makes it possible to target specific groups of
individuals based upon certain genetic signatures. This is the
logical next step in the progression of biological weapons.
These weapons have been around for thousands of years. The
Romans used to dump dead animals into the water supply of their
enemies to inflict disease. The American "settlers" used small
pox in blankets to target the Native American populations. The
American Native population is still subjected to this type of
attack:
#16 Human Genome Project Opens the Door to
Ethnically Specific Bioweapens
In this country, continuing a historic policy toward Native
Americans, it has been revealed that the American Indian Health
Service (IHS—funded by the Federal Government, who employ the
doctors and nurses) coerced Native American men and women into
forced sterilizations in the early to mid 1970s. The General
Accounting Office (GAO) estimated that 3,400 people (mostly
women) underwent the treatment, but their study only covered
four of twelve IHS regions for four years.
Activists put the estimate much higher, at 60,000 to 70,000.
This, coupled with the suspicion raised by the hantavirus
outbreak in the Four Corners region of Arizona/New
Mexico/Colorado/Utah keeps suspicion and fingers pointed at the
federal government and at least some government policies toward
the American Indian population. (Hantavirus is one of many "new"
diseases that have come under suspicion of having their origins
in genetic engineering or biowarfare labs.)
As reported in a 1994 Project Censored update, Utah’s Dugway
Proving Grounds biowarfare research site was also reopened
despite local residents’ protests over fears that the facility
was originally closed because of safety concerns. Fort Dietrick,
the site of the most notorious CIA drug and army biowarfare
research in the United States now houses major research
facilities of the National Cancer Institute, raising issues of
conflict (or collusion) or interest.
But with the development of the chemical
industry, bio-warfare took a new turn. Greg Bishop, in the article
referred to above, first published at konformist.com, looks at some
of the major points:
Ethnic Weapons For Ethnic Cleansing
Greg Bishop
March 2000
[T]his "theoretical possibility" was recognized over 25 years
ago, if not before. It was originally brought to the attention
of potential customers with the publication of an article in the
Military Review of November 1970.
This journal for command-level military personnel was published
by the US Army Command and General Staff College in Fort
Leavenworth, Kansas. The feature, entitled "Ethnic Weapons,"
authored by Carl A. Larson, outlines the history, desirability,
and possibilities of engineered biological pathogens which would
affect only those races which historically have no natural
defense against certain "enzyme inhibitors."
Larson is listed as head of the "Department of Human Genetics at
the Institute of Genetics, Lund, Sweden" as well as a licensed
physician. The Hippocratic oath was apparently not administered
in Sweden when Larson received his accreditation.
Larson explains that many of the chemical activities and
functions within the human body are caused by the interactions
of enzymes. One of the more significant activities enabled by
enzyme chemical reactions are the contraction and relaxation of
muscle tissue. If the activities of these enzymes are blocked,
the victim will be paralyzed, even to the point of death by
asphyxiation.
Not coincidentally, the enzyme-blocking action of compounds
called organophosphates were discovered in Germany in the 1930s
when experimental insecticides killed the people unlucky enough
to have used them. This discovery led to the mass production of
a substance named "Trilon," later used to impressive effect in
the extermination of groups of people the Nazis considered
little more than insects. This substance and others of similar
makeup became known as "nerve gas."
A concentration of 40 milligrams per cubic meter can kill in
about 10 minutes. Stronger agents were later developed which can
do the job with a single drop on the skin.
[...] Larson is even more explicit in a way that would probably
never make it into the mainstream press. In a passage that would
make Doctor Strangelove proud, he muses uncontrollably on the
possibilities of genetically-sensitive chemicals to subdue enemy
populations:
"Friendly forces would discriminatingly use
incapacitants in
entangled situations to give friend and foe a short period of
enforced rest to sort them out. By gentle persuasion, aided by
psychochemicals, civilians in enemy cities could be reeducated.
The adversary would use incapacitants to spare those whom he
could use for slaves."
This was published in a serious, staid professional journal read
by US military strategists. He concludes with the statement that
"the functions of life [now] lie bare to attack."
According to Charles Piller and Keith Yamamoto in their 1988
book Gene Wars, Larson’s article was the first time that the
subject of ethnically targeted CBWs was broached publicly, and
that in "the military’s private circles it was old news." The
authors further state that in 1951 the Mechanicsburg, PA Naval
Supply Depot was the site of a classified test using a benign
organism delivered to personnel to mimic the behavior of an
actual bioweapon: "
According to documents declassified in the late 1970s, the site
was chosen because,
"Within this system there are employed large
numbers of laborers, including many Negroes, whose
incapacitation would seriously affect the operation of the
supply system."
The black workers in the Depot were supposedly more susceptible
to a strain of Valley Fever than were whites, but instead of
using the actual virus, a substitute fungal organism was used.
Valley Fever is more often fatal to blacks than to whites. It
was recently revealed that the truth and reconciliation hearings
in South Africa had presented witnesses who testified that
scientists working for the apartheid regime had pursued efforts
along similar lines.
Another possible example of field testing of ethnic weapons (or
at least an interesting case for study by those interested in
their development) may be the famed "Four Corners" virus, which
seems only to affect Native Americans living in northern New
Mexico and Arizona. Most reports identified or compared the
disease to the Hantavirus, which killed victims relatively
quickly following the occurrence of a prolonged fever and fluid
which rapidly filled the lungs and asphyxiated the patient.
Supposedly contracted through deer mice droppings, the mystery
disease has claimed at least a dozen victims in the last ten
years.
The most recent outbreak occurred this last summer [1999],
coming on the heels of El Niño, which the major news media
blamed for the renewed threat. Some area residents believe that
the virus may have been released either accidentally or
intentionally from a bioweapons cache at Fort Wingate, an army
facility a few miles east of Gallup. The munitions storage at
Wingate is now officially closed.
We learn that the work on such weapons
was begun in Nazi Germany. The victims of these weapons were largely
Jews. When Larson published his paper in 1970, "the military’s
private circles it was old news." Which means it had been discussed
for a long time by the US military, most likely with the Nazis
brought into the US after World War II via
Operation Paperclip.
Tests were carried out as far back as 1951 on Blacks working at the
Mechanicsburg, PA Naval Supply Depot. For more information on tests
carried out by the US government against its own citizens, refer to
our timeline.
An early form of ethnic specific weapon were the malororants,
developed to control crowds (of people dissenting against the Bush
Reich, perhaps?).
Pentagon Tests Ethnically-Targeted Crowd
Control Weapons
Sunshine-Project
19 February 2002
Almost sixty years ago, the US developed a nauseating ’bathroom
odor’ chemical for use as a weapon. But according to the Army,
the old malodorant will not work outside of the US and Western
Europe, because "it was found that people in many areas of the
world do not find ’fecal odor’ to be offensive, since they smell
it on a regular basis." Therefore, according to the Army, new
agents are needed for overseas missions. These new malodorants
are to be specifically adapted for their victims. According to a
1998 document: "The objective of this work is the development of
a comprehensive set of [malodorants] that can be applied against
any population set around the world to influence their
behavior."
The documents describe the Army research procedure. A group of
subjects selected "based on a diversity of geographic origins
and cultural heritage" is systematically exposed to candidate
malodorants to develop "culture-response data" based on ethnic
categories. That data is aggregated into "odor response
profiles" that suggest the types and quantities of malodorants
necessary to "elicit a favorable behavioral response" (i.e.
incapacitation, panic, or flight) when used for crowd control on
a particular ethnic group.
[...] Whether the malodorants work or fail, research on any
ethnic weapon raises serious legal questions and could set a
very dangerous precedent. If the Pentagon saw any major legal
barriers to ethnic weapons it would not have approved the
malodorant research. The Pentagon’s conclusion that ethnic
weapons are permissible must be challenged.
As horrible as these weapons are in
their practice and in what they reveal about the people developing
them, it was the work on the Human Genome that really opened the
door to a new generation of bioweapons, weapons that could be
fine-tuned to one’s genetic make-up. We have been subjected to reams
of paper and hours of air-time discussing the benefits of genetic
research, the ability to target individual genes to "repair" them.
Look at the flip-side:
GE Biological "Ethnic" Weapons Loom on the
Horizon
Date: Thu, Jan 21, 1999
By Patricia Reaney
Reuters
The designer weapon works on a similar principle to gene therapy
but instead of replacing faulty genes that don’t work it
exploits genetic variations to target its victims.
For example, micro-organisms could be genetically engineered to
attack known receptor sites on the cell membrane or viruses
could be targeted at specific DNA sequences inside cells.
This is the technology that Israel is
using. But it did not originate in Israel:
Biowar and the Apartheid Legacy
By Salim Muwakkil, In These Times
June 6, 2003
A two-part story in the Washington Post on April 20 and 21
revealed that biological agents developed by the South African
government during its apartheid days have fallen into private
hands. Written by Post reporters Joby Warrick and John Mintz,
the piece noted that unique, race-specific strains of biotoxins
were available on the world market – for the right price or the
right ideology.
[...] The top-secret program that Basson directed was called
Project Coast, and it lasted from 1981 to 1993. The South
African National Defense Force created it at a time when the
white-minority regime was under increasing threat by indigenous
black South Africans. Daan Goosen, the former director of
Project Coast’s biological research division, told the Post he
was ordered by Basson to develop ways "to suppress population
growth among blacks" and to "search for a ’black bomb,’ a
biological weapon that would select targets based on skin
color."
[...] The Washington Post even noted, "Goosen says many
scientists kept copies of organisms and documents in order to
continue work on ’dual-use’ projects with commercial as well as
military applications." A May 2002 story on Project Coast in the
Wall Street Journal reported that Goosen said he has been
"visited by scores of people looking for ’stuff to kill the
blacks.’" Race-specific weapons naturally are in hot demand
among racists, so it’s no surprise that South Africa’s
race-specific research is highly coveted.
[...] Reported links between Israel’s ethnic weapons and South
Africa’s Project Coast are tentative; some would say tenuous.
But the possibility of such links is terrifying, and justifies
as much scrutiny as was focused on Iraq’s imaginary arsenal.
It also appears that the anthrax incidents of 2001, in which
five people died and 13 were sickened, may also have a South
African connection. The Post noted that officials found evidence
in a Frederick, Maryland, pond that may explain how the
perpetrators of the deadly attacks used water to handle the
lethal toxin without infecting themselves or loosing the anthrax
spores.
On May 11, the Post said the water theory is the result of the
FBI’s interest in one person, Steven J. Hatfill, a medical
doctor and bioterrorism expert who formerly worked for the U.S.
Army, and who lists South African diplomas in diving and
underwater medicine on his résumé.
A June 2002 article in the Hartford Courant reported that
Hatfill also worked with a guerilla unit of the
white-supremacist Rhodesian army from 1978 to 1980, when "an
anthrax outbreak killed hundreds and sickened thousands of
villagers." He also lived in South Africa, "where he completed
various military-medical assignments."
The Apartheid regime in South Africa.
Israel. The United States. Not the most progressive regimes in the
world.
Note the reference to the Great Anthrax Scare following
9/11, the
ability to manipulate the anthrax virus without getting infected.
And the connection of this to Steven J. Hatfill. Curious, isn’t it,
how the anthrax story just died when it was discovered that the
strain used to attack Americans wasn’t from a foreign source but
came from a military base in Maryland?
Anthrax Attacks Pushed Open an Ominous
Door
22 September, 2002
PURCHASE, N.Y. -- On this first anniversary of the anthrax
attacks, a number of conclusions can be drawn even without an
arrest by the FBI. First, the strain and properties of the weaponized anthrax found in the letters show that it originated
within the U.S. biodefense program, where the necessary
expertise and access are found. Government officials recognized
that the anthrax source was domestic less than two weeks after
they learned of the letters, and nothing in their investigation
has led them to say otherwise since.
One can also conclude that, given the origin of the anthrax and
the warnings contained in the letters, the perpetrator’s motive
was not to kill but rather to raise public fear and thereby spur
Congress to increase spending on biodefense. In this, the
attacks have been phenomenally successful.[...]
Although biodefense has gotten a shot in the arm, it is
important to understand that the goal of defending against
bioweapons is not primarily public protection--which is largely
impossible, as last year’s attacks demonstrated.
It is rather "to allow the military forces of the United States
to survive and successfully complete their operational missions
... in battlespace environments contaminated with chemical or
biological warfare agents," according to the annual report of
the Department of Defense’s Chemical and Biological Defense
Program. [...]
Two weeks ago, I attended an informal meeting in Geneva where
diplomats from six continents struggled in the face of U.S.
Intransigence to map out a joint strategy for combating the
global biological threat. The United States had demanded that a
formal Biological Weapons Convention conference, scheduled to
take place during two weeks in November, should instead disband
in one day with only an agreement not to meet again until 2006.
To make sure that the American resolve prevails in this setting
where international consensus is de rigueur, the U.S. demand was
accompanied by an overt threat to disrupt any further
proceedings with accusations that would make productive
international action impossible.
At that Geneva meeting, the assembled diplomats, representing
the political spectrum from our closest allies to declared
enemies, were uniformly frustrated. They find it hard to
comprehend why a country that has just been the victim of
bioterrorism should stand in the way of peaceful efforts
supported by all its allies to deter bioterrorism.
The following article suggests that the
evidence for a link between the Israeli program and the South
African program is neither tentative nor tenuous as the above would
suggest. It is the same author writing earlier. Perhaps he found new
info. Perhaps something else happened...
DOUBLE STANDARDS HAUNT AMERICA’S FOREIGN
POLICY
By Salim Muwakkil.
Published: Monday, November 23, 1998
Goosen’s comments jibe well with conclusions reached by South
Africa’s recently concluded Truth and Reconciliation Commission,
which heard testimony that Wouter Basson, the director of the
country’s chemical-biological warfare program, conducted
extensive research on weapons that exclusively targeted blacks.
Incidentally, the commission’s concluding report noted that
South Africa’s chemical-biological weapons team received
considerable assistance from their American counterparts during
the apartheid era. And it’s easy to see why: Ethno bombs are a
dream weapon on a planet so preoccupied with ethnic conflicts.
Of course, that’s also why such weapons are so remarkably
menacing.
[...] The article noted that the ethno-bomb claims were given
further credibility by a report in "Foreign Report," a
publication of the respected Jane’s group, that Israeli
scientists used some of "the South African research in trying to
develop an ’ethnic bullet’ . . ."
Once more the thread comes back to the
US:
"South Africa’s chemical-biological weapons team received
considerable assistance from their American counterparts during the
apartheid era".
So let’s look more at America’s links to the development of these
weapons. We saw above that this started after World War II. But, in
fact, there are links back to the Eugenics program started in the US
at the turn of the century.
#16 Human Genome Project Opens the Door to
Ethnically Specific Bioweapons
The U.S. has a long history of interest in such genetic
research. The current home of the Human Genome Project is the
Cold Springs Harbor laboratory on Long Island, NY—the exact site
of the notorious Eugenics Research Office that was started in
1910 by the Harriman family. The project’s 1910 agenda included
governmental imposition of sanctions on such human rights as
reproduction, and on U.S. immigration, based on the alleged
inferiority of particular ethnic groups.
The Eugenics Research Project established medical and
psychological conditions that would qualify one for
sterilization or euthanasia. Prominent advocates of the program
such as
the Rockefeller family, Henry Ford, and
Margaret Sanger
helped smooth the way for the passage of forcible sterilization
laws in 25 states. These laws allowed the forcible sterilization
of tens of thousands of people, mostly of minority status,
during the first half of the 20th century.
So we have one policy, begun in the
early 20th century, funded by the Rockefellers, Henry Ford, the Harrimans, many of the same people who were
financing the Nazi Party
in Germany during the thirties. The work goes underground after the
Second World War until it reemerges as part of the new "genetic
research".
Biological Warfare: Genetically-Engineered
Weapons Cannot Be Excluded
By K.P. Kavanaugh
Journal of the Federation of American Scientists (F.A.S.)
Volume 52, Number 2
March/April 1999
It has long been rumored that modern biological weapons could be
designed to attack specific vulnerabilities of particular ethnic
groups. Early in the development of the US offensive biological
weapons program Colonel Creasey, Chief of Research and
Engineering of the US Chemical Corps, suggested that agents may
be selected because of known susceptibility of the target
population.
This shows that the differential susceptibility of different
populations to various diseases had been considered at that time
and, according to scientists at Defense Advance Research
Projects Agency (DARPA), is continuing today.
Indeed ethnic-specific biological warfare predated the advent of
the biotechnology revolution. Smallpox was almost certainly
deliberately used against the Native Americans centuries ago and
there are other examples. U.S. and British officials believe an
ethnic-specific weapon would be used today if it became
available during a severe conflict between two deeply
antagonistic groups. [...]
Today, warnings are coming not only from the medical community,
but also from other specially credible sources. There have been
indications, for example, that the US Secretary of Defense is
concerned about the possible development of genetic weapons.
In June 1997, Jane’s Defense Weekly reported that Secretary
Cohen
"quoted other reports about what he called
’certain types
of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could
eliminate certain ethnic groups or races.’"
Then after a later
interview with the Defense Secretary in August 1997, it was
stated again in Jane’s Defense Weekly that
"he also continued to
insist that the science community is ’very close’ to being able
to manufacture ’genetically engineered pathogens that could be
ethnically specific’".
Early Accounts, Then Silence
In accounts during the 1980s of the possible development of
genetic weapons, a frequent source of scientific data was a
paper by Carl A. Larson, then head of the Department of Human
Genetics, University of Lund, Sweden, published in the journal
Military Review in November 1970. Larson’s paper was mainly
concerned with the possible development of a new range of
chemical weapons, including incapacitants.
Individual differences in response to chemical agents had been
known for some time, but Larson reviewed what was known of
differences between populations in reaction to drugs and saw the
basis of such population differences as genetic. Larson seems to
have been pointing to possible future developments rather than
near-term practical possibilities. The question is whether,
almost 30 years later: have genetically engineered weapons
become a practical possibility?
There does not appear to have been subsequent detailed open
publication by reputable scientists of the application of modern
biotechnology to genetically -engineered weapons until the
1990s. Then in 1992 the journal Defense News carried a report
which noted a scientist arguing that genetic engineering may
enable us to:
...recognize DNA from different people and attach different
things that will kill only that group of people... You will be
able to determine the difference between blacks and whites and
Asians and Jews and Swedes and Finns and develop an agent that
will kill only a particular group.
Shown this quotation in February, scientists within the DOD
confirmed that defensive research was being done specifically in
this area. Thus the threat would appear to slide along the
spectrum from the merely theoretical through the potentially
possible to the patently workable.
Such arguments have been set out at greater length in an
appendix to the 1993 Stockholm Peace Research Institute’s
Yearbook . The most pertinent aspect of the appendix entitled,
"Benefits and threats of developments in biotechnology and
genetic engineering," reads:
While modern biotechniques are revolutionizing medicine and
agriculture, the possibility exists of their misuse for
political ends, for clandestine production and refinement of
biological weapons (BW), and for future development of weapons
of mass extermination which could be used for genocide.
Particular reference is then made to the possible misuse of
knowledge gained from
the Human Genome Project and knowledge
about genetic diversity. The element of critical significance
here is contained in the last sub-section of section VI where
the question is clearly stated, "Can’t genetic weapons be
developed?" The answer is that if:
investigations provide sufficient data on ethnic genetic
differences between population groups, it may be possible to use
such data to target suitable micro-organisms to attack known
receptor sites for which differences exist at a cell membrane
level or even target DNA sequences inside cells by viral
vectors... [...]
Flashback:
Scientists’ deaths are under the
microscope
So we have governments financing the
development of these weapons, envisioning them as the Ultimate
Weapon in their battles against their enemies. Or should we say
"Final Solution" because it is racially based. It makes targets of
people because of their genes.
Note: It is governments that do these things. But when this is
discussed in the press, where are our fears turned? Who are
portrayed as the real villains?
Genetic weapons: a 21st-century nightmare?
Ethirajan Anbarasan
Most of the nearly 30,000 scientists who were involved in
biological research in the USSR during the 1980s are now out of
a job because of the country’s economic difficulties. Last year,
some of them disclosed that they had been approached by certain
countries which have shown particular interest in learning about
microbes that can be used in war to destroy or protect crops, as
well as genetic engineering techniques that could be used to
make deadly germs for which there may be no antidotes.
One prospect that alarms arms control experts is that biological
weapons will fall into the hands of terrorist or cult groups.
But they are already in the hands of the
Israelis who have not ratified a single international treaty
allowing inspections of their nuclear, biological, or chemical
weapons. No, what is important is to vilify the invisible
"terrorist", the "cult", to inculcate in the minds of the readers
that the danger is widespread, invisible, and ready to pounce at any
moment. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Yes. But be afraid because these governments are prepared to use
them on their enemies... and that may well include their own
citizens.
Mystery pneumonia is being caused by
America’s weapons of mass destruction: A theory
by Steve Hesske
August 8, 2003
Could America’s mainstream media be any more perfidious and
derelict in its so-called reporting of the current so-called
pneumonia epidemic among U.S. service personnel in Iraq and a
few nearby countries?
A quick, informal survey of this week’s coverage of the
pneumonia story by our bastions of truth and enlightenment —
CNN, Fox, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington
Post — shows that while all covered the story, none mentioned
Gulf War Syndrome which befell maybe as much as 20% of the
700,000 Americans who served in the 1991 Persian Gulf War (PGW)
or depleted uranium (DU) a radioactive weapon of mass
destruction (WMD), outlawed by international treaty and world
courts, that was used exclusively and extensively by the United
States during the PGW and that was used by the U.S. during the
recent invasion of Iraq at 10 times its PGW rate.
Here’s what the mainstream press does tell you: Army brass have
dispatched teams to Iraq and to Landstuhl Army Hospital in
Germany to investigate over 100 mysterious cases of pneumonia
that have stricken American troops currently serving in the
Persian Gulf. The puzzling disease has killed two and put
another dozen or so in serious peril. According to the Army, a
common geographical thread can not be established, a common
bacteria can not be isolated.
True enough. A military spokeswoman goes on to say that those
who have fallen ill have not been exposed to biological or
chemical weapons, a bald-faced lie. DU is a chemical WMD of the
most destructive and virulent kind. The documentation is in. And
the connection between DU and a "mysterious pneumonia-like
disease" was established over 10 years ago. [...]
The [British] government’s
microbiological research establishment at Porton Down spread
bacteria through the London Underground system in the 1960s are
contained in two files released to the public record office in
Kew yesterday.
The trials, which were revealed in the Guardian last year, show
how a powder compact filled with bacteria was dropped on to the
Northern line and samples taken to see how contamination spread
over the network.
We again refer you to our
Timeline of Cosmic COINTELPRO
subversion through the last few centuries to see more of this.
Given that these new strands of bioweapons need to be tested, we
might think that the recent outbreak of SARS could be a field test.
The pneumonia from Iraq. But these are not the only ones. There have
been so many of these new strains recently that the US Government
has set up centers to watch for "Unexplained Deaths" in four US
states:
Unexplained Deaths Due to Possibly
Infectious Causes in the United States: Defining the Problem and
Designing Surveillance and Laboratory Approaches
EID Volume 2 * Number 1
January-March 1996
Many new infectious diseases have been identified in the United
States during the last several decades (1). Among these are
AIDS, Legionnaires’ disease, toxic-shock syndrome, hepatitis C,
and most recently, hantavirus pulmonary syndrome; all caused
serious illness and death.
In each instance, the disease was recognized through
investigation of illness for which no cause had been identified.
Retrospective studies of these and other newly recognized
infectious diseases often identified cases that occurred before
the recognition of the new agent; therefore, a more sensitive
detection system may make the earlier recognition of new
infectious agents possible.
[...] A more systematic public health approach for the early
detection of unknown infectious agents is needed. This need was
acknowledged in Addressing Emerging Infectious Diseases Threats:
A Prevention Strategy for the United States, a CDC publication
about emerging infections (13). CDC has established an emerging
infections program (EIP) network to conduct special
population-based surveillance projects, develop surveillance
methods, pilot and evaluate prevention strategies, and conduct
other epidemiologic and laboratory studies.
In late 1994, CDC funded four programs based at state health
departments and academic institutions in California (Alameda,
Contra Costa, Kern, and San Francisco counties), Connecticut,
Minnesota, and Oregon. Some projects are conducted at all
program sites and others, depending on local interest and
expertise, at only one or two sites.
Surveillance for unexplained deaths due to possibly infectious
causes (UDPIC) for early detection of new infectious diseases is
one of the core activities being conducted at all sites.
Great way to track the field tests, is
it not?
In looking over the press reports in the last few years, we see that
Israel is being singled out, especially since the "suicide" of
David
Kelly. This is somewhat normal because much attention has been
focused in recent years on the barbarity of the Israeli actions
against the Palestinians.
As Greg Bishop writes above, the Germans considered the Jews
"insects". Now the Jews turn on the Palestinians in the same way. So
Israel, from the Balfour Declaration through today, is being set up
and portrayed as villains, maneuvered into a particular situation.
What they do is odious. But is there something even more odious
behind the curtain?
Relations
Between Israel and the Apartheid Regime in South Africa
We looked yesterday at the issue of Ethnic Weapons, biological and
chemical weapons that can be built to single out populations by
their genetic characteristics. We saw evidence that Israel may be
building such weapons to be used in their final solution against the
Palestinians.
The technology for this program came from the apartheid regime of
South Africa, that is, the Boers who ruled over the Blacks until the
last decade of the 20th century.
The close relations between Israel and the apartheid regime go back
to the mid seventies.
Profile of Bilateral Relations
State of Israel
HISTORY OF RELATIONS
Israel established a Legation in South Africa in 1952 and in
1974 it was upgraded to an Embassy. In 1972 South Africa
established a Consulate General in Tel Aviv which was upgraded
to an Embassy in December 1975. Israel continued to enjoy close
relations with the Apartheid Government in South Africa.
While many African countries had seen
Israel as an ally in the fifties and early sixties, another country
struggling to survive in a hostile climate, after the wars of 1967
and 1973, their view had changed and Israel was now the neighborhood
bully. For more on this, see the article Africa, Arabia, and Israel:
Forty-Five Years of Relations.
South Africa had seen two of its neighbors become "Popular
Republics" under Marxist-inspired "People’s Armies" after the fall
of the Salazar regime in Portugal in 1974. So both Israel and
South
Africa had a siege mentality, believing they were surrounded by
enemies.
Africa, Arabia, and Israel Forty-Five
Years of Relations
(Originally published as Sheen-File #053)
[…] In the wake of the 1973 Yom Kippur War between Israel and
the joint forces of Egypt and Syria, almost all of sub-Saharan
Africa broke off diplomatic relations with Israel completely.
And in 1975, the Arab League states succeeded in passing a
motion on the floor of the United Nations General Assembly,
equating Zionism with racism and South African apartheid. It
passed in large measure to the near-automatic support the
resolution received from the sub-Saharan African states.
Although there is evidence that several African nations wished
to maintain covert relations with Israel, privately insisting
that its public condemnation of Israel was merely an act for
show, designed to placate the Arab states, to many Israelis,
this hypocrisy was an unimaginable slight that could not easily
be forgiven. It was said that, in response to this overwhelming
rejection, "Israel pursued its relationship with South Africa
with an element of vindictiveness."
Israel and South Africa
excerpted from the book
Israeli Foreign Policy
by Jane Hunter
South End Press, 1987
Israel has also been connected with the mercenary forces
deployed by South Africa against Angola and Mozambique. In the
1970s Israel aided the FNLA (Angolan National Liberation Front)
proxy forces organized and trained by the CIA to forestall the
formation of a government led by the MPLA (Popular Movement for
the Liberation of Angola-now the ruling party of Angola).
John Stockwell, who ran the CIA operation against Angola,
recollected three arms shipments Israel made in cooperation with
the CIA: a plane full of 120 mm shells sent via Zaire to the
FNLA and Unita; a shipment of 50 SA-7 missiles (all of which
were duds); a boat-load sent to neighboring Zaire in a deal that
the Israelis had worked out with President Mobutu, even though
the Zairian strong man had broken ties with Israel two years
earlier.
South Africa’s Nuclear Policy
Ruchita Beri,
Research Fellow, IDSA
The political changes in the Southern African region heightened
the security concerns of South Africa. The end of Portuguese
rule in Africa after the 1974 Lisbon coup and the subsequent
accession to power of Communist regimes in Angola (MPLA) and
Mozambique (Freelimo) enhanced the encirclement by Communist
forces regionally. The mid- 1970s also saw the intensification
of the anti-apartheid struggle within South Africa-in the
apartheid government’s perception, sponsored by the Communist
forces.
Thus, perceiving itself to be encircled by Communist forces, the
South African government promoted a militarist ideology
legitimizing the use of force by the state to counter that
threat, codified in the concept "Total National Strategy" to
coordinate its national security planning. This ultimately
involved a nuclear deterrent capability.
The arrival of Cuban troops in Angola after the establishment of
the MPLA regime provided the final stimulus. Defence Minister
P.W. Botha spelled out the defense requirements to meet this
challenge as "South Africa can establish a balanced defense
force to defend itself against terrorism...and this we are fully
able to do....Secondly, we must have a deterrent to be able to
resist a fairly heavy conventional attack on South Africa."3
This statement was quite ambiguous; however, one could reach the
conclusion that both conventional and nuclear capabilities would
be pursued by South Africa. Ambiguity became the trademark of
the South African nuclear policy in the apartheid era.
The attitudes of the two countries can
be summed up by this comment from Jane Hunter, cited above:
It has also been said that those
arms sales are understandable, given the striking similarities
between the two countries in their day-to-day abuse and
repression of their subject populations, South African blacks
and Palestinians under Israeli rule; in their operating
philosophies of apartheid and Zionism; and in their similar
objective situations: "the only two Western nations to have
established themselves in a predominantly nonwhite part of the
world," as a South African Broadcasting Corporation editorial
put it. That understanding, however, is somewhat superficial,
and the focus on similarities of political behavior has somewhat
obscured the view of the breadth and depth of the totality of
Israeli-South African relations and their implications.
As she suggests, this understanding is
"somewhat superficial, as we will see below.
Another factor cementing the relationship was the embargo placed on
South Africa following the riots of 1975 and the international
outcry over the death of Stephen Biko.
SOUTH AFRICA: 1962 - 1989
Access to Critical Events in Recent U.S. Policy Toward South
Africa
The second period (1976-1980) deals primarily with the response
of the U.S. government and the international community to the
South African government’s brutal reaction to the June 1976
student revolt, the death of Steve Biko (the leader of the Black
Consciousness Movement), South Africa’s subsequent security
crackdown on opponents of apartheid and the adoption of the U.N.
Security Council Resolution that called for a mandatory arms
embargo against South Africa.
Because of this, South Africa was
isolated, at least "officially", from the world.
One of the projects Israel and South Africa undertook together was
the development of nuclear weapons.
Hunter continues:
Israel’s relations with South Africa
are different than its interactions with any of its other arms
clients. That Israel gave South Africa its nuclear weapons
capability underscores the special nature of Tel Aviv’s
relations with the white minority government and begins to
describe it - a full-fledged, if covert, partnership based on
the determination of both countries to continue as unrepentant
pariahs and to help each other avoid the consequences of their
behavior.
Arms industry
Nuclear Apprentice
There are few areas where the respective needs and advantages of
Israel and South Africa dovetailed so perfectly as in the field
of nuclear cooperation.
"The most powerful reason for Israeli willingness to bear the
undesirable consequences of expanded and more open trade with
South Africa may be her desire to acquire material necessary to
manufacture nuclear weapons," wrote a military analyst in 1980.’
To that must be added Israel’s great desire to test the nuclear
weapons it already had, and the attractions of South Africa’s
vast territory and proximity to even vaster uninhabited
spaces-the Atlantic and Indian Oceans.
Then at the point in its nuclear development where it was
fashioning sophisticated bombs (devices which use less nuclear
material but have infinitely greater explosive force than the
"primitive" bomb dropped by the U.S. on Hiroshima), Israel would
find it particularly helpful to observe the performance,
explosive force and fallout of a detonated weapon.
Since 1984, Israel had been operating a plutonium extraction
plant in a secret underground bunker at Dimona in the Negev
Desert. Built by the French in the late 1950s, the Dimona plant
also included facilities for manufacturing atomic bomb
components. At the time of the 1976 accords, Israel was
preparing to build an adjoining plant for the extraction of
lithium 6, tritium and deuterium, materials required for
sophisticated thermonuclear weapons.
Israel’s reasons for devoting what had to have been a
significant portion of its scant resources to such an ambitious
nuclear weapons program - nuclear experts have recently ranked
it as the world’s sixth nuclear power, after the U.S., the USSR,
Britain, France and China - have been variously offered as the
desire to develop a credible deterrent to attack by its
neighbors and the desire to substitute that deterrent for at
least part of the costly conventional arsenal that Israel, with
one of the world’s most powerful military forces, maintains, and
also (with much less frequency) as an "umbrella" over a partial
withdrawal from the occupied territories.
This cooperation is discussed as well
here:
Abstract
Note: Details about the Blaauw case are provided in the Africa
Confidential article. ..... According to information released
regarding the secret mid-1980s extortion trial of Johann Blaauw,
a brigadier in the South African army, South Africa and 'Israel'
participated in four clandestine nuclear deals in the mid-1970s. Blaauw was found not guilty of trying to extort mining
concessions from Minister of Mines Fanie Botha in a trial
in 1989 [1]
The first nuclear deal occurred in shortly after the Yom Kippur
War in 1973 when "Benjamine," a member of the Israel Council for
Scientific Liaison, asked Blaauw to acquire South African
yellowcake which Israel could use for weapon-grade plutonium. ("Benjamine"
is believed to be Benjamin Blumberg, the head of the Israeli
Intelligence division Lish Ka l-Kishrei (Lakam) [2].)
After discussions with Gen. Hendryk van den Bergh, head of the
Bureau of State Security (BOSS), South African Prime Minister
John Vorster eventually agreed to sell 50 metric tons of
yellowcake to Israel. The deal was handled by Minister of Mines
Fanie Botha, who replaced Piet Koornhog [Koornhof] after
Koornhog opposed the sale. Uranium Enrichment Corporation
Chairman Ampie Roux was also aware of the deal.
During his testimony, Blaauw said that "a high degree of
confidence was developing between the South African and Israeli
governments which involved the exchange of military technology,
joint aeronautic ventures, and the supply of ’know-how’ by
Israel to South Africa in regard to the manufacture of
weaponry."
There is evidence of a joint nuclear
test carried out in the Indian Ocean in September, 1979. Ruchita
Beri, cited above, writes:
1979 Nuclear Test
On September 22, 1979, a US Vela satellite detected an unusual
"double flash" indicative of a nuclear test, in an "area of the
Indian Ocean and South Atlantic including portions of the
Antarctic continent, and the southern part of Africa." In fact,
some have claimed it to be a joint Israeli-South African nuclear
test. South Africa denied that it had conducted a nuclear test.
As late as March 1993, the AEC’s Chairman, Waldo Stumpf, is
reported to have said,
"If it was a nuclear explosion, South
Africa was definitely not involved.
I doubt that it was a nuclear [test] because no radioactive
fallout was detected."
Eighteen years after the event, Aziz
Pahad, the Deputy Foreign Minister, confirmed that South Africa
conducted a nuclear test in the South Indian Ocean in 1979. This
admission has laid to rest the controversy surrounding the test.
We can see that the relations between
the two countries were very close.
Not only were nuclear weapons part of the partnership, but strategy
and tactics in dealing with their enemies, both internal and
external were also an important part of the collaboration. Jane
Hunter again:
The South Africans began teaching
the lessons of Israel’s 1967 war at their maneuver school, and
Israeli advisers began teaching the Boers the arts of
suppressing a captive population and keeping hostile neighbors
off balance...
The white government’s practice of domestic counterinsurgency
combines outright military brutality with the extensive use of
informers and collaborators. It is impossible to know how many
refinements of these age-old techniques have been borrowed from
the Israelis’ occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan
Heights.
The Israeli system of village leagues is obviously comparable to
the hated town councils imposed on segregated townships by the
apartheid government. The collective punishment employed by the
Israelis, such as the destruction of a whole family’s home when
one of its members is arrested as a suspect in an act of
resistance, has lately been matched by the recent South African
practices of sealing off townships, and assaulting entire
funeral processions.
What is perhaps more salient is the South African victims’
perceptions of Israel’s involvement in their oppression and how
readily that perception is communicated...
And when the population you are
systematically trying to annihilate fights back, how do you justify
it? Of course, you call it "terrorism". Hunter continues:
The Frontline States
The South Africans noted that their May, 1983 aerial attack
(dubbed Operation Shrapnel) on Mozambique’s capital, Maputo, was
analogous to Israel’s attack on Beirut the previous summer. One
analyst, Joseph Hanlon, believes that one of South Africa’s
objectives in the attack was to see how its version of events
would play in the media. It was received very well indeed,
according to Hanlon, with the Western press accepting South
Africa’s claim that its attack was in "retaliation" for an ANC
attack and that ANC "bases" were hit.
Instead, the South African Air Force hit a child-care center and
private houses with "special fragmentation rockets," leaving 6
dead and 40 wounded. This follows the Israeli practice in
Lebanon of speaking about PLO installations while civilians are
the actual targets, and attacking with particularly heinous
anti-personnel weapons-cluster bombs and phosphorous bombs.
The victims of South Africa’s angst are not blind to the
similarity of attacks-or motives.
President Samora Machel likened the Israeli Government to the
Pretoria regime. He said that because of its inability to
contain the fury of the Palestinian people led by the PLO, the
Zionist regime is trying to transfer the war to other regions.
So reported Mozambican radio shortly after Israeli aircraft
bombed PI headquarters in Tunisia in October 1985.
The model provided by Israel, which punishes every internal act
of resistance and violent act outside its jurisdiction with a
bombing raid on Palestinian targets in Lebanon-almost always
refugee camps cynically identified by the Israelis as "terrorist
bases" or "headquarters" - has served South Africa well. In
January 1986, the white government’s radio delivered a
commentary on "the malignant presence" of "terrorism" in
neighboring states and said "there’s only one answer now, and
that’s the Israeli answer." Israel had managed to survive "by
striking at terrorists wherever they exist."
In May 1986, South Africa demonstrated that it had assumed the
right to attack its neighbors at a time and on a pretext of its
own choosing. The chosen time was during a visit by the Eminent
Persons Group of the Commonwealth of Nations, which was
attempting to establish negotiations between the apartheid
regime and its opposition. The victims-Zambia, Botswana and
Zimbabwe, all Commonwealth members-were chosen for their alleged
harboring of "terrorists"; the real victims were South African
exiles and an employee of the government of Botswana. The South
Africans said they had attacked "international terrorism" and
compared their raids to the Israeli attack on Tunisia and the
U.S. attack on Libya in April 1986.
The attack was similar in style to Israel’s 1985 attack on
Tunisia. Initially, the Israelis had been threatening Jordan and
perhaps because King Hussein of Jordan was at the time on an
official visit to the U.S., the Israelis chose to take revenge
for the killing of three Israelis (believed to be top Mossad
agents) in Larnaca, Cyprus on the PLO in Tunisia.
Two weeks after its three-pronged attack on its Commonwealth
neighbors, South Africa attacked the Angolan harbor of Namibia,
firing their version of the Israeli Gabriel missile.
When Israel reestablished relations with Zaire (in 1982) and
began to train Zairian forces in the Shaba border province,
Angola had cause for concern. The leader of the FNLA had been
Holden Roberto, brother-in-law of Zairian president Mobutu,
Israel’s new client. In 1986, it would be established that Zaire
acted as a funnel for "covert" U.S. military aid for the Unita
forces of Jonas Savimbi.
In 1983, the Angolan News Agency reported that Israeli military
experts were training Unita forces in Namibia. Since Zaire began
receiving military aid and training from Tel Aviv, Angola has
been ill at ease. Its worries increased after discovering that:
Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon was personally involved in
the organization, training and equipping of "commando" units of
the army of Zaire, especially organized for missions along the
borders of the RPA [Angola].
In 1984, the Financial Times (London) wrote of "joint
Israeli-South African support for Unita forces." Other sources
also report the transfer of Israeli arms and financial support
to Unita.
In 1983, Angola’s President Jose Eduardo dos Santos told
Berkeley, California Mayor Eugene (Gus) Newport that an Israeli
pilot had been shot down during a South African attack. The
Angolan President showed Newport pictures of captured Israeli
weapons. The following year, Luanda reported the capture of
three mercenaries who said they had been trained by Israeli
instructors in Zaire.
Israel has also been involved with the Mozambican "contras," the
South African-backed MNR (Mozambique National Resistance or "Renamo"),
which has brought great economic and social distress to
Mozambique. Renamo has a particular reputation for ideological
incoherence, being regarded by most other right-wing
insurgencies as a gang of cutthroats.
For several years there
have been stories coming from Southern Africa of captured
mercenaries of Renamo who say they were trained in neighboring
Malawi-one of the four nations to maintain relations with Israel
after the Organization of African Unity (OAU) declared a
diplomatic embargo in 1973-by Israelis. And more than one report
has told of "substantial Israeli aid" to the MNR, thought to
have been funded by the CIA and Saudi Arabia as well as South
Africa and former Portuguese nationalists.
Two countries, both with the mentality
of the "besieged", begin carrying out attacks against their
neighbors under the cover of "defence". Sometimes "to see how its
version of events would play in the media".
In fact, it looks as if they were field-testing the strategies and
tactics that the Bush Reich is now imposing upon the US population
and the rest of the world.
The links between Israel, the apartheid regime, and the
CIA are
well-established. It is not too much to suspect that this
information was being shared by the intelligence agencies of the
three countries.
But as we are trying to see "behind the scenes", as it were, we
leave you with one last item to reflect upon. Remember a few years
ago how the anti-globalization forces were growing stronger?
Remember the Conference Against Racism held in South Africa?
Remember how Israel was becoming isolated because of its butchering
of the Palestinians in the period following Sharon’s provocative
visit to the Temple Mount in September 2000?
Israel and US walk out of UN conference on
racism
By Chris Marsden
6 September 2001
The joint US-Israeli walkout from the United Nations conference
on racism in Durban, South Africa was something of a foregone
conclusion. It was a stage-managed affair, the purpose of which
was to portray all opposition to the Zionist state’s persecution
of the Palestinians as inherently racist.
The original draft resolution to the UN conference stated its
"deep concern" at the "increase of racist practices of Zionism
and anti-Semitism" and spoke of the emergence of "movements
based on racism and discriminatory ideas, in particular the
Zionist movement, which is based on racial superiority." It made
direct criticisms of Israeli repression against the Palestinians
on the West Bank as a "new kind of apartheid, a crime against
humanity."
The US and Israel insisted on the removal of any direct
reference to Israel.
[…] Israel has also achieved some success in winning a more
friendly response from Russia, which is again seeking to
challenge US domination of Middle Eastern affairs by offering
itself as an honest broker between Israel and the Arab regimes.
During the Durban conference Sharon visited Moscow for talks
with President Putin to discuss the common threat posed by
Islamic terrorism - Sharon has even indicated sympathy for
Russia’s bloody suppression of Islamic rebel forces in
Chechnya - the possibility of a further one million Jewish
immigrants from Russia to Israel, armaments and other trade
deals.
[…]Shimon Samuels, the head of the Jewish caucus in Durban,
declared,
"We saw an NGO document that would have made [Hitler’s
Nazi Party propaganda chief] Goebbels happy. And now it is clear
that we are going to see, at the end of the government
conference, resolutions that can be called the UN’s Mein Kampf."
Mordechai Yedid, Israel’s official spokesman at the conference,
insisted there could be no condemnation of Israel in the
resolution. He told the plenary meeting prior to the US-Israeli
departure, "anti-Zionism, the denial of Jews the basic right to
a home, is nothing but anti-Semitism, pure and simple."
Yedid
derided the Arab regimes proposals to criticize Israel’s
treatment of the Palestinians as "a group of states for whom the
terms ’racism’, ’discrimination’, and even ’human rights’ simply
do not appear in their domestic lexicon".
The UN resolution, he
continued, was "the most racist declaration in a major
international organization since World War Two".
His remarks prompted a walkout by Egypt’s Foreign Minister Ahmed
Maher, who represents one of the most pro-US of all the Arab
states.
Announcing its withdrawal from the conference, US Secretary of
State Colin Powell denounced any attempt to single out "only one
country in the world, Israel, for censure and abuse’" and any
suggestion that apartheid existed in Israel. For his part,
Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres proclaimed,
"We were
portrayed in an insulting and baseless manner as a colonial
nation... The Arab League, all of it, has come out against
peace."
The right-wing media in Israel marched to the same tune. An
article in the September 4 Jerusalem Post by Yossi Olmert
described the Durban conference as
"the mirror image of the
Nuremberg rallies, in which the Nazis propagated their
anti-Jewish messages, striving hard to delegitimise the Jews, as
an inevitable step leading to their eventual liquidation."
He
conceded reluctantly that "not all the participants in Durban
are Nazis, maybe not even a majority of them, but too many are,
and they clearly give this shameful gathering its true
character".
We wonder what Sharon was discussing
with Putin, aside from the "common threat posed by Islamic
fundamentalism".
Did you happen to notice the date?
Five days latter the world would explode. The field trials carried
out for thirty years by the Israelis and South Africans would be
implemented throughout the world. The battle against "terrorism"
would become the justification for imposing the New American Tyranny
on the world.
Coincidence? We think not.
|